[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Vote and leave any comments here. I voted Yeeha! Its a part of history. The Civil War was about A LOT more than slavery, like States Rights, and the ability of a State to challenge unconstitutional power grabs by the Federal Government.  Slavery would have ultimately ended anyway. It was an impractical institution that held the South back, and most sensible Southerners knew that. As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace.

Obama has been the worst in that regard, but Bush II wasn't much better. No State is safe from these power-hungry bastards.

EDIT:

Slight Orthographic correction to the poll. My apologies. The voting tally remains unchanged.

[Rushy]

Guy shoots up a black church and everyone's reaction is to remove a flag. 'Murica

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, the flag they want to remove is the full-scale Battle Flag in front of the Statehouse in South Carolina. The one I am talking about is the flag of State of Mississippi, that has a Battle Flag as the canton of the overall flag. The subject has come up again since the shooting in South Carolina, however. In 2002 or thereabouts, voters in Mississippi did vote by a 2 to 1 margin to keep the State Flag as it was and is. But now the subject is up again. it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Rushy]

It is a weird thing to be busy discussing considering all other possible political issues; even stranger still that a mass shooting brought it up. Feels like the media is busy throwing people an irrelevant bone to chew on.

[Pongo]

I don't usually engage in point by points, but I'll give this gem a go.

Vote and leave any comments here. I voted Yeeha! Its a part of history. The Civil War was about A LOT more than slavery, like States Rights, and the ability of a State to challenge unconstitutional power grabs by the Federal Government. 

You only list two reasons despite describing them as, "A LOT."  Lets look at them.  Sure, it was about states rights... to own slaves.  Sure, it was about the ability of a state to challenge unconstitutional power grabs (sub-reason of states rights?) by the federal government... about slavery.  In Mississippi's declaration of secession, they write, "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."  Oops, I bet your face is red.

Slavery would have ultimately ended anyway.

How do you know that?  Seriously, how?

It was an impractical institution that held the South back, and most sensible Southerners knew that.

Monopolies hold back the economy but they don't naturally dissolve.  Why would slavery?  How do you know that most sensible Southerns knew this?  Are you speculating or do you have a source for this claim?

As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace.

What is the federal government doing about Colorado and Washington's drug laws?  What these states are doing is against federal laws but the federal government seem to be respecting the states laws.  Wow, that's like, a direct contradiction to your point that's easily fact-checked and verified by anyone reading this.

Obama has been the worst in that regard, but Bush II wasn't much better. No State is safe from these power-hungry bastards.

Ahhhhh, so we've found the crux.  It's a political statement about the current administration and your dislike of "big government."  I'm not sure if this was your intent all along or if your argument just meandered its way here on its own, but the Obama -- or Bush -- administration has very little to do with the the flag of Mississippi.  Why bring them up?  Either it's a thinly veiled attack on the incumbent administration, it's an accident, or you have some point connecting the two that you've failed to mention.  In the case of the first, if your argument can't stand on it's own, then it's probably a bad argument.  In the case of the last two, write better.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, & others were all on record as opposing slavery. Even the Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who publicly spoke about the superiority of Whites, questioned slavery. Yes, part of State's Rights was about slavery. But tariff laws, taxation, all that was involved too. & re: the pot laws, the govt simply doesn't KNOW what to do yet. That is all.

[Pongo]

Actually, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, & others were all on record as opposing slavery. Even the Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who publicly spoke about the superiority of Whites, questioned slavery. Yes, part of State's Rights was about slavery. But tariff laws, taxation, all that was involved too. & re: the pot laws, the govt simply doesn't KNOW what to do yet. That is all.

Okay, so three leaders in the South were opposed to slavery so the Civil War was not about slavery.  By that logic everyone living in American right now is a Conservative Democrat just like Obama.  Every senator, every representative, every governor, every judge, and every damn comptroller.  I think many of them would be surprised to learn this.

The feds raid drug operations all the time.  What don't they "know" what to do?

[Pete Svarrior]

The feds raid drug operations all the time.  What don't they "know" what to do?

Are you disputing the extreme inefficiency and futility of "the war on drugs"?

[Pongo]

The feds raid drug operations all the time.  What don't they "know" what to do?

Are you disputing the extreme inefficiency and futility of "the war on drugs"?

No.

[Pete Svarrior]

No.

Then I think it's fair to say that they have no idea what they're doing. They're sinking immense amounts of money and man-hours into something that brings no results.

More on the OP's actual subject, while I won't delve into my views on racism (I'm sure anyone can guess what I'd say anyway), I'd like to point out that banning symbols is a very ineffective and often counter-productive measure. Poland currently has a ban on the swastika and the hammer and sickle (except for justifiable uses, which are frankly sensible). In practice, all this ban means is that history enthusiasts need to seek approval when they want to host educational events, some people continue using the swastika to voice their support for hateful policies, others use similar-but-different symbols¹, and others (me) are given citations for wearing a hammer-and-sickle belt buckle (which I admittedly did/do to be w0w so edgy, so fair enough).

What this doesn't address is the actual culture of hate which may or may not be connoted with these symbols. It's an empty, meaningless measure which at best results in giving the symbol a "taboo" or "let's stick it to the man" taste that some people enjoy. And, lo and behold, Confederate flag sales are already skyrocketing following the national debate. How unpredictable.

¹ - Example: One of Poland's most radical nationalist parties, Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (The National Rebirth of Poland) uses symbols like this:



together with such wonderful slogans as "Naziści? Jesteśmy gorsi!" ("Nazis? We're worse than that!")

[Pongo]

No.

Then I think it's fair to say that they have no idea what they're doing. They're sinking immense amounts of money and man-hours into something that brings no results.

Sure, I can agree with that.  However, that's not what we were talking about.  Yaakov claimed that the reason that the US Federal government isn't going into Colorado or Washington and raiding the easily findable and public store fronts that sell federally illegal drugs is that the US Federal Government doesn't know what to do.  I called out the absurdity of that statement by saying that they raid things all the time, they know "what to do," (even if that is ineffectual) they just aren't doing it because they are respecting the states laws. 

Summary: Feds aren't raiding places in Colorado or Washington because they are respecting state laws, not because they don't know what to do.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yeah, fair enough.

[Thork]

Will the Dukes of Hazzard have to respray their car?

[Saddam Hussein]

Nobody's calling for the Confederate flag to be banned; only that it shouldn't be an "official" part of a state's representation, such as flying above a capitol or being part of a state flag.  It's an ugly relic of a horrible period of this country's history, and nowadays it doesn't belong anywhere but a museum.

[Thork]

I always thought it to be an anti-government libertarian symbol of rebellion. Nothing to do with racism. I thought it was against federalism.

But I'm not American and I'm not going to pretend that its possible to understand what you fruitcakes think about anything. 

[Pongo]

One more point I would like to make about symbolism.  It's great to have a symbol that means something.  If your aligned with a party that has a swastika that's perfect for conveying the message that your ideals align with the ideals of the Third Reich.  In that sense, it's a wonderful symbol for communicating your ideals.  If your ideals don't align with that of the Third Reich, then using a swastika is probably a bad idea because everyone is going to think that you condone everything that symbol means.

However, these concepts apply to all symbols.  Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery.  So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues.  It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

I'm not saying they should ban the symbol, we can all agree that would not be effective.  I'm saying that a state shouldn't be using a symbol that means slavery, oppression, hate, inequality, and bigotry even if it also means history.

[Tau]

I rather think that a state flying the confederate flag is treason, and that regardless of the racial motivations it's unacceptable. Obviously an individual has every right to use the symbol however they want.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The only reason the Federal Government hasn't enforced Federal marijuana laws on Washington and Colorado is because they are afraid of the mass revolt in those two states that would occur if they did. And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter. For once, Thork and I agree.

[Pete Svarrior]

However, these concepts apply to all symbols.  Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery.  So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues.  It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

The meaning of symbols also changes over time. The swasitka is a good example - it's rather quite much older than the Third Reich, and quite clearly did not always mean "Nazi beliefs". I don't think it's fair to say that since the Confederate flag had racist connotations 200 years ago (if it did, rather), then it must always carry these connotations. The phrase "heritage, not hate" is thrown around quite frequently when it comes to this flag, and, frankly, I don't see the reason to believe that the actually racist supporters of the flag are the majority of all its supporters.

[Saddam Hussein]

The only reason the Federal Government hasn't enforced Federal marijuana laws on Washington and Colorado is because they are afraid of the mass revolt in those two states that would occur if they did.

That would very strange, seeing how mass revolts have never been an issue with enforcing federal drug laws in the past.