I'm not racist, but....

[Ken]

'Losers' ? Seems to me Jesus was the only one qualified to call sinners derogatory names like what He called the Pharisees. Jesus was without sin. I really doubt Jesus would approve of us calling anyone names like a 'loser or 'a flop' or 'deadbeat' or 'underachiever' or 'bum' or words like that. When Jesus saw people who were lost in sin, He looked on them with compassion. Everyone needs compassion. Satan has a grip on people and this shows up in various ways. If we can call anyone derogatory names it is satan. Thats how I see it but at times forget.

Yes, losers. Both the Nazis and Confederates launched wars against the United States and lost. Notwithstanding the vile and indefensible racist ideology upon which both movements were based, they were, in fact, losers.

In the sense of losing in a war that is one thing but using it as you did in the last sentence I do not believe is a way that we should look at others in their sinning. As Jesus put it - 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. But for the grace of God, there go I. I believe we can hate the sin that goes on, yet love the sinner. For me, this requires allowing the Spirit to have control in how I view things. That means I need to be constantly filled with the Spirit which when I fail to do, my old nature wants to hate the sinner in his sinning. To me, one of the problems that is very common in Christianity today is not separating the acts of sin and hating them with hating the sinner who God loves and wants to be their Saviour from sin.

Sit around in a classroom of Black students in Texas and ask them who won the Civil War and they will tell you "we did".

The South has an incredibly rich and diverse culture and heritage: The Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw and other tribes who first inhabited the area. The Spanish and French waves of settlement in the 17th and 18th centuries. Scots-Irish settlers in the mountain regions. The millions of Africans brought to the area as slaves and maintained culture and music in the face of incredible persecution. And more recent waves of Latin American immigrants who are bringing their own culture and tradition to add to the mix.

Yet some people think the only "Southern heritage" worth celebrating is the flag of an army that for a brief period of racist insanity waged war against the United States for the right to protect and expand slavery? An army that was implicated in countless human rights violations and atrocities before finally being defeated? A flag that was rescued from obscurity in the 20th Century for the purpose of defending segregation and rallying opposition to civil rights?

Come to think of it, they are actually losers twice over. The first time with the civil war. And the second time in the revanchist attempt to defend the racist Jim Crow society that they created in its aftermath. Most people would say "good riddance" after that history. There is a reason why they call it the "lost cause."

[Soloist]

Yet some people think the only "Southern heritage" worth celebrating is the flag of an army that for a brief period of racist insanity waged war against the United States for the right to protect and expand slavery? An army that was implicated in countless human rights violations and atrocities before finally being defeated? A flag that was rescued from obscurity in the 20th Century for the purpose of defending segregation and rallying opposition to civil rights?

Snort… you need to reread history books if you somehow think the side that lost committed more human right violations.
Maybe compare Lee’s invasion with Sherman’s would be a good start for you.
Hitler commissioned and ordered atrocities. I challenge you to find similar in the confederate political structure or their formal Military ranks.
Don’t bother with slavery, no one is ignorant of those atrocities and the Union didn’t ban slavery otherwise some additional states would have rebelled. That came later and you should be aware being a teacher.

[Josh]

The American flag is also the flag of “losers”. Most recently in Afghanistan, and if things continue, massive losses in west-central Africa will be next.

But perhaps it’s best not to consider the victors of war to be “winners”. I don’t consider winning a war to somehow be a good thing. People shouldn’t be fighting wars at all.

The “winner” in every war is of course the bankers. As someone recently pointed out to me: “France has no gold mines, yet lots of gold. Niger and Mali have gold mines, so why don’t they have all the gold?”

[Szdfan]

Yes, losers. Both the Nazis and Confederates launched wars against the United States and lost. Notwithstanding the vile and indefensible racist ideology upon which both movements were based, they were, in fact, losers.

In the sense of losing in a war that is one thing but using it as you did in the last sentence I do not believe is a way that we should look at others in their sinning. As Jesus put it - 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. But for the grace of God, there go I. I believe we can hate the sin that goes on, yet love the sinner. For me, this requires allowing the Spirit to have control in how I view things. That means I need to be constantly filled with the Spirit which when I fail to do, my old nature wants to hate the sinner in his sinning. To me, one of the problems that is very common in Christianity today is not separating the acts of sin and hating them with hating the sinner who God loves and wants to be their Saviour from sin.

Sit around in a classroom of Black students in Texas and ask them who won the Civil War and they will tell you "we did".

The South has an incredibly rich and diverse culture and heritage: The Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw and other tribes who first inhabited the area. The Spanish and French waves of settlement in the 17th and 18th centuries. Scots-Irish settlers in the mountain regions. The millions of Africans brought to the area as slaves and maintained culture and music in the face of incredible persecution. And more recent waves of Latin American immigrants who are bringing their own culture and tradition to add to the mix.

Yet some people think the only "Southern heritage" worth celebrating is the flag of an army that for a brief period of racist insanity waged war against the United States for the right to protect and expand slavery? An army that was implicated in countless human rights violations and atrocities before finally being defeated? A flag that was rescued from obscurity in the 20th Century for the purpose of defending segregation and rallying opposition to civil rights?

Come to think of it, they are actually losers twice over. The first time with the civil war. And the second time in the revanchist attempt to defend the racist Jim Crow society that they created in its aftermath. Most people would say "good riddance" after that history. There is a reason why they call it the "lost cause."

I've written about this before -- but I think the Germans have a much healthier approach to some of the darker aspects of their history. There is frequent public discussion and analysis of the Nazi period, but they don't celebrate it. There are memorials to the victims of Nazism, but no memorials that celebrate the Nazis. The Swastika is not seen as a symbol of German heritage.

[Josh]

I've written about this before -- but I think the Germans have a much healthier approach to some of the darker aspects of their history. There is frequent public discussion and analysis of the Nazi period, but they don't celebrate it. There are memorials to the victims of Nazism, but no memorials that celebrate the Nazis. The Swastika is not seen as a symbol of German heritage.

Do you think the of rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Germany is a good thing?

[Ken]

Don’t bother with slavery, no one is ignorant of those atrocities and the Union didn’t ban slavery otherwise some additional states would have rebelled. That came later and you should be aware being a teacher.

Don't bother with slavery? Every state that did so seceded did so over slavery. It wasn't a secret. They said so in every declaration of secession. Here, for example, is Texas's declaration of secession:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

. . .

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

. . .

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

The entire Confederacy was premised on racism. They said that too. Here is Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy explaining the basic premise of their new government on the eve of the Civil War:

Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

That is the "heritage" you celebrate if you fly the Confederate flag and that is the "lost cause" still celebrated by some to this day.

[Soloist]

Don’t bother with slavery, no one is ignorant of those atrocities and the Union didn’t ban slavery otherwise some additional states would have rebelled. That came later and you should be aware being a teacher.

Don't bother with slavery? Every state that did so seceded did so over slavery. It wasn't a secret. They said so in every declaration of secession. Here, for example, is Texas:

Shrugs

You made a claim. I called on you to back it up.
You know fully well that the Union didn’t free slaves in Northern states to retain those states. Either way, you fail to back up your claims or you present evidence.

[Ken]

Don’t bother with slavery, no one is ignorant of those atrocities and the Union didn’t ban slavery otherwise some additional states would have rebelled. That came later and you should be aware being a teacher.

Don't bother with slavery? Every state that did so seceded did so over slavery. It wasn't a secret. They said so in every declaration of secession. Here, for example, is Texas:

Shrugs

You made a claim. I called on you to back it up.
You know fully well that the Union didn’t free slaves in Northern states to retain those states. Either way, you fail to back up your claims or you present evidence.

My claim was that the South seceded and went to war over slavery. And that the so-called Confederate flag was the banner of an Army raised for the purpose of defending slavery. They said so in their own words which I cited above. It was a racist flag in 1861 when they went to war. And it was a racist flag when it was rescued from obscurity in the 20th Century as the banner of segregation.

Was the United States a perfect nation absent the confederacy? Of course not. There is plenty of blood on American hands as well. Westward expansion and the genocide of America's native peoples is just one of many many examples. I frankly don't fly the American flag either. But be that as it may, the American flag doesn't represent a nation premised on racism and defense of slavery. To the contrary.

[Soloist]

My claim was that the South seceded and went to war over slavery. And that the so-called Confederate flag was the banner of an Army raised for the purpose of defending slavery. They said so in their own words which I cited above. It was a racist flag in 1861 when they went to war. And it was a racist flag when it was rescued from obscurity in the 20th Century as the banner of segregation.

Was the United States a perfect nation absent the confederacy? Of course not. There is plenty of blood on American hands as well. Westward expansion and the genocide of America's native peoples is just one of many many examples. I frankly don't fly the American flag either. But be that as it may, the American flag doesn't represent a nation premised on racism and defense of slavery. To the contrary.

If that was your claim I must have misread what I quoted from you.

An army that was implicated in countless human rights violations and atrocities before finally being defeated?

Do you wish to present evidence to back up your claim as I asked? Or are you trying to argue I was challenging a completely different thing when I quoted you and challenged you with

Hitler commissioned and ordered atrocities. I challenge you to find similar in the confederate political structure or their formal Military ranks.

Either my writing is hard to understand or you chose to ignore what I actually challenged you on.

[Nomad]

Don’t bother with slavery, no one is ignorant of those atrocities and the Union didn’t ban slavery otherwise some additional states would have rebelled. That came later and you should be aware being a teacher.

Don't bother with slavery? Every state that did so seceded did so over slavery. It wasn't a secret. They said so in every declaration of secession. Here, for example, is Texas's declaration of secession:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

. . .

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

. . .

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

The entire Confederacy was premised on racism. They said that too. Here is Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy explaining the basic premise of their new government on the eve of the Civil War:

Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

That is the "heritage" you celebrate if you fly the Confederate flag and that is the "lost cause" still celebrated by some to this day.

Would you hold the same view with the French, British, Spain flags as well? I believe they all practiced slavery under their current flags although I can't verify that. Maybe they changed their flag pattern since then. You could probably educate me on this. But shouldn't their flags be considered a symbol of racism since they flew those flags while participating in slavery?

I actually don't have a problem with removing the Confederate flag or monuments just to clarify.