'Country' Trend

Off Topic
81

So, the Confederate flag is racist because it was the flag of a bunch of white guys who owned slaves that rebeled against their own nation?

But the American flag is not racist even though it was the flag of a bunch of white guys who owned slaves that rebeled against their own nation?

Not to mention it was perfectly legal for the south to secede from the union, and the US revolution was illegal.

See how the American flag represents much more to its people then just that short statement? In the same way, the Confederate flag represents much more to its people then just that short statement.

For the record, I’m not “yee-haw redneck” or anything similiar. I am a regular southerner. I just hate to see how 99% of the country is still under the impression that the civil war was fought simply because of slavery. You would think that such a huge even in our history would be covered in a little more detail.

82

They like to teach that it was about slavery because that makes it sound less brutal than it was, but it was about money. and the south lost, get over it, flying that flag is essentially stating you wanted the south to have won the war = supporting an unpaid labor source.

Comparing the revolution to the civil war is stupid.

83

[quote]Aggv wrote:
They like to teach that it was about slavery because that makes it sound less brutal than it was, but it was about money. and the south lost, get over it, flying that flag is essentially stating you wanted the south to have won the war = supporting an unpaid labor source.

Comparing the revolution to the civil war is stupid. [/quote]

I absolutely agree. It is much easier to just say, oh the south was racist and the north didn’t want slaves, so north=good and south=bad and the good guys won.

It is much more difficult to explain the entire economic situation of that time. I am not condoning it at all, but the north completely relied on slave labor just as much as the south. If this wasn’t true then they would not have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to keep the south in the union, especially given the fact that back then, states were much more powerful than now. People had allegiance to their state first, and country second. It was also completely legal for the states to leave the union at any time.

Flying that flag does not mean that you support slavery, or want the south to be a seperate country. No doubt there are people that do want that when they fly that flag, probably a significant portion, but not all. As with any flag, it can mean many different things to many different people. Some people see the American flag as imperialism, greed, and the invasion of their homeland. We see it as a sign of freedom.

Comparing the revolution and the civil war seems stupid to you because you support the revolution and not the civil war. Please explain how they are different.

BTW if the Confederate flag symbolizes slavery because it is the flag of a nation that had slavery, then by the same logic, the US flag also symbolizes slavery, since it was also the flag of a country with slaves. A lot of racial discrimination has occured under the US flag, but noone refers to it as a “racist” flag.

84

Again, just for the record, I’m not some huge Confederate waving hick. I don’t actually even own a Confederate flag or anything with the Confederate flag on it.

Personally, being from South Carolina, this is the flag I relate more to:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=tsh&cp=17&gs_id=1u&xhr=t&q=dont+tread+on+me+flag&aq=0&aqi=g1g-s3&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=673&wrapid=tljp1340484501210032&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=oivmT5CUCYms8ATD892wAQ

85

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
It is much more difficult to explain the entire economic situation of that time. I am not condoning it at all, but the north completely relied on slave labor just as much as the south.[/quote]

The north had a much more diverse economy than the south, and while the north did have slaves and use slave labor. Their economy did not rely 100% on slave labor to be profitable.

civil war vs. revolutionary war is way too far off topic for a thread meant to bash yuppie wanna be hillbillies.

86

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
The rebel flag is not harmless. It is offensive and racist and always will be. That doesn’t mean that everyone who flys the flag is as much, (racist) just ignorant to a degree.[/quote]

Or maybe this symbol is interpreted entirely different by him and he does not care what you think when it comes to how he lives his life?

87

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
It is much more difficult to explain the entire economic situation of that time. I am not condoning it at all, but the north completely relied on slave labor just as much as the south.[/quote]

The north had a much more diverse economy than the south, and while the north did have slaves and use slave labor. Their economy did not rely 100% on slave labor to be profitable.

civil war vs. revolutionary war is way too far off topic for a thread meant to bash yuppie wanna be hillbillies. [/quote]

You should read “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery” by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank; paints a much different picture of slavery in the US, and especially the north, than you get in most US history classes.

For example, did you know that while the importation of slaves was still legal, the economy of Rhode Island was built almost entirely on the importation of slaves that were sent almost exclusively to southern states? Or that when importation became illegal, New York’s economy thrived on the illegal, underground importation of slaves to be sold into the south? Or that much of the north thrived on textile factories fueled by southern cotton bought cheaply because of slavery.

The north was a lot more reliant on slavery, and much more complicit in it, than the revisionist history books in today’s school would lead you to believe. It’s a nice, convenient little lie that the Civil War was about slavery and the benevolent, holy north wanted nothing but to free the slaves from the evil south. It was about money and power, first and foremost. I mean, you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t even put in place until two years after the start of the war, right?

88

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
It is much more difficult to explain the entire economic situation of that time. I am not condoning it at all, but the north completely relied on slave labor just as much as the south.[/quote]

The north had a much more diverse economy than the south, and while the north did have slaves and use slave labor. Their economy did not rely 100% on slave labor to be profitable.

civil war vs. revolutionary war is way too far off topic for a thread meant to bash yuppie wanna be hillbillies. [/quote]

You should read “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery” by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank; paints a much different picture of slavery in the US, and especially the north, than you get in most US history classes.

For example, did you know that while the importation of slaves was still legal, the economy of Rhode Island was built almost entirely on the importation of slaves that were sent almost exclusively to southern states? Or that when importation became illegal, New York’s economy thrived on the illegal, underground importation of slaves to be sold into the south? Or that much of the north thrived on textile factories fueled by southern cotton bought cheaply because of slavery.

The north was a lot more reliant on slavery, and much more complicit in it, than the revisionist history books in today’s school would lead you to believe. It’s a nice, convenient little lie that the Civil War was about slavery and the benevolent, holy north wanted nothing but to free the slaves from the evil south. It was about money and power, first and foremost. I mean, you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t even put in place until two years after the start of the war, right?[/quote]

Likewise, years from now, people will probably look back at out current “War On Terror” and laugh at the notion that it was, well, you know…a war against terror. Despite how many historians will (and do) try to paint it as such. I believe that the North used the slavery issue to be like “Hey look emancipation proclamation, that makes us the good guys!”, and try to make their side seem morally backed. Also, possibly to get some slaves on their side.

89

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
It is much more difficult to explain the entire economic situation of that time. I am not condoning it at all, but the north completely relied on slave labor just as much as the south.[/quote]

The north had a much more diverse economy than the south, and while the north did have slaves and use slave labor. Their economy did not rely 100% on slave labor to be profitable.

civil war vs. revolutionary war is way too far off topic for a thread meant to bash yuppie wanna be hillbillies. [/quote]

much of the north thrived on textile factories fueled by southern cotton bought cheaply because of slavery.

[/quote]

This. Where do you think the North got their “diverse economy” from? America ran as a unit, the south manufactured cotton using slaves, the north processed it in factories using immigrants (who’s situation can be called slavery, there are no differences other than name) and shipped it overseas.

The south could secede from the union and still manufacture cotton and other crops and sell them overseas. The north could not survive without cotton (and other goods) from the south.

If you don’t want to adress it, that’s fine, and I’ll let it be. But the similaries between the American Revolution and the Civil War are numerous.

90
91