Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

Ok, then he was what people call a Patriot to our country. Maybe a poor choice of words.Traitor in the eyes of England. Patriot in the eyes of this country.

Swear I clicked on the link for Coasterbuzz but got Pointbuzz instead.

super7* said:

Good for Six Flags. Traitorous entities should not be glorified. History is for books, and flying flags and monuments are to honor something that should be honored.

I always wondered if the elimination of Plantation Square at Carowinds had anything to do with this consideration, since Plantations were the home of slavery in the South.

So based on this logic Six Flags cannot fly the Star Spangled Banner either, since that is also a traitorous entity.

I try to remain mindful that people are shaped by the times and place of their lives. Lincoln was racist and preferred keeping the races separate. He also supported moving all African Americans overseas and providing U.S. support in the establishment of a new state.

extremecoasterdad said:
No, I never once stated slavery was right or anything to the like. I merely stated that they were not traitors.

They took up arms against their own country. By definition, treason. By definition, they were traitors.

The whole reason I even brought up the whole hero/villain scenario was to put to light that George Washington himself was a traitor to England. Hero in the eyes of us, villain in their eyes.

Does "taxation without representation" ring any bells? George Washington was not a British citizen. The people who fought the Revolutionary War were not British citizens (by and large; there were exceptions). Not being a citizen, he was taking up arms not against his country.

Serious question: why isn't "some of my best friends are black" a valid defense against charges of being a racist?

So, here is a try. I will probably get most of this wrong.

I think it’s important to clarify what you mean by “racist.”

It might mean people of other races disgust you, you dislike them, you think they are less capable in some way than people of your race, that by virtue of their race they deserve fewer opportunities and rewards. In this case it’s a little hard to imagine that some of your best friends are black. But I also think this is the idea of “racist” that many people default to, and so they look at themselves and say “I’m not like that, and therefore I’m not a racist.” But I think it’s a pretty narrow definition.

Or, “Racist” might mean that you make assumptions about people because of their race, without any other supporting evidence. I sometimes find myself assuming that a young black person comes from a family without much money, so why are they spending so much money on shoes. Whether there’s any truth to that, on average, for the particular person in question there’s no reason to make that assumption. Other people might assume a black person will be less educated, or – well, I don’t really want to go down the list. But it seems perfectly possible that a person could have very good black friends that they know and love, and at the same time make assumptions like this.

There’s a huge continuum of attitudes and behaviors across those two categories – it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to talk about them as “categories,” to be honest. And probably every person has a different point at which they would erect the signpost reading “Everything past this sign is racism.” Which makes it a little hard to talk about sometimes. Is asking to touch a black person’s hair racist? Maybe, but it’s also natural human curiosity, except that there’s a whole cultural history of what it means to be empowered and disempowered that you have to take into account. (Well, you don’t have to, but misunderstandings may result.)

Finally, a lot of people use the term “racism” to describe the institutions and systems that, over the course of history, have evolved to disadvantage black people in this country (and many other countries, and people of other races for that matter). So, supporting a politician who wants to be “tough on crime,” when that frequently gets enacted in a manner that more negatively impacts people of one race – even if the laws are theoretically neutral – might be viewed as perpetuating a racist society. And obviously, you can have black friends and vote for politicians whose policies are injurious to them (regardless of party, etc.)

I tend to think that part of the problem in these conversations is that we use the same term to cover all these things. I find “prejudiced” a little more useful, and less alienating, sometimes. I’ve certainly had the experience that people stop listening when they think you’re calling them racist.

(I’m happy to try to discuss this more but I’m not especially interested in debating whether “racist” is properly applied in one case or another. People can decide that for themselves.)

Well, said. And I think the most important part is that we all make certain first impression assumptions based on race and some of them are very unflattering.

You know what's really crazy? They took down all of the statues of Hitler in Germany, and the Nazi flags, and to this day, no one has forgotten about World War II or the Holocaust.

When it comes to talk of racism, the problem, in my opinion, is that there's overwhelming need for people to declare that it's not a thing, or they're not racist, and so we should all just move along. That's absurd to me. The United States has been trying to shake it off for 200 years without the level of success we should have by now.

Just something I have been wondering about for years. How is history portrayed in history books in other countries? I honestly have never seen any. What I mean is, in German history or Japanese history books, how do they see WWII? How do they portray history as seen from their POV? And not just WWII, you could get into Vietnam, the Korean War, and a whole host of others. Or how about the Revolutionary War? Just random thoughts I have had.

From what I've seen and read most countries tend to paint their history in the nicest light possible.

extremecoasterdad, these are big questions and the answers are complex and diverse. For example, China and Korea are continually seeking a Japanese redress for its continual dilution and whitewashing (read denial) regarding the nature of its aggression towards Korea and China in the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910, the Second Sino-Japanese War and during World War II in which the Japanese conducted a virtual genocide of people living in Nanjing (see Nanjing Massacre).

Similar, to this day Turkey has denied its genocide against Armenians - an issue that not only exacerbated world war I and is a constant political impediment to political issues in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe today, but which is official government policy, leading to Turkey conducting extremely brazen and overt acts. For instance, the government continually interferes with the construction of monuments memorializing the Armenian diaspora who fled the genocide, produces propaganda that misinforms and redirects any public debate by raising accusations of wrongdoing by the Armenians, and trying to suppress any public discussion (around the world) about the genocide (you might remember from a few weeks ago that the Turkey government sent out goons to attack protesters in Washington D.C. who were protesting Turkey's atrocities against the Kurdish people of Turkey)

That was my thoughts exactly. A lot of history could be viewed in different ways; by the people on either side of any conflict and those who are not on any side.

You're making a strawman argument. No one is trying to change, deny or otherwise hide American history. What they are trying to do is not memorialize a morally indefensible cause or the people who advocated for it.

Bakeman31092 said:

Serious question: why isn't "some of my best friends are black" a valid defense against charges of being a racist?

When I hear this statement being used, it's typically used as a means to rationalize or defend actual racist behavior.

And I never once said that anyone was trying to hide or deny American History. It's just some thinking I was thinking about concerning history in general. I'm not making any arguments at all at this point.

I do have one question though about said memorials or statues. Since some have come down and it obviously seems that there are more to come, exactly how will that improve anyone's life? Charles Barkley said himself that a lot of these are not something most people take notice of anyway. I don't care one way or the other, but it also begs the question, when is it enough? How many more memorials or statues (that are not Civil War related) are gonna come down? When you get down to it, this and that group will decide that they are offended by __________ memorials. What about the Vietnamese? Maybe they will decide that they don't like our Vietnam memorials. Are we going to remove those? I've already seen calls to remove a George Washington statue because it is, "A slap in the face to black people". Is there no end in sight?

Maybe George Orwell knew exactly what he was talking about.

There are few Confederate Memorials in the North because they would have been a direct affront to all of the Soldiers who fought for the Union as well as their families. They still are.

To prevent whitewashing history we should erect memorials to Abe Lincoln & U.S. Grant throughout the South. No need to take down any, just include the northern side as well.

bigboy said:

When I hear this statement being used, it's typically used as a means to rationalize or defend actual racist behavior.

That's fine, but that still doesn't explain what is wrong with that defense, apparently wrong to such an extent that Tek used it preemptively to suggest that extreme must at least have racist tendencies. I re-read the initial exchange, and the only thing that extreme did was scoff at the notion of the Confederacy being traitors. While he might technically be wrong about that, I don't think it's fair to make the leap that he's a Confederacy sympathy (and thus a racist). His subsequent posts tried to convey that the history of the Civil War can't be boiled down to the good guys that all wanted black men to be free and treated equally fighting against the bad guys that wanted to keep their slaves. One ought to be able to make that perfectly valid point without having to constantly reassure everyone that they are not a racist, don't support slavery, and don't sympathize with the alt right--which of course he did, and which of course everyone cynically chooses to not take him at his word.

I just think that people need not be so hasty to assume the worst in someone else when they are making an argument counter to what you believe.

extremecoasterdad said:

Charles Barkley said himself that a lot of these are not something most people take notice of anyway.

Seriously? What he actually said is that no black people notice, which is absurd mostly because Charles doesn't speak for all black people. He can barely speak in an informed manner about basketball.

When you get down to it, this and that group will decide that they are offended by __________ memorials. What about the Vietnamese? Maybe they will decide that they don't like our Vietnam memorials. Are we going to remove those? I've already seen calls to remove a George Washington statue because it is, "A slap in the face to black people". Is there no end in sight?

More strawman/slippery slope arguments ranging from hypothetical to absurd.

Maybe George Orwell knew exactly what he was talking about.

Uh, have you read any of his work? Because what you're describing has nothing to do with it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument

Does anyone want to place a wager on how much longer until Splash Mountain gets re-themed?