- Moderator
- #761
Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changedhttps://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?I said mostYup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changedhttps://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
What the symbol stands for has never changed.
Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
"America as a whole"?
Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
At all.
But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
View attachment 313321
The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole accepted that without any shock or surprise.
Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
On the national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous symbol of "regional pride".
As I said before, fly it proudly.
Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.