Except it's not the same at all. No-one perceives the English or Spanish flags like that.

Haha. Man you crack me up.

But still no-one has said what the confederate flag stood for apart from slavery.

It stands for the south, as many people have said many times.

Tell that to black people living in South Carolina.

Like the ones who wear it?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437673/Council-killjoys-ban-taxi-driver-from-having-St-George-s-Cross-on-cab-for-discrimination

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/british-village-bans-st-georges-flag-fearing-it-would-upset-muslims-1261621

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/world-cup-fury-offensive-england-3355423

You must mean alanis morisette irony I guess. Taxi drivers banned from using it in many places, banned from world cup, banned from some council flats. There's no nationwide ban but obviously that would not even be possible to ban your own flag completely.

Nope, the fact that you accuse others of propaganda believing and then go on to do the same yourself.

If you take a moment to get beyond the headlines you'll see that;

1) Nothing to do with the flag. The reason was the text 'local driver' not the image of the flag. The headline was designed to enrage idiots.
2) Nothing to do with banning anything just a survey result. Not sure why you included it.
3) Not a ban, a council decided THEY wouldn't fly the flag on THEIR flag pole.
4) Well, a) it's the Mirror and b) the requirement is part of a contract people signed. Also, private company, free to do as they will.

So, thanks for playing, but no, once you read beyond the idiot drawing headlines it's the normal British news papers getting up in arms about bugger all. (Apart from 2, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.).

It stands for the south, as many people have said many times.

Yeah... the south that fought for slavery.

Tell that to black people living in South Carolina.

Like the ones who wear it?

I don't know if you understand how stupid that argument is. I'm guessing not.

2 days ago I saw some tv news about the russian-east-ukranian-separatists. They were standing outside and in the background they had what looked like a larger-than-them confederate flag on a buildings outside wall. I wonder why they would do that?

2 days ago I saw some tv news about the russian-east-ukranian-separatists. They were standing outside and in the background they had what looked like a larger-than-them confederate flag on a buildings outside wall. I wonder why they would do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Novorossiya


L. Spiro

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437673/Council-killjoys-ban-taxi-driver-from-having-St-George-s-Cross-on-cab-for-discrimination

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/british-village-bans-st-georges-flag-fearing-it-would-upset-muslims-1261621

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/world-cup-fury-offensive-england-3355423

You must mean alanis morisette irony I guess. Taxi drivers banned from using it in many places, banned from world cup, banned from some council flats. There's no nationwide ban but obviously that would not even be possible to ban your own flag completely.

Nope, the fact that you accuse others of propaganda believing and then go on to do the same yourself.

If you take a moment to get beyond the headlines you'll see that;

1) Nothing to do with the flag. The reason was the text 'local driver' not the image of the flag. The headline was designed to enrage idiots.
2) Nothing to do with banning anything just a survey result. Not sure why you included it.
3) Not a ban, a council decided THEY wouldn't fly the flag on THEIR flag pole.
4) Well, a) it's the Mirror and b) the requirement is part of a contract people signed. Also, private company, free to do as they will.

So, thanks for playing, but no, once you read beyond the idiot drawing headlines it's the normal British news papers getting up in arms about bugger all. (Apart from 2, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand.).

I didn't read most of those but I have seen many attacks on european and american flag symbols suddenly become a big issue in the last couple of years.

One that I linked to is a poll where 35% of the country thinks the st. george flag is a racist hate symbol. That's more than enough to make my original point. As for propaganda, I can hear your mental gymnastics from here. No no there is a perfectly good explanation! Yet the poll results show your case is lost and a large segment of your country thinks your own flag is a hate symbol! LOL I don't even know what to say to that.

There is a fair article pointing out muslims don't really get offended by this. Well, some do or pretend it to have a reason for outrage like ISIS but most do not. So who is behind crap like this?

It's largely leftists with an agenda to break down any cultural norms ie anything besides "do what we say". The crazy white chick pretending to be black so she could be head of the NAACP in Portland who mailed herself fake death threats is the kind of person suddenly making a stink about the confederate flag.

It is funny to me that foreigners even try to comment on this stuff which they know less than zero about, and talk about racist hate blah blah. No doubt you guys think millions of native americans were killed in gulags as well like most europeans. I would not brig up your own flag but you open yourself up for it, and it is a hilarious situation.

People who whisper about KKK or nazis like they are the devil have not thought twice about confederate flags my whole life. Now suddenly anyone standing by it is literally worse than Hitler. Including plenty of black guys I've seen with it, and I don't even come from the south.

One that I linked to is a poll where 35% of the country thinks the st. george flag is a racist hate symbol. That's more than enough to make my original point. As for propaganda, I can hear your mental gymnastics from here. No no there is a perfectly good explanation! Yet the poll results show your case is lost and a large segment of your country thinks your own flag is a hate symbol! LOL I don't even know what to say to that.

The 'propaganda' comment is because the 'newspapers' you have linked to are known for printing bullshit; maybe not being from the UK you don't get that but I can tell you that for a fact.

Your original point, the one I replied to and quoted, was that they ban the flying of the flag. I have shown this to be false.

So the backup point you have apparently run towards after your first argument fell apart is that 'a large segment of the country this the flag is a hate symbol'.
Where to start... firstly, for many, during the 80s the flag WAS predominately a symbol co-opted by the right wing, in fact it still is used by many hate groups, which is why some have a problem with it.
Secondly, you say '35%' in the text I've quoted yet no where does that article mention '35%' - the figure for 'associate with racism' is 24%, just shy of a quarter.
Now, maybe maths is taught differently where you are but where I am '25%' isn't really a large segment, and given the history of the country and the activates of the far right here is understandable.

So, to recap;
- Your original point was that the flag flying was being banned. False.
- I had no 'case' beyond that the flag wasn't being banned.
- 24% isn't really a large segment, in fact it represents less than 1/4 of those surveyed.

But, ya know, carry on trying to debate points I never made while running away from the point you tried to originally assert, I need a laugh first thing in the morning and boy do your posts always provide

No doubt you guys think millions of native americans were killed in gulags as well like most europeans.

I'm not quite sure what makes you say this in a way so one gets the impression that this didn't happen.

Gulags would be rather Soviet Union, but either way, there is no doubt that millions of those people whom you call "native americans" -- a pretty bad wording, not only are they actually Asians but also anyone born in the Americas, including the current white population, is by definition a "native american" -- were genocided. Whatever they are, and whatever we call them, native americans or "indians" or something different, the fact remains that they were there first, and it was their land.

There were once a lot of them, and within less than a century they were almost extinct, and their land was stolen.

What would you call it when you lock people into "reservates" (nothing but concentration camps, really) knowing that it will be near impossible for them to adapt to this lifestyle and start shooting when they come out. Those who do not agree going into the reservate are hunted down and shot. Sounds a lot alike, doesn't it.

Make them, basically force them to sign contracts (which they don't understand anyway) and then break the contract whenever you find it convenient. What would you call it having a prize on scalps, what do you call deliberately killing all buffalos, knowing that these are one of the red man's main food resources. Is deliberately handing chicken-pox infested sheets to people (including women and children) who are known to die from chicken pox really so much different from sending people into the gas chamber?

I mean, those are things you cannot possibly entitle with "you guys think". Those people are dead for real.

I mean, those are things you cannot possibly entitle with "you guys think". Those people are dead for real.

The list of things that people entitle as "you guys think" is longer than you might even imagine. There are people that honestly still believe that the earth is flat in the 21th century and try to put it as if everyone else was making stuff up. Seriously, I wish that I was just making that up, but I'm afraid I'm not. I've given up arguing against people like that. They have their own little world set in stone anyways and won't care for what you write, and anyone else with half a braincell should see that the position they are coming from is invalid by just the way they are arguing it. The less attention they get, the better.

So though [Robert E. Lee] may not have been in opposition to slavery as I recalled (apparently, as you point out, from revisionism), he wasn't fighting for slavery, but for his homeland.

This is true. It is also irrelevant: Robert E. Lee was not governor of any of the Southern states, or considered a statesman who represented the South at the time of the secessions. Nobody insists that every soldier who fought for the Confederacy was a raging, slave-owning racist, just as nobody should insist that every soldier who fought in Iraq this second time around (and continuing) supported the war. Soldiers, by definition, follow orders.

The question of cause is directed at leadership, and leadership only. Lee's Civil War leadership was military; only after the war did he become a significant figure in Southern political life. An indictment of pre-Civil War Southern leadership thus excludes him.