I vote 'hate' and 'no'.

What about the flag of Nazi Germany?

I always wondered why the Swastika is considered one of the grossly offensive images there is, but not say… the flag of Soviet Russia?

I voted more then the wiggles hate.. and no .. Would say heritage but the US has such a short past that I dont consider that time frame heritage.. maybe a hertigito

My guess - because Nazi atrocities were better documented?

I voted both and no

Not really - Stalin's 5 year plans put the Holocaust to shame. Probably because he was our ally in the period - I don't think people were necessarily ignorant of what Stalin was doing, it just wasn't as well publicised. The Nazis were THE enemy and so inevitably took the brunt of our hatred - If you've read 1984 - the part where they show the face of "the dissident" so that the public have something to direct their anger and abuse at is very similar. Clever guy Orwell.

They've (the nazis) certainly have become the cartoon bad guys that are trotted out whenever someone is asked to imagine "evil government".

Just seems strange that one flag which represents a government that killed millions of people is considered horrifically offensive (to the point where it can't even be used in jest), but noone would blink twice at a guy wearing a Hammer and Sickle T-Shirt. Try wearing a Swastika shirt down the pub. It won't end well ;-)

The confederate flag is offensive because it has obvious associations to slavery - but I think what's happened is that it is such a part of American history and culture (although slavery was abolished) that even though it stands for something incredibly odious, it (like the hammer and sickle) it is considered a somewhat softer image than that of the Swastika.

gupt i knew this was coming lol

I am nothing if not predictable

Ohh, as a southerner, this is the debate you do not like to get into. It is heritage.

I voted for 'both' and 'no'. I live in the midwest. Most of the people who wave that flag around have never even been in the south and even fewer have any idea of what it actually means. Those that do, use it proudly for it's racist roots. There is a reason why you don't see many non-whites at country music festivals. Then again, this is just my personal opinion. I don't much appreciate people wearing flags from Hitler or Stalin or anyone else when it has that meaning behind it. It isn't the image itself, it's the meaning behind it.

definitely hate, and no, it doesn't bother me... however, if someone wants to use it, they should also wear a white hood over their head as well!

Which still begs the question, why is the swastika always considered to be the height of offensiveness? I understand what you are saying - but would it be true to say that some symbols are synonymous with and completely inseparable from the meaning behind them?

Hence I wonder why it is that the Union flag, synonymous as it is with the support of slavery and racial repression is not considered just as offensive.

Good point...

Unfortunately, it is a part of American history, and falls under the protection of civil liberties and freedom of speach.

Yes it does. But so does the Swastika. That's the point - when it comes to what images are considered socially acceptable it seems there's a degree of relativity when it comes to one offensive image as opposed to another.

It's a symbol filled with rich history and heritage. Unfortunately the symbol is tarnished with actions of hatred and ignorance. Just my opinion! Cheers!!!

It also seems to be acceptable to emblazon images of Chairman Mao on t-shirts in a kitsch way, who is probably as bad as Stalin if not worse

I suppose there was nothing hateful about wanting to make sure black people stayed on the plantation and didn't learn to read and write

Heritage, yeah right.

The swastika had an entirely peaceful meaning till Hitler et al adopted it, after its meaning was entirely hijacked and became synonymous with genocide and repression. Even if the Confed flag stands for things other than slavery - its is predominantly defined by slavery.

Even today, Hindus use the swastika in temples and even on clothing and homes. It's supposed to be auspicious, a sign of good luck and peace.

My FIL is visiting us and one day was going to go out in a shirt with swastikas imprinted all over it. I was like no... that is not going to be seen leaving my house. Go change

Especially if he was about to board a train for NYC

Heritage and (heck) NO
Now who started this weird poll???
Come on ppl please!
Yeah yeah go and call me a racist again,just waiting for it........
Nat

I had a nice long post here about how the Civil War was NOT fought for or against slavery. It was fought for state rights. The end result of the north winning was the government being able to institute things like income tax, highway money tied to states doing what the gov wants, etc. Hell, Lincoln freed the slaves as an afterthought.

And no....I'm not southern. Just a history major who is tired of all of the uneducated crap being spewed about the civil war and the confederacy.

But you don't get it. The war wasn't about slavery, it was about southern states' rights. So the flag is about heritage!! (sarcasm!)

Or at least that's what people say to pretend like it had nothing to do with slavery. Even though one important state right they were fighting for was the owning of slaves and the tax issues along with owning slaves. Not that the north was totally innocent about the slave issue, it's just they gave it up sooner than the south did.

Anyway, I voted "both" and "no".

It is a symbol of our heritage. Our history is something we inherited - the bad with the good.

Actually, the rebel flag was a symbol of two kinds of oppression:

• that of southern slaveowners for their slaves
• that of the US federal government against specific states (it was set as a symbol of rebellion against this)

On displaying it: I've become jaded to seeing it on car bumpers in Atlanta, so no difference for displays on VJ.

thank you for trying... but ppl already think they KNOW all they need to know about the civil war... and altho you are definitely correct, those that believe otherwise wont change their minds (i see it as kinda like ppl believing that we went to war in iraq because of WMDs and terrorism - its what will be written in history books)

unfortunately, because ppl dont want to actually bother learning the truth, a symbol of heritage is being forced into a symbol of hate... there will always be someone who uses symbols for something other than they are meant for... like the KKK using the cross or fundamentalist muslim terrorists using allah... it doesnt mean all christians believe what the KKK does, nor that all muslims believe what fundamental terrorists do... a bad apple spoils the whole bushel, as they say...

IMHO the Confederate Flag is simply that...a flag. It was flown in battle during the American Civil War. More of a rallying icon than anything. But, at some point it became synonymous with feelings of hatred between the whites and the freed blacks. Again, this is just my take on this whole flag issue ok? It has since become an icon of hate from the blacks because of the slavery issue. Those whites who subscribe to the racism issue use it constantly to "remind" themselves of the Civil War and its supposed causes. At one time Georgia's state flag had the "rebel" flag emblem as part of its construction. Thankfully we now have a fairly nice compromise.

I voted heritage and no. I am not racist by any means so this kind of thing has never bothered me.

Confederate Flag Controversy

I am not offened by a flag anymore than i am offened by the middle finger, Depending on the purpose of how it is flown and the intentions of who displays it.

heritage, and no. the confederate flag does not bother me. however not flying it also does not bother me in the least bit. I rather like the Georgia flag we have now, but a lot of people are pissed because they removed the old one showing the confederate flag

The Civil War was a battle over states rights--to have and own slaves.

The war had everything to do for and about slavery. It was not a war just about states rights. The loss of slavery meant the loss of an economic advantage for the southern states. The southern states were rich, very rich in comparison to the northern states. But the loss of slavery meant a loss of cheap labor and the economic power they held. That is why the southern states were put under a boycot and embargo by the north. Then to settle the issue Lincoln emancipated the slaves.

If this was a war about states rights then the states any state would have gone to war before or after over other issues. It was the states right to own slaves that was being removed--and therefore the war was about slavery.

As far as the confederate flag--its a symbol of treason. It is the rebel flag against the United States of America. It should be banned in all settings accept in historical educational purposes.

The rise of the Rebel flag after the end of the civil war began in the 1950s as the southern states resented Federal mandates and oversight in the matter of voting rights and segregation of schools and society. This is why the Conferedate flag and symbol is so divisive and why it was rightfully removed from the flag of the state of Georgia. The use of this flag to represent superiority over blacks and other minorities.

Lets put the flag in its historical perspective and then move on.

No symbol can be synonymous with and completely inseperable from any meaning we associate with them. It's all in the context. As Gupt pointed out, there are contexts in which the swastika is not offensive. But when you see white Americans using them, you know what it means.

In Brazil, there are people who still celebrate their heritage with the Confederate flag. They descended from Confederate soldiers who emigrated from the South to Brazil toward the end of the war to grow cotton (blablabla). For them, the flag represents only their heritage, and they don't understand why Americans are so offended by it.

But for US, the flag represents hate because, let's face it, if it represents heritage only, why don't more black people have them on their cars? Their great great great grandparents were certainly in those states at the time too.

I live in the South, and I just don't get it. The war is over, they lost - move on.

I voted "hate" and "yes". IMO, the heritage argument is just an excuse and display of the confederate flag is usually out of spite, even if not openly admitted.

Actually I would say that a person (of any race) could not show the swastika in any country outside of India, Japan and a few other countries without causing the worst offence and having their views tied to those of the nazis.

True, but it's still not an absolute. But when you see an American white guy with a swastika, you can assume that he's not displaying an ancient symbol of peace. Especially when it's accompanied by the stars and bars, which I find offensive within the US. Used by anyone.

True - it’s all about association. Don't you think its strange that some symbols are considered grossly offensive, while others (that mean much the same thing) are not. Should the Confederate flag even be subject to this kind of debate when the swastika is not, and while the Hammer & Sickle is apparently irrelevant?

I voted "both" and "yes". I have always enjoyed the VJ threads because in my opinion it's about people all over the world coming together to help each other in the spirit of freindship and understanding. I think flags such as the confederate flag and the swastica take away from that spirit.

I don't think it's strange at all. The Hammer and Sickle is not appropriated by modern-day hate groups that I am aware of. It remains in its historical context.

people that have that flag in their cars, belts or hats.. usually have a pick pickup, a sticker that says 'America is God, Guts & Guns', didn't finish High School, baptists, and, are kinda dumb... oh yeah, and are Bush Supporters lawl.. at least in this area

I'd be curious to know whether the soviet flag is considered offensive to people in Russia.

Actually if we read the declaration of sucession from south carolina, it states very clearly that slavery is the issue for leaving the US or more specifically the fact that there were too many pushing for an end to slavery. South Carolina wanted to keep slavery and left the union because of it. How is that not about slavery?

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

both no

Probably because the Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of the working class (two different
professions united in their struggle for a worker's utopia) and is not in any way associated
with Stalin. The symbol was used before Stalin and after Stalin, and continues to be used
in surviving Communist countries.

Why being curious. Start compain against it. Someone got to be offended.

ain't that the truth.

Both and no. Being a southernor i've seen it used both ways...it depends on who and how

This idiot on the board who keeps saying it's the polish flag or some nonsense is retarded

The flag also symbolizes treason depending on which side of the argument you stand.

I had a student once who wore a shirt that said "if I would have known it would have turned out this way, I would have picked my own damn cotton."

It's not the flag so much that is offensive to me but the ignorance.

I agree. But as long as there are those organizations such as the SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans), the war will never be forgotten nor will anyone move on. Pathetic.



Actually slavery was NOT the catalyst that started the war, although it was a factor. It WAS about state rights. Slavery factored into this as only one component. However, you will find differing views on what started the American Civil War. The important thing to remember here is, IT IS OVER...MOVE ON.

All I am saying is read the primary evidence from the states that left the union. I know historians can disagree on this, but the idea of states' rights was formulated in the historical analysis after the war was over. Several writers, in the years after the war, began to formulate the argument the war was about was states' rights.

historical revision is nothing new

This is the point I was making....the states that left the union. THAT is the states rights issue. While I never agreed with the fact that the south kept slaves, it was not against any federal laws at that time. The north also outnumbered the south in factories, weapons, finances, etc. It was really an unbalanced war in my opinion...the south had limited weapons, compared to the north, and one cannot win a war on arrogance alone. Personally...again I say this is just my opinion...if the north had left the south alone they would have eventually rejoined the union at some point, because the south would have realized their semi dependence on being a part of the United States. The CSA would never have stood on its own.

Historical revision. One will never really know the absolute truth of the cause of the American Civil War because no one is alive to testify to its actual cause. All we HAVE is what historians have written. Of course, that can also be said of other major historical events. Anyone who was actually there is already dead and gone.