This is getting out of hand

[geofflambert]

http://time.com/3936223/apple-civil-war ... app-store/

[HansBolter]

couldn't agree more, but Bill will likely have to lock this thread.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

couldn't agree more, but Bill will likely have to lock this thread.

Only if Canoe Rebel posts....

[geofflambert]

They will start burning history books next. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose that can be respected. How about Gone with the Wind? I sure don't want to see them change it to this:

[mind_messing]

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

[AW1Steve]

Our friend from Glasglow might wish to equate it with "Scottish Nationalism". Although the Scot's never had the slavery issue , a lot of the people who emigrated to the south came from Scotland. Perhaps if he saw the flag less as a symbol of "Repression" (which many people AFTER the civil war came to see it) and more as a symbol of REBELLION . And please keep in mind that I am an absolute Yankee , born and raised in Maine. In theory , I should be the absolute enemy to those who wave "that flag" , and yet even I can see where both sides are coming from. [:(]

[ckk]

omg pc gone amok. Pensacola was the City of 5 Flags now there are 4. Why not take down the Spanish flag,they brought slavery here in the 16th century?[&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Our friend from Glasglow might wish to equate it with "Scottish Nationalism". Although the Scot's never had the slavery issue , a lot of the people who emigrated to the south came from Scotland. Perhaps if he saw the flag less as a symbol of "Repression" (which many people AFTER the civil war came to see it) and more as a symbol of REBELLION . And please keep in mind that I am an absolute Yankee , born and raised in Maine. In theory , I should be the absolute enemy to those who wave "that flag" , and yet even I can see where both sides are coming from. [:(]

Despite what the Daily Mail may suggest, the nationalists over here don't want to go back to the "good old days" of cross-border raids and such like. At least, if they do, they've kept it quiet. I think, in fairness, that the nationalist comparison doesn't quite work; I think some of the religious conflicts in Scotland would make a more apt comparison.

The rebellion aspect is something I can't grasp either. The whole "fight fovstates rights" issue seems to me a red herring that distracts from the fact that the Southern states rebelled to ensure that slavery was preserved.

I find the logic flawed in that people would be as proud of a flag that was used by an army formed to defend the institution of slavery. It seems to me, an outsider, that the flag's negative connotations would by far outweigh the positive ones.

Now, I can understand the "southern pride" mindset within it's historical context. But today it seems exceptionally out of place, considering that the world has(at least mostly) condemned slavery as a bad thing. The whole "Lost Cause" historiography is something I don't comprehend either.

Now, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and say that I'm an outsider without the cultural background to understand the issue; there tends to be a reason these things aren't fully resolved today.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

Of note-"THIS SICKO" burned the US flag, and while he may have owned the Confederate flag , he WORE a Rhodesian apartheid flag on his jacket. I think he identified more with Afrikaners more than southerners. I haven't meat all that many southerners that would burn the US flag. Even during the Civil war , many comments were made about how well each side treated the others flag. One should not judge a race or a culture by one nut-job.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

Of note-"THIS SICKO" burned the US flag, and while he may have owned the Confederate flag , he WORE a Rhodesian apartheid flag on his jacket. I think he identified more with Afrikaners more than southerners. I haven't meat all that many southerners that would burn the US flag. Even during the Civil war , many comments were made about how well each side treated the others flag. One should not judge a race or a culture by one nut-job.

warspite1

Exactly.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Our friend from Glasglow might wish to equate it with "Scottish Nationalism". Although the Scot's never had the slavery issue , a lot of the people who emigrated to the south came from Scotland. Perhaps if he saw the flag less as a symbol of "Repression" (which many people AFTER the civil war came to see it) and more as a symbol of REBELLION . And please keep in mind that I am an absolute Yankee , born and raised in Maine. In theory , I should be the absolute enemy to those who wave "that flag" , and yet even I can see where both sides are coming from. [:(]

Despite what the Daily Mail may suggest, the nationalists over here don't want to go back to the "good old days" of cross-border raids and such like. At least, if they do, they've kept it quiet. I think, in fairness, that the nationalist comparison doesn't quite work; I think some of the religious conflicts in Scotland would make a more apt comparison.

The rebellion aspect is something I can't grasp either. The whole "fight fovstates rights" issue seems to me a red herring that distracts from the fact that the Southern states rebelled to ensure that slavery was preserved.

I find the logic flawed in that people would be as proud of a flag that was used by an army formed to defend the institution of slavery. It seems to me, an outsider, that the flag's negative connotations would by far outweigh the positive ones.

Now, I can understand the "southern pride" mindset within it's historical context. But today it seems exceptionally out of place, considering that the world has(at least mostly) condemned slavery as a bad thing. The whole "Lost Cause" historiography is something I don't comprehend either.

Now, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and say that I'm an outsider without the cultural background to understand the issue; there tends to be a reason these things aren't fully resolved today.

I'm impressed! That's a very adult point of view that I never expected. Admitting that you are ignorant of a matter. Well done sir!

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don´t you agree?

Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something.

One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery.

While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don´t you agree?

Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something.

One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery.

While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)]

Won't happen. In all my time in the UK , never once did I meet a Brit who sometime during the evening did not say "the trouble with you yanks is".... You see , since we are England's "bastard children" they feel an obligation to "set us right" and "show us where we went wrong" after leaving their "supervision". [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don´t you agree?

Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something.

One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery.

While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)]

warspite1

Sure, I agree it is not perfect but let me expand on it a little to see if it makes more sense.

Belgium. Like many (all) countries her past is not perfect. One incident in particular is hideous - the Belgian Congo. At the time the Congo was being "administered" by the Belgians, most other countries were being more enlightened, but many were colonial powers of some sort or another.

Belgium has moved on. She is not the Belgium that existed in those dark times. Should Belgium now only be thought of in terms of King Leopold's time?


Confederacy. The Southern States supported slavery. That was not all she stood for surely? She fought a war and lost. Had she won would slavery still be a feature of her society? Who knows, but you'd like to think not - the world has moved on.

Should any Southerner be thought of as a racist **** because he/she sports a Confederate Flag? Do only racists identify with that flag?

That was the thinking rather than a like for like, but I accept it is not perfect. The point though is that there is good AND bad represented in a flag.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don´t you agree?

Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something.

One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery.

While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)]

Won't happen. In all my time in the UK , never once did I meet a Brit who sometime during the evening did not say "the trouble with you yanks is".... You see , since we are England's "bastard children" they feel an obligation to "set us right" and "show us where we went wrong" after leaving their "supervision". [:D]

warspite1

You are of course completely wrong. That is the trouble with you Yanks, you........ [:D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Our friend from Glasglow might wish to equate it with "Scottish Nationalism". Although the Scot's never had the slavery issue , a lot of the people who emigrated to the south came from Scotland. Perhaps if he saw the flag less as a symbol of "Repression" (which many people AFTER the civil war came to see it) and more as a symbol of REBELLION . And please keep in mind that I am an absolute Yankee , born and raised in Maine. In theory , I should be the absolute enemy to those who wave "that flag" , and yet even I can see where both sides are coming from. [:(]

Despite what the Daily Mail may suggest, the nationalists over here don't want to go back to the "good old days" of cross-border raids and such like. At least, if they do, they've kept it quiet. I think, in fairness, that the nationalist comparison doesn't quite work; I think some of the religious conflicts in Scotland would make a more apt comparison.

The rebellion aspect is something I can't grasp either. The whole "fight fovstates rights" issue seems to me a red herring that distracts from the fact that the Southern states rebelled to ensure that slavery was preserved.

I find the logic flawed in that people would be as proud of a flag that was used by an army formed to defend the institution of slavery. It seems to me, an outsider, that the flag's negative connotations would by far outweigh the positive ones.

Now, I can understand the "southern pride" mindset within it's historical context. But today it seems exceptionally out of place, considering that the world has(at least mostly) condemned slavery as a bad thing. The whole "Lost Cause" historiography is something I don't comprehend either.

Now, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and say that I'm an outsider without the cultural background to understand the issue; there tends to be a reason these things aren't fully resolved today.

I'm impressed! That's a very adult point of view that I never expected. Admitting that you are ignorant of a matter. Well done sir!

Well, the nuances of the religious divide in Glasgow is something I've seen first hand, and even I can't fully understand or explain it. It would be crass of me to say otherwise for the same complex issues in other countries.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree [;)]

If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames:

The Union Jack
The Tricolour
The Belgian Flag
The Dutch Flag
The Spanish Flag
The Portuguese Flag

and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem....

As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact.

Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective.

I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

The Confederate flag (at least the common battle flag) was flown by the army that actively fought to keep people enslaved. The Belgian flag at least had a bit of history before it's association with the Congo that wasn't overwhelmingly negative.

The context of the flag being flown is a factor. If you're flying the Belgian flag in Brussles, it's not an issue. Flying the flag from a government building in the DRC? Well, how could that be interpreted?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Despite what the Daily Mail may suggest, the nationalists over here don't want to go back to the "good old days" of cross-border raids and such like. At least, if they do, they've kept it quiet. I think, in fairness, that the nationalist comparison doesn't quite work; I think some of the religious conflicts in Scotland would make a more apt comparison.

The rebellion aspect is something I can't grasp either. The whole "fight fovstates rights" issue seems to me a red herring that distracts from the fact that the Southern states rebelled to ensure that slavery was preserved.

I find the logic flawed in that people would be as proud of a flag that was used by an army formed to defend the institution of slavery. It seems to me, an outsider, that the flag's negative connotations would by far outweigh the positive ones.

Now, I can understand the "southern pride" mindset within it's historical context. But today it seems exceptionally out of place, considering that the world has(at least mostly) condemned slavery as a bad thing. The whole "Lost Cause" historiography is something I don't comprehend either.

Now, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and say that I'm an outsider without the cultural background to understand the issue; there tends to be a reason these things aren't fully resolved today.

I'm impressed! That's a very adult point of view that I never expected. Admitting that you are ignorant of a matter. Well done sir!

Well, the nuances of the religious divide in Glasgow is something I've seen first hand, and even I can't fully understand or explain it. It would be crass of me to say otherwise for the same complex issues in other countries.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then.

What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building?

warspite1

I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous...

The Confederate flag (at least the common battle flag) was flown by the army that actively fought to keep people enslaved. The Belgian flag at least had a bit of history before it's association with the Congo that wasn't overwhelmingly negative.

The context of the flag being flown is a factor. If you're flying the Belgian flag in Brussles, it's not an issue. Flying the flag from a government building in the DRC? Well, how could that be interpreted?

warspite1

Did the South have no history that wasn't negative? Did the Southern States produce nothing of any value to the world? Was their only contribution slavery?

Those are questions not a statement.

EDIT: Spelling [:@]