Author
|
Topic: How do Canadians see the Confederate flag?
|
|
|
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 24 July 2006 03:19 PM
Considered in a broader context, the confederate flag represents resistence to external authorities attempting to manipulate the internal policies and laws of sovereign entities. That some of those laws involved the promotion of slavery is secondary to the origins of the confederacy. It is the resistence to overbearing authority forcing its own views upon any legitimate government that makes this a rebel's symbol. Of course rebels are often less concerned about which side has the greatest legitimacy and are often agitated by authority itself. wiki But perhaps what this confederacy [over all the other confederacies that have existed - including the Canadian one] exemplies best of all is how a group that only lasted 5 years could still be a recognized symbol almost 200 years later. edited to include: [Or the Iroguois confederacy that contributed to all levels of North American governments in their existing democratic structures.] [ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: otter ]
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 24 July 2006 04:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by otter: Of course, those that do not know their history are bound to repeat it
Perhaps so; but would anyone here care to deny that that those who know their history are also bound to repeat it? I didn't think so.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 24 July 2006 08:27 PM
quote: How can anyone in this day and age claim ignorance of what the flag represents?
Well, how about the 1st battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, whose hockey team is "the Rebels" and their symbol the Confederate flag. I don't know that if they've discarded that imagery since the Arone murder and the Airborne disbandment, but they were very much into the whole biker/aryan nations/confederate symbology then.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 25 July 2006 03:39 PM
Of course the Confederate flag is racist but that is a totally different argument than whether or not the USA should be a unitary state or a true confederacy. Leave out the slavery and the argument is an interesting political debate. But of course in terms of the American history you can't leave out the slavery as it is entwined with the "Confederacy" and its racism.The mention of the swastika is interesting. I was astounded fifteen years ago when a BC artist ManWoman started using swastikas as an art image. I was originally offended until I heard the history of the symbol prior to the Nazis appropriating it. I changed to being offended that such a vile regime could adopt one of the most universal human symbols of good and turn it into a symbol of evil. While the Rebel flag has no other meaning the swastika deserves to be reclaimed from the nazis propoganda. ManWoman the Canadian Swastika advocate EDITED TO ADD QUOTE quote: This website has no connections to any racist propaganda. We do not deny the pain and anguish of the Second World War and the Holocaust. We feel that the time is ripe to put the Nazi decade into the proper context in full view of the ten thousand years of suppressed swastika history and to let the swastika get on with its benign life. We would like to invite Jews, and all others affected by the war, to look at the evidence for the existence of a sacred swastika in the world. How can a symbol be guilty for the acts of a madman? I showed my swastika collection in the Cranbrook Railway Museum in 1981. Many people came expecting to get angry and later shook my hand in gratitude for enlightening them. They saw only honorable swastikas which did not conjure up goose-stepping nightmares. An old German architect who had walked across the Alps to get away from the Nazis encouraged me. The founding members of the Friends of the Swastika, ManWoman, Guru Svastika, Douglas Youngblood, and Carolyn O'Neil (the town historian), held their first meeting and Swastika Conference in Swastika, Ontario in 1985. Residents of Swastika, Ontario had to fight hard to keep their town's name during the Second World War. The Canadian government wanted to change it to "Winston" to honor Churchill.
[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 25 July 2006 07:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Rikardo: Yankee liberal imperialists who believe that America`s destiny is to be united and strong in order to save the world.
I'm not sure there's any real parallel between Serbia and the American Confederacy -- I think Serbia suffers by the comparison -- but I do enjoy it when someone uses the phrase, which should cause less surprise than it does, "Yankee liberal imperialists."On a related point, those who enjoy Canadian history will know that, during the American civil war, Canadian public opinion was strongly abolitionist -- we had abolished slavery many decades earlier -- and was also anti-Yankee. The North had ulterior motives, as perceived in Canada, and would likely turn their guns on us next. As for the Confederate flag being seen in Canada, if I saw one on a jacket I would assume the wearer was an American biker.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
joybuzzard
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12961
|
posted 25 July 2006 10:25 PM
I find the discussion on this topic to be infantile and discriminatory. The confederate flag was not and is not a racist symbol. The civil war was NOT over slavery, in fact, slavery was still legal in some northern states well after the civil war. Slavery was made illegal only as a war measure against the south. The lies surrounding the civil war have been used against states rights advocates for way too long, states rights means democracy, a "national" democracy is simply impossible, it is bound to be controlled by corporations. That's why no western "democracy" has ever actually been democratic. That's what was wrong with the south, the common people had too much control, the opposition to slavery was just a propaganda point, and the fake left still pushes it in their right wing opposition to democracy. Racists, like those who call the confederate flag racist, should ask why a symbol like the star of david, a symbol of a culture that not only promoted slavery but committed outright genocide, is allowed. Because the genocides they committed are too old to offend you? But the confederate flag you have a problem with because it's a "white" symbol and you're racist against whites? Is there any other reason? No, don't pretend there is, all of you fake lefty racists, state your anti-democratic, racist, position as it is, don't pretend you're interested in freedom when your trying to destroy it. The "redneck" cliches on here are old and ignorant, the intent is obviously to drive away potential supporters and keep low income whites supporting the right wing. Keeping the low income majority supporting the right wing is the point of the fake left, but all of you racist fake leftists know this already.
From: Regina, Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 05:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by Farces: Originally posted by Rikardo: Identifying the Confederate flag with racism has always been a tactic of Yankee liberal imperialists who believe like (war ´monger) Abraham Lincoln that America`s destiny is to be united and strong in order to save the world. Had the independence of the Confederacy been accepted, slavery would have been peacefully abolished within 20 years, like in Brazil, and over 600,000 lives would have been saved, many of them African-Americans. And we demonize Milosovic for wanting to hold Serbia together. (I am not a fascist)
I don't know about the part about Milosevic and Serbia because I don't know anything about that, but I do agree with what he is saying about the US of the 1800s. It is sad that the particular issue of slavery got so mixed up in the states rights versus federal control thing. Not only did federal power end slavery in a way that was economically bad for both blacks and whites, but it ended up making the US shift its federalism balance way much to the federal power side. This has had horrible effects in areas that have nothing to do with slavery, US marijuana law springs to mind as a ready example. The ridiculous idea that the US could bring democracy and freedom to Iraq even has its roots in the romantic idea that the US Civil War made things better over the long run than they would have turned out otherwise. I understand the idea that people want to use the Confederate flag as symbol of lost US federalism, but as many of the other posters pointed out: too many Southern US bigots have appropriated the symbol for it to ever be used in a positive way again. None of this should obscure the fact that there should have been no US Civil War. Better to have had the 20 years extra slavery, ended gradually by targetted economic pressure, than the actual outcome that happened with African Americans in the 150 years after the war. When we see something like the way Hurricane Katrina played out we are still seeing aftermath of the US Civil War. If slavery had been ended by economic pressure, instead of warfare, we Canadians of today might not be so complacent about purchasing merchandise manufactured in Asian sweatshops (whose labor conditions we don't really even know). Canada would certainly be better off if there were two US's rather than just one. No doubt about that. On the positive side, Lincoln wanted to send the liberated African Americans back to Africa. I think that would have caused an even worse humanitarian crisis than the Jim Crow and stuf the US actually got. ON EDIT: I too was under the misimpression that slavery lingered in the "border states" for some years after the war, but looking it up in the WIKIpedia, it looks like slavery was completely gone a few months after the war ended and indentured servitude of African Americans a couple years after that. Still, the point people make is that Lincoln freed the slaves in the South sooner than he freed the slaves in the North. I don't read much into this minor "hypocrisy," but some ppl do. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 26 July 2006 05:29 AM
I cannot believe the direction of this drift.Okay then. I challenge all the intellectuals who are putting forth the theoretical argument that 20 extra years of slavery would have been better than what actually transpired to find a series of African American scholars, historians, academics, activists that argue that exact point. And list names and links here. Edited to add: Wikipedia does NOT count. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 06:01 AM
I can believe the direction of this discussion and glad we are not drifting from the topic of the US confederacy and what it was really fighting for.Okay then. I challenge all the intellectuals who are putting forth the theoretical argument that 20 extra years of slavery would not have been better than what actually transpired to find a series of African American scholars, historians, academics, activists that argue that exact point. And list names and links here. Edited to add: feel free to use the Wikipedia [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 26 July 2006 06:04 AM
Farces, you are getting very boring.I never put out such an argument. I'm asking those who have put out the "20 extra years" argument to defend it. A reasonable request.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 06:35 AM
As I read Constitutional law, states were allowed to leave when they wanted. Lincoln denied South Carolina this right (while still maintaining slavery in the Union states).In other words: 1. the Civil War wasn't as much about slavery as modern people tend to assume. It was more about whether states could pick up and leave. 2. if the states could pick up and leave, as originally intended, the US would be a better place. Since we probably all buy and use slave made goods on this thread, there is no room for anybody to get on a high horse. I would also submit that if we had developed a better society-wide vigilance against buying and using slave made goods in the 1870s and 1880s, then the world would be a better and more justice filled place today. Just ask the woman who made your shoes, Beltov. ON EDIT: On 2d thought, don't ask the woman who made your shoes Beltov. Merely entertaining such a question would probably get her the death penalty. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491
|
posted 26 July 2006 07:34 AM
It's funny - I just finished reading through this thread and was originally going to make this comment in response to Auntie's response to the original question: quote: Your friend is an idiot. Of course the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. Duh. What was the civil war about? auntie is not a historian but it does seem it was about slavery.
I have never studied American history and don't like war movies. Until I googled the confederate flag just now, I don't think I could have identified it and would certainly not have associated it with the South, with racism or with slavery. I also wouldn't associate it with any sports teams named the Rebels or anything else. I don't think that makes me an idiot. Certainly not a racist. It makes me uninformed and possibly ignorant... When my brother was 8, he bought a ballcap with a colourful marijuana leaf on it because he liked the way it looked. That doesn't mean he was a pothead or a member of the Marijunaa party. He just liked the way the hat looked. I believe that words and images can change in meaning and symbolism over time. If a new generation of Canadians are unaware of the negativity associated with the Confederate flag is that good or bad or neutral? Anyway, that's what I was originally going to post. But now that Farces has effectively derailed this thread (he's good at that) with his baiting and nonsensical points with no links or proof to back them up, I'm only reminded of the mess he made in the Feminist Forum. I'm so glad that now that he's been asked not to post there that he's found other in which areas to post. It sure would be a shame if he left Babble altogether.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 26 July 2006 07:45 AM
Oh, for heaven's sakes. First of all, I'd appreciate people not dragging stuff from other threads into this one. There is an honest debate happening here, about whether the civil war was mostly about slavery or not. It directly affects the thread topic about how much the Confederate flag had to do with racism. N.Beltov's "question" is a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type of question and it's unacceptable. I know Farces didn't make a great impression on people in past threads, but he certainly hasn't done anything wrong in this one. He even said that it doesn't matter what the history is behind the Confederate flag as a symbol because today it's too associated with racism for rehabilitation. The question has come up, what would have happened without the civil war? The answer depends on how much the civil war had to do with slavery, and I don't see anything wrong with people debating that. I don't even see anything wrong with people talking about alternative scenarios to having fought the civil war. No one is saying, "Hey, slavery was a great thing" so let's not pin those kind of unnuanced positions onto people, okay? Edited to say: Farces, it would also be really nice if you would dispense with the sarcastic tone, and the whole "repeating" thing. If you don't want to answer someone's points, then maybe just ignore them, okay? That's an example of why you're getting on people's nerves, and every thread doesn't have to turn into a contest to see how much people can piss each other off. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 26 July 2006 08:17 AM
I wasn't complaining of some posters suggestions that the civil war wasn't about slavery. In fact, my personal opinion is that "slavery" is a simplistic response to the complicated economic, political and and moral complexities that caused it (anyone see the Simpsons where Apu goes for US citizenship?) quote: Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War? Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter-- Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery. Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
On the other hand, Farces has offered very little in the way of defending not only his specious (and frankly despicable )argument that 20 years of slavery would be better than abolishing it, and not only his argument that slavery would in fact have been dissolved in a mere 20 years, but further, Farces has offered little if any proof that he is here to assert any argument whatsoever, and appears to be making a farce out of the debate itself. Going back over the thread, I can't seem to locate a single sentence that is not trolling. In fact, at his best he's trolling, and at his worst he's downright racist.Although I agree with Wilfred Day that "Yankee liberal imperialist" is pretty awesome. Edited for clarity [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 26 July 2006 08:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: There is an honest debate happening here, about whether the civil war was mostly about slavery or not.
Allow me to offer for consideration the following: Mississippi Declaration of Secession quote: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession quote: We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Georgia Declaration of Secession quote: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.... A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party...The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen.
Texas Declaration of Secession quote: Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time...We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
(emphasis mine) Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the CSA, proclaimed upon the foundation of the Confederacy that the new nation was founded "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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth". Now, this is not to say that all those who fought in the Civil War were motivated by the preservation or elimination of slavery. Furthermore, it is true that slavery continued in the North until after the conclusion of the war, though the only state with more than a handful of slaves at the time the 13th amendment was ratified was Kentucky. However, to claim the Confederacy was founded for any other reason than the preservation of the institution of slavery -- the economic foundation of the antebellum Southern economy -- is misleading and revisionist history. Re: the Confederate flag, I don't think that all those who fly it are necessarily motivated by nostalgia for slavery or by racism (I have known Southern blacks who fly the Confederate flag). As others have pointed out, there is a certain "rebelliousness" associated with it as a symbol; many see it as a sign of pride in their Southern heritage. The Confederate flag is, ironically, flown proudly by many in East Tennessee -- a region that tried to secede from Tennessee and rejoin the North during the course of the war! However, it remains -- particularly to those outside of the South -- a symbol of slavery and racism, and I dearly wish they'd come up with a way to show their "Southern pride" that didn't involve an implicit "fuck you" to minorities. ETA the bit about Alexander Stephens. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: cco ]
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 08:45 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: . . . And the implication that those of us who condemn 17th century racism and slavery are somehow complicit in present day sweatshops is beyond hideous. . . .
I am not saying that only those who condemn 17th century slavery are complicit in present day sweat shops. Rather, I am saying two, slightly different, things: 1. Anyone who buys products made in present day sweatshops is complicit in present day sweatshops. And that includes me. and 2. present day sweatshops probably amount to slavery. I can't say certainly because I don't believe that I, or anyone else participating on this thread, truly knows for sure what the conditions are inside these sweatshops. From what I do know, I tentatively believe the conditions there amount to slavery. If anybody were that urgent about ending slavery we would see a lot more boycotts of Asian products, pending better labor standards in the countries that make our stuff. However, people seem to have an easier time boycotting the Confederate Flag than they do boycotting WAL*MART (and CT and Zeller's and pretty much everywhere else). I know I myself have an easier time boycotting the Confederate Flag than I do staying out of the WAL*MART. But really, what is the higher ethical or moral duty here? Are we using exaggerated righteousness about the Confederate Flag to distract us from our own shortcomings both as a society and as individuals? [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 09:08 AM
There is nothing wrong with boycotting the Confederate Flag. I do it myself because it is racist.However, when Confederacy-bashing (or KKK bashing or Nazi bashing or Hezbollah bashing or Israel bashing) allows people to dumb down complicated economic, political and historical questions that are irreducibly complex, I think it becomes time to get a little less excited about redneck flags and a little more excited about Chinese people. It begins to look like not altogether accurate, but very righteous, orthodoxy about what the Confederacy was really all about actually displaces attention from the slave labor we enjoy in our own lives. "I may shop at Canadian Tire, but at least I am not Scarlett O'Hara!" That kind of bad attitude -- and I think a lot of ppl have it deep down. Samuel Johnson asked: How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? I am asking a similar question in a more modern context. ON EDIT: If you read my posts closely, I made it clear that when I said "WAL*MART boycotting," I was using that as evocative shorthand for the concept of boycotting all products of slave labor countries. It should go without saying, but the boycott I am suggesting would target all products of slave labor, rather than particular stores. The bold text was also added ON EDIT. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 26 July 2006 09:36 AM
Michelle, he stated a premise, not an argument. He provided no evidence that "targeted economic pressure" was levelled at the time of the civil war, nor that it would increase if no war took place. He stated that 20 more years of slavery would have abolished--or at the very least reduced--the vast number of sweat shops and child labour houses in underdeveloped countries. I never made teh argument that the US Civil Ear was only about slavery, but you don't need to read cco's great post to know that slavery played a significant, if not dominant role in its genesis.When Farces was asked to provide proof of his claims, even critical support, he responded with clumsy sarcasm and lacklustre mimicry. If he's arguing instead that sweat shops are slavery, he'll find a lot of support here. In fact, there are enough Marxists on babble that would extend that to most wage jobs. If 20 years of slavery would solve this problem, why don't we instill it now, like a rain cheque? I'm sure the African-Americans living today won't mind the shackles, whipping and rapes that come with it for a mere 20 years--hell, why not just ten?--if it means the rest of us will find it easier to boycott WalMart (something I reckon most babblers do already). That's why I find his argument despicable. Because if you can fathom such a charge, you have no respect for human life. Slavery, as unionist put it, is worse than death, because it infects us all. I call his argument despicable because it is, and because the straw foundations he's attempting to prop up his stances with--labour shops, the racist baggage the confederate flag has acquired, and a more complicated understanding of the civil war than simply slavery--I agree with. What I don't agree with is his colonialist, racist attitude that as white men we can tell those darkies to shackle up for their own good.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
greenie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11988
|
posted 26 July 2006 09:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: Michelle, he stated a premise, not an argument. He provided no evidence that "targeted economic pressure" was levelled at the time of the civil war, nor that it would increase if no war took place. He stated that 20 more years of slavery would have abolished--or at the very least reduced--the vast number of sweat shops and child labour houses in underdeveloped countries. I never made teh argument that the US Civil Ear was only about slavery, but you don't need to read cco's great post to know that slavery played a significant, if not dominant role in its genesis.When Farces was asked to provide proof of his claims, even critical support, he responded with clumsy sarcasm and lacklustre mimicry. If he's arguing instead that sweat shops are slavery, he'll find a lot of support here. In fact, there are enough Marxists on babble that would extend that to most wage jobs.
Yes, I would be interested to read where the economic pressure that would end slavery without the US civil war would have come from. As far as I know, thanks to the cotton gin, slavery was still very lucrative up until the US civil war. The people in the North weren't boycotting products from the South. The abolitionists did not compromise a majority in the North. Although, I haven't read much about it so I could be mistaken.
From: GTA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 July 2006 10:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
In fact, he wrote quite a long and detailed post talking about why he thinks it would have been better for slavery to end through targeted economic pressure rather than war. He is claiming that had slavery ended that way, then perhaps the last 150 years might have been better politically and economically for African-Americans up to this date, and that our economic activism with regards to slave-made goods might be more entrenched than it is now. Not necessarily an argument I agree with, but he defended it to some degree. Maybe he could (and should) expand on that. Maybe you could ask him to do that instead of just calling his argument "despicable" and assuming he's coming from a racist or unprogressive viewpoint.
Michelle, I appreciate your role as moderator, but you're losing me here. We're supposed to take seriously a "long and detailed post" that says that African Americans would have been better off in the long run by a bit more short-term slavery? Or, that it's ok for someone to argue in favour of a little bit of slavery as long as it's not "from a racist or unprogressive viewpoint"? How about a debate on whether Canada's population and skilled trades shortage can be helped in part and in the long term by an extremely limited return to criminalized abortion? I disagree very strongly with you. There is no acceptable or legitimate debate that has slavery as its premise. Because the slaveowners themselves claimed that their little slaves were better off economically than the "freed" ones, and they may well have been right. But society has moved on. We don't condone slavery, infanticide, apartheid, cannibalism, and lots of other issues which may once have been the subject of legitimate debate.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 July 2006 10:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by cco:
Now, this is not to say that all those who fought in the Civil War were motivated by the preservation or elimination of slavery. Furthermore, it is true that slavery continued in the North until after the conclusion of the war, though the only state with more than a handful of slaves at the time the 13th amendment was ratified was Kentucky. However, to claim the Confederacy was founded for any other reason than the preservation of the institution of slavery -- the economic foundation of the antebellum Southern economy -- is misleading and revisionist history.
Bravo and thank you cco for re-stating, with source material, what any honest student of the Civil War will acknowledge. This whole debate is an allegory for something else -- something about whether or not the end justifies the means. I haven't quite put my finger on it, but all my life I've gotten a chill down my spine by proponents of "don't rock the boat", or "things'll just get worse". I'm going to ponder this some more.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 10:30 AM
"In 1793, under the administration of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe, legislation (the Act Against Slavery) was passed in Upper Canada that allowed for gradual abolition: slaves already in the province would remain enslaved until death, no new slaves could be brought into Upper Canada, and children born to female slaves would be freed at age 25. This effectively ended all slavery by 1810. The act remained in force until 1833 when the Emancipation Act abolished slavery in all British colonies."I think Canada had the right idea, a more realistic timeframe for ending slavery than that imposed by the US Civil War. It took only 17 years here (well, technically 40 years), instead of the 20 Rickardo suggested for the US South, but then Upper Canada had a lot fewer slaves. The Northern States of the US similarly chose a gradual approach to ending slavery in their own territories. rather than bad justice, I would characterize this as good realism. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 11:39 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Farces, you still haven't answered what positive outcomes would have happened had the civil war not happened, and had slavery ended through economic pressure rather than war. I'm not sure I buy the idea that things would have been any better for the descendants of African American slaves had this happened. What would have changed when it came to racist attitudes and such?[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
We don't know this answer specifically and can't. It might be that Rodney King wouldn't have been beaten up. It might be that Amadou Diallo wouldn't have been shot. It might be that OJ wouldn't have gotten away with murder. It might be that MLK Jr. wouldn't have been shot. It might have saved all the lynchings. It might have prevented all the Church burnings. It is possible the KKK wouldn't have risen. To Kill A Mockingbird might never have been written. It is likely there would have been a better response to Katrina, as well as to MOVE in Philadelpia. It might have been that Brown v. BOE happened in 1898 instead of 1950. It might be that race relations would be similar in a modern large US city to what they are in Toronto (they are not). There might be a lot better drug laws and a lot fewer US black men incarcerated (and getting AIDS at an alarming rate). It might have been all of these things or none of them. Hard to say with counterfactuals. What we do know is that places that ended slavery in a harmonious manner did it gradually. The way Canada did, the way New York State did. We also know that it helps if some of the cultural changes come from within and are not entirely imposed from without. That is why the original poster on this subthd (not me) suggested Brazil as a model. I think some posters want to come at history with the idea that the history that happened was obviously for the best, and there is a burden of proof laid on anyone who would have done things differently. I say, when the question is war, then the burden must remain with those who make war or attempt to justify it after the fact. My proof is simply this: countries that ended slavery gradually and without a war have better race relations now than countries that ended it quickly and with a war. I think this is the most relevant and specific evidence that exists either way on the issues I am raising. I was not being sarcastic when I responded to a previous request for evidence by turning the request back on the requester ju-jitsu style. It was not sarcasm, as you said. Rather, it was making the point that there isn't hard evidence either way. I can't summon up hard evidence for my position here anymore than that poster could for her opposite position. We are mirror images in that respect. My opinion is merely my opinion, but it is as progressive as anybody's and arrived at only after years and years of believing according to the majority sentiments on this thd (as I was taught to in school), but finally rejecting my previous beliefs as I became more keenly aware of the lingering poison fruits of war around the globe. ON EDIT Well, reading about the antebellum seccession debate (eg, the Kentucky resolutions) helped me see that the Civil War went further beyond slavery than I realized. I think the most accurate way to answer the question of what the Civil War was about was to say that it was about seccession while it was being faought, but reteroactively became more about slavery after it was over. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 26 July 2006 11:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Farces: I say, when the question is war, then the burden must remain with those who make war or attempt to justify it after the fact.
Slavery IS war -- indeed it is more grievous than traditional war, because it is war against an entire people. As bloody as the Civil War was, it was over in four years. Slavery in America lasted hundreds of years. Furthermore, this idea that slavery would eventually have been abolished anyway "in 20 years" seems to me to be conjecture at best. Why abolish something so profitable? Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until 1967, for example, and despite international convention banning it, there are still an estimated 27 million illegal slaves in the world today -- the highest number of humans that have ever been enslaved at any point in history. (This is not including sweat shops and such -- these are chattel slaves that have been bought and sold as property.) Before the war, Mississippi was the third-richest state in the US; now it is the second-poorest. Who's to say that the economic success of an independent Confederacy wouldn't have given legitimacy to slavery worldwide, and encouraged its proliferation? Though people tend to consider them separately, the Nazi Holocaust was a system of slavery; Jews and other groups deemed "inferior" worked in concentration camps to benefit the Nazi regime (including corporations such as IG Farben, now known as Bayer) before the focus turned to all-out eradication. We've certainly seen that racist ideologies about the "inferiority" of blacks continued to be publicly acceptable for more than 100 years after the war in the US; I refuse to believe that the perpetuation of slavery, a system which has this concept at its ugly heart, would have made this ideology fade any faster. ETA: According to Wikipedia, the price of a slave today is cheaper in relative terms than at any point in human history. While a slave in the South would have cost approximately $40,000 US in today's terms, a slave in Mali can be purchased for $40. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: cco ]
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 12:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by cco:
. . . While a slave in the South would have cost approximately $40,000 US in today's terms, a slave in Mali can be purchased for $40. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: cco ]
Interesting post, cco. Good stuff to think about, not that I neccessarily agree right now. Followup questions: It is legal for a Canadian to purchase a product of Mali? If so, why? ON EDIT: Assuming that slavery is rife in Mali, I think it is more important for one to boycott Mali than the Stars and Bars. It might be more difficult to boycott Mali than to boycott the Confederate Flag, but I think the need is more urgent to put pressure on Mali than to put it on Confederate flag makers. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 26 July 2006 01:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by cco:
Slavery IS war -- indeed it is more grievous than traditional war, because it is war against an entire people. As bloody as the Civil War was, it was over in four years. Slavery in America lasted hundreds of years. Furthermore, this idea that slavery would eventually have been abolished anyway "in 20 years" seems to me to be conjecture at best. Why abolish something so profitable? Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until 1967, for example, and despite international convention banning it, there are still an estimated 27 million illegal slaves in the world today -- the highest number of humans that have ever been enslaved at any point in history. (This is not including sweat shops and such -- these are chattel slaves that have been bought and sold as property.) Before the war, Mississippi was the third-richest state in the US; now it is the second-poorest. Who's to say that the economic success of an independent Confederacy wouldn't have given legitimacy to slavery worldwide, and encouraged its proliferation? Though people tend to consider them separately, the Nazi Holocaust was a system of slavery; Jews and other groups deemed "inferior" worked in concentration camps to benefit the Nazi regime (including corporations such as IG Farben, now known as Bayer) before the focus turned to all-out eradication. We've certainly seen that racist ideologies about the "inferiority" of blacks continued to be publicly acceptable for more than 100 years after the war in the US; I refuse to believe that the perpetuation of slavery, a system which has this concept at its ugly heart, would have made this ideology fade any faster. ETA: According to Wikipedia, the price of a slave today is cheaper in relative terms than at any point in human history. While a slave in the South would have cost approximately $40,000 US in today's terms, a slave in Mali can be purchased for $40.
Worth repeating.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 01:49 PM
No, the secession of South Carolina was prompted by the election of Lincoln. The War Between the States was set off by Lincoln's decision use military force to try to prevent South Carolina from seceding, despite the fact that it probably had a Constitutional right to do so.Signed, A Product Of US Public Schools [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:08 PM
The federal army was given a chance to leave Fort Sumter of its own accord after South Carolina seceded and the federal army was no longer welcome at the fort. they failed to leave, as instructed, and that is what got them fired upon.When a province secedes legally (as South Carolina did), then they have a right to fire at the army of the old national government if it chooses to linger too long. Really, that is what legitimate secession is all about, and South Carolina's seccession was legitimate, to my mind, under the Constitutional law as it stood in 1861. Lincoln disagreed with South Carolina's right. He made his case with guns, rather than words or trade sanctions. He won the war and lost the peace. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:25 PM
This question of whether South Carolina had a right to secede in 1861 is an ancient one, subject to ancient understandings. Accordingly, the relevant readings are quite old.This should get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions Once you master the Resolutions, you may want to move ahead to read about the things Andrew Jackson had to say on these matters, but Old Hickory was not exactly "smart" or "progressive." [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:36 PM
I don't think there are many historians or lawyers who think that those resolutions had any legal weight.After all, there is no specific right to secede in the US Constitution, which one might have expected if the Union was potentially temporary. The motto wasn't "E pluribus pluribus", but rather "E pluribus unam".
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:44 PM
Oh BTW, real whip-to-back human ownership slavery still exists in Brazil, as does one of the worlds Largest disparity in land ownership, and it was still quite prevelant in the Amazon rubber plantations till the nineteen forties I think it was, when the airoplane opened it up to more federal authority. The overt racism in that 'melting pot' nation towards the indigenous people of the interior is almost a throwback to our own frontier days, so again, the point of whether 'gradual' is always 'preferable to 'imposed' is rather questionaable -even If we Can theoretically accept the idea that equal rights to All citizens is somehow an 'imposition'. (And slavery Was dying back in almost All of the world, even the Sudan or India, until the damn multinationals made near slavery profitable again. None of which in Any way justifies the terrible way that rural labour is still treated in much of the world. Like everywhere though, a little Dejure freedom is still seen as preferable to None. Why Southern blacks Continued to migrate North even After it was clear they weren't exactly equal there either)
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: I don't think there are many historians or lawyers who think that those resolutions had any legal weight.After all, there is no specific right to secede in the US Constitution, which one might have expected if the Union was potentially temporary.
Not only that, but the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that states have no right to secede.
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 26 July 2006 02:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: I don't think there are many historians or lawyers who think that those resolutions had any legal weight.After all, there is no specific right to secede in the US Constitution, which one might have expected if the Union was potentially temporary. The motto wasn't "E pluribus pluribus", but rather "E pluribus unam".
1. You are a lawyer, Jeff. What does it mean when a contract has no explicit termination date or termination provisions (and no way to measure whether it is fully executed)? That no discretionary termination is possible? 2. On questions of Constitutional law, the writings of Madison and Jefferson are not entitled to precedential effect, but they were taken pretty seriously because Madison and Jefferson were basically the leading scholars on the subject. Sure, they were presidents too, but they were famous independently of that specifically for their work on the US Constitution. As of 1861, I would argue that they were the most important Constitutional scholars other than Marshall (who I believe was silent on the issue of secession, like the Constitutional text itself). I wouldn't be resorting to mere persuasive authority on this point, but, as the other poster points out, there were no meaningful precedents on this point until 1869 (which, in all fairness, wasn't the best time for a legal hearing on that point). I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US, the court is encouraged to look at persuasive authority (eg, legal scholars) when no directly applicable precedents exist. 3. As far as the motto argument: How seriously should USians take "In God We Trust?" Edited to beef up point #2. [ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 27 July 2006 12:58 PM
It is a shame that there are so few people that are able - in this day and age - to acknowlege the confederate flag's importance as a symbol of rebeling against unjust authority. yes, there are questionable groups that have appropriated this flag and caused it to be recognized as a symbol used by oppressor groups. But that in no way diminishes the original symbolism of the confederate flag. It only diminishes the credibility of those who see it now as a symbol of the oppressors.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banjo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7007
|
posted 27 July 2006 04:21 PM
quote: Originally posted: It is a shame that there are so few people that are able - in this day and age - to acknowlege the confederate flag's importance as a symbol of rebeling against unjust authority.
Oh, get over it. You're promoting the flag of a 'nation' that routinely executed all African American prisoners of war. There are numerous symbols to represent rebellion against unjust authority. If you don't like any of them, you could design a symbol yourself.
From: progress not perfection in Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DTC
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12967
|
posted 27 July 2006 04:39 PM
As the person who originally posed the question to Auntie, I appreciate her response. Although not wanting to be an apologist for my friend, as I told him, if I truly thought he was racist I would have not bothered trying to explain my view, would have called him a racist, would have blocked his email address and not taken his calls. He doesn't have a confederate flag flying over his farm or on his mudflaps, he doesn't shop at WalMart, he does look at where things are made and he is not politically unaware. My friends here and I gave him other offensive symbol examples: the neo-Nazi swastika and issues regarding the reverse swastika used in Native American culture as opposed to its use by White Supremists, and the chrome naked woman on the mudflap and its gender-based offensiveness. He got those examples, understood and agreed with my viewpoint. I think he simply didn't get what I think the confederate flag represents here TODAY and that was the basis for my question to Auntie, given that I live in California and he lives in northern Ontario. While I appreciate the broader complex issues that have taken the thread of this question beyond my intent and have been reading the postings with interest, I really would like to better understand what politically aware people in Canada (which I am assuming you all are) think and understand about the confederate flag and its current social and political implications for us here in the USA. I do thank those who early on spoke to that question and gave examples of their education, etc.
From: California | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 28 July 2006 12:44 AM
Here's another convincing argument in favour of the Stars and Bars (reader beware):"The Confederate battle flag today has nothing to do with race. It stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism, which was better at manufacturing weapons than using them, and that shortly thereafter gave us the Grant administration and the Gilded Age. (We'll leave out trebling the average life span, ending chattel slavery, creating a world in which half the human race gets beaten up a whole lot less by the other half, and various other things that those money-grubbing followers of that awful Hobbes guy somehow accomplished despite caring only about making a buck.) It stands for a proud military heritage shared by both blacks and whites in the South. The reverence for tradition and pride in historical antecedents are precisely what make Southerners, black and white, such stalwart patriots. " http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter020100.asp
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 28 July 2006 01:26 AM
Constitution of the Confederate States of America: [comparison to old US constitution] http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/csaconst.htm Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States [; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired]. (2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime [against the laws of such State], who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime. (3) No [slave or other] person held to service or labor in {one State} [any State or Territory of the Confederate States], under the laws thereof, escaping [or unlawfully carried] into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party [to whom such slave belongs, or] to whom such service or labor may be due. Section 3. (1) {New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union} [Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States]; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress. (2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations {respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State} [concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof]. [(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.] (4) The {United} [Confederate] States shall guarantee to every State {in this Union} [that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy,] a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature (or of the Executive when the Legislature {cannot be convened} [is not in session]) against domestic violence.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 28 July 2006 01:40 AM
Citizens of the Confederacy may have had other real grievances against the rest of the Union, before, during and after the war, but the point that some here still seem to be missing is that the crisis leading up to secession revolved around slavery, and the South's increasingly strident demands that it be allowed to spread into the Western territories. That was the main reason why they seceded. And that was one of the main reasons Lincoln was elected, although his original position was seen as 'moderate' by others, as he was willing to accept the established line on slave holding states in hopes that slavery would die out 'naturally' by not being allowed to expand any further. [ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077
|
posted 28 July 2006 08:42 AM
If people live in a southern US state and wear the Confederate flag, it could be acceptable to give them the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume they're racist.However, when a Canadian or someone else with no connection to the southern states wears it, it's perfectly justified to question their motives. For example, if a young man in Germany or Poland is waving the Confederate flag in a football stadium, you can quickly dismiss the theory that he's just a Lynard Skynard fan.
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|