View Full Version : Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?
Steppe Merc
06-19-2005, 17:28
My dad and I last night was watching a documentry about Lynyrd Skynyrd last night. For those of you that might not know, Skynyrd was a Classic Rock band from the south, and the leader in particular, Ronnie Van Zant, was a proud Southerner. They always played with a huge Confederate Flag (the flag of the Southern states that secceeded from the Union, for any non Americans, if you were wondering) in the back, hanging up. They were far from racists, as they played with and loved black musicians and their music. They were also not ignorant rednecks, as they got involved with Carter's presidential campaign, and along with the Allman Brothers and other Southern groups, helped him raise money.
Now, my dad and I were just talking. He said that although he loved their music and thought they were good people, they were wrong for playing with the Stars and Bars behind them. He knew the true meaning of the flag- that of states rights, and of Southern pride. But he rightfully pointed out that it had and still is thought of as a racist symbol, and by using it, they allowed people to misinturpret them, and even though they didn't mean it, it gave more fuel to racists.
I said that I thought it was good that they played with it. They were trying to reclaim the true meaning of the flag, and they shouldn't allow people to use it just as a symbol of hate. If people misinterpreted their meaning, it's not their fault, it's the people's ignorance that is at fault. I mentioned the Swastika, and how it was originally a religous symbol in many many cultures. If someone were to use that symbol in the orginal meaning, I would be fine with it.
My Dad said that the public perception overpowers the original meaning. He knew that they didn't mean it in a racist way, and he knew where I was coming from, from a historical matter. But to prevent more harsh feelings, such contreversial symbols shouldn't be used, regardless of the intended meaning, because of how they would be used.
What do you all think? What is more important; the intended message of a symbol or the way that symbol is percieved? Sorry for using such an American example, but it's what we were debating about, and I'm not sure if there as many polorizing, misinterptred symbols such as the Confederate Flag.
Duke Malcolm
06-19-2005, 17:42
Isn't the confederate flag a mix of St Andrew's cross and St Patrick's cross? Doesn't it symbolise the states of the confederacy and the people's origins?
Steppe Merc
06-19-2005, 17:48
Exactly. It means Southern pride and states rights, not racism. Many people believe that the Civil War was fought about slavery, which I believe is incorrect. But many think it means racism and slavery, because of the use of it by the KKK and other racist organizations.
For example Southern Carolina flys the Confederate Flag. I don't see a problem with it, but many people do, either because they think it symbolizes racism and white supremacy, or because they know people will think it symbolizes that.
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 18:40
Exactly. It means Southern pride and states rights, not racism. Many people believe that the Civil War was fought about slavery, which I believe is incorrect.
It was fought over states rights, most importantly, the right to own slaves. I find the whole states right thing a nice way of rewriting history.
What other state right were they fighting for ?
(Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)
But many think it means racism and slavery, because of the use of it by the KKK and other racist organizations.
For example Southern Carolina flys the Confederate Flag. I don't see a problem with it, but many people do, either because they think it symbolizes racism and white supremacy, or because they know people will think it symbolizes that.
Ah South Carolina, a state that had a senator that until a few years ago had a senator that had actively opposed the civil rights movement (really, some fun speeches that man had given), one that even went as far as to run for president so he could keep 'state rights'.
Now honestly, I don't really have a problem with the confederate flag. I think it is a symbol that can stand for the south, and not stand for all the negative things associated with it. However, I don't like revisionism. States rights were/are important, it's too bad they got used for excusing racism so often.
A guy on my Federal crew had a Stars n Bars bandana, which he wore as a doo rag, under his hardhat. During a break when he took off his hard hat I told him to get that gaudy seditious crap off his head. Why he asked, so I told him that was a flag of rebellion against the USA, the greatest country, and that it was the flag of a lost cause. To which he replied that the US was indeed great, and could have been better had the South won the War of Northern Aggression.
So I asked him if he had ever heard of the Macedonians. Who? They were an ancient Mediterranean people who eventually got dominated by the Greeks. Many Macedonians became slaves of the Greeks. I told my guy that he was a Macedonian slave, wearing the old Macedonian flag while in the service of the Greeks.
He walked around all day muttering under his breath.
Its an ugly flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.
ichi :bow:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-19-2005, 18:51
that flag is the Confederate battle flag.
Why? you may ask, well, because the actual flag of the Confederacy was very similar to that of the Union and in the first few engagements this caused a great deal of confusion.
Saying that the Civil War was about slaves and their lack of rights is naive.
You do know that the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to say about slaves that were owned in Union states...
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 19:01
You do know that the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to say about slaves that were owned in Union states...
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
That's nothing ?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-19-2005, 19:09
that's only about rebel states:
all slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States" will be freed.
Edit: good point, I misread that. Hah.
Anyway, it's still interesting to see how late this came about, after several years of war, for it to be the main reason for the war.
Edit (again): having re-read that again it definitely sounds like it's only against rebel states.
So if that's all you have then yes, that's nothing about non-rebel states.
King Ragnar
06-19-2005, 19:10
It is the KKK's fault that the flag is seen as a sign of racial agression.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-19-2005, 19:49
Just because it can be used as a rascist symbol doesn't mean it is. The Swastika is religious in some cases, thats why it shouldn't be banned totally. The Hammer of Thor is religious to some people, but it's also a skinhead symbol. Almost anything can be interpeted as rascist, doesn't mean we should ban it.
Oh, and the 1st Confederate Flag was very union like, the 2nd looked like a white flag when it was in still winds, and the 3rd was the most liked cause it was the most recognizable (I have one in my room, on my wall right below a pic of jeff davis).
King Ragnar
06-19-2005, 19:52
The swastika was originally used by the Teutonic order wasn't it?
PanzerJaeger
06-19-2005, 19:55
Skynyrd is a great band and there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with southern pride.
Southerners should be proud that they fought for what they believed in and their way of life. The flag represents that pride.
Some blacks will find a racial element in anything - you just have to ignore them.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-19-2005, 19:57
Edit (again): having re-read that again it definitely sounds like it's only against rebel states.
It was only against the rebel states . Slaves owned by Union states were not freed by it. That American history 101 even back when I went to school.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-19-2005, 20:00
Gawain: forgive me, I'm a foreigner who never received U.S. history 101.
Glad to see that I had initially read it correctly.
Damn Belgians.
Duke Malcolm
06-19-2005, 20:02
has slavery been banned in Union states?
Kaiser of Arabia
06-19-2005, 20:03
The swastika was originally used by the Teutonic order wasn't it?
Ancient Samnites I beleive
IrishMike
06-19-2005, 20:38
Just because it can be used as a rascist symbol doesn't mean it is.
Yup I got the Maltese Cross in my car, and everyone always is like: Are you a Nazi?, because they associate it only with the iron cross. People who are ignorant of history and a certain symbol's past automatically associate it with popular culture. Just like people think i'm a nazi for having an ancient crusading symbol in my car. Silly.
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 20:45
The wording of the Emancipation Proclamation isn't exactly clear. I never got US history 101 either.
But:
Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The amendment was ratified in 1865, two years after the EP, so slaves were freed everywhere (in theory anyway).
from wikipedia:
Lincoln staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery into federal territories, and his victory in the 1860 presidential election further polarized the nation. Before his inauguration in March of 1861, seven Southern slave states seceded1 from the United States, formed the Confederate States of America, and took control of U.S. forts and other properties within their boundaries. These events soon led to the American Civil War.
So seriously, if it wasn't slavery, then why did the Confederacy segregate ?
Ancient Samnites I beleive
Plus Buddhists use it a lot. Or used to at any rate.
IrishMike
06-19-2005, 20:51
They were mad over many many things, such as slaves counting 3/5th's of a man in taxing I beleve, the south wanted slaves not to count at all, and other such slave related issues. Also they felt as if the government was not responsive to their needs and special issues. Finally in other cases they just really hated the north in general, and they felt that the north was trying to take away their lifestyle.
Samurai Waki
06-19-2005, 20:55
Yup I got the Maltese Cross in my car, and everyone always is like: Are you a Nazi?, because they associate it only with the iron cross. People who are ignorant of history and a certain symbol's past automatically associate it with popular culture. Just like people think i'm a nazi for having an ancient crusading symbol in my car. Silly.
One of my teachers in Highschool was from Macedonia (actually Yugoslavia when she left) and whenever people would wear an "Independent" Skateboard Trucks Shirt with an Iron Cross she would get angry. I asked her why she didn't like the T-Shirt and She said That when the Nazis took over Yugoslavia many of SS soldiers there wore the Iron Cross over the Swastika, mostly because the Swastika was already a well used symbol by the Greek Orthodox in the Region. One day her entire family was confronted by a couple of SS soldiers and Her Grandmother and Grandfather tried to protect their children, both of them were shot right in front her father's eyes, and three of his brothers shot as well. He was then transported to a Concentration Camp, the SS kept calling him "Slavic scum" when he was in fact Greek from Thessalonikki. When he arrived at the Concentration Camp they poured Acid Down his throat, and beat him half to death. After a year of working in the Camp he was released by Soviet Troops.
I told her that the Iron Cross was no longer a symbol of Nazi oppression, she shrugged and told me "Do you think the families of former black slaves here, are still afraid of the Confederate Flag?" I replied "No. But it still symbolizes that atrocity."
Gawain of Orkeny
06-19-2005, 20:55
The amendment was ratified in 1865, two years after the EP, so slaves were freed everywhere (in theory anyway).
Well you just proved my point. The amendment freed the slaves not the emancipation proclomation.
So seriously, if it wasn't slavery, then why did the Confederacy segregate ?
Segregate or leave the union?
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 21:08
Well you just proved my point. The amendment freed the slaves not the emancipation proclomation.
Owkay, still doesn't mean the civil war wasn't about slavery ~D
Segregate or leave the union?
You see a difference ?
Why did they leave the union ? If you prefer that question.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-19-2005, 21:50
You see a difference ?
You dont? Segregation is seperating the races. It has nothing to do with leaving the union.
Why did they leave the union ? If you prefer that question.
Because they believed more in states rights and a smaller federal governent and thought that the Republicans were taking away those rights. Sort of the reverse of what we have today.
Causes of the American Civil War
The South, which was known as the Confederate States of America,
seceded from the North, which was also known as the Union, for many
different reasons. The reason they wanted to succeed was because there
was four decades of great sectional conflict between the two. Between
the North and South there were deep economic, social, and political
differences. The South wanted to become an independent nation. There
were many reasons why the South wanted to succeed but the main reason
had to do with the North’s view on slavery. All of this was basically
a different interpretation of the United States Constitution on both
sides. In the end all of these disagreements on both sides led to the
Civil War, in which the North won.
There were a few reasons other then the slavery issue, that the
South disagreed on and that persuaded them to succeed from the Union.
Basically the North favored a loose interpretation of the United
States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government
increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to
the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements
sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads,
and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects
to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a
high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for
the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its
cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and
currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal
improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they
favored Northern commercial interests.
Now the main reason for the South’s secession was the Slavery
issue. Basically the South wanted and needed it and the North did not
want it at all. The South was going to do anything they could to keep
it. This was the issue that overshadowed all others. At this time the
labor force in the South had about 4 million slaves. These slaves were
very valuable to the slaveholding planter class. They were a huge
investment to Southerners and if taken away, could mean massive
losses to everyone. Slaves were used in the South as helpers in the
fields in the cultivation of tobacco, rice, and indigo, as well as
many other jobs. The South especially needed more slaves at this time
because they were now growing more cotton then ever because of the
invention of the cotton gin. Cotton production with slaves jumped from
178,000 bales in 1810 to over 3,841,000 bales in 1860. Within that
time period of 50 years the number of slaves also rose from about
1,190,000 to over 4,000,000. The plantation owners in the South
could not understand why the North wanted slavery abolished that bad.
Southerners compared it with the wage-slave system of the North. They
said that the slaves were better cared for then the free factory
workers in the North. Southerners said that slaveowners provided
shelter, food, care, and regulation for a race unable to compete in
the modern world without proper training. Many Southern preachers
proclaimed that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. But after the
American Revolution slavery really died it the North, just as it was
becoming more popular in the South. By the time of 1804 seven of the
northern most states had abolished slavery. During this time a surge
of democratic reform swept the North and West. There were demands for
political equality and economic and social advances. The Northerners
goals were free public education, better salaries and working
conditions for workers, rights for women, and better treatment for
criminals. The South felt these views were not important. All of
these views eventually led to an attack on the slavery system in the
South, and showed opposition to its spread into whatever new
territories that were acquired. Northerners said that slavery revoked
the human right of being a free person. Now with all these views the
North set out on its quest for the complete abolition of slavery.
When new territories became available in the West the South
wanted to expand and use slavery in the newly acquired territories.
But the North opposed to this and wanted to stop the extension of
slavery into new territories. The North wanted to limit the number of
slave states in the Union. But many Southerners felt that a government
dominated by free states could endanger existing slaveholdings. The
South wanted to protect their states rights. The first evidence of the
North’s actions came in 1819 when Missouri asked to be admitted to the
Union as a slave state. After months of discussion Congress passed the
Missouri Compromise of 1820. This compromise was legislative measures
that regulated the extension of slavery in the United States for three
decades. Now the balance of 11 free states and 11 slave states was in
trouble. Maine also applied for statehood in 1819, in which it was
admitted as a free state. To please the South, slavery would be
prohibited forever from Louisiana Purchase territories north of 36°
30'. Southern extremists opposed any limit on the extension of
slavery, but settled for now. Missouri and Maine were to enter
statehood simultaneously to preserve sectional equality in the Senate.
For almost a generation this Compromise seemed to settle the conflict
between the North and South. But in 1848 the Union acquired a huge
piece of territory from Mexico. This opened new opportunities for the
spread of slavery for Southerners. But the distribution of these
lands in small lots speeded the development of this section, but it
was disliked in the South because it aided the free farmer than the
slaveholding plantation owner. So now Congress passed the Compromise
Measures of 1850 during August of 1850. It dealt mainly with the
question of whether slavery was to be allowed or prohibited in the
regions acquired from Mexico as a result of the Mexican War. This
compromise allowed abolition of the slave trade in the District of
Columbia and admission of California as a free state. Another part of
the compromise was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which provided for
the return of runaway slaves to their masters. But many free states in
the Union passed personal liberty laws in an effort to help the slaves
escape. Many Northerners set up underground railroads where the
runaway slaves could hide and get food and be directed to Canada for
freedom. This angered many Southerners. This compromise also said that
the territory east of California given to the United States by Mexico
was divided into the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and they were
opened to settlement by both slaveholders and antislavery settlers.
This measure outdated the Missouri Compromise of 1820. All these
compromise measures resulted in a gradual intensification of the
hostility between the slave and free states. Again another law was
passed in 1854. It was called the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It authorized
the creation of Kansas and Nebraska, west of Missouri and Iowa and
divided by the 40th parallel. It repealed the Missouri Compromise of
1820 that had prohibited slavery in the territories north of 36° 30',
and stated that the inhabitants of the territories should decide for
themselves the legality of slaveholding. This act was sponsored by the
Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He hoped to
simplify construction of a transcontinental railroad through these
states rather than through the southern part of the country. The
removal of the restriction on the expansion of slavery ensured
southern support for the bill, which was signed into law by President
Franklin Pierce on May 30, 1854. This act split the Democratic party
and destroyed the Whig party also. The northern Whigs joined
antislavery Democrats to form the Republican party in July 1854. A
conflict developed in Kansas between proslavery settlers from
Missouri and antislavery newcomers who began to move into the
territory from the northeastern states. This was what known as
"Bleeding Kansas." There were also many people in the North known as
abolitionist s who made the South look very bad. The abolitionists
played a major role in shaping the views of many Northerners. These
people were fully against slavery and its expansion and most of the
time took matters into their own hands to get their point across.
Some of the most famous abolitionists were William Lloyd Garrison of
Boston, Wendell Phillips, who in 1836 gave up his law practice because
he couldn’t support the United States Constitution, James G. Birney of
Ohio who gathered all anti-slavery forces into one unit called the
Liberty Party and Frederick Douglass, who was an escaped slave who
became a black editor.
The last main conflict that led to succession was during the
presidential election of 1860. The newly formed Republican party
nominated Abraham Lincoln on principles that opposed the further
expansion of slavery. Now with Lincoln being elected the South really
felt that expansionism was being threatened, and because expansion
was vital to the survival of slavery they also felt their way of life
was being threatened. Because slavery was such a important part of
Southern society, the South felt that they could not survive without
it. Now they felt there was nothing more they could do. They were
convinced that they should make a bid for independence by succeeding
rather then face political encirclement. It was all described when a
Southern man said "We have at last reached that point in our history
when it is necessary for the South to withdraw from the Union. This
has not been our seeking...but we are bound to accept it or
self-preservation." This was officially the end and now the South
wanted to succeed. Lincoln said that succession was illegal and said
that he intended to maintain federal possessions in the South.
Southerners hoped the threat of succession would force
acceptance of Southern demands, but it did not. Finally the day came
on Dec. 20, 1860 when South Carolina adopted an ordinance of
succession. The other states to follow and succeed were: Mississippi
on Jan 9, 1861, Florida on January 10, Alabama on Jan 11, Georgia on
January 19, Louisiana on January 26, and Texas on February 1. On
February 4 delegates from all these states met in Montgomery, Alabama
where they drafted a constitution for the Confederate States of
America. This outraged the North and what was led to the Civil War.
Many different efforts were made to save the Union and prevent a
war. James Buchanan believed the Constitution did not allow the North
to take any action against the South. An effort was made on February
4th by the Virginia Legislature who called a conference of the states
at Washington D.C. Representatives were sent from 7 slave and 14 free
states. An amendment was passed saying Congress could never interfere
with slavery in the states. But it was not ratified by the necessary
number of states and was forgotten when the Civil War began.
The existence of slavery was the central element of the conflict
between the North and South. Other problems existed that led to
succession but none were as big as the slavery issue. The only way to
avoid the war was to abolish slavery but this was not able to be done
because slavery is what kept the South running. But when the South
seceded it was said by Abraham Lincoln that "A house divided against
itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free." Because slavery formed two
opposing societies, and slavery could never be abolished, the Civil
War was inevitable." These were all the reasons why the South seceded
from the Union and there was really no other way to avoid succession
because the North and South had totally opposing views.
You see it wasnt that simple. This battle continues to this day with the big government side still winning and us losing more and more of our rights. Hopefully someday the south will rise again.
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 22:09
You dont? Segregation is seperating the races. It has nothing to do with leaving the union.
seg·re·ga·tion (sgr-gshn)
n.
1. The removal of certain parts or segments from a whole or mass.
But I'm not a native English speaker (you probably noticed already ~:) ) I admit it wasn't the best choice of words.
Because they believed more in states rights and a smaller federal governent and thought that the Republicans were taking away those rights. Sort of the reverse of what we have today.
You see it wasnt that simple. This battle continues to this day with the big government side still winning and us losing more and more of our rights. Hopefully someday the south will rise again.
I'm sorry, I read the whole article, it said slavery was the main issue. There were other 'complaints' but the war was not started over them.
Besides didn't the Senators have enough power to stop any of those other problems ? Or at least limit their impact ?
I never said the south was wrong to hang on to slavery. I mean, I am opposed to it of course, but like the article said, conditions for the workers in the North weren't much better. And racism didn't end with slavery. It might have gotten worse because white people carried a grudge. Regardless of any of the motives, the war was about slavery.
The South felt that the soon-to-be-formed Western states would side with the federal government and thus be the final nail in the coffin for Southern influence and, indeed, representation in the government of the US. Thus they feared an anti-slavery federal government which would abolish slavery and cripple the economy of the Southern states, which were entirely reliant on cash crops (especially cotton) for their prosperity. Unfortunately for them the Civil War, chaotic and protracted as such wars are, could not be won for the South. They lacked the level of industrialisation to compete, had an unwilling workforce (especially after the Emancipation) and foreign buyers of cotton found cheaper, safer and more reliable sources elsewhere (namely India). So their economy and way of life collapsed anyway.
The Proclaimation of Emancipation was a weapon of war, a way to weaken the South from within and it worked. The sentiments however were, I believe, sincere.
Gawain's article was quite good though the description of slaves as "helpers in the fields" was amusingly understated.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-19-2005, 22:41
Doc Bean:
when I wrote it was not about "slaves and their lack of rights" it was basically a less than clear way of me writing that the war was not about the rights(and lack thereof) of slaves.
It wasn't. The practice of slavery was one of many issues but the actual issue of slaves' conditions had relatively little to do with it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted? I just ask as I bet the living conditions of many slaves did not increase significantly, maybe even decreased, after emancipation.
doc_bean
06-19-2005, 22:46
Doc Bean:
when I wrote it was not about "slaves and their lack of rights" it was basically a less than clear way of me writing that the war was not about the rights(and lack thereof) of slaves.
It wasn't. The practice of slavery was one of many issues but the actual issue of slaves' conditions had relatively little to do with it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Owkay :bow:
Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted?
99% of those who didn't move to the North ?
Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.
Steppe Merc
06-19-2005, 23:10
Edit: does anybody know the proportion of freed slaves who ended up as screwed over sharecroppers once their freedom was granted?
Almost all, I believe.
The Proclaimation of Emancipation was a weapon of war, a way to weaken the South from within and it worked. The sentiments however were, I believe, sincere.
Exactly. It was just done to allow the North to free the Southern slaves. It was well into the war, and if Lincoln cared about blacks, it would have been done at the start. And he didn't touch those slaves owned by the border states, because he knew he needed them. As much as I hate slavery and racism, and believe that the Confederates were wrong, I do not believe for a minute the North cared about blacks. Lincoln himself was looking into sending blacks to Africa and out West, I believe.
(Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)
Well not quite. The first bunch because he was elected. I believed they tried and negiotate with him, but he refused. I may be incorrect, however. The rest succeeded after Fort Sumter.
And from what I understand, many of the soldiers did indeed believe it was about states rights. You think any of the soldiers gave a damn about slavery? Very few slave owners, other than generals actually fought. I do know that many were drafted, and thus didn't have a choice, but from what I've read the ones that did choose to fought didn't like the Yanks telling them what to do.
And Lynyrd Skynyrd didn't use the flag in a states rights way, just as a symbol of Southern pride. I mentioned that because that is one of the other interpretations.
And the Swatstika was used all around the world. Romans used it, Buddhists, many cultures did. Indeed, the Europa Barbaroum mod was debating whether or not to include the swatsika in our mod as decoration on the shields etc on our units. It was present in many places, and obviously didn't have anything to do with Nazis, but we had to decide whether or not to include it, and risk having it assumed that it somehow had to do with Nazis.
Its an ugly flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.
Armed rebellion, yes. States rights, possibly. I fail to see how it has any more racist overtones than the American flag. And what of Southern pride? My guess is that you wouldn't approve of it used in that manner either, but just checking, as that was how it was used in the example my Dad and I were talking about.
Just out of curosity Ichi, what is your position on that of the swastika, if used one of it's many original contexts? Should it be banned if someone would find it offensive, regardless of the fact that the way it is being used has nothing offensive about it?
Some blacks will find a racial element in anything - you just have to ignore them.
I know you weren't being racist, but not just blacks. People of all groups can see insult in anything.
99% of those who didn't move to the North ?
Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.
This is true. Most who moved to the North moved to cities, and had hard time getting jobs, as well as faced persecution of other ethnic groups. For example, numerous Irish and other ethnic groups in New York rioted about fighting for blacks (which they weren't...), and with blacks (which they were) and went around killing black people and burning stuff.
IrishMike
06-20-2005, 00:47
Those who moved to the North probably got screwed by other people. Although I think those states must have been a lot better for a former slave to live in.
Actually for a small few years, when the reconstruction was ongoing. Former slaves enjoyed political power and were even senators and such. So actually it wasn't all that bad, untill the troops left and the power was regained by the former slave owners and estate owners.
Also intrestingly enough the poor white sharecroppers and such were actually almost in the same boat as the slaves. Sometimes even worse, because they had nowhere to escape to. While they were free they were basically treat as slaves.
Hopefully someday the south will rise again.
Why wait for the South to rise? On that note, I'd like to add that I hope the Red Man rises again too.
To address the original issue, I see no problem with the Confederate flag or even the Swaztika. I had this discussion with my own father, once, after seeing that a Confederate Flag was hanging from the rear-view mirror of a motorist driving in front of us.
If "public opinion" is that a symbol can only have one meaning, then damn the public opinion. Everyone who raises a Confederate flag will have different reasons for doing so; anyone who passes early judgement on anyone else's intentions and meanings for promoting any kind of symbol is a bit of an idiot.
Don Corleone
06-20-2005, 02:01
What other state right were they fighting for ?
(Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)
At the time of seccession, the Southern States had to get approval from Congress to raise the price of cotton, corn or any of their other goods. The North routinely blocked protection tariffs on cotton, peanuts, indigo and other agricultural goods coming in from foreign countries, while consistently increasing the tariffs on processed and machined goods or agricultural goods imported from other countries, such as coffee and tea. They wanted to establish a monopoly. You could argue that the root cause of the Civil War was the structure of the Senate. Why did Rhode Island & Connecticut get 4 votes in the Senate, when that's all Virginia and North Carolina got, even though they had 6 times the population at the time?
Slavery was a despicable practice that was abhorent and was actually a social cause in the South at the time as well. Less than 1% of whites in the South owned slaves, even though over 5% owned at least 50 acres of land or more. To say the Civil War was fought over slavery and slavery alone is akin to saying that WWI was fought solely as an exercise of Slavic nationalism. It focuses on the match, not what lay in the tinderbox. The vast majority of Southerners at the time saw the war as an invasion by a tyranical force that had ceased to be representational of their needs or welfare.
Now, the actual point of the thread was the Confederate Battle Flag. I think I heard a Southern US Army veteran put it best (I'm actually a yankee, and I've only lived here for 6 years, this guy works at my company). Regardless of your views on southern heritage, pride and states rights vs racsim, and the ensuing 140 years of Jim Crow & white supremacy in the South, there is one very simple reason we should not allow Americans to fly the Confederate Flag. By their own desire, they were a sovereign state that attacked a US military outpost and continued a war (sometimes aggressive, sometimes defensive) for 4 years against our nation. Just as we do not honor the Union Jack (except for diplomatic reasons) or the Rising Sun, we should not honor the Confederate Battle flag, especially as the nation it represents no longer exists. And this was from as proud a Southerner as you'll ever hope to find.
King of Atlantis
06-20-2005, 03:12
As a southerner i have to say it is acceptable. The flag represents southern pride not any kind of hate. The American flag flew over slavery a lot longer than the confederate as did many other accepted flags.
I could discuss at length how the civil war was not at all about slavery, as the union also had slave states but im not really in the mood.
I was thinking about putting confederate flag next to american in my sig, but i didnt want to offend anybody. Lynard skynard should have definately used rebel flag as the were trying to represent the south.
~:cheers:
Kanamori
06-20-2005, 03:51
Indeed, slavery was a point of friction, mostly in that it was a manifestation of the north vs. south confrontation. As Don points out, the friction arose in the tarriff battles, which was later manifested in the hot debate of states rights by calhoun and webster, two very important names in American history. (I think the time period is one of the most important in our histroy, and one of the most interesting, when politicians strongly beleived in what they were fighting for.) I've said it before, I believe, but prior to the immediate years prior to the war, the North was more vehemently anti-anti-slavery than was the South, because they feared the "loud mouthed moral zealots" -- like garrison, http://www.nps.gov/boaf/williamlloydgarrison3.htm, who was almost killed by a mob of rich people in Boston -- would cause secession (garrison publically burnt the costitution, and most of the anti-slavery movement was seen in the same light as him and John Brown). Anyways, I stray, the North-South battle over slavery was based in a power struggle, the North never had the intention to abolish slavery, merely halting its spread west. But, later on, when Lincoln was elected and the South saw it as, in a slippery slope way, as the end of slavery, and North Carolina followed through on its threat about thirty years ago. The emancipation proclamation was a succesful attempt to keep England and Europe in general from joining with the South, which is another side note of history, Lincoln succesfully kept the states from falling into war with England from a very precarious situation. I feel it is important to note that, while an extreme minority of southerners were slaveholders, it was a part of the American Dream to be rich enough to hold slaves. A good book on the issue is The Metaphysical Club, a few measly paragraphs cannot sum up the enormity of the issue and all of its history.
And, the South's extreme version of state's rights was on of the main reasons they lost the war.
Its a....flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.
... there is one very simple reason we should not allow Americans to fly the Confederate Flag. By their own desire, they were a sovereign state that attacked a US military outpost and continued a war (sometimes aggressive, sometimes defensive) for 4 years against our nation.
I concur with the honorable gentleman from Utah and with the honorable gentleman from North Carolina. :bow:
A good book on the issue is The Metaphysical Club, a few measly paragraphs cannot sum up the enormity of the issue and all of its history.
Good book choice there.
InsaneApache
06-20-2005, 08:12
Nor was the United States without active friends in England. Such reformers as John Bright and Richard Cobden spoke up vigorously in support of the Lincoln government, and even when the cotton shortage threw thousands of textile workers out of employment, the British working class remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
I was told this as a child*. The workers in the Lancashire cotton mills refused to deal with Confederate cotton and placed it on an unofficial embargo. This was one of the first instances on the labour force flexing it's muscles, not for financial gain, but for a principle. So although it is generally acknowledeged that the war was not started on the issue of slavery, it quickly develpoed into that very thing. A similar scenario unfolded during WWII, which started as a response to the German invasion of Poland, but is now wildly seen as a war to combat Nazism.
I actually do think that the battle flag of the Confederacy represents the attempt to retain slavery, and therefore is a negative symbol. The Stars and Bars flag is not that generally well known (outside of the south that is) and I'd be surprised if anyone would be offended by it.
*by my great-grandmother who was born in 1874 and she was told by her father who took part in the protests.
Al Khalifah
06-20-2005, 09:43
The Southern Cross issue may seem ridiculous, but here's another flag that many consider offensive and as a result is now rarely flown because people believe it has racist undertones:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Flagofengland.png
Yup, the current flag of England is now sparingly used officially and is only comfortably used by the majority of the population at sporting events where England is represented seperately from the United Kingdom. This is because it is believed to have racist undertones because it is used by far-right groups and is also considered a symbol of English nationalism. St. Andrews cross on the other hand is freely flown in Scotland, because it represents Scottish pride.
This is the current flag of nearly 50,000,000 people and yet it has be shunned into almost non-existance away from sports events and even then the PC Police are complaining that its usage is innapropriate and excessive.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-20-2005, 13:21
Al Khalifa:
In Wales people get to fly the official Welsh flag without trouble.
Some people also take the flag of Owain Glyndwr (so basically the royal flag of the last bit of totalw Welsh political independence) to sports matches etc. This has been complained about for being racist but I believe is still tolerated by the authorities: that is very weird, no reason for those accusations at all.
In Wales you also see people flying St. David's cross a fair amount too, I'm not sure in anybody has any problems with this.
Al Khalifah
06-20-2005, 13:53
That's the annoying part. St. George's Cross is treated as having racist and nationalist connotations where as the other flags of the United Kingdom are seen as representing pride.
Its part of this larger issue of what represents pride and what represents prejudice. Where I think the PC police are falling apart is there inability to distinguish between the two. They seem to have selected certain symbols and ideals as being wrong, even though there are others that are more so.
The hammer and sickle and other USSR related symbology is another good example. It is acceptable to paint this everywhere whenever trying to brand something as 'revolutionary' or 'communist' (despite being propagated by a capitalist mass-marketing machine, but thats another issue). Imagery of Stalin also seems tolerable. However, National Socialist Party symbology and imagery of Hitler is completely unnaceptable and the ban of all related symbology in Germany and the attempted ban throughout the EU reflects this. Where is the difference? Both of these men and their regimes were responsible for the purging and destruction of millions from entire groups of society, both domestic and foreign, yet one is acceptable (even cool) where as the other is totally taboo.
This is not an endorsement of Nazi symbology nor an attack on Communist symbology, merely an example of a blatant piece of hypocrisy in today's sugar coated world.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-20-2005, 15:43
The flag ain't coming down anyway, not just out of my room ~D but throught the South. And I say this again: Too bad the south lost.
t1master
06-20-2005, 17:04
the emancipation proclimation was a military order aimed at inhibiting the south's means of production during the war.
i used to have these discussions all the time with my hillbilly friends in college. i get the whole southern pride thing, but explained, like the op's dad did, the popular understanding of the symbol is gonna get you labeled nasty things you might not want to be associated with.
English assassin
06-20-2005, 17:17
If "public opinion" is that a symbol can only have one meaning, then damn the public opinion. Everyone who raises a Confederate flag will have different reasons for doing so; anyone who passes early judgement on anyone else's intentions and meanings for promoting any kind of symbol is a bit of an idiot.
I don't agree with that, this sort of relativist argument causes a lot of trouble. Words and symbols do, largely, have an objective if not immutable meaning. That's how we manage to communicate with each other.
The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.
The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.
But I find the arguments that the swastika was a symbol for many nations before it was used by the Nazis beside the point. I might have been rude about relativism above, but its true a symbol's meaning can change with time. This symbol was adopted by one of the most evil regimes there has ever been, and that has irredemably changed its meaning today. Its almost the paradigm of it. The fact that it used not to have this evil meaning is wholly irrelevant. If the Nazis had marched under the banner of my mum's face, I'm afraid mum would have to accept that her previously perfectly harmless physiognomy had through no fault of her own become the symbol of ultimate evil.
Steppe Merc
06-20-2005, 20:05
i get the whole southern pride thing, but explained, like the op's dad did, the popular understanding of the symbol is gonna get you labeled nasty things you might not want to be associated with.
And sadly they did. Not just by their detractors, but also by their fans. So it did cause them to be misundestud (how the hell do you spell that?). I blame the fans, my dad blames the fans but also Skynyrd for allowing room for the fans to misunderstand them.
Ronnie Van Zant (the leader of the band) also once went to a fancy record promotion, and they told him to dress up. So he wore a Confederate officer's uniform. ~D
The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.
Which was exactly the view of the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd, I believe.
My friend from England considered getting St. George's cross on the roof of his car. He decided to go with the Union Jack instead. At the time, I was unaware of the racist conatation, so I didn't really get it. Why is it considered racist? Is it because of England's colonial past?
And I can see where Don's friend, Ichi and Pindar are coming from. Myself, I don't see any difference between flying the battle flag of the Confederates and say flying the Union Jack or St. George's Cross. Just because we fought Britian in our past doesn't mean British people shouldn't be able to fly their flag. Of course, it's not quite the same obviously, but I really don't see a problem.
The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.
So a symbol's context is more important than the symbol after all. I rest my case.
Don Corleone
06-20-2005, 20:28
I'm not familiar with the provisions of the Act of Union, so I can't say whether flying the St. George takes on any 'anglo-superiority' overtones (to Americans, race means black, white, brown, red or yellow... if you want to clue us in on this particular issue, say ethnicity).
However, there is one huge difference between a Britt flying the Union Jack over here and people flying Dixie.... There IS a Great Britain, and he IS a citizen of it. The Confederacy does NOT exist, and any former member of it swore allegiance to the United States and promised to never take up arms against it again as grounds for being readmitted. Dennis is about as proud of his southern heritage as one can get, including what the Confederate army was able to accomplish given what it had and who it was facing. But he's the first one to get agitated over this, as in his mind, it's treasonous and disrespectful to Old Glory, a flag he almost died defending.
KafirChobee
06-20-2005, 20:28
Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive? Except to continue the stirring of a boiling pot?
As a simple courtesy they ought to be suppressed - kept from public viewing. However, freedom of speech remains a viable arguement for them. Therefore, they must be allowed, but acknowledged for what they are: Symbols of hate and intolerance.
Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting. And, they work in that process of creating hate, fear, and insulting the feelings of others. Which is the real intent of those using them. They have nothing to do with regional pride, and all to do with continuing a statement of subjigating one peoples' will over that of anothers.
Living in the South, I see the stars and bars frequently. It doesnot offend me personally, but I do realize there are others it does. And, that is the intent of most of those that use it - to show they support the local KKK and have disdain against all non-WASP groups.
Using history as a front to the continued displaying of offensive symbols is intellectual masturbation in its finest form. It attempts to put the blame for a symbols present meaning back into some warm and fuzzy time where it did stand for the pride of a people (regardless of how corrupt, foul, and/or degenerate those people were. It attempts to justify the actions of the past that the symbol represents today into some kind of morally correct (at the time) issue. The arguements for their continued use, employs false premices to justify their continuing use today. For me it is a bit sordid to use an arguement for slavery as a reason to fly or display the stars and bars. Or, to say - well, there were Northern slaves. Where? Missouri? [note: was a reverse underground railroad that was run near ShawneeTown, and Junction, ILL. 'til 1861 - some say 'til 1930. That I was introduced to as a kid. Lincoln once slept there, trying to garner the owners support for his run to the senate - he didn't get it.]
The point is, if something offends others ... why defend its usage? Not how can I defend it, but why should I?
:balloon2:
doc_bean
06-20-2005, 20:29
At the time of seccession, the Southern States had to get approval from Congress to raise the price of cotton, corn or any of their other goods. The North routinely blocked protection tariffs on cotton, peanuts, indigo and other agricultural goods coming in from foreign countries, while consistently increasing the tariffs on processed and machined goods or agricultural goods imported from other countries, such as coffee and tea. They wanted to establish a monopoly. You could argue that the root cause of the Civil War was the structure of the Senate. Why did Rhode Island & Connecticut get 4 votes in the Senate, when that's all Virginia and North Carolina got, even though they had 6 times the population at the time?
didn't all states get 2 votes in the senate ? I thought that was written into the constitution.
And were the slaves counted as part of the population ? (or as 0.6 free man)
I'd also like to repeat that the I never said the war was fought over ideological reasons, there were a lot of issues surrounding slavery that led to problems too.
The hammer and sickle and other USSR related symbology is another good example. It is acceptable to paint this everywhere whenever trying to brand something as 'revolutionary' or 'communist' (despite being propagated by a capitalist mass-marketing machine, but thats another issue). Imagery of Stalin also seems tolerable. However, National Socialist Party symbology and imagery of Hitler is completely unnaceptable and the ban of all related symbology in Germany and the attempted ban throughout the EU reflects this. Where is the difference? Both of these men and their regimes were responsible for the purging and destruction of millions from entire groups of society, both domestic and foreign, yet one is acceptable (even cool) where as the other is totally taboo.
I think the difference is that Neo-Nazis still pose a threat. The proletarian revolution isn't likely to happen, in Europe we have communist parties, but they're just extreme socialists, they call themselves communists for sentimental reasons i guess.
Right-wing parties, often with ties to neo-nazi organisations (or nazi organisations, like the eastern front veterans) are often still major players in European politics. Neo-nazi's still run around, attacking Jews or burning down Mosques occasionally, or just starting fights with immigrants.
Steppe Merc
06-20-2005, 20:43
Or, to say - well, there were Northern slaves.
How about all of the border states that didn't succeed? (Or couldn't).
Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive? Except to continue the stirring of a boiling pot?
Ah. So because my button on my backpack that has as W with an x threw it is offensive to Bush supportors, I ought to remove it? Because I'm stirring up a boiling pot, I must remove it?
Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting. And, they work in that process of creating hate, fear, and insulting the feelings of others. Which is the real intent of those using them. They have nothing to do with regional pride, and all to do with continuing a statement of subjigating one peoples' will over that of anothers.
For most people, perhaps. But you're dead wrong if you think Lynyrd Skynyrd were racists, or wanted to start a confronation. It was regional pride to them, and others.
However, there is one huge difference between a Britt flying the Union Jack over here and people flying Dixie.... There IS a Great Britain, and he IS a citizen of it. The Confederacy does NOT exist, and any former member of it swore allegiance to the United States and promised to never take up arms against it again as grounds for being readmitted.
I just wanted to bring it up, even though I knew it was obviously not the same.
And what of say historical reanactments, or movies? There are many Civil war reanctments fought. Should all those that "fight" on the Confederate sides not be able to use the Stars and Bars, or the other flags? Where does the banning of symbols end?
Doc, about the neo Nazis, it could be said that the KKK still exist (though they aren't that much of a threat), and they still use the Stars and Bars. But they also use the cross, and they used to burn it on victim's yards. Should we outlaw the cross as well?
And I want to echo Don's question: what exactly does the St. George's flag mean that represents racism? Or why is it percieved so?
Don Corleone
06-20-2005, 20:46
Doc, you're not going to win this one. You might make some points with the argument that it was about slave states admitted to the union (and getting 2 senate votes apiece) versus free states, but that was on the issue of political power as a whole, not slavery in the particular. There were a HOST of issues between the north and the south and slavery was just the most visible.
You really need to do some research on the economics of the US cerca 1860 before you go saying the North went to war to end slavery (they most certainly did not) and the South went to war to preserve it (they for the most part did not). Yes, slavery was the issue du jour, but the 'cause' was much deeper. The Southern states really honestly believed they had as much right to secceed as their grandfathers did to rebel against King George III. And the North (and West) responded much the same way the Brittish did. Every time they attempted to get redress from the government, the small New England states used the Senate to block any relief.
The real hot button issue that had the south hating Lincoln was not slavery, as Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. He was however a huge supporter of federalism, and had made it clear that whatever laws Congress passed, whether they benefitted one part of the country at the expense of the other's, he was going to enforce, by force if necessary, and he'd let the supreme court catch up in their own sweet time.
Honestly, do you think we Americans just babble this 'state's rights' business whenever we manage to get a state legislature to pass a bill we like that thwarts the Congress? It was, and for some continues to be, an integral part of our political identity. What's more, it was intended to be a final check & balance against the tyrany of a federal government that managed to get agreement among all three branches to set out to screw the citizens. To imply that "anybody who talks about state's rights secretly wants to own slaves" is a bit unfair and actually a pretty weak argument.
It's clear to me, based on your tone during this discussion, that Europeans do not understand the American political mindset. To us, we start as individuals and then, only as needed, come together to form community and cede our rights to the greater whole (at least that's how it's envisioned. What we have isn't all that much different from what you have, sadly). Quite the opposite of the way you view yourselves, where the state is everything, and whatever role they leave for you, you take by default.
doc_bean
06-20-2005, 22:23
Doc, about the neo Nazis, it could be said that the KKK still exist (though they aren't that much of a threat), and they still use the Stars and Bars. But they also use the cross, and they used to burn it on victim's yards. Should we outlaw the cross as well?
1) the cross has another meaning to the US people, the Swastika doesn't really
2) the KKK today are hardly comparable to the neo-nazis imho, but I think someone would have to have lived in both the US and Europe to really be able to compare them.
Doc, you're not going to win this one. You might make some points with the argument that it was about slave states admitted to the union (and getting 2 senate votes apiece) versus free states, but that was on the issue of political power as a whole, not slavery in the particular. There were a HOST of issues between the north and the south and slavery was just the most visible.
I wasn't really fighting anymore ~:)
To what degree where those host of issues related to slavery though ? Or just made by Northeners who wanted to piss of the South. Possibly because the slave issue gave the North an excuse to pick on the South ?
You really need to do some research on the economics of the US cerca 1860 before you go saying the North went to war to end slavery (they most certainly did not) and the South went to war to preserve it (they for the most part did not). Yes, slavery was the issue du jour, but the 'cause' was much deeper. The Southern states really honestly believed they had as much right to secceed as their grandfathers did to rebel against King George III. And the North (and West) responded much the same way the Brittish did. Every time they attempted to get redress from the government, the small New England states used the Senate to block any relief.
The real hot button issue that had the south hating Lincoln was not slavery, as Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. He was however a huge supporter of federalism, and had made it clear that whatever laws Congress passed, whether they benefitted one part of the country at the expense of the other's, he was going to enforce, by force if necessary, and he'd let the supreme court catch up in their own sweet time.
I still don't understand how the federal government could vote laws against the will of the South with an unlimited filibuster at their disposal. Well, I guess it was the same with the civil rights movement.
But if you look at some of the events leading up to the war, the Dred Scott case, the Kansas-Nebraska act, slavery was the big issue of the time. The South feared (rightly so) that the North would force them to free the slaves. While you can say that most people in the South didn't own slaves, how many of the politicians owned slaves ? Or were supported by people who did ? How far did money equal political power ? I honestly don't know, but I'd expect it to have had quite an influence. Nowadays money still has a lot of impact, and it would seem only natural that it was worse back then.
Politicians start wars, soldiers just want to end them.
People at the time probably identified more with their state then with the Union. The size of the states and the huge distances in the US would make this pretty obvious. So if the politicians of the confederacy declared war, it would only be natural for the people to try and defend their 'country'.
The question whether they had the right to secceed is a difficult one. i guess they just tried it with the wrong president.
Honestly, do you think we Americans just babble this 'state's rights' business whenever we manage to get a state legislature to pass a bill we like that thwarts the Congress? It was, and for some continues to be, an integral part of our political identity. What's more, it was intended to be a final check & balance against the tyrany of a federal government that managed to get agreement among all three branches to set out to screw the citizens. To imply that "anybody who talks about state's rights secretly wants to own slaves" is a bit unfair and actually a pretty weak argument.
Actually, I have nothing against state rights, I just said it has often been used for racist or other negative purposes. Which gives it a bad reputation. State Rights are meant to promote freedom and the rights of individuals, not limit them. The issue of slavery is debatable, but civil rights being a state matter ? Abuse of a good concept.
It's clear to me, based on your tone during this discussion, that Europeans do not understand the American political mindset. To us, we start as individuals and then, only as needed, come together to form community and cede our rights to the greater whole (at least that's how it's envisioned. What we have isn't all that much different from what you have, sadly). Quite the opposite of the way you view yourselves, where the state is everything, and whatever role they leave for you, you take by default.
I'm not sure what it was about my tone that gave you that idea. I tend to find our governments to 'big' and often counterproductive. I believe they should only be involved when they give an added value. While I would include healthcare here, i don't my views are all that different from yours.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-20-2005, 23:03
The flag represents the American's ability to attempt to overthrow tyranny. It represents pride in the south, in a homeland. Yeah, it may be offensive to blacks. But! The Soviet flag is offensive to me, as I have relatives who died fighting the Soviets. But I don't order it to be taken down (and some car dealership near me actually flies it ~:jawdrop: ). If you find it offensive, too bad; It's up. And it's not just a symbol of rednecks, it's a symbol for anyone that beleives in freedom, liberty, and America. Because, beleive it or not, Southerners are Americans, and the CSA was an American nation, even though it rebeled against the United States. And if you don't like it, well, tough, just ignore it. Don't be a baby like the ACLU, let people have their symbols. Because, I'm sure that you have yours.
Thanks.
Red Harvest
06-20-2005, 23:21
When I was younger the rebel battle flag was seen more as a statement of an independent and rural nature, rather than a guise for racism. I wore it or carried it in one form or another at times as a kid/teen (rarely). So to me, the flag still represents that rebellious independent statement of youth rather than anything else. Unfortunately, it is also used by racists. If the flag could be kept out of race politics arena, then I would have no problem with it. I don't get upset about the southern heritage aspects (except when folks try to justify slavery.) I think it is wrong to try to remove it...except in cases where it is being used for racial overtones. The pendulum has swung too far, but it will likely cool down and swing back.
Don't let the claims that the ACW was about "States Rights" fool you though. States Rights was protection of the "peculiar institituion." The war itself was primarily about slavery...for the southern states, not so much for the northern states though. The nation had become badly divided on this issue, and slave states were trying to do what they could to hang onto and advance the institution. The north was not rabidly anti-slavery on the whole, but they did want to preserve the union, and most were against the South's attempts to expand slavery into more territories.
I was raised in Missouri and Kansas, so I have somewhat mixed views about the whole war. Missouri is the only state that was represented in both the Union and Confederacy at the same time. The guerrilla war there was probably the bloodiest in the nation.
Lincoln didn't abolish slavery early on for political/military reasons. He had concerns about factions within the various northern states, and border states that did not support abolishing slavery. It was a very tricky balancing act, but Lincoln was a shrewd politician. It was hoped that some of the newly recovered regions would be less resistant if slavery was left unchanged for the time being.
Red Harvest
06-20-2005, 23:29
The flag represents the American's ability to attempt to overthrow tyranny.
I have no problem with the flag or basic southern heritage, but this statement is false. Calling the Union tryanny is nonsense. The south wanted to keep and expand slavery to new territories. It was holding a substantial portion of its population in human bondage, the ultimate tyranny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Secession was not done in response to actual abolition of slavery. No, it was done pre-emptively. There had been discussions of phasing out slavery over time. The south wanted no part of it and did not try to work out a compromise.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-20-2005, 23:32
I have no problem with the flag or basic southern heritage, but this statement is false. Calling the Union tryanny is nonsense. The south wanted to keep and expand slavery to new territories. It was holding a substantial portion of its population in human bondage, the ultimate tyranny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Secession was not done in response to actual abolition of slavery. No, it was done pre-emptively. There had been discussions of phasing out slavery over time. The south wanted no part of it and did not try to work out a compromise.
Secession was done because the south, southern rights, the southern econemy, and the southern way of like, was threatened by a northern dictator.
Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive?
Because it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks when you decide to present a sign symbolic of your own thoughts and opinions.
As a simple courtesy they ought to be suppressed - kept from public viewing.
No friggin' way.
...for what they are: Symbols of hate and intolerance.
No symbol has one meaning.
Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting.
Anyone who is insulted is so only as much as they allow, and only as much as they feel strongly, and perhaps arbitrarily, about it; it is their own pride at fault, not their susceptability to being provoked to confrontation - that is a symptom of their pride.
Which is the real intent of those using them.
Not a related point, but that's not a sentence. Besides, who are you to say what anyone's intention is?
Living in the South, I see the stars and bars frequently. It doesnot offend me personally, but I do realize there are others it does. And, that is the intent of most of those that use it - to show they support the local KKK and have disdain against all non-WASP groups.
So it's not the symbol that upsets you, it's the purpose for which the symbol is being used. You don't dislike the symbol, you said it yourself. I assume, then, that you dislike the KKK. Read: The symbol is not the problem there.
Using history as a front to the continued displaying of offensive symbols is intellectual masturbation in its finest form.
A...front? I don't understand the use of that symbol, but I think I understand your meaning through (what do you know) context.
Saying that symbols should be taken down to spare someone else's bleeding heart is moral masturbation in a vulgar and vile form.
It attempts to put the blame for a symbols present meaning back into some warm and fuzzy time where it did stand for the pride of a people (regardless of how corrupt, foul, and/or degenerate those people were. It attempts to justify the actions of the past that the symbol represents today into some kind of morally correct (at the time) issue. The arguements for their continued use, employs false premices to justify their continuing use today.
Ah, the three-hit assumption combo.
The point is, if something offends others ... why defend its usage? Not how can I defend it, but why should I?
Because it's their own. The wearing of crosses offends me, but if Catholics and Anglicans are not allowed to wear symbols showing their affinity for their own religion (not pride, since it's a sin and all that ~;) ), then the validity of my counter-arguments and opinions is destroyed.
...
Because it's their own. The wearing of crosses offends me, but if Catholics and Anglicans are not allowed to wear symbols showing their affinity for their own religion (not pride, since it's a sin and all that ~;) ), then the validity of my counter-arguments and opinions is destroyed.Well said. :bow:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-20-2005, 23:44
Union Flag: flown throughout the British Empire
Cross of St George: England's flag, not that of the U.K. of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
St. George's flag has no imperial connotations.
Doc Bean: you are misrepresenting the situation in Europe. The odd Mosque is burned down but then again so is the odd church. Neo-Nazis may occassionally attack immigrants but far more violent crime is comitted by immigrants than by Neo-Nazis. And the E.U. report on increasingly violent Anti Semitism placed most of the blame on Muslim immigrants.
Over my lifetime (80s and 90s to present), race relations in Europe have improved in some ways and collapsed in others and you can't blame it all on the native Europeans.
Steppe Merc
06-21-2005, 00:05
Taff, not all immigrants are part of a philosphy of hate. All Neo Nazis are. There's a difference.
And if St. George's Cross has no imperial conatations, why is it seen as racist? ~:confused:
Goofball
06-21-2005, 00:25
Some blacks will find a racial element in anything - you just have to ignore them.
Wow.
That is just too priceless.
Siggied.
Okay, back OT.
Yes, while we all know that the Confederate flag can be used as a symbol (as many of its proponents tell us) for all kinds of virtuous ideas like states' rights, the fact remains that it is used as a rallying point by the lowest of the low of American society: those who believe in racial superiority and base their hate of others on the color of their skin. They have made the Confederate flag their symbol, and because of that, many people will instantly associate that flag with their ugly ideas.
Do I think we should ban people from waving that flag around all they want (or better yet, getting the charming little bumber sticker version)? No.
But I have some advice for all of you proud "states' rights" supporters:
When you are walking around town, proudly sporting your matching Confederate flag patterned bandana and undershirt ensemble, do not whine and act surprised if people accuse you of being a racist. You should realize what sort of imagery you are provoking. Shut up and deal with it.
PanzerJaeger
06-21-2005, 00:50
I hope you enjoy this as much as my comments.. ~;)
http://www.xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/merko/na_tinbe/rebel-girl-l.jpghttp://www.xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/merko/na_tinbe/rebel-151-18-40-l.jpg
Goofball
06-21-2005, 00:52
I hope you enjoy this as much as my comments.. ~;)
http://www.xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/merko/na_tinbe/rebel-girl-l.jpghttp://www.xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/merko/na_tinbe/rebel-151-18-40-l.jpg
Hmmm. All I can see are two little white boxes with x's in the middle of them. Very exciting.
PanzerJaeger
06-21-2005, 00:54
Thats too bad for you..Nevermind then, my internet skills have subverted me yet again. :shrug:
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 02:01
Secession was done because the south, southern rights, the southern econemy, and the southern way of like, was threatened by a northern dictator.
LOL. Dictator...whew...that's a doozie...you are just saying that for entertainment value, right? ~;) Lincoln was elected. He had not actually done anything dictatorial and hadn't even taken office when the states seceeded. He was also somewhat moderate. His platform was to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories. That was what the South was fighting for, forcing slavery into the territories. You might actually want to read some history on this, it is quite interesting.
Here is what that paragon of the Southern cause, Robert E. Lee, had to say about secession (note the date):
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.
—Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861
He was right. The States Rights defense suggests that any time the federal govt passed a law the state opposed, that the state could just up and leave the union. There was a large flaw in the consititution, and it was unfortunate, but it is clear that it was intended that the states should continue to work together rather than seceeding everytime they failed to reach concensus on a matter.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 02:11
It was mentioned earlier, but the "Stars and Bars" are the actual confederate flag, and not one that most would recognized.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Flags/flag[1]_small.jpg
The Confederate battle flag or Southern Cross Flag often is incorrectly identified as the "Stars and Bars".
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Flags/JohnstonHQ[1].jpg
The change was made because in battle the Stars and Bars resembled the US flag too closely.
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 02:32
But I have some advice for all of you proud "states' rights" supporters:
When you are walking around town, proudly sporting your matching Confederate flag patterned bandana and undershirt ensemble, do not whine and act surprised if people accuse you of being a racist. You should realize what sort of imagery you are provoking. Shut up and deal with it.
Woah, woah, woah. There are plenty of people *ahem*, moi, who believe in States Rights and localized vs. centralized control of government that DO NOT believe in the Confederacy or white superiority. Perhaps you might want to narrow the stroke of that broad brush there, chief.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-21-2005, 02:49
Steppe Merc:
that's just the thing, nobody really knows why the English flag is seen as racist.
There's no serious connection to anything except that the extreme elements of English nationalism identify with it but then again so does almost ayone with an English connection.
You can probably guess where I'm from(not England just because I'm defending their flag). We basically have three flags. For some reason the authorities take offence at one of them: I have no idea why, it's even more groundless than people thinking the English flag is racist.
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 02:51
Is it a question of racism or over the top nationalism? My German neighbors here in the US were amazed that Americans fly the Stars & Stripes, because in Germany, flying the flag is apparently an unforgivable act of too-much-nationalism. At least for these folks it was.
When you are walking around town, proudly sporting your matching Confederate flag patterned bandana and undershirt ensemble, do not whine and act surprised if people accuse you of being a racist. You should realize what sort of imagery you are provoking. Shut up and deal with it.If someone who isnt a racist has a Confederate flag displayed and is accused of being racist I think the last thing they should do is 'shut up and deal with it'- that's ridiculous. I'd encourage them to explain their view and do their part to take back their symbol from the bigots and racists. Problems are never solved by shutting up and just accepting something as is.
Is it a question of racism or over the top nationalism? My German neighbors here in the US were amazed that Americans fly the Stars & Stripes, because in Germany, flying the flag is apparently an unforgivable act of too-much-nationalism. At least for these folks it was.
That's more of a German thing. Nationalism is seriously toned down over there, since, you know, that whole Hitler thing.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-21-2005, 05:05
Don:
that's the big beef that the English seem to have with the argument: they are accused of racism just for wanting the symbols of their identity.
Spetulhu
06-21-2005, 05:42
Is it a question of racism or over the top nationalism? My German neighbors here in the US were amazed that Americans fly the Stars & Stripes, because in Germany, flying the flag is apparently an unforgivable act of too-much-nationalism. At least for these folks it was.
You'd be thought of as a weird person here too. Nothing prohibits you from raising the flag every day, but you will look odd. Even the Army, that most patriotic institution, only flies the flag on days marked in the calendar. The flag is only raised on national holidays and for certain other celebrations/occasions. Birthdays are acceptable, and you're expected to fly the flag low if there's been a death in the family. 8:00 to sunset or 21:00 at the latest.
As for the Confederate battle flag, I've seen it on walls and in the rear window of cars here. It's mostly rockabilly fans that want it. No idea if they're racists or just think it's part of the show along with funny haircuts and American cars.
English assassin
06-21-2005, 10:26
The funny thing is until recently if an English person wanted a flag he would probably have chosen the union flag. Even at football matches you see a few union flags, though its mostly St George. (Contrast Scotland where it would certainly always have been a Saltaire in any context)
With devolution in Wales and Scotland there has been an entirely predicatable increase in interest in English national identity, and you see the St Georges cross a bit more. I'm all in favour of a bit of healthy self respect, so long as it doesn't start getting silly, which it might.
The White Ensign, now THAT'S a flag to be proud of...
(PS, Fair enough Neon God, you got me on the context point)
InsaneApache
06-21-2005, 10:45
Saltaire
A model village in Yorkshire, renowned for having no pubs. (Sir Titus Salt was a temperence man)
http://www.saltaire.yorks.com/
Saltire
The Scottish flag incorperated into the Union flag, along with the cross of St. George and St. David
http://www.scotlandsource.com/about/ctva2b.htm
Sorry about being a pedant :bow:
Steppe Merc
06-21-2005, 12:44
If someone who isnt a racist has a Confederate flag displayed and is accused of being racist I think the last thing they should do is 'shut up and deal with it'- that's ridiculous. I'd encourage them to explain their view and do their part to take back their symbol from the bigots and racists. Problems are never solved by shutting up and just accepting something as is.
Exactly. They should explain their views. If they want to use a symbol to reclaim it's meaning, they have to tell others why.
It was mentioned earlier, but the "Stars and Bars" are the actual confederate flag, and not one that most would recognized.
The Confederate battle flag or Southern Cross Flag often is incorrectly identified as the "Stars and Bars".
The change was made because in battle the Stars and Bars resembled the US flag too closely.
:embarassed: Now I feel like an idiot.... but thanks for explaining the difference.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-21-2005, 15:39
InsaneApache:
St Patrick's cross is the other cross in the Union Flag, not St. David's.
Putting St. David's cross in the Union flag would, well, look really odd:
http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-w-std.html
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 16:00
:embarassed: Now I feel like an idiot.... but thanks for explaining the difference.
Nothing idiotic about it. I've been a Civil War nut since I was a boy and it still confuses me at times. It's confused enough that I still went back and checked the basic facts before I posted. It is too embarrassing to post a "correction" that is in itself erroneous.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2005, 16:56
LOL. Dictator...whew...that's a doozie...you are just saying that for entertainment value, right? ~;) Lincoln was elected.
Hitler was elected. The only differences between Hitler and Lincoln IMHO is Hitler killed more people, had a funky mustache, was overly rascist, and was Austrian, had a better uniform than Lincoln, made the German army one of the most elite armies ever, had good generals under him, lost the war, and commited suicide.
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 17:02
It's even more confusing, because they unofficially adopted a 3rd flag, the Bonnie Blue Star at different points. It's Carolina blue or royal blue with a single star on it. It was never an official flag of the CSA, but many of the Confederate state assemblies flew it as the flag of the CSA.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/bonnie.gif
Proletariat
06-21-2005, 17:05
Hitler was elected. The only differences between Hitler and Lincoln IMHO is Hitler killed more people, had a funky mustache, was overly rascist, and was Austrian, had a better uniform than Lincoln, made the German army one of the most elite armies ever, had good generals under him, lost the war, and commited suicide.
Also, the Sun the is basically the same thing as the Moon. Only differences being temperature difference, astronomical body category, billions of miles of space in between them, and we landed on one of them.
...But other than that.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2005, 17:15
Also, the Sun the is basically the same thing as the Moon. Only differences being temperature difference, astronomical body category, billions of miles of space in between them, and we landed on one of them.
You get the point....GAH!
It's even more confusing, because they unofficially adopted a 3rd flag, the Bonnie Blue Star at different points. It's Carolina blue or royal blue with a single star on it. It was never an official flag of the CSA, but many of the Confederate state assemblies flew it as the flag of the CSA.
Make that 5 flags.
http://hometown.aol.com/orrsrifles/images/csa%201st%20national%20flag.jpg 1st Official CSA Flag
http://www.sterlingprice145.org/warriorsoul.jpg 2nd Official CSA Flag
http://www.pointsouth.com/graphics/flags/3rd-csa-national.jpg 3rd Official CSA Flag
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-csabb.gif Bonnie Blue
http://www.okhistory.org/catalog/images/1616_CSA_Battle_Flag.gif CSA Battle Flag
http://www.ruffinflag.com/flags/5nylonCSAflagset.gif All 5 of em together.
And that's not to mention state flags, divisional flags, regimental flags, etc.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 17:21
Kaiser,
Where exactly did Lincoln keep his death camps? I'm sure that emancipation was a despicable act, :dizzy2: those poor freed slaves... ~;) Lincoln did not seek to destroy the South. He did plan to end her attempts to extend slavery into the territories, something they found unacceptable. In the end Lincoln was merely what the South made him, *AFTER* they seceeded. And in the end he favored a mild approach to reconstruction.
The irony of your historically laughable claim of "dictatorship" is that by forcing Lincoln to war, the South gave him war powers. Any true wartime president has substantial dictatorial power. If he became a dictator, it was not his own doing, but the South's...yet he still had to face a true re-election--something that real dictators do not face.
The South suffered from mass delusion and swaggering sense of moral righteousness and military superiority that led its states to war against their own countrymen. Interestingly, many of the early CSA leaders also opposed secession, although they stood by their states in the end.
You seriously need to study some definitions and some history, because you are waaaaaaayyyyyy out of calibration when you start into the tyranny and dictator crap.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 17:39
Kaiser,
You really ought to try reading some history and looking up a few definitions.
The irony is that Lincoln wasn't actually given some dictatorial power by the South until they made war on the Union. Yet he still had to go through a real election during the war.
Many southern leaders opposed secession, but they stood by their states. Secession is a good example of popular mass hysteria. The South could not come to grips with slavery. They had an evangelical need to extend it to the territories and to the North. The result was a terrible war that ended slavery, and reduced "states rights." As Jefferson Davis said, the epitaph for the CSA would be "died of a theory."
It is an interesing lesson that one of the worst evils of our country (slavery) was justified by the concept of states rights. Historically there has been and still is a trend toward using "states rights" to reduce the rights of minority or unpopular segments of those very states' populations.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2005, 17:40
Where exactly did Lincoln keep his death camps?
* Alton Prison
* Camp Chase
* Camp Douglas
* Camp Randall
* Elmira
* Fort Delaware
* Fort Jefferson
* Fort McHenry
* Old Capitol Prison
* Point Lookout
* Rock Island
Union POW/Death Camps.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 17:43
Where exactly did Lincoln keep his death camps?
Oh please where would you like to start? Its really funny how you guys who get on Bush about Gitmo defend Linclon.
Eyewitnesses Bring War's Cruelty to Light
By Bill Ward, Salisbury Post
June 2004
Usually in discussions of the Civil War and prisoners of that war, the first images to surface are those of the infamous Camp Sumter, Ga., better known as Andersonville. Historians also might recall Confederate prisons at Florence, S.C., or Salisbury. It must be hard for students to understand that Andersonville was not the only prison camp and that the Union Army maintained several prisoner-of-war camps, as well.
Until recent years, history has not been open to the brutal deprivation suffered by Confederate prisoners in Yankee camps. It's a story begging to be told about the 11 Civil War POW camps spread across the far reaches of the North. Places like Point Lookout, Md.; Johnson's Island, northern Ohio; Camp Douglas, Chicago; and Elmira, N.Y., whose nightmarish conditions earned it the name "Hellmira."
In "So Far From Dixie: Confederates in Yankee Prisons," Phillip Burnham paints a macabre scene of a mixture of events from the Civil War, or more accurately, The War Between the States. He stirs together a mess of humanity in the boiling cauldrons of Southern battlefields and Northern prison camps. His sources of eyewitness information remain alive through documents left by five men who experienced firsthand the horrors of being Northern POWs.
Oddly enough, one of those five prisoners was a Union soldier, Frank Wilkeson. A Union Army volunteer, only 16 years old at the time, Wilkeson saw the worst kinds of criminals released from Northern jails and transported south under guard for conscription into the Union Army.
Berry Benson focused all his energy on escaping from the New York hellhole, sometimes called Andersonville on ice. Constantly digging tunnels with other prisoners, Benson felt a dire urgency to gain his freedom, after having been transferred from other camps to Elmira.
Anthony Keiley of Petersburg, Va., the better educated of the prisoners, was a glib-tongue lawyer-politician who talked prison officials into giving him a job that he enjoyed, logging prisoners into Elmira. Then he had to start logging them out, up to 20 or 30 dead in a day. After the war, and always the politician, Keiley became mayor of Richmond.
In one of his prison observations, Keiley wrote: "The Northern people, and I speak from long acquaintance with them, care much less for Negroes than we. ... It is the free states that have made the most odiously discriminating laws against the Negroes as have characterized Chicago and New York." He referred to the New York City draft riots, a reminder that many of the white men who stood guard over him had serious doubts themselves about the fighting ability and intelligence of the black men who had joined the Union army by the thousands.
Then there was John King, a skilled craftsman who refused to build coffins for his fellow prisoners. And Marcus Toney refused to take the Union oath of loyalty to gain his freedom, nor would he take it until many years after the war's end.
Shocking images of gaunt figures with hollow eyes and protruding bones that were released from the Georgia prison at Andersonville have filled our history books. But little thought has been given to the fate of Southern prisoners held in the north. If lessons in morality are to be taught, it's that the South was starving due to the pillaging and destruction wrought by the marauding hordes of William T. Sherman in Georgia and Phillip Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley. With scarcely any food to feed Southern armies and civilians, almost nothing was available for prisoners.
In locales such as Elmira, food and medicine was plentiful to the Union Army. Still, Confederate prisoners were subjected to starvation and death by diseases for which medicine was purposely withheld. A unique method of thinning out the prison population was to place inmates with smallpox in barracks or tents with "well" prisoners. Malnourishment, exposure to extreme heat in the summer, extreme cold in the winter, and water contaminated with sewage helped take its toll.
At Camp Douglas, in particular, prisoners wore lightweight clothes, even during the biting Chicago winters, to reduce escape attempts. Many Confederate prisoners froze to death.
Some of the Union prisons also became sources of entertainment. Enterprising businessmen built tall wooden towers near the prison fences. They charged civilians up to 10 cents a head to climb up and watch the prisoners in the stockades, on display like animals in a zoo.
The bathroom facilities often were no more than latrines -- trenches out in the open. Everything was sport for the spectators. This kind of unseemly entertainment was available for Northerners at Camp Douglas and Elmira.
But perhaps one of the most villainous individuals at the prison was a Union Army doctor, Major Eugene Francis Sanger, the hospital chief and a "brute" in Keiley's estimation. By some accounts, Sanger failed to provide even minimum attention to those under his care, and some of his activities rivaled those of Josef Mengele during a later war.
As Keiley wrote, Sanger's "systematic inhumanity to the sick" was apparently a response to the rumors of alleged Andersonville atrocities. "I do not doubt that many of those who died at Elmira perished from actual starvation," reflected Keiley with bitter irony, who believed himself to be "in a country where food was cheap and abundant." Union Army medical officers at Elmira and at Camp Douglas would likely have been brought up on war crimes charges had the South won the war.
On July 19, 1866, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War for the Federal government, published a report about prisoners held during the war. Figures in Stanton's report belie the cruelty often associated with Confederate prison camps. From the first to the last, Confederate armies captured and held in prisons 270,000 men. The Federal armies held 220,000 men. Of the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands, 22,576 died. Conversely 26,576 Rebels died in "Yankee captivity" -- six times the number of Confederate dead at the battle of Gettysburg, and twice that for the Southern dead of Antietam, Chickamauga, Chancellorsville, Seven Days, Shiloh and Second Manassas combined.
The Confederates, with 50,000 more prisoners, had 4,000 fewer inmate deaths.
And what was the Norths excuse. The south was losing and poor and still did a better job of it.
Congress first appropriated funds for construction of Fort Delaware in 1849; it was completed ten years later. Personalities later famous such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and George B. McClellan were all associated with the construction of the fort in one way or another before the war. The fort was built of solid granite in a pentagon shape with walls thirty-two feet tall and up to thirty feet thick. The fort was built in the Delaware River on what was originally a mud shoal called Pea Patch Island. The fort accepted its first POWs in July 1861 with the arrival of eight Confederate soldiers who had been taken prisoner near Harper's Ferry.
Prisoners originally were kept inside the fort, but a booming population led to the building of barracks outside the walls. The new barracks were located in an enclosed pen encompassing about five acres. The pen was divided into two yards with the smaller pen nearest the fort being used for officers and the larger pen for enlisted men. Each of the yards contained up to ten rows of barracks under one continuous roof, called 'cowsheds' by the prisoners. The sheds were divided into rooms measuring about twenty-three feet wide by forty-two feet long by twelve feet high and had bunks in three tiers on either side of a central passage. The rooms were called 'divisions' and were numbered from one to forty. David McElwain was in Division 11. When the prison population was at its peak, the divisions could be pressed to hold 400 or more enlisted men in each shed with a lesser number assigned to the officers' sheds. The buildings themselves were mere shells constructed of rough pine board that offered little protection from heat, cold or vermin.
Private McElwain had the misfortune to arrive at Fort Delaware when the prison commandant was General Albin Francisco Schoepf, known as "General Terror" by the prisoners. While the previous commandants at least attempted to treat the POWs in a humane manner and improve the conditions at the camp, General Schoepf allowed his men complete freedom to brutalize the prisoners. Schoepf never personally abused any prisoners, but his unsavory crew of subordinates took great pleasure in tormenting them.
Captain George Ahl was probably the most hated guard at Fort Delaware, since his name rarely appears in Confederate memoirs without a disparaging remark next to it. The most creative name given to Ahl was the "autocratic Bashaw of Ten Tails, who is all-in-Ahl, and Ahl-fired mean at that!"
One memorably sadistic guard was a Union soldier from Vermont nicknamed "Old Hike" by the prisoners. He received this nickname by constantly yelling "Hike out! Hike out! You damned rebel sons of bitches," as he swaggered through the barracks armed with a club or whip while protected by two armed guards. "Old Hike," whose real name was Adam or Adams, first arrived at Fort Delaware as a disciplinary prisoner for cowardice at Bull Run. "Old Hike" would use weekly contraband inspections of the prisoners as an excuse to abuse the prisoners and to beat them. He also ran a con game that involved selling pocketknives through the sutler to unsuspecting new prisoners, which he would then confiscate to resell to the next batch of arrivals. Fortunately not all guards were as brutal as "Old Hike," especially those who had served honorably in combat.
Trigger-happy guards also were a danger to the prisoners. Poorly disciplined troops would fire on helpless prisoners without provocation. One incident involved the murder of a prisoner for not returning fast enough from the latrine area -- the prisoner was not able to run because of a crippling war injury. The guard was promoted to sergeant.
When David McElwain arrived, the prison held more than nine thousand inmates and was averaging eighty-four deaths a month. The high death rate was due primarily to inadequate rations, a contaminated water supply and overcrowding. A typical meal by the time Private McElwain arrived was perhaps best described by Randolph Shotwell of North Carolina. He said for breakfast they received: "About one square inch of boiled bacon, very slimy, and one slice of baker's bread, all of which could be packed into a pint tin cup and still have room for almost as much more or say a teacupful of the rotten rain water with its solid inches of tadpoles and wigglers which was our morning draught in lieu of tea or coffee... Dinner was the big meal of the two. It consisted of precisely the same quantity of bread and meat with the addition of half a tin cup of slop which no man had the right to dignify with the name of soup. To the best of our judgment the ingredients were rotten water, rice hulls, white worms half an inch long, grit, nails and hair with now and then a grain of corn." With meals like these, many prisoners turned to catching and eating the rats that infested the island to supplement their diet with more protein.
With this diet, by February of 1864 at least one of every eight prisoners had scurvy. The prison officials had a fund of $17,000 available for the prisoners, but refused to use any of it for vegetables needed to prevent scurvy. The Federal authorizes also imprisoned charitable local civilians who attempted to raise money to buy vegetables for the POWs.
While in the prison hospital, Captain Robert E. Park of the 12th Alabama Regiment described in his diary what his comrades endured: "The poor fellows suffering from scurvy are a sad sight. Their legs and feet are so drawn as to compel them to walk on tiptoe, their heels being unable to touch the floor as they walk from their beds to huddle around the stove. How necessary a few vegetables are to these helpless sufferers. The `best government the world has ever seen' however is too poor or too mean to furnish them."
The location of the POW camp caused problems because it was situated on a low lying island surrounded by a dike that prevented proper drainage. The soil on the island had a tendency to turn into a quagmire when it was the slightest bit wet. The POWs were forced to add their waste products to this muddy mess because the authorities would not allow more than a few prisoners at a time to visit the latrines at night. This excrement eventually contaminated the stagnant canals inside the fort that were originally the only source of water for the prisoners. Besides the obvious health hazard created by these miserable conditions, the smell was horrendous.
Oh those poor terrorist in Gitmo .
LINK (http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_199905/ai_n8830753)
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2005, 17:50
Bravo Gawain.
doc_bean
06-21-2005, 18:28
Doc Bean: you are misrepresenting the situation in Europe. The odd Mosque is burned down but then again so is the odd church. Neo-Nazis may occassionally attack immigrants but far more violent crime is comitted by immigrants than by Neo-Nazis. And the E.U. report on increasingly violent Anti Semitism placed most of the blame on Muslim immigrants.
Over my lifetime (80s and 90s to present), race relations in Europe have improved in some ways and collapsed in others and you can't blame it all on the native Europeans.
Neo-nazism is an ideology, immigration isn't. The crime figures say nothing, since only hate crimes matter here (lots of drugs dealing neo nazis, no one really cares that they are neo nazis).
Race relations differ from place to place, time to time and age group to age group. I don't know if there is a trend, i don't see it anyway.
You're from the UK aren't you ? I think neo-nazism is a far greater problem on the continent than it is there.
doc_bean
06-21-2005, 18:35
Oh please where would you like to start? Its really funny how you guys who get on Bush about Gitmo defend Linclon.
Different times set different standards.
WWII bombings in Germany by the English had goals like "we want to kill a million people by...". Specifically targeting civilians is unacceptable now, some might even say it's terrorism.
You can't compare how wars are fought or how prisoners were threated. Norms and morals evolve.
(Oh and the problem with Gitmo is they are denied a fair trial, not as much the way they are treated, I'm sure that chain gang prison isn't a whole lot nicer.)
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 18:43
Actually, the standards were considerably higher back then. The US Civil War re-defined warfare, as until then, warfare was a fairly civilized, limited matter. You didn't attack civilians, you treated captured prisoners with respect, and you didn't fight for 'unconditional surrender'. All three of those were American contributions that propagated to other cultures with the advent of the civil war, and even then, it took some doing. The Franco-Prussian war was more civilized than WWI, which was more civilized than WWII.
Kanamori
06-21-2005, 18:43
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 18:58
You can't compare how wars are fought or how prisoners were threated. Norms and morals evolve.
Again what is the excuse for the nothern treatment of southern prisoners. Again the South had an excuse. Their own troops were malnurished. This is hardly the case for the North.
(Oh and the problem with Gitmo is they are denied a fair trial, not as much the way they are treated, I'm sure that chain gang prison isn't a whole lot nicer.)
First off these people arent pows. Secondly chain gang prisoners and in fact most prisoners in the US prison system are not as well taken care of as these guys. If any of you think these guys are mistreated try getting arrested sometime and then give the cops a load of shite when you get to the precinct. I garuntee you would rather be a prisoner at Gitmo.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 19:02
What quackery. POW camps were not concentration camps.
The exchange system broke down because the CSA refused to treat negro soldiers as soldiers. They also killed many on the field after battle (and yes, I've read the battle accounts.)
By the way, the 50,000 number appears to be wrong...
Federal Prisoners
211,411 prisoners of war 16,668 paroled on the field
30,218 died in prison
Mortality rate: 15.5%
Confederate Prisoners
462,634 prisoners of war 247,769 paroled on the field
(including surrenders)
25,976 died in prison
Mortality rate: 12%
These numbers conflict with some others such as:
Federal Army
Killed in Action or mortally wounded 110,100 67,088 KIA
43,012 MW
Died of disease 224,580
Died as prisoners of war 30,192
Confederate Army
Killed in action or mortally wounded 94,000
Died of disease 164,000
Died as prisoners of war 31,000
PanzerJaeger
06-21-2005, 19:09
The only differences between Hitler and Lincoln IMHO is Hitler killed more people, had a funky mustache, was overly rascist,
Lincoln was extremely racist. He was just one of those benevolent racists of the time.. ~;)
The irony of your historically laughable claim of "dictatorship" is that by forcing Lincoln to war, the South gave him war powers. Any true wartime president has substantial dictatorial power. If he became a dictator, it was not his own doing, but the South's...yet he still had to face a true re-election--something that real dictators do not face.
Hehe. For such an outspoken critic of President Bush, you seem to have a strangely accurate interpretation of history. Why doesnt it apply today?
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2005, 19:11
Lincoln was extremely racist. He was just one of those benevolent racists of the time.. ~;)
Hehe. For such an outspoken critic of President Bush, you seem to have a strangely accurate interpretation of history. Why doesnt it apply today?
hrm I must have meant Overtly rascist.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 19:12
What quackery. POW camps were not concentration camps.
So they werent called concentration camps but the condintions in Germanies camps werer better than in these prisons. I dont see any difference other in the name and the fact that they didnt just execute people.
By the way looking at your statisitcs the South really kicked the Norths butt.
doc_bean
06-21-2005, 19:20
First off these people arent pows.
That's part of the problem, you created a vacuum with the 'enemy combattants', taking away any rights they might have had as criminals or as POWs.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 19:27
That's part of the problem, you created a vacuum with the 'enemy combattants', taking away any rights they might have had as criminals or as POWs.
Wrong again. We didnt invent ths classification the Genva Conventions did. Since they are neither criminals here in the US nor are they POWs they fit into this classificattion.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 19:54
Actually, the standards were considerably higher back then. The US Civil War re-defined warfare, as until then, warfare was a fairly civilized, limited matter. You didn't attack civilians, you treated captured prisoners with respect, and you didn't fight for 'unconditional surrender'. All three of those were American contributions that propagated to other cultures with the advent of the civil war, and even then, it took some doing. The Franco-Prussian war was more civilized than WWI, which was more civilized than WWII.
Oh come on. Warfare from earliest history up through medieval times had involved the annihilation or enslavement of the conquered enemy. There is nothing new about total war. The difference that arose in pre-ACW european warfare was largely that it was a battle of the aristocracy. It all works nicely when you only have to defeat the enemy army and take his capitol. Of course, if you besiege it, then everyone starves, but no matter...
Sherman had it right when he said that war was killing, there is no reforming it. While certain rules of war make sense up to a point, you also have to consider what is sustaining your enemy in the field. Sherman and Sheridan understood that destroying the crops and other property would bring the enemy to his knees. It wasn't butchery of civilians, it was a war against property.
When you get to WWII, you start getting the dispersal of manufacturing to protect factories from bombs. The targeting shifts to the workers sustaining the war machine. And Japan...a country that had pursued most brutal racial policies, had fought to the last man on several island assaults. We could either sacrifice many of our own lives by invading, starve the islands, or drop a couple of nukes to try to force capitulation. The nuke option most likely resulted in less suffering than any other course...and it had one heckuva deterrent effect from anyone ever considering a nuclear war in the future.
The big difference is in what you do once you have conquered an enemy...not how you conquer them. Handling prisoners is part of that. The parole system ended in the ACW because of the CSA refusal to acknowledge negroes as soldiers. Every ACW battle involving negros that I've read about had outright bragging of Southerners killing negro wounded and prisoners.
The U.S. handling of what it has taken through "unconditional surrender" has been admirable.
The idea of a truly civilized war is a bit of a farce. The only truly civilized war is one settled over a gameboard, like chess.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 19:56
The idea of a truly civilized war is a bit of a farce. The only truly civilized war is one settled over a gameboard, like chess.
I suggest you try MTW is much more like war and very civilised. ~D
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 20:00
I don't remember anybody specifically targeting civilians in wars prior to the US Civil war (at least not from the Age of Reason on, you have a point that if you go back further, it gets even worse).
But there's plenty of examples of this in the US Civil War. In the first major battle, union artillery shelled a house down to it's foundations, with a bed ridden widow inside, because they suspected her of being a Copperhead (a Southern sympathizer).
And there were outcries about this stuff all the time at the time, so it wasn't 'different times, different standards'. There was a hell of a backlash against the army after Wounded Knee, when word of what actually happened got out.
You can't tell me that 19th century soldiers/politicians didn't know any better or that somehow we're morally superior.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 20:18
By the way looking at your statisitcs the South really kicked the Norths butt.
??? You might want to recheck your math. The numbers are rather close for the number killed. Difference of 16,000. And you might want to take a look at the few hundred thousand extra paroled on the field... That would be all those surrendered armies: Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, Appomattox, and garrisons from Roanoke Island, Fort Fisher, etc.
When attacking in the ACW, the attacker almost always suffered higher casualties. R.E. Lee took heavier casualties in the Seven Days and Gettysburg since he was on the offensive. At Antietam he was on defense and took lower casualties. I could point to similar examples throughout. Casualties tended to be higher for the defender if they actually broke... Anyway, to win a war you tend to have to attack the enemy more frequently than not. Unless it is an extreme mismatch, you can expect the attacker to take more casualties.
Even the Germans made distinctions between their POW camps, and concentration camps. It is sad that you are so blinded as to not see the difference. The concentration camps were death camps for those they wanted to exterminate. They were pretty careful to keep western POW's away from those camps.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 20:38
??? You might want to recheck your math. The numbers are rather close for the number killed. Difference of 16,000.
Thats about a 20% difference is it not? Also the North was much better equipped and had a vast numerical superiority. It was the North whostopped the prisoner exchanges that led to all those deaths on both sides in the prison camps. They realized that the southern soldier was far more valuable than the northern one.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 20:59
I don't remember anybody specifically targeting civilians in wars prior to the US Civil war (at least not from the Age of Reason on, you have a point that if you go back further, it gets even worse).
But there's plenty of examples of this in the US Civil War. In the first major battle, union artillery shelled a house down to it's foundations, with a bed ridden widow inside, because they suspected her of being a Copperhead (a Southern sympathizer).
And there were outcries about this stuff all the time at the time, so it wasn't 'different times, different standards'. There was a hell of a backlash against the army after Wounded Knee, when word of what actually happened got out.
You can't tell me that 19th century soldiers/politicians didn't know any better or that somehow we're morally superior.
Oh you've got to be kidding. Badajoz ring any bells? 20,000 killed at Praga? ~400 prisoners killed at Goliad by the Mexican army (isn't Europe of course.) I could point the English during the American Revolution--Waxham's Massacre of prisoners by Tarleton's dragoons. And wasn't it the French that paid the Indians for scalps? If you think civilians were spared the horrors of war by perfectly behaved European armies, you are dreaming.
I won't defend any of the U.S. wars against the Indians. Are you going to defend all of the British wars of conquest for empire? It was an inherited European view of Indians as savages that fueled it. Shall we discuss what the Spanish did to the Indian civilizations?
Let's talk about Tasmanians:
Massacres began 3 May 1804 at Risdon when the 102 Regiment of the British Army shot dead 50 Oyster Bay people, including women and children. The Tasmanians had approached without spears and with green boughs in their hands, as a sign of peace. The commanding officer said afterwards he didn't think the Aborigines would be any use to the British.
'The Black War' lasted seven years - 1824 to 1831. Atrocities were committed by both sides, but although black men were castrated and black women raped, there wasn't any record of rape committed by Aboriginals against any white woman.
Your concept of Europe at war is...uh...a bit rose tinted...
Don Corleone
06-21-2005, 21:04
Alright, you have a point there. What Europeans engaged in during colonialism was pretty apalling. But you could make the argument that they (wrongly) didn't view those people as fellow human beings. They did seem to have a limited view of warfare with each other. Can you really imagine a battle like the Plains of Abraham, being fought within cannon range of an enemy city, being fought today without civilian casualties? Or any of the continental battles between the French and the Dutch for that matter? Or am I way off on this too (could be, my knowledge of European warfare isn't what it probably should be, beyond the who/what/when).
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 21:14
Thats about a 20% difference is it not? Also the North was much better equipped and had a vast numerical superiority. It was the North whostopped the prisoner exchanges that led to all those deaths on both sides in the prison camps. They realized that the southern soldier was far more valuable than the northern one.
Creating your own reality? 17% difference...that's actually pretty small for being on offense. In the East the southern armies fared better. In the West they got their arses kicked. Funny thing is, in the Western battles they often had localized advantages in numbers, and still lost, much like the Union in the East. It's night and day different when you start looking at other theaters.
The South had it in its power to resume the exchanges...but they wouldn't recognize the black soldier. Regardless, denying them manpower was a sound strategy and there is no reason that I can think of that prisoners must be exchanged until cessation of hostilities. Cry me a river. With over 4 million men, women and children enslaved, I don't see how the South had any room for moral indignation.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2005, 21:17
The South had it in its power to resume the exchanges...but they wouldn't recognize the black soldier.
Bull.
Cry me a river. With over 4 million men, women and children enslaved, I don't see how the South had any room for moral indignation.
Again the north was no better. You still havent answered my question as to why the north couldnt have taken better care of its prisoners. You are an opponent of the war in Iraq are you not? Where is your moral indignation towards that regime? Cry me a river indeed.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 21:47
Bull.
Again the north was no better. You still havent answered my question as to why the north couldnt have taken better care of its prisoners. You are an opponent of the war in Iraq are you not? Where is your moral indignation towards that regime? Cry me a river indeed.
??? Why should I have to defend the North's treatment of prisoners (or the South). I'm pretty sure I wasn't responsible for them...
No, I'm not an opponent of the Iraq War. I am disgusted with how it has been conducted by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I am appalled at the use of fabricated WMD scares to gain approval of the attack. It's not like it worked either, we still had to do it without much international support. As McCain as well as various military folks said from the beginning: we should have put more boots on the ground. But that wouldn't fit Bush's budget or force misrepresentations to the country. Too darned much swaggering and not enough real action. How any times did one of our strikes "get Saddam." Noisy, braggart administration leaks didn't help us at all. We didn't get him soon enough, and we didn't have enough forces to secure a peace when it was needed. Lots of big talk, but there was a lot that needed to happen quickly, and it wasn't done. I don't blame our troops, it was a leadership issue from the top.
Where is Osama by the way? He was in Tora-Bora...but Dubya decided not to go in after him...let the locals handle it. That was friggin' brilliant. Of course we have a new Bush appointee who says he knows where Osama is...I'll believe it when I see it.
Steppe Merc
06-21-2005, 21:58
The treatment of prisoners and civilians by both sides was appalling. The differnce is, many of the human rights violators in the South paid for their crimes, while the Northern butchers got offered political office, and often won (Grant).
About the different morals, that is hard for me to explain my position. Because I often use that argument when people go on about the (exagerated) atrocities of many ancient and Medieval peoples, especially the Mongols. However, I don't think that different morals can excuse America's treatment of Indians. And while in some cases different morals obviously applied, since almost everyone thought it natrual to be a racist (though it wasn't called that). However, when it come to the treatment of prisoners and civilians, I don't think that the different morals can apply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the North had war crimes trials against the Confederate commander of that one Southern prison, Andersonville I believe, as well as others. If they can have war crime trials against human right violators, then the rules apply to them as well.
PanzerJaeger
06-21-2005, 22:18
No, I'm not an opponent of the Iraq War. I am disgusted with how it has been conducted by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I am appalled at the use of fabricated WMD scares to gain approval of the attack. It's not like it worked either, we still had to do it without much international support. As McCain as well as various military folks said from the beginning: we should have put more boots on the ground. But that wouldn't fit Bush's budget or force misrepresentations to the country. Too darned much swaggering and not enough real action. How any times did one of our strikes "get Saddam." Noisy, braggart administration leaks didn't help us at all. We didn't get him soon enough, and we didn't have enough forces to secure a peace when it was needed. Lots of big talk, but there was a lot that needed to happen quickly, and it wasn't done. I don't blame our troops, it was a leadership issue from the top.
I dont know if youve ever heard of Tommy Franks, but he said that the president gave the military everything it asked for and continued to while he was in power.
Can you show where the Joint Chiefs, Army, Marines or any other branch asked for more troops and the administration denied them?
Where is Osama by the way? He was in Tora-Bora...but Dubya decided not to go in after him...let the locals handle it. That was friggin' brilliant. Of course we have a new Bush appointee who says he knows where Osama is...I'll believe it when I see it.
Were you there at Tora-Bora? Again, please show where the military asked the administration to allow them to go in and take out Osama, and were denied.
Figure out who you're really against - is it the administration or the military?
doc_bean
06-21-2005, 22:29
The US military does look like it can use some serious reforms.
Is the military responsible for rebuilding Iraque or is the State department ? Or some other service ?
PanzerJaeger
06-21-2005, 22:31
Contractors, i think, actually are rebuilding the infrastructure. I dont know who is planning that out though.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 22:31
PJ,
You haven't paid much attention to the admin have you? Not to what they are REALLY saying and doing. The officer that first said they needed more was scoffed at and effectively shown the door as I recall. The rest got the message. It's all about leadership, and you don't cross this commander in chief whether or not you are right.
It's not the military I have a problem with, it is the civilian leadership directing it at the moment. I support the troops, not the folks that sent them there.
Red Harvest
06-21-2005, 22:34
Is the military responsible for rebuilding Iraque or is the State department ? Or some other service ?
Haliburton, Cheney's former employer.
That was part of the problem in the early days, and got us off to a bad start once the invasion was complete. Poor postwar planning.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-21-2005, 23:28
doc:
quick note as regards hate crimes: white British citizens are far more likely to be attacked in a hate crime than any other group. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same for the rest of Europe but I don't know.
You're right about the neo-nazis: they don't seem to be too big in the U.K. Other groups (I'm thinking the BNP here) who are generally called Nazis, fascists etc. but aren't Nazis per se (but definitely do have their origins in that sort of area) have reached record levels of support as far as those ideologies go in the U.K.(I think that, maybe, the British Union of Fascists had more support in the '30s but I doubt it, except maybe in absolute membership numbers rather than votes).
I'm sure the neo-nazi movement is as prevalent in Britain as it is anywhere. Even the Skinhead fashion conventions were established in Scotland, and Skrewdriver is English, after all.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-22-2005, 00:35
NeonGod:
you can't equate skinheads with neo-nazis so simply.
I don't mean to go on about it but the origins of skins definitely are not Nazi. Some young neo-Nazis adopted the skinhead style and became part of that scene whilst I'm sure some skinheads became neo-Nazis and became part of that scene.
generic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
complete with some generic misconceotions and half truths as most generalisms are.
I write as a man with a shaven head, flight jacket and big boots who is not a neo-Nazi.
Edit: even Skrewdriver did not start out as they are usually portrayed. Back in the late 70s Bob Geldof was knocked unconcious at a Skrewdriver show (or so the story goes). I couldn't imagine righteous Bob at a neo-Nazi show. The Line up largely changed and they got political.
NeonGod:
you can't equate skinheads with neo-nazis so simply.
I don't mean to go on about it but the origins of skins definitely are not Nazi. Some young neo-Nazis adopted the skinhead style and became part of that scene whilst I'm sure some skinheads became neo-Nazis and became part of that scene.
Yes, but the fashion trend was adopted by neo-nazis. How else could the trend have been adopted if it was not for a neo-nazi culture in Britain? The style never reached North America, as far as I know, without the neo-Nazi association.
generic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
complete with some generic misconceotions and half truths as most generalisms are.
I write as a man with a shaven head, flight jacket and big boots who is not a neo-Nazi.
Edit: even Skrewdriver did not start out as they are usually portrayed. Back in the late 70s Bob Geldof was knocked unconcious at a Skrewdriver show (or so the story goes). I couldn't imagine righteous Bob at a neo-Nazi show. The Line up largely changed and they got political.
Oh, I know, but that doesn't mean much. The early Skrewdriver and the Skrewdriver of today are for all purposes different bands. They're still the most popular neo-nazi rock band of all time.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-22-2005, 01:50
these guys claim to be amongst the original US skins basing themselves on traditional UK skins:
http://skintradzines.0catch.com/sf.html
So, according to them, the whole skinhead scene did not appear in the U.S. due to neo-nazis.
You're right about Skrewdriver being a completely different band, they seemed to lose their ability/inclination to write a fun tune about the same time.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.