Virginia city limits Confederate flag-flying

[Jon Snow]

Jon, I'm not that braindead I don't necessarily see all whites as the oppressor, and whatever gave you that idea is beyond me. I see my race as imperfect and full of both strengths and flaws. Certainly, that is not an unreasonable approach.

I don't think you're braindead at all; I just think that you're operating on an entirely different wavelength to most posters here.

Logical, dispassionate, pragmatic types (albiet ones with a romantic steak) tend to get drawn to causes like European preservationism.

By contrast, the entire notion of mainstream multiculturalism is predicated on a series of nice-sounding but ultimately hollow platitudes, and fairytale notions regarding the way the world "should"--but can never--be. Empirically-minded people tend to find ideologies like the aforementioned absurd and illogical, whereas someone who's more emotionally-driven might instead identify with those same thought processes.

Now, this isn't a dig at you: people who operate mostly on emotion are still around for a reason; evolutionarily, they're a welcome part of the tribe. I'm just trying to discover what the obvious disconnect here is, that's all.

Do you know why I don't judge other cultures or races? Because since I'm not a member of those groups and therefore privvy to the ins and outs of their cultures, I simply don't feel it is my place to judge. I don't have all the facts.

You've established a false dichotomy here, IMO. People can judge people of a different group without being part of that group--what is there to suggest they can't?

The POINT of this thread discussed whether or not the confederate flag ought to be banned from display. I NEVER ONCE said that it should. That would be a violation of human liberty. I DID discuss my feelings about the flag...and those have not changed. But to get all up in my grill because I don't feel a sense of pride by seeing that flag? That's unfair.

I think everyone's cool with you not identifying with the Confederate flag--I don't either, to be frank, since none of my forebears were ever a part of Southern culture.

People were simply trying to correct your misconceptions regarding the nature of life and race relations in the Old South--again, using cold hard facts to do so.

That's all I can tell you. I do appreciate your post....and I HAVE already made more impact on preservation of my race than many posters on here....for I have had two children, and they are of the same culture and race as I am

I'm definitely not about to argue with that. Honestly, as much as you and I disagree (and we do indeed disagree ) passing on your genes is the noblest thing a person can do--indeed, the very reason we're here on Earth--and for that I salute you.

Ultimately, this is all about your children, and your children's children, and so on. What fate awaits them in a majority-minority America? Hells, what fate awaits them in contemporary America, facing institutional discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, racial quotas and minority-only scholarships, learning that their heritage is just one endless story of the perpetration of shameless evil on defenseless darkies, and being forced to live amongst Negroes and other assorted creatures that are exponentially more likely to rape, rob, and/or assault them?

[rhiannon]

I don't think you're braindead at all; I just think that you're operating on an entirely different wavelength to most posters here.

Thank you for your rationality in this debate

I may very well be on a different wavelength than most others on here..however I am not an island. Even minority opinions matter on forums like this one, as Loki has made clear.

Logical, dispassionate, pragmatic types (albiet ones with a romantic steak) tend to get drawn to causes like European preservationism.

What do you mean by romantic streak? I don't think Preservation, as it were, is a one size fits all concept. Check out my thread regarding Euro Preservation and how it's defined to get a better idea of what I mean.

I am drawn to my European heritage very much, and I have been since the early 1980s....or my adolescence.

By contrast, the entire notion of mainstream multiculturalism is predicated on a series of nice-sounding but ultimately hollow platitudes, and fairytale notions regarding the way the world "should"--but can never--be.

This may be what sets me apart then. I DO think on an ideological level. I DO try conducting my life and following principles set forth by MY vision of what I would like the world to be. It is, in my opinion, one way I can contribute to making the world a better place for all of us.

Empirically-minded people tend to find ideologies like the aforementioned absurd and illogical, whereas someone who's more emotionally-driven might instead identify with those same thought processes.

Empirically minded individuals definitely have a purpose in life. I do strive to be the best person I can be, even if that sometimes means my swallowing my pride. Multiple bad things have happened to me in this life that have forced me to do this very thing.

Now, this isn't a dig at you: people who operate mostly on emotion are still around for a reason; evolutionarily, they're a welcome part of the tribe. I'm just trying to discover what the obvious disconnect here is, that's all.

It's not entirely an emotional thing. For me, it is my internal moral compass that drives my viewpoints on most social issues. In addition, it is my sense that a good person SHOULD do their utmost best to treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. I have experienced racism and prejudice, for example....many many times. I didn't like it very much, and it made me VERY angry to have others prejudge me on the basis of my race. You think I have been IMMUNE to this because I live on the West Coast? Nope. Not at all. My first true brush with it occured back in the 1970s when I was about the age of 11. In my lifetime, I've had brushes with racist attitudes probably about a dozen or so times. So, I am not immune or some spoiled rich white girl...in case anyone has any questions.

You've established a false dichotomy here, IMO. People can judge people of a different group without being part of that group--what is there to suggest they can't?

I cannot tell others how to believe...and I'd never attempt to do so. I was speaking for myself and myself only. I gave you the reasons that I have for not engaging in these sorts of thought patterns. No one has the right to tell me how I should or should not think, no?

I think everyone's cool with you not identifying with the Confederate flag--I don't either, to be frank, since none of my forebears were ever a part of Southern culture.

Ditto to that.

People were simply trying to correct your misconceptions regarding the nature of life and race relations in the Old South--again, using cold hard facts to do so.

Much of the south has moved on from those old ideals....but I do realize that some of those old ideologies have not died. This what I was speaking of.

I'm definitely not about to argue with that. Honestly, as much as you and I disagree (and we do indeed disagree ) passing on your genes is the noblest thing a person can do--indeed, the very reason we're here on Earth--and for that I salute you.

Thank you. My daughter is a second generation Viking Bitch (see my caption) and is very interested in her heritage. My son is only 4....he has a few years yet

Ultimately, this is all about your children, and your children's children, and so on.

I could not agree more.

What fate awaits them in a majority-minority America? Hells, what fate awaits them in contemporary America, facing institutional discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, racial quotas and minority-only scholarships, learning that their heritage is just one endless story of the perpetration of shameless evil on defenseless darkies, and being forced to live amongst Negroes and other assorted creatures that are exponentially more likely to rape, rob, and/or assault them?

So, does referring to black or nonwhites as Darkies (an obvious slam) do anything to legitimize your argument? No. The way you'd make it sound is as if blacks or nonwhites are the only criminal element we have here in the US. That is not an accurate assessment. Criminals come from every background.

You do understand, Jon, that in this Capitalist system of ours, justice can be...and IS bought? This means that justice and jail time are not metted out equally at all...because the rich fucks are gonna have the cash on hand to pay the best lawyers to get them off....which means no jail time. Most rich people are not gonna be Mexican or Black (Oprah and a few others aside)...which means that the jails are gonna be filled with a disproportionately large number of poors (read: minorities). It does not necessarily mean that blacks or Mexicans are more predisposed to being criminals. But none of this is relevant to me anyway because I hate ALL violent criminals and want them GONE out of EVERYONE's life.

I'd like to see a world in which people can get along. It's really that simple.

As far as how our heritage is presented, or how we should view history in general:

I've read a few of my stepchildren's history books....and the only real difference in the way I've noticed history discussed now compared to my own childhood is that history is painted with a broader paintbrush...because the history of this country and of the world is not just about the actions of the few. World history points to so many contributions from numerous civilizations that were more advanced than most others at the time.....civilizations such as the ancient Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Aztecs, the Vikings, the Ancient Celts, the Incas, and the Egyptians to name a few. History books should reflect our history in the most Holistic fashion, possible....and this includes a depiction of all the SHIT we humans have pulled over the years on each other...you know....things like attempted genocide and enslavement of entire groups of people.

Only when we really know our history can we learn not to repeat it.

But I am going to close this post with a final question for you or for anyone else on here that chooses to answer it:

How would you have me believe? What is it from me that you are seeking for me to change, regarding my beliefs on these issues?

It's an honest question. I hope for an honest answer.

[SwordoftheVistula]

They're just older and were brainwashed by the Southern hating media back in the 60s seeing those poor black people denied entry to white universities with images of fire hoses, police dogs. etc, etc. Most people think the Selma to Montgomery march was a blood bath when in fact no one was killed, yet they call it "Bloody Sunday". It was nothing compared to the British crackdown in India where they really did gun down protesters, no need for fire hoses there when British rifles can get the job done. Younger people are tired of this victimization nonsense. They don't see blacks as oppressed.

Pretty much. That's the way my parents are, they've traveled all over the US, but don't want to go to the Deep South.

I was raised to be the same way, but after moving to the east coast, and seeing all these blacks and hispanics and having dealings with them in real life, I quickly realized they were different from us and not in a good way.

Younger people today are part of the most coddled generation EVER...

Not really. Those born in 1940s-1960s fit the bill.

Setting aside all the problems resulting from multiculturalism listed above, there are 2 big problems they have today:

No jobs. Even for college graduates. I'm going to guess, most of the people who you graduated college with found jobs, and jobs in their fields, not too long after graduation. Now this is the exception rather than the rule.

Housing costs have risen hugely. I'm going to guess, most of the people who you graduated college with were able to afford their own apartments, and could own their own house by the age of 30. Recently I saw a statistic that over half of this year's college graduates had to move back in with parents. Even most of those who have jobs live in rented rooms or some such, and few are able to buy their own homes.

this does not include those individuals who were sent off to the Middle East to fight a war that SUCKS only to come back with their asses shot off.... I am not referring to those young people at all.

Maybe so. On the other hand, the military is a lot more comfortable than in generations past, they get really good benefits, and can retire after 20 years. In hindsight, I should've joined when I was younger, but my middle class baby boomer parents & teachers made it out to be some undesirable thing.

I grew up out here on the West Coast. We are very similar out here to the types of thinking found in Mass and parts of New England. My ENTIRE family are like this and would basically argue in much the same way as I am now.

Yes, because those are the parts of the country which have the least black people, and the least nonwhites in general for most of the country's history.

Parts of the north that have black people have similar attitudes as southerners on race. For example George Wallace won the Michigan Democratic Primary in 1972 on the strength of overwhelming support of whites who lived in or near Detroit.

Also take a look at the 2008 Democratic Primary results: Clinton won the states where whites still make up a majority of Democratic voters, but with large numbers of nonwhites: The Southwest (hispanics), Upper South, Rust Belt (lots of black majority cities), and South Dakota (lots of Indian reservations). Obama won the states with large enough black populations that the majority of Democratic voters are black (Southern 'black belt' stretching from Maryland down to Louisiana) and the northern states where whites don't have much experience with nonwhites: Northwest, interior west, upper midwest, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine.

this Capitalist system of ours, justice can be...and IS bought? This means that justice and jail time are not metted out equally at all...because the rich fucks are gonna have the cash on hand to pay the best lawyers to get them off....which means no jail time.

That's not really true, because rich people like Bernie Madoff, OJ Simpson, assorted athletes & Congressmen go to jail. Also, poor people get free lawyers from the government and activist groups, especially in the more serious cases like murder cases they get multiple free lawyers. Also, poor people are not under nearly as much pressure to accept a plea bargain, since they don't have a life/job/marriage/children/mortgage etc to get back to, so they will just stick around and fight the charges all the way with their free lawyers.

[rhiannon]

Yes, because those are the parts of the country which have the least black people, and the least nonwhites in general for most of the country's history.

I am going to address the rest of your post a little later....but this caught my attention because it is DEAD fucking Wrong! Southern California was once a part of Mexico....and there have always been a shit-ton of Hispanics living there...as far back as I can think of, actually.

That is where I grew up. Even back when I was a child, the %age of its population that were nonwhite--usually Hispanic--was VERY large. My school district was, and still IS the second largest district IN this country....and the majority of its student body are Hispanic now. Back when I was a child, nearly half of its student body was Hispanic. Back when I lived there in 2000-2001....there were fewer whites than had been there previously, and many more Middle Easterners....although there have always been a large number of them even from back when I lived there.

I am sorry to say, but you do not know what you are talking about, unless you were fooled into thinking I've spent my whole life in the Pacific Northwest because I live there now, and that is what's in my profile
Yes, the Pacific Northwest is pretty white....but there are still more immigrants here than you may realize. Many of them live not very far from where I am right now. It is the area I tend to shop in the most..

My entire family live in Southern California....I am the only one to have left the state.

I have actually had racial run-ins with both Hispanics and Blacks. Not just in California, either. I was the one targeted by them....not the other way around, FYI.

Just wanted to get that out there. I will continue this post or add another a little later.

[rhiannon]

Not really. Those born in 1940s-1960s fit the bill.

Explain, please...because I still disagree.

No jobs. Even for college graduates. I'm going to guess, most of the people who you graduated college with found jobs, and jobs in their fields, not too long after graduation. Now this is the exception rather than the rule.

Agree...although I did not graduate college when most other members of my same-aged peers did....I graduated in 1997...so things had changed a bit.

Housing costs have risen hugely. I'm going to guess, most of the people who you graduated college with were able to afford their own apartments, and could own their own house by the age of 30.

My experiences and the experiences of my friends have shown this not to be true. But the housing market now IS much worse than ever before, and I do agree with you on that.

Recently I saw a statistic that over half of this year's college graduates had to move back in with parents. Even most of those who have jobs live in rented rooms or some such, and few are able to buy their own homes.

The whole notion of owning a starter home at a young age when you'd just be starting your family is a figment leftover from the 1950s-1960s....basically my parents' generation. This phenomenon no longer held true by the time my generation came of age....housing prices were already too steep by then. The difference is that while some of my generation have lived with their parents on and off during their adulthoods....many of us have NOT and NEVER would do this. We'd find another way rather than being forced to live back with the parents, lol.

Maybe so. On the other hand, the military is a lot more comfortable than in generations past, they get really good benefits, and can retire after 20 years. In hindsight, I should've joined when I was younger, but my middle class baby boomer parents & teachers made it out to be some undesirable thing.

I would have also joined when I was younger....but I was a single mom of a young child, and was therefore ineligible for military service. Sucked for me because the military would have been a good influence.

Yes, because those are the parts of the country which have the least black people, and the least nonwhites in general for most of the country's history.

Already addressed in previous post.

Parts of the north that have black people have similar attitudes as southerners on race. For example George Wallace won the Michigan Democratic Primary in 1972 on the strength of overwhelming support of whites who lived in or near Detroit

.I agree.

Also take a look at the 2008 Democratic Primary results: Clinton won the states where whites still make up a majority of Democratic voters, but with large numbers of nonwhites: The Southwest (hispanics), Upper South, Rust Belt (lots of black majority cities), and South Dakota (lots of Indian reservations). Obama won the states with large enough black populations that the majority of Democratic voters are black (Southern 'black belt' stretching from Maryland down to Louisiana) and the northern states where whites don't have much experience with nonwhites: Northwest, interior west, upper midwest, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine.

Not surprising.

That's not really true, because rich people like Bernie Madoff, OJ Simpson, assorted athletes & Congressmen go to jail.

Usually for less time and with less harsh sentencing. I mean....you KNOW most people feel that OJ Bought his acquittal, right?

Also, poor people get free lawyers from the government and activist groups, especially in the more serious cases like murder cases they get multiple free lawyers.

In most cases they wind up with a Public Defender....and let's face facts....you get what you pay for. PDs are generally overwhelmed with more cases than they are able to adequately handle.....and this reveals itself in the rates of conviction of their clients. Some of these clients are not even guilty! I am sure you've read of cases whereby a death row inmate gets exonerated and set free based on DNA evidence, right?

so, poor people are not under nearly as much pressure to accept a plea bargain, since they don't have a life/job/marriage/children/mortgage etc to get back to, so they will just stick around and fight the charges all the way with their free lawyers.

Many of these people have families too. They may not have high-powered jobs or they may not be homeowners...but they have lives....and with very little wiggle-room in their lives for things to go sideways.

Poor people are convicted more frequently and serve longer sentences than their wealthier, but equally guilty counterparts. This is just the way our system goes....and it's not especially fair, IMO.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I am going to address the rest of your post a little later....but this caught my attention because it is DEAD fucking Wrong! Southern California was once a part of Mexico....and there have always been a shit-ton of Hispanics living there...as far back as I can think of, actually.

Here's some old census data.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0056/tab19.pdf

The first time they took a measure of the Hispanic population in California was in 1940, when it was 6%. Nonhispanic white population was 89.5%. The population remained about this way until after the immigration laws were changed in 1965, by 1990 hispanics were over 1/4 of the population.

In comparison, Mississippi in 1940 was nearly split even between blacks and whites, the whites at 50.7% and the blacks at 49.2%. This was the first time in more than a century in which whites outnumbered blacks.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0056/tab19.pdf

Poor people are convicted more frequently and serve longer sentences than their wealthier, but equally guilty counterparts. This is just the way our system goes....and it's not especially fair, IMO.

Wouldn't it make more sense to that short-term thinking and stupid decisions result in both criminal activity and lives of poverty?

[Contra Mundum]

Here's some old census data.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0056/tab19.pdf

The first time they took a measure of the Hispanic population in California was in 1940, when it was 6%. Nonhispanic white population was 89.5%. The population remained about this way until after the immigration laws were changed in 1965, by 1990 hispanics were over 1/4 of the population.

In comparison, Mississippi in 1940 was nearly split even between blacks and whites, the whites at 50.7% and the blacks at 49.2%. This was the first time in more than a century in which whites outnumbered blacks.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0056/tab19.pdf




Wouldn't it make more sense to that short-term thinking and stupid decisions result in both criminal activity and lives of poverty?

No wonder Mississippi is the poorest state. Imagine if it was 100% black.

[rhiannon]

Here's some old census data.
The first time they took a measure of the Hispanic population in California was in 1940, when it was 6%. Nonhispanic white population was 89.5%. The population remained about this way until after the immigration laws were changed in 1965, by 1990 hispanics were over 1/4 of the population.

In comparison, Mississippi in 1940 was nearly split even between blacks and whites, the whites at 50.7% and the blacks at 49.2%. This was the first time in more than a century in which whites outnumbered blacks.

Okay. You are taking your data further back in time. My primary reference has been the course of my own lifetime...and I was born in 1967. Throughout my lifetime, Southern Cal has not been the bastion of whitedom by any stretch. I can actually remember very well how struck I was by the differences in the populations here in the NW comparatively speaking. It was freaky to see almost no Mexicans, for example, when I first moved to Portland, Oregon, back in '89... In contrast to this, when I worked at a 24 hr coffee shop down in the LA area just before '89...you could literally walk around the restaurant and hear more than four different languages being spoken at any given time....the area down there was very diversified already.

Wouldn't it make more sense to that short-term thinking and stupid decisions result in both criminal activity and lives of poverty?

Yes, to an extent this holds true. However, bear in mind that being born to poverty significantly increases your chances of remaining there as an adult.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Okay. You are taking your data further back in time. My primary reference has been the course of my own lifetime...and I was born in 1967. Throughout my lifetime, Southern Cal has not been the bastion of whitedom by any stretch.

OK, so you were born after the 1965 immigration act which opened the borders.

At any rate, you were talking about viewpoints gained from parents and passed down from family members, and it is far more likely someone's grandparents living in majority black Mississippi in 1930 would have strong racial views than someone living in 90%+ white California in 1930, which would indicate that personal experience and knowledge of other races makes one more, not less, hostile to other races on the average.

[rhiannon]

OK, so you were born after the 1965 immigration act which opened the borders.

At any rate, you were talking about viewpoints gained from parents and passed down from family members, and it is far more likely someone's grandparents living in majority black Mississippi in 1930 would have strong racial views than someone living in 90%+ white California in 1930, which would indicate that personal experience and knowledge of other races makes one more, not less, hostile to other races on the average.

Fair enough. I don't know how much of that holds true as far as my parents go....but I understand your point