Flags and the Thought Police

Posted by robgambrill 9 years, 5 months ago to Culture
170 comments | Share | Flag

I never really cared for the confederate flag, but I heard today that E-bay had banned their sale.

Just to see what would happen, I decided to try and order one off of Amazon, just as they decided not to allow the sale of rebel flags as well.

As they were taking down the offerings, I noticed that other historical flags were being pulled as well. The picture is from my "Wish List". Not sure the web masters knew which flags to pull off the site.

I eventually managed to order both a "Don't Tread on Me" flag and a small rebel flag as a souvenir of the day the thought police decided I shouldn't be able to buy a flag because of somebodies idea of what it stands for.

I could be mistaken, but I think for a lot of people, the confederate flag has to more to do with a wish to be free of the federal government than history or race issues.


The seller shipped the rebel flag right away, guess he didn't want to get stuck with the inventory.

. I guess I am not comfortable with banning the sale of flags, even unpopular ones.
SOURCE URL: https://plus.google.com/+RobGambrill/posts/H5E1ArHpoZf


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
    You can still get a Nazi Flag though!
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago
      The swastika instantly emotes more evil upon Old Dino's consciousness than even the hammer and sickle Soviet flag.
      Recalling some of the signs carried by the Occupy Movement, I don't think the leftist PC Thought Police really cares if the Jews have hurt feelings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
        Yep, but it is not banned.

        This concept of banning "ideas" is VERY scary.

        Perhaps we should file a suit against eBay and Amazon for discrimination against Red Necks. "I wanted one for my wedding cake!"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago
          Thorritsu, you've given my ancient brain an inspiration.
          If you haven't already noticed, Old Dino can have a dangerous imagination.
          I've just had a vision of a buxom babe atop a wedding cake waving a rebel flag and singing, "You don't have to be lonely at Farmers Only-dot-Com."
          (That cake is either mighty big if not stiff for stale or that country gal is mighty small).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago
        Agreed, but what was interesting to me was that the swastika was co-opted by the SS - it had existed for centuries (if not millenia) in other cultures such as the Basques and Native Americans. A black swastika on a field of red is almost certainly to be associated with Nazi-ism, but a green, rounded swastika is Basque.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago
          I have seen photos of the primitive swastikas that you're talking about.
          Sometimes the swastika was turned the opposite way.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
            The backwards one (left facing) is a Buddist symbol. Hindu's use both left and right facing versions, and the often refer to Kali (not the nicest of their gods).
            I don't think the Oriental and Nazi versions are related. I think the Nazi black swastika is derived from Aryan runes.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gcarl615 9 years, 5 months ago
    To me the confederate flag represents States Rights vs The over bearing Federal Guvmint. To me the Civil War was fought over that issue and slavery was a symptom not the cause.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
      I hear that that civil war wasn't over slavery, but I think it is BS. If slavery had been abolished, because it is wrong, not because the states should be able to do wrong things, I would argue that particular war would not have happened, and perhaps no other good argument to go to war could have been contrived.

      The fact that the south refused to act like humans may be the reason states rights have been abridged in the United States!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 5 months ago
        I have Southern roots, with four relatives who fought for the Confederacy (one rode with Gen. Jeb Stuart). The sad fact is that negotiations over ending slavery broke down during Buchanan's Presidency over how to compensate the slave owners. Congress couldn't agree on what they felt was an outrageous price, but the price asked would have been less than 1% of the cost of the Civil war, and over 600,000 young men would not have died.

        Lincoln envisioned the Reconstruction as an act of revitalization for the South, reuniting them with the rest of the nation, but his assassination destroyed his vision. The bitter abolitionists who took over the Reconstruction saw it as a way to punish a rebellious population, and the South was pillaged economically, treated far more harshly than any other nation defeated by the U.S. That created an angry, resentful South that treated the African Americans as a surrogate for the abusive North.

        Many of the various monuments and the tolerance for the rebel battle flag were a kind of backhanded excuse to soften Southern bitterness. President Wilson (racist to the core) actually admired the Ku Klux Klan, and stated he felt that "Birth of a Nation" (that portrayed the KKK as heroes) was the greatest film made.

        The Civil war is history. Time to treat it as such, objectively, as symbolic of anachronistic thinking.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 5 months ago
          I lived in the Capital of The Confederacy while I went to college. There is a rather prestigious road in the Fan District called Monument Avenue. It has statues of all the important heroes of the confederacy running down the middle. People who live on it are quite proud to live there.
          While I was living in Richmond, there was a DJ on a station down there, not from the south, who made a comment on air, LIVE, that Monument Avenue was the street with all the second place trophies running down it. Well, I laughed my dupa off, but people were screaming for his head! He was made to publicly apologize, and nearly lost his job. It was crazy! And my roommate for a few years was in the Daughters of The Confederacy. Her dad was pissed she was living with a Yankee... It was an unusual city, and I'm glad for the experience, but I would never live in Richmond again. It was a very strange place... Dangerous as well.. And they have not, nor do I think they will EVER forget the war of northern aggression... I was of the mind that they needed to get over it, wipe off the hands and move on!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 5 months ago
        Check your history...the War for States Rights started in 1861, and the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect in 1863. (Lincoln needed New York to get re-elected and that was what he used to buy the liberal vote.). Lincoln himself intended to deport the freed slaves to Liberia. In point of fact, only a minuscule percentage of the citizens of CSA were slave owners. So yes, most Southerners objected to the federal government imposing itself on what were to be considered matters that were the business of the individual states; tariffs being one of the most prominent. Slavery was incidental to the argument, but it became a powerful cause célèbre as the war dragged on. Just or unjust, it was not the proximate cause of the war.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
          Agree but disagree. If tarriffs and states rights were the only reason, the war would have been very unpopular, may not have happened when it did, and may even have had a different outcome.
          It would have been a lot like getting people to reduce energy use and support energy independence to reduce the threat from the Middle East...yawn. But Climate Change! That is exciting.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 5 months ago
            Why would the war have been unpopular? The Northern industrialized states felt that they were paying a disproportionate share of fees and levies, and decided to shift some of the onus to the agrarian, sparsely populated South. The South, however, contended that due to population, they were insufficiently represented. They tried to counter that slaves should be counted as 3/5 (if memory serves) of a citizen thereby giving the South greater representation. So the war was not a noble crusade to free the slaves; it started, as most wars do start, about money.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago
              The 3/5s compromise was part of the original Constitution.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fift...

              I agree wholeheartedly that the North was not a just on a noble crusade. However, the North-led US Government specifically limited slavery in new territories and states admitted to the Union, and the South specifically referred to these actions in withdrawing. For example, New York wrote laws prohibiting the transport of slave, which stopped wealthy southerners from bringing servants when vacationing in New England. Read the secession letters from South Carolina et al. They clearly refer to the limits on slavery as a reason for their actions.

              Look at it a different way. What distinguished the North from the South? Agrarian model extended based on growing season and slavery.

              If the South had simply changed their economic model and abolished slavery, they would (like now) have morphed into a version of the model of the North.

              Why didn't they change it? Money, based on an economic model of (as I've noted elsewhere today) Milton Friedman's "involuntary servitude". It was wrong. It violates reasonable Objectivist logic, and this money, the money taken from the backs of others, was the basis of secession and the consequent Civil War.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
              3/5ths was a northern invention and requirement to keep the amount of Representatives down The North actually wanted zero percent and the South one hundred percent. urban myth. The last sentence was deadly accurate.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 5 months ago
              Slaves were already counted as 3/5 in the Constitution, primarily to keep Southern representation lower than it would have been if slaves had been counted the same way as the rest of the population.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 5 months ago
                Where in the Constitution would that be?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago
                  It isn't in the Constitution per se, but was part of the original deliberations in the Constitutional Convention. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to do away with slavery at the inception of the US, but they couldn't get the Southern States to support ANY proposal while that was still on the table. So they were forced to abandon it as a principle of the Constitution and leave it for future generations, recognizing that until slavery was eradicated, it would be a source of great destabilization in the Union.

                  The 3/5 compromise was a measure that was critical to getting the Southern States to adopt the Constitution, but which was passed separately:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fift...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
                    It was critical to getting the northern vote and the 3/5 rule was their deal to support it. they didn't want the south''s numbers pumped up meaning more Representatives. That part was strictly a Northern part of the equation. The south wanted a full 100% count.

                    As you are about to find out the North's hands were far from clean and the Democrats least of all. Starting with the suggestion to re-read the Constitution of the Confederate States in another thread It reminded me of something So the new post with references has to do with that exact situation. Ever wonder which States were the last states to own slaves of the original 13? Or who supported the Jim Crow laws and favored slavery in the new states? Or who did not support ERA?

                    Film At Eleven Rock Mountain PM Time
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago
          The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Southern States. It was meant to cause disruption in the South's war efforts. It didn't cause the war.

          The Civil War was caused over representation levels in Congress. The Southern States wanted to promote a contradiction: that slaves were people for the purpose of counting representation in the House of Representatives after a Census, but not people insofar as they had actual rights. The 3/5's compromise was the attempt to try to codify this contradiction, but was really just an unsettled resolution that simmered for decades.

          A sidelight of the war was over progress: the Northern States were the primary sources of industry and especially manufacturing while the Southern States were primarily agrarian. The bulk of the economic might of the United States had shifted significantly to the North as a result of this and there was much internal economic pressure being put on the Southern States to abandon slavery in that light - a bias that many there were unwilling to abandon.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 5 months ago
            Actually, over 70% of U.S. revenue came from the export of Southern cotton and tobacco. Northern states, burdened by the cost of industrialization, wanted to shift the wealth to expand their economic growth. When excess tariffs and shipping costs were imposed on Southern goods, in an attempt to force them to sell most of their cotton to Northern states mills, the friction led to conflict. Abolitionists saw an opportunity to finally end slavery through violence, and stoked the flames of North-South hostility as a means to the end they had been unable to accomplish through legislation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 5 months ago
              I found the following sources which allude to economic differences, but don't get into the detail you mention:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of...
              http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-...
              http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civi...

              Can you point me to more information on the tarriffs issue? My understanding was that tarriffs were put on _incoming_ goods from other nations - not outgoing goods. I appreciate your elaboration.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 5 months ago
                There was a port arrival charge on foreign ships that arrived to load U.S. goods for export overseas. Originally, once a ship paid the arrival charge, it could dock at a number of U.S. ports without further payment. Often a ship would receive cotton from Savannah, Charleston, and Norfolk before it had a full cargo load. Under Buchanan those charges were applied at every port rather than just a single time, making the cotton more expensive to foreign buyers. This was an attempt to choke foreign demand and force more domestic sales. Ironically, efforts like this, and the war itself destroyed the market for U.S. cotton, and led to the growing of cotton in Egypt and India by the British empire.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ minniepuck 9 years, 5 months ago
    What do you think of the Gonzales flag? It's becoming popular around here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago
      I think it is a great flag (and it's sale has not been banned on amazon, yet). I saw it when I was searching for historical flags earlier in the day, didn't know the story behind it.

      Want to know the flag I want? I want the dollar sign like the cigarettes in the book Atlas Shrugged (Hey no spoilers, I am ordering the trilogy this week on DVD and have not seen part 3, don't know if that bit made it into the movie).

      Nobody offering Dollar Sign (U overstrike S) flags according to Google, maybe I should start making them...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ minniepuck 9 years, 5 months ago
        I remember that from the book, but have no idea if that made it to the movie. When you watch it, please let me know. I would actually buy that flag, too!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
          Good idea. My GF is a seamstress who makes flags for boats.What colors? Will it be the complete U overstrike S or blue overstrike red on white or something different?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago
            For me, for now, a simple U over-strike S would be great. An almost familiar symbol that might get people to look twice.

            But if I had already made my mark on the world, I would want it to be the modern dollar sign, expertly crafted from the best materials in green on beige, the color of money. Hey, if you mean to say something, go ahead and say it.

            Most people would never get this flag (or that it represents something virtuous). It might as well be an inside joke, so to speak.

            If anybody does produce the flag, be sure and post a link. I might just buy one, if they don't ban it's sale before I can even click to pay for it... :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 5 months ago
            I like the idea of U over S, gold on black.
            Be sure to get back to me [among others] if she agrees to produce them, with a price.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
              Gold US over black background and what size?

              I'm thinking Red, White And Blue in some arrangement. the US complete or the erased bottom curve of the U to make the dollar sign

              One way is to sew on the U and S. The other is to make digital and have it printed.

              Right now she's doing triangular pennant 1823 Mexican Naval Flag for the fore straff on power boats. In August or September she'll do some 12 by 18 courtesy flags with the current eagle and snake the old one is sometimes called the Spirit of Guadalupe Flag the one they used when the kicked the French out of Mexico.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
                It's on the list in the gold over black and the green over beige version and however the RWB I think it should be blue and white over red to honor all the blood it's shed since 1933. if iyour of a mind use the private line
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by radical 9 years, 5 months ago
    I have a large thirteen - star American flag that I fly on July 4th. I wonder haw many under - 40 people will know what that is. They'll probably think that it is some foreign flag - possibly of some socialist or communist country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo