PDA

View Full Version : Now they're after flags at NASCAR races



Filthy_Confederate_Scum
05-27-2009, 11:13 AM
I am getting so tired of these attacks on the CS flag:

NAACP Branch Readies for Confederate Flag Fight

A flag fight is brewing in southern Florida.

Members of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP want the Confederate flag banned from the Homestead-Miami Motor Speedway, and they will meet Thursday to decide whether to boycott a NASCAR race slated there for November.

Full article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522203,00.html

What will they want to ban next? When will it end?

wheres_my_horse
05-27-2009, 11:19 AM
Glen,

Are you (and the NAACP) talking about the Battle flag of the ANV?

sbl
05-27-2009, 08:13 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522203,00.html

"Debra Toomer, the branch's chairwoman of press and publicity, said a planning session has been scheduled to decide on a course of action regarding the display of the flag at the Nov. 20-22 event, as well as its presence at city-sponsored events like last year's Veterans Day parade."


http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/05/19/18/127-4615778.embedded.prod_affiliate.56.JPG


Confederate flag may end Homestead parade
Business leaders may end the popular 47-year-old Veterans Day parade after a furor over a Confederate flag being flown at the last parade...

Posted on Wednesday, 05.27.09


"The popular Veterans Day parade in Homestead -- one of the oldest in the county -- may be called off after a controversy erupted over the Confederate battle flag being flown last November."


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/communities/south/story/1066914.html

sunnylady408
05-27-2009, 10:44 PM
Does the NAACP have anything better to do than stir up trouble every chance they get? I wish that for once they would find another way to use the resources they have but I do not see that happening for a very long time. I wish they would put this organization out of business once and for all. I think it would help everyone if they could just disappear.

tompritchett
05-27-2009, 10:56 PM
Does the NAACP have anything better to do than stir up trouble every chance they get? I wish that for once they would find another way to use the resources

I seem to remember Bill Cosby and several other prominent and very successful business owners making the same comment over a decade ago - all with no effect.

reb64
05-28-2009, 05:22 AM
maybe its time to put a even bigger flag up on the highway. OR a 'Dont tread on me " flag. the more rights they try and infring upon, the more radical we should become as a people until they get it..

captdougofky
05-28-2009, 06:21 AM
Gives them something to do, does not cost much. Their like GM broke with few listening anymore.

Always
Doug Thomas

reddcorp
05-28-2009, 08:39 AM
I didn't realize that so many Black folks attended NASCAR events.
Boycott away, both of you.

ARedd

sbl
05-28-2009, 08:47 AM
Way more wives with bruises attending.

Just sayin'

Nick61stnewyork
05-28-2009, 07:44 PM
Its not right that people attack something that has so much meaning to people(including me, i had an ancestor in the CSA). Its not like we are flying it in hatered or anyhting.

sbl
05-28-2009, 08:46 PM
It's from 1958, but this is what some people still think. I was just a little kid but we had LIFE magazine and TV.

http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=01a657ea1cf8c35b_landing

Nick61stnewyork
05-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Most people arent racist like in 1958. I can see you point though.

sbl
05-28-2009, 09:05 PM
Most people arent racist like in 1958. I can see you point though.

I like to think that things are better. Racism is one of those things used to to divide us while the store is robbed. The Rebel flag and being black are two of the things I understand that I don't understand.

mnreb
05-28-2009, 09:07 PM
Hi,
Just to stir the pot a little, there are plenty of pictures showing the same group (kkk) waving only the American Flag. It is too bad that the hate groups were allowed to dishonor the battle flag. This is the price that is paid. They were allowed to and now we have the mess we have. They had freedom of speech, we are losing it.
Sincerely,
Bill Feuchtenberger
Co. H
1st South Carolina Volunteers

sbl
05-28-2009, 10:42 PM
There ARE plenty of pictures of both flags being used. The US flag was carried prominently by the KKK when the KKK had political and economic power. I'm thinking of the big KKK parade in DC during the 1920s. It looks like the Battle Flag was adopted when KKK power was waning in the face of the 1960s civil rights movement. (Mileage may vary on that generalization) You can look on the Life Magazine photo site and see 100s of photos of Confederate flags used in fun fraternity activities and even a Confederate "craze" in the 1950s. All pretty innocent stuff.

The point is that some Floridians in this case wonder why other Floridians "need" a flag that is associated with slavery and racism. From my race and location in Massachusetts, I've admitted I haven't walked in either side's shoes.

Nick61stnewyork
05-29-2009, 05:19 AM
I think the kkk dishonered the american and confederate flags. They turned the confederate flag into a racist flag that actuly has real meaning to people.
Someone said that

They had freedom of speech, we are losing it

just wondering, Why do you think this?

Headlog
05-29-2009, 07:39 AM
Way more wives with bruises attending. Just sayin' Nice way to stereotype an entire group of people. Very classy. Typical New England superiority complex. Just sayin'.

Filthy_Confederate_Scum
05-29-2009, 07:42 AM
Glen,

Are you (and the NAACP) talking about the Battle flag of the ANV?

My name is Sam, not "Glen".

Get hooked on phonics.

Bitter_Bierce
05-29-2009, 07:55 AM
Nice way to stereotype an entire group of people. Very classy. Typical New England superiority complex. Just sayin'.

ROFLMAO! Yep.

ejazzyjeff
05-29-2009, 08:13 AM
Nice way to stereotype an entire group of people. Very classy. Typical New England superiority complex. Just sayin'.

He got that info from the same place that mentioned domestic violence increased during the superbowl, just sayin'.


http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

sbl
05-29-2009, 09:10 AM
It was a response to a reaction. I think I got that one from Carlos Mencia. If you gents check out my other posts here you'll find more "meat."

sbl
05-29-2009, 09:11 AM
He got that info from the same place that mentioned domestic violence increased during the superbowl, just sayin'.


http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

Good old Snopes! Glad that that one isn't true to!

sbl
05-29-2009, 09:13 AM
Nice way to stereotype an entire group of people. Very classy. Typical New England superiority complex. Just sayin'.

"I didn't realize that so many Black folks attended NASCAR events.
Boycott away, both of you."

Come on Henry, classy as this?

sbl
05-29-2009, 09:20 AM
I think folks are being told they are losing freedom of speech by the 100s of radio stations that yell "fire" in a theatre.

reb64
05-29-2009, 05:34 PM
It's from 1958, but this is what some people still think. I was just a little kid but we had LIFE magazine and TV.

http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=01a657ea1cf8c35b_landing



looks like two groups sharing the same sidewalk. also looks like a black guy holding the kkk sign.

Pvt. Sweetey
05-29-2009, 06:20 PM
I didn't realize that so many Black folks attended NASCAR events.
Boycott away, both of you.

ARedd

I think somebody needs to take a "dont tread on me" flag to the next race :)

Pvt. Sweetey
05-29-2009, 06:24 PM
"It's not a flag that I look at with anything favorable, that's for sure," France told CBS in 2005. "I can't tell people what flag to fly. I can tell you the flag we get behind — it's the American flag."

Huzzah.

"... we don't regulate the lawful behavior of our fans or prohibit free speech and expression of our guests," Gray told FOXNews.com. "We can't tell people what to wear. Where do you start? Where does it end, as far as individual expression?"

Huzzah.

"If someone wants to show up with a shirt like that, there'd be no legal recourse for that," Hensler said. "Unless there's a specific threat, all speech is protected."

Huzzah.

The NAACP can act all tough and not go, but I dont think they will win this
fight. Banning the Confederate Flag in the south is like trying to ban the American Flag in the north, or the Mexican flag in Texas- It just won't happen.

sbl
05-29-2009, 06:39 PM
looks like two groups sharing the same sidewalk. also looks like a black guy holding the kkk sign.

He's just tanned. Blacks weren't allowed on the sidewalk then. Everyone knows that. ;) ("WINK")

sbl
05-29-2009, 06:53 PM
..........The NAACP can act all tough and not go, but I dont think they will win this fight. Banning the Confederate Flag in the south is like trying to ban the American Flag in the north, or the Mexican flag in Texas- It just won't happen.

There's no problem with the American flag while the CS and Mexican flags smack of mixed loyalties and division of races in America. No problem with the flag of the United States up my way either.

From the beginnings of the NAACP it flew banners reading "a man was lynched today" when it happened. Maybe the NAACP is "Consciousness raising" rather than aiming at annoying white people. I cringe at the term "Consciousness raising" but once your hear or read something new, it's tough to forget it or rationalize it away.

mnreb
05-29-2009, 11:29 PM
I think folks are being told they are losing freedom of speech by the 100s of radio stations that yell "fire" in a theatre.


Not hardly. I am 58 years old and I think I can make up my own mind without any help from a radio. I will explain a little further. In the past, the battle flag was seen in many areas and places. Now it is being removed because it offends some people. The flag was an object of expression which one used to be able to do. Political correctness, which is incorrect, rules the day. In a school district up north, the battle flag has been removed from all sporting events and from the football helmets. Now true, a school district can have it own rules, but what is happening in Florida is really not that much different. I detest those who fly the flag as an in your face approach just as much as the next person but to try and take something away because of a few is wrong. When that is gone, what next? Something is always going to offend someone. What is good about all of this is that we can agree to disagree and have a good time doing it.
Have a good one.
Bill Feuchtenberger
Co. H
1st South Carolina Volunteers

shooter13
05-29-2009, 11:40 PM
Well I guess if NASCAR really gets squeezed by the NAACP they can just move the race to another track. Then let the NAACP explain the loss of revenue to the businesses at Homestead. A few million dollars in losses to the state's economy would really help out race relations in the area. Move the race to Darlington or one of the other tracks with only one race per year.

sbl
05-30-2009, 08:03 AM
Bill, I'm going on 57 myself. I've written before that I'm not in either camp so I'm trying to understand.

Off topic, we had an incident in Boston, in 1976, with a guy trying to stab a black man with a US flag. Not a good day for us.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123050/2180573/2188133/2188647/1_soiling.jpg

sbl
05-30-2009, 08:08 AM
More and bigger flags aren't going to solve the issue. Economics usually does.

goatgirl
05-30-2009, 08:43 AM
The following poem was published in the New York Tribune in 1854. (page 58-59 of The Logic of History by Stephen D. Carpenter - Confederate Reprint Company)

THE AMERICAN FLAG

All hail the flaunting lie!
The stars look pale and dim;
The stripes are bloody scars--
A lie the vaunting hymn!

It shields a pirate’s deck!
It binds a man in chains!
It yokes the captive’s neck,
And wipes the bloody stains!

Tear down the flaunting lie;
Half-mast the starry flag;
Insult no sunny sky
With hate’s polluted rag!

Destroy it, ye who can;
Deep sink it in the waves!
It bears a fellow man,
To groan with fellow slaves!

Furl, furl the boasted lie!
Till freedom lives again,
To rule once more in truth,
Among untrammeled men!

Roll up the starry sheen,
Conceal its bloody stains,
For in its folds are seen
The stamp of rustling chains!

The American flag flew over slave ships, was used to hide illegal slave smugglers after it was legally abolished, flew over the North and South when the whole country owned slaves, flew when a black person could be captured on the Boston streets and dragged back to slavery, and Indians were cheated and killed under this flag.

After they no longer have the Confederate flag to occupy them, I reckon they will start on the U.S. flag.

101radioman
05-30-2009, 09:17 AM
Don't know if any of you caught this one but it's just not the Confederate Flag, some are already after the U.S. Flag also.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html

hanktrent
05-30-2009, 09:59 AM
Furl, furl the boasted lie!
Till freedom lives again,
To rule once more in truth,
Among untrammeled men!


The author is saying to furl the flag till something happens. And that exact something did happen. So I don't see that it's an anti-US flag poem anymore. In fact, based on the abolitionist viewpoint expressed in the poem, I expect the author would be pretty proud of what representatives of the US flag accomplished.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

billwatson2
05-30-2009, 10:34 AM
Are we to understand that all those folks at NASCAR are there to honor their Confederate soldier ancestors?

Because any time that flag appears in any context other than reenacting or in support of Confederate soldier ancestors, it is not unreasonable to wonder if some less honorable motive might be in play.

That's the legacy now. Either the context is unmistakably clear or the motivation and use are at least open to question. If the message isn't "honor ancestors," it leaves the door open to the less noble motive.

Folks are kidding about the SCV and KKK sharing the sidewalk, right? You'd have to be in dysfunctional denial to think that.

Is it not also apparent that the NAACP's willingness to grasp at straws is at least met more than half way by manufactured indignation in the other direction? It is a lobbying group attempting to rally its increasingly disinterested constituents. If NASCAR -- a private entity, not a government agency -- wants to ban shamrock displays or the sale of Toyota belt buckles at its races, it can do so. And you the consumer can opt not to spend your dollars with people who worry about such silly things when they could be getting your money instead. It's America and that's capitalism.

Just for the heck of it, there seems to be a parallel between what the NAACP is doing by poking some of you with a stick and what forum trolls do. The satisfaction obtained is in direct proportion to the overreaction that results. The NAACP then can turn to its somewhat lackadaisical base, who are aware of the fact that a black man is now President, and says "see, racial hatred is still a problem we need to overcome, so send money in and re-up your membership."

You're doing exactly what they require you to do, in other words, for them to be successful. A quiet letter to the man who runs NASCAR saying your money can easily go elsewhere is all that's required. The sky is not falling.

sbl
05-30-2009, 10:35 AM
That's pretty much what I get. Since the US flag has waved over a lot of positive events, I'll wave being upset over past wrongs that were made right under it.

goatgirl
05-30-2009, 12:39 PM
The author is saying to furl the flag till something happens. And that exact something did happen. So I don't see that it's an anti-US flag poem anymore.
hanktrent@voyager.net

True. Only point is the Confederate flag no longer flies over slavery either, but at one time, both flags did. As far as the other subject matter, I could care less if NAACP boycotts NASCAR. I would not care a fig if there was not any racing at all either.

hanktrent
05-30-2009, 01:25 PM
True. Only point is the Confederate flag no longer flies over slavery either, but at one time, both flags did.

You're kidding, right? If you want to defend the CS flag in comparison to the US flag, you can't get there by quoting period abolitionists, at least not in a world that considers slavery to be wrong. Let me state the obvious:

The Confederate flag no longer flies over slavery, only because the country it represented was forced to give up slavery by the country that the US flag represents.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

goatgirl
05-30-2009, 03:06 PM
Mr. Trent, If you have read about the hatred some people have for the American flag and the founders such as George Washington and Mr. Jefferson because they owned slaves, you would know I’m not kidding. The entire time the CS flag flew over slavery, the US flag was flying over slavery as well. Attacking the Confederate flag is keeping them fairly occupied for now.



The Confederate flag no longer flies over slavery, only because the country it represented was forced to give up slavery by the country that the US flag represents.
hanktrent@voyager.net

It is a certainty to say this is the only reason the CS flag is no longer flying over slavery? If the South had won, it is doubtful there would still be slavery in the South today. Most likely, had the Confederate flag been given a bit of time, it would have eventually flown over a country free of slavery as well.

sbl
05-30-2009, 03:54 PM
Dear Nicole,

"Most likely, had the Confederate flag been given a bit of time, it would have eventually flown over a country free of slavery as well."

Most likely not.

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (Paperback)
by Douglas A. Blackmon

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0684830957&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=151ZRAMQJ22M1XT1FZQ8

I haven't read it but I have heard several interviews with the author.

BTW, it wasn't all beer and skittles for white labor in the north either.

Radar
05-31-2009, 11:39 AM
Mr. Trent, If you have read about the hatred some people have for the American flag and the founders such as George Washington and Mr. Jefferson because they owned slaves, you would know I’m not kidding. The entire time the CS flag flew over slavery, the US flag was flying over slavery as well. Attacking the Confederate flag is keeping them fairly occupied for now. .

Very true. The loyal slave holding border states did not leave the Union. And, where did most of the slave ship owners and money backer live? New Englad area. If we're going to do it, do it correctley. Hate the stars and stripes also, because that's where the whole United States slave trade started, not in the infancy Confederate States.

sbl
05-31-2009, 01:15 PM
New Englanders got over it and tried to do something about it first. The "peculiar" institution already existed from pre-1776. I hope I don't have to write and reference the source. I will say the slavery sets up a whole social structure with an owner ruling class and lower class whites to enforce the slavery. The poor whites had to see their interests as taken care of by the wealthy then by identifying with the slaves, another exploited class.

hanktrent
05-31-2009, 02:25 PM
Very true. The loyal slave holding border states did not leave the Union. And, where did most of the slave ship owners and money backer live? New Englad area. If we're going to do it, do it correctley. Hate the stars and stripes also, because that's where the whole United States slave trade started, not in the infancy Confederate States.

Do you-all really not believe there's any moral difference between a country that worked to end slavery, and a country that worked to preserve it? Amazing.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

hanktrent
05-31-2009, 03:54 PM
This argument is made so often by pro-Confederates today, that I think it deserves more than my previous one-line post, so on second thought, let me try to address why I'm always puzzled by it, and why I don't think it's helpful in defending the CS flag.

If I understand correctly, the reason to point out that people should/could hate the US flag because slavery existed under it too, is to elevate the Confederate flag on the grounds that bad things happened under both governments. In other words, it's a way of saying, "You don't hate the US flag which flew over slavery, so why should you hate the CS flag that flew over slavery?" Or, "If you want to continue to fly the US flag, then don't support people who hate the CS flag due to slavery, because they can come after the US flag on the same basis."

Maybe, if someone is ignorant of history, they might be surprised to learn that slavery existed in much the north before the war and continued in the border states until after the war. Once they learned that, it might make them less sympathetic toward the north and more understanding of the Confederacy. But this is a forum full of people who are knowledgeable about history. That's not going to be news to most of the people here.

So, if people already know that, and--presumably--most of them also think that slavery is morally wrong today, I can't see the point of defending the CS flag by downplaying the difference between slavery in the Confederacy and the north. It's a battle you can't win. That's not the hill to die on.

One can argue about the bravery of CS soldiers, about the tenacity of the southern people in trying to preserve their way of life, about the struggle for local rather than national government, and those are all things that most modern people can sympathize with, in principal, and that can be supported by history.

But slavery? It's not even something you can say, "Well, everybody was doing it back then," in the way that you can say "everybody" was dumping waste in the rivers, pushing out the American Indians or preventing women from voting.

Even at the time, the difference between the north and south on the question of slavery was obvious and recognized. Southern leaders made clear that they believed the north would eventually try to force them to abandon slavery and that the north had the political power to do it, and in fact, they were correct.

Most people think that working to right a wrong is a good thing, even if it's a wrong you yourself committed. If slavery is wrong, the north worked harder to right it than the south. There's just no getting around that. Both sides were racist compared to society under the US flag today, but there was no underground railroad smuggling dark-complexioned factory workers away from their drudgery into the security of slavery in the south. The less restrictive laws of the north really did seem like freedom, even if they would be immoral and unconstitutional today.

I don't think that means the CS flag should be banned--definitely not. The history is what it is, and one can remember the good things in a country's heritage without being blind to its flaws. But trying to compare the actions of the north and the south concerning slavery, as if they were equal, seems like such a stretch to me that I don't get the point, when there are so many other, more easily defensible things about the Confederacy, that don't sound like arguments made out of blind faith or desperation.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
05-31-2009, 04:56 PM
The less restrictive laws of the north really did seem like freedom, even if they would be immoral and unconstitutional today.

Hank, since you hve raised the issue of the harsh working conditions of the North and in the past several members of this forum had posted that they see no difference between the worst slavery conditions of the South and the worst laborer conditions of the North, I would like to once again remind everyone of some key differences between the two conditions. First and foremost, in the North one's employer did not have the right to sell his laborers to another business (e.g. one located in some other state) nor did he have the right to sell the family members of his laborers. Thus in the North, even the poorest families were able to stay together and no father or mother had to watch his or her children or spouse forciably torn away from them to be taken somewhere else Lord only knows as the private property of a new employee. Well after the war and in the Reconstruction Era, former slaves were still posting newspaper adds looking for former immediate family members. Second, in the North, an employee's children did not automatically become the personal property of his or her employee to be used in whatever employment that owner thought was appropriate. Yes, there were harsh child labor conditions back then in the North, but the decision to have your child to work at particular factory was your decision not the factory owners. You could even have hope that possibly one or more of your children might get enough education or find the right apprentiship to escape the constant drugery you lived in. For a slave, there was no such hope except for escape to the North and later even into Canada as the bounty hunters became more and more prevalent. Lastly, what an employee did with his own time was his own business. After work, if he wanted to have someone teach him to read, he could do so. Likewise, if he wanted to work a garden so that he and his family would have a little more to eat or if he or she wanted to have a small business on the side to bring in a little extra money to help their children break out of their trap, their primary employer had no right to interfere. That was definitely not the case for slaves in the South. After Nat Turner's failed slave revolt, any slave teaching another slave to read or write would likely be severely beaten if not outright killed. If the master thought his slaves were spending too much time working their gardens versus his crops, he could easily decide to have their gardens destroyed. Any and every action a slave took even when not working the fields was ultimately at his or her master's discretion. Granted for the most part a master probably could have cared less if one of his slaves was also fixing the shoes or clothing of fellow slave, but the point is that, had the master cared, he or she could intervene and have the slave punished just for those actions.

mnreb
05-31-2009, 09:00 PM
Hi,
Just to add another two cents to the discussion. I agree to a point with both the above posts. Where I beg to differ just a little is that the government in the north would have ended slavery. Keep in mind that the north was making a lot of money off of the labor in the south through buying cotton and trade, which created jobs in the north. At some time the government might have tried to stop it, but not in the near future. I also belive that slavery in the south would have ended on its own as well over time. Of course that can be argued until the end of time. I am speaking from an economic view of this. From a moral perspective, slavery was wrong, not matter, be it in the north, south, Central or South America. It was also morally wrong for those in Africa to sell their own into slavery in the first place, but those were the times. Again, economics. The other point I want to raise on this is that not all were slaves in the South. About, and I say about 4-6% of the blacks in the south were free. How many were actually indentured servants (north as well) will never be know. More than likley not that many. As far as the treatment of the blacks go, that depended on the individual owner. It also varied from state to state. The point I am making on this is that one cannot lump all into one category, being slave or mistreated. I want to stress that I am not excusing it. One last comment about the flag. As I have stated before, what the flag represented in the past is one thing. What the flag represents today for many can be traced to the actions of a few. Everytime the issue of the flag comes up the battle lines are redrawn and grow. Maybe, just maybe if people would just let it alone that the battle lines would go away. Think of yourself. Would you rather do something on your own or would you rather have someone try and force you to do it. I fly the stars and bars where I live from time to time and nobody knows what it is. How easy life is and how little they know about history. I also have the battle flag, but I cannot attach it to the flag pole. Would I fly it because someone ticked me off? No. Would I fly to to honor the common soldier who fought for whatever they believed in? Yes. Right next the my US flag with 34 stars. I do enjoy a good discussion. This has been interesting.
Sincerely,
Bill Feuchtenberger
Co.H
1st South Carolina Volunteers
"It Do"
I apologize in advance for any typos. Better half was calling so I typed this up on the run.

sbl
06-01-2009, 06:01 AM
"Keep in mind that the north was making a lot of money off of the labor in the south through buying cotton and trade, which created jobs in the north."

Thanks Bill. One could say that the business people, North and South, were OK with that element of slavery.

Danny
06-01-2009, 04:16 PM
So... the Confederate battle flag was adopted by NASCAR?... went to the site but couldn't find that it was. Turns out there are some African-American stock car drivers even.

That would make this a pointless defense of something that even NASCAR won't claim... how much less it has anything at all to do with the Civil War; clue; there were no automobiles back then.

What a waste of forum space.

Dan Wykes

sbl
06-01-2009, 04:54 PM
Dan, I don't think so. I had fun looking up a few things.

tompritchett
06-01-2009, 05:03 PM
What a waste of forum space.

Had it been in any other conference, I would have agreed with you. However, this particular conference was established specifically to handle any discussions related to the banning of the display or placement of any CW related flag or monument.

mnreb
06-01-2009, 05:49 PM
I to have found it to be very interesting. I have enjoyed the conversations and the different view listed. Thank you Scott, Tom and the others. One of the best (I feel) that I have seen in a while.
Sincerely,
Bill Feuchtenberger
Co. H
1st South Carolina Volunteers
"It Do"

Danny
06-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Had it been in any other conference, I would have agreed with you. However, this particular conference was established specifically to handle any discussions related to the banning of the display or placement of any CW related flag or monument.

There was a lot of in-depth and interesting discussion and facts coming out of this topic, but only because most of it had nothing to do with the actual topic of the first post, which was not civil war related, but rather about defending some dippy modern made-up version of a flag that only resembles the Confederate battle flag, with some b.s. about NASCAR thrown in, the organization itself in no way claiming or condoning that silly flag or the Confederate battle flag it was based on. They didn't have cars in the ACW.

Fortunately the topic was hijacked, in this case a good thing, such that the in-depth, pertinent, and interesting material could be outed. Hank, Scott and some others brought out some good thoughts and discussion, but nothing on car racing or a made-up modern flag, which would have been a waste of forum space.

Dan Wykes

plankmaker
06-02-2009, 08:51 AM
Having to drive by a certain well known speedway at least twice a day, and having to deal with certain sign ordinances and requests, I know personally that the SCV has been turned down in its requests to advertise on the large billboard across the street from the track at the intersection of Larry Carrier Blv. and Exide Dr. The main objections to the advertisement came from BMS themselves.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

josie wales
06-02-2009, 09:14 AM
Hey neighbor, Perhaps the general public is misinformed about the origins of NASCAR......it was formed in "France" with first tracks in Darlington, Vermont ......North Wilkesboro, Minnesota......Martinsville, New Hampshire......Richmond, Conneticut....... South Boston, Massachusetts and my all time favorite Myrtle Beach, Rhode Island. As all professional sports have shown its not "dance with the one that brung you" their revisionist roots are seeded in "what have you done for me lately." NASCAR ceased to exist as founded somewhere between Wendell Scott changing his own tires at BIR and the restrictor plates at Talledaga, Wisconsin. My first race at Bristol was in 1968 when $7.00 would get you a fine seat.....now that won't pay for a brew and a dog...... I ceased going racing at Bristol when tickets were no longer affordable to the average Joe.....being me. End of mini-rant but this sign thing really struck a raw spot. JW

plankmaker
06-02-2009, 11:02 AM
No problem. I prefer going to Rhythm and Roots myself. It is more affordably priced, the food is better, and draws a better quality crowd.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

P.S. Don't forget your clogs.

brown30741
06-02-2009, 12:23 PM
And here I thought the reason all them NASCAR fans had rebel flags was that Mosby founded the sport. Ridin' round in his Trans-Am with a bunch of stolen Yankee gear, being chased by the Fed gov'ment, talkin' on his CB radio to JEB "Snowman" Stuart, all the while with a Confederate flag waving from his CB antenna on top of his truck lid (inside which was the supplies Lee needed desperately in the trenches outside Petersburg).

Since my memory is faulty, I guess this may have something to do with the adoption of the Confederate flag by groups and individuals not interested in honoring the soldiers of the South, but for their own attempts at self expression. In this case it is race fans, who seem to love flags of all kinds, judging by my years of living on property one land lot away from the Atlanta Motor Speedway.

You do not have to agree with those opposed to the Confederate flag, but it might help to admit to yourself and try to understand why some people truly feel threatened by those who have embraced it in other ways. If it were only NASCAR fans camped in a field with a rebel flag with Hank Williams, Jr's face airbrushed on it and stinky guys in funny wool clothes at reenactments and memorials, I doubt there'd be the backlash. But people of hate and people who committed bad deeds abused that flag and some others still fear that. Being sensitive to that does not hurt the men you honor and hating others b/c they don't like an emblem you love does not help anyone better honor our past.

Now, if only I can prove my scenario above, plankmaker can add it to his Event for All Reenactors.

plankmaker
06-02-2009, 01:29 PM
OK, OK, period NASCAR Racing has been included.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

sbl
06-03-2009, 07:46 AM
2007

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0djS1WH0Xa7ld/610x.jpg

Doug Cooper
06-03-2009, 02:18 PM
Co-dependence lives on!

If there were no KKK, Aryan Nations, ANP, etc...proudly waving the "battleflag" as a hate symbol, the NAACP would spend most of their time on educational opportunities for inner city kids and other good causes.

The only thing left to fight would be the SCV, and that would go away when all us good Southern Heritage folks decide to spend the money on protecting the hallowed ground the old boys fought on, rather than defending flag wavers at NASCAR, teenage girls in flag print prom dresses, ludicrous reb costumed motorcycle riding Veterans Day paraders, etc., not to mention cozying up to the KKK for mutual support in a terribly unfair world.

Its more fun than the Cold War. Lots of financial support and ego depends on "us" vs "them" - while the rest of us just shrug and shake our heads at the silliness.

tompritchett
06-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Tradition!

If you really think about it though, NASCAR indeed comes from a tradition of defying first the Federal government and then government in general, revenuers. There is the tradition that the whole sport of stock car and roadster racing developed from moonshine runners back in the first half of the 20th Century. As much as I have discussed here in the past how the "flag" had been used as a symbol of both outright racial hatred as well as more passive support to the Southern opposition to Civil Rights reforms of the 50's and 60's, I will readily concede that it has also been adopted by many as a symbol of protest against larger governments' inference both into people's individual lives and into the operation of more local governments. Of course, this resentment of big government dictating to smaller governments has been a major bone of contention in the South towards the Federal government since the days prior to the Civil War when states were seceding from the Union, through theopposition to the Civil Rights reforms to even today with groups lobbying once again for secession or lobbying for increased enforcement of the 10th Amendment. Thus, while most blacks will usually see some form of racial meaning or undertone to the display of the "flag" outside of an historical environment, in reality the reasons today that a white might dsiplay the flag could vary from expression of true racial hatred, of resentment to the Federal government, of a desire to show defiance from the "norm", of pride in the overall Southern past acts of defiance, or just pride in being from a Southern background. I would hazard that the large majority of todays flag displayers are are displaying for any one or combination of alternate reasons that I listed other than expressing racial hatred. Personally, I would not display it outside of a historical setting but I can easily understand why others might.

sbl
06-03-2009, 07:25 PM
Around here you see a few guys with the battleflag bumperstickers because they'd have been rebels then 'cause they're rebels now.

flattop32355
06-03-2009, 08:13 PM
I think it's wonderful that so many people enjoy flying the Naval Ensign! It just goes to show that maritime concerns are still alive and well in the Sou..............Excuse me? What? That's not what.............?

Oh, well.

Never mind........

Capt Terry
06-04-2009, 10:29 AM
Dear Nicole,

"Most likely, had the Confederate flag been given a bit of time, it would have eventually flown over a country free of slavery as well."

Most likely not.

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (Paperback)
by Douglas A. Blackmon

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0684830957&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=151ZRAMQJ22M1XT1FZQ8

I haven't read it but I have heard several interviews with the author.

BTW, it wasn't all beer and skittles for white labor in the north either.

Most likely so!

sbl
06-04-2009, 11:06 AM
Most likely so!


Terry,

What is your opinion is based on?

billwatson2
06-04-2009, 06:25 PM
The long answer or the short answer?

The South was already splitting on the economic value of slavery. A progression was in place, one that would have taken time but would have probably neutered the "slave power" to the point where it would go away with laws, as it was in the process of doing everywhere in the world in the mid 1800s.

North Carolina and Virginia were exporting slaves (to other states) -- owners were selling them off and using the proceeds to diversify into manufacturing and other types of agriculture not dependent on slave labor. That's why they still sided with the other states on the issue of allowing slavery into new territories -- not so much from an ideological agenda, but because they needed a market to convert human flesh into money.

Fast forward another 10 years from 1860 and that need has pretty much disappeared. Take Virginia and North Carolina out of the picture and you don't have enough critical mass to support your slave politics. Remember, they didn't pitch in anyway until the firebrands at Sumter started a fight.

That's just a couple of possible political conclusions based on what we know about the economics. Neither the South nor the North were monolithic; in the differences among the factions in the south, the seeds of opposition to slavery had room and incentive to take root.

Sometimes it's important to turn assumptions upside down, too. A lot of people today seem to think slavery originated because a bunch of racists got together and decided to enslave black people because they hated black people. Like modern racists or bigots. The origins were, really, cold economics based on a proto-capitalism involving trade between Africa, the Caribbean and the colonies, and mother countries in Europe. Slavery was a cheap source of labor. When enough people came to depend on it, countless arguments supporting it could be and were developed, including the intrinsic inferiority of the enslaved race and the likelihood that they were more animal than human. Some philosopher once said that nothing can make a man believe a fact if his livelihood depends on his not believing it; it became necessary to believe in slave inferiority to justify the system. And here we are today. But the point of the last paragraph is that when the economics changed to make slavery uneconomic, intrinsically perhaps but definitely when humanizing laws were passed about health care, pensioned care, etc., a great many people would have abandoned slavery both economically and in terms of the racism that rationalized it.

Or would you rather have the long answer? :twisted:

sbl
06-04-2009, 06:47 PM
Thanks Bill,

My short answer is cheap labor, and a system to enforce it existed after the CW/WBTS North and South.

tompritchett
06-04-2009, 08:40 PM
My short answer is cheap labor

And dependable labor. With slaves (and later sharecroppers) the land owner knew that he would have an adequate number of laborers come harvest time and other labor-intensive periods of crop management. During the early years of Reconstruction the loss of this dependability initially caused a lot of problems for landowners and resulted in all sorts of measures to alleviate the problem to include year-long labor contracts, very strict vagrancy laws for blacks and ultimately the sharecropper system.

plankmaker
06-05-2009, 07:15 AM
Tom,

At least in Richmond, the slave trade was alive and booming. The slaves were not being used for agricultural purposes, but for the various other enterprises that sprung up in Richmond. Based on newspaper ads, they were constantly hiring slaves to work in the various hospitals that abounded in the city. In addition, Tredegar and the gas works were constantly advertising for slaves to work at those locations. Newspapers also describe the ongoing sales at the slave yard on Franklin Street throughout the war. By-and-by, they have uncovered part of the old slave yard on Franklin Street while doing construction downtown and have been doing, done a fairly detailed archeological survey.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

From the Richmond Dispatch, 7/24/1862, p. 1, c. 7
Negroes. – Despite the fugacious proclivities of male members of the negro fraternity, they are in great demand. At an auction sale on Franklin street a few days since a negro fellow, not specially likely, brought $1,500. A girl 19 years old, (ugly) - $1,300; one 7 years old, $725; a man, (diseased) 58 years old, $450. These prices will serve to indicate both the appreciation and demand for this species of property.

sbl
06-05-2009, 07:49 AM
1. Flying, or disposed to fly; fleeing away; lasting but a short time; volatile.


"girl 19 years old, (ugly) - $1,300" That says a lot. My dad used to hire the girls that worked in his gift shop. I hung around a lot.

Busterbuttonboy
06-09-2009, 07:29 AM
There has been a number of threads concerning slavery/causes of the war etc. There are also a host of books available. However the thread started because of the ever present issue of oversight concerning the Confederate Flag(s) its public memory and revisionist history.