Google, Apple, and Others Remove Content Related To the Confederate Flag 818
davek writes with news that Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace. They're also blocking advertisements involving the flag. They say, "We have determined that the Confederate flag violates our Ads policies, which don't allow content that's generally perceived as expressing hate toward a particular group." At the same time, Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere). Major online merchant websites like eBay and Amazon have already taken the step of banning merchandise relating to the flag.
Try it for yourself! (Score:5, Insightful)
Search google for "confederate flag" and click the "shopping" tab.
https://www.google.com/#q=conf... [google.com]
Now replace "confederate" with just about any other potentially offensive term (nazi, communist, rhodesia) and you get plenty of results.
(NOTE: I don't support flying the flag. It's a rebel flag and I don't like it. But banning it from the marketplace? That seems rather self-defeating)
Re:Try it for yourself! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag as well. Just sayin.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag as well. Just sayin.
True. I doubt it flies above any government buildings in the United Kingdom, but I bet you can still buy one at TESCO!
Yep: http://www.tesco.com/direct/us... [tesco.com]
And it's probably made in China. Just like the real thing.
Re:Try it for yourself! (Score:4, Funny)
US flags are available everywhere! You never know when the US has (again) pissed somebody off enough that they want to burn some US flags publicly. Would be a shame when such an expression of public free speech failed only because no US flag were to be had.
US flag flew in the United Kingdom during WW2 (Score:3)
You know, from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag as well. Just sayin.
True. I doubt it flies above any government buildings in the United Kingdom ...
The US flag flew in the United Kingdom during WW2 in the camps and on the bases of US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
See, when one has a war over a political disagreement an amicable reconciliation is possible. Unlike when a war is fought over the defense of the institution of slavery.
Re: Try it for yourself!n (Score:3)
I hate and despise - but they should still be sold (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is not sufficient reason to stop selling it to civilians. This is a country founded on the idea of Free Speech.
We believe that the best way to fight evil is to let evil speak so we can hear who is evil. Much better than outlawing their vile ideas and having to guess who secretly harbors them.
In other words, I want to be able to see what shmucks wear/use the flag so I know whom to avoid.
Re:I hate and despise - but they should still be s (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly this. A government agency (state, local, or federal) has no business flying a Confederate flag any more than they can fly the US flag upside down while lit on fire. Citizens, however, have free speech and can use that to express themselves in almost any way they want so long as that way doesn't hurt someone else. If you want to paint a big Confederate flag on your truck while wearing a Confederate flag jacket and a "The South Shall Rise Again" pin (with Confederate Flag), go ahead. Of course, the rest of us have our rights to form opinions of you based on your Confederate flag obsession.
All in all, I think the flag issue is a side track. Yes, it's partially related to the church shooting, but it's not the whole problem. You could ban and burn every single last Confederate flag in existence and it wouldn't solve the problem. So by all means take it off of government buildings, but then let the issue rest and move on to more important issues related to what happened.
Re:I hate and despise - but they should still be s (Score:4, Insightful)
Your country was founded on the principle that the government should not stop anybody from speaking. It wasn't founded on the principle that corporations must be compelled to distribute other people's material regardless of content. Apple are not obligated to publish this material.
Nobody is outlawing anything. This is an example of a business choosing not to publish something.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't mean slavery or hatred or bigotry or treason. The national flag of the Confederate States does means secession and slavery, but that's not the flag we're talking about. (That flag is currently the state flag of Georgia, the only difference being the state seal added inside the circle of stars, so you should take up those issues with the state of Georgia.) The flag we're talking about was created to boost morale of the soldiers, and was only for use in battle. It was created first for the Northe
Re: (Score:3)
You could argue that with the consolidation of sellers (Walmart, Amazon, etc.) there are fewer purchasing choices and tha
Re:I hate and despise - but they should still be s (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, saying the confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason and it gets a +5 Insightful? The second part may be insightful but somehow this isn't marked flamebait.
Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows. But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union? Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
Maybe the reason they fly the flag is to respect their ancestors who fought and died for what they believe in. Would you ask someone to take down the original U.S. flag that so heavily fought for their rights and owned slaves?
My point is, people are afraid of a flag that is being flown for many reasons. But the fact remains, that those spreading all of this fear of the flag are just as guilty of perpetrating hatred as those they accuse of flying the flag...and in most cases more so.
I think I'll buy a confederate flag, just to support the right to own a confederate flag. Does that make me a racist? Will America ever stop generalizing everything with labels just to make complicated issues easier? Stay tuned...
Note: Captcha was encroach
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea of outlawing a piece of colored cloth is about as logical as outlawing a plant.
who's outlawing a piece of colored cloth here? just curious
Re:All perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are all of the articles in the Bill of Rights - made of the same stuff I wipe my butt with after take a shit.
USA PATRIOT act. Trans-Pacific Partnership. What the ever-living fuck, need I go on? The US Constitution is no longer fit for bumwad, it's been shit upon too much already.
Re: (Score:3)
The US Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are all of the articles in the Bill of Rights - made of the same stuff I wipe my butt with after take a shit.
You wipe your ass with parchment? Doesn't that get expensive, or do you skin the animals and treat the skin yourself?
But Nazi, Communist, ISIS flags are OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon, WalMart et al, are still selling that sh!t on their sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to get in the way of a good rant, but Amazon does not appear to sell Nazi flags:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb... [amazon.com]
Nor does Walmart:
http://www.walmart.com/search/... [walmart.com]
I'm not sure what a "Communist" flag is. I never knew Communism was a country.
Bandwagon (Score:5, Insightful)
Great to see everyone jumping on the bandwagon. Focusing on the flag once again ignores the real problems since it's easier to find a "magic pill" to fix everything. This is like Obama's first election where, once the flag is down, everyone will declare an "end to racism" and happily ignore the real work involved with tackling endemic bias.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
THAT outrage should have been over 15 years ago, when the flag was moved from over the capitol building (where it was certainly inappropriate as a symbol of a defeated rebellion) to a war memorial honoring the dead of that
I said this elsewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
The removal of Confederate Battle Flag items from the market and such is a bad idea.
Walmart, K-Mart, Sears, etc., should all continue to sell "Redneck Pride" crap - promote it, even. Because such things are great visual cues as to who is a moron/dolt/idiot without having to actually talk to them.
--
BMO
Re:I said this elsewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
Ban some more stuff! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ban the free speech that offends. After all, if you're not offensive, what do you have to lose? And NSA cameras in our houses. Let's get that done. After all, if you're not a criminal, what do you have to lose? And what's that you're eating? I think you should eat healthier. Let's ban that. And then lets all go on about how great America is, unless someone finds that offensive, or terrorists can use it somehow, or it's fattening...
Giving it power (Score:3)
To dedicate so much time, energy and attention on this flag only brings more attention to it, and imparts it with some weird power in pop culture. If what the confederate flag allegedly stands for is so offensive (there's still plenty of heated debates on that topic burning up other parts of the internet), spend that energy combating the groups that push and perpetuate that ideology.
The response to a negative influence in a culture shouldn't be to attack a symbol associated with the influence. Combat the influence.
[nb: I do not own a confederate flag and question the motives of those that fly it]
Double standard pandering (Score:3)
Ok, so "Confederate Flag" brings zero results but "Nazi Uniform" pulls up exactly that. And that's OK. I don't want retailers being the morality police and more than I want my ISP to block content it doesn't agree with.
If I want a small Confederate Flag for a historical display, or a re-enactment, or other event these retails think I shouldn't be able to get it? That's crap.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the wonderful thing about the marketplace. You can use Bing, Yahoo, or whatever other search engine you like. You can buy from any of the thousands of stores which aren't ebay or Walmart.
I like to eat chicken on Sunday. I don't get mad when Chick-fil-A is closed because they don't believe in working on Sundays, I get chicken elsewhere and move on with my life.
Um, what about history? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shall we remove all confederate items from museums? Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened? If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened? The civil war happened. Slavery happened. Racism happened, and it is still happening. Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.
Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism. Lets stop looking the other way when whites are treated differently than other races. Fighting so hard over symbols while we are mostly ignoring the reality of racism in the US seems counterproductive.
OK, I do see the point of removing the flag from statehouses, but historical displays and museums...give me a break. And, yes this is happening, as crazy as this seems.
Re:Um, what about history? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's what baffles me about the hubub over this. I can't believe how many people I know who firmly supported burning of the U.S. flag because "they have their right to freedom of expression," and "it's just a symbol, a piece of cloth, not the country itself" have suddenly flip flopped and now believe people shouldn't have the right to express their opinion with a flag, and that a flag is suddenly more than a mere piece of cloth and should now be the focal point of an issue.
If you truly believe the flag (whether it be the U.S. or Confederate) is just a symbol, then what happens to the physical flag is meaningless. Displaying it or burning it is merely a form of expression. If you ban the Confederate flag without addressing the underlying problems which cause it to be offensive, that is literally the same thing as sticking your head in the sand - you're pretending the problem doesn't exist because you can't see it anymore.
View from outside the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Free speech (Score:3)
is defined by protecting the right to say things you don't agree with.
This is every bit as stupid as people going to jail in Germany for teaching their dog to give a Nazi salute. [haaretz.com] (they're even trying to re-educate the dog to shake instead ... who's the crazy fuck now?)
Revisionist Philosophy (Score:3)
A nutjob walks into a church and shoots 9 people. That means we get rid of the Confederate Flags? WTF, the flag didn't kill anybody, shit confederate war soldiers didn't kill those people in the church. It's non sequitur. Getting rid of them through outlets like this will mean, more people will buy them and fly them is all and oh by the way Amazon, Apple, Walmart et all please remove anything with the ANC colors or those of the Black Panthers and Rainbow flags while you're at it; they offend me.
Good Grief - The US is a Thought Control Police St (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys are screwed. Good luck recovering and creating a reasonable culture.
The New Nazis (Score:3)
are the far left - free speech, free expression, as long as it conforms to their speech and their expression
So sick of the pussies that corp Amerika has become. Uncle like people would really stop shopping at Amazon because they fulfill orders for Confederate flag? Really?
You don't want a Confederate flag then don't buy one. Pretty simple.
And unlike a bricks and mortar where *gasp* your sensibilities might be offended by seeing one on display, you aren't going to get a flag in your search results unless you are actually searching for one.
TROUBLE WILL FOLLOW (Score:3)
Red bracelets... (Score:3)
I have a riddle. How is breast cancer like racisim? Breast cancer has no easy solutions. To fix it we need lots of scientists and doctors and we need a society that values STEM fields creating those profressionals. Then we need to give these researchers a LOOOOOOOOTT!! of money. Hard right? Oh I know, let's all wear red bracelets to raise awareness! Yay now I don't have to actually do anything.
How do we solve racism? I don't know but I'm sure taking down confederate jacks won't play much of a part in it.
Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever means necessary? (Score:4, Informative)
Ever heard of Corvin Amendment (approved by Lincoln!) which would preserve slavery in states where it was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!
They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.
Paul B.
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it was all about slavery, and tariffs weren't even on the radar. It is true that only the most extreme Republicans (so called "Black Republicans) supported full federal abolitionism, but even as early as the 1840's they awaited a sea-change of public opinion on the matter. The 1861 election of Abraham Lincoln represented a small step toward that sea-change, and the South seceded to avoid it.
Think of it like this: In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain disowned gay marriage. But if you were a gay marriage advocate, who are you gonna hitch your horse to? How did that end up playing out? It really was no different in the 1860's: Lincoln may not have been as strident an advocate of abolitionism as the so-called "Jacobins" in the Republican party wanted, but to southern democrats, he might as well be John Brown himself, riding in on the Devil's back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The south didn't have any money. Slavery in the south made commodity traders in the north rich, not the slave owners. You may find that hard to believe... How can you own slaves and not be rich? How can you live in one of those huge plantation houses, and not be rich? The economics of slavery favor the slave trader, not the slave owner. And those plan
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong - as many states, including South Carolina (the cause of this latest debate on the issue) clearly stated, it was ALSO about their rights for slaves IN THE NORTH.
As for the economies, as MANY of those states ALSO clearly said, it was ALSO because of the fear of the damage "the north" was doing to their economies - you got that right - but you failed to FINISH THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER!!! They were afraid of the damage it would cause because of their LOSS OF SLAVE LABOR. They CLEARLY stated that.
Lincoln tried the "long haul" tactic of keeping the union together and then pulling apart slavery from the inside - it didn't work and we had war.
Here are the reasons, IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Re: (Score:3)
So, according to you, the declarations of secession of the southern states are false? I don't think so.
And yes, most southerners didn't own slaves. That's not relevant. Most southerners thought (1) black people were inferior and that was their natural state - so they supported slavery, and/or (2) aspired to be one of the rich land owning slave owning elite one day - so they supported slavery. Look up their own writings.
Confederate soldiers in fact fought for slavery (Score:5, Insightful)
This is revisionist history. The North won so obviously they twisted the truth in the history books to make the Southern states out to be demons. Of course they would. MOST southerners DID NOT own slaves during that time. Yet we all went to war. Congress made a series of aggressive moves that pushed the southern states into a war.
No, the revisionist history is from the south. At the time of secession, one secession declaration after another repeatedly cited slavery. The "aggression" was the north wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states with the goal of adding non-slave states to the union and eventually voting in abolition. That was the confederate nightmare, well the nightmare of the confederate 1%. Its this confederate 1% whose wealth and power was slave based that made the decision to go to war, who wrote those declarations.
The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments. Imagine that, a war waged for one reason but sold to the public for other reasons. So while some confederate soldiers may not have been willing to fight for slavery itself, they in fact did so because that was the absolute cause behind the war, why the 1% voted for war.
The confederate soldiers were the pawns of the confederate politicians. Pawns that defended their "betters" economic interests, slavery. Yes, this truth hurts. Hence the revisionism, hence the focus on great-great-great-grandpappy's love for his state to rebrand a symbol of the defense of slavery as a symbol of heritage.
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:4)
Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!
They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.
Stop being a revisionist douche. If you're claiming that the South seceded because of tariffs, you better be prepared to show ample firsthand evidence. For you, I've got the Cornerstone Speech by the CSA's Vice President (emphasis is mine):
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it - when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
You'll need to point out where he talks about tariffs, because I'm not seeing it.
Although you're right about Lincoln deciding that he would preserve the Union without freeing a single slave if it were possible to do that. Obviously, that didn't happen though. One of the major reasons the Southern states seceded, and you can verify this in their statements of justification for secession, is because they were upset that the Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act where a Northern state would have to return a fugitive slave to their Southern owner. In fact, several Northern states specifically criminalized the return of a fugitive slave. Many Southern states stated that, without that clause in the Constitution, the Southern states would not have agreed to it at all. Now that the Northern states were no longer doing their part to keep slavery around, the South wanted out. More than one state cited estimates of $3 or $4 billion in lost property that this would inflict on their economy. And, of course, when they said "property" they were referring to "people".
Another major reason were the laws which outlawed slavery in new states admitted to the Union. Since the slaveholding states were not able to increase their numbers then their percentage of representation in the Federal government was bound to fall and the writing was already on the wall with regard to the end of slavery. So, they wanted out, they wanted to return to being sovereign nations free to continue practicing their God-given rights to rule over and legally own black people.
It had fuck all to do with tariffs, so don't act like it did.
Even so, the Confederate Battle Flag died out as a symbol until the racist "Dixiecrat" party ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948, and they brought the flag back as the symbol of their party. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the surge in the civil rights movement, white Southerner
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of but not really. The North would have happily gone on with pretty much whatever the South wanted. The South just managed to not get it's way "exactly" just once and they had a collective hysterical hissy fit over it. In truth it was probably an unnecessary confrontation. Genuine abolitionists were an extremist minority in the North and most people everywhere were incredibly racist. For the first half of the war, the Union generals would have happily allowed the South to come back into the Union without any changes to the status quo. Eventually slavery became a military strategic issue and was attacked primarily for that reason.
It was ultimately really just an unnecessary temper tantrum.
South required half of new states to be slave (Score:5, Insightful)
The north would absolutely have made a pre-war deal to let slavery continue in the existing slave states. The long vicious debate in congress had been about the expansion of slavery. The south wanted to maintain the equilibrium and wanted half the new states added to the union to be slave states. The south feared that in the future a non-slave majority could abolish slavery and destroy the base of their wealth and economy. The north wanted slavery confined to existing slave states, maybe they would go for self-determination of a territory knowing that most would go non-slavery. In negotiation terms confinement was their aspirational point but self-determination was their resistance point.
Re:South required half of new states to be slave (Score:5, Informative)
Slavery was an economic necessity due to trade restrictions imposed on Southern crops, not to mention that industrialization had far more effect on Northern states, where most manufacturing was based.
Of course, that's not to say the North were benevolent gods - as we should all well know, "labor rights" didn't particularly exist until the 20th Century, and there are countless incidents documented in Northern states of corporations going as far as murder to keep their workers in line. Conversely, many slave states had laws against killing a slave without due cause.
Then, of course, there's the Fugitive Slave Act to take into consideration, passed by the United States (Union) Congress in 1850.
So basically, a slave could escape the south, get a job in a Philadelphia factory, and assuming they didn't get sent back to their master by the government, get bludgeoned to death either by the machinery they worked on, or, if they dared complain, their bosses. Better than slavery? Probably, but not the utopian promised land that a lot of people want to believe.
Here's a good article on the causes of the war: http://teachinghistory.org/his... [teachinghistory.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Slavery was an economic necessity due to trade restrictions imposed on Southern crops
Trade was not restricted on Southern crops. Trade was restricted on finished goods (textiles) coming from England that were made of southern cotton. As we saw post-war the South was perfectly capable of creating its own textile mills and producing finished goods itself. Slavery was not an economic necessity, it was a convenience for the wealthy. Plus the North recognized this ugly fact and was willing to allow slavery to continue if existing slave states.
Re: (Score:3)
To give you my best sound bites on the subject: The Civil War was fought over secession. Secession was about slavery. The Civil War became more about slavery, but a lot of that was diplomatic. The Emancipation Proclamation, while it freed no slaves at the time, established the war as freedom vs. slavery for diplomatic consumption, ensuring that Britain would not intervene on the Confederate side.
Re: (Score:3)
To give you my best sound bites on the subject: The Civil War was fought over secession. Secession was about slavery. The Civil War became more about slavery, but a lot of that was diplomatic. The Emancipation Proclamation, while it freed no slaves at the time, established the war as freedom vs. slavery for diplomatic consumption, ensuring that Britain would not intervene on the Confederate side.
I'll reply with additional sound bites: The Southern leadership decided upon secession and war to defend the institution of slavery. The Southern soldier may have had other reasons in his mind but he ultimately defended a government created to perpetuate slavery. Wars are often declared for one reason but sold to the public for entirely different reasons because of public disinterest in the actual reason.
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but the situation was changing. The north was getting tired of the stalemate. Abolitionists were getting a bit more power, not strong but strong enough to have an influence. The Whig party (which Lincoln was a member of for a long time) was mostly gone, and those who just wanted to continue compromising over the slavery and slave state issues were losing political power.
I suspect that the war could have been delayed another decade, but it would have come to a head sooner or later. Even if the break up had been done peacefully I think the fugutive slave issue had a good chance of causing military conflict.
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
The American Civil War most certainly was fought over slavery.
Indeed it was. Here are the official words of the southerners themselves, expressed at the time of secession:
From the Mississippi declaration of secession [yale.edu]:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.
From the Texas declaration of the Causes of Secession [texas.gov]: ... maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits
From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession: ... an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery
From the Georgia Declaration of Secession:The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition [of slavery] to the last extremity.
In every declaration of secession, slavery was given as the first and most prominent reason for secession. Secession was popular in flat states, where large plantations were viable. It was less popular in mountainous areas, where slaves were less common, including what is now West Virginia, and the mountain state of Tennessee which was the last to secede and the first to rejoin the union. There was a rebellion within the rebellion in the hilly areas of northern Alabama. By the end of the war, every state but South Carolina (the flattest state, most dependent on plantation agriculture) raised volunteer regiments to fight in the Union Army, mostly from mountain areas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Blacks were considered inferior throughout the entire country. The North's attacks on slavery were motivated not by feelings of fairness, but to simply destroy the enemy's economic base.
So, the GP is right stating, that this was not "about slavery" in today's meaning of the concept — the war was not waged to restore fairness and bring about equal rights. You are right in that it was about slavery because it was that tactics of the Federal government, that pushed the rebels over the edge.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people thought that enslaving even inferior people was wrong, although most in the North weren't going to go any effort to get rid of it. The North wasn't actually attacking slavery where it was legal, but trying to limit its expansion. The South felt slavery threatened and seceded, then started the war over Fort Sumter.
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:4, Informative)
In every declaration of secession, slavery was given as the first and most prominent reason for secession.
That is a blatant lie, and judging by the fact you didn't link to the declarations that deny this claim, you damn well know it's a lie.
http://www.civilwar.org/educat... [civilwar.org]
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
You left out the Cornerstone Speech [wikipedia.org], specifically:
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
The south didn't have any money. Slavery in the south made commodity traders in the north rich, not the slave owners. You may find that hard to believe... How can you own slaves and not be rich? How can you live in one of those huge plantation houses, and not be rich? The economics of slavery favor the slave trader, not the slave owner. And those plantation houses look huge until you realize it housed an extended family of 20-30 people, plus house slaves. There were white people working the fields right next to the slaves (and they were treated only marginally better).
The south didn't have any money, but war is expensive. So how did the civil war even happen?! Turns out the south had a friend across the ocean willing to lend them very very large amounts of money. Now what could the UK possibly want in return for funding a civl war? America split in two, that's what. Divide and conquer. The war of 1812 was only 50 years ago, and Britain had not yet given up aspirations of reconquest.
Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he's a nice guy. Lincoln proclaimed emancipation to make the British government's support of slave-owning confederates EXTREMELY unpopular with the British people, who were vehemently abolitionist. Lincoln turned a war about the economic oppression of the south into a war about slavery, and in doing so, isolated the south from the rest of the world. Without the support of the UK, or the industrial capacity of the north, the confederacy was doomed.
They don't this in schools because anyone who says the civil was wasn't about slavery is a racist confederacy apologist. The fact that you don't know the civil was was about keeping North America free of the tyranny of the British crown is DANGEROUS..... and the political correctness that lead to that ignorance is one of the tumors slowly killing America.
Re: (Score:3)
If they had the South on their side, that number changes.
Also, they controlled India with a larger population, estimated as being around 100 million for 1600 to 1881; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Brits were supporting the South for their financial and political gain -- so basically, they would be handing us back over to British rule because they didn't like the system they were in.
I think this is revisionist history as seen through the lens of the .1% and I figure the Tea Baggers of today will tell
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:5, Insightful)
While YOU might support racism and slavery
Hello kids, today we present you with the logical fallacy known as a Strawman [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] argument.
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Stay tuned, you're sure to discover some more logical fallacies below!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
LMAO idiot!!! And I quote...
"Who fought to ***just leave***. What is the definition of oppression?"
WRONG - according to the states' own words - they weren't fighting to "just leave" - they were fighting to maintain slavery. Someone who outright lies about the situation (totally ignoring slavery as a component) and doesn't think that fighting to maintain slavery isn't oppression (as the states claimed they were doing) is racist or an idiot or uneducated. I gave them the benefit of doubt and SPECIFICALLY
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a good point. There were actually quite a few supporters of the South in the North during the Civil War. Why? Not because they supported slavery, they did NOT. It was because you can't have a "Union" unless there was the right to succeed. Many of the supporters in the North supported the South because if the government became too oppressive, they too wanted the right to succeed.
While to many, the Confederate Flag represents states rights, Southern heritage, the right to rebel (against whatever), the fact of the matter is that the Confederate Flag now represents racism to the vast majority of people. The supporters of the CF are fighting a losing battle. This is just like the swastika that was originally a Jewish and Middle Eastern symbol and was used throughout early Judaism in a lot of artwork and on stone ostuaries (stone "coffins" just for the bones). Today, it represents Nazis no matter how much the swastika supporters might want it to be a religious symbol.
At the same time, Amazon, Google, etc. apparently are ok with selling Nazi flags and other memorabilia as well as T-Shirts with the face of the Butcher of La Cabania (Che Guevara), Pol Pot, Mau Tse Tung, Stalin (who killed more than Hitler ever did), etc. If they are going to remove something like the Confederate Flag, they should be even handed among all the people who have murdered millions and persecuted even more.
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:4, Interesting)
At the same time, Amazon, Google, etc. apparently are ok with selling Nazi flags and other memorabilia as well as T-Shirts with the face of the Butcher of La Cabania (Che Guevara),
Thats what gets me they are not even getting their own political BS right. You can buy a copy of mein kampf on these sites. The flag you could at least make a case for 'its history' (which is thin and tenuous). Mein kampf is a bible for racial hatred.
They will quickly realize they can not placate everyone. They will quickly run out of customers. Instead of standing up for at least pretending free speech they turn their backs on these people. I think what those people have to say is vile. But where is the line? There is not one. That was the point of free speech.
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:5, Interesting)
Majority?
I hardly think so...just an overly vocal minority of folks jumping on a bandwagon.
Until a few days ago, when that jackass gunned down those innocent people in that church and later was pictured in one picture holding a small rebel flag, I would posit that the Rebel Battle Flag, the Stars and Bars meant very little to most people if at all.
But thanks to 24/7 news that just HAS to have something to churn the viewers (coincidentally enough all based in the northeast of the US), and them rallying all the social media addicted millennials that are just aching for the next cause of the day to jump on board with (only to be forgotten till the next fury to be raised over some sort of "justice")....the poor flag is being run roughshod over.
I've grown up all my life with the Rebel Battle Flag in my life and experience. It wasn't that big of a deal actually, but just something so everyday, that you saw it and didn't think twice about any hidden meaning. It was southern pride, or just a symbol of the south, a backdrop at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, or the top of the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazard (granted a silly show, but just shows how innocuous the flag symbol is). No one I'd ever known had any objections to it, nor had thought of it our used it in any manner that was threatening or hostile to blacks or other races or creeds. Hell, I'd never heard black friends object to it...just was an every day symbol of the south, nothing more nothing less.
But now...it is the topic of the day, and think what you may of it...the larger problem is that this thing is growing even further in what almost seems to be an attempt to rewrite or obliterate history.
This is spreading even in New Orleans, to threaten centuries old monuments....Lee Circle...and other long time landmarks named after confederate southern military heroes of their time, are being threatened to be torn down. None of these has ever been thought of by anyone as racist or threatening to anyone, yet in the rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater, historic landmarks are being threatened.
Ok...where do we stop?
Should we mow down the entire French Quarter? After all a LOT of slaves were bought and sold and used there.
How about all the monuments to Jefferson in D.C.? He was a notorious slave owner...should we burn down Monticello? Raze the Jefferson Memorial? Change the money?
Seriously....there is no need to try to obliterate historic monuments and figures. Everyone and every time has to be judged by the merits of that time. History if though of always in modern thoughts...well, stands to be erased.
History, helps us to understand ourselves and where we came from. Good, heroic folks had faults, but you don't destroy them because of those faults, keep them for the good things about them.
Being a southerner, proud of your heritage doesn't also make one a racist. You can be proud of one and enjoy the symbols and history as part of your culture while trying to forge new ways of thinking and tolerance.
They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
If people were to hold their breaths on this for 2 weeks.....it would all blow over and be forgotten. Hard to take a "majority of folks thinking this way" seriously, when it has just happened overnight practically, and will be forgotten about in a couple weeks....but the damage to history will last much longer.
Step back and take a breathe folks.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to go back to the founding of the nation, which had a built-in flaw from the beginning. Article 1, Paragraph 2, Section 3 of the Constitution referenced "free persons" and "all other persons" for the purposes of apportioning representation and taxation among the states. It was known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, and was the basis for getting all 13 colonies to agree on forming the Union.
The North wanted the slaves NOT TO BE COUNTED AT ALL. The South did not want their representation limited in th
Re: (Score:3)
Then, down south, your own states say your history books are stinking piles of crap. Or you are misremembering what those books say:
Please read this: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html [civilwar.org]
Confederate gov't was inherently about slavery (Score:3)
You must live in a Northern State, Down south our history books tell a different story.
Yes, your Southern history books ignore all the state secession documents that clearly state the preservation of the institution of slavery as a main cause for war. They ignore the fact that the decision makers, the 1%, decided to vote for war and to initiate war to defend their source of wealth and power, slavery. Instead your history books like to focus on the cover stories that the 1% used to sell the war to the 99% with. It doesn't matter if great-great-great-grandpappy didn't personally fight to protec
Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a free speech issue. If the Confederate Battle Flag is now a symbol of racism and must be banned, what about the gray soldier's uniform? Do we ban that, too? How about the General Lee, it's got a big flag on the roof? How about the Civil War computer games, ban those, too? Let's go a bit further with this: What about the Swastika? How about the NAZI flag? Stormtrooper uniforms? The German SS ones, not the Star Wars ones. Do I own or want to own any of these items? No. But if a museum wants to display these items, I think it should be allowed to, so long as we are not glorifying the murder of innocent lives. As for the Civil War, I'd argue that we need not to forget it, or we might end up repeating it.
Don't worry, people get to keep their SS uniforms, they can display them on the nice straw man you built.
Nobody is saying that museums wouldn't be able to display Confederate items, or that private collectors wouldn't be able to keep, own, display, wear, etc. them. Nobody's saying that bigots won't be able to wrap themselves in the "glory" of the Confederate Battle Flag. It's just private companies deciding they don't want to sell those flags to them.
All Apple, eBay, Amazon, etc. are saying is that, as pr
Re: (Score:3)
Look, secession was about slavery, yes. That doesn't mean that's why the Civil War was fought. Most people in the North had no desire to wage war to eliminate slavery, and there were Union states in which slavery was legal. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was primarily intended to keep Britain out of the war. Lincoln certainly wanted to abolish slavery, but he was a practical man. He knew that fighting a war to free the slaves would not work, and he wanted to preserve the United States more than t
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked this is exactly how the USSR dissolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Others have mentioned good examples and Sections of Spain and the UK have in recent years voted to leave. Only in the great USofA do we believe states should be treated like the inhabitants of Hotel California.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, suppose the states of the Confederacy had taken a popular vote on whether to secede or whether to stay in the Union knowing that the days of slavery were numbered. Do the slaves get to vote? In 1860, Mississippi and South Carolina had more more slaves than free persons. Alabama, Florida, Georgia were over 40% enslaved. When the Southern states which vote to go do get to leave the Union do the slaves of those states get to emigrate out of the Confederacy? The situation in the USA in 1860 was consi
Re: (Score:3)
How many countries exist in which the government would have no problem with a significant chunk of the country deciding to just split off and become their own government?
For example, there was Czechoslovakia [wikipedia.org]. You're welcome.
I can hear the no true Scotsman fallacy from here, but I don't care.
By the way, Canada / Québec, UK / Scotland are also candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
i think the EU would be quite happy to let Greece and Spain leave.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because preserving freedom of expression is far more valuable than whatever harm is done by those flags existing and being displayed.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't You Heard? (Score:3)
Either that or it's all a big misunderstanding, and the
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Informative)
Enemy oppressor?
Every slave ship sailing from Africa to the USA sailed under the US flag.
For over 100 years of slavery, it was all done under the US flag.
Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, His name was not even on the ballot in 10 states. There were only 33 states at the time so close to 1/3 of the states did not have him on the ballot and he still won. That was the key that started the whole civil war! An election that even today would cause riots, to have a candidate win when he was not even on the ballot in 1/3 of the states!
Yes racial tensions were high and yes the south decided to make slavery a key point of there cause, but when the Civil war broke out it was not all about slavery. Abraham Lincoln himself was "Anti-Slavery" meaning against slavery's expansion, however he was not calling for immediate emancipation.
"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -- Abraham Lincoln September 17, 1859: Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Lincoln was a massive abolitionist, but knew he could not win the election, nor his moves against slavery by outright stating that. His own writings throughout show that. His ambiguous or contrary statements in the mid to late 1850's were because he was attacked earlier as an abolitionist. He knew what he was doing and saying - just like the deist separationist Jefferson who changed the demanded "endowed by the god of christianity" lines for the Declaration of Independence to the ambiguous "by *th
Re: (Score:3)
In May 1862, Abraham Lincoln overturned an order issued by General David Hunter that would have freed every slave across vast swaths of the southern Atlantic coast.
That was after he was made president and 1 year into the civil war.
He is not the man you think he is and revising history to make him some grand savior is BS.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:4, Funny)
Lincoln was trying to abolish the institution of vampirism. There was a documentary about it recently.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt16... [imdb.com]
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every slave ship sailing from Africa to the USA sailed under the US flag.
For over 100 years of slavery, it was all done under the US flag.
Do you have a citation on this? The USA had been in existence as a country for less than 100 years by the time slavery was abolished. So it would be tough on the 'over 100 years', and I doubt every single slave ship was sailing under the US flag during that.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it was mostly the British and Dutch flag, but to their credit they caught on earlier how reprehensible this business was (not by much in the case of the Dutch).
Re: (Score:3)
The USA had been in existence as a country for less than 100 years by the time slavery was abolished.
... and the slave trade was abolished long before slavery itself. It was banned by America in 1807 [wikipedia.org], and banned by the British Empire about the same time. There was still some smuggling, but after the Napoleonic Wars, Britain established a naval squadron to patrol the coast of West Africa and suppress the trade.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Informative)
First; you make some excellent points.
All right; you've got some salient details wrong.
The American flag did not exist until 1776, and that was only the continental colors, or 1777 for a recognizable version of the stars and stripes. And no slave ships sailed to the US after the abolition of slavery in 1865 by the thirteenth amendment - that's right, the END of the civil war, not the beginning. So the longest that "slave ships" could possibly have sailed under the "US flag" is 91 years, not "over 100 years".
Far from every slave ship sailed under the US flag, anyway. Not only did that flag not exist before 1776, but many/most slavers were from other nationalities anyway. "The Atlantic slave traders, ordered by trade volume, were: the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empire." [wikipedia.org]
By far the greatest number of slaves sent to the Americas were not sent to the US or the area which would become the US, anyway. Breakdown by destination of distribution of slaves, 1519-1867:
Portuguese America, 38.5%
British America MINUS North America, 18.4%
Spanish Empire, 17.5%
French Americas, 13.6%
British North America, 6.45%
English Americas, 3.25%
Dutch West Indies, 2.0%
Danish West Indies, 1.3%
Reference: Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and David Eltis, W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research, Harvard University. Based on "records for 27,233 voyages that set out to obtain slaves for the Americas". Stephen Behrendt (1999). "Transatlantic Slave Trade". Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. New York: Basic Civitas Books. ISBN 0-465-00071-1.
[Note: I'm not sure what the separate categories are for, "British America MINUS North America" and "English Americas"; I don't have a copy of the reference to hand to see if/how it explains]
[BTW: re "Danish West Indies", I had to look that one up [wikipedia.org] myself]
A bit of detail of which many people are unaware: the US was far from the last area [wikipedia.org] to abolish slavery. Just some which held out til later were:
Portuguese territories (4 years later)
then-Spanish colony of Puerto Rico (8 years later)
then-British colony of the Gold Coast (9 years later)
Egypt (12 years later)
Ottoman Empire (17 years later)
then-French protectorate of Cambodia (19 years later)
then-Spanish colony of Cuba (21 years later)
Brazil (23 years later)
Korea (29 years later) (but not fully implemented until 65 years later)
then_French colony of Madagascar (31 years later)
then-British protectorate of Zanzibar (32 years later)
Ethiopean Empire (37-77 years later)
China (41 years later)
Siam (47 years later)
Morocco (57 years later)
Afghanistan (58 years later)
Iraq (59 years later)
Iran (63 years later)
Tibet (94 years later)
Saudi Arabia (97 years later)
Re: (Score:3)
Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, His name was not even on the ballot in 10 states. There were only 33 states at the time so close to 1/3 of the states did not have him on the ballot and he still won. That was the key that started the whole civil war!
And did he get the required electoral collage votes to become president or not? Were the voters deprived the right to vote for Breckinridge, Bell or Douglas through Lincoln being left off the ballot?
Lincoln won fair. The Democrats killed their hope of election themselves by some of their key figures in the south carrying on in an seditious way that could not be endured by much of their voter base, splitting their vote 3 ways. The Republicans had a clear platform of a strong central government and less slave
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Interesting)
The flag is historic.
If you want to erase history, you're a fool.
I find Google finding censorship acceptable in its search results alarming now. They are now the overlords telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't, not yourself.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between letting a flag fly and yanking a historical wargame featuring the Confederates because of their flag. What's next? History books and textbooks with pictures of the Confederate flag will be pulled too?
At least I can still get a copy of Axis and Allies from the Play Store though, so Nazis are still cool apparently.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the actual enforcement being spotty and arbitrary--big studios' Civil War games will get a pass while smaller outfits either get completely ignored or killed without warning.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Interesting)
why oh why do we still let an enemy oppressor flag still fly in this country? What are we celebrating by doing so?
Free speech. I firmly stand against any local, state, or federal government entities flying the Confederate flag, for exactly the reasons you provided, but I will defend an individual's right to do so, even if I vehemently disagree with their reasons for doing so.
That said, we're starting to take things into the realm of ridiculousness here. Apple is removing apps with the Confederate flag. Great. Except that they're removing a number of Civil War games that correctly used the Confederate flag to represent the Confederacy [macrumors.com]. What next? Force HBO to stop offering Band of Brothers through HBO Now on the Apple TV because it features a swastika? Remove the Dukes of Hazzard from iTunes because they have a Confederate flag painted on the roof of the car?
At the end of the day, the flag is merely a symbol, and symbols are only as powerful as we let them be. The meaning behind that flag has changed over the years, and has meant different things to different people. We need to recognize that fact, otherwise we'll swing the pendulum too far in the other direction and end up cutting in on civil liberties.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to fly the nazi flag, I will fight for your right to do so. Probably while calling you ugly names in the process, but in this country we have the right to exercise our own judgement, no matter how benightedly poor.
While Google, Apple, et. al. can certainly choose to remove these things from their store, in their own exercise of discretion, the whole discussion has gone off the rails. It makes a convenient distraction while the TPP gets pushed through.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:4, Insightful)
While Google, Apple, et. al. can certainly choose to remove these things from their store, in their own exercise of discretion, the whole discussion has gone off the rails. It makes a convenient distraction while the TPP gets pushed through.
Who cares, though? The TPP would get pushed through even if there were no distraction. They would just report on fluffy bunnies or whatever, and ignore it as always.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5, Informative)
While your argument is correct, it also points out the glaring issues with the walled gardens created by apple and google with their ubiquitous marketplaces. If software is speech and if mobile apps can only be installed via app stores (which for 99% of phone using Americans is the case) then we can easily say that google and apple now have more control over our speech than we should be comfortable with.
Who cares if the government allows free speech only to have it taken away by the corporations that control our means to make our speech?
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite... give this some thought. The government forces them to open those gardens and (the government) becomes tyrannical, or they do not, and things remain as they are.
Interesting catch 22... I've got no solution either.
Re:Boo hoo... (Score:5)
hate speech is not protected
ALL speech is protected.
Re: (Score:3)
A flag only represents something to those who believe in it. To the rest of us it is colored cloth at the end of a pole.
so you freely admit that your own opinion doesn't matter
Re: (Score:3)
You stupid sonofabitch, nothing has been banned. Some state governments have decided not to fly the Confederate battle flag over government properties any more. Some stores have decided, privately not to sell Confederate battle flags any more.
You wanna have a Confederate battle flag fly proudly over your meth lab, be my
Re:this thing comes and goes. (Score:5, Informative)
The 3/5ths compromise is so misunderstood. Southern, slave-holding states wanted the slaves to be counted as people for the purpose of apportionment for of Representatives and Electors for President. Northern, non-slave states said they shouldn't be counted since they weren't going to be citizens. By counting them as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of apportionment, it bolstered the power of the Southern states (who had a much smaller White population relative to Northern States) in the legislature and allowed them to come to terms and agree to move forward with the Constitutional Convention. It's convenient how people who misinterpret the 3/5ths compromise also generally neglect the "and Indians not taxed" portion of the clause, which is meant to draw distinction between those paying taxes and submitting to the power of the State and those who weren't.
For the tl;dr crowd, the South wanted to count them as 5/5ths of a person and the North wanted to count them as 0/5ths of a person.