Poll: For our African-American posters, which of these flags do you see as racist symbols?

Which of these flags do you see as racist symbols?

  • Any and all Confederate flags

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • First official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Second official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Third official flag of the Confederacy

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Confederate Battle Flag

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Confederate Navy Jack

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No Confederate flags

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Here's an interesting article that offers some background on this topic: LINK.

Confederate symbols have not always been a part of American or Southern life. They largely disappeared after the Civil War. And when they reappeared, it was not because of a newfound appreciation of Southern history.

For several decades after the Civil War, the Confederate battle emblem was rarely displayed — typically only during tributes to actual Confederate veterans. It was not part of state flags or other official symbols or displays. In fact, the Confederate battle flag was so uncommon that in 1930, Sen. Coleman Livingston Blease had to have one specially made by the Daughters of South Carolina for him to display in his office.

It wasn’t until 1948 that the Confederate flag re-emerged as a potent political symbol. The reason was the Dixiecrat revolt — when Strom Thurmond led a walkout of white Southerners from the Democratic National Convention to protest President Harry S. Truman’s push for civil rights. The Dixiecrats began to use the Confederate flag, which sparked further public interest in it.

Consequently, the flag became strongly linked to white supremacy and opposition to civil rights for African Americans. In 1951, Rep. John Rankin (D-Miss.), a very outspoken segregationist, proudly announced that he had “never seen as many Confederate flags in all my life as I have observed floating here in Washington during the last few months.” Rankin himself wore a Confederate flag necktie to serve as a constant reminder of his opposition to “beastly” integration policies.

In 1954, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ordered the desegregation of public primary schools, focused the energies and ire of hardcore segregationists throughout the South. Efforts to resist school integration and other civil rights protections for African Americans included the display of Confederate symbols and especially the Confederate battle flag.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
So you're saying that when racist Jim Crow policies were threatened that people suddenly yearned to learn about and hold onto a piece of their history with pride for their heritage?
Crazy, I know. Por ejemplo:

Mississippi state flag at the start of the Civil War (there was no state flag prior to the war):



Mississippi state flag after the war and before the Jim Crow era:



Mississippi state flag from the Jim Crow era to present:

 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,866
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I'll start having a problem with it if they go after the Founders that participated in war against the British. I totally get the Confederacy feelings, but Revolutionary War? Those are heroes in a war against a foreign power. Totally different.
agreed, but i don't see that happening in my lifetime. jmho.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
While anyone can answer, I'm especially interested in the opinions of our African-American posters. If anyone is unsure about any of the flags, I've listed them below.

First official flag of the Confederacy:


Second official flag of the Confederacy:


Third official flag of the Confederacy:


Confederate Battle Flag:


Confederate Navy Jack:



So, which of these flags do you personally see as racist symbols?
You forgot the Bonnie Blue Flag.


And the Hardee "lozenge."


And the Polk's Corps battle flag


And the Van Dorn battle flag.


And the Missouri battle flag.
 
Last edited:

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
I find anything to do with the Confederacy offensive. That because I am a veteran of the US Army that fought against that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]


You know, now the left is going after American statues, i.e. George Washington. If they start taking those down, then just take them all down including MLK Jr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]
JBama, I am from the left side...it is my impression that leftists understand the difference between a man who took up arms against the United States and someone who did not. I know you and I are in agreement on this.

To argue that Washington and Jefferson are next is as red herring, a distraction that is not grounded in reality. It's meant to draw attention away from rightists who want these Confederate statues in public places of honor.

Let me make an equally silly false argument to try to illustrate my point.

After the right has secured these Confederate statues and gotten rid of the idea to remove them...here's what's next...

Since Benedict Arnold was a very successful military leader before he betrayed his country, we need some statues of him in Courthouse lawns and so forth. It's clear that treason isn't a disqualifying factor for whether Gen. Lee should have a statue, neither should Arnold's treason be a disqualifyer.


Ridiculous? Absolutely. On both sides. Nobody wants to remove Washington's statues, nor does anybody want to see statues of Arnold.

As an interesting aside...it turns out there is a memorial that obliquely refers to Arnold and his heorism before he turned traitor.

http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
 
JBama, I am from the left side...it is my impression that leftists understand the difference between a man who took up arms against the United States and someone who did not. I know you and I are in agreement on this.

To argue that Washington and Jefferson are next is as red herring, a distraction that is not grounded in reality. It's meant to draw attention away from rightists who want these Confederate statues in public places of honor.

Let me make an equally silly false argument to try to illustrate my point.

After the right has secured these Confederate statues and gotten rid of the idea to remove them...here's what's next...

Since Benedict Arnold was a very successful military leader before he betrayed his country, we need some statues of him in Courthouse lawns and so forth. It's clear that treason isn't a disqualifying factor for whether Gen. Lee should have a statue, neither should Arnold's treason be a disqualifyer.


Ridiculous? Absolutely. On both sides. Nobody wants to remove Washington's statues, nor does anybody want to see statues of Arnold.

As an interesting aside...it turns out there is a memorial that obliquely refers to Arnold and his heorism before he turned traitor.

http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Understood, but I wouldn't say it if it wasn't without merit. I have seen video of some that have called for it. I don't really mean people that you haven't heard of either. They've already vandalized a Lincoln statue. As crazy, as it sounds and it is (I didn't want to believe it myself), it is already happening.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Understood, but I wouldn't say it if it wasn't without merit. I have seen video of some that have called for it. I don't really mean people that you haven't heard of either. They've already vandalized a Lincoln statue. As crazy, as it sounds and it is (I didn't want to believe it myself), it is already happening.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Why would you assume a leftist damaged Lincoln's statue? It sounds like what someone would do who are more likely from the other side.

I'm sure the right is able to find a few kooks from the left who you've seen saying this stuff, but they are a spit in the ocean...not enough to worry about.

#####
By the way, I've taken a few months off, but you are a poster I always read and enjoy.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,866
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Georgia is the same. Stars and bars didn't show up on the flag until 1956. I guess they too have a resurgence in the interest of history in the 1950's.
one of the few things i agreed with neal boortz on when i used to listen to him (this would have been late 90's, i think, when the discussion around the governors race started) was that he would call the "flaggers" out on this.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
JBama, I am from the left side...it is my impression that leftists understand the difference between a man who took up arms against the United States and someone who did not. I know you and I are in agreement on this.

To argue that Washington and Jefferson are next is as red herring, a distraction that is not grounded in reality. It's meant to draw attention away from rightists who want these Confederate statues in public places of honor.

But you just moved the goalposts here my friend - and THIS is what I'm sick of.

We are supposed to remove the Rebel flag. WHY? It's a symbol of racism (so we're told) and the country's original sin blah blah blah.

OK, fair enough.

That's why PCOLA pointed out Washington the slave owner and Jefferson the slave banger who fathered at least one kid by one.

After all if it's REALLY slavery you're upset about then you should be consistent.....so naturally, we get the pivot to a completely different objection. Somehow, it's always said to be "different."

The slavery objection only has merit if you're going to apply it consistently. And then who becomes the arbiter of what's acceptable and on what grounds?

And given the fact that the Confederate veterans are legally buried and recognized here as US veterans and entitled to the same benefits, it's pretty clear the government doesn't have the view you just espoused.


So what's the next pivot?

Should I point out to all of you now invoking the "well, the Confederate flag wasn't used in the Southern states until the 1960s" that the state of Mississippi flag was used in 1894, quite a long time prior to the 1960s?

Does that suddenly change your argument?


==========================

(Now, I'm gonna write the anti-flag/anti-statue argument FOR you....it goes like this: "It is true, as you say, that some early Americans who ascended to leadership owned slaves as they were men of their time. However, I would point out the difference is that in the cases of, say, Washington and Jefferson as slave owners at the time and the difference between a statue of General Lee should be quickly obvious: Washington and Jefferson are NOT being honored BECAUSE of their owning slaves but IN SPITE of it. They are being honored as great Americans who - as Cromwell said about his portrait being made 'warts and all' - were flawed individuals who despite these flaws accomplished great things. In the case of the Confederate statues, however, you have a clear instance of HONORING the very rebellion that supported the institution of slavery and doing so years after the fact, in essence, as a thumb in the eye of the already oppressed black living under Jim Crow. It's not as though such statues were put in place during the war itself - rest assured, they would have been torn down - but they were blatant after the fact attempts to honor what were, in essence, traitors."

Of course, you can only make this argument if one is NOT stupid enough to recognize that under such distinctions, you can't try this argument with (for example) the Washington Redskins and don't spend all your time trying to change everything. Recognize nuance and acknowledge there might be some cases where we need to KEEP some things. For example, should the fact Woodrow Wilson was a racist get his name removed from a building? Only if you are honoring him BECAUSE he is a racist.

============


Just a note: I carry the baggage of the 2001 Mississippi flag referendum on this and having lived through it. It was stupid to the core. Long story short (oh ok)......the Democrat beat the Republican (a former D himself) in the governor's race in 99 after the House voted along party lines due to no majority. Since the governor basically got elected by virtue of nothing more than the entire black vote and about 1/7 of the white vote, the black politicians demanded removal of the flag as their 'payoff' for him getting elected He tried to hang it like a millstone around the LTGOV neck, but she was a better politician than he - and punted it back. Realizing he'd opened his own form of kryptonite, he put together a commission that he then stacked with anti-flag folks in a pretend effort to 'study the flag issue.' They recommended a new flag, which the state house turned down and demanded a public vote. Realizing now that his goose was likely cooked, he opted to have a SPECIAL ELECTION in April FAR AWAY from the actual election date. I read somewhere that the election cost the poorest state in the union $32 million. I don't know if it's true, but even $320,000 was too much for that idiocy. Naturally, the old flag carried by about 65-35. And Musgrove got clobbered by Haley Barbour a year and a half later (52-46).

I regard the entire thing as colossally stupid on just about every level.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
But you just moved the goalposts here my friend - and THIS is what I'm sick of.

We are supposed to remove the Rebel flag. WHY? It's a symbol of racism (so we're told) and the country's original sin blah blah blah.

OK, fair enough.

That's why PCOLA pointed out Washington the slave owner and Jefferson the slave banger who fathered at least one kid by one.

After all if it's REALLY slavery you're upset about then you should be consistent.....so naturally, we get the pivot to a completely different objection. Somehow, it's always said to be "different."

The slavery objection only has merit if you're going to apply it consistently. And then who becomes the arbiter of what's acceptable and on what grounds?

And given the fact that the Confederate veterans are legally buried and recognized here as US veterans and entitled to the same benefits, it's pretty clear the government doesn't have the view you just espoused.


So what's the next pivot?

Should I point out to all of you now invoking the "well, the Confederate flag wasn't used in the Southern states until the 1960s" that the state of Mississippi flag was used in 1894, quite a long time prior to the 1960s?

Does that suddenly change your argument?


==========================

(Now, I'm gonna write the anti-flag/anti-statue argument FOR you....it goes like this: "It is true, as you say, that some early Americans who ascended to leadership owned slaves as they were men of their time. However, I would point out the difference is that in the cases of, say, Washington and Jefferson as slave owners at the time and the difference between a statue of General Lee should be quickly obvious: Washington and Jefferson are NOT being honored BECAUSE of their owning slaves but IN SPITE of it. They are being honored as great Americans who - as Cromwell said about his portrait being made 'warts and all' - were flawed individuals who despite these flaws accomplished great things. In the case of the Confederate statues, however, you have a clear instance of HONORING the very rebellion that supported the institution of slavery and doing so years after the fact, in essence, as a thumb in the eye of the already oppressed black living under Jim Crow. It's not as though such statues were put in place during the war itself - rest assured, they would have been torn down - but they were blatant after the fact attempts to honor what were, in essence, traitors."

Of course, you can only make this argument if one is NOT stupid enough to recognize that under such distinctions, you can't try this argument with (for example) the Washington Redskins and don't spend all your time trying to change everything. Recognize nuance and acknowledge there might be some cases where we need to KEEP some things. For example, should the fact Woodrow Wilson was a racist get his name removed from a building? Only if you are honoring him BECAUSE he is a racist.

============


Just a note: I carry the baggage of the 2001 Mississippi flag referendum on this and having lived through it. It was stupid to the core. Long story short (oh ok)......the Democrat beat the Republican (a former D himself) in the governor's race in 99 after the House voted along party lines due to no majority. Since the governor basically got elected by virtue of nothing more than the entire black vote and about 1/7 of the white vote, the black politicians demanded removal of the flag as their 'payoff' for him getting elected He tried to hang it like a millstone around the LTGOV neck, but she was a better politician than he - and punted it back. Realizing he'd opened his own form of kryptonite, he put together a commission that he then stacked with anti-flag folks in a pretend effort to 'study the flag issue.' They recommended a new flag, which the state house turned down and demanded a public vote. Realizing now that his goose was likely cooked, he opted to have a SPECIAL ELECTION in April FAR AWAY from the actual election date. I read somewhere that the election cost the poorest state in the union $32 million. I don't know if it's true, but even $320,000 was too much for that idiocy. Naturally, the old flag carried by about 65-35. And Musgrove got clobbered by Haley Barbour a year and a half later (52-46).

I regard the entire thing as colossally stupid on just about every level.
My friend, I haven't made my point clear enough to be understood, let me try again.

The reason I think the Rebel flag should be retired is because it was the battleflag of an army fighting the United States. That is the same reason I think the Confederate statues should be retired, the men depicted fought against the United States.

The widespread opinion that the war was fought to preserve slavery is just added incentive to do what I advocate, but not the determining factor. There is no contradiction in my argument once you understand what I'm getting at.

It's as simple as that. Trying to confuse the issue by talking about Washington's ownership of slaves, or dismissing the fact that the Rebel flag was the battleflag of an army that fought our country, is not the issue, in my very humble opinion.

Is there any common ground?
Surely we can all agree that we are glad the Confederacy lost the war.
 
Why would you assume a leftist damaged Lincoln's statue? It sounds like what someone would do who are more likely from the other side.

I'm sure the right is able to find a few kooks from the left who you've seen saying this stuff, but they are a spit in the ocean...not enough to worry about.

#####
By the way, I've taken a few months off, but you are a poster I always read and enjoy.
The right isn't asking for these things to be taken down. Now, the desecration of the Lincoln statue is in Chicago, on the south side mind you. Now, I can safely assume the alt right isn't trying to do anything in that space. I've been wrong before though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]
 

G-VilleTider

Suspended
Aug 17, 2006
2,062
52
72
JBama, I am from the left side...it is my impression that leftists understand the difference between a man who took up arms against the United States and someone who did not. I know you and I are in agreement on this.

To argue that Washington and Jefferson are next is as red herring, a distraction that is not grounded in reality. It's meant to draw attention away from rightists who want these Confederate statues in public places of honor.

Let me make an equally silly false argument to try to illustrate my point.

After the right has secured these Confederate statues and gotten rid of the idea to remove them...here's what's next...

Since Benedict Arnold was a very successful military leader before he betrayed his country, we need some statues of him in Courthouse lawns and so forth. It's clear that treason isn't a disqualifying factor for whether Gen. Lee should have a statue, neither should Arnold's treason be a disqualifyer.


Ridiculous? Absolutely. On both sides. Nobody wants to remove Washington's statues, nor does anybody want to see statues of Arnold.

As an interesting aside...it turns out there is a memorial that obliquely refers to Arnold and his heorism before he turned traitor.

http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
CV, here is my problem in a nutshell. You are demonizing, not just the confederacy (intentionally lowercase) but the men who fought for their state/community/beliefs. As a veteran myself, I consider all the sacrifices men and women have made for this country to be both compelling and history worthy. I am not going to second judge ANY soldier (unless it is extreme to the nth degree). ALL societies have been built on the ruins/backs of others. Who are we, in our comfortable homes and lives, not worried about food, shelter, or today, even about electricity, that we think we have the moral high ground to judge people from another, virtually alien existence (from our point of view). Personally, I will honor ALL the men and women who have given their lives for this country ... not just the ones who were victorious.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
The right isn't asking for these things to be taken down. Now, the desecration of the Lincoln statue is in Chicago, on the south side mind you. Now, I can safely assume the alt right isn't trying to do anything in that space. I've been wrong before though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]


I lived in Chicago long enough to understand the city is big enough to have all kinds of folks. Just because it happened there is not reason to declare a leftist did it. My guess is that one of the folks championing the Confederacy would be more likely to damage a statue of Lincoln than someone who is from the opposite side.

I guess I'm being argumentative, but I'm really just trying to address points other people raise in a civil manner. I enjoy swapping opinions with you.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,617
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
I lived in Chicago long enough to understand the city is big enough to have all kinds of folks. Just because it happened there is not reason to declare a leftist did it. My guess is that one of the folks championing the Confederacy would be more likely to damage a statue of Lincoln than someone who is from the opposite side.

I guess I'm being argumentative, but I'm really just trying to address points other people raise in a civil manner. I enjoy swapping opinions with you.
What some dont realize is that you can be in the right (legally) but still be very wrong.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
CV, here is my problem in a nutshell. You are demonizing, not just the confederacy (intentionally lowercase) but the men who fought for their state/community/beliefs. As a veteran myself, I consider all the sacrifices men and women have made for this country to be both compelling and history worthy. I am not going to second judge ANY soldier (unless it is extreme to the nth degree). ALL societies have been built on the ruins/backs of others. Who are we, in our comfortable homes and lives, not worried about food, shelter, or today, even about electricity, that we think we have the moral high ground to judge people from another, virtually alien existence (from our point of view). Personally, I will honor ALL the men and women who have given their lives for this country ... not just the ones who were victorious.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's a complicated issue. My view is, Americans live in the United States. Trying to withdraw from the United States with a war can be seen as fighting for the ground you live on, but that ignores that the ground being fought over is, first and foremost, American soil.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.