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

Skip to comments.

Confederate flags on space station draw ire
MSNBC ^ | 6/13/06 | James Oberg

Posted on 06/14/2006 5:58:12 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom

Confederate flags flown aboard the international space station — and seemingly signed by a NASA astronaut — showed up last week on the online auction site eBay.

The original eBay listing indicated that the 4-by-6-inch flags were brought aboard the space station by Russian cosmonaut Salizhan Sharipov in 2004, and an accompanying photo showed a sample flag that seemed to bear Sharipov’s signature as well as that of Leroy Chiao, his NASA colleague on the station. Yet another photo showed several of the rebel flags floating in a space station module.

The item was pulled from the auction on Monday by the seller, Alex Panchenko of USSR-Russian Air-Space Collectibles Inc. in Los Angeles — and on Tuesday, Panchenko told MSNBC.com that he removed the items from sale because he had concluded the flag and the authentication documents were forgeries.

However, Robert Pearlman, editor and founder of CollectSpace, said he believes the flags are authentic.

“The picture taken of the flags aboard the station says a lot,” he said. “It would be difficult to fake, given the style and I couldn't see the motivation to do so.” The “onboard-the-ISS” stamp, added Pearlman, is not known to have been counterfeited anywhere."

The disappearance of the flags followed a round of criticism over the weekend from former space scientist Keith Cowing, publisher of NASA Watch, an independent Web log. He cited the Confederate flags as an example of “bad judgment on the ISS.”

“You'd think that someone on the U.S. side of the ISS program would have expressed some concern about flying a symbol on the ISS that many Americans associate with slavery,” Cowing wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederateflag; dixie; iss; losers; nasa; neoconfederate; pcpatrol; rebs; rednecksinspaaaaaace; slavestates; z
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,141-1,144 next last
To: P-40
To put it another way...you are trying to compare a united nation at peacetime to a divided nation at war. Those are two different animals.

Are you saying that you cannot account for the increase in tariff income, assuming that the crazy claims of Adams and DiLorenzo are true?

341 posted on 06/15/2006 11:24:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Are you saying that you cannot account for the increase in tariff income

No, I am saying that you are trying to compare apples and oranges...and you can't even keep exports and imports straight. In other words, the arguments you present don't show that you really understand what you are cutting and pasting.
342 posted on 06/15/2006 11:27:08 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: smug
They agreed that the fort would not be reinforced during the talks, and the South agreed to supply rations to the troops. The feds agreed that the troops would remain a Moultrie and then ordered Anderson to move

Nonsense. The South Carolina commissioners hadn't met with anybody when Anderson moved, and it's clear from the reaction in Washington that nobody ordered Anderson to move. He did it all on his own, to protect his men by moving them from an indefensible position to a defensible one.

Official Records

A nation that does not control their own borders is not a nation.

Well then the CSA was never a nation, since there was never a single day they controlled their own borders.

343 posted on 06/15/2006 11:28:24 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: P-40
The South needed vast amounts of cheap labor while the North needed relatively little. Cheap labor was critical to the South but less so to the North.

I would disagree with that. Northern manufacturing was growing at a rapid pace and needed an ever increasing amount of cheap labor for factories and mines and farms and what have you. The North relied on immigrant labor, and often cruelly abused that labor in a way that slave owners wouldn't have dreamed of doing, as the southern supporters around her are oh so fond of telling us. What they overlook is that like immigrants throughout our history, the new arrivals took whatever jobs they could to provide for their families. Their children made a better life than their parents, and the grandchildren thrived even more. Our history is full of stories of children born on small farms in rural areas, who succeed in spite of lack of education, and who become lawyers, businessmen, even presidents. The child of a slave was a slave. His grandchild was a slave and his great-grandchild was a slave. Not a whole lot of upward mobility available there.

344 posted on 06/15/2006 11:29:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
Uh no, you've just been brainwashed by Northern schools who hold up Lincoln and Grant as heroes while they demonize two of our country's better Presidents: Rutherford Hayes and Andrew Johnson.

You are the first person I've ever heard place Andrew Johnson in the category of a good president.

345 posted on 06/15/2006 11:31:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: P-40
No, I am saying that you are trying to compare apples and oranges...and you can't even keep exports and imports straight. In other words, the arguments you present don't show that you really understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Oh then by all means please enlighten me and point out exactly where I'm going wrong. Feel free to use big words and leave out the pictures, I'll manage to keep up somehow.

346 posted on 06/15/2006 11:32:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Industry needs skilled to semi-skilled labor. Agriculture needs strong backs. There might not have been a lot of difference between the immigrants in the north and the slaves in the south but the workers in the industry either had the skills or they acquired them.


347 posted on 06/15/2006 11:33:29 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

Decoration Day 2006

348 posted on 06/15/2006 11:35:08 AM PDT by OB1kNOb (This is no time for bleeding hearts, pacifists, and appeasers to prevail in free world opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Oh then by all means please enlighten me and point out exactly where I'm going wrong.

Like I already said, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. If you are truly interested in learning about the Civil War Era from the tariff and trade perspective, I can suggest some good works.
349 posted on 06/15/2006 11:35:16 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Why would we be embarrassed?

Because the constant refrain of a certain subset of the southern partisans on these threads is that slavery had nothing, or very little, to do with secession. They'll point to tariffs, or navigation acts, or warehousing acts, or northern bankers, or even wild Indians on the Texas frontier as the source of their grievances, but never admit that the overwhelming reason the south seceded was to protect their slave property, as their secession declarations and a thousand other comtemporaneous sources demonstrate.

Watie would be the case in point of the denial school.

350 posted on 06/15/2006 11:38:53 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Because of the crimes committed by Reconstruction governments. Reconstruction officials made it their intent to humiliate Southerners, they wanted to emasculate them, they treated them as traitors (which they were not), and they treated them as whores (think Ben Butler), they in general, treated them like dirt. Reconstruction officials also succeeding in leading nearly ever major city in the former Confederacy into default, and of course, these cities defaulted almost always just as Reconstruction ended, so Redeemers had to clean up the mess the Radicals left.

Now, at the same time, the Reconstruction governments provided a multitude of services to poor whites, they established extensive welfare states. Areas that would later become the backbone of the Populist movement recieved tremendous aid from the Freedman's bureau, which in this state, was more concerned about getting poor white votes for the Reconstructionists then it was with helping blacks. Nevertheless, the crimes of Reconstruction governments were plain and clear for everyone to see. In the early 1870s, political violence broke out in many cities over unionist/confederate lines. I have no qualms in admitting, my family took part in the liberation of 1874, though most of our aid was financial.

Nevertheless, in order to get these liberal governments out of power, Redeemer's played the race card, and they won control of most Southern governments. Now, Redeemers had come to blame all the ills of Reconstruction on black voters, which only reenforced beliefs already held by whites. It was in the period post final liberation (the election of Rutherford Hayes) that the insidious political force known as populism gained steam. In most of the South, populists were virulently anti-black, because as a movement composed of poor whites, it's members competed with blacks for the same jobs, and blacks of course, would do the same work for less pay with less complaints. Seeing this divide in what was left of the Reconstruction party, the Bourbons reached out to black voters, and very quickly, black voters in the majority of Southern states allied with the state's conservative establishment. Poor white labor, understandably became even more angry at blacks. Hence part of the program that was inevitably advanced by the populists involved the implementation of Jim Crow, prime example of this would be the Tillman regime in South Carolina. Populists won control of many states in the 1890s, and, in playing up to their poor white supporters, they began the process of disenfranchising blacks from society, despite the wishes of those in the aristocracy of these various states, who, if not sticking up for blacks out of altruism, they were at least sticking up for them.

Now, all this political history that I have described grew out of the events of Radical Reconstruction, had Reconstruction proceeded in the way proposed by Lincoln/Johnson rather than the radical program of Thaddeus Stevens, then chances are, Jim Crow would have never occured, because there would not have been the kind of post-Reconstruction political turmoil that there was, there wouldn't have been the anti-black backlash that dominated politics after Reconstruction, and issues of class which led to the success of populism could have been blunted from the start. So yes, Thaddeus Stevens bears the lions share of responsibility for Jim Crow.


351 posted on 06/15/2006 11:41:14 AM PDT by AzaleaCity5691 (6-6-06 A victory for reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: P-40
> Why would we be embarrassed?

This should do it:

"That they have in violation of the comity of all civilized nations, and in violation of the comity established by the Constitution of the United States, insulted and outraged our citizens when traveling among them for pleasure, health, or business, by taking their servants and liberating the same, under the forms of State laws, and subjecting their owners to degrading and ignominious punishment;"

This, from the Mississippi Resolutions on Secession.

Do you not see the irony of a slaveowner bitching about someone insulting them or taking their property or subjecting them to "degrading and ignominious punishment?"

Such staggering hypocrisy would be embarassing if I was basing my arguement on it.

Plus, I'd be *damned* embarassed if, in this time when our soldiers are fighting and dying to liberate people I'll never meet and who will never be fellow Americans, the people I was defending in an arguement were bitching about slaves being liberated.

352 posted on 06/15/2006 11:42:37 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
Your hyperbole is worthy of Farrakhan. I strongly suspect that approximately six million Jews would have chosen the oppression of the South, rather than that of the Nazis. ???? Let's see... burning alive in an oven by SS Troops vs. brutal beating, castration and public hanging by a town full of serial killers... hmmmm...
353 posted on 06/15/2006 11:46:04 AM PDT by AmericanRepublican (There are fools on both sides. Only the true Americans will prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
but never admit that the overwhelming reason the south seceded was to protect their slave property

I've seen few that say that slavery was not a significant reason...but it cannot be realistically stated that it was the only reason, as many like to claim. Even the way you state the above is different from what is usually stated...as your response is 'slavery as an economic argument' and not 'slavery as a moral argument'. To say that the war was only only slavery, moral or otherwise, is akin to saying that the war in Iraq was just about WMDs. Both wars had a lengthly pre-history.

I find the 'moral superiority' arguments from those in the North to be particularly offensive not because of thier insulting nature but because they show such overwhelming ignorance.
354 posted on 06/15/2006 11:47:07 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: P-40
If you are truly interested in learning about the Civil War Era from the tariff and trade perspective, I can suggest some good works.

What, can't be bothered with helping out the stupid Yankee by explaining where he's going wrong? I've asked some simple and straightforward questions which you have avoided answering. So I'll ask them again. Given Adams's claims that the North accounted for only 25% or $13 million in tariff income in 1860, and given your claim that the southern exports were the engine that drove the U.S. import machine, then I'd like to know the following:

1. How could U.S. tariff revenue achieve an 8 fold increase between 1860 and 1864?
2. What Northern export do you believe replaced southern agriculture exports?
3. What was the tariff rate on exports that you claim existed in 1860 and 1864?

Be as detailed as you think you need to be in order to penetrate my thick Yankee skull and use whatever words you need to, I can always look them up in the dictionary.

355 posted on 06/15/2006 11:47:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

"What, can't be bothered with helping out the stupid Yankee by explaining where he's going wrong?"

Works for me.


356 posted on 06/15/2006 11:48:59 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
the people I was defending in an arguement were bitching about slaves being liberated.

Different time, different way of life. I have to see things through their eyes to understand them...and I am in no way embarrassed. As a side note, my family did not "immigrate" here. We came here and purchased or took by force what we wanted and formed this great nation. Should that embarrass me? It does not.
357 posted on 06/15/2006 11:50:31 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691

So if I understand what you're saying, because the Republican government enforced the Constitution and gave blacks a level of political equality that they never enjoyed in the south prior to the rebellion and didn't enjoy immediately after the rebellion, that was all the excuse the south needed to ensure that blacks were denied those right for the 80-plus years following reconstruction?


358 posted on 06/15/2006 11:51:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Works for me.

Feel free at taking a shot at answering the questions yourself. If you can.

359 posted on 06/15/2006 11:53:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Try:

Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, by Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 2004. xxix +124 pages.

That is an easy and rather fun read that will answer your questions and then some.
360 posted on 06/15/2006 11:54:30 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,141-1,144 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