Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old Times Here Are Apparently Forgotten
Cornell American ^ | May 31st, 2006 | Vanessa Durante

Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner

Last month, Ithaca High School administrators sent a letter home with students, informing their parents that the flag of the Confederacy had been banned. Ithaca High School students can no longer display the emblem on belt buckles, t-shirts, or anywhere else while on school property. Apparently, the students wearing their Dixie Outfitters t-shirts, in a proud nod to our country’s better half, were white. It is unfortunate that civil liberties apply only to those in privileged groups, such as blacks or Hispanics.

Because the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting the freedom of speech exercised in displaying the stars and bars, Ithaca High School had to claim that the flag was creating some sort of disruption in the school that hindered the educational process. No specific instances were mentioned in the administration’s letter.

I found the claim interesting, though, because, were it true, it would clearly indicate that racism is much more of a problem in Upstate New York than in my hometown in Southern Virginia. To think that racial hatred could be stirred up by a high school student’s belt buckle is frightening, indeed. The school’s objection to the battle flag is even more astonishing considering the fact that only 6.7% of the population of Ithaca is black. But apparently the race wars here are far more intense than in my hometown, of which 13.34% of the population was black. And yet, in my public high school, where displays of the confederate flag were common on car bumpers, t-shirts, or belt buckles, and where a significant minority of the student body was black, and even in a state that historically had supported slavery, the flag was never accused of disturbing a classroom, much less of inciting racial hatred.

Ithaca’s black population is proportionately only slightly more than half that of the United States. This is an unusually white city. And apparently race relations here are in such tension that they can be upset by a kid’s t-shirt. Schools in the South, much less segregated, are clearly more at ease and have put issues of racism farther behind them;thus, students there can better appreciate the historic and cultural value of the Confederate flag. It leads one to wonder on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line racism is still prevalent today.

The Confederate flag is not—and was never—a representation of the institution of slavery. The North, in an attempt to glorify its states’ fight to suppress the South’s effort to free themselves from the North’s exploitation, has oversimplified and at times even falsified history by painting the War of Northern Aggression as a war fought over issues of morality. Children in Northern schools are never made aware that there were no more abolitionists in the North than in the South.They are never taught that the North never claimed to want to abolish slavery but merely to stop its expansion to ensure that the free states would not be outnumbered in Congress. Many Northerners do no even know that the majority of Southerners who fought and died in the Civil War did not even own slaves.

In accordance with their favored depiction of the Civil War as a moral battle in which they fought for good while the South defended evil, the North has emphasized the issue of slavery while allowing the issues of representation in national politics, economics, and regional identities which primarily caused the war to recede into the background. Erased from history are the values of self-government, freedom, and honor that led Confederates to fight to preserve their home. This is what the Confederate flag represents, and this is why it is still of the utmost importance to Southerners today. It is why black Southerners will proudly call themselves Southern and will fly the Confederate flag. The South is, above all, a cultural entity. Southerners have a dramatically different culture from Northerners; this culture of chivalry, modesty, graciousness, and hospitality is represented by the stars and bars, and it must be remembered and preserved.

If the Confederate flag has in fact caused the feelings of ill will in Ithaca High School that the administration claims, the blame must fall on the administration itself. No Southerner would be so naive as to equate the Confederate flag with support of slavery. It is a failure of Yankee schools that children are not taught the broad scope of economic, political, and even cultural factors which led to the Civil War but are only presented with a gross caricature of a war between good and evil.

Even more frightening than this restriction of freedom of speech in Ithaca High School is what has caused this common misunderstanding of the Confederate flag. In perpetuating their myth of the North as the force of good in the Civil War, the North has revised history in a way that should frighten all Americans. An emblem of a group of people’s heritage and culture has been banned because others have formed prejudices and misconceptions about it. Moreover, these prejudices and misconceptions are fueled by the public school system itself. By banning the Confederate flag, the state attempts to erase from memory the Civil War. To forget that Americans in the past were capable of such atrocities as slavery robs us of the lesson that can be learned and leaves us dangerously vulnerable to repeating past mistakes.

If the Confederate flag calls to mind slavery, and schools wish to erase from common memory all remnants of this dark period in American history, why stop at the flag? Perhaps next, Ithaca parents will receive letters requesting that their children be sent to school clothed in only synthetic fabrics because cotton was once produced through the slave labor of blacks. Or, in order to really be free of uncomfortable memories of our national history, maybe Ithaca High School will ban all black students from school property.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: ban; cbf; confederate; confederateflag; cornell; crossofsaintandrew; dixie; dresscodes; flag; foolish; freespeech; high; hogwash; indoctrination; ithaca; northernaggression; rebs; saintandrewscross; school; traitors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 361-364 next last
To: Da Bilge Troll
That's part of your problem right there: the fact that you think it was a rebellion - it was not.

Rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." An accurate description of the southern actions.

161 posted on 06/05/2006 6:19:44 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: coladirienzi
Evidently the very first unit to respond to Jefferson Davis' call for troops was the 1st. Louisiana Native Guard; frre black men from New Orleans.

And because they were black men trying to serve in a combat role their service was refused by the confederate government. They later became a regiment in the Union army.

The victors write history.

And the losers write the myths.

162 posted on 06/05/2006 6:21:57 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Not really i just moved on to more interesting things.
Like I pointed out before, it's all misdirection and denial on your part. You take pride in something ugly and refuse to see how sick it is/was. It's no use continueing, I can't change a white supremacist's mind just like I can't change a jihadist's mind. Some folks just have to hate something.


163 posted on 06/05/2006 6:24:10 PM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

I was waiting for someone to point that out. If it were up to the Southern Colonies we'd never have tasted freedom. The redcoats had the run of the South, not to mention quite a few volunteers to take up arms with them, funny how "Southern Pride" sometimes includes selective amnesia


164 posted on 06/05/2006 6:29:03 PM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Thank you. Well they did it too, just doesn't cut it when you are talking about a horror like slavery.


165 posted on 06/05/2006 6:32:28 PM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

The school administrators claimed that students had been wearing t-shirts displaying the Confederate flag because of the recent release of Dukes of Hazard... who knows.

The school never pointed to the stabbing incident on campus so I'm not sure. Their ban was not immediately following the incident. Just in my opinion I didn't see the incidents as related, if only because the Cornell community and the rest of Ithaca don't tend to mingle very much. Just because of Cornell's size, and the general ickiness of Ithaca, most students don't even go into Ithaca very often.

Just an interesting fact that Cornell never publicized, because it was too busy blaming the Cornell American for the stabbing incident (somehow making the illogical deduction that the existence of a conservative newspaper on campus must be responsible for a white student stabbing a black guy): the student who stabbed the visiting black student, Nathan P..... (I can't spell his last name for the life of me) was actually a writer for Turn Left, Cornell's liberal newspaper. While rallies were held on campus to protest racism, and the Cornell American was frequently brought up as being the root of the problem, this little fact was never brought up. Hunter Rawlings, Cornell's president, even stated that "The Cornell American is trash and the people who write for it are trashy." This illogical ranting should be expected from liberal academic elites, but I was nonetheless shocked.

Even the actions of liberal writers on campus are blamed on the conservatives.

As far as the irony of me attending "such a citidal [sic] of Yankeedom"... it is definitely unfortunate. However, I believe that, provided one is capable of resisting indoctrination by liberal professors, the value of an Ivy League degree makes it worth it. We can't let Yankees have a monopoly on degrees from our nation's finest universities merely because we want to stay in the safe cocoon of like-minded Southerners (as much as I would like to). Plus, isn't it great to show the world the fallacy of their stereotypes of ignorant, redneck Southerners who are uneducated and only hold their beliefs because they've never been exposed to anything else?

I want my beliefs--as radically conservative as they may seem to those Yankee Ivy Leaguers--to be respected. Granted, most of them will never come to respect my beliefs. But at least they can't accuse me of merely being ignorant. I've listened to the other side, I've listened to the rants of liberal professors, and I've just been smart enough (and raised well enough by Southern parents, bless their hearts!) to know better.


166 posted on 06/05/2006 8:37:46 PM PDT by vdd2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
As I pointed out earlier they don't FREELT enter. They are admitted, and only with the permission of the other states.

They petitioned for admission per the Constitution. Nowhere does that document state that they must seek approval to leave. Evidently you believe in that liberal 'Living' Constitution.

167 posted on 06/06/2006 5:01:19 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
They petitioned for admission per the Constitution. Nowhere does that document state that they must seek approval to leave. Evidently you believe in that liberal 'Living' Constitution.

No, just the Constitution of such men as Chief Justice Marshall and Chief Justice Chase. Ever hear of them?

But if you had bothered to read back to the response that I had replied to, the claim was made that states entered freely and should be free to leave the same way they came in. I pointed out that they didn't ever freely, that they were admitted with the permission of the other states, and I had no problem with them leaving the same way. Clear now?

168 posted on 06/06/2006 5:21:50 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster; stand watie; stainlessbanner; All
You take pride in something ugly and refuse to see how sick it is/was. It's no use continueing, I can't change a white supremacist's mind just like I can't change a jihadist's mind

You're a simple minded troll and I demand that you retract the unfounded, slanderous charges of white supremacy and racism that you have recklessly posted about me, and others, who defend the right to display symbols of the Confederate South.

169 posted on 06/06/2006 5:43:29 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, just the Constitution of such men as Chief Justice Marshall and Chief Justice Chase. Ever hear of them?

Sure. Justice Marshall touted the legality of secession in the Virginia convention. Justice Chase was one of the most liberal to ever hold that position [Lincoln appointed him to prevent Chase from running against him in 1864].

But if you had bothered to read back to the response that I had replied to, the claim was made that states entered freely and should be free to leave the same way they came in. I pointed out that they didn't ever freely, that they were admitted with the permission of the other states, and I had no problem with them leaving the same way. Clear now?

Every state ADMITTED is on an 'Equal Footing' with the other states. The states are equal. Each state voluntarily joined - not forced in at gunpoint. Their departure would be the same, of their own accord, not held in at gunpoint. The Constitution is positively SILENT on the departure of a state or perpetuity - thus Amendment X reserves the power to leave to a state.

Your position that a state must beg for permission to leave is advocation of a living Constitution, just as when a liberal court invented the right to murder the unborn. If liberals don't like the way it's written, then abide by the Constitution and amend it legally. Clear now?

170 posted on 06/06/2006 6:17:59 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

No I'm not and no I won't. Defending slavery, equivicating about it, justifying it in any way is a problem of perspective. If it the shoe fits.... if not then why get so riled up.


171 posted on 06/06/2006 6:41:49 AM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Sure. Justice Marshall touted the legality of secession in the Virginia convention. Justice Chase was one of the most liberal to ever hold that position...

By the official "4CJ Definition of Commies and Liberals and Such" no doubt.

Every state ADMITTED is on an 'Equal Footing' with the other states.

Agreed.

Each state voluntarily joined - not forced in at gunpoint. Their departure would be the same, of their own accord, not held in at gunpoint.

On the contrary, states are admitted when Congress is good and ready to admit them. The fact that a territory petitions for statehood is meaningless, as states like Kansas and Colorado found. Those are only two of the states that found their request for statehood delayed for years before Congress agreed that they should be allowed to join. So I agree, they should be allowed to leave the same way. With consent of Congress.

Your position that a state must beg for permission to leave is advocation of a living Constitution, just as when a liberal court invented the right to murder the unborn.

According to the "4CJ Big Book of Constitutional Stuff, with Pitchurs"? Or is it in keeping with Chief Justice Marshalls finding of implied powers? If Congress creates states and only allows them to change status with permission then by implication leaving should require Congressional approval, too. Or so Chief Justice Chase found.

If liberals don't like the way it's written, then abide by the Constitution and amend it legally. Clear now?

Clear as Mississippi mud.

172 posted on 06/06/2006 6:42:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Display the flag all you want. I have no problem with people displaying symbols, flags, or what ever BUT don't expect the rest of us to put on the same rose colored glasses you choose to wear about the slave driving South.
People should be free to display a Confederate flag, Nazi Swaztika, or a picture of a huge ass if they want but there will be social repercussions. You're just going to have to live with it.


173 posted on 06/06/2006 6:50:19 AM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster
Defending slavery, equivicating about it, justifying it in any way is a problem of perspective. If it the shoe fits.... if not then why get so riled up.

I see that you get most of your exercise by jumping to conclusions and you're obviously too simple minded to separate one event from another.

First, show one example of me or anybody that defends slavery.

Second, show one example of racist or white supremacist text.

Third, show one example of 'riled up'.

I submit that you are the one 'riled up'. Your vitriolic hate speech, name calling and obvious hatred of issues that you have only a surface knowledge of clearly demonstrate a personage of the typical hate filled liberal.

It would be easy to picture you, standing on a street corner, shouting, "Blood for Oil! No WMD's!"

174 posted on 06/06/2006 7:45:32 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
With the taxation that the North was pumping up on Southern exports, the North destroyed the idea that slaves could be freed and paid wages, because the South was loosing its margin of profit on goods sold.
175 posted on 06/06/2006 8:01:14 AM PDT by oyez (Appeasement is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
NOT the first 13!

free dixie,sw

176 posted on 06/06/2006 8:37:39 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
can you show me where in the "admittance documents" that it SPECIFICALLY says that once admitted, that the admitted state CANNOT leave at their pleasure???

the answer is NO!

free dixie,sw

177 posted on 06/06/2006 8:39:04 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster
and we southerners cannot change the mind of a "vicktum uv duh gubmint public screwls", as you have been made fools/dupes of. your eyes are TIGHTLY CLOSED, against the UNcomfortable truth.

free dixie,sw

178 posted on 06/06/2006 8:42:04 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
By the official "4CJ Definition of Commies and Liberals and Such" no doubt. ... According to the "4CJ Big Book of Constitutional Stuff, with Pitchurs"?

Classic liberal responses. You should be proud! You are welcome to your opinions, you certainly have that God-given right. But there's a reason WHY the Constitution is written, precisely to prevent liberals like you from usurping it. Maybe John Adams had you in mind when he wrote,

'If ye love wealth better than liberty and the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, then crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly on you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen ... go from us in peace, we ask not your counsel or your arms.'
You worship at the feet of non-elected justices, averring that the decision of some justice (other than Roger B. Taney) is a pronouncement from God himself, and that no matter how wrong or right it may be, even when in total contradiction with the Constitution, that it has been made the law of the land. And further that those that disagree with your liberal/totalitarian views, and instead adhere to the belief that men are not gods, and such decisions are repugnant to the Constitution, are to be scorned and ridiculed.

There's a reason why the people of the Confederate states wanted to secede, and why many still believe in limited government, a government of laws, not men.

179 posted on 06/06/2006 8:42:25 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
see #178.

free dixie,sw

180 posted on 06/06/2006 8:43:53 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 361-364 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson