Am I Crazy?

Some_Mook

I have always believed that the First Amendment protects the right of a person to express a viewpoint or opinion that may be considered offensive to some without being censored by the State.  I know that private entities, forums, etc.. are not bound by the 1st amendment and that is not my argument. 

Am I crazy to think that the current push to eliminate symbols and monuments from the public view / domain or otherwise attempts to deny or forget history is crazy?

I am purposely over-the-top with the display on the back window of my truck because I want the type of person who would be made to feel uncomfortable by seeing what I consider acceptable to feel uncomfortable about it.  I hope Nancy, Chuck, Billary and Joe have nightmares about deplorables like myself.  Those who are not uncomfortable generally respond with a thumbs-up or a hearty "Hellz Yes!"

While I think that oppression of a race or ethnicity or religion is morally wrong and always has been, I personally view the various iterations of the flag of the Confederate States of America and the more commonly displayed variations of a Confederate Battle Flag to be a proud middle finger to the Federal Government and the idiots elected there as opposed to providing support for the institutions of slavery or oppression or White Supremacy. 

I understand that there are those who view these flags as representing something hurtful or fearful, but that is their view, not mine. 

Many years ago I had a US flag and a confederate battle flag on the back of my Gold Wing.  When some white co-workers noticed this, they told me I was out of my mind to have the battle flag displayed when I was working in Pontiac Michigan.  When I was approached by some other co-workers who found it offensive and wanted to know what I meant by it I explained that to me it meant I love my country but not my government, and I also at the time rode to a number of NASCAR events.  They were good with that and I never had any issues.

As such, since there seems to be a more concerted push recently to eliminate the display of anything related to the CSA, I am feeling compelled to display one or more of those symbols on my own property - compelled because I can, and don't like other's trying to decide for me what I should not do.

earlyagain

Shelby Foote has an interesting editorial about this on youtube.

Basically its an observation on how the Jews try and make sure the holocaust and their entire history, good and bad is never forgot/always remembered. He finds the behaviour you've refrenced in the OP peculiar. As do I.

Part of the race problem in this country IMO is that clear communication is getting lost. People read implications into phrases, words, symbols, gestures etc.. Those implications are not necessarily intended. But emotions are so high that it creates stress induced tunnel vision.

News media, politicians, political pundants, and others with agendas and potential personal gain capitalize on the crisis in its many forms and further compound the problems.

Calm voices of reason among political and social leaders get drowned out by those convinced that high volume gets heard best.

Bigslug

I seem to recall that the typical asking price for a healthy, muscular male slave was something like $8,000, and that was in 1850's money.

So to say that the ability to maintain ownership of slaves was the primary motivator behind millions of lower and middle class Southern boys joining the Confederate military is a HUGE oversimplification.

I've always looked at it thusly:  the revolution of 1776 was launched in opposition to what was viewed as an overbearing and distant authority that lacked understanding and respect for local culture.  The army of the Confederacy marched with the same motivation.  Since slavery existed in America at the time of the Revolution, and persisted after it, those following the Confederate cause viewed themselves as the true heirs to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, and the Unionists were seen as far more akin to King George.  Local control over your own affairs was the issue.

In the movie Gettysburg, General George Longstreet addresses the unlikelihood of England meeting it's need for cotton by stepping it to support the Confederacy by saying "We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumpter".  That line pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter.   Industrialization would have ultimately led to the failure of slavery in a decade or three anyway, but the argument over the amount of authority given to local or Federal government would have persisted regardless - AS IT DOES TODAY.

2Aman

Bigslug said:

I seem to recall that the typical asking price for a healthy, muscular male slave was something like $8,000, and that was in 1850's money.

So to say that the ability to maintain ownership of slaves was the primary motivator behind millions of lower and middle class Southern boys joining the Confederate military is a HUGE oversimplification.

I've always looked at it thusly:  the revolution of 1776 was launched in opposition to what was viewed as an overbearing and distant authority that lacked understanding and respect for local culture.  The army of the Confederacy marched with the same motivation.  Since slavery existed in America at the time of the Revolution, and persisted after it, those following the Confederate cause viewed themselves as the true heirs to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, and the Unionists were seen as far more akin to King George.  Local control over your own affairs was the issue.

In the movie Gettysburg, General George Longstreet addresses the unlikelihood of England meeting it's need for cotton by stepping it to support the Confederacy by saying "We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumpter".  That line pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter.   Industrialization would have ultimately led to the failure of slavery in a decade or three anyway, but the argument over the amount of authority given to local or Federal government would have persisted regardless - AS IT DOES TODAY.

Very well said. 

Some_Mook

Bigslug said:

In the movie Gettysburg, General George James Longstreet addresses the unlikelihood of England meeting it's need for cotton by stepping it to support the Confederacy by saying "We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumpter".  That line pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter.   Industrialization would have ultimately led to the failure of slavery in a decade or three anyway, but the argument over the amount of authority given to local or Federal government would have persisted regardless - AS IT DOES TODAY.

If you do a deep dive, Industrialization was one of the driving root causes of the southern states deciding that the Union was trampling on them and their only recourse was to separate from the United States.
  
The industrialists of the time did not view the institution of slavery as abhorrent from a humanitarian viewpoint, they viewed it from a monetary standpoint.  If the slave states became industrialized, they would have an unfair labor advantage over the non-slave states, and the northern industries would not be able to compete economically. 

With the invention of the cotton gin the need for large numbers of slaves to work cotton was dramatically decreased and to remain economically viable the slave owners would need to shift a large portion of their work force to other endeavors. 

The wealthy industrialists sought legislation that would cripple any attempts by the south to develop competitive industries and the political issues quickly devolved into the south feeling they were not getting fair representation in congress which led to counting slaves as 5/8 of a person for the purpose of increasing the number of representatives in Congress for southern states which then led to attempting to make sure that additional states added to the Union were divided between slave and non-slave states. 

The whole thing was a big mess and even Lincoln did not want to address the issue of slavery.  He stated very clearly that if he could have preserved the union without changing the institution of slavery at all, he would have done so.  The can had been kicked down the road too many times and it couldn't continue to be kicked any further.

I don't think the current unrest has anything to do with the Civil War.  It has everything to do with prejudice and bias and that is in ample supply in every State of the Union, and has been that way since long before President Trump was elected - something democrats seem to have great trouble accepting.  Unfortunately prejudice and bias are components of a two-way street and cannot be resolved in a one-sided manner.  Tearing down history will not resolve anything.  What was, was and cannot be undone. 

Many, if not most, police officers are decent, honest individuals who truly feel compelled to serve society for the better good.  There are also plenty of police who relish the military structure of the forces and the perception of power over the civilian population.    

Many, if not most, civilians, regardless of color, race or creed are decent, honest individuals who want to go about their lives peacefully, and deserve to be respected for who they are.  There are also plenty of people living in this country who feel they cannot fulfill their needs peacefully or honestly and make a choice to not comply with societal norms.

I have worked in automotive repair for over 40 years.  I get to see 'the bad ones' far more often than the ones that don't require repairs.  It is very easy for me to categorize certain models or certain manufacturers as being 'junk' because I only see the bad ones.

I just wish there was a way for the good people to show themselves more often to law enforcement, so the cops don't just see the bad ones day in and day out.  I also wish the system that allows bad individuals to get jobs in law enforcement can be changed as well.

Sorry for the rant.