One more thing....Confederate gear vs Nazi gear
mikeya02
Why is Nazi gear, and merchandise with Nazi emblems readily availible?
Is this worth wondering about?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
Why is Nazi gear, and merchandise with Nazi emblems readily availible?
Is this worth wondering about?
58 comments
Latest
https://www.google.com/search?q=stone+mo…
It is simply that some state governments might stop using it, like in front of their capitals and on license plates. Some stores might stop carrying such things too.
Give it a break mkeya02. I deal with these sorts of arguments from the Born Again Christians all the time. All the first amendment does is stop the govt from making a law against private parties saying something. It does not get you or your message access to public property or tax payer funds.
SJG
Nazi stuff is readily available though speciality shops and speciality sites. They aren't mainstream. What's happening potentially is Confederate stuff is not going to be mainstream anymore, treated similarly. You will still be able to buy it openly, legally and easily.
So what this meant is that the new Republican Party, with only it's second Presidential candidate, promising not to do anything to interfere with slavery in the states where it was practiced, won But no matter, 12/20/1860, South Carolina announced their attempt to secede, and rang their stupid bell. Mississippi followed about a week later.
Both these states had some areas where the slaves to whites ratio reached the Santa Domingo level of 10 to 1.
I won't dispute the character of someone like Robert E. Lee. but not Jefferson Davis, and no monuments to valorize "The Southern Struggle", as this is what they claim Stone Mountain is for.
Jimmy Carter worked very hard to get the Confederate Flag out of Georgia's State Flag.
SJG
I also think that there is NOTHING that I can find in the constitution that does not allow a state to succeed. The only reason the east coast thinks it is illegal is because we working people of the "flyover" part of the country pay all the taxes the keep hell holes like New England, Californicate, District of Corruption, Illinoise and the rest in clover.
Or your General Lee Matchbox cars.
I am glad to see it go. Born in the south raised in the south and I am a cracker. I have seen civil war photos with my last name on them. BUT I would never ask or force someone to remove it. I don't think gov builds should fly it though. How many defeated armies still fly their flag?
Memorials and historic parks should remain, but not valorize. Stone Mountain Park before the olympics, I thought did it in a big way. I don't know about now. Those darks times need to be shown, as said before those that don't know are doomed to repeat. I can think of one leader of a middle east country that says the holocaust never happened. Growing up in Mississippi there where plantation homes with cells in the basements and locking stocks outside. Everyone knew what they were for but no one would say out loud what that was. And the ignorant would say, "oh that never happened."
Funnies thing though. A guy I worked with for years had a flag on his truck. Heritage he said. He wasn't even born in this country, parents migrated here when he was 11.
You have to watch out for those born again Christians, They can be as bad as those women trying to shut down the clubs. Worse they will tell you that you can't do something, only later they get busted for it.
The reason why this is becoming a "national" thing is because of the bastard who shot up a church. It is an election year so people are jumping on this band wagon.
I don't think this flag should be banned in anyway shape or form.... BUT... to have it taken off a State Flag or to lower it and not "fly" it on State property... would be a good thing...and I agree with it. Just like someone said above... How many loosing countries still fly the old flag on government property.
Now for people not wanting to sell the confederate flag.... it is in their free will if they chose to or not.
I don't know what planet you live on. California contributes the most to the Federal government. The core of the North East: NY, NJ, PA, MA are 3,6,8,9 respectively in terms of their contributions. Per capita: DC (yes home of the evil government), DE, Conn, NJ, Mass with only Minnesota at #3 breaking the streak. So no, you in flyover don't pay all the taxes.
Moreover you are high in spending. Excluding North Dakota which is off the charts on net spending, for obvious reasons the states who pull the greatest percentage of federal revenue over their receipts are:
South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Indiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, West Virginia in that order.
Finally in the civil war. I don't know that people in the North in 1861 would have had a problem with states wanting to leave the union had in been done in an orderly fashion. I think they had a real problem with states wanting to leave the union so they could continue to terrorize 1/3rd of their population enough to get them to be property. And the way it was done was the least constructive possible.
Brilliant!
Riddle me this, if slavery wasn't THE cause of secession why exactly was it cited as such in Stephens' cornerstone speech? OK, Stephens was only VP of the CSA, but I never heard ol' Jefferson Davis say "come on, come on...enough with the slavery stuff...we're willing to compromise there if ONLY we could just resolve those really difficult tariff issues!"
The confederate flag is not being banned. Some companies have decided that selling it costs them money, so they've stopped selling it. The state of Alabama worried that flaying it will cost them revenue (listen to the governor's speech about the issue) so they've stopped flying it. South Carolina is only debating taking it down. Nobody is suggesting that Nazi swag is more acceptable.
And I called it the Confederate flag, not this "Battle Flag of Northern Virginia" bullshit. In most people's minds that flag IS the symbol of the Confederacy and TWO of the national flags for the CSA included the stars and bars motif. That flag is the MOTHAHFUCKING confederate flag no matter how you cut it!
Lee, Jackson and Davis were principled men. Does that mean that I share all of their principles? Most definitely not! Can I admire Lee for freeing his slaves before taking over the Army of Virginia? Absolutely. Can I admire the way he inspired his men? You bet. Can I admire Jackson' battlefield acumen? You bet. Generals and the rank and file had friends and even brothers on the opposite side and chose to follow their principles, however flawed; they were men of character.
Do you realize that our Civil War is still the costliest war in which our nation has ever been involved? And we did it to ourselves! Yet, we somehow survived as a nation and other than a few aberrant people, we have grown stronger and better as a nation.
Part of that is keeping, valuing and most of all, keeping those memories alive as a demonstration of just how bad things happen when good people stop negotiating.
I say keep the mountain but make sure the KKK knows that it should go fuck itself! Brilliant! ;)
While I certainly understand that this flag has come to represent a symbol of racism, you cannot sanitize history! The games did glorify the flag or promote racism is anyway. Teachers who have used the game about the Battle of Gettysburg have praised the game as a valuable teaching tool involving a very important event in the history of the United States.
Yeah - I think it's stupid for South Carolina to fly the flag, but Apple's actions are PC lunacy.
Did not glorify the flag
-- In an act that reeks of political correctness run amok, Apple has removed all war games from its iTunes store that have depictions of the "Confederate" flag. (note, as previously discussed, the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia or the "the Southern Cross" is NOT the flag of the CSA).
Agreed that's stupid. Apple will likely reverse this. They probably are just quickly enforcing the rule and then will start handing out exceptions. That's typical Apple behavior when a problem is discovered ban fast and then slowly relax. They are sort of a "better that 3 innocent programs get blocked than that 1guilty one get through" kind of place.
Anyway, my take on it is this: states have the right to secede if they wish, and quite a few have done so. However, at that point they become foreign nations that in many cases pose a direct economic and/or military threat to the United States. It then becomes our prerogative as to whether or not we allow that foreign nation to exist or if we choose to retake it by force. That's exactly what happened curing the Civil War. The Confederate Flag stands as a part of our history, but it's also the symbol of a failed nation that lost. Therefore, it's doomed to the same fate as all failed nations, since history is written by the victors.
Merry Christmas offends......it's now "Happy Winter Festival"...Sell confederate stuff? It was ok last month, but not now. You should stop................school kids buying chips from a vending machine?...no fucking way...on and on
I was a bit surprised to find out there are still very strong supporters of the flag long after the 1860's. I guess there are less now. I saw a guy with a confederate flag on the back of his tshirt last night. I was thinking he doesn't care about political correctness. I was never the type to worry too much about political correctness either. However I'd rather hear good things are happening in South Carolina and not hear about old problems or issues. The south lost the war back in the 1800's. Our current governor was born from immigrants from India and is female. The people of South Carolina are progressive and from all over the world and this country. Let's focus on the future instead of old issues from the past is my opinion. Everyone moving here from elsewhere would rather hear good news about South Carolina.
-- I was a bit surprised to find out there are still very strong supporters of the flag long after the 1860's.
If you go to Israel the flag has a prominent symbol of the Davidic Kingdom. Under conventional dating that Kingdom died right after the Battle of Carchemish (so 605 BCE). Israel was founding in 1948, the flag that it adopted wasn't even suggested until 1897 CE. People remember being defeated and forced, they often don't "get over it" at least not for generations. And the signs of their moments of freedom live on. I don't know if there is going to be another North vs. South pressure but if there is I suspect the Battle Flag will likely make another appearance.
I'm northern. But I totally understand why the white South resisted the Northern occupation after the war, and has pushed back repeatedly against Northern bullying. The problem is that the black South supported the war, supports the Northern bullying on many issues and opposes the resistance movement (the first Klan), the politics is racial. So the flag is a terrible choice for an inclusive symbol.
The people of South Carolina are not progressive BTW.
It is 36.4% White Evangelical and 28.7% Black Evangelical or almost 2/3rds evangelical. That's one of the highest overall scores in the USA.
I heard a story about 20 years ago Hooters tried to open in a small town close to where I live. I heard a rumor the religious nut cases shut that idea down real fast through their opposition. Apparently officially wearing shorts and slightly low cut tops was just too immoral for the evangical people. I think drinking beer is considered immoral by their faith, not sure. I know we still got all these beer and alcohol restrictions on Sundays, so called blue laws. I got 20 beers stocked in my fridge so as not to worry about it. :)
That may be the biggest understatement I've ever read on this site.
To bad it says "Whites Only" on that ass...
"@impala, I like the south and I've spent a lot of time there, but I have to call bullshit on this "civil war wasn't about slavery" trope."
Well you are a right and wrong on this one. The Civil War was about states rights.... and one of those rights was Slavery. But was also the taxation on the crops like impala mentioned as well. And their belief that the federal government was over stepping on states issues. That is why they wanted secession.
"San Jose Guy, GO TO HELL! I spent part of my youth in the south, and the battle flag of northern Virginia represents not oppression, but is a symbol for states rights and independence from a repressive federal government. For those who says it represents slavery must not have actually read their history as that the civil war was not started over slavery, but taxation, and Lincoln made it about slavery because he knew that there were plenty of people in the north that actually supported succession because of the unconstitutional taxes being levied by the federal government on goods (cotton and rice) being shipped to European markets and strangling the south. Men such as Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee were strong states rights advocates fighting an oppressive federal government overstepping their bounds. Its never been about the flag, its about centralization of power away from the people and states by the fed!"
Impala, what you say is completely incorrect. You've been fed a pack of lies, and I guess it somehow makes you feel better just to keep on believing it.
David Blight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXp1bHd…
The Civil War was completely about slavery. State's Rights is just code language for that.
There is nothing valorous about the efforts of Davis, Lee, or Jackson. Lee believed in slavery, but he was also offered by Lincoln command of the Union Army. Lee refused because, though Virginia had not yet announced it's intent to secede, he knew he might end up fighting against Virginia.
The Federal Gov't was not moving to abolish slavery, nothing even close to it. By virtue of the 3/5's clause and the fact that slaves weren't actually allowed to vote, Southerner's had dominated the White House and had gained control of the courts. They had someone who strongly supported them in President Buchanan. They also had been able to sustain their senatorial deadlock. The issue wasn't the abolition of slavery, always it was the expansion of slavery, and whether or not it had to be considered part of the country's long term future.
The most extreme had been John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. In 1837 he gave his Slavery as a Positive Virtue speech, and it was then that he first threatened secession. He threatened it not if slavery were to be abolished, but if the Northern States could not come to live with it as part of the nation's long term future.
Some of this was pride, but some was just dollars and cents. They would go on to speak of this prospect of the "Shrinking South", if the practice of slavery were to be bottled up and phased out. After the land itself, slaves were the most valuable resource in the country. If the practice was to be contained and phased out, then slaves would lose market value.
Now Mexico, in part inspired by the American Revolution, had gotten out from under colonial rule itself, and it then abolished slavery in 1829. That law was intended to prevent the spread of slave worked Anglo plantations, as were common in Texas.
Polk's war with Mexico and the annexing of Texas were largely to expand slavery. At the time Abraham Lincoln always referred to it as "Polk's War". Polk day traded in slaves from the White House. They had a two story slave jail just two blocks from the Capital. At the time Lincoln called it a human livery.
In City of Santa Clara along the El Camino there is a monument to those who fought in the last battle to keep California from falling under control United States and its slavery system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_…
http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=81…
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.352318,-…
So when Mexico was defeated in 1847, and had to cede it's territories to the US, the US was divided with 13 slave states and 13 free states. But California was agriculturally rich and many Southerners would come to California because of boosting for the Gold Rush, and many had even brought their slaves along with them. So the stakes were raised as Southerner's now wanted to expand the practice of slavery all the way to the Pacific Coast.
So in October of 1849 California's first constitutional convention was held in Monterey and the issue of slavery was hotly debated. Some wanted slavery to be written into the state's constitution. But abolitionists, and others who just did not want competition from those using slave labor, opposed this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti…
Also there was talk of extending the Missouri Compromise line. But that would have meant that the southern portion of the state, largely Latino and completely opposed to slavery, would have been the slave portion.
Finally an anti-slavery constitution was completed, and the abolitionist James C. Fremont would become one of California's first two senators.
Though John C. Calhoun would pass away earlier in 1850, he still spoke out against the compromise of 1850, for one thing, because it admitted California as a free state. Calhoun was fond of saying, "I can hitch up my wagon and load up my slave and go anywhere I want, and no government has any right to stop me."
He was claiming that the state laws and state constitutions prohibiting slavery were null and void. He was claiming slave owning as a 5th Amendment property right. He even seemed to be claiming it as something higher than that.
But the compromise of 1850 also gave us the federal fugitive slave act. So now every state was supposedly obliged to support this southern system of enslavement. So you had the spectacle in Boston of suspected escaped slaves being dragged over the site where Crispus Attucks had been killed, himself a probable escaped slave and the first to die in the cause of American independence in the incident known as the Boston Massacre, to be loaded onto a ship and renditioned back to a state of slavery. Massachusetts passed all sorts of laws to try and prevent this, and at one point abolitionists shot and killed a deputy US Marshall inside of the court house. But the federal gov't started sending Marines brandishing swords to control the crowds, and so it became impossible to interdict the renditioning.
There would be a number of incidents which increased the tensions, but Southerners were still insistent on having every state enforce their slave system, and on having slavery extend into the West. In 1856 power brokers in Missouri sent small scale slave owners and ruffians into Kansas Territory and sacked the free town of Lawrence, killing 6. This resulted in a guerrilla war with John Brown leading the free side.
Later in 1856 John C. Fremont of California would become the first nominee of the newly formed Republican Party, running on an anti-slavery and anti-polygamy platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_Repub…
But as the anti-slavery vote was being split with the No Nothing Party, a Democrat James Buchanan with strong slave owner sympathies was elected.
As the Republican Party always was just a Northern Party, the only institution which still represented the entire country was the Democratic Party. And the last chance to avoid war was the Democratic National Convention of 1860. But Southerners, following the lead of the Senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis insisted on getting a "slave code for the West". When they didn't get it, they followed Davis in walking out of the convention and splitting the party.
What this meant was that the Republican candidate, having pledged not to try and interfere with slavery were it was currently practiced, was guaranteed a victory.
South Caroliina announced it's intent to secede n 12/20/1860, and then Mississippi followed shortly there after. In those times the inauguration was not until mid March. By the time Lincoln entered Washington D.C., 7 of the final 11 had already announced their intent to secede. They had taken over every post office and court house, and had already captured about the only thing left, Fort Sumter.
The Confederate leadership would go on to announce their plans to conquer all of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America, and set up this slave worked and race based colonial system.
So no, there is nothing noble in what the Confederates and slave owners attempted.
There is even one Sterling Price, Governor of Missouri. He went with the Confederacy and tried to embarrass Abraham Lincoln in the 1864 election by recapturing Arkansas and Missouri for the Confederacy. Then after the war he tried to serve the French installed puppet in Mexico, Maximillian.
This gets to the importance of the Ulysses Grant plan of recapturing the Mississippi River in order to cut Texas out of the Confederacy in order to secure the Mexican border and supply arms to Mexican nationals in order to depose Maximillian.
After Sterling Price failed to capture Missouri for the Confederacy, he would end up presiding over a community of Confederate exiles in Veracruz.
And as far as Stone Mountain in Georgia, that was the sight of a 1915 Cross Burning Ceremony re-launching the KKK. Then after they work began on the bas relief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Moun…
I would like to see some courage shown by the Georgia State Legislature and then take a pneumatic jack hammer to that image.
People talk about Southerners and Southern attitudes. That may apply to White Southerners. And even then it will only be some of the White Southerners. But it does not and never will apply to all Southerners.
SJG
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-a…
I wonder what the punishment would be for an Isis guy to visit a strip club? 100 lashes?
At least he could get 100 virgins when he died from getting whipped to death. yeah right. they probably don't understand sarcasm either. Isis would be a nonissue of someone had kept a base in Iraq and a small fighting force with air support. We keep electing the not so bright. Unless Isis is really being secretly funded by the US so we have someone to fight.
Evil dictator or religious nut balls? Blech.
-- Isis would be a nonissue of someone had kept a base in Iraq and a small fighting force with air support.
2003-6 we had a force and had al-Qaeda in Iraq along with Tawhid al-Jihad and the Mujahideen Shura Council, ISIS 3 grandparents all existed.
2006 on we had a force and Islamic State of Iraq existed which along with al-Nusera is ISIS parents. al-Nusera if fighting off hundreds of thousands of Syrian ground troops.
So why exactly would are being there have made these people do what we want?
"
SJG. you suck, 260.000 southern men lost their lives. They were not politicians, they fought for their homeland. And you want to take away their battle flag that honors them. Way to go, you heartless ghoul...
"
Fought for their homeland? Did they think they were going to be expatriated? They'd been threatening secession for over 20 years, starting with John C. Calhoun in 1837. They expected the rest of the country to not only allow them to continue to practice slavery, but to allow it to expand into the west and, ultimately everywhere. Calhoun opposed the 1850 compromise, as did his intellectual heir Jefferson Davis. They opposed it because California had an anti-slavery constitution. They opposed anything which would limit the spread of slavery.
If the issue had been decided by extending the Missouri Compromise line, then that would have meant the practice of slavery in the Southern portion of California, which was almost entirely Latino. The Latinos had zero support for slavery and zero experience with it. Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829 specifically to stop the spread of the type of slave worked Anglo plantations they saw in Texas.
Would it have been right then to let these take root in Southern California?
And then what exactly were these Southerners defending against? Do you mean a federal government which had given them disproportionate representation in the Legislature and the Electoral College because the 3/5's clause gave slave masters extra votes? Southerners had controlled the white house in far more elections than not, and they had stacked the courts.
The only reason they lost the 1860 election is because they followed Jefferson Davis and walked out of the Democratic National Convention, splitting the party into two. And then when Lincoln was elected, 7 states walked out of the federal legislature before he was even inaugurated.
The Confederacy was a menace to the country. It was a menace to the entire hemisphere because they wanted to spread their slave empire to control all of it. They were a problem in Europe because their support of the French puppet Maximillian in Mexico propped up Louis Napoleon III. Defeating the Confederacy was necessary to arming the Mexican nationals who deposed Maximillian, and this contributed to the removal of Louis Napoleon III.
Ever starting the practice of slavery was wrong. It was wrong to enshrine it in the 1787 Constitution with the 3/5's clause. It was wrong to try and expand it into the West and into territories annexed from Mexico, and it was wrong to try and force the Northern states to accept it via the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. It was wrong that Northern financiers were supplying money for seed and transportation and that slave produced cotton was the country's largest cash export.
And it is wrong today to venerate the Confederacy or its leaders, or to promote racial supremacy or racial segregation.
During Reconstruction a number of blacks did get elected to state offices. But at the end of Grant's second term, Southerners started preventing blacks from voting. Then once the last of the federal troops were removed, they went further, and then eventually codified this with their Jim Crow system. It is wrong to continue this or to try and venerate it. It is wrong to try and glorify any support for legal or institutionalized racism. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong.
Not all White Southerners have ever held to the sorts of views you are advancing. And not all Southerners are White.
Mikeya02, Don't you think it's time to give Fox and NewsMax a rest?
SJG
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14/do…
SJG
Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AGwm4uy…
During his extraordinary life, Cruz Reynoso has been one of those rare individuals who are not only shaped by history, they make history. As a child of farm workers, Reynoso felt the sting of injustice, and later as a lawyer, and then the first Latino to sit on the California Supreme Court, he used his "justice bone" to eradicate discrimination and inequality in an effort to make the promise of the American dream a reality for all. CRUZ REYNOSO: SOWING THE SEEDS OF JUSTICE is a compelling portrait of one of America's unsung heroes and the turbulent times in which he lived.
SJG
SJG.....most ignorant statement on three different levels I've ever heard
Most of the state, at least the large cities, are not havens for racist attitudes like San Diego is.
And of course, it shows in the people elected from there.
SJG
My time in San Diego was in the early 1970's.
Never lived in Georgia.
SJG
Most of the far right stuff in California comes out of San Diego, Riverside, and Irvine Counties.
Let me see if I can find some data to support this:
Here, the last gubernatorial election. San Diego County is unusual because San Diego is such a large city.
http://www.politico.com/2014-election/re…
The way San Diego votes tracks more closely the rural counties.
Here, this 52 Congressional District, and that Duncan Hunter.
Perhaps the lines have been redrawn in more recent times.
SJG
SJG
If I had to pick one litmus test, it would be support for Proposition 187, something completely unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California…
Pete Wilson, former Mayor of San Diego, was an outspoken supporter.
SJG