Rebel flag and swastika.


Bartram

Bartram

Brand HBCUbian
Question for those who have lived in Germany. Is there any certain parts of Germany where citizens fly the swastika flag of Nozzi Germany like southerners fly the rebel flag of the confederacy?

Further, for anybody who cares to weigh in, do you think people in Germany should be able to fly the swastika flag of old Germany if they want like southern whites fly the rebel flag and have on their shirts and what not?

There is nothing we can do about people flying the rebel flag here, except maybe protest its flying or incorporation into various governmental/public symbols. Why is it (if it is, i don't know, that's why I asked the first question) any different for Germans?

Does it boil down to that, despight the flack that the U.S. catches, this is the most tolerant country on earth? To have a vanquished rebel state still flying their defeated flag for 140 years is pretty tolerant don't you think? I mean,, does the rising sun flag fly in any parts of Japan or is it publically displayed casually like the rebel flag? I know of no other cases like this around the world, but I've never travelled abroad, so maybe somebody can edumucate me.

This is not an attack on the rebel flag, just curious as to the standards of what can and can't fly and why there's an acception for the rebel flag in America.
 
Bartram, I have never lived in Germany, but I think I remember reading somewhere that it was illegal to publicly display any symbols of the Nazi era.

Unfortunately, the Consitution protect the rights of the individuals to display the Confederate flag if they so the desire.

THE FIRE THAT COOKS ALSO BURNS.

Now should Germans be allowed to fly the Swastika? Well thats a good question. I can understand why the German government does not allow it. (First of all, I don't think its is protected under their constitution). And then Germany has to take into consideration the feeling of her neighbors (Britian, Denmark, Holland, France, Poland, Norway, Russia. Especially the Russians, although Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. These and many other countries suffered greatly because of the Nazis.

In my opinion the swastika is not just a "german" thing. Where as nobody gets excited about that crappy arse confederate flag out side of the United States.

I think the situation in Japan is very similiar to Germany. They both have to wonder: What WILL the neighbors think?
 

I see what you are saying,,,,

On the U.S. constitution,,, good point, that pretty much sums it up.

Also, the confederates were fighting their own brothers within these borders. They were not trying to expand and colonize the world,,, although they did have plans to introduce slavery to the west and push into the south Americas,, but essentially, it was a "civil war",,, a war between Americans (although the confederates still contend they were their own country and wanted to be independent).

Germany and Japan, on the other hand, were the most recent efforts at global expansion and were really out to kill anyone or country that stood in their way. To fly the old flags today would inflame people outside those countries for sure. Swastikas and rising sun flags were global, but mainly, the constitution of the U.S. protects the rebel flag. I see what you are saying.
 
Re: I see what you are saying,,,,

Originally posted by Bartram
On the U.S. constitution,,, good point, that pretty much sums it up.

Also, the confederates were fighting their own brothers within these borders. They were not trying to expand and colonize the world,,, although they did have plans to introduce slavery to the west and push into the south Americas,, but essentially, it was a "civil war",,, a war between Americans (although the confederates still contend they were their own country and wanted to be independent).

Click to expand...

Good topic.

The reason they can fly the flag is the constitution. Also, it really does not stir up as much trouble nowadays like the swastika would if all of a sudden it started showing up on flag poles around Germany.

As a side note, Slavery also existed in South America. Brazil was the last country in the West to abolish slavery.
 
Brazil

Yes, I do recall slavery in SA now that you mention it. I believe some confederates defected to Brazil or some other south American countries.

There is a book out (I heard on talk radio) about "what if the south had won the civil war?". It speculates that there would not have been a KKK et al the racial strife that this country has seen since the end of the civil war. I heard this on a conservative talk radio show(they were basically questioning the image of Lincoln and essentially arguing on the side that the war was mainly about state's rights), so go figure,, but that is a very intriguing theory and a great debate I would like to see prominent leaders address.
 
Re: Brazil

Originally posted by Bartram
Yes, I do recall slavery in SA now that you mention it. I believe some confederates defected to Brazil or some other south American countries.

There is a book out (I heard on talk radio) about "what if the south had won the civil war?". It speculates that there would not have been a KKK et al the racial strife that this country has seen since the end of the civil war. I heard this on a conservative talk radio show(they were basically questioning the image of Lincoln and essentially arguing on the side that the war was mainly about state's rights), so go figure,, but that is a very intriguing theory and a great debate I would like to see prominent leaders address.
Click to expand...

After WWII, many of the Nazis fled to Argentina, among other countries.

What people don't realize about the Swaztika is that it was an Indian religious symbol long before Hitler stole and twisted it, just as the Cross is a Christian symbol stolen by the Klan.
 
Bart, the cival war was fought over states rights. The abolishment of slavery was essentially aby product. But that was not the driving force behind the Cival War. I have read countless documents and read a number f books about Licoln that more than confirm this logic. It was about saving the union, not about freeing the slaves.
 
Originally posted by Suge
Bart, the cival war was fought over states rights. The abolishment of slavery was essentially aby product. But that was not the driving force behind the Cival War. I have read countless documents and read a number f books about Licoln that more than confirm this logic. It was about saving the union, not about freeing the slaves.
Click to expand...

And I'll piggyback on that with the statement that there were major economic implications involved with the preservation of the Union that were more important to Lincoln, et al. than slavery.

Slavery would have ended within the next two decades anyway, so that wasn't the driving force.
 
It's funny, because last night on NPR, they were talking about the Southerners who fled to Brazil after the Civil War. It was about 6000 of them, and about half went back. It was mostly poor to middle class people, few of whom were slaveholders. There are still Confederados in Brazil, they speak 19th century Southern English, and have maintained that culture. It's rather interesting, when you think about it.
 
Re: Re: Brazil

Originally posted by sophandros


After WWII, many of the Nazis fled to Argentina, among other countries.

What people don't realize about the Swaztika is that it was an Indian religious symbol long before Hitler stole and twisted it, just as the Cross is a Christian symbol stolen by the Klan.
Click to expand...

The Swaztika is also found in West Africa, except it has an circle around it, and it is called the gramadon. The bars represent the elements of the universe, just as they do in the Native American symbol of the swaztika.
 
State's rights.

not a question on rather or not slavery was the cause of the civil war. Easy. Alls I was asking about was the flag. I didn't get into saying the civil war was because of slaver; i simply made a reference about the south having ambitions to transport slavery to other regions, which is true. Also, yes the north was no more for freeing the slaves than having black refugees from the south flood into the Irish communities of New York, Boston, Chicago, Cincinatti, Detriot, Phili, or any other northern city, but as the war progressed it was not Andrew Jackson that signed an emmancipation proclamation either. I think Jackson was the worser of two evils if you want to look at Lincoln as a dispicable too.

But to your points, slavery/state's rights, state's rights/slavery. The bottom line was state's rights for the south meant being able to maintain slavery as long as they wanted and not have the north force them to end it, so when the south says the civil war was about state's rights, that's not an untruth. It's also not an untruth that at the time, as part of their "state right", the southern states all agreed that they wanted to maintain slavery and separation of the races as the pillars of their society.
 
Yes All Nazi references are banned in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. They are constantly tracking down racist skinhead groups. Swastikas are definitely a no-no.
 
Originally posted by Suge
Bart, the cival war was fought over states rights. The abolishment of slavery was essentially aby product. But that was not the driving force behind the Cival War. I have read countless documents and read a number f books about Licoln that more than confirm this logic. It was about saving the union, not about freeing the slaves.
Click to expand...

The civil war was also based on a section of the country (the south) not wanting to join the Industrial Revolution. They wanted to remain agriculturally based and felt the North was putting a squeeze on their livelyhood. Slavery was a side thought and rallying cry to get people involved. The war was about money for the most part.
 
Slavery WAS Money in the South.

During that era, cotton was the "oil" of the economy as the South was the "OPEC" for European raw cotton!!! ,,, uuuuh-yyyyeah,, i'd say money was an issue and cotton was the raw material that generated money for the south and slaves were the "machines" to process the cotton.

This is why the South was banking so hard on the European powers intervening on their behalf and overpowering the "America" that had broken away from Europe.

No matter how it's re-packaged today, slavery was the taproot or the cornerstone that state's rights, money, "The Lost Cause", etc rested on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top