Correct. These are symbols that aren't inherently negative in connotation.

It's all about context.

And that street is usually in a majority Black neighborhood / area. Which, you say you avoid, so why are you complaining? :confused:


Ummmm......where have you not been? I can't say that I've been to every city / town in the continental US, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, but I feel very confident in saying that of the ones I've been to in the continental US, they do have a Washington / Jefferson street / high school. As a matter of fact, the name of my high school is Washington, for Booker T. Washington.
;)

I thought Kappa Alpha Order flew that flag because they were founded by Robert E. Lee. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Many people say the same for the American flag.

I agree with you. But, when people come on GC and ask 'What's the big deal about your greek letters. They are just letters and many of you are not of actual Greek heritage.'

Then, we as greeks come back and say that our letters have meaning to us. We (greeks) know the context of our letters.

So, while the Confederate flag in of itself is just a flag, it's what people have decided to use the flag to represent. People attack the flag as a way of attacking what it stands for.

Agreed. But, at least under the American flag certain ethnic groups were able to acquire equality as stated in the Bill of Rights / Amendments. I just don't think certain people would have ever had a chance under the Confederate flag. And, since the 'Old South' lost, I guess we will never know.

Sigma, you're right, and my point was that just because a group uses the flag, does not mean that is the meaning of the flag. The most common flag of the confederacy, or the rebel flag, is so often used poorly that we chose not to use it in our fraternity. Thus we generally flew the Bonnie Blue or the Stars and Bars.

Back to MLK, the naming of stuff after him doesnt bother me. However, I think many places feel they have to name something after Dr. King, and I don't like that. I think only under extreme circumstances should we change the names of our old schools, parks and roads. It seems like localities are trying to show how diverse and accepting they are, and I simply think it is unnecessary to do so in that manner.

Regarding Maynard Jackson, many view him as starting the trend that is Atlanta today. Many white people from the city feel that he began the black supremacy movement, if you will, in Atlanta. This was the beginning of the large majority-black city council. The city then began to set aside contracts for minority businesses, and also Jackson declared a Liberties Day, to celebrate minorities. Now, its fine if black people run the city, they're the majority, but they also financially ran it into the ground. Jackson also caught a lot of heat for his association with Bill Campbell, who is not exactly the most trustworthy mayor we've had. My personal problem is that we decided to tack his name onto Hartsfield. I think Hartsfield did such a tremendous job in creating the airport, he should keep it. Also, I had a problem with the way the two Atlanta mayors Maynard Jackson and Lester Maddox were treated. Sure, Lester probably was a racist, but many would say Jackson was as well. However, while Jackson was proclaimed a hero, Maddox died being labled as a hateful bigot. To those who think this opposition to Jackson is simply because he's black, I think you're wrong and I think you'll notice a difference when ex mayor Young dies. Young is respected even by conservative whites. Of course, if they try and attach his name to something, there might be controversy. Can you imagine what would happen if somebody proposed to rename MLK blvd MLK-Billy Payne Blvd?

On another note about white people getting pissed about naming stuff...Consider that there are two roads in Atlanta which are called Billy McKinney road or pkwy, and another one named for Cynthia McKinney...

I'm still wondering what the reason for the march was in the first place. Was it to gather more support? If so, the marchers must have known that not everyone was in favor of the name change and no doubt expected a few protesters.

My point was that there has been a very strong association with the Confederate flag and what people use it to represent. Like I said, it is a flag like any other, but an ideology has been linked to the Confederate flag. And it's that ideology that people protest when they see the Confederate flag.


I think many people misunderstand the purpose of diversity. Learning diversity *does not* mean you have to love someone of another ethnicity, but just understand where they are coming from - why they are the way they are. I think I get why the Klan are the way they are, I don't love them, but I do try to understand their perspective. I don't agree with it, but I do try to understand.

You are completely mistaken.

Some individuals choose to fly it because long before they were fraternity members, they regarded that flag as a sign of their Southern heritage.

However, the Confederate battle flag has never been an official symbol of KA. KA was founded after the Civil War, after Robert E. Lee had surrendered, and after Lee had been appointed president of Washington University. Lee accepted the fate of the Confederacy and worked with the US government after the war was lost.

In the Spring 2004 edition of the KA Journal, a clip was reprinted from the Spring 2001 issue about the Confederate battle flag. (This blurb is not available in the online edition, unfortunately.)
Matt Bonner, former KA Journal editor:
"The Confederate battle flag is an embattled emblem. Those who use it can no longer control the mesage sent out by its use and how they will be perceived. Regardless of how much our members have used the battle flag in the past, the fact remains that KA has never had any official/formal association with the Confederacy or the Confederate battle flag."

The association between KA and Robert E Lee has nothing to do with the civil war. It has everything to do with his personal conduct and example. This is summed up in his "Definition of a Gentleman" which can be found here.

If you were going to associate any mention of Robert E. Lee with an organization's opinion of the Confederacy, or whatever issue you wish to insert, try setting your sights on Phi Mu. They consider him (with Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jackson) an honorary brother.

The current national president of KA (the Knight Commander), Ben Satcher, Jr has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate a KA chapter - collegiate or alumni - using the flag in the Order's name. His comments at Convivium 2006 were unmistakeable. If you really want to hear what the people at the top of KA think of that, their contact information is here.

I hope this clears up your misconception.

To others on this thread: If you want to decry the Confederate battle flag as racist in and of itself, that is obviously your right. But the cry of "racism" whenever a discussion does not go your way, or you just don't care for someone, is going to become old and ineffective in short order.

Victor Ziegler

Are you honestly that ignorant? You sound like a kindergartener.

I didn't think it was possible, but now I will have to assume that you are. The Confederate flag represents a nation. I'm not going to lie to you, I'm not sure if you've heard about this, but we here in the south once had their own nation. Crazy, I know.

You should maybe start burning the American flag...seeing as it has oppressed the Japanese during the internment camps of WWII, or even further back to the removal of the indians.

Who said anything about buring flags of any shape?

Wow - I've now seen it all.

You are absoultely correct in stating that the Confederate Battle Flag represents a nation - a nation founded on the ideal that people, simply due to the color of their skin, were not equal. A nation based on agriculture and a system that onnly allowed for that agriculture to flourish under the premise of slave labor. It was a nation that made it illegal for non-whites to learn how to read or marry without a white man's consent. It was a nation that, whose intention was to hope for a military stalemate, sue for peace and then come back to the United States under their terms so they could keep the "peculiar institution".

If that is the heritage and pride that you wish to represent, by all means do so -but don't look amazed when someone takes you to task for that and ASSUMES (I don't assume anything, but others might and will) you're a bigot.

It sounds as if the fraternity in this case may be taking a bum rap. That's hard to tell.

As for the display of the flag, my feeling on that would depend on the intent of the person who flew it -- and, although it seems to be negative in this case, I really don't know that for sure.

The bottom line, though, is that pesky old Constitution and that free speech thing.

Like I said, you may not like what I have to say, but I have the freedom to say it. God Bless the USA.

I think you may be slightly mistaken. The Confederate flag represents a defunct, never really got started nation. And, btw, I'm from Texas. A state that was it's own nation, The Republic of Texas, and was part of the Confederate. So, yeah, I know about the Southern States trying to form their own nation.



Okay, I don't know how you came up with this but I feel that there is no need to burn the American flag. The American flag represents many people of different backgrounds and cultures here in the US. There have been many who have been oppressed in the US, and as a result of a great deal of struggle, strides have been made towards equality. Realize I said towards, we are not quite there yet.

Regardless of anything it may mean as far as black/white is concerned, I think flying/using the Confederate flag as a general "rebellion" statement is STOO PID. That's kinda like flying the Pennsylvania flag if you're against drinking laws because the Whiskey Rebellion happened here. :rolleyes:

If I was a descendant of a Confederate soldier, I'd be very upset to see it just being used for whatever tickles someone's fancy that day.

It also kills me when I see the Confederate flag on a bumper sticker that says "These colors don't run". Hello...the Confederate flag is...red, white & blue.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We have a whole Washington & Jefferson college up here. :)

Also, Clearfield PA has a Dolly Parton Boulevard (and no, she never visited there). I don't know for sure what statement that is making.

I believe the statement would be "Our bureaucrats like boobs".

In all fairness, this is their house, and unless it violates some kind of fraternity or neighborhood rules, I don't see why they can't hang a confederate flag if they want. I would not be too happy to see someone hang a Nazi flag from their balcony or window, but it would be their property so they would be entitled to decorate it however they want or hang whatever they want on it.

The idea that the CSA was "based" on inequality is a stupid one. If we use that standard, so was the United States. Inequality existed in both instances, but to say they were the basis for either is incorrect. Regardless of personal opinion, people should be able to fly the flag whenever they wish.

I've seen the same bumber sticker with the American flag. It's a play on words: colors can "run" when they get wet, of course, but "colors" is also a military term for a national or military flag, as in "advance the colors" or "color guard."

I know, I get it, but I still think it's dumb. Or even worse was the one I saw with the Confederate flag and the POW/MIA symbol that said "We never would have left you".:rolleyes:

Before you start yelling about how the CSA was fighting for slavery, you should probably read this: (http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html).

An excerpt:
You will notice that the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Tennesee, and the "slave-eligible" territories of New Mexico, Utah, Nebraska, and Kansas were not mentioned, and the emancipation proclimation did not apply to them.

You must now ask yourself, 1) Why would lincoln not "free" the slaves in those states? and 2) If Lincoln was willing to allow slavery in order to maintain the Union, and the CSA was rebelling to maintain slavery, why would the rebelling nation not simply return right then and there under the stipulation that slavery was allowed?

Lincoln knew that once Britain entered the war, the US Naval blockades of the South would be useless, allowing the Confederacy to easily resuply themselves. He also knew that the British people would never fight for slavery, as they did not beleive in it. He also knew that after his "proclimation" the federal army would be seen as fighting to free the slaves, and the Confederacy would therefor be seen as fighting to maintain slavery (this did happen, and there were mass race riots in New York City because of it, during which hundreds of black men were hung from street lamps. Of course, in the North, people of all colors were "treated equally").
Couple all this with the fact that most textbooks are published in New York, and you get this widespread misconception that not only was the Confederacy founded on the idea of slavery, but also that the confederate battle flag is a symbol for the oppression of anyone.

In reality, the Confederacy was founded to fight the tyrannical oppression of the Northern states on the Southern, less developed states.

Shiner,
you and I are getting along in this thread so i'll only say this

you're right about how both the CSA and the USA started on an "inequality" concept - the difference is one of the reasons that the CSA was formed was to keep that inequality alive and make it law of the land - that's all

Still untrue. The controversy over slavery was merely the most visable strand of a much larger dispute.

lincoln didn't free the slaves - i know that - the 13th amendment to the Constitution freed the slaves. He did what any good politician would do - he turned the tide of popular opinion in his favor and made the CSA seem to be the slavemongers.



No one ever said that the North was all about equality - heck, some would argue that the biggest racists in the US are not in the South, where you know where you stand almost instantly, but in the North where they smile in your face and call you names behind your back.

Couple all this with the fact that most textbooks are published in New York, and you get this widespread misconception that not only was the Confederacy founded on the idea of slavery, but also that the confederate battle flag is a symbol for the oppression of anyone.

In reality, the Confederacy was founded to fight the tyrannical oppression of the Northern states on the Southern, less developed states.[/QUOTE]

Lastly, as to your webpage - heck, just as you can find sites that will bolster your arguement - and good for you that you did, so can I.

Let's get off of this and get back to the task at hand - the flying of the Conferedate Battle Flag drives people crazy - I don't care how you slice it, people do it to cause a reaction in others, nothing more. If people were really about Southern heritage and the history of the CSA, then they, like Shinerbock and others, would fly Bonnie Blue.

you just agreed with me - i didn't say the Only reason, i said one of the reasons - I agree that it was far too complex to only be about slavery

So, technically it's not against the law to burn the Stars and Stripes, but people get their britches in a twist when someone displays the Confederate battle?

It's either "just a flag" or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

This is debatable.

Well, people definitely get their britches in a twist when someone burns the Stars and Stripes, too.

But that same pesky First Amendment that protects the flag burner protects the CSA Battle Flag displayer. Both are protected, both will get britches in a twist.

My website was the National Park Service (with a .gov) site with the exact text of the Emacipation Proclimation. This isn't some crazy klan member site.

Like I said, I agree with you. But given the ideology of what the CSA was all about. And, yes. Lincoln did not free the slaves because he loved them. I just think that given the circumstances at the time, slaves and other ethnicites stood a better chance of equality in the US over what would have become the CSA. Like you said, it is debatable because we will never really know.

I don't think anyone is saying that they can't hang the flag if they want. I think what some people, well at least I am, are trying to say is that they have every right to hang the flag. But given the reaction the Confederate flag elicits, just be prepare for a negative reaction by some people.

No one suggested that it was a crazy Klan site - I was just mentioning that anyone can find supporting documents for their cause - not that they are wrong, just that there are always 2 sides to the story.

for example there is this site
http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/content....roduction.html

which is a book by a guy who goes to state historic and national historic sites and fights the myths and the history there - not saying that he's right - just saying that just because the NPS says it doesn't mean it's holy writ.

It can be both ways. It just depends on who you are talking to. For some, it is 'just a flag', for others, it is a flag that has been used as a representation of an ideology that is considered offensive.

I'm sorry I just can't help but laugh at this.

You're comparing some guy's opinion (I only read the first sentence, but he doesn't seem to write it like a textbook) to the actual text of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?

I would say though, that because the NPS says "this is the text of the original," it most likely is. Don't really have time to drive to the National Archives right now, I'm at work, maybe later today though.

You win - I'm done - you can't see the forest for the trees. have a great day and snap those fingers - I'll tell Mr Westol you said hello.

Please tell me you at least can tell the difference between some guy writing about the emancipation proclamation and the actual, un-modified text of the emancapation proclimation. That's what I was laughing at, not you.

If you do actually talk to Brother Dave, and aren't just dropping names, tell him I haven't yet found out why Carlton Bennett is a democrat.

I don't even know what you all are "debating" in this thread, so I'll just use this time to give my Public Service Announcement:

Slavery was about capitalism and not racism. This capitalism/material foundation is the basis for "colonialism" and an explanation for why there were Africans selling Africans into slavery. The North American racist ideologies arose to reinforce and legitimate the exploitation of cheap, slave labor. As time went on, capitalists used these racist ideologies to control both black and white labor (as a means of opportunity hoarding and a racialized split labor market, as well as to prevent the proletariate from uniting across race lines).

I think it's important to understand (historical and) social context as everyone is talking past each other. As you were. :)

brains are sexy.