At least they all agree that they won in Vietnam. To which NEW ORDER did a cover version for CHARITY.Good eggs!
Dates
· UTC
Bernard Sumner & Confederate Flag?
Archived94 replies · 5,555 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Digital Republic
Showing posts 31–60 of 95
↑ First post
Latest post ↓
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?? 
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.
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.
DJ Diamond wrote: 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.
That's frigging brilliant, so why the hell would you have felt the need to delete it??
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
