 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Grand Old Flag
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:15 PM Its A Grand Old Flag |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Big Al Whittle Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:37 PM very reminiscent of the Ulster protestants desire to preserve history by making triumphant marches through Catholic neighbourhoods.. When its a case of living people getting killed to show off history, people ought to remember the place for history is the museum - where it can live quietly and get respect. not the street corner where it provokes fights, and sullies the memories of heroes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,# Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:55 PM ". . . sullies the memories of heroes." They became heroes by sullying the memories of other heroes. And so it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Megan L Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:08 AM There are no heroes just folk who either did what they were told or what they thought was right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:16 AM One wonders why Greg F couldn't express an opinion and give some information with his link. Why should we have to do all the work? Here's an excerpt:
I live in a rural area outside a small, right-wing California town with a population of about 10,000. The week after the Confederate flag was taken down from its shrine outside the South Carolina State Capitol, there was an oversized pickup truck that drove around town with an oversized Confederate flag anchored in the pickup bed. Many people I know saw it - I imagine most people in town saw it at one time or another. And then the flag was seen no more. It just doesn't fit here in California, but some redneck did his best to make a show of it. I was at Dani's house in North Carolina last week. A mobile home down the street sports a Confederate flag on the front porch, and there are other subtle signs in her town that show that our problem of racism still hasn't been solved. I wonder why. What do people gain by prolonging the hatred? By the way, since Greg didn't tell you, the title of the article he linked to is "Confederate Flag Supporters Charged With Terrorism After Storming Black Child's Birthday Party." I wonder why Greg couldn't tell us that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:12 AM It's sad when a flag gets used in this way. Flags should be reminders of the good things about countries, but they get tied up with vile stuff like this so they can't be used without bringing up those associarions. I remember a dance hall in Kerry. Up round the walls were flags of nations from all round the worlds, flags of countries where Irish emigrants have settled and made their homes. But with one, or rather two, exceptions. No UK flag, and no English flag to go with the Scottish and Welsh ones. They have been used too often as anti-Irish symbols. The situation with the Confederate flag is a bit different, since it's historic origins lie in the Civil War, and it's subsequent history has always been entangled with racism, as well as to some extent with regional pride and culture. There have been attempts sometimes to disentangle those aspects, and come up with a version of the flag which explicitly rejects racism Here is one from the Southern Student Organizing Committee back in the sixties. That kind of thing strikes me as much better than just replacing the Conferderate flag with a US national flag which in some ways has as racist a history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 09:19 AM did what they were told or what they thought was right Ah- I see.... the Secesh were only following orders. And Slavery was 'ordained by God'. Well, that't all right then, innit? Good, wise, and generous men at the North, is power and out of power, for whose good intentions and patriotism we must all have the highest respect, doubt the wisdom of observing this memorial day, and would have us forget and forgive, strew flowers alike and lovingly, on rebel and on loyal graves. This sentiment is noble and generous, worthy of all honor as such; but it is only a sentiment after all, and must submit to its own rational limitations. There was a right side and a wrong side in the late war, which no sentiment ought to cause us to forget, and while to-day we should have malice toward none, and charity toward all, it is no part of our duty to confound right with wrong, or loyalty with treason. -Frederick Douglass The Whole Speech deserves reading, a good part of it is still as relevant - if not more so - than it was in 1878 One wonders why Greg F couldn't express an opinion Because that opinion would be obvious to anyone who wasn't a racist, an apologist for treason, a supporter/defender of a war waged to protect and extend chattel slavery, or segregationist opponent of 1960's civil rights legislation? wonder why Greg couldn't tell us that. Because Greg assumes (perhaps incorrectly?) that y'all can read? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Megan L Date: 13 Oct 15 - 09:26 AM Greg what are you on about you take words jumble them up and spit them all over people DO NOT misquote what people say by cherry picking the part that fits in your small mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM So, Meagan, which part of "folk who either did what they were told or what they thought was right" did I misquote? Or did you mean something other than what you said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:13 PM Any kind of union should imply a right in certain circumstances to end it. The European Union specifically recognises that right. The United Kingdom has come to recognise that right in regard to Scotland, if that is what most Scots want. So talk about secession in terms of "treason" is unfair. The problem with the Confederate secession, and the reason why the refusal of the Federal Government to accept it was not tyranny, is because in this case it was based on defending slavery and racism. Black inhabitantants of the seceding states, slave or free, were in no way represented by those choosing to secede. If in a different history it had been the Free States seceding in face of pressure to force them to accept the extension of slavery, which at one time was a real possibility, it would have been a totally justified secession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:49 PM Kevin, its apparent that you are totally - well no, not totally, but largely- ignorant of the actual U.S. history that led up to the Civil War. Your argument in re: the free states is ridiculous. Not surprising, tho, as you are from across the pond. What IS surprising, however, are the large numbers of brain-dead U.S. citizens at this late date who still refuse to admit - in the face of overwhelming evidence - what the actual cause of the Civil War was and why the Confedreracy waged war against the government of the United States. Taking up arms against the government of the United Sates is is now, and was then, treason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:37 PM Greg, if you'd like to start a discussion thread, discuss. Don't give a link with a misleading title, no explanation, and then drop it. It you start a thread with just a deceptive title and a link, It's kinda like passing wind. And if you really don't want to discuss what you're linking to, why bother posting it at all? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:21 PM Ridiculous? Well in 1814 there appears to have been a real possibility of an attempt by New England states to leave the union. See here Admittedly it didn't centre on the issue of slavery, but one of the issues appears to have been what was seen as excessive influence of Southern states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 09:10 PM Ya wanna discuss substantve issues, Joe or just blow off steam? Well in 1814 there appears to have been a real possibility of an attempt by New England states to leave the union Uh Hunh. Now lets talk about the reality of the civil war and how some neanderthals try to divert discussion to the idiotic... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:44 PM Oh, I get it, Greg. You expressed no opinion because you didn't want to expose yourself to disagreement. That makes you free to swoop down on others, while still not expressing any ideas yourself. Very clever. Nasty, though. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 15 - 10:46 AM "Deceptive title"? "Swoop Down"? "Not expresing any ideas"? Joe, I'm starting to be concerned for your health. But perhaps you're just a bit tetchy lately because of the well-deserved beating you're taking on the Pope thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 14 Oct 15 - 11:06 AM Most reputable retailers have stopped selling confederate flag paraphernalia, but the vacuum seems to have been more than filled by flea markets and other "gray market" sellers. Yesterday, I drove by a medium-size flea market which had a half-dozen or so confederate flags emblazoned with various slogans displayed on poles just off the right-of-way of a heavily trafficked US highway. I guess cultural sensitivity takes a back seat to the profit to be made from hawking cheap, tacky, provocative crap to rednecks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 14 Oct 15 - 11:43 AM I don't think Joe is taking a beating on the "Pope" thread at all. He states his beliefs calmly and respectfully. One does not have to agree with him, but one should recognize that opinions on faith and religion are bound to differ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,Peter Date: 14 Oct 15 - 01:25 PM Taking up arms against the government of the United Sates is is now, and was then, treason. As was waging war against King George between 1775 and 1783 It stops being "treason" if you win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 15 - 01:58 PM Cute, Pete- but facile and irrelevant. HiLo- I'm not talking about Joe's comments on his faith, but his |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM He has made it very clear that no insult has been intended. Plenty of reasons to codemn the slaver secession, but "treason" is not one that can justified, except in purely legal terms. Where the mass of the population of a viable territory wish to assert their independence they have a right to do so, whatever the legal situation. Those conditions did not apply in the case of the Confederacy, by reason of the presence of a disempowered slave population. It is actually questionable whether it actually applied at the time of the American Revolution, since a very sizeable proportion of the population appears to have been opposed to it, especially when slaves and native Americans are taken into account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 15 - 07:15 PM Again,Kevin, you obviously are not familiar with U.S. history, the U.S. Constitution & etc. So you are to be excused for your comments. I think. Barring the obvious nonsensicality of several of your comments. So do study up & get back to us. I would be glad to supply a reading list if you are interested. Let me know. RE: Joe - the insult may not have been intended (nod nod, wink wink) but it was assuredly obvious and palpable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 15 - 08:32 PM Thanks, but I do have a pretty solid grounding in the US Constitution and US History. Obviously what I wrote and believe about a right to assert independence is at odds with the US Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. But that's irrelevant to the principle that maintaining any kind of union has to be dependent in the last resort on consent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 14 Oct 15 - 08:36 PM I don't think he was insulting. His comments on your good self were spot on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:08 PM So, Greg, do you have anything to say on the topic of this thread? I haven't found anything yet, so I'm forced to think that you started this thread for reasons other than discussion... It's not that I want to insult you, Greg. I'm just calling your bluff. "It's a Grand Old Rag" was written by George M. Cohan, and published in January, 1906. People were appalled by the title, and the song didn't sell. In June of that year, Cohan re-published the song as "It's a Grand Old Flag," and it became an instant hit. So, as you can see, titles are important. What was it you wanted to talk about in this thread? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 15 Oct 15 - 02:44 AM McGrath is absolutely right in that (and I am talking about the here and now and not the mid 19thC) no union is worth having if it is not about choice. The principle of choice exists re Scotland's relationship with the UK and I suppose prior to that it was accepted by both the UK gvt, the Irish gvt and the Irish people in both the Republic and the North in relation to Northern Ireland's status. As long as the bulk of the people living there now wish to remain part of the UK then they can. This doesn't seem to be shared though by the Spanish where Catalonia is being denied a legally recognized referendum on their status! That is why I tended to dislike the way some Yes supporters used the word 'Free' when talking about Scottish independence. We are already free with the freedom to choose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:43 AM His comments on your good self were spot on. I'm not talking about his wisdom about ME, HiLo. Joe, I don't know what's put this latest bug up your a**, but there'e obviously no point in my trying to respond to your increasingly fanciful & irrational and (wilfully?)obtuse comments. Obviously what I wrote and believe about a right to assert independence is at odds with the US Constitution, Kevin, I'm glad we got that sorted, but I'm attemting to discuss the actuality of the U.S. Civil War & its legacy rather than an abstract principle, however worthy that principle might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 15 - 10:09 AM I think Greg has been hoping for an invitation to be an honorary Brit... ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Megan L Date: 15 Oct 15 - 10:15 AM No chance Bill we have enough village idiots of our own thank you very much |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM But...obviously, the legacy of the Civil War has been continued divisiveness as many areas & people in the South have never adjusted to "their way of life" being disrupted by do-gooders who refused to see the "inferior nature" of the slaves. They prolonged the cultural divide for 150 years, and carry many aspects of it right into the halls of Congress. Details? I can't type fast enough.... Google knows though |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM I think Greg has been hoping for an invitation to be an honorary Brit... ☺ What are the current requirements, Bill? My people left Britain for Pennsylvania in 1684 & I don't think they ever looked back. But perhaps I could be grandfathered in? Megan, thanks for the gratuitous insult in aid of nothing. You never did reply about how I supposedly misquoted you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 15 Oct 15 - 12:35 PM The legality of secession in the US was a very gray issue until The Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White in 1869 (four years after the end of the US Civil War) that states do not have a right to secede from the union. That the issue of whether or not a state's decision to join the union was ironclad and irreversible was not stipulated by the Constitution itself was either (A) one of the Founding Fathers' gravest errors or (B) a wise move to insure that states' rights oriented delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who may have balked at such a provision, would be inclined to support adoption of the document. Choose one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 15 - 01:40 PM Kevin, I'm glad we got that sorted, but I'm attemting to discuss the actuality of the U.S. Civil War & its legacy rather than an abstract principle, however worthy that principle might be Since you didn't give any direct indication of what you were attempting to discuss, you don't really have any OP privilege of telling people what is to be discussed and what is not to be didcussed (insofar as OPs have any such authority, which is not very far). My point was to challenge the relevance of the term "treason" in the context of secession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Bill D Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:11 PM Well Greg, a whole bunch of MY people left Britain in the 1600s for N. Jersey, Massachusetts & Connecticut and THEN some of them moved to Western Pennsylvania...... but I think they 'burned their bridges' and I doubt I have any claim for repatriation. I'm not sure what the requirements are for cultural bonding, but I doubt I'd meet those either.... I seem to remember that Texas likes to assert it still retains some sort of right to secede... scholars differ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:44 PM Thanks, Bill - thanks also for your post of 15 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM - gladto know at least someone realizes what's going on even if Joe doesn't. Guess I could try to apply thru my Wife's relatives; they didn't leave Caithness until 1916 or so, tho God knows why it took them that long... ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:06 PM Anyone watched Reginald D Hunter's "Songs Of The South" which is still on I-player? He states at the start that when he left the US to come to Britain he hated the south! I've watched the first two so far. In the first he seemed to be surprised that he enjoyed himself amongst hillbilly fiddle players and banjo pickers! In the second he is in his home state of Georgia and attends a Lynryd Skynyrd gig mixing with both the band pre-concert then concert goers too. Near the end of the gig he turns to the camera and says something like "sheesh there sure are a lot of confederate flags in here" and turns away - but then looks back saying "but a lot of really nice people". He also said that making the programme was the first time he came to truly appreciate the white southerners simple and basic pride of place! Not sure what I am saying but it was just a coincidence that I saw this today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM There's a difference between "pride of place" and shoving a symbol of slavery and white supremacy in the face of any and all comers, Allan. Unless, of course, the pride expressed is FOR the legacy of slavery and white suprenmacy. The heritage IS hate. Re-read Frederick Douglass' speach referenced above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 16 Oct 15 - 02:41 AM I wasn't expressing an opinion as such. Just throwing something in that I happened to watch that day. Here was a black American guy at a concert amongst crowds many of whom were sporting a confederate flag and conceding to the camera that most of them were very nice people. I don't have enough knowledge, in fact probably have no knowledge, as to whether all of these people were racist or not or do some see the flag as just an identity thing? What I do know though is that in parts of the UK the Union Flag is sported by people who are viewed by their neghbours as anti-Catholic and the flag is in some parts of the UK is to some degree or other seen as a sectarian symbol. For instance even at the time of the royal wedding Mcvities biscuit factory in Scotland banned anyone from displaying the flag at least partly because it was viewed as potentially sectarian. Yet most people in the UK would not recognise or perhaps even understand that association and when flying a Union Flag would absolutely deny that they were sectarian . So I agree with the known association it is wrong to shove symbols into other people's faces but at the same time is it right to strip people of symbols that their culture and community identifies with? Maybe it is in this case! I really don't know coming from over here.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:58 AM Thing is, Allen, that if those folks WERE in fact "really nice people" they wouldn't have been confronting this Black guy with a symbol of slavery & white supremacy. If they didn't realize what they were doing, at this late date they certainly SHOULD - its long overdue. I give the Black guy a lot of credit for being polite. And I appreciate what you're saying about the Union flag, but as regards: ...strip people of symbols that their culture and community identifies with? That's a bit off. I hate to do this, but here goes: would you make the same observation about the Nazi flag? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:12 AM Untangling the regional/quasi-national cultural pride associated with the music and so forth from the racism is obviously difficult, but it's what needs to be done. There is a danger of reinforcing that lethal combination, if it's a matter of replacing the flag with Southern associations (both bad and good) with a national flag without those. Changing the symbol, but preserving something from it strikes me as more promising. Like the way the South African national anthem retains the old Boer anthem along with Sikelela. Here's a link I had in an earlier post which illustrates my point |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:42 AM I'm not arguing the point Greg just asking questions and commenting on a TV show that I happened to see yesterday. And to be fair the band and crowd didn't go out of their way to confront this black man - he went to the gig specifically because he knew who the audience were. All seemed to be very good natured. From a perspective here there normally wouldn't traditionally have been a direct comparison between the nazi swastika and the confederate flag. For one thing the Nazi symbols were illegal in Germany itself which is surely not the same with the said flag in the States? Brits would see country bands play in front of the said flag, or see the said flag on programmes like Dukes of Hazard, and really give it not the same connection like they would people sporting the swastika. Maybe there should be a direct comparison and no doubt there seems to be in the States and it is being understood more here now too. So if you are saying that every single person who displays a confederate flag is a racist nazi then maybe you are right. I don't know though I suspect some folk in the south might disagree with that. Often the problems are over people failing to come to terms with each other and understand each other. We see it time and time again especially in Northern Ireland with both sides insisting their rights are being threatened over who can march where, what flags people display etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 15 - 11:05 AM So if you are saying that every single person who displays a confederate flag is a racist nazi Of course I'm not saying that, tho some assuredly are. The vast majority are in all probability simply ignorant of the real history of the Battle Flag (and what it symbolizes especially to Black folks) just as they are of the real causes and history of the Civil War (which was sloughed off for years in U.S. schools as a simple disagreement over "States' Rights")and Reconstruction. So at least, in part, its a matter of education, as you & Kevin have suggested. And of simple respect for the Black segment of the U.S. population. ...which is surely not the same with the said flag in the States? Certainly not. It is in no way "illegal", & despite what the NRA-like crazies are ranting about, no jack-booted government thugs are going to confiscate all the Confederate flags - Its about not flying them on government property or giving them - or seeming to give them- official government sanction. And not before time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 15 - 02:50 PM One thing about the Confederate flag is that it's a very lively and cheerful design. So one option for decontaminating it could be to switch the colours around. Here is a site with a few specimens of how that could work . I rather like having the pink in there, which would really freak out the nasties. (Only national flag with pink is the old Newfoundland Tricolour.) With different colours and the same design you've got a nod to the regional and cultural associations, but a rejection of the racist ones. A similar effect comes from the version using the stars, and the original colours,but laid out as a Peace Symbol, that is down the page on the Southern Students Coordinating Committee site from the Sixties I linked to a couple of times in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:27 PM One thing about the Confederate flag is that it's a very lively and cheerful design. Ditto the swastika. And Kevin, you're avoiding the real issue entirely. Or perhaps you're trying to be amusing? If so, you're failing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Ebbie Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:23 PM I might be a tad more mild about the way I might say it but I agree with Greg F. Attempting to break off from the union *was* treason, considered so by the powers. Not only is taking up arms against one's own country and government specifically forbidden but the South tried to secede while knowing that slavery was an ongoing point of contention. They knew that many people looked upon the legality of owning other human beings as a moral issue. The South preferred to think of it as a practical matter and of tradition and of states' rights. Breaking off with that issue still unsettled was a fairly disingenuous maneuver. And of course, seceding from England was also treason (but an issue a whole lot easier to defend). I don't see how anyone in the UK can dispute that it was also treason when the southern states revolted, given that the American revolution was punishable by death. As B. Franklin said: We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:18 PM Thanks, Ebbie. Appreciated! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:41 PM Obviously rebellion is always treason. But that's a legal matter. Usung the words "treason" and "traitor" as if they implied moral contagion is something else. It's as if the term "enemy" were used with that implication. A traitor is just a variety of enemy. When the San Patricios Battalion, Irish Americans who fought for Mexico in the Mexican War, were captured, and the biggest mass execution in American history followed, this was on the charge of treason, but there was nothing shameful in what they had done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:49 AM So, Kevin, you're saying there's nothing "shameful" in owning other people like cattle and going to war to preserve that state of affairs. ISIS would be proud if you. And by the way, the vast majority of the San Patricios were NOT American citizens and were not tried for treason, but tried and executed for desertion from the U.S. Army - which was then and for years afterwards the standard punishment for desertion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:50 AM desertion in time of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Grand Old Flag From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:03 AM Of course there's something shameful claiming to own people. There can be something shameful in rebelling for the wrong reasons. But it's not the rebelling that is shameful, but the reasons. There are circumstances when it is shameful not to rebel. And the same of course goes for deserting from the army in a shameful war. |
