The racist history of the confederate flag

[Camp]

You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.

what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?

was it because it was treasonous?

was it because it was hateful?

was it because it was racist?

Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?

the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

 

[Correll]

what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?

was it because it was treasonous?

was it because it was hateful?

was it because it was racist?

Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?

the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

 

[rightwinger]

It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.

Seems only Republicans still are flying it

i doubt that.

i'm sure there are poor democrats in the south who fly it, and despite the fact that dems have nothing but contempt for them, still vote for the party that they think will represent their economic interests.

I only see republicans defending it and insisting it fly

Can you point to Democratic representatives that still support the Confederate flag?

 

[Camp]

Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?

the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.

 

[rightwinger]

Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"

After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro

When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"

your answer does not explain why you left it out.

your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.

by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.

they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.

the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.

i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.

By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK

Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was

It is no longer a proper symbol

by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.

but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us

these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.

it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.

i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.

and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.

not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.


you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.

Dukes of Hazard again?

I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that

Maybe they don't get parody.

I just in my right mind can't imagine why anyone would use The Dukes of Hazard as a justification for a state to fly the confederate flag. If I was a proud southerner, The Dukes of Hazard would be a reason I'd want the damned thing taken down

It just boggles my mind

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation

The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a symbol of defiance against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South, as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.
The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.




..

Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.

A flag isn't the problem.

 

[Ravi]

the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.

Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.

 

[Camp]

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.

Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.

Ya, while claiming to defend the honor of imagined and created Marines that raised a confederate flag at Okinawa they trash the genuine guys and flag raising of the Stars and Stripes by the guys who really did it.

 

[Ravi]

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.

Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.

Ya, while claiming to defend the honor of imagined and created Marines that raised a confederate flag at Okinawa they trash the genuine guys and flag raising of the Stars and Stripes by the guys who really did it.

Sick.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation

The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a symbol of defiance against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South, as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.
The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.




..

Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.

A flag isn't the problem.

Obviously it is

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation

The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a symbol of defiance against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South, as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.
The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.




..

Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.

A flag isn't the problem.

Obviously it is

It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.

If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.

As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation

The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia as a symbol of defiance against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South, as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.
The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.




..

Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.

A flag isn't the problem.

Obviously it is

It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.

If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.

As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.

What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Rather buy the flags for racists to fly them overtly and loudly. Then I know where they are. Better an overt racist flying a flag than a secret racist you never know about.

 

[Statistikhengst]

your answer does not explain why you left it out.

your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.

by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.

they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.

the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.

i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.

By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK

Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was

It is no longer a proper symbol

by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.

but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us

these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.

it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.

i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.

and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.

not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.


you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.

Dukes of Hazard again?

I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that

Smart people can be embarrassed.

Those with the IQ of a tin can? Less so...

any comment of the fact that i have demonstrated that the rise of the flag in the 20th begain in wwii, and NOT 10 years later in the resistance to desegregation?

rhetorical question.

i know you are not hear to discuss the topic, but just to be an asshole.

"you are not hear"


Hmmmmmm...

A nice English course for you, maybe...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????

Really, you can't make that shit up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.

Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:

This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.

And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:

As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.

One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?


Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy

jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?

It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.

How is it a Democrat flag? Explain.

Because you ignorant ass confederates were democrats . Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The thing is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?

Who's the ignorant one? The Democrat Party did not win one Southern state in the last election before the Civil War.....Not One.

So, how can you claim that the Confederates were Democrats? They left the party BEFORE they left the Union.

You aren't very bright and don't seem to be getting any brighter.

This is historically absolutely correct.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that they were ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.

lol!

it's use was not authorized or official?

that's your answer?

it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.

it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.

the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..

the man that ordered it down was the son of a confederate general.

You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.

In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.

you are quibbling over semantics.

these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.

they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.

Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that. That Southern education of the time, I guess.

your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.

they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.

A flag that represents 4 years of treachery and LOSING is supposed to be an important Southern heritage?

Stick with your Dukes of Hazzard argument. It was better.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????

link to where i said that.

Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

No it wasn't.

care to explain why you think that?

A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.

Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?

those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.

not as a symbol of treason or hatred.

that's what it has to do with it.

Sez you. No matter what their reasoning, they were deluded and shouldn't have been allowed to fly them the traitors.

"traitors"?

they were fighting the enemy of the usa in as bloody a battle a war as the world has ever seen.

that is the exact opposite of traitors.

it is not what i sez.

it is documented historical fact.

for you to try to dishonor their memory by calling them traitors is incredible.

Oh, but they absolutely were traitors to the Union. Just as so many fucked-up cons are traitors to our present Union.

Gee, I am so surprised.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.

link?

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle

a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.

So, we are talking about another racist RWNJ lie about something that is documented history. You can present this to KKKorell, but he'll just stick his fingers in his ears.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk