Bernard Sumner & Confederate Flag?

I watched the New Order Live in Glasgow DVD and noticed that Bernard Sumner had a Confederate flag on his guitar. The Confederate flag has been described variously as a proud emblem of United States southern heritage and as a shameful reminder of slavery and segregation. The Confederate flag has also been appropriated by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist hate groups.

I was wondering why Bernard Sumner chose to wear this flag on his guitar. Has he addressed this in any interviews or elsewhere?

I tried searching this site and could not find the information. If this was addressed elsewhere on the forums, I apologize in advance for return to the topic, but I would appreciate a link.

My understanding is that the SG Jr. turned up as a rental for a video shoot and he liked the guitar so much he decided to buy it.

Sticker may have been on the guitar when it showed up and would undoubtably damage the finish of a 1960's guitar if you attempted to remove it.

That said, I'll leave it to others who may have more knowledge to chime in.

He's a racialist!

um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

yep.

some of the brits don't get why this is such a big issue to us americans, but it really is like having a swastika on your guitar and playing in europe.....

you walk into neighborhoods in the US with that guitar, and you are gonna get strung up, by blacks AND whites.

he should really add a swastika for full effect.

and maybe a picture of a 'n*gger hangin from a tree' on a tshirt next time if he ever plays live again.

...i think they have already had this discussion here? Don't remember if they came to a conclusion.

Maybe Bernard is interested in american "country music". Usually if you see somebody with a confederate flag in the USA, they tend to be proudly "redneck-ish"... unless there is some sort of irony. Not really something to fight about, but blacks definitely find it classless and disrespectful.

NOOL Passim

Last time this came up we thought he might be a fan of Primal Scream's Give Out But Don't Give Up or even the Dukes of Hazard.

There are pictures of Hooky from the '86 U.S. tour wearing a t-shirt with it on too,so what? I really don't think it's meant to be taken literally,& if he was referencing that I'm sure he wouldn't do it so much in your face,so to speak.They are many examples of Bernard embracing black culture,the music for one,& also the fact that Erasmus is black,he has worked numerous times with Dojo from ACR,& the Hac' was managed by a black person for years.So,so what? I think it's distasteful & disrespectful to even contemplate it,& I for one,don't want to even go anywhere with it,I'm sure it's nothing more than it's artistic & aesthetic merit only

confederate apologists!

if he had a little tiny hard to see swastika on his guitar, you would all be singing a different tune....

Ok, maybe Europeans don't get it. But there's something that Americans don't get either. In Europe and elsewhere Confederate Flag is a symbol of rebel, primarily rock'n'roll - almost all rockabilly bands and cafes in Europe have Confederate flags all over the place. It's no wonder to see a bass with Confederate flag in a rockabilly shop, so my guess is that Sumner's guitar came from the same type shops.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

So, the Civil War didn't have to do with whether or not slavery would continue?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Ok, maybe Europeans don't get it. But there's something that Americans don't get either. In Europe and elsewhere Confederate Flag is a symbol of rebel, primarily rock'n'roll - almost all rockabilly bands and cafes in Europe have Confederate flags all over the place. It's no wonder to see a bass with Confederate flag in a rockabilly shop, so my guess is that Sumner's guitar came from the same type shops.

I'd like to think it's somethnig like that. That Barney, as a European, just didn't understand the way many Americans would take something like that. He probably didn't think anything of it.

Shellshocker wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Ok, maybe Europeans don't get it. But there's something that Americans don't get either. In Europe and elsewhere Confederate Flag is a symbol of rebel, primarily rock'n'roll - almost all rockabilly bands and cafes in Europe have Confederate flags all over the place. It's no wonder to see a bass with Confederate flag in a rockabilly shop, so my guess is that Sumner's guitar came from the same type shops.

I'd like to think it's somethnig like that. That Barney, as a European, just didn't understand the way many Americans would take something like that. He probably didn't think anything of it.

great points.also, Everybody's so P.C. these days. If you look past the past history of the flag, it's a pretty cool looking for a flag.

He's just exercising his 5th amendment rights.

People LOOOOVE to pretend to be offended. On behalf of other people.

Shellshocker wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

So, the Civil War didn't have to do with whether or not slavery would continue?

Course it did - Lincoln knew that slavery would die out eventually, but couldn't abolish it immediately because of the important military value of the 4 border states that continued to practice it. However, the war was also fought to decide the political future of the USA. The South were being swamped by the growing North and so losing representation in central government. As they couldn't expand into the territories, they decided the next best thing would be to create their own country where slavery could retained.

Actually what you aren't told is that slavery was already on it's way out at the time. The war had more to do with an unfair rate of taxation that was placed on the southern states in America. I'm sure that there were still slave owners in the south at the time, just as there were in the north, but it really wasn't the real reason for the war.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

A bit simplistic, don't you think?

The south was quite clear that it was seceding as a direct response to Lincoln's election, and that the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery, which was perceived to be in peril with the election of a Republican to the Presidency.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was quite clear that he was fighting to keep the Union intact. He was not fighting to end slavery. The South, however, was fighting to preserve slavery.

Brian Barker wrote: Actually what you aren't told is that slavery was already on it's way out at the time. The war had more to do with an unfair rate of taxation that was placed on the southern states in America. I'm sure that there were still slave owners in the south at the time, just as there were in the north, but it really wasn't the real reason for the war.

That would have been news to the leaders of the secession. Perhaps you should travel back in time and explain to them the real reason they seceded. That way, they can re-write their declarations of secession, and the history books can get it right....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

A bit simplistic, don't you think?

The south was quite clear that it was seceding as a direct response to Lincoln's election, and that the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery, which was perceived to be in peril with the election of a Republican to the Presidency.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was quite clear that he was fighting to keep the Union intact. He was not fighting to end slavery. The South, however, was fighting to preserve slavery.

Absolutely - southern secession made little sense in 1861 - there was no danger because pf Lincoln's election. The danger was from the growth of the North and its industry

Tarbox23 wrote: some of the brits don't get why this is such a big issue to us americans, but it really is like having a swastika on your guitar and playing in europe.....

you walk into neighborhoods in the US with that guitar, and you are gonna get strung up, by blacks AND whites.

he should really add a swastika for full effect.

and maybe a picture of a 'n*gger hangin from a tree' on a tshirt next time if he ever plays live again.

as if they would ever have anything with nazi connotations...

btw - regarding your some of the brits don't get it comment, where do you think barney is from? just saying, like.

Crikey, that Small Boy certainly put an end to the discussion in the similar thread two years ago. He must have poured Sarsons malt vinegar all over his pants that day to have worked himself up into such a lather.

FtotheDoubleOff wrote: People LOOOOVE to pretend to be offended. On behalf of other people.

On behalf of other people, I am offended by this comment!

OK, yes, you're right, especially in the US.

JonnyMac wrote: He's just exercising his 5th amendment rights.

Due process of law?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

A bit simplistic, don't you think?

The south was quite clear that it was seceding as a direct response to Lincoln's election, and that the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery, which was perceived to be in peril with the election of a Republican to the Presidency.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was quite clear that he was fighting to keep the Union intact. He was not fighting to end slavery. The South, however, was fighting to preserve slavery.

Slavery, though a part of the reason for secession, was not the the whole reason though Comrade. The Civil War was the final deciding factor to the issue that had plagued the States from the birth of the Constitution: which has more power, state government or federal government?

Yes they went to war because of Lincoln's election, but because he was a strong federalist. The north had lttle need for slavery as it didn't impact thier industry, so took the high road. Slavery was instrumental to southern economy. The federal government had taxed the South so that it was economically already not doing well and pulling slavery out would make the economy collapse. Secession was already in the minds of people long before slavery became an issue, it was the needle that broke the camel's back.

The war stems from the feud between Hamilton, who believed that there needed to be a strong central government - Federalists and Jefferson, who believed that States should have more power to run themselves - Republicans.

People need to start looking at history from 1776-1861, not just the narrow scope of just before the war. The civil war wasn't about the South having a moral stand on slavery. Many in the South were against slavery and fought on the side of the Confederate States - General Lee, the commanding general, freed his slaves before the war.

It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery, then there are no questions if the war was correct. If it was mentioned that it was a fight over power, then people would still be split today on if it was correct.

The war was the worst thing to do, and pulling slavery out the way they did it caused many problems. It brought with it carpet-baggers and a collapse of an economy. It brought about the racism we have today, that just doesn't seem to die. If slavery died naturally, I don't think there would be the racial problems we have today in the South.

next history lesson:

England's oppressive past.

Any lecturers?

At least they all agree that they won in Vietnam. To which NEW ORDER did a cover version for CHARITY.Good eggs!

biggie, why did you erase history?

Because I read the posts that I was responding to properly and realised that I'd misread them initially, and that my response was therefore a bit unfair.

Here's what I said, anyway:

Fascinating stuff, boys.

So nice to hear the story behind how America rid themselves of their nasty, oppressive ways long ago and everyone lived happily ever after.

The reason that a swastika would be offensive is that many people from many countries (including America) fought very hard to rid the world of the Nazis, and they succeeded. Most people, whatever side their own country took in either of Europe’s wars, agree in their opinion that the Nazis were a rotten bunch.

The fancy-dress civil war that America held was an economic spat between two groups with roughly the same sets of ideals, both trying to further their own, largely economic aims.

The abolition of slavery may have occurred at roughly the same time, and some people may subsequently claim that this was the point of the conflict, but it wasn’t at all. In any case, institutionalised racism prevailed in America for many years and they still have the most racist foreign policies and disgusting civil rights record at home.

The fact that Americans still seem to be divided about the causes of their war, the positions that each side took and, no doubt, who actually won is down to the hard-wiring of Americans themselves, who in general much prefer a good cowboy story to real history lessons. The fact that this flag continues to be such a potent symbol is testament to the fact that neither side has actually accepted defeat. The war, therefore, continues.

At least they all agree that they won in Vietnam.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

A bit simplistic, don't you think?

The south was quite clear that it was seceding as a direct response to Lincoln's election, and that the reason for secession was to preserve the institution of slavery, which was perceived to be in peril with the election of a Republican to the Presidency.

Lincoln, on the other hand, was quite clear that he was fighting to keep the Union intact. He was not fighting to end slavery. The South, however, was fighting to preserve slavery.

Slavery, though a part of the reason for secession, was not the the whole reason though Comrade. The Civil War was the final deciding factor to the issue that had plagued the States from the birth of the Constitution: which has more power, state government or federal government?

Yes they went to war because of Lincoln's election, but because he was a strong federalist. The north had lttle need for slavery as it didn't impact thier industry, so took the high road. Slavery was instrumental to southern economy. The federal government had taxed the South so that it was economically already not doing well and pulling slavery out would make the economy collapse. Secession was already in the minds of people long before slavery became an issue, it was the needle that broke the camel's back.

The war stems from the feud between Hamilton, who believed that there needed to be a strong central government - Federalists and Jefferson, who believed that States should have more power to run themselves - Republicans.

People need to start looking at history from 1776-1861, not just the narrow scope of just before the war. The civil war wasn't about the South having a moral stand on slavery. Many in the South were against slavery and fought on the side of the Confederate States - General Lee, the commanding general, freed his slaves before the war.

It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery, then there are no questions if the war was correct. If it was mentioned that it was a fight over power, then people would still be split today on if it was correct.

The war was the worst thing to do, and pulling slavery out the way they did it caused many problems. It brought with it carpet-baggers and a collapse of an economy. It brought about the racism we have today, that just doesn't seem to die. If slavery died naturally, I don't think there would be the racial problems we have today in the South.

So, we have racism today in the South because of the Civil War??

No you have racism in the South because Americans are a bunch of cunts.

DJ Diamond wrote: No you have racism in the South because Americans are a bunch of cunts.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

If slavery died naturally, I don't think there would be the racial problems we have today in the South.

one of the most absurd statements ever. I can't even validate it with a response.

"It brought with it carpet-baggers and a collapse of an economy. It brought about the racism we have today, that just doesn't seem to die. If slavery died naturally, I don't think there would be the racial problems we have today in the South."

The carpetbaggers didn't destroy the Southern economy - many of these were just teachers or Freedmens' Bureau Agents who were there to support the south in the post war period. There was a myth of carpetbaggers put forward by Dunning and backed up by films like Gone with the wind.

Slavery was harming the South by making its produce uneconomic even before the civil war. Free labour would have been far more cost effective. Racism had always been endemic in both the North and South as both sides viewed African Americans as inferior. Reconstruction and the end of the civil war did not cause racism.

perhaps, there was no significant meaning. maybe it's all about the graf-x!

Doesnt barney hate touring in america? I assume like the post before mine, it's just a graphic on the guitar, meaningless like the linkin park guitars out there. Or, perhaps, it's just barney being barney.

Confusion33 wrote:

The carpetbaggers didn't destroy the Southern economy - many of these were just teachers or Freedmens' Bureau Agents who were there to support the south in the post war period. There was a myth of carpetbaggers put forward by Dunning and backed up by films like Gone with the wind.

Slavery was harming the South by making its produce uneconomic even before the civil war. Free labour would have been far more cost effective. Racism had always been endemic in both the North and South as both sides viewed African Americans as inferior. Reconstruction and the end of the civil war did not cause racism.

Yes there already was a feeling of superiority of white over blacks simply because of slavery. However, there were many slaves in the North and slavery ended because industrilization made it possible - slavery became more expensive in upkeep than machinery. So the North didn't abolish slavery in thier own territory because of fundamental values. After slavery was abolished in the North, there still was racism... but look how much further along in it is in accepting blacks compared to the South. When the North freed thier own slaves, the rich didn't have to split thier land and monies and give it to thier prior slaves... the slaves just left, or still worked for them - the same social structure still existed. The social structure was allowed to die naturally through generations.

However, in the South social structure was completely torn apart. The rich had to give land and monies to thier prior slaves, which left alot of resentment. That resentment still hasn't healed. The slaves were innocent of any wrong doing, but after such terrible treatment, thier descendents fought back, which now has this on going circle of hatred that can't seemed to be stopped.

If slavery was allowed to die naturally, the social structure of race would have progressed much as it did in the North.

(Many carpet-baggers were opportunists that claimed land off of bankrupt people, making wild fortunes afterwards because of it).

And Biggie... spot on post

EdelBrock wrote: The war was the worst thing to do, and pulling slavery out the way they did it caused many problems... It brought about the racism we have today, that just doesn't seem to die.

EdelBrock wrote: It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-- subordination to the superior race-- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.---Alexander Stephens, Vice President, Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861

By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence."[2] Related and intertwined secondary issues also fueled the dispute; these secondary differences (real or perceived) included tariffs, agrarianism vs. industrialization, and states' rights. The immediate spark for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election.

Reality apparently doesn't stop historical revisionists from elevating secondary reasons above the main reason in order to make the confederacy more palatable to contemporary sensibilities, though, does it?

michael preda wrote: Doesnt barney hate touring in america? I assume like the post before mine, it's just a graphic on the guitar, meaningless like the linkin park guitars out there. Or, perhaps, it's just barney being barney.

He hates touring anywhere

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-- subordination to the superior race-- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.---Alexander Stephens, Vice President, Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861

By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence."[2] Related and intertwined secondary issues also fueled the dispute; these secondary differences (real or perceived) included tariffs, agrarianism vs. industrialization, and states' rights. The immediate spark for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election.

Reality apparently doesn't stop historical revisionists from elevating secondary reasons above the main reason in order to make the confederacy more palatable to contemporary sensibilities, though, does it?

And everyone knows that winners write the history books.

EdelBrock wrote:

Yes there already was a feeling of superiority of white over blacks simply because of slavery. However, there were many slaves in the North and slavery ended because industrilization made it possible - slavery became more expensive in upkeep than machinery. So the North didn't abolish slavery in thier own territory because of fundamental values.

Actually historians believe that it was more half and half. Yes there were pragmatic reasons of cost - as industry didn't need slaves, and the price of slaves rose enormously after 1770. However the Revolution did cause a few pangs of morality with some Northerners seeing the hypocrisy of looking for freedom from Britain when they were infact slaveholders. There was also a religious element led by the North west states - especially New England (the same movement would later transfer their energies to prohibition). So in fact there was some moral opposition to slavery.

After slavery was abolished in the North, there still was racism... but look how much further along in it is in accepting blacks compared to the South. When the North freed thier own slaves, the rich didn't have to split thier land and monies and give it to thier prior slaves... the slaves just left, or still worked for them - the same social structure still existed. The social structure was allowed to die naturally through generations.

Ironically Northern black americans were better off under the slave system. Unlike their southern counterparts they fulfilled skilled roles in the North and had negotiating powers with their masters - who actually protected their rights. However once slavery was abolished, they were swept out of their skilled roles by lower class whites who had been jealous of their roles within northern society. Their social position actually deteriorated. And of course we are only talking about a small number of black people as 95% slaves lived in the South in 1790.

However, in the South social structure was completely torn apart. The rich had to give land and monies to thier prior slaves, which left alot of resentment. That resentment still hasn't healed. The slaves were innocent of any wrong doing, but after such terrible treatment, thier descendents fought back, which now has this on going circle of hatred that can't seemed to be stopped.

If slavery was allowed to die naturally, the social structure of race would have progressed much as it did in the North.

(Many carpet-baggers were opportunists that claimed land off of bankrupt people, making wild fortunes afterwards because of it).

If I'm not wrong there was little land redistribution after the civil war - the only land given to black people was the Georgia sea-islands - land unsuited to intensive farming anyway. The rich landowners constituted a very small part of southern society and actually made money out of the ending of slavery through debt peonage - the creation of the sharecropping problems of the 20th century. Where you talk about resentment that came from poor whites who were now competing on a free labour basis with ex-slaves.I still think you overestimate the carpetbagger myth propounded by early 20th century historians who wanted to present the abolition of slavery as the nadir of southern historyI wouldn't like to comment on modern american social structures/ racism - not living there means that I bow to your superior knowledge there. If you want good reads on this period check out Eric Foner and Edgar McManus - thoughtful and both American

Brian Barker wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-- subordination to the superior race-- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.---Alexander Stephens, Vice President, Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861

By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence."[2] Related and intertwined secondary issues also fueled the dispute; these secondary differences (real or perceived) included tariffs, agrarianism vs. industrialization, and states' rights. The immediate spark for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election.

Reality apparently doesn't stop historical revisionists from elevating secondary reasons above the main reason in order to make the confederacy more palatable to contemporary sensibilities, though, does it?

And everyone knows that winners write the history books.

Well, when you can come up with some proof that the leaders of the CSA didn't say it was established to protect the institution of slavery, do be sure to present it to the world.

SLAVERY IS WRONG AND EVIL. NO MATTER WHO COMMITS THE CRIME.

THERE IS NO APOLOGIZING FOR THE CONFEDERACY. SURE, THEY FELT THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD TOO MUCH POWER...

BUT THEY ALSO BROKE OFF BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO LOSE THIER SLAVES.

THE CONFEDERATE PRESIDENT BELIEVED BLACKS WERE INFERIOR.

RACISM IS WRONG.

I could care less about a bunch of rich southern plantation owners losing thier wealth after the Civil War. Fuck those racist assholes.

How anyone can sit here and DEFEND THE SOUTH is fucking beyond me. Yes, racism was awful in the north...

But there is no black man or woman in America who is going to tell you that blacks were better off under slavery.

Now...about Barneys sticker...

If you watch the Glasgow DVD, you can clearly say that his condeferate sticker says "Kiss My Rebel Ass".

I bet you he thinks its funny. Nothing more. I seriously dont think Barney is racist.

Bought the T-Shirt :laugh:

Fook me,49 posts

It's become a fookin' history lesson

kel wrote: Fook me,49 posts

It's become a fookin' history lesson

And i've been sciving behind the bikeSHED with a bottle of gin!

kel wrote: Fook me,49 posts

It's become a fookin' history lesson

And I thought I was done with school eons ago.

Brian Barker wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: It sounds so much nicer in primary school to say it was about slavery

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-- subordination to the superior race-- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.---Alexander Stephens, Vice President, Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861

And everyone knows that winners write the history books.

The author of that first quote wasn't one of the "winners", so there goes that excuse.

I saw a mondeo with a confederate flag in the window today, I pulled up at the traffic lights and suggested he was a racist bigot, he proceded to follow me back to my house and burnt it to the ground thus proving my point.

just going for the half-wit angle, ya holy confederate texan fucktard!

yee-ha!

or maybe he was doing the classic in your face deal with it thing, such as the whole name joy division? the band has a history of using things from history that people dont like as an icon of them. maybe the "stars and bars" flag is just a continuation of that. anybody ever think of that?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote:

That's great. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation, or is it simply your intent to look like a complete half-wit?

Well i though it was funny...

see, this whole thread with the idiocy of the likes of Jed from Texas "More State Sanctioned Murders in World History" Nation is why the Union had to beat down on the pathetic Confederacy.

thank god Bush is gone soon.

As usual, with my horrible timing, what does this have to do with Bernard? It seems that point was lost under the civil war NOOL story time session.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: see, this whole thread with the idiocy of the likes of Jed from Texas "More State Sanctioned Murders in World History" Nation is why the Union had to beat down on the pathetic Confederacy.

thank god Bush is gone soon.

Funny you mention Bush, as he is one of yours. He was born in Connecticut, not Texas.

It is quite obvious that you do not really have a grasp of history, so I await you next lame attempt at insulting me.

Yet you dare to mention my idiocy.

Can you make me chuckle again?

Good call.

yep, chuckle away as you kill another black man whose dna will clear him two years from now.

texas murders more people per year, state sanctioned, than any nation on earth.

makes me want to puke.

ha

ha

Tarbox23 wrote: and maybe a picture of a 'n*gger hangin from a tree' on a tshirt next time if he ever plays live again.

he can use my Family Crest then: Seriously, that's our coat of arms!

(it comes from the family having been bards/poets for centuries - 'slaves to the scroll' & can be an any-coloured man or even a hound tied to the tree

But try explaining it to your coloured friends . . . )

Stop dissin' Texas. It is one of the few fooked up states we have. California which executes no one is the most fooked up.

Jeff, btw, I changed my mind on this issue. Nothing wrong with the soldiers flag. They fought against federal tyranny. Probably nothing more patriotic than realizing that your nation is wrong and leaving it in protest. Unfortunately, they had slaves. I often wish that that States today would have the balls to form a new CSA. If they thought that the feds were bad in the 1860s they would find the government much worse today. the ATF, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the TSA and Homeland Security and all the BS that got passed by both parties in wake of 911. Obama talks about change and hope yet he has never uttered a word about ending the 4th Reich.

end of rant

The Confederacy were still wrong, and they were still racist. Thats history. Nothing against Texas on my end. Lotta nice stuff in Texas.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote: The Confederacy were still wrong, and they were still racist. Thats history. Nothing against Texas on my end. Lotta nice stuff in Texas.

Yeah, the south was really really more racist than the north. That's why the Federal government (dominated by Yankees) almost wiped out the Native Americans/Indians after the Civil War. I guess civil rights and liberties didn't really apply to the redskins.

You northerners really need to look in the mirror before you start condemning the south. You lot ain't exactly got the greatest record when it comes to race relations.

Agreed on the Native American issue.

However......we in the North have had a much better record on race relations than you folks in the South in the past 50 years.

Emmet Till.

James Byrd

All those churches and things being blown up by the KKK in the 50s and 60s.

George Wallace.

George Lincoln Rockwell.

I am not saying the North is innocent. Far from it.

But we certainly have a better record on race relations in the past 50 years than you fine folks down South.

How did the Democratic Party lose the South?

By supporting CIVIL RIGHTS. Hmm....I wonder why?

Oh yeah, and don't forget..

THE CONFEDERACY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE RACIALLY INFERIOR TO THE EUROPEAN WHITE MALE.

It was one of the cornerstones that the Confederacy was founded on, that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was thier natural state.

I never said that the South NOW was a bad place. But a major portion of the South leaving the Union was because they wanted to keep thier barbaric practice of slavery and no revisionism is going to change that.

What I wonder is this..

Why are YOU so defensive about it? Did your great great granparents have a plantation? Do you dislike minorities?

This entire thread was started simply about Bernards guitar sticker, which in its self is a light hearted joke.

No amount of excuses can cover the historical fact that bigotry has been and still is more prevalent in the South than anywhere else in the US.

It doesn't mean that I or anyone else thinks that all people from the South are racist. I happen to have many friends who come from the South who are wonderful people, but not one of them would defend the Confederacy.

In 1933 Germany elected Adolf Hitler Chancellor and put the Nazi Party into power because they promised to take care of the many economic issues plaguing Germany. Hitler ran a campaign blaming the Jews and other minorities for Germanys problems...people voted for him because he offered a scapegoat and an easy answer to a complex problem.

That does not excuse the Holocaust or World War Two. And I have not met a German who would defend why Hitler was elected.

You can prattle on all you want about the South leaving the Union because they felt the Federal government had too much power...and yes that was a reason and thats true...

But you cannot cover up the fact that the Confederacy's President believed in his heart that God made Africans to be slaves for White European Americans, and that that was a major reason for the Confederacy forming...so all the Good Ol Boys could protect thier "God Given Right" to enslave black people.

Again...why are you so defensive?

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote: The Confederacy were still wrong, and they were still racist. Thats history. Nothing against Texas on my end. Lotta nice stuff in Texas.

Yeah, the south was really really more racist than the north. That's why the Federal government (dominated by Yankees) almost wiped out the Native Americans/Indians after the Civil War. I guess civil rights and liberties didn't really apply to the redskins.

You northerners really need to look in the mirror before you start condemning the south. You lot ain't exactly got the greatest record when it comes to race relations.

Agreed on the Native American issue.

However......we in the North have had a much better record on race relations than you folks in the South in the past 50 years.

Emmet Till.

James Byrd

All those churches and things being blown up by the KKK in the 50s and 60s.

George Wallace.

George Lincoln Rockwell.

I am not saying the North is innocent. Far from it.

But we certainly have a better record on race relations in the past 50 years than you fine folks down South.

How did the Democratic Party lose the South?

By supporting CIVIL RIGHTS. Hmm....I wonder why?

Oh yeah, and don't forget..

THE CONFEDERACY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE RACIALLY INFERIOR TO THE EUROPEAN WHITE MALE.

It was one of the cornerstones that the Confederacy was founded on, that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was thier natural state.

I never said that the South NOW was a bad place. But a major portion of the South leaving the Union was because they wanted to keep thier barbaric practice of slavery and no revisionism is going to change that.

What I wonder is this..

Why are YOU so defensive about it? Did your great great granparents have a plantation? Do you dislike minorities?

This entire thread was started simply about Bernards guitar sticker, which in its self is a light hearted joke.

No amount of excuses can cover the historical fact that bigotry has been and still is more prevalent in the South than anywhere else in the US.

It doesn't mean that I or anyone else thinks that all people from the South are racist. I happen to have many friends who come from the South who are wonderful people, but not one of them would defend the Confederacy.

In 1933 Germany elected Adolf Hitler Chancellor and put the Nazi Party into power because they promised to take care of the many economic issues plaguing Germany. Hitler ran a campaign blaming the Jews and other minorities for Germanys problems...people voted for him because he offered a scapegoat and an easy answer to a complex problem.

That does not excuse the Holocaust or World War Two. And I have not met a German who would defend why Hitler was elected.

You can prattle on all you want about the South leaving the Union because they felt the Federal government had too much power...and yes that was a reason and thats true...

But you cannot cover up the fact that the Confederacy's President believed in his heart that God made Africans to be slaves for White European Americans, and that that was a major reason for the Confederacy forming...so all the Good Ol Boys could protect thier "God Given Right" to enslave black people.

Again...why are you so defensive?

Again, I wish people would look at history from 1775-1860 instead of the last 5 years before the war. There was turmoil before and it wasn't BASED on slaves, but on the seperation of power. Slaves had been an issue since the forming of the country, yes, and the war did have something to do with slavery but AGAIN the core issue was state versus federal power.

Next thing we know our future generations will stand staunchly behind the main reason to go to Iraq was to free Iraqis

EdelBrock wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Zachery Starkey wrote: The Confederacy were still wrong, and they were still racist. Thats history. Nothing against Texas on my end. Lotta nice stuff in Texas.

Yeah, the south was really really more racist than the north. That's why the Federal government (dominated by Yankees) almost wiped out the Native Americans/Indians after the Civil War. I guess civil rights and liberties didn't really apply to the redskins.

You northerners really need to look in the mirror before you start condemning the south. You lot ain't exactly got the greatest record when it comes to race relations.

Agreed on the Native American issue.

However......we in the North have had a much better record on race relations than you folks in the South in the past 50 years.

Emmet Till.

James Byrd

All those churches and things being blown up by the KKK in the 50s and 60s.

George Wallace.

George Lincoln Rockwell.

I am not saying the North is innocent. Far from it.

But we certainly have a better record on race relations in the past 50 years than you fine folks down South.

How did the Democratic Party lose the South?

By supporting CIVIL RIGHTS. Hmm....I wonder why?

Oh yeah, and don't forget..

THE CONFEDERACY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPAL THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE RACIALLY INFERIOR TO THE EUROPEAN WHITE MALE.

It was one of the cornerstones that the Confederacy was founded on, that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was thier natural state.

I never said that the South NOW was a bad place. But a major portion of the South leaving the Union was because they wanted to keep thier barbaric practice of slavery and no revisionism is going to change that.

What I wonder is this..

Why are YOU so defensive about it? Did your great great granparents have a plantation? Do you dislike minorities?

This entire thread was started simply about Bernards guitar sticker, which in its self is a light hearted joke.

No amount of excuses can cover the historical fact that bigotry has been and still is more prevalent in the South than anywhere else in the US.

It doesn't mean that I or anyone else thinks that all people from the South are racist. I happen to have many friends who come from the South who are wonderful people, but not one of them would defend the Confederacy.

In 1933 Germany elected Adolf Hitler Chancellor and put the Nazi Party into power because they promised to take care of the many economic issues plaguing Germany. Hitler ran a campaign blaming the Jews and other minorities for Germanys problems...people voted for him because he offered a scapegoat and an easy answer to a complex problem.

That does not excuse the Holocaust or World War Two. And I have not met a German who would defend why Hitler was elected.

You can prattle on all you want about the South leaving the Union because they felt the Federal government had too much power...and yes that was a reason and thats true...

But you cannot cover up the fact that the Confederacy's President believed in his heart that God made Africans to be slaves for White European Americans, and that that was a major reason for the Confederacy forming...so all the Good Ol Boys could protect thier "God Given Right" to enslave black people.

Again...why are you so defensive?

Again, I wish people would look at history from 1775-1860 instead of the last 5 years before the war. There was turmoil before and it wasn't BASED on slaves, but on the seperation of power. Slaves had been an issue since the forming of the country, yes, and the war did have something to do with slavery but AGAIN the core issue was state versus federal power.

Next thing we know our future generations will stand staunchly behind the main reason to go to Iraq was to free Iraqis

Yes, you are right.

But myself and millions of other people seem to find the slavery issue to be more pressing than states rights. I wonder why that is? For the record, the Federal Government was right make slavery illegal...just as the Federal Goverment was right to override state rights and end segregation in schools in the 1950's.

I should make it clear... I DO NOT HATE THE SOUTH.

Aside from the race issue we have been discussing, the South has contributed many awesome things to American culture. The Blues, Martin Luther King, New Orleans, Cajun Food, Rock and Roll and William Faulkner being just a few things among many.

Jesus fucking christ is there not a more appropriate forum for all of this bollocks?

At least it could me moved to BCD.

There are remixes to discuss you know.

I honestly cannot believe the argument has gone on for this long.

I got a haircut today. Woo hooo.

Well if you will keep posting, it probably will.

Or do you normally find that everyone has seen sense and agreed with you by now?

Tip: They're PRETENDING!

Did you have much off?

Actually, I didn't even start this argument and pretty much stayed out of it until the past few days. I was pretty happy earlier to just mention that Barney's sticker is a sort of joke. I wouldn't consider this thread to be my argument at all.

However, I have found the debate here to be pretty interesting, and reading Jeffari al-texani's views about the South and states rights and all has actually been really interesting and eye opening, even if I don't neccesarily agree with it. I am a big fan of debating issues and learning about why someone might disagree with me.

Just because I disagree with someone does not mean that I do not respect them or thier views, and that goes for everyone who posted on this thread. I mean no harm or disrespect. The fellow who plays keyboards in my band is a bit Libertarian....I am very much a liberal.....but I enjoy and respect hearing his views and we are good friends. Politics is not everything.

Oh, I got the back and sides of my hair faded and a bit trimmed off the top. The girl who cut it did a fantastic job.

I'm sure it's a fascinating discussion if you give the first shite about any of it.

My point is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with New Order; the original question having been done to death (and, for that matter, answered).

Did the stylist push her diddies into the side of your head?

I agree. It has nothing to do with New Order, and if you are a Brit, yes its probably not very interesting.

I am afraid that the stylist did not push her diddies in the side of my head, but she did give me a cup of hot tea that was quite good.

Quite happy with my cut. its sort of like a mid 80s Barney cut....but with longer bangs and a side parting.

A gentleman refers to his fringe as BANGS in America?

I thought that was just ladies! Like the Bangles.

Well fuck me I've learned something amazing today. I am very surprised indeed.

Can't see it coming in useful, mind, given the state of my hairline these days

Yup, generally in the US, fringes are bangs. Amazing, is it not?

Well, you know, in th old days it was said that a receding hairline indicicated intelligence.

In the Sherlock Holmes story "The Final Problem", Professor Moriarty, the criminal genius, is bald, and he says to Holmes, "You have less frontal development than I would have expected."

So what is up with that sticker anyways?

Jeff from Texas sent the sticker to Bernard, and the KKK agreed to pay them both $1 million each if it was advertised on the guitar.

and the Civil War was about State Rights and not Slave Rights...

yep indeed!

as long as the state rights involved being allowed to keep slaves

God will it ever stop?!

The North won and the South lost.

Cause God loves Yankees and hates slave owners.

LOcK TeH THrEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

maybe cause i am using tacos, you keep takin my bait?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tarbox23 wrote: um, perhaps because when it came to fighting a war to determine whether slavery would continue, the confederate flag represented the losing side of "we love slaves"

just a guess.

Hmmm, if the Civil War was simply about determining whether or not slavery would continue, why were there still slaves in the Union?

You should have stayed with the Motherland. We would have shown you a better way. It's still not too late. HM Queen Elizabeth II would be delighted to have you as the crown's subjects once again.

EdelBrock wrote: So what is up with that sticker anyways?

Barney's a rebel, sticker says "Kiss my rebel ass".. he likes it, end of story. No real deep political story behind it I'd imagine.

Self hating Americans, civil war anecdotes, for fooks sake who needs history class? God Bless New Order, every time I glance on this forum I learn many new truths.

bump