<p>
[QUOTE]
But I think you should take a step back and realize that intrepeting it as such and giving it that power isn't helping anyone.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you preaching to me? What percentage of the African American race do I account for? </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
We really might as well recognize it for its historical value OUTSIDE of slavery.
[/QUOTE]
If you told that to a random one of US, 9 out 10 would either laugh, look at you funny, or think you were stupid. Why? Because they don't want to here about that!</p>
<p>If I were to go hang Nazi flags all around the auditorium at Brandeis and ask them to listen to me, what do you think the response would be? </p>
<p>Do you see a harmless political party, b/c the flag itself is harmless! Forget the people who carried around that flag and what motives they held behind it... I'll say the same for the Nazis that I'll say for the Ku Klux Klan.</p>
<p>I mean, the swastika looks cool, I might tile the school bathrooms with them as a community project, they'll look nice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I regret that the symbol of the Confederacy was misappropriated, but it was, and it has a distinctly different meaning now. I wouldn't display it, and I would understand the objections of those who are offended by it. It's too bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I also agree with razorsharp, whom I misintrepted before. :) (S)He has a very relevent point about tribal nature and pride in one's culture. I see your point, but can't you see mine? All I'm saying is that not everyone who displays a Confederate flag advocates slavery--WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTREPET IT AS SUCH. However, as I said before, perception is reality to some extent.</p>
<p>I don't understand what your point is. First you tell me that I shouldn't assume you account for a sizeable portion of blacks. Then you speak on behalf of 9/10 blacks. Which are you? Actually, YOU'RE forgetting the people who carried around the flag! All you're remember is the symbol that it has unfortunately become. </p>
<p>This is getting quite off-topic but I just can't stop myself. People just love to cast these good-guy bad-guy rolls in history. Oh, the good North, so kind to the black man! Oh, the evil South, always oppressing the black man! All of America was racist during the time of the Confederacy. Neither side wanted equal rights for blacks. (In fact, if we want to go this far, even Africans enslaved other Africans--whites got the idea from them.) The North only wanted to abolish slavery on ECONOMIC grounds...they wouldn't have cared if it had been accomplished by KILLING all the slaves. At the most basic level, both the Union and Confederate flag stand for black oppression. </p>
<p>I'm not denying that one has been probably irrepairably perverted and now carries a meaning quite unlike the one intended. Because as I said, perception is reality.</p>
<p>"The North only wanted to abolish slavery on ECONOMIC grounds" I think you're very wrong about this. Many Northerners were upset about fugitive slave laws, which allowed slave hunters to search for escaped slaves in free states. This had nothing to do with economics. Same thing for "Uncle Tom's Cabin," etc. Whites did NOT get the idea of slavery from Africans, we know this because when they first arrived in the Americas they tried to enslave the native Indian populations. </p>
<p>Perception is reality and symbols have no inherent meaning, only the meaning we attach to them. I could argue that a swastika to me has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, just German pride or economic revitilization or something like that. However, eventually a symbol becomes so laden with offensive meaning and so permeates a culture that we have to accept that the offensive meaning is the one that is primarily attached to it, and deal with it as such. But first, you need to read more history books.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't understand what your point is. First you tell me that I shouldn't assume you account for a sizeable portion of blacks. Then you speak on behalf of 9/10 blacks. Which are you? Actually, YOU'RE forgetting the people who carried around the flag! All you're remember is the symbol that it has unfortunately become.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>What part of what I said didn't make since? Let me break it down for you:</p>
<p>The average person wouldn't give a damn about your point, but I'm not average, so you don't have to make your point to me!</p>
<p>The Utah Utes are on the list. They are named for the Indian tribe that the STATE is named after. Should we change the name of the state too? Illinois is the Illini. I believe that "Illinois" and "Illini" are quite related words. I mean, if the nickname is offensive, so is the state, right?</p>
<p>There was a good quote in a USA Today column written by a Native American, where he said something like: "Once again, it's the white people telling us how we should think."</p>
<p>The few are imposing their will on the majority, this is clearly not right.</p>
<p>The "Fighting Irish" should not be allowed if the Indian Tribes aren't. This is about people NOT RELATED to the schools in question complaining.</p>
<p>What about church and state? Angels, Demons, Deacons, Devils?</p>
<p>What about Hurricanes and Storm? The people killed every year in hurricanes should probably be offended by that! How can people cheer for Hurricanes?! Surely Blue Devils can't be anything positive.</p>
<p>What about "Dawgs"? Spelling is not necessary for college!</p>
<p>Personally, I don't see how a mascot can be offensive. Schools choose mascots to have PRIDE in, and to SUPPORT.</p>
<p>When will the NCAA ban animal names? Those are offensive to animal lovers.</p>
<p>Pretty good article in today's WSJ online edition addressing much of what's been said here. Author also wonders if the NCAA happened to notice that their own headquarters is in *Indian*apolis *Indian*a. Too funny.</p>