reiii

It's a little weird seeing my adjacent neighboring dorm on the front page of cnn. According to the chancellor of the school, he had heard from minority applicants who turned down Vanderbilt specifically because of the presence of the Confederate Hall. It would be a blow to Vanderbilt, if they are forced to change the dorm's name back to Confederate Hall.

I would also be fine with them changing the name to something really unwieldy like: 'dorm donated by the daughters of the confederacy.' At least that might not scare off the much needed diversity from applying to my school.

CNN article:


Education
Court hears 'Confederate' dorm arguments
Group trying to block building name change

Thursday, January 6, 2005 Posted: 11:02 AM EST (1602 GMT)


NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A state appeals court heard arguments Wednesday over whether Vanderbilt University can remove the word "Confederate" from a dormitory the United Daughters of the Confederacy helped build in the 1930s.

The Tennessee chapter of the group claims the university's effort to drop the first word from Confederate Memorial Hall violates decades-old contracts, but Vanderbilt claims the contracts are no longer valid.

The judges, who did not say when they will issue a ruling, had strong words for both sides.

"You're arguing social values and making the courts be the tough guy," Judge William Cain said when a Vanderbilt attorney argued the university is completely different than it was in 1934. "The court is faced here with a bilateral contract and not an academic freedom."

Presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr., however, highlighted weaknesses in the heritage group's case, including that parts of the deal were oral and that some of the contract documents entered as evidence were not signed.

"You've put your flags up and marched into battle without ammunition," Koch said.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, which has 1,300 members in Tennessee and 25,000 nationwide, gave one-third of the cost of the $150,000 building in 1935 as part of a series of contracts with Peabody College. Peabody merged with Vanderbilt in 1979.

In 2002, Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee cited school diversity efforts when he decided to rename the dorm Memorial Hall.

The word "Confederate" has stirred debate at the private liberal arts university since the residence hall was renovated in 1988. Critics call it offensive in the face of an increasingly diverse student body and faculty, but Confederate heritage groups say the name change is an attempt to rewrite history and reject Southern culture.

"This name was given in good faith," said Daughters of the Confederacy member Jennie Jo Hardison, who attended Wednesday's hearing. "This is not about race at all, and I resent that. It's about a contract."

A lower court ruled in 2003 that the university had a right to remove the name, but "Confederate" remains etched in stone above the building until the case is resolved.

Vanderbilt attorney William Ozier told the three-judge panel that three contracts from 1913 to 1933 are no longer valid.

"There is no contract that requires the maintenance of the name," Ozier said.

Douglas Jones, the heritage group's attorney, said the building was meant to be a memorial to Southern soldiers and that a 1927 contract specifies the name to be Confederate Memorial Hall. Architectural sketches of the building include the name.

"There's no time limits of the contract. It was a memorial," Jones said.

"Is it less of a memorial if it doesn't have the name?" presiding Judge William C. Koch Jr. asked.

"It would not be the memorial it is without the name," Jones replied.

__________________
"Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

Seaver

It would be a breach of contract to change the name. No matter if you like the name or not. If they change the name, legally they would be unable to use the building.

When a merger takes place all contracts of the company are held in place, they can be renegotiated, but without approval from both sides the contract can not be voided. The contract stands as long as the building stands.

flstf

Seems like an easy solution to me:
If the university no longer wishes to honor the southern soldiers and their agreement, just give The United Daughters of the Confederacy the 2005 value of the 1930 money they donated. Or is it more complicated than that?

Superbelt

I don't think the contract would have stated that the name had to stay on in perpetuity.
They got 70 years, that is enough I believe. It should be their perogative after that. If the DOC gave them the money 20 or 30 years ago I would say they should have to leave the name or pay back. After 70... I think a good basis would be copywright laws to be used as a standard. So it's come due.

Side note. Southerners need to let it go. Why hang on to a losing side that was blatantly wrong for so long?

Mojo_PeiPei

They don't want us damn Yank's telling them what to do.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

seems to me that vanderbilt needs to convince a new donor to give them a heap of cash, in exchange for which they would rename a dormitory, say.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

frogza

Both sides need to realize that it is just a name on a building! For most people(and all well adjusted people) it's no more than a handle, not a mission statement. By freaking out every time we encounter the word confederacy we are only lending importance to a cause and country which no longer exists, no matter which side your on.

Get over it, let's move on to issues that really are important.

Mephisto2

I agree. But I think it's the "pro-Confederate" side that keeps taking court cases...

The South will rise again... blah blah


Mr Mephisto

smooth

I disagree. It's incidents like these that do turn this into a mission statement.

If there hadn't been a media spill-out, we wouldn't even know about it or be discussing it.
Who do you think tried to break the story?

Regardless, I don't see the need to think of people who disagree with me as not well adjusted. We just have different opinions on the matter.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Superbelt

We aren't making it an issue. It is an issue because Vanderbilt isn't able to draw a diverse student body because, surprise surprise, black kids don't want to live in Confederate Hall.
So Vanderbilt decides it's about time to change the name so they can both not seriously offend these kids and actually become an attractive place for them to go to school.

So they change the name and it's the whacko Confederacy clingers who make a court case out of it.

So I ask again, why do they care about the confederacy so much? Why do they cling to that name? They aren't the confederacy, they are the South, specifically whatever state they are from. The Confederacy was a group of fuckwads who wanted to keep whipping human beings because they weren't picking cotton fast enough.
(Civil War = War for states rights = war for a states right to decide if it's residents can own humans with a high melanin count)
Confederacy was evil, let it go. Same thing with the Stars and Bars. As a product of the Civil War, it deserves to only be flown in a museum, not a statehouse.

daswig

They'd need to throw in interest, too...

daswig

I doubt the contract addressed renaming the hall something else. Most likely, it was a simple contract....something along "we'll pay you money to build the hall if the hall is called this." Changing the name on the dorm would be a violation of such a contract.

ShaniFaye

This is all Im going to say on this because some of these comments are really upsetting.....Im a long standing member of the UDC, I say the people that say "we" need to get over it dont really understand a thing.

Im not going into a long drawn out thing....it wouldnt change anyones mind anyway, but just keep this in mind....the majority of the people that fought in that war for the south, the people that the UDC honor, were just about as poor as you could get, they did not own slaves..they were too expensive. The fought out of a sense of honor that all southern men were instilled with, they fought because their government told them to. Some people these days dont really understand that kind of "honor"

140 years from now will some college somewhere want to rename something named to do with either Iraqi war because its not "pc" to the middle east races attending that school? Will your great great great great great grandchildren be telling someone else to "get over it"

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

smooth

We haven't been holding Iraqis in slaverly or subjecting them to over 100 years of dis-accumulation, shanifaye.

no disrespect intended, but you are partially right about my views on whether it's honorable to fight for an unworthy cause because one's government tells one to do so.

It's not that I don't understand it, I don't agree with it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ShaniFaye

ok...so I'll say one more thing...

When are ya'll gonna understand that the war between the states was about STATES RIGHTS, the problems that led to this war were caused by instrusive government. The south wanted to to break away and form their own nation to get away from having the "governement too much in their lives"

Lincoln himself said in a letter to NY Daily Tribune editor "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery"

In 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, commonly called the"Tariffs of Abominations" a compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

After Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. The constitution they adopted was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

And if you read your history the north was no better with their child labor for factories and such than the south was with slaves. In some cases it was MUCH worse.

Im not at all defending slavery, the best thing to come out of that war was the abolishment of that cruelty....but read your history people, some of you keep telling us to get over it, when you dont really understand why the war was even started to begin with.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

smooth

How much history does one need to know to believe that a group of criminals banding together and fighting against my government is dishonorable?

Are you seriously arguing that secessionists are honorable soldiers?

On what grounds?
On moral grounds?
Does your belief in this regard hold true for soldiers who now choose not to fight for their government?
Or is it only honorable when one overtly fights against the government?


I would find your post more enlightening if you explained your position in this regard to me rather than writing my objections off as a lack of understanding.

There are alternate versions of what "started" the war depending on which side one is standing on. Ripping one comment (out of context, since none is given) out of the historical record is not convincing to me.

For example, we could agree that Lincoln didn't think the war was about slavery.

Or, we could believe that Lincoln said that to keep politially and economically important allies within the Union.


Why should I believe the former over the latter based on that one statement?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ShaniFaye

any research will show you that he made that and similar statements MANY times, like I said in my post...its not my job to change your mind....its up to you if you want to learn about issues to do with that war that werent about slavery, it wont cost me any sleep if you dont, all Im doing is pointing out a few things people may not know and hopefully give them cause to research it on their own, if they are really that interested in talking intelligently and informed on the subject.

All Im saying is that the actual people that the majority that fought and died in that war were not slave owners, actually some of them did it for the money, such as it was, to send home to their families. I have a particular ancestor that died in that war, his family received 6 months worth of pay for fighting was and it was less than 60 bucks. The whole point of my ORIGINAL post was to say that those men died for a cause, and it wasnt so much slavery. And you need to remember, the north fired on the south first, if we'd been allowed to seceed in peace there would be a lot of empty pages in the history books.

I have letters that were written by men that didnt really want to be fighting, pages of comments about the hellish war being over..but that they would honor the commitment to their country and die if need be rather than face dishonor. My point....in that era honor had a deeper meaning than it does now.

You want to call them criminals? fine.....like I said....nothing Im going to say is going to change your mind...ALL wars have two sides.....people who really want to understand the dynamics research both sides and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

scout

I think ShaniFaye said about all there is to say just about as eloquently as it can be said.

sob

Then by your logic, if they believe enough time has passed, Latinos should be able to change the name of MLK day to "Pancho Villa Day."


Because the "victims" keep asking for reparations, among other things.

filtherton

How? Please explain how his logic is consistent with your assertion.

Reparations are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Don't muddy the waters.

RangerDick

This quote will be archived for future Iraq War/ insurgent discussions.

filtherton

This quote will be archived for future discussions on the use of out of context information to bolster one's arguments. Other possible uses... Discussions on archival quotables and their effect on intellectual power games...

sob

Thank you for some very eloquent posts. However, you will never change the mind of a person who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, makes posts like the following:

For those with more open minds, the following, although lengthy, might be of interest (although I think yours was better):

Flags

(Remainder of editorial truncated due to length of post).

Superbelt

H
DGé, it was a war of states rights. As I said the overbearing states right that was being fought for was slavery.
There isn't much middle. Most southerners didn't own slaves but they supported the institution. Most northerners actually didn't care that much about slavery as protecting the union that was created by our Constitution and shat upon by the Confederate states.

I'll call the Confederacy traitors, not just criminals like Smooth. They betrayed their country in as clear a way as possible.
That crime of treason was largely forgiven in an attempt to quicky reintegrate the south into the USA.

jb2000

Is it treason to secede from this union?

No, I don't believe it is. If any state chooses to, through democratic and fair means to separate from the union, then it is incumbent upon a just union to allow that separation, so long as it is done in a measured and moderate manner to ensure that rights of citizens are not disrespected, and that stability and peace is maintained.

The Confederates did not withdraw in such a manner. They did not exhaust all legal means of peacable separation. For example, Texas had it in black and white that if she just said the word, she could regain her independence from the Union. Instead they chose violence and illegal means to further their objective. Texas, by joining the conspiracy lost her special circumstance.

Why did so many dirt-poor farmers who couldn't dream of owning a slave fight so hard for their states. Obviously there are many reasons. One is pure nationalism (Statism?), and as Shani points out, sense of honor compelled many to fight for their leaders, right or wrong. Many did what men of honor and good concience have done in war for a long time, and that is they suited up, marched, and then in the face of the enemy, did not run, but did not fire. This was true on both sides, and became an issue amongst men deployed in skirmish or loose formations (close order formations provided tighter control by NCOs and officers and drilled movements versus personal initiative). It is also worthy to note that a great number of the troops on both sides were not volunteers, but were conscripted.

However, the single most important factor in the willingness of men to join up was the romanticism of warfare that was prevalent during the period, a romanticism that would also have dire consequences for the Europeans in WWI. That war pretty well killed the sense of romance in war for most citizens, although, it is worth noting that America has seen an unprecendented surge in romanticism regarding war unprecedented since WWI.

One might feel that Southerners are silly for 'clinging' to their glory days when they raised their banner, damned the guns, and died for their homes like never before or since. But does one condecend American blacks for reviving African heritages, particularly tribal heritages from before the white man came...do you tell a Black? Do we disparage Original Americans for maintaining the tribal ties and communities...do you tell a Cherokee to just get over it?

I don't begrudge the South their heritage. They were wrong to start a war over the issue, but then they suffered a lot for that mistake, didn't they? On the other hand, the symbolism is a trickier matter. The Confederates were an illegal organization, and they were a government that condoned slavery to their dying day. Granted, they may well have freed slaves for economic reasons not long after the war had they won, but it doesn't change the facts of what their position was. They started a war which like it or not revolved on the issue of slavery. Superbelt is right, that 'States Rights' is how Confederates put it, but you don't fight a war over 'States Rights' without there being specific rights that are concerned, and in the Civil War's case it was slavery above all, or at least the states' right to have or have not slavery as it so chose.

The Confederacy wholeheartedly supported slavery throughout its existance, and thus like the Nazi's Swastika, Italian Fasces, or Soviet Hammer and Sickle, its symbols have come to be symbols of that position, just as the American flag is a symbol of the ideals we stand for, promote, and exemplify. To display those symbols in honorary positions is to give those positions honor, no matter how one puts it.

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

flstf

I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion if you research what was happening at the time.

They did not wage a war on their own country, the southern states seceded and formed their own country. Entrance into the union required the approval of a states legislature, so it would make sense that the same legislature reserved the right to leave.

There is nothing written in the Constitution denying the states the right to secede, legally, the states could secede. The Constitution also granted no power to the federal government to make a state remain in the Union against its wishes.

These boys, mostly poor and right off the farm, were drafted into the army to defend their homes from an invasion from the north.

Side note:
IMHO this country just like every other country that has existed on this earth will eventually break up. I don't think we are so superior to those who have come before to prevent it. I hope we can prevent it but history tells us otherwise.

The Civil War delayed the inevitable for a time and most of us consider this a good thing. Hopefully it will happen more peacefully the next time and hopefully not for years to come. Probably another great depression or world wide economic collapse will test our resolve greatly.

jb2000

flstf,

While you are correct that it would have been legal for them to secede, they did not seek that act in a legal manner. It may be legal for me to withdraw money from my account, but not to break into the vault of the bank and take it by force just because they won't process the withdrawl on a Sunday.

The breakup won't happen soon, or at least while the important interests of the states are best served by remaining in the Union, which is certainly the case today.

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

flstf

jb2000

That is a very well thought out interesting post.

Do you really believe that Lincoln, Grant, and most yankees were in the war to promote the rights of black people? Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do it. His opinion was the solution was to export them all somewhere else. Grant owned slaves till well after the war ended.

IMHO it was all about preserving the Union, slavery was just a side issue used by the north to gain favor in the world because slavery's days were over almost everywhere else. From what I have read most northerners could not care one way or another. The whole country was racist for years to come. Slavery's days were numbered war or no war.

I despise the hate groups like the KKK using the CSA battle flag for a symbol of hate. I am saddened that civil rights groups let them dictate how the symbol is perceived.

Konichiwaneko

I think most black people actually don't care. I'm asian I don't care. I really think the only people who make a fuss of this are ones craving attention.

I'm not letting the past go because it doesn't offend me. If the school wants to change the building name, they can if they want, but I think it's a rather silly move.

Superbelt you seem a very decent fellow, but after your "Indian" comment and how you expressed how black people would feel offended by the word confederate here, I have to ask you. Why do you care if others are offended? Let them choose to be. Be civil no doubt, but no need to say "Oh be careful you may offend people unless you choose this moralistically better way of addressing them". Ironically though I've come to realize you only really offend people if you try assume what offends them...which seeminly I'm doing with you. So I'm sorry in advance, and once again I think idealistically you have a good heart.

__________________

pinoychink790

there's always going to be some one who gets offended by certain things we say. even if we think they're neutral and wont offend anyone. people have their own opinions and beliefs. Heck, some people probably get offended when they see the color yellow. there's nothing we can do about it. it's inevitable. i'm probably offending someone right now. it doesn't really matter to me

Konichiwaneko

I'll trade my states flag for forty acres and a mule anyday.

I think SOB has a point though. Both sides of the affair can't get past something so long ago in our past.

__________________

pinoychink790

yeah that was a good point.

jb2000

No, I don't believe that Lincoln et al were in it to save blacks from slavery any more than I believe the Iraq invasion was a humanitarian crusade to free the Iraqis from their master. It's not really a question of that.

Slavery did become the overriding issue of that conflict, and ultimately, once it became a real war, it was postered as their 'good-guy' cause, again, much as the liberation was highlighted in Iraq once it became clear the WMDs and terrorism ties were a lot muddier than portrayed.

It is certainly true that there was no lack of racism in either north or south. One can easily see lynchings and think of Mississippi or Alabama, but more often than not when you check the location you get Indiana, Michingan, Pennsylvania, etc. And again, there is validity to the argument that economics would have ended slavery shortly after the war regardless.

Ultimately, I do condone and respect the right of self-determination that gives people the right to seek independence from governance that does not serve their needs or which violates their rights. However, I do not condone doing so through violent means before fully exhausting all legal and non-violent means to achieve that end, and ensuring that the rights of involved citizens are respected at all steps along the way. Impatience or the desire of leaders to 'sieze the moment' and exploit temporary sways of popular desire are not good enough excuses to violate the above path.

I am saddened by the fact that the ancient, widely used and respected symbol of the swastika was so tainted by the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I just ignore it and plaster it on World War II memorials to fallen German soldiers.

The destruction, coopting, and subverting of symbology is one of the negative effects of such groups and activities. I do have sympathy for wanting to not surrender things to these groups, but certain symbols, like it or not, have been so tainted. As such, if we continue to allow those symbols to have places of honor, then while we may have articulated rationales for saying why it is okay to use the symbol, for many it serves as a way to retain a sense of relevance for their ideology while being able to duck investigation by hiding behind our rationales when convenient. I.E., a person puts the Conf. Flag on their car as a strong symbol to people on both sides of the issue of his feelings, but is able to cop that they are just honoring the fallen soldiers when in an uncomfortable position (i.e. around people that he doesn't want thinking he's a racist). I am not at all saying we should limit what people can say on their cars, but as long as we enshrine these symbols in our public places and in places of honor within the community, we continue to provide the cover for those types to continue their broadcasts.

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

pinoychink790

yeah, to do something like that is just uncalled for

flstf

But if those whose family members fought and died for the south and in whom the CSA battle flag is a rememberence of their bravery refuse to display it, won't the hate groups have won? Not that it matters so much but the CSA battle flag wasn't even the official flag of the CSA, it was the flag used by the boys on the battle field.

I understand what you say about the swastika and it's negative meaning after the Nazi's used it even though it's original use was much different. But the southern pride tradition is much closer to home with thousands of Americans (with millions of ancestors) who were fighting for what they believed was their legal homeland.

Alas, I'm afraid if those of us who regard this symbol as a non-racist tribute to bravery of the southern fighters cannot overcome the hate groups and those who choose to be offended, the CSA flag will go the way of the swastika. In this day and age of instant soundbites, I fear most folks will not take the time to read or try to understand the history.

smooth

wow, I mean wow, this is turning into a really cool discussion I don't know if I've ever seen the likes of. hopefully this kind of presentation of ideas will continue.


konichi,

at least part of the problem is the notion that all groups speak for the invidviduals contained within them. In superbelt's experience, he has found Native American prefer that term.

I spoke up and said I was one who does prefer that term for political reasons.
Not as thought "Indian" offends me.

Now, sob points out that there are Indian gaming organizations. Well, I happen to live in the same place he does. The fact that the gaming organization refers to itself as an Indian org doesn't mean I prefer to be called an Indian.

For that matter, perhaps they would prefer not to be called that, but do what? engage in multimillion dollar campaigns to educate the public to stop? probably not.


as to your larger point, I agree. Most black people I know don't even really think about this kind of thing. they have enough to worry about! (as do we all these days).
But context is important. I've never been to the south and I don't expect very many urban blacks to have very strong opinions about the civil war.

Here we are again: are black people some monolithic/homogenous group? no.
blacks in the south have a very different historical relationship to the symbolism of the confederacy. for example, many people alive today have been abused under color of that flag. not a few have been killed, and not too long ago either. it isn't ancient history although we'd like to be, in my opinion.


but the simple fact remains that blacks weren't complaining (that we know of, other than deciding not to attend the university or live in the hall). the people with a particular agenda are the ones who brought the case to bear and I presume (without knowing) that they or some similar party brought it to the attention of the media.

they may have multiple reasons for doing so, but one plausible reason to me is for some people to conduct themselves like jb2000 is suggesting. under color of authenticity, for example. and then people like shanifaye may feel prosecuted for what she views is a heartfealt attachment to that symbolism.

I wasn't trying to deny that of her. and hopefully she didn't take my responses to critically. more of an exploration of how one's ideas might not be compatible with one's assumptions in general because of a particular emotional attachment to something.


so for example, it's not honor for fighting against our government, per se. but perhaps she believes that standing up for one's rights is always honorable. I agree with jb2000's analysis of the situation. I've always been careful to discuss my notions of treason (superbelt, I did use that term in an earlier thread, I just didn't want to come across as inciteful when it wasn't necessary since treason seemed to be more loaded than criminal) in regards to the way in which breaking away from the Union was carried out.

That is, I fully support and wish California would break from the union right now. Do I think we should do it with arms? well, if we did, I would certainly be a traitor to the US. But I might be proud of that label. of course, if we lost I shouldn't be surprised if everyone else in the nation took exception to me being proud about it. Likewise if I went on vacation in New York (assuming we were successful in breaking away) and bragged about my honorable actions for my new nation. I think common sense for myself anyway would lead me to realize such a boast would not be polite or prudent.



But the point I was trying to draw out was: if you think it's honorable to fight that way, maybe the assumption is skewed. perhaps someone doesn't really think it's ok to fight against the nation for a belief (that wouldn't mesh very well with numerous other threads about internal combatants right now and what kinds of rights they should be afforded if caught), but perhaps it's honorable to stand up for one's individualism.

Individualism is certainly very valued in our culture. But then I might wonder why some of the people espousing that view would criticise my statements against stop and frisks at the airport. After all, that was based on the honor of individualism. See, so shanifaye and I agree I would think that there is honor in individualism, but we have to filter it through all of our other attachments to socially important notions and symbolism.

for her, the symbolism of the confederacy (which I think she says she even engages in reenactment, and I think lebell does to--and I don't think either of them are supporters of slavery or racists)

and me in the airport when I think my individual liberty and individualism is being infringed for some faux-promises of safety by random frisks.


oh you know, this is just getting too long and convoluted. It's late, I'll look back at this in the morning. night all.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ShaniFaye

scout and sob, thank you very much for your comments.

smooth, first off...I didnt take offense to you, I admit I got aggravated..but not offended, which is why I tried to expand what I was saying. (and no Im not for slavery and Im not a racist)

SO many people have never taken the time to learn the out lying causes of the war, and dont realize that some of the issues had been going on for 40+ years before we seceeded and then were fired upon at fort sumter by the north, but yet want to make blanket statements about things that I get hot headed.

I used to do re-enacting, I havent in many years, and its Bill O'Rights, not lebell (just so we have the fact straight) that is also into it.

I wouldnt say that my attachement is ALL "emotional", I am from South Carolina, was raised in the south by southern women and shown by example the "honor" of being in the south, so its more a way of life and upbringing, than emotional.

Growing up we children were taken to cemetaries to clean the graves and mourn the loss of the confederate dead, we were told stories passed down of the "bravery" and "honor" of those men, when we got old enuff the girls joined the UDC to perpetuate the living memorial of the confederate dead and did things to raise money for things like new gravestones, keeping graveyards clean etc.

The "confederates" that the UDC memorializes were not necessarily thought of as the ones doing something "illegal". Do you really think that dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldnt read or write and any idea of the legalities of the war? It is THOSE people that confederate memorials are aimed at (well...I should say the majority of the memorials..of course there were pompous ass slave owning cover their asses politicians that are lumped in that group as well).

the mid 1800's were a totally different time from now, just as it was during the 1700's. The revolutionary soldiers were not that much different from the confederates. The were protesting rule by an over bearing government. A lot of people were tried for treason against King George because they fought on the American side to break away from the tyrannical leadership of the British, they wanted to form their own governement as well, yet they are almost always considered heros in history, not criminals. If this were a battle between the university and the DAR (Daughters of the Revolution) (which I am also a member of) over some dorm that had the name Sons Of Liberty and they wanted to change it so as not to "offend" students from the UK that they might want to attract.....would people be telling the DAR to get over it? Not like they do when it comes to something "confederate", even though when it comes down to it in a lot of ways some of the reasons for the war were the same.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Superbelt

JB: great post.

flstf: see JB's great post. They didn't seceed in the correct manner.
The Confederacy never formed a nation. It never had the authority to as it was still a part of the United States. They were simply traitorous states that needed to be brought back in line with the rest of the country.
Our Constitution does provide for the separation of the union, but the Confederate states did so in a manner that WAS treason.

We know that Lincoln, Grant and many other Yankees didn't care about slavery as much as preserving America. But there were plenty in the North who disagreed with slavery and were working to end it. Without the Civil War, slavery would have been outlawed within 20 years. That is why the south secceeded. The tide was moving against them.

konichiwaneko: we know that blacks cared. Black kids who applied to the school were pulling out in great numbers when they learned the school had a hall named after something inherently opposed to their inclusion in society. Those are the black people that matter to Vanderbilt and are the ones they wanted to make the change for.

As is said above me by smooth, my acquaintances and experiences show me that NA's do not like to be called Indians. I didn't know other parts of america have pockets who tolerate or think of it favorably.

You're asian? Not assuming that you are japanese, but this is the best example I can think of. Would you like to live in "The Amache Japanese Internment Camp Hall"

______
Onto the swastika/Confederate Battle Flag comparison. There is one key difference, the swastika started off as a good symbol. It represented life, sun, power, strength, and good luck for various cultures. It was later commandeered by the Nazi's and ruined.

The CBA started out as the banner for traitors to the USA. It stood for a states right to own humans. It was not so much co-opted as just continued in use by later racists. It has been used in modern times for non racist means. But it's entire history has been surrounded by bad.

Shani: You shouldn't be aggravated. I do know all of what happened before the civil war started. I know my american history. I don't appreciate the revisionist history that the south likes to tout though. The Civil War CAN be boiled down to a war over slavery. And the South CLEARLY was doing an illegal seccession. I wouldn't say every member were evil people and deserve villification. The leadership did, the average southern man who died in the war does deserve respect. That doesn't mean that the symbols or ideals of the Confederacy deserves ANY though.

The difference between the confederacy and the sons of liberty is that...
Confederacy was Illegal and does offend other Americans.
American Revolution was done after due process and doesn't offend OTHER AMERICANS.

ShaniFaye

/not to change this to a discussion of the American Revolution...but..you mentioned due process....

the proceedings of the body that became known as the (First) Continental Congress, Virginian Peyton Randolph was unanimously elected president of the Assembly. Considering the fact that the Assembly has no basis in law and could be considered as an illegal assembly by the Crown, The Continental Congress is by its very existence, an act of revolution.

The reigning government at the time, King George, considered what we did illegal...its not that much different from what the south did.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Superbelt

Well, first we were a colony of England who did not have full rights in English governance. England also provided no provisions for seccession. That plus the two land masses being a months sailing trip away make the situation very different.

The South had a full voice in American Government. Even were able to inflate their influence through the 3/5ths rule. There was means for seccession and they ignored them and they are geographically attached to the nation that they were trying to devolve from.