Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I dislike the south.

People who fly Confederate flags are fucking retards trying to convince themselves that "The South will rise again!" It won't.

I also hate SEC football.

The North will always be superior. We have more money, and will always have more money...therefore you will never be able to win a war. Get mad.

Except at football :3

s^ | Kay

EFFFF UUUUUUUUUU

The flag has no meaning but as a symbol of implied violence. The distinction you're trying to draw only exists because it's not you.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

This is also an indicator that you can't back up your argument. "whatever guys I don't care anyway this whole thing is dumb."

The argument you're making is that the flag doesn't stand for racism. That is clearly not the case. Therefore people who are flying the flag are either racist or stupid (stupid in this context meaning either ignorant to what the flag represents, or stupid enough to try and claim it doesn't represent the very thing it was invented for).

No one here is butthurt if you want to fly your flag. I know you want us to be very, very badly so it will validate your stereotypes of liberals, but really we don't care. We're not out there telling people to take down their flags. We are only pointing out what it means if you are flying that flag. I do care if you want to try and change history, which is what this is about. The south was, as a whole, racist as fuck and this was the flag that declared "you can't take our slaves away".

Dvergar /
Quisling

Ehh, I have to disagree there. I think flying the flag should be illegal for the same reason flying the swastika or burning a cross is illegal.

There's definitely a difference between making disparaging remarks about an ethnicity and displaying symbols of violence.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Damn it, Dvergar, I was going to post the turkey farm!

Both fears are equally invalid. The likelihood that the US will return to slavery and start rounding up blacks is highly unlikely. If the offense taken at the flag is grounded in fears of physical assault due to race-motivated violence, there's only a .007001300% of being a victim of a "hate crime" for blacks in the US, based on government statistics (averaging 2600 reports of hate crimes against blacks against an African-American population of 37,131,771). I'd wager the odds of being harmed in an act of terrorism is even more infinitesimal, but the fear of Sharia courts isn't the product of over-active imaginations, and has at least as firm a footing in reality. Europe has a greater influx of immigrants from parts of the world dominated by Islam, and Sharia courts do exist there. The Daily Mail reported in 2009 that the UK had at least 85 Sharia courts operating within its border, with a report by independent think-tank Civitas stating that the courts "operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation." If you were to go back ten or twenty years, I doubt the average Englishman would have thought such a thing would ever be going on, and the UK is not the only European country seeing this phenomenon.

So while I agree there is a basis for the fears of blacks that you point out, there's also a basis for the other fears you mock, and that both fears, based on NUMB3RS!!1!!1!!, are completely irrational. You only validate one over the other because of your own bigotry.



The two aren't remotely analogous. Slavery, while absolutely vile, is a far cry from genocide. The Confederacy wasn't hell-bent on conquering an entire continent (or more). There was far more to the American Civil War than slavery, which impacted a minute percentage of the southern non-slave population...the "1%" of their day. If the war was only about "we need to keep our slaves," there wouldn't have been much a fight, as the majority of southerners didn't own another person or have a vested interest in the trade. If the Beauregard Flag is/was as offensive as you seem to think it is, you should be able to make the point without tossing "LOLHITLER" into the conversation. Of course, you can't, because your stunted communication skills leave you barely capable of expressing yourself in juvenile platitudes and the sort of know-it-all wise-assery normally reserved for teenage girls, so you're stuck with the Godwin.

...and In case you've already forgotten, three pages ago when I said that any claim to "heritage" had been lost when those who felt they could make that claim allowed the emblem to be co-opted by racists. The flag is dumb, but no more so than the constant refrain of "I'm offended" bullshit, or you screaming racism every time someone says something with which you disagree.



You were probably misled by the "Mexican Forklift Artiste" conversation back in the day, so I can see how you may have been misled by crass humor and the sands of time. I also have to admit that I look more than a little (non-white) ethnic.



I think you're assuming a bit much and forgetting things that have actually been said. No one on these boards opposed the mosque (that I recall), but there were those (I might have been one, don't remember) that said they could understand why some people would have a problem with it, which correlates with what's been said about the stupid flag. I'm not sure how that makes anyone here "vehement defenders" of the flag in question.

I honestly don't "give a shit about different groups of people," because I care about individual people, not the "group" to which they belong. I firmly believe in everyone's God-given and Constitutionally protect right to be a fucking moron, and I don't care (within reason) about people being "offended."

I also dearly love how some of you keep talking about the racial tension in the south, especially those of you who have never been south of Virginia. What racial tension we have in this country is not confined to geography below the Mason-Dixon Line, and I honestly thought people of different races got along better in the parts of the south I lived in than they do in the area near DC where I live now. The southern racism stereotype is outdated, and only continues because of the "yankees" giving in to the common habit of ascribing their own worst qualities to others.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Most people would prefer death to slavery. American slavery was unique and singular in history for its racism and brutality, and completely not comparable to the practice of slavery by any other civilization (except the Spartans).

Arguing that the Civil War was about something other than slavery is like arguing the Iraq War was about something other than greed. The fact that lies are told and some, even many, are stupid enough to believe them, doesn't change what the truth actually is.

If there was no oil in Iraq, we would not have been there.
If the abolition of slavery wasn't an issue, the Civil War would not have happened.



There is a damn good reason black people don't feel this way.



That one thread, about people protesting in support of a storeowner's right to kill a maimed black kid like a dog?



The parallel of the Holocaust is very relevant.
If you think it is not then explain why.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Because slavery and genocide, while both bad, are not even in the same ballpark of bad.

Aren't you the one constantly sucking the dick of the Roman Empire, which did both?

The two flags both stand for regimes based on racism and subjugation of a peoples based on class/race. It's a valid comparison.



I'm not going to waste time spelling out why you're completely wrong here, but I'll just point out patriotism and give the example of the Iraq war.



The case was made before the nazi comparison, you might have caught it if you took your fingers out of your ears, opened your eyes, and stopped shouting "NUH-UH, NUH-UH, NUH-UH"



Stupid or racist, take your pick.



I'll have to see your papers.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm not sure how well the "people would prefer slavery to death" argument will hold up in the company of people, yourself included, who commonly fall back on the insult/argument that, because someone disagrees with you, they're 'too dumb to realize they're arguing against their own interests,' and are doomed to a miserable life as one of "The Man's" minimum-wage slaves.



In both cases, you engage in the hyperbole of exalting one issue (or in the case of the Iraq war and oil, non-issue) to the exclusion of all others, and ignore the actual history...which is understandable with the Civil War, but you lived through the lead-up to the Iraq conflict, and should know better.



I'm sorry, would you like to complete that thought?



I did, but I'll expand. Like slavery, the Holocaust involved the mass dislocation of masses of people, shabby living conditions, physical abuse, and forced labor. The Holocaust, however, was far worse because in addition to that, the victims were used in horrific experiments on the human body, and murdered in large numbers in some of the most terrifying ways possible. While slavery primarily impacted one race of people, many of whom were sold into the condition by members of their own race, sometimes even their own tribe/family, the Holocaust afflicted not just Jews, but Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, and others. The biggest reason, however, that such a comparison is invalid is that it leads to this: you asking for attempts to quantify whose suffering was worse or whose was more tolerable in light of variables such as how destructive both events were or how long they lasted, which makes little sense given that you're arguing how absolutely terrible it is to offend people. You're concerned about people taking offense, and you want to open that can of worms? Way to demonstrate how serious you are about what you're saying.


Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Arguable. Honestly, given the choice, some of us would pick one and some the other, and historical fact bears that out.



The Romans, like the Americans and most other cultures, did some things well and had certain winning qualities, amongst them a sense of lawfulness, order, discipline, and basic morality. They also definitely had more than their fair share of a lot of not so nice qualities, amongst them a profound love of force, perverse inclination to revel in others' indignity, extreme fear of change, pomposity, and despicable greed. I'm not so deluded as to think the Romans were Quo Vadis stereotypes.

Roman slavery was not comparable to American or Spartan slavery. The Romans, like most classical peoples, saw slavery as a social institution and an extension of the natural order - they did not see slavery as a racist institution as we do.

To be a slave in Roman society was to occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder, but one was still on that ladder, with a clearly defined relationship with the upper rungs. A slave could (and usually did) receive freedom and citizenship in exchange for loyalty and hard work. Don't underestimate the importance of this distinction. It meant two things - first, that slaves were not restrained only by fear, but also hope - that implied violence was not the only thing keeping things under control.

Hope is a powerful force - arguably the single most powerful - shaping one's outlook on life.

It also meant that Roman slaves were not outside society as blacks were, merely on the periphery. Even short of being freed, the place of a slave in society is a very different thing when the condition is not cradle-to-grave - when there is the possibility of change and continual integration of former slaves into society. The slave serving you wine today could one day be selling it. The mutability of the condition profoundly changes the relationship between slaves and citizens.

Roman slaves were allowed to own and use currency. It was not forbidden for them to learn to read and write, and in fact those skills increased a slave's value.

The Romans also perceived the legacy of slavery differently. To be descended from slaves was considered a major source of shame and disgrace in Roman society, because dignity and power dynamics were fundamental to their culture - it meant that one was descended from disgraced people, people without dignity or morality, things lost when one is totally subject to a master. The point is, the pejorative perception of slavery had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with how slavery was perceived in moral terms.

The point is, Roman slavery was not driven by bigotry as American slavery was. Nor did it drive fear, ignorance and alienation as American and Spartan slavery did.

To conflate American and Roman slavery is to betray an ignorance of both societies - and a lack of understanding of what makes black America what it is.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

k



You're being pedantic in answering a question that wasn't asked. The point you made wasn't that the Holocaust was worse than slavery, it was that you claim that oppressive policies towards black people, up to and including slavery, won't return.

I highlighted the parallel of the Holocaust as a case study in how things can get very bad, very fast for a minority regarded with indifference by most, disdain by many, and profound hatred by a few.

You would never admit it but at some level even you know (and everyone else certainly knows) that the real reason you responded with a non sequitor is because you've been brainwashed into deliberately misconstruing every fact and argument that doesn't agree with your programming.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Lol now there's types of slavery that are acceptable and types that aren't.

Ok.

Are there types of genocide that are acceptable?

I don't think he ever said there were, he was just explaining how the Roman form was a little better.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]