Rebel flags may cost pair diplomas

MLive.com ^ | May 28, 2004 | Bob Wheaton

[MikeJ75]

GRAND BLANC - Bringing flags bearing the Confederate insignia to school could cost two Grand Blanc High School seniors their diplomas.

School administrators met Thursday to determine the fates of the two students and a third who was involved in an altercation sparked by the flags. School officials wouldn't announce the outcome of the meeting.

The Confederate flag has sparked a heated debate at the school about whether it's simply a symbol of the South or one of racial discrimination and slavery.

The two students who brought the flags to school Wednesday said there's nothing racist about the Confederate flag. They said it represents Southern pride, among other things, although one of the students said he wanted to apologize to peers who were offended.

[4CJ]

Thank you. I always stand when it's played. Deo vindice!

[4CJ]

City folks never got it, they never will.

The most racist people I have ever met were yankees. They couldn't understand why I chose to move in beside the nicest black families around. He wanted to know how he could prevent blacks from moving next to him. I replied:

"MOVE BACK!"

[TomServo]

MOLON LABE

Sorry Stainless, but I had to go look that up. Glad I did, too. ;-)

[Lancey Howard]

Seems to me there are significant freedom of speech issues here.

I'm sure the ACLU will be right on the case.

[Fiddlstix]

You're welcome J

[general_re]

The most racist people I have ever met were yankees.

Having grown up in the south, but lived most of my adult life in the north, I can attest that there is a certain amount of truth to the old saying that white southerners tend to hate black folks as a race, but tend to like them as individuals, whereas white northerners tend to like black folks as a race, but hate them all individually. This is not universal, and is grossly stereotypical of course, but then again, stereotypes don't spring up out of thin air either.

On of the things that my (New York-born and bred) wife remarked on upon moving here to Virginia was how much more common interracial dating was than in New York. True enough, but one of the things I reminded her of was that, once you get past the nastiness of Jim Crow and that sort of junk, historically speaking, blacks and whites in the south have always tended to live and work in closer proximity to each other than they did (and do) in the north. This misjudgement is not unique of course - many northerners are rather surprised by the state of race relations in the south when they get a firsthand look at things. It's not entirely their own fault either - they're raised to think of themselves as enlightened and progressive, whereas they think that Bull Connor is basically still running the show down south. It creates a curious sort of blind spot among them - they can never really explain why the ugliest desegregation battles of the 60's and 70's happened in places like Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, for example. Funny and sad at the same time... ;)

[curious311]

I am confused. What I cannot understand is why it appears that the same Southerners who rally around the confederate flag and relish with pride the memories of their ancestors who fought against the Union Army seem to be the same people who support the war in Iraq and cannot understand why the Iraqi people don’t welcome the United States with open arms. These are the same people that think they have a monopoly on patriotism and believe that anyone who criticizes the war and/or Bush is unpatriotic.

From the get go, let me simply state what to me is obvious (though I know others have trouble understanding it) – I support the troops, I don’t support the war. This is not a dichotomy, but I can understand why some people may think it is. I personally have trouble understanding how people who support the war can say they support the troops. If you support the troops you would want the war to end and the troops to come home alive, to their loved ones and the lives they lead before the United States invaded Iraq. That to me is support for the troops.

But I digress – back to my confusion regarding those who cherish with pride the efforts the confederate states and their armies put forth to fight off the efforts of the United States of America’s (the Union) to protect the nation, to protect the United States of America.

Do the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy not see that in the 1860's the confederates were the insurgents, the terrorists, the one’s opposed to the United States of America -- thus they were traitors and definitely unpatriotic? The confederate states seceded from the United States of America. (Definitely an unpatriotic act!) The confederate states were members of the United States and they became disgruntled and they left the Union. They formed confederate militias that banned together to create the confederate army. The confederates conducted guerilla warfare to fight the efforts of the Union Army to occupy their homes, their forts and their states. They were opposed to the United States government telling them how to live (or so some claim) and they were in favor of states rights as opposed to big government telling them how to live (or so some claim). In essence they were opposed to Abraham Lincoln’s and Congress’ “version” of democracy. (You know, that “All men are created equal...” nonsense.)

As history clearly reflects, on April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. This was the beginning of the Civil War. The United States did not attack the confederates, the confederates attacked the United States - they attacked a United States military base. (9/11 was a terrorist attack on the United States and that is what gives you twisted hypocrites justification for the military action in Iraq [Congress has not declared war.])

The confederacy and its army fought against the United States of American in an effort to maintain their way of live and some even based their right to take up arms against the United States in their religion. (After all some believe that the Old Testament condones slavery.)

All that being said, why is it that the current day supporters of the confederacy cannot understand the efforts of the Iraqi people to fight against the occupation and oppression that they are now experiencing at the hands of the United States of America? Iraq was not a part of the United States. It was a separate sovereign, a nation not joined by law or by ideals to the United States. The confederate states were a part of the United States, they chose to secede. They left the Union, they took up arms against the United States and became traitors, terrorists, insurgents.

Yes, Iraq was lead by an evil man, a barbarian, a torturer, but it was not a part of the United States. (It is not the only such nation in existence today - e.g. Sudan, North Korea, etc.) No, I do not condone the Iraqi’s assaults on our troops. I think it is terrible that our soldiers are dying over there and I think it is equally horrific that Iraqis are dying at the hands of the United States. I think it is terrible that the United States thinks it is so great that it can tell others how they should live and can justify the use of force to try to make other people, people of different cultures and views, comply with what it perceives is “right”. At the heart of the Civil War was the issue of states rights versus federal authority flowing over the underlying issue of slavery. At the heart of what is wrong with the conflict in Iraq is our nation thinking itself so supreme that it tries to force another nation to follow our ways.

I don’t condone the war and I do not believe we should be over there.

I am an American by birth and a Southerner by the grace of God. Having said that, I can honestly say that I empathize with the majority of the Iraqi people, they don’t deserve to have their lands occupied. Saddam was overthrown, job done. It is not our place to tell them how to live, they should be allowed to govern themselves. If they chose through their actions or inaction to let another dictator or king or holy man rule them, then that is their business and their culture. The evil tyrant is gone, long live the Iraqi people and their culture.

Just as not all American soldiers are responsible for the prison abuse, not all Iraqis or Muslims or Arabs or other Middle Easterners are responsible for 9/11, the Beirut bombings, the Cole, the murders of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. Those atrocities were committed at the hands of a few extremists, maybe there are hundreds if not thousands of extremists, but there are millions of Muslims and citizens of Middle Eastern nations that do not yet share their views. Osma Bin Laden and Saddem Hussein are not one in the same. They are two totally different men, with different agendas and views. If the anti terrorist/ pro-war fanatics would take the time to study the two, they would learn that Bin Laden hated Saddem, condemned the man and his misuse of his office and his disdain for the Muslim faith. Bin Laden referred to Saddem and the Baath Party as infidels.

Ironically enough, our government has turned over some military power and government control in Iraq to members of the Baath Party, Saddem’s own governing party. Within the first hours of the attack on the World Trade Center now known as 9/11, President Bush and his administration made sure that Bin Laden’s family members living in the United States were provided security to be secreted out of the United States. They were not held as possible terrorists or detained for questioning, they were flown, at the taxpayers expense, to destinations outside of the United States and eventually back to Saudi Arabia.

The Supreme Commander responsible for the D-Day invasions and triumphs, General Dwight D. Eisenhower (a well known and respected Republican president), was so against war that when he was president, he formed NATO. Having seen first hand the tragedies of war (unlike G.W. Bush) and having had been responsible for the lifes of thousands of young Americans in World War II, he believed in the concept of containment and restraint. A true leader (unlike G.W.) recognizes the importance of containment and how useful it is in the efforts to protect our nation. Restraint is a trait that is essential in a true leader. If G.W. were president in the 1960's I would surmise that Mississippi, at least the southern portion of our state, would not be here today. Thank God Kennedy had restraint and was not a cowboy quick on the draw.

As long as the United States is an occupying power that kills citizens and tortures and abuses the citizenry of the country that it has invaded, the more likely it is that other fanatics will join the extremists and take up arms against our invasion, against the United States. The United States has instilled fear and hatred in the hearts of the people of the Middle East, not respect, not gratitude, not trust.

If G.W. truly cared about our nation's safety, then he should protect our nation. Our borders, ports, chemical plants, oil refineries, nuclear power plants, etc. are not properly protected here in the good ole United States. Our tax dollars should be spent to secure our borders and other obvious terrorist targets. For those who live in Mississippi, take the time to learn how many nuclear power plants surround our state, then worry about those pesky terrorists overseas. Worry about the home front. It is vulnerable and the longer we are at "war" in the Middle East the more vulnerable we become.

All of that being said, I cannot understand how those Southerners that support the confederacy, the confederate flag and all things linked to the Civil War by stating (and believing) “we are proud they fought to protect their land, family and way of life” can call themselves patriots. Patriots do not take up arms against the sovereign, the United States, the way the confederates did and true American patriots cannot support those who did.

Even more confusing to me is how it is that the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy and other Southerners can oppose the Iraqi people and support the war, after all, aren’t the Iraqi people fighting to protect, their lands, their families and their ways of life?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The confidence felt in the righteousness of the Union cause and in the military power of the Government to speedily suppress the rebellion gave strong hopes to the general public [at the North] that the war would be a short one. But after an experience of bloody conflict, during which time the morning papers with heavy headlines too often brought the words of defeat and great losses to the Union forces, saddening the hearts of loyalists and giving encouragement to those opposed to the Government [aka Rebels], who grew more violent in their denunciations of the war, it began to dawn upon the [Northern] people and the [US] Government that our Southern antagonists were of like metal with our own Northern army. Rev. Henry Ward Beecher expressed the situation to a large London audience, while there seeking England's influence in the preservation of the Union, where he did the country invaluable service. In the midst of a strong and earnest appeal for the North and its righteous cause before a large audience, but one greatly at odds with him, he was interrupted with the question from one of his hearers: "If your cause is so righteous with your great Northern strength, why don't you put the rebellion down?" The quick reply was, "Because we are fighting Americans and not Englishmen."

[devolve]

lithium

you need lithium

[Cannoneer No. 4]

YGBSM

[wardaddy]

I have never viewed any Southern artifact as being offensive to blacks....

Then again, I don't form my opinions based on what's offensive to folks unless it's blatant.

I'm a Mississippi native....a state nearly 40% black and my hometown of Jackson is very black now and was probably 50-50 back then yet....the first hostility I ever felt from blacks was in Manhattan on the subway in 1980.

Nowadays here in Nashville....I get a little beef here and there from angry bros but far and away my biggest hassles (and fist fights on occasion) are with the young white punks imitating black gangsta style....Nashville is overrun with these cretins in certain areas.

I own a car wash and self storage places as you know and I have steady contact with these weak chumps....I think they know I despise them.

Now....I may get shot by a Black Gangster Disciple tomorrow (hopefully not) but I find the white burrhead baggy pants lost identity bunch more threatening.

Of course ...most of them go Opie on ya when they know you are series.

Btw....I almost never have been one to use the N-Word unless in the heat of battle when younger but now I must confess that I do use the W-word frequently.....I don't know what else to call that sad phenomenon.

[wardaddy]

Great tidbit....where else but here?

[TomServo]

that I do use the W-word frequently.....

White-trash? Yup - that's it...;-)

[philetus]

Tell the school to shove their deplomas, take the G.E.D. ,get a deploma from the high school of your choice.

[wardaddy]

LOL...nice catch.

[curious311]

Forgive my ignorance but what do those initials mean?

[curious311]

Instead of remaining ignorant, I decided to research the initials you used and in response to same, please note I am not! You should do some research of your own, it may prevent you in future from using such ignorant and petty responses to other writings that you may read.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I am confused.

You sure as hell are.

[Godebert]

"All that being said, why is it that the current day supporters of the confederacy cannot understand the efforts of the Iraqi people to fight against the occupation and oppression that they are now experiencing at the hands of the United States of America? Iraq was not a part of the United States. It was a separate sovereign, a nation not joined by law or by ideals to the United States. The confederate states were a part of the United States, they chose to secede. They left the Union, they took up arms against the United States and became traitors, terrorists, insurgents."

Typical of the mindset of the far left "Hate America" crowd here on FreeRepublic. The fact that you see Al-Quada as "Freedom Fighters" opressed by America and call great Americans like Robert E. Lee and my ancestors "traitors, terrorists and insurgents" says it all.

Jim Robinson may tolerate your disgusting blue-zonian rants against the South......but it is unlikely that he will take kindly to your treasonous view that the United States of America are the evil occupiers and opressors of the Iraqi people.

My guess is that you have never even considered what you can do for our country.......but instead are always asking what the country can do for you.

[sgtbono2002]

It shows that ignorance runs in the family.