|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wooden nickels
Joined: 23 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| wooden nickels wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I would say this is fairly accurate. Too, I think only a very small percentage of confederate soldiers owned slaves. Perhaps many of the soldiers were share croppers themselves. |
That is spot on. Confederate soldiers fought for their homes, their families and their respective states...that was back when the citizens actually gave a crap about an oppressive federal government (now), in which the Union blue invaded.
Honestly, I would do the same thing. Protecting your home and family trumps everything.
Whoever is spouting these platitudes regarding the Stars and Bars a flag of hate and what not....really should take their heads out of the asses, and actually study the narrative(s) behind the War Between the States, as opposed to swallowing the false rhetoric surrounding it. |
Read some of what Abraham Lincoln said as he addressed the people. He didn't really have a problem with slavery. He was okay with slavery continuing as long as there was a union of the states.
Why aren't the people asking for the bringing down of statues, monuments, and pictures of Abraham Lincoln? |
Spare us the revisionist history.
link 1
link 2
The National Park Service short history of Lincoln's public views on slavery
He hated slavery, but didn't know how to end it. He didn't suport the expansion of it. |
A lot of confederate soldiers didn't support the expansion of slavery. I'm sure some of them hated it. However, many of them were killed by union soldiers while defending their property, property that didn't include slaves.
I'm against slavery. I don't think anyone should be in that position. But the "bring down the confederate flag" cry is nothing but hatred and politics from the other side. It's time for people to drop the racial baiting garbage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Whoever is spouting these platitudes regarding the Stars and Bars a flag of hate and what not |
Among those attacking the Confederate flag are undoubtedly those who proudly wave the hammer and sickle, an emblem of the most bloody ideology of the 20th century. |
Where in the US is the hammer and sickle currently flying? Next to nowhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As already mentioned the revival of the flag occurred after WWII in the US by the Dixiecrats who were opposed to desegregation in the South. It was raised by State legislators throughout the South as a symbolic gesture against the Civil Rights movement. It was racial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apple has pulled all video games featuring the confederate flag from the App Store.
http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/
This includes such offensive titles as "Civil War 1863" and "Ultimate General: Gettysburg".
Meanwhile, nazis and their symbology are still fair game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, although I think all Confederate flags are informally called the Stars and Bars, the flag flying over South Carolina is the Confederate Naval Jack. Formally, this flag is known as the Stars and Bars.
Second, I think most of us can agree that Apple has gone too far; the Confederate battle flag is appropriate for display in museums and in video games depicting the period. The issue is whether the State of South Carolina or other states, like Mississippi, should fly the flag on their capitol grounds.
Here is what some state lawmakers have stated in their defense to the flag remaining.
South Carolina lawmakers explain why they will vote to keep the flag on the state grounds
| Quote: |
The racially motivated shooting that killed nine in Charleston last week has sparked a national debate about the presence of the Confederate flag, which symbolizes racism and hatred to many, at the Capitol grounds. On Monday, Republican Gov. Nikki Haley called for the removal of the flag. She said it was time for the flag to be taken down and put in a museum, and that South Carolinians were welcome to display it on their private property.
Only a simple majority vote is needed to remove the flag, contrary to what many media outlets have reported. On Tuesday, Charleston newspaper The Post & Courier asked lawmakers what they think about the Confederate flag. Many said they would vote to remove it and some wouldn’t answer or were undecided, but eight House representatives said they were sure they would vote no. Here’s a closer look at those eight.
Rep. Mike Burns (R-Greenville)
Burns, a South Carolina native, said the flag shouldn’t be taken down because people view it as a way to honor their heritage and their ancestors who fought in the Civil War.
Rep. Bill Chumley (R-Greenville, Spartanburg)
A member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Chumley said the issue of the flag didn’t need to be discussed further, as it was decided in a 2000 compromise to move the flag from the Statehouse dome to the Capitol grounds. “This needs to go no further,” he told the Post. “It has been settled already. A compromise is a compromise.”
Christopher Corley (R-Aiken)
The 35-year-old former attorney made his opinion on the flag clear. “I’m for leaving it where it is — absolutely,” he said. “If I have to put 500 amendments on this thing to keep it there, then I will do it. This is a non-issue that’s being made an issue by certain groups trying to take advantage of a terrible situation.”
Craig A. Gagnon (R-Abbeville, Anderson)
Gagnon, a Massachusetts-born former chiropractor, told the Post he sees no reason to take the flag down. “I don’t think the flag at the monument at the Statehouse was a part of the reason for doing these heinous murders,” he said.
Mike Gambrell (R-Abbeville, Anderson)
This former fire department chief, along with other representatives from his county, said it was not an appropriate time to debate the issue of the flag. They told the Anderson Independent Mail that discussions about the Confederate flag should wait until after funerals for the nine victims are held.
“There is a time and place for that decision,” he said. “I don’t think it is right now.” Gambrell is the chairman of the county’s legislative delegation.
Jonathon D. Hill (R-Anderson)
Hill told the Independent Mail he will oppose any effort to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds and added that he was “pretty disappointed” with the governor’s “misguided attempt to combat racism.”
“You defeat it with love,” Hill said. “You don’t defeat it with politics.”
Michael A. Pitts (R-Greenwood, Laurens)
When asked about the Confederate flag on the day after shooting, Pitts said, “I think it’ll bring up talk about possibly moving it because that talk is just below the surface forever. But I don’t see that this incident has any bearing on the flag or the flag has any bearing on the incident. This kid had drug issues and mental issues and I think that’s the root of the problem. Racism exists no matter whether you try to use the flag as a symbol for that or not.”
Mike Ryhal (R-Horry)
Former businessman Ryhal has spoken a few times about his belief that the flag is “no problem.” “I don’t think it should be removed,” he told the Post. “It is a part of the South Carolina history. It is on the grounds. I think it’s fine where it’s at.” He also said removing the flag “wouldn’t change the way people feel about race.”
“We have numerous monuments all over the Statehouse grounds reflecting the history of South Carolina and I see that flag as a piece of our history,” he said to the Myrtle Beach Sun-News.
“The fact is it’s part of the history of the South. There’s no problem with having it out there.” |
If the flag is part of the history of the South, put it in a museum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
All of the reasons in the above post were pretty poor, but this one stood out.
| Quote: |
Christopher Corley (R-Aiken)
The 35-year-old former attorney made his opinion on the flag clear. “I’m for leaving it where it is — absolutely,” he said. “If I have to put 500 amendments on this thing to keep it there, then I will do it. This is a non-issue that’s being made an issue by certain groups trying to take advantage of a terrible situation.” |
Always galling when the pettiness, absurdity, and stupidity of American legislative culture is openly admitted like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Confederacy represented an attempt by some states to secede from a union which had theretofore been voluntary. I'm not certain that there was any "violation of the constitution" involved. I've not seen any "til death do us part" clauses. In any case, the Southern states attempted to leave and were prevented by force. There has since been a great deal of revisionist history presented from all sides.
If the Confederate battle flag is roundly denounced, then perhaps there can be a "W-esque" "Mission Accomplished" announcement. Then we can all hold hands, sing "kumbaya" and wait for the next bizarre incident to catch the fancy of the media. Some people will have been made happy. Al Sharpton will somehow make some money. Nothing of substance will have been accomplished, but the Law of Cosmetic Application will have been served. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In any case, the Southern states attempted to leave and were prevented by force. |
Well, the triggers were Southern wholesale larcenies of Federal property, particularly bullion, arms, and rolling stock, from Federal military installations. And of course, their demand that they surrender the Federal installation at Ft. Sumter.
That the Southern States had a right to secede is certainly up to debate. As the US Constitution has no formal clause preventing secession, and the 10th Amendment leaves all powers not specified in the Constitution up to the States, one could certainly make a case for a right to secession of the states. However separate claim to Federal property and the right to administer over Federal territory would have little basis in law.
I myself, being an avid reader of Civil War history, have mixed feelings on the Confederate flag. When I see the flag, for the most part I see the history that I have learned. I even own a Confederate flag, gifted to me by someone who noticed my interest in the Civil War. It should be noted that the actual men who fought in the Civil War against the Confederacy, had no problem with the flag or it being displayed, or "cherishing the memory of Confederate fallen". On the other hand, its clearly a repulsive symbol to many. It has a definite connection to the institution of slavery and became especially revived during Jim Crow as a response to desegregation. Those that wave the flag seem to do so for a variety of reasons. Some are authentic history fans, some are people who want to express some sort of affinity for Southern regionalism, some are people who just like to shock or irk people and have little ideology behind it, and yes, some are racists.
The decision to fly the flag above state property is up to each state. Personally, if I were a resident of that state, I would like to see it removed. It may be remembered as history, but it is not a part of the future. The fact is that the Confederate government explicitly endorsed a system based on racial bondage that was barbaric in practice. Government property related to governance is about our future, not our past. Leave the flag at monuments. As for things like statues of Confederate leaders, I think this should be settled on a case-by-case basis. I think men like Bedford Forrest, Howell Cobb, Maxcy Gregg and so on, you could make a case for. However Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and others its more difficult. Many of them disapproved of secession and/or slavery and fought only reluctantly. In fact, some Confederate generals were almost apolitical in how they fought or even argued against slavery. The response to this should be history and education, not blind iconoclasm.
And screw Apple for wanting to ban Civil War games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yodanole wrote: |
In any case, the Southern states attempted to leave and were prevented by force. There has since been a great deal of revisionist history presented from all sides.
|
Yes, a great deal of revisionist history has been presented. For example, that "the Southern states attempted to leave and were prevented by force."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter
| Quote: |
| The First Battle of Fort Sumter opened on 12 April 1861, when Confederate artillery fired on the Union garrison. These were the first shots of the war, and continued all day, watched by many civilians in a celebratory spirit. The fort had been cut off from its supply-line, and surrendered next day. |
Well, technically the cadets of the Citadel fired on a re-supply ship headed to Fort Sumter in January 1861. But its all the same: the Confederates shot first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm failing to see any difference between a person saying they are proud of southerners who fought bravely for the Confederacy and if a German said he was proud of the Germans who fought bravely during the Third Reich?
Especially given that if the south had won almost 14 percent of the population would have stayed enslaved.
Mind boggling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
I'm failing to see any difference between a person saying they are proud of southerners who fought bravely for the Confederacy and if a German said he was proud of the Germans who fought bravely during the Third Reich?
Especially given that if the south had won almost 14 percent of the population would have stayed enslaved.
Mind boggling. |
Well, that's just oversimplifying things and painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. I have no problem with acknowledging the bravery of people like Rommel, Doenitz, Molders, Kesserling, and Galland. They fought as soldiers. They generally treated POWs well and tried to inject elements of civility into war. There's a difference between Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine soldiers and sailors and Nazi party members and Waffen SS troops.
Yes, part of the problem is bigotry, but another problem is that people these days are really ignorant of history, especially military history. Out of the people protesting the Confederate flag, what percentage could give even a halfway reasonable concise version of the history of the Civil War? The average facebook/twitter idiot probably doesn't know what Ft. Sumter was, who Jefferson Davis was, or what the names Shiloh, Antietam, The Bloody Lane, The Angle, The Bloody Angle, The Wilderness, The Peach Orchard, The Wheatfield, The Stone Wall, Lookout Mountain, and McLean Farm mean or who Little Mac, Little Billy, Extra Billy, Old Pete, Old Bory, Powell Hill, Harvey Hill, Fighting Joe, Sam Hood, Sam Grant, and Marse Robert all are. It used to be that a kid growing up in 1950 would know all those names and their import and significance. They'd also know names like Doenitz, Rommel, Kesserling, Molders, Udet, Rudel, Galland, and Lutjens. Now, unless they've been playing some video games, most young people have no clue who those people are or their significance. This ignorance breeds their harsh, oversimplified attitudes.
As someone who has spent countless hours reading firsthand material written by Confederate (and Union) soldiers, I can tell you that there is a vast chasm between how some people perceive them and what kind of people they actually were. One of the remarkable things about the American Civil War, especially when it comes to its generals, is how much you get to know their personalities and how those personalities affected them as generals. Civil War enthusiasts will all agree that there comes a point where it seems you know these men better than you know certain coworkers or acquaintances and as such, when one of them is killed, their death becomes more profound.
The point I'm trying to make, is that many of the people making the most noise have some of the greatest ignorance regarding the subject on both sides, whether its people who grew up on Dukes of Hazzard and NASCAR and wave a flag who couldn't tell Joe Johnston from Joe Hooker, or people who demonize Confederate soldiers and would tear down a statue of Jefferson C. Davis before they even realized what had happened. I despise both crowds.
Lastly, we need to remember that we have to be careful about picking and choosing when it comes to this. Are you going to tear down a monument and then go and eat at Ghengis Khan's Mongolian BBQ? Are you appalled at the sight of the PRC Flag? The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran? The Union Jack? The flag of Spain? An IRA flag? A Basque separatist flag? Or Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay who killed 70% of the male population of Paraguay? What about democratic states that brutalized minorities? Are those people wrong to support their own countries? Are the people who fought for them not to be celebrated? What about the people who faced them and lost? Are they to be celebrated?
I think what we've done throughout history is the right thing- honor the bravery of individual soldiers who fought honorably while denouncing those causes we find repugnant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
I'm failing to see any difference between a person saying they are proud of southerners who fought bravely for the Confederacy and if a German said he was proud of the Germans who fought bravely during the Third Reich?
Especially given that if the south had won almost 14 percent of the population would have stayed enslaved.
Mind boggling. |
Well, that's just oversimplifying things and painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. I have no problem with acknowledging the bravery of people like Rommel, Doenitz, Molders, Kesserling, and Galland. They fought as soldiers. They generally treated POWs well and tried to inject elements of civility into war. There's a difference between Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine soldiers and sailors and Nazi party members and Waffen SS troops. |
There's a clear analogy to be made; Rommel treated his prisoners well, and that's why the African front did not see the horrors of the Eastern (European) front. Many of Rommel's troops were standard Wehrmacht or simply Italian. (Later, Rommel was killed for his part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. The man is hard to condemn.)
So which Confederates were the Wehrmacht and which were the SS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
I'm failing to see any difference between a person saying they are proud of southerners who fought bravely for the Confederacy and if a German said he was proud of the Germans who fought bravely during the Third Reich?
Especially given that if the south had won almost 14 percent of the population would have stayed enslaved.
Mind boggling. |
Well, that's just oversimplifying things and painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. I have no problem with acknowledging the bravery of people like Rommel, Doenitz, Molders, Kesserling, and Galland. They fought as soldiers. They generally treated POWs well and tried to inject elements of civility into war. There's a difference between Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine soldiers and sailors and Nazi party members and Waffen SS troops. |
There's a clear analogy to be made; Rommel treated his prisoners well, and that's why the African front did not see the horrors of the Eastern (European) front. Many of Rommel's troops were standard Wehrmacht or simply Italian. (Later, Rommel was killed for his part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. The man is hard to condemn.)
So which Confederates were the Wehrmacht and which were the SS? |
I'd say that the Army of Northern Virginia would certainly qualify as "Wehrmacht". There were some issues regarding capturing of blacks during Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania and the breakdown of prisoner exchanges during Petersburg, however in both cases Lee was hampered by the Confederate civilian government. All indications are that Lee would certainly have never tolerated anything like the Ft. Pillow massacre.
Bedford Forrest, Bloody Bill Anderson, William Quantrill, and the men who fought under them and the like would certainly qualify as the "SS". You might also consider diehard pro-slavery men like the Cobb brothers, Maxcy Gregg, and William Barksdale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
I'm failing to see any difference between a person saying they are proud of southerners who fought bravely for the Confederacy and if a German said he was proud of the Germans who fought bravely during the Third Reich?
Especially given that if the south had won almost 14 percent of the population would have stayed enslaved.
Mind boggling. |
Well, that's just oversimplifying things and painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. I have no problem with acknowledging the bravery of people like Rommel, Doenitz, Molders, Kesserling, and Galland. |
You may not but generally, people would not. The government BOTH fought under were genocidal. The FACT remains had the south won slavery would have been extended for god knows how long and possibly look pre 1994 South Africa with the strictest segregatin laws.
Maybe out of being PC or just outright sympathy, no one questions the Nazi flag as being a bad thing even though many of its soldiers fought bravely and some of their military leaders like Rommel who tried to overthrow Hitler are seen historically as noble. Same as Robert E. Lee is seen by even those against the south as noble.
The point being is both are similar and both treated differently with respect the groups of people (Jews and Blacks) who were most affected by both respectively.
There is just no escaping the fact that the south fought in part to retain the right to enslave human beings. That reminder with the flag and the honoring of the south while saying it is more important to do that than the constant reminder of brutality of 14% of the population is mind boggling.
From the outside looking in when you speak to Eurpeans and even countries with their own history of brutality like Australia, is seen as warped and I would tend to agree.
Not to mention that institutionally those same 14% are still being oppressed to varying degrees. Lastly, if we are going to talk about 'southern heritage' lets talk about all of it. The truth about the extent of brutality of slavery is grotestically glossed over. 12 years as a slave is the tip of the ice berg. Lets put it like this. EVERY proclivity in society today always existed. Slave owners or their sons, extended families were also gay, pedophiles, etc. and since the slaves were property, they could accomodate their every whim. Yes, small kids at any age could be raped and were. A common tactic to 'break' slaves was to sodomize him. Rapign and sodomizing ones wife, son, daughter, whomever in front of them. There is a diary of one owner in Jamaica who kept a very detailed diary (The Thistlewood diaries) where raping someone was an almost daily occurance and one of the punishments of slaves was to force his mouth open and take a sh*t in it. The torture and brutality was on a level that doesn't. This is part of that conversation. Can't have one without the other. This is the culture that these 'brave' men fought under and for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Indians could make the same complaint about the U.S. Flag Sirius. the majority of southerners did not own slaves, and many were drafted into for the defense of the state. Think of it his way. In Iraq, Isis is pure evil, and responsible for genocide. However lots of local Iraqis and Syrians are being drafted to fight the Shia militias, who are have a decade long record of brutality. If someone set up a museum after the conflict was over, would u be offended by unit or theatre flags?
Seriously, we love Vikings, Victorians and Mongols, but the south is off limits?
And what's with the reference to Jamaica? The Caribbean was a special kind of hell, as the Haitian rebellion illustrates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
