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.

[smug]

But i would like to note that my Canadian grandma used to insist we're all Americans. I disagreed, because we're the only nation on earth that has the word "America" in our name. Though from 1861-1865 there were arguably two...

Apparently you were/are able to think, Mr. Silverback. May the good LORD bless you.

[hoosierham]

Nothern slaveowning was and still is minimized in every school textbook I remember including those picked up just to see what they teach lately.

IF the war was all about slavery being so abhorrent to the North ,then the very first act of Lincoln should have been a Proclamation denouncing slavery in all States and calling on the respective legislatures to abolish slavery.

It has long been clear to me that the war was State rights vs. Federal control of all.The Southern politicians' choosing to make slavery the pre-eminent issue was a mistake.They ought to have done a better job of demonstrating it was one of several disputed areas of gov't authority.It is also noted by a lifetime of observation that the higher the population density the more people clamor for and accept central authority to direct their lives. Possibly it is just not good for humans to become so distant from the realization of how plants and animals are the source of food and so much more.City residents seem easier to form into mobs and rioters maybe because gossip and lies travel so fast there.

I note had not the "leaders" of both national gov'ts conscripted the men to fight ,the war would have been mighty different. Lincoln was as bad as any abusive slaveowner in the way he forced the northern men into uniform,and ignored limits on presidential authority.

[Mr. Silverback]

No offense, but once again we have an antiNorth post that "reveals" points any any attentive schoolchild could recite. Of course the North didn't fight because of slavery, they fought because they wished to preserve the Union as it was. That is undeniable.

Equally undeniable is the FACT that Southerners seceded not over some broad issue of states rights, but over slavery. They started a shooting war over what they thought some non-abolitionist might do to abolish slavery.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, hello again. Now I understand the deliberate attempts at sabotage by the propangandized folks. They will degrade, just for the sake of degrading as that is what has been taught to them as the right thing to do. Puts it all in a better light to really see what has happened due to Lincoln and his cohorts...

Please detail any propaganda I have put forth in this thread.

[Mr. Silverback]

several of the "unionist coven" here are smart enough to know that they are INCAPABLE of disputing the FACTS, so instead they try to "kill the messenger".

Could either of you tell me how asking someone to cite historical evidence that an event actually happened is "killing the messenger?"

[Mr. Silverback]

You know he's correct, N-S, because he's proven his points to you so many times with rock solid evidence...oh wait, never mind.

[Mr. Silverback]

Most southerners who faught, did so in defense of his native state, and had no care about slavery, because they were busting their asses just to feed their families.

And that's why Sherman was a hero, because he not only did what it took to stop the waste of those Southern boys' lives, he struck at the people who started the Secession fever for their own benefit: The plantation crowd.

Some folks seem to conveniantly forget that just as many yankees owned slaves in that era. There is no "some folks" who believe that. I have yet to meet a Northerner who doesn't know that a few Northern states allowed slavery. Teaching that fact is absolutely necessary to teaching the Emancipation Proclamation.

[hoosierham]

A whole lot of the North fought because they were drafted,which is just another form of slavery.And if I remember correctly,no one was killed in the firing on the revenue fort.

Odd that the people had to be forced to stay in a union they no longer felt part of.And just which armies attacked and bombarded which cities ?

I think it was clear the South's policy and desire was to be let go their own way.

The whole "preserve the union" reminds me of Old World history that hails King Whomever for "uniting a country" when what happened is that he killed or caused to be killed anyone who resisted his rule.

[Mr. Silverback]

A whole lot of the North fought because they were drafted,which is just another form of slavery.

Arguable. If someone said "It's a terrible and undemocratic idea but it isn't slavery" that would be perfectly acceptable to me.

And if I remember correctly,no one was killed in the firing on the revenue fort.

Do you think the people firing the cannons thought they were not going to kill anyone? If they did think that wouldn't they be the biggest fools under the sun? Note that the main reason there were no casualties is because the commander only let his troops fire back from the guns that were safe. Men mounting a full defense would have been exposed to heavy fire and there would have been casualties.

I think it was clear the South's policy and desire was to be let go their own way.

Yes, they started a shooting war to go their own way because they thought a non-abolitionist might impose abolition. That's not a justification for killing anyone.

The whole "preserve the union" reminds me of Old World history that hails King Whomever for "uniting a country" when what happened is that he killed or caused to be killed anyone who resisted his rule.

There were legitimate reasons to oppose secession, and comparing it to some despotic power grab is infantile.

[smug]

I hope you do research the SCV. You will find Kirk Lyons was defeated in his attempted take over.

"The SCV has come to a decisive fork in the road," wrote Gilbert Jones, a longtime SCV member. "The elections of 2002 will decide the fate of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. … I think we ought to take the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists, and the skinheads and show them to the door." The man who would eventually defeat Lyons, Charles Hawks, urged his confederate brethren to support him, or "people will perceive the SCV as a racist organization," leading Lyons to label Hawks a "bedwetter."

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=592

Kirk Lyons can kiss my fat @$$

[smug]

because they thought a non-abolitionist might impose abolition.

Please explain if Lincoln was indeed a non-abolitionist why then the south would have seceded over slavery? I've always maintained that the south seceded so that they, like most states in the north, could if they choose end slavery when they saw fit. I do not hold to this theory about Lincoln.

[Mr. Silverback]

Lincoln was a non-abolitionist who made it very clear that he was far more interested in preserving the Union than he was in doing anything to free slaves.

I've always maintained that the south seceded so that they, like most states in the north, could if they choose end slavery when they saw fit.

Well, you've maintained wrong. Read the articles of secession from each state.

[smug]

I have yet to meet a Northerner who doesn't know that a few Northern states allowed slavery. Teaching that fact is absolutely necessary to teaching the Emancipation Proclamation.

You haven't met many Northerner's have you. And far too many Southerner's don't know this either. My son's fifth grade teacher (he's 31 now) marked his paper on Sojourner Truth wrong about the fact that she was a slave in New York. Sad, so sad. I was more than happy to correct her.

[smug]

Lincoln was a non-abolitionist

Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery".

If you just go to the site below.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al01.htm

[Mr. Silverback]

You haven't met many Northerner's have you.

Actually, though I've travelled in the South, I've never lived anywhere south of the 42nd parallel, w2ith the exception of 13 weeks in Texas for basic and tech training. But then, I don't go around giving everyone I meet a history quiz. I've just never had to correct anybody on this issue.

I think we can also agree that if somebody knows zilch about the Civil War, they don't really count for these purposes.

[Mr. Silverback]

Is there any one of you neo-confederates who can discuss this issue without bending the truth?

Here's the whole sentence, emphasis on what you conveniently left unsaid:

"Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as 'The Great Emancipator' and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was 'antislavery' -- against slavery's expansion but not calling for immediate emancipation.

[smug]

I think we can also agree that if somebody knows zilch about the Civil War, they don't really count for these purposes.

Agreed

[orionblamblam]

> IF the war was all about slavery being so abhorrent to the North

Errrr. The war wasn't about slavery being abhorent in the north. It was about ending slavery being abhorrent in the south.

[smug]

Is there any one of you neo-confederates who can discuss this issue without bending the truth?

Had I wished to bend the truth I would not have given you the address. My point is, (and this I give to Lincoln's favor) that he was against slavery, said he was against slavery, argued against slavery, campaigned against slavery, but for political purposes failed to admit that he was an abolitionist. A rose by any other name, as the saying goes.

You seem to be a reasonable man, explain to me what is a neo-confederate.

[smug]

Mr. Silverback wrote on #803 they fought because they wished to preserve the Union as it was.

Perhaps you 2 should talk.