One more place racist garbage is no longer welcome

I thought it was just a flag, I was under the impression the civil war wasn't about slavery so much as who has the power. The North had the bright idea to send tons of Irish immigrants to their death so they could keep their money and pretend it was about morality when in reality Lincoln wasn't even going to let the slaves have a vote when it was all said and done, because he didn't believe they were smart enough. From what I can tell they were all pretty racist at the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would be too if I lived then, it was the culture and even it that's not excusable it is the case.

Michael Barnes wrote: I would be willing to bet that a sampling of confederate badge holders at BGG would reveal lots of extreme right-wing politics and closet racists. No doubt in my mind.

Isn't that all the more reason to let them keep it? I'd rather know than not know. That's my main problem with the PC movement. People are getting much too talented at hiding their shittiness. I wish they'd just lay it all on the line, I'm so sick and tired of hearing: "I'm not racist but..." just fucking say it wimp!

repoman wrote: I wonder is there is a B-17 micro-badge and how that makes the people of Germany feel?

Don't worry about Dresden. We deserved it.

MattLoter wrote: Savor it: Pete, you are totally right and this was really awesome of you!

(also thumbs up for not calling any of those racists "cunts"!)

I'm giving up most vulgarity for lent because my mother made me. Rest assured that on Easter, they will be.

JonJacob wrote: I thought it was just a flag, I was under the impression the civil war wasn't about slavery so much as who has the power.

The Civil War was all about slavery. We could discuss this further, but there's no point as it all goes back to slavery. Sure, the Northerns were mostly also racist, economic interests were at stake and the war was very dirty (Sherman), but all that doesn't change that it was about slavery.

In Australia we have similar issues with the Eureka Flag being co-opted by all sorts of groups, but given they are all over the place politically all you know is that they have an issue with the status quo in Australia in someway.

While many uses make some semblance of sense as the reasons for the Eureka Rebellion were many and varied, it is rather humorous to see the racists waving it as the Eureka Rebellion was one of the most multicultural ever seen.

Personally I love the Eureka Flag (much more attractive than the Australian flag, and see it as a symbol of the fight for democracy and independence from England), but given it has so many different meanings attached to it by the weirdos, someone will always call you out as a unionist/racist/etc if you wave it proudly.

Michael Barnes wrote: I would be willing to bet that a sampling of confederate badge holders at BGG would reveal lots of extreme right-wing politics and closet racists. No doubt in my mind.

My experience is that the word "confederate" in that sentence is unnecessary.

Nice, Pete. The hammer & sickle should be treated in exactly the same way, BTW.

The first state to secede was S. Carolina, and in their manifesto, they blathered for half of the document about how it's cool for them to dip out and "throw off the reigns of tyranny" and all that, but then, the FIRST THING they cited as a failure for the Northern states to abide their own constitution was....wait for it...

sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

All About State Right South Carolina wrote: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States."

They were pissed that Northerners were harboring their slaves, which they saw as in opposition to the Constitution.

That's what it was about, in a nutshell. You could cite the cotton gin's invention forcing the Southern economy to get cheap (read: purchased) labor, but again, it is a slavery issue.

I guess they hadn't figured out that they could import Mexicans and pay them cents on the dollar yet.

I do realize that some of it was about slavery but from what I've read... only in school some time ago mind you, was that the slavery issue has been greatly over played in the years since, for the sake of movies and what not. Yes, the North did indeed "harbor slaves" and put pressure on them to end slavery but from what I've read that was simply because the knew that by ending slavery the south would be crippled economically and they could take over the reigns of power in the country. It wasn't because the North cared about the plight of the slaves... they didn't give a shit at all and would gladly, racist-ly, send thousands or Irishmen to their death to achieve this end and then not give the now infamous 40 acres and a mule... jack.

This is important because voting didn't come right away, civil rights were still a ways off. It seems clear to me. I'd like if someone could point me in the direction of a book that can prove me wrong.. a few quotes on line won't be quite sufficient. Regardless of how many thanks they get.

Not saying I don't believe it, I just don't believe it ... yet.

I'm also still for letting them keep the stupid symbol if they want to post it, this is another slight against BGG for me. If people want to self identify with a symbol like that they totally should do it openly. Forcing them to hide it does not help your society, it hurts it, makes people less trusting, and keeps racism in the dark... exactly where you don't want it, can't fight it, and are forced to wonder about it. Bad idea all around and against all my ideals as a free person.

In Canada we have anti-hate speech laws and I hate them. Fred Phelps can't come here and I totally think he should be allowed, and shouted down. I'm sure people here agree with him but they've become sneaky and found clever rhetorical ways of getting around pro gay arguments in order to hide their bigotry.. this is much worse.

Lincoln was a Republican and the Republican party at the time was understood to at least have sympathy to the idea of abolition. That's why the Southern states threatened to secede. Indeed the end of slavery would have blown the profitability of the Southern agricultural economy a huge blow, but that doesn't just turn the Civil War into an economic war all of a sudden. If your business is only profitable by employing slaves, then with all due respect, I am convinced you ought to shut down your lousy business.

That reminds me of the recent Hostess fiasco; "Oh noes, we can no longer produce Twinkies without giving our employees shitty wages", and the public responded: "Aw fuck them, we want tasty Twinkies!" You're digging your own holes, my friends.