The Confederate battle flag

Yawn.

You lost this argument when I clearly pointed out your racist statement.

Anyway, on to more worthy causes.

 

The "all" was implied, given the context. Stop try to defend the defenseless.

 

"All" is never implied.

It is specific

"in general" is implied...because few things are absolutes

Stop trolling

 

Not everything is absolutes; in fact, generally, most things are not. However, this is a red herring, as I am putting his words in context to what he was replying to. Golem specifically carved out a section of the OP's post that said that the Confederate flag means different things to different people. Specifically, the OP said, "It would actually be inaccurate--and perhaps a bit intellectually lazy--to imagine that this flag means the very same thing to all people." This is a nuanced statement, as it respects the complexity of the reality. Golem decided to make a counterargument to that nuanced statement to say that the Confederate flag "means the same thing to black people. It means slavery." There was no nuance here: he was making a blanket statement about black people, which is a racist statement. Unfortunately, that racist viewpoint of the monolithic behavior of blacks is the prevailing viewpoint on your side.

When pressed on this, you and Golem have said that he was talking about how blacks feel about the flag "in general," even though, logically, that was not what he was saying. Now I know that Golem does not agree that the dictionary is a useful tool to find the definition of words, but "in general" means "in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture." Statistically, I would argue that "in general" would mean roughly 90% on average. For example, in general, black people vote Democrat, since roughly 90% of them do, give or take. I think statistically defining the phrase "in general" to mean "roughly 90%" is fair. If we were to agree on this, can you back up your statement that blacks, in general, consider the Confederate flag racist? The answer is you can't. Perhaps the reason for this is because the facts are not on your side. Yes, the majority of blacks think that the flag is racist, but it is a simple majority, and is not all that surprising, given that the majority of people teaching history think like you do (not to mention the subculture of being considered an Uncle Tom if you do not agree with the white liberal idea of what the Confederate flag stands for); but over 25% of blacks do not agree with that notion (1), which means that blacks, in general, do not agree that the Confederate flag means racism / slavery. So you two are still wrong, the gaslighting notwithstanding.

1: https://today.yougov.com/topics/pol.../13/what-confederate-flag-means-america-today

 

That was some "impressive" word salad.

I'm sure it convinced you...and no one else

 

I get a kick out of the number of black drivers with monster-trucks in my area. Serious, down-'n'-dirty hill-climbin', mud-slimin' beasts with more HP that should be allowed by law. And at my area's best place to do that, it's a mixed race at the restaurant...listening to Charley Pride.

 

edited

 

(*grins*) Your first mistake was agreeing with me and handing me the opening about more modern stuff. More on that below....

Hendrix, celebrated as much for his personal lifestyle as much as for his exceptional playing, was also among the few black harder-edged rock artists of the early 60s. Little Richard of course was the anointed, the one and the only. But James Godfather Brown was the prince-apparent and then leader of his own church which survives to this day.

 

"Then you will after I report you."
"What's the name of this particular forum again? Belief?"
"Shut up. Because!"

(not directed at TOG6.)

 

Never have to? Sorry. That's like what in liberal time? After the next TV commercial?

 

It's never convenient to break liberal myths but the majority of Southern property owners did not own slaves. It was also inconvenient that the Constitution allowed state autonomy --- up until it got to the part about splitting import and export tariffs and other fees for Southern products. The North treated them badly and under that obnoxious idea that they were still separate states within a 10th Amendment compact, in truth the North wouldn't share the booty as deserved. Those folks wanted control over their own destiny (collectively) and profits from the fantastic demand for cotton, tobacco and other products. Why cut the did-nothing North into any profits at all from that?

 

They go around whining about Merkel. One leaves it to others to discern differences.

 

And the same holds absolutely true for every country at every time in history. We came, we saw, we conquered. That was not an American invention. It was, however, widely practiced among indigenous tribes on this continent just as much as in Europe, the African continent and just about everywhere else (excepting southern slave owners themselves, later).

Did we represent conquest? We succeeded. We did not herd losers into cattle cars for trips to the ovens. We did not sell losers into slavery or use as slaves ourselves.

 

Conquest is bad if white people do it. Don't you know?

 

I went looking for that terrific old movie "Starts and Stripes Forever," about the first U.S. Marine Corps Band director, John Phillips Sousa. In the original, that band repeatedly had to play "Dixie," to hold that audience at all." That film as a whole is not at YouTube.

Retail-level off-the-shelf posturing wants to rewrite who we were, mistakes and all. I view history as a warning. The left views it as a tool, constantly trying to rewrite it to fit the situation.

 

Sammy Davis Jr. might disprove that in general. It's also interesting watching liberals delineate their own supporters into white, mandingos, octaroons...the whole smear. If I left out any checkaroons or sixteenaroons, my bad, y'all.

Point here is, they do this to their own supporters, keeping them playing off against each other. But when they go anti-semite and say Jews are "other white" (separate from ordinary honky mo-fo's like mineself to be sure!) --- then how does that encourage contributions if you know they look down on you, and they do?

It is historical fact that our entire popular culture was affected by Jews, with the early movie studios and radio networks owned by Jews. Go find some Jack Benny shows. Top of the charts for decades, and for excellent reason. We have many Jewish performers today including the current Wonder Woman and former Miss Israel if I correctly recall.

But I am not trying to group by religion or by race but by talent. Studios don't build stars nearly as well as audiences (or in political terms, voters). I cannot fathom the idea of a supporter who likes being categorized.

To put them in a different category as a race is just as offensive and just as indefensible.

What is "other white"? Why specifically include adherents to a RELIGION in that category? Would joining an African Methodist Episcopal or a Second Baptist church make my pasty self now be considered "off white"? Or am I racist for saying liberals sure do like biting their own tails----and the hand which feeds them.

 

CORRECTED POST

 

What was once called busybody is now the neighborhood Karen. They are the ones ratting-out people not wearing masks, or anything else they can get on others. Why? Empty souls, absent goals.

 

When you get down to being so bland it means nothing, then what? Someone somewhere some way will always find a reason to complain.

 

If you want to flog a single dead horse compared to a stable-full of other reasons the CSA died, that's your privilege, but don't tell us what we are thinking. Just. Don't.

 

In 1970, I had already served 3 years out of 6 in the Navy and had done a Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club tour of all those lovely places with yellow sky by day and flashes of light on the horizon at night. He was peddling papers.

 

Look, you, whoever you are, if you don't agree with me I'm just gonna have to strap myself to a carrier pigeon and fly out there and TAKE CARE...uh, wait, the bird can't lift off. Gotta cut back on the Little Debbies....

I am convinced it would be a dull scary world if we all agreed on everything.

 

Care to compare charitable donations by registered political party? Or who adopts more kids? Did you actually believe us to believe that a party which supports abortion is capable of being kindhearted?

 

The middle class was tiny in the pre-Civil War South. Which means you are talking about poor people. Which means the rich slave owners had all the money and power..

Most countries develop their economy without a civil war... The simple truth you are hiding from is that economics would have killed off slavery, regardless..

Even if their treason had worked the way they wanted, it was all a pointless and idiotic waste of time, money and lives.