Let me preface this with a simple comment; I am British and so obviously am an outsider looking in. The closest I got to America was having a relationship with an American girl.

Now on to my thoughts as an outsider looking in;

As keyguy says, fly the correct flag over that confederate memorial; The only crime of those dead soldiers as a group was to be on the wrong side of history, give them their (proper) flag and memorial for pities sake.

To refuse to allow parts of the south to fly a flag they feel represents them, whether they call it the Confederate flag, the battle flag of the confederacy, the Rebel flag or the lollipop rainbow flag, is tantamount to me turning to the Scottish and saying "What? You cant fly the Scottish Saltire! Don't you know its associated with the Scottish Jacobite rebels who wanted to disunite this country after the acts of union?!" It's not just silly, not just selective morality (looking in, I see parallels between the American Revolution and the attempted secession of the CSA. From what I can tell, the argument from the Union side for the war was Restoration of Order, that the CSA could not legally break away. I would like to remind people that the Thirteen colonies could not legally break away from the British Empire, but did it anyway. To argue that restoration of order means the south had no basis for secession is to argue that the US should still be British. To further contribute to this selective morality, it is my understanding that there were Union officers who owned slaves and confederate officers that were abolitionists, and that the sides chosen were chosen for reasons that went past "lolracism me want slaves" so it is unfair to brand the flag representing ALL the ideas of the CSA as racist simply because slavery happened to be legal when the CSA was formed, and happened to be legal when it was crushed underboot. The CSA didn't exactly have the chance to reform it's self in its own course of time now, did it?) but is also by its nature the suppression of freedom of speech... In spite of the US proudly trumpeting the constitution and the amendment to it garunteeing free speech. While I am no expert in US law and regardless of my personal opinion on the boundaries of free speech, such an act, by its very nature, has to be a breach of this amendment and as such would fit the criteria for that word Americans fear over almost all others "unconstitutional."

A picture is worth a thousand words is very apt here, this image will mean something different to everyone. It is unacceptable to state that your interpretation is the only acceptable one and then ban the symbol. Its like banning Hindu's from using the Swastika because "its racist" even though to Hindu's its a positive symbol. Its short sighted, ignorant and above all a suppression of the rights of the people who wish to fly it, whether you agree with them flying it or not.

What ever happened to "I do not agree with what you say, sir, but I will die for your right to say it"?

I don't think American Style Freedom™ is synonymous with mob rule...

I don't think it is either. I think it is synonymous with representative rule, an indirect form of mob rule in which the government represents the people, and hopefully retains an awareness that this is its function, to work out the will of the people.

A government made of the people, by the people, for the people, after all, ought not oppose the people.

But if you want to turn this from "The Government of South Carolina behaving poorly" to "The people of South Carolina are behaving poorly.", than whatever floats your boat I guess. If it makes you feel like you got tons of American Style Freedom™ everywhere, go for it.

Dat dry wit tho

I'm not purporting a need to feel good by pointing fingers at the culprit I desire to; if you think I am, you've misunderstood for a reason I do not understand. Perhaps I've worded my post in a duplicitous manner. I meant to address the implied policy that seems to lie beneath the discussion here, which is whether the flag should be an unlawful item. The fact that a government uses it to represent itself and has done so for upwards of a hundred years is a point of contention now. It has been a point of contention, too. This was brought up decades ago.

That was why the governmental role was and is relevant; the government which represents the people should not defy the people even if the wishes of the government appear benevolent. I'm only meaning to say that in resolving this issue, the people of South Carolina ought to be the deciders.

The people should have the right to decide what represents them.

Making this about racism or popular perception thereof is just running down a rabbit's hole, I think. This isn't and shouldn't be about how the rest of America views the confederate flag. It should be about whether South Carolina wants the flag to represent them. We should be listening to what they think right now, not what we (provided we are not south carolinans) think.

Well, i'm not saying martial law should be imposed or anything. Sure, they chose, but we can pass moral judgement on their choice.

Also, regarding the history of the confederacy itself, we can pass judgement about it's purpose because that was a conflict about slavery. It doesn't compare 1:1 to the American Revolution, which is difficult to frame in it's own right but can probably be simplified as "We didn't need British rule and it was in the way of things we wanted to do". The Confederacy is a whole other box of worms.

In the nineteenth century, in the United States, the entire political system became divided over slavery. It's an aspect of our culture at that time that gets into everything, really, and so it is difficult to avoid. You can imagine the economy of antebellum America to be split in two, with the north evolving into a modern industrial economy based on wage labor and the south retaining a slave based rural society with a class system almost comparable to feudalism. For the north, the south was stunted, and with the western world abandoning slavery, the South felt... cornered I suppose.

They retained their system through retaining a certain amount of political power. The government worked out a deal where there would always be an equal number of free states and slave states. This was important to my state (Missouri), as we didn't enter the union for several years because they had to find a free state to accompany us in. It also played a part in what we took from Mexico and what we didn't (there were those after the Mexican American war who wanted to annex all of Mexico, but racism and fear of breaking the slave state/free state divide made that idea unpopular).

The initial fix was to keep the divide along a specific geographical line. When, in the 1850's, the state of Kansas was allowed to chose how it would enter the union rather than forced to follow this geographical rule, they chose to be a Free State and people from my state responded by more or less invading. That was how contentious this was.

So when the Republican party was formed as an abolitionist party, and when Abraham Lincoln ran under the promise that no new slave states would enter the union, that was what caused the rebellion. Cultural differences might have lubricated it, but the cause was a fear that slave owning states would become a political minority. It's not like Scotland, who were playing the game of thrones just the same as England. And it wasn't like the American Revolution, where British rule was becoming a detriment to our economy and our ability to manage our own relations with our neighbors. The American Civil War was about the slavery question.

About the flag, I personally don't have any problem with it. My dad is a redneck who used to hang out with bikers, I grew up in rural Missouri seeing it all the time, and I get how some people legitimately see it as a symbol of southern pride. I don't think we should ever go the direction of Germany and full out ban these sorts of symbols because of their sordid history. I do think, however, that people should at least accept that the confederate flag makes some people uncomfortable, and that their reasons are completely legitimate too. It is also a symbol of white power, regardless if most people who use it agree. And because it is a symbol of white power, I think that it is in bad taste for it to fly over any state capitals.

Making this about racism or popular perception thereof is just running down a rabbit's hole, I think. This isn't and shouldn't be about how the rest of America views the confederate flag. It should be about whether South Carolina wants the flag to represent them. We should be listening to what they think right now, not what we (provided we are not south carolinans) think.

*slow clap*

If we're gonna hate people over history, we should start by tracking down everyone who's worn a Che Guevara shirt. Symbols only carry meaning when people attach it. If we could just, you know.... stop attaching the worst possible connotation to every possible symbol we don't like? That might clear a lot of things up.

This.

If we banned every symbol that has ever stood for something wrong, or that someone else disagreed with, we would be banning every symbol that has ever existed or ever will exist.

I'd also like to add that, as an inhabitant of Western Canada, I see the flag in question bizarrely frequently—most often on pick-ups. It doesn't seem to stand for anything here other than, "I'm from a rural area".

"It's not like Scotland, who were playing the game of thrones just the same as England. And it wasn't like the American Revolution, where British rule was becoming a detriment to our economy and our ability to manage our own relations with our neighbors. The American Civil War was about the slavery question."

Surely it is still the same game, it is a power game where both sides were vying to keep themselves as entities independent of the others meddling; The south wanted to keep slavery against the wishes of the north, and the north wished to abolish slavery against the wishes of the south. As for the American Revolution, it was still about secession from a larger entity, where said larger entity declared it illegal. Whether it began over slavery, taxes, foreign policy or a disagreement about the colour of the sky doesn't change that it was, fundamentally, a civil war about secession. Further, as the southern economy was built so heavily on slavery, abolition would be a detriment to their economy. While barbaric, I see whether the motivations lie and where they parallel other events.

"And because it is a symbol of white power, I think that it is in bad taste for it to fly over any state capitals. " The flag of the Kingdom of England, the Cross of St George, was first given to the KoE as part of an agreement of passage so they could crusade and kill thousands of people in the name of their god. It has also, along with the flag of the United Kingdom has since become associated with facist groups, the flag of Ireland can be associated with the IRA, the flag of Northern Ireland can be associated with loyalist paramilitaries. The US flag was still associated with racism; Lincoln was an avowed racist. The French flag was first used by murderous revolutionaries who imposed years of terror on the French people. Practically any flag in the world has a negative connotation somewhere, I find it somewhat suspect to ban flags from flying over state owned buildings simply because elements with racist, violent or otherwise controversial/divisive ideologies have adopted them at one point or another. We may well run out of flags.

That said, its still very interesting that the southern states refuse to use the actual flag of the confederacy and instead use this flag. I find it almost amusing that said people can be blind to the history of the flag, perhaps willfully, possibly because if you completely ignore the connotations, it is a rather aesthetically pleasing flag in my opinion, If this is banned, I see the individuals who fly the confederate flag simply using another flag from the confederacy in its place. As a student of history I fear that this could be the start of what has happened to nazi symbols in Germany, where the policies become so harsh that you cant even portray them in period pieces without risking being sent to court. My fears here are sparked by the very draconian policies apple has employed, where they have removed Civil War games from their store for "portraying and glorifying racist symbols." I don't want to see the US go down such a road, and the banning of the flag and I believe one of the previous posts mentioned the possibility of charging people for using the flag (so in essence fining them) is a step down a somewhat dangerous path.

Practically any flag in the world has a negative connotation somewhere, I find it somewhat suspect to ban flags from flying over state owned buildings simply because elements with racist, violent or otherwise controversial/divisive ideologies have adopted them at one point or another. We may well run out of flags.

If a terrorist organization killing civilians in a campaign to force everyone to have gay sex adopted the rainbow flag, would we have to ban it?

Also, I find it extremely amusing that Amazon sells ISIS merchandise and Nazi paraphernalia to Americans, but not the Confederate battle flag.

Surely it is still the same game, it is a power game where both sides were vying to keep themselves as entities independent of the others meddling; The south wanted to keep slavery against the wishes of the north, and the north wished to abolish slavery against the wishes of the south. As for the American Revolution, it was still about secession from a larger entity, where said larger entity declared it illegal. Whether it began over slavery, taxes, foreign policy or a disagreement about the colour of the sky doesn't change that it was, fundamentally, a civil war about secession. Further, as the southern economy was built so heavily on slavery, abolition would be a detriment to their economy. While barbaric, I see whether the motivations lie and where they parallel other events.

It involved secession, but that's not really what people are interested in here. I mean, it's interesting that they are flying a flag of treason, but most people are more worried about the racial connotation, and the war provides at the very least the seeds of that connotation. You can't really divorce the secession of the south from the reason they seceded. The American reason for secession wasn't inherently fucked up at its core.

My fears here are sparked by the very draconian policies apple has employed, where they have removed Civil War games from their store for "portraying and glorifying racist symbols." I don't want to see the US go down such a road, and the banning of the flag and I believe one of the previous posts mentioned the possibility of charging people for using the flag (so in essence fining them) is a step down a somewhat dangerous path.

So long as the government isn't involved at any level in banning private use, we're cherry. Apple will continue doing embarrassing shit because that's mostly what they are about, really.

The Confederate flag means different things for different people. For most minorities, it means more to us than, "the owner of this truck or house is from a rural area", it means to us that this person probably hates us, that we should try to avoid him. It makes people feel extremely unsafe.

Flying the Confedarate flag privately is fine, so that guy with his truck decked out with the rebel flag really has nothing to worry about. But imagine, if you're a citizen of some state, and that same flag that makes you so alienated, uncomfortable, and unwanted on municipal buildings, police stations, schools, houses of legislature, can you see the problem?

As a European, the Confederate Flag's prevalence does seem odd to me, but I see it in the same way as I see flags that are used for a nation's various counties/provinces.

A bit like the UK, with Scotland, Wales and England all technically having their own flag.

So yeah, to me the Confederate Flag is just what Southern States use to signify their individualism, culture and history.

Which to me, is a problem, considering exactly what that culture and history concerned.

So now we have a whole bunch of idiots defiantly flying that flag, knowing full well the controversy surrounding it, and a bunch of idiots allowing themselves to be actively trolled by it. It's a typical circle jerk.

Looking at your country, and how backwards it is from a social standpoint, I don't think removing the flag or banning it from public spaces will do anything. In my humble opinion, your racism problems transcend human logic, and will not be resolved for at least a couple more centuries.

And there's my huge, under-informed sweeping opinion on matters. I hope you enjoyed it, now excuse me whilst I go back to Europe and rant about how much I hate Arabs surging through the EU's floodgates.

^ Joke, of course.

Now having said all that, England did terrible things under the banner of St. George, especially to the Welsh and the Irish, but you don't see those guys getting uppity about it do you? Your country is bizarre, so bizarre that I'm going to have to go and read up on what the fuck happened to you guys since Abe Lincoln tried to do some good in the world... because things aren't NOT supposed to progress this way, not in a country like yours, not with so much wealth and education.

So yeah, thanks for ruining my evening.

I'll report back once I have an actual grasp of the situation.

This post is just one giant nonsensical ramble, but I'ma post it anyway BECAUSE FUCK THE POLICE.

xxxxx

I think that, when it comes to the US, it helps that a lot of this stuff happened fairly recently. I have a living relative who can remember sitting on the lap of her great uncle who had fought in the civil war. The Civil Rights fight happened in recent memory, and there are still scars left from that. And this all happened at a time when we were supposed to know better. In that sense, it's similar to the situation with Nazi regalia and the modern debate about fascist movements in Europe. We all got shit in our history that we have to contend with, and shit that happened in the last 150 years is still pretty fresh. Of course, we're still dealing with the leftovers of our racial history. This conversation came up again because of the recent church shooting, after all.

I think that, when it comes to the US, it helps that a lot of this stuff happened fairly recently. I have a living relative who can remember sitting on the lap of her great uncle who had fought in the civil war. The Civil Rights fight happened in recent memory, and there are still scars left from that. And this all happened at a time when we were supposed to know better. In that sense, it's similar to the situation with Nazi regalia and the modern debate about fascist movements in Europe. We all got shit in our history that we have to contend with, and shit that happened in the last 150 years is still pretty fresh. Of course, we're still dealing with the leftovers of our racial history. This conversation came up again because of the recent church shooting, after all.

Shooting and then a bunch of threats against black churches and some arsons in Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia against other black churches. Those three have been ruled arson, I'm not naming the others yet because they haven't been confirmed as such. That's all in the last week.

"It involved secession, but that's not really what people are interested in here. I mean, it's interesting that they are flying a flag of treason, but most people are more worried about the racial connotation, and the war provides at the very least the seeds of that connotation. You can't really divorce the secession of the south from the reason they seceded. The American reason for secession wasn't inherently fucked up at its core"

In my opinion, the reason for American succession was that the colonials wanted to have their cake and eat it to; They were a protectorate that dragged their protector into a war after said protector specifically said "No" and then rebelled when their protector handed them the bill in the form of taxes. Can it be considered a moral basis for secession? Of course, but so can the souths. While we all find fault in the morality of the social policies of the CSA or not, they were seceding because they wanted greater control over or rather a lack of interference with their own social policies and its implementation. That one of these policies was slavery that was in debate at the time doesn't, in my opinion, invalidate their secession.

"So long as the government isn't involved at any level in banning private use, we're cherry. Apple will continue doing embarrassing shit because that's mostly what they are about, really"

I was referring to a comment that one state was discussing a fee for its usage, which is basically a fine for flying it. I consider a state government to still be a government, I am remarkably concerned of the implications because, at the risk of making a slippery slope argument, once you ban one symbol you set a precedent for the banning of symbols.

I'm from the south, Born in Alabama, raised in Texas, and I'm living in Idaho at the moment. It's a great place, beautiful country, the majority is rural and a lot of 'Country Boys' AKA 'Stupid Snuff chewing teenagers' fly the rebel flag off the back of their trucks. This is to signify their from a rural area, as much of the south and west are rural, rather than their southern, because....they aren't.

And really this whole rebel flag thing is dumb. The shooter was some racist nut job that was holding a flag to represent the worst of the south.

Me personally, I'm an American, though I love the south, I don't let it define me. I love every inch of my country and if I was gonna wave a flag at all, it would be this one.

"It involved secession, but that's not really what people are interested in here. I mean, it's interesting that they are flying a flag of treason, but most people are more worried about the racial connotation, and the war provides at the very least the seeds of that connotation. You can't really divorce the secession of the south from the reason they seceded. The American reason for secession wasn't inherently fucked up at its core"

In my opinion, the reason for American succession was that the colonials wanted to have their cake and eat it to; They were a protectorate that dragged their protector into a war after said protector specifically said "No" and then rebelled when their protector handed them the bill in the form of taxes.

That's... not quite how that went. Colonial friction created the incident, but European diplomacy started the war. After living through an incident in which they could not handle their own affairs despite being the frontier of the conflict at hand, they dealt with economic mismanagement in the form of taxation. It was mismanagement in the sense that the growing cities in the north were starting to suffer from the population problems that major cities at that time tended to suffer, where there was a growing number of poor people with no place to go, and the taxations that Britain induced caused damage to the delicate economic situation in these places. The Stamp act was particularly bad because it caused the local currency to collapse, whereas the imposition of a tea monopoly became more a symbolic cause than an important one. This played a part in why "Taxation without representation" became the battle-cry - It was not only for the principle of the thing, but because British officials living in Britain didn't understand what the effects of their moves were. Rather, like a debt-collector making demands over the phone, they were completely oblivious of what effect their decisions had and only saw the other side as a generic entity that owed them.

Even if we are to ignore all of this and pretend all was equal except for the oversimplified popular-history causes, it wouldn't be a proper comparison. It's callous to pretend that retaining slavery is an equal crime to not paying your taxes.

The battle flag was explicitly placed on the SC capitol building in 1960 to promote racism and segregation. It should come down, because that is exactly what it stood for.

And it did, in 2000.

Now it flies over a Confederate memorial to commemorate those fallen soldiers. I don't think anything is wrong with that, personally. A lot of people in the south feel a certain type of respect for those soldiers. No, not because they fought for slavery (which I know, some if not most did), but because they fought for the south. People seem to be proud they had ancestors who fought for the south. I feel for them, I really do, and I agree with the commemorations they want to give.

KKK coming to Columbia, Black Panthers in Charleston, black churches being burnt down, black teens rampaging through Macon, Georgia Walmart, bunch of rednecks riding in convoys with rebel flags in tow, desecration of Confederate monuments, etc is not welcomed at all and will just serve to promote more racism and further divide the line between the two racial groups.

The flag is used for a number of purposes though:
1. Promote racism, hate, and segregation.
2. Represent the rural south.
3. Commemorate fallen soldiers.
4. Symbolize an act of defiance.

All of those are valid, reasonable purposes, and I don't disagree with any of them. I say make a vote. If everyone agrees to fly the flag to commemorate the fallen soldiers, then let if fly. My ancestors were a bunch of Irish immigrants who settled in Georgia during that Irish famine.

The flag will come down July 6th last I read. Que a bunch of anti-black sentiment coming from SC.

I don't know the exact history of its design, other than Confederate generals needed a battle flag that was different from the Union flag, but some tell me it was based off of the Scottish flag's saltire, which defined defiance for them back in the day.

But I'll tell you this much. From here on out, that flag's going to represent a bunch of white dudes who simply "don't give a fuck". It seems the defiance of the Confederacy will never die out. I ain't part of that group. I'm a history buff, and I don't see anything wrong with flying the battle flag over those soldiers' graves.

My Confederate battle flag is folded up in my drawer. Used to have it hanging up over my TV, but took it down when I rearranged my room.

Something interesting: I think Christopher Lee (Sauruman and Count Dooku) is a direct descendant of Robert E Lee, Confederate general.

@TJByrum Yeah, I think to fly it over the graves of men who fought under that flag is one thing, but for any state government to use it as legitimate representation as a people part of a united nation is another thing entirely.

Like--

If a terrorist organization killing civilians in a campaign to force everyone to have gay sex adopted the rainbow flag, would we have to ban it?

No. But we wouldn't very well let any governments use it.

Of course, I actually don't think any government should use any flag ever-- In fact, I just plain don't think governments should exist.

Best Flag on Earth [+]

ftfy

"Even if we are to ignore all of this and pretend all was equal except for the oversimplified popular-history causes, it wouldn't be a proper comparison. It's callous to pretend that retaining slavery is an equal crime to not paying your taxes"

And its wrong to ignore the aspects of the movements that essentially maintained the same thing; Control over ones own affairs, and that means all affairs. Which includes slaves. And considering the best part of the CSA's economy was built off slavery, honestly I can see why they were reluctant to give it up, a crime or not.
Not to mention it was a cross road of history where morality was shifting... So it wasn't exactly a crime at the time. Playing devils advocate, although many European nations had abolished slavery years before, Russia didn't abolish serfdom until the 60's, middle eastern countries still retained slavery at the time etc. Its rather unfair to attach a crime to the CSA and their flag when morality of the time had only recently, in historical terms, shifted away
The result of the forced abolishment of slavery has given the Confederate flag a positive image of defiance in the eyes of southerners, it seems. People are going to have to deal with the cultural heritage of the civil war, even if they don't particularly like the flag. Banning it is a very dangerous precedent to set and honestly is a rather silly reaction to the confederate flag having been used by a few absolute crazies. The IRA used the Irish Tricolour, shall we ban that? Headchopping revolutionaries' used the French Tricolour, shall we ban that? The crucifix has been used by insane killers and racists too, shall we ban all protestant christians from using the icon of their faith? Of course not, these all sound like silly things to do. As an outsider looking in, I see people looking at a flag and saying the same thing; "The people who used this flag such and such years ago supported and did such and such, thus it should be banned because it can have a meaning associated with such and such, and thus crazy people who support such and such rally around it!"

The problem is, if America does ban it as has been suggested, crazy racists will just find another symbol to use while the people who weren't using the flag for racist reasons will have been affected.

It won't get banned nationally. It is important to stress this. Such a ban would quickly be deemed unconstitutional. That isn't really what this debate is about.

No, it wont get banned nationally, I am referring to the suggestions that states may ban it locally, charge people for flying it etc; Which would be as good as a national ban if the south bans it because, as far as I am aware, it doesn't really see usage outside of these states.
If the debate is about meaning, then its already been established; It means different things to different people, each to their own and everyone else should keep their nose out.

I don't understand why there is a debate at all :/