6 ms·

> If today's confederacy enthusiasts disagree, then it means the culture doesn't represent slavery. What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even

> If today's confederacy enthusiasts disagree, then it means the culture doesn't represent slavery. What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it. The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended? > The confederate flag doesn't exist for the sole purpose of slavery. The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery, the flag in question is the symbol of the Confederacy. (Though I should have said "primary purpose" not "sole purpose.") > Any woman involved in the religion has to keep their head covered This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their heads. (Also, while I recognize that the discriminatory attitudes of many Muslims towards women run deeper than merely having them cover their heads, it's pretty funny that you're comparing this to slavery.) And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery. > I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown. Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed. Google it. This is blatantly false. (I agree that moves like Apple's decision today go too far, and may indeed be unprecedented. But certainly the general controversy is not at all new.)

Torgo 11y ago
>What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it. This works equally in the other direction. The reason a symbol was originally created is not the final word on what it means today to large groups of people. For many people that flag means "the American South is a distinctive culture." I don't really care about the flag at all but I have seen people using it in various ways for years without any sort of racist intent and it's pretty crap to just write them off as racists or that they should have retroactively "known better" after this sudden, dramatic social pivot.
paulhauggis 11y ago
"The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended?" If it's turned a specific way, it is the Nazi symbol. In Asia for instance (where I lived and studied for 5+ years), you will see the symbol all over the place. It is still a Buddhist peace sign in many other parts of the world and in fact, I have purchased multiple items online (and on Amazon) with the symbol on it. I know plenty of people that purchase Chinese new year decorations and put them in their car with that symbol. So, your example is flawed. "The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery" No it didn't. It existed to promote states' rights. Slavery is one of those rights (and the one brought up the most). "This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their head" You also see plenty of people with the confederate flag that do not support slavery. This is my point. "And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery." I don't see people with confederate flags creating laws that force African-americans into slavery. We do have examples of countries that force women to be partially covered (and in some instances, completely covered) and other extremely harsh laws like stoning if a woman gets raped (this is a real law btw.). But it gets the magic pass, even though in some instances, supports the most vile and terrible human behavior. So you support symbols of a religion that do in fact put people into slavery, by law. But you don't support a symbol that has done nothing of the sort for 100+ years. "Google it. This is blatantly false." This is the first time I've seen it on CNN or any main stream news site (and I read lots of news every day) and it was only after this incident that government officials needed to do anything about it. It must not have been a big deal before this incident. *edit: This is why HN group think (and group think everywhere) is dangerous. I am trying to have an open an honest discussion about politics and I am silenced immediately.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Primarily states' rights or primarily slavery, that "peculiar institution"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech It's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion, and ultimately the treason, committed by those ruling in the South. It was the choice of slavery over patriotism back when the states seceded then, and it's ever more abhorrent now to think one should wave the Confederate flag as some nod towards a "culture" that was nothing more than a wrapper around the terrible institution of slavery. Now, I'm not blaming all of the people in the South. Surely the soldiers that fought and died weren't the same ones making the decisions and state house speeches. But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote? Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "t's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion" It's also revisionist history that Lincoln cared about slaves' rights. The main reason slavery was made illegal was to gut the south if it's resources, and it worked. The side-effect was, however, morally right. Here is a good example of this: http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-... This is taken from a Lincoln speech: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust." With that said, should we also remove everything Lincoln supported or anything related to Lincoln from our government and stores? "But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote?" It's all about context, which seems to have been lost in today's society. The Buddhist peace symbol is no longer a symbol of Nazis and the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery. It's been turned into a symbol of southern pride, nothing more. The US flag probably means oppression for many other cultures and people throughout history as does pretty much every single flag in the world. But somehow, those are okay. Should we remove it because we slaughtered the native americans and they are offended by it? "Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?" If this is the case, why aren't we having a conversation about Islam and other cultures that encourage the same thing..or worse? Islam can't even be discussed with open and honesty without "Islamaphobe" being thrown out. It just seems very phony to me.

Torgo 11y ago

>What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it. This works equally in the other direction. The reason a symbol was originally created is not the final word on what it means today to large groups of people. For many people that flag means "the American South is a distinctive culture." I don't really care about the flag at all but I have seen people using it in various ways for years without any sort of racist intent and it's pretty crap to just write them off as racists or that they should have retroactively "known better" after this sudden, dramatic social pivot.

paulhauggis 11y ago

"The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended?" If it's turned a specific way, it is the Nazi symbol. In Asia for instance (where I lived and studied for 5+ years), you will see the symbol all over the place. It is still a Buddhist peace sign in many other parts of the world and in fact, I have purchased multiple items online (and on Amazon) with the symbol on it. I know plenty of people that purchase Chinese new year decorations and put them in their car with that symbol. So, your example is flawed. "The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery" No it didn't. It existed to promote states' rights. Slavery is one of those rights (and the one brought up the most). "This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their head" You also see plenty of people with the confederate flag that do not support slavery. This is my point. "And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery." I don't see people with confederate flags creating laws that force African-americans into slavery. We do have examples of countries that force women to be partially covered (and in some instances, completely covered) and other extremely harsh laws like stoning if a woman gets raped (this is a real law btw.). But it gets the magic pass, even though in some instances, supports the most vile and terrible human behavior. So you support symbols of a religion that do in fact put people into slavery, by law. But you don't support a symbol that has done nothing of the sort for 100+ years. "Google it. This is blatantly false." This is the first time I've seen it on CNN or any main stream news site (and I read lots of news every day) and it was only after this incident that government officials needed to do anything about it. It must not have been a big deal before this incident. *edit: This is why HN group think (and group think everywhere) is dangerous. I am trying to have an open an honest discussion about politics and I am silenced immediately.

rmxt 11y ago
Primarily states' rights or primarily slavery, that "peculiar institution"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech It's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion, and ultimately the treason, committed by those ruling in the South. It was the choice of slavery over patriotism back when the states seceded then, and it's ever more abhorrent now to think one should wave the Confederate flag as some nod towards a "culture" that was nothing more than a wrapper around the terrible institution of slavery. Now, I'm not blaming all of the people in the South. Surely the soldiers that fought and died weren't the same ones making the decisions and state house speeches. But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote? Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "t's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion" It's also revisionist history that Lincoln cared about slaves' rights. The main reason slavery was made illegal was to gut the south if it's resources, and it worked. The side-effect was, however, morally right. Here is a good example of this: http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-... This is taken from a Lincoln speech: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust." With that said, should we also remove everything Lincoln supported or anything related to Lincoln from our government and stores? "But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote?" It's all about context, which seems to have been lost in today's society. The Buddhist peace symbol is no longer a symbol of Nazis and the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery. It's been turned into a symbol of southern pride, nothing more. The US flag probably means oppression for many other cultures and people throughout history as does pretty much every single flag in the world. But somehow, those are okay. Should we remove it because we slaughtered the native americans and they are offended by it? "Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?" If this is the case, why aren't we having a conversation about Islam and other cultures that encourage the same thing..or worse? Islam can't even be discussed with open and honesty without "Islamaphobe" being thrown out. It just seems very phony to me.