Isn't opposing the Confederate flag basic decency?

[Monk Of Reason]

Right. I do not claim to be "a southerner", but I also fail to see why the South should have more say in this issue than any other region of the US. Again, I am not in favor of any ban for personal property. But, I am not a supporter of Southern Tradition in any way. Racism is STILL rampant in many southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, etc. I remember driving down to school during Katrina and stopping at what seemed to be a nice diner. I remember the waitress walking over to us as we were watching news stories of looting in New Orleans. She bent over and said to me, "I don't want to say nothing, but look at what color all of their skin is". Then, in Savannah, I got into an argument with someone who used the "n-word" in common speech like it was not a big deal. To be brief, I almost threw up.

If I did not see this kind of behavior every single time I visited the south, I probably wouldn't have so much animosity for the Confederacy and Southern Pride in general. But, my experience in the south has led me to believe that prejudice is still alive and well, and the Confederate Flag is surely not helping the situation.

What percentage of the south do you think is racist still? This question is more to sate my own curiosity. Is it a 50/50 shot? 80/20? 20/80? What percentage of southern people have you come in contact with that seemed to be racially prejudice?

And was it you, I don't recall, that stated you were in favor of the south actually succeeding?

 

[leibowde84]

What percentage of the south do you think is racist still? This question is more to sate my own curiosity. Is it a 50/50 shot? 80/20? 20/80? What percentage of southern people have you come in contact with that seemed to be racially prejudice?

And was it you, I don't recall, that stated you were in favor of the south actually succeeding?

No, I have never been in favor of the South seceding. That must have been someone else. In regards to percentages, I obviously can't say. But, since I rarely if ever see any racism occur in DC, where I have spent the majority of my life, and every time I go to the south I hear some racist slur or comment during my brief stay, I see it as being more of an issue or more accepted down there. But, this protection of the flag is another sign for me that there is a bigger problem in the south. The fact that people are fighting to keep a flag that reminds so many Americans of slavery for no apparent purpose other than state pride makes me wonder whether the problem isn't bigger than even I think. For example, if they wanted to change the Maryland or DC flag, I would not care at all. It wouldn't matter to me, as I consider myself a US Citizen before anything else.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, I have never been in favor of the South seceding. That must have been someone else. In regards to percentages, I obviously can't say. But, since I rarely if ever see any racism occur in DC, where I have spent the majority of my life, and every time I go to the south I hear some racist slur or comment during my brief stay, I see it as being more of an issue or more accepted down there. But, this protection of the flag is another sign for me that there is a bigger problem in the south. The fact that people are fighting to keep a flag that reminds so many Americans of slavery for no apparent purpose other than state pride makes me wonder whether the problem isn't bigger than even I think. For example, if they wanted to change the Maryland or DC flag, I would not care at all. It wouldn't matter to me, as I consider myself a US Citizen before anything else.

The problem is bigger thank you think. The very concept of the confederate flag and what it represents is a cultural thing. It is a deeply tied cultural aspect that is not separate from the racism but isn't synonymous with it either. Because it isn't viewed as a problem innately except in certain circumstances.

Now we leak into an even bigger problem than the south's problem and now an American problem. Anything southern has been painted with racism. There is little separation between the confederacy, racism and slavery and the south. This "anti-south" mindset that is so prevalent is a form of prejudice that shouldn't be as welcomed or celebrated that is is. Be mindful this isn't a direct response to you or even to this thread but it was dredged up as a point I want to make.

I'm non-patriotic. I don't view myself as a southerner, a Floridian or even really as an America except loosely because they are all things that describe by geographical location and legal nationality. Beyond that I don't care very much. But the double standard exists and people, especially from the north, don't seem to get it when southern individuals are offended by assumptions of racism or attacks on the culture. As you stated the confederacy in your eyes was a treacherous pseudo-nation based upon racism and hate. Do you have the same feelings I wonder about this flag? If not, Why not? Would you be opposed if this flag were to be flown on a government property?

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is bigger thank you think. The very concept of the confederate flag and what it represents is a cultural thing. It is a deeply tied cultural aspect that is not separate from the racism but isn't synonymous with it either. Because it isn't viewed as a problem innately except in certain circumstances.

Now we leak into an even bigger problem than the south's problem and now an American problem. Anything southern has been painted with racism. There is little separation between the confederacy, racism and slavery and the south. This "anti-south" mindset that is so prevalent is a form of prejudice that shouldn't be as welcomed or celebrated that is is. Be mindful this isn't a direct response to you or even to this thread but it was dredged up as a point I want to make.

I'm non-patriotic. I don't view myself as a southerner, a Floridian or even really as an America except loosely because they are all things that describe by geographical location and legal nationality. Beyond that I don't care very much. But the double standard exists and people, especially from the north, don't seem to get it when southern individuals are offended by assumptions of racism or attacks on the culture. As you stated the confederacy in your eyes was a treacherous pseudo-nation based upon racism and hate. Do you have the same feelings I wonder about this flag? If not, Why not? Would you be opposed if this flag were to be flown on a government property?

I would have a problem with it because it is exclusionary to states that were not part of the union when this flag was official. The Confederacy's economy relied on the slave labor of African Americans. The Confederate Battle Flag was a symbol of this culture, which relied on slave labor and treated people as property. While the early patriots had slaves as well, the flag above was in no way a representation of slavery. Further, under Washington's orders, slaves who fought in the revolutionary war earned their freedom and some income. So, in other words, my problem is that what you describe as "southern culture" fought to keep slaves in chains even when the rest of the country and much of the world had moved beyond it. I see the Confederate Battle Flag as a sign of the south's adherence to out-dated tradition and the sense that states should be able to discriminate against minorities as long as they have a voting majority. Also, the hatred and prejudice extended far beyond the end of the war. Look at what Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X were fighting against. Even in the middle of the 20th century, the south was still soaked with ignorance and hatred. I think the removal of the flag might help to continue the progress they started in the 60s. I don't see a value in living in the past in this respect. The Confederacy lost, caused the deaths of millions of young Americans, and committed treason against the US, yet people still want to honor it. I don't get it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Aye, does this say "slavery"?
No....to me it says irresponsible driving & pollution...

But do you know of a safer and more indestructible car? I don't know about anything you've ever drove, but if I tried even half the stuff the boys did my car would be turned into a pile of scrap.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is rather like saying that the European theater in the Second World War was fought over things apart from the ethnocentric and genocidal ambitions of the Nazis. Slavery was the issue, and the related issues stem from the fight to preserve the slave economy. And yes, the Nazi swastika is absolutely a symbol of hatred. Hitler himself outlined its design and racial symbolism in Mein Kampf.

I said slavery was not the only issue, because it wasn't. I never said it wasn't an issue. The American Civil War didn't even start because of slavery, but because of disputes over who owned Fort Sumter. Saying the swastika is a symbol of hatred is not accurate, as it was, long before Hitler, a symbol throughout Indian and Asian religions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I would have a problem with it because it is exclusionary to states that were not part of the union when this flag was official. The Confederacy's economy relied on the slave labor of African Americans. The Confederate Battle Flag was a symbol of this culture, which relied on slave labor and treated people as property. While the early patriots had slaves as well, the flag above was in no way a representation of slavery. Further, under Washington's orders, slaves who fought in the revolutionary war earned their freedom and some income. So, in other words, my problem is that what you describe as "southern culture" fought to keep slaves in chains even when the rest of the country and much of the world had moved beyond it. I see the Confederate Battle Flag as a sign of the south's adherence to out-dated tradition and the sense that states should be able to discriminate against minorities as long as they have a voting majority. Also, the hatred and prejudice extended far beyond the end of the war. Look at what Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X were fighting against. Even in the middle of the 20th century, the south was still soaked with ignorance and hatred. I think the removal of the flag might help to continue the progress they started in the 60s. I don't see a value in living in the past in this respect. The Confederacy lost, caused the deaths of millions of young Americans, and committed treason against the US, yet people still want to honor it. I don't get it.

And I doubt you ever will. I also doubt you will ever understand much more on the subject past what you have already accepted. This I find sad. I can't stop you from having this view. I could debate with you about the historical impact of slavery and the political associations with slavery as well as positions of the great Abraham Lincoln that might throw you for a spiral. And to use the term not as a pun but to see that things aren't as "black and white" as we are led to believe. If you ever care to have a historical discussion about the civil war you can PM me or find a thread relevant to that topic. You might be interested to see how the struggles of the later century were directly impacted by the conclusion of the Civil war rather than preceding it.

I can only hope it doesn't taint your opinion of an entire region or ever move you to ostracization or prejudice yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

I said slavery was not the only issue, because it wasn't. I never said it wasn't an issue. The American Civil War didn't even start because of slavery, but because of disputes over who owned Fort Sumter. Saying the swastika is a symbol of hatred is not accurate, as it was, long before Hitler, a symbol throughout Indian and Asian religions.

The Civil War started because the Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter. Contrary to the erroneous assumptions made by the Confederacy, Ft. Sumter was on American soil and was, thus, property of the US Military. Their treason did not magically change ownership legally.

The Confederacy foolishly expected the Union to just cave in and give them what they wanted. Imho, if slavery was not at issue, I think that the whole war could have been avoided. It created far too much animosity to ignore, as the Southerners saw the Federal Government as interjecting itself where it didn't belong. But, in terms of slavery, there is no more of an appropriate place for the Feds to step in. They are responsible to protect minorities from persecution by the majority.

 

[leibowde84]

And I doubt you ever will. I also doubt you will ever understand much more on the subject past what you have already accepted. This I find sad. I can't stop you from having this view. I could debate with you about the historical impact of slavery and the political associations with slavery as well as positions of the great Abraham Lincoln that might throw you for a spiral. And to use the term not as a pun but to see that things aren't as "black and white" as we are led to believe. If you ever care to have a historical discussion about the civil war you can PM me or find a thread relevant to that topic. You might be interested to see how the struggles of the later century were directly impacted by the conclusion of the Civil war rather than preceding it.

I can only hope it doesn't taint your opinion of an entire region or ever move you to ostracization or prejudice yourself.

I have nothing against southerners, but I do not tolerate any kind of racism, whether it be seemingly harmless or not. And, while I understand that my personal experience is insufficient, I have experienced a greater tolerance for racism in southern culture.

In regards to the history of the civil war, don't let my feelings toward the south make you think that I am ignorant of anything that you mentioned. I understand what Abraham Lincoln explicitly said about race and the purpose of the war. I also understand that it is necessary to look at the reasoning behind those statements. Abraham was not fighting the war to end slavery, he was fighting it to save the Union. And, pretty much everyone in the North also saw black people as inferior to whites. Further, I understand the harms caused during reconstruction, which, might I add, could have been largely avoided had Lincoln not been assassinated when he was. I would be happy to discuss the history of the war with you, but I don't think that is relevant to this conversation. We are talking about what the flag means to people TODAY, not what it meant during the Civil War or to the Confederacy.

Just out of curiosity, and since you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on the subject, why do you think people have pride in the Confederate Battle Flag or the Confederacy itself? If they hadn't seceded, wouldn't the millions of deaths have been avoided? Is there honor in standing up for principles like that of the Confederacy if it nearly destroys it?

 

[Revoltingest]

But do you know of a safer and more indestructible car? I don't know about anything you've ever drove, but if I tried even half the stuff the boys did my car would be turned into a pile of scrap.

Well, at least you won't need the "boys"......you know....cuz of your transition.

 

[leibowde84]

And I doubt you ever will. I also doubt you will ever understand much more on the subject past what you have already accepted. This I find sad. I can't stop you from having this view. I could debate with you about the historical impact of slavery and the political associations with slavery as well as positions of the great Abraham Lincoln that might throw you for a spiral. And to use the term not as a pun but to see that things aren't as "black and white" as we are led to believe. If you ever care to have a historical discussion about the civil war you can PM me or find a thread relevant to that topic. You might be interested to see how the struggles of the later century were directly impacted by the conclusion of the Civil war rather than preceding it.

I can only hope it doesn't taint your opinion of an entire region or ever move you to ostracization or prejudice yourself.

I am actually biased when it comes to retaining culture and tradition in general, though. I don't see any inherent value in tradition, and I think that culture often acts to separate more than unite. If a culture is disappearing, I don't see the value in fighting to save it. Change is not always progress, but progress is certainly impossible without change. We shouldn't fight it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have nothing against southerners, but I do not tolerate any kind of racism, whether it be seemingly harmless or not. And, while I understand that my personal experience is insufficient, I have experienced a greater tolerance for racism in southern culture.

In regards to the history of the civil war, don't let my feelings toward the south make you think that I am ignorant of anything that you mentioned. I understand what Abraham Lincoln explicitly said about race and the purpose of the war. I also understand that it is necessary to look at the reasoning behind those statements. Abraham was not fighting the war to end slavery, he was fighting it to save the Union. And, pretty much everyone in the North also saw black people as inferior to whites. Further, I understand the harms caused during reconstruction, which, might I add, could have been largely avoided had Lincoln not been assassinated when he was. I would be happy to discuss the history of the war with you, but I don't think that is relevant to this conversation. We are talking about what the flag means to people TODAY, not what it meant during the Civil War or to the Confederacy.

Good. Glad to hear it. Just know that the feelings are the same on my side.

Just out of curiosity, and since you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on the subject, why do you think people have pride in the Confederate Battle Flag or the Confederacy itself? If they hadn't seceded, wouldn't the millions of deaths have been avoided? Is there honor in standing up for principles like that of the Confederacy if it nearly destroys it?

To get technical the north attacked the south and began the war. Had that not happened who knows how history would have landed. I don't think that it shouldn't have happened. I am glad the north one. I wish, however, the demonetization of the south in our education system had not happened. It currently hurts relations between the cultures.

I have already explained what the confederate flag means to many people today and why the personal possession of the flag may mean something. It is in connection to the southern culture. It is highly religious to many where they see it as their southern protestant pride. They see it as a symbol of their own resilience and ability to bring themselves back from the worst of it. For some it is a reminder of the sins of the past and how not to progress in the future. Some see it as a personal identifier of all of the southern culture that they do hold dear. No one that I know of thinks of slavery as a "southern culture" but they think of sweet tea, southern hospitality, ect.

I don't think of myself as a southerner. I am not a Christian. But I do know that for most it is not a symbol of racism. Racism isn't as tolerated as you think in the south. It is tolerated by some and I dislike this as much as you do. But racism isn't the majority and especially among those that are younger (as we have a much higher ratio of elderly to young in the south as no one retires and moves up north) it is unpopular, rare even. Now with the internet it has exposed young people to the world. I hope it has globalized it.

My ex-wife for example, thought of the south as some bare-foot dirt road savage racist colony with primitive technology. She used to be "impressed" at how modern I was before she moved down here. She seemed surprised to see that we have the same stores, the same electricity, access to internet, paved roads and plumbing as up north. That was so absolutely shocking to me that she had to have been an exceedingly rare case. But no, it is far more common than I ever would have thought that the picture of the south is a fat man driving down a dirt road on a lawnmower drinking beer shooting an aka-47 on his way to a "whites only" church where they will have the weekly gay hanging. This is obviously an exaggeration but I think you get my point.

 

[leibowde84]

Good. Glad to hear it. Just know that the feelings are the same on my side.

To get technical the north attacked the south and began the war. Had that not happened who knows how history would have landed. I don't think that it shouldn't have happened. I am glad the north one. I wish, however, the demonetization of the south in our education system had not happened. It currently hurts relations between the cultures.

I have already explained what the confederate flag means to many people today and why the personal possession of the flag may mean something. It is in connection to the southern culture. It is highly religious to many where they see it as their southern protestant pride. They see it as a symbol of their own resilience and ability to bring themselves back from the worst of it. For some it is a reminder of the sins of the past and how not to progress in the future. Some see it as a personal identifier of all of the southern culture that they do hold dear. No one that I know of thinks of slavery as a "southern culture" but they think of sweet tea, southern hospitality, ect.

I don't think of myself as a southerner. I am not a Christian. But I do know that for most it is not a symbol of racism. Racism isn't as tolerated as you think in the south. It is tolerated by some and I dislike this as much as you do. But racism isn't the majority and especially among those that are younger (as we have a much higher ratio of elderly to young in the south as no one retires and moves up north) it is unpopular, rare even. Now with the internet it has exposed young people to the world. I hope it has globalized it.

My ex-wife for example, thought of the south as some bare-foot dirt road savage racist colony with primitive technology. She used to be "impressed" at how modern I was before she moved down here. She seemed surprised to see that we have the same stores, the same electricity, access to internet, paved roads and plumbing as up north. That was so absolutely shocking to me that she had to have been an exceedingly rare case. But no, it is far more common than I ever would have thought that the picture of the south is a fat man driving down a dirt road on a lawnmower drinking beer shooting an aka-47 on his way to a "whites only" church where they will have the weekly gay hanging. This is obviously an exaggeration but I think you get my point.

That's not true. The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter, which was a US base in North Carolina. The Confederacy might have considered it an invasion, but, since they were not sovereign in any meaningful way, that would merely be a mistaken assumption. The Confederacy fired on the Union Army at Ft. Sumter, which started the war.

I think it would be prudent to start here, as it is pretty important to the remainder of our conversation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's not true. The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter, which was a US base in North Carolina. The Confederacy might have considered it an invasion, but, since they were not sovereign in any meaningful way, that would merely be a mistaken assumption. The Confederacy fired on the Union Army at Ft. Sumter, which started the war.

As you stated it was considered an invasion. Weather or not the confederacy at this time had any sovereignty is of no consequence. War was inevitable as the Confederacy fought to maintain its newly founded or perhaps not yet founded independence while he north had fought in order to re-unite the union. I do not think those facts can be refuted.

Again I am not stating that the South was in the right and nor do I feel that the course of actions taken during the war were "wrong". But to be clear it was an advancement of the north. The pure collateral, non solider, loss of life was suffered by the south as the threat of invasion occurred by the north and pillaged and burned their way through Atlanta to Savannah. The north did not play defensively. They did not simply defend themselves from an assault. It was a tactical and intentional invasion and crippling of an enemy force with the intent to breath them in every sense of the word. Thus is the nature of war.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Civil War started because the Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter. Contrary to the erroneous assumptions made by the Confederacy, Ft. Sumter was on American soil and was, thus, property of the US Military. Their treason did not magically change ownership legally.

That is what I said: a dispute over ownership.

The Confederacy foolishly expected the Union to just cave in and give them what they wanted. Imho, if slavery was not at issue, I think that the whole war could have been avoided. It created far too much animosity to ignore, as the Southerners saw the Federal Government as interjecting itself where it didn't belong. But, in terms of slavery, there is no more of an appropriate place for the Feds to step in. They are responsible to protect minorities from persecution by the majority.

I don't think it would have mattered. Even still today Northerners look down on Southerners, Southerners feel overwhelmed by Northerners, city people see rural people as backwards yokels, and rural people see city people as elitist. Socially, the rampant and widespread alcohol abuse of the day was seen as a more significant issue than slavery, and the federal government, from day one, has only stepped in to protect the rights of minorities when people light a fire under their ***.

 

[leibowde84]

As you stated it was considered an invasion. Weather or not the confederacy at this time had any sovereignty is of no consequence. War was inevitable as the Confederacy fought to maintain its newly founded or perhaps not yet founded independence while he north had fought in order to re-unite the union. I do not think those facts can be refuted.

Again I am not stating that the South was in the right and nor do I feel that the course of actions taken during the war were "wrong". But to be clear it was an advancement of the north. The pure collateral, non solider, loss of life was suffered by the south as the threat of invasion occurred by the north and pillaged and burned their way through Atlanta to Savannah. The north did not play defensively. They did not simply defend themselves from an assault. It was a tactical and intentional invasion and crippling of an enemy force with the intent to breath them in every sense of the word. Thus is the nature of war.

You claim that the Confederacy "fought to maintain its newly founded or perhaps not yet founded independence". But, that is a misleading statement, imho. The important question is WHY were they fighting for independence? What were the specific reasons for separation, when it surely would lead to mass death? Rebellions are only as valid or honorable as the reasoning behind them. What was the Government of the Confederacy fighting to retain specifically (obviously the soldiers themselves had other ideas, but they are not relevant to this conversation)?

 

[leibowde84]

That is what I said: a dispute over ownership.

I don't think it would have mattered. Even still today Northerners look down on Southerners, Southerners feel overwhelmed by Northerners, city people see rural people as backwards yokels, and rural people see city people as elitist. Socially, the rampant and widespread alcohol abuse of the day was seen as a more significant issue than slavery, and the federal government, from day one, has only stepped in to protect the rights of minorities when people light a fire under their ***.

I don't agree, but I see where you are coming from. We will see an example of this assuming that the Supreme Court releases their decision on same-sex marriage bans. That is obviously a minority being taken advantage of by the majority in certain states.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You claim that the Confederacy "fought to maintain its newly founded or perhaps not yet founded independence". But, that is a misleading statement, imho. The important question is WHY were they fighting for independence? What were the specific reasons for separation, when it surely would lead to mass death? Rebellions are only as valid or honorable as the reasoning behind them. What was the Government of the Confederacy fighting to retain specifically (obviously the soldiers themselves had other ideas, but they are not relevant to this conversation)?

Slavery was an issue no doubt. Part of it had to do with the new western territories and how slavery had been banned there. Much of the south saw this as favoritism towards the north as the North could still establish factories and many of their industrial opportunities were allowed but the plantations and agricultural systems of the south could not have spread. This began a divide between the power of the federal government and the power of state governments.

There were smaller issues having to do with tariffs levied at a much higher rate than internal taxes on many of the agricultural and base material exports (as nearly 80% of all exports were from the south). The distrust of a larger federal government to impede upon state rights was the primary fear. Slavery being the chiefest of the issues. However at this point in time much of slavery had still been considered a "necessary evil" or "the way things were". Not a defensible position at all of course and they should not have been allowed to simply become their own country for the good of the people involved as well as myself most likely (were I to be born in some strange alternative history line anyway).

It reminds me a lot of the current ideas and concepts of the tea party.

I disagree that rebellions are only as valid as the reasoning behind them. They are as valid as they are successful. But just to point out it doesn't matter if they "deserved it" or not the north was the force behind the war. The only justification of this is that the lives lost were worth stopping the south form succession. Ultimately, where all of the lives lost in this endeavor worth it? I tend to think so.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aye, does this say "slavery"?
No....to me it says irresponsible driving & pollution...

Funny thing is I can relate to both sides of the debate.

I never thought of racism while the Dukes of Hazzard were broadcast. Yet certainly racist in regards to the Klu Klux Klan waving the same flag.

Guess it's all in context how it's givin and received.

I do think it was a good thing to pull the flag in light of tragic events, but in considering all the decades it's been displayed, one has to also take in the established cultural/traditional significance that the confederate flag represents outside It's racial undertones.

I don't think the Nazi flag could continue as the confederate flag did. That's a good argument. Maybe it is a good time after all in this day and age to allow it to vanish into US history for a progressive people.

 

[gsa]

The problem is bigger thank you think. The very concept of the confederate flag and what it represents is a cultural thing. It is a deeply tied cultural aspect that is not separate from the racism but isn't synonymous with it either. Because it isn't viewed as a problem innately except in certain circumstances.

Now we leak into an even bigger problem than the south's problem and now an American problem. Anything southern has been painted with racism. There is little separation between the confederacy, racism and slavery and the south. This "anti-south" mindset that is so prevalent is a form of prejudice that shouldn't be as welcomed or celebrated that is is. Be mindful this isn't a direct response to you or even to this thread but it was dredged up as a point I want to make.

I'm non-patriotic. I don't view myself as a southerner, a Floridian or even really as an America except loosely because they are all things that describe by geographical location and legal nationality. Beyond that I don't care very much. But the double standard exists and people, especially from the north, don't seem to get it when southern individuals are offended by assumptions of racism or attacks on the culture. As you stated the confederacy in your eyes was a treacherous pseudo-nation based upon racism and hate. Do you have the same feelings I wonder about this flag? If not, Why not? Would you be opposed if this flag were to be flown on a government property?

Honest question, if someone displayed German pride by displaying the Nazi flag, would you be swayed by an argument that the flag was not a racist symbol?

Millions of Germans died during the Second World War. The swastika flag was the national flag of Germany, an actual nation, for 12 years, far longer than the existence of the Confederacy. If ethnic Germans started displaying the flag as a representation of their heritage, would we be justified in condemning it because of its dubious, indeed horrifying, symbolism?

I get that there is mindless, knee jerk anti-Southern prejudice. But when someone tells me that I am maligning their heritage by condemning the Confederacy and its symbols, I get very annoyed. I am not opposed to the flag because I am opposed to Southerners or their culture. I am opposed to the flag because I consider flying it to be deeply offensive, and totally inappropriate being waved on public property. In fact, it is disturbing that people interpret opposition to the flag as anti-Southern, because to me that conflates the South with the Confederacy. Is that really the message the flag's defenders are trying to send?

I said slavery was not the only issue, because it wasn't. I never said it wasn't an issue. The American Civil War didn't even start because of slavery, but because of disputes over who owned Fort Sumter. Saying the swastika is a symbol of hatred is not accurate, as it was, long before Hitler, a symbol throughout Indian and Asian religions.

But it was, overwhelmingly, the main issue. And there was no dispute over who owned Fort Sumter, nor was that the actual cause of the war.

As for the swastika, I did not say that the swastika itself was a symbol of hatred, I said that the Nazi swastika, as represented in Nazi symbols including the flag of the Third Reich, was a symbol of hatred. That is simply beyond reasonable dispute, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.