Dukes of Hazzard gets banned due to the Confederate flag on the Gen Lee

[Kyanbu The Legend]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/emdukes_of_hazzardem_reruns_banned_for_being_racis t.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/tv-land-drops-dukes-hazzard-over-confederate-flag/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS


signed into face book to my dad being upset about something. I later found out that his favorite show got banned due to the confederate flag. DoH is an interesting case in this century long issue in that the show was never out right racist. in many cases it was more racially fair then many other shows of it time. The ban comes primarily due to the General Lee. The iconic car from the show which features a confederate flag on the roof and a horn that plays "Dixie".


Since these are all old episodes, censoring it is possible but doesn't seem likely just yet (though that may change).

It's a shame to see a good old show go out due to unfortunate implications. What are your opinions on the matter? Do you feel they should just swap out the general lee's flag and horn for new ones? or should the show take the hit? (either way it had a good run and ended a long time ago).

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

There's nothing stopping networks and whatnot from going the Tom & Jerry route with a statement of something like 'The Dukes of Hazard show was a product of its time and does not accurately portray the shifts in today's culture blah blah blah you know the deal' before the show runs.

It's not like this is going to stop anybody from watching it anyway. Folk who want to watch it are going to watch it one way or another. Folk who don't wont. Folk who haven't might be curious as to what all the hooplah is about might watch it since the Streisand effect is funny like that.

Haven't really watched it, myself. I was more of a MASH fan in my younger TV days, but I'm still not keen on the idea of dictating to others what should or shouldn't be watched due to ideological reasons.

[phil_]

My first thought is "That doesn't seem right."

My second thought is that, if they (rightfully) object to the Stars & Bars, they could use the same approach that Warner Bros used with awful, racist Looney Toons and kept airing them, but with a disclaimer at the front saying "This cartoon has racist stuff in it. It isn't right now, and it wasn't right then. However, to remove that content would be to ignore the mistakes of the past and pretend racism never existed." Or something like that.

But either way I'm not going to be marching in the streets over this.

Edit: I'm open to arguments on how this was a good move, though. I (obviously) haven't thought it through too much because the sun is down on the east coast.

[Aerozord]

Sure this will just end in lots of repeat from other threads but Dukes of Hazard is a pretty good example of how things like the confederate flag has been co-opted as a form of southern cultural identity independent of racial undertones.

That being said even if it was horribly racist I believe in zero censorship. Like the Skweeb said if for no other reason than to show the type of popculture of the time.

[Marc v4.0]

It would be censorship if the FCC banned Dukes of Hazzard from being aired anywhere. TV Land is just one station.

[Aerozord]

It would be censorship if the FCC banned Dukes of Hazzard from being aired anywhere. TV Land is just one station.

Right I should have been more clear. I am against the altering or restriction of media by commercial or non-commercial entities.

It would be different if because of the confederate flag viewership tanked but I dislike a company withholding an IP because they view it as a good PR move. And yes I do believe its just a PR thing, if they had actual issues with it than they wouldn't have been airing it for years.

[EDIT]and I am not denying their right to do this. But it is an action I do not approve of

[Amake]

If it's good for business to be less racist, I'd say go ahead. Like if anyone valued the artistic merit of Dukes of Hazzard more than the show's ability to generate money or to pass the time it might be a different story, but uh. As far as I know from watching the movie, it's a show about making big jumps whilst smuggling moonshine in a car, drooling over girls with little clothes on and proudly flying the flag of racism. Those three things primarily. It made money for a while, but it's evidently not worth it anymore.

Yay capitalism.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

capitalism and Streisand effect make for predictable bedfellows (http://nypost.com/2015/07/03/tv-lands-dukes-of-hazzard-ban-drives-dvd-sales/).

[Amake]

A blaze of nostalgia is how all TV shows die, I think.

[Kim]

i cant believe we put the dukes of hazard in prison

[MSperoni]

Was anyone here actually aware TV Land showed Dukes of Hazard prior to this?

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------

I only would watch TV Land for Andy Griffith and All in the Family anyway, and I'm not sure it still shows them either.

Fuggin' Liberals takin' m'TV

[Marc v4.0]

*tips fedora*
M'tv

[phil_]

Former Rep. Ben Jones, who played Cooter Davenport on “Dukes of Hazzard,” came to the defense of the Confederate flag.

“That flag on top of The General Lee made a statement that the values of the rural south were the values of courage and family and good times,” he wrote on Facebook last week after Wal-Mart, Sears, eBay, Amazon and other retailers banned sales of Confederate flag merchandise.All of my minor sympathy just went sailing out the window, landed on the highway, and was crushed by a truck.

[Kim]

"courage and family and good times and the oppression of black people wait ignore that last part"

[MSperoni]

*tips fedora*
M'tv

*decides to watch music videos*
*turns on television*
*tips fedora*
M'tv.

[akaSM]

*tips fedora*
M'tv

M'arc

*decides to watch music videos*
*turns on television*
*tips fedora*
M'tv.

M'Speroni

[Aerozord]

All of my minor sympathy just went sailing out the window, landed on the highway, and was crushed by a truck.

ignoring the fact you are oddly upset at someone caring about family values, I already tried to explain how a symbol can mean different things to different people and its meaning can change to a group over time so I won't repeat beyond that.

You do realize the views of an actor that played a part on a show isn't representative of said show right? He wasn't even like the writer or director, people who have actual influence on the message and tone of a series.

[Token]

Why do you continue playing devil's advocate in support of racism instead of doing something more productive like at least pretending not to be terrible?

[phil_]

Because he's a reploid, obviously. The Rosen Foundation builds them without empathy intentionally.

Wait, no, let me answer the question actually directed at me.You do realize the views of an actor that played a part on a show isn't representative of said show right?I do realize that. However, my sympathy died because I was reminded that someone so egregiously stupid as to list "good times" as a value (and as part of a defense of the Confederate battle flag) is apparently congressman material in the world I live in, and that upsets me WAY more than them Duke boys getting canned from TV Land. Even a murderous android from Mars should understand a list of priorities, with one thing (the world is broken) being more important that another thing (no more Dukes on TV Land when I don't even have cable). Perhaps my failure to consider my argument fully at the start might be foreign, but I know that even androids' thought processes are hindered by alcohol, so there's my excuse for that.

Also "family values" almost exclusively means "Dad's in charge, mom and kids are property, all gays must die," so yeah I guess I object to that too. But no symbols...

[RobinStarwing]

I am going to enter into this fray not because I watched the show but in something I believe. I know what I will be said will be taken out of context and much of it misinterpreted but I am going to speak my mind anyways.

So far...my opinion is this: No matter your views on this flag; what is going on now is basically the Confederate Flag and anything with it has become a scapegoat and a way to avoid having any sort of meaningful dialogue on what kicked this all off.

Is this right? Maybe as trying to strip this flag of any meaning regarding racism would help end it. There are honestly good people who fly this flag as part of pride in being of the South. Fine but they should be aware of it's history and co-opting by Racist elements in our culture as well. In the end, this flag may just belong in a museum or in re-enactments of Civil War battles.

Is this the correct thing to do now? Hardly. Why? Let's look at what kicked this all of.

A deranged man with this flag in his belongings at home getting a gun and shooting up a church with African-Americans in it and making it clear it was racially motivated for him.

Because it is harder to talk about the issues of gun control and getting to the root causes of racism; we are refusing to. We are taking the easier solution to point a finger at and blame the Confederate flag in any way for the racism still existing rather than discussing the real underlying issues behind it as well as a discussion on firearms availability.

Not saying it is right or wrong (and there is some justification for this identification thanks to the KKK, who should vanish into history as well). Just saying we are using it to avoid any sort of meaningful dialogue on fixing the real issues that started this snowball effect. So basically shows like Dukes of Hazard get pulled from TV because of our inability as a culture to have a real dialogue on these central issues.

[phil_]

I am going to enter into this fray not because I watched the show but in something I believe. I know what I will be said will be taken out of context and much of it misinterpreted but I am going to speak my mind anyways.Stopped reading right there. You're going to say "This is censorship and censorship is wrong, free speech." I'm gonna hit post, then see if I got it right.

Edit: Totally misjudged it, wow. Sorry, Robin, that's a really good point that this is all pretty much a distraction from "An obviously racist guy killed nine people for obviously racist reasons, racism is real no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't." I apologize again, that was a petty and hostile move on my part.

[RobinStarwing]

Stopped reading right there. You're going to say "This is censorship and censorship is wrong, free speech." I'm gonna hit post, then see if I got it right.

Edit: Totally misjudged it, wow. Sorry, Robin, that's a really good point that this is all pretty much a distraction from "An obviously racist guy killed nine people for obviously racist reasons, racism is real no matter how much people want to pretend it isn't." I apologize again, that was a petty and hostile move on my part.

No harm done. :) In the end you read what I put down and saw the point I was trying to make. And it's not just a distraction from any real dialogue on Racism but the 2nd Amendment and guns as well. It's easier to assign a scapegoat and anything connected to it with that same stroke than to discuss the real matters that factored into what caused the scapegoat to be chosen.

[Nique]

I agree that the removal of the confederate flag from public spaces is an almost completely impotent gesture, and a distraction. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, but as, I think, Robin was getting at, it is almost certainly being done in place of more meaningful progress, rather than alongside it.

The imagery in Dukes of Hazard I am kind of ambivalent about - Like, I guess it's endorsing displaying the flag but, in the context of the show at least, it 1) makes sense to portray those characters as having that on their car and 2) it (apparently???) wasn't implied to be making any social or political statements, I think? I don't really know or care too much.

But in the real world labels and symbols and everything has context that gives it meaning and basically let us communicate with each other, and despite whatever nuance people want to concoct about the civil war, or how conveniently arguments about the meaning "We Give" to words and symbols and ideas et al (that amount to existential nihilism) which are used whenever people want to talk about there being 'no right to not be offended' or whatever, that symbol ultimately means something hateful.

EDIT: As I finish this post I am reminded that nothing exists in a vacuum and so perhaps the "friendly" portrayal of the confederate flag in this instance definitely needs to be acknowledged as problematic after all? It's a step removed from daily reality, perhaps, but only a step.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I agree that the removal of the confederate flag from public spaces is an almost completely impotent gesture, and a distraction. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, but as, I think, Robin was getting at, it is almost certainly being done in place of more meaningful progress, rather than alongside it.

The imagery in Dukes of Hazard I am kind of ambivalent about - Like, I guess it's endorsing displaying the flag but, in the context of the show at least, it 1) makes sense to portray those characters as having that on their car and 2) it (apparently???) wasn't implied to be making any social or political statements, I think? I don't really know or care too much.

But in the real world labels and symbols and everything has context that gives it meaning and basically let us communicate with each other, and despite whatever nuance people want to concoct about the civil war, or how conveniently arguments about the meaning "We Give" to words and symbols and ideas et al (that amount to existential nihilism) which are used whenever people want to talk about there being 'no right to not be offended' or whatever, that symbol ultimately means something hateful.

EDIT: As I finish this post I am reminded that nothing exists in a vacuum and so perhaps the "friendly" portrayal of the confederate flag in this instance definitely needs to be acknowledged as problematic after all? It's a step removed from daily reality, perhaps, but only a step.

Sort of, it is possible to re-purpose a symbol for a different purpose then what was intend (the Nazi did this with the one they took/copied, and it's been done before throughout history). As the meaning behind that symbol can only exist so long as those who remember it's meaning keep it alive. And so long as it's general knowledge among the people. So long as they accept that as it's meaning. Show a symbol to someone who never saw it before and have no clue what it means. And they aren't going to just know it's meaning unless it's stated to them or written on the symbol in a language they can read. It can be changed but it requires a lot of time to take affect. And during that time it must be used in it's new way until it's meaning changes. It won't be an easy thing to do. Be it positive or negative. But it's do able, we've seen it done enough times to confirm this.

[Premmy]

The flag is a distraction but also a good indication of who's shitty. 'I refuse to budge on this issue, even though I constantly reaffirm that it doesn't mean enough to me to die over (i.e. good times,pride) but it clearly meant enough to others to kill you over "

[RobinStarwing]

The flag is a distraction but also a good indication of who's shitty. 'I refuse to budge on this issue, even though I constantly reaffirm that it doesn't mean enough to me to die over (i.e. good times,pride) but it clearly meant enough to others to kill you over "

Well, yes and no. I'll explain shortly.

A lot of this boils down just as much to avoidance of real dialogue as another facet I am pondering. What role does the over-stretch of Political Correctness hold in this discussion?

What makes me think about this is President Obama himself using the N-word in his press conference on this shooting. One can tell he's had enough of this and wants to do something but the climate in both Washington and the country as a whole really does not exist as long as we let the extremists on both the Left and Right (Liberal and Conservative) control the dialogue.

As long as there are people on the Left who think taking away all guns will solve anything and the Right who wants to give anyone a gun; whether or no they should even be trusted with a Squirt Gun (much less actual firearms).

As long as we got people on the Right crying "FREE SPEECH!" OR "WAR ON WHITES!" and those on the Left cry "RACIST!" or whatever else I can not think of at this time at every little thing...we will NOT get anywhere in solving the issues.

But what I speak here is just how I see what is going on from being in the center here of the two extremes. (My dad has turned into an Anti-Obama Right Wing Nut who is paranoid that Obama will take away his guns and my mother is still her Hippie Feminist Self. I fall in the middle here.) You are free to agree or disagree based on your point of view.

[Token]

As long as we got people on the Right crying "FREE SPEECH!" OR "WAR ON WHITES!" and those on the Left cry "RACIST!" or whatever else I can not think of at this time at every little thing...we will NOT get anywhere in solving the issues.

yeah i mean god forbid them uppity niggers call out racism in a society that is still making it incredibly apparent that racism is still at a point where they can be killed in the street or their place of worship and all anyone talks about is what a nice polite not racist young white boy the murderer was

clearly they are JUST as bad as the racists

[Marc v4.0]

As long as we got people on the Right crying "FREE SPEECH!" OR "WAR ON WHITES!" and those on the Left cry "RACIST!" or whatever else I can not think of at this time at every little thing...we will NOT get anywhere in solving the issues.

Nah, I'm pretty sure if we keep calling racist things out as being racist, we'll get far and make things better all around.

People don't seriously go around calling shit racist for giggles. The idea that people calling Racist shit out lack credibility is born from the same backwards source that thinks there is a 'War on Whites' and that uses 'Free Speech!' as a shield against consequences for their actions. It does not actually come from any real world trend of people calling completely innocent things out as racist.

That you make the comparison in such a way goes to show just how deeply they've penatrated this idea that you need to doubt and question people when they call out something problematic instead of actually listening to them.

[RobinStarwing]

yeah i mean god forbid them uppity niggers call out racism in a society that is still making it incredibly apparent that racism is still at a point where they can be killed in the street or their place of worship and all anyone talks about is what a nice polite not racist young white boy the murderer was

clearly they are JUST as bad as the racists

Nah, I'm pretty sure if we keep calling racist things out as being racist, we'll get far and make things better all around.

People don't seriously go around calling shit racist for giggles. The idea that people calling Racist shit out lack credibility is born from the same backwards source that thinks there is a 'War on Whites' and that uses 'Free Speech!' as a shield against consequences for their actions. It does not actually come from any real world trend of people calling completely innocent things out as racist.

That you make the comparison in such a way goes to show just how deeply they've penatrated this idea that you need to doubt and question people when they call out something problematic instead of actually listening to them.

Uh no. Not what I meant at all.

Racism does exist in our society. That I have not doubted. It is something that has to be addressed. There is credibility to this idea.

What I am addressing in what I said is the Extremists on both sides of this problem. The ones who fan the flames that keep this reactionary behavior going and try to kill any meaningful dialogue on the roots of the problems that people like me want to talk about, find, and fix to try and prevent tragedies like Charleston. They instead use Weapons of Mass Distraction (like focusing attention on a flag) to keep the populace from ever fixing society and we end up with more of this stuff coming up every time a tragedy like this happens.

But hey, free country, I'm just speaking from a viewpoint in the middle that thinks both Democrats and Republicans suck.

EDIT: By the way...

I am going to enter into this fray not because I watched the show but in something I believe. I know what I will be said will be taken out of context and much of it misinterpreted but I am going to speak my mind anyways.

Your posts was what THIS was referring too.

[Nique]

We're getting off track. Robin, you're speaking to a kind of hypothetical scenario where nothing has to mean anything. I realize that logic seems to have a certain practicality, but let's talk about this within context which is going to be more useful:

This (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/) and this. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150626-confederate-flag-civil-rights-movement-war-history/)

It's a more recently used symbol of racism than even the swastika, which no one is suggesting we fly freely out of support for how gosh-darned hardworking nazi's were or whatever. If we as a society are going to be decent about this or even just consistent in any way, it should be taken down. Calling it racist isn't extremist.

[Token]

Calling out racism has nothing to do with ~*democrats*~ and ~*republicans*~.

There is absolutely no blaming the oppressed without being a complete and utter shithead.

[Amake]

Just the other day I had a talk with one of my country's Racist Party's supporters, as I do at least once a week. This one asserted that Sweden could not, as some third party suggested, afford to save the lives of any refugees because if we let in the population of Syria, tripling the country's population, the increased demand for resources would diminish our quality of life.

That was actually an argument that a human being made.

Acknowledging that this would indeed happen if in any possible reality that many refugees even wanted to come here, I explained to him that giving up some of your comforts to save other peoples' lives would still be a good thing, unless you're a racist who values the lives of people who aren't like you very low.

Then he informed me that crying "racist" was the last resort of the brainwashed PC drones when they realized they could neither accept the facts nor argue against them.

What kind of dialogue can you have with someone like that? I have no idea.

Maybe dialogue isn't the answer. Funny story, Soran Ismail, a Swedish comedian, recently reported that after going to his show and hearing him talk with no real ability to talk back, a number of Racist Party members thanked him for opening their eyes to their folly and hatred; something none of the hundreds of brunches he's had with members has ever accomplished. I think that tells us something about how to fix racism.

[RobinStarwing]

Just the other day I had a talk with one of my country's Racist Party's supporters, as I do at least once a week. This one asserted that Sweden could not, as some third party suggested, afford to save the lives of any refugees because if we let in the population of Syria, tripling the country's population, the increased demand for resources would diminish our quality of life.

That was actually an argument that a human being made.

Acknowledging that this would indeed happen if in any possible reality that many refugees even wanted to come here, I explained to him that giving up some of your comforts to save other peoples' lives would still be a good thing, unless you're a racist who values the lives of people who aren't like you very low.

Then he informed me that crying "racist" was the last resort of the brainwashed PC drones when they realized they could neither accept the facts nor argue against them.

What kind of dialogue can you have with someone like that? I have no idea.

Maybe dialogue isn't the answer. Funny story, Soran Ismail, a Swedish comedian, recently reported that after going to his show and hearing him talk with no real ability to talk back, a number of Racist Party members thanked him for opening their eyes to their folly and hatred; something none of the hundreds of brunches he's had with members has ever accomplished. I think that tells us something about how to fix racism.

Thank you. I actually feel comedy is the best weapon against these kinds of problems in society. I've always been one to try and use it myself by trying to take what someone thinks or believes and taking it to the most ridiculous but logical conclusion that might affect them.

[shiney]

Not being a regressive impotent ass clinging to historical ideas of racial oppression and/or white supremacy is the best way to deal with these kind of problems as a society. No, hostility isn't going to force someone to change their viewpoint, but it sure as hell is going to make them scurry away from the light shining down on their horrible views. A lot better than making them laugh and pretending like that's going to make them stop hating black people.

Anyway I only came into the thread to dispute the original title i.e. nothing is being banned as much as a company made the voluntary decision to remove the product. I think they should have considered either the WB route or consider digitally editing the flag off the car. Might be a little more of an expense than they want to devote though.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

What I am addressing in what I said is the Extremists on both sides of this problem.

I'm going to point to one extreme and you point me to the other, equally reprehensible counter extreme alright?

Dylan Roof killed nine people because they were black and he believed that black people were ruining his country and raping his women.
Your turn.

[Nique]

I'm going to point to one extreme and you point me to the other, equally reprehensible counter extreme alright?

Dylan Roof killed nine people because they were black and he believed that black people were ruining his country and raping his women.
Your turn.

One time someone told me that I didn't understand what it was like to be a racial minority. It was awful.

So, you know, I think I know a thing or two about oppression :smug:

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Welp I just got shut the fuck down.
Excuse me while I go climb a mountain and contemplate life.

[Doc ock rokc]

Just the other day I had a talk with one of my country's Racist Party's supporters, as I do at least once a week. This one asserted that Sweden could not, as some third party suggested, afford to save the lives of any refugees because if we let in the population of Syria, tripling the country's population, the increased demand for resources would diminish our quality of life.

That was actually an argument that a human being made.

Acknowledging that this would indeed happen if in any possible reality that many refugees even wanted to come here, I explained to him that giving up some of your comforts to save other peoples' lives would still be a good thing, unless you're a racist who values the lives of people who aren't like you very low.

Then he informed me that crying "racist" was the last resort of the brainwashed PC drones when they realized they could neither accept the facts nor argue against them.

What kind of dialogue can you have with someone like that? I have no idea.

Maybe dialogue isn't the answer. Funny story, Soran Ismail, a Swedish comedian, recently reported that after going to his show and hearing him talk with no real ability to talk back, a number of Racist Party members thanked him for opening their eyes to their folly and hatred; something none of the hundreds of brunches he's had with members has ever accomplished. I think that tells us something about how to fix racism.
To be fair jumping straight to racism in that situation just seems to be an attack on character(ad hominem) rather then an argument. Which is why he probably got pissed off. While he is an asshole for his concerns calling him racist because he is worried about qualtiy of life or the risk of disease the lack of food/space/water/medicine/police force is separate from racism...until you brought it up. Honestly Racism, sexism, whatever phobic has been thrown around in debates far more often. These accusations CLOSE dialog rather then open it.

Anyway I only came into the thread to dispute the original title i.e. nothing is being banned as much as a company made the voluntary decision to remove the product. I think they should have considered either the WB route or consider digitally editing the flag off the car. Might be a little more of an expense than they want to devote though.
Shiney hypothetical situation. What if one day you woke up with a bomb collar on. The collar will explode unless you murder someone slowly. Which you do because you don't want to die. Who is to blame for the murder? You or the collar maker?

If you say the collar maker then you know that the outside forces basically made someone do an decision involuntary. Which is essentially what TV land has now. They have a gun to their head held by a crazy people just looking for an excuse to label or attack anything with the flag on it. If they don't remove it they get triggered.

So lets face it they did get banned. Hell they got censored because some people can't stand the idea of the flag being about rebellion and independence instead of racism.

[Marc v4.0]

The flag created by a racist man to represent explicit racist principles that was then flown in opposition in the black civil rights movement and desegregation.

'Independence and Rebellion'

In my 30 years on this earth living in the South, that flag has never, not once, symbolized anything but deeply held racist values. "heritage, southern values etc" are just a poorly constructed facade that people prop up knowing that it is a lie or being too suckered to look at things for themselves and see the truth.

[Doc ock rokc]

The flag created by a racist man to represent explicit racist principles that was then flown in opposition in the black civil rights movement and desegregation.

'Independence and Rebellion'

In my 30 years on this earth living in the South, that flag has never, not once, symbolized anything but deeply held racist values.

The pink inverted triangle was originally created by a homophobic man to represent and lable gay people and has sense been used as a means of showing that people are not homophobic and stand up for gay rights.

Should we attack them?

Sometimes symbles change. Sometimes they carry different meanings. Sometimes they carry to meanings at the same time.

[Marc v4.0]

Gay people taking a symbol meant to single them out for harm and taking control of that as a symbol of pride IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WHITE PEOPLE TAKING AN EXPLICIT SYMBOL OF WHITE SUPREMACY AND TELLING MINORITIES THAT THEY CAN'T BE UPSET BY IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT TO OTHER WHITE PEOPLE.

Come the fuck on.

[Nikose Tyris]

The pink inverted triangle was originally created by a homophobic man to represent and lable gay people and has sense been used as a means of showing that people are not homophobic and stand up for gay rights.

Should we attack them?

Sometimes symbles change. Sometimes they carry different meanings. Sometimes they carry to meanings at the same time.

Reclaiming a symbol of hate against you requires it to be a symbol of hate against you. That's why the general public typically only uses the rainbow flag, and the inverted triangle (usually recolored) is reserved for -US-.

This is contrasted by white people arguing "It's not about Racism" when it's been about literally nothing but racism since it's conception. That is not reclamation.

There is a difference and you are completely aware of this.

[Doc ock rokc]

Gay people taking a symbol meant to single them out for harm and taking control of that as a symbol of pride IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WHITE PEOPLE TAKING AN EXPLICIT SYMBOL OF WHITE SUPREMACY AND TELLING MINORITIES THAT THEY CAN'T BE UPSET BY IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT TO THEM.

Come the fuck on

People see symbols. Most people see the same meaning but sometimes the meanings change.

If you can't accept that their are more then one way for a symbol to mean something. then you are going to have serious troubles with everything down the line.

The Virginia battle flag -The flag that is now known as the confederate flag/sourthern cross- was created for a practical purpose not a racist one. Confederate troops in the heat of battle would confuse the two flags for the north and south (see the Stars and Bars flag vs the Stars and Stripes) so they sought out a radically diffrent design so the two sides wouldn't be confused at a distance/heat of battle. The idea to use this flag was made independent of the confederate government. Ironically much to the confederate government's intital frustration. It is only later that they all adopted the battle flag as a battle flag

The racist flag you where talking about "The stainless banner" was a new flag that incorporated the sourthern cross in the top left onto a body of white. This flag fell out of favor quickly due to non windy areas making it look like a white flag of surrender. Then came the "Blood stained banner" which had a red stripe on it. This one came so late in the war that it never really was seen at all.

The flag you are complaining about was always shat on. No one really approved of it, it was created independently from the government and adopted by a few of the most active fighters. It literally existed despite of government.

Of course you'd know this if you studied middle school history

[shiney]

I don't recall people leading a boycott protest of TV Land over the Dukes of Hazzard pre-removal. Your analogy is weak. As a company they made the decision of their own volition based on their own feelings regarding the flag. Nobody pressured them into it. There were no guns to heads. It was only after the removal that it became a Thing over there.

I think it's safe to say there are a lot of people who believe the Confederate Flag was a symbol of heritage or whatever and not racism, but unfortunately those people were deluded, ignorant, or oblivious. Regardless of their personal feelings about the flag, it has become synonymous with racism.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Oh wow you're being a dick, dude. As long as we're talking about middle school history, tell me why the flag disappeared for a hundred years until the 60s when it was raised over states in the south at the height of the civil rights era. A flag that was used as the battle standard for a state that left the union because of a hissy fit that they couldn't treat humans like property any longer. And before you "civil war wasn't about slavery":

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Mmk well anyway I'm sure the flag is all about southern pride and couldn't shit a fuck about racism

[Amake]

To be fair jumping straight to racism in that situation just seems to be an attack on character(ad hominem) rather then an argument. Which is why he probably got pissed off. While he is an asshole for his concerns calling him racist because he is worried about qualtiy of life or the risk of disease the lack of food/space/water/medicine/police force is separate from racism...until you brought it up. Honestly Racism, sexism, whatever phobic has been thrown around in debates far more often. These accusations CLOSE dialog rather then open it.
But the guy was not pissed off, he was quoting that line that their propaganda sites tell them to say when someone accuses them of being racist.

Again I ask, what kind of dialogue could you have with this person? I don't see how I closed the dialogue as much as he showed how pointless it was to try to have one.

[Fenris]

Of course you'd know this if you studied middle school history

Regardless of whether or not you agree with somebody or think they should know something, please refrain from hurling juvenile insults. Your post would have been more effective without attempting a finishing move, and now your entire argument is no longer credible in the context of this discussion because you have opted to make it personal.

[Doc ock rokc]

Oh wow you're being a dick, dude. As long as we're talking about middle school history, tell me why the flag disappeared for a hundred years until the 60s when it was raised over states in the south at the height of the civil rights era.It didn't. The Sourthern cross was constantly used in memorials of those who died in the war (alongside the Union flag), It was flown by vets of the war and their sons. It saw a resurgence of use as a rebellion flag in the 1930s when Gone with the Wind came out. In the 1940s the Dixecrats (southern democrat party who stupidly split the vote and used a gold star variation of the battle flag) and the KKK (In which it was never an official flag and was thought to be used to show independence and rebellion) used the flag which created it's negative racist connotation. These parties lead to the perception of the flag being used as a racist flag in the 60s.

[Nikose Tyris]

This argument has been rehashed time and again and every time it gets put right back in the ground where it belongs. It's literally not worth given a full fledged response to, when 2 minutes on google will explain to you why everything you're saying is wrong.

[Doc ock rokc]

This argument has been rehashed time and again and every time it gets put right back in the ground where it belongs. It's literally not worth given a full fledged response to, when 2 minutes on google will explain to you why everything you're saying is wrong.

Really? because Everything I put out was done in 2 minutes on google. Infact it was the most common links.

[Nikose Tyris]

On literally page 1 of google:

http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407

is a good place to start.

I'm pretty sure you can't accuse a professor of history of not studying middle school history, and I'm reasonably sure that you will acquiesce that as a man far more studied on the topic than you, his position on the argument would be the correct one.

(Of Note: Fenris, you might know this guy!)

[Doc ock rokc]

On literally page 1 of google:

http://www.thetattooedprof.com/archives/407

is a good place to start.

I'm pretty sure you can't accuse a professor of history of not studying middle school history, and I'm reasonably sure that you will acquiesce that as a man far more studied on the topic than you, his position on the argument would be the correct one.

(Of Note: Fenris, you might know this guy!)

Yeah because that guy isn't a completely unbiased source. Hell why don't you go find some KKK members to talk about how it only exists to belittle blacks.

Temper your judgement's with multiple sources instead of just people you agree with.

[Nikose Tyris]

You might note, via reading what was linked, that he himself has sourced many other sources. In fact, you could go so far as to say that this person, this vastly better educated on this subject than you, this unique individual may have done some of that work on my behalf, and that by providing just one link, I have managed to provide more evidence to support my words than you have all throughout this incredibly one-sided conversation.

You have yet to back up a single thing you've said, while throughout conversations regarding this piece of racism memorabilia, you have managed to resort to ad hominem and general belittling rather than participatory debate on the subject.

[Fenris]

Yeah because that guy isn't a completely unbiased source. Hell why don't you go find some KKK members to talk about how it only exists to belittle blacks.

Temper your judgement's with multiple sources instead of just people you agree with.

It's 1 more source than you have cited.

[Doc ock rokc]

It's 1 more source than you have cited.

Here is a relatively neutral article reviewing a Harvard doctor's book on the subject, reviewed by a Louisiana professor. It covers all i have said.
(http://www.cwbr.com/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=3376&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search)

The author has a anti ignorance view on the flag and the reviewer doesn't agree but at least puts some actual effort behind their argument.

[Marc v4.0]

Here is a relatively neutral article reviewing a Harvard doctor's book on the subject, reviewed by a Louisiana professor. It covers all i have said.
(http://www.cwbr.com/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=3376&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search)

The author has a anti ignorance view on the flag and the reviewer doesn't agree but at least puts some actual effort behind their argument.

A more recent article on the Flag issue takes a large excerpt from Coski's work, this particular piece being of interesting note. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/06/19/how-people-convince-themselves-that-the-confederate-flag-represents-freedom-not-slavery/)

Modern Americans looking for this kind of definitive judgment go wrong, however, in concluding further that the St. Andrew’s cross was only a symbol of slavery. Historians emphasize that defense of African-American slavery was inextricably intertwined with white southerners’ defense of their own constitutional liberties and with nearly every other facet of southern life. Descendants of Confederates are not wrong to believe that the flag symbolized defense of constitutional liberties and resistance to invasion by military forces determined to crush an experiment in nationhood. But they are wrong to believe that this interpretation of the flag’s meaning can be separated from the defense of slavery. They need only read the words of their Confederate ancestors to find abundant and irrefutable evidence.

That's rather cut and dry.

This is your source mind you, Mr John M Coski, from his own book.

[MSperoni]

I like the one where an Atlanta music-publishing outfit bilks Daisy of $50, a corruption of Boss Hogg's. And the FBI has an eye on the whole scam.

Episode 2, season 1.

That Daisy was hot stuff.

[Doc ock rokc]

A more recent article on the Flag issue takes a large excerpt from Coski's work, this particular piece being of interesting note. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/06/19/how-people-convince-themselves-that-the-confederate-flag-represents-freedom-not-slavery/)



That's rather cut and dry.

This is your source mind you, Mr John M Coski, from his own book.

Because Slavery was their economic model. Their entire basis of their prosperity was based on the ease of harvest of their cash crop.

By the same logic one could make the Cotton gin a symbol of oppression seeing that it was the thing that revitalized the slave trade

So yes it can't be dissociated with the civil war and in turn slavery. However the flag itself was not about racism.

All in all I still think this flag shit is idiotic. What needs to be done is to fix up mental health issues not do exactly what that crazy guy wanted by causing a race war over a bit of fabric.

[Fenris]

So yes it can't be dissociated with the civil war and in turn slavery. However the flag itself was not about racism.

That is an incorrect statement. (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/03/confederate-flag-designer-symbol-white-supremacy-southern-heritage.html)

[Marc v4.0]

Ah, yes, the 'Lone Crazy Gunman' crutch that every racism denier likes to trudge out every time someone touting racist intentions acts on them to distract the topic from the real problem.

You are just hitting all the bullet points, friend.

[Doc ock rokc]

That is an incorrect statement. (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/03/confederate-flag-designer-symbol-white-supremacy-southern-heritage.html)

...Sigh that is for the "Unstained banner" flag. Which incorporated the Battle flag after it became popular. It was the ACTUAL confederate flag. Vs the Southern cross which was an unoffical battle flag used to differentiate sides after the clusterfuck known as the battle of bull run

Here is William Porcher Miles's account on the creation of the battle flag (http://history.furman.edu/benson/civwar/show/MilesFlagLetter.htm) which was a flag suggested and denied for the Star's and bars style flag (which caused confusion in battle) it was created to be aesthetically different from the original US flag because their offical flag was so similar they almost lost a battle due to confederates confusing their alies as enemy renenforcements

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

Ah, yes, the 'Lone Crazy Gunman' crutch that every racism denier likes to trudge out every time someone touting racist intentions acts on them to distract the topic from the real problem.

You are just hitting all the bullet points, friend.

So all French museums should answer for Charlie Hebdo?

After all museum extremists shot up people for no reason.

seriously the guy needs help. People need help. Instead of trying to use this to help people you attack a piece of fabric.

[Marc v4.0]

Ah, yes, there is another one..

"This little thing doesn't fix the problem, you shouldn't do anything at all unless it completely solves the issue in one go."

Change comes from mounting pressure, inches to build feet to build miles.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Sure woulda been fucking nice if it was less of an acceptable thing to wave the confederate flag round and the people near Dylan Roof had stopped and gone "Wow this person I know might actually be a violently racist piece of shit and I should probably report him to the police."

As it is posing with the flag and guns were totally normal and apparently acceptable behaviors.

[shiney]

Boy this tireless defense of the flag is just doing wonders for you Doc. I'm a little disappointed to see you split hairs about the difference between what people habitually call the confederate flag and the actual flag of the confederacy. Yes the commonly referred to flag was the battle flag of North Virginia, but guess what, people call it the confederate flag. Most people. Almost all people. Your insistence on divorcing the actual confederate flag from the stars and bars is obnoxious and frustrating. Most people see the Union Jack and think of England, but it's not the same flag. Doesn't change their perception. This entire thing hinges on perception.

For you to argue this point on semantics makes you seem very petty and calls into question why you are putting so much effort into this. Is it that you personally don't consider that flag to be the very standard of racism? Because I hate to break it to you but it is. There's no single more universal symbol of actual racism than the stars & bars.

[Premmy]

Can we please stop treating the opinion of a guy obviously shitposting, (to the point that he will offhandedly try to defend the KKK and also try to use them as a defacto 'Worst thing ever' to discredit an argument ON THE SAME PAGE) like an actual opinion? I mean the nature of trolling and how one individually decides who's a valid 'Target' means that he's definitely betraying a lot about himself, but seriously, just tell him to fuck the fuck off already

[Doc ock rokc]

Boy this tireless defense of the flag is just doing wonders for you Doc. I'm a little disappointed to see you split hairs about the difference between what people habitually call the confederate flag and the actual flag of the confederacy. Yes the commonly referred to flag was the battle flag of North Virginia, but guess what, people call it the confederate flag. Most people. Almost all people. Your insistence on divorcing the actual confederate flag from the stars and bars is obnoxious and frustrating. Most people see the Union Jack and think of England, but it's not the same flag. Doesn't change their perception. This entire thing hinges on perception.

For you to argue this point on semantics makes you seem very petty and calls into question why you are putting so much effort into this. Is it that you personally don't consider that flag to be the very standard of racism? Because I hate to break it to you but it is. There's no single more universal symbol of actual racism than the stars & bars.
However it does change the context of the flag. This Southern cross isn't the "White above all" unstained banner bullshit people are peddling. The orgin of the battle flag is literally "Fuck this bullshit! I need to tell if people will shoot at me or not." The people are using misinformation to cloud your judgement.

ALSO IT ISN"T THE STARS AND BARS THAT IS THIS FLAG
http://i.imgur.com/jGkLP8O.gif

THIS IS THE FLAG THAT CAUSED A TON OF TROUBLE IN THE BATTLE FIELD AND CAUSED THEM TO ADOPT THE SOUTHERN CROSS.

The racist connotations of the flag are tangential at best.

MORE PROOF. Here is the page your stupid article cites from. It seems the reporter couldn't even bother to look to the left of the text and examin the flag the passage is discribing instead putting it on the wrong flag...False flagging if you will. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tappan_Thompson#Early_life_and_education)

[Premmy]

Nigga, stop, noone cares as much about flag historical accuracy as you're pretending to .
Noone believes your early 2000's chan troll bullshit. It's sad.

[Nikose Tyris]

I enjoyed what I saw of Dukes on reruns growing up. I wonder if it'll end up getting that same splash screen like Disney (or was it WB?) did, announcing it doesn't share any racist or outdated views.

I don't think anyone's going to advocate digitally removing it- but if they did, it'd be interesting to see what they come up with to replace it.

[shiney]

The color orange would be a good start.

[Doc ock rokc]

Nigga, stop, noone cares as much about flag historical accuracy as you're pretending to .
Noone believes your early 2000's chan troll bullshit. It's sad.

Im not trolling. I am pointing out a huge flaw in your reasoning and you think it isn't imporant. It would be like saying that this is the union jack (http://imgur.com/cJlMcdC) and that the union jack was an important symbol for slaying the Aborigines.


This is like saying the mona lisa is a painting of a woman looking off to the right with her body facing left with a black abstract background while holding a ferret (http://i.imgur.com/HgFN2CQ.jpg) vs what it actually is.

I am hoping to actually make sure you lot are not ignorant of the actual origin of the flag. but it seems you lot have already made up your mind and decided that a person who literally mislead you yet still contridicts themselves with the evidence they presented is more trustworthy then a dozen other sources and information your schools should have taught you.

[POS Industries]

I had no idea so many people still watched The Dukes of Hazzard until this week. :smug:

To be fair jumping straight to racism in that situation just seems to be an attack on character(ad hominem) rather then an argument.
As long as we're getting out the wikipedia articles pertaining to ~*The Royal Queensbury Rules of Rational Debate Within The Sphere of Her Highness' Internet*~, I guess it's worth adding that the next sentence in the article states "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning."

For instance, when the reasoning behind someone's argument is them being a fucking racist, it's totally on point to call them a fucking racist.

[Premmy]

Im not trolling. I am pointing out a huge flaw in your reasoning and you think it isn't imporant. It would be like saying that this is the union jack (http://imgur.com/cJlMcdC) and that the union jack was an important symbol for slaying the Aborigines.


This is like saying the mona lisa is a painting of a woman looking off to the right with her body facing left with a black abstract background while holding a ferret (http://i.imgur.com/HgFN2CQ.jpg) vs what it actually is.

I am hoping to actually make sure you lot are not ignorant of the actual origin of the flag. but it seems you lot have already made up your mind and decided that a person who literally mislead you yet still contridicts themselves with the evidence they presented is more trustworthy then a dozen other sources and information your schools should have taught you.
You are literally pretending to be a meme (https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo) right now and that's so sad.

[MSperoni]

Racist flag is racist.

[Doc ock rokc]

You are literally pretending to be a meme (https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo) right now and that's so sad.

What? I am pointing out that your flat wrong on most of your information. You say the confederate flag is racist because of a racist who made the confederate flag. But the Southern Cross was never an official flag. the description in that article of the flag shows that he isn't even talking about the same thing. The sources of the ariticle people put on here points to another flag. Which isn't seen.

As long as we're getting out the wikipedia articles pertaining to ~*The Royal Queensbury Rules of Rational Debate Within The Sphere of Her Highness' Internet*~, I guess it's worth adding that the next sentence in the article states "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning."

For instance, when the reasoning behind someone's argument is them being a fucking racist, it's totally on point to call them a fucking racist.

yes but in the context of the argument you put out their is nothing to show he was racist at all. Yet you attack him to be so. Now if he was walking around wearinga shirt that said "death to syrbians and all other people" then maybe you have an arguement.

Instead he is talking about quality of life as in (from what i can infer given the conversation you posted) food, water, medicine, etc that would be logistical nightmare for a small country who suddenly grows by a third. Imagine your home town suddenly in the span of a week grew by a third. Food in the stores would be bought up quickly, the sewage systems could get overloaded, water prices would skyrocket as would electricity (if the systems could handle another third of people consuming power), and hospitals would be filled to the brim.

Yeah the way he made his argument is assholeish but it takes a second to entertain a thought and see it from all directions.

[Nikose Tyris]

The color orange would be a good start.

Orange works. Maybe one of those Bright Yellow Smiley Faces too.

[Marc v4.0]

Racist flag is racist.

.

[shiney]

Orange works. Maybe one of those Bright Yellow Smiley Faces too.

Alfred E Neuman? "What, me worry?"

[Premmy]

What? I am pointing out that your flat wrong on most of your information. You say the confederate flag is racist because of a racist who made the confederate flag. But the Southern Cross was never an official flag. the description in that article of the flag shows that he isn't even talking about the same thing. The sources of the ariticle people put on here points to another flag. Which isn't seen.

You are literally pretending to be a meme (https://youtu.be/hou0lU8WMgo) right now and that's so sad (https://youtu.be/Lcyy-6o3PwA)

[Amake]

yes but in the context of the argument you put out their is nothing to show he was racist at all. Yet you attack him to be so. Now if he was walking around wearinga shirt that said "death to syrbians and all other people" then maybe you have an arguement.

Instead he is talking about quality of life as in (from what i can infer given the conversation you posted) food, water, medicine, etc that would be logistical nightmare for a small country who suddenly grows by a third. Imagine your home town suddenly in the span of a week grew by a third. Food in the stores would be bought up quickly, the sewage systems could get overloaded, water prices would skyrocket as would electricity (if the systems could handle another third of people consuming power), and hospitals would be filled to the brim.

Yeah the way he made his argument is assholeish but it takes a second to entertain a thought and see it from all directions. To begin with, he shows himself to be a racist by claiming that Sweden can't take in any refugees. I mean the whole northern half of the country is desperately depopulated and needs more warm bodies than are born in all Sweden to keep the infrastructure from collapsing entirely within the next 10-15 years. Outside of the Racist Party's separate reality where the PC media is lying about everything so the Cultural Marxist Islamist forces can take over the world, there's absolutely no argument to be made for taking in less than as many immigrants and refugees as want to get here, let alone none.

And, you know, instead of defending this ridiculous position in any way he invents the absurd scenario where we triple the country's population overnight to say that if we did that, it would make everyone miserable. This is not a real concern; it's an impossible hypothetical that could not happen even if everyone who could do anything about it wanted it. So yeah, I imagine it, and I imagine it would still be worth all that misery if it could save the lives of one third of the world's current stateless refugees because why not? In reality, a lot of these sixty million people out there are still going to die and they're not going to threaten our comfort.

In the meantime, the actual number of refugees that make it to Sweden do not cause a very big problem, and besides the immediate benefit of saving lives in the long term their being here benefits everyone except people who can't stand seeing foreigners on their streets.

So you see, I can't imagine why anyone would take a zero tolerance stance against refugees who isn't a racist. Especially without trying to back it up.

[synkr0nized]

Worrying about a flag on a television show from a few decades ago is less pressing to me than the fact that it's waved proudly and prominently across America.


There's nothing stopping networks and whatnot from going the Tom & Jerry route with a statement of something like 'The Dukes of Hazard show was a product of its time and does not accurately portray the shifts in today's culture blah blah blah you know the deal' before the show runs.

This seems pretty reasonable. I don't recall anyone picketing the show or whatnot before, so I can't help but feel there's a kind of splash damage effect catching the Dukes. I might just be unaware of prior calls for it to be altered or dropped from the air, however.

[Nique]

I wish they'd bring back the fresh Prince of bel air

[MSperoni]

I was trying to name a non-white person in my area who has displayed the Confederate Flag inside or outside of their homes.

(I couldn't)

I wonder what would happen if Southern blacks started using the flag as a way to express their "Southern Pride"...

[Marc v4.0]

Well, they've been burning it, that's a means of expressing your pride in something for sure

[MSperoni]

Their pride is burning like fire.

Taking them higherrrr