Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sirius black]

I agree they could. However, by law they were granted separate nation status. In theory, Blacks could say the same about the American flag as well. Those two groups have a historic right not to view the American flag as a symbol of freedom. I consider the argument a deflection anyway.

In essence, and I know this is falling on deaf ears but at least those from the outside (others from other nations on here) can see it for what it is.

Southern whites essentially are saying downplay the 300 years of enslavement and torture to blacks before the civil war and the 100 years of legal apartheid and disenfranchisement after, lets focus on the 4 years their men fought bravely in part to do what they did the prior 300 years. Those same brave men who survived after the war and who were unable to continue this practice, came as close as they could legally, socially and politically to keeping said folks enslaved. THAT is essentially what it is. Lets not sugar coat it with deflection and defenses. Call it what it is.

Emotionally, southerners want to maintain some pride in something that doesn't deserve it when taken as a whole and in context. At least the German people have the maturity not to take pride in that period of history. And just as important they took steps to try to rectify it with banning that symbol, reparations and historically viewing such times as evil.

[stilicho25]

Sirius I would agree completely if the south was entirely made up of salve owners, but you know that is not true! Most people were subsistence farmers I sorta kinda remember from my civil war studying period (many moons ago) why are you equating the tide water gentry with the south. That's like equating the 1 percent to America. What's with the people in other countries know how crazy this is argument? Do you think there is a special zone of enlightenment that ends at Americas borders? A few years living abroad should have disabused you of that notion.

[sirius black]

[Steelrails]

[Plain Meaning]

[Fox]

Right, the ultimate causes behind the Civil War were very simple. The governments of the states which formed the Confederacy were very direct and honest about their reasons for secession, and those reasons were almost entirely based upon slavery. It's only modern Americans who seek to support the Confederacy while simultaneously insisting that they oppose slavery who are forced to resort to rhetorical gymnastics on this matter.

Here are some excerpts from the actual documents of succession:

[sirius black]

Steelrails, generally speaking. My statement is true. Nothing is 100 percent. Look at the secession statements by SC and other southern states. They pretty much all mention two things, slavery and white supremacy. ALL of America was racist. The south was just open and active about it. The Civil War reasons is a simple as it is complex. The whole economy was based on slavery. They wanted to maintain that. You can try and nuance your way out of it, but they seceded to maintain their right to keep and maintain the institution of slavery. Everything else is secondary. This is not to convince you. Its for the ones reading this who for some reason other than logic and common sense can be fooled out of the obvious. The American economy was based on cotton. That cotton was in the south. The south wanted to control that economic power and the means it was produced. The number one export of America from 1803-1937 was cotton. "King Cotton" it was called. The southern society knew it, was based on it (on a secondary level tobacco and other products), and they knew slavery was the way it was produced. stating the odd exception from the south and some soldiers who simply didn't want to die is deflection and defensive. This is almost as close to the American version of holocaust denial as one can get.
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war

England, Australia, other countries that colonized others and/or decimated the natives have at least, for the most part, acknowledged the good and the bad in their history.

In America a scary percentage of us will obfuscate, deflect, defend or misrepresent the truth in order to maintain a sense of self worth for ourselves and our ancestors.

These secession declarations in the link mention Africans and/or slavery in some form or manner.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

I have some relatives that weren't exactly perfect citizens. Trying to nuance my way to make myself feel good about them ("well, they treated me well and took care of their families") doesn't erase that over all they were not good people. In essence Americans, specifically southerners, do that. But its an American thing we all do.

[Steelrails]

Oh, I agree that the war began with slavery, and that slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War. Lost Causers who deny this and simply assert States' Rights are rewriting history in an attempt to cover up the truth. However, the complexity is in why individual people fought and to what degree they were fighting for an empire for slavery.

The reason I say this, is that when the bullets start flying and you're being asked to march over a mile of exposed ground against 10,000 muskets and 40 artillery pieces, the desire to own slaves and build an empire for slavery is not the motivation behind many of those men marching forward. Now certainly for some like Maxcy Gregg or Bedford Forrest, it likely was, but when it came to private soldiers, the reasons for many of them had little to do with political theory.

Likewise, many Union soldiers had little interest in emancipation when they were called to undertake similar actions. To be sure, there were definite abolitionists who were willing to charge those lines to set other men free, but just as many had no problem with the institution of slavery. We agree that for the Union it was not just about emancipation, but also about subduing the rebellion, maintaining the national government, and proving the theory of a democratic republic. With that in mind, it must logically follow that not every Southerner was fighting for slavery, but some for the right of state governments to enact their own laws and to not have their lands invaded by an occupying power.

We can also compare this to colonial struggles involving European powers or American expansionism over indigenous peoples. Much of their action had white supremacy in some basis, and a concept that the people in those lands were to some extent, subservient. However, there were other reasons for their fight as well, such as competition with other European powers, naked greed, and fighting simply because they were soldiers and were so ordered to do so.

[Fox]

[Steelrails]

Well, as far as the flag as a symbol is concerned the issue there is more complex as well. One has to take note of the special role flags played in 19th century massed line of infantry combat. The unit to which most men on both sides placed the greatest loyalty and care to was their regiment, or within that regiment, their company. Civil War regiments, with the exception of a few regular units like the US Regulars or specialized units like Berdan's Sharpshooters, were all composed of men from the same state or even the same town (companies were almost exclusively the same county or town). They already knew each other from civilian life. Their chaplain, surgeon, cooks, and teamsters would have been men who performed those jobs in their town. Those units were very cohesive and loyal to each other, especially for those soldiers from the South or Midwest who did not come from big cities.

What does this have to do with flags? Each regiment would have its own flags or 'colors', typically consisting of their respective national flag and their regimental flag and possibly a state flag. The colors were an essential part of the espirit de corps of the unit and the individual soldier. They represented the honor and pride of the unit and the soldier. They also performed vital military functions. In the din of battle, where verbal orders could not be heard, the flags served as elements of communication and orders for their soldiers. Also, in the smoke of battle (extensive because of the use of black powder) the brightly colored flags served to coordinate troops and give them a sense of bearing. Additionally, they served to indicate key positions, whether it was the focus of attack or the lynchpin of a defensive line.

For individual soldiers, the duty of bearing a color bearer was considered a solemn one, and occupied a place of honor. The color bearer was significantly more likely to get shot or be the target of enemy artillery. He was expected to maintain composure and demonstrate physical bravery beyond the normal soldier. He should be the first over a wall in a charge, the last to withdraw. If he was to fall, it was expected that someone would take up the colors, dropping their weapon. An enemy's colors were the target of capture (hence your capture the flag or Stratego). It was considered greatly dishonorable to a unit if any of their colors were to be captured. Their colors would be sewn with the record of their battles and any unit citations. In cases of pitched battles, it was considered a sign of great respect when one unit returned a captured flag to the unit it belonged to. Soldiers on both sides recognized this honor and pride when it came to the colors. The Civil War was at the tail end of Age of Chivalry and at the beginnings of modern warfare. The colors are an example of this chivalric tradition.

In the past, this was well recognized, for people then were more familiar with the Civil War than they are today. People would learn about color bearers and read or hear stories about the flag and how important it was. Now we have millions of people who know very little about the nature of Civil War combat and what the flags meant. The Confederate battle flag was not just a symbol of a nation, rather as a battle flag (not the national flag), it was a symbol of each regiment's pride, the battles they fought in, the honor of their unit, and the brotherhood and affection they felt for each other within that unit. It also represented the mutual respect that soldiers on both sides showed each other, particularly in the Eastern Theater. That's why although it is correct to say that it represented a racist system and a war for slavery, it is also correct to say that it represented bravery, heroism, and history, even if it was in service of a terrible cause.

[Fox]

I see what you're saying, but when you say, "... it represented bravery, heroism, and history, even if it was in service of a terrible cause," it seems to me that bravery in the service of a terrible cause is no virtue. Bank robbers have a kind of bravery. Muggers have a kind of bravery. Serial killers could be called courageous from a certain point of view. To celebrate bravery in the service of a terrible cause would be like celebrating fire -- something which is often quite useful to us -- as it burned down our house, wouldn't it? On a purely individual level, the "he was fighting to defend his home" rationale makes a certain kind of sense, but once one rises to the level of any kind of insitutional activity, even that of a "unit," one stops talking about individual motivations and starts talking about collective causes.

What definitely is true is that I find myself entirely unable to empathize with the world view you're describing, so maybe my concerns simply cannot possibly matter to the people in question. Which is fine: I am not forcing them to do anything, nor would I if I could. But when it comes to a government, I can completely understand why some citizens of said government would object to such a symbol being raised, or even view with disappointment and suspicion fellow citizens who chose to fly it of their own private accord.

[Plain Meaning]

[stilicho25]

Of course it should be restricted in public spaces to historical monuments. However as you know from an even cursory glance at the news the anti flag position is going bonkers. Video games, tv shows, airbushing. That's what got my dander up.

[Fox]

[Brooks]

The flag does not bother me. When I was younger it did, but not now. What bothers me is the lack of gun control.
We can't get rid of racism and hate in America, but guns can be regulated.

I speak as a northern liberal, who thought that my ancestors were only from the north, two of whom from Pennsylvania. Others were from Ohio and became officers and fought down in Tennessee. Another was in the 7th Illinois cavalry.
Of my direct ancestors on my father's side, one died in Maryland guarding the railroad (of disease) and the other died at the Wilderness in Virginia in early May, 1864, by gunshot or the fires. I was born only because the other brother decided not to fight and went went to live in Ohio or Iowa.

No, I had one southern relative, Gabriel Adams. He had to fight in Virginia.
He was from North Carolina and had his training in Raleigh in 1862.
Do you really think able bodied white men between 18-45 had a choice?
They had to fight. He had a wife and kid but the Confederate government did not care.
The Home Guard in North Carolina was looking for deserters, for there were plenty. Southern desertion was the real Lost Cause.

Gabriel was a POW twice at the Old Capitol prison in DC. After he got out the second time, he thought screw it, did his oath of allegiance to the Union, and headed west to Indiana. He married a woman there, had a family, and on his death bed, confessed that he left the wife and kid back in North Carolina.
Maybe I could write my own narrative, based on Cold Mountain.

Shelby Foote wrote about why the southern man fought. One Yankee soldier asked Johnny Reb, why are you fighting? "Because you Yanks are down here."