NY doesn't get it: Take II

[Cambridge]

I couldn't reply to that thread for some reason...


As a person who grew up in Richmond, VA, I have to say there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the Stars and Bars. None. Absolutely none. People say, oh you don't understand, it's a celebration of our heritage.

Hmmm, the one flaw I find in that argument is that most of the use of that flag doesn't go back to the Civil War -- but rather to the revival of the Stars and Bars during the Civil Rights era. It was picked up in the 50s and early 60s by politicians and activists alike to rally against desegregation.

The fact is, anyone over the age of 50 in the South grew up under segregation. It is not an old wound. People say, oh slavery was 150 years ago. Yeah. Well, people were getting lynched just 35 years ago. When you fly that flag, you fly the same flag they wheeled in front of those victims, right before they strung them up in a tree. It's disgusting.

If it was a swaztika, would we even be having an argument. No? Probably not. I'm sorry, if there are southerners out there who are offended by this, but the fact is, they have to realize that as much as they love the romantic notion of the south -the flag and the confederacy is forever tarnished by its horrible legacy.

You want to celebrate Southern pride? Find a new symbol.

And before I hear the "the North was attrocious too" arguments from Southerners ect...

Yes, you are right. The North butchered the South. Wives and sisters were raped. Cities were burned. Families destroyed. A whole region was devastated. Sherman alone can account for much of that. No one is denying that.

Yes, you are right, they don't teach the Civil War properly in school. They simplify it to Slavery. Sure, there were other factors. It was about states' rights.

But, the truth is, none of that changes the fact that slavery was an attrocity that is unparalleled in US history. It is a blight on our identity so severe that we may never be able to redeem ourselves. Especially, if we choose not to acknowledge the dangerous symbolism of things that seem to glorify it.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

Playing devil's advocate here because I agree the stars and bars is a tainted symbol. However, if someone displays it as a symbol of our distinctly Federal system, then it could be construed as representing an American value.

I think Southerners would relent on their flag (flying at State Houses) if they didn't perceive Northerners as trying to take it away from them and impose their sophisticated values. This, I think, is the biggest disconnect in America today. For example, the fellow who put the 10 Commandments in the courthouse. What was the big deal? I know we have separation of church and state, but who the eff cares if someone wants to display morality in a public place, especially if the local population supports it (although it was a Federal court). I don't, and I'm not Christian. The question of church and state is an interesting one. The Founders don't seem like they intended the U.S. to be a secular nation, or one in which the public life is devoid of faith. I think they intended that the public life embrace faiths and no faith. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I think the President's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is a good thing. It funds community efforts by many sects that are doing good in their localities. What's wrong with that?

[Cambridge]

Hey, I have no problem with faith based initiatives. In fact my father is a pioneer in racial reconciliation in the South. His work is driven by his convictions and his faith. He is a religious man(Anglican) but never pushes his views on anyone whatsoever.

However, both of us would agree that the only danger is if these faith based initiatives are meant to replace social services. The fact is the net is enormous and there are plenty of holes as it is. You attempt to create a patchwork of interworking faith based initiatives to replace that and you are in for trouble. For one thing the Fundamentalists from various walks of life (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) may not wish to cooperate with those of other faiths. They may require those they are helping to adhere to their morals. They may require conversion. Who knows?

The point is, you end up with the Federal government funneling its money through organizations that promote very specific agendas. Will the government be giving this money equally? Who decides?

For example will the church lady circle in small town midlen TX get the same treatment as the Islamic center in downtown NY? Will this admin allow Islamic faith based initiatives to hand out charity in exchange for conversion? Or will they just allow born again christians to do it?

[kchoya]

You're missing the point to go on and on about slavery and racial segregation. Very few of those who display the confederate flag on their cars, trucks or wherever are doing because they believe in racial segregation or whatever. A lot of people are afraid of the elites in New York and Washington, DC and elsewhere dictating how they live and intruding in their lives.

No one is disputing that, in part, the stars and bars stands for some very evil ideologies. However, if you simply stop there and say that the Confederate flag should never be displayed, but you don't take the next step and examine the real reasons why some feel it necessary to display the flag, you're never going to get anywhere.

And this is not a Southern thing, it's not about southern pride. I've lived in all four time zones and I've seen the flag displayed all over. This is about people appalled at the attitudes like those in the Times article at the top of the original thread. Their is a great distrust in red state America of those in the media centers and on the coasts beleiving that they know better and forcing their beliefs on the rest of America.

[tgo]

[
The point is, you end up with the Federal government funneling its money through organizations that promote very specific agendas.
[/quote]

So ... that is not how it works with non-faith based government organizations? That would not be very accurate. Just because someone is a civil servent and not a priest doesnt make them more interested in the common good etc.

The "safety net" is run by people who have an interest in maintaining their own importance and thereby making sure there are always plenty of people who need a safety net.

Those who run "safety net" programs right now TEXT to be liberals TEXT who believe that women, blacks, immigrants etc cant make it without the help of the government, that seems like an agenda to me, in my opinion a dangerous destructive agenda at that.

i wish i had longer to write but i am at work but another important thing to mention is that it amazes me that liberals hate bush so much and worry about him governing to the right when he has been one of the most liberal presidents on the issues i care about most.
federal spending is beyond out of control and while the borders are already wide open, he wants to make them even more so by offering amnesty to people who have broken the law to get here.

[nychoya3]

Bush hasn't been liberal on anything, but he certainly hasn't been conservative. In the traditional sense of the term, the Democrats are now the conservative party. It's the GOP that is seeking to tear down the edifices of the New Deal and to recraft our foreign policy into something unrecognizable by renouncing and weakening the alliances, treaties, and institutions of the post-1945 system.

Liberalism never stood for deficit spending during an upturn, unless you define liberal as "whatever it is I'm against." That's just absurd. Democrats are clearly the party of fiscal discipline. The Cato wing of the GOP has been completely marginalized. Tax cutting is the only ideology, and there's no accompanying desire to cut popular programs or defense spending. Kerry ran as the Pay-as-you-go candidate and the candidate who was willing to scale back spending and raise taxes to get the budget into balance. Bush won't, and we will all suffer for it.

I won't argue the immigration issue, but I think you're very wrong.

Definitions aside, Bush "Conservatism" has been defined, on the domestic front, by a monomaniacal focus on politics. On trade, the budget, taxes, medicaid, and basically every other iniative, the only apparent consideration has been the political capital gained.

[Z]

kc, i understand where youre coming from, but proudly displaying the confederate flag is indefensinly insensitive. i really dont see the difference between it and a modern german proudly displaying a swaztika, even if he doesn't do it out of support for genocide, but merely out of a resentment and disagreement with the weimar republic. put up a flag giving the union flag the bird, whatever. but you can't sit there and ignore the message that throwing up the confederate flag radiates to black americans.

[kchoya]

Z said:

kc, i understand where youre coming from, but proudly displaying the confederate flag is indefensinly insensitive. i really dont see the difference between it and a modern german proudly displaying a swaztika, even if he doesn't do it out of support for genocide, but merely out of a resentment and disagreement with the weimar republic. put up a flag giving the union flag the bird, whatever. but you can't sit there and ignore the message that throwing up the confederate flag radiates to black americans.

That may be true, but one also needs to look at why a person displays the flag.

[kchoya]

Here's another article/column/blog I'll throw out there for this thread:

Slate.com: The unteachable ignorance of the [glow=red,2,300]red states[/glow]
slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

[showcase]

It never ceases to amaze me to hear people claim that Bush isn't a conservative because he's spending alot.

Um, occupying the extremes on two different issues doesn't mean you're a moderate. You don't average it out like some equation.

Dubya is a social conservative, period. He's also conservative in his spending priorities - as a federal employee, I see it everyday. Just because he can't say no to pork from a 'Pub Congress doesn't mean that liberals should love him. Heck, I'm a lefty but I'm all for fiscally sound spending decisions by our government - it's the priorities on how that money is spent that determines whether one is "liberal" or "conservative" on government spending - or at least is does where's Dubya's concerned.

[DFW HOYA]

CambridgeHoya said:

As a person who grew up in Richmond, VA, I have to say there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the Stars and Bars. None. Absolutely none.

Point of clarification: the "Stars and Bars" correctly refers to the seven star Confederate flag of 1861, not the X-shaped "Southern Cross" that is at issue here.

www.usflag.org/confederate.stars.and.bars.html

[TC]

kchoya said:

Their is a great distrust in red state America of those in the media centers and on the coasts beleiving that they know better and forcing their beliefs on the rest of America.

Like trying to create a constitutional end-run around gay marriage and the laws of some of the blue states?

[DanMcQ]

The Values-Vote Myth

by David Brooks

www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html

[nychoya3]

I agree that the sentiment exists. However, the "Blue States" (this dichotomy is way too harsh, but whatever) don't want to force men to marry men, or to make women have abortions. If anyone wants to impose their moral and cultural values in this country , it's clearly the more conservative side of things. The "liberal agenda" on social issues is basically permissive, whereas the conservative agenda centers around stopping others from doing things that they don't find morally troublesome.

None of this is going to erase the feeling among conservatives that their values are under attack, but I think the sentiment is entirely backwards.