After the flag

[Shadow9216]

Hi Shadow,

You mention it is the right thing to do, according to who ? The majority ?.......We do not know what the majority's view is, the politicians? could be, but does that make it right or do they have a political motivation?

To clarify, I'm specifically referring to language- not issues. When I was growing up, there were many words we used to describe people, things we didn't like, etc. which were impolite or even insulting- we didn't think twice. I would argue that referring to groups of people using belittling, demeaning, or derogatory language is wrong; conversely, not using such language to refer to people would be "right", not "PC."

As an example, I've seen people on social media decry the CBF supporters as "inbred rednecks." That's wrong in my book, and I let them know that it's no better/different than the people they're condemning for their bigotry. They don't have to change their attitudes- or language- but at least they know that I don't share their views and if they wish to continue the conversation they need to change their tone. Alternatively, they can continue to use disparaging language and chatter amongst themselves. One can disagree with a CBF supporter without resorting to insults...and vice versa.

 

[W. Richardson]

The problem, William, is that some "politically motivated politician" made renaming decisions in the past. Now you're suggesting that when the citizenry in New Orleans is a black majority, the rules should be changed.

With all due respect, that's not "a new time" at all--that's some pretty old stuff.

I just feel if the people vote then it takes it out of the hands of politicians with political agendas, which we know are on both sides of this issue. I understand your argument................Remove anything Confederate..............But instead of taking it all down why can't we put up their history and heritage ?...........I am for all history, or is America not big enough for all ?


Respectfully,
William

 

[W. Richardson]

To clarify, I'm specifically referring to language- not issues. When I was growing up, there were many words we used to describe people, things we didn't like, etc. which were impolite or even insulting- we didn't think twice. I would argue that referring to groups of people using belittling, demeaning, or derogatory language is wrong; conversely, not using such language to refer to people would be "right", not "PC."

As an example, I've seen people on social media decry the CBF supporters as "inbred rednecks." That's wrong in my book, and I let them know that it's no better/different than the people they're condemning for their bigotry. They don't have to change their attitudes- or language- but at least they know that I don't share their views and if they wish to continue the conversation they need to change their tone. Alternatively, they can continue to use disparaging language and chatter amongst themselves. One can disagree with a CBF supporter without resorting to insults...and vice versa.

You would rather I not use the PC or Confederatephobics, or "I'm Offended" ? I will attempt to not use them. Hopefully others on both sides will also do so.

Respectfully,
William

 

[Shadow9216]

You would rather I not use the PC or Confederatephobics, or "I'm Offended" ? I will attempt to not use them. Hopefully others on both sides will also do so.

I only ask that people understand that words have meaning which often overpowers the message we're trying to send, which is good for us all to realize- but perhaps a tad bit more important for our Southern-leaning brethren as they ride out this turbulent time. Dialing down the rhetoric can only help cooler heads gain control of the situation.

 

[W. Richardson]

I only ask that people understand that words have meaning which often overpowers the message we're trying to send, which is good for us all to realize- but perhaps a tad bit more important for our Southern-leaning brethren as they ride out this turbulent time. Dialing down the rhetoric can only help cooler heads gain control of the situation.

I can agree that dialing down the rhetoric...from both sides....... would help.

Respectfully,
William

 

[ole]

I'd like to confiscate those cookies as being inappropriate and I will "dispose" of them respectfully. That's it...respectfully...

Just don't lick them until they are in your possession.

 

[unionblue]

And the Banner Yet Waves, by Stampp Corbin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stampp-corbin/and-the-banner-yet-waves_b_7769480.html

Unionblue

 

[18thVirginia]

I just feel if the people vote then it takes it out of the hands of politicians with political agendas, which we know are on both sides of this issue. I understand your argument................Remove anything Confederate..............But instead of taking it all down why can't we put up their history and heritage ?...........I am for all history, or is America not big enough for all ?


Respectfully,
William

You and I have been speaking only of New Orleans, William. I'm not sure what the "political agenda" of the Mayor in that city would be in renaming streets or removing monuments. He's most likely ended any chance he might have had at higher office within his state with his suggestion at removing the Lee and Davis monuments.

Sounds like it's a foregone conclusion that the Battle of Liberty Place monument will be gone without much argument. Seems it has become "politically incorrect" in some eyes to have a monument to those who killed policemen.

 

[distantinlaw]

if we name every street and road in America MLK jr BLVD , we can do away with all the GPS 's because no matter where you go that's where your at !!!!!

 

[CMWinkler]

You and I and everyone in this thread and the fifty other threads you've created about the attack on Confederate Heritage know the answer to that question.

Now is not the time to be disingenuous. That's part of what got things to this stage.

You have stated I am angry at the wrong people and that because I was not active enough opposing those who I feel have hijacked Confederate symbols I have forfeited my right to defend them. I respectfully suggest this is false. Up until the 1940s the flag was, by and large used in a manner I think appropriate. It was only when the flag became used by Southern Democrats who evolved into the Dixiecrats did its descent into politicization. This occurred before my birth, but apparently, it was incumbent upon me before I can attempt to defend Confederate symbols, I should have actively opposed it. Not having done so, those same Dixiecrats, some of whom were also Klan members and segregationists, heaped disrepute upon those symbols to the extent that no matter what I do I can never redeem it for use for proper purposes. Now that I understand that I am reconciled to the complete destruction of all Confederate symbols and remembrance because I was born too late to stop their misuse.

Now I know, I am more at ease. I recognize that any problem I confront that began before I could affect it, I must simply accept it as unchangeable and move on. I feel better. If Martin Luther King, Jr., had felt that way the South might still be segregated.

 

[CMWinkler]

And the Banner Yet Waves, by Stampp Corbin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stampp-corbin/and-the-banner-yet-waves_b_7769480.html

Unionblue

Now, not only am I supposed to abandon them I ought, properly, feel ashamed they ever existed, too. What a great sentiment. If not taking action to oppose slavery is worthy of shame then surely there must be enough to go around.

 

[Al Murray]

Confederatephobics

Is that a thing now? Like xenophobe etc? I really don't know but it would not surprise me. All this modern talk of "phobes" is no good, IMHO. Calling someone (anything)phobe has the simultaneous effect of attacking their politics/religion/beliefs or whatever and their courage. Same thing with "in-bred redneck." Attack their culture and add a jab at their family for good measure.

 

[Jamieva]

I don't find it anymore ridiculous than the witch hunt going on now to eradicate Confederate Heritage by some Confederatephobics..............

Did everyone get a voice in naming places before ? I can say NO they did not, but isn't this suppose to be a new time, a better time with new ways ? Aren't we suppose to be trying to come together? Work together? or we going to continue with ways that have failed? Some telling all what is to be.................Politicians have agendas and do not speak for all their constituents on all issues.

Would it be expensive? Yes I think so, but more expensive than removing 1,000's of monuments/memorials/statues because of some PC reasons or so called "I'm Offended"


View attachment 73702
Respectfully,
William

That's not the governmental system we have in this country. You are voting when your elected representative votes on the issue in city council, state legislature or Congress. When the issues you care about come up you can lobby them to try to get them to vote your way. That is our system. We cannot convene the populace on every issue to vote every Tuesday.

If your representative does not vote how you like, you can vote against them in the next election or if you are really committed you can run against them.

To make issues to a public vote completely would neuter the representative government system we have had for over 200 years.

 

[R. Alex Raines]

That's not the governmental system we have in this country. You are voting when your elected representative votes on the issue in city council, state legislature or Congress. When the issues you care about come up you can lobby them to try to get them to vote your way. That is our system. We cannot convene the populace on every issue to vote every Tuesday.

If your representative does not vote how you like, you can vote against them in the next election or if you are really committed you can run against them.

To make issues to a public vote completely would neuter the representative government system we have had for over 200 years.

The only reason this is an issue - he disagrees with the decision his elected representatives will make. Simply put, it's a procedural hurdle designed to make it far more cost-prohibitive to make changes to public spaces. If there's an election required, financing that becomes an issue, as does getting out the vote for whatever special election there is.

The next argument that will appear is something along the lines of Kevin Kenneth Kettleblack donated that land 120 years ago for the exclusive purpose of putting up a statue to our favorite slave trader. If you want to remove the statue, you need permission from the descendants of the original giver.

 

[K Hale]

You have stated I am angry at the wrong people and that because I was not active enough opposing those who I feel have hijacked Confederate symbols I have forfeited my right to defend them. I respectfully suggest this is false. Up until the 1940s the flag was, by and large used in a manner I think appropriate. It was only when the flag became used by Southern Democrats who evolved into the Dixiecrats did its descent into politicization. This occurred before my birth, but apparently, it was incumbent upon me before I can attempt to defend Confederate symbols, I should have actively opposed it. Not having done so, those same Dixiecrats, some of whom were also Klan members and segregationists, heaped disrepute upon those symbols to the extent that no matter what I do I can never redeem it for use for proper purposes. Now that I understand that I am reconciled to the complete destruction of all Confederate symbols and remembrance because I was born too late to stop their misuse.

Now I know, I am more at ease. I recognize that any problem I confront that began before I could affect it, I must simply accept it as unchangeable and move on. I feel better. If Martin Luther King, Jr., had felt that way the South might still be segregated.

I'm not even sure you're serious any more.