Apple Pulls Civil War Games From App Store Over Confederate Flag

originally posted by: seagull
Because we know if we ignore the lessons of history, we won't repeat 'em.

What lesson? The civil war never happened. If you try to say it did I will wash your mouth out with soap!

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't want them to self-censor. I want anything having to do with being PC to stay out of video gaming. While I said I don't care about the .99 cent money grubbing apps, I do care about what happened to those games and the developers.

Well the industry doesn't bow down to your "wants". It follows whatever trends it can or tries to get in front of them before they happen. It's all about $$$, not you. This is something that video game enthusiasts often forget when they go on the Gamefaqs forums and complain relentlessly about how sequel #5,362,812 to whatever rehashed game isn't EXACTLY how they want. The video game industry is a business just like any other. You as the consumer aren't always going to get EXACTLY what you want. The video game community is the whiniest community I've ever seen.

That poem can be applied to this situation. Even if they are exploitive games with IAPs, they are still games. People should be all over Apple for pulling the games because of a flag. If people don't apply heat, things will become more censored due to the sheer apathy of the censorship of the games that came before.

Oh thanks, it's not like I haven't seen THAT poem posted on ATS a thousand times. Though I see the tactic worked, every time it shows up the person who posts it gets a ton of stars.

ETA: Besides, they aren't taking anything. Apple is taking it away. Like I've said numerous times in this thread, take it up with Apple. It's their business, they can do what they want with it. This means they can choose not to sell whatever product they don't want to sell for WHATEVER reason. Perhaps you are new to Apple. They do this nonsense all the time. Tis why there are barely any playable video games on Apple computers, because of Apple's bizzare insistence on using their own hardware for their pc's. Gotta have that self contained unit that only an Apple tech can work on it (more money for Apple, duh).

Good god...

The civil war was fought over states rights, NOT slavery.

If we continue to ignore our history, and now apparently actively hide it, we are doomed to repeat it.

Couldn't the same argument be made about any flag? Couldn't an argument be made that apples flag discriminates non Christians by actively showing an apple from Adam and eve?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care about what kind of game it is. I don't care whether or not they have the right to sell it or not as a free marketer.

Neither or those are the direct issue.

The real issue is that the reason, the ONLY reason, Apple has decided to stop selling the games in question is because of bowing to PC sentiment. It's not like they were marketing a racist game. It was a Civil War game.

Like I said, take it up with Apple. It's their business; it's their decision. I'm not going to cry over losing the equivalent of a Skinner box marketed to the public. See, that's the thing. I don't consider these things games. They're scams to me.

It's a stupid as the company who made the zombie game and pulled it because of accusations of racism over the black zombies. Well, the game was set in Africa. What color were the zombies likely to be?!

Resident Evil 5 was never pulled from anywhere (at least not in the States). There was just a bunch of controversy, but it all blew over once the game came out. I know this, because I got the game the day it came out.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Good god...

The civil war was fought over states rights, NOT slavery.

If we continue to ignore our history, and now apparently actively hide it, we are doomed to repeat it.

Couldn't the same argument be made about any flag?

Tell that to the states that seceded from the Union.
6 Civil War Myths, Busted

Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New Yorkeven the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

Saying the war was over State's Rights is just glossing over the slavery issue. Yes, it was about State's rights, but really just right. Singular. The right to own slaves.

a reply to: boymonkey74

When Lee surrendered at Appomattox they initially couldn't even find a piece of white cloth to tie to a stick.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over states right.

Your Mr. Base scholarship guy needs to do more research. We know this because the federal government attempted to end a practice that was not specifically reserved to the federal government. The southern states felt the federal government had no right to make the changes they did when it was not specifically granted to them by the constitution.

Why don't they ban the American flag aswell, each star represents a state, alot of those states where owned by Native Indians until the British came over, slaughtered, raped, pillaged and stole their land.
Im sure that's offensive to the Native Indians.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Myth #2: The Union went to war to end slavery.

Sometimes, Loewen said, the North is mythologized as going to war to free the slaves. That's more bad history, Loewen said: "The North went to war to hold the union together."

Pres. Abraham Lincoln was personally against slavery, but in his first inaugural, he made it clear that placating the Southern states was more important. Quoting himself in other speeches, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." [Read: The Best Inaugural Addresses Ever]

Abolitionism grew in the Union army as soldiers saw slaves flocking to them for freedom, contradicting myths that slavery was the appropriate position for African-Americans, Loewen said. But it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 — which left slavery intact in border states that hadn't seceded — that ending Confederate slavery became an official Union aim.

HEY look at that, someone didn't read the link posted.

I am very happy they are pulling the civil war game LOL.

Good article about the flag.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Do any of you fly the flag? If so why?.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because one mans opinion is not fact.

The economy of the north was industrial. The economy of the south was agricultural. The north wanted an end to slavery and the south didn't as it would adversely affect their economy. The south floated the idea of phasing out slavery over 50 years and it was rejected. The northern states passed their laws while southern representatives were not present.

It was about states rights.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Perhaps you don't know who Jim Loewen is. He's pretty much a SME on American History. He is a sociologist, a historian, and writes history books, and they are VERY well researched with countless amounts of primary sources referenced. So your dismissal of "one man" is rather pedantic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And there are plenty of other historians, sociologists etch who don't agree with his interpretation. So again one mans opinion doesn't make it fact.

Everything about the civil war was based on states rights.

Nothing in the constitution prohibited slavery, making it a state issue. Anything not specified to the feds is reserved solely to the states. How do we know it was about states rights? Because we had to have a 13th constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery. The 14th amendment played a critical role after the end of the civil war as well, where the federal constitution was applied almost in its entirety to the states (the 7th amendment still does not apply).

How about BET Black Entertainment Television
In an age of multiculturalism, diversity and the constantly offended, BET should be shut down or change to MET Multicultural Entertainment Television.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's the POINT I'm trying to tell you. Yes, it was about State's Rights. States' rights to own slaves. THAT is what it is about. You can't argue with primary sources that LITERALLY say that such and such state was seceding from the union over slavery. It's literally in the quotes the states gave as their reasons for leaving. I mean you aren't arguing with me or Dr. Loewen. You are arguing with primary sources, which is ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hence the war being fought over states rights, where slavery was just one of the issues and NOT the sole issue.

As I stated nothing in the federal constitution addressed slavery, making it a states right issue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, but it was enough of an issue that it was the primary issue involving State's rights. In fact, it is the ONLY right they were fighting over. Have you actually studied American politics in the 60 years leading up to the Civil War? Slavery was the number one issue that was discussed. More than ANY other issue. Every generation of politician would kick the slavery issue can down the road, making it worse and worse with each half-assed compromise the politicians would make about it. Then it exploded into the Civil War. These facts are indisputable.

Glossing over all of this by saying, "The Civil War was about State's Rights," is white washing history so it doesn't sound as deplorable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Uh, no it was not.

You are ignoring the implications to the southern way of life. Its local and international economy. The affect on its local laws and criminal justice system. The elevation of black to equal status changing societal makeup and status in the south. You are ignoring the impact of taxes placed on cotton and what that did to cotton exports.

None of which at the time were resolved issues between the states and federal governments.

It was about states rights. It was about the argument that the federal government had say over states that didn't agree with it.

Before anyone tries to go down the road I don't support slavery or treating blacks as only a partial person or as property. I am stating that at the time of the civil war we did not have amendments protecting blacks, or women for that matter.

Our constitution specifically states anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved solely to the states.

This was a states right issue and slavery was just one issue and not the sole issue.

If slavery were the sole issue please tell me when the emancipation proclamation was issued. The next question is why did it take so long? Could it be it would cripple the south industrial base and economy giving another edge to the north.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Good article about the flag.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Do any of you fly the flag? If so why?.

No I dont fly the flag because Im not a racist.