In solemn tribute to the nine people gunned down at a Charleston church, two flags atop the statehouse in Columbia, South Carolina, were lowered to half-staff on Thursday. They will stay there for nine days in honor of each victim.
But in a bewildering display, a traitor flag on statehouse grounds is still flying high. It wasn't an oversight. It's because of state law.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has jurisdiction over how and when state flags fly — but the traitor flag is under the authority of the state's General Assembly, lawmakers told NBC News. It can't be changed in any way without a sign-off from the General Assembly.
The flag — as well as other historically named icons and places — is legally protected under the 2000 South Carolina Heritage Act. The rebel banner continues to draw criticism from South Carolinians who say it keeps the symbol of slavery and the Civil War alive.
Isnt it terrible when some deluded mass murderer associates themself with a specific group and generates unnecessary hate towards said group as a result of their actions. Murderer liking a flag or ideal does not mean that all who like the flag or ideal are murderers.
But dont get me started on those evil muslims, THEY HATE OUR WAY OF LIFE!!! Murders! All of them!
And any survivors we can chain to a wall in public for free rapes.
Careful what you wish for man.
The traitor flag is often used a symbol by white supremacists, surely that means that according to certain white supremacists, this flag does represent racism.
Yes. However that is not at all what it once stood for. White supremacists are ignorant fools who do not even know their own country.
However, like you said, it has become a symbol due to white supremacists, black whiners, and that guy in the white house trying to divide everybody against each other. So I agree it needs to go.
Heritage? ''Slave owners rebellion/civil war'' that only lasted 4 years? 4 years? It's even more insane than if people would complain that they can't use the Názi Germany flag with the swástika because it's their ''heritage''. How can you call that heritage?
"...because it includes images of the traitor flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways."
Yeah, it's totally a random coincidence that the traitor battle flag was addopted as a symbol by a murderous white supremacist. It totally isn't a legacy of the monstrous failure of postwar reconstruction. It's not like it was popularized and used as a symbol specifically by the KKK and other white supremacist groups, the reason it is considered the "traitor" flag in pop culture, even though as pointed out it wasn't. Ideologies and symbols, the history behind them, totally meaningless, they are all equally valid, and never, ever affect actions. Fuck, I'm sure this guy could've just as easily been driven to kill a bunch of innocent black people in a church if he identified as a buddhist and wore prayer beads all the time.
So, are they going to ban Starcraft? I mean Terran Confederacy
Or this?(click to show/hide)
so fucking retarded
Ahahaha Antiblitz ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Oh my this is the funniest shit ever, :mrgreen:
Ahahaha Antiblitz ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Oh my this is the funniest shit ever, :mrgreen:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
btw i dont necessarily disagree with you Oberyn, but the flag is what you make it, unfortunately, the people who make it unbearable are the ones making sure it gets removed. The same people who are defacing and destroying traitor monuments.
It is no accident that traitor symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the traitor battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the black in spanish is not equal to the white man'. The traitor flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizeable segment of its population?
The North also didn't return fugitive slaves that escaped the plantations from the South.
The idea that the Civil War was entirely about pro-slave/abolitionist, to me feels a little too much like it's praising the moral compass of the northern states. As if the people on the ground fighting the war (from the US side of things) gave a damn about freeing slaves. Could even say it was about representation; where the south votes for one thing, the north votes for another, and the north wins - the south begins to wonder why it should even stay in a government like that (see Scottish referendum). The difference being that a successful declaration of independence provoked a desperate war to keep both halves in the same union.The Confederacy fought for the perceived right to maintain the institution of race-based slavery, on which its plantation economy (and life of leisure for the slave owners) rested.
Though I will concede that when I studied US history (briefly) I was struck by the thick-headed 'we want slaves cos we always done had slaves' mentality from vocal pro-slave southerners despite starting to run out of actual practical reasons to keep slaves. Almost exactly the same intelligent reasoning as behind the pro-gun mentality in large parts of the US today, shows how far we've come.
All the greatest civilizations have had slavery.
The Confederacy fought for the perceived right to maintain the institution of race-based slavery, on which its plantation economy (and life of leisure for the slave owners) rested.
From the declaration of independence, Mississippi:
'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.'
From the justification of secession, Texas:
'We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.'
But the Union didn't go to war to free slaves. And The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't before 1863.
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861:
'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'
Lincoln in 1862: 'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.... I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'
The American Civil War was a text book power struggle between states, no matter how much it has been anachronistically romanticized for modern popular consumption.
Why wouldnt we want to praise it over the South's? The northern view proved to be by far the most progressive.
I just dont want to praise the north in and of itself for fighting the Civil War, since as Angatyr posted the North wasnt fighting to free the slaves, it was fighting to preserve the Union (very much how Britain fought to try and preserve the Colonies during the revolutionary war). That notion is an incredibly dumbed down and deluded fantasy that the north was this incredible white knight pursing slave rights. To quote a post you agreed with:
The pathological need to discuss cultural relativism seems to be entirely in your court.
Hahahahaha, the American Civil War is one the "cleanest" wars ever fought in recorded history. For all the cultural differences the north and south were still populated by largely the same people, english speaking protestants. How many civilians died in the Civil war? In proportion to actual fighters? You realize that the constant of wars throughout history was that civilians were overwhelmingly the majority of victims? Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit claims of most horrible war ever seen before, that's the most retarded revisionist shit I've ever heard.
You're obviously ignorant to what 300,000 soldiers will do for food and supplies when they run out. Both Army's foraged the country sides dry leaving the civilians in the south with nothing, on top of an already diminishing surplus of food available for the south because it was completely cut off.
You're obviously ignorant of what happened and continues to happen in wars where the people fighting it aren't of the same ethnicity, religion, and other tribal identifications. You must be literally fucking retarded, "most horrible war in history"? Do you have any idea what the colonial powers did in the exact same time period? What the average war between "uncivilized" countries led to? You stupid motherfucker.
You're obviously ignorant of what happened and continues to happen in wars where the people fighting it aren't of the same ethnicity, religion, and other tribal identifications. You must be literally fucking retarded, "most horrible war in history"? Do you have any idea what the colonial powers did in the exact same time period? What the average war between "uncivilized" countries led to? What wars in continental Europe were like? You stupid motherfucker. I notice you didn't respond to my question about civilian casualties. Tell me, what was it, and how comparable is it to any other war in the exact same time period the world over? And every other war before it, since it was, in your estimation, the "most horrible one" yet?
Fuck, just look at what happened after the war. Do you think the northern "occupation" led to to the same sorts of events that occupation after a war usually leads to?
You're obviously ignorant to what 300,000 soldiers will do for food and supplies when they run out. Both Army's foraged the country sides dry leaving the civilians in the south with nothing, on top of an already diminishing surplus of food available for the south because it was completely cut off.
The overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II, does that answer your question?The region between the Rhine and the Volga, really?
^^^^
Whatever the hell his name was's MARCH TO THE SEA
Look it up. Pretty brutal stuff.
"50,000 civilian deaths"
So, 50k civilian deaths, compared to 620k military ones. Yeah, I can totally see how fucking horrible it was, most horrible war ever, poor southern victims, totally oppressed innocents, even though the overwhelming majority died on the battlefield. It wasn't a war for survival, as the subsequent northern "occupation" showed, if the absurdly unusual civilian/military casualty ratio wasn't enough of a hint. I can't believe you are seriously trying to play out the south as victims in a war they started and fought to the bitter end over their rights to own other human beings.
Yes, you're right, everything is grey and meaningless, the north had no redeeming qualities that made it inherently superior to the south, the cassus beli of being entitled to own other human beings because they are biologically inferior was just as valid, and the only reason the union went to war was for material realpolitiks reasons, despite the 30 year lead up to the war being entirely about the issue of slavery, the war itself about the issue of slavery. The mealymouthed political speeches about preserving the union being paramount weren't just about placating the southern state governments without enraging their consitutuents who, obviously, didn't support slavery as an instution at all and didn't see it as an integral part of their cultural identity.
Maybe the goodies should wear white hats and the baddies should wear black hats, just so that the kids at home dont get confused about which side they should be supporting.
So when people are vocal about abolition they're being honest, when they're being vocal about the union they're lying to hide their real agenda? My mind must be full of pure fantasy to imagine a nation going to war over territorial and political divides, everyone knows that wars of the 19th century were made for humanitarian reasons as part of a relief effort to save those poor poor slaves. Thank god for those white knight northern states who selflessly gave their lives so that later post-war they could pass a war that abolished slavery so that black people could remain hated and jobless on the streets. Such noble selfless souls that allowed this to come to pass.
If the traitor flag represents treason and sedition, then so does the US flag.
If the traitor flag represents treason and sedition, then so does the US flag.
the winners write history.
If the south had won you'd get to celebrate two Independence days instead of one. That'd be pretty sweet.
The day some politicians/intellectuals decided some truths were self-evident, overrode all common law and attempted to leave a government that did not hold their best interests at heart or reflect the views of their people. Very similar scenarios in some ways. I always thought of revolution against a government as being a little more grass-roots than all that, neither of the US revolutions were really like that.
Is the South had won, they probably would have eventually turned america into two warring countries honestly.
And so does "Insert Modern day Item here."
Almost everything has some negative call back to it. The CSA only represents that because, as everyone knows, the winners write history.
Is the South had won, they probably would have eventually turned america into two warring countries honestly.
If the south had won you'd get to celebrate two Independence days instead of one. That'd be pretty sweet.
just for christo!
the man who owns the ORIGINAL General Lee car from the tv shows priced at auction for 120k dollars will be removing the flag, due to criticism. Poor General Lee, id had preferred he sold it and kept it in its original glory then destroy it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/04/golfer-bubba-watson-criticised-for-vow-to-take-traitor-flag-off-general-lee-car
Less than .33% of southerners actually owned slaves and people think that when southerners display the flag they are trying to be racist? no nigga racism existed on both sides, the only difference was that on one side there was a minuscule minority of people who owned slaves.:lol:
:lol:
It's pretty interesting to see how you euros who have never been to the southern US be so educated and informed about these issues. Meanwhile, us Americans could care less about what is happening in whatever shitty europoor country you guys are from.That's called being educated, and you're acting smug about being ignorant as opposed to educated. Well done. But yes, it is well known that Americans have a very shitty level of education and think Europe is a country, etc.
Best country in the world 239 years straight friend, we are the most powerful economic and military superpower on earth despite only being on the planet for a little more than two centuries, meanwhile the shitty country of bulgariastan or whatever excuse for a country you live in is as about as relevant to the rest of the world as my ball hairs. stay mad and stay inferior:lol:
Best country in the world 239 years straight friend, we are the most powerful economic and military superpower on earth despite only being on the planet for a little more than two centuries, meanwhile the shitty country of bulgariastan or whatever excuse for a country you live in is as about as relevant to the rest of the world as my ball hairs. stay mad and stay inferiorBest police state in the world, yes.
This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021-1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Newsflash: a flag can't be racist. There's nothing even written on it for crying out loud. Americans look almost as silly as current day Germans in front of a swastika right now.