Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm sure they could come up with exciting theme parks celebrating the joys of State's Rights, and showing the Happy Lives led by the slaves that actually enjoyed the Stainless Banner.

Animatronic, Well Cared-For Field Slaves could delight visitors with musical numbers as they wisked from scene to scene demonstrating the Gentlemanly Delights of Confederate Life.

:roflmao:

 

[Kreth]

Can you point out where in the 10+ pages of this thread where someone accused Bob of being a racist? Thanks.

Flat out, or insinuated...

Jeff

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah, it's just grand when the political opposition throws those letter-high sluggish fastballs that they learned from Rush and Savage and Leykis right down the pipe.

Oooh! YOU guys called Bob a racist!! You GUYS should ban the color GRAY!!

What's next...YOU GUYS SAID slavery was bad!! YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN LIKE WARS!!! YOU HATE AMERICA!!!! Traitor, tray-tor, naah naah naah na na nah.

Gentlemen, pick up some halfway-decent intellectual ammo, willya? Try: Bruce Catton, "White Iron on the Anvil," from "A Stillness at Appomattox," (New York: Washington Square Press, 1958), 226 ff. Or try the aforementioned Sollers anthology. Or hell, since this thread features the recurrent idea that slavery was not so bad, try a cheapie source like Robert A. Heinlein's "Citizen of the Galaxy," for a good sound healthy sf take on why slavery is bad, and how slavery tends to be supported by capitalism--even the capitalism of nice sweet liberal folks.

Personally, one blames teachers for this.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.

No, I'm sure the North wasn't a perfect society.

I'm sure the South wasn't either, too.

I still agree that the teenager who spent 4 years preparing for her prom had a statement to make, and I am doubtful that a symbol of the Confederacy is really about Southern pride as it is about a whitewashed nostalgia for Tymes Gone Bye...if not something more sinister.

White supremacists, historical revisionists, and just a general kind of nutbags... are alive and well.

Or maybe this was a Southern Belle trying to make her mark in High Fashion. Which, for those of you who have seen Zoolander know, controls the worldwide production of clothing.

 

[Kreth]

I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.

I don't think anyone was trying to claim that the Civil War era South was a peachy place (no pun intended).

Jeff

 

[rmcrobertson]

Read the thread, and take a look at some of the appalling websites like "Friends of Forrest," eh? That's exactly what's being claimed.

As for the theme parks...bad news. Splash Mountain--available now in Japan!!--has featured animatronic versions of the lovable Disney characters from "Song of the South," for quite some time. There was "Dumbo," which they don't even show any more because of the grossly racist Heckle n'Jeckle. Then there was that whole, "Why, the antebellum South was just a happyland, with singing darkies who jus' LOVED bein' slaves!" You know..."Gone With the Wind?" The one where the one black freedman you see is a soldier who breaks into Tara and tries to rape and kill everybody? Not since "Birth of A Nation," has such crap been promulgated.
Shame they didn't do their NEXT movie, the one covering the good old days of Nazi Germany, and telling the sentimental tale of Eva Braun's sufferings as those damn' Allies invaded...

Whoops, wait, one forgot. The portrayal of the South and the War by the liberal media is exculsively condemnatory, and Never Says Nothing Nice about the South. So, "Birth of A Nation," never existed, we libs just made that up. "Gone With the Wind?" never happened. The image of the noble, defeated Southern general and soldier, Lee? never saw it, never happened. Step'n Fetchit? never existed. Absolutely not. Product of the liberal agenda, KGB disinformation...Godlessness.

Worth reading is Dorfman and Mattelart's "How to Read Donald Duck."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gentlemen and other debaters....

Anytime I argue against the populist viewpoint that the Civil War (more correctly identified as The War for Southern Independence) was all about slavery, that reparations to slave descendent's is wrong, or that there is any bias against whites in this nation, I have been slurred, insulted, slandered, etc. by numerous people. Implied, or flat out stated...either way, it means nothing to me. I know what is truly in my own heart, as do my gods.

I'm rather used to it though. Especially when those arguing are unable to stick to issues, and instead tangent out in sarcastic and emotional tirades. I admit to not being a saint in that area either. But I am a poor collage dropout, not one with advanced education and a position as an educator, or a community leader, or a learned expert.

We watch Roots, and read the official history and are taught to believe that the mis-named "Civil War" was all about Slavery, that Lincoln 'freed' slaves, that Slavery was an evil and sinful institution, and that all 'massas' mistreated their slaves.

The Truth, which some continue to refuse to see is that simply is not true.
- The "South" had a legal right to secede.
- The "War for Southern Independence" was not all about slavery, but self-determination and preservation.
- Lincolns invasion was illegal, fought in violation of both international treaty, and this nations own laws.
- The South raised armys to defend itself. The North to invade and conquer.
- Lincolns own staff advised against the war, and wanted to sue for peace for the first 2 years!
- Virginia argued the loudest in congress AGAINST secesion.
- Not all slaves were black.
- Most of the South did not own slaves.
- Not all slaves resented being slaves
- The SOUTH! were the leaders in working towards eliminating slavery in America until the late 1830's.
- Our official history was written by the winners, with the losers forced to watch things rewritten.
- Etc.

For reference:
Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kennedy
The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy
The Real Lincoln - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The institution and economics of slavery were a part of the causes for the war, yes. But slave labor, white, black and red, built this nation.
Nothing in the Bible (Christian) states slavery is a sin, despite being written during an age when slavery was a way of life.

As to the population of the South:
At the time of the war,
75% of the Southern population did not own a single slave.
Out of a total White population of 8 Million, only 385,000 owned 1 or more slaves.
Of those that did, 50% owned 1-5, 38% owned 5-20, and 12% owned 20+ which was the minimum needed to classify as a planter.
There were numerous Black planters, some owning 50+ slaves.
According to the 1830 Census, over 10,000 slaves were owned by African Americans in SC/LO/VI/MD. Also, in NY 8 African Americans owned 17 slaves, in 1830!
Why were there not wide-spread slave revolts during the war, when all the 'white-boys' were out 'defending slavery', and the only ones left watching all those big southern plantations were the women and the slaves?

Yes, slavery was and is wrong. Yes, abuses did take place, just like in any system. But, just because abuses took place, doesn't mean the group as a whole is evil. US Soldiers in Iraq committed crimes...but that doesn't mean that the US, it's military, or it's flag are evil. Atrocities were committed by both sides in the WOSI, that doesn't make either nation 'evil'.

We can look at the wording of the various documents of secession, and see that by todays more enlightened ideals, the wording is very racist. But, we cannot judge those writings by our standards, but the standards of the day. That standard, believed North, South, East and West was that the Black, Red and Yellow was inferior to the White. It is plainly stated in the speeches, writing etc. of leaders and common man alike from that time period. Lincoln himself wanted to deport all blacks. Personally, I believe all men are created equal...but the balance shifts as they age. I don't believe a rabid klansman is = to Dr. Cosby for example. One has limits, the other has overcome his.

Robert can torpedo half my arguments...and I'm damn glad he can. What he cannot do is sink them all.

I'm done with this....I can't think of anything else I could possibly say here to expand, explain, etc. Barring new information on that ugly dress, I'll be reading, but thats it. I will be posting sometime later (hopefully before Feb) my take on slavery and it's myths. I will be referencing the 3 books mentioned above, as well as some other outside sources.

Peace.

 

[rmcrobertson]

As a writer who merely "tangent out," in, "sarcastic and emotional tirades," from the viewpoint of a privileged, over-educated wealthy snob (and Mr. Hubbard, you may very well find that cutting down on such rhetoric will assist in cutting down on the heat of the discussion, as well as allowing you a clearer understanding of the actual lives of people who disagree with you), let me offer my own little manifesto.

1. The American institution of slavery was, and is, inherently evil. Why? Because it rests on the proposition that owning others is perfectly OK--because they aren't really human beings.
2. Slavery was an integral part of early America's economic structure, particularly in the South.
3. As the difference between "feudal," and "modern," modes of production grew in the United States, the North and South found themselves increasingly at odds.
4. The Southern states, a) fought at every level to maintain and indeed to extend the institution of slavery; b) the war parties both North and South saw war as becoming more and more inevitable throughout the 1850s, and both centered this belief upon slavery; c) when the Southern states seceded, they claimed that they were doing so because the North was implacably opposed to slavery, which they considered to be fundamental to not only the rights of individual States and their property-owners, but to the Constitution as a whole.
5. The two sides--actually, there were more--began the War arrogantly, short-sightedly, and stupidly, and they began the actual fighting pretty much that way too.
6. The North deliberately put off any, "freeing of the slaves," for reasons that were political, economic, and racist.
7. The North got its *** kicked for the first third of the War, largely because of politics and greed.
8. The South was at least as stupid and corrupt as the North by 1863. They were just fortunate enough to have a better set of professionaal military men at first.
9. After 1863, the South got whupped. Yes, this was in part because their antiquated economic system couldn't keep up--which suggests that something racist was going on when they refused to even consider abandoning slavery. On the other hand, Lincoln used Antietam as an excuse to emancipate, despite a fair amount of opposition and despite his own racism.
10. The South got beat. They surrendered. The soldiers were treated pretty well by the victors.
11. Much as after WWI, the war party in the North took advantage and grabbed everything that wasn't nailed down. Since the war party was largely republican, this set a pattern of Southern voting for democrats that lasted about a century and a third.
12. After the War, Forrest and others founded explicitly racist parties/gangs such as the Klan, because they did not want black peeoplee to vote, to own decent property, or to have power. To enforce this, they not only pushed the Jim Crow laws--after 1880 or so, they increasingly lynched, burned, and castrated as part of a fairly-systematic regin of terror.
13. Meanwhile, back up Nawth, the country was marching Westward over the bodies of countless Indians. And Progress--in the form of industrial capitalism--was really getting off the ground. This meant what Marx called, 'wage-slavery.'
14. Both sides pushed their offical mythologies. A look at American culture suggests that the South was at least as good at this as anybody else, as best-sellers like, "The Klansman," filed as Griffith's, "Birth of a Nation," demonstrate.
15. In response to intensifying racism in the South, and to some extent in the North, groups like the NAACP were founded. They were immediately attacked, in very much the same ways they are today.
16. In the South, a highly-developed set of mythologies provided a goodly chunk of the ideological support structure for segregation, and for the violent denial of real citizenship to black people. On the whole, the region remained screwed for around a century.
17. In the North, capitalism drove what you could either call the democratization of daily life or the triumph of the middle class, depending on your viewpoint at the time. On the whole, the region became prosperous for about a century or so.
18. In both cases, ideology remained complex--as did racism. They merely took forms that were to some extent specific to their part of the country. The North mythologized guys like Chamberlain; the South, guys like Lee. Judging by the cultural documents--and Disney provides excellent illusstrations--both "sides," did pretty well in promulgating their myths.
19. The World Wars radically changed both economic patterns, and the "racial," makeup of North and South. Northerners often ghettoized people; Southerners often kept the poor and black folks down on the farm.
20. The Civil Rights struggles that started with WWII took different forms in different areas. In some ways, they were the most violent in the South because they were the most obvious, ugly and violent examples of apartheid in all its forms, including lynching. There were other forms of apartheid that we still have with us today, throughout the country.
21. Southerners tended to blame libs and Jews and Nawtherners and Catholics and etc. for historical changes. Northeners tended to blame libs and foreigners for historical changes. Both sides maintained not only their different patterns of racism, but their different patters of economic and political exploitation of the poor and the working class. So, Southern politicans have tended to race-bait, together with claiming patriotism as their excuse. Northern ones have tended to push capitalism uber alles, claiming reason and business as their excuse.
22. We are at present undergoing a period of backlash, in which white men have to try and make up all sorts of absurd stories about American history to maintain their self-images, status in society/family, economic privileges, and other perks that we've long taken for granted as, "natural." Since nothing could be less natural and the material conditions that created that myth of natural privilege have changed forever, this creates some problems.

 

[loki09789]

Gentlemen and other debaters....


The Truth, which some continue to refuse to see is that simply is not true.
- Lincolns invasion was illegal, fought in violation of both international treaty, and this nations own laws.
- The South raised armys to defend itself. The North to invade and conquer.
- Not all slaves were black.
- Most of the South did not own slaves.
- Our official history was written by the winners, with the losers forced to watch things rewritten.
- Etc.

For reference:
Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kennedy
The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy
The Real Lincoln - Thomas J. DiLorenzo


Peace.

Lincoln/the Union administration did not recognize the South as a foriegn nation - therefore from his perspective - international violations were moot points. They were states that refused to recognize the power of the presidency/federal government as superior to that of the states. In the "northern mind" these states were treasonous.

The South raised an army to maintain their independent identity - just as the American revolutionaries did not too long before. The North was not looking to 'conquer' so much as pacify a resistence that had reached a grand scale of war.

No, some were indians, some were Poles/Irish...as well through history but I don't see how that is relevent to the topic at hand (even as a tangent).

You are correct, most southerners did not own slaves...they were too poor and lived much like slaves themselves. The minority that did own them (and especially in volume) showed little concern for 'social welfare' or fair market practices so the white poor were barely one step above most of the black slaves in the Southern Elite mind.

Agreed on the writers of history. But, some of the documentation that is presented now (not so much as in the past), does present a southern perspective on the war.

No side is ever pristinely 'righteous' in a war. Even the war of the "Greatest Generation" has angles on it that can dirty it up a little once you get past the hero worship.

Again, back to the dress issue. I would say the school leaders needed to be practicing consistency in enforcement AND probably focusing more on the girls going to a formal dance in 'hoochi mama' dresses than some girl wearing a rebel flag...

I would think that the community would have been so desensitized to that image because of the little stickers, t=shirts, hats, flags on truck...that already have it in the school, in the parking lot and all over the rest of the community.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm picking the points I disagree with or need to expand on. The majority of what Robert posted, I agree with.

1. The American institution of slavery was, and is, inherently evil. Why? Because it rests on the proposition that owning others is perfectly OK--because they aren't really human beings.

I agree. What is missing is the 'mindset' of that time, not today. Throughout history, ownership of another has been allowed...in fact, by law, certain groups were defined as slaves. Indian POWs, negros (imported, purchased or exchanged) and criminals. (Massachusetts law, predating any Southern law, never repealed.) "Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, George Moore, 1866, p18-19"

4. The Southern states, a) fought at every level to maintain and indeed to extend the institution of slavery;

Not true. Yes, they did fight, but to maintain the right to decide for themselves.
- Gradual freedom was the method prefered by the South, not immediate as demanded by Radical Abolishionists. This gradual system worked in England and many other nations. Radicals wanted it now, never mind that many of the slaves were not ready for freedom. (education, etc)

- The South wanted to stop the importation of new slaves from Africa, prior to the Revolutionary War. In fact, Thomas Jefferson (A Virginian slave holder) wanted to insert language into the Declaration of Independence specifying ONE of the reasons for the 13 colonies secession from England was the Kings refusal to stem the importation of African Slaves.

- The Southern Slave States wanted to stop the importation of African Slaves, however New England slave traders pushed back the 'stop date' over a decade.

- The Confederate Constitution banned the importation of African Slaves, and allowed each member State to decide for itself what to do about slavery.

4c) when the Southern states seceded, they claimed that they were doing so because the North was implacably opposed to slavery, which they considered to be fundamental to not only the rights of individual States and their property-owners, but to the Constitution as a whole.

That is 1 way to look at it. I and others see it as the refusal to enforce slavery-friendly laws. Also, remember, slaves/blacks were counted as 3/4th person on the census. HOR membership is based on state population. As the North became more and more hostile towards blacks (banning them in some states), population declined in the North, giving more political power to the South.

9. After 1863, the South got whupped. Yes, this was in part because their antiquated economic system couldn't keep up--which suggests that something racist was going on when they refused to even consider abandoning slavery. On the other hand, Lincoln used Antietam as an excuse to emancipate, despite a fair amount of opposition and despite his own racism.

Antiquated system, yes. Most industry was in the North. Also, The Northern population was about 2x the size of the Souths.

The abandonment was considered, but in a phased controled manner, not a sudden "everyone out of de cottun patch, you be free" manner pushed by radical abolitionists.

Lincolns action was done out of political desparation, and cost him significantly. More importantly, it cost the lives of thousands of Northern Blacks, especially in NYC who were murdered after the EP was issued.

10. The South got beat. They surrendered. The soldiers were treated pretty well by the victors.

Yes. Yes. No.

- Lee commented prior to his death that had he known what was going to happen, he would never have surrendered, but went down fighting.

- Northern Prison Camps were horror chambers. They had a higher mortality rate than their Southern equivilants. While everyone may be familiar with Andersonville (I think there was a movie about that southern nightmare), few hear about Elmira, which was by all accounts, almost as bad a horror as the German POW camps during WWII.

22. We are at present undergoing a period of backlash, in which white men have to try and make up all sorts of absurd stories about American history .....

I am not seeking to rewrite/redefine/reimagine/etc. Everything I have said, is based on my research. Yes, some of it has been faulty, but, so has yours. My point has been that the truth is more often somewhere in the middle on much of this.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.

I'm not defending slavery.

I'm saying the 'truth' as we know it is wrong, simplified, and more complex than we imagine.

I'm also saying theres nothing 'racist' about Confederate flags.

Oh, and that a State has the right to leave the Union.



Ah yeah, also that that dress was pretty tacky..I mean, sequins? eww.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm not defending slavery.

I'm saying the 'truth' as we know it is wrong, simplified, and more complex than we imagine.

I'm also saying theres nothing 'racist' about Confederate flags.

Oh, and that a State has the right to leave the Union.



Ah yeah, also that that dress was pretty tacky..I mean, sequins? eww.

Bob ~ actually, I wasn't referring to what you have said, but several articles that have been referenced, etc.

I think that Confederate flags have been "co-opted" by certain groups in contemporary America, to have it stand for something that it did not necessarily stand for during the actual Confederacy.

I do not know whether this Belle of the Ball was using the flag to refer to the historical Confederacy, and "southern pride", or if she was using it to refer to various groups that today use the Conf. flag a symbol to rally behind for other causes/desires.

 

[Hand Sword]

King George sends troops to invade and conquer, denies rights exist for "americans" and is considered to be a tyrant.

Abraham Lincoln denies constitutional rights (suspends Habeous Corpus, etc...) causing the supreme court to say he's acting illegally, where they are threatened to put in prison. He raises an army to invade, conquer, and subjugate, and he's considered a Great President.

Succession is "Illegal" and not "recognized", unless it's the new state of West Virginia, which goes to the union side.

Rebels were great patriots because the rebelled and fought against a Tyrant forces that were invading.
Rebels are jerks because they are fighting against invaders from the north.

Just A Little Consistency Please!

 

[kenpo tiger]

<snip>
Ah yeah, also that that dress was pretty tacky..I mean, sequins? eww.

:shrug: In some circles those sequins are tres chic, Mr. Bob.

All the better to call attention to herself and her cause.:enguard:

I found her letter to the media somewhat informative as to her intent. That she was whining about being picked on... well, she's a teenager. [Notice how upset she was that she *only* got one dance - out on the sidewalk - and that the principal and security 'ganged up' on her.] *One* has to wonder if she really thought through what the repercussions would be.

 

[Bester]

One has to wonder if Ms. Flag looked like this: http://www.southernoutlet.com/bikini_view.htm
or if she'd worn this dress instead: http://www.southernoutlet.com/ccp5/media/images/product_detail/tank_lg.gif

If folks would still be pissing and moaning.

Then again, maybe it's more preferable to wear a blue dress.

Now, I go to read up on the remake of the Dukes of Hazzard..
So far, no flag, the cars name has changed, and I think Cooter is now black.
Boss Hogg is still Boss Hogg, but it's now William Jefferson.... damn political correctness.