Florida school board votes to remove name of Confederate general
Source: Reuters
BY SUSAN COOPER EASTMAN
JACKSONVILLE, Florida Sat Nov 9, 2013 4:59pm EST
(Reuters) - A north Florida school board has voted unanimously to change the name of a local high school honoring a Confederate general who made a fortune as a slave trader and was linked to the Ku Klux Klan.
"It's time to move forward with the renaming of Nathan B. Forrest High ... it's time to really put it to bed," said School Board member Constance Hall, who asked the Board to finally begin the process of changing the name on Friday.
Hall and the board's other African American member were joined in the 7-0 vote by four whites and a Hispanic member in voting to change the name.
Four Jacksonville schools are named after Confederate heroes, including Robert E. Lee High School, as well as the city's downtown square.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/09/us-usa-florida-school-idUSBRE9A80F020131109
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
k8conant
(3,038 posts)
Wow, named a school after a person who formed posses to go and lynch black people for no reason. WTF were they thinking?
Paladin
(32,354 posts)
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)this is Jacksonville after all
would have never thought they would enter the 20th century let alone the 21st
Faygo Kid
(21,492 posts)Hard core racist territory. Good for the school board, though.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)two biggest mistakes of my life
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)was Lower Alabama.
Scairp
(2,749 posts)I lived there for 3 1/2 years and I hated it. No one can believe me when I tell them the things other white people down there said to me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think the community is changing, and the Old Guard had better learn to just deal with it.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)It's bad enough when you have dipshits like Ron and Rand Paul trying to rewrite history claiming the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Hell, I guess all those redneck southerners moved up north to Ohio and Pennsylvania, or out west to Utah, Montana and South Dakota. Must have been because all those queers that moved down here. 
mercymechap
(579 posts)to Texas.....they heard about all the jobs that Perry has been bragging about. What they failed to notice is that they were low-paying jobs at fast-food restaurants, flipping burgers!
Response to mercymechap (Reply #10)
Post removed
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)do you mean people who cannot afford other housing? How are they trash?
reflection
(6,287 posts)They've been carping about NBFs name for months here in Memphis after the City Council renamed a park that was named after him. Glad to see this bastard scrubbed from places of honor as he should be.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)bet that gets this OP some attention, at my expense. 
ancianita
(43,307 posts)aristocracy-loving stereotype who still fight the Civil War. Depressed and sickened, I was so relieved to leave it.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)When the war started Forest enlisted as a private, was in the ranks for a few months and decided to become a Colonel, the old fashion way, he enlisted 1000 men to serve under him, armed and equipped them and thus was made a Colonel (in the debates on how Southern Cavalry should be armed, Forest wanted to arm them with shotguns, no sabers, no lances, no pistols, only shotgun for operations on horseback, rifles for all other actions).
Prior to the war, Forest ran a business trading various goods (including slaves) throughout the deep south. To do so he had some of the best teamsters of the time period working for him. During his brief time in the ranks he quickly saw this was an important part of any regiment, so he went to his slaves and made them an offer. If the Slaves would agree to operate the wagons supporting his troops, he would free them and their families. The Slaves took up the offer for Forest was noted to keep his word, even to slaves.
Thus Forest gets the honor of offering freedom to slaves during the Civil War. The North refused to do it till 1862 and then only effective January 1, 1863 and then only to areas NOT under Northern Control (More symbolic then real). Now, the North did refuse to turn over run a way slaves about the same time period, but refused to technically make them free, thus Forest is credited with being one of the first persons to offer freedom to slaves.
He is also noted for two comments, first was after a Southern Politic an did a long speech on way slavery was not the cause of the civil war "If we are not fighting for slavery, why are we fighting?" and his famous comment on tactics "Firstest with the mostest"
I also note, no one mentions Fort Pillow. Fort Pillow was used to attack Forest to the day he died. Fort Pillow had been a Confederate Fort over looking the Mississippi. In 1861 the North took it, but then decided to man it rather then destroy it. Fort Pillow overlooks the Mississippi River, but it itself is surrounded by higher lands. It was built to withstand an attack from the river NOT from its rear. As a Confederate Fort with Southern supporters to its rear it was an effective fort. As a Northern Fort DEFENDING the Mississippi it was a debacle ready to happen.
Forest thus attacked Fort Pillow in 1864, the defenses failed and the fort falls. The African American soldiers in the fort are killed almost to a man, mostly after the fort had fallen and the African Americans are killed rather then be being taken prisoners by the Southern Attackers under Forest. Do to the huge loss of life of African Americans in that battle it is called a Massacre by the North. Forest dismisses it as an incident of war. In reality it reflected the attitude of Southern Soldiers to the idea of African Americans bearing arms. In the eyes of White Southerns, any African Americans bearing arms had to be killed and that had been the policy of the South for at least 200 years by 1862. Thus when the Fort fell and chaos occurred the White Soldiers under Forest did as they had been trained to do since birth, kill on site any African American with a weapon. Forest did nothing to stop the massacre, he appears to also have done nothing to encourage the massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow
During the Civil War, Fort Pillow was a propaganda piece for the north, after the war Forest was NOT charged for both sides accepted the concept that they was no way to stop such massacre giving the nature of Southern Soldiers of that time period. I bring up Fort Pillow, for selling slaves was common prior to the Civil War. Forest connection with the KKK was that he helped found it, but more as a club for ex confederate soldiers to meet and help each other then anything else (and as a anti-Northern Occupation force, which by its mission would also be anti-African America, but as a side line not as its main object). Furthermore when the KKK started to get out of hand, Forest did disband the KKK (it was NOT reformed till 1905 as a clearly anti racist organization, something the 1865-1871 KKK was not, through it did have a huge racist element in it, but the 1865-1871 KKK was also a collection of old soldiers getting together).
Just bringing up Fort Pillow, for that is something you can blame Nathan Bedford Forest for, on the grounds it was something under his control, not something common at that time period. Selling slaves had been common. Being a member of the KKK during reconstruction had also been common. Massacring soldiers as they ran away and given then no chance to surrender now that was Uncommon even for that time period.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Even the Southern Poverty Center admits they is no connection between the Post Civil War KKK and the Post 1905 KKK except the name. When Forest broke up the KKK in 1871 (When the Anti-KKK act was passed by Congress, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871), it disappears till re-founded in 1905. Major differences exist between the two KKK groups (and a lot of similarity, racism was rampant in both). The big difference is the Post Civil War KKK was organized much like the Masons, Knights of Columbus, Granges and other semi-secret fraternal organizations. Was the post Civil War KKK violent, yes, did it commit acts of violence against African Americans, yes, did it murder such African Americans, yes, but it was NOT centralized political group, more a groups different ex-Confederate soldiers then anything else. The 1905 Klan was a much more centralized political group that was anti-African American and willing to not only use Violence bu the law against African Americans.
Yes, I am making a fine line between the two KKKs, but it is a important difference, the Post Civil War KKK tended to less Political and more confrontational, while the Post 1905 KKK was more Political while also confrontational to African Americans.
The post 1930 KKK (after the collapse of the KKK in the mid 1920s) is a third type of KKK, more local head bashers that the local politicians could count on to smash heads when needed. It is important to know the differences between the three Klans, each was evil in its own way and has to be defeated in its own way. You can NOT defeat a movement if you can NOT understand it, thus why I am making the comments I am doing. You have to accept each Klan on its own "merits" (lack of a better term) not use what was effective against the Post Civil War KKK against the much more Fascist 1905-1926 KKK. Worse, as William Jennings Bryan comment on the KKK of the 1920s, that is was a bubble that would burst and thus avoid it. Do NOT fight it for you would look Anti-America, but also do not support it, for that would come back to haunt you when it deflated (and it did). Try to contain it, but do suppress it or support it. Something like the 1905-1926 KKK would collapse on its on in time.
The 1865-1871 KKK was something different, it would evolve into a true Confederate Veteran Organization. As such it has much longer life, but a short life if violence is expected. Thus when Forest ordered it shut down, the members of the post Civil War KKK was ready to transform the remains into a true Veteran group (and did so, but forming such groups without mentioning the name of KKK).
The post 1930 KKK is a collection of losers who can be convinced to do some head bashings under the right circumstances and if the person arranging the head bashing does it right, no way to trace it back to the people who ordered the head bashing. These tend to be small groups that local Politicians only need just speak to and donate to so they get enough revenue in to pay for a meeting hall. If the local is careful he (or she) can use key words to get them to do the head bashing the local politician wants done, but by using key words instead of coming out and saying it, the blame goes to these losers NOT to the politician who "asked" for the head bashing, The way to defeat such people is to break up the groups by arresting those who are dumb enough to do the head bashing AND provide them other outlets to express their need for support (for that is more what these groups of losers need then anything else). Support can be assistance in getting housing, education or even a better paying job. Do all three and sooner or later they will leave the old group and it will disappear for lack of membership.
Just a comment on the three KKKs the US has had and that each had to be defeated in its own way. They all claim to be the same as the Post Civil War KKK, but the later two are different and to defeat it requires different tactics then defeating the other two KKKs.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)every confederate soldier was a traitor, who engaged in treasonous acts.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Lets looks at some popular Traitors, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, all had taken oaths to the King of England and all revolted against that king.
Clausewitz took up arms for Russia against Napoleon, even while his fellow Prussians were the allies of Napoleon.
The Men who plotted against Hitler in the July 20, 1944 plot were all traitors, all had taken oaths to Hitler and Germany and thus all were traitors.
Chavez of Venezuela tried to do a Coup in the early 1990s in Venezuela while an Officer for that country's army, another act of Treason. (If you oppose Chevez, remember the Coup attempt against Chevez, those who supported the coup were over throwing the elected leader of their country, a clear act of treason).
I mention both Chavez's coup attempt and the coup attempt against him to show Treason can be from the Left or the Right. You may support the act of treason, or oppose those acts of treason. Both are treason and both can have support within a country. People defend treason on this board all the time and why should I stop just because I am defending something you think should not be defended?
That is the problem with being an American, we have a long history of Treason in this country, and we are often better off for it for it forces us to address the under causing cause for the act of Treason and address them. These causes have to be addressed and when address someone will yell that is Treason. To quote Patrick Henry when he was accused of Treason "If it be treason, lets make the most of it".
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to Franklin?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Why else did he sign the US Constitution? In 1787 only Massachusetts had outlawed slavery, Slavery was legal is every other state of the Union.
Ben Franklin even owned slaves:
http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/about_franklin/Issue%205%20Spring-Summer%20200%20Benjamin%20Franklin%20and%20Slavery.pdf
http://articles.philly.com/2006-02-25/news/25409649_1_chattel-slavery-ben-franklin-kidney-stones
http://benjaminfranklinbio.com/benjamin-franklin-and-slavery/147/
Yes. in his old age and the problems slaves had caused during the Revolution, he came around to ending slavery, but he had owned slaves almost his whole adult life and except for his last years, defended the institution.
Forest never defended slavery as anything else then something to profit by, he never considered it good and proper, just profitable. He accepted the concept of Slavery coming to an end, even seeking out African American support it is later years (Something Franklin never did).
Now we are looking at the start of the movement to abolish slavery when it comes to Franklin, and the aftermath when it comes to Forest (who died in 1877). Over 30 years separate the death of Franklin and the birth of Forest. On the other hand, Franklin owned slaves when it was becoming easier and cheaper to free them, while Forest lived at a time where freeing slaves was almost illegal in most Slave States.
Another way to look it is, was Franklin did NOT have to own slaves to maintain his wealth, Forest, do to his profession as a trader had to keep them as an object of trade so Forest could maintain his wealth. Thus which is worse, someone who did NOT need slaves (Franklin) but owned them, or one that had to owned Slaves as part of how he made his living (Forest). I can make the argument Franklin was worse on that ground alone.
Now, Franklin did join in the movement to abolish slavery in the 1780s, but that was a time period when slavery was dying on its own (the invention of the Cotton Gin would reverse that movement). Thus Franklin was joining an on going and growing movement that appeared headed for victory (no one could predict the effect of the Cotton Gin in 1795 but it reversed the economic pressure from economic pressure to end slavery to economic pressure to expand it and make it worse then it had been). Forest lived in an area where Slavery was on the March, the Deep South. Abolishment of Slavery was not even talked about by the locals, thus not an issue to him or the people he associated with. Thus in many ways Forest was a victim of his time (as was Robert E, Lee, Mosby and other Southern Leaders), slavery was on the march and expanding. You either have to join the march or stay out of its way, and by the 1850s no one in the south could stay out of the way of the March for Slavery and thus Southern joined the movement to protect slavery in mass. It would be nice to say I would have avoided that movement if I lived in the South in the 1850s, but I have my doubts. I do not think anyone could have avoided that movement if they lived in the deep South (Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia yes, but not the other states of the Confederacy).
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what nonsense are you posting? that the first KKK was benevolent, that the Southern Poverty Law Center says they are?
BULL SHIT.
defending any incarnation of the KKK is defending genocide and that's what you've done here.
which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[17]
Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[18] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I clearly pointed out the whole Southern Army was Racist, so a veteran group of such soldiers would also be racist. Thus the KKK was always racist, but racism was NOT the dominate movement within the post civil war KKK. That is NOT true of the later KKKs, those were primarily racist organization. There is a difference between the three and to understand those differences is important. To defeat such organization you must understand the organization.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)... and does not deserve to EVER be honored in having ANY state or federal facilities named after him. In the teamsters incident you mention, he was only being pragmatic. It certainly wasn't because he felt that slavery was morally contemptible. It made him extremely wealthy. And don't give me this "well everyone did it" crap. Many felt slavery was a moral stain on this country since before the founding of the republic. He WAS NOT one of the first to free slaves. Freedom had been granted to slaves for all sorts of reasons, dating back to early colonial times.
Forrest was a bigot, an immoral blow hard, and a butcher. He could have stopped the Ft. Pillow massacre, but chose not to, since I suppose that wouldn't have been as pragmatic as freeing a few teamsters. And some choice those teamsters had. They received their freedom, but as part of the bargain are forced to materially support with their labor the cause of maintaining black slavery. Sounds like a deal with the devil and that's exactly what Forrest was.
And before you label me as some northerner, my southern roots stretch back to when NC was a backwater colony and TN and KY were serious wilderness. I am a member of several TN first families and in 1861 many of my ancestors felt just as I do. They understood that slavery was morally wrong on its face and the secessionists in Raleigh and Nashville were nothing but damn, greedy fools.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A.P. Hill, Fort Hood Texas, (to many to name) etc. All of those Officers had sworn allegiance to the US while serving in the US Army, and then fought against the US. That is the definition of Treason. Forest, at least has the claim that he NEVER took an oath to the US prior to the Civil War, for he had no military or political position prior to the Civil War. Lack of taking an oath does NOT relieve you of the charge of Treason, but is Forest less a traitor then Lee, who did take an oath to protect the US against all enemies foreign AND domestic?
Among the other High Schools in that School District is Robert E, Lee and Andrew Jackson. While Lee only owned slaves indirectly (and was in the process of Emancipating them, as required under a relatives will when the Civil War Started), Jackson owned Slaves till the day he died.
List of Schools in that District:
http://www.duvalschools.org/static/ourschools/listings/high_schools.asp
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It certainly isn't in the Wikipedia page. I haven't encountered it on the Internet, either.
and claiming something is a common practice doesn't excuse it. A slave trader is a slave trader. Lynchings were common, too. It doesn't make it o.k.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Forrest is quoted in a postwar interview with the Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868, as saying, "When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the Army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip the fight and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way, you will be freed. These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live."
http://www.historynet.com/nathan-bedford-forrest
He is an interesting character, Forest was both a murdering thug and a brilliant guerrilla leader (for that what he was, more then a traditional Cavalry leader). You have to take the good with the bad.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and you accept Forrest, uncritically, at his word.
to quote your source, which you didn't apparently read all the way to the end:
The severest of the criticism of Forrest — subjects studiously avoided by today's neo-Confederate activists — centers on three indisputable facts:
Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war;
He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
..................
Forrest despised blacks who fought for the Union, and was accused by one Union general of personally shooting a captured free mulatto who was a servant of a Federal officer. A Confederate cavalryman once recounted how Forrest "cussed [him] out" for failing to execute a captured black Union soldier.
........................................
Although he repeatedly denied membership — even lying to Congress — Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he "intend[ed]" to kill radical Republicans. He added that he could raise 40,000 men in four days.
Forrest sympathizers have long claimed that he disbanded the Klan when it became violent. In fact, it had been extremely violent for years under Forrest, and was only disbanded when its work was essentially done — blacks and Republicans had been terrified into not voting — and when it came under intense criticism.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The same if you want to look for the bad in someone, you will find it. Abraham Lincoln summed it up as follows:
“If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_you_look_for_the_bad_in_people_expecting_to/221287.html
I bring this up, for you are looking for the worse in Forest, and finding it. I have seen others look for the best and over look his faults (which were many, some of which I even mention in my first comment on this thread).
Also remember the famous observation on Sir Francis Coke:
Coke, like every man, was necessarily a product of the age in which he lived. His faults were the faults of his time, his excellencies those of all time
Under "Writings" section of Wikipedia on Coke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke
Yes, see and accept the bad that is in people, including Forest, but also look for his good points to fully understand him and the people who fought with him.
Forest is a HOT item among Neo-Confederates, the other great Southern Guerrilla leader, Singleton Mosby, is almost forgotten today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Singleton_Mosby
Mosby is NOT liked by new-Confederates for several reasons:
1. After Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865, Mosby was still active. He disbursed his enlisted ranks on April 21st, 1865 and tried to get to Johnson's command with his officers. He then read of Johnson's surrender of April 20, 1865. He told his officers to go home for the $6500 Union bounty was just for him not them. Either in June 1865 or January 1866 (the record is unclear) he was put on parole by General Grant. Afterward he became a solid Grant man.
2. When asked what cause the Civil War (a War he opposed but fought for) he stated "It was due to the lack of a Public Education System". The north had adopted Public Education as a concept in the 1840s, but the South did not accept it till imposed on them during Reconstruction. Thus in most Northern Units it was hard to find someone who could not read and write, but Southern units could have anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of their enlistees unable to read and write. Thus Mosby's statement was that Reconstruction was good for the South, something Neo-Confederates dislike.
3. If you compare Forest with Mosby, you have two active aggressive partisan commanders. Both had troops that were anti-African American (through Mosby's were less anti-African American then The Troops of Forest, for Mosby's men were Virginia and Maryland, while Forest's men were Mississippi and the deep South, an area of the South much more dependent on slaves then the States ABOVE the Cotton line). Mosby comes out on top for they are no war crimes attributed to him or troops under his command.
Side note: Slavery was dieing in the US after the Revolution. The cost involved were to high (including the fact that such slaves would always support any invaders that offered them freedom, as the British had done in 1775-1781). That reversed in 1795 with the invention of the Cotton Gin. The Cotton Gin made Upland Cotton Profitable but only below a line roughly The Virginia-North Carolina, Kentucky-Tennessee, Missouri-Arkansas line. South of that line Cotton was profitable, north of that line Cotton was marginal for time between the last frost of Spring and the first frost of autumn was to short. Thus the Deep South Carolinas/Georgia/Alabama/Florida/Mississippi/Arkansas/Louisiana/East Texas was your Cotton Belt,, South Texas and West Texas was to dry, North of those states had to short a growing period.
http://mrhay.weebly.com/uploads/8/2/5/3/8253688/map_slavecotton.pdf
Now Northern Historians also do not like Mosby:
1. He supported Grant even in Grant's attempt at a third term AND supported Grant in opposition to Civil Service, for the same reason, "How do you get rid of an incompetent appointed to a Civil Service Position?". That is the best attack on Civil Service and people who believed in "Good Government" believed that Civil Servants were better if they were permanent as opposed to someone who served at the discretion of the President.
2. Mosby Hated Custer, when Custer's widow was alive. Custer had executed some of Mosby's men during the Civil War as "Criminals" instead of making them POWs. Technically someone else was in command but it was Custer's troops during what Custer wanted done. In retaliation Mosby captured the same number of union prisoners and executed them in retaliation (Custer had hanged some and shot some, Mosby did the same to the same number, but when it come to shoot the prisoners sentenced to be shot, his men missed most of them, given they were all dead shots shows you how much they liked doing the execution. Mosby at that point just stopped the execution and wrote General Sheridan a letter that if his men were going to execute Mosby's men after they have surrendered, Mosby will do the same to any northern soldiers who came into his hands. Sheridan ordered his men NOT to execute any more of Mosby's soldiers that came into their hands. While the stopped the execution, Mosby NEVER forgave Custer and by 1876 when Custer was going into Dakota Territory, Mosby had Grant's ear and Custer barely was able to hold onto his command before he was killed in the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
3. During the execution mentioned above, one of the soldiers scheduled to be executed made signs that he was a Mason, one of Mosby's office was also a Mason and replaced two other prisoner for the Mason. Mosby on hearing od this said his command was "not a Masonic lodge" and reversed the substitution. Masons did not like this.
4. Mosby hated Football, calling it to violent a game to be played by Collage and High School Students (This from a man who was 5'8" and 139 pounds and who had face a bully when he was 18 who was twice his size, and when that man made moves to beat up Mosby, Mosby shot him and wounded him. For this Mosby was sentenced to one year in jail, but later pardoned). Mosby in 1909 (in his old age) called Football "Murder". His opinion on Football was popular at that time but the idea of replacing football with what was then considered the working class sport of Soccer was unacceptable to the Upper Middle Class
http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH19091128.2.88.59
http://books.google.com/books?id=rdQVrm5SmzAC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22John+S.+Mosby%22++football&source=bl&ots=zJr0P2Pg1W&sig=HoZMyVTUnzCCC5mnk7huizmw_Pc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e1eAUp_GBpet4APh-4G4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22John%20S.%20Mosby%22%20%20football&f=false
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Mosby_John_Singleton_1833-1916#start_entry
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/John_S_Mosby.htm
Sidenote of Soccer in the US Prior to WWII, Soccer was popular in the US, but as a working class sport NOT as a High School or Collage sport. Since most males did not attend High School till about the time of WWI, and most males did NOT graduate High School till just before WWII, Soccer was viewed as a working class sport, men headed for Collage did not play it. On the other hand the 60-90% of the population who did NOT go to collage did play Soccer. A good comparison can be made of Streetcar use in the Movies prior to WWII, it is almost absent, yet most people in the urban areas used Streetcars, The only people driving Cars inside the Cities prior to WWII were upper middle class people (the 1% and some of their hanger ons in the top 10%) and people living in Rural America who commuted to the City (and most of them did like my father, drove to the first Streetcar stop, parked the car and took the Streetcar). I bring up Auto use prior to WWII, for it the movies everyone has a car in the 1930s, even through that was NOT the case. The same with Football, Football was something people headed for Collaged played, thus like Automobiles were shown in the Movies of the time period, even while most people watching that movie, took the streetcar and played soccer (Or its half brother Kick ball).
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That may be because the worst a person has to offer may often outweigh the good they may also do. 
Of course, I realize there may be some erudite though sub-literate hacks who also want to name schools after Spanknöbel in the US, who created the American Bund party in 1933, as word on the street is that he was a good family man... and of course, we must look for the good, yes?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You are so far off topic (SOCCER?) I have no idea how to get back to Forrest, or any semblance of a rational discussion with you.
Your insistence on finding something good in Forrest reminds me of the Kenneth Mars in "The Producers" discussing how misunderstood Adolf was.
start at the 2:00 mark.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
defending the Klan should get you banned here, lying to justify them and their founder is yet worse.
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)Has there every been a country that was defeated in war that is allowed to continue to fly its original national flag (albeit the flag the WingNuts fly is NOT the Confederate national flag) on the public buildings that are part of the new nation? Or to continue to honor the their dead with iconography, statutes, naming rights, etc.
Isn't Nazi paraphernalia illegal in Germany and the organization of neo-Nazi groups illegal.
The German flag was changed after the war, the Japanese flag was changed after the war; the only flag that matters from the former Confederacy is the WHITE one.
Aristus
(72,188 posts)The Rising Sun -
What was banned was the Imperial Japanese battle flag:
I suppose it's analogous to the difference between the Confederate national flag and the Confederate battle flag.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Aristus
(72,188 posts)
Thanks!
The flag is considered offensive in countries with a strong anti-Japanese sentiment, and victims of the Japanese imperialism, specifically in China and South Korea, where it is considered to be associated with Japanese militarism and imperialism. During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Japanese fans were warned not to fly the flag as it would cause offense and trouble with the Chinese. In Japan itself the flag is sometimes seen at sporting events and protests by extreme right-wing groups. The Rising Sun flag also appears on commercial product labels, such as on the cans of one variety of Asahi Breweries lager beer. The design is also incorporated into the flag of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun as well as banners called Tairyo-ki (Good Catch Flag?) flown by fishermen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_Flag
The design is also incorporated into the flag of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun
Hataya good catch flag of Sumoto: Japanese
Also wanted to note there is a slight difference between these two flags, can you see it?
The Japanese Imperial war flag has the sun dead center, where as the Naval flag, is off to the left a bit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
yuiyoshida
(45,416 posts)Almost a 3 D effect.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A Naval Vessel must carry three flags whenever it enters a port or some within sight of another vessel (This rule was adopted for constant flying of flags tends to exposure them to damage, thus only hosted when another ship is near).
The Three Flags, are the Naval Jack in bow (Front), the National Color on the Highest Mast, and the Ensign at the stern (rear).
On US vessels the National Flag and the Naval Ensign are the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States
The Naval Jack is different:
According to Wikipedia the US Naval Jack is no longer 50 Stars on a blue background but the "First Naval Jack" of 13 stripes with a rattlesnake on it and "Dont Tread on me" caption. Wikipedia then states that stated on 9/11/2002 but gives no citation. Thus this could be wrong, and I do not live near a Naval base to see what US Navy Flags are flying on the bows to confirm or reject that statement.
http://www.fotw.us/flags/us%5Envj.html#use
First Naval Jack:
1960 till 2002 Naval Jack:
MADem
(135,425 posts)Small "e" unless you're starting a sentence w/the word.
Capital E to refer to a specific junior officer, e.g. Ensign Pulver.
They are flown at the rear of the ship, as the pictures I provided demonstrate. The Japanese nation flag is the "meatball," as we called it, a red ball on a white field with no rays.
The snake jack used to be only for the oldest ship in the fleet--it was a distinctive thing. Then "Terra Terra Terra" George's SECNAV decided that everyone should fly the stupid thing for the duration of the Global War on Terra. Even though POTUS has declared an end to that war I don't think they've stopped flying that thing. The whole snake-jack thing was GOP politicization/poisoning, IMO. SEALS now wear the stupid thing on their shoulders where the national flag should go these days. F'd up.
This is the reference SECNAVINST: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SECNAV_Instruction_10520.6
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)never changed their flag after we won the Revolutionary War, there are many cases throughout history were nations have never changed their flag after losing a war.
Logically speaking, flying the Confederate National Flag would represent a greater danger as that flag actually represented the Confederate Government; which encoded slavery in its' Constitution, promoted secession and drew the line in the sand which sparked the Civil War.
I believe the South is changing as this OP is evidence of, having said that some people have a hard time taking yes for an answer, and would prefer to rub salt in to a wound, while trashing the 1st Amendment in the process.
At the end of the Civil War both Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee wanted the nation to bind up its' wounds and heal, living in harmony, now they were both bigots if not racists by today's standards and were probably thinking more along the lines of White America healing, but my hope is that in the 21st century we can transcend their 19th century mentality and heal along all lines race and region.
Germany is a special case, Hitler overthrew their Republic after being elected burning the Bundestag (German Parliament) Building and making himself a dictator, not to mention trying to conquer the world.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The war ended in 1783 (Yorktown was in 1781, but the actual peace treaty took another two years to iron out).
Technically the flag of England is the Flag of St George:
The Flag of Scotland is the Flag of St Andrews:
In 1606 The British started to fly the "Union Jack" a combination of the English Flag St George and the Scottish Flag of St Andrews, with the Act of Union of 1707 the Union Jack became the flag of Britain:
In 1801 The British did change they flag to the present flag, which included the Irish Cross of St Patrick within the while lines of the Cross of St Andrews (Scotland).
Thus the British did change they flag after losing Americam just 18 years later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)That was the intent of my post.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You can say the same about the US and WWII (or Korea), the US flag changed in 1959 and again in 1960 (to show the statehood of Alaska and Hawaii).
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)Has there every been a country that was defeated in war that is allowed to continue to fly its original national flag (albeit the flag the WingNuts fly is NOT the Confederate national flag) on the public buildings that are part of the new nation? Or to continue to honor the their dead with iconography, statutes, naming rights, etc.
History is rife full of nations maintaining their flags after losing a war.
The U.S. Flag has continously changed since its' inception with the addition of new states being the primary catalyst, there is no dispute regarding that.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)It was placed back on the game board a couple years later after the occupation stabilized, sure, but the Berlin Declaration of 5 June 1945 straight-up abolished the German state. There was a geographic location called Germany, and there were people called Germans, but the actual nation-state was burned off the map down to large swathes of municipal government.
You could say the CSA got a dose of debellatio as well, but that's blurrier given how it showed up in the first place, the vagaries of nations versus civil wars, etc. Either way, both were vastly more thorough ways of dealing with a defeated country than usually happened in the Westphalian system as a whole; I'd say they both qualify as special cases in this sense, because what happened to them actually is pretty unusual.
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)corporate globalizaton which began in the aftermath of the Civil War when corporations were deemed to be equivalent to people.
Corporate hegemony or supremacy has pretty much done nothing but grow in power since then with near continuous consolidation.
Today the TPP; being negotiated in secret will trump the U.S. Constitution when enacted, so much for the Westphalian System.
That's the flip side of the Civil War Coin.
As for Germany even that was not Debellatio in the strictest sense of the word, the German People or nation still existed, it was never annexed, and some degree of government was still performed by the Germans at the local level and nationally was only temporarily governed by foreign forces.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Colonial states notwithstanding, not many nation-states (and I'll consider the CSA one for the purposes of discussion) have been completely overrun and annexed like that in the last century or two. Flying the flag of an annexed state was traditionally a bit of a no-no and generally dealt with (too) harshly, not situations where that was happening were more often either resurgent nationalism from a country which had disappeared some time before, or a pushback against a far more recent annexation.
The situation in the south - where a large, relatively modern country existed for at least long enough to wage a coherent war for awhile, was defeated by another power, and completely (re)absorbed - is rare enough in this day and age that there isn't really any way to apply some basic rules-o-history to it like you did with the mention of Germany.
In most cases there's no shortage of names and other references hanging around popular culture, unless the controlling authority is actively trying to suppress the culture at large, at which point we're back into thorny ethical territories. Part of the difference there is that the United States generally recognizes broader political rights than most other countries who denied a region's exit visa with force of arms.
Dj13Francis
(395 posts)Changing it to George W. Bush Middle is sooo much better...
Good to see the school board doing this. There needs be a federal law about this sort of thing. Every school and town with Confederate names needs to be changed, every Confederate monument and statue must be torn down, every Confederate graveyard paved over! The Southern love affair with those racist, traitorous scum must be put to an end!
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)Thanks for the thread, Eugene.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)
Island Deac
(110 posts)The farther north in Florida you go the more southern it gets. And vice versa.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It would seem that the names of any and all confederate leaders should be consigned to history as a cautionary tale, not celebrated for heroics or as historic contributors to this nation.
MADem
(135,425 posts)with Forrest Gump!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)It would be tempting to find a statue of him and dress it in white sheets, if anyone needs reminding why Forrest, of all Confederate generals, is undeserving of any honor.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)A traitor and a racist!
How many US schools are named for "Benedict Arnold"?
And he wasn't even in the KKK!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
LOL, just kidding, fella!
Anyway, at least Bob Byrd had the bravery to do the right thing and reject his former KKK affiliations. Forrest, OTOH, being it's founder, was with them up 'till the very end.
I can understand keeping Byrd's name, if only for his willingness to repudiate the Klan.....but Forrest's name shoulda been taken down a VERY long time ago, IMHO. A shame to Florida and Tennessee and a shame to the nation as a whole.
