90% of it comes from the Democrats and the Left.
Yes. And it’s always been the case, from the times of slavery, through Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, right up through today.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: Why do we continue to honor the racist Woodrow Wilson? He was a Democrat, and the first arguably fascist president. And his views were probably influenced by the anti-Enlightenment pro-slavery screeds of Calhoun and Fitzhugh.
[Friday-morning update]
Whitewashing the Democrats’ racist history. With (as always) the aid of the media, either from ignorance or partisanship, or both.
[Bumped]
It’s fun pointing out how racist Woodrow Wilson was. The left goes into paroxysms as they try to defend him. In fact, the PBS website tries to explain it away by calling him a Southerner.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_african.html
The truth is, Progressivism is by nature a racist ideology. Let us not forget Margaret Sanger wanted to abort black children.
This has been my experience but I live in a blue state.
Simon, who cites his Jewish family’s experience in the Holocaust, asks “Is Obama telling me that racism is in my DNA? ”
I think Simon misses something important about the American experience. Like Simon, I’m Jewish and my ancestors came to the United States after slavery was abolished. But I consider myself descended from the founding fathers and their liberty-loving English ancestors as well – not in my literal DNA, of course, but in my spiritual DNA, or if that sounds too religious, my “corporate DNA”. This is a metaphorical use of “DNA”, but it is such a common metaphor, I bet we encounter it nearly every day and don’t even notice. But it is a useful metaphor: The founding fathers are part of my personal history, which I inherited from my great grandparents who chose to become Americans.
The essence of the American experience is that immigrants come to America and absorb the American DNA and pass it on to their children. The President of the United States is quite right: slavery is part of our common history, as Americans.
“But I consider myself descended from the founding fathers and their liberty-loving English ancestors as well – not in my literal DNA”
Ideology isn’t skin deep? Dude are you sure you are a Democrat? For the last 16 years you guys have been saying that ideology is determined by skin color and that following non-Democrat ideologies was being a race traitor. Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Nikki Haley are just some of the recent examples of Democrats claiming they are race traitors in our country’s largest publications.
“not in my literal DNA, of course, but in my spiritual DNA, or if that sounds too religious, my “corporate DNA””
You are looking for the word society or culture.
People from all over the world came to the USA and set aside their ancient hatreds to live side by side with their historical enemies as equal participants in a new country whose culture they adopted as their own. It wasn’t a “white culture” or “white government” or “white” whatever Democrats have been saying lately. Skin color had/has nothing to do with the ideology our system was based on.
People of all races and ethnicities can become Americans and adopt our culture, just like your and my ancestors did.
“The essence of the American experience is that immigrants come to America and absorb the American DNA and pass it on to their children.”
Yes! But this idea is considered racist by Democrats right now. The expectation from Democrats is that immigrants move to the USA and then keep all of their old hostilities, cultural identity, and loyalties. They are expected to remain “authentically” foreign or they become race traitors like Bobby Jindal. Assimilation into American culture and society is viewed by Democrats as a betrayal of one’s race.
Can you not see how Democrats are trying to create racial divisions where none existed and to exacerbate existing racial divisions?
“The President of the United States is quite right: slavery is part of our common history, as Americans.”
Yes, but no one today should be punished for slavery. Somehow Democrats have flipped the script to scapegoat Republicans for slavery. Democrats want to punish the South, and Republicans in general, for slavery and historical racism.
For Democrats, healing racism means tearing down the GOP, who they blame for slavery and racism. They hold up a historical sin as needing redress but rather than blame the party who was historically responsible, they blame their modern day political opponents who ended the Democrat system of slavery and Jim Crown.
It is mind boggling to me how the people who ended slavery and Jim Crow are now being blamed for both.
I agree with your post Bob-1 but do you realize how far off you are from the Democrat base on this?
You are referring to an idea that used to be called the “melting pot”. But that has been touted as racist by democrats for decades and been replaced by “diversity”.
Which one is it Bob? A shared history/melting pot or diversity?
Jon, they aren’t exclusive. Wodun understood me – I’m for political or ideological assimilation (call it a “melting pot”, but make sure the ideology doesn’t get diluted) but not necessarily for ethnic assimilation – I’m also for “diversity”. For example, after Roger Simon’s ancestors and my own ancestors fled Russia’s pogroms, I wouldn’t have wanted them to feel they had to “melt” into the general population and refrain from all Jewish customs. But I would want them to fully adopt American political culture and history as their own, and of course, they did, which is why you are reading what Roger Simon thinks about politics.
“Ethnic assimilation?” The only way I can think of assimilate one’s ethnicity is to interbreed. Are you against that?
By “ethnicity” I was referring less your “breed” than to your culture, and culture is quite changeable, particularly over the generations. My very flip answer is to go watch “The Jazz Singer” — the basic idea there was that the son of a cantor wants to sing modern american songs, and the father’s response was “Remember who you are. God gave you a gift, and he wants to use it in shul. If you want to go sing that modern stuff, you’re no son of mine.” I’m sure there are analogs in every immigrant culture, with language, food, family customs, and much more. If you want a less flip answer, just ask me.
(And I’m not against any sort of “inter-marriage” but it isn’t what I was talking about.)
Sorry, my answer is missing words in many of the sentences I wrote. I hope you can decipher what I was saying.
Bob,
I understand what you are saying, but what I see on the left isn’t the shared historical and political identity with different cultures in the mix. That is the definition of the melting pot.
What I see is the Frankfurt School/Marxist plan of fragmenting America into ethnic and identity groups with the purpose of destroying the shared political and historical background, all for the purpose of building a new political system. This fragmentation is the truth behind diversity.
The “melting pot” concept has been banned as offensive to immigrants. Everyone must adjust their world-views accordingly or be summoned to Room 101.
Correction – melting pot is considered offensive by illegal immigrants. Every legal immigrant I’ve ever met (and that’s dozens of them including my wife) wants to assimilate. They went through the trouble of abiding by the rules. You know, chumps. They could’ve came here illegally and demanded free stuff like the cool kids.
“The President of the United States is quite right: slavery is part of our common history, as Americans.”
This is imbecilic:
If Ogg the Neanderthal killed Bog, is that part of your personal common history, too?
You seem to accept…swallow whole, as a matter of fact…the idea that sins are never over with….they persist and should be paid for generation after generation.
Do you also feel that people should be forever grateful? If Ogg the Neanderthal did Bog a favor should the descendants of Bog be forever grateful to all of that nation forever?
If you are a descendent of someone – 15 generations past – who held slaves are you guilty of slavery?
Obama claims it so he can pretend to have something in common with the 99% of American blacks who, unlike him, are descended from slaves.
Then again, Wilsonian Progressivism was instrumental in pushing the USA one major leap forward from a limited-government country to a statist one . (It even rates its own section in Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM,) So the State-cultists and their dupes (hi, Bob-1!) would be willing to give “America’s First International Maniac President” a pass on all his other shortcomings.
*Murray Rothbard’s description of WW.
Wilson was terrible on race and civil liberties, and of course his foreign policy was a failure. Is there anyone who defends his policy record today?
What’s the name of the bridge over the Potomac?
Historians’ view of Wilson has changed quite a bit since that bridge went up in 1961. And states love to honor native sons, whether they deserve it or not. Virginia even has a holiday for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson; Wilson may have been a bad president, but at least he didn’t wage war against his country. Here in New Hampshire we have a college named for Franklin Pierce, another terrible president. In our defense it is a private college, and he’s the only president we’ve got. Wilson probably benefitted from a similar phenomenon. He was the first Democrat re-elected to the presidency since Andrew Jackson, eighty years earlier; that was a long drought.
Wilson may have been a bad president, but at least he didn’t wage war against his country.
No, he only waged war against individual citizens of it, jailing them for speaking out against him.
Historians’ view of the Confederate flag has changed quite a bit since that war ended in 1861. And states love to honor native symbols, whether they deserve it or not.
Thank you for finally admitting the failures of Progressivism. You might also want to add his economic failures and his love of the book, Philip Dru: Administrator, which advocates the destruction of the Constitution.
Racism in the USA oh look more
If racism is in our DNA then we have to learn to be more accepting of racists, who after all were born that way through no fault of their own.
Obama, scoring another own-goal.
“The President of the United States is quite right: slavery is part of our common history, as Americans.” If so, and I as a descendent of recent immigrants share this common history, so too do all black Americans. They are as much a slave-owner as I am, and as much a former slave as I am.
I don’t see how this “common history” should imply that wealthier minorities should be favored today over poor non-minorities. (If it’s not being used to imply that, I don’t quite see the point of mentioning it.)
The hospital where I work wants to help the inner-city minorities of my city – a laudable goal. To accomplish this, they will favor minorities in their hiring processes, even though they will not under any circumstances hire any of those disadvantaged inner-city minorities, who would not fit into the culture of the hospital at all. Instead, they will preferentially hire people like the Obamas, who grew up upper-middle-class and need absolutely no special help.
And it’s always been the case, from the times of slavery, through Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, right up through today.
Then why is it that it’s conservative Republicans who are most resistant to our long-overdue jettisoning of the Lost Cause historiography of the Civil War? Jim Webb aside, it isn’t Democrats clinging to the Confederate battle flag, or the misapprehension that the war was primarily over states’ rights. Those were Democratic views once, but it’s Republicans claiming them now.
Yah, nice try. It’s you who are implying that these symbols are racist, when in fact, they appeal to many people who are not racist. You see how you did that? You decided that the symbols were racist, and so anyone who disagreed with you must be racist.
It’s what you do. We shouldn’t expect any better.
Jim thinks its racist for people to cheer for USA in soccer rather than whatever country their ancestors came from. Kinda explains Democrats attacks on Jindal and numerous other Republicans for being race traitors because they embrace American culture and society rather than speak their ancestral tongue and live as if they were in whatever ghetto their family left generations ago.
Democrats want to keep minorities as pets. You can come to America, you just can’t be an American.
It’s you who are implying that these symbols are racist
They were originally the symbols of Democrats who took up arms against their country in defense of slavery. More recently they gained new popularity and prominence as the symbols of Democrats and Dixiecrats fighting integration. Why, then, is it Republicans holding onto them today?
Because the symbols have changed. Those crazy Duke boys by gosh were so racist as they drove around in their General Lee.
I guess we’d better get rid of the US flag since that was used by the KKK far more than the confederate flag. And by your standards, the 1930s is recent history.
Maybe you’re offended because the symbol has changed into one of rebellion, and you just can’t stand the thought of someone unwilling to do what the federal government commands.
Because the symbols have changed.
So they are formerly-racist symbols, but all the racism has been washed out of them now? How does that square with the argument that they’re appeals to heritage?
Those crazy Duke boys by gosh were so racist as they drove around in their General Lee.
Imagine that you visited Japan and there was a TV show where lovable rascals drove around in a rising-sun-painted car named the General Tojo. The issue wouldn’t be that those characters, or actors, or the people who made the show, were necessarily violent ultra-nationalists. The issue would be that they’d been raised in a culture that had so successfully buried its history that they could use those symbols without thought or shame.
That’s what “The Dukes of Hazard” tells you about the U.S. in the 1970s.
The swastika was usurped by Hitler. Before him it was (and still is) an ancient Hindu symbol for fortune, well-being, etc. We in the West don’t use it that way because of its meaning under the Nazis.
Maybe to you easily-offended lefties the confederate flag is a racist symbol, and of course you think you have the right to impose your views over the South (notwithstanding your supposed “cultural sensitivities”).
And, by the way, after living in Japan, I did see nationalistic flags from time to time. I wasn’t offended.
And only you would think that the racist symbols were “deeply buried” in a 70s TV show. That’s paranoia.
And Jim,
If you democrats really really wanted to help black people, you wouldn’t tell them that they need the government’s help to get ahead. You’d give them chances to be entrepreneurs and tell them that hard work and diligence pay off.
But no, you belittle them with a sickening noblesse oblige and tell them they’re victims and encourage them to riot in the streets.
No, you’re not racist at all.
We in the West don’t use it that way because of its meaning under the Nazis.
But you think we should ignore the meaning of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, the banner of the Dixiecrat party, the symbol that rallied opposition to the civil rights movement?
And only you would think that the racist symbols were “deeply buried” in a 70s TV show.
I didn’t say that the symbol was buried — it was front and center. It’s Civil War and Reconstruction history that was (and, to a large degree, still is) buried.
Maybe to you easily-offended lefties the confederate flag is a racist symbol
It’s a dog whistle, and Jim’s a barking.
So, Jim has identified “The Dukes of Hazard” as the epitome of American racism?
The “Dukes of Hazard” which starred former Congressman Ben “Cooter” Jones? The same Ben Jones who’s been making headlines these last few days, passionately defending the Confederate battle flag? The same Ben Jones who remains actively involved *in the Democrat Party*?
Unlike his one-time Republican opponent Newt Gingrich, who denounced “The Dukes of Hazard” as “poor white trash”?
I think I missed something. Which side of the argument is Jim on?
Jim has identified “The Dukes of Hazard” as the epitome of American racism?
No, just an example of very common historical myopia. FWIW, I loved the show as a kid. But then the history books I had in school still portrayed Lee as a hero, the war as over states rights, etc. A lot of people were mislead by over a century of distorted history.
The same Ben Jones who remains actively involved *in the Democrat Party*?
Yes, there are Democrats (particularly in Jones’ age bracket) who cling to the battle flag. But these days it’s the Republicans who seem to be leading the effort to obscure or ignore its history.
Which side of the argument is Jim on?
I’m against distorting history, regardless of party affiliation.
Interesting, a show that doesn’t stereotype the South the way Jim wants is considered whitewashing history. I guess for Democrats, Southerners are only allowed to be a caricature of human beings forever doomed to be stuck in 1920.
If Democrats allowed themselves to change, it would be mighty nice of you to let other people to change as well.
Does this mean you’re willing to embrace the extremely racist views of the Democrat Party?
Interesting, a show that doesn’t stereotype the South the way Jim wants is considered whitewashing history.
You misunderstood. I didn’t write that The Dukes of Hazzard white-washed history. I wrote that its casual use of the battle flag and Lee’s name were an example of historical myopia, i.e. the result of white-washed history. The show’s writers and viewers (myself included) inherited and reflected that distorted history.
And I want to apologize for whitewashing the history of the swastika by considering it an offensive symbol instead of the deep, historical significance of it going back several millennia to ancient India.
I wrote that its casual use of the battle flag and Lee’s name were an example of historical myopia, i.e. the result of white-washed history.
Jim, you wrote this too: “Historians’ view of Wilson has changed quite a bit since that bridge went up in 1961. ”
Stop your white washing of racist Democrat and change the name of the bridge. You keep making excuses for honoring racists, because they are Democrats. Robert Byrd is still a hero of Democrats, and like the current President, Byrd routinely dropped the N-word bomb.
Stop your white washing of racist Democrat and change the name of the bridge.
I’m all for renaming the Wilson bridge! Not to mention public roads/schools/structures/etc named for Jackson, Byrd, Lee, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, etc.
White Southern Democrats like Jim Webb and Southern Republicans support Southern symbols because… Get this… They’re White Southerners. That’s their culture.
“Jim Webb aside, it isn’t Democrats clinging to the Confederate battle flag,”
The Clinton Gore Sons of the South campaign clinged pretty hard and Hillary’s supporters had pins with her and the stars and bars. Plenty of Democrats like that flag.
I don’t think collective punishment on Southerners for this mass murder is called for, just like we don’t punish all Muslims for the acts of a few.
The South has come a long way. If we are going to be holding groups accountable for history, we should start with the Democrat party rather than their modern day scapegoats.
I don’t think collective punishment on Southerners for this mass murder is called for
Ceasing to give official endorsement to armed treason is “collective punishment”? Really?
Ceasing to give official endorsement to armed treason is “collective punishment”?
Stop being a waste of time, Jim. You know no one here views the Confederate flag that way.
I view it that way.
I don’t think the Duke brothers were necessarily saying anything ideological just as when someone puts on an American flag bikini, she isn’t necessarily saying anything nationalistic or political.
But in general, when it isn’t being used as decoration, the American flag stands for the USA, and the Confederate flag stands for the Slaver’s Rebellion.
Funny how you lefties throw diversity under the bus when it comes to your personal views.
I view it that way.
That’s ok. I don’t think you’re a bad person just because you’re a bigot. I’m just pointing out that these biases get in the way of communication.
Troll Jim, is there no bridge so low you won’t stoop to get under it?
How is he trolling? I think Jim asked a valid question. The South isn’t undergoing collective punishment; its elected representatives are discussing the possibility of changing a law which celebrates pro-slavery treason and armed insurrection.
Sorry Bob-1 but the South is being collectively punished. The region is forced to operate under different rules and regulations than the rest of the country.
Democrats are always’ “Fuck the South, they are a bunch of racist rednecks” without the awareness that such a position is itself racist. We are all Americans, even people who live in the South. I don’t think they deserve special punishments.
The Civil War was when the South, under Democrat leadership, wanted to succeed from the North. Now, once again under Democrat leadership, the Democrats want to succeed from the South. The goal is division and political persecution.
Punishing the South is how Democrats think they can absolve their own sins but really, it just perpetuates the evils of the Democrat party.
Oh, this is more than just a flag. Democrats have been waging war against the South since they stopped voting Democrat in the 90’s. Democrats ruthlessly and relentlessly attack the entire region with racist slurs and ethnic stereotyping. They scapegoat the South of today for historical sins no one alive today had anything to do with.
Democrats want to punish the South for generations to come but not because of slavery but because they are bigoted toward Southerners and view the region as a political enemy. This is why Obama’s DOJ has been going after the South so hard.
The Civil War is over. The rest of the country made peace with our fellow Americans a long time ago. It would be nice if Democrats got with the program of forgiveness and reconciliation rather than eternal outrage and punishment.
But if Democrats want to go this route, we should hold Democrats accountable for their party’s history rather than let them continue their racist victimization by scapegoating innocents.
The rest of the country made peace with our fellow Americans a long time ago.
Unfortunately, the way we made peace was by collectively deciding to suppress the memory of what had happened, and replace it with a false story that white America found easier to live with.
It would be nice if Democrats got with the program of forgiveness and reconciliation rather than eternal outrage and punishment.
Nobody alive today owes anybody else forgiveness or reconciliation or punishment for the events of 150 years ago. What we owe each other is the willingness to look at what actually happened, rather than replacing that history with a feel-good fairy tale.
No one is suppressing history other than the Democrats.
Portraying the south in a way that doesn’t conform to your biases, stereotypes, and bigotries isn’t suppressing history either. It does show that groups of people can change and we shouldn’t hold them eternally accountable now that they don’t always vote for Democrats.
The only fairy tale here is that we will ever have equality or comity under the Democrat’s current racist SJW ideology.
Oh, what do you think of Democrats calling Republican minorities race traitors? Democrats teach that going against the party on taxes is betraying your race. When are Democrats going to stop with their racism? I am willing to believe Democrats have changed but it is hard with the overt racism. The South, on the other hand, has made a lot more progress.
Jim says:
The American flag is a symbol of armed High Treason against His Majesty King George III, you do know this, right? Jim?
But then again, the concept of The Mandate of Heaven is alien to Jim and his kind.
I had to go into work for a brief period this morning. While I was waiting for my application to open, I switched around my computer’s background. It was a .jpg of Mark Zug’s Prairie Dragon. Now, in accordance with progressive policies, my background is the flag of the Soviet Union. I’ll probably get a promotion for doing that…
Ayn Rand once wisely observed, “Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism.” The reason “liberals” (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators”) are against–or say they’re against–racism is simply a matter of taste: they prefer their collectivism more sophisticated, and backed by the armed might of the federal government.
Didja ever notice how the people who squawk most loudly about the Confederacy and its “peculiar institution” are people, like Jim, who basically don’t care about liberty to begin with? You know, people who would be offended by a display of the Stars and Bars, but not by a Che t-shirt.
Un-ironic wearing of Che shirts is as offensive, and far less common, than un-ironic displays of the Confederate battle flag. Both sorts of display are born of historical ignorance.
Well, you would know from living in New Hampshire. You’re not being culturally sensitive now, are you?
Who decides whether wearing a Che t-shirt is considered “ironic” or not? The vast majority of people who wear Che t-shirts do so *precisely* because they think that Che is an acceptable symbol of protest for government overthrow or revolution.
The only ones who would wear a Che t-shirt “ironically” would do so by wearing an “ironic” Che t-shirt; that is, one showing Che wearing a party hat or in googly-eye glasses or some other send-up of the original t-shirt.
Aside from that, the whole “ironic” thing is tiring. If someone wants to make a statement, just make the statement. If you can’t handle criticism over a fashion choice, learn how to own it or accept the criticism; don’t claim that you’re “being ironic” to save face. And get off of my lawn!
And while we’re at it, bringing up Che t-shirts and how offensive they are is a perfect example of the idea of “collective punishment” of the South, inasmuch as Che t-shirts, Apartheid flags, Swastikas, and plenty of other racist/offensive items that aren’t the Stars & Bars are still sold in WalMart, on Amazon, etc.
So here’s the question Jim:
If you owned a bakery, would you make a confederate flag cake for me?
Or would he cater a Klan rally?
Democrats don’t wear che shirts out of the desire to express irony. How is it even ironic?
Democrats wear che shirts the same reason they like the Castro’s in Cuba and Stalin. Democrats dig leftist totalitarian dictators. This is why Obama’s popularity is so high with Democrats. It would be higher but he didn’t go far enough, tens of millions of Democrats will reply.
Re the Confederate flag issue:
http://www.gocomics.com/glennmccoy/2015/06/24
Ever since I was a child, I’ve despised the confederate flag. Absolutely hated it.
My reasoning had nothing to do with race. To me, it stood for treason; a treason that caused the bloodiest war in our history. I hate it as much as I do the Nazi flag. I also agree that it shouldn’t be flown by the government on government land.
That said, I’m appalled at the rampant idiocy on display now. Anytime there’s a knee-jerk reaction on ANY issue, it’s generally bad, but this Confederate flag lunacy takes the cake. There have even been calls for the governor of Mississippi to call that state’s legislature into emergency special session to redesign the state flag. (which has a confederate flag in the upper left). They’ve killed satire, dead as a doornail, because you just can’t satire stupidity of this magnitude.
What the heck is the hurry? Why the “now now now!” mania of the lunatic fringe? They remind me of two years olds in their manic quest for instant gratification, but that’s probably unfair to two year olds.
They’re also going way the heck too far, and in so doing, pushing people like me, who’ve long despised that flag of infamy, to support it as the lessor evil out of disgust for the PC lunacy currently infesting the land.
Presidential election coming up in 2016. The Democrats are going to lose badly unless they can mobilize the base.
By that same logic the Founding Fathers were traitors of the first degree. The only difference is that their rebellion succeeded.
I thank God that these intolerant idiots weren’t around 150 years ago, or our country would have become literally Balkanized, with North & South dissolving into a gang of mutually hostile states.
Here’s one to throw some folks into a tizzy; thesis: the Radical Republicans who took over after Lincoln was assassinated were directly responsible for the KKK, and poisoned race relations for a century with their intolerance and a demand for “perfect integration now!”
One of the stupidest things they did was outlaw, en masse the entire ruling class of the South, thereby ensuring the rabble-rousers and carpet baggers would gain control.
Casey and R7Rocket, The difference between the founding father’s treason and the Confederacy’s treason goes way beyond who won, and I shouldn’t have to explain why. Do you think King George’s rule was legitimate? Do you think the United State’s democratically elected government was legitimate?
The United States of 1860, for all its faults, stood for political values that I am proud to inherit. King George’s autocratic rule, despite some positive traits, did not.
Of course the confederacy preserved many American values too. The problem with the Confederacy isn’t that it was treason per se, the problem is that it was pro-slavery white-supremist treason, the sort that came up with flags like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Second_national_flag:_.22The_Stainless_Banner
Do you think King George’s rule was legitimate?
I do, because if it was not, then the Treaty of Paris is illegitimate.
Do you think the United State’s democratically elected government was legitimate?
Apparently, a bunch of southerners did not. I’m willing to take their opinion on that.
And why is it that the desire for separation is treason? If the current trends continue, there’s not going to be much reason to stay part of the current US (unless you like having your imaginary microaggressions policed by society and/or secret police thugs).
In a democracy, not everyone does what you want them to do. Sometimes that gets as far as a breakup of the society.
Karl, the difference between the Founding Fathers’ ideology and the Confederacy’s idelogy was nicely summed up by the Vice President of the Confederacy’s “Cornerstone Speech”.
Have you read it? I’ll quote the key part below. I think it nicely explains why a decent person would view the Founding Fathers’ government as legitimate and the Confederacy as illegitimate:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
See http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/ for the whole speech
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech for the overview.
Its only treason when a non-Democrat talks about. Democrats are free to agitate for overthrowing the government and current economic system. When OWS was calling for socialist revolution, not a single Democrat said the word treason.
Casey,
I’ve despised the confederate flag all my life, but please don’t read my rant to mean I’m in favor of banning it from anywhere other than government land. (I would similarly oppose the government flying any other flag, save its own, as well). As for the state flag of Mississippi, I don’t live in Mississippi so I don’t think I should have any say there, but I will say this; I think those calling for an *emergency* session of the stage legislature to redesign a flag are utter morons.
I totally and fully support the right of anyone (except the government) to fly the confederate flag. In fact, I’m so outraged by the current frantic whining from the left, and appalled by the way so many are kowtowing to it, that I’m likely to put a confederate flag bumper sticker on my vehicle (And if anyone had told me, a month ago, that I’d be doing so, I’d have said they were nuts).
How am I getting over my treason qualms? Part of it is that the current regime is making me more understanding of the desire for secession. Another part is that the stars and bars commonly thought of as the confederate flag was never the national flag of the confederacy.
What the heck is the hurry? Why the “now now now!” mania of the lunatic fringe? They remind me of two years olds in their manic quest for instant gratification, but that’s probably unfair to two year olds.
The Mississippi flag with the confederate battle flag colors, adopted in 1894, has been flying over the state capitol for 120 years. There apparently hasn’t really been any hurry at all to remove the secessionist element. Now seems like as good a time as any.
What I’m yapping about is the emergency part. As far as I’m concerned, the state flag is up to the citizens of that state, of which I’m not one. If they want to change it, or not, that’s their business, not mine. What utterly appalls me is the notion that this issue warrants calling the legislature into *emergency* session. That’s just moronic.
The Mississippi state Flag was officially adopted in 2001 by the Democrat majority legislature and their appointed Governor (he never won a majority vote) Ronnie Musgrove, after the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 2000 the 1894 flag was repealed in 1906. Took only 12 years to repeal the flag the first time. Trying again in 14 years now? What changed? Oh right, Mississippi is now run by Republicans, so you can make hay as if they adopted the flag put in place by Democrats not as long ago as you thought.
” Now seems like as good a time as any”
Hmmm, maybe Republicans should start making demands whenever a tragedy takes place. Like when that Democrat activist shot up FRC, the GOP should have demanded Democrats get rid of Obamacare or something else.
Have Democrats ever apologized for slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and the KKK? Perhaps the first step is Democrats apologizing to the nation for their racist acts of the past and the present.
I think it is far past time we asked the Democrats to stop inculcating racist ideology in our children. We want to have a country where everyone lives as brothers and sisters and that can’t happen under the racist ideology practiced by today’s militant progressive SJW Democrat party.
Why the rush? Did you read Roof’s manifesto? There are no more KKK or skinheads, there are no more racist warriors, its a dying ideology. He went looking for the racism Democrats say is deeply ingrained at all levels of society and didn’t find it.
The likelihood of a mass murder like this happening again grows smaller everyday. Democrats might have to wait twenty or thirty years for their next demand, to remove all KFC’s because the chain is a symbol of southern oppression.
One of the augments I’ve encounter is the southern democrats were conservatives such as James Eastland (I’ve seen him called conservative but haven’t seen his voting record other than him being anti communist and a racist which i am sure the revisionist will say is part of conservatism). And those conservatives over time changed to republican or got replaced by newer conservatives who went Republican than Democrat. While the inverse of the progressive northern Republicans of the early 20 th century of Teddy Roosevelt, and Rockefeller Republicans left and turned democrat.
The southern conservatives had become the new base of the republican party
Keep in mind folks, “SJWs Always Lie.”
And SJW Jim is indeed a liar.