Sunday, July 12, 2015
THAT CONFEDERATE FLAG
On Friday the Confederate ‘Battle” Flag that was flying at the South Carolina Capital was taken down and the flagpole itself removed.
Although this action was long overdue; the reason for its removal is the wrong one.
There is a tendency to alter or rewrite history by destroying all evidence relating to what is desired to forget or deny. This may be for political or religious purposes.
In the past three decades some of the worst have been the destruction of such sites as the Giant Buddhas of Bamyian by the Taliban. In the past few years ISIS has destroyed many historic sites of Shia and Sufi origin that date back well over a thousand years.
In Mosul Nebi Yunus the mosque dedicated to the prophet Jonah was blown up. Palmyra a Roman town and Hatra once a dessert crossroad town of antiquity have been destroyed
ISIS has destroyed well preserved remnants of three capitals of Assyrian Empires that date back to the 8th Century BC. This includes Nineveh-Sennacherib’s, of biblical record, capital as well as Nimrud and Khorsabad from earlier times.
But all such destruction has not been limited to the fundamentalist Islamic forces. The Inquisitors destroyed all the records of the Mayas and other Central and South American Indian cultures as the Spanish conquered them. A treasury of human history was lost forever.
In our own country there is pressure to remove anything that would recall the slavery practice. We have distorted the causes of the Civil War as a fight to preserve slavery by the Southern States and the North’s desire to abolish it. Forgotten was the fact that there were at least four Slave States that remained in the Union and it was not until later in the conflict that Lincoln turned it into a war for abolition.
The fact is the causes for the war were not just economic because the Northern States also benefited from the production of goods made from inexpensive Southern cotton. It was a combination of the preservation of cheap labor, and also the principle of State’s rights against that of a dominant federal government.
It was the latter issue that as reflected in the flying of the Confederate flag in South Carolina in 1964 as a protest against the Civil Rights Act. It was not there as a reminder of slavery. It was flown as a protest against the restriction of a state deciding who can vote. Yes there was a racial issue involved; the ability to prevent blacks from exercising their citizen’s rights to vote.
That is what the flag represented and that is why it should only be a museum item of a relic from a terrible time in our history; not a symbol of objection to a federal law; the law of the land.
Today there are court cases relating to voter registration or polling booth regulations from at least two states, Texas and North Carolina that have reached the federal district court level. In both cases the hidden agenda is to control the eligible voter’s accessibility.
SCOTUS will most likely hear both during its 2015 session. Although due to injunctions neither may impact on the 2015 elections but since SCOTUS renders its decisions by the end of June the 2016 Presidential elections will be impacted one way or the other.
The issue is of course controlling who can vote.
"A voting rights trial on a 2013 North Carolina law is getting under way, focusing on whether Republican lawmakers illegally weakened minority voters' ability to participate in the political process.
The trial stems from three federal lawsuits, and a judge in Winston-Salem scheduled proceedings to begin Monday. The trial could last two to three weeks.
The U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP and others sued soon after Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill approved by the Republican-led General Assembly. The trial will focus on changes that scaled back early voting and prevented counting Election Day ballots cast in incorrect precincts. Supporters say the law improved the integrity of the voting process." 7/16 from news article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Put up in 1964 by a Democrat Governor. A member of the Ku Klux Klan he was. Wasn't the klan always known as the military branch of the Democratic Party?
ReplyDeleteHeck the civil rights act of 1957 that was signed into law by Pres Eisenhower and everything introduced from then until 1964 was blocked by Democrats, especially JFK. And it wasn't until he died that they were able to get the 1964 bill passed.
Heck Eisenhower/Nixon had MLK to the White House to break bread and talk civil rights. And if I am not mistaken in Camelot it was RFK that ordered Hoover to step up surveillance on MLK.
The Democrats have always been the Slavery Party, The Republican Party was started in 1854 as an abolitionist party.
What a backwards land we live in!
Stockholm Syndrome . . . is that why so many minorities are members of the party who oppressed them from day one until the present?
What you conveniently fail to mention Blackdog, is that both parties have long since ceased to follow their original roles and have completely switched sides on the issue of civil rights. When northern liberals began to take control of the Democratic Party’s civil-rights agenda in the mid 20th century, white southern conservative democrats (remember the term Dixiecrats ? ) realigned with the Republican Party. Did you forget about this?
ReplyDeleteYou attempt to rewrite history when you claim slavery and oppression as a Democratic Party thing it wasn't. It was a SOUTHERN thing. There were simply fewer Republicans in the south at the time. As the following proves Southern Republicans were every bit as racist. Here is the vote breakout on the original Civil Rights Act.
The House version:
Southern Democrats: 7 yes – 87 no
Southern Republicans: 0 yes - 10 no
Northern Democrats: 145 yes – 9 no
Northern Republicans: 138 yes – 24 no
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1 yes - 20 no
Southern Republicans: 0 yes – 1 no
Northern Democrats: 45 yes – 1 no
Northern Republicans: 27 yes – 5 no
The racist democrat Strom Thurmond, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, changed sides to the Republican party, along with millions of his fellow segregationist southern democrats.
To go along with your flawed thesis, one must ignore the last 60 years of American history and politics. It's very condescending of you to ascribe Stockholm Syndrome to the millions of minority democrats. Perhaps instead, they chose to pay attention and vote for their own interests, despite helpful white guys like you telling them that they don't really understand anything.
Or a quick summary of Blackdog's argument:
ReplyDeleteRepublicans: "Democrats are the party of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican!"
Democrats: "Ok, then remove the flag which represents slavery and opposition to Lincoln!"
Republicans: "You'll pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
Oldoc. The main problem with people who hide behind the moniker anonymous is that I believe they are cowards, otherwise why hide? Very presumptuous of anon 249 to assume I am a helpful white guy. Guess I filled the census form out incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteWhenever anon decides to come out from hiding he or she can email me directly.
"Blackdog" - Brilliant - Someone who posts under the name "Black Dog" (surely not your real first and last name) calls someone else a coward for posting anonymously. I didn't see your email address in your post or on your short lived (only one post - really? that didn't last long) blog from 2014. Can you really be missing the irony?
ReplyDeletePerhaps when you stop being a coward and post your first name, last name and email address - in other words - stop commenting anonymously, while complaining about others who do the same - I'll buy you a drink and discuss this with you.
Hoka Hey Anon.
DeleteThat is my tribal name and I post a blog under it.
And I do not drink or do drugs, that is a problem of the wasichu and a waste of life.
Contact me through my blog anytime you wish to come out of hiding and put the bottle down.