Skip to comments.Requiem for a Flag. And History
Posted on 07/11/2015 5:44:41 AM PDT by NOBO2012
Yeah, thats right: all this for a damn flag.
In the mistaken belief that denying history is the same as making it go away, the Confederate Flag was laid to rest yesterday by a coalition of States Rights deniers and 21st Century Orwellians.
In a breath-taking act of self-censorship the South Carolina Assembly voted to refrain from exercising their freedom of expression and banished the flag from the capital. Forgetting, or ignoring, the actual history of the Civil War in favor of a version that makes it all about slavery is all very au courant. And its a cute trick: by denying history you have the power to change it. If it works for Iran, surely it can work for us:
Holocaust Denial and the Iranian Regime In Tehran's worldview; if six million Jews didn't die, then Israel has no excuse to exist. WSJ
Oh sure, I know butt MOTUS, the Joan Baez version! Sorry, not only did The Band do it first, they wrote it and Levon Helm (RIP) owns it.
So put your Confederate flag away and get your dog whistle out, youre gonna be needing it.
Warning! Choking hazard.
Posted from: Michelle Obamas Mirror
Its not about the flag. Its about seeing how much the Marxists can get away with by oversensationalizing a horrific event that they had no part of and saying “you owe me” (once again) like a little manipulative spoiled brat sister who caught you with your hand in the cookie jar. In this instance It just happened to be a shooting by a deranged white boy hopped up on psychotropic drugs who was holding a Confederate flag in online posts; a boy that was raised by liberal family members who wore nipple rings and were probably covered in tattoos...: )
Had it been a black boy that did the shooting with the same circumstances no flags would have ome down. In fact, the leftists would have cheered him on because it was Christians that were shot.
It was those resisting expansion of civil rights in the 50s and 60s who chose the battle flag as the symbol under which they fought.
To my mind that’s a much better reason for removing it from public space than its Civil War history, where it was only peripherally associated with racism.
It was Christians that were shot, or hadn’t you noticed?
Thank God the jerk off wasn’t a Tea Party supporter. There would be FEMA concentration camps going up all over the South. Jeh Johnson and his welcoming committee, “What we have here is failure to communicate”.
“”It was Christians that were shot, or hadnt you noticed?””
“”In fact, the leftists would have cheered him on because it was Christians that were shot.””
Isn’t that what he said???????
So in light of the current situation of racial “harmony” just how wrong were the segregationists? I am willing to go over that history. I have no inclination either way at this point.
Had a black guy gunned down this many white conservative southern Christians, the left would have (at least privately) cheered.
Not because they were Christians as much as because they were white conservative southerners and thus presumed to be racists, and thus deserving of death.
They have a hierarchy of hate, and Christian, as such, is pretty far down the list.
How wrong were the segregationists?
About as wrong as they could possibly be, at least if you believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
From a purely practical POV, they may have had a point.
But I think it’s pretty obvious that the issue is not whether they should have been “kept in their place,” it’s that we’ve had many decades now of opportunists and ideologues beating the racial war drums.
Can we expand on that?
And there are more Confederate Battle Flags about in South Carolina now than ever before.
Eff you, ø!
The best reason for attacking the Confederate flag is that the scrimmage furthers the notion that racism is a “Southern problem” instead of a northern problem, or a worldwide problem. In this way we can avoid the need to discuss demolishing the Lincoln Memorial.
If we were to view Iran as a racist country, we would be obliged to oppose them. And that is definitely something we are not going to do. So let's busy ourselves - and congratulate ourselves - for desecrating memorials to our dead.
Would we have less black crime and particularly less black on white crime had Jim Crow been maintained and expanded?
Possibly. Just as we might, possibly, have a more orderly society if the aristocrats of the early modern period and the Catholic Church had maintained their monopoly of power.
Of course, keeping Jim Crow would have been at the continued cost of ignoring the principles we supposedly stand for. If being an American conservative means fighting for the principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution, then opposing Jim Crow is an eminently conservative position.
RE: The South pre 1960, can we say with authority that every white wanted and every black hated “separate but equal”?
There is an implicit argument behind both their attacks and your comment.
It is that racism is the worst of all possible sins and must always be tracked down, exposed and destroyed wherever it might be.
Really? Somebody with mild distaste for the company of people of different races is worse than a mass murderer or a child molester? Really?
South African apartheid was worse than the killing fields of Cambodia because the animosity was racial. Really? Even though the death toll from apartheid was probably in the low thousands vs. Cambodia’s millions?
Without it really be argued or openly agreed to that I can see, the idea that racism is the worst of all possible sins has been generally accepted as an axiom.
No, I can’t say that. But there were darn few blacks in the mobs protesting the end of segregation.
A true policy of “separate but equal” or, to use the Afrikaans, apartheid, is in theory consistent with American ideas of equality.
But of course in practice they are inherently unequal, and in general are set up by the dominant group to keep the oppressed group unequal.
“If being an American conservative means fighting for the principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution, then opposing Jim Crow is an eminently conservative position.”
I don’t often disagree with you, but you are on shaky ground when you imply that the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution embraced the principle of racial equality.
Separate but equal is stupid from a economic stand point, having to build two of everything. But from a social stand point does it not solve more problems than it creates?
“Without it really be argued or openly agreed to that I can see, the idea that racism is the worst of all possible sins has been generally accepted as an axiom.”
As Paul Harvey used to say, “You hit the nail with your head.”
And that explains the feral government taking a sledge hammer to the copyrights of the Washington Redskins and the emerging criminalization of Christianity.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Did the Founders make these rights fully effective, or even try to? Nope. But I believe they were here expressing an ideal for which we should continue to strive till it has been achieved.
As so often, Lincoln expressed my thoughts best, in his final debate with Douglas:
“I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.
They mean to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.