Confederate Symbols, White Priviledge and Racism.

a reply to: Painterz

2) The Swastika is ~based~ on an older Hindu symbol, but Hitler reversed it to create the Swastika, so it most assuredly is a racist symbol.

Just to keep everything straight, the Native Americans used the swastika in both clockwise and counterclockwise orientations, long before Hitler ever used it.
They referred to it as the whirling logs, and it represented the four winds.

In America we should be able to do whatever we want, fly whatever flag we want, buy whatever drugs we want. As long as we dont impede on someones life and liberty than it shouldn't be a problem.

A confederate flag has zero impact on your life and liberty. And if you think it does than your worse than a snowflake.

Everyone just do your own thing. You do you honey boo boo

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I don't know about zero impact.

Good,bad,ugly.

Statues, and flags reminds people of a time when people stood up to the federal state.

And they can't have that.

So they destroy anything that tells the American story.

Based on the premise of 'symbols' as espoused in the OP and subsequent comments by the Trumpet haters, the Australian government is racist, so too all the train operators and everyone who pays taxes in Australia to maintain our national symbols of racism......



The confederate flag is a racist symbol only for ###SNIPPED###, for all the normal people, it's part of US history and reminds me of Daisy Dukes super-short demin shorts.

God bless her and the American civil war for ending slavery - todays Democrats are the plantation owners of yesteryear - another thing uneducated ###SNIPPED### are oblivious to.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

God bless her and the American civil war for ending slavery - todays Democrats are the plantation owners of yesteryear - another thing uneducated ###snipped### are oblivious to

Over 60 years of them telling minorities that they are 'inferior' to someone else.

That is the very definition of racism.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Based on the premise of 'symbols' as espoused in the OP and subsequent comments by the Trumpet haters, the Australian government is racist, so too all the train operators and everyone who pays taxes in Australia to maintain our national symbols of racism......

Aaaaah crap. Now look what you've done. We'll have some turd like Waleed Aly trying to get them all pulled down....

a reply to: Painterz

The compassionate thing to do is to keep my mouth shut.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well as soon as Truman became the first president to support civil rights, the racists fled the party

Strom Thurmond, Governor of South Carolina, and a group of Southern delegates walked out of the Democratic Convention when the civil-rights platform passed. The dissidents formed the States' Rights party, whose members came to known as Dixiecrats. A reporter asked Thurmond why he had bolted from the Democratic party when President Truman had not done anything substantially different from his predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Thurmond replied, "Yes -- but Truman really means it." After the convention, Truman ordered the army integrated -- a move brought about, in part, by the intense pressure of civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph. Truman's stance on civil rights won him the black vote in 1948 -- and with it, the presidential election.

www.pbs.org...
Although the Democrat virtue signalling in order to cater to an untapped voting base is just as horrible.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS
**ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

The 1st Amendment not only covers speech but symbols as well.
How about doing something productive instead of worrying about what flags people have or what statues are standing?
Removing them all would do nothing for minorities, it won't solve poverty, teen pregnancy, criminality, recidivism or graduation rates.
Those are hard things to address or solve and it's much easier to just blame someone else because of imagined privilege.

If you seek to take the rights of others don't be surprised when it's no longer safe for you to wear a BLM tshirt or carry an Antifa flag. Go protest the banks, the government, the welfare system that keeps people in perpetual poverty and dependence on the government. This boomerang the Left is throwing will come back to hit you right in the head.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Nikola014

But, the only thing that this shows is that people are fairly uneducated. And, I'd bet you that 99 out of those 100 people, would have no idea what Swastika represents, only that it's "something that was used by the Nazis".

The meaning changes over time.

The swastika is no longer a Indian religious symbol, in the west as soon as the Nazi's started slapping it over all of their flags it becomes something else, it took on a new meaning.

It happens all the time, language is the same, over time words take on new meaning.

I suppose in a way its kind of sad that the symbol has been violated to such a extent. The truth is however in the west if I have a swastika flag in the front garden there is a good chance I am a Nazi rather than showing of my spirituality or using it for luck, or whatever else it has been used for over the ages.

I think its the same with the confederate flag, over time it changed and is now a flag mostly associated with the far right and racist groups.

Um, the swastika is still used as a religous symbol to this day.

The Hindu 'swastika' faced the other way around and is still a symbol today. There's a building in a town called Preston, England that has some beautiful brickwork detailed with a ribbon of the Hindu symbol.

The Nazi one only symbolises the 3rd Reich and only ever points in the opposite direction to the Hindu's ancient version.

a reply to: dfnj2015

There's some legislation in Germany that prohibits any public displays of Nazi regalia. No tiny moustaches, no swastikas, no Reich eagles etc. Definitely no statues of Hitler. If I'm not mistaken, it's an offence to do the goosestep or seig heil signs.

No doubt one of the German members can correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure, but uninformed reactionaries will just see the shape and freak.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Nikola014

But, the only thing that this shows is that people are fairly uneducated. And, I'd bet you that 99 out of those 100 people, would have no idea what Swastika represents, only that it's "something that was used by the Nazis".

The meaning changes over time.

The swastika is no longer a Indian religious symbol, in the west as soon as the Nazi's started slapping it over all of their flags it becomes something else, it took on a new meaning.

It happens all the time, language is the same, over time words take on new meaning.

I suppose in a way its kind of sad that the symbol has been violated to such a extent. The truth is however in the west if I have a swastika flag in the front garden there is a good chance I am a Nazi rather than showing of my spirituality or using it for luck, or whatever else it has been used for over the ages.

I think its the same with the confederate flag, over time it changed and is now a flag mostly associated with the far right and racist groups.

Um, the swastika is still used as a religous symbol to this day.

The Hindu 'swastika' faced the other way around and is still a symbol today. There's a building in a town called Preston, England that has some beautiful brickwork detailed with a ribbon of the Hindu symbol.

The Nazi one only symbolises the 3rd Reich and only ever points in the opposite direction to the Hindu's ancient version.

a reply to: dfnj2015

There's some legislation in Germany that prohibits any public displays of Nazi regalia. No tiny moustaches, no swastikas, no Reich eagles etc. Definitely no statues of Hitler. If I'm not mistaken, it's an offence to do the goosestep or seig heil signs.

No doubt one of the German members can correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure, but uninformed reactionaries will just see the shape and freak.

True enough. We live in a time were reactionary chauvinism is all the rage. I can't remember a time like it and hope it's a zeitgeist phase that will pass.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people the confederate flag is a symbol of racism.

The BLM flag could quite easily be seen as a symbol of racism...should it be burnt?

I am not talking bout BLM or burning flags.

I'm not saying you would, I'm just asking your opinion on this current trend of seemingly arbitrary classification of a symbol as "racist". We all know that Washington had slaves, Jefferson had slaves, and even Lincoln himself believed that black people were inferior humans....and the civil war itself had nothing to do with slavery. It was just the 19th century version of "WMD's!!". I just find it nonsensical this current manufactured outrage at anything remotely connected to "racism".

They already talk about how the Founders were slave owners and white who created a racist construct, eventually they will demand that the Constitution be destroyed as white supremacist racist construct.

Campus speech codes can get you arrested for handing it out.

a reply to: zosimov

That has been debunked so many times it's painful.

a reply to: ketsuko

..has it? I'd be happy to peruse your sources.. Wiki still has opposition to the Civil Rights Act as the first reason listed for him leaving the Democratic party

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Does ANTIFA have an "official flag"?

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ketsuko

..has it? I'd be happy to peruse your sources.. Wiki still has opposition to the Civil Rights Act as the first reason listed for him leaving the Democratic party

en.wikipedia.org...

www.theblaze.com...

This gives as good an overview as any. More Democrats than Republicans opposed it. The press at the time recognized that Republicans were its backbone, even putting a the House Republican leader on the cover of TIME.

The principle objections held by those Republicans who voted against were not that it would allow the end of Jim Crow, in fact, they all liked that, but the flip of the forced ending of Jim Crow. What Jim Crow laws were in the South were laws that impeded a private business's freedom of association. The government stepped in a told business owners they *had* to comply with discrimination laws whether they wanted to or not.

And no Republicans were against ending the discrimination in truly public spaces like buses or schools or other places like that.

The Civil Rights Act held the perfect inverse. It forced business owners to comply with public accommodation laws, an argument we've all seen play out here. Those Republicans like Goldwater who held out against it felt that private business owners should at least be given a chance to freely associate, and if widespread discrimination still was a major problem, *then* legal remedies should be chased.

But in the end, most Republicans felt it was an acceptable compromise and went to vote for it.

I always wondered why people take offense over a group being called racist, to some degree, when you think of yourself that you’re not a racists.

Obviously, with a history of slavery and Jim Crow racism there is a problem somewhere


If you’re not racist then the accusation doesn’t apply to you—so what’s your problem. Why are you always so defensive?


It wouldn’t be a guilty conscience would it. Or doubt, would it?

a reply to: alldaylong

How much??

In a heartbeat.