Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The confederate flag debate.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CharminC
Joined: 2/19/2011
Msg: 76
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damnPage 4 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Such a shame the focus is on what the flag symbolizes because it is a pretty damn cool looking flag and pity the focus can't be on the people that offend rather than the symbolism.
From what I see and hear, both racist and non racist have pride and love for this flag for whatever their own reason is.
My only question that I relevant to this whole issue is did this flag start out as the symbol for slavery and all it's atrocities or did it symbolize the battle (war) itself?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 77
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 11:50:49 AM
It was just a forgotten flag until the fifties. In response to Civil Rights legislation and movement, the Klan and other racists revived it. It was put in state flags and stuff like that in about 1960/61. So its modern use has been as a white supremacist/segregationist symbol.
 CharminC
Joined: 2/19/2011
Msg: 78
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 11:59:33 AM

the Klan and other racists revived it. It was put in state flags and stuff like that in about 1960/61. So its modern use has been as a white supremacist/segregationist symbol.




So why not take away the racist association from the flag instead of the flag itself?
 J3LV3HL_WV3JP
Joined: 4/5/2015
Msg: 79
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 12:03:53 PM

So why not take away the racist association from the flag instead of the flag itself?


Because in America, it's much easier to be offended than to separate reality from perceived reality.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 80
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 2:07:28 PM
You can't take away the racist association from the flag because that's all the flag represents. In the 1860's it meant black people were inferior and should be slaves; in the 1960's it meant black people were inferior and shouldn't be allowed to use the public swimming pools, water fountains or restaurants. The whole reason it was chosen in the 1950's was because it was as close as you could get to the actual flag of the Confederate States of America without being that flag. The racists at the time did recognize that the actual flag was treason.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 81
The confederate flag debate.
Posted: 7/12/2015 2:49:50 PM
DOMA defined marriage for federal purposes.
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 82
The confederate flag debate.
Posted: 7/12/2015 5:11:48 PM

The truth of American history is that the confederates were traitors to the republic and slavery was the staple of the society and economy that they wished to preserve...much longer than the enactment of the 13th amendment


No one has even asked the question here "why did slavery even exist"? Well the American Colonies had a high demand for labour so they enslaved people from Africa,Ireland and enslaved Natives.Which means that racism was not the cause of slavery.

Back then slavery was not considered immoral by society, although I'm sure the slaves themselves would disagree. Therefore you had generations of people born into societies where slavery was the norm. But yet we in the 21st Century judge them harshly. But I'm sure that in 200 years from now some things that happen now will be judged as immoral.

Another truth of American history is that in the 18th Century the British were questioning the morality of slavery and were considering abolishing it and because the American Colonies were dependant on slavery,it is not a coincidence that the Revolutionary War was fought at that time, which of course means one of the reasons that war was fought was to protect slavery. Proof of that is your Declaration of Independence did not prohibit slavery, even after it was debated.

The British even promised to free slaves that fought with them after the war and they did free many. So there you have it, America was founded to protect slavery.

No different to why the Confederacy was founded after they legally seceded from the Union.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 83
view profile
History
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 5:36:27 PM

So why not take away the racist association from the flag instead of the flag itself?


Obviously, I would think, because it's entirely impractical. The association takes place in the minds of each person. To "take away" the association would mean erasing EVERYONE'S memories, as well as destroying all records associated with it.

Despite the best efforts of political pundits and TV advertisers alike, it's just not that easy to do.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 84
view profile
History
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/12/2015 11:42:25 PM
See the claim that the confederate flag implies slavery? Is that not the case with ALL flags then? Even the stars and stripes. And as i am led to believe that the word slave derives from when slavs were taken in their countless thousands by north african islamists should islamic flags no be banned as well?

Rob in oz
Cracking post mate. It is good to see sacred cows being demolished though. Like atticus finch.Perhaps the world should embrace a flag with one background colour and a diagonal cross on it. Now WHO has that flag? Anyway regarding abolishing slavery this has recently came to light in Scotland.

*Trigger Warning
Contains scottish words, spoken by scottish folk, in scotland*

"A chance discovery of a centuries-old Scottish court case about a child forced to work as a stage attraction, “the tumbling lassie”, has inspired a group of advocates to raise cash to help fight modern-day slavery.

The girl had been “bought” from her mother and used by a travelling showman as a performing gymnast until, physically worn out, she was taken in and given refuge by a warm-hearted couple.

The enraged showman demanded damages from the couple and produced a written contract to show he had paid for the girl and that she belonged to him.

However, the judges at the Court of Session dismissed his claim, with the report declaring: “But we have no slaves in Scotland, and mothers cannot sell their bairns.”

Alan McLean QC, found reference to the little-known case from 1687 in a footnote in a law book, and was struck by the trenchant rejection of slavery as an early vindication of human rights.

He and a committee of fellow members of the Faculty of Advocates have decided to honour the memory of “the tumbling lassie” through a fund-raising ball for charities involved in tackling the scourge of human trafficking and slavery at home and abroad.

“More than 325 years after Reid v Scot of Harden and his Lady, the ‘tumbling lassie’ case, was decided in the Court of Session, it is astonishing but true that some people still live in Scotland as effective slaves, trafficked here on false pretences, threatened, trapped in menial work or worse, with their earnings withheld and their passports taken away,” said Mr McLean.

“In other parts of the world, people languish in slavery because getting access to trained lawyers to uphold their rights – without which ‘the tumbling lassie’ could not have been declared free – can be almost impossible.”

Mr McLean first came across the case by chance a number of years ago while carrying out research in the area of contract law.

The simple but affecting story stayed with him. Earlier this year, when he was discussing the case with a group of colleagues who were concerned about modern people-trafficking, the idea of the Tumbling Lassie Ball was born.

The original handwritten notes of the case in the National Library of Scotland narrate that Reid sued the Scots of Harden, to whom Sir Walter Scott was proud to be related, for “stealing away from him a little girl, called the tumbling-lassie, that danced upon his stage”.

The unnamed girl had to dance “in all shapes” and her joints, in spite of attempts to keep them supple with daily administrations of oils, were “now grown stiff”.

The report added: “Physicians attested the employment of tumbling would kill her.”

Mr McLean said: “The Reid decision pre-dated by about nine decades a much more famous Scottish decision on the topic of slavery, Knight v Wedderburn.

“It was also many decades before the English case of Somersett v Stewart in which the Scots-born Lord Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, found slavery to form no part of the law of England.

“We think it tells a story full of human interest, not to say pathos, with a happy ending.

“Lawyers, including the judges, are among the ‘heroes’ of the piece…at the end of the day, people need lawyers to make their rights real.”
http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/06/29/seventeenth-century-tumbling-lassie-to-raise-cash-for-slavery-charities/

And yet in shermanland as Rob points out.


" In April 1775, two days after the American War of Independence began, a notice appeared in the Virginia Gazette offering rewards for the return of 10 runaways. Two were "Negro slaves", but the other eight were white servants, including Thomas Pearce, a 20-year-old Bristol joiner, and William Webster, a middle-aged Scottish brick-maker. Whether they were ever found remains a mystery; almost nothing is known about them but their names. But their irate master was to become very famous indeed, for the man pursuing his absconding servants was called George Washington.

Pearce and Webster were indentured servants, the kind of people often ignored in patriotic accounts of colonial America. In the 17th and 18th centuries, tens of thousands of men, women and children lived as ill-paid, ill-treated chattels, bound in servitude to their colonial masters. It is a sobering illustration of human gullibility that, in return for vague promises of a better life, men would sign away their lives for 10 years or more.

Once in the New World, they were effectively items of property to be treated as their masters saw fit. Brutal corporal punishment was ubiquitous: every Virginia settlement had its own whipping post. One man was publicly scourged for four days with his ears nailed to the post. He had been flirting with a servant girl.

Briskly written by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, a pair of television documentary producers, White Cargo is harrowing reading. For while thousands of servants signed up for the colonies of their own will, thousands more were shipped across by force.

We associate transportation with Australia but, by the time of independence, perhaps one in 100 Americans was a convict. English officials were open in their determination to send the "scum" of their booming cities to the colonies. During the Georgian era they exiled 1,000 prisoners across the Atlantic every year.

Some of these people were hardened criminals, but not all. Hundreds of girls sent over in the 1620s were probably child prostitutes dragged off the London streets. James I ordered that 100 "rowdy youths" from Newmarket be shipped across to Virginia; in fact, they were just exuberant local lads whose horseplay had annoyed the king.

Most shocking of all, thousands of poor London children were rounded up by the constables and thrown on to the nearest ship. Urchins as young as five were shipped to America, where they spent most of their lives in backbreaking service."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664862/The-forgotten-history-of-Britains-white-slaves.html

C'mon shermans, time for reparations from your slave loving nation. After all waaaay back in time wee scotland showed the world.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 85
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 4:37:57 AM
Let's accept what you wrote as true.

DOESN'T MATTER.

You cannot equate indentured servants who could blend into the ruling society and whose servitude would or could end with black slaves who could not fade into society, who were kidnapped from "free states" and traded as slaves even if born free and whose descendants were subjected to Jim Crow and special laws against them and the latest hanging earlier this year.

Interesting perspective on the slavery=American Revolution analysis. Not sure that I am buying it, but it makes one pause and think.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 7:07:14 AM
Dee
Slavery is wrong. Always has been and always will be. But it happened, happens and will happen in the future. But IF any lessons have to be learned
then we have to accept that all races used, use, and will use slaves.

All races were complicit in the slave trade. The end result was the same. Some folk made money and others suffered. Did the slavs fit into muslim society
when taken forcibly? I doubt it.

But hey certain posters on here hate history. Always chipping away. Well when it suits them anyway. They hate christianty yet are petrified of
islam. They hate certain flags of nations whilst cowering in fear from other nations flags.

And if they want to ban a flag because of what it symbolises then get rid of the stars and stripes. It has just been shown to have been a major player
in the slave trade.

And sorry to disagree but indentured slaves were exactly what it says on the tin. Slaves. Just because they were poor white folk does not make their
misery any less. They were still slaves.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 87
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:14:36 AM

vlad dracul
And sorry to disagree but indentured slaves were exactly what it says on the tin. Slaves.

sorry Vlad but you are wrong...the term is not "Indentured Slaves" but "Indenture Servants"...

"Slaves" were property,
"Indenture Servants" were those that borrowed money and had to pay it back by working for the person etc.

there are companies today that will pay for a Student's education and in return that Student after graduation will work for that company for 3 years or so ....this is not slavery..the students aren't property owned by the company...they just owe a debt to the company ...and if they "decide" not to work for that company then they are held legally responsible for paying the debt back monetarily ....


vlad dracul
And if they want to ban a flag because of what it symbolises then get rid of the stars and stripes

actually those under the confederate flag did try to get rid of the Stars and Stripes, first they tossed out the Constitution, then elected their own President, then form their own army and used it in an attempt to overthrown the government of the United States which is why the confederate flag also symbolize Treason and Traitors

come to think of it Vlad isn't the same flag fiasco happening in your land Scotland, in which the Brits want to let the Union Jack fly on Scottish driver licenses ...so according to your post that flags symbolize nothing you clearly must be on the side of the Brits on this
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 88
view profile
History
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:38:18 AM
SERIOUSLY?

It’s like everyone on page 4 did not read anything on pages 1-3, so I guess I’ll just have to repeat myself. And I’m going to be pretty lazy about it, to tell you the truth, because I don’t have all day to recreate the wheel.

“Why is it that 99.999% of the people who rage about ‘the Confederate flag’ don't seem to realize that the flag in question is NOT the Confederate flag? It was the Tennessee Army battle flag.”

I think you’re referring to the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America’s Army of Northern Virginia. So, yes, the infamous flag most definitely represented a portion of the official government of the CSA, but more importantly, the CSA put this same flag in their official flag, so at best this is an argument of semantics.

“My only question that I relevant to this whole issue is did this flag start out as the symbol for slavery and all it's atrocities or did it symbolize the battle (war) itself?”

Repeating my original post:

If you want to know what the Confederate flag stands for, all you have to do is ask the men who designed it:

“As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race... Such a flag would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG. As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism.” – William T. Thompson, designer of CSA’s second flag, the first to include the Confederate Battle Flag

“Slavery is a divine institution... men are created neither equal nor free” – William Porcher Miles, designer of the Confederate Battle Flag, who was such a “fire eater” that he wanted the slave trade with Africa to resume, which was extremist even by 1860 Southern standards

“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” – Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens, one of those who commissioned the Confederate flags

“We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.” – Confederate President Jefferson Davis, another commissioner of the Confederate flags

If the words of the Confederate flag designers and Confederacy founders aren’t enough to convince you that the Confederacy was a racist organization whose primary purpose was to keep the Southern black population enslaved and that their symbols representative of this notion FROM THE VERY BEGNNING, then I don’t know what else to tell you. These are the words straight from their mouths and their hands as they were founding the CSA. The only reason some people today think the Confederate flags weren’t originally representative of a racist organization and racist culture is because the flags were largely lost to history for decades (after General Lee told Southerners to stop bothering with such things and let the healing begin) so most everyone except subsequent racist organizations like the Klan and Dixiecrats forgot what they originally meant. You people want to talk about “erasing and rewriting history” – YOU are erasing and rewriting history by ignoring all the racist rantings of Confederacy foundersin favor of only remembering a couple of lines about “states’ rights” and “tariffs” that in 1860 were vastly drowned out by all the racist fervor. In fact, there never would have been a Civil War if not for all the racist prophesizing about what would happen if slavery came to an end, because that was the only way slave-owners could get white non-slave-owners fired up enough to put their lives on the line for the cause. Otherwise the slave-owners (who barely picked up a weapon themselves -- at least, for the war) would have had no one to fight the war for them.

“See the claim that the confederate flag implies slavery? Is that not the case with ALL flags then? Even the stars and stripes.”

The American flag has represented an evolving nation that has stood for many, many things over the years, good and bad. If Confederate sympathizers want to try to get all picky about which Confederate flag should or should not have negative connotations, then I’ll point out that the CURRENT American flag, the one with 50 stars, has only existed since 1959 when Hawaii joined the union, which itself was an impressive event considering it was the first majority-minority state allowed. As such, the current American flag was created after Brown vs. Board of Education and has never waved over a country with legal federal segregation (much less slavery) nor has it waved over a country while it was driving Native Americans off their land (for most of this flag’s history, they have been getting casinos). But I really consider that type of argument a bunch of semantics. The American flag, all versions, has represented a racist country and a non-racist country, one that has committed great atrocities and one that has done much good and most importantly, one that is currently largely doing the right thing.

Every single Confederate flag was created for a racist organization whose primary purpose of existence was to keep the black population enslaved. This organization was destroyed long before it or its flags could stand for anything else.

“And sorry to disagree but indentured slaves were exactly what it says on the tin. Slaves. Just because they were poor white folk does not make their misery any less. They were still slaves.”

Perhaps you need a dictionary lesson:

Slavery: a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property; they can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work or to demand compensation.

Indentured servitude: a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years.

You see the difference? Indentured servants CHOOSE to be treated like slaves, whereas slaves are captured or born into forced servitude. Let me cry a bitter tear for the indentured servant who decided it was so important to get to America that he give up his freedom for a certain number of years. Any “indentured servant” who was forced to be one was no such thing: he or she was a white slave. You obviously hate history, considering you’re attempting to WHITE wash the behavior of your ancestors. And again, for what purpose? Who the hell cares what their ancestors did or did not do? You are your own person in the year of 2015. You are not forced to address the legacy of your ancestors. You just need to deal with the problems of your own damn making. FCK OUR ANCESTORS. May they rot in the ground.

"So why not take away the racist association from the flag instead of the flag itself?"

What Halftime Dad and Igor said about major impracticalities. What are we going to do, invent a machine to wipe out people's thoughts on the Confederate Flag?

Fact is, the racists are using the flag exactly as its creators and other Confederacy founders intended -- it's many modern flag supporters (as well as WB and the "Dukes of Hazzard") that have been attempting to apply a somewhat different meaning to it for dozens of years. I must say "somewhat" because it is impossible to untangle general "states' rights" from "states' rights to enslave and discriminate against the black population" when the latter was entirely the reason the flag was revived by state governments to begin with. No government flag revivers from the 1950s or 1960s would try to claim, as many do now, that the flag was expressing any other "states rights," because they didn't care about anything else the federal government was doing then -- it was years before a non-racial states' rights cause rose into any prominence. I'm curious as to why no Western or Northern states have ever dragged out the Confederate flag to protest something the federal government did. Hell, Vermont and New Hampshire have quite independent streaks -- why aren't they waving the flag? What about Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas -- they don't seem to care too much for the federal government, either. Of course, all of those states have almost no black people, so imagine the desited impact would be too minimal to bother with...
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 89
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:40:24 AM
First off, indentured servants were contracted for a limited period of time - typically around ten years.

More importantly however, while the history of slavery in the United States and elsewhere, the CSA is the only nation I know of that was founded explicitly for the purpose of preserving and furthering slavery.

You also purposely misread my post. I said that the flag in question has always represented racism. That took the form of slavery 150 years ago, but it has represented segregation in living memory.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 90
view profile
History
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:43:23 AM
Good afternoon fun
Ah our old debate again eh? Unfortunately and technically both of us could be justified in what we say. But the union flag incorporates the flags of Scotland, englandshire and norn ireland. Now SOME Scots who are loyal to the crown do indeed fly the union flag.

Some Scots will not accept the union flag and fly the Saltire or the Lion Rampant. Some Scots do not give a toss either way. But i believe that you are wrong in your belief.

As i do not drive i cannot comment on drivers licenses. So i shall take your word. As long as it is not the eu symbol.

"Who are the British?

British people live in the UK. They are people who live in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. British people can also either be English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish (from Northern Ireland only).

The British are said to be reserved in manners, dress and speech. They are famous for their politeness, self-discipline and especially for their sense of humour. British people have a strong sense of humour which sometimes can be hard for foreigners to understand."
http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/index/people.htm

I also do not accept that indentured servants were not slaves. This is not a who has the biggest willy contest. The slave trade existed in many forms. Still does. Just look
at the christian yazidi slave women abused by islamic state. As bad as anything that has went before. Yet largely ignored by 'the free world'.

"The authors are right to remind us that African slavery was one form of bondage among many, rather than a unique and unprecedented condition."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664862/The-forgotten-history-of-Britains-white-slaves.html
 _babblefish
Joined: 9/23/2011
Msg: 91
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 9:02:23 AM

Why is it that 99.999% of the people who rage about "the Confederate flag" don't seem to realize that the flag in question is NOT the Confederate flag? It was the Tennessee Army battle flag.

And those people talk about ignorance...


ignorance is not comprehending a chosen symbols instrumentality to a large group of peoples, otherwise the
5000+ year old “Gammadion” good luck image wouldn't signify what it became to millions in the 30's
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 92
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 9:25:23 AM
I don't really care one way or the other about the flag.

I kind of like it as an identifier of attitudes and beliefs.
Erasing it from games,books, movies, reenactments about the civil war is delusional.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 93
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 9:41:58 AM

I also do not accept that indentured servants were not slaves. This is not a who has the biggest willy contest. The slave trade existed in many forms. Still does.

"The authors are right to remind us that African slavery was one form of bondage among many, rather than a unique and unprecedented condition."

You know... you are usually fairly quick... but not today...

What you... and your disingenuous author... are doing here is saying that:

ALL forms of causing someone's death are fundamentally equal (because, of course, "someone died")... Whether it be deliberate and intentional... or a result of ignorance or misadventure... and therefore all people who cause the death of another are equally bad and equally deserving of the same punishment... no matter why it happened, how it happened or what form it took... lethal injection for all...

Just look at the christian yazidi slave women abused by islamic state. As bad as anything that has went before. Yet largely ignored by 'the free world'.

WHAT...?!?!?!? Are you on drugs dude...? You think that 'the free world' is ignoring ISIS...? On what planet...?!?

Oh... I get it... people aren't condemning all of Islam... "kicking all the muslims to the kerb" (see what I did for you?) as it were... because of what ISIS does...

Or is it just that you are upset that people aren't saying that the American racists are "just as bad" as ISIS...
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 94
view profile
History
the confederate flag debate
Posted: 7/13/2015 9:53:58 AM
“because it is a pretty damn cool looking flag”

This is undoubtedly the biggest problem of this whole debate. It DOES look pretty damn cool. But why do most people, even those like me who detest most of its messages, think that it looks “cool” and does that have anything to do with what it symbolizes (currently, historically, whatever)?

It’s quite possible that it is just a visually aesthetically pleasing symbol and from an early age children think it’s “pretty” and so are willing to defend its existence into adulthood, long after they discover what it represents. It’s like how you want to pet a lion or bear until it rips your arm off.

But mostly, I’m still quite sure that the “Dukes of Hazzard” is primarily responsible for it being so “cool” today, especially beyond the South. Undoubtedly that show was the Confederate flag introduction for the vast majority of people currently in their 20s to 60s, and the Dukes were anti-heroes, battling an actual corrupt government despite being a little loose on the law themselves (but maybe anti-moonshine laws are unfair anyway, huh?). I mean, they never meant any harm! Plus, it was just cool to watch that car with the Confederate flag on top jump stuff. Yeeehaw! It’s not like many people actually knew the words to that catchy horn tune they had.

As much as I liked the show as a SATIRE of Southern culture, this would be a much different world for the Confederate flag if it hadn’t existed and I doubt the majority of Americans would be pro-Confederate flag, as current surveys claim – the South is powerful, but it’s not anywhere near powerful enough to dominate a national survey (see: gay marriage). And I’m definitely sure it contributed to my own indifference to the flag – fly it, don’t fly it, see if I give a damn. But outside of the “Dukes of Hazzard,” pretty much every interaction I’ve had in real life with a Confederate flag supporter has been very negative and usually quite racist in a completely unprovoked manner, so you’re just going to have to forgive me for not being friends with such people.

“I also do not accept that indentured servants were not slaves.”

What the hell is wrong with you? If you and robaustralia are indicative of the extended British educational system, then I’m not surprised you had to beg the U.S. for help in both World Wars. You cannot change well-established definitions to suit your agenda.

INDENTURED SERVANTS *CHOSE* UNPAID SERVITUDE, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT SLAVES, WHO WERE FORCED INTO UNPAID SERVITUDE.

"the CSA is the only nation I know of that was founded explicitly for the purpose of preserving and furthering slavery."

The CSA was not a "nation" -- it was a treasonous organization within the United States that was performing an ISIS-like military takeover of various American territories, sometimes with the support of some of those people, sometimes not -- again, like ISIS.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 95
view profile
History
the confederate flag debate
Posted: 7/13/2015 10:51:20 AM
Well the highest court in the land seemed to say that indentured servants should not be treated as if in perpetual service. Of course our courts could be wrong. Maybe they should have consulted ye plentye off fyshe tryst forums. But hey if you are grabbed from somewhere and sent to another land then that be slavery. How easy to send someone as a slave to another land but call them 'indentured servants'.

Good point well put.

"Joseph Knight was a man born in Africa and sold as a slave in Jamaica to John Wedderburn of Ballendean, Scotland. Wedderburn had Knight serve in his household, and took him along when he returned to Scotland in 1769. Inspired by Somersett's Case (1772) in England, in which the English courts had held that slavery did not exist under English common law, Knight brought a freedom suit against his master. Knight won his claim after two appeals, in a case that established the principle that Scots law would not uphold the institution of slavery."

Appeal to the Court of Session
In 1777 Wedderburn in turn appealed to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland's supreme civil court, arguing that Knight still owed perpetual service, in the same manner as an indentured servant or an apprenticed artisan. The case was considered important enough to be given a full panel of judges, including Lord Kames, a prominent legal and social historian.

The case for Knight was helped in preparation by James Boswell and Samuel Johnson. Their argument was that 'no man is by nature the property of another'. They said that since there was no proof that Knight had given up his natural freedom, he should be set free. Conversely, Wedderburn's counsel argued that commercial interests, which underpinned Scotland's prosperity, should prevail.

In an unexpected decision, Lord Kames stated that 'we sit here to enforce right not to enforce wrong' and the court emphatically rejected Wedderburn's appeal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Knight_(slave)

And what proof was there that indentured slaves all voluntarily agreed to be shipped abroad? How do you know that the documents were not faked so that slaves could be called indentured thereby by passing slavery laws? Of course that would not be cricket making false claims and drawing up false documents. Surely the 'indentured servants' read what they were signing or got their lawyer to read the small print?

Na ye be correct shoutyjoe and i beg ye to not bite with venom. The free world has of course fought tooth and nail to free yazidi slaves. Why we even armed the kurds to fight daesh. Eh? Whats that? America stopped the kurds getting weapons?

"Congress Voted Against Directly Arming Iraq's Kurds. Here's What That Means For The ISIS Fight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/congress-arm-kurds_n_7647068.html

Maybe its just on here the yazidi slaves seldom get a mention. Oh well time for a guinness/sweetheart stout half and half.

Have a nice day y'all

P.s na nae drugs today for me shoutyjoe. Well no yet anyway.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 96
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 11:14:28 AM

Why is it that 99.999% of the people who rage about ‘the Confederate flag’ don't seem to realize that the flag in question is NOT the Confederate flag? It was the Tennessee Army battle flag.”

that's a pretty cool argument ...next time the Klan tries to lynch me I'll simply educate them to the fact that they're carrying the wrong flag and demand to speak either to their supervisor or the Grand Wizard


vlad dracul
"Who are the British?

British people live in the UK. They are people who live in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. British people can also either be English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish (from Northern Ireland only).

jeez Vlad...Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain ....one thing you would never do is walk up to an Irish Catholic and call them a Brit ....are you sure you're from Scotland


vlad dracul
As i do not drive i cannot comment on drivers licenses. So i shall take your word.

someone that was for Scottish Independence as you once claimed, would know that the Brits were trying to place the Union Jack Flag on licences, it's odd that you don't know the basic things that is happening in your own country ..
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 97
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 11:49:23 AM

And what proof was there that indentured slaves all voluntarily agreed to be shipped abroad? How do you know that the documents were not faked so that slaves could be called indentured thereby by passing slavery laws? Of course that would not be cricket making false claims and drawing up false documents. Surely the 'indentured servants' read what they were signing or got their lawyer to read the small print?

Now you're just being silly again... There are copious records in the former colonies... of the indentured fulfilling their indenture and setting off to start their own farms/businesses... It was one of the justifications used for chattel slavery... that not enough of the freemen were willing to work for free/minimal wages (probably related to why they were willing to indenture themselves for the opportunity to come to the colonies in the first place)... Now... it seems to me... that this issue wouldn't have arisen to anywhere near the same degree if this indenture were permanent...

Oh wait... I see the point you are trying to make... it is in the "all voluntarily"... if even one was involuntary then they ALL MUST be involuntary... or at least mostly so...

P.s na nae drugs today for me shoutyjoe. Well no yet anyway.

Well then... do so... it seems to be necessary for you to make more sensible points...
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 98
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 3:19:15 PM
Actually, I learned everything I know about indentured servitude of 300 years ago from one one of Vlad's compatriots: I want to say Niall Ferguson, but I may have the name wrong. Anyway, the book is called Civilization, and among other things, goes into the reality of indentured servitude in the American colonies.

Yeah, they chose it because after they were able to make a better life for.themselves than if they had stayed in, let's say, Scotland.
 J3LV3HL_WV3JP
Joined: 4/5/2015
Msg: 99
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 3:37:55 PM

that's a pretty cool argument ...next time the Klan tries to lynch me I'll simply educate them to the fact that they're carrying the wrong flag and demand to speak either to their supervisor or the Grand Wizard


Or maybe you can ask that white sheets be banned from Wal-Mart. Because, you know, when you see those white sheets coming, you know you're in trouble.

/rolleyes
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 100
frankly, ms skawlit..someone might give a damn
Posted: 7/13/2015 3:59:55 PM
Here is what American curriculums don't teach about slavery. White people who were forced into servitude are of course "indentured servants" and black people were of course "slaves". You know you just can't have white people claiming that their ancestors suffered as many injustices as black people now can ya?



They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot


globalresearch.org

I have an Irish ancestor and he was transported to Australia as follows"sentenced to hard labour in the colonies for the term of his natural life" and you expect me to accept he was an "indentured servant", well that is a lot of crap.He was a slave, period.

BTW thousands of people were also transported to the Americas on the same premise and you expect people to believe they weren't "slaves" because they were white?

It is not the British or Australian education system that is lacking, it is the American one. Teaching people that only Africans were enslaved in the Americas is actually racist, trouble is people actually believe it because it suits their agenda.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The confederate flag debate.