Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? In other words, did they simply act in the context of their time period, as other men in their position would, or did they specifically act to curtail the rights of others. This makes it very easy for me to condemn symbols of the Confederacy, because they specifically acted to preserve slavery.
If anyone believes the Confederates did not rebel and fight specifically to preserve slavery, they should read the words of the seceding states: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
---
Taking it back to your question about Mexico: War is terrible, and flags are used in war. Flags are used after the war is over to show their solidarity with the principles of one side or the other. The flag of Mexico was primarily just a marker to say "We are Mexico"
Some people associate the confederate battle flag with a spirit of rebellion, and that's understandable. But other people associate it with hatred. You don't get to choose how someone else will understand it and be affected by it. It's hard to be a grown up, but part of it is deciding how much you care about offending other people.
The confederate flag should be banned because the kkk and other white supremacists adopted it, rebranded it as their own flag, and most importantly, no one cared to stop them. Try that with the Irish flag and see what the Irish have to say about it.
My standard is: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? Someone could make a case that South Park has done this, but it would be hard for me to take it seriously.
The southern armies did not fight for slavery: it was legal in the United States before, during and after the war. They did not even fight for independence: the seceding states were legally independent as soon as their secessions took effect. Rather, they fought to defend their homes from a foreign invader.
Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible; fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy.
Edit: That said, given that the flag in question is so closely associated with white supremacy, it is hard to be too incensed over the ban.
Of note, slavery remained legal in the United States until well after the military defeat of the Confederacy: Lee surrendered on the 9th of April; the last Confederate ship surrendered in England on the 6th of November; the 13th Amendment making most slavery unconstitutional was not ratified until the 6th of December.
Agree
> "secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible;"
Agree
> "fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy."
Lost me here. Fighting in self defense is understandable and necessary sometimes, but in defense of what principles? Context cannot be ignored.
in your eyes they fought to preserve slavery, in their they fought bravely against the more powerful north to preserve their homes.
If the Mexican flag only stood for racism and not any nation, then yes it should probably get banned.
Given the treatment of slavery in both the Republic of Texas and the Empire of Mexico back then, I would say that you may not need to be offended about it.
Neither Mexican Empire was contemporaneous with the Texas revolution or Republic. The first Empire was earlier, the second Empire was later, roughly contemporary to the US Civil War.
The Alamo battle was fought because your Texian relatives revolted against Mexico's abolishment of slavery.
Look, I know Texas liked rebelling over concerns that the parent country didn't look kindly on chattel slavery, but combatants getting killed, either in combat or when executed as traitors, after starting those wars isn't being “murdered".
> Should the Mexican flag get banned because I'm offended by it?
The Mexican flag of that war is no longer used; the current Mexican flag was adopted in 1968 (or 1995, depending on which side of the flag you are talking about, though the latter was clarifying an ambiguity in the spec more than a new design.) So, even if your concern was agreed to be otherwise valid, it's kind of like asking about banning the modern German flag because of the Nazis.
Every country has committed various atrocities, but their flags do not necessarily represent those atrocities.
This isn't about the Confederates losing the war, and it's not about the southern states. No-one is asking for removal of all flags from the southern states. it's about what the confederacy stood and fought for. White supremacy and slavery.
4 in the New World and that's counting the USA and CSA separately.
About 5 more in the west coast of Africa which are in the “Western Hemisphere." But not “many”, in any case.
But only one of them was formed in rebellion citing preservation of both slavery and white racial supremacy as key motivations.
The flag itself is not a problem. It won't change my mind for sure. I've seen it in history books, the only difference would be if somehow I feel threatened by the other player holding Nazi beliefs - which I'm not because we defeated them. We can defeat them again, no problem.
I would be ok with taking measure if somehow a bunch of a Nazi flags started FLOODING the game. This would be its own problem however, and stopping this kind of trolling is different than censorship. One or two flags here and there, just tell you some people are stupid.
Question for you: Would you rather play a game that has secret Nazis and you don't know because their iconography is censored, or would you rather play a game that doesn't censor people so you know what people believe?
It's absurd that one must have to deal with hateful political views in a game about racing cars.
How is this useful though? Are you afraid to adopt those views? Are you saying ONLY others are in this danger of adopting those views (if so, why are you so special)?
At best you are making them stealthy and they are playing with you but you don't know, and at worse their beliefs are reinforced because they already hate people.