Fatal shooting Charleston SC

[ACamp1900]

Honest question in regards to Lax and Em's dialogue... would we not be lowering our entire collective consciousness on the issue if we throw all individuals involved with the Confederacy in the same boat as the flag in the name of ‘not offending the ignorant”… maybe I’m misunderstanding but that sounds like the exact opposite approach we should take… lifting the perspective of the ignorant should be the goal, no?

In regards to the idea of not having them on the grounds of state and federal buildings, the most sensible reason to avoid that is they tried to secede and failed, so why have them honored outside government buildings, IMO... but again, renaming streets/ schools and removing them from stand alone parks that happen to be 'government grounds' because someone who doesn't know better may be offended doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Honest question in regards to Lax and Em's dialogue... would we not be lowering our entire collective consciousness on the issue if we throw all individuals involved with the Confederacy in the same boat as the flag in the name of ‘not offending the ignorant”… maybe I’m misunderstanding but that sounds like the exact opposite approach we should take… lifting the perspective of the ignorant should be the goal, no?

In regards to the idea of not having them on the grounds of state and federal buildings, the most sensible reason to avoid that is they tried to succeed and failed, so why have them honored outside government buildings, IMO... but again, renaming streets/ schools and removing them from stand alone parks that happen to be 'government grounds' because someone who doesn't know better may be offended doesn't make much sense to me.

I find it hard to believe that the flag of the Army of Northern Va., flies outside of any federal facility. Battlefield parks, and museums are different. As is a place like VMI.

And of course state facilities are totally outside of the conversation.

 

[Cackalacky]

FTR I feel i may need to interject on Calhoun here.... he was not involved in the Civil War at all. He was dead well before. He did however serve as Secretary of War, Secretary of State and Vice President and was probably the most well known supported of slavery in the public sphere of national discourse. His discourses on slavery economics shaped a whole generation of politicians prior to the Civil War. Comparing that to Robert E. Lee, whose primary influence was on the field as a leader (regardless of the side) is fairly tough to do and unfair in several regards.

I have never heard anything by Lee even remotely in the same ballpark as some of the things Calhoun said and published.

 

[Emcee77]

Honest question in regards to Lax and Em's dialogue... would we not be lowering our entire collective consciousness on the issue if we throw all individuals involved with the Confederacy in the same boat as the flag in the name of ‘not offending the ignorant”… maybe I’m misunderstanding but that sounds like the exact opposite approach we should take… lifting the perspective of the ignorant should be the goal, no?

In regards to the idea of not having them on the grounds of state and federal buildings, the most sensible reason to avoid that is they tried to secede and failed, so why have them honored outside government buildings, IMO... but again, renaming streets/ schools and removing them from stand alone parks that happen to be 'government grounds' because someone who doesn't know better may be offended doesn't make much sense to me.

Yeah, honestly, I think monuments and street names might be significantly different from a flag because they become part of the landscape. They literally become part of a place. Changing those things might feel like a whitewash.

I can see arguments for both sides. I grew up in Richmond, VA, where a major landmark is Monument Avenue, which is decorated with--you guessed it--huge monuments of Confederate generals. Then, maybe 20 years ago or so, the city added a monument to Arthur Ashe, a black tennis player and Richmond native. Totally incongruous? Yes. But a far superior way of handling Virginia's racist legacy than taking the monuments down, in my opinion. Richmond without Monument Avenue is just unimaginable to me.

FTR I feel i may need to interject on Calhoun here.... he was not involved in the Civil War at all. He was dead well before. He did however serve as Secretary of War, Secretary of State and Vice President and was probably the most well known supported of slavery in the public sphere of national discourse. His discourses on slavery economics shaped a whole generation of politicians prior to the Civil War. Comparing that to Robert E. Lee, whose primary influence was on the field as a leader (regardless of the side) is fairly tough to do and unfair in several regards.

I have never heard anything by Lee even remotely in the same ballpark as some of the things Calhoun said and published.

That's a really good point. I guess there is a sense in which writing "racist" on Calhoun's statue does say something more than just that he lived in a particular time period. He was like a professor of racism.

 

[ACamp1900]

FTR I feel i may need to interject on Calhoun here.... he was not involved in the Civil War at all. He was dead well before. He did however serve as Secretary of War, Secretary of State and Vice President and was probably the most well known supported of slavery in the public sphere of national discourse. His discourses on slavery economics shaped a whole generation of politicians prior to the Civil War. Comparing that to Robert E. Lee, whose primary influence was on the field as a leader (regardless of the side) is fairly tough to do and unfair in several regards.

I have never heard anything by Lee even remotely in the same ballpark as some of the things Calhoun said and published.

I think we get the difference(s)... the dialogue just evolved a bit and I believe it had actually begun on the point of various people from the war before the Calhoun thing even dropped and the point overlapped from there...

 

[BGIF]

FTR I feel i may need to interject on Calhoun here.... he was not involved in the Civil War at all. He was dead well before. He did however serve as Secretary of War, Secretary of State and Vice President and was probably the most well known supported of slavery in the public sphere of national discourse. His discourses on slavery economics shaped a whole generation of politicians prior to the Civil War. Comparing that to Robert E. Lee, whose primary influence was on the field as a leader (regardless of the side) is fairly tough to do and unfair in several regards.

I have never heard anything by Lee even remotely in the same ballpark as some of the things Calhoun said and published.

I don't know of anyone who had a bigger role in shaping the events leading to the Civil War than John Calhoun. Throughout his life he was an avowed racist as was his father who fought against the U.S. constitution.

Calhoun's most heinous act was on the U.S. Senate floor where he corrected a Virgina Senator who had called slavery a necessary evil. Calhoun made a passionate speech that slavery wasn't evil but rather a "positive good".

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't know of anyone who had a bigger role in shaping the events leading to the Civil War than John Calhoun. Throughout his life he was an avowed racist as was his father who fought against the U.S. constitution.

Calhoun's most heinous act was on the U.S. Senate floor where he corrected a Virgina Senator who had called slavery a necessary evil. Calhoun made a passionate speech that slavery wasn't evil but rather a "positive good".

For sure.... I didn't intend for it sound like he wasn't influential, quite the opposite, just that the did not partake in the Civil War. If I was confusing I apologize.


And yes...SC's Senator's have been known to get a bit rough on the floor.

Preston "Get Some Sumner" Brooks

 

[IrishJayhawk]

There is a sense in which a statue of a Confederate general is not very different from displaying a Confederate flag on government land. It can send a perfectly appropriate message to educated people, about heritage and duty to one's home state, but it sends the wrong kind of message to the most ignorant people, and the unfortunate consequences of that latter message may outweigh any benefit to sending the former kind of message. Obviously a statue of Washington or Jefferson doesn't celebrate any aspect of their racism, as a statue of a Confederate general in uniform on a horse holding up a sabre may seem to do.

Much more eloquently stated, but this is pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

 

[NDgradstudent]

So the consensus seems to be that we should get rid of war memorials, street names, flags in gift shops at national parks, and so on.

In the Deep South, African-Americans make up, on average, about 25% of the population. The Confederate Battle Flag symbolizes for them many of the same things that the Swastika symbolizes for the Jews. So to the extent that state governments in the American South continue to endorse the flag as a collective symbol, it sends a powerfully negative message about a very large demographic within those very regions.

So to answer your question directly, if someday a quarter of all American citizens come to associate Old Glory primarily with racism and genocide, then it will probably be time to discard it as a symbol of our nation. But that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Well, the American flag is already banned in a California high school for fear of offending the Hispanic population (larger than 25% and growing).

Nonsense. The Confederate Battle Flag will not need to be white-washed from federal parks anymore than the Swastika has been from federal museums.

I said that federal parks sell the Confederate flag. Museums do not sell Swastika flags.

Why would you assume that? Has any retailer been barred from selling confederate flags? Businesses made the decision to stop selling a controversial product. It's not like the government banned the sale of them.

I would assume that because every Democratic presidential candidate (except Jim Webb, who actually knows something about the Confederate flag) is denouncing it as racist and evil. So they believe it is a racist and evil symbol but that the government can sell it in its national park gift shops?

I'm glad grad is here, without him I'd have never known about the grand ole conspiracy... first, they'll take our flags, next they'll take the right to vote away from the white man... has been confirmed.

Did I say that? I asked whether or not those attacking the Confederate flag believe that Confederate flags should still be sold in national park gift shops, whether or not they believe that Confederate war memorials (on government land, paid for with public money) must be torn down, and if they believe that streets can still be named after Confederate leaders. Explain to me why the flag is wicked but all of these things are okay.

I find it hard to believe that the flag of the Army of Northern Va., flies outside of any federal facility. Battlefield parks, and museums are different. As is a place like VMI.

And of course state facilities are totally outside of the conversation.

This entire debate is about a "state facility": the South Carolina capitol. The SJWs have ruled that the flag is so appalling that it may not be flown on those grounds. Battlefield parks -when they are federal parks- are "federal facilities." And Confederate flags are sold at these parks, or at least they were until the cleansing this week.

 

[ACamp1900]

Did I say that? I asked whether or not those attacking the Confederate flag believe that Confederate flags should still be sold in national park gift shops, whether or not they believe that Confederate war memorials (on government land, paid for with public money) must be torn down, and if they believe that streets can still be named after Confederate leaders. Explain to me why the flag is wicked but all of these things are okay.

I was joking in my response.... but I'll address this question from my POV... the Confederate flag has been adopted and used as a symbol of hate for about a century now by groups with little to no ties to the Civil War. I've yet to see anyone take an image of Stonewall Jackson and pervert it to the point where his face is synonymous with 'racism'... so in it's current form the flag represents, right or wrong, hatred... the many men, both good and bad, honorable and hate filled, that fought on either side of the war should be judged according to their own individual merits, before, during, and for those who survived, after the war... and not labeled strictly according to which uniform they wore which, as has been touched upon already, was largely dictated by their place of birth.

So the consensus seems to be that we should get rid of war memorials, street names, flags in gift shops at national parks, and so on.

I believe you're seeing what you want to see here... I don't see a consensus at all, in fact I feel the majority is on your side, but the way you say things in combination with what you are saying drive people to be contrarian with you...

 

[phgreek]

You know PH, I imbedded the John Stewart segment that was quoted in the article posted on the last page () on purpose.

Not just for the refreshing perspective, (but it is nice to listen for someone with a well though out perspective, that isn't a prejudice rearranging, shit-for-brains.)

I am now convinced that you cannot have a conversation with a racist that doesn't know he is a racist. And their are quite a few on here, just like Southern "Lost Cause" Revisionists. And like his neighbor that flies the stars and bars, it does no good if you ring his doorbell and try to have a civil discussion. The only way there is going to be progress is if you flat out confront him with his racism and tendencies, and tell him you are not going to politely ignore it while you have a disingenuous and meaningless, polite conversation!


I have not seen anyone who has attacked the attack on the stars and bars, or defended that flag or revisionist movement, or tried to show how members of their opposing political party that are trying to do the right thing (actually did the wrong thing in the past, or assholes that call this a "needless tragedy" calling attempted genocide by another name are all racists. It isn't really a degree thing that matters. You are or you aren't.

So you either condone this society of tolerated racial hatred or you don't. You either think of the southern treason as a romantic lost cause, or you don't. If you do, you are a racist and a liar, and if you don't, you may not be.

NOTE : I am not trying to dissuade anyone from being a racist and a liar by using strong armed tactics; to borrow from an old racial cliché, I am just calling a racist, a racist!

UGh...really Bogs?

The simple fact of the matter is, when you accuse someone of being a known racist you better fucking bring the goods...and the implied we in "known racist" is throwing gas on my peeve fire....

I'm sick of the term being used to silence dissenting opinions, or uncomfortable discussions, and the implied we I mention above tells me that the post I responded to was more about silencing dissenting opinion than confronting shit.

...Folks need to leave room for ignorance, selfishness, co-opted meaning of symbols, and a host of other HUMAN tendencies not related to race or hatred which present situations where people do apparently insensitive things.

...obviously the idiot in SC was a racist, and if it were up to me, he'd never have made it to court...however this conversation ventured along the lines of symbols...LOTS of room for discussion of intent and interpretation wherein people can LEARN things.

on a side note...confederate flag, yea, remove it. However, I do care how much of history we try to erase to make ourselves feel better...forgetting where we've been minimizes just how far we've come...The very best thing for progress toward racial equality is to show our children a legacy of striving...that it matters we continue to move forward.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

So the consensus seems to be that we should get rid of war memorials, street names, flags in gift shops at national parks, and so on.



Well, the American flag is already banned in a California high school for fear of offending the Hispanic population (larger than 25% and growing).



I said that federal parks sell the Confederate flag. Museums do not sell Swastika flags.



I would assume that because every Democratic presidential candidate (except Jim Webb, who actually knows something about the Confederate flag) is denouncing it as racist and evil. So they believe it is a racist and evil symbol but that the government can sell it in its national park gift shops?



Did I say that? I asked whether or not those attacking the Confederate flag believe that Confederate flags should still be sold in national park gift shops, whether or not they believe that Confederate war memorials (on government land, paid for with public money) must be torn down, and if they believe that streets can still be named after Confederate leaders. Explain to me why the flag is wicked but all of these things are okay.



This entire debate is about a "state facility": the South Carolina capitol. The SJWs have ruled that the flag is so appalling that it may not be flown on those grounds. Battlefield parks -when they are federal parks- are "federal facilities." And Confederate flags are sold at these parks, or at least they were until the cleansing this week.

Where do you get this shit?

Old Glory was not banned anywhere in the US. It was not banned at any California high school. Anyone who say so is being purposely disingenuous, intellectually obtuse, or wallowing in a shade of deep mental illness.

What was banned was a T-shirt of the flag being worn by some non-Hispanic students during a Cinco de Mayo celebration.

I understand how you wouldn't see the irony that your lack of understanding of the true nature of this event is so immense, that the difference between what you reported of it and what really happened is analogous to the purpose for taking the stars and bars off of state house capitol buildings! Geesh!

And, I find further mirth and irony in the fact that it is against the Flag Code to wear clothing incorporating or depicting the design of the US Flag! Man can you pick 'em!

Someone else, possibly mistakenly (thinking VMI was not a private institution) brought up stars and bars at federal facilities.

I know it is nuanced, but a trinket on sale in a gift shop is a lot different than a flag being flown at a facility. As far as gift shop trinkets, if the killing of the stars and bars continues forward, how many people do you think are going to want that trinket?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

UGh...really Bogs?

The simple fact of the matter is, when you accuse someone of being a known racist you better fucking bring the goods...and the implied we in "known racist" is throwing gas on my peeve fire....

I'm sick of the term being used to silence dissenting opinions, or uncomfortable discussions, and the implied we I mention above tells me that the post I responded to was more about silencing dissenting opinion than confronting shit.

...Folks need to leave room for ignorance, selfishness, co-opted meaning of symbols, and a host of other HUMAN tendencies not related to race or hatred which present situations where people do apparently insensitive things.

...obviously the idiot in SC was a racist, and if it were up to me, he'd never have made it to court...however this conversation ventured along the lines of symbols...LOTS of room for discussion of intent and interpretation wherein people can LEARN things.

on a side note...confederate flag, yea, remove it. However, I do care how much of history we try to erase to make ourselves feel better...forgetting where we've been minimizes just how far we've come...The very best thing for progress toward racial equality is to show our children a legacy of striving...that it matters we continue to move forward.

I am not trying to silence anyone. I would love to have an open debate with someone who was a racist about any of these topics. The problem is it is like the Bruce Willis character in Sixth Sense. "I see dead people." has a whole new meaning with perspective, doesn't it? Some posters on this site make particularly circular arguments on these issues. A few I do suspect of being racist. I would love them to enter the conversation honestly, that is all.

In my case I was brought up in an incredibly racist environment, (with the exception of my parents, they admitted their problems and tried to learn, and ended up growing past their origin of racism.) I believe I have grown past mine also. Having a bi-racial child sure opened my eyes, but the effect having the institutional racism around me may have influenced my choice to proceed with having my son!

In conclusion, I think I have seen it from all sides, and the old maxim, "You can't have an honest discussion, without everyone being honest," is true.

 

[phgreek]

I am not trying to silence anyone. I would love to have an open debate with someone who was a racist about any of these topics. The problem is it is like the Bruce Willis character in Sixth Sense. I see dead people has a whole new meaning with perspective, doesn't it? Some posters on this site make particularly circular arguments on these issues. A few I do suspect of being racist. I would love them to enter the conversation honestly, that is all.

In my case I was brought up in an incredibly racist environment, (with the exception of my parents, they admitted their problems and tried to learn, and ended up growing past their origin of racism.) I believe I have grown past mine also. Having a bi-racial child sure opened my eyes, but the effect having the institutional racism around me may have influenced my choice to proceed with having my son!

In conclusion, I think I have seen it from all sides, and the old maxim, "You can't have an honest discussion, without everyone being honest," is true.

Didn't say you were silencing anyone...

As well...confused.

I cited the fact that the person being tagged as a known racist had started a thread to try and have a thoughtful discussion about race. Your responses make it look to me like you are defending calling him a racist. You seem to be saying the person who started the thread to have thoughtful discussion regarding race is not being honest. And it seems to me you did so in defense of the person who called him a racist...Am I getting this right?

 

[Cackalacky]

Charleston activists denounce Shabazz, tactics - Post and Courier

 

[phgreek]

Lindsay Graham is now in favor of taking it down. He was against it before he was for it. Apparently running for president makes a difference.

might want to ask Mrs. Clinton about that very same thing...

 

[JughedJones]

You can hate 'em because he's a Bama fan...but the rest...SMH.

Known Racist? WHAT...Is there some sort of star chamber group on here where you read selected microaggressive passages to a tribunal who responds by automatically playing the video of the little kid...THATS RACIST!

This is the guy that started a thread to try and have a thoughtful conversation about Race months ago...so I'm throwing the BULLSHIT flag on your Racist claim.

No... I posted one of his racist idiot screeds earlier.

You can start all the threads you want trying to have a 'thoughtful conversation.' I've seen, and posted, examples of him showing what he really thinks. Now, I see him defending the finer points of heritage v hate... it's bullshit and he should be called on it.

You, sir are quite the number yourself. As evidenced by the crappola you're posting here.
I'm not pretending to be eloquent or a genius, I just call it out when I see it.

It's the best thing about this debate, we get to see who's who really quick.

 

[Cackalacky]

might want to ask Mrs. Clinton about that very same thing...

I wasn't talking about HRC. I was talking about a state Senator running for president whose parents ran a white only bar who only half a day before said it was "who we are" then said the complete opposite. Not sure why it always seems to be necessary in political discussions to tar and feather the other side. Does it make graham any more of a waffler pandering idiot? No....does it make HRC any more relevant to my post? No.... Further.... Out of the 95 Republican candidates and 4 Democrats....#FeelThe Bern was the only to call it what was...

This might come off as a shot against you but it's not my intent so please do not take it that way. I just see a lot of it day in and day out in the real word and all over other sites and there has not been any mention of presidential candidates in this thread (IIRC). The fact that Obama is giving the eulogy for Pinckney hasn't even been posted here.

 

[phgreek]

No... I posted one of his racist idiot screeds earlier.

You can start all the threads you want trying to have a 'thoughtful conversation.' I've seen, and posted, examples of him showing what he really thinks. Now, I see him defending the finer points of heritage v hate... it's bullshit and he should be called on it.

You, sir are quite the number yourself. As evidenced by the crappola you're posting here.
I'm not pretending to be eloquent or a genius, I just call it out when I see it.

It's the best thing about this debate, we get to see who's who really quick.

I am a pretty predictably fair number who thinks you are being a dick to someone about the race issue for reasons unknown to me. And No, you've assumed alot, and chucked out racist and "we" to try and shut down someone who clearly does not see things as you do...but has not shown himself to be racist.

You can't show me intent to slander, harm, or slight anyone on the basis of race ...all you can do is paint people's experiences and views you find ignorant or insensitive as racist...or simply freak out when someone tries to address a delicate subject in a way you determine inartful, and then spin it into somehow telling about them...in short you are a problem, and certainly will never be part of any solution because you create animus and resentment where there was none.

I'm sincerely concerned that you and your ilk "we" have a lesser opinion of me now...

 

[phgreek]

I wasn't talking about HRC. I was talking about a state Senator running for president whose parents ran a white only bar who only half a day before said it was "who we are" then said the complete opposite. Not sure why it always seems to be necessary in political discussions to tar and feather the other side. Does it make graham any more of a waffler pandering idiot? No....does it make HRC any more relevant to my post? No.... Further.... Out of the 95 Republican candidates and 4 Democrats....#FeelThe Bern was the only to call it what was...

This might come off as a shot against you but it's not my intent so please do not take it that way. I just see a lot of it day in and day out in the real word and all over other sites and there has not been any mention of presidential candidates in this thread (IIRC). The fact that Obama is giving the eulogy for Pinckney hasn't even been posted here.

Yea...point taken. That is frustrating... I'm fine with being called on it. I think sometimes we see things we want to respond to, but lack the time to do it in a way that adds to the conversation...I did a drive by one liner...sorry.

 

[kmoose]

I really hope the backlash against everything "Confederate" dies down soon. There is a historic and cultural value to some of the reminders of the Confederacy. I am FOR getting rid of the flag on government property, and I don't have any problem with retailers discontinuing sales of the flag merchandise, but I don't think that we should allow that movement to morph into erasing every reference to, and reminder of, the Confederacy. Streets named after prominent military commanders, and statues of said commanders, have nothing to do with slavery. I can only imagine the very smallest group of radical thinkers believing that they do.

 

[kmoose]

...I'm not pretending to be eloquent or a genius...

That much is obvious...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Didn't say you were silencing anyone...

As well...confused.

I cited the fact that the person being tagged as a known racist had started a thread to try and have a thoughtful discussion about race. Your responses make it look to me like you are defending calling him a racist. You seem to be saying the person who started the thread to have thoughtful discussion regarding race is not being honest. And it seems to me you did so in defense of the person who called him a racist...Am I getting this right?

I see. So to help with your confusion, all I am trying to do is offer an invitation to honesty, and an honest discussion.

I will not assume anyone is a "racist" even if I can see clear racist tendencies in their actions. That is for them to admit. In my case I will admit it, and say I am not sure I have ever met someone that doesn't have a bit of it going on.

To sophisticate the conversation and to explain the void between our understandings, the real question isn't whether or not someone is a racist, or has racist tendencies. Everyone is, or starts that way. It is the human condition. So I will start by admitting I had serious racist tendencies from what I learned as a child.

But by the time I was in second or third grade, who I was had developed enough logic that I began to reject the automatic conditioning I experienced in the world around me, and began to form opinions based upon what I saw to be true. I have often told the story of the pretty little girl to whom no one would follow at the water fountain. I was the first.

So I have the "tribal wiring" all humans have. And I have an environment chocked full of conditioning. But I began to resist that at an early age. And as a result, I believe I saw a bigger truth. Then where did my "race-or-other-ism" lurk? (That is what we are really talking about.)

I began patronizing others that I deemed less fortunate than myself. And then I worked on that, so on and so forth. So I am trying to approach these discussions with the honesty to admit I am flawed like everyone else.

But here is the problem, whenever you have a conversation where half, (or more, thereabouts) denies their own basic human nature, and therefore is able to maintain a position that would be otherwise indefensible, you cannot have an honest conversation.

Maybe the best way to look at is to call us all "X-ists." We all have "it" because we are human. So lets not deny it so it needs to stand like an elephant in the corner. And lets have a conversation about how to solve the real problems.

Finally, to help you with my perspective, I would much rather vote for an admitted racist, than a liar. And, the problem today isn't with the cross-burning, lynch happy, overt racists of the past, it is with those that have little fears inside that deny them.

Postscript : There are a whole lot of people on this thread that are name calling, and shouldn't be; that is the point of the people in the center of it all in Charleston - "Peace!"

 

[phgreek]

I see. So to help with your confusion, all I am trying to do is offer an invitation to honesty, and an honest discussion.

I will not assume anyone is a "racist" even if I can see clear racist tendencies in their actions. That is for them to admit. In my case I will admit it, and say I am not sure I have ever met someone that doesn't have a bit of it going on.

To sophisticate the conversation and to explain the void between our understandings, the real question isn't whether or not someone is a racist, or has racist tendencies. Everyone is, or starts that way. It is the human condition. So I will start by admitting I had serious racist tendencies from what I learned as a child.

But by the time I was in second or third grade, who I was had developed enough logic that I began to reject the automatic conditioning I experienced in the world around me, and began to form opinions based upon what I saw to be true. I have often told the story of the pretty little girl to whom no one would follow at the water fountain. I was the first.

So I have the "tribal wiring" all humans have. And I have an environment chocked full of conditioning. But I began to resist that at an early age. And as a result, I believe I saw a bigger truth. Then where did my "race-or-other-ism" lurk? (That is what we are really talking about.)

I began patronizing others that I deemed less fortunate than myself. And then I worked on that, so on and so forth. So I am trying to approach these discussions with the honesty to admit I am flawed like everyone else.

But here is the problem, whenever you have a conversation where half, (or more, thereabouts) denies their own basic human nature, and therefore is able to maintain a position that would be otherwise indefensible, you cannot have an honest conversation.

Maybe the best way to look at is to call us all "X-ists." We all have "it" because we are human. So lets not deny it so it needs to stand like an elephant in the corner. And lets have a conversation about how to solve the real problems.

Finally, to help you with my perspective, I would much rather vote for an admitted racist, than a liar. And, the problem today isn't with the cross-burning, lynch happy, overt racists of the past, it is with those that have little fears inside that deny them.

Postscript : There are a whole lot of people on this thread that are name calling, and shouldn't be; that is the point of the people in the center of it all in Charleston - "Peace!"

Don't disagree with alot of this...I am sure our operative definitions of "Racist" differ along the lines of the Motivation of the person committing the offense. Using myself as an example...I really don't give alot of thought to race (unless I'm on here). I consider that a good sign I'm not a racist. I don't put it past me to do something insensitive, or offensive to a minority person, or really any person, but that doesn't make me a racist as I define the word. Probably makes me ignorant, backwards, or oblivious...maybe just misinformed. In my book thats not the same thing.

 

[gkIrish]

I'm on board with removing the flag from government property but something like this right here is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. How does selling a video game based on REAL LIFE EVENTS aka the Civil War promote racism via using the actual flag within the game?

https://games.yahoo.com/news/apple-removing-app-store-games-140619696.html

There seems to be no differentiation between games using the flag "offensively" and others displaying it within its historical context. We've reached out to Apple, as well as impacted developers, for clarification but have not received a comment by the time of publication.

What are we going to do next...take Gone with the Wind DvDs off the shelf???

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I said that federal parks sell the Confederate flag. Museums do not sell Swastika flags.

Do you think it's problematic that museums don't sell Swastika flags? If not, why would it be problematic if publicly funded institutions stopped selling merchandise featuring the Confederate Battle Flag?

 

[ACamp1900]

This brings up a curious point with me... Does anyone see a problem with the selling of a nazi flag (meaning like a little hand sized one), along with every other WWII flag, at a museum for those who collect all sorts of WWII stuff? I honestly don't know if I would even think twice about it in that circumstance, just like I wouldn't think twice if I was in some guy's library that had a ton of WWII memorabilia in it and some of the items had swastikas on them...

 

[phgreek]

This brings up a curious point with me... Does anyone see a problem with the selling of a nazi flag (meaning like a little hand sized one), along with every other WWII flag, at a museum for those who collect all sorts of WWII stuff? I honestly don't know if I would even think twice about it in that circumstance, just like I wouldn't think twice if I was in some guy's library that had a ton of WWII memorabilia in it and some of the items had swastikas on them...

No, I wouldn't. Not in that context.

 

[ACamp1900]

I mean, I see the doors that opens, I guess my point is I doubt my mind would immediately see those potential issues if I'm at a WWII museum and came across a situation like that...

 

[ulukinatme]

I'm on board with removing the flag from government property but something like this right here is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. How does selling a video game based on REAL LIFE EVENTS aka the Civil War promote racism via using the actual flag within the game?

https://games.yahoo.com/news/apple-removing-app-store-games-140619696.html



What are we going to do next...take Gone with the Wind DvDs off the shelf???

This certainly is beginning to look like a witch hunt. Are we going to destroy any and all history of the Civil War because of one racist lunatic? Yes, I realize the flag was a racist symbol prior to that, but the South Carolina tragedy is what really started the movement to remove the flag. I'm on board with it being removed from government buildings (Although I understood the reasons why it flew over the war memorial to begin with), but where do we stop with removing other Confederate icons and references? Historic video games are no longer acceptable? Do we shame Washington and Jefferson for having slaves? Seems like the movement is going to the extreme. I feel the same way about the Dukes of Hazard material getting pulled because of the flag on the General Lee. I didn't watch the show that much, but were there really any racist undertones on that show? The flag seemed to be a symbol of Southern Pride as it is for many Southerns, not a representation of slavery or racism.