Reply With Quote
fly your state flag he says
I love all this because it will likely cause another Dylan Roof to go off the hinges.
My stance to the flag is this. What Could the flag represent which could erase how psychologically damaging it is to worship a failed rebellion, especially when that rebellion was a knee jerk reaction to losing an election, to uphold a most basic human rights violation, one the rest of the civilized world was already moving past, all to blindly protect the profits of a handful of agricultural giants? To quote the great drunk poet, President Grant, "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
In terms of Facebook politics, consider the other sides view. A flag is fucking important. It's a symbol of a people. It's your identity like the clothes you wear. But, 1/4 of the the country doesn't need one in defiance of the country itself, and not with this one's history. If you want a flag to wave of your southern pride, wave your state flag. If you want nostalgia, make some sweet tea and cook some grits.
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
fly your state flag he says
And here I thought rednecks didn't like the French.
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
I thought the last states to have them were removing them?
EDIT: OK they were talking about SC & AL removing the CSA flag. I guess Mississippi always had the flag in their state flag...
Last edited by Doc Holliday; 25 Jun 2015 at 08:26 PM.
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
something that isn't pointed out enough is the economic power of slavery
We look back on it like an evil act devoid of its economic impact. But to really understand what happened, you have to, like always, fallow the money.
Over half of the top 1% of the richest men in the US lived in the south and their income came from slavery.
Think about that. Take that in. Over half of the top 1%'s wealth came from forced labor. The top 1% was engaged in this. Think about how much power the top 1% have now. Think about how much power they currently have over the US government and the world. Think about how much power they have over you now. Of how much of the nation's wealth they own.Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South. Even more important, southern agriculture helped finance early 19th century American economic growth. Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.
Over half of them owned slaves, and in walks the US government saying "nope, close up shop, no more wealth. You're going to have to find something else to do. No more of this. We're going to phase this out."
It would be like China or Russia knocking at the figurative US door and saying "you have to shut down all your industry. No more green house gasses. You're going to have to figure something else out. Otherwise we're going to go to war." "but muh money?" "Sorry, no more money. Find something else to do."
Everyone talks about the slaves, but very few people talk about these financial giants that tried to split the country, lied to their fellow southerners, and got about 620,000 men killed. That is almost half of the number of Americans that have ever died in war. The 1% is responsible for half of the total American combat deaths.
If I was to go full tinhat, I would argue that the narrative of both sides was concocted to let the ultra wealthy off the hook. The "invading north" was the lie the rich told the poor south and still survives to this day. The liberating north is the lie the north tells itself now as a way of placing 245 years of slavery guilt on the south for a 4 year long war.
Yeah. They put it there for the dead, not because of the civil rights movement.
Though it should probably be removed now. Though it may be there out of sadness and not hate, it does hurt some people and the state flag should represent everyone in the state, not just rednecks and little old white people that feel bad about grand pappy dying in the war.
can't wake up
It wasn't just the gubment telling rich people to dealwithit. The South was trying to expand slavery into new territories and the North was having none of it. Think of Bleeding Kansas and the like. The South was doing this because, of course, they knew that if we had a situation where there were 25 states that had no slavery and 12 that did, they were done.
Of course, I think anyone could see the madness of expanding slavery in the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, etc. They seceded so they wouldn't have to deal with that. The truth is that those superrich had decades to transition away from forced labor and they just didn't bother.
None of this counters anything I've said.
They wanted to expand slavery to make more money.
They didn't like that the north was having none of it because that is essentially the north having none of them making more money.
Why did they care if they were done? Because no more money.
Why would the super rich want to transition away from forced labor? If they're shitty enough to lie to all the people below them economically and socially and get 260,000 of them killed for their fortunes, why would they care about the freedom of slaves years prior?
These were shitty greedy men, Diff.
can't wake up
Lincoln was willing to let the South hold onto slaves as long as it stayed there and they just kept it on the DL. He knew it was going to die out for good over time. So did the South. That's why they wanted to expand it. The South wanted a 1:1 ratio of slave and free states. Why, because the Senate has 2 guys for each state. Too much of an imbalance and the 14th amendment happens without them (which I guess it did). And it wasn't just that they wanted to expand it, but they wanted everyone to respect their right to hold slaves as property (Dred Scott).
Obviously the idea of expanding slavery was untenable. It wasn't going to happen. That's all I was saying. So it wasn't just economics but politics too.
politics are just a means for economics for people holding that kind of wealth and so little regard for other people.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks