People have been questioning the new candidates about the legality of flying or displaying the Union Jack - or Confederate Flag. Here's my response.
The Confederate Army lost the war after the Civil War. Though we would like to see "The South Gonna Do it Again" in a good way- like make amends for the past.
After the war was won by the Union, the Confederate flag should have been laid to rest, and possibly displayed in Museums as a method of showing people the past. But in reality, it is used very often and in fact is woven into many flags in the South, and not only do the Southern States still use this symbol, but the state of Hawaii has it displayed as well.
[see attachment]
When we think about it, it's not even a fair question to ask a candidate. Then, the question is really, what should we do about it? Should each state with this symbol redesign their state flags? I think the answer is "Yes". Not only that, because it's such a controversial subject leading only to one thing - more unfortunate incidents, we should establish state laws that would systematically eliminate the use of this symbol such as:
"The Union Jack, or Confederate Flag symbol shall not be displayed to the publics view less than ___ miles of a State Capital". If the wording were just right, no-one could display it outside of their private space.
It would be another step in eliminating racism in America, and it is about 250 years overdue.
What say you fencers.....??? Can we show that the South, a beautiful place to be is really for justice and means well, that the people there are truely gracious and can offer the country something good?
p.s. Using symbols like the Swastika and Union Jack, Clowns and other scarey symbols means that you are afraid of something.
I don't believe that anyone should be barred from flying the Confederate flag, even if they decide to fly it above our own nation's flag; the government simply shouldn't have that sort of authority over its citizens. However, I do believe that it should not be present on government property at any time for any reason because that's just disrespectful.
The Union Jack was used for 250 years before the Civil War started in the US by James I of England when the rule of England and Scotland had both fallen under a single individual. The Hawaiian flag has nothing to do with the Confederacy, but the English version of the Union Jack, despite the fact that Hawaii has never been under English occupation. The Union Jack as a whole has nothing to do with the confederacy. The confederacy only use an aspect of it: Saint Andrew's Cross.
There's only one state that currently uses a confederate flag, and that is under heavy consideration. It's probably going to end up being changed if Georgia is any kind of example.
The confederacy stood for a lot more than racism, and people need to be reminded of that. Maybe the officials of that state are just like the idea of state rights and a weak central government. With the civil rights movement the symbol became racist, but there are plenty of those who cling on to it for its other meanings.
Either way it isn't exactly a a caring or intelligent thing to do. It should by no means be illegal do display any kind of symbol (nazi reversed swastika, rebel flag, etc), but I'd be surprised of the majority of citizens still supported it. That is ultimately Mississippi's choice, however. The federal government has no right to make them change it. Besides...
Ban Saint Andrew's crosses and all you get is a bunch of angry Scots, Jamaicans and BDSM fans protesting all over the place. While I admit, it would be quite an amusing mix of people, it's something I'd rather avoid. Not to mention that it would completely gut the constitution and destroy the essence of what it is to be American.
That isn't a fair statement. The Confederate government probably wasn't all that viable. The confederacy had a heck of a lot political, social and economic issues to work out. I'm not some madman wishing for the hayday of the south--a place where neither my relatives nor I have never lived or have any tangible connection to apart from the occasional NAC.
There were significant grievances that make secession make sense. The entire northern and southern demographics were different from the days of colonization. Every colony was formed for different people, in different places, for different reasons. While the colonies can be arbitrarily grouped, there was little in common between them before the First Great Awakening, but even that was like attaching a band-aid to an amputated limb. It helped, but not all that much.
Other actions went through that acted to cement the Union. The War of 1812 did much to start a sense of "American Identity" and the early industrial revolution and Second Great Awakening provided a great distraction from the pressing issues at hand, but nothing ever resolved the fact that the South was ethnically, socially and politically completely distinct from the north.
Long gone were the days of the "Virginia Dynasty" and presidents with a strong agricultural focus such as Jefferson (who had an almost "chinese" focus on the cultural value of farmers). The government kept on enacting tariffs that hurt the south, such as the Tariff of Abominations. The South didn't have the control of government it wanted and felt oppressed. Abolitionists threatened the very backbone of Southern labor itself.
The south in a way only wanted some degree of self rule and to no longer be strapped to a more controlling and more powerful north. The North would always rule the house. The south had to fight for equality in the senate as slave and free states were created.
Is it all that wrong to want to have your best interests served by your government? Is it that wrong to preserve the status quo of a successful society (at one point the 5th richest in the world)? All the South wanted was to maintain its prosperity. While it might have accomplished that with staunch racism and xenophobia as well as a "backward" focus on agriculture; it did embrace the ideal of popular sovereignty and wanting fair rule.
I understand what you are saying, but, we won our freedom from England in 1776, and discarded their flag. We also got rid of other symbols. While we don't want to break off all of our connections to England today, we still should realize that we're not part of their country anymore, even for those who have some English blood, we need to come to terms with that as a Country.
I believe it would change everything for the better if we should get rid of it once and for all, keeping it only in museums. It would free up our children from having to feel loyalty to symbols of oppression, and it would mend many fences around the nation, especially our southern states.
Erm, guys, it was the British you got rid of. And like most historical skirmishes, the two sides weren't as easily identifiable as history would suggest. I'd be willing to bet it was mostly the Irish and Scots who were killed on both sides, probably because the generals knew they were both happy to fight anyone at all, and were generally cheaper than the more highly trained troops.
And it's also the Union Flag, not the Union jack unless it's used by the Royal Navy, and then only under certain circumstances which I cant be bothered to look up. Not sure if the Merchant Navy get to use the Union jack as well.
The confederate flag is a flag. A picture. Thats it.
There is still a lot of racism in america, but its not just the fault of any one ethnicity.
Try sitting on a public bus today. If you're white, then YOU sit in the back.
Its scary stuff.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. And from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moment, lost in time. Gone, like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die" -Phil Ken Sebben
Erm, guys, it was the British you got rid of. And like most historical skirmishes, the two sides weren't as easily identifiable as history would suggest. I'd be willing to bet it was mostly the Irish and Scots who were killed on both sides, probably because the generals knew they were both happy to fight anyone at all, and were generally cheaper than the more highly trained troops.
And it's also the Union Flag, not the Union jack unless it's used by the Royal Navy, and then only under certain circumstances which I cant be bothered to look up. Not sure if the Merchant Navy get to use the Union jack as well.
You are quite right. The Union Jack was adopted based off of James' personal flag with the unification of Scotland and Britain under the same ruler. England still has its own flag I believe, as does Scotland and northern Ireland. There were plenty of English people in the colonies, as well as plenty of Scots-Irish and other ethnic groups; surprisingly there were a bunch of Germans floating around as well. The Union Flag is based off of James' flag as well. The reason why Hawaiians have elements of the Union Jack in their flag is precisely because of the important role the British navy played in the history of the islands. This is partially why I've found this entire thread confusing. Does Lemonaide not like the Union Jack? Or the Union Flag? Or any of the several Confederate flags?
Perhaps Jack comes from James which comes from Jacob. I've heard it used for Jacob as well as John, but rarely for the former. That would explain the name of the flag quite well.
Perhaps Jack comes from James which comes from Jacob. I've heard it used for Jacob as well as John, but rarely for the former. That would explain the name of the flag quite well.
A jack is also the name for a national flag flown at the front of a warship. Given the importance and dominance of the Royal Navy from the 17th-mid 20th century this is another very probable explanation for the "Jack".
I don't think that any flag should be flown over the counrty's flag.
"Because I'm the mom, that's why."-- every good mom in history "You are the f.net mom" Sword Hobbit "as long as you don't call me the 'f.ing mom" Nicksmom
There were plenty of English people in the colonies, as well as plenty of Scots-Irish and other ethnic groups; surprisingly there were a bunch of Germans floating around as well.
I knew there were plenty of Dutch (after all, they did found new York, under the name new Amsterdam, or is that an urban myth?) around the North-Eastern colonies as well as the Irish and Scots, but wasn't aware of the German presecence, though it really shouldn't have been a huge intellectual leap on my part to have worked that out.
One thing that has beffled me though, is that I've never heard of there being a big Welsh influence on American culture. Is this because there isn't one?
I knew there were plenty of Dutch (after all, they did found new York, under the name new Amsterdam, or is that an urban myth?) around the North-Eastern colonies as well as the Irish and Scots, but wasn't aware of the German presecence, though it really shouldn't have been a huge intellectual leap on my part to have worked that out.
One thing that has beffled me though, is that I've never heard of there being a big Welsh influence on American culture. Is this because there isn't one?
Two words---Tom Jones
Whatever doesn't kill you, is gonna leave a scar...
One thing that has beffled me though, is that I've never heard of there being a big Welsh influence on American culture. Is this because there isn't one?
Originally Posted by Phaeton 
