Rebranding the Union Jack?

[Montcalm]

How can they say a flag can be racist?

Ask some Southern Rednecks flying the Stars-n-Bars Confederate flag.....

Oh i forgot about that one,YO shep do you have that flag on your front lawn?

[Ted C]

Wow.....he needs a good dose of common sense, preferably by baseball bat.

Fear the might thwack of my clue by four!

[Nathan F]

How can they say a flag can be racist?

Ask some Southern Rednecks flying the Stars-n-Bars Confederate flag.....

Just because you are a redneck and have a Confederate flag doesn't mean you are racist. But, there are those who would use it to represent racism, which is pretty sick if you ask me. Of course, if someone wanted, they could us the US flag to represent racism, too, seeing as though slavery was once legal in the US, and it was condoned by most European countries at some time or another. So, inherintley, the Confederate flag is no more racist than, say, the Union Jack, it is simply how it is used by some people.

On that note:

WTF? The Union Jack is racist because it isn't BLACK?! I have heard some moronic things in my time, and that, folks, is in the top 10.

[Darth Yoshi]

I've never seen a blue person before.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This again shows the sorry state some people's minds are in...
*shakes head*

Don't worry, Dahak - I'm sure that in a few years "Forever Young Turks - I Love Türkiye" will be added as a slogan to the German flag. *grins*

[Joe]

How can they say a flag can be racist?

Ask some Southern Rednecks flying the Stars-n-Bars Confederate flag.....

Just because you are a redneck and have a Confederate flag doesn't mean you are racist. But, there are those who would use it to represent racism, which is pretty sick if you ask me. Of course, if someone wanted, they could us the US flag to represent racism, too, seeing as though slavery was once legal in the US, and it was condoned by most European countries at some time or another. So, inherintley, the Confederate flag is no more racist than, say, the Union Jack, it is simply how it is used by some people.

On that note:

WTF? The Union Jack is racist because it isn't BLACK?! I have heard some moronic things in my time, and that, folks, is in the top 10.

If you use that argument, just about every national flag in Europe has to go. Atrocities of varying degrees have been committed under just about national flag in the world, but national flags are more inclusive and thus you can't really condemn them for the sins of a few. The Confederate Flag, by contrast, is uniquely associated with the racist Confederacy which would have kept blacks in bondage for decades had it not been stopped. So it naturally receives more scrutiny.

[Raptor 597]

It appears that some people consider the Union Jack 'racist' and want to include some black into it to make it more 'multicultural.'

BBC Link

While PC Bullshit, it gives a wonderful excuse to go out and conquer some nation to keep with precedent.

All in favor of rescinding the Declaration Of Independence, and bringing the US back under our sway, vote Aye. All in favor of using the US's nukes to then nuke the French, breath.

Why you a French player hater? I can list productive things France has done. Your just jealous because the US didn't gobble up Europe.

[Keevan_Colton]

Did no one read my post?
This is obviously a tounge in cheek move against the British Nationalist Party who are a bunch of racist fuckwits...thier main sloagn is along the lines of "Thier isnt any black in the union jack" as to why black people should be beaten up...they also arent too hot on gays either....in general thier collective brain cells seem concentrated in the anal region.....

[Nathan F]

Just because you are a redneck and have a Confederate flag doesn't mean you are racist. But, there are those who would use it to represent racism, which is pretty sick if you ask me. Of course, if someone wanted, they could us the US flag to represent racism, too, seeing as though slavery was once legal in the US, and it was condoned by most European countries at some time or another. So, inherintley, the Confederate flag is no more racist than, say, the Union Jack, it is simply how it is used by some people.

On that note:

WTF? The Union Jack is racist because it isn't BLACK?! I have heard some moronic things in my time, and that, folks, is in the top 10.

If you use that argument, just about every national flag in Europe has to go. Atrocities of varying degrees have been committed under just about national flag in the world, but national flags are more inclusive and thus you can't really condemn them for the sins of a few. The Confederate Flag, by contrast, is uniquely associated with the racist Confederacy which would have kept blacks in bondage for decades had it not been stopped. So it naturally receives more scrutiny.

Hate to start a threadjack, but...

And if you use that line of reasoning, then the UK would be just as bad off, seeing as how they supported the Confederacy, and therefore, by aiding it, was no better. But as to keeping African Americans in bondage, slavery was already in decline. It was an outmoded and inefficient method of harvesting crops and was being replaced by industrialization and mechanization. It simply would have been impossible for it to continue and still be profitable. Not to say that the post-slavery Confederacy wouldn't be racist, but, probably not too much more than the post-civil war South, or North for that matter.

And the logic I was using wasn't flawed; as you pointed out, almost every flag in the world is guilty of just as many crimes against humanity than the Confederacy, if not more for some other countries. Need we mention the apartheid government of South Africa, or the British rule of some colonies, or the American crimes against the Indians, or the countless other long term atrocities committed by various nations of the world, none of which are any better or any less appaling than the upholding of slavery by the Confederacy.

[Joe]

And if you use that line of reasoning, then the UK would be just as bad off, seeing as how they supported the Confederacy, and therefore, by aiding it, was no better. But as to keeping African Americans in bondage, slavery was already in decline. It was an outmoded and inefficient method of harvesting crops and was being replaced by industrialization and mechanization. It simply would have been impossible for it to continue and still be profitable. Not to say that the post-slavery Confederacy wouldn't be racist, but, probably not too much more than the post-civil war South, or North for that matter.

Common myth. Slavery was an outstandingly efficient method of harvesting crops, cotton in particular, and slaves were high-yield investments. Cotton production grew by 1000 percent during the antebellum era with the slave population growing by 250 percent (and cotton growing harvesting technology remained mostly static throughout this period). Say what you will, but that is not the sign of an economically inefficient system. This can be attributed to the gang system, an unrelentingly brutal system of planting cotton that only slaves could be made to do (since farm owners could not pay free laborers enough to do it), economies of scale, and effective management (a fancy way of saying "a big guy smacking you with a whip if you fall behind"). It certainly was not in decline, in fact, evidence shows that slaveowners were quite optimistic about the future of slavery on the eve of the Civil War. Slavery was strong as hell just before the Civil War, in fact, the Southern economy becoming quite vibrant on account of it. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Time on the Cross by Fogel & Engerman; very eye-opening. It shatters myths concerning slavery from both sides of the argument.

And the logic I was using wasn't flawed; as you pointed out, almost every flag in the world is guilty of just as many crimes against humanity than the Confederacy, if not more for some other countries. Need we mention the apartheid government of South Africa, or the British rule of some colonies, or the American crimes against the Indians, or the countless other long term atrocities committed by various nations of the world, none of which are any better or any less appaling than the upholding of slavery by the Confederacy.

Yes, but those flags are broader and more inclusive, where the Confederate flag is uniquely identified with the confederacy. The other national flags encompass a number of different things, but the Confederate Flag can only be associated with the confederacy, and there was not much admirable about the confederacy.

[Wicked Pilot]

I always thought the British to be generally smarter than us Americans. But now I guess stupidity flows on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Nathan F]

And if you use that line of reasoning, then the UK would be just as bad off, seeing as how they supported the Confederacy, and therefore, by aiding it, was no better. But as to keeping African Americans in bondage, slavery was already in decline. It was an outmoded and inefficient method of harvesting crops and was being replaced by industrialization and mechanization. It simply would have been impossible for it to continue and still be profitable. Not to say that the post-slavery Confederacy wouldn't be racist, but, probably not too much more than the post-civil war South, or North for that matter.

Common myth. Slavery was an outstandingly efficient method of harvesting crops, cotton in particular, and slaves were high-yield investments. Cotton production grew by 1000 percent during the antebellum era with the slave population growing by 250 percent (and cotton growing harvesting technology remained mostly static throughout this period). Say what you will, but that is not the sign of an economically inefficient system. This can be attributed to the gang system, an unrelentingly brutal system of planting cotton that only slaves could be made to do (since farm owners could not pay free laborers enough to do it), economies of scale, and effective management (a fancy way of saying "a big guy smacking you with a whip if you fall behind"). It certainly was not in decline, in fact, evidence shows that slaveowners were quite optimistic about the future of slavery on the eve of the Civil War. Slavery was strong as hell just before the Civil War, in fact, the Southern economy becoming quite vibrant on account of it. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Time on the Cross by Fogel & Engerman; very eye-opening. It shatters myths concerning slavery from both sides of the argument.

Until I do further research on this (including the aforementioned book), I concede the point.

And the logic I was using wasn't flawed; as you pointed out, almost every flag in the world is guilty of just as many crimes against humanity than the Confederacy, if not more for some other countries. Need we mention the apartheid government of South Africa, or the British rule of some colonies, or the American crimes against the Indians, or the countless other long term atrocities committed by various nations of the world, none of which are any better or any less appaling than the upholding of slavery by the Confederacy.

Yes, but those flags are broader and more inclusive, where the Confederate flag is uniquely identified with the confederacy. The other national flags encompass a number of different things, but the Confederate Flag can only be associated with the confederacy, and there was not much admirable about the confederacy.

I do not understand what you mean. The Confederate flag can only be associated with the Confederate States of America, yeah, but the Union Jack can only be associated with Great Britain, and the US flag can only be associated with the US. I disagree on the point that there wasn't much admirable about the confederacy. The confederacy, other than the legalized slavery, was not much worse than the US at the time. Blacks were regularly oppressed and segregated in the north at the time, a point that is sometimes forgotten (Or is that a bit of selective memory on the part of the history books?). The US committed war crimes (as did the south) during the war (need we mention the total war against slave holding rich southerners and non-slave owning poor southerners alike committed by Sherman) that are, again, overlooked too many times. We shouldn't simply forget the scars that our past has, and attempt to force all blame on the loosers of the war. The Confederacy was established on the point of state's rights, in which they thought that the Federal government was becoming to big and restrictive, not solely on the issue of slavery, although that was a part in it. Again, not to say that the Confederacy was completely scotch free, but it isn't as terrible, heinous, and evil as it is made out to be all to often.

[Joe]

he confederacy, other than the legalized slavery, was not much worse than the US at the time. Blacks were regularly oppressed and segregated in the north at the time, a point that is sometimes forgotten (Or is that a bit of selective memory on the part of the history books?).

Point, although what segregation and such hardly compares to making a living, thinking, human being into a piece of equipment.

The Confederacy was established on the point of state's rights, in which they thought that the Federal government was becoming to big and restrictive, not solely on the issue of slavery, although that was a part in it.

The legitimate objections of the southern states (the protective tariffs immediately come to mind) are completely destroyed by the fact that they aggressively and proudly declared their right to own human beings to be a cornerstone of their new government. Anyone who argues for states' rights at the expense of individual rights is just a damned hypocrite.

[Nathan F]

he confederacy, other than the legalized slavery, was not much worse than the US at the time. Blacks were regularly oppressed and segregated in the north at the time, a point that is sometimes forgotten (Or is that a bit of selective memory on the part of the history books?).

Point, although what segregation and such hardly compares to making a living, thinking, human being into a piece of equipment.

As callous as it sounds, the US was essentially the same thing only a very few years before the war. The Constitution never considered blacks to be people or citizens, it is a simple fact. So, just because the southern states were a little, 'behind the times', how does that make them so much worse than the northern states who had done the same thing only a few years before?

The Confederacy was established on the point of state's rights, in which they thought that the Federal government was becoming to big and restrictive, not solely on the issue of slavery, although that was a part in it.

The legitimate objections of the southern states (the protective tariffs immediately come to mind) are completely destroyed by the fact that they aggressively and proudly declared their right to own human beings to be a cornerstone of their new government. Anyone who argues for states' rights at the expense of individual rights is just a damned hypocrite.

Agreed, but, to continue this, I will have to do more research into the decline (or rise) of slavery, and predictions into whether or not it would have lasted.

*Another point on that issue. Would it have continued to be an effective means of trade? If the US and other nations were so much better, would they have traded openly with the CSA after the war, if slavery was still part of the economy? Without outside support, a nation that has next to no industrial base couldn't survive.

[Joe]

As callous as it sounds, the US was essentially the same thing only a very few years before the war. The Constitution never considered blacks to be people or citizens, it is a simple fact. So, just because the southern states were a little, 'behind the times', how does that make them so much worse than the northern states who had done the same thing only a few years before?

Yes, but the U.S. government never aggressively boasted to the world of the fact that half of its states held slaves. Slavery was the shame of the Republic when it started, if anything.

Agreed, but, to continue this, I will have to do more research into the decline (or rise) of slavery, and predictions into whether or not it would have lasted.

*Another point on that issue. Would it have continued to be an effective means of trade? If the US and other nations were so much better, would they have traded openly with the CSA after the war, if slavery was still part of the economy? Without outside support, a nation that has next to no industrial base couldn't survive.

I should have been more clear. Economic forces alone would never have forced slavery out of existence, at least not within the near future. The only thing that could have done it would have been (other than the war, of course) political pressure from elsewhere, such as from Britain.

[kojikun]

Did no one read my post?
This is obviously a tounge in cheek move against the British Nationalist Party who are a bunch of racist fuckwits...thier main sloagn is along the lines of "Thier isnt any black in the union jack" as to why black people should be beaten up...they also arent too hot on gays either....in general thier collective brain cells seem concentrated in the anal region.....

I say we add some hot pink to the Union Jack. Or some rainbow colors.

[Gil Hamilton]

*looks at the above flag and blinks hard*

Ouch, that's hard on the eyes...

[NecronLord]

ROTFLMMFGDNSQNQAO!!!!

That's a parthetic idea.



There's plenty of black on that flag. I guess they must be 'multicultural'

[Keevan_Colton]

It's a frelling joke against the BNP....

[kojikun]

necron, much as the nazis sucked, whoever designed that flag had skills.

[Tatterdemalion]

It's a frelling joke against the BNP....

Now now Keevan, the nice people are having too much fun prentending they're intellectually superior to everyone else to acknowledge that.

[Companion Cube]

I say we add some hot pink to the Union Jack. Or some rainbow colors.

http://66.176.192.148/queerjack.jpg

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

[Ice]

It's a frelling joke against the BNP....

Well, either that story is in the "Humor" section of the BBC and I don't know enough about their site to realize it, or they missed the joke entirely over there then. That story sure seems to be real enough to me.

[RedImperator]

necron, much as the nazis sucked, whoever designed that flag had skills.

Nobody ever accused the Nazis of not having any style.

[kojikun]

Nobody ever accused the Nazis of not having any style.

well, the hole waving and goosestepping thing was a bit queer, but the leather and black.. ooh if the SS werent such assholes, man..