Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Junior Member Rookie Poster EirikSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    I'm just glad there will be less traffic cone orange being used needlessly.

    The bikini is nice.

    Ratio.


    1 out of 2 members liked this post.

  2. #12
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    Quote Originally Posted by trish View Post
    The S.C. legislature wisely voted not to fly it anymore. Will this decision end racism? When a State discontinues a daily ritual endorsing racism, will that put an end to racism? In the long run it can't hurt. Some people maintain, S.C. is only treating a symptom. Perhaps, but also the fact that S.C. discontinued this one racist ritual is symptomatic of a glacially slow but ongoing change that can be traced to the initial disagreements in this nation over the morality of slavery.
    Racism/Prejudice, in all its forms, will go on til the end of humankind - It's used as a shield to cover so-o-o-o many insecurities,... but S.C not flying the flag is huge. I was thinking about this just now (granted, I had just finished a bottle of relatively cheap wine...and some old weed) and... I know it doesn't feel huge...but that's because so many other socio-political things happened in the last five years or so -- let's face it : those State gay marriage laws; more LGBT military rights; loosening some drug laws (especially Colorado); etc. are gigantic,
    and that's kind of my point...
    I don't really think the tide of change is political, in the more aggressive form...
    I think it's just common sense in a generational form.
    A lot of politics in forums are battled by the extreme fringes...but I've always believed that the majority of people live in an ocean of gray. It's more of an : 'I can live with this', or 'this helps me, my family or friends,' or 'but..we need some control/laws', or ' This really hurts some people that don't deserve it', or 'Are you kidding me??!!', Etc....

    People are just changing by generation. In S.C. the majority of folks sitting on the side...or on top of...the fence, on past and present, political issues regarding the 'Stars and Bars'...are probably just saying - "What rational argument can you use, at this time in history, to support a flag - that doesn't represent the U.S.A, and is so strongly associated with pro-slavery rights and secession / treason?"...
    answer: "NONE"...let's just get rid of it.
    common sense.

    and (since it was mentioned) ..shout out to the first amendment...love it...but getting rid of this flag does nothing to undermine one's support of it.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  3. #13
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    Quote Originally Posted by EirikSmith View Post
    The bikini is nice.

    Ratio.
    The bikini, or more important - what's wearing it, is nice.
    ...But what's wearing it is always gonna look hot.
    Hell, she'd look good in a Swastika bikini...but ....same thing never-the-less.



  4. #14
    Verified account Silver Poster Ben in LA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,659

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamon View Post
    The thing is, if folks start stomping on that flag because of what it represents in this particular image, people will collectively lose their minds and be filled with anger. It's a Catch-22.


    0 out of 1 members liked this post.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    I read this account of an interview with White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly and wonder how he can so distort the history of the USA and its Civil War. This is what it is reported he said:

    White House chief of staff John Kelly has waded into the debate over Confederate statues, stating that the Civil War was prompted by an inability to compromise while suggesting both sides acted in “good faith”.
    Speaking with Fox News in a rare interview, Kelly described Confederate general Robert E Lee as “an honorable man” while discussing the recent push to remove monuments and symbols memorializing the pro-slavery Confederacy.
    ...
    Kelly then went on to say Lee, the general of the Confederate Army during the American Civil War, “was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state”.
    “It was always loyalty to state first back in those days,” said Kelly, while adding: “But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War. And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-to-compromise

    It is true that Lee was initially approached by Lincoln to support the Union, and that Lee refused because he would not fight against his own state -but what was Lee fighting for, and in view of the position he achieved, as military leader of the Confederate Army, what was he fighting against? Even if one sets aside the issue of the changing US economy, the growth of industry in the north against the plantation economy of the south, the opportunities for independent farmsteads in the west -Slavery was fundamental to the cause of the war because it had become the pivot which swung the balance of power in Congress. The Southern States were afraid that democracy would upset the balance of power in Congress in favour of free states, and rather than accept the process of democracy and change with the times with regard to slavery they sought to defend both slavery and their representation in Congress -and if they lost out then to hell with it, they would take the ball, leave the field and play their game somewhere else where they would always win.

    Kelly must surely have heard of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which traded a slave state for a free state (Missouri and Maine) in order to satisfy the claim by southern states that they were being 'outnumbered' by free states in the north -at a time when they were allowed to boost their electoral college votes by counting slaves as citizens even though slaves were not allowed to vote- and the Compromise of 1850 with free and slave states -California, New Mexico and Utah, with the purchase of slaves (but not slave ownership) outlawed in DC; the violence that erupted over the 'Kansas-Nebraska Act' in 1856 and the apparent end of compromise with Lincoln's election in 1860 -but what do all of these events amount to, if not a determination of the southern slave states to make their membership of the Union dependent on their definition of who an American with the right to vote must be? And that this American is not, and cannot be black?

    You could argue the South was protecting the plantation economy, but this entire economic and social order was based on slavery, and slavery was always based on the claim that Black people are not humans in the same way that White people are, that 'race' was (is) a defining feature of division shaped by superiority in one and inferiority in the other.

    Crucially, the South seceded from the Union because it no longer believed in America, the intention was to secede from the USA and to form a separate grouping of states. By definition, the Confederacy was anti--American, its flags were, and remain, anti-American flags, and when John Kelly says of Robert E. Lee that he was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state he is right -so why is the White House Chief of Staff defending a man who was anti-American?A man who defined his politics in terms of slavery, in terms of a theory of race that described Black people as 'human chattle', whose flag is a living and blistering reminder of prejudice and hate, and is so thoroughly anti-American?

    Makes you wonder -whose side is he on?


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Stavros; 10-31-2017 at 01:56 PM.

  6. #16
    Platinum Poster natina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    hollywood,calif
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one

    Evil chattel slavery, evil done by evil men

    Example

    http://images.betterworldbooks.com/0...0380719358.jpg






    For nineteen-year-old Celia, a slave on a Missouri farm, five years of being repeatedly raped by her middle-aged owner was enough. On the night of June 23, 1855, she would later tell a reporter, "the Devil got into me" and Celia fatally clubbed her master as he approached her in her cabin. The murder trial of the slave Celia, coming at a time when the controversy over the issue of slavery reached new heights, raised fundamental questions about the rights of slaves to fight back against the worst of slavery's abuses.


    Robert Newsom and his family left Virginia , finally settling land along the Middle River in southern Callaway County, Missouri.(according to the census), Newsom owned eight-hundred acres of land & livestock.Newsom also owned slaves--five male slaves as of 1850.

    During the summer of 1850, Newsom purchased from a slave owner in neighboring Audrain County a sixth slave, a fourteen-year-old girl named Celia. Shortly after returning with Celia to his farm, Newsom raped her. For female slaves, rape was an "ever present threat" and, far too often, a reality. Over the next five years, Newsom would make countless treks to Celia's slave cabin, located in a grove of fruit trees some distance from his main house, and demand sex from the teenager he considered his concubine. Celia gave birth to two children , the second being the son of Robert Newsom.

    a real lover, another one of Newsom's slaves named George, entered Celia's life. On several occasions, George "stayed" at Celia's cabin, although whether for a few hours or an entire night is unknown. In late winter, either February or early March, of 1855, Celia again became pregnant. The pregnancy affected George, and caused him to insist that Celia put an end to the pattern of sexual exploitation by Newsom that continued to that time. George informed Celia that "he would have nothing more to do with her if she did not quit the old man" [trial].

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...celiahome.html


    Last edited by natina; 10-31-2017 at 08:06 PM.

  7. #17
    Platinum Poster natina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    hollywood,calif
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: About that flag...you know, that one




Similar Threads

  1. Help me flag an ads thats harrasing me pls
    By alyssaluxor in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:06 AM
  2. A Veteran cuts down U.S. Flag flown under Mexican Flag
    By InHouston in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 04:46 AM
  3. question about the Gay pride flag
    By alwaysforyou in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 07:37 PM
  4. Please flag with care.......................................
    By JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2007, 06:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •