The Goat Pen

Ha! I always say that the Indian and Asian male are the most emasculated group in our country, while blacks are given the opposite trait. They are characterized as overly aggressive and hyper-sexual.

We are all bound by our natural tendency to categorize things, whether it people or objects. That is true.

There is a subtle difference between racism and prejudice, though. I think all of us are prejudice. Racism is a higher bar that you need to have some power to exercise over a person in order for it to be manifest. Everyone CAN be racist, not many of us truly are.

It is easier to get the Asian chick to jump ship than the African American....I'm just sayin'.

That's because Asians can swim. Not fair.

about 1/6 of the families in the south owned slaves at the time of war.

I can't speak for all their personal motivations but I find it hard to believe that 1 out of every 5 men signed up to fight for another family to keep their elite status as slave owners - thereby reducing those who didn't own slaves ability to earn a much better living as a sharecropper or farm laborer in the highly agricultural south.

Consider the people of the middle east who have been abused, neglected and degraded by a dictactor yet signed up to in droves to fight against occupiers of their country. Much of that is the same with confederate soldiers.

'the determination to resist invasion-the first and most sacred duty of a free people-became general, if not universal to southern men who enlisted'

and then think about 9/11 - how many people were swept up in the national patriotism they gladly marched off to war in Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with what they signed up for.

"Southern men dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum," and "to stay was dishonor and shame"

FInally, just as we all cheer for our home state college - many of their motivations - from the lowly private to the highest general - were to defend his state of birth and home - which was more than just a cheering interest but a desire to defend the property, the architecture, and the unfortunate but inevitable destruction from war...not to mention protect the women.

So was the war about slavery? - absolutely - to those that owned slaves. To the other 1,300,000 families living in the south, it was about what any other people fought for against invading aggressors - no different than Vikings, Spartans, and the English (but not those chicken shit French)

40 years from now high school kids will be writing reports about how the War in Iraq was started when Iraqis flew airplanes into the world trade center towers.

I read someplace it was more like 5% of southerners. My memory fades, though. And too lazy to go through a google session.

AlabamAlum wrote:I read someplace it was more like 5% of southerners. My memory fades, though. And too lazy to go through a google session.

percentage wise that is probably right - because families were probably 6-9 people in size - so my 1 in 5 analogy was wrong.

Apparently the Google is undecided. I've seen numbers from 3% up to 25%.

I truly don't understand the need to delve into the reasons many southerners joined the Confederate military any more than I need to delve into the reasons many Germans joined the Nazi military during WWII, at least in the context of this discussion. I also don't need to know how many Germans actually participated in the pogroms during that time.

Those are interesting topics and valid discussions, but they simply are not what I've been talking about here. The complicity of the Southerner overall, and the complicity of all Americans (short of abolitionists) in the institution of slavery can bring on a lot of interesting moral, philosophical and ethical questions. Maybe we can have those discussions, if people are that interested (I've wondered myself what the moral equivalent is today of standing idly during an injustice and not caring because of the direct or ancillary benefits it affords me). Anyway, I digress...much like I think you did in your post, with respect to my points.

I am saying (and have been saying) that the Confederate Battle Flag (of Northern Virginia) is a symbol of oppression, treason and racism. I would be happy if I never saw it anywhere outside of a museum. I don't view it any differently than I would view the Nazi flag if I were a Jew (and really how I view it as the man I am). I would challenge the German who said the Nazi flag was about Germanic heritage just as much as I challenge the southerner who makes the same argument at the stars and bars.

If I were inclined, I would spend some time researching when the battle flag was first given this moniker of being about "heritage." My guess is, the first time it crept into public discourse would be roughly around the time of Brown v Board. I could be wrong, but my gut is telling me otherwise.

My dad's family came into the U.S. in 1910. My mother's family came here in 1882. Both to the north, originally. So, I'm no son of the old south, but I don't see it as the nazi flag or a flag of treason any more than I do the U.S. flag.

I'm okay with it being relegated to museums and the sunscreens on the back of redneck pickup trucks, however. And, of course, it shouldn't fly on any public pole. I do think it's odd that this nutball in charleston has us talking about flags instead of his atrocities. What an unusual twist.

I realize there is no reconciling this with the African American community

but your comparison doesn't quite fit - as Germany was an aggressor nation. While Germans may not have had any choice about fighting, they weren't defending their land, their family and their life against invaders (until the end anyways)

I recognize that many , many people use the confederate flag to represent something more than their heritage - and its really indefensible. I don't want to know those people.

But for the descendents of people that just wanted to be left alone - that saw their livestock confiscated, their crops harvested and their possessions stolen for nothing more than living on the wrong side of a line on a map, fighting against northern aggression has meaning.

Dylann Roof's atrocities garner plenty of press...but his use of the battle flag did expose a wound long festering in many communities of America. I don't think we'll ever agree, as a whole, (heritage v hate) but I'm glad it's being discussed, at least for the sides to understand each other and for the particulars about our history to be accurately consumed by the masses.

Fwiw, many Germans did feel like they were being beset upon, economically. I'm not saying it's 100% congruent to getting livestock and cattle confiscated, but the overall analogy is close enough for my taste (obviously ).

Problem solving is a thing of the past. The main thing is that we just feel good about ourselves.

This may not be a good thing but I am the opposite of Rat when it comes to being racist and I know that is something I shouldn't say.

Over the past 15 years, I would say that I have become more "racist" as I have gotten older.

It is hard to explain but it is everyone that plays the "victim" card or justifies destruction or claims there are no opportunities or just spews even more hate speech under the disguise of tolerance speech. And that is white / black / red/ yellow, whatever color and label you wan to throw at it.

racist countries don't elect black men for president twice

whatever racial issues there are blaming whity for the sins of ferguson, Baltimore, LA, and New York etc etc sure is convieent for the talking pundits media types who have their own agendas.

Im just glad most of the people I work with black white yellow etc seem to have the same attitude that at the grass roots level in Podunk Kansas/Missouri we socialize and get along fine. unless something goes wrong and that female/EO/race card comes out quicker then al and Jesse when the cameras are out

BigRedMan wrote:This may not be a good thing but I am the opposite of Rat when it comes to being racist and I know that is something I shouldn't say.

Over the past 15 years, I would say that I have become more "racist" as I have gotten older.

It is hard to explain but it is everyone that plays the "victim" card or justifies destruction or claims there are no opportunities or just spews even more hate speech under the disguise of tolerance speech. And that is white / black / red/ yellow, whatever color and label you wan to throw at it.

You realize it's not "racism" if your annoyance is divvied out irrespective of race, right? Choose a different banner.

crashcourse wrote:racist countries don't elect black men for president twice

whatever racial issues there are blaming whity for the sins of ferguson, Baltimore, LA, and New York etc etc sure is convieent for the talking pundits media types who have their own agendas.

Im just glad most of the people I work with black white yellow etc seem to have the same attitude that at the grass roots level in Podunk Kansas/Missouri we socialize and get along fine. unless something goes wrong and that female/EO/race card comes out quicker then al and Jesse when the cameras are out

What is your definition of a "racist country?" Are you saying that with the election of Obama by 50.1% of the American adults that voted in 2012 racism was wiped out?

If Hilary wins in '16, does that mean America is not a sexist country (which actually would be acknowledging that it is now sexist, which would be me being presumptuous of you)?

..the election of Obama by 50.1% of the American adults that voted in 2012 racism was wiped out?


If a heinous act by precious few of our population drives the national debate that says yes we are, ipso fatso the above is also true.

Your logic is faulty. I really don't see you enough in here to get an idea of how you are to figure out if it is worth the time to walk you through it, though.

Believe me, it's not...

Thanks, hedge. I shall now go back to saving Capitalism for you ungrateful bastids.