Should the Confederate Flag be considered a symbol of heritage or hate?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Confederate Flag's dual perception as a symbol of heritage versus a symbol of hate. Participants argue that while some view it as a representation of Southern pride and "states' rights," others firmly classify it as an overtly racist emblem linked to the history of slavery and rebellion against the United States. The debate highlights the complexities of historical interpretation, free speech implications, and the flag's presence in public spaces, particularly government buildings. Ultimately, there is a consensus that the flag should not be banned outright but should be treated with caution and removed from government properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the historical context of the American Civil War
  • Knowledge of First Amendment rights regarding free speech
  • Familiarity with the symbolism of flags in American history
  • Awareness of contemporary debates surrounding racism and heritage
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical significance of the Confederate Flag and its origins
  • Examine case studies on free speech and hate symbols in the United States
  • Explore the impact of public symbols on community identity and memory
  • Investigate state versus federal authority in regulating public displays
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for historians, sociologists, political scientists, and anyone interested in the intersection of heritage, identity, and the ongoing debates about race in America.

  • #31
2CentsWorth said:
I say let the ignorant rednecks split off and lose the economic benefits of the Union and see how they like it.

...

There you go.

At the time of the Civil War the Southern states were the industry that drove this Nation. There is still plenty of Industry in the South and were they to secede I promise you they would do just fine.

Split off and not get the benefit of supporting the war in Iraq?
Bummer.

Thank god you are not Ignorant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
2CentsWorth said:
Since the south wanted to secede from the union, I agree it is a symbol of treason and not just about states rights. I say let the ignorant rednecks split off and lose the economic benefits of the Union and see how they like it.

ROFL what is with you.

Yeah let the South secede, and see how much you "prosper" in the North as a result... LOLOLOOLOLLOOOLOOLOL

They should require some kind of "Infrastructure Economics" class in high school... where people like you get such notions I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Tarheel said:
...

There you go.

At the time of the Civil War the Southern states were the industry that drove this Nation. There is still plenty of Industry in the South and were they to secede I promise you they would do just fine.

Split off and not get the benefit of supporting the war in Iraq?
Bummer.

Thank god you are not Ignorant.

WOWOWWOWOOWWOWWOWOWOWOW

I guess they should require a HISTORY CLASS TOO (Oh wait they do...)

During the civil war the NORTH had the industry, for ****s sake.
 
  • #34
MaxS said:
...

You cannot CANNOT overemphasize the importance of symbols on the human psyche.
Okay. And do you think it is good to elevate a symbol to the point an entire population wishes it banned outright so that they never have to lay eyes on it again? To me this idea alone seems like the makings of something out of 1984 (I've actually never read anything by Orwell (except one essay) but I hear good things).
 
  • #35
Smurf said:
Okay. And do you think it is good to elevate a symbol to the point an entire population wishes it banned outright so that they never have to lay eyes on it again? To me this idea alone seems like the makings of something out of 1984 (I've actually never read anything by Orwell (except one essay) but I hear good things).

Smurf that's not the point.

I was trying to say that you can't de-emphasize the importance of symbols in civilization anymore than you can de-emphasize the importance of language they are completely intertwined.

In fact if you're going by a strictly sociological definition, language IS a symbol.

Look, I understand what you're trying to say and where you're coming from, I'm just trying to point out that its fundamentally impossible to do what you're asking - the human brain is built on symbols.
 
  • #36
MaxS said:
Look, I understand what you're trying to say and where you're coming from, I'm just trying to point out that its fundamentally impossible to do what you're asking - the human brain is built on symbols.
I disagree. I don't think you do understand what I'm asking or where I'm coming from. There's no reason why we can not bad the swastika, and not bad the confederate flags, we've done it so far in most places..
 
Last edited:
  • #37
...

The human brain is built on symbols, why? You'd have to ask whoever came up with this kooky idea of life.

Like I said symbols are the way we (people) think. When you imagine certain things, you see them as pictures, snapshots in your minds eye. Around these snapshots you build language, and communication. This is the way through which the human brain seeks to grasp some understanding of the world.

While I understand completely what you are trying to say about de-emphasizing flags and the like, such a thing is absolutely not possible, there will always be important symbols for humans to rally around.

Please point out for me a SINGLE human entity that does not have some kind of symbolic representation. You can't. See where I'm going with this?
 
  • #38
What I'm getting at is:

No one came up with the idea that we should hold symbols like flags in such importance.

It was simply a natural progression due very literally to the way our brain functions.

For this reason you can't simply DECIDE that symbols will no longer be important.

Fundamentally impossible.
 
  • #39
MaxS said:
During the civil war the NORTH had the industry, for ****s sake.

So the Southern states were simply riding the prosperous coat tails of our Northern friends?

W R O N G

Where does Cotton come from? Tobacco? Textiles? Furniture? Iron? Coal?
I'm sure the Northern states didn't need any of these things.
Oh, how lucky we are for not succeeding in our naive attempt to secede.

We is all a whole mess o' dum po' rednex.
 
  • #40
MaxS said:
What I'm getting at is:

No one came up with the idea that we should hold symbols like flags in such importance.

It was simply a natural progression due very literally to the way our brain functions.

For this reason you can't simply DECIDE that symbols will no longer be important.

Fundamentally impossible.

This is your argumment in a nutshell. Humans need symbols. Swastikas are symbols. Humans need swastikas.

No one is saying stop saluting Old Glory or the like---the general argument is that certain symbols have a deeper meaning associated with hate or prejudice and as such should not be state sanctioned; moreover, some symbols are so distatseful to the populace or the conquering army that they may not be displayed. Symbols still exist, but certain symbols may or may not be displayed.

The middle finger is a symbol---giving a judge this symbol in court will probably get you locked up for contempt. A penis is a symbol, but flashing it on a public street will get you locked up...
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Tarheel said:
So the Southern states were simply riding the prosperous coat tails of our Northern friends?

W R O N G

Where does Cotton come from? Tobacco? Textiles? Furniture? Iron? Coal?
I'm sure the Northern states didn't need any of these things.
Oh, how lucky we are for not succeeding in our naive attempt to secede.

We is all a whole mess o' dum po' rednex.

Iron and coal came from michigan. Cotton the south. Argaculture from the midwest, Tobacco---not needed to live and can be grown pretty far north up to Washington DC or so. Textiles can be made from materials other than cotton. Furnature in that day was a local item because mass transport of large commercial goods was limited.

The north had the Iron, and mills and industry while southern economics of the day were based more on argiculture of which cotton was a big part.

Here'ya go, food for thought:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/links/links8.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Tarheel said:
So the Southern states were simply riding the prosperous coat tails of our Northern friends?

W R O N G

Where does Cotton come from? Tobacco? Textiles? Furniture? Iron? Coal?
I'm sure the Northern states didn't need any of these things.
Oh, how lucky we are for not succeeding in our naive attempt to secede.

We is all a whole mess o' dum po' rednex.


Oh OK OK you got me there (sort of).

I was talking about war industry.
 
  • #43
faust9 said:
This is your argumment in a nutshell. Humans need symbols. Swastikas are symbols. Humans need swastikas.

No one is saying stop saluting Old Glory or the like---the general argument is that certain symbols have a deeper meaning associated with hate or prejudice and as such should not be state sanctioned; morever, some symbols are so distatseful to the populace or the conquering army that they may not be displayed. Symbols still exist, but certain symbols may or may not be displayed.

The middle finger is a symbol---giving a judge this symbol in court will probably get you locked up for contempt. A penis is a symbol, but flashing it on a public street will get you locked up...

LOL that is not my argument in a nutshell that is your horrible simplification of my argument (or complication even.. either way you distorted it).

All I said was that people assign symbols to literally everything they think about.

As for the rest of your rant, it has absolutely no application to what I was saying whatsoever.
 
  • #44
Tarheel said:
...

There you go.

At the time of the Civil War the Southern states were the industry that drove this Nation. There is still plenty of Industry in the South and were they to secede I promise you they would do just fine.

Split off and not get the benefit of supporting the war in Iraq?
Bummer.

Thank god you are not Ignorant.


Uh, the industry was in the North. The cash crops were in the South. And they were productive because they were using slave labor, which is why they fought the whole thing in the first place.

I don't know about the other southern states, but Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi routinely rank in the poorest states in the country. I remember seeing a map awhile ago that broke down what each states economy contributes to the overall US economy and it's supported almost entirely by California and New York.

I suspect that if the south did succede, it'd be even more of a ****hole then it is now.
 
  • #45
MaxS said:
Oh OK OK you got me there (sort of).

I was talking about war industry.

The war industry? Most of the naval yards and munitions plants and gun factories were in the North.

Or did you mean most of the military commanders?
 
  • #46
TRCSF said:
Uh, the industry was in the North. The cash crops were in the South. And they were productive because they were using slave labor, which is why they fought the whole thing in the first place.

I don't know about the other southern states, but Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi routinely rank in the poorest states in the country. I remember seeing a map awhile ago that broke down what each states economy contributes to the overall US economy and it's supported almost entirely by California and New York.

I suspect that if the south did succede, it'd be even more of a ****hole then it is now.
To be fair those economic ranks only measure economy. Not resources or industry. This is a very inaccurate representation of the value of a land.
 
  • #47
TRCSF said:
The war industry? Most of the naval yards and munitions plants and gun factories were in the North.

Or did you mean most of the military commanders?

Yes, the WAR INDUSTRY...

During the Civil War, the SOUTH had the good commanders and generals, and the NORTH had the economic and industrial advantage.

Had the south had equal recources to fight a vastly better supplied North, there would have been two nations.
 
  • #48
To get back on topic I would like to reiterate that for Southerners the flag is more a symbol of our pride in our HERITAGE.
Outsiders view it as a racist symbol, (Thanks a lot KKK) when in the south the isn't the case. (for the most part)

I don't know if anything can be done to remove the negative image the Flag has gained since it's adoption by hate groups, but should it matter?

Do you have a symbol of any kind that has a special meaning to you?
Your birth sign maybe.
Imagine that this symbol of yours was adopted by a hate group, and consequently developed a negative image in the eye of the public.
Do you then cut ties to this symbol you are attached to?

Many Southerners will not.
I hope this is making sense to someone.
 
  • #49
Tarheel said:
To get back on topic I would like to reiterate that for Southerners the flag is more a symbol of our pride in our HERITAGE.
Outsiders view it as a racist symbol, (Thanks a lot KKK) when in the south the isn't the case. (for the most part)

I don't know if anything can be done to remove the negative image the Flag has gained since it's adoption by hate groups, but should it matter?

Do you have a symbol of any kind that has a special meaning to you?
Your birth sign maybe.
Imagine that this symbol of yours was adopted by a hate group, and consequently developed a negative image in the eye of the public.
Do you then cut ties to this symbol you are attached to?

Many Southerners will not.
I hope this is making sense to someone.


Uhhhhhhhhhh The confederate flag didn't take on a negative connotation because the KKK adopted it.

It took on a negative connotation because it was the symbol of a rebellion which was intrinsically meant to protect the Southern slave economy.
 
  • #50
MaxS said:
Uhhhhhhhhhh The confederate flag didn't take on a negative connotation because the KKK adopted it.

It took on a negative connotation because it was the symbol of a rebellion which was intrinsically meant to protect the Southern slave economy.

Do you believe that the Civil War was fought BECAUSE of slavery OR That Slavery was abolished as a RESULT of the Civil War?
 
  • #51
Tarheel said:
Do you believe that the Civil War was fought BECAUSE of slavery OR That Slavery was abolished as a RESULT of the Civil War?

Don't give me this hyperbole.

The first state to secede from the union did so BECAUSE of Lincoln's stance AGAINST SLAVERY!

This war was ABSOLUTELY fought over the slave economy, from the very beginning.
 
  • #52
MaxS said:
Don't give me this hyperbole.

The first state to secede from the union did so BECAUSE of Lincoln's stance AGAINST SLAVERY!

This war was ABSOLUTELY fought over the slave economy, from the very beginning.

As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.

continued here... http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

As stated by another poster earlier in this thread, The act to abolish slavery was a method of PUNISHING the Southern states for their attempt to secede.
 
  • #53
Once again.. the first state to secede did so because of lincoln's stance on slavery.
 
  • #54
Link? www.maxs_imagination.net?[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
from the same article...

The South was wrong to assume Lincoln intended to free the slaves. He had never advocated action to abolish slavery nor did he speak out against the Illinois rules prohibiting blacks from testifying against whites. The true abolition candidate, Gerrit Smith of New York drew few votes. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Even though he made this speech after the South seceded he left the door open for their return.
 
  • #56
Stop quoting that article and read a real history book where it will no doubt state very clearly what I have been saying.

Here is a snippet from a quick search on google - this is what it says if you read basically any unbiased historical account by the way:

"Why Did the South Secede In 1860?

The seeds of secession had been sown early in American history; quite literally with the fundamental differences in agriculture and resultant adoption of slavery in the South. From early days, the thirteen states had grown up separately, and each had their own culture and beliefs, which were often incompatible with those held in other states. The geographical and cultural differences between north and south would manifest themselves at regular and alarming intervals throughout the hundred years following the drafting of the constitution. Tension reached a peak during the 1850s, over the right to hold slaves in new territories. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, roused bitter hostilities, and vehement debate turned to physical violence during the period of 'Bleeding Kansas'. The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after. "
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Tarheel said:
To get back on topic I would like to reiterate that for Southerners the flag is more a symbol of our pride in our HERITAGE.
Outsiders view it as a racist symbol, (Thanks a lot KKK) when in the south the isn't the case. (for the most part)

I don't know if anything can be done to remove the negative image the Flag has gained since it's adoption by hate groups, but should it matter?

Do you have a symbol of any kind that has a special meaning to you?
Your birth sign maybe.
Imagine that this symbol of yours was adopted by a hate group, and consequently developed a negative image in the eye of the public.
Do you then cut ties to this symbol you are attached to?

Many Southerners will not.
I hope this is making sense to someone.

This shows how caucasion you are because every black person I know from the south (I lived in Charleston SC, and Orlando Fl for the better part of three years as well as having family from the south---mother and her family as well as a sister in Tennessee---who still own property down there) feels the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and NOT heritage. What heritage do YOU think it stands for?
 
Last edited:
  • #58
The notion that the war was about anything other than slavery and its economy is nothing more than southern apologist rhetoric.
 
  • #59
MaxS said:
The notion that the war was about anything other than slavery and its economy is nothing more than southern apologist rhetoric.

Agreed. There was a revisionist movement back in the twenties (coincided with the KKK revival) that promoted a lot of this stuff- it wasn't about slavery, General Lee was the greatest military leader ever, the Southern elite was considering freeing the slaves anyway...

It's all about slavery.

The South seceded because they thought that Lincoln would free the slaves.

The North fought the South because the South was trying to secede to protect slavery.
 
  • #60
faust9 said:
feels the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and NOT heritage. What heritage do YOU think it stands for?

It stands for slavery to YOU.

To me it stands for fighting for what is right and dying if you have to, to defend those freedoms.
To you it sounds like garbage when tied to the Civil War, yet it is the exact same principle that this Nation was born under when we fought to Secede from Britain. Ah, yes... that was noble.

You lived in the south for 3 years? WOWIE!

I was born and raised there and you are now and always will be an outsider with no possibility of comprehending what it means to be a Southerner.

The bottom line... To you and many other outsiders the flag has a different meaning than it does for me and many Southerners.
The question... If it so offends ANYONE should it be banned?

If we ban everything that offends anyone what would be left?

Stop trying to make the world out of NERF and toughen up a litte sally.
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K