Thanks guys

I really think Brad Paisely and LL Cool J explained it best.

Accidental Racist

Jaime M wrote: Yes. Yes. Yes. What Ryan fails to mention is what states rights meant then versus what it means now, which is not the same thing at all. Of course, states rights vs. federal government had been debated since the country's founding. But the South's reliance on the states rights argument only began to arise after they lost firm control of the federal government and became even more prevalent after the Civil War when the South had to scramble to find a way to try to protect its race-based legislation (Jim Crow and all that) from the federal government. Which is why, in the South, when you talk about "states rights" and the confederate flag, you are referencing an ideology of race-based hatred. They are one and the same, and have been for 150 years. This is a huge, huge false equivalency. The South's idea of states rights was not some pie in the sky, libertarian ideal of the choice of the individual versus the federal government. The South was fighting for a very specific right, which was the right of states to make policies regarding the trade and ownership of human beings. In other words, the South was concerned with taking away individuals' freedoms, not granting them. Again, this is why, in the South, when you reference states rights in the context of the confederate flag, you are advocating a brutal and inhumane ideology. If the climbing community is truly open and encouraging why would you want to represent it with such a divisive symbol? If you want to celebrate Southern culture, there are a 1000 ways to can do it better than with the confederate flag. I say that having lived in the South basically my whole life.

+1 for stating that which I have not had time to say.....

Ryan Williams wrote: Just think about it this way: What if California, Oregon and Washington decided to secede from the nation because the Federal Government overruled their decisions about marijuana? What if the states in the Northeast decided to secede because they were tired of our Federal Government allowing the sale of handguns and assault rifles? Most of us would support those causes.

I completely disagree with this statement. I can't think of any person I know who wouldn't find it completely silly, if states decided to SECEDE over marijuana. Secession is really serious, not something you threaten to get your way on a specific issue. Also, it clearly shows the lack of a functioning democracy if states are considering SECEDING because they can't get the legislation they desire.

Again, I don't know anybody that would support secession, not even all the crazy Texans I went to high school with.

Paul Barnes wrote: no, No, NO...there is nothing to see down here. Please take your politically correct, tree huggin, bed wettin, liberal ass someplace else where you will get a warmer welcome. Our Southern Hospitality is not for you.

Hell yes Paul!

I don't really have time to get in to a big discussion and I don't think I need to. Most of the people who are disagreeing with me are doing so in a pretty sensible way. I do understand that, as Jake put it "states' rights in the south in the mid 19th century meant protection of slavery. You can sugar coat it all you want, but the two were, and remain synonymous."

I was simply trying to make the point that it is pretty ignorant to just associate the Confederate flag with racist rednecks and nothing else. Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but a lot of people in the US do. Also, I was admittedly trying to stir the pot a little. Anyone who got the idea that I am anything close to racist missed my point.

And no, I do not, nor have I ever, flown the Confederate flag.

Ryan Williams wrote:I don't really have time to get in to a big discussion and I don't think I need to. Most of the people who are disagreeing with me are doing so in a pretty sensible way. I do understand that, as Jake put it "states' rights in the south in the mid 19th century meant protection of slavery. You can sugar coat it all you want, but the two were, and remain synonymous." I was simply trying to make the point that it is pretty ignorant to just associate the Confederate flag with racist rednecks and nothing else. Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but a lot of people in the US do. Also, I was admittedly trying to stir the pot a little. Anyone who got the idea that I am anything close to racist missed my point. And no, I do not, nor have I ever, flown the Confederate flag.

stirring the pot makes those old braincells start moving, it cant hurt. things back then arent too much different than today really (minus the brainwashing and gun control)

You guys are silly - help the OP with his guidebook will ya?

In the meantime, I'll be reading the Federalist Papers, pondering James Madison's political work, and thinking about the time badass Andrew Jackson threatened to kill John C. Calhoun at a dinner party when the esteemed architect of secession started talking about nullification.

This is a very interesting and, for the most part, thoughtful discussion. One thing that I've been pondering for years is how closely we are linked to slavery as a country and individuals. There are most certainly individuals in this country that are only 1 generation removed from slavery. This meaning that their grandparent(s) was born in slavery or was born into a slave owning family. There are many more people 2-3 generations removed.

The first and second generations removed would have likely had many years of memorable contact with the person who directly experienced slavery. In the past, I mostly pondered this from the perspective of Black people in the US, but reading this discussion flashed me on the fact that this is the Southern white experience as well.

Suddenly, the Civil War and slavery are not so distant past, especially when one considers that segregation and Jim Crow persisted until The 1960's as overt policy. Racism is not exclusive to the South and, we as a country have a lot of skeletons in the closet that need to be address before we can truly be a "post-racial" nation.

CraigS. wrote:^^^ ... The facts are that without the war, the South would have been economically crippled by the Federal Government. It was a largely agrarian economy that was being taxed out of existence. Hmm . . . sounds similar to major issues that caused the American Revolution.

Massive historical fail. There were no federal taxes to speak of prior to the Civil War.

Ryan Williams wrote:I don't really have time to get in to a big discussion and I don't think I need to. Most of the people who are disagreeing with me are doing so in a pretty sensible way. I do understand that, as Jake put it "states' rights in the south in the mid 19th century meant protection of slavery. You can sugar coat it all you want, but the two were, and remain synonymous." I was simply trying to make the point that it is pretty ignorant to just associate the Confederate flag with racist rednecks and nothing else. Not saying that anyone here is doing that, but a lot of people in the US do. Also, I was admittedly trying to stir the pot a little. Anyone who got the idea that I am anything close to racist missed my point. And no, I do not, nor have I ever, flown the Confederate flag.

If that was your intention, then maybe launching a full-blown, utterly mendacious defense of the Confederacy was not the best way to go about it.

csproul wrote:I bet we are one of the few countries in the world that tolerates the flag of the losing side of a civil war to still be flown!

when our president openly fails to show respect to our nation's flag (and the ideologies that *it* represents), are you really so surprised?

also, this is one of the best threadjacks ever

David Rivers wrote:This is a very interesting and, for the most part, thoughtful discussion. One thing that I've been pondering for years is how closely we are linked to slavery as a country and individuals.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of slavery as the US's original sin. It cast a stain across what is arguably the most humanistic, egalitarian, classically liberal, and surprisingly lasting and functional organizations of human beings, ever. It is the penultimate allegory of the human condition mimicking the Expulsion from Paradise, roughly. It seems the lesson is no matter how well intentioned, educated and informed, or cautiously executed and belabored about, any human endeavor is flawed in execution, and a cause of shame in retrospect.
The stain of slavery has haunted our national politics since day 1, Civil War, Jim Crow, civil rights, states rights, civil liberties, racism, all have their roots in that one evil institution that good men allowed to persist in the name of not letting the perfect become the executioner of the good.
Forgiveness is the only remedy.

Clifton, I agree with your supposition and would add that the removal, genocide, and exploitation of native peoples belongs in that category of "original sin" as well.

There is a 521 year history of European/dominate culture exploitation of native peoples in the Americas (ongoing) and a 387 year history of slavery. The USA has a 246 year history of slavery going back to Jamestown plus an additional 100 years of legal discrimination. Until we as a country take responsibility for and accept that these atrocities are/where as fundamental to our formation as all the positive ideals you mentioned, how do we even approach forgiveness?

csproul wrote:I bet we are one of the few countries in the world that tolerates the flag of the losing side of a civil war to still be flown!

Yeah, in other countries, they'd shoot you for it. That's a lot better, right?!?!?

PRRose wrote: Massive historical fail. There were no federal taxes to speak of prior to the Civil War.

If you mean no income tax...
But then what was it funding the government? I suppose you want to call it duty or tariff? I think it's acceptable these days to allow people to call those taxes, since in the every day vernacular, they are not differentiated.

David Rivers wrote: Until we as a country take responsibility for and accept that these atrocities are/where as fundamental to our formation as all the positive ideals you mentioned, how do we even approach forgiveness?

I suggest acknowledging the wrong, changing to rectify it, and committing to pursue policy that that is informed by these transgressions, and loathe to repeat them.
Outside of that, it seems like seeking a pound of flesh from men long dead.