Good bye and good riddance to the rebel flag
As a child of the 70’s I have to admit that I’m a little surprised at how quickly and completely the rebel flag seems to be falling into the same untouchable category as the swastika. I didn’t think we’d see the demise of the stars and bars in my lifetime. It has always been venerated by particularly showy and repugnant southern racists, but it has also been something else.
During my childhood the was a short-hand for a bygone southern goofiness rooted in intractability and a willful rejection of modernity. It was the prop for a stock character that, even in the 70’s seemed, not so much like a dying breed, but a dead breed. Nobody in modern America cleaved to the blatantly racist meaning of the flag, nobody with any power or influence anyway. Therefor, it must have seemed okay to play the flag for laughs.
Obviously, something has changed.
The vicious racial hatred that seemed to be becoming part of our past in the 80’s when the Duke brothers raced through Hazard County in the General Lee, came storming back thanks to the GOP, Fox News and the boundless racial hatred that they feel free to express on a daily basis. Hatred of black people, hatred of the poor. Hatred of the President of the United States – all of this hate undermined the playful ridiculousness that the flag had come to stand for.
With white domestic terrorist attacks in South Carolina, the end has come. Everyone in American with eyes to see simultaneously arrived same conclusion that the University of Mississippi came to ten years ago. There is no longer a place for that symbol. It gives too much comfort and support to the worst among us. It normalizes hate. And the United States of America has too many guns and too many people willing to trade on hatred to continue to pretend that the symbols of hate are anything other than despicable relics.
Will Hillary Clinton respond to this subject immediately ,or will she wait until nobody is paying attention, and then in the haze of more pressing matters, laugh off her and her husbands connection with that flag?
I would love to see how that war room is working right now. They have the best.
In the 70’s, some of us still understood the confederate flag as a symbol of opposition to civil rights. We didn’t watch the Dukes of Hazard. For obvious reasons.
Naturally. Hollywood scrubbed the sharp edges from history for the sake of entertainment, and entertainment is subjective. In addition to the Dukes of Hazard I watched, and thoroughly enjoyed, ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ – a sitcom set in a German prison camp. The mind boggles.
I experienced a cleaned up and sanitized “South” depicted on tv and it obscured the real “South” which I never experienced. I don’t think that a workable model going forward, and that is a good thing.
The difference between Hogan’s Heros and Dukes of Hazard is that while Hogan’s erased the entire conflict of WWII, the rest of the culture did not. The narrative of genocide and racism of WWII was widely known enough that this TV show was not part of helping to rewrite or soften the edges of that history. The Dukes of Hazard was part of a long and successful narrative that worked hard to erase the Confederacy’s racist past, defense of human slavery, sedition and treason and transform it into one of a defense of some honorable heritage.
Great point. I agree entirely.
I’m not going to defend the Confederate flag, but I will point out that that the meaning of symbols can change over time. The symbol for Christianity is a torture device. That’s pretty bizarre when you think about it. Also take a look at the history of the Democratic party. The Democratic Party represented the south and white supremacy, but today it doesn’t.
Shouldn’t we be offended by the name “Democratic Party” for what it once represented?
How about the American flag? The American flag flew for many years longer than the Confederate flag, over state sanctioned slavery, and it still offends some indigenous peoples and African Americans alike to this day.
like you said, FBH, symbols change. The American flag changed into something more tolerant. When that happened, Southern Racists flocked to the Virginia Treason Flag like flies to shit. They disregarded the REAL confederate flag (stars and bars) and took up one that was flown over groups of terrorists killing Americans… something that more represented their feelings.
Later, when the Stars and Stripes was used by people pushing for more equality, the Traitor flag was taken up by groups like the Klan and Neo Nazis to show their rebellion to the US government…. a government and nation that was trying to distance themselves from their own racist past.
SO while Americans were trying to actively change the symbol, the Confeds were either embracing it, or denying what it meant, all while resisting the progressive change that could have redeemed them.
Fuck your traitorous, racist shit bags.
The symbol for Christianity is a torture device.
Reminding people that Christ died for you and your sins. The torture nor the sacrifice are lost or erased in that symbol.
The Democratic Party represented the south and white supremacy, but today it doesn’t.
And why doesn’t it? Because the Democratic Party embraced values of inclusion and fairness no matter the color of your skin and made it very difficult for the folks who thought otherwise to be a party of the famously Big Tent Party. The better example of how symbols change is the Republican Party. Which is where all of the Dixiecrats now reside and are perfectly comfortable.
How about the American flag?
The American flag (starting with the Continental Colors) was at one time a symbol of revolution and revolt. It has changed its meaning since, which is the point you want to be making here instead of the Rush Limbaugh point you are clumsily working through here. The current American flag changed its meaning because the good guys won — and the flag became the flag of a new nation. And the meaning changed because history gets written by the winners.
The current meaning of the stars and stripes might best be summed up by Dylann Roof’s burning of one.
Likewise the yellow Gadsden flag (“Don’t tread on me”) took on a whole new meaning when embraced by the Tea Party.
It used to convey a desire for liberty. Now it just represent treasonous thought.
If it wasn’t for the Republican party, the Civil Rights Bill would not have passed. Check the voting record of your beloved big tent Dems of the time. Let’s also not forget the KKK tied to many of them, like Sen. Byrd. And, not to be forgotten, but the Republican party was founded as an anti-slave party. Not surprised you didn’t know this (50 years of lib schooling,) or conveniently choose to ignore it (100+ years of Marxist progressive indoctrination) but the real facts remain.
@RB “If it wasn’t for the Republican party, the Civil Rights Bill would not have passed.”
Ancient history… You’re spouting stuff with the intent to mislead and deceive. The “Southern Strategy” changed everything. The GOP actively courted all the racists, and now it must live with what it got. Returning a few donations from hate groups does not wash their hands of their blatant “crime”.
Real facts are only useful when they are relevant.
…Oh, and I was only in school for 26 years, not 50.
Pathetic response. What I said is true. You have not refuted the fact that the Dems have been traditionally the party of discrimination. Look at the minorities in governships. They have “R” s after their names. Calling someone a racist is the end game of the real racists- progressives. By the way, your 26 years in the progressive education system helped make you what you are- a hateful, intolerant progressive liberal with a closed mind.
Lol. Robert Byrd. You are a riot. Why not drag Oliver Cromwell or Henry v into your fever dreams ?
Liberal Elite. Let’s go to the movies tonight and pay a nickel. If the theater has a problem we’ll invoke the 60 years ago magical reality clause
Oliver Cromwell? Just a few hundred years apart. Byrd was a living breathing Senate majority leader for a sizeable part of the last 50 years. See the connection?
You are ridiculous.
You have not refuted the fact that the Dems have been traditionally the party of discrimination.
But they are not NOW (as we are talking about meaning changing over time). All of the Dixiecrats have Rs behind their names now. Which is the only way that the South could be so red. On the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — BOTH southern Ds and Rs voted against it in huge majorities. It was a solid coalition of NORTHERN Ds and Rs that passed it. So forget about your Republicans passing Lyndon Johnson’s (DEMOCRATIC) bill. If the D and R representation of the south had their way, the bill wouldn’t have passed. It is the SOUTHERN states with the issues. And now it is pretty much the entire Republican party.
And you need to look up the word “racist” so you can use it correctly.
Republicans, the party of hate.
And still hypocritically not ready to take personal responsibility for their deep-seated bigotry.
@RB “By the way, your 26 years in the progressive education system helped make you what you are- a hateful, intolerant progressive liberal with a closed mind.”
hateful, intolerant with a closed mind?
You’re so right!! You got me there good.
I truly hate racists.
I am wholly intolerant of people who promote or practice racism.
And my mind is closed to arguments trying to justify racial discrimination via religion or whatever nonsense is being peddled on a given day.
So… Here’s a question for you… How do you live with yourself?
Are you happy with who you are?
You are taking this the wrong way. It is ridiculous on its face.
I love how Republicans history stops at 1968. Yes. Strom Thurmond and other democrats were disgusting Southern Racists. When the Democratic party decided NOT to be disgustingly racist, they LEFT THE DAMN PARTY. Got that Robber Barron? THEY LEFT. Do you know which party welcomed them with open arms?
I doubt you’ll bother to check. It might interfere with your narrative and we wouldnt want THAT, now would we?
Also, Robert Byrd expressed remorse and regret for his involvement with racist southerners. He tried very hard later in his career to atone for damage he did. Im not going to postulate on whether or not he DID make up for pain caused while he was a racist southerner, but he did something that guys like Strom Thurmond never did and that should at least me mentioned every time you try and take the moral high ground because one old guy from West Virginia did what a lot of people form West Virginia did.
I think I’ll watch Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In on the National Broadcasting Company tonight. (On my black and white Television, of course.)
Also, Robert Byrd expressed remorse and regret for his involvement with racist southerners. He tried very hard later in his career to atone for damage he did.
This is called a changed symbol. Republicans like to trot out Byrd (without giving him the respect of noting his decided change of heart) because they think that we are as easily fooled as they are.
According to RobberBaron’s logic… if I did a good thing 30, 40, 100 years ago I get a complete pass on what I do today. Awesome!
The confederate flag is a disgusting symbol of racism/slavery, treason and, of course, a bunch of LOSERS.
(And don’t think I didn’t notice how RobberBaron ignored my questions on the gun/tyranny thread – which tells me he’s got nothing, but… paranoid fantasies. Feel free to respond on that thread, RB.)
Dont forget UNEDUCATED. the people who wave around the traitor flag are usually the ones demanding science not be taught, lest it expose their offspring to evil liberal ideas.
Let’s play RB’s game from another angle:
The 1860 Republican Party platform did NOT call for the abolition of slavery, only its confinement to states in which it already existed.
Other planks in the party platform: Clauses 12 through 16 of the platform called for a protective tariff, enactment of the Homestead Act, freedom of immigration into the United States and full rights to all immigrant citizens, internal improvements, and the construction of a Pacific railroad.
How many of those principles are supported by the GOP today? The Homestead Act gave citizens free land, so I don’t think they support that. Freedom of immigration? Today that’s Democrats, not Republicans. Internal improvements? Not on the modern GOP’s dime. More railroads? GOP governors made a point of turning down free federal money for that purpose.
By RB’s logic, today’s Democrats should all vote Republican because once upon a time, the GOP’s positions were the opposite of what they are today.
The stupidity hardly needs more elaboration.
You people never give up. I know, Liberalism is your first calling and everything else is second. If we are going to quote the Republican platform of 1860, lets also include:
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
Slavery is a great stain on our common heritage. I hate it. But I have no responsibility for it and will not pay any price for it. I treat people the way I expect to be treated. Republicans (and Libertarians) want everybody to be successful as it makes things better for everybody. Now lets talk about the way libs treat people they think are incapable of taking care of themselves. You notice I say “they think”. They fret and cajole, wring their hands and say “don’t worry about anything, we will give you a pittance to survive on and only ask you to continue to vote for us.” Put in common terms, it is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Ask people to produce, and maybe they will. If you don’t, they won’t. I know how much you all hate Ben Carson, but he is the Horatio Alger story. He wants nothing more than having people give an effort and get rewarded for it. Success through hard work and perseverance is very real and used to be a way of life.
BTW, for all the support for illegals in this country, the actual lower income American citizens are hurt the most. It is simple supply and demand. More workers willing to work for next to nothing means more jobs that pay next to nothing.
And Pandorra, any response to your non-nonsensical diatribe is pointless, but try this. If you are ever in a situation where your life is threatened, I promise you….you will be clinging to anyone who may be in a position to defend you.
@RB “If you are ever in a situation where your life is threatened, I promise you….you will be clinging to anyone who may be in a position to defend you.”
Our lives ARE threatened by reckless and idiotic gun owners. So what should we cling to?? How about effective gun control?? That’s something worth clinging to…
Yeah. The criminals are known to obey the law.
I knew you couldn’t answer my questions, RB. Which means… I win!
Pandora. You want answers? ok. I’ll start with you have no idea of what you describe. Like all sheep lib progressives, you have an exaggerated opinion about what a typical gun owner looks like. They have guns in all rooms, strap them to their hip and generally are obnoxious. The typical legal gun owner does not fit that profile. They are rational, careful people that believe in taking care of themselves, but if evil shows its face, they are prepared to defend themselves and loved ones. According to the FBI, in 2012 there was a violent crime every 26 seconds, murder every 35.4 minutes, rape every 6.2 minutes, robbery every 1.5 minutes and aggravated assaulted every 41.5 seconds. Also, property crime occurred every 3.5 seconds. What would you do in one of these situations? Sit the perpetrator down and try to reason with him or her? Call 911 and wait for the police or be forced to submit to them? I see none of these options as viable. Do you? and if yes, then how would it play out? This isn’t about winning a stupid argument on a blog, it is about saving yourself from possible harm. We live in a state that has a very high crime rate and Wilmington is especially dangerous. I don’t take any pride in that and as a native, I am concerned about the trend. My family is safer with me around then they would be without me. Ask them yourself.
“My family is safer with me around then they would be without me. Ask them yourself.”
Yet the statistics say exactly the opposite.
What a sad, frightened little man you are and your fellow gun owners are. I pity you, but you’re still a sorry sack of shit in a man-shaped package.
You like the word shit, don’t you. I am guessing constipation is the problem. Never mind. What statistics are you citing? Not the fabricated 90% of all gun deaths are family and friends again? I don’t know where that comes from but it is bullshit (sorry, still stopped up?) In Chicago, there have been more than 1000 shootings so far this year. All family and friends or just street thugs having at it? And, according to the CDC. 61% of shooting deaths are suicides (and as some inane member of this blog famously said “they are family members, too”. And most importantly, no gun ever picked itself up and shot someone.
@RB “Not the fabricated 90% of all gun deaths are family and friends again? I don’t know where that comes from but it is bullshit”
Just do the math. Start with the 61% that are suicides, and then add spousal homicide (the largest single homicide category in the US), add in virtually every gun accident…. yup… keep adding…. and adding…. and guess what?
You really do get to ~90% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends.
And you still haven’t answered my questions, RB. I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed.
Dear Delaware Liberals,
Its: *Hazzard. Not Hazard. But something gives me the feeling none of you watched the show anyway, I’d be surprised if you even watched more than half of the trailer of the recent motion picture. While y’all are worried about stats unrelated to the thread, maybe you could check the name of the show you constantly reference.
Sincerely,
Your Local Confederate Flag Supporter
I use the word “shit” in dealing with you because that is the word we use to describe turds.
Providing multiple links would slow down the post, but look it up yourself. Study after study has shown that gun owners are shot more often than non-gun owners, which is the exact opposite of what you said.
This is the irony of handgun ownership (long guns are owned mostly for hunting, not self-defense). You cite lots of crime statistics, without noting that those things are far more likely to happen to people in poor neighborhoods than middle-class or rich ones — in other words, they don’t actually apply to your situation. Yet you’re so frightened that you will be a victim that you can’t operate without your “protection.”
The fantasy you described, in which you are accosted by a criminal, is just that, a fantasy. The fact that you think about that fantasy indicates that you are a frightened child who has substituted a gun for Daddy.
Get some help, if only for your kids’ sake.
Dear Johnny R.,
Why do you support the confederate flag?
Sincerely,
pandora
I wrote a paper in college years ago that was titled “The Dumbing Down Of The Species.” The gist of my assertion, which focused on mandatory seat belt use, was that if using seat belts was smart because it saves lives, then those who refused to use seat belts were at increased risk and those who used seat belts obviously were at less risk. Given that those who did not use them (stupid people) died at a greater rate than those who did use them (smarter people), mandatory seat belt use contributed to the dumbing down of the species because so many stupid people survived to produce stupid offspring.
In my view, the same applies to guns. Given that 90% of the gun deaths are family and friends, families who supported and tolerated guns in the home and friends to maintained relationships with gun owners are at increased risk for death by those guns, that choice would be stupid. Since they die at a greater rate than the smart people, there is an evolutionary imperative that should be taken into account when considering gun control. Specifically, more stupid people would survive, thus contributing to the dumbing down of the species.
Now stupid people do not always produce stupid offspring, but I am convinced that there is a genetic predisposition for stupidity, and coupled with a cultural environment and indoctrination that they are protected by a family member with a gun, they are predisposed to act in a similar manner. So, as long as I maintain some separation by not being their family and friends I am relatively safe. If they want to put themselves at risk, so be it.
RB says to ask his family if they are safer. Well, that’s evidence of both stupid offspring and cultural indoctrination. And with the acceptance of that increased risk, the likelihood that his family will not survive to reproduce may contribute to evolutionary growth by natural selection.
Confederate flag supporter = Confederate supporter = traitor to America.
please leave the country.
Republicans (and Libertarians) want everybody to be successful as it makes things better for everybody.
SOCIALISM!
Plus, this is demonstrably a lie.
Sign Me,
A Proud Non-Watcher of the Southern Propaganda that Was the Dukes of Hazard (sp)
Dave – I like it. However, here on the east coast stupid and smart people live too close together.
“Republicans (and Libertarians) want everybody to be successful as it makes things better for everybody.”
Then they should be against capitalism, which is based on exploiting the labor of others. Capitalism has winners and losers by design.
@Dave: Have you seen “Idiocracy”?
Yes, I have. It was hilarious because I kept seeing parallels to today’s society. However, I remain hopeful that facts and data will win out over beliefs in the long run.
BTW, I do not wear a seat belt because it saves lives. I started wearing mine because I required my children to wear them. So, partially in the interest of setting a good example but mostly because I abhor hypocrisy.
@Dave “The gist of my assertion, which focused on mandatory seat belt use, was that if using seat belts was smart because it saves lives, then those who refused to use seat belts were at increased risk and those who used seat belts obviously were at less risk.”
There’s a fallacy here. When seat belts were first introduced in Germany, the death rate on the autobahns increased. Why? Because people thought they were safer, so they drove faster… resulting in more accidents and deaths.
Cause and effect are often complex things, when it comes to human behavior.
The same holds true for gun owners. They buy guns to be safer but then engage in activities that are decidedly not safe, making the overall risk and number of deaths much higher.
A simple statistic that drives this home: Gun death rates correlate nicely with gun ownership rates in every state. Suicides by gun are triple in Texas than in New York. So are the gun ownership rates… Hmmmm. Is this because Texas sucks compared to NY (people are dying to get out of Texas)??? Or is it just that much easier?