mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Our friend from Glasglow might wish to equate it with "Scottish Nationalism". Although the Scot's never had the slavery issue , a lot of the people who emigrated to the south came from Scotland. Perhaps if he saw the flag less as a symbol of "Repression" (which many people AFTER the civil war came to see it) and more as a symbol of REBELLION . And please keep in mind that I am an absolute Yankee , born and raised in Maine. In theory , I should be the absolute enemy to those who wave "that flag" , and yet even I can see where both sides are coming from. Despite what the Daily Mail may suggest, the nationalists over here don't want to go back to the "good old days" of cross-border raids and such like. At least, if they do, they've kept it quiet. I think, in fairness, that the nationalist comparison doesn't quite work; I think some of the religious conflicts in Scotland would make a more apt comparison. The rebellion aspect is something I can't grasp either. The whole "fight fovstates rights" issue seems to me a red herring that distracts from the fact that the Southern states rebelled to ensure that slavery was preserved. I find the logic flawed in that people would be as proud of a flag that was used by an army formed to defend the institution of slavery. It seems to me, an outsider, that the flag's negative connotations would by far outweigh the positive ones. Now, I can understand the "southern pride" mindset within it's historical context. But today it seems exceptionally out of place, considering that the world has(at least mostly) condemned slavery as a bad thing. The whole "Lost Cause" historiography is something I don't comprehend either. Now, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and say that I'm an outsider without the cultural background to understand the issue; there tends to be a reason these things aren't fully resolved today. I'm impressed! That's a very adult point of view that I never expected. Admitting that you are ignorant of a matter. Well done sir! Well, the nuances of the religious divide in Glasgow is something I've seen first hand, and even I can't fully understand or explain it. It would be crass of me to say otherwise for the same complex issues in other countries. quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing As a non-American, I can't really understand the whole "Southern Pride" mentality. I understand it on the conceptual level of remembering your cultural roots and local history, but the fact that so much of it essentially boils down to the glorification of the armed attempt to preserve slavery is what makes it incomprehensible to me. warspite1 Hey mind_messing guess what? I disagree If you follow the logic then we must remove from wargames: The Union Jack The Tricolour The Belgian Flag The Dutch Flag The Spanish Flag The Portuguese Flag and these are just some of the offenders.... Where does it end? Who decides what is unacceptable? The Swastika is banned - so why not the Hammer and Sickle?? How many died in the Gulags? The Kulaks? and countless minorities? But using the Hammer and Sickle in wargames? No problem.... As a non-American I assume that the majority of Americans who sport this flag do so - as you say - as they are proud of their heritage. That does not make them all Neo-Nazis, and the fact that one sicko did what he did - and happened to own a Confederate Flag - does not change that fact. Really interested to hear about this from a US - north and south - perspective. I don't want to resort to semantics, but I think there's a difference in displaying a flag in a wargame and having it flying from public buildings. One is artistic expression, the other is the state expressing symbolic support for what a flag represents. To me (an non-American), that would be expressing symbolic support for the Confederacy, and therefore for slavery. That's fine in 1861, but I'd have hoped the mindset would have changed since then. What would the reaction in Poland or Estonia be if you flew the Hammer and Sickle from a public building? warspite1 I was specifically thinking of wargames, but as for the wider issue and by the same token one could argue that by flying a Belgian Flag one is automatically supporting what happened in the Belgian Congo - and that would be ridiculous... The Confederate flag (at least the common battle flag) was flown by the army that actively fought to keep people enslaved. The Belgian flag at least had a bit of history before it's association with the Congo that wasn't overwhelmingly negative. The context of the flag being flown is a factor. If you're flying the Belgian flag in Brussles, it's not an issue. Flying the flag from a government building in the DRC? Well, how could that be interpreted? warspite1 Did the South have no history that wasn't negative? Did the Southern States produce nothing of any value to the world? Was their only contribution slavery? That is a question not a statement. EDIT: Spelling See my latest reply. Considering Southern history as a whole, why does it overwhelming use the symbols from the darkest part of it's history? Is there nothing in the South other than the Confederacy worth remembering? Is the epitome of Southern history it's struggle in it's rebellion to defend slavery?
|