This is getting out of hand

This is getting out of hand (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

geofflambert -> This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 7:14:02 PM)
http://time.com/3936223/apple-civil-war-games-app-store/

HansBolter -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 7:43:17 PM)
couldn't agree more, but Bill will likely have to lock this thread.

desicat -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 8:44:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter couldn't agree more, but Bill will likely have to lock this thread. Only if Canoe Rebel posts....

geofflambert -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 8:45:00 PM)
They will start burning history books next. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose that can be respected. How about Gone with the Wind? I sure don't want to see them change it to this: [image]local://upfiles/37002/A807EDD82C6F4720AD31D3D9E6E5AAD2.jpg[/image]

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 8:57:05 PM)
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.

AW1Steve -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:02:41 PM)
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. [:(]

ckk -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:05:45 PM)
omg pc gone amok. Pensacola was the City of 5 Flags now there are 4. Why not take down the Spanish flag,they brought slavery here in the 16th century?[&:]

warspite1 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:07:46 PM)
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.

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:23:26 PM)
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.

AW1Steve -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:25:43 PM)
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. Of note-"THIS SICKO" burned the US flag, and while he may have owned the Confederate flag , he WORE a Rhodesian apartheid flag on his jacket. I think he identified more with Afrikaners more than southerners. I haven't meat all that many southerners that would burn the US flag. Even during the Civil war , many comments were made about how well each side treated the others flag. One should not judge a race or a culture by one nut-job.

warspite1 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve 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. Of note-"THIS SICKO" burned the US flag, and while he may have owned the Confederate flag , he WORE a Rhodesian apartheid flag on his jacket. I think he identified more with Afrikaners more than southerners. I haven't meat all that many southerners that would burn the US flag. Even during the Civil war , many comments were made about how well each side treated the others flag. One should not judge a race or a culture by one nut-job. warspite1 Exactly.

AW1Steve -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:29:35 PM)
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! [sm=happy0065.gif]

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:30:25 PM)
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 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 9:37:17 PM)
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...

LoBaron -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:04:43 PM)
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... Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don�t you agree? Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something. One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery. While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)]

AW1Steve -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:10:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron 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... Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don�t you agree? Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something. One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery. While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)] Won't happen. In all my time in the UK , never once did I meet a Brit who sometime during the evening did not say "the trouble with you yanks is".... You see , since we are England's "bastard children" they feel an obligation to "set us right" and "show us where we went wrong" after leaving their "supervision". [:D]

warspite1 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron 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... Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don�t you agree? Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something. One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery. While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)] warspite1 Sure, I agree it is not perfect but let me expand on it a little to see if it makes more sense. Belgium. Like many (all) countries her past is not perfect. One incident in particular is hideous - the Belgian Congo. At the time the Congo was being "administered" by the Belgians, most other countries were being more enlightened, but many were colonial powers of some sort or another. Belgium has moved on. She is not the Belgium that existed in those dark times. Should Belgium now only be thought of in terms of King Leopold's time? Confederacy. The Southern States supported slavery. That was not all she stood for surely? She fought a war and lost. Had she won would slavery still be a feature of her society? Who knows, but you'd like to think not - the world has moved on. Should any Southerner be thought of as a racist **** because he/she sports a Confederate Flag? Do only racists identify with that flag? That was the thinking rather than a like for like, but I accept it is not perfect. The point though is that there is good AND bad represented in a flag.

warspite1 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron 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... Ok this is just a little too farfetched an analogy, don�t you agree? Thats like saying to display the Union Jack defaults to support of the Boston Massacre of 17something. One displays a symbol of national pride and support for an existing country, the other displays an item that became a well known symbol for slavery. While I do believe it is something our American friends should sort out by themselves, your comparision lacks a bit. [;)] Won't happen. In all my time in the UK , never once did I meet a Brit who sometime during the evening did not say "the trouble with you yanks is".... You see , since we are England's "bastard children" they feel an obligation to "set us right" and "show us where we went wrong" after leaving their "supervision". [:D] warspite1 You are of course completely wrong. That is the trouble with you Yanks, you........ [:D]

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:19:40 PM)
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! [sm=happy0065.gif] 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 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:24:07 PM)
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! [sm=happy0065.gif] 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? Those are questions not a statement. EDIT: Spelling [:@]

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:26:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Should any Southerner be thought of as a racist **** because he/she sports a Confederate Flag? Do only racists identify with that flag? To my mind, yes. I don't see how anyone of a reasonable frame of mind could sport a Confederate flag, tacitly expressing support of a historical armed rebellion to keep people enslaved. Is it only racists that support the flag? Probably not. I just don't see how anyone who knows enough of the history of it could say that it's something they'd willingly express support for. The argument of displaying the flag as a sop "history" or "heritage" rings a bit false to me - surely there must be a better symbol representing the heritage of the Southern states that's not loaded with negitive associations?

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:29:57 PM)
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! [sm=happy0065.gif] 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?

warspite1 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Should any Southerner be thought of as a racist **** because he/she sports a Confederate Flag? Do only racists identify with that flag? To my mind, yes. I don't see how anyone of a reasonable frame of mind could sport a Confederate flag, tacitly expressing support of a historical armed rebellion to keep people enslaved. Is it only racists that support the flag? Probably not. I just don't see how anyone who knows enough of the history of it could say that it's something they'd willingly express support for. The argument of displaying the flag as a sop "history" or "heritage" rings a bit false to me - surely there must be a better symbol representing the heritage of the Southern states that's not loaded with negitive associations? warspite1 Well I have no further input on this but would love to hear further what Americans think. One of your States has the flag on it I believe. Bumber stickers are common etc etc. What do Americans (north) think when they see this symbol? What do Americans (south) feel this flag represents and why identify with it? Thanks in advance

mind_messing -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:33:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Should any Southerner be thought of as a racist **** because he/she sports a Confederate Flag? Do only racists identify with that flag? To my mind, yes. I don't see how anyone of a reasonable frame of mind could sport a Confederate flag, tacitly expressing support of a historical armed rebellion to keep people enslaved. Is it only racists that support the flag? Probably not. I just don't see how anyone who knows enough of the history of it could say that it's something they'd willingly express support for. The argument of displaying the flag as a sop "history" or "heritage" rings a bit false to me - surely there must be a better symbol representing the heritage of the Southern states that's not loaded with negitive associations? warspite1 Well I have no further input on this but would love to hear further what Americans think. One of your States has the flag on it I believe. Bumber stickers are common etc etc. What do Americans (north) think when they see this symbol? What do Americans (south) feel this flag represents and why identify with it? Thanks in advance I'll second that. Others have better viewpoints to add to this than myself and warspite, both of us stuck without the proper cultural background to really "get" this issue.

desicat -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:52:53 PM)
The US Civil War had a plethora of root causes; some political, some economic, some ethical, etc... Some would argue that States Rights was the preeminent cause, Robert E. Lee's personal loyalty struggle (State or County) reflects some of the intricacies. A review of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation notes that he did not free all the slaves, just those contained in Rebel States still resisting. Notes on the Emancipation Proclamation from Wiki: "It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion.[2] Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion - it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4] Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[5]"

migoodman -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:54:30 PM)
Can't say I have a dog in this fight -- my ancestors lived in Eastern Europe until the very early 1900s -- but I have spent a lot of time in the south, though I live in Ohio in the north. Just about every small town here in Ohio has a "Civil War" memorial, and if you drill down, the carnage was huge. The Civil War ("War Between the States" in the South) killed more men than any American War before or since, and impoverished the South. Having traveled through many small southern towns, the same memorials (to different units, and statues wearing different uniforms) are almost mirror images of the ones found in the north. They are all cherished, still, by people who value sacrifice and there is a lot of pride on both sides. I think it's unfortunate to distill everything down to slavery as most of the men fighting for the south were not slave owners; I think the war was seen by many of them as a states-rights issue and they fought for home and kin and way of life (yes, true that slavery was a way of life in the south. No excuses for that...) But it pains me to see history itself under assault by this "controversy" especially by so many that just see it as an easy means of taking political advantage.

Chijohnaok2 -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 10:58:24 PM)
What do Americans (north) think? I was born in the north. I spent the first 35 years of my life living in the north. I have now spent almost the last 15 years of my life living in the south. Personally, I do not like the Confederate flag, or what it (in my mind) stood for. I would prefer it were not flown over government buildings (over monuments in cemetaries, commemorating veterans, or in museums as historical artifacts I think is acceptable). I have no issues with people flying them on private property, sporting bumper stickers displaying the Confederate flag, patches etc. You see, I am a strong believer in the First Amendment (free speech). I may not like your opinion, but I still believe that you have the right to express it.

desicat -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 11:08:27 PM)
Of course no one remembers Irish Slavery Small excerpt below (note the 13th Amendment also put an end to Indentured Servitude): "Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish prisoners were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they would eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on the same terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years." The point being that for whatever the reason the "Rebel Flag" has become a political issue that one side or another feel is a "winning" argument. For the vast majority the point is irrelevant, it is the movement that counts. One can find problems in the history of every country (or political party or religion), but to try and mandate "Cultural Cleansing" in the name of political correctness may not be the way to go - the question to ask is what is next?

KenchiSulla -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 11:16:46 PM)
Ooooo, modern day politics... Don't go that way guys, it will only end up locked however good the intention...

Numdydar -> RE: This is getting out of hand (6/25/2015 11:48:33 PM)
From someone born and raised in the South, I feel I should weigh in. Not once in my life have I ever thought that the Stars and Bars represented slavery. To me it was all about my heritage as a Southerner and pride in my area. Unfortunately a very small minority of fools have taken the flag and used it for ill purposes. Which means that the flag has been perverted into something it was never intended to be. Now because of the actions of a terrible few, my Southern heritage is being destroyed by the removal of what used to be a symbol of pride, and again I stress, not slavery. Many of my Southern friends feel the same way. It would be as if Scotland was no longer allowed to fly their flag at all and had to fly just the Union Jack instead. Not really a fair comparison but hopefully gets the point across. Over 150 years since Fort Sumter and we are still fighting for our heritage. And NOT for a return of slavery.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.390625