NAACP Branch Readies for Confederate Flag Fight

[underpants]

Source: Fox News

A flag fight is brewing in southern Florida.

Members of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP want the Confederate flag banned from the Homestead-Miami Motor Speedway, and they will meet Thursday to decide whether to boycott a NASCAR race slated there for November.

Debra Toomer, the branch's chairwoman of press and publicity, said a planning session has been scheduled to decide on a course of action regarding the display of the flag at the Nov. 20-22 event, as well as its presence at city-sponsored events like last year's Veterans Day parade.

"The concern is there," Toomer said of Confederate flags. She declined to comment further before the meeting.

But officials at NASCAR and the raceway say there's little they can do to prevent spectators from displaying or waving the Confederate flag.

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston told FOXNews.com that NASCAR's "longstanding policy" prohibits displays of the Confederate flag on its cars, uniforms, licensed merchandise or in advertisements.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522203,00.html?test=latestnews

---

How Yahoo sports reports it

NAACP may seek to get Confederate flags out of Homestead

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/blog/from_the_marbles/post/NAACP-may-seek-to-get-Confederate-flags-out-of-H?urn=nascar,166195

Say what you will about the Confederate flag, it's still deeply intertwined with a goodly chunk of Southern culture. And there's a fair bit of crossover between Confederate flag fans and NASCAR fans; you'll see Confederate flags flying in the infield at almost every single race. (Like right here, for instance.)

But that doesn't sit well with the NAACP, understandably enough. The Miami-Dade branch has decided that sitting back is no longer an option, and is considering whether to boycott the season-ending Homestead race in November. (Yes, yes, I know, the NAACP boycotting a NASCAR event seems similar to the idea of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir boycotting a Lil Wayne concert, but hear 'em out.) Their point, of course, is that the Confederate flag carries with it a history of hatred and oppression, and they don't believe it should be a part of NASCAR events.

[FLAprogressive]

1. While I agree with the NAACP....people have a right to put whatever racist crap they want on private

property.

[vadawg]

2. Bingo, and the NAACP can boycott till their hearts content, still wont make me miss the race..

[tularetom]

3. When I see that piece a shit flag waved around I think

"there's a stupid inbred redneck", but ya know what, this is America, and stupid inbred racist rednecks have rights too.

To me there is nothing more boring than a fucking NASCAR event so there is very little chance I'd notice it, but as long as nobody is acting out some sort of racist fantasies, I think the NAACP is in the wrong.

[Old Coot]

4. Many in the South don't consider the battle flag a racist symbol.

It is a symbol of Southern pride.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It shouldn't be a symbol of pride.

Not based on the various 'Causes for Secession' acts passed by the various rebel states.


(Edit for clarification)

[vadawg]

8. to my neighbours its the symbol of their grandfathers etc who fought in the army

of northern virginia, these mountain men are not racist in any way, they just hate all outsiders especially yankees. :)

[struggle4progress]

27. The war's long over. Lots of us had ancestors on both sides. The right gang won

[struggle4progress]

32. Let's review some post-war history of the Confederate battle-flag/naval-jack as a symbol

... The Jim Crow era in American history dates from the late 1890s, when southern states began systematically to codify .. in law and state constitutional provisions the subordinate position of African Americans in society ... The year 1890, when Mississippi wrote a disfranchisement provision into its state constitution, is often considered the beginning of legalized Jim Crow ... http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

In 1894, at the beginning of the modern Jim Crow era, Mississippi replaced the magnolia flag with one containing the Confederate emblem
http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Mississippi_1861.svg/200px-Mississippi_1861.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Flag_of_Mississippi.svg/167px-Flag_of_Mississippi.svg.png

In 1956, two years after Brown v. Topeka, as the civil rights movement began to spread, Georgia modified its flag to contain the Confederate emblem
http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281920-1956%29.svg/167px-Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281920-1956%29.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281956-2001%29.svg/150px-Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%281956-2001%29.svg.png

<flags from:> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_U.S._states

In 1962, as lunch counter sit-ins spread across the south:

... the Confederate battle flag was placed on top of the South Carolina statehouse by vote of the all-white legislature ... http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate4.html

So the flag has a nasty habit of reappearing in the context of the denial of civil rights, based on skin color. But more importantly:

... If flying the flag is deeply hurtful to a third of your population, it’s just downright rude to keep doing it ... http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/confederate_flag_flies_in_south_carolina_primary/

[tularetom]

9. Not trying to be rude here but WTF is "Southern pride"

And before you go all regional on me, I lived in the south until I was 10 years old.

But I have a few questions:

1. A lot of African Americans live in the south. Do they see that flag as a "symbol of Southern Pride"?

2. If the flag is a symbol of "southern pride" just what are those flying it proud of?

As I said, this is America. If someone wants to fly a flag, as far as I'm concerned that's their right. It's my right to think they're a moran for doing it.

[Stellabella]

14. Pride in what? The war they lost?

Or the bigotry it portrays?

God. You LOST. Get over it.

[vadawg]

16. this is exactly why my neighbours fly their flags, who are you to tell them what to do

their reasoning is that yes the south may have surrendered at appomattox, but the south never died and is still alive today, and i got to say that in my part of virginia it still does, these people are virginians first and southerners second, they may also be US citizens but that by no means makes them any less southern.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. The war is over

Time for your racist symbol to be dumped is long past.

[vadawg]

22. anybody who lauds bobby sands telling someone else the wars over to get over it has to be kidding

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

44. Yes, because an oppressed Irish Catholic is totally the same thing as celebrating slavery and racism

[LanternWaste]

63. O-k... I'm not lauding Bobby Sands...

O-k... I make no mention of Bobby Sands-- lauding him or otherwise. I was born, raised and live in the South (TX), and am emphatically stating-- "The south lost the war". Lost the war in an embarrassingly dramatic way. The South started the damnable conflict. In effect, the southern leaders and their army were little more than terrorists if we apply today's conventional definitions. The South killed off the cream of an entire generation due to greed and hubris. The South set back the clock of history by fifty years. The South had a helluva tough time admitting it lost, and did every damned thing it could to prevent blacks from voting for another hundred years to come.

Yet there are still people who think all of that is something to be proud of...?


The South lost. The north won. The war is over-- it's time for a lot of ineffectual, closet-racist rednecks and good-old boys to Get. The. Hell. Over. It.

(And no-- I'm not kidding...)
\
ed: sp

[No Elephants]

29. Neighbors? LOL. Transparent much?

;-)

BTW, it's totally false that your neighbors fly the flag bc of our comments. You realize that, right? It's also totally false that anyone is telling them not to fly the flag.

[vadawg]

31. not sure why you are scoffing at neighbours, got me confused

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Reasoning like this is why William Tecumseh Sherman is my hero

Ya'll surrendered WAY too soon, so many things he didn't get a chance to raze to the ground.

[Tempest]

82. Sherman's March was a thing of beauty

I own the Ken Burns' Civil War documentary and my favorite part is about Sherman's March. He was balls to the wall, nerves of steel, take no prisoners and leave nothing useful behind.

It's a shame the war ended before he could backtrack from the Atlantic coast through to the Gulf of Mexico.

[Stellabella]

60. And bigots.

I certainly can tell them what to do, if what they are doing is racist. The Confederate flag wasn't brought back into prominence until the 1950s and the Civil Rights era, with the south taking the disgusting lead in suppressing African-American rights. You think that's a coincidence?

Would it be all right with you if Germany flew the Nazi flag during World Cup soccer games?

People like you are the problem in this country. You don't see that a symbol or a phrase or an action is racist, so you think it's just fine.

Grow up.

Oh, and do you know what punctuation is? And you lost.

[smirkymonkey]

79. Touche!

Best post on the subject yet.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

18. It's racist

Give it up.

[theHandpuppet]

20. Aren't there any Southern black Americans?

Just whose pride does that flag represent?

[badgervan]

25. NO..

.. it's a racist symbol.

[No Elephants]

28. Yeah, we've heard. But those who don't consider that flag a symbol of slavery and treason simply

could not be dumber.

[Bandit]

49. What are they proud of ..TREASON

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

54. They realize that it;'s a symbol of racist Southern pride

No non-Freeper person I know thinks the Battle Flag is anything but a racist symbol.

[tabasco]

73. Like another poster pointed out,

the last "battle flag" flown by the South was a white sheet.

[devilgrrl]

5. I think the NAACP should adopt the southern flag-it'll disappear from flag poles and bumpers ASAP!!

[MilesColtrane]

6. We shouldn't be banning symbols in the United States, no matter what their associations are.

If we start banning flags that carry a history of oppression, we'll have to include the one that was flown over Japanese-American internment camps in the 40s, over Abu Ghraib, over Guantanamo Bay. And the one that was carried by troops who slaughtered the Native Americans.

[No Elephants]

30. Fine. Let's ban only the flag of treason against the United States and only when it is

flown by a government.

[MasonJar]

10. Why are they bothering with this nonsense when there are so many

civil liberties at jeopardy right now? They need to join the fight for fair trials for detainees, marriage equality for all, repeal of DADT, single payer insurance, accountability for torture, elections free of theft and many etcs.

[Seeking Serenity]

12. Because it's easy. Easy to point to to, and probably a good money-maker.

So much easier to point to that, get all indignant, stoke the fury and use that, at least in part, as a means to solicit donations. Much easier than dealing with serious, intractable problems that don't have a readily apparent, easily identifiable "bad guy" to point to.

People are generally lazy if allowed to be.

[No Elephants]

72. And not because it symbolizes a war fought to extend slavery? Huh.

[No Elephants]

33. The name and mission of the NAACP should tell you why.

[PNutt]

11. Free Speech?

I suppose some of you do believe in Free Speech, as long as it is something that you prefer to hear or see. I am more liberal than most of you can imagine, but I do fly my Confederate Battle Flag on Confederate Memorial day here in SC. All of my ancestors on all sides, fought for State's rights. Some of the very issues that we have today, would be moot, if States had more rights, and were less dependant and subservient to the federal Government. Remember this, at the time of the Civil War, State's Rights were the primary issue due to the time and distance from the Federal Government in Washington. There were no telephones, no TVs, no internet, and no cell phones. States wanted to have the right to make decisions for themselves where time and distance made Federal governance impractical.

Too bad that some of you are so closed-minded to fully understand the issues of the time, and perhaps understand what the real issues of the time were about. We still fly the Confederate Flag at our State Capital, and if the NAACP, or anyone else doesn't like it, fine. Our history will not change to make it politically correct for special interests. Here in SC, we are proud to say that we are the ones that finally stood up and said to hell with words......actions speak louder than words.

Times were different then, and most of those arguments have long since become moot, so what is the problem? We are supposed to ignore that with which we disagree? History is history, and political correctness will not change that. It's called "Heritage", not "Hate". Sorry if you don't understand that.........perhaps if all of your family fought for a cause, you would.

[badgervan]

26. South Carolina....

... leader of the rush to secede from the Union. Why? You can stay with the "state's rights" bull, but the nr. one reason the south started that war ( and the south did fire the first shots ) was to retain the "right" to extend slavery ( the entire economy ) into the western territories, which were rapidly becoming states. You know this, and yet keep on with the "state's rights" crap.
"War of Northern Aggression", my yankee ass. We all know EXACTLY what that flag stood for, and stands for today.

[No Elephants]

34. UM, probably all our families fought for causes. What a dumb thing to say on an

American board. And no matter what white supremacist revision history says, taking slavery into the new territories was cited as the cause for secession by every state's articles of secession. Think I trust those to have stated accurately the reason for the treason a lot more than I trust some apologist's version of it after the fact. Was a century of Jim Crow about states' rights, too?

[struggle4progress]

38. SC started flying that flag in 1962. And do you know what was happening in SC in the early 1960s?

McCrory's Civil Rights Sit-ins / "Friendship Nine"
http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=16719

... The Freedom Riders left Washington on May 4, 1961 and traveled without incident across Virginia and North Carolina. They encountered violence for the first time at the bus terminal in Rock Hill, South Carolina when several young white males beat black riders who attempted to use a “whites only” restroom ... http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/freedom-rides-1961

Harvey Gantt and the Desegregation of Clemson University
http://www.clemson.edu/oir/factBook/Historical%20Enrollment/Integration.htm

The SC legislature chose to fly that flag as a symbol of resistance to civil rights

[Thothmes]

40. 100th anniversary of the American Civil War

[struggle4progress]

45. So SC suddenly looked up in 1962 & said "Shit! We missed th'centenary o'th'Civil War last year!"???

South Carolina actually voted to secede on Christmas Eve, 1860; the secession ordinance emphasizes the issue of slavery; see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The attack on Fort Sumpter occurred in April 1861. The first battles of the war were fought that summer. The war ended in 1865

So why would SC decide to begin celebrating the centenary of the civil war in 1962? And why didn't they stop celebrating the supposed centenary in 1865? 1962-2000 is a weird centenary celebration for a 1861-1865 war

And why the battle-flag/naval-jack instead of (say) the SC flag used during the war
http://flagspot.net.nyud.net:8090/images/u/us-sc861.gif

The reason, of course, is that the battle-flag/naval-jack was used as a symbol across the South to rally support for segregation:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com.nyud.net:8090/packages/images/photo/2008/09/22/20080924MISS/25117557.JPG
Hoisting a Confederate flag, hundreds of Ole Miss students protested integration of the school in front of the registrar's office on Sept. 20, 1963. Mr. Khayat, a former Ole Miss football player, banned Confederate flags at football games, sparkling controversy that earned him death threat http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/09/23/us/20080924MISS_6.html

[tularetom]

50. That SC flag looks kind of um I don't know...Islamic?

[No Elephants]

59. Excellent point. The revisionist efforts here to, pardon the expression, whitewash, the truth

would be funny, if they weren't so out of reality and ugly.

I also notice on these threads that some "Democratic" posters seem to show up at Democratic Underground only (or mostly) to defend the South. I sometimes wonder how they know when one of these threads starts.

[Stellabella]

61. Exactly.

I can't stand these bigots trying to rewrite history and defend repression.

That flag is a symbol of treason and slavery. Period.

[Blandocyte]

46. Tolerate Intolerance, Racism and Biggotry?

No thanks. Lefties enjoy wingnuts' free speech because the content is often hilarious when it's not scary. I know the good ol' days are recalled as great times for Southern Whites, but I don't think it's good to be nostalgic for the slavery, racism and discrimination that made those times so good for Southern Whites.

They're free to speak about it all they want, and people in touch with reality are free to speak about the harm such living in the past can cause.

[LanternWaste]

65. It depends on the cause.

"perhaps if all of your family fought for a cause, you would...."

It depends on the cause. And as a southern boy, I certainly can't think of any causes associated with the south's role in that conflict to be proud of.

Some causes are righteous. Many other causes are simply based on greed, power and maintaining a regressive culture-- or as we say in church, "not righteous...". And if something is by definition not righteous, why would I emply false pride to advertise the south's stain on our collective history?

ed: sp

[mitchum]

75. Why don't you fly the WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER to honor your confederate heritage?

That was the last flag to fly over Dixie

[mitchum]

77. I find it to be hilarious the date that was chosen to celebrate "Confederate Memorial Day"...

That unfortunate incident of ineptitude is an appropriate metaphor for the entire "lost cause", isn't it?

Are they still blaming that dastardly Sherman for all broken pay phones and power outages there in Colatown?

[smirkymonkey]

80. I'm all for Free Speech except for when it's Hate Speech - which

to me is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. It's dangerous and it marginalizes and intimidates a large percentage of the population.

Another poster mentioned flying the Nazi flag as a symbol of "German Pride" - how many people here would consider that acceptable, even if a majority of Germans believed that was what it truly represented.

[smirkymonkey]

81. Deleted by poster

Duplicate

[TacticalPeek]

13. Embrace the suck.

SSOC

[struggle4progress]

47. I've never seen a revisionist soapbar before!

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Southern rebels were treasonous dogs.

The Confederate battle flag is a sign of high treason.

That said, let them fly the sucker.

Rather than boycot, the NAACP should hand out Black Power flags. Make for a colorful race.

[vadawg]

17. lol i take it then the founding fathers were treasonous dogs also

you got to be consistant when it comes to stuff like this, after all they did go to war against the ruling power at that time.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Are you saying that overthrowing the government is not treason?

They entered a conspiracy to overthrow the existing government by armed force and violence. Such an act, by its very nature is treason. As an American Citizen who believes in protecting and defending the US Constitution, other citizens who take up arms and seek to murder government officials, kill members of the armed forces, and kill civilians that get in their way in a violent conspiracy are committing acts of treason.

The only reason that the Founding fathers weren't hung as treasons dogs was that they won. So, yes, from the point of view of England, they were treasonous dogs. I am not a British Citizen, so I am happy that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and other treasonous dogs chose to create their own country.

I am open to an explanation on how the violent overthrow of the existing government by a group of its citizens is legal under the US Constitution today or before the 13th and 14th amendments were passed.

[vadawg]

23. i guess it depends if you believe the government is the be all and end all

or if you look to being governed at a more local level, i have never looked towards what you would call the bigger government and have always preffered government at the lowest levels so i suppose i can understand the people of states like virginia etc having a greater allegience to their state than to the federal government who seemed like a far distant tyrant much the same as king george did to the founding fathers.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. I don't see government as the be all and end all.

The sticking point for me is how they chose to air their differences. The Southern States were well aware of their relationship to the Federal government. They chose to use violence to overthrow that government in order to institute their own Confederacy. That choice of violence was an act of treason against their former government.

Disagreeing with their government did not give them leave to take up arms against it, to kill its duly authorized members, to flaunt its laws, or to destroy its institutions.

I admit, it is not common to discuss the civil war in terms of treason. Yet, if a group of states today attempted secede from the Union, organized a military, and sought to destroy the military strength and the will to fight of the rest of the states in order to institute their own government, those would be treasonous acts. If they won, they would write their history and call themselves revolutionaries and patriots. If they lost, they would be guilty of treason against the United States. If they won, those they killed pursuant to gaining their Independence would be casualties of war. If they lost, those they killed would be murder victims crying out for justice.

The same event can be very different things to different people depending on the point of view.

[No Elephants]

36. No, winning is not the only reason. Please see Reply #35. Thanks.

[No Elephants]

42. UM, the flag of treason is not the flag of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So your state vs. federal

rationale doesn't work any better than your American Revolution analogy.

[Thothmes]

43. Was the aim of the rebels in North America

to overthrow the British Crown. Their aim was to rid themselves of the Crown's authority in North America, not depose the British Monarch or dismantle the British Government. The objective of the states that seceded from the Union, was not the overthrow of the Federal Government in Washington. Their aim was to leave the Union and establish their own nation. Neither the Confederate Consitution, nor any of the eleven ordnances of secession call for the overthrow of the Federal Government. In addition, I have found nothing in the literature of the era to even suggest that overthrow of the United States Government was considered an objective anywhere in the Confederacy. Had the those eleven states been successful, Washington would still have been the capital of a United States of America that consisted of 24 states. Richmond would have been the capital of a country consisting of 11 states.
Having said that, South Carolina started a war. She should have sued in Federal Court to leave the Union. Had she done that, I think the Taney court would have ruled that it was constitutional to leave the Union. JMO

[No Elephants]

48. Deciding what a man who's been dead so long would have done in a

fact situation that never happened is beyond difficult. However, a number of clues seem to run counter to your theory.

The Constitution succeeded a document called the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."

"An important element of the Articles was that Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power (among other things:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"



This power is a kissing cousin of Congress's power to declare war; and the term "insurrections" certainly applies to the actions of the Southern states.

Also, Lincoln, a very smart man who there at the time, considered it treason, as did many of those who governed with him and--unlike Taney--they actually considered the issue.

Also, according to wikianswers, the SCOTUS case of Texas v. White, decided in 1869, did hold that secession is illegal. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_illegal_to_secede_from_the_US See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

and http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Taney was not still on the Court then, though.

BTW, treason is not only overthrowing a government, so I am not sure why you bring that up. "In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Do you have any law (or anything else) to cite that supports your assumption that Taney would have upheld secession? (Now, THAT would have been judicial activism!) More importantly, if Taney had so decided, would the decision have been consistent with the law up until then? I don't think so, in light of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the insurrection clause of the COTUS.

[Thothmes]

68. Dred Scott

[No Elephants]

74. You dodged the question I said was more significant, but I don't think Dred Scott proves your

point. In Dred Scott, the SCOTUS was upholding the position of the United States of America, as expressed in its laws and Constitution, against an individual. That does not prove that the SCOTUS would have abandoned the position of the United States of America and ignored the law I cited in order to support secession. And, there is Texas v. White. Granted, Taney was no longer on the SCOTUS then, but Taney had only one vote anyway.

[Thothmes]

69. You brought up overthrowing the Federal government

read para four of your post 24. Looking at some work of the Taney court in Dred Scott. Since the Constitution did not specifically prescribe a means for slaves or ex slaves to become citizens, ex-slaves could never become citizens. The act of Secession is not specifically prohibited to the States of the Union in the Constitution. IMO that the Taney court would have applied the 10th amendmendment, Since secession is not specifically prohibited to the states and it is not an issue that is the perview of the Federal government, it is legal. again JMO. The Taney court took a very narrow case, Dred Scott, in which the only question was could Scott sue in a Federal Court. The court in it's decision, stated 1. Scott could not sue in Federal court because he was not a citizen. 2 The constitution did provide any means for slaves to become citizens (hence the XIV Amendment after the war), The Missouri Compromise was null and void because slavery is an issue reserved for the States alone iaw the 10th amendment. This nullified the Kansas,Nebraska act and lead to "bleeding Kansas". And finally, the Federal Government must enforce the Fugitive Slave Act across the country. This is about as an extreme case of an "activist judiciary" that I can think of. Also Taney was a from a Slave State (Maryland) I could easily see the court at that time granting secession. Again these are my opinions.

[No Elephants]

76. Post 24 is not mine; and your opinion as to what Taney would have done in 1860 IF a case

had come before him is about as unprovable as anything gets. In any case, I covered it in other posts on this thread.

[No Elephants]

35. You cannot compare apples and oranges in the name of consistency. The

colonists had no representation in lawful government. (Hello, does the slogan "No taxation without representation" ring any bells?)

The colonists had petitioned for representation and fairer treatment over and over. The colonists were exploited by the companies that had financed them and then also by England, which taxed the life out of them. Aw, just read the Declaration of Independence in its entirety. Jefferson explained the whole thing.

Moreover, the colonies were never an integral part of England to begin with. The colonies were OWNED by England (or so England thought, despite native Americans having been here first and for many millenia).

You cannot commit treason against your owner. You can only win your freedom from your owner. Overthrowing England's yoke was a lot more like a slave rebellion than it was treason. When India gained its independence from the Brits, no one in the world called it treason. Why on earth would you do so about your very own nation?

Oh, and there is the bit about the American Revolution's not having been fought over the right to spread slavery. Yes, colonists owned slaves and the Southerners refused to throw off England's yoke unless their alleged "right" to own slaves was enshrined--and, yes, the North caved into them at that time. However, slavery was not the casus belli for the Revolution. Despite all the revisionist crap, the alleged "right" to spread slavery into the new territories was the casus belli for War of Rebellion.

And Oxymanithrax is correct--there is also the little matter of winning. While I disagree that it was the only difference, the fact remains that the Revolutionaries won the war. Not only that, but America has stayed independent ever since. In fact, some would say England is now more dependent on America than America has been on England since the 1600's. Contradistinctively, the South not only lost it attempt at rebellion but has pretty much been dependent on the rest of the country ever since.

Oh, and btw, England considered them treasonous, just like the US considered--and still considers the Confederacy treasonous.

So, there is no lack of consistency whatever, in being proud of the War for Independence while being ashamed of the War of Treason.

[vadawg]

37. yup, so you think the south was treasonous, and the crown thought the colonists were traitors

not a lot of difference, just a big waste of time, the flags will still fly at nascar, they will still fly over my neighbours houses and on the back of their trucks, i think its just a money raising thing as someone else opined earlier.

[No Elephants]

39. As I said, apples and oranges. Guess you are not very good at American history or analysis, even

when someone spells it all out for you. Why am I not surprised?

[LanternWaste]

66. If the original Union flag was a defacto symbol...

If the original Union flag flown in the here and now is considered a collective and defacto symbol of oppressing the lobsters and the crown, I might think you have a point.

[No Elephants]

71. Not even then, really. Neither lobsters nor the crown are comparable to slavery or treason.

[struggle4progress]

67. It's just rude to display that flag, which is a hurtful reminder of lynchings and segregration

Anyone who realizes it represents the terrors slavery and Jim Crow to many people, and yet insists on waving it, is nothing more than the back end of a horse

[laureloak]

53. Time to shut up your hateful banter. Stop spreading poison.

Nobody alive today was a part of the Civil War. It is over and done with. It is history. And everything...including the Confederate flag...is a part of that history. It cannot be denied.

[No Elephants]

56. Yes, the Confederate flag is a part of history, a shameful one. Leave it there or hear the truth.

[laureloak]

62. What ever that means ?????

[No Elephants]

41. The first British colony on this continent was in Virginia, in 1607, 402 years ago. Yet.

certain rednecks insist that the Confederate flag, a POS representing the all of four years, is THE symbol of Southern "culture," by which they obviously mean white Southerners. How pathetic is that? After 402 years, they only symbol of their "culture" they defend is the flag of a confederacy of states that committed treason against their country for the "privilege" of extending slavery into new territories. At the same time, they insist the flag is not a symbol of either treason or slavery. What a freakin' joke.

If I were a Southerner, I would never admit that my proudest era of 402 years was four years of treason. That in itself says more about the South than any Northerner or Westerner would dream of saying.

[LostinVA]

55. Actually, it was North Carolina, but your point still stands

And, I lived in NC for 17 years and VA for almost 10, and THE ONLY PEOPLE I knew who spewed that "it's a symbol of Southern heritage" were racist Freepers.

[No Elephants]

57. My source says Jamestown, Virginia, but you're right: that does not affect my point. Was it

something like Salem, Massachusetts (the witch trials took place in what is now Beverly, Massachusetts, not in what is now Salem, where the "Witch Museum" is located)?

"And, I lived in NC for 17 years and VA for almost 10, and THE ONLY PEOPLE I knew who spewed that "it's a symbol of Southern heritage" were racist Freepers."

Never lived in the South, but it figures. Every time a thread like this starts here, you get a bunch of redneck revisionists trying to pass for enlightened new style Southern Democrats.

[toopers]

51. This is a non-issue that the NAACP is going after . . .

I am not a fan of car racing (waste of gas). NASCAR does not allow the confederate flag to be displayed on anything it controls. The racetrack in Miami does not fly the confederate flag. The only people that might have it are the spectators. The NAACP would do a lot better to educate the public, and do more community programs.

[No Elephants]

58. Maybe the NAACP hopes that "going after" the Confederate flag WILL educate the public. After all,

look how many morans on this thread alone think that shameful symbol of slavery, treason and ignominious defeat represents 402 years of "Southern culture." That is certainly NOT what it represents to Southerners who are descendants of slaves, to whom it is highly offensive--and rightly so-- and this effort makes that point.

Besides, what earns you the right to decide how the NAACP should spend its time. A big donor, are you?

[marshall]

64. Can they ban tube tops too?

And those funky looking Jesus sandals. Those things kill my feet.

[No Elephants]

70. Whose "they" and why would they ban tube tops? BTW, who banned the confederate flag again?

[marshall]

78. Whoever is making the rules

They know who they are.