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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 361-364 next last
To: TheKidster
actually, by 1860, slavery was DYING. this is WELL documented in many original source documents.

due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery. remove the profit from slavery & the slavers would have freed their slaves; the slavers care about NOTHING but the $$$$$$$$!

absent the war, slavery MIGHT have survived another 10-15 years. my GUESS, based on my research, is five-ten years until slavery was UNprofitable and soon thereafter, DEAD.

even if the 10-15 year estimate, absent the IMPERIALIST war promulgated by lincoln's "merry band of thugs/crooks/cheap politicians", is correct (and my guess is wrong), KILLING a MILLION people (many of the victims of the invading yankee army WERE slaves! btw, a MAJORITY of the UNarmed CIVILANS who died in dixie during the war were: AmerIndians,Asians,Blacks,Jews,Latinos, Roman Catholics, other religious minorities & the "poorest of the poor" whites. VERY few of the slave-owning elites lost their lives, as they were PROTECTED from harm by the military!) seems a REALLY high price to pay for ending the evil of slavery 10 years earlier than 1865.

as i've said before, your eyes/MIND are CLOSED to the truth, as you've been LIED TO repeatedly & made a FOOL of in school & by the main-SLIME, elitist, media spin machine out of DAMNyankeeland.

free dixie,sw

281 posted on 06/08/2006 7:58:37 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster
actually, by 1860, slavery was DYING. this is WELL documented in many original source documents.

due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery. absent the war, slavery MIGHT have survived another 10-15 years. my GUESS, based on my research, is five-ten years until slavery was UNprofitable.

even if the 10-15 year estimate, absent the IMPERIALIST war promulgated by lincoln's merry band of thugs/crooks/politicians, is correct (and my guess is wrong), KILLING a MILLION people (many of whom WERE slaves) seems a REALLY high price to pay for ending the evil of slavery 10 years earlier than 1865. as i've said before, your eyes/MIND are CLOSED to the truth, as you've been LIED TO repeatedly in school & on the main-SLIME, elitist, media spin machine.

free dixie,sw

282 posted on 06/08/2006 7:59:00 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: ModerateGOOPer
what an UTTERLY dumb, false & arrogantly IGNORANT post!

you win the "pink lolly-pop award" for today's SILLIEST post.

laughing out loud AT you.

free dixie,sw

283 posted on 06/08/2006 8:03:53 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Not if the entire economy is based on a single form of motive force.

But again and again Lincoln says that he has no intention of interfering with slavery where it exists. Are you claiming that the continued economic vitality of the south depended on the expansion of slavery into the west? Usually you guys are claiming that slavery was on the way out anyway.

The funny thing aboout your argument is that it turned out that slavery was not essential to the southern economy. Cotton production had returned to pre-war levels by, I believe, 1870. Of course the prices of cotton had dropped by that time, as Indian and Egyptian cottton came on line.

284 posted on 06/08/2006 9:09:58 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; TheKidster
actually, by 1860, slavery was DYING. this is WELL documented in many original source documents.

Of which you cannot provide a single one.

due to improvements in agricultural mechanization the PROFIT was disappearing from slavery.

And therefore would have been gone by 1940 when the first commercially successful cotton harverster was introduced? remove the profit from slavery & the slavers would have freed their slaves; the slavers care about NOTHING but the $$$$$$$$!

So why would they have freed their slaves if they cared about nothing but $$$$$$$$$? Wouldn't they have sold them for what they could get? And what about the cooks and maids and butlers and gardeners and grooms and porters and what-have-you that were slaves? Why would they be freed?

285 posted on 06/08/2006 9:18:45 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

Again he is speaking of the courts and not the federal government. Congress has the duty to ensure that the state government is legal.


286 posted on 06/08/2006 9:21:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
Are you claiming that the continued economic vitality of the south depended on the expansion of slavery into the west?

There is an important dynamic that you are omitting: the regional bitterness that existed between north and the South. Southerners then, just as now, didn't want the country to be governed by the yankees.

Usually you guys are claiming that slavery was on the way out anyway.

It was. Just as using horses was replaced by tractors.

The funny thing aboout your argument is that it turned out that slavery was not essential to the southern economy.

Of course it wasn't. Just like union workers aren't 'essential' to manufacturing. But I dare say that the union worker would argue that point.

287 posted on 06/08/2006 9:27:45 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
i'm NOT going to repeat our exact argument on this subject again on this thread.

in point of fact, you as the Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda, just cannot stand the thought of me telling the TRUTH about the "coming death of slavery, absent the war", as it makes the DAMNyankees war against the new southern republic look like what it WAS:

an UNjust,IMPERIALIST war, that was fought ONLY because lincoln, the TYRANT, was UNwilling to let the south go in peace. as a result of his lust for POWER & $$$$$$$ (for himself and his northern cronies of the financial/industrial elites), a MILLION people NEEDLESSLY died.

from the DY perspective, there was NO REASON for the war except GREED & a LUST for more political/financial POWER. THAT is the TRUTH about the war, that you won't/can't face.

free dixie,sw

288 posted on 06/08/2006 9:31:08 AM PDT by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Southerners then, just as now, didn't want the country to be governed by the yankees.

In other words, they were only loyal to the United States as long as they were in charge. As soon as an election didn't go their way, they wanted to take their ball and go home. You make southerners sound like a bunch of spoiled brats. Why did they agree to the Constitution in the first place? Didn't they read the part about elections? Did they have their fingers crossed when they ratified, just in case an election ever went against them?

289 posted on 06/08/2006 9:41:22 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

I dare you to go to the black part of town with a confederate flag and start telling everyone that the number of people who died in the civil war was too high a price to pay for the accelerated end to slavery. I'm sure they will be very receptive, after all it would have happened eventually, whats a few more years in chains and bondage?
You say you don't gloss over it and you say that you don't speak glibbly on the matter but you do, in every post


290 posted on 06/08/2006 9:46:26 AM PDT by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
As soon as an election didn't go their way, they wanted to take their ball and go home. You make southerners sound like a bunch of spoiled brats

There is no way to avoid oversimplification of a subject this complex in cyber text bites. There have been thousands of pages written about the events leading up to the war. Either you know this or you don't.

If you do know this, you're simply being antagonistic. If you don't know this, then it is an utter waste of time debating you.

Of course, knowing you, it's a bit of both.

Why did they agree to the Constitution in the first place?

Agree to it? Hell, we wrote it!

Bottom line - War Between the States (you like simple, here it is):

South fought for state(s) rights.

North fought for preserving the union.

291 posted on 06/08/2006 10:29:54 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
There is no way to avoid oversimplification of a subject this complex in cyber text bites. There have been thousands of pages written about the events leading up to the war.

Indeed, but for me it seems to come down to justification for secession. Had there been actual oppression of the south by the north, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to them. But I have yet to see anything done by the Lincoln administration or by the north in general that justified unilateral secession and the shelling of US forces. You say it was a states rights issue, but you can't point to anything that had violated their rights. Had Lincoln moved to end slavery when the south bombarded Sumter? Had he raised the tariff? No. In the Alexander Stephens Georgia speech, he nicely outlines why Lincoln won't be able to do much of anything in the face of southern opposition in the House and Senate.

The southern position seems to boil down to "it was sufficient cause to us," precluding any value judgement about those causes.

292 posted on 06/08/2006 10:58:22 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
Same with the south. If you want to say that you rebelled, no argument. If you want to say that you did not, in fact, rebel, that you exercised rights guaranteed under the Constitution, I would argue otherwise.

What the south did was not a rebellion, it was secession. A legal withdrawal from voluntary union by legally constituted authority. What the north did in response was invasion and conquest.

293 posted on 06/08/2006 11:55:58 AM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There was absolutely nothing conservative about the confederate cause.

Home rule and sovereignty are conservative principles regardless of political party.

294 posted on 06/08/2006 12:02:08 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I suppose one is free to ignore the Church of England in London or Judaism in Tel Aviv but that doesn't ignore the fact that they are government supported at the expense of other faiths.

The key phrase: "at the expense of other faiths". There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit a display of the Koran. As long as you were still free to ignore it, you would still be free.

295 posted on 06/08/2006 12:02:49 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Here is the decision from Texas v White The Chief Justice references the Preamble and, indirectly, Article IV.

Interesting. However the finding has more to do with the process that was used rather than the principle of secession itself.

296 posted on 06/08/2006 12:05:40 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
i'm NOT going to repeat our exact argument on this subject again on this thread.

Can't remember what you made up at the time?

just cannot stand the thought of me telling the TRUTH about the "coming death of slavery, absent the war"

I'm not sure my system could stand the shock of you telling the truth on anything.

297 posted on 06/08/2006 12:16:51 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll; Heyworth
A legal withdrawal from voluntary union by legally constituted authority.

Except that it wasn't a legal withdrawl.

298 posted on 06/08/2006 12:24:34 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Home rule and sovereignty are conservative principles regardless of political party.

Trashing the constitution, nationalizing businesses, seizing private property without compensation, excessive taxes, and martial law are not. Regardless of political party.

299 posted on 06/08/2006 12:26:22 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit a display of the Koran. As long as you were still free to ignore it, you would still be free.

Is government displaying the Koran?

300 posted on 06/08/2006 12:26:59 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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