Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Banning banner banter The Battle Flag -- and the Stars and Bars -- are racist symbols: Dump them
Creative Loafing Atlanta ^ | April 16, 2003 | John Suggs

Posted on 04/22/2003 9:21:28 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa

Banning banner banter The Battle Flag -- and the Stars and Bars -- are racist symbols: Dump them

BY JOHN SUGG

Monty Python couldn't have done it better. One of the British comedy troupe's fave sidesplitters depicted an incensed John Cleese trying to return a decidedly deceased parrot to a pet store owner, Michael Palin. Part of the sketch goes:

Cleese: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Palin: No, no, he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

So it goes in the Georgia Assembly in the endless posturing over the state flag.

Forget that Georgia is broke. Forget that legislators have again unleashed rapacious bankers to prey on those least able to protect themselves. Forget the assault on your rights to recover just damages from incompetent doctors and reckless (if not criminal) corporations. Forget that schools are sardine-can overcrowded and educators don't have a prayer of keeping up with growth. Forget that in all but a few elite schools, Georgia's woefully underfunded public education ranks so low, it almost falls off the list of states and into competition with countries like Uganda. Forget that ethical standards among public officials are so non-existent that even patchwork, impotent proposals are hailed as courageous. Forget about the environment. Forget about poor people railroaded off to jail without competent counsel, an affront to the most basic constitutional principles.

Forget everything because Georgia is on the brink of reinstitutionalizing raw, rancid racism. Whether we opt for a slightly retooled Confederate Stars and Bars or the Rebel Battle Flag, we still end up hanging the banner of a diseased and defeated excuse for a social system above our public buildings.

That the Legislature's Ultimate Wacko, Rep. Bobby Franklin, wants to scrawl "In God We Trust" on a flag whose 19th-century cause was anathema to any teaching of Christ I can find in the Bible is delicious irony. (And, there's nothing patriotic in Franklin's ploy. Rather, it's a blatant -- and thoroughly anti-American -- attempt to impose his view of religion on the state. As Rep. Doug Teper, who is Jewish, quipped, what Franklin is really stamping on the flag is: "In Jesus We Trust.")

In short, it's all very Republican.

Here's how the jolly chaps at Monty Python might act it:

Cleese (playing The Rest of the World): Look, matey, I know a racist emblem when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Palin (playing Gov. Sonny Perdue, the GOP and no-scruples white Democrats): No, no, it's not racist. It's just HERITAGE!

The Civil War ended with the surrender of the last Confederate army, in Texas, on May 26, 1865. But y'all know that. Let's think about another war for a moment. Almost 80 years later, on May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered.

All other issues aside, Germans and Southerners have something in common -- how to address a collective, culture-wide crime of murderous racism. We're talking guilt, writ large.

The South embraced the enslavement of one race as a romanticized economic system. Nazi Germany wasn't defined by slavery, but it employed the practice -- hideously so -- justifying its crimes through a twisted mythology of racial supremacy. One could argue that the Confederacy was slightly more egalitarian than the Nazis -- Southerners generally regarded all white folks as superior, while the Germans excluded from their club all but those they considered the purest of the race.

The crushing defeats of the South and Germany forced their citizens to abandon, at least officially, the slavery and racist underpinnings of their societies. That's only the beginning, however, of rehabilitation. Survivors who had participated in the crimes -- lesser ex-Nazis and almost all Southern ex-slave owners -- remained, and many regained success and status after the wars.

More important, their causes might have been defeated, but the mythologies (whether Wagner-whistling Teutonic knights or Margaret Mitchell's delusional depictions of "gray" chivalry) didn't die. It's hard, both as individuals and as peoples, to accept that what was patriotism one day is verboten the next. Germans and Southerners fervently believed their causes were just, and were blessed by God and/or Destiny. Then, one day, all that was sacred became profane. Whiplash on a national scale.

Those who had fomented the wars -- at least the ones who avoided Yankee and Allied nooses and cells -- often stood to gain through continued criminality. Many ex-Nazis found it convenient to morph into apparatchiks and Stasi commanders in East Germany. The Southern ruling class used terrorism and racism -- epitomized by the Ku Klux Klan and the "Citizens Councils" -- to divide and conquer poor whites and blacks.

Germans, after the war, realized the only way to heal their society was to strip away and trash the mythology. Occasionally with reluctance, and never with total success, they ripped out the vestiges of Nazism. Oh, sure, behind closed doors in beer halls, "they" gathered, clicked their heels, bellowed the "Horst Wesel" song and toasted the memory of "him." But those nasty fellows had to hide their nostalgia.

The new German government ruthlessly banned Nazi imagery. For many reasons -- including, I'd argue, the self-surgery that purged the emotional and symbolic vestiges of Nazism -- Germany's democracy flourished after the war, eventually undermining the totalitarian East German government.

Back yonder in Dixie, collective guilt was assuaged via another method: denial.

Rather than eschew the immoral system that had brought so much calamity to the South, racist demagoguery was elevated to gospel and treason was transformed into "heritage" -- all in an effort to dodge guilt.

It's poignant that while the loonies and incompetents who masquerade as Georgia legislators were fixated on the state banner, the U.S. Supreme Court this month ruled the Confederate Battle Flag's co-emblem of race hatred, the burning cross, could be outlawed by the states.

(A quick aside: I'm a free speech absolutist. I disagree with the Supreme Court, and I'd even support the right of those with sick minds to dress up like Nazis and burn crosses. That said, my heart is with those who detest such symbols.)

There is justice that the Republicans are being saddled with the flag albatross. Perdue winked when folks in rural Georgia harnessed his yard signs with "Boot Barnes" Confederate flag signs. I don't think he believed he'd have to pay the piper -- because he was probably as much surprised at his victory as Roy Barnes.

As the saying goes, if you choose to sleep with serpents, you're going to wake up with snake bites. And that's what Perdue has discovered, much to his dismay. After the November election, he tried to downplay the flag issues. But the "flaggers" or "flaggots" weren't about to let the new Republican governor off the hook.

It started on election night, when Perdue egregiously misappropriated Martin Luther King Jr.'s "free at last" speech. Perdue neglected to notice that behind him a yahoo was waving a Battle Flag. The TV cams got excellent footage, however, and it was a message to the world that the Klan's ghost was again stirring in Georgia -- right smack in the governor's mansion.

Perdue has promised that resolving the flag issue would heal the state. Had he been a leader, he would have simply cauterized old wounds, left the Barnes flag on the poles and shooed away the "heritage" flaggers (aka mostly angry white boys who, with no one else to blame for their sorry conditions, want to whup up on black folks one more time by reviving the Battle Flag).

The bizarre machinery of deciding the flag will only inflame passions more. First, next March we vote up or down on the slightly altered Stars and Bars (with its Christian proselytizing add-on). If the vote is "nay," we choose in July between the pre-1956 flag (another variation on the Stars and Bars) and the 1956-2001 Rebel Battle Flag motif. The 1956 Battle Flag state banner, as everyone knows -- but that flaggers, Perdue and the legislators feign ignorance of -- was the hateful and racist reaction of Georgia to integration.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin puts it best: Why should anyone, especially African-Americans, be forced to pick between two symbols of slavery and oppression?

We can't do what the Germans did -- banning speech, even when clearly corrosive, is repugnant to America principles. But our leaders can -- and should -- send the message that, as official symbols for all citizens, we're not going to tolerate racist devices. Forget the crap about heritage. The swastika is a 3,000-year-old symbol that has lots of heritage in many cultures, primarily Hindu, and is generally associated with good. But it came to represent something else, and we're not likely to slap it on a state flag. Same goes for the Battle Flag, the main decoration at Klan cross-burnings and lynchings.

The only sweet part of this is that Republicans -- whose "Southern Strategy," disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, economic policies and much else are nothing but racism incarnate -- are going to have the Confederate flag wrapped around their necks in the 2004 elections. Live with it, boys.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
The heritage is hate.
1 posted on 04/22/2003 9:21:29 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Fly whatever flag you want.
2 posted on 04/22/2003 9:37:32 AM PDT by Lysander (My army can kill your army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Oh, but don't you know that the South separated from the Union because of unfair trade tariffs? That the shelling of Ft. Sumter was because that was a port of entry for foreign goods that the US gov't. slapped its onerous tariffs on? Didn't you know that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, an enemy of liberty, and wore women's underwear? Don't you know that the War of Northern Agression was fought with honor by the freedom-loving slave society of the South?
3 posted on 04/22/2003 9:40:05 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysander
Fly whatever flag you want.

How about this one?

4 posted on 04/22/2003 9:42:21 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa

Harry Hervey, wearing a Confederate kepi hat, and his brother, Anthony, dressed in Confederate gray, wave the Confederate battle flag at the Eight Flags display in Gulfport. The Herveys were marching with the flags in support of the Black Confederate Soldier Foundation. They want to bring attention to the fact that blacks fought for the Confederacy too. Sun Herald photo/Tim Isbell

Men say Rebel Flag flies for freedom

For an hour, the Confederate battle flag flew over the former site of the Eight Flags Display on U.S. 90. Dressed in Confederate gray, a black man named Anthony Hervey marched with the banner clutched in his hands. His brother, Harry, accompanied him, wearing jeans and a Robert E. Lee T-shirt.

Hervey's devotion to the flag began when he discovered that a great-great-uncle, James Hervey, was a black American who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. James Hervey served in the Army of Mississippi and was killed at the battle of Shiloh.

Further research helped Hervey discover records of at least 100,000 black Confederates who fought in the war. "I am marching for freedom," Hervey said. "The battle flag stands for freedom and states' rights. The U.S. flag is the flag of slavery. It flew over 100 years of slavery, and Native Americans were annihilated under that flag."

For his march, Hervey chose the site where a Confederate flag once stood, one of eight representing entities that have governed the Coast. Harrison County removed the flags because of protests over the Confederate flag, a racist symbol to many, flying on the public beach.

Hervey's crusade also has taken him to Jackson. In the Jackson City Council chambers June 13, Hervey showed up wearing his battle grays, wrapped in the flag. A scuffle erupted between a Jackson man, who said he supported Hervey, and a city councilman who exchanged words, according to published reports. Hervey was not involved in the shoving match.

Hervey sees a correlation between the past and today's controversies over the flag. "We currently live under a psychological form of reconstruction," he said. "Whites are made to feel guilty for sins of their ancestors, and blacks are made to feel downtrodden. This keeps all of us from communicating. The political correctness of today is killing the pride of the people."

Hervey is the founder of the Black Confederate Soldier Foundation, an Oxford-based, not-for-profit organization. Its stated mission is to foster new thought on the Civil War. Claims that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol are, to the group, part of a nonissue. Black Confederates, the group says, have been misrepresented in historical texts.

Hervey wants to build a memorial that will include the names of the black Confederates who fought and died in the War Between the States.

As the Hervey brothers continued their march, shouts of support and anger could be heard from passing motorists. A group of young black men hanging from car windows shouted at the pair. Hervey instructed his brother to look forward "like a true soldier."

"Don't even look at them," Hervey said, citing the young men's behavior as an example of black psychology today. "They will yell a lot and want you to confront them, but they will not do anything," Hervey said.

"I found it appalling what happened in South Carolina, and I'm afraid this is going to happen in Mississippi." Hervey said. "We seek only to correct the errors in history - to right the wrongs done to the memories of these brave soldiers.

5 posted on 04/22/2003 9:42:23 AM PDT by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
"Didn't you know that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, an enemy of liberty, and wore women's underwear?"

Lincoln was also responsible for the Boxer rebellion, typhus, and the 1976-1977 Bucanneers special teams unit.

6 posted on 04/22/2003 9:43:30 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
And your legacy on FR will be that of an insufferable shit stirrer, but hey, keep on posting this tripe. Summon your choir girls, now that you've cleared your throat.

By the way, who the hell cares what goes on in Georgia? Maybe the legislature DOES have more pressing things to worry about like decreasing the Georgia average tattoo to teeth ratio, which currently hovers around 5.

7 posted on 04/22/2003 9:50:20 AM PDT by Treebeard (Be copy/paste now to men of better wordsmanship and teach them how to bore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
"By the way, who the hell cares what goes on in Georgia? Maybe the legislature DOES have more pressing things to worry about like decreasing the Georgia average tattoo to teeth ratio, which currently hovers around 5."

Dayum......that was harsh!

8 posted on 04/22/2003 10:01:13 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
"Don't even look at them," Hervey said,

An outstanding idea. One that should be applied to Wlat and his never ending white-guilt trip.

9 posted on 04/22/2003 10:04:27 AM PDT by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
LOL!!! Love the tagline!!!
10 posted on 04/22/2003 10:06:00 AM PDT by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"In short, it's all very Republican." .... sounds like this guy just plain hates anything Republicans do, including the insertion of the word "God". The Reb. flag is only his smokescreen.
11 posted on 04/22/2003 10:09:46 AM PDT by Highest Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
Intentionally so. Every time the Georgia legislature farts, Wlat posts an update on the flag controversy. He's FR's answer to a question NO ONE ASKED.

His info is usually taken from the Atlanta Urinal/Constipation and runs something along these lines: "Gov Perdue, taking a restroom break from the flag debate, was observed holding his johnson with three fingers. As we all know, the three finger display has long been a covert symbol of the KKK. What, then, is Gov. Perdue trying to say here? Of course, we'll keep you updated on this breaking wind...er...news!"

12 posted on 04/22/2003 10:10:13 AM PDT by Treebeard (If Walt and his cronies were laid end to end, it would be the first time for most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
Another damned funny tagline!! You're killin' me!!! (Don't) Stop it!!
13 posted on 04/22/2003 10:13:06 AM PDT by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Here are some words in opposition.

RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
DISPLAY OF BATTLE FLAGS OF THE CONFEDERACY
119TH NATIONAL ENCAMPMENT OF THE
SONS OF UNION VETERANS OF THE CIVIL WAR
LANSING, MICHIGAN AUGUST 19, 2000

A resolution in support of the display of the Confederate Battle Flag.

WHEREAS, we the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, condemn the use of the confederate battle flag, as well as the flag of the United States, by any and all hate groups, and

WHEREAS, we the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War support the flying of the confederate battle flag as a historical piece of this nation's history, and

WHEREAS, we the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War oppose the removal of any Confederate monuments or markers to those gallant soldiers in the former Confederate States, and strongly oppose the removal of ANY reminders of this nation's bloodiest war on the grounds of it being "politically correct," and

WHEREAS, we, as the descendants of Union soldiers and sailors who, as members of the Grand Army of the Republic, met in joint reunions with the confederate veterans under both flags in those bonds of Fraternal Friendship, pledge our support and admiration for those gallant soldiers and of their respective flags;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War in 119th Annual National Encampment hereby adopt this resolution. Dated in Lansing, Michigan, on this nineteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord Two thousand.

By Order of:
Danny L. Wheeler
Commander-in-Chief


Attest:
Todd A. Shillington
National Secretary

14 posted on 04/22/2003 10:17:16 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
I know Walt gets a lot of flak, bit I think a lot of folks who disagree with him are secretly happy that there is someone willing type against them for hours/days on end.
15 posted on 04/22/2003 10:20:31 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ
16 posted on 04/22/2003 10:22:43 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Nice link...
17 posted on 04/22/2003 10:25:36 AM PDT by TomServo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
but hey, keep on posting this tripe.

It certainly provides an opportunity over and over and over again to point out that not all those on the pro-Union side are foaming at the mouth politically correct fire-eaters on the subject. Including those specifically authorized by the Union veterans to speak for them.

(If anyone has Union ancestors the SUVCW has shown itself to be a patriotic organization and not a politically correct organization on this issue. It has shown a good deal of honor and bravery in speaking up on this issue with a sense of history and brotherliness. As always, they could use new members.)
18 posted on 04/22/2003 10:25:55 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
and the 1976-1977 Bucanneers special teams unit

Oooooh, now that's hate speech.

19 posted on 04/22/2003 10:27:52 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. I was simply responding to a previous poster who said, "Fly any flag you want." Clearly, it isn't that simple. Why not fly a Nazi flag? Because it represents a system and a society that repressed freedom, subjugated people based on their ethnicity, and was the flag of a nation vanquished by the US and its allies in war. It would be patently offensive to fly a Nazi flag. Some people view the Confederate flag as patently offensive as well. I don't want to equate German fascism with the Confederacy, but both represent vanquished regimes. Why fly such flags?
20 posted on 04/22/2003 10:31:48 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
And your legacy on FR will be that of an insufferable shit stirrer,

The rest of the Ladies Temperance League will be around to help WhiskySoakedTroll bang the drum and shake the tambourine.

21 posted on 04/22/2003 10:32:32 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"The only sweet part of this is that Republicans -- whose "Southern Strategy," disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, economic policies and much else are nothing but racism incarnate -- are going to have the Confederate flag wrapped around their necks in the 2004 elections. Live with it, boys."

It takes to the end of this article for the "writer" to get to the heart of the matter HATE for Republicans.

"Heritage is Hate"....

Kiss my A$$!! My family has been in Georgia since Olgethorpe. My Great Great Great Grandfather Houston freed his slaves in 1857 and still gave 4 sons and countless other family in the Civil War. Do I believe that our flag should have been changed last year? Yes. Because of what the flag was...NO!! It should have been changed because it was flown in 1956 to say F$$$ off to the Civil Rights movement. Should we have this carnival flag we have now imposed on us....NO!!! Does the legislature here have more important things to do than this....the legislature is here to do the peoples buisness, some of the people here want this issue resolved, so yes they should be dealing with this. The flag issue has nothing to do with the legislature not "solving" the rest of the problems here.....the legislature is nothing but a bunch of inept good ol boys...they never "solve" anything anyway. This writer is nothing but a no talent, working for a FREE rag, living in Decatur leftist who will like I said shade their HATE for Republicans in whatever issue suits the purpose.

By the way, everyone in GA does not have tatoos and no teeth and live in trailer parks. Thank you very much you elitist $h1T for brains yankee trash.
22 posted on 04/22/2003 10:32:43 AM PDT by Ga Rob ("Life's tough...it's even tougher when you're stupid"....The Duke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Some people view the Confederate flag as patently offensive as well.

Many people view this web forum as offensive. Susan Sarandon does. The Dixie Chicks do. Should we shut it down because they are offended? Does their interpretation of this website trump ours?
23 posted on 04/22/2003 10:33:32 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Some people view the Confederate flag as patently offensive as well

Some people are offended by the American flag. Remember the statue in Baghdad.

24 posted on 04/22/2003 10:34:12 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
He's just trolling. WhiskyAddledPapa is like our token retard bagging groceries.
25 posted on 04/22/2003 10:35:13 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
It should have been changed because it was flown in 1956 to say F$$$ off to the Civil Rights movement

The Atlanta Journal did an investigation on this and could find no proof that this is the case. One reason they found was President Eisenhower's call for States to prepare for the Civil War Centennial. The designer of the flag consistently said that the design was not related to the Civil Rights movement.

Based on the fact that the year was 1956 you can figure that the motivations of some legislators for voting for the change did include the Civil Rights issue, but that does not necessarily mean that the change was brought up for that reason. That Atlanta Journal-Constitution is not one to make up pro-Flag arguments.

In judging the reaction to the Civil Rights movement you should remember that the motivations are perhaps not as clear cut as the conventional wisdom says.

The flag on the Statehouse in South Carolina was also put up for the Civil War Centennial. The problem there was that it was supposed to be taken down after the Centennial was over. It wasn't. In that case, putting it up was not inappropriate. Not taking it down on schedule probably was by taking it out of its historical context.
26 posted on 04/22/2003 10:44:49 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
By the way, everyone in GA does not have tatoos and no teeth and live in trailer parks. Thank you very much you elitist $h1T for brains yankee trash.

But you fit the above description?

I live in Atlanta; born in Chattanooga.

Walt

27 posted on 04/22/2003 10:46:22 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I think there may be room for debate on "offensive" vs "good idea".

I personally do not find the Confederate flag offensive, but it's not a good idea to fly one imho because of the continued slicing and sectionalizing of American culture. We have Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Albanian-Americans, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.

Match that with the heartfelt need by some in those groups to remind others of their "roots" or "heritage" by prominant display of flags of their ancestery and you really wonder who the "Americans" are nowadays.

The Confederate flag simply plays into that mentality without meaning to imo.

28 posted on 04/22/2003 10:47:04 AM PDT by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
It should have been changed because it was flown in 1956 to say F$$$ off to the Civil Rights movement

The Atlanta Journal did an investigation on this and could find no proof that this is the case.

Why would you tell a big lie like that?

There is no Atlanta Journal, there is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And THAT paper has suggested repeatedly that the flag was imposed in 1956 to say "F$$$ off to the Civil Rights movement."

In fact, this was in the AJC on 3/26/03:

1956 flag flew to defy desegregation

Email Tucker

RECENT COLUMNS

The 1956 Georgia General Assembly was a House afire -- and a Senate, too -- with anger over federal orders to desegregate public schools. The Legislature charged to the defense of white supremacy with a fusillade of resolutions, proclamations and laws designed to keep black Georgians in their place.

That year, Georgia legislators rebuked the FBI and the U.S. attorney general for intervening in a Cobb County case in which a black man was accused of raping a white woman; they declared the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education null and void; they required segregated waiting rooms in train stations and bus depots; they required the State Patrol and the GBI to enforce segregation laws; they commended an Ohio federal judge for "his determination to ignore the absurd directives" ordering desegregation; they opposed the Federal Aid for Education Bill; and they set up the All-South Centennial Committee for the centennial celebration of the Civil War.

Oh, yeah. They also changed the Georgia state flag to feature the St. Andrew's cross and stars, "such remainder being popularly known as The Battle Flag of the Confederacy," according to the act passed by the Legislature.

As Gov. Sonny Perdue drags out the debate over his proposed referendum, he should bear in mind that the claims of "Southern heritage" held aloft by the flaggers don't hold up to historical analysis. A look back at the segregationist agenda of the 1956 General Assembly helps to explain why so many Georgians, especially black Georgians, view the 1956 flag with hostility and suspicion.

The anti-integration fervor that fueled the Georgia Legislature through the 1950s has been meticulously documented by State Court of Appeals Judge Alan Blackburn in his master's thesis, "Brown v. Board of Education: A Southern Response."

". . . [The 1956 flag's] defenders contend it was intended solely to honor the Southern soldiers who fought in the Civil War and arose out of the 'all-South Centennial Committee' activities. [But] the 'committee' . . . which [was to] promote the centennial celebration of the Civil War, wasn't approved until March 9, 1956, while the 1956 flag had already been approved by the Georgia Legislature on February 13, 1956," Blackburn noted.

Besides, the pre-1956 flag honored "Southern heritage" as much as any banner could; it closely resembled the first national flag of the Confederacy. (According to the late Denmark Groover, an influential former legislator, the United Daughters of the Confederacy opposed the 1956 flag change for that reason.)

But the all-white Georgia Legislature chose the St. Andrew's cross with stars for a clear and compelling reason: It was the in-your-face banner adopted by the scowling, hate-filled face of Southern resistance as it burned crosses, beat civil rights protesters and threatened black schoolchildren. The 1956 flag had little to do with the Civil War, but much to do with the war against civil rights.

Two years ago, at age 78, Groover made a courageous appearance before the General Assembly to urge its members to put to rest this "most divisive issue on the political spectrum." He reminded legislators that he had been instrumental in the passage of the 1956 flag, since he was floor leader to then-Gov. Marvin Griffin, who had vowed to defend segregation.

"I presented the matter to the House," Groover recalled, "and . . . probably used some rhetoric indicating that the new flag was to symbolize our defiance of the action of the federal judiciary on matters involving race." It was that rhetoric -- "This will show that we in Georgia intend to uphold what we stood for, will stand for and will fight for," Groover said at the time -- that overcame opposition from the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

And that fiery defiance of desegregation is the "heritage" embodied in the 1956 flag."

[end]

Why would you tell a big lie like that?

Walt

29 posted on 04/22/2003 10:53:31 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
I personally do not find the Confederate flag offensive, but it's not a good idea to fly one imho because of the continued slicing and sectionalizing of American culture.

What is needed is a return to the situation when the Confederate flag was accepted by pretty much everyone as an American historical symbol rather than a political symbol.

The politization began with the yahoos adopting it in opposition to the Civil Rights movement. Now it is used by the NAACP to stir up division and create enemies where none existed. Because the NAACP needs enemies to continue its fundraising and pot stirring and get on the teevee.

The result of the NAACP tactic is the creation of a large number of people fighting with them who would not otherwise be fighting them. People who would probably be out cleaning up graveyards and studying genealogy microfiche instead of getting involved in a political fight. This is what the NAACP desired.

Unfortunately, some flag defenders do not realize that the proper fight is to return the flag to its historical place and instead attempt to re-politicize the flag themselves as a symbol of a modern defensive political movement (aka The League of the South). This of course gives the NAACP what they want and increases divisiveness and does the exact opposite of what we should be doing to defend the flag.

Not all black Americans accept this tactic including former NAACP leader Hervey who see it as tearing down others heritage for fund raising. He ought to know.

A black organization called Hope In the Cities invited the Daughters of the Confederacy to speak. The UDC accepted the invitation and explained their view of the flag as primarily a symbol of their family history and regional heritage and not a political device. The strategy of this organization is the proper one, talking about the various meanings of the flag and returning it to the historical realm and removing it from the political realm.

The only solution to this problem is to establish a common AMERICAN interpretation of the flags meaning as a historical device that all can accept, even if its not an interpretation they all can love.

We have to learn to drown out the fire eaters like Walt and his opposite numbers on the other side who enjoy the divisiveness and follow the lead of the Sons of Union Veterans in a general acceptance of it as an American historical symbol.
30 posted on 04/22/2003 11:03:26 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Why fly such flags?

I hope you are intelligent enough to know that the Confederacy did not launch a multiple front war against multiple nations, was not in danger of conquering an entire continent, and did not try to exterminate a race (no, the Confederacy did not try to exterminate black Americans). You and I both know why you posted the Nazi flag, and it does not wash.

As we both know, the politically correct jihad against southern pride is a recent phenomenon - led by those who need an simplistic issue to be relevant (NAACP, DNC, etc). The chief architect of this on FR has been outed as a Clinton and democrat party supporter.

And I see his thread is in the backroom, where it belongs.

31 posted on 04/22/2003 11:04:38 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Why would you tell a big lie like that?

If its a lie, your question should be addressed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Not me. As follows.

Atlanta Journal Constitution - July 7, 1992

Q&A section of the AJC on 7/5/92.

John C. Hall, Jr., of Atlanta, asked:

The media has said the Georgia flag was changed by a "defiant Legislature" reacting to Supreme Court desegregation rulings. Was this the stated reason the change was made?

Q&A answered:

There is little written record of the 1956 Legislature and no audio record. News stories about the change were few. In none of our research did we find any record of a stated connection made between changing the flag and opposition to desegregation rulings. Both senators who introduced the bill, Willis Neal Hardin and Jefferson Lee Davis, are deceased. We contacted Judge John Sammons Bell, a retired chief judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals, who was head of the state Democratic party in 1956. He originally suggested the change to the senators and actually designed the flag. He said, "Introduction of the bill was for one reason and one reason only: to create a living memorial to our great heritage and the brave people involved. And that is the truth. I assure you that the three of us honored and loved that flag too much to denigrate it in the way that has been charged. The great interest in the Civil War Centennial at the time is what obviously boosted its passage." The approaching Civil War Centennial was being planned then on a nationwide basis. A centennial committee was formed. President Dwight Eisenhower issued a proclamation, and a series of postage stamps commemorating the war was issued.
32 posted on 04/22/2003 11:10:03 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The Atlanta Journal did an investigation on this and could find no proof that this is the case.

That statement is a flat lie because the AJC DID find evidence of the origin of the flag being based in a desire to fight desegregation, as Tucker's piece indicated.

Walt

33 posted on 04/22/2003 11:20:19 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Just more left wing PC-Mongering propaganda, and who better than a Clinton-voting "Blame America First" Constitution-hating liberal Democrat like you, Wlat, to post it here! You sure this one wasn't intended for DU? Or maybe one of those Chomsky-McPherson-Ed Sebesta quoting newsgroups?
34 posted on 04/22/2003 11:21:03 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Apparently you missed my previous post regarding the 1992 statement of fact (which unlike yours was not an opinion piece).

The racists of the time had no problem speaking up, going on the record, and saying exactly what they thought of the Civil Rights movement or standing in doorways or otherwise being loudmouthed boors. Its curious that they did not do so in regards to the flag issue at the time. Makes you go hmmmmmmmm.
35 posted on 04/22/2003 11:24:11 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Well, it helped me catch Arkinsaw in a great big lie, didn't it?

Walt

36 posted on 04/22/2003 11:24:52 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Highest Authority
sounds like this guy just plain hates anything Republicans do

He does, and so does the individual who posted this article here, WhiskeyPapa aka Walt. Walt is an admitted liberal Democrat who voted for both Clinton and Gore for president, among many other Democrats. He despises the GOP and regularly calls our current president an "idiot" on this message board. He especially despises all things southern and shouts "racism" at every corner (this may have to do, among other things, with the fact that the South literally carried President Bush into office against his candidate of choice, Gore). For some inexplicable reason though, he is permitted to disrupt here and has been doing so for several years.

37 posted on 04/22/2003 11:24:53 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Apparently you missed my previous post regarding the 1992 statement of fact (which unlike yours was not an opinion piece).

Tucker cites a master's thesis that documents what the orginal person said: The 1956 flag was a F$$$ off to the civil rights movement.

I would think that thesis was done since 1992. Tucker's piece was in the paper less than a month ago. You tried to mislead people and you got caught.

Walt

38 posted on 04/22/2003 11:27:35 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Well, it helped me catch Arkinsaw in a great big lie, didn't it?

You seem to have the same problem seeing my AJC quote from 1992 as you do seeing my SUVCW resolution. I've posted the SUVCW resolution a few hundred times and you never seem to notice it. Makes you go hmmmmmm.
39 posted on 04/22/2003 11:27:42 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Well, it helped me catch Arkinsaw in a great big lie, didn't it?

I haven't seen what he said, so I wouldn't know. I have, however, seen you attacking the Republican Party, our current Republican president, our Constitution, and the south as a whole many times though, Walt. You are one of the few, if not the only, poster here who posts articles of this type not because they disgust you in their PC-Nazism and race mongering, but rather because you actually believe in what they say!

40 posted on 04/22/2003 11:27:54 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
He does, and so does the individual who posted this article here, WhiskeyPapa aka Walt. Walt is an admitted liberal Democrat who voted for both Clinton and Gore for president, among many other Democrats.

Which in 1996 and 2000 included a majority of the voters. I didn't vote in 1996.

Walt

41 posted on 04/22/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ga Rob
Ask WhiskeyPapa who he voted for in the 1992 Presidential Election. Bill Clinton.

Ask him who he voted for in the 2000 Presidential Election. Al Gore.

He openly admits both and defends each action while simultaneously calling President Bush an "idiot" and "clown" while also blaming his father for 9/11. WhiskeyPapa, aka Walt, is arguably the most liberal poster on Free Republic, yet for some unknown reason they let him post here and post antics such as this PC-mongering, Republican-bashing nonsense.

42 posted on 04/22/2003 11:32:12 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Well, it helped me catch Arkinsaw in a great big lie, didn't it?

You seem to have the same problem seeing my AJC quote from 1992 as you do seeing my SUVCW resolution.

I can't help but point out that 1992 was 11 years ago. You should have said, "the AJC imndicated as late as 1992 that there was no evidence to say F$$$$ off to the Civil Rights movement."

Now, the deal is, as soon as I saw your original statement, I thought, "hmmmmmm........didn't I see Tucker recently going off over this exact subject?" And LO AND BEHOLD, she had!

The SUVCM are certainly entitled to their opinion. I don't think they would much like to see Union soldiers characterized as rapists, murderers and mercenaries, as they often are on FR.

Walt

43 posted on 04/22/2003 11:33:54 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Arkinsaw
Q&A section of the AJC on 7/5/92.

You been sitting on this for 11 years? I bet you got it off a site. Which one?

Walt

45 posted on 04/22/2003 11:38:36 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The SUVCM are certainly entitled to their opinion. I don't think they would much like to see Union soldiers characterized as rapists, murderers and mercenaries, as they often are on FR.

On that we can agree.
46 posted on 04/22/2003 11:39:04 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You been sitting on this for 11 years? I bet you got it off a site. Which one?

The first page that came up on Google.
47 posted on 04/22/2003 11:40:04 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I was actually directing that at the poster who made the comment about teeth to tatoo ratio.....should have gotten his name and copied....the Kiss my A$$ was to you.....

48 posted on 04/22/2003 11:40:54 AM PDT by Ga Rob ("Life's tough...it's even tougher when you're stupid"....The Duke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
YOU are accusing someone ELSE of cut n' paste?!! That takes some stones, coming from you, brother! You're such an accomplished master of it, I have virtually no doubt that if there is still a Mrs. Walt who has not "seceded from your Union", that your idea of intercourse is "copy p*nis / paste v*gina"!
49 posted on 04/22/2003 11:42:25 AM PDT by Treebeard (If Walt and his cronies were laid end to end, it would be the first time for most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
WhiskeyPapa, aka Walt, is arguably the most liberal poster on Free Republic, yet for some unknown reason they let him post here and post antics such as this PC-mongering, Republican-bashing nonsense.

They're proud of me; it shows that they are tolerant of free speech, unlike DU. I got banned there in two days. Heck, I lasted longer than that on the League of the South open forum.

Plus I support a number of conservative type issues, the war, gun control, smaller government.

I can't help it if I am always right.

Walt

50 posted on 04/22/2003 11:45:04 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson