[RedSpawn]

Chas_P, on 2017-August-23, 18:58, said:

I am well aware of all that. I lived through it; I was born in 1938. Marvin Griffin was not my favorite governor. The Georgia flag was changed again in 2003.

Let's review that EVOLUTION during 2003 for the State of Georgia flag.

Georgia went from:



to:

2003 - Present

Does Georgia's new state flag look anything like the 1st National flag of the Confederacy with 13 stars below? Think of the new flag 2003-Present as a "compromise" flag that is still paying tribute to the Confederacy but in a more subtle way that doesn't immediately evoke fond memories of Old Dixie's established customs and mores.

1st National Flag of the Confederacy Nov. 28, 1861 – May 1, 1863

As barmar stated, symbols MATTER!

[diana_eva]

jjbrr, on 2017-August-24, 13:11, said:

"contentious view" lol. did you miss the part where the guy posted that he hates black people? go ahead and lead us in some discussion about the finer points of such a position.

he will probably argue that it doesn't mean what we think it means or some such. dunno why nigel likes to jump and defend extremists and present their views as contentious or arguable or other BS.

[nige1]

jjbrr, on 2017-August-23, 20:10, said:

It's a good thing my generation doesn't consider decrepit old guys second-rate citizens as you do blacks. Let us know how that makes you feel.

hrothgar, on 2017-August-24, 05:26, said:

Good. Do make arrangements to let us know when you die so we can hold an appropriate celebration.

jjbrr, on 2017-August-24, 13:11, said:

"contentious view" lol. did you miss the part where the guy posted that he hates black people? go ahead and lead us in some discussion about the finer points of such a position.

diana_eva, on 2017-August-24, 13:23, said:

he will probably argue that it doesn't mean what we think it means or some such. dunno why nigel likes to jump and defend extremists and present their views as contentious or arguable or other BS.

Chas_P didn't express the opinions that hrothgar, jjbr and Diane_eva impute. I don't defend his actual views. You can counter them without resort to insult. Dana_Eva seems more guilty of defending extremist views than I am.

[RedSpawn]

steve2005, on 2017-August-18, 14:21, said:

You also shouldn't forget many of the Presidents and politicians prior to 1863 were slave owners or in favour of slavery including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
It is also ironic that what was then the Democratic party was the political party most against abolition of slavery.
Things do change which is good.
By the way I am not an American.

Very interesting. . .

Source: https://www.livescie...-platforms.html

Quote

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [How Have Tax Rates Changed Over Time?]

Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2017-August-24, 09:54, said:

Again, I feel that resort to ad hominem attack vitiates rational argument

And I feel that years of having everyone ridicule your ridiculous proposals about a world wide standard system have turned you into a bitter little troll...

(Well, either that or incipient dementia)

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2017-August-24, 10:53, said:

Many monuments have historical, cultural and artistic value. We can sympathise, however, with those who feel that monuments symbolise ideas that they hate. Few monuments are universally approved. It's easier to destroy than to create. Hence, were we to regard political disapproval as a valid excuse for removal, then almost nothing would be left. Especially as mores and morality mutate over time. Many of us are confident of the political correctness of our beliefs. We're reluctant to admit the possibility that we might be wrong. Our heritage suffers as a result. From the burning of the Alexandria Library to the modern desecration of cemeteries. It's ironic that we condemn Isis for the kind of vandalism that some of us now advocate.

If someone goes and spray paints a swastika on a synagogue you generally don't preserve the graffiti whilst pontificating about cultural values.
You remove it, because the speech itself is an act of hatred.

A long series of confederate statues that were erect in the hey day of Jim Crow and the during the fights over the Civil Rights movements are no different.
The only culture that they are celebrating is systemic hatred for and discrimination against African Americans.

FWIW, there was a big debate down at Yale over whether or not Calhoun Hall should be renamed. The University commissioned a group to study renaming and make a recommendation about Calhoun Hall. It can be found at http://president.yal...NAL_12-2-16.pdf

While this deals with renaming rather than removing statutes, I think that it still provides a very useful framework for evaluating this decision. For example, there are some debates up here in Boston whether Fanueil Hall should be renamed. The article very much helped me to reach a decision.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-24, 16:09, said:

And I feel that years of having everyone ridicule your ridiculous proposals about a world wide standard system have turned you into a bitter little troll...
(Well, either that or incipient dementia)

Hrothgar's gratuitous insults can hurt his victims, especially when they address real concerns. But they also side-track the argument for everybody else,

[hrothgar]

diana_eva, on 2017-August-24, 13:23, said:

dunno why nigel likes to jump and defend extremists and present their views as contentious or arguable or other BS.

Nigel spent year arguing that every in the world should adopt a uniform bidding system.
He was mocked through out.

Today this manifests itself as a belief that anyone who is being criticized by folks on the forums is being victimized.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-24, 16:27, said:

Nigel spent year arguing that every in the world should adopt a uniform bidding system. He was mocked through out. Today this manifests itself as a belief that anyone who is being criticized by folks on the forums is being victimized.

Another Hijack
I make many suggestions to simplify the rules of Bridge.

• I am disappointed by ridicule but
• I still enjoy argument

Hrothgar recalls that I argued that Bridge-law should mandate that players alert a call, when its meaning differs from a standard system. Few agreed. Later, I proposed a more radical disclosure reform, published in Bridge World.

We should be free to criticise a view but not to villify its proponent.

[jjbrr]

nige1, on 2017-August-24, 17:06, said:

Another Hijack
I make many suggestions to simplify the rules of Bridge.

• I am disappointed by ridicule but
• I still enjoy argument

Hrothgar recalls that I argued that Bridge-law should mandate that players alert a call, when its meaning differed from a standard system. Few agreed. Later, I proposed a more radical disclosure reform, published in Bridge World.

We should be free to criticise a view but not to villify its proponent.

nice edit

[mike777]

If nothing else, the issue raises the discussion of allowing hate speech, repugnant speech, speech that makes some segment or other uncomfortable vs say inequality in all of its forms. To put it another way competing rights, how far should free speech not be free...what additional limits should be put on free speech...

[nige1]

mike777, on 2017-August-24, 17:56, said:

If nothing else, the issue raises the discussion of allowing hate speech, repugnant speech, speech that makes some segment or other uncomfortable vs say inequality in all of its forms. To put it another way competing rights, how far should free speech not be free...what additional limits should be put on free speech...

Diana_Eva has answered mike777's question

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2017-August-24, 18:18, said:

Diana_Eva has answered mike777's question

I find it repugnant that it bothers you more when some posters call out a racist for being racist, rather than the racist post itself. Are you even reading the stuff you're defending or you just switch to personal attack mode as soon as you see hrothgar posting?

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-23, 20:54, said:

The only reason he was not tried was due to the amnesty that he had to apply for in writing. That he has no "official" trial history does not make him less treasonous, does it? Had he been killed in combat rather than surviving the way, would he still not be treasonous due to his actions?

Perhaps you might learn from President Ford's statement in 1975. https://www.archives.../piece-lee.html

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-24, 20:06, said:

Perhaps you might learn from President Ford's statement in 1975. https://www.archives.../piece-lee.html

We should not display statues that memorialize insurrectionists who fought to promote slavery in the U.S. End of story.

I note you didn't answer - had Lee died in combat, would he have been treasonous?

[mike777]

perhaps yes......the whole moral view of allegiance to one's state vs the country as a whole looks different in 2017 then clearly it looked in 1859
But yes Winston it may be fair to call them traitors to usa..\YOu make it clear in your mind they are...

Which of course raises the question of today....if you advocated the great state of OK ...leave the USA are you a traitor.....
Does anyone advocating leaving the USA a traitor.....

Are scots who vote to leave the UK who lend aid and comfort to leave the Uk....guilty of treason?

Or is Lee's crime...very great crime....supporting slavery.....supporting slavery in `859

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-August-24, 20:27, said:

perhaps yes......the whole moral view of allegiance to one's state vs the country as a whole looks different in 2017 then clearly it looked in 1859
But yes Winston it may be fair to call them traitors to usa..\YOu make it clear in your mind they are...

Which of course raises the question of today....if you advocated the great state of OK ...leave the USA are you a traitor.....
Does anyone advocating leaving the USA a traitor.....

Are scots who vote to leave the UK who lend aid and comfort to leave the Uk....guilty of treason?

Or is Lee's crime...very great crime....supporting slavery.....supporting slavery in `859

Mike, wasn't Scotland's vote legal and in keeping with British law? Hardly the same as secession, right?

I contend their are two arguments for removing all confederate statues: they are honoring treasonous behavior and they are honoring those who upheld slavery. Both actions should be condemned. (I note a third reason brought up by Richard and others that most statues were erected to promote the end of the reconstruction and the start of Jim Crow laws.)

[mike777]

Winston to answer your first question...no it is secession....you don't seem to know that

In response to your main point....I remain....if you and your local community wish to remove them...fine.....Winston you argue only against yourself.....when it comes to your local statues.


I note in my local area...the south.....btw I am from the north.

1) today I learn we have a local street called stonewall.....it is a short street near uptown....I only know it because a great local theatre company is located there. I had no idea where the name came from or ever cared.....Today it is front page news in our local mayor race....who knew....change the name out of outrage....btw the Nazi or KKK never marched there. fwiw when I think stonewall and theatre....I think NYC gay riots but that is just me....


2) I find out our local state univ has a statue, a long time statue.... called silent sam...who knew......it is now the center of tear it down protesters, legal debates.....massive police protection.......silly........


kkk no....Nazis.......no.......white racists crackers...no.........I remain to see the so called evidence.....in these two examples....but in any case if locals want to tear it down....I don't really care....I grew up in the Land of Lincoln......revered Lincoln....

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-24, 16:24, said:

While this deals with renaming rather than removing statutes, I think that it still provides a very useful framework for evaluating this decision. For example, there are some debates up here in Boston whether Fanueil Hall should be renamed. The article very much helped me to reach a decision.

I hadn't heard about that (I don't even know who Fanueil was, even though I've been living near Boston for almost 4 decades). But since Charlottesburg they've been discussing renaming Yawkey Way, which is the street that Fenway Park is located on. It's named after the owner of the Red Sox from the 30's to the 70's, who was the last holdout in integrating his team (Jackie Robinson called him "one of the most bigoted guys in baseball").

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-24, 13:11, said:

Does Georgia's new state flag look anything like the 1st National flag of the Confederacy with 13 stars below? Think of the new flag 2003-Present as a "compromise" flag that is still paying tribute to the Confederacy but in a more subtle way that doesn't immediately evoke fond memories of Old Dixie's established customs and mores.

The difference is probably that the original Confederate flag did not last long enough for it to still be recognized by the majority today. Not to mention that it's very similar to the original US flag -- the difference is just the number of stars and stripes (representing the number of states in the Confederacy). The people who selected it as the replacement for the Georgia flag almost certainly knew of this significance, but it flies under the radar of the general public.