159 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

So yes, after all the nerfing, and power creep. Minorities needed some buffs, and quirks to help them out.

Also using video game terminology: Being a white male is like playing a video game on Easy mode. The boss mobs are easier to fight and the battles to it have fewer and less powerful pulls.

[Nightmare1]

Heffay, on 27 June 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

The Dixie flag isn't your heritage. It's the flag of a failed nation state that promoted slavery over human rights.

If you want to promote your heritage, find one that didn't represent the deaths of something like 600,000 people and slavery. I dunno, how about Whataburger or something. What does the South "represent"?

Spoken like a true, ignorant tool.

Try living in the South for a while and you might come to understand. Try educating yourself and you might understand. Until then, you really know nothing.

Edit: I really get tired of the self-righteous, arrogant types talking down to those of us who value the flag as if they know better. The simple fact that they behave like such is proof enough that they did not bother to do their own homework, nor that they are invested enough to even try to understand the South's culture.

Edited by Nightmare1, 11 July 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[MarineTech]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

Spoken like a true, ignorant tool.

Well that one's got the birds of K-Town warming up in the bullpen.

See you soon.

[Nightmare1]

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

Look, Slavery wasn't a marginal issue. You have to accept that. Especially since that flag was the BATTLE FLAG of a very racist general.

Are you referring to Lee? Because if so, it simply isn't true. If you are referring to Forrest, then there is actually more to the story.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

You can't accept the good parts of the flag, without the massively negative ones.

Nobody is denying the moral depravity of slavery. Nor is anyone glorying in it. We are simply pointing out that a knee-jerk reaction to remove the flag simply because it was associated with slavery is stupid. The United States Flag was also associated with slavery, as was the British Flag.

For that time period, it was not unusual that slavery existed. What was unusual was that there were people who wished to abolish it. That is worth celebrating. Continuing to pretend that slavery was somehow uniquely American and to continue to brow-beat the South by attacking its cultural icons serves no purpose and devalues the importance of the fact that abolition was a distinctly Western phenomena.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

No, not really. I'm Muslim, my friends are from all walks of life, some are stoners, some are practically alcoholic, some atheist, Christian, Buddhist, or other denominations. I'm associated with them. That DOESN'T make me one of them. There's a difference between the two.

Exactly, just as valuing the flag does not inherently make one racist.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

This symbol really hasn't changed from it's original purpose. On the other hand, if we go with "symbols change", this symbol has been co-opted by every hate group, and white supremacist movement since the late 30s and up. So even if it didn't stand for anything negative back then, it stands for a whole lot of it now.

Perhaps in the sense that symbols change, which is why it is even more important to educate people so that those additional and subsequent, negative stereotypes may be eliminated.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

Using MW:O terms:

To compensate for being nerfed so hard, minorities had to be given some quirks to help them have a hope of a fair chance. For example, not a single non-white family ever received government support in establishing their homes in the late 1800s+. While white families did, which lead for significantly reduced economic stress on white families, while non-white families had to do with scraps, no infrastructure, and ridiculous amounts of financial stress, because they were starting from zilch.

Not in the South during Reconstruction. It's well documented that the Southerners typically lost everything. Northern Generals oversaw the military districts into which the South had been divided and frequently exploited every opportunity to take lands and property from Southerners. Even Southerners who fought for the Union found themselves victimized. As for blacks, they were sometimes awarded the famous, or infamous, "40 aces and a mule" promise.

Now, many of the whites did eventually have their lands restored to them once the thieving generals had been removed. And many blacks did not receive their promise of the "40 acres and a mule" (the infamous part there), but both had significant economic hardships following the war. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

They rose, in armed resistance against the government of the United States, aiming to topple it, and usurp it's power. That's the literal definition of armed treason, and insurgency.

The Minorities? I think you have some noun confusion here.

As for the South, it peacefully seceded but for two fort commanders that refused to evacuate their garrisons and return the properties to the South. The South did not seek to topple the U.S. government and usurp its power; that is your ignorance speaking. If it had, it could have done so after the first Battle of Bull Run. In fact, the South had many chances to do so but held back, hoping to prove that it did not want war and to convince the North to let it alone. In fact, the South did not launch an invasion of the North until after the North had already invaded it several different times.

As for Sumter, the commander of the fort wanted to surrender it to the Confederate commander, but asked that they allow him to make a show of holding out for the sake of his career. The Confederate commander agreed. It was then that Lincoln announced his plan to send troops and supplies to Sumter, with the intent of making it impregnable. This was a critical concern for the South, since Sumter controlled the Charleston Harbor, arguably the most important harbor in the South. By allowing Lincoln to reinforce it, the South would have essentially have ceded command of its largest harbor to the whims or another nation's ruler. It would be akin to the Panama Canal being controlled by a group that was not Panamanian today, or the Suez being commanded by a nation that had ill intentions towards all those who use it. In short, the South found itself in a bind where it would start a war if it took Sumter, but would be at a serious disadvantage in the coming war if it didn't.

Metaphorically speaking, the North put a gun to the South's head and eared back the hammer. The South decided not to wait and fired first. It was a nice bit of political posturing on Lincoln's part and forever transitioned the "victim" label from the South to the North. In more recent history, it is not unlike the sinking of the Lusitania in World War I due to Wilson's own machinations.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

The only reason the flag wasn't banned after the war, was the fact that it was discarded. No one was flying that flag, in fact, no one saw the flag for over 50 years. It wasn't until anti-segregation acts started being considered, and black people were moving into all-white neighborhoods that it popped back up. By the 30s it was the standard of every white supremacist movement in the country. Virtually all of them were in the south.

The reason why it is everywhere today is because of the push back against the supremacists. There are fewer supremacists today now than there are patriotic Southerners who do not wish for their culture to be eradicated or their history to be expunged. The KKK, for example, is nearly extinct. Simply because an occasional shooter uses the flag, that does not make it, nor everyone else who values it, on par with that shooter or a person who sympathizes with his beliefs. People who view the issue as such oversimplify it and do many Americans a great disservice.

Interestingly enough, many of the blacks where I live display the flag and participate in reenactments. They view it as an important piece of their own history and heritage and feel no shame in it. How one views the flag is entirely a personal choice, so don't allow that decision to be made for you by talking heads on the evening news.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

My post in this thread was deleted.

How is it mods have no problem being dicI<z and randomly deleting posts for no reason.

But when it is time for them to own up to what they did and provide a decent explanation for their kim jong-esque behavior that is totally impossible?

Edited by I Zeratul I, 11 July 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[Nightmare1]

I Zeratul I, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

My post in this thread was deleted.

How is it mods have no problem being dicI<z and randomly deleting posts for no reason.

But when it is time for them to own up to what they did and provide a decent explanation for their kim jong-esque behavior that is totally impossible?

Because mods are generally volunteers who are as emotionally invested in these issues as the people who comment on them.

I even had a mod lock a thread I made in Feature Suggestions because he didn't like the idea I had for some new content. He debated me about it on the thread, and when he lost the debate he locked it down. Since then, he lost his mod title, but there have been a few others I've run into. You have to tread very carefully sometimes; you never know when a mod will decide to take offense.

[Heffay]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Nobody is denying the moral depravity of slavery.

It doesn't end at slavery. The flag was raised over the SC capitol to fight against civil rights, voting, etc, in the 1960s. It's been a symbol to support Jim Crow laws as well. "OK, you can be free, but you have to sit in the back of the bus, use separate restrooms and separate schools that have no funding. But at least you're free!"

Because you know... segregation should be a state's right too. That darn pesky Civil Rights Act. Good thing you have a flag to also represent fighting against that. STATE'S RIGHTS!!!

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

Because mods are generally volunteers who are as emotionally invested in these issues as the people who comment on them.

I even had a mod lock a thread I made in Feature Suggestions because he didn't like the idea I had for some new content. He debated me about it on the thread, and when he lost the debate he locked it down. Since then, he lost his mod title, but there have been a few others I've run into. You have to tread very carefully sometimes; you never know when a mod will decide to take offense.

I've gotten the impression many mods have extremely intolerant totalitarian mindsets. They disapprove of freedom of speech and viewpoints that differ from their own and try to eradicate independent thought the way a Stalin or Mao Zedong would. Somehow we have an entire generation of youth to mid 30's who have that mentality.

Heffay, on 11 July 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

It doesn't end at slavery. The flag was raised over the SC capitol to fight against civil rights, voting, etc, in the 1960s. It's been a symbol to support Jim Crow laws as well. "OK, you can be free, but you have to sit in the back of the bus, use separate restrooms and separate schools that have no funding. But at least you're free!"

Because you know... segregation should be a state's right too. That darn pesky Civil Rights Act. Good thing you have a flag to also represent fighting against that. STATE'S RIGHTS!!!

If you want to discuss this seriously.

Think about foxconn employees in china.

1. They are only allowed to travel home and visit their families 1 day a year.
2. They're paid extremely low wages.
3. All their time is spent cooped up in a foxconn building which is not unlike a concentration camp with extremely limited visitation rights.

Are foxconn employees different from slaves? Some slaves were paid wages and arguably had more rights and freedoms than foxconn workers currently enjoy. One could say foxconn employees are slaves. That this is slavery endorsed by the american corporations who cater to this practice. And this slavery is endorsed by whatever legislative bodies subsidize and support it.

If such is the case, what's the point in demonizing the confederate flag and slavery as it was practiced in previous eras, if the end result of that is to completely and totally ignore slavery as it could exist today right under our noses?

Edited by I Zeratul I, 11 July 2015 - 08:38 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Heffay, on 11 July 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

Also using video game terminology: Being a white male is like playing a video game on Easy mode. The boss mobs are easier to fight and the battles to it have fewer and less powerful pulls.

Oh please. The only thing holding anyone back is their lack of determination. It doesn't matter what color, race or creed you are if you work hard AND work smartly.

[Mister Blastman]

Since we're on the subject ov Slavery and tolerant intolerance, how about this...

Those that support the Royal Family, enjoy them, read about them, respect them--they are perpetuating slavery, too. The Royal Family stands for British Royal Rule which has a long past of slavery, itself.

See, British Kings and Lords had people called Serfs under their control. Serfdom was basically a form of slavery. If you were a serf, you were screwed.

So by flying the British Flag high and cheering for the Royal Family, you are condoning the heritage of Slavery.

Because this is what it is, according to some folks here, who believe the Confederate Flag does just that, too.

The absurdity of it all is the Confederate Flag stood for States' rights where only a few rich Southerners held slaves, the rest did not. However, practically all medieval British Kings and Lords had serfs, i.e. slaves.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Or how about Egyptian memorabilia? I love the Alan Parsons Project, a studio band, for those that don't know. However, one of their albums "Eye in the Sky" has Egyptian symbols on the album cover. The Egyptians were notorious slave owners. How come they are not lambasted for this? How come there was not and is not rage over it?

The problem with hypocrisy is it is only hypocritical if it doesn't support the hypocrite's point of view. This is what tolerant intolerance is. The tolerant are tolerant of intolerance as long as it suits their agenda and ideals.

That is a crime. If someone is going to preach tolerance, well, they better be tolerant of EVERYTHING, otherwise, they are just as hypocritical as the rest of the hypocrites. And believe me, we ALL are hypocrites in one way or another. Man is flawed and doomed to imperfection.

[Nightmare1]

Heffay, on 11 July 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

It doesn't end at slavery. The flag was raised over the SC capitol to fight against civil rights, voting, etc, in the 1960s. It's been a symbol to support Jim Crow laws as well. "OK, you can be free, but you have to sit in the back of the bus, use separate restrooms and separate schools that have no funding. But at least you're free!"

Because you know... segregation should be a state's right too. That darn pesky Civil Rights Act. Good thing you have a flag to also represent fighting against that. STATE'S RIGHTS!!!

I'm not arguing concerning the South Carolina Flag. What I am referring to is the utter obliteration of all things with the Flag's image from the Dukes of Hazzard to Amazon.com merchandise and national parks. It's almost a paranoia right now that is prompting people to shed the Flag and its history and brow-beat the South and anyone who dares say otherwise. That is the definition of a knee-jerk, ignorant, and mindless reaction.

Carolina took down the Flag of its own will, exercising its State Right to do so. I have no problem with that. I just get tired of the mindless accusations and personal attacks against my home and culture by people who really have no idea what they are talking about.

If I want to wear a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag on it, I should be free to do so. Whether a Confederate Flag flies over a state capitol of not is to be determined by the people of that state. Removing Confederate Flags or symbols from historic sites and battlegrounds is tragic. We lose our history by doing so.

Yes, it is Amazon and Walmart's and TVLand's, etc's rights not to sell or propagate the Flag. It is simply disappointing that such reactions took place. Hopefully, other vendors will take up the sale and manufacture of such things for those of us who would like to own the Flag. But the governmental and cultural annihilation of the South is that to which I am adamantly opposed. In the wake of the shooting, there was even an attempt to rename Army Bases to eliminate names like Fort Bragg, Fort Lee, and Fort Pickett.

That is what I am driving at here. The capitol flag is a sideshow. What really concerns me is the systematic attack on the Confederate Flag and Southern culture, along with anyone who values such things, in the wake of a single, deranged man's murder spree. It is essentially a deranged reaction to a deranged action.

Mister Blastman, on 11 July 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Since we're on the subject ov Slavery and tolerant intolerance, how about this...

Those that support the Royal Family, enjoy them, read about them, respect them--they are perpetuating slavery, too. The Royal Family stands for British Royal Rule which has a long past of slavery, itself.

See, British Kings and Lords had people called Serfs under their control. Serfdom was basically a form of slavery. If you were a serf, you were screwed.

So by flying the British Flag high and cheering for the Royal Family, you are condoning the heritage of Slavery.

Because this is what it is, according to some folks here, who believe the Confederate Flag does just that, too.

The absurdity of it all is the Confederate Flag stood for States' rights where only a few rich Southerners held slaves, the rest did not. However, practically all medieval British Kings and Lords had serfs, i.e. slaves.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Or how about Egyptian memorabilia? I love the Alan Parsons Project, a studio band, for those that don't know. However, one of their albums "Eye in the Sky" has Egyptian symbols on the album cover. The Egyptians were notorious slave owners. How come they are not lambasted for this? How come there was not and is not rage over it?

The problem with hypocrisy is it is only hypocritical if it doesn't support the hypocrite's point of view. This is what tolerant intolerance is. The tolerant are tolerant of intolerance as long as it suits their agenda and ideals.

That is a crime. If someone is going to preach tolerance, well, they better be tolerant of EVERYTHING, otherwise, they are just as hypocritical as the rest of the hypocrites. And believe me, we ALL are hypocrites in one way or another. Man is flawed and doomed to imperfection.

Exactly! The Confederate Flag only flew over a slave-nation for for years. There are other modern nations, flying their flags and showcasing their antiquated cultures, that were slave nations for centuries. Yet, everyone ignores them.

If people are going to make blanket statements, they need to be prepared to make them and back them up. They can't make blanket statements and then go back and try to cut patches out of it so that exceptions can slip through.

[100mile]

Tesunie, on 27 June 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

People seem to forget, the Confederate flag did not originally stand for Slavery. Originally, the Union and Confederates broke away from each other (forming their respective groups) due to political reasons. (If I've got my history correct, it was actually about state rights.) Over time, the issue turned to a stronger point against or for slavery, but that wasn't the initial arguments for the conflict, just what the conflict became known for.

Even then, the Confederate flag was not a symbol of hate, and never was intended to be one. To compare it to the {Godwin's Law} emblem, which was created specifically to mean death and destruction is not accurate. (It's base was actually from another era, and if you reversed the {Godwin's Law} emblem it shows it's original root, which meant life and peace. The original emblem was typically displayed on the doorways of houses to bring good life to those inside. Similar to having gargoyles displayed to ward of evil.)

To call the Confederate flag a symbol for hate and racism should be like calling the USA flag the same thing. We've oppressed African Americans our selves (segregation, which was little better, if not worse at times, then slavery). We've also use to not have women with many/any rights, and they could not vote. We've pressed Native Americans into little more than concentration camps at points. The USA has even had our fair share of mass killings. Does this make the flag of the USA into a symbol of oppression and murder? (I certainly hope not.)

I'll agree with the Confederate flag having no proper place on government/public buildings, but to go so far as to try and block it's sale and prevent it's display (even in historical based games) is disrespectful. It disrespects past Americans. Those very Americans who fought on the Confederate side, as they were still Americans then and now. It can be a point of heritage, just like people who display a French flag because they have family roots in that country, or on a grave. (Can insert any country flag here.)

This a hundred times over....Make sure it's not lost on anybody he agrees with it not being flown on government buildings as do I. He is absolutely correct when he states that the Civil War was not initiated over slavery. It was not until after the war started that the Union decided to add that as a propaganda point and a way to make the war more popular with the population of the north. The Civil war began over states rights and whether we should be ruled as 1 nation or as individual states allied with each other. It boiled down to a war of economics and power and whom was going to control each. The fact that the original reason or intention of the Rebel flag wasn't to represent slavery doesn't matter as over the interceding years it has become a symbol of slavery and has been used to represent that belief. See the KKK and other white supremacists groups.

As far as the current argument goes as long as they don't start arresting people for having it or flying it on an individual basis then it's ok for business and Corporations etc to decide not to fly it or have it represent their product. Just like an individual has the right to decide what he/she believes is right and proper so do corporations and businesses, see the removal of the Dukes of Hazard from TV, whether we as individuals agree with that decision or not. That being said people need to quit getting outraged over the fact that Businesses and corporations are exercising their right to not fly the flag or have it represent their products and services. We can't argue for our right to do what we believe is right and then complain because someone else does what they believe is right.

[Nightmare1]

I Zeratul I, on 11 July 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

I've gotten the impression many mods have extremely intolerant totalitarian mindsets. They disapprove of freedom of speech and viewpoints that differ from their own and try to eradicate independent thought the way a Stalin or Mao Zedong would. Somehow we have an entire generation of youth to mid 30's who have that mentality.

That's public schools for you these days. They ditched civics in favor of sex ed and paint people like Che Guevara up to be heroes. It's dismal.

I once had a kid tell me that I was racist because I was white. I asked him what proof he had. He said my skin color was all he needed. I asked him if his generalization was racist and he assured me it wasn't because that was what he had been taught and that it was true.

He was an idiot.

100mile, on 11 July 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

This a hundred times over....Make sure it's not lost on anybody he agrees with it not being flown on government buildings as do I. He is absolutely correct when he states that the Civil War was not initiated over slavery. It was not until after the war started that the Union decided to add that as a propaganda point and a way to make the war more popular with the population of the north. The Civil war began over states rights and whether we should be ruled as 1 nation or as individual states allied with each other. It boiled down to a war of economics and power and whom was going to control each. The fact that the original reason or intention of the Rebel flag wasn't to represent slavery doesn't matter as over the interceding years it has become a symbol of slavery and has been used to represent that belief. See the KKK and other white supremacists groups.

As far as the current argument goes as long as they don't start arresting people for having it or flying it on an individual basis then it's ok for business and Corporations etc to decide not to fly it or have it represent their product. Just like an individual has the right to decide what he/she believes is right and proper so do corporations and businesses, see the removal of the Dukes of Hazard from TV, whether we as individuals agree with that decision or not. That being said people need to quit getting outraged over the fact that Businesses and corporations are exercising their right to not fly the flag or have it represent their products and services. We can't argue for our right to do what we believe is right and then complain because someone else does what they believe is right.

Exactly. South Carolina decided to remove the Flag of its own free will, as did some corporations. While I disagree with those decisions and consider them to be fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions, I understand them and respect their right to do so. I am just worried that the paranoia will go too far and reach the point where it becomes a crime to have the Flag. At that point, we have lost another bit of our Constitutional Rights.

Edited by Nightmare1, 11 July 2015 - 09:45 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

Carolina took down the Flag of its own will, exercising its State Right to do so. I have no problem with that. I just get tired of the mindless accusations and personal attacks against my home and culture by people who really have no idea what they are talking about.

I'm happy that my state (Georgia) still proudly flies a variation of the Stars and Bars. They might have removed the Confederate flag in the 90s, but they put someone equally as good in its place a few years later. The funny part is most folks don't realize it is a Confederate flag because it isn't the starred cross.

Ignorance runs deep.

[Nightmare1]

Mister Blastman, on 11 July 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

I'm happy that my state (Georgia) still proudly flies a variation of the Stars and Bars. They might have removed the Confederate flag in the 90s, but they put someone equally as good in its place a few years later. The funny part is most folks don't realize it is a Confederate flag because it isn't the starred cross.

Ignorance runs deep.

I heard that!

[Davegt27]

this thread hasent been locked yet?

[IraqiWalker]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Are you referring to Lee? Because if so, it simply isn't true. If you are referring to Forrest, then there is actually more to the story.

There really isn't much more to it.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Nobody is denying the moral depravity of slavery. Nor is anyone glorying in it. We are simply pointing out that a knee-jerk reaction to remove the flag simply because it was associated with slavery is stupid. The United States Flag was also associated with slavery, as was the British Flag.

Both flags also represent the factions that abolished it, while the battleflag was flown specifically to combat it's prohibition. It was later flown in the south specifically in support of segregation, and white supremacist movements.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

For that time period, it was not unusual that slavery existed. What was unusual was that there were people who wished to abolish it. That is worth celebrating. Continuing to pretend that slavery was somehow uniquely American and to continue to brow-beat the South by attacking its cultural icons serves no purpose and devalues the importance of the fact that abolition was a distinctly Western phenomena.

This particular icon should not receive any reverence. As for abolition being western, I'd like to submit literally the entire history of most eastern nations. They abolished slavery centuries before the west even thought about it. Hell, Islam abolished slavery back in 700 AD.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Exactly, just as valuing the flag does not inherently make one racist.

That's what I was saying. XD.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Perhaps in the sense that symbols change, which is why it is even more important to educate people so that those additional and subsequent, negative stereotypes may be eliminated.

That only works in the hypothetical that the symbol changed. It really hasn't.

Here's the Declaration of Causes for the secession. Read it. The biggest point of that entire kerfuffle is slavery.
http://www.civilwar....onofcauses.html


Those negative stereotypes didn't come from nowhere. The flag stood for white supremacy from the onset. I'd argue state rights would be the side issue.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Not in the South during Reconstruction. It's well documented that the Southerners typically lost everything. Northern Generals oversaw the military districts into which the South had been divided and frequently exploited every opportunity to take lands and property from Southerners. Even Southerners who fought for the Union found themselves victimized. As for blacks, they were sometimes awarded the famous, or infamous, "40 aces and a mule" promise.

Now, many of the whites did eventually have their lands restored to them once the thieving generals had been removed. And many blacks did not receive their promise of the "40 acres and a mule" (the infamous part there), but both had significant economic hardships following the war. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Yes. The first few years after the end of the war was rough. I apologize I forgot to post the rest of that section. The main benefits I was talking about included things like the GI Bill. You see, while shortly after the war some non-white families received help. Fast forward to the 1930s, and you'll see tons of legislature and benefits (Like the GI Bill) that specifically benefit white families only. No jokes, over the period from 1910 -1970~ish more and more legislature was put in place to help improve life for white families.

Ever wondered about why it is that minorities usually live in the Inner City, and in projects, and ghettos? Those didn't just happen overnight. They are a result of those bills that left families without foundation (specifically non-white families) fully on their own. While benefiting white families.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

The Minorities? I think you have some noun confusion here.

As for the South, it peacefully seceded but for two fort commanders that refused to evacuate their garrisons and return the properties to the South. The South did not seek to topple the U.S. government and usurp its power; that is your ignorance speaking. If it had, it could have done so after the first Battle of Bull Run. In fact, the South had many chances to do so but held back, hoping to prove that it did not want war and to convince the North to let it alone. In fact, the South did not launch an invasion of the North until after the North had already invaded it several different times.

As for Sumter, the commander of the fort wanted to surrender it to the Confederate commander, but asked that they allow him to make a show of holding out for the sake of his career. The Confederate commander agreed. It was then that Lincoln announced his plan to send troops and supplies to Sumter, with the intent of making it impregnable. This was a critical concern for the South, since Sumter controlled the Charleston Harbor, arguably the most important harbor in the South. By allowing Lincoln to reinforce it, the South would have essentially have ceded command of its largest harbor to the whims or another nation's ruler. It would be akin to the Panama Canal being controlled by a group that was not Panamanian today, or the Suez being commanded by a nation that had ill intentions towards all those who use it. In short, the South found itself in a bind where it would start a war if it took Sumter, but would be at a serious disadvantage in the coming war if it didn't.

Metaphorically speaking, the North put a gun to the South's head and eared back the hammer. The South decided not to wait and fired first. It was a nice bit of political posturing on Lincoln's part and forever transitioned the "victim" label from the South to the North. In more recent history, it is not unlike the sinking of the Lusitania in World War I due to Wilson's own machinations.

At the end of the day, the South engaged in active combat against the government of the United States of America, because it didn't like that slaves were going to be abolished. It engaged in active combat, and should it have succeeded, would have taken control.

Any way you slice it, it's still insurgency, and treason.

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

The reason why it is everywhere today is because of the push back against the supremacists. There are fewer supremacists today now than there are patriotic Southerners who do not wish for their culture to be eradicated or their history to be expunged. The KKK, for example, is nearly extinct. Simply because an occasional shooter uses the flag, that does not make it, nor everyone else who values it, on par with that shooter or a person who sympathizes with his beliefs. People who view the issue as such oversimplify it and do many Americans a great disservice.

Interestingly enough, many of the blacks where I live display the flag and participate in reenactments. They view it as an important piece of their own history and heritage and feel no shame in it. How one views the flag is entirely a personal choice, so don't allow that decision to be made for you by talking heads on the evening news.

You and I have VERY different definitions of "nearly extinct". When they have a memebership in the hundreds of thousands, and more sympathizers, plus influence with certain political parties, they are not "nearly extinct".

Again I state: The flag didn't re-surge because of a push against racism. It first popped up in large numbers in the south for the first time after the civil war in the 40s and up. Due to segregation discussion. The first time it was flown in large numbers after the end of the civil war, was in support of white supremacy, and segregation.

While you maybe correct about more patriots existing than racists, it still doesn't change what the flag stood for, and most importantly. That it should never fly on the state capitols. If it is ever in public display, it should be a museum. Someone can have it in their house, but it should never be over a government building.

Mister Blastman, on 11 July 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Since we're on the subject ov Slavery and tolerant intolerance, how about this...

Those that support the Royal Family, enjoy them, read about them, respect them--they are perpetuating slavery, too. The Royal Family stands for British Royal Rule which has a long past of slavery, itself.

See, British Kings and Lords had people called Serfs under their control. Serfdom was basically a form of slavery. If you were a serf, you were screwed.

So by flying the British Flag high and cheering for the Royal Family, you are condoning the heritage of Slavery.

Because this is what it is, according to some folks here, who believe the Confederate Flag does just that, too.

The absurdity of it all is the Confederate Flag stood for States' rights where only a few rich Southerners held slaves, the rest did not. However, practically all medieval British Kings and Lords had serfs, i.e. slaves.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Or how about Egyptian memorabilia? I love the Alan Parsons Project, a studio band, for those that don't know. However, one of their albums "Eye in the Sky" has Egyptian symbols on the album cover. The Egyptians were notorious slave owners. How come they are not lambasted for this? How come there was not and is not rage over it?

The problem with hypocrisy is it is only hypocritical if it doesn't support the hypocrite's point of view. This is what tolerant intolerance is. The tolerant are tolerant of intolerance as long as it suits their agenda and ideals.

That is a crime. If someone is going to preach tolerance, well, they better be tolerant of EVERYTHING, otherwise, they are just as hypocritical as the rest of the hypocrites. And believe me, we ALL are hypocrites in one way or another. Man is flawed and doomed to imperfection.

The difference is that the royal family abolished slavery. This battle flag didn't. Pure and simple.
So is literally every example you've listed. They are all set apart from that flag in that they abolished slavery. While the flag stood for upholding it.

[Mister Blastman]

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

The difference is that the royal family abolished slavery. This battle flag didn't. Pure and simple.
So is literally every example you've listed. They are all set apart from that flag in that they abolished slavery. While the flag stood for upholding it.

No. This flag stood for States' rights and standing up against Federal tyranny. Please don't try and change it into something it isn't.

Once again, tolerant intolerance. Exactly the point I was getting at.

[Nightmare1]

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

There really isn't much more to it.

Actually, there is a good bit more to it if you are talking of Forrest. If it's Lee of whom you speak, then you are actually dead wrong. He was an abolitionist.

Fun fact, Lincoln offered command of the military to Lee before he offered it to anyone else.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Both flags also represent the factions that abolished it, while the battleflag was flown specifically to combat it's prohibition. It was later flown in the south specifically in support of segregation, and white supremacist movements.

Again, it comes down to interpretation. Nowadays, the flag is flown less in a racist manner than it is in a historical manner. I won't deny that there are still supremacists who use it. However, everyone I know who flies it does so because it's a part of their culture. They also fly it to help generate discussion about it. I do not know a single person who uses it to promote racism.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

This particular icon should not receive any reverence.

You dishonor all of those who fought and died, including the blacks who fought on the side of the South, by making such an ignorant and blanket statement.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

As for abolition being western, I'd like to submit literally the entire history of most eastern nations. They abolished slavery centuries before the west even thought about it. Hell, Islam abolished slavery back in 700 AD.

Not so. In fact, slavery is still practiced in many parts of the world, most notably Africa and Asia. That includes some Muslim regions.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

That's what I was saying. XD.

Then work on your communication skills. It sounds to me as though you are making blanket statements that the flag should be annihilated along with Southern culture, and that those who happen to like the flag and culture are racist. This simply is not true. There are some racist individuals, to be certain, but not everyone who values the flag is racist or a supremacist. Shoot, there are a good number of blacks who use it! Explain that, if you can.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

That only works in the hypothetical that the symbol changed. It really hasn't.

Once again, you are incorrect.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Here's the Declaration of Causes for the secession. Read it. The biggest point of that entire kerfuffle is slavery.
http://www.civilwar....onofcauses.html

Again, it had to do with the State's right to decide for itself whether or not it should be a slave state. The North wanted to make the States, at that time a group of separate nations bound together in a Federation, into a solid Nation, with the States reduced to mere districts rather than equal Nations. If you actually spend the time to educate yourself using materials from those time periods, you will undoubtedly be surprised to learn that a great number of Southerners wanted to abolish slavery. They simply couldn't do it at that time due to economics. It's much like our dependence on fossil fuel at the moment. We know it is not the best option, but renewable fuels and the industries needed to support them are not economically feasible yet on a large scale. We have to wait a while before we can pursue them in a significant fashion. Similarly, for that time period, the South's agrarian industries were too heavily depended to relinquish slavery yet. That does not excuse slavery, but it does illustrate why it existed even up to that time, and why the South could not easily abolish the institution.

To put it a bit crudely and to oversimplify a bit, it was in essence the South telling the North to bug off and leave it be, that it was its own right to determine when the time was right, and not for the North to arbitrarily decide for it.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Those negative stereotypes didn't come from nowhere. The flag stood for white supremacy from the onset. I'd argue state rights would be the side issue.

Again, you are simply ignorant. From the outset, freeing the slaves was not the North's objective. That did not evolve to become part of the war's endgame until partway through it, when Lincoln realized that it would make good political fodder to help keep Britain from aiding the South. In fact, even the much lauded Emancipation Declaration did not free any slaves.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes. The first few years after the end of the war was rough. I apologize I forgot to post the rest of that section. The main benefits I was talking about included things like the GI Bill. You see, while shortly after the war some non-white families received help. Fast forward to the 1930s, and you'll see tons of legislature and benefits (Like the GI Bill) that specifically benefit white families only. No jokes, over the period from 1910 -1970~ish more and more legislature was put in place to help improve life for white families.

Again, you are not fully correct. The G. I. Bill, while not always applied fairly, was indeed given out to many blacks. To claim it was a "whites only" benefit is to again make an ignorant, blanket statement.

Nowadays, the pendulum has actually swung the other way. It is easier for minorities to gain access to college, scholarships, sports programs, etc. than for whites, especially males. It is a classic case of over compensation.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Ever wondered about why it is that minorities usually live in the Inner City, and in projects, and ghettos? Those didn't just happen overnight. They are a result of those bills that left families without foundation (specifically non-white families) fully on their own. While benefiting white families.

It is also due to the fact that they are on the government plantation, taking the free or subsidized housing, money, etc. When your basic needs are being met for little or no cost to you, there is little incentive to do better. Today, the only thing stopping minorities from excelling is the minorities themselves.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

At the end of the day, the South engaged in active combat against the government of the United States of America, because it didn't like that slaves were going to be abolished. It engaged in active combat, and should it have succeeded, would have taken control.

Again, you are completely wrong. You really should go read some history books, and I don't just mean one of those thin high school or college texts. Spend a few years, like I have done, reading historical accounts from both sides of the conflict and see where it leads you. The South no more wanted to take over the North and Washington D.C. than the Founding Fathers wanted to take over Britain and Buckingham Palace.

For the record, I used to be just as ignorant and naive as you, arguing the same positions in much the same style. It wasn't until a friend challenged those positions, daring me to prove them, that I realized how little I actually knew. That was when I started reading more historical books, essays, documents, etc. I was biased against the South, but after several years of research, I found my opinions shifting. Historically speaking, that time period is quite amazing and very exciting to read about.

All of this to say, I am not trying to change your mind; merely to open it so that you might start asking questions or educating yourself in your spare time.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Any way you slice it, it's still insurgency, and treason.

Another blanket statement. It's only insurgency if a group rebels against the government. The South did not; it seceded. Several sovereign nations broke their Federal alliance to each other to form a second, new Federal alliance.

Think of it like this simplified scenario. You and I are in a group playing MWO. I decide that I don't like your playstyle, so I tell you I'm leaving your group to join a different one. You tell me not to and threaten me. I do it anyways. In response, you come over to my house and put a gun to my head, telling me that I can't exercise my basic rights. Instead of waiting to see if you would shoot, I shoot you first, Han Solo style.

That's a bit oversimplified, but it is a decent analogy of what happened. The South said, "Forget this, we're going our own way!" and left. The North said, "Uh-uh, we want your territory, agriculture, and power!" and came after them. Sumter was the gun-to-the-head moment. The South shot first rather than waiting to see what would occur.

Seriously, spend some time researching this historical period. And by research, I mean real reading; not Wikipedia.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

You and I have VERY different definitions of "nearly extinct". When they have a memebership in the hundreds of thousands, and more sympathizers, plus influence with certain political parties, they are not "nearly extinct".

Source?

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Again I state: The flag didn't re-surge because of a push against racism. It first popped up in large numbers in the south for the first time after the civil war in the 40s and up. Due to segregation discussion. The first time it was flown in large numbers after the end of the civil war, was in support of white supremacy, and segregation.

Mmm-hmm, and nowadays it is flown for reasons other than segregation and racism. Once again, the reasons have changed, and today it is flown because of culture and heritage rather than to intimidate. That is a positive change. The generation that engaged in the barbaric supremacist actions is largely dead or very old. Brow beating current generations, to whom the flag represents a different meaning, is fruitless.

IraqiWalker, on 11 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

While you maybe correct about more patriots existing than racists, it still doesn't change what the flag stood for, and most importantly. That it should never fly on the state capitols. If it is ever in public display, it should be a museum. Someone can have it in their house, but it should never be over a government building.

As I stated previously, what happened with South Carolina's Flag is entirely up to the people of South Carolina. I don't live there, so it isn't my business. So long as the State decided to take it down, rather than the Federal Government, then so be it. I am simply trying to point out that the issue can not be addressed with blanket statements, that there are people who value the flag who are not supremacists, and that it is my right to own one and display it if I should wish it.

[Heffay]

Nightmare1, on 11 July 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

If I want to wear a belt buckle with the Confederate Flag on it, I should be free to do so.

You are absolutely free to wear a belt buckle with a Confederate flag on it.

I'm absolutely free to judge you for it.

You just want actions without consequences.

Edited by Heffay, 11 July 2015 - 03:20 PM.