Press "Enter" to skip to content

10 Comments

  1. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty July 16, 2015 7:43 am

    Thanks, Claire… very moving and inspirational indeed. 🙂

  2. jed
    jed July 16, 2015 4:15 pm

    Well done, Claire!

  3. Shel
    Shel July 16, 2015 7:17 pm

    Thomas Sowell, in his book The Vision of the Anointed, discusses in depth the superiority attitudes of those who would take our liberties away.

    Your discussion of love immediately takes me to the Confederate Flag “controversy.” I attended the 2004 funeral for the crew of the C.S.S. Hunley, walking in the back end of the procession with a small piece of black cloth around my left arm (the re-enactors and the caskets were ahead). I had wanted to go, thinking the experience would certainly be very interesting and very possibly moving as well. What I got was what I never suspected – my guts totally ripped out. It wasn’t history anymore; these were the real guys. It moves me greatly now even to type this.

    I caught up with the lone bugler in the parking lot afterwards. He had a beard, a barrel chest, and a bit of a belly. He looked for all the world like someone you might find in a bar. I confessed to him that I couldn’t imagine how difficult it must have been to play in that situation. He said, “My mouth was so dry. They deserved better than that.” I told him it was fine. What I should have added was that he was exactly what they would have wanted, a pure heart. A professional musician who didn’t care would have been an insult. He did play well and somehow didn’t miss any notes.

    I now think that the great majority of those who support that flag do it out of love, and most of those who want to ban it do it out of hate or a deluded sense of moral superiority. The NAACP even wants the government of Georgia to sandblast Lee, Stonewall, and Davis off the face of Stone Mountain. If they had the power that ISIS has, things surely would be quite different.

  4. LarryA
    LarryA July 16, 2015 11:52 pm

    Reason and emotion are two sides of the coin. You aren’t functionally human without both. (Yes, I grew up on Star Trek.)

    and most of those who want to ban it do it out of hate

    It’s interesting that the Christians of Emanuel AME can forgive the living person who, just weeks ago, sat through a prayer study and then murdered their friends and relatives, but the haters can’t forgive soldiers that have been dead a century and a half.

    I fear they will succeed in banning the Southern Cross, and much more of that history, and it will come back to bite us all in the ass.

  5. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty July 17, 2015 5:32 am

    LarryA, why would government action “banning” the flag (or anything else) prevent individuals from preserving, revering and teaching their young people about it? The public displays mean nothing to those who don’t already appreciate it. The lack of public displays can’t actually eliminate the truth.

    Why would people allow the government “bans” to dictate their personal realities? The ongoing “war on drugs” and “guns” (and any number of other things) indicate that most people do not allow these “bans” to completely control their choices and actions. Why would it be different with this symbol?

    So those who do the banning cannot succeed, but the controversy about it may instead cause a lot of folks to reexamine their previous ideas about it all. How many new gun owners are a direct result of the gun “bans?” We’ll never know, of course – but I can’t imagine there are not quite a few.

    And yes indeed… it is interesting that most of the people who say the symbol promotes “hate” are the most shrill and obvious haters, and most willing to use force and lies to promote their hate.

  6. LarryA
    LarryA July 17, 2015 9:15 pm

    why would government action “banning” the flag (or anything else) prevent individuals from preserving, revering and teaching their young people about it?

    1. How many of us are people who preserve, revere, and teach our young people about history? (Well, okay, those here. How many out of the U.S. population?)
    2. Once society denounces a culture as “evil” it becomes permissible, or even laudable to imprison or kill members of that culture.

    Several U.S. grievance cultures are recklessly playing with fires they don’t comprehend.

    For more on symbols see:
    http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=1676

  7. Pat
    Pat July 18, 2015 2:02 am

    ML and LarryA – I think both of you raise valid points. But…

    Those who keep racism alive *want* to see racism in the Confederate flag; they’re not going to listen to a rational debate on the meaning and importance of a flag. Like ISIS, they see hate everywhere. Like ISIS, they attach any remark, symbol, or attempt to reach understanding as an affront to their purpose and goal. (No, I’m not comparing the racism against whites in America with ISIS’s actions around the world. The comparison is one of attitude.)

    But how one *ought* to view the flag becomes irrelevant in a vigilante atmosphere designed to educate the masses against the racists’ enemy. That “education” is emphatically helped by social media: all it takes is a few well-worded rants on FB or Twitter, and suddenly every son-of-an-idiot is on the racists’ bandwagon. Thus the “court of public opinion” is in session.

    How does a rational viewpoint have a chance to be heard when opinion, stridency and momentum determine validity? I don’t have the answer. But a different tack needs to be taken to be heard in the midst of all the political and racist Babel.

    The flag (any flag) IS important – yet it isn’t. It is not sacred: it’s only a piece of material, after all. While it may represent [whatever] to a person or group, the flag itself is not necessary to keep alive what it represents. But flags (and other symbols) have been around for hundreds, or thousands, of years; they’re important to people, individually and in groups, to proclaim who they are, the ideas they believe, or the area from which they come. That’s not going to change as long as people are proud of what they are. The Hammer and Sickle or “Live free or die” – it’s all the same as far as delivering a message.

    (A personal perspective: to more than a few Southerners, the South never lost the War Between the States because it is not yet over; “defeat” has never been accepted. The WBtS was a matter of honor to the South, the right to be themselves without interference. Some Southerners were racists, some were not; but all knew that they were being raped by the North. The Confederate flag (like the Rebel Yell which was an extension of the Scottish clan yells when going into battle), was their symbol of defiance against an alien lifestyle conjured up in the North.

    The South should have won the war – it would have taken the country into an entirely different direction. Not through racism, which was on its way out anyway, but through a spirit of independence and MYOB. There would have been no take-charge from Washington, no Reconstruction of the North, a better White-Indian relationship at least along the southern tier which was friendlier than in the North or West anyway, a better use of agricultural lands, and a more natural development of Southern cities.)

    Sorry. I said more than I had planned.

  8. LarryA
    LarryA July 18, 2015 8:52 am

    The South should have won the war – it would have taken the country into an entirely different direction.

    I like most of that, except for a quibble. If by “take the country” you’re including all 36 states, I disagree. The South was never trying to conquer the North. I think had they won (Defeated Grant) they would have ignored the North. Washington would have continued to “take charge” of the states that were under its control.

    The South would have had to deal with its lack of industry, before developing natural cities.

    Sorry. I said more than I had planned.

    [sigh] And I’m late for a meeting.

  9. Pat
    Pat July 18, 2015 11:11 am

    LarryA – You’re right. By taking the country, I just meant the country would have gone in a different direction and probably ended up in a better place – at least as long as Washington didn’t attempt to regroup and continue the fight!

    “The South was never trying to conquer the North. I think had they won (Defeated Grant) they would have ignored the North. Washington would have continued to “take charge” of the states that were under its control.”

    I’m sure you’re right there also, on both counts.

    I do think the South would have done a better job of developing its own region though, because it had its self-interest at heart. Neither cities nor agriculture would have developed the way they did (or been held back as they were) if the South had won. In fact I’d like to think that the South may have become the East Coast breadbasket that California became in the West – bringing produce to the Northeast, closer to home and at less expense. That might have altered transportation (transportation costs and interstate commerce in general), and fixated the food industry on a more local/regional base.

  10. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau July 19, 2015 7:02 am

    [I fear they will succeed in banning the Southern Cross, and much more of that history]

    Not a chance. Americans are too ornery for that. Flag sales have increased tremendously.

Leave a Reply