Conquer Club

----Clark Gable ...died in 1960...Pres. IKE..was the last to talk to him/(phone)...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

ConfederateSS wrote:...But there are always going to be crazy people killing,

Yes, there will be...but, why are some of these crazy people killing using these symbols?

Why are some of these "crazy" people being allowed to flaunt an obviously racist, antagonistic symbol as an avatar or username, when it is apparently not allowed for Nazis to use their symbols of hate as avatars and usernames?

I have no argument about leaving the Confederate Flag alone on maps, as that is a historical usage for gaming purposes; however, if Nazi symbols aren't granted as user avatars and Nazi names aren't allowed for usernames...then I must digress that CC must in return refrain from letting users use the Confederate Flag and antagonizing usernames on their website.

This deserves a clear answer from CC itself. If it is policy to disallow Nazi symbolism in avatars and usernames, then it must also hold true for the use of the Confederate Flag and usernames that pertain to such.

(the DaGip rebellion out)...

The Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of hate, racism etc. as the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood would like you to believe. The battle flag is not a symbol of slavery as the south had pretty much abolished slavery by the start of the civil war. In the book "Short history of the Confederate States by Jefferson Davis published in 1890:

CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES.

Ignorance and credulity have enabled unscrupulous partisans so to mislead public opinion, both at home and abroad,
as to create the belief that the institution of African slavery was the chief cause, instead of being a mere incident in the group of causes, which led to war. In keeping with the first misrepresentation was that of the position assigned to the belligerent parties. Thus, the North is represented as having fought for the emancipation of the African slaves, and the South for the increase and extension of the institution of African servitude as it existed in the Southern States. Therein is a twofold fallacy. First, the dominant party at the North, in 1861, through their exponent, President Linoln, declared, in his inaugural message, as follows:

" I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so ; and I have no inclination to do so."

President Lincoln subsequently defended the issuance of his emancipation proclamation, in 1863, on the ground of "military necessity." Therefore, the North could not have entered upon the war to abolish Slavery.

All this coming from someone who was around when it all went down.

-----This is a gaming site. Anyone can find something wrong,offensive with anything. You will never please everyone. Someone, or something .some event..in some corner of the world.Can cause offense. But I guessing,hoping no one is here for purposes other than fun...That people on this site ...Are here to do battle. It is a WAR GAME site after all. In it's simplest format...WAR...The greatest sponsor of Hate the world has ever known...Which has given us all the ideals for hate. Just by being here we are taking part in History. Attaching ourselves with the ghosts and goblins that come with it.
-----That said,people have to learn not to let everything get to them.(Political Correctness).
-----I, as an American will always defend free speech and self expression. It is the corner stone of our country. IT IS WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD. YES,crazy people use it. But without Free Speech... The good people would not be allowed to exercise their views either.
-----I for one,am a Roman Catholic,Republican from Southwest,Detroit,MI.,USA...I only like the Generals of the Gray armies and their strategies. I could care less about their countries leaders or their countries politics...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...Take the movie WAR GAMES...What is the first thing they do,when they start the game? Let's be the Russians and bomb America. We always want to put ourselves in the other guys shoes. When playing war games...Don't Lie,you all know you do it to.....

Here's a map of slave population by state as a percentage of the population in 1860:

[bigimg]http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/earliestoriginalslavechart.jpg[/bigimg]

The US Census numbers in 1860:

isaiah40 wrote:The Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of hate, racism etc. as the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood would like you to believe. The battle flag is not a symbol of slavery as the south had pretty much abolished slavery by the start of the civil war.

hang on... i have to stop laughing before i can respond to this absolute bullshit that was just posted... oh... my... black... jesus... the black jesus is amused... drink some more kool-aid!!!-Jésus noir

i applaud him for bringing a note of irony (i sincerely hope it was irony) to this discussion.

isaiah40 wrote:All this coming from someone who was around when it all went down.

Nah he genuinely was around back then.

------As far as posting a picture of a dumb ass(Which shouldn't be done.(But you have the right to). Like when people run on the field at a sporting event.The TV people never show them.))....A SYMBOL of hate....YES ,GOLD(his shirt) is a great symbol of hate.(Gold causes more deaths than pieces of cloth) That was one of the great reasons...For Manifest Destiny.....So white people could fill their pockets with gold. While committing genocide and wiping out an entire culture of people.(People who,I think had the best concept of living. Then we do today.)(Greed was not part of them.They didn't think anyone could own land..If fact the land will out last us all. Ironic.) It's O.K. when the US Government does it....Just not anybody else... But don't worry D-Grippy..I have seen pictures of Hitler,Stalin,Saddam and even the Devil(the real symbol for evil). .......But it's all KOOL....WHY? FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

owenshooter wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:The Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of hate, racism etc. as the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood would like you to believe. The battle flag is not a symbol of slavery as the south had pretty much abolished slavery by the start of the civil war.

hang on... i have to stop laughing before i can respond to this absolute bullshit that was just posted... oh... my... black... jesus... the black jesus is amused... drink some more kool-aid!!!-Jésus noir

Sorry I misread the one part o the book, it said that the South had all but abolished the IMPORTATION of slaves.
As for the civil war being 100% about slavery, well that is so wrong. It was about the rights of the states to govern themselves as they saw fit, and the right to secede from the Union. Jefferson Davis - the author of the book I'm reading was a Senator from Mississippi, and the Secretary of the Department of War under President James Buchanan just prior to the Civil War. He mentions that it was the right of the states to secede from the Union, and he was a Democrat. It was the Republicans at the time that said that the states can't secede from the Union, and thereby started an unconstitutional takeover of the south to force them to stay part of the Union. So the civil war was really about states rights under the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, and the right to abolish the current government and set up a new government of their own.

A question for the "state's rights" crowd. What was the main issue over which southern states wanted to secede? I think we can all accept the premise of wanting to secede from the Union simply because "we can" is ludicrous, right? So what started the discussion? What could have been so divisive in that era, that the entire south would want to break up the union to create their own nation? It's fair to assume there was a REASON, right? Or do you suggest that this whole war arose out of two senators arguing over whether or not they "could" secede, which led to both sides killing thousands from the other side, just to prove a point?

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:A question for the "state's rights" crowd. What was the main issue over which southern states wanted to secede? I think we can all accept the premise of wanting to secede from the Union simply because "we can" is ludicrous, right? So what started the discussion? What could have been so divisive in that era, that the entire south would want to break up the union to create their own nation? It's fair to assume there was a REASON, right? Or do you suggest that this whole war arose out of two senators arguing over whether or not they "could" secede, which led to both sides killing thousands from the other side, just to prove a point?

Bollocks.

The main issue was the feds telling the states what they could or couldn't do. The feds - like they are today - were overstepping their limited powers invested to them in the constitution. Those things, like slavery, were reserved to the states because the only slavery item mentioned in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the Constitution was that congress could not make any laws abolishing the IMPORTATION of slaves prior to 1808. In 1808 congress abolished the IMPORTATION of slaves by a vote - if I remember correctly - 113-4, but it left the issue of actually owning slaves under state jurisdiction as they did not have the power to do so.

My encouragement to everyone is to find history books from back in the late 1800's to very early 1900's to get a more accurate version of US History, as our history books have been rewritten many times leaving things out and changing what really happened. "For those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"

isaiah40 wrote:

Serbia wrote:A question for the "state's rights" crowd. What was the main issue over which southern states wanted to secede? I think we can all accept the premise of wanting to secede from the Union simply because "we can" is ludicrous, right? So what started the discussion? What could have been so divisive in that era, that the entire south would want to break up the union to create their own nation? It's fair to assume there was a REASON, right? Or do you suggest that this whole war arose out of two senators arguing over whether or not they "could" secede, which led to both sides killing thousands from the other side, just to prove a point?

Bollocks.

The main issue was the feds telling the states what they could or couldn't do. The feds - like they are today - were overstepping their limited powers invested to them in the constitution. Those things, like slavery, were reserved to the states because the only slavery item mentioned in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the Constitution was that congress could not make any laws abolishing the IMPORTATION of slaves prior to 1808. In 1808 congress abolished the IMPORTATION of slaves by a vote - if I remember correctly - 113-4, but it left the issue of actually owning slaves under state jurisdiction as they did not have the power to do so.

My encouragement to everyone is to find history books from back in the late 1800's to very early 1900's to get a more accurate version of US History, as our history books have been rewritten many times leaving things out and changing what really happened. "For those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"

So to summarize, the northern states (and more specifically, the Federal Government based in Washington D.C.) was "overstepping their limited powers" by trying to outlaw slavery at the national level, and the southern states objected to it.

I can see that saying "the war was fought over slavery" can be seen as a gross simplification, but is still rooted in fact. Naturally the full story is going to be extremely complicated.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:So to summarize, the northern states (and more specifically, the Federal Government based in Washington D.C.) was "overstepping their limited powers" by trying to outlaw slavery at the national level, and the southern states objected to it.

I can see that saying "the war was fought over slavery" can be seen as a gross simplification, but is still rooted in fact. Naturally the full story is going to be extremely complicated.

Bollocks.

It wasn't 100% over slavery. Part of it was the taxes that hurt the south and lined the pockets of the Union states.

Its also a conflict of industrialization the new economy vs the old and so on...

isaiah40 wrote:

Serbia wrote:So to summarize, the northern states (and more specifically, the Federal Government based in Washington D.C.) was "overstepping their limited powers" by trying to outlaw slavery at the national level, and the southern states objected to it.

I can see that saying "the war was fought over slavery" can be seen as a gross simplification, but is still rooted in fact. Naturally the full story is going to be extremely complicated.

Bollocks.

It wasn't 100% over slavery. Part of it was the taxes that hurt the south and lined the pockets of the Union states.

Yep, and this gets deeper into the argument. Saying "the war was fought over slavery" and "the war was fought over state's rights" are both true, yet totally incomplete, statements. And the tax issue is not completely separate from slavery either.

Bollocks.

isaiah40 wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:The Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of hate, racism etc. as the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood would like you to believe. The battle flag is not a symbol of slavery as the south had pretty much abolished slavery by the start of the civil war.

hang on... i have to stop laughing before i can respond to this absolute bullshit that was just posted... oh... my... black... jesus... the black jesus is amused... drink some more kool-aid!!!-Jésus noir

Sorry I misread the one part o the book, it said that the South had all but abolished the IMPORTATION of slaves.

no comment necessary... just speaks volumes on it's own... "oops, my bad, i misread one of the most important facts i was arguing..." *snicker*...-Jésus noir

DaGip wrote:

ConfederateSS wrote:...But there are always going to be crazy people killing,

Yes, there will be...but, why are some of these crazy people killing using these symbols?

I hope no-one is allowed to have a burka avatar as people are killing whilst wearing one. Oh wait thats the utter rubbish, the actions of one do not represent the actions of the whole. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of burka wearers are not terrorists.

This is your argument though.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

DaGip wrote:

ConfederateSS wrote:...But there are always going to be crazy people killing,

Yes, there will be...but, why are some of these crazy people killing using these symbols?

I hope no-one is allowed to have a burka avatar as people are killing whilst wearing one. Oh wait thats the utter rubbish, the actions of one do not represent the actions of the whole. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of burka wearers are not terrorists.

This is your argument though.

see... i don't think a burka can be put in the same class as a FLAG (nazi, confederate)... i get what you are saying, i can see the parallels, but wholly different conversations...-Jésus noir

I think its the different conversation that DaGip is having to everyone else.

There is a second point in there that is far more relevant. Use of the Confed flag for good purposes will dilute its past and change its meaning. Outright banning and destroying of the flag cements its meaning in history.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:There is a second point in there that is far more relevant. Use of the Confed flag for good purposes will dilute its past and change its meaning. Outright banning and destroying of the flag cements its meaning in history.

Whatever it might once have meant, it's been irredeemably co-opted by racists since it was used as a middle finger to desegregation and the civil rights movement. You may as well fight to get everyone to agree that gay means happy. I do not agree with banning the flag, but it should not have a place on any government property (except possibly museums), or as a part of any state flag.

My feelings on this are quite conflicted, though, because I can't believe that I actually agree with owen on something.

Draw two Venn Diagrams. The first Venn Diagram has two circles. One is "countries which had slavery in the 1860s"; the other "countries which the United States invaded".

Our second Venn Diagram has "countries which tried to secede from the United States" and the second circle is "countries which the United States invaded". From a basic mathematical, set theory law, the invasion is due to secession. What would have happened if they kept the slaves but didn't secede?

Draw two Venn Diagrams. The first Venn Diagram has two circles. One is "countries which had slavery in the 1860s"; the other "countries which the United States invaded".

Our second Venn Diagram has "countries which tried to secede from the United States" and the second circle is "countries which the United States invaded". From a basic mathematical, set theory law, the invasion is due to secession. What would have happened if they kept the slaves but didn't secede?

degaston wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:There is a second point in there that is far more relevant. Use of the Confed flag for good purposes will dilute its past and change its meaning. Outright banning and destroying of the flag cements its meaning in history.

Whatever it might once have meant, it's been irredeemably co-opted by racists since it was used as a middle finger to desegregation and the civil rights movement. You may as well fight to get everyone to agree that gay means happy. I do not agree with banning the flag, but it should not have a place on any government property (except possibly museums), or as a part of any state flag.

My feelings on this are quite conflicted, though, because I can't believe that I actually agree with owen on something.

Even with Swastikas banned, there are still 88 tattoos and skinheads, right? Banning a symbol just causes another symbol to be used in its stead. Even if all the swear words were gone, Joe from Missouri could still say "you are a cabana (cabana meaning a person who I despise because they are not white").

------I also agree The Dixie Battle Flag has no place on Government property. Run and paid for by US tax dollars. But on one's personal property. It should be left up to the individual..FREE SPEECH. The crooked cross and the Battle Flag are worlds apart when comparing them. As for those who say having them on Historical settings. Such as The Civil War Map...and I don't think people have noticed. But The D-Day(Omaha beach) map.The only map that has the crooked cross. Brightly displayed in the upper left corner next to the Star and Stripes. Where as the Battle Flag and the Stars and Stripes are displayed faded into the blue background on the Civil War map...That said. They have stated the Battle Flag has a Historical meaning. So by their own words. They have admitted it means more than hate.
------The Dixie Battle Flag became a symbol of THE DEMOCRATIC SOUTH(after the Civil War). Where the crooked cross used by the Germans(WWII)...After the war The German people wanted no part of it.Although Germany was broken into 4 sections at the time. The Union (Sherman,the first general in modern warfare to attack civilians),made it a point to attack civilians.Even Santa Anna,let women and children go at THE ALAMO. No, Southern General ,ever attacked civilians. When marching through Maryland,on his way to Penn.(Gettysburg). Lee told his men,when talking about civilians. Leave them alone. They don't concern us. We are here for the Union Army. So I think The Battle Flag can be seen a little differently with Honor.Not to mention...It was American -vs- American. Where as the crooked cross flag(Germany vs The World)...has no Honor...In fact the only part of The German War.That had any glimpse of being fought with Honor. Was The North African War ,fought under Rommel. Both sides treated each other's wounded with care. There were really no civilians in the area to be effected. Nothing but miles of sand. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...My favorite part in "The Sound of Music"...PAPA,why is there a spider on the flag?...

ConfederateSS wrote:In fact the only part of The German War.That had any glimpse of being fought with Honor. Was The North African War ,fought under Rommel. Both sides treated each other's wounded with care. There were really no civilians in the area to be effected. Nothing but miles of sand.

Did you know that there are cities in North Africa? And they were there back in the 1940's too? And that they were fought over during WWII, and that actual civilians lived in them?

Bollocks.