Confederate flags on space station draw ire

MSNBC ^ | 6/13/06 | James Oberg

[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.

[Texas Mulerider]

And you have some figures that aren't over 40 years old?

No. Do you? The figures I stated were the highest-recorded memberships, taken at the peak of the Klan's political power, and will likely never be exceeded. The modern Klan, so far as it still exists, has been politically irrelevant for decades, at least in the South.

[Non-Sequitur]

No. Do you? The figures I stated were the highest-recorded memberships, taken at the peak of the Klan's political power, and will likely never be exceeded. The modern Klan, so far as it still exists, has been politically irrelevant for decades, at least in the South.

Do you even have a date for those figures, never mind recent ones? Are we talking 1967 membership? 1927 membership? What? Websites like Klanwatch show that what's left of the Klan seems to be primarily in the south.

[Texas Mulerider]

Do you even have a date for those figures, never mind recent ones?

Sorry. I assumed you knew that the peak years of the Ku Klux Klan were from 1915 to 1930, the peak years being the focus of Jackson's work. "What's left of the Klan" might very well be in the South, the operative phrase being "what's left," which is practically nothing.

I'm sure you're aware that Klanwatch is part of the SLPC. It's founder is notorious leftist Morris Dees. You might want to do a little checking on him (from sources other than his fellow leftist admirers) before relying on his numbers.

[Texas Mulerider]

Point of clarification: "SLPC" in my previous post should read "SPLC," the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[smug]

Thousands of Klansmen in full regalia marching past the Blaine House and down into the sea, along with the ACLU never to disgrace our land again.

[Mr. Silverback]

Now that's a nice mental picture.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sorry. I assumed you knew that the peak years of the Ku Klux Klan were from 1915 to 1930, the peak years being the focus of Jackson's work.

Thanks for the clarification. It's true that the Klan was a power in the North for a while, but it's rise and fall were happened is a short period of time. The stronghold of the Klan has always been in the southern states.

I'm sure you're aware that Klanwatch is part of the SLPC. It's founder is notorious leftist Morris Dees. You might want to do a little checking on him (from sources other than his fellow leftist admirers) before relying on his numbers.

I'm well aware that all y'all can't stand Morris Dees, but until someone can come up with some conflicting data I see no reason not to accept his figures.

[smug]

During the rebellion Indiana was a copperhead stronghold. You suppose that's one of the reasons why the Klan had such success there?

At a snap thought, I'd say ignorance was the chief cause. They feared what they did not understand. This was back when, like you pointed out that there was a somewhat significant migration towards northern industrial jobs. I could point out with anecdotal evidence, that of my 4 grandparents (all born in Indiana), the only one who's ancestors came from a Union state was the head bigot. I think this post on another thread is somewhat accurate

I may have the statement backwards what I heard from a Black comedian said some 40 years ago, mentioning the difference of White racism of the North vs. the South. "Up North, they don't care how big you get, just as long as you don't get too close. Down South, they don't care how close you get, just as long as you don't get too big." Northerners could often afford to take very gracious and seemingly generous stances towards Blacks because they lived far away and rarely had to associate with them, but heaven forbid if they ever decided to move in and associate with them beyond a handful. Northerners were noted for sometimes acting in a far more visceral and reactionary way towards Blacks that were "in their face" than their Southern brethren.
60 posted on 06/20/2006 2:33:53 AM EDT by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[smug]

I took the liberty of using part of a post of yours. Hope you don't mind. See #1048

[Old_Mil]

Imagine, for a moment, the nation splitting along the Mississippi, and the western states going to war with the east over the right of people to own third vacation homes. Can't quite see that? Well, that's exactly what you're proposing when you say that the South sent its sons to die for the rights of plantation owners to own slaves. The idea that the civil war was about slavery, that the south was somehow evil, and that Lincoln was somehow a saint is one of the great myths of our modern educational system. As for Lincoln, consider the following: Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

The stars and bars are a symbol of states rights - the sort of thing that would prevent a gay marriage from Massachusetts being forced down the throats of Mississippians. As such it is a symbol of freedom and self determination and should be appreciated by all people, regardless of their background.

[Non-Sequitur]

As for Lincoln, consider the following: Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

I've read that quote from Bennett and have a couple of problems with it. The first one being that Lincoln is by far the most documented president of his age. His speeches and letters are available on-line here and here and here . Lincoln's stories and jokes have been documented for decades during times when racial slurs were not looked down upon. And in all those sources, the only place I've ever seen Bennett's charge is in Bennett's book itself. I've never seen any examples of these jokes and stories. How would you explain that?

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

Bennett's charge is completely false. By issuing an order freeing the slaves in those states in rebellio, Lincoln basically overturned the Fugitive Slave laws with mandated run away slaves be returned. Following the proclamation any slave running away to Union lines was free to stay without frear of being returned to bondage. The fact that it applied to the rebellious states only is undeniable. Slavery was legal, after all, and it took the 13th Amendment to end it. An amendment which Lincoln fought hard for. Though Bennett conveniently overlooks that part.

At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Perhaps he should have quoted Lincoln?

The stars and bars are a symbol of states rights - the sort of thing that would prevent a gay marriage from Massachusetts being forced down the throats of Mississippians.

Or any limitations on the institution of slavery. As one confederate senator, Robert Hunter said in 1865, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?"

[308MBR]

Good one.

You forgot Gore, Ben Nelson, Roy Barnes, Huey Long, Edwin Edwards, Blanco......

I didn't say Yankees had a monopoly on worthless trash, but they sure seem to do a lot better job of keeping them in DC and inflicting the rest of the nation with their idiocy.

[smug]

Or any limitations on the institution of slavery. As one confederate senator, Robert Hunter said in 1865, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?"

He owned slaves. His perspective is quite different from many others. Pvt. Sam Watkins never fought for no planters right to own slaves.

[Altura Ct.]

To all who may be interested. Here is a great collection of articles the Hartford Courant did several years back with regards to slavery and the north.

Complicity - How Connecticut Chained itself to Slavery

http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-slavery,0,3581810.special?coll=hc-headlines-nationworld

[AzaleaCity5691]

Uh, I'm on your side regarding this whole Southern heritage thing, I think you mixed me up with someone else

[AzaleaCity5691]

Mobile, Alabama, a city that is not de-facto segregated. More than half of the black population lives in integrated areas.

[Non-Sequitur]

He owned slaves. His perspective is quite different from many others.

More than one third of the families in the south owned slaves. A large percentage of the remaining families no doubt derived some economic benefit from slave owners. Odds are pretty good that many confederates, certainly most officers were slave owners or came from slave owning families.

Pvt. Sam Watkins never fought for no planters right to own slaves.

he may have been motivated, in part, by a desire to see blacks remain in the state they were in and not as free men and women.

[4CJ]

... By issuing an order freeing the slaves in those states in rebellio, Lincoln basically overturned the Fugitive Slave laws ...

So you admit the Lincoln regime was a DICTATORSHIP, wherein the Dictator-In-Chief overthrew the Constitution. Thanks for making my case for me.

[Texas Mulerider]

I'm well aware that all y'all can't stand Morris Dees, but until someone can come up with some conflicting data I see no reason not to accept his figures.

You might be less aware that the group of folks you're referring to as "y'all" also includes David Horowitz. I'm not aware that Mr. Horowitz has ever been mistaken for a Southerner:

An Open Letter to Morris Dees from David Horowitz

Also, there's a very interesting FR thread on Mr. Dees from a few years ago, discussing an article by Ken Silverstein for Harper's Magazine:

The Church of Morris Dees

From the article: "The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC's most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today, as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co..."

If Mr. Silverstein's figure of 2,000 is correct, and if, for the sake of argument, they all live in the South (a dubious proposition), then politically speaking you still have a statistical irrelevancy. And if, after reading these two pieces, you're still inclined to give Mr. Dees the benefit of the doubt on anything, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[4CJ]

Or any limitations on the institution of slavery. As one confederate senator, Robert Hunter said in 1865, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?"

And a BLACK Mississippi congressman fought with them, and stated that he STILL would be by their side to that day if the war still waged.

By ANY standard, especially that which you judge Confederates, the Lincoln REGIME (advocating PERMANENT slavery) was racist. By ANY standard, especially that which you judge Confederates, the Lincoln was a RACIST. His 1st stump speech to his last was a collection of liberal policies: BIG-government, political graft and corruption, higher taxes, and deportation/colonization for blacks.

I've never seen any examples of these jokes and stories. How would you explain that?

Either you're willfully blind, simply obtuse, ignorant, or perhaps there remains literature that you have refused to read. What, Mr. Bennett is a liar?

The fact that it applied to the rebellious states only is undeniable. Slavery was legal, after all, and it took the 13th Amendment to end it. An amendment which Lincoln fought hard for.

No. Lincoln fought hard for the 2nd proposed 13th (Corwin) which would have made slavery PERMANENT. Even without the the seceded states, the Union STILL could not drum up support to end slavery. Only when it was politically expedient he issued his illegal Proclamation 1) to prevent European nations siding with the Confederacy, 2) to foster a rebellion by blacks in the South against the defenseless old men, women and children remaining there, 3) to entice blacks into fighting for the Union (at reduced wages, no commissions, only under white leadership), and 4) to fool idiots and the gullible into believing that he considered blacks equal.

Giving credit where credit is due, the blacks of the South refused to rise up and slaughter the old men, women and children. Instead, they remained to help defend their homes from the yankee horde that invaded. Kudos to them.