I don't quite see it that way.

Historical facts aside - such as what was the flag of the confederacy - the problem with the battle jack is the use it has been put to since the civil war.  It has become the banner of oppression, or Jim Crowism, of southern backwardness even.

The swastika was a Persian good luck symbol for thousands of years.  I have personally observed xtian graves in Roman catacombs which were covered with them...the jewish members of our group were shuffling uncomfortably until the guide explained that these were original to the site and not WWII German graffiti.  In spite of that ancient pedigree the swastika is now thoroughly discredited as a symbol.  The battle jack suffers from a similar problem.  No amount of southern whining about heritage will change the fact that it has been usurped by a group of thugs over the last 150 years


and thus trashed far more effectively than ever could have been done by law or regulation.

Should the flag come down from government buildings?  Yes.  But let's not kid ourselves about it.  In terms of actual importance this is similar to the Indians whining about the name of the Washington Redskins.  Symbolic horseshit and nothing more.  If the Redskins changed their name to the Palefaces tomorrow it would not do a single iota of good for the people who are living in abject poverty on the reservations.  When you can't fix the big problems you start looking for little, feel-good, issues to work on.

The big problem is racist maniacs running around with guns....not flags.  I imagine the number of casualties inflicted by flags in human history is fairly minimal.

Agreed, and as a matter of practicality and subsequent history I cannot -imagine- why the stars and bars would fly over our government buildings, today.  I certainly don't fly one myself.  Nonetheless I won't shy away from calling this situation for what it is. I don't know why -anyone- would fly a battle flag unless they served under it, or wish to honor their ancestors who did. That some cunt in S. Florida flies the virginia battle flag for no reason other than to declare his affiliation with bigots is, to me, disrespectful and inexplicable in the highest possible degree. Recall the hivemind of this set to begin with, "honoring our troops"....to reduce who they were and what they did to "I hate black people"......gee fellas, way to fuckin go...now crawl back into the hole you belong in and stop pissing on the flag you fly, eh?

(June 24, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Agreed, and as a matter of practicality and subsequent history I cannot -imagine- why the stars and bars would fly over our government buildings, today.

In any case, I find it curious that a battle flag flies over a civilian administrative building.

-As do I. Are they planning a surprise attack, are they under martial law, do they represent the forces of occupation? Did we miss a fort that still needs to be leveled, after 150 years? Dial the fucking guns, fire for effect. The only flag that ought to be flying over our state buildings is the stars and stripes. It -cannot- share space on the pole with the flags of our defeated enemies. That's how this flag business -works- in the first place.

In the picture above......someone ought to be ripping those flags out of those peoples hands the same way we ought to be ripping down confederate battle flags from the statehouses. I don't want anyone mistaking me, for one minute, as a confederate (or bigot) sympathizer...lol.

Let;s put it another way. Those bigots and klansman who fly the battle flag are guilty of "stolen valor". Capish? If I didn't hate them for who they were and what they express (...and I grew up under these fuckers - some of my own family -..I've -been- to a klan rally, remember who I am and where I'm from.....a southern land owning family stretching back to a point -before- the civil war), I would hate them for this alone. Let them charge the cannon and the low stone wall (brimming with rifleman) at gettysburg first, and -then- fly the stars and bars......I know they wont..because I know that they're cowards - because to me..they aren't "those people"......some nebulous group of others.....

................I know them, I know who they are, and more importantly I know what they're -not-...............

(June 24, 2015 at 12:02 pm)abaris Wrote: But as I said above. For me it seems on the same lines as denying Hitler or Kaltenbrunner because they're rather an embarrassment for Austrians. And all too many do just that by the way. They were German citizens when they pulled their atrocities, but they were still Austrians, brought up right here.

I'm not denying  their American birth. I'm not saying they aren't American out of embarrassment for them, either.  I'm simply saying that calling them American soldiers is misleading.  They were not fighting for America.  That is the sense I meant, and it's not a matter of trotting out the No True Scotsman.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't quite see it that way.

Historical facts aside - such as what was the flag of the confederacy - the problem with the battle jack is the use it has been put to since the civil war.  It has become the banner of oppression, or Jim Crowism, of southern backwardness even.

The swastika was a Persian good luck symbol for thousands of years.  I have personally observed xtian graves in Roman catacombs which were covered with them...the jewish members of our group were shuffling uncomfortably until the guide explained that these were original to the site and not WWII German graffiti.  In spite of that ancient pedigree the swastika is now thoroughly discredited as a symbol.  The battle jack suffers from a similar problem.  No amount of southern whining about heritage will change the fact that it has been usurped by a group of thugs over the last 150 years


and thus trashed far more effectively than ever could have been done by law or regulation.

Should the flag come down from government buildings?  Yes.  But let's not kid ourselves about it.  In terms of actual importance this is similar to the Indians whining about the name of the Washington Redskins.  Symbolic horseshit and nothing more.  If the Redskins changed their name to the Palefaces tomorrow it would not do a single iota of good for the people who are living in abject poverty on the reservations.  When you can't fix the big problems you start looking for little, feel-good, issues to work on.

The big problem is racist maniacs running around with guns....not flags.  I imagine the number of casualties inflicted by flags in human history is fairly minimal.

Fair points, and good food for thought.  Thanks.

(June 24, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:02 pm)abaris Wrote: But as I said above. For me it seems on the same lines as denying Hitler or Kaltenbrunner because they're rather an embarrassment for Austrians. And all too many do just that by the way. They were German citizens when they pulled their atrocities, but they were still Austrians, brought up right here.

I'm not denying  their American birth. I'm not saying they aren't American out of embarrassment for them, either.  I'm simply saying that calling them American soldiers is misleading.  They were not fighting for America.  That is the sense I meant, and it's not a matter of trotting out the No True Scotsman.

They -were- fighting for "america"...simply not "your america"......and when -isn't- that true, precisely? Give me a date? Yesterday, today....tomorrow? Oh, I'm sorry, you mean they weren't fighting for the america that "freed the slaves", eh? Which america was that, and when did that happen?

(June 24, 2015 at 4:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They -were- fighting for "america"...simply not "your america"......and when -isn't- that true, precisely?  Give me a date?  Yesterday, today....tomorrow?  Oh, I'm sorry, you mean they weren't fighting for the america that "freed the slaves", eh?

No. I meant the America that was founded with the adoption of the Constitution in 1791. I should thought that would have been obvious.

As for your "freed the slaves" comment, why you're trying to impute that point to me by the use of scare quotes is beyond me. I know a little about the history we're discussing, and before you start imputing views, you should perhaps do the courtesy of inquiring into them first, because it's a not the sort of treatment I appreciate.

If you want a decent discussion, shitcan the snark.

Quote: No. I meant the America that was founded with the adoption of the Constitution in 1791.

Oddly, that seems to be the version of the Constitution that the republicunts prefer.  They would gladly drag us back to it.

Your point is otherwise well taken.  The south was resisting change which promised to diminish its importance but the Industrial Revolution was already taking that out of their hands.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oddly, that seems to be the version of the Constitution that the republicunts prefer.  They would gladly drag us back to it.

Yeah, I was only answering a request for clarification, not mounting an argument for anachronism.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Your point is otherwise well taken.  The south was resisting change which promised to diminish its importance but the Industrial Revolution was already taking that out of their hands.

If you'll pardon the pun, I certainly cotton to Catton's analysis of the war being between not just two social orders, but between two eras.