Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (46087)	1/31/2000 2:17:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

My argument is not in favor of any flags and slavery is not my measure- I find flags to be complex symbols frequently used to focus national aggression- you will not find me defending any of them as benign symbols- not the US flag- in any of it's manifestations, not any foreign flag, not the flag of the confederacy. The whole idea of flags is rooted in Feudalism or clannishness. These are not inclusive symbols but instead are symbols of domination and in particular symbols of male aggressive conquest. (You don't find women hauling flags around- unless of course men are painting them waving flags over bloody battlefields- frequently scantily clad.) I think a distinction can be made between archetypical symbols- the cross, the Ankh, the 5 and six pointed star, the swastika etc. and non-archetypical nationalistic emblems designed to focus, refine, delineate narrow nationalistic modalities. In other words- the simple archetypical symbols have a Jungian resonance in the human consciousness across borders and nationalities while less important and much more forgettable symbols (like flags) have only an ephemeral historical significance. That is all I was trying to say. I am not making a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the Southern cause- I find it difficult, as a 20th century woman, to evaluate the conduct of those in other centuries, or to judge their conduct- I find it difficult even to evaluate and judge conduct in my own century. I am not judging per se, but merely giving my opinion of the various values I place on different types of symbolism- and I happen to find a transcendent beauty in simple archetypical symbols that I do not find in flags. It is probably just a personal preference. I do not DISLIKE flags- but I find them to be less universal, and thus less affecting (for ME, personally).

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (46087)	1/31/2000 8:43:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

You make a very persuasive argument, and I think you've won. I had three great grandfathers who were officers for the Confederacy, oddly enough, all South Carolinians. I have some medals and uniform buttons (all marked with eagles and stars, but no battle flags.) I also had a great grandfather who was hanged for bushwhacking Yankees in the hills of North Georgia. I think these people, and the others who fought with them, are worth remembering. We cannot understand them. My mother's father's father owned hundreds of slaves and "miles and miles of land" but was imprisoned at Fortress Monroe and died of disease acquired as a 56 year old prisoner of war. His heirs lost everything. My mother's mother's father was part black and part Indian, and died broke at the end of a rope as a guerilla. My father's mother's father was a rich plantation and slave owner and became a commissioned (unprofitable) blockade runner. He ended penniless the father of numerous white and mulatto children on his island off the coast. My father's father's father was a physician who at the start of the war turned his property into gold, and went off to serve as a military surgeon. He was rich enough after the war to educate his sons. I don't know what their motives were. I suppose most of them thought their duty was to their States. They paid a price in life and property to do what they thought was honorable. None of it was necessary, of course. One could leave. Take his money with him. Apparently, very few people did. I don't know why the poor whites without slaves went off to fight and die. It was against their interests. But many of them fought like hell. Obviously, these largely white people are not all the people of the South. There are immigrants, and African-Americans who do not sympathize at all with them. But we do not have to limit honor to the ancestors of anyone. We don't honor people because they were right, but because they lived, and fought, or died. If we can only honor ancestors who died in wholly righteous causes, we won't have to honor very many.

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (46087)	1/31/2000 11:15:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

This is very confusing--- you must have just felt like arguing last night! What I'm reading is basically an agreement with you by X, who doesn't see that any flag is especially benign. Do you not think that if you had flown the hammer and sickle in the 60s you would have raised some eyebrows? I don;t know-- I'm asking. Other than that, since most Americans are incredibly insular and ill-educated, a lot of people wouldn't have a clue what they were looking at, or WHY it should upset them. The Confederate flag has taken on negative connotations for many, regardless of the original symbolism. (I'm a Virginian, don't argue with me about whether it's good or bad- I love the South and you know it) Because the issues are still very sensitive, and because they are terribly PC besides, it's NOW viewed as a symbol for racism by many. ANd I think- when I see it flying in the rear window of a pick-up- that often the person flying it is using it as such. I doubt he could give a meaningful speech on the historical anything, or tell us as nihil did, about the ancestors he had in the war. If you want to fight, take a walk on the wild side at Feelies. They will LOVE to attack you, call names, be dismissive, sarcastic, and make arguments that will have you gritting your teeth to nubs. You'll love it!!