We didn't hang that flag, say fraternity/Greenville, NC

[brobuzzz]

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.

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.

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.

[PKPILZ003]

Originally Posted by brobuzzz

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.

[brobuzzz]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[starang21]

brains are sexy.

[Elephant Walk]

Slavery was about capitalism and not racism.

I hope you didn't study economics in college, because it taught you nothing. Slavery is ANTI-CAPITALISM, by every sense of the word. Slavery destroyed capitalism and the economy of the south, because it lowered wages. It did well for the wealthy upper-class, but left most in the dirt. If you have a lot of people you aren't paying, it means that those who are free are being paid very little for their work, because someone could get a slave to do that job for free.

Furthermore, one realizes that the Africans put themselves in this spot because the tribes sold rival hostage tribes to slave traders. Earlier in this trade, the Arabs would take the slaves from Africa to Europe, but Europe abolished the trade.

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

I believe you needed to understand the economical and historical aspects of the situation.

The North American racist ideologies arose to reinforce and legitimate the exploitation of cheap, slave labor.

This is difficult to prove. People don't all of a sudden say "oh, these aren't real people so we can enslave them." There must have been plenty of racial feelings waay before slavery began. It may have evolved further to accomodate the slave trade, but it didn't all of a sudden begin to reinforce slaves.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Slavery is ANTI-CAPITALISM, by every sense of the word. Slavery destroyed capitalism and the economy of the south, because it lowered wages. It did well for the wealthy upper-class, but left most in the dirt. If you have a lot of people you aren't paying, it means that those who are free are being paid very little for their work, because someone could get a slave to do that job for free.

This part of your post supports why slavery was an economic threshold and how the exploitation of cheap, slave labor served to advance capitalist exploits by minimizing input and maximizing output. Even if you don't want to articulate it as "capitalism," the central point is that slavery was about economics and the exploitation of slave labor. [[Of course, it's more "fun" to think about it as racism and use it as an example of racism in North America but what came out of slavery is a better example of racism than the the initial stages of slavery, itself.]]

For instance, isn't capitalism reinforced through the new immigration's exploitation of cheap labor? The wages are kept low so the capitalists can be well-off while those who are forced to sell their labor are paid very little for it. That's just a contemporary spin (and you can arguably add visible race and gender effects to the mix now more than you could 200-300 years ago) but the story is all the same.

But I appreciate your furthering my argument.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Furthermore, one realizes that the Africans put themselves in this spot because the tribes sold rival hostage tribes to slave traders. Earlier in this trade, the Arabs would take the slaves from Africa to Europe, but Europe abolished the trade.

All of this means what in reference to the pursuit and exploitation of cheap labor? What's embedded in all of this?

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I believe you needed to understand the economical and historical aspects of the situation.

Don't be so quick to get snippy. Your rebuttal isn't sound.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

This is difficult to prove. People don't all of a sudden say "oh, these aren't real people so we can enslave them." There must have been plenty of racial feelings waay before slavery began. It may have evolved further to accomodate the slave trade, but it didn't all of a sudden begin to reinforce slaves.

It isn't really difficult to prove but either way you are definitely missing the crux of the argument and misinterpreting what I posted. Start with where I said "The North American racist ideologies" (this distinction is key) and go from there.

[DSTCHAOS]

Anyway....

I brought up the economic point to provide an additional angle to the "Old South/slavery/symbols of hatred" discussion. As Elephant Walk so eloquently explained, many Southerners (the noncapitalists) were paid very little for their labor if their labor was utilized at all. This is a standard resource/labor market competition threat argument. The "racial hatred" that we always talk about was (at least initially) very much rooted in anger over competiting with the cheap labor of slaves (and freed blacks before and after slavery was abolished). Similar to how many people express anger over low wage Mexican immigrant labor by making racially prejudiced remarks. Of course deliberate immigration isn't the same as being sold into slavery.

We all have to be aware of the differential impact that these symbols (like the Confederate flag) have on people. What one person sees as an expression of Southern heritage, even if it was very much a plantation economy, others view as almost inherently racist. But, it's all about one's standpoint so I'm not quick to shout "bigotry" or "racism" without understanding the other side of the debate.

[ECUJacob]

As a resident of Greenville, and member of ECU's Greek community, I can tell you that this is being blown completely out of proportion.

I think that flag was hanging long before the marchers decided to walk down the street. Although I don't particularly care for someone displaying the Confederate Flag, I do recognize their right to do so.

This entire situation is a direct result of the tension that has been mounting in our city due to the name of a street. They want to change the name of one of the streets that encloses our campus from 5th Street to MLK, Jr. What's the point in changing the street name?! If you want to do something to honor Dr. King, I think we can find something better than a street sign.

[RU OX Alum]

point of privelage:

what is commonly called the "battle flag" was actully used as the CSA Naval Jack. The Battle Flag used by the Infantry was more square and red. The Cavalary was bigger (naval jack sized) but still red, not orange. This post was brought to you by the Museum Visit I went on.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

We all have to be aware of the differential impact that these symbols (like the Confederate flag) have on people. What one person sees as an expression of Southern heritage, even if it was very much a plantation economy, others view as almost inherently racist. But, it's all about one's standpoint so I'm not quick to shout "bigotry" or "racism" without understanding the other side of the debate.

Wisdom!

But I also think that those who display a Confederate flag with the most innocent of intentions (heritage, for example) are extremely niave at best or inconsoderate at worst if they don't appreciate how some may interpret the display.

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

what is commonly called the "battle flag" was actully used as the CSA Naval Jack. The Battle Flag used by the Infantry was more square and red.

True, and to be even more specific, the "Battle Flag" was the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was indeed square and usually had a narrow white border all around. It was incorpotated in the second and third national flags of the CSA (the two flags that replaced the Stars and Bars), much in the same way that it appears in the flag of Mississippi now.

It must be remembered, though, that flags of the Civil War era were typically handmade, and both Union and Conferederate flags showed a great deal of variety in shape, shades of colors and details.

As for the navy jack, what is too often today called "the Battle Flag" (or the Stars and Bars) was the second navy jack -- it was adopted when the second national flag was adopted.

If anyone is looking for good, accurate information on the many, many Confederate flags (the history and use of them, not the various meanings attached to some of them since the Civil War), Flags of the Confederacy is a very good site.

ETA: As I noted, there were often variations among flags. After December 1863, the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee was identical to the CSA naval jack (what Shinerbock calls "the rebel flag") -- i.e., rectangular rather than square and without the white border.

[shinerbock]

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but far too many think the "rebel" flag is the same as the "stars and bars."

Stars and Bars:

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Wisdom!

But I also think that those who display a Confederate flag with the most innocent of intentions (heritage, for example) are extremely niave at best or inconsoderate at worst if they don't appreciate how some may interpret the display.

I definitely agree with you.

I think the point of compromise is to keep the doors of communication open. People on one side shouldn't be so quick to yell "racist" and people on the other side shouldn't be so quick to just put the symbols out there without considering how others perceive it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but far too many think the "rebel" flag is the same as the "stars and bars."

Stars and Bars:

Except that the number of stars varied from 7 (as shown) to 13 or more. There's even one example with just one star.

[sigmadiva]

Around here, SE Texas, the 'Stars and Bars' is the Confederate flag that has a field of red and a big blue 'X' going across the middle with white stars in the blue area.