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: Tom Clarke who wrote (46529)	2/5/2000 6:04:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I am not sure it is bigoted to want to remove a symbol from the state "system" that flew over a break-away group of states that broke away primarily because they couldn't have slaves. Bigotry is being obstinately devoted to your beliefs- usually connoting that the bigot is "wrong" in his or her beliefs but clings tightly to his/her beliefs anyway. It is really very hard to say who is wrong here- so I am not sure the word "bigot" applies. Now if some of these people on one side hate "whitey" or on the other side hate "blackey" then I think we can safely say both those groups are bigoted- because I would say it is now a large majority of citizens who would tell you that hating another group merely because of their color is "wrong"- and being a bit of a relativist I'd have to say that what the majority believes is right/wrong in a given time. So I would not judge someone in the 30's harshly for having been a racist- I can look back and say- boy that time period sucked if you were black- but I wouldn't condemn a man or woman for being of their time- it is rare to be able to rise above the prevailing sentiment of your era. It is every Americans right to boycott what he or she does not approve of. People of all persuasions boycott things all the time! Why I remember the recent Disney boycott (Disneyland allowing "Gay Days" at their amusement park, for shame), or the recent boycotting of the teletubbies because of Tinky-winkys disturbing color. Now I happen to think there wasn't much justification for those positions- hard to see how they could be "right" in the context of society today- but EVEN bigots have the right to boycott, and demonstrate- but you know what? Nowadays the bigots rarely get the rest of society to go along with them- and that is hopeful. I think Farrakhan (sp?) may have learned this. His message of hate- though attractive to some very disenfranchised and/or militant segments of the black community- did not make him the great popular leader he wanted to be- so guess what? He is toning down his rhetoric. Jesse is more of a centralist figure. I don't like him- I think he is a lot like Clinton in that he is pointing in the same direction he thinks the wind is blowing- but most politicians are. It is the rare ones who have their own ideas and who want to change public opinion as opposed to riding it. And the wind is blowing in the direction of cultural amalgamation. Certainly some of us will lose things we think are precious. I love Stephen Foster- but I can understand WHY a black person wouldn't like a song that had the word "darkies" in it. So I am willing to give up Stephen in the interest of peace and harmony between the races. Chances are I wouldn't like a song that had the word "honky" in it.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (46529)	2/5/2000 10:45:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 71178

CharleyMane, it is odd to see you quoting the "League of the South" President's complaint about "anti-Southern cultural bigots." Maybe it takes one to know one. In any event, I think an argument could be made that the League is an organization of "pro-Southern cultural bigots." Take a look, for example, at the page "LS Grand Strategy," on the organization's website <www.dixienet.org>. The emphasis is mine: ...The...central idea that drives our organisation is the redemption of our independence as a nation. We envision a free and prosperous Southern Republic founded on private property, free association, fair trade, sound money, low and equitable taxes, equal justice before the law, secure borders, and armed and vigilant neutrality. Self-governing states and local communities invoking the favour and guidance of Almighty God. A bold, self-confident civilisation based on its cultural and ethnic European roots. As a means of making real our vision of a Southern Republic, we must first revitalise our largely Anglo-Celtic culture. Well, speaking as a native-born Southerner of purely English and Irish extraction, may I suggest that something is wrong with this picture? 1) Let's take a gander at those "cultural and ethnic European roots." Well, the total population of the South, as of 1998, was 94,445,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 2/3 of the total (63,175,000) are classified as "white, non-Hispanic." The remaining 1/3 is made up of non-Europeans: Asians, Afro-Americans, native Americans (Indians), Latin Americans(Hispanics). As for the non-Hispanic white 2/3, how many of them are "Anglo-Celts," and how many are Semites, Teutons, Scandinavians, Latins, Slavs, Balts, & etc.? Come to think of it, what is "Anglo-Celtic" culture, anyway? Scotch-Irish culture? (Can't have had much to do with the "regular" Irish, because they did not arrive in great numbers until the Potato Famine, and by that time Southern "traditions" had already formed.) The South Carolina branch of the League of the South website <www.palmetto.org> also provides food for questions. Sounds as if they don't get their way, they just might man Fort Sumter again. This from their latest newsletter: Free South Carolina, A 21st Century Republic, is the message the SCLoS is communicating to the folks of SC. We were one of the 13 independent states King George sued for peace. We were the first out in 1860, and the last in during Reconstruction. Let us again be the first out! And so on and so on...

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (46529)	2/6/2000 11:31:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Good morning, Charley, I went to the League of the South and read their Manifesto. It was pretty over-the-top for me. Would you say it represents a reasonable stance on state rights for all citizens? On freedom of anything besides their own concept of restoring a system of separatism, religious intolerance, and their own interpretation of the Bill of Rights? Do you think secession is a legitimate and desirable alternative? (Do you want Dr. Michael Hill for your Governor? President?) Cultural cleansing..I think a lot of the African-American movement, whether I find it well-advised or not, and I'm not really much of a touchy-feely person, has been based on their having had their own identities and culture totally destroyed and their attempts to restore something that they feel wasn't imposed upon them by whites. Thing is that resentment and hatred is based on a past we and they can't change, as is this Southern manifesto in all its glorification of a time that is no more. How can one group not understand that the other is expressing basically the same emotions? I also checked out the flags of each of the states targeted by the Rainbow Coalition. What a joke. Only Georgia and Miss could reasonably be said to have the rebel flag incorporated in them, and the whole idea is silly, anyway, equally as extreme as the position of the League of the South. So what we have are two opposite ends of the spectrum-- Jesse Jackson and Michael Hill. And a lot of people in the middle who are repulsed by both. I see neither of these groups as an answer to anything, just more of the problem.