BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression

Subject: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Nov 99 - 06:18 PM

First let me say, I detest the BS tag. If you can't figure it out from the title or the first posting, maybe we just need to be clearer in the titles. However, I have used it out of respect and care for several Mudcatters whom I consider to be dear friends.

In reading Rick's 3 Days of Urban Black Music thread, I was prompted to go looking for rap lyrics and other related issues, esp. that of the current controversy over whether states should have the right to fly the Confederate flag.

I found what, to me, is an abhorrent site, called the Southern Initiative. They have a ten point agenda which, among other things includes the text at the bottom of this posting.

I am interested in a thoughful discussion of this, because, as I said in the Urban thread, it must be pretty hard for kids who are living in such abject conditions as rap often expresses to feel there is any hope when there are adults advocating what, to me, are such hurtful and heinous reminders of a not-so-distant past.

Music which could be encompassed in thie discussion, I think, could include anything from rap to songs act reenactments to any you might know of that the folks at Southern Initiative might find positive. If you want to read all of their ten points you will find them at http://www.southerninitiative.com.

Here ya go. I find the following to be facetious and non-progressive, esp. based on what I've read of rap lyrics and the conditions many children live in today. What do you think?

The Tactics of Intolerance

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has turned to intolerance as its principal fund raising tool. It has approved a tourism boycott of South Carolina until the state discontinues flying the Confederate flag atop its capitol, and appealed to the federal government to stop that practice under the civil rights laws. Flying any flag is basically a form of expression which the First Amendment was enacted to protect, and thus the NAACP has asked that the constitution be set aside to further its fund-raising ploy.

While many of the people it purports to represent suffer from poverty, crime and a failed educational system, the leaders of this organization are attacking symbols and playing up resentment over past history as an easy way to gain attention for themselves. Instead of solving their own problems they seek to control the views which others may express. They attack the fundamental principle of our constitutional system -- that the right to express an opinion does not depend upon whether others agree with it.

Historically, the Confederate flag is no more deserving of resentment by African-Americans than the United States flag under which slave ships brought many of their ancestors to these shores in chains. The Confederate flag was adopted by men fighting for independence and to protect their homes from invading armies at a time when slavery had not become an issue in the Civil War. The attacks on the Confederate flag and the right of people to honor those who died under it are inspired either by ignorance or malice, or simply the desire to kick an opponent while he is down.

Without freedom of speech there could have been no NAACP and its leaders poorly serve their members by seeking to draw attention from their lack of positive leadership by attacking the system that allows them to assemble and communicate their views to the public.

Southern Initiative is resisting this attempted censorship in a number of ways. On October 13, 1999 we submitted a resolution to the senators representing the eleven ex-Confederate states which reads in part:

We the undersigned condemn such intolerance and disrespect to our heritage and to the memory of the Confederate dead who sacrificed their lives in defense of their homeland. We further condemn the efforts of all others who attempt to further the objectives of the NAACP by such measures as the banning of Confederate stick flags at Ole Miss football games.

By submitting this resolution to the Southern senators we will determine who will and who will not stand up for Southern heritage and free speech, and publicize the result.

On October 1, 1999 Jimmy D. Giles, president of Southern Initiative filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Board of Trustees and the University of Mississippi seeking to have the infamous "stick ban" canceled. This ban against carrying sharp pointed objects into the stadium is in reality an attack on the custom of waving Confederate flags by spectators which previously existed and was perceived as an image problem by University officials, all too eager to appease critics from the civil rights movement, to attract grants from left-wing foundation managers and bureaucrats, to attract outstanding black athletes, etc., etc.

Giles has also carried on a campaign to encourage county and municipal officials and school boards to display the state flag of Mississippi at public buildings in the face of attacks on the flag by critics in the legislature and a lawsuit in state court. Many school boards are evading the state law requiring that the flag be flown at all school buildings, with the aid of a patently misleading ruling by the state attorney general.

All those who are proud of our Southern heritage and cherish the fundamental right of freedom of speech are urged to become active in support of these traditional values and confront officials at all levels who timidly submit to these arrogant, uninformed and malicious attacks. We must hold all who aspire to leadership in government or other areas of public concern accountable for their failure to stand up for our values.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Nov 99 - 09:21 PM

Back in the 60s, there was a move afoot to dispense with the "Canadian" flag. Our flag was called "the Red Ensign" and resembled a British flag with a few small modifications (crests and things). A majority of the country was incensed, and some vowed that they would die before flying any other flag. World War two was fresh in people's minds, and the ones who wanted a distinctly Canadian flag were called "communists" (naturally). Small voices piped up: Natives said: "hey what did Britain do for us except kill two thirds of our people"? Quebecers said : "Screw England (AND Canada, we don't want any part of either the old OR new flag). A few immigrants were bold enough to say: Hey, Canada's run it's own affairs since 1867, why NOT have a unique new flag?
I think what angered most though was that the deal had already been done behind the scenes. There really WAS no choice. When the new design was chosen (ostensibly it was a design contest that anyone could enter. Yahh right!) even the non-monarchists puked! Horrid, ugly and meaningless, they said. Once again though, there was no REAL choice involved. These things just get done. After 20 years or so, I hardly hear anybody complain anymore, bad or good, it's just our flag, and those to whom that kind of symbolism is important, rarely make the news.However, you still see many old "red Ensigns" hung outside the doors of people with strong loyalty to Britain. You just never see it on anything official.
Rick

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 16 Nov 99 - 10:48 PM

This is a touchy topic. In one of my first posts to the Mudcat I expressed an opinion not very far from the one expressed by Southern Initiative, that the Stars and Bars are a piece of tradition in the South that it's people have every right to display. However, when I see the Confederate flag flowing above a group of Civil War re-enactors my feeling is quite different than when I see it used by Klansmen, skinheads, and other reactionary maniacs who have no clue as to it's historical significance, but see it only as the embodiment of "white power."

Sandy Paton reminded me after that post of mine that while it was true that many brave men had died fighting beneath that flag , one could not ignore the negative symbolism that had come to be attached to it, and that therefore it was unacceptable that it should be flown as a symbol for a government that presumes to represent all of it's people. I suppose that many in the South are like myself- people who can name relatives who were wounded or died in battle fighting for the Confederacy. After all, there were many thousands. Somehow it seems to profane their memory to declare this flag an obscenity. Those of us who had ancestors who were common working people or farmers, people who fought out of a sense of protecting their homes, families, States and not with any desire to protect a slave-holding economy that benefitted them not in the least,we have to face the fact that as those warriors sanctified that flag, the forces of hate that came after have dirtied it, and there is little that can now be done.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Áine
Date: 16 Nov 99 - 11:33 PM

Dear LEJ,

You are eloquent and brave, and I am proud to share your heritage and your viewpoint. You have succinctly expressed the feelings of the majority of the descendants of the War Between the States, and no addition could improve upon it.

Respectfully, Áine

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Amaranth
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 12:13 AM

As a Canadian my knowledge of the American Civil War is somewhat limited, but I do seem to recall that the emancipation of the slaves was largely a tactic to keep England from entering the war and supporting the Confederacy.

I do not know much about Southern Initiative and do not really care to dig into it, but the point they make about the flag makes sense.

By taking a similar tact, First Nations people in the United States could well ask that the Stars and Stripes not be used because of the terrible things done to them under that banner.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 12:55 AM

LeeJ, some of my ancestors fought on the south side, too. We still have the cap & ball pistol, some money and a military pass from those days. One of my greatgrandfathers died still very proud of the fact that he fled to Colorado, rather than surrender and pledge to what he felt was a wrong government. He lost a big plantation during the war and was quite bitter, from what dad tells me.

Perhaps I should have posted more of what SI purports. I do NOT in any way agree with what they are trying to do. It smacks of a very well put, but thinly veiled, white power org. and I still think it must have an effect on all children who know that such exists.

Amaranth, haven't seen you on here in awhile. Welcome back. I am not sure how you mean that about the First Nations people, exactly, but the oppression against them lasted for a LOT longer than the War Between the States; they ARE sovereign nations, still; and they are indigenous, whereas those who claim the Confederate flag are by and large *imports* like the rest of us, with what I think is an agenda of hatred. I mean no offense, it just wasn't clear to me what you meant.

Thank you all for your input.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Brendy
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 01:14 AM

The 'Southern Initiative' article that kat submitted reminds me of the nonsense we have to put up with every July. That being the insistence of certain members of the community to fly their flags, to march down the only possible street that could cause offence to the Nationalist population, in order to express their right to 'walk down the Queen's Highway'.

This practise, as perhaps some of you 'catters know from seeing the T.V. is something we object to greatly, for it is not a simple procession, rather it is a exhibition of territorial superiority, of coat - trailing, and perhaps most importantly, the unsaid threat that they can do that, and more to us whenever they feel like it.

It is a strange paradox when those who would hold you down say that they are only exercising their right to free speech and expression, and blame our objections as the problem, thereby giving them the ammunition to continue their oppressive ways.

It is only now becoming public, as the north of Ireland starts to re-examine it's past, of the extent of victimisation, intimidation, and widespread murder of the nationalist community in the north of Ireland; actions that were committed in the name of free speech.

I dislike intensely rhetoric like that shared with us by kat, but I thank you for giving us that wee insight into the way some people think. There is one problem though. Unfortunately, hopefully not in this forum, there are those who when reading that passage would take heart and further harden themselves against any kind of common acceptance of anyone not agreeing with them.

Yesterday's statements by David Trimble and Gerry Adams gives more hope that Nationalists and Unionists may start being mutually involved in descision making. One of the first things to be created once the Assembly, I would expect is a non denominational, non sectarian flag.

Unfortunately, we as human beings pay too much emphasis on flags. Get rid of all flags I say! Impossible I know. But until people start accepting each other as brother/sister, equal in every respect including the right to breathe the same air, the right to be alive and live, then flags will always be there to tell us who we are, what we have suffered, won, sacrificed,who we rule, and who rules you!

le grá

Breandán

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 01:30 AM

Well, Brendy, thank you, esp. for the last paragraph!

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 01:30 AM

Well put, Brendy, thank you, esp. for the last paragraph!

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Pet peterson
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 09:01 AM

I once saw a flag that made me cry-- it was at a SF convention and it was the American Stars and Stripes with the current 50 stars replaced by a spiral galaxy with no individual star visible, just the barred spiral galaxy. That's a symbol that I could give loyalty to. (Has anybody gotten up before dawn to look for Leonids and what did you see? I overslept!)

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From:
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 09:32 AM

What's going on in SC is this: The governor wants the flag to come down, the mayor of Columbia wants it to come down, the House of Representatives wants it down, the business community, and two-thirds of the population all want it down. The only governmental group that wants it up is the state Senate, which is controlled by the a group of idiot SC republicans, and they, as they have said, will not back down under any circumstances. This is not necessarily true of all Republicans, I know, but in SC they could not win elections without the so-called Christian Right and the stereotype dumb-as-a-shovel rednecks, of which we have many in real life. The traditional business type conservatives are in a bind; they don't want all the craziness of the other two large constituency groups but they can't win elections without them. They make a lot of noise so that's what the media portrays as the mass opinion of the people of this state, but it is not. We will all be happy as pigs in shit when they finally remove it from our capitol. This Southern Initiative thing is mild compared to some of what we've had here. The Senate and the KKK sneaked David Duke and other actual Klansmen onto a podium at a public gathering in front of the state house (capitol) that was meant for something else, and you wouldn't believe some of the things that were said. I think the NAACP should continue their boycott of SC until hell freezes over and let's just see what happens.

We have always been a colorful state, Chet

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: paddymac
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 09:44 AM

The parallels between the American Civil Rights movement and current events in NI are obvious enough, but, sadly, the underlying problems are not unique to those two spots on the globe. The issue of flags is what I think academicians might call a problem in iconography - physical symbols with different meanings (and degrees of meaning) to different observors. The "problem" is that though the symbols themselves remain fairly constant, the meanings attached to them tend to "evolve". The far greater problem, IMHO, is that such inane obsessions with flags reflect a backwards looking mind-set. What value or wisdom be there in backing into the future? The wiser approach would be to know and remember the history, in the hope of not repeating it's mistakes, while moving forward with resolve. Utopia doesn't exist, but the concept is still a useful goal.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 10:04 AM

"Pet" Peterson *smile*, do know where a person could find such a flag? It sounds beautiful. Here is a pldge I found on a postcard years ago:

I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all the Life which it supports. ONE PLANET, in our care, irreplaceable, with Sustenance and Respect for ALL.

On the back is a little poem:

Mother of all, our home, our host,
Waits for what she needs the most;
CHildren who will not neglect her,
Who will honor and protect her.
There is no jewel of greater worth
To us, than our sweet home, the EARTH.

Both are copyrighted 1992 by Janina Lamb of the Lamb & Lion Studio, Box 298, Tamworth, NH 03886.

Chet, good to hear from one who is there and to hear the whole state is not like those yeahoos.

Anybody have any thoughts on how this effects children, if they are aware of it, and if there is any relation to something this specific and rap/hip hop, etc?

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Ringer
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 10:05 AM

Slightly off-thread, may I pick Kat up on her initial posting, where she uses "non-progressive" as a pejorative term: Surely, in a forum devoted to folk music (amongst other things), non-progressive should be a term of approbation, 'cos if folk's progressive (imho) folk it ain't.

With my tongue only slightly in my cheek, I propose that all "progress" (ie all change) should be resisted -- if it can't survive my opposition, it doesn't deserve to survive at all; if it's worthwhile, it'll come despite my opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 11:16 AM

My position on flags (or anthems, or symbols etc.) is constantly changing, and I'm sure always will. It comes from my habit of putting myself in (metaphorically) other people's shoes before making decisions on these issues. My dad fought overseas for five years to (ostensibly) protect freedom, and keep Canada a good place. That makes me proud to be his son. While he was over there, signs around Toronto's beaches said "no dogs or Jews allowed". Boatloads of Jewish refugees were turned away from our shores and sent back to almost certain death. When it comes to a country's power structure and it's wealthy elite citizens, is there really any difference in attitudes between us and the enemy? Not from what I've seen. Soooooo, the significance of Flags or Anthems or prayers are just lost on me.
I wish these symbols were left to individuals to either use or not use. It's when they are made "official" that so many get hurt.
Rick

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Art Thieme
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 11:16 AM

This is about power.

Power is often the extent to which you can inconvenience others---to maybe boost the ego or the coffers of one or the other sides.

In this case, in a football stadium, you've got 2 vocal and vehiment sides already in an artificial war stance finding another thing to create a battle over. Fueled by huge testosterone (or estrogen) and adenalin levels, it can get out of hand, people can be harmed both physically and psychically. (i.e. the battle of Jesse and the school board in Illinois now).

I've eliminated any consideration of right or wrong in this polemic. After a certain point, right or wrong goes out the windown anyway.

Sad, but true.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: JedMarum
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 01:32 PM

The wish for South Carolinians to honor and respect their heritage through the display of the 'Stars and Bars' flag is not I issue I would choose to fight. I suggest the NAACP could choose their battles more wisely. Why give credance to the skin head types, who have no real message, and who can hide behind the coat-tails of those flag flyers with a more substaintive arguement?

There is heart felt, legitimate purpose in preserving the symbol by those to whom the flag has meaning. Who am I to insist their conviction is wrong, ignorant, hateful? This flag was never meant to portray a hateful message.

When a man who tells me his cause is racism chooses this flag as his symbol, I am insulted for those to whom the symbol is meaningful. There are those in this world to whom the Cross, the Star of David, the American flag, and even 'one world' symbols are insulting. Do we insist those symbols be struck as well?

Jumping on the "I'm angry at South Carolina because they fly the Stars and Bars - and that's a racist act" band wagon is anything thing but open minded, liberal or progressive thinking. It might be joining the side of an arguement you like, but true liberals would have to weigh the feelings of the pro-flag side, as well. And agree that all sides deserve to be heard - even if you and I would not choose to fly that flag!

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 01:53 PM

I have to think on some of the above before replying, but liam, I DO consider myself a *true* liberal, whatever that is. And, DID present the pro-flag side in the initial posting by including their unedited statement.

That flag may never have been meant to represent racism, but in most places I've lived it sure as haitch does now. So I guess it's another co-opted symbol used as a denigrating reminder of slary and oppression. If my skin were black like my son-in-law, I would never feel comfortable around someone who felt the need to present such a symbol and I definitely wouldn't wnat a government that is supposed to be representative of all peoples, to be flying it.

More later.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Uilleand
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 03:01 PM

Symbols themselves don't 'mean' anything. Only we as humans imbue them with power. The swastika was a very powerful symbol at one time representing the exact opposite of the feelings it invokes in us today. So the symbols evolve and change as we evolve and change. Their power comes with their context. I work a great deal with symbols in my personal life, but don't feel like I need to impress them on others. The question to me is the motivation of the display and its appearance. I think in this instance the motivation on both sides needs to be questioned. I have also found that a symbol's power may be transformed by embracing it. The white supremicists would be a tad confused, if all of a sudden the NAACP would decide to use the Confederate flag to remind everyone of the victory over adversity. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 03:30 PM

Uilleand, that's a great point! Some of my most cherished books are old ones which were my grandad's of Kipling's works, with an inside front and back cover border of the ancient mystical symbol of the swastika, pre-Nazi corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Gary T
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 03:38 PM

Just to clarify our terminology: The flag that is being discussed is the Confederate battle flag. It has diagonal stripes lined with stars. The term "Stars and Bars" refers to the Confederate POLITICAL flag, which is an entirely different thing. It has three broad horizontal stripes (the "bars") with a few (3, I believe) stars across the middle one. While virtually everyone is familiar with the Confederate battle flag, hardly anyone sees the Stars and Bars unless they look it up in an encyclopedia. Not an earthshaking point, but I believe in calling things by their correct names to help avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 04:08 PM

The "Stars and Bars" was also known as the 1st National Flag. It consisted of three horizontal bars, two red and one white, and a blue canton with a circular constellation of 13 stars, one each for the 11 states of the Confederacy, plus Missouri and Kentucky, which were prevented from seceding by Federal action. This flag closely resembled the US flag at the time, especially when not flying straight out with the wind. As this sometimes caused confusion on the battlefield, P.G.T. Beauregard designed the battle flag, which has come to be recognized by all. In fact, the original battle flag was square, and the current rectangular version was the naval ensign.

Later versions of the national flag incorporated the battle flag design in the canton, with either a white field (2nd National) or a white field edged with red on the fly (3rd National).

I don't remember the exact dates that these flags were used, but I have the information at home where I can look it up if anyone is interested.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Chet W.
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 04:25 PM

True that symbols don't mean anything unless we give them meaning, but sometimes others do that for us and our feelings, pro, con, or neutral don't mean a whole lot if the symbol is widely accepted as having a meaning. Would anyone really feel comfortable wearing a swastika these days as an ancient good luck sign or whatever it was (I've seen it on old southern Asian artifacts; don't claim to know it all)? Of course not because the whole world associates it with Nazis. And I know, I know personally, that there are decent people here and elsewhere for whom the correctly identified Confederate battle flag does mean something to them that has nothing to do with slavery; I had a great great grandfather who rode away to that stupid war and was never heard from again. But what do you think it means to the camouflaged guys who have window-size decals of it on their pickups? What do you think it means to David Duke and his Klan buddies? What do you think it means to skinheads here and abroad (I've seen Czech skinheads waving this flag)? Of course, it means the same thing that it means to black Americans and all of us who hate the crime of slavery that was defended by some (probably not in the hearts of all, I pray not in the heart of my ancestor, who never owned a slave) under its colors. This flag is very well known as the wartime symbol of a culture that was and is wonderful in a lot of ways, but it did practice slavery, and it has not been long enough since then for us to forget.

Two other thoughts: I was hired several times years ago to play music at events that included Civil War re-enactments, some of them at ante-bellum plantation houses like Boone Hall north of Charleston. It occurred to me there that my own ancestors, of French and Scots-Irish and God knows what other origin, would never have been allowed to rest on the front porch of that house; they like most southerners who died, did so fighting for the interests of rich aristocrats who cared not shit for them. Which leads to thought #2, which I firmly have believed for a long time, that the Civil War was about the stupidest cause that anybody ever decided to die for, and we're still fighting the damn thing in South Carolina, largely because of ignorance of history, on which we have no monopoly.

That flag went up over our capitol in 1961, to "celebrate" the centennial of the beginning of the war. I just wish to God that we could put this behind us.

Incidentally, there is a group in Charleston that did put out a lot of T-shirts and other products with the same flag redone in green, black, and yellow. The significance of it was lost on most. Just as most of my students lost interest in Malcolm X when he quit hating white people.

Back to you, Chet

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 04:35 PM

Gary and jeff, thanks for information. It always amazes me how knowledgeable folks are here, though I should be used to it right now. I found Uilleands tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the NAACP embrace the Confederate flag as a way of defusing it's white power mojo to be very interesting, but I would anticipate some protest among the membership. In one of Lenny Bruce's most famous routines, he used the words "spic","kike", and "nigger" to describe members of his audience,and himself. His point was that we invest these words with their negative power,we make weapons of them by hiding them until they can be used in the most hateful possible connotation. If we only brought them out in the fresh air, used them casually, we could defuse them. In theory,I would agree. But the fact is that these words, like the connotation the rebel flag has adopted, have become too loaded to defuse without risk of explosion. For me,even typing the words in this forum causes me concern, but I think that people can follow my point. I believe that it is this power of taboo that lies at the heart of the matter under discussion, and I am thankful that at least here at the Mudcat, the question is open for debate.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 04:50 PM

This is a long post - sorry, but I can be a bit garrulous at times.

Flags are like words - they take on new meanings in new situations, and can be used to hurt people. Words like "Nigger" or "Yid" are ok in themelves, and have been used, in their time, in a way that didn't hurt people, and wasn't meant to hurt them. "Cretin" is just a way of saying Christian, an early example of people trying to give a positive name to a stigmatised group.

When an innocent word gets picked up and used in a hateful way, there are two ways of dealing with it. Most of the time the best way is probably to stop using it.

Sometimes it happens that a word that was intended as an insult, and used it that way, can be taken up by the people it is used against, and become clean and usable once more. "Quaker" is an example. I know people in the Disabled Rights movement who have tried to do the same wioth "Cripps" - "A bunch of us Cripps went down to the bus terminal to protest about bus access". That is probably the best way to deal with it, but it can only be done by the people who are being attacked by a word, and it's open to misinterpration.

It's much the same for visual symbols, such as flags. As kat said, the swastika was used innocently in India. Elsewhere too - I've seen newsreel from China, when it was being attacked by the Japanese, and a swastika flag was used for the local equivalent of the Red Cross. But, though that is historically interesting, it doesn't alter the fact that flying a swastika flag now is going to mean Nazis are somewhere around.

The Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes, the French Tricolour - all have been used, and still are used by the same kind of vicious racists at one time or another. What can save them, maybe, (maybe)is that there are decent people who see this kind of use as an insult to symbols they value.

As for the Confederate flag - living in England most timnes I've seen it over here it just means country music, and it's probably less redolent of racism than the Union Jack is. That's because our Nazis parade around with the Union Jack.

But over there, it's something different, obviously. You've got a symbol which is linked historically to the defence of the slave system. (Of course the same is true of the Stars and Stripes, for the first three generations.) And it is also linked with a struggle by a relatively weak country against an attack by its stronger neighbour, and a whole history since, with a lot of good things mixed in with the bad - much the same as the rest of the USA.

Ideally there's be new flags for countries with a record of oppression and racism, flags like the new South African flag, which is probably the prettiest in the world, and the lovely Native Australian flag.

But if you take something from people by force, they're likely to value it even more. If the only people waving the Union Jack were National Front and "Loyalists", they'd start looking like patriots to some people who might not share their warped visions. Including people who at present feel insulted when "their flag" is used by bigots and racists, just as I am sure that there must be some Southerners who are angry and insulted when they see "their flag" being used by racists.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Uilleand
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 04:56 PM

Chet, I think we are just talking semantics, but are essentially agreeing. I feel that you are using the word meaning the same way I refer to it as power. EJ, in theory I believe my suggestion would work, in this reality I agree with you that it wouldn't. Too many people on both sides believe in its power. The same is true for the 'politically incorrect' words. We change our vocabularies like dirty laundry, constantly coming up with new 'less offensive' names for the same thing, because we are unable to face and heal our underlying emotions with respect to the cause. I believe in free expression, but I also believe in being sensitive to others' feelings when it doesn't compromise my truth. And it seems that the majority of South Carolinians agree. Why flaunt a symbol, even if not offensive, but empowering to you, just because you can, if it seriously upsets your neighbour. Where has common courtesy gone?

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Uilleand
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 05:04 PM

This set of lyrics probably belongs in the anthems thread, but has some meaning here to me. It's from the musical 'Chess':

Anthem: No man, no madness, though their sad powers may prevail, can possess, conquer my country's heart, they rise to fail. She's eternal long before nations' lines were drawn. When no flags flew, when no armies stood, my land was born. And you ask me, how I love her through war, death, and despair. She is the constant, we who don't care. And you wonder, will I leave her. But how? I cross over borders but I'm still there now. How can I leave her? Where would I start? Let man's petty nations tear themselves apart. My land's only borders lie around my heart.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 05:37 PM

We get a lot of this BS down here. 1. The Confederacy was committed to slavery. 2. The South Carolina flag was a single white star on a blue field. Then came the stars and bars and then the St. Andrews Cross which was the southern battle flag, the one now used to fly over half of Georgia's flag. This battle flag was reinstituted by George Wallace in his attempt to furthur segregation in the South in 1954. The Ku Klux Klan has adopted it as their flag. 4. Freedom of speech might be extended to the Nazi party in the U.S. or the so-called "Aryan Nation" or whatever but the flying of this flag is as offensive to an African American as the flying of a swastika flag to Jewish people. It should come down. As to the Confederacy, they don't apparently think they lost the war. And as to the logic that the U.S. was committed to the slave trade, this is specious. The colonies may have been but once the Civil War was settled, slavery was abolished as it never was in the Confederacy. There are some yahoos around down here who are still fighting the Civil War and have a legacy of racism, hatred and fanaticism behind them.

"We will rally from the hillside, gather from the plain, Shouting the battle cry of freedom! And although he may be poor, not a man shall be a slave. Shouting the battle cry of freedom! The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah. Down with the traitor and up with the star as we Rally round the flag, boys, rally once again. Shouting the battle cry of freedom!"

I think that Henry C. Work was pretty specific as to what the Confederacy stood for. It was a defense of a way of life that was abhorrent to civilized people in both the North and the South because it embraced slavery.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 05:50 PM

An addendum.

The War Between The States is a euphemism often used by pro-Confederate groups. The correct term is the Civil War if we believe that the United States is a country. The War Between the States was used to describe an Ununited States which was the goal of the Conferadacy, realistically, because they could never get all the Northern states to agree to it.

BTW, Dixie was appropriated by the South because of a publisher in New Orleans who ripped it off from a Northerner from Ohio, the author, Daniel Emmett of the Christy Minstrels who were popular on the New York stage. In short, a Northern song appropriated by the South. There is a strange history here that hasn't been covered about it by the leading authorities. I saw a mention of it in a book that maintains that it was created about "Dick's Farm", a theme park on Long Island run by a Mister Dicks as a replica of an antebellum plantation where the "slaves" were paid performers. Haven't found any other corroborations for this anywhere. Did the author of the songbook I read make it up? Interesting question.

Also, there were Northern versions of Dixie's Land that were directed at the South prior to and during the Civil War. There is also a case for the fact that Emmett might have written it as a parody on the popular Southern song of the time.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 06:08 PM

The United States defended the institution of slavery for the first 80 years of its existence, long after it had been abolished elsewhere. The Confederation defended it for the first five years of its existence - which turned out to be the last five years of its existence as well. Who is to say what would have happened if it had succeeded in breaking away permanently?

If I was a Native American I don't think I'd see much difference between the two flags.

Ideally, as I said, I'd like to see both of them replaced by something fresh, along with the Union Jack. That can only happen when most people in a country feel that way, otherwise the banned symbol becomes a focus for all kinds of unpleasantness.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 06:25 PM

This has turned into an interesting and enlightening discussion. I spent 6 years as a Confederate re-enactor. Imagine, if you will, a bunch of overgrown boys, dressing up and playing army with real guns (no bullets, of course). One evening, after the "civilians" had left, some clown visited our campfire trying to recruit for the Ku Klux Klan. He hardly had a chance to open his mouth before he was escorted from the camp by four gray-clad gentlemen and told never to return. He was also informed, in no uncertain terms, that we did not appreciate the usurpation of a once-proud flag by "people" of his sort.

Most of the re-enactors, on both sides, were in the hobby for the fun of it and/or the opportunity to learn about a fascinating period in our history, and to pass that learning on to others. I personally got quite a charge out of being asked and being able to answer questions about the everyday life of a soldier during that time.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 07:04 PM

That's a great story, jeffp. I found out, when I moved back to New Engladn, that up there, it was referred to as the War of the Rebellion, even on the monuments and gravestones.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Brendy
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 07:13 PM

That's it really....inoffensiveness!
Whatever the definition of a symbol or emblem is, and why they take on different meanings to different people is all academic really. The fact that they do is the problem.
Discussions on historical origins and interpretations only serve to draw attention to the fact that they are emotive, and their power lies right at the core of our identity.
I think it was kat who asked what effect all of this has on children. Look at the big bad world out there. Those were children once, and they didn't suddenly dream these interpretations up. Neither did their ancestors.
What's wrong with a 'One World' thing. It would be privatised, commercialised, piratised, symbolised, neuclearised, nullified. As the old Eagles song has it:

"You call a place paradise, You kiss it goodbye."

Human beings after all are territorial and expansionist by instinct. So to wish for any drastic change in that regard, well, don't hold your breath. The right to freedom of speech and expression, and don't get me wrong - I've been a defender of it all my life, gives us the unique opportunity to be as selfish as we want. When you've got a load of self-will running riot, then that's exactly what you have.
And because we are territorial beings in possesion of this great gift, our somewhat expansionist side decides that because I think I'm superior to you, then shag you and your self will, 'cos mine's stronger than yours.
The symbol is the shorthand version of this, and how it evolved is not relevant. What it means is, and how it effects our psyche is.

Bren.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 99 - 07:49 PM

On the subject of flags, here's an old editorial I had wrote about 5 years ago, when I was just starting to get published. I feel I've *evolved* a lot since then, but still feel the same about being able to burn the flag.Thought some may find it of interest and, please know I mean no offense to Christians:

Hypocritical patriots burn liberty

As a young child growing up in Casper, I was taught a reverent respect for the flag of the United States. In school, we saluted it, hands over our hearts, as we recited the pledge of allegiance everyday. At fair and rodeo time, while watching the parade, we always stood and saluted whenever the flag passed by. There was a fear of great retribution if we did not; our young minds had no trouble in coming up with imagined apocalyptic consequences for anyone who dared to be so oafish and disrespectful.

When the sixties and early seventies came around, we found our voices of early adulthood; learned to question authority; and, some even dared to burn the flag. The flag became a renewed symbol of our freedom to dissent - the freedom our country was founded on. That it still rose proud and tall was a testament to our right to free speech.

We had committed the unthinkable through protests, peaceful and violent; yet, the flag remained our talisman of liberty, even as it burned.

Sadly, the feeling of pride has diminished. Our country has reached the stage of life where it is no longer novel as an infant, trying as a teen, nor mighty righteousness of young maturity. With age has come a jaded disillusionment; a loss of ideals; a lack of faith and respect in our leaders and government, even in each other.

With this miasma of reality has come the lack of education of our children. This year while at the parade, I still stood as the flag went by. My hand automatically crossed my heart in the old familiar gesture of reverence. Yet, I felt only shock and dismay as I observed the young toddlers, preschool children and other youths who neither stood nor saluted our flag. Where were the so-called patriotic parents, teachers, role models of these children?

Why did these young Americans not know or were not taught the expected response as the flag was marched down the avenue?

It is ironic the winner of this year's parade was a float that consisted of a Christian cross wrapped in the red, white and blue of our flag. Not only did this float blur beyond recognition the separation church and state; it made a non-vocal declaration that ours is a Christian-only country.

Will these people who would have us all blindly follow their religious tenets, all be hauled into jail and court for desecration of the flag through their irreverent use of it as a cross-draper? What of the parade watchers who wore the flag as shirts or the beach goer who sports a micro-bikinii of Old Glory?

While our Republican Congress works at a feverish pace to undo most of the good which has been accomplished in our country over the past 40 years, one of the worst things they could do is to establish an amendment which prohibits flag-burning/free speech.

Until a child is taught the basic steps of dance, they cannot master the choreography of life. Without early instruction in the meaning of our flag and how to show proper respect, how can we expect anyone to grow up understanding what a powerful symbol of dissent burning the flag is? How can they understand the depth of feeling, the utter despair, the hopelessness one must feet to commit such an irrevocable expression of discontent?

Of course, without proper guidance when young, our children could become a willing and apathetic constituency; a pliable following for those who would end our right to free speech; in agreement without thought with whatever the political agenda may be.

Until children understand the great symbology of a piece of cloth and the colors which run through it, they will never understand why it is so important to preserve our right to burn the flag in protest.

Instead of desecrating the flag by wrapping themselves in the perceived patriotic folds of a constitutional amendment, our Congresspeople should be ashamed of their wholesale assault on our freedoms. Through rhetorical posturing, their seeming patriotism is a sickening display of rampant carnage; a trampling on and rendering asunder of our Constitution.

Saluting the flag, standing as it goes by - these are the basic steps any American child should learn. To burn the flag is an intricate dance of many years; a passionate display of extreme patriotism which even our forefathers/mothers would understand.

© kl 1995

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 09:55 AM

Please make no mistake about this. The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. If this had not been a bone on contention, there may never have been a Civil War. The so-called Southern way of aristocratic life could have continued under the roof of the US government but Abolition was the basis of the war. Even Lincoln's suggested compromise would not have been tolerated by Northern Abolitionists.

Confederacy's Southern way of life was predicated on the slave trade for it's economic survival. If it had given up slavery there may never have been a war. To say that the Confereracy was merely trying to defend it's way of life is like saying that the Nazis were only trying to help the German people recover economically.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From:
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 10:37 AM

Yes but there's a fine distinction about what they really were trying to defend, be it slavery or way of life, economic or not. By the time the Civil War started, technological advances in agricultural machinery were already imminent, just around the corner. Surely these well-educated, many of them, aristocrats were aware enough of what was going on in the world to know that these advances would make slavery economically unviable, and in the very near future. I think the aristocrats who did want the war probably did want to retain their way of life, but not in an economic sense. They were the last of the feudal lords. The rode away to battle, in tailor-made regalia, as the last knights, ranked by status and wealth. They wanted to keep their slaves for the same reasons that medieval lords wanted to keep their peasants/serfs. You can't very well be a lord without people whom you can decide life and death over, with no accountability at all.

I do not and will not defend their actions. Slavery was a horrible crime and there was no excuse for defending it, or even for defending a place where it was allowed to happen. But you do have to admit, off the subject, that there was an ironic but powerful poetry in that time and in that place, the place where I have always lived. For all its perversity this part of the country has always been the soul of American arts and spirituality, and I wonder if we'd have that without our strange past. As it is the only American cultural art forms that are known around the world are Southern in origin; blues, jazz, and rockandroll. When I visit my family in Prague, there are Dixieland bands on every corner in warm weather, and in the clubs all year. There are bluegrass and country bands wearing overalls easily found. Blues and Bebop. When I say that I am from South Carolina, where Rhett Butler lived in Charleston, that's enough to make me interesting by itself.

History's a damn mystery, Chet

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Pete Peterson
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 11:11 AM

Fletcher Pratt wrote the best one-volume history of the Civil War I have ever seen and every so often he interrupted the narrative with essays. One of them (I don't have the book, my copy is home) talked about the "literature" of the South and said, in effect, there isn't any. "By their fruits shall you know them, and the level of most Southern literature was about that of Huck Finn's Royal Nonsuch. Plantation life is too easy, it breeds only Weltschmertz, no real strife which is at the heart of good literature." (It will be fun to see how badly I butchered the quotation)-- anyway here was a man writing in 1935 who saw no powerful poetry coming from the South. Now that I re-read Chet's posting i find myself agreeing with him: my life would be much poorer without blues, jazz & rock&roll and they all originated in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 03:56 PM

If the South had been allowed to go its own way, it is quite possible that it would have gone on to abolish slavery around the same time as Brazil, for the same kind of reasons, and gone on to develop into,the same kind of racially mixed culture.

As it was the after effects of the war was a society in which white racism was at the foundation of a slow economic and social recovery.

The Confederate flag is the emblem of a racist system. But the same is true for the Stars and Stripes - representing a country founded on the genocidal theft of a continent, with slavery a tolerated and even cherished institution for its first 80 or so years as an independent nation, and for nearly 200 years awash with other types of racism. The flag of Abraham Lincoln is also the flag of General Custer and Lieutenant Calley.

But the thing is, that's not the whole story, either for the United States or the Confederacy. The Stars and Stripes has other meanings, and it is possible for people to try make those other meanings outweigh the evil meanings. In principle the same could be true for the Confederate flag. And if it can't be done for the Condederate Flag, it's hard to see how it can be done for the Union Flag.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Chet W.
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 04:33 PM

Some of the best American writing of this century was done by my personal hero(ine) Flannery O'Connor. I think she would be more glorified except for the sometimes overwhelming regionalism in her stuff. If anyone who didn't grow up here can read "Wise Blood" and really relate to it, they are very insightful indeed. Our usual icon Faulkner, to me he "overwrote" his books more than anybody since John Milton. IMHO Pat Conroy is one of the finest novelists today. Just outside of Columbia there is a little community that was the home of a really bad poet back before the turn of the century, and he is celebrated for the sheer awfulness of his work. A sample, and this is supposed to rhyme:

Alas for the South, her verses grow fewer, She never was much for literature.

Colorful, eh? Chet

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 18 Nov 99 - 08:31 PM

The Confederate battle flag is an emblem of a racist culture exclusively. The Stars and Stripes are not because they embrace many other sub-cultures that are not all racist as was the Confederacy. The Southern Initiative would like to wriggle out of the fact that their culture was built on the institution of slavery where as the various cultures represented by the Stars and Stripes were not although racism is contained in the policy of every country in the world. The question remains, which cultures were built upon slavery?

As to seeing the good as well as the evil of a flag, try raising the Nazi swastika in the US and see if that meets the test. The Confederate battle flag is just the same thing. Fortunately, in spite of the racist brutality of the Confederacy, much of Southern US culture owes much to the contributions of the African-American including the dialect of the Southern drawl. If it weren't for the black musicians of the South there would be no song called Dixie because Dan Emnett would have had no inspiration to write it. The Minstrel Show tradition was an attempt to borrow from African-American culture at the same time as it denigrated it's originators.

Something similar happened when early rock and roll under the aegis of Sam Phillips took a "black sound" and made it accessible to the prejudiced popular music market by having white musicians do it. Elvis became the star rather than "Big Boy" (Arthur) Crudup, the man he learned from. The difference is that the white musicians didn't necessarilly denigrate their originators.

So the battle flag and the swastika still fly. Emblems of cultures built on racism.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Brendy
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 05:00 AM

Hitler was trying to give the German people a better way of life!!
Because the "Treaty of Versailles" made a point of making sure that no German war machine would never be allowed to exist, what the 'Allies' did was to force the Germans into a corner, much like the Japanese at the end of WW2.
When you push a people too much into accepting the world as you see it, you're bound to get resentment.
To this day, one of the saddest things I've seen is the sight of a cock standing over the body of it's defeated opponent.... and crowing!

The 'Allies' fuelled Nazism; there still at it.
The "cock-crowing" mentality is appealing.... to those of simple minds.
But then, nobody's perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 05:48 AM

Brendy, the way I read the implications of what you are writing there, you take far too much of the responsibility off the shoulders of those where it belongs to. And your first sentence makes me angry for it implies that the German jews (and other subgroups of Germans at whose 'expenses', to use a much too mild word, Hitler et al. were trying to provide "a better way of life" for "the German people") were not Germans.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Ringer
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 09:19 AM

Forgive an ignorant Englishman for asking, but in what way was the Minstrel Show denigrating? Understand: I'm not arguing that it wasn't, because I know nothing about it; this is a serious request for info.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Ringer
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 12:32 PM

Well, that question produced a resounding silence, didn't it. I'm off home for the weekend now (my access is from work), but I'll look for an answer on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 01:55 PM

Sorry nobody saw your question earlier, Bald Eagle. The minstrel shows, as far as I know, were denigrating because they were made up of white people in blackface (paint, who caricatured and exaggerated the African slaves' music and mannerisms, including their way of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 09:24 PM

It is a gross oversimplification to state that the prima facie for the Civil War was slavery and slavery only. At the time the United States was just that- a group of entities that saw a grouping as giving them greater strength on the world scene. The Revolutionary War had ended a mere 80 years previously, and men yet lived who could say they were born in the Massachusettes or Virginia Colony. They were first and foremost Pennsylvanians,Kentuckians or Vermonters- the United States of America was still a relatively new concept. And at the time of the Revolution, the power-base was relatively evenly spread across North and South. As time passed, the Industrial strength and sheer numbers of the North meant that it would carry a stronger and stronger voice in the direction of the new nation. The South felt the balance of power shifting, and it's dependence on slaves for it's solvency as a sparsely populated and agrarian economy was a significant factor in it's increasing alienation. Tariffs imposed by the National government aided the budding Northern Industrial base, but hurt the cotton-growing south, which depended not only on the Northern Markets, but on European ones for solvency. Federal aid plans such as the Homestead Act directed tax money toward the expanding population base in the Northwest and industrial areas of the North. Some Southern States decided at last to go their own way, violating a contract that they felt was no longer in their best interests.

Certainly, it seems the causes of the Civil War were many and complex. Among them Slavery was perhaps the most crucial. But to say that the War was only about slavery does the intelligence and integrity of many who lived in the South an injustice. To say that the Confederate Battle Flag was only a symbol of repression and injustice is inaccurate. And to say that the two are inseparably the same is a fallacy.

But,just to make no mistake, I believe that the flag should not fly as a sanctioned government symbol- however,I believe that free individuals have the right to ascribe to it either their highest hopes, or direst fears, as they see fit in this free nation that we have created.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 19 Nov 99 - 10:19 PM

No, I believe the Civil War would not have happened if it were not for the issue of slavery. It was inherent in the Southern culture and the dependence upon it economically was crucial to defining the culture. The battle flag was and is an emblem of slavery. This is well-known and accepted by most black people who recognize that they have been held back by the attitudes of some of the white Southerners who still care to fight the Civil War. It insults their intelligence to assume anything else. I think that it's appropriate that it was picked up by the Klan because the Klan is an outgrowth of Southern Confederate culture. This was it's raison d'etre. It's significant that many African-American troups entered the Civil War with eagerness and devotion, not to the unifying of the States but with the goal of ending the repressive racism of the South.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 99 - 01:54 PM

The Founding Fathers of America defended and preserved the system of slavery in the former colonies. Washuington and Jeeferson were slaveholders.

Among the grievances against the British were claims that they were preventing settlers from taking land from Native Americans. Many Native Americans fought against the rebellion, many fled into exile in Canada when it won.

If the anti-slavery movement in England had at that time got a few years ahead of itself, and there had been an attempt by the British government to suppress slavery in the Colonies, there can be no doubt this would have been seen as a tyrannical imposition. Far more than any Tea Tax, that would have been the spark for rebellion. And it would also have been identified as the justification for the Imperial power in seeking to crush that rebellion.

In the 1812 war, wan't one of the issues that the Royal Navy was interfering with American ships - flying the flag of the United States - in carrying out their lawful business carrying slaves.

The point I'm making is that to demonise the Confederacy as if it was somehow significantly different from the United States is to misread history. The value of looking at history is to learn from it, not to take sides and fight over the old battles (except in play, like jeffp and hius mates).

Very likely, for pragmatic reasons,it's a good idea to take the Confederate Flag off public buildings in Carolina, just as it is perfectly valid to treat the display of Union Jacks in many settings as offensive and provocative.

But I would suggest that for every racist thug who flies the Confederate Flag, as an expression of hate for people of another colour or ethnic identity, there are probably many many more who fly the Stars and Stripes for the same reason. When that ceases to be the case, I would suggest that the Confederate Flag would become as potent a symbol of hate as the eagles of the Roman Empire.

I like the sound of that recoloured flag Chet mentioned. Like the Green White and Gold Union Jacks some cheeky people in Northern Ireland played around with a few years back. Or the Union Jack with the crosses outlined in black.

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Nov 99 - 05:57 PM

It just goes to show, judging by Wolfgang's response to my last post, that misunderstanding is a great fault of your average human. It's amazing what two exclamation marks can do to a person. The problem with the printed word is that it is hard to perceive irony therein.

Apologies to you, Wolfgang, and to others whose day I totally ruined, but I was implying nothing that you thought I was implying, and, perhaps, if you read it again with a different set of eyes, you might see what I was really at. I'm not as naive as all that.

Breandán

Subject: RE: BS: So. Initiative vs Liberal Progression
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 20 Nov 99 - 11:50 PM

Brendy, it happens all the time, doesn't it. How right you are. The printed word is not great for expessing irony (and occasionally subtlty) except to those who are already expecting it. Your point was valid.
Rick