SC Governor calls for removal of Confederate flag

[Channel72]

My concern is one of hypocrisy for the dialogue surrounding their flag but not the US one. Whether or not God King George Washington wanted slavery to be ongoing is irrelevant. The US presided over slavery until the Civil War forced the issue. It presided over genocidal westward expansion until land ran out. Can it not represent these things as well as the better parts?

It can, yes. It really depends on the eye of the beholder. As Chris Rock hilariously said: “If you're black, you got to look at America a little bit different. You got to look at America like the uncle who paid for you to go to college... but who molested you.”

And I'm sure the US flag isn't a symbol of freedom, democracy and a better tomorrow for the Cherokee people, or the Pakistani villagers who regularly tune in to the local weather channel for drone attack warnings.

But really, that's another discussion. There's very little room for debate in terms of what the Confederate Flag represents. There's really no valid argument that it represents anything good at all - it is exclusively symbolic of the old Southern slave economy. Whereas, the US flag at least can stand for some good things, like the Apollo program, the great cultural and ethnic diversity of US cities, the great American Universities like Harvard and Princeton, or just the land itself as a tourist destination or place to live/visit. Just like the national flag of any country. Likewise, the British flag could represent a century of brutality and colonialism in Africa, just as it can represent all the great literary, scientific and architectural accomplishments of the British people. I think the difference is one of exclusivity - it's why the Nazi flag, or like, the current black ISIS banner, doesn't have any positive aspects, but most national flags represent nations that have some significant positive qualities, even if it's just as simple as being happy with the place you live.

[Rogue 9]

You've missed my point completely in some weird attempt to play America's Champion. I'm not actually concerned about the Confederacy, they're terrible and we all know that. I'm happy to see their flags being removed from government buildings. But let's move on.

My concern is one of hypocrisy for the dialogue surrounding their flag but not the US one. Whether or not God King George Washington wanted slavery to be ongoing is irrelevant. The US presided over slavery until the Civil War forced the issue. It presided over genocidal westward expansion until land ran out. Can it not represent these things as well as the better parts?

Sure. As long as we're changing the fucking subject, when are you tearing down the flag of Australia? While we're presuming to speak for people we are not part of and have not consulted, I hear the aborigines have a few grievances.

I didn't miss your point at all. The point I was making, and still make, is that the alternative to fighting the Civil War, which you have advocated should not have been done on the basis that the land was all stolen anyway, is... westward expansion and wars of conquest into Central America and the Caribbean. Only with blackjack and hookers slavery this time. The Confederacy was no friend to the natives; as you may recall (presuming you ever bothered to find out) the expulsion of the southwestern tribes, which is the main atrocity leading to the rest, was done at the behest of the Slave Power, by a slaveholding President, in defiance of the Supreme Court, for the express purpose of seizing their lands to build more slave-operated cotton plantations on.

The Confederate States was a simple extension of the political power of the slaveholding class; nothing more and nothing less. There are no redeeming qualities to it, and it's a dead power. The only reason to fly its flag now is to glorify its memory, and that memory is a legacy of treason and war waged in defense of slavery. The United States still exists today and has a long and varied history, and as such there are all sorts of reasons to fly its banner that have nothing to do with the legacy of westward expansion. What symbols of the United States mean is at worst complicated because it's history is complicated; that of the Confederacy (and it's symbols) is not. That is why we remove the Confederate flag but not that of the United States. It's not just a matter of morality and racism, but one of what flags have any business over our government buildings. The flag of the U.S. incontrovertibly does - it is, after all, the flag of our government. The battle flag of the Confederacy (and indeed the national flag of the Confederacy, which flew on the Alabama statehouse grounds until last week) does not, any more than the Christian or British flags do.

[Steve]

I think you mean southeastern, not southwestern. If you're talking about Andy Jackson.

[Rogue 9]

I do, yes. I mistyped.

[Gandalf]

It can, yes. It really depends on the eye of the beholder. As Chris Rock hilariously said: “If you're black, you got to look at America a little bit different. You got to look at America like the uncle who paid for you to go to college... but who molested you.”

And I'm sure the US flag isn't a symbol of freedom, democracy and a better tomorrow for the Cherokee people, or the Pakistani villagers who regularly tune in to the local weather channel for drone attack warnings.

But really, that's another discussion. There's very little room for debate in terms of what the Confederate Flag represents. There's really no valid argument that it represents anything good at all - it is exclusively symbolic of the old Southern slave economy. Whereas, the US flag at least can stand for some good things, like the Apollo program, the great cultural and ethnic diversity of US cities, the great American Universities like Harvard and Princeton, or just the land itself as a tourist destination or place to live/visit. Just like the national flag of any country. Likewise, the British flag could represent a century of brutality and colonialism in Africa, just as it can represent all the great literary, scientific and architectural accomplishments of the British people. I think the difference is one of exclusivity - it's why the Nazi flag, or like, the current black ISIS banner, doesn't have any positive aspects, but most national flags represent nations that have some significant positive qualities, even if it's just as simple as being happy with the place you live.

I like what you're trying to say, though one thing puzzles me; At what point does a symbol, be it a flag, corporate logo, or any text really, suddenly lose a number of interpretations greater than one? It doesn't matter what one person says, it's what the audience hears.

Good point with the flags on drones thing. I hadn't thought of that part. Analysing this through the lens of Foucauldian biopower/biopolitics is most fascinating.

[Borgholio]

Looks like the State Senate voted overwhelmingly to remove the flag. It now goes to the House.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/ ... ag-future/

[Flagg]

I am pretty sure that there are people who just do it because the others do it. Not because they actually want to violently attack others. It's kinda like the situation with Japan. If you seriously talk to a Japanese person, he will be proud that his country has a constitutional protection against going to war and stuff, but he might have the Imperial Japanese flags around. And if asked why, he'd just say that a lot of people do it and they taught him it's the way to honor soldiers or something.

But I don't think people who casually fly this shit, stupid as it is, can be described as neo-confederates. The connection is not as strong as with the swastika.

Oh yeah. I mean there are people, especially out in hillbilly land, who honestly don't understand why anyone would consider it racist. A lot of it is the fact that they grew up with it everywhere, despite their claims know jack and shit about its or their own history, and didn't grow up with a lot of black people around who might take issue with it. And trust me, if you're black in a majority (I'm talking 8-9/10) white county, you're not going to complain about it because there are still Klan groups, and "accidents" happen all the time.

But the South is fucking weird. I mean I've never met more hateful people with utterly revolting views on social and political issues than in the south, but when you need help due to misfortune or illness, those same people will go out of their way to help you even when it puts them out. Like when in 2005 I was in recovery from my surgery and the recovery floor I was on was really bad and my mom took 10 days off from work to make sure I was taken care of during the day (because day shift was the worst, with dirty needles left on lunch trays and allowing patients to lay in their own vomit for an hour because they were on their lunch break and decided they would clean me up when they were done, and that's just a tiny fraction of that hell that gives me distress just thinking about it. Helpless and abused, nothing worse) and for 3 days after coming home on top of the time she'd had to take off in the 5 weeks I was in the hospital before the surgery was finally done, and almost everyone who she'd worked with, even people she clashed with, gave up vacation time to make up the difference.

Nothing like that has ever happened since moving to Seattle. In fact people (with 2 exceptions), especially when it comes to money, seem to go out of their fucking way to be assholes and make your life miserable. Still wouldn't go back if my life depended on it, though.

[Beowulf]

I am pretty sure that there are people who just do it because the others do it. Not because they actually want to violently attack others. It's kinda like the situation with Japan. If you seriously talk to a Japanese person, he will be proud that his country has a constitutional protection against going to war and stuff, but he might have the Imperial Japanese flags around. And if asked why, he'd just say that a lot of people do it and they taught him it's the way to honor soldiers or something.

The Japanese flag and naval ensign haven't changed since before World War II. There may be minor shade differences, but it's the exact same flag.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My concern is one of hypocrisy for the dialogue surrounding their flag but not the US one. Whether or not God King George Washington wanted slavery to be ongoing is irrelevant. The US presided over slavery until the Civil War forced the issue. It presided over genocidal westward expansion until land ran out. Can it not represent these things as well as the better parts?

Of course it can. And it does. I dont salute the thing anymore. But at the same time as Rogue said, there is the exclusivity.

The US flag represents a lot of things. The Rule of Law (usually), individual liberty, freedom from persecution abroad for many of the world's downtrodden, pride in one's home where all one's stuff is. But those are all works in progress. The ideals espoused by the united states--while earnestly held--have always been somewhat more ambitious than what its people and government can actually live up to. As a result, it also represents slavery, segregation, racism, genocide, Japanese Internment, the "indiscretions" of the Cold War and "War on Terror" (a high-minded endeavor with a miserable failure for an execution), and the destruction of Nazism and Imperial Japan (shared between the Union Jack, and the Soviet flag)

As an Aside:
One can make credibly make the claim (I dont know if I do, I consider the idea credible, but have not evaluated it in depth) that the nation represented by the US flag now is not qualitatively the same nation as the one represented prior to 1865, because the culture and structure of government changed that much as a result of the war. In fact, one could easily make the claim (and I think I do) that prior to 1865, the US was not a nation at all. It was a state with many constituent nations. The Civil War and what followed up through I would say WWI forged a single Nation from many. The early history of the US can be described most succinctly as a north/south legal and cultural conflict over slavery that sometimes escalated into internecine warfare and threatened to divide the country from something like the 1820s onward.

The US flag is a mixed bag, but it is possible to compartmentalize and be proud of the good things, while being ashamed of and wanting to improve the bad. Only reactionary right-wing nationalists reject that core concept.

The Confederacy... does not have any good things to speak of. It never did. It was not just founded as a state that had legal slavery--that would not differentiate it from most of the other states prior to that point in history with a few notable exceptions--it was founded upon the maintenance and expansion of inherited chattel slavery as a positive good and a national ideal. There are only a few nations/states in the history of human kind that have an evil like that as a founding principle.

[K. A. Pital]

The Japanese flag and naval ensign haven't changed since before World War II. There may be minor shade differences, but it's the exact same flag.

The Japanese government is a bunch of nonrepentant racist assholes, unlike the German one.

[Grumman]

One can make credibly make the claim (I dont know if I do, I consider the idea credible, but have not evaluated it in depth) that the nation represented by the US flag now is not qualitatively the same nation as the one represented prior to 1865, because the culture and structure of government changed that much as a result of the war.

I would make that claim, but not just because of that war. Give a country fifty years and you've probably replaced everyone senior enough to have any real say in how the country is run. Sometimes they follow in their predecessors' footsteps, but you can hardly just assume that to be true.

[Borgholio]

In related news, Memphis City Council voted to remove the monument and remains of Confederate General Nathan Forrest from the city park.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/294 ... pe=generic

[Gandalf]

Sure. As long as we're changing the fucking subject, when are you tearing down the flag of Australia? While we're presuming to speak for people we are not part of and have not consulted, I hear the aborigines have a few grievances.

I'll get to the rest of your post in time, but this bit puzzles me; When you say "you," are you referring to me as the singular individual, me as part of an indigenous mob (Wonnarua), or me as an Australian citizen? Because all of the answers are different.

Also, I'm not speaking for Native Americans. I'm using their treatment under the government's exercises of biopower as a means of framing discussion of the Civil War. Why you brought the war into a discussion of symbolism eludes me, but I'll play along.

[Rogue 9]

Sure. As long as we're changing the fucking subject, when are you tearing down the flag of Australia? While we're presuming to speak for people we are not part of and have not consulted, I hear the aborigines have a few grievances.

I'll get to the rest of your post in time, but this bit puzzles me; When you say "you," are you referring to me as the singular individual, me as part of an indigenous mob (Wonnarua), or me as an Australian citizen? Because all of the answers are different.

Cute. In the same sense you mean when you equate the flag of the United States to that of the Confederacy to say they should get the same treatment.

Also, I'm not speaking for Native Americans. I'm using their treatment under the government's exercises of biopower as a means of framing discussion of the Civil War. Why you brought the war into a discussion of symbolism eludes me, but I'll play along.

Because the flag in question is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and has no meaning or purpose apart from that military body in that war. If you're going to discuss symbolism, you must discuss what is symbolized.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One can make credibly make the claim (I dont know if I do, I consider the idea credible, but have not evaluated it in depth) that the nation represented by the US flag now is not qualitatively the same nation as the one represented prior to 1865, because the culture and structure of government changed that much as a result of the war.

I would make that claim, but not just because of that war. Give a country fifty years and you've probably replaced everyone senior enough to have any real say in how the country is run. Sometimes they follow in their predecessors' footsteps, but you can hardly just assume that to be true.

That is not what a nation is. That is a state. A country. Nation and State are two different things. A nation is a large aggregate of people united by common history, culture, and often language, that typically (but dont necessarily have to) occupy or have historically occupied the same region.

Many nations have their own states. Germany, Sweden, Poland. These are ethnic nation states, run essentially by and for the persons who we would see as (and who call themselves) Germans, Swedes, and Poles.

Whether the argument is true or not really depends on whether "Americans" were "Americans" prior to 1865. It is an argument I am willing to admit, but on reflection, I dont think they really were. They were "Virginians" and "New Yorkers", united under the same state, but not one nation. After 1865 and the reconstruction that followed, "American" can then be said to be a national identity that exists.

The primarily oddity of the US in this sense is that its national identity is not shared ethnicity, but shared ideology and identity. While other nations like Germans derived their national identity from shared ethnicity, the American national identity is essentially an adopted one, taken up many other peoples who would otherwise hold other ethnic and national identities.

[This is actually one of the few ways we are qualitatively better socially than much of Europe. Immigration. We have issues, but with each wave of immigration new peoples are eventually accepted into our concept of nationhood, and as a result, while there are always a couple decades of prejudice, eventually new waves of immigrants are assimilated into American-ness. Then the old immigrants rankle at the next wave of new ethnic immigrants from some other place. It is complicated by race obviously, with people of the same "race" having an easier time of it than say, black people.

This is harder in a place like Germany or France, where their concept of nationhood is largely ethnic. Even when there is not race-based prejudice per se (and there often is), someone from North Africa moving into France does not share the ethnic identity, and ethnic national identities dont lend themselves to national adoption as well as ideological ones. They will thus (and do) find it harder to stop being an outsider and assimilate into French-ness fully, no matter how well they adhere to the laws of France or speak French

Quantitatively, their policies might be better in a lot of ways than ours. European countries are more willing to accept asylum claims and refugee populations than the US is, for example. They are nicer than us that way. We are kinda dicks. But once here, there are fewer obstacles to assimilation than in Europe, and this is cultural rather than legal or political per se.]

But... long rambling tangent where I am basically talking out of my ass from observation. I am no anthropologist, so grain of salt required.

[Borgholio]

The flag is coming down at 10am Friday morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/us/south- ... aStoryLink

[Metahive]

[This is actually one of the few ways we are qualitatively better socially than much of Europe. Immigration. We have issues, but with each wave of immigration new peoples are eventually accepted into our concept of nationhood, and as a result, while there are always a couple decades of prejudice, eventually new waves of immigrants are assimilated into American-ness. Then the old immigrants rankle at the next wave of new ethnic immigrants from some other place. It is complicated by race obviously, with people of the same "race" having an easier time of it than say, black people.

Yes, European countries tend to have issues with immigrants, there's no denying the issue, particularly if the immigrants are non-white and non-christian, but isn't the fact that majority of native and black Americans (and probably hispanic Americans as well) continue to languish at the bottom rung of the social ladder a pretty glaring indicator that the US are actually not really all that "qualitatively" better than much of Europe on this issue?

[Gandalf]

Cute. In the same sense you mean when you equate the flag of the United States to that of the Confederacy to say they should get the same treatment.

I've been working with local elders on the subject. Thankfully here we also fly Indigenous flags with Australian ones at most government places so it's less of an issue. However, we are putting a lot of eggs in the republican basket, so that when the time comes to change the flag, we can get the Union Jack off and perhaps one of these.

Because the flag in question is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and has no meaning or purpose apart from that military body in that war. If you're going to discuss symbolism, you must discuss what is symbolized.

Ah, so this is a "death of the author" argument? To quote Roland Barthes; A text's unity lies not in its origin but its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted.

Where do you hold that meaning is constructed Rogue?

[Flagg]

The flag is coming down at 10am Friday morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/us/south- ... aStoryLink

Good. Now, let the homeless they haven't forced out of the state with a one way ticket wipe their filthy asses with it, the best and really, only use for a confederate flag.

I was shocked to learn traitor soldiers were buried at Arlington National Cemetary. That's fucking outrageous. Dig them up and either send them back to their own states to bury them at their expense or put the skeletal fucks in metal drums and drop them 13 miles off shore. I don't want those scumbags on land seized from the great traitor Robert Lee for burial of Loyal Union Soldiers who gave their lives to stop people-owning megalomaniacs who first declare severance from and then attack their own fucking country.

[Knife]

Ah, so this is a "death of the author" argument? To quote Roland Barthes; A text's unity lies not in its origin but its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted.

Where do you hold that meaning is constructed Rogue?

Wha? Where the hell did you pull that massive shifting of the conversation out of your ass. It's not text asshat, it's a symbol with a very well documented (OK text, but also video and audio) history. This isn't a half dozen professor's sitting around a bottle of wine interrupting Shakesphere. This issue is very much with 'history' and many well documented 'biographies'. Go quote mine somewhere else.

[Alyrium Denryle]

[This is actually one of the few ways we are qualitatively better socially than much of Europe. Immigration. We have issues, but with each wave of immigration new peoples are eventually accepted into our concept of nationhood, and as a result, while there are always a couple decades of prejudice, eventually new waves of immigrants are assimilated into American-ness. Then the old immigrants rankle at the next wave of new ethnic immigrants from some other place. It is complicated by race obviously, with people of the same "race" having an easier time of it than say, black people.

Yes, European countries tend to have issues with immigrants, there's no denying the issue, particularly if the immigrants are non-white and non-christian, but isn't the fact that majority of native and black Americans (and probably hispanic Americans as well) continue to languish at the bottom rung of the social ladder a pretty glaring indicator that the US are actually not really all that "qualitatively" better than much of Europe on this issue?

(Note: I am not saying the following is good. Being descriptive, not prescriptive)

The simplest answer I can give to that is that neither Native Americans nor African Americans are immigrants, and different processes apply. More specifically, Native Americans are not Americans in nationality. They are conquered peoples who have pointedly not assimilated, with an unhealthy dose of really rancid racism tossed into the historical mix. They have maintained their own physical territories, customs etc rather than assimilating into the broader US culture. Partially because they have never really been permitted to until recently, and partially because they by and large dont really want to. Obviously they should not be treated like shit. But as a counter-example, it does not work.

The same goes for African Americans, save replace "conquered" with "enslaved" and replace "maintain their own physical territories" with "were segregated away from the rest of society". Rather than have their own culture that they have maintained, they have a somewhat separate one that grew in parallel, though with a lot more cultural exchange. It is kinda hard to adopt the "American" historical/cultural narrative and thus assimilate into the ideological nationality when the founding fathers worshipped as part of that narrative enslaved your ancestors the "Freedom" everyone waxes poetic about did not include your grandparents right to vote, the racism that plagued said ancestors persists to the modern period through a variety of means.

As for Hispanic Americans, they are in the middle of their immigration wave. Ongoing process.

[Flagg]

[This is actually one of the few ways we are qualitatively better socially than much of Europe. Immigration. We have issues, but with each wave of immigration new peoples are eventually accepted into our concept of nationhood, and as a result, while there are always a couple decades of prejudice, eventually new waves of immigrants are assimilated into American-ness. Then the old immigrants rankle at the next wave of new ethnic immigrants from some other place. It is complicated by race obviously, with people of the same "race" having an easier time of it than say, black people.

Yes, European countries tend to have issues with immigrants, there's no denying the issue, particularly if the immigrants are non-white and non-christian, but isn't the fact that majority of native and black Americans (and probably hispanic Americans as well) continue to languish at the bottom rung of the social ladder a pretty glaring indicator that the US are actually not really all that "qualitatively" better than much of Europe on this issue?

(Note: I am not saying the following is good. Being descriptive, not prescriptive)

The simplest answer I can give to that is that neither Native Americans nor African Americans are immigrants, and different processes apply. More specifically, Native Americans are not Americans in nationality. They are conquered peoples who have pointedly not assimilated, with an unhealthy dose of really rancid racism tossed into the historical mix. They have maintained their own physical territories, customs etc rather than assimilating into the broader US culture. Partially because they have never really been permitted to until recently, and partially because they by and large dont really want to. Obviously they should not be treated like shit. But as a counter-example, it does not work.

The same goes for African Americans, save replace "conquered" with "enslaved" and replace "maintain their own physical territories" with "were segregated away from the rest of society". Rather than have their own culture that they have maintained, they have a somewhat separate one that grew in parallel, though with a lot more cultural exchange. It is kinda hard to adopt the "American" historical/cultural narrative and thus assimilate into the ideological nationality when the founding fathers worshipped as part of that narrative enslaved your ancestors the "Freedom" everyone waxes poetic about did not include your grandparents right to vote, the racism that plagued said ancestors persists to the modern period through a variety of means.

As for Hispanic Americans, they are in the middle of their immigration wave. Ongoing process.

A lot of Hispanic American families have been Americans much longer than the Irish and Italian immigrants that came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as well. Remember, pretty much the entire Southwestern US was stolen from Mexico in the Mexican-American War aka "That's some nice land you got there, you should give it to us! Oh and here's a made up "agreed to" map with the Texas border set at the Rio Grande instead of the Snake river, so let's get moving on tha- You don't agree with this fake treaty you signed?! Well then, fuck you! This means we're going to use this opportunity to steal as much land as possible war!

But I don't know that there is really a huge number of Hispanics immigrating, when most undocumented Hispanics, especially from Mexico, to my knowledge (and remember my brains are scrambled) come here to work and send money home to their families. I mean unless the cartel violence is so bad that that's changed, but I was under the impression that the cartels were on the ropes. Not that I'm saying there isn't Hispanic immigration in large numbers, especially in the border states.

[Flagg]

Ah, so this is a "death of the author" argument? To quote Roland Barthes; A text's unity lies not in its origin but its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted.

Where do you hold that meaning is constructed Rogue?

Wha? Where the hell did you pull that massive shifting of the conversation out of your ass. It's not text asshat, it's a symbol with a very well documented (OK text, but also video and audio) history. This isn't a half dozen professor's sitting around a bottle of wine interrupting Shakesphere. This issue is very much with 'history' and many well documented 'biographies'. Go quote mine somewhere else.

What's all this, then?

[Borgholio]

Posting this here since it is somewhat related. The statue of Jefferson Davis has been removed from the University of Texas campus and placed in a museum section of the University instead. Sons of Confederate Veterans are outraged. Oh well...Davis wasn't even a veteran anyways.

A statue of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War, was taken down from its pedestal outside the clock tower on the University of Texas at Austin campus on Sunday, after a legal appeal to keep the memorial in place was rejected.

In a letter sent to faculty and staff members and students this month, Gregory L. Fenves, the university president, wrote, “While every historical figure leaves a mixed legacy, I believe Jefferson Davis is in a separate category, and that it is not in the university’s best interest to continue commemorating him on our Main Mall.”

In March, the university’s student government passed a resolution to remove the statue. Mr. Fenves’s decision was based in part on the findings of a task force formed in June after three statues on campus were vandalized. The removal of the statue was delayed until a judge ruled against an appeal filed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The Davis statue will be relocated to the Briscoe Center for American History on the university’s campus, to be part of the nation’s largest collection of archival material depicting slavery.

Statues of the Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, and one of the Confederate postmasters general, John H. Reagan, will remain in place on campus, the university said.

The Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy have become a source of tension since the massacre in June at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., in which nine people died.

Dylann Roof, 21, the white man charged in the slayings at Charleston’s Emanuel A.M.E. Church, had appeared in photos with the Confederate flag. Mr. Roof was indicted in July on federal hate crimes.

[Rogue 9]

Posting this here since it is somewhat related. The statue of Jefferson Davis has been removed from the University of Texas campus and placed in a museum section of the University instead. Sons of Confederate Veterans are outraged. Oh well...Davis wasn't even a veteran anyways.

Actually he was, of the Mexican War. Which is not to say we should be commemorating his treason.