Southern pride gone wrong!

[princessmom29]

I just saw this and thought I would share another example of sensitivity gone too far:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44693269/ns/us_news-weird_news/?gt1=43001


Apparently they have finally found the Klan ice cream man!

 

[wvjules]

Not to throw another wrench in this discussion, but didn't the north also have 'slaves'? Poor, white, immigrants doing the same type of manual labor that the slaves were doing in the south but only in factories and such instead and were treated the same as slaves? Only difference was their skin color, country of origin and geographical location.

 

[punkin]

Not to throw another wrench in this discussion, but didn't the north also have 'slaves'? Poor, white, immigrants doing the same type of manual labor that the slaves were doing in the south but only in factories and such instead and were treated the same as slaves? Only difference was their skin color, country of origin and geographical location.

I do not think extreme economic inequality is the same as slavery. I may disapprove of both, but I know there is no moral equivalence there.

 

[metalis4ever]

Not to throw another wrench in this discussion, but didn't the north also have 'slaves'? Poor, white, immigrants doing the same type of manual labor that the slaves were doing in the south but only in factories and such instead and were treated the same as slaves? Only difference was their skin color, country of origin and geographical location.

In the sense that they had little to no labor rights and worked long hours in unsafe conditions for very little compensation....But the white workers were immigrants, they weren't hunted down in their towns and villages, shackled and thrown onto slave ships and sold 1,000's of miles away from their homeland. So there are significant differences not just the color of their skin. There were indeed some white indentured servants in the North but even that can't truly be compared to Plantation Slavery, because indentured servants traded their services for something in return whereas Slaves got nothing in return.

 

[Geoff_M]

Not to throw another wrench in this discussion, but didn't the north also have 'slaves'? Poor, white, immigrants doing the same type of manual labor that the slaves were doing in the south but only in factories and such instead and were treated the same as slaves? Only difference was their skin color, country of origin and geographical location.

I believe what you're referring to is "indentured servitude". Normally, a person would sign a contract whereby the employer would agree to pay for the servant's passage to America in exchange for a term of labor. However, there were some key differences with slavery:
- The contract was for a set period. Once the obligation was fulfilled, the servitude was ended.
- The servant was considered a full citizen with rights.
- While the contract could probably be sold to someone else, the servant wasn't necessarily considered the "property" of the "master".
- The children of indentured servants didn't become property of the "master".

One of my g-g-great grandfathers came to the US a "Bond Boy" (indentured servant brought over as a child).

 

[luvsJack]

I just saw this and thought I would share another example of sensitivity gone too far:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44693269/ns/us_news-weird_news/?gt1=43001


Apparently they have finally found the Klan ice cream man!

Oh, for heaven's sakes!

Obviously no one in that area had ever actually SEEN a Klan member.

They used to stand at the intersections with traffic lights and campaign for members around here (this was 30 years ago). I can 100% assure anyone that wants to know, their robes and hoods look NOTHING like that ice cream cone.

 

[princessmom29]

Not to throw another wrench in this discussion, but didn't the north also have 'slaves'? Poor, white, immigrants doing the same type of manual labor that the slaves were doing in the south but only in factories and such instead and were treated the same as slaves? Only difference was their skin color, country of origin and geographical location.

Yes, and add the fact that most of them owed massive amounts of money ot thier employers and yes they pretty much were slaves. They were not free to leave an employer to whom they owed money, andt he practice continued into the 20th century. So much for the lofty moral North.

 

[daisax]

You do relaize the "paid" fatory workers in the north weren't any better off, right?? They were worked long hours for low pay and most were indebted to thier bosses to the point that they were , defacto, slaves to them. The whole "sold my soul to the company store" idea.

The "company store" was a mining phenomenon, not a mill phenomenon, and more a Pennsylvania/Virginia thing.

My ancestors came over and worked in the New England textile mills -- they moved on within a decade. Before the huge immigration waves the companies were staffed largely by country girls who worked for a few years to help support their families before marrying. They basically founded the American labor movement.

Their conditions were awful by today's standards, but so were those of most workers. To equate them to slavery is dismissive of the true horrors of slavery.

 

[princessmom29]

I believe what you're referring to is "indentured servitude". Normally, a person would sign a contract whereby the employer would agree to pay for the servant's passage to America in exchange for a term of labor. However, there were some key differences with slavery:

no, I tihnk both of us are reffering to factory workers tied to thier employers via debts they have no power to EVER repay.

 

[princessmom29]

The "company store" was a mining phenomenon, not a mill phenomenon, and more a Pennsylvania/Virginia thing.

My ancestors came over and worked in the New England textile mills -- they moved on within a decade. Before the huge immigration waves the companies were staffed largely by country girls who worked for a few years to help support their families before marrying. They basically founded the American labor movement.

Their conditions were awful by today's standards, but so were those of most workers. To equate them to slavery is dismissive of the true horrors of slavery.

the same idea existed in lots of places, that was just one example. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Those people had no options or choices. They were NOT free.

 

[princessmom29]

Oh, for heaven's sakes!

Obviously no one in that area had ever actually SEEN a Klan member.

They used to stand at the intersections with traffic lights and campaign for members around here (this was 30 years ago). I can 100% assure anyone that wants to know, their robes and hoods look NOTHING like that ice cream cone.

I know. it is riduclous how far political correctness and trying not to offend anyone has gone.

 

[punkin]

the same idea existed in lots of places, that was just one example. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Those people had no options or choices. They were NOT free.

They were free and did have choices. I have read The Jungle, but cannot in good conscience compare the conditions faced by immigrants, though pretty horrible to true slavery. You do understand that slaves were owned...not just the right to their work, but their very person.

 

[metalis4ever]

the same idea existed in lots of places, that was just one example. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Those people had no options or choices. They were NOT free.

Great book......but there is no way you can equate an immigrant worker who bought the line "streets of America are paved with Gold" hook line and sinker to that of an African or Native Slave that was torn from the arms of their family and tribes and forced to work.....an immigrant worker could have returned home empty handed and still had his family a Slave could NEVER go home and could have no family.

As the old immigrant saying goes " I was told that the streets of America were paved with Gold, when i arrived I found out 3 things: 1. The Streets weren't paved with gold 2. The streets weren't paved at all 3. I was expected to pave them"

 

[princessmom29]

They were free and did have choices. I have read The Jungle, but cannot in good conscience compare the conditions faced by immigrants, though pretty horrible to true slavery. You do understand that slaves were owned...not just the right to their work, but their very person.

it doesn't do much good to be free to leave your employer if that means his thugs will come and beat you to death or that your family will starve to death becuase no one else will hire you.

 

[Scurvy]

I acknowledge that it means different things to different people. My point is, is that is IS offensive to many, and flying this flag, regardless of what it means to you, will be offensive to many. If it means so much to someone that they need to display it, then they should do it within the confines of their home rather than force a community to live under a symbol that represents hatred to them.

I will, again, use the swastika as an example. I view (I do not, but will for argument's purposes) the swastika as an ancient symbol of life and good luck. As I have not been living under a rock, I understand that most of the members of my predominantly Jewish neighborhood, have a very negative and hurtful view of this symbol. Out of respect for their feelings and experiences I would choose not to publicly fly this symbol.

I can understand that, and I don't disagree that your approach is a very kind and neighborly one. The world might be a better place if everyone was willing to avoid doing all the things that would offend the people around them, but I suspect that would be very difficult for most people. My question is where do you think people should draw the line? Obviously for you the question of whether the flag should be displayed is an easy one. It is considered offensive to many people, and so no one should display it. There are other things that are also considered offensive to many people. There have been neighborhoods where people were offended that others had visible Christmas decorations in their homes or yards. Does that mean that no one should display anything signifying Christmas? The cross, the menorah, various Holy books, the Darwin fish symbol on cars, the "Blue Dot in a Red State" bumper stickers, the pro-life or pro-choice stickers, gay pride flags . . . there are so many things that are embraced by one group but cause offense to another group. Plus, it isn't always just symbolism - I know people who are horribly offended by the presence of foreign cars in their community because they blame them for their community's current economic problems. Does that mean everyone in the area has to buy American cars just to keep from offending their neighbors? Obviously some of those examples seem trivial, but that's my problem with this. Where should the line be drawn? I can completely agree that it's horrible to display something that is intended to be hurtful to those around you. But when something has a positive meaning to you, should you always have to set it aside or hide it because it has a different meaning to someone else?

My personal opinion is that the woman in the OP wasn't doing anything wrong by displaying the flag as long as she didn't mean it in a racist way. I think she massively crossed the line when she moved it to ensure that her neighbors couldn't avoid seeing it.

 

[princessmom29]

Great book......but there is no way you can equate an immigrant worker who bought the line "streets of America are paved with Gold" hook line and sinker to that of an African or Native Slave that was torn from the arms of their family and tribes and forced to work.....an immigrant worker could have returned home empty handed and still had his family a Slave could NEVER go home and could have no family.

As the old immigrant saying goes " I was told that the streets of America were paved with Gold, when i arrived I found out 3 things: 1. The Streets weren't paved with gold 2. The streets weren't paved at all 3. I was expected to pave them"

How are they going to "go home empty handed?" With what money? They had nowhere to go.

FWIW, most slvaes never moved form the plantation they were born on and raised on and raied their children there. Were there some not os lucky? Absolutely, but to say that none of them had any family is totally incorrect.

 

[punkin]

it doesn't do much good to be free to leave your employer if that means his thugs will come and beat you to death or that your family will starve to death becuase no one else will hire you.

You are misinformed. People did leave and go elsewhere and get other jobs. Families pooled their resources and advanced in just a short time. They bought houses; they started businesses; they sent their children to school. Not everyone was able to do this, but a significant majority was.

On the other hand, slavery did not allow any advancement or education. It was forever. Your very existence depended on someone elses whim.

 

[Geoff_M]

no, I tihnk both of us are reffering to factory workers tied to thier employers via debts they have no power to EVER repay.

Either way, the differences I outlined with traditional slavery would still apply (even more so if you're not talking about indentured servitude, since in some places/times it could be indistinguishable from slavery).

 

[metalis4ever]

How are they going to "go home empty handed?" With what money? They had nowhere to go.

You are really serious about comparing immigrant workers to slaves?....I would rather be homeless and starving than fed and shackled.....

 

[DisneyLoverUSA]

I can understand that, and I don't disagree that your approach is a very kind and neighborly one. The world might be a better place if everyone was willing to avoid doing all the things that would offend the people around them, but I suspect that would be very difficult for most people. My question is where do you think people should draw the line? Obviously for you the question of whether the flag should be displayed is an easy one. It is considered offensive to many people, and so no one should display it. There are other things that are also considered offensive to many people. There have been neighborhoods where people were offended that others had visible Christmas decorations in their homes or yards. Does that mean that no one should display anything signifying Christmas? The cross, the menorah, various Holy books, the Darwin fish symbol on cars, the "Blue Dot in a Red State" bumper stickers, the pro-life or pro-choice stickers, gay pride flags . . . there are so many things that are embraced by one group but cause offense to another group. Plus, it isn't always just symbolism - I know people who are horribly offended by the presence of foreign cars in their community because they blame them for their community's current economic problems. Does that mean everyone in the area has to buy American cars just to keep from offending their neighbors? Obviously some of those examples seem trivial, but that's my problem with this. Where should the line be drawn? I can completely agree that it's horrible to display something that is intended to be hurtful to those around you. But when something has a positive meaning to you, should you always have to set it aside or hide it because it has a different meaning to someone else?

My personal opinion is that the woman in the OP wasn't doing anything wrong by displaying the flag as long as she didn't mean it in a racist way. I think she massively crossed the line when she moved it to ensure that her neighbors couldn't avoid seeing it.

I agree with everything you said except...I don't think she crossed the line by raising the flag. I think the neighbors crossed the line when they pooled the neighborhood's money together and built fences on either side of her property so they wouldn't have to see the flag. They provoked her.

Let's use one of your examples, the rainbow flag, for gay pride. Had that been a rainbow flag that was offending the neighbors and they had built a fence to keep from having to see it those neighbors would have gotten flamed, protested and harassed by ppl for even BEING offended at the gay pride flag.

There are always going to be things that offend ppl. You gave some good examples. But nobody is responsible for how other ppl feel about things. It is not illegal to fly a Confederate flag. Black ppl take offense to it because they associate it with the SOUTH during the civil war. That also falls back on ppl's misconception that the Civil war was started so that the South could keep their slaves.