As a North Carolinian, I sympathize but I'm also delighted that some other state is worse than us.
:eek:
I's really hard to believe people can be this stupid and still survive. :wall: :sick: Solitary
That was funny!
What do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
Do they really believe slavery will make a comeback?
Quote from: Berati on May 14, 2014, 06:21:35 PM
What do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
Do they really believe slavery will make a comeback?
I am curious as to what they mean but I never thought of it as a reference to slavery. I always thought it was just some disgruntled losers running their mouth.
Quote from: Berati on May 14, 2014, 06:21:35 PM
What do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
Do they really believe slavery will make a comeback?
I live in the south. Sometimes I don't even know.
I. Um.
Well, I....
When they say "the South will rise again" they don't mean "and slavery will come back with it." You're adding that part due to your opinion of the speaker.
My wife's from Jackson. She's an atheist, a bibliophile, and an astronomy buff.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on May 14, 2014, 08:57:09 PM
When they say "the South will rise again" they don't mean "and slavery will come back with it." You're adding that part due to your opinion of the speaker.
It has nothing to do with my opinion of the speakers. The south was defeated over the issue of slavery. What else could they mean by it?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 14, 2014, 09:31:47 PM
My wife's from Jackson. She's an atheist, a bibliophile, and an astronomy buff.
Is buff or in the buff?
the civil war was over states rights, slavery was a serious issue that really magnified the states rights thing, from what I know, the south thought the north was really bossy and wanted freedom to go about their own way(even though their way is considered wrong)
I thought the south will rise again referred to anarchists (oops)
edit
I sympathize with the "i would rather die than take a hand out" mentality, simply because I can see why people would not give up their pride or honor, Im not like that but I understand others are
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2014, 01:47:23 PM
As a North Carolinian, I sympathize but I'm also delighted that some other state is worse than us.
Depending on the county, it really isn't that different.
QuoteI sympathize with the "i would rather die than take a hand out" mentality, simply because I can see why people would not give up their pride or honor, Im not like that but I understand others are
That's all nice and dandy if it's just you, but when you have a wife and children who are suffering because of your pride... that is no different then parent's who refuse medical treatment for their children because of their faith.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 15, 2014, 02:03:58 AM
That's all nice and dandy if it's just you, but when you have a wife and children who are suffering because of your pride... that is no different then parent's who refuse medical treatment for their children because of their faith.
When you are poor, all you have left is your pride. Many of the impoverished in the south tend to be uneducated and lacking in the ability to think critically. There's lots of emotion but not a lot of thinking. So, when you hurt their pride, they feel you are taking all they have and will fight a losing battle to try to keep it.
They truly are the proles from 1984.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 15, 2014, 02:03:58 AM
That's all nice and dandy if it's just you, but when you have a wife and children who are suffering because of your pride... that is no different then parent's who refuse medical treatment for their children because of their faith.
And "red" states on average use more benefits that they contribute, which means somebody's taking those handouts there.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 11:22:05 PM
the civil war was over states rights, slavery was a serious issue that really magnified the states rights thing, from what I know, the south thought the north was really bossy and wanted freedom to go about their own way(even though their way is considered wrong)
I thought the south will rise again referred to anarchists (oops)
Yah, it was over states rights... States rights to own slaves. If it was just southern pride, how come I don't see any black people from the south saying that crap?
I've heard this revisionist stuff before but the fact is the southern slaves states formed the confederacy strictly over the issue of slavery. They were the bad guys.
I am not saying we should continue to point fingers at people from the south, in the same way that we should not blame all Germans for Nazism. However, assholes who wave around the swastika or the confederate flag should be reminded that they are the bad guys.
Quoteedit
I sympathize with the "i would rather die than take a hand out" mentality, simply because I can see why people would not give up their pride or honor, Im not like that but I understand others are
I think this just shows how easy it is to get people to act against their own self interest if you blind them with ideology.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 15, 2014, 07:06:18 AM
And "red" states on average use more benefits that they contribute, which means somebody's taking those handouts there.
That's how you keep the "Proles" in check, give them just enough benefits to keep them content with their poverty so they remain unambitious. Throw in a little Jesus and you're good to go. It's brilliant if you think about it. (Nice analogy Aletheia).
BTW, this seems to works on most demographics, conservative or not.
Quote from: Berati on May 14, 2014, 06:21:35 PMWhat do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
The phrase means many different things to different people (apparently, some people take it as an apolitical affirmation of "southern pride" much like waving the Confederate flag) But generally, they seem to mean it as approval of the Confederacy and a desire for Southern states to once again secede from the US.
Although the Confederacy did lose the war and is long gone, a misguided romanticism of the past, sectionalism, and dissatisfaction with the current state of the Union (particularly "Yankee" influence) all combine to keep this sentiment alive.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 08:09:24 AMI've heard this revisionist stuff before but the fact is the southern slaves states formed the confederacy strictly over the issue of slavery.
Bingo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War)
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 15, 2014, 11:09:48 AM
The phrase means many different things to different people (apparently, some people take it as an apolitical affirmation of "southern pride" much like waving the Confederate flag) But generally, they seem to mean it as approval of the Confederacy and a desire for Southern states to once again secede from the US.
Although the Confederacy did lose the war and is long gone, a misguided romanticism of the past, sectionalism, and dissatisfaction with the current state of the Union (particularly "Yankee" influence) all combine to keep this sentiment alive.
I don't doubt that many believe the confederate flag or the "south will rise again" is about southern pride or a desire to secede because of a hatred of the federal govt. But those people don't know their own history. The confederate flag is as disgusting a symbol as a swastika even if the mouth breathing knuckle draggers are unaware of it.
Here is a video from the same person with a slightly different perspective. The New York Liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
I don't doubt that many believe the confederate flag or the "south will rise again" is about southern pride or a desire to secede because of a hatred of the federal govt. But those people don't know their own history. The confederate flag is as disgusting a symbol as a swastika even if the mouth breathing knuckle draggers are unaware of it.
Agreed. It was definitely a bad part of our history, it's a good thing that it's over, which has led to the emergence of the New South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South) much more urban and culturally similar to Northern states. The rural areas are still very sad, however.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 01:08:02 PMHere is a video from the same person with a slightly different perspective. The New York Liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw
Yikes! That's pretty screwed-up, too! In principle, I agree with social safety nets, but I HATE it when they're abused like this. Using food stamps for Red Bull and similar food-like products rather than actual meals is particularly aggravating.
Both videos combined are a pretty good explanation for why we aren't doing so well as a nation.
Quote from: Berati on May 14, 2014, 10:06:58 PM
It has nothing to do with my opinion of the speakers. The south was defeated over the issue of slavery. What else could they mean by it?
Independence probably. Just think for a few minutes and see if you can come up with a non-racist interpretation. It is possible, but it involves getting past your pre-existing low opinion of Southerners.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 08:09:24 AMYah, it was over states rights... States rights to own slaves.
It was individuals that owned slaves, in 11 Southern states and 5 Northern states. It was Lincoln that established the first draft, a State owning slaves.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 08:09:24 AMIf it was just southern pride, how come I don't see any black people from the south saying that crap?
Try looking for it.
I know, your public school education says that it was slavery, only slavery, nothing but slavery. You're doing a good job reciting the party line. I'll give you appropriate credit for being good as you were taught.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 14, 2014, 11:22:05 PM
the civil war was over states rights, slavery was a serious issue that really magnified the states rights thing, from what I know, the south thought the north was really bossy and wanted freedom to go about their own way(even though their way is considered wrong)
I thought the south will rise again referred to anarchists (oops)
edit
I sympathize with the "i would rather die than take a hand out" mentality, simply because I can see why people would not give up their pride or honor, Im not like that but I understand others are
Except southern states take more handouts than any other region in the US. In other words they want all of the benefits of statehood, but don't want to contribute to it.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on May 15, 2014, 09:40:10 PM
Independence probably. Just think for a few minutes and see if you can come up with a non-racist interpretation. It is possible, but it involves getting past your pre-existing low opinion of Southerners.
Independence from laws preventing the ownership of slaves.
I have a low opinion of slave owners not southerners. Southerners who pretend the civil war wasn't about slavery are delusional.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on May 15, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
It was individuals that owned slaves, in 11 Southern states and 5 Northern states. It was Lincoln that established the first draft, a State owning slaves.
Try looking for it.
I know, your public school education says that it was slavery, only slavery, nothing but slavery. You're doing a good job reciting the party line. I'll give you appropriate credit for being good as you were taught.
Public school education? Was that your attempt at an insult because I hurt your feelings. I could tell in our very first encounter that you are nothing more than an arrogant douche bag who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
Not that it makes any difference but I went to private school.
Any child with internet access or a library card can find out for themselves that it was in fact all about slavery.
No war is ever about one specific issue, slavery was the main issue but it was also about states rights
The north and south were inevitably going to have opposing interests, this is apparent even before the constitution was written
There was more than just slavery. Many northerners wanted slaves as well and many cities rioted over it. It had a lot to do with the agrarian lifestyle, but to support the lifestyle required slaves because the technology of the day wouldn't support picking crops, cotton in particular until a guy name Eli Whitney came along and they had the backing of England who still had a bone to pick with the US federal government plus at the time England had a huge textile industry. Without the financial backing of England the confederacy would have been dead before it started.
I'm just going to leave this here:
It answers the age-old question in the first minute. Kind of a no-brainer, tbh.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 10:40:54 PM
Independence from laws preventing the ownership of slaves.
I have a low opinion of slave owners not southerners. Southerners who pretend the civil war wasn't about slavery are delusional.
Yeah, that was the only law that was in any way a factor. Yep. Exactly what you are supposed to think. Good job.
You have correctly parroted the dumbed-down party line. Congratulations.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on May 15, 2014, 09:43:30 PMIt was individuals that owned slaves, in 11 Southern states and 5 Northern states. It was Lincoln that established the first draft, a State owning slaves.
Are you referring to the border state of Maryland, which had a grand total of 87,189 slaves in 1860 (and almost as many free blacks) out of a total population of 687,049?
In contrast, Virginia had 490,865 slaves out of a total population 1,596,318.
North Carolina had 331,057 slaves out of a total population of 992,622.
South Carolina had 402,406 slaves out of a total population of 703,708.
Georgia had 462,198 slaves out of a total population of 1,057,286.
Mississippi had 436,631 slaves out of a total population of 791,292.
Etc, etc.
The U.S. had nearly 4,000,000 slaves in 1860. Take a wild guess where the vast majority of them were located. Here's a hint: it wasn't the region that had already freed almost all of their slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Northern_abolition).
Although border states did have some slaves, it wasn't even remotely on the same scale of the Confederate states. Also, the border states' support of the war effort was deemed crucial and thus full abolition wasn't accomplished until late in the war.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War)
Quote“Historians debating the origins of the American Civil War focus on the reasons why seven Southern states declared their secession from the Union and later joined to form the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy"). The main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights.â€
From Civil War.org
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/ (http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/)
Quote“While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.â€
From History.net
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war (http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war)
Quote“The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery.â€
The fact is that if you remove the issue of slavery the war does not happen.
If the North accepts the decision of the Dred Scott case and allows the south to continue the ownership and transportation of slaves…there is no war.
If the south accepts the global trend away from slavery and decides to free the slaves…there is no war.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 15, 2014, 09:25:10 AM
That's how you keep the "Proles" in check, give them just enough benefits to keep them content with their poverty so they remain unambitious. Throw in a little Jesus and you're good to go. It's brilliant if you think about it. (Nice analogy Aletheia).
BTW, this seems to works on most demographics, conservative or not.
Cornbread and truck pulls?
Considering the fact that their lifestyle pretty much revolves around Pork, I don't think they are going to be rising again. There is a city in Kentucky that has a Ham festival. Boy, that's got to bring in the big names in entertainment.
Quote from: stromboli on May 16, 2014, 10:27:13 PM
Considering the fact that their lifestyle pretty much revolves around Pork, I don't think they are going to be rising again. There is a city in Kentucky that has a Ham festival. Boy, that's got to bring in the big names in entertainment.
Like Ken Ham.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 15, 2014, 11:00:31 PM
There was more than just slavery. Many northerners wanted slaves as well and many cities rioted over it. It had a lot to do with the agrarian lifestyle, but to support the lifestyle required slaves because the technology of the day wouldn't support picking crops, cotton in particular until a guy name Eli Whitney came along and they had the backing of England who still had a bone to pick with the US federal government plus at the time England had a huge textile industry. Without the financial backing of England the confederacy would have been dead before it started.
No doubt the cotton gin increased the growth of slavery and the dependence of Britain and France on imported cotton, but the confederacy overplayed their hand.
They put their trust in King Cotton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton) and that it would lead to support from England and France in the war against the Union. However, that support never materialized as the Europeans had more reasons not to go to war with the U.S. than to go to war just to get cheaper cotton. Britain remained officially neutral and the confederacy received no aid.
Quote from: Berati on May 14, 2014, 06:21:35 PM
What do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
Do they really believe slavery will make a comeback?
I think they're trying to overcome erectile dysfunction.
They keep saying the South will rise again because they can't get it up.
It may have been around 30 years ago when the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery became fashionable. I actually considered the possibility that it might be true, although I felt like I had to take liberties with reason. Usually, it was simply stated, "It was not about slavery!" You had to then fill in your own explanations.
Eventually, it was frequently stated, "It was not about slavery. It was about economics!" OK, I guess you could make a case for that, being that the economics of the South were viewed as being dependent on slavery. But it was still about slavery.
Now, the issue of state's rights seems to often be used as the explanation for the Civil War. It's the best alternative yet to slavery, because many of the western states also complain about their state's rights, and they are not advocating slavery. However, this does not mean that southern state's right issues were not about slavery.
The Civil War was an important and necessary war because it wiped out the gross inhumanity of slavery. Many southerners now understand that slavery was a barbaric act of inhumanity, and they would like to forget that part of their past, so they come up with other explanations for the Civil War. However, I have met Southerners that openly admit they fully support making black people slaves, even today. But I think some Southerners that have a less barbaric attitude still wave their confederate flags because that's a popular thing to do in the South. It probably means different things to different people.
But I don't buy that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery.
Quote from: Berati on May 17, 2014, 10:22:26 AM
No doubt the cotton gin increased the growth of slavery and the dependence of Britain and France on imported cotton, but the confederacy overplayed their hand.
They put their trust in King Cotton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton) and that it would lead to support from England and France in the war against the Union. However, that support never materialized as the Europeans had more reasons not to go to war with the U.S. than to go to war just to get cheaper cotton. Britain remained officially neutral and the confederacy received no aid.
The Civil War is often credited for the rise of the Egyptian cotton industry. Britain was not happy with the idea of defending a slave-holding system.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2014, 06:18:17 AMBut I don't buy that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery.
They demanded that the North accept they had certain rights which included what they called "our peculiar institution", i.e., slavery. The expansion westward meant more "border states" (like Missouri in status) that would probably tip the balance of the Senate toward "free" states. They saw it as inevitable that population growth would give the House of Representatives to the free staters, and they didn't see a way out of this geographic and demographic trap.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2014, 06:18:17 AMIt may have been around 30 years ago when the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery became fashionable. I actually considered the possibility that it might be true, although I felt like I had to take liberties with reason. Usually, it was simply stated, "It was not about slavery!" You had to then fill in your own explanations.
Eventually, it was frequently stated, "It was not about slavery. It was about economics!" OK, I guess you could make a case for that, being that the economics of the South were viewed as being dependent on slavery. But it was still about slavery.
Now, the issue of state's rights seems to often be used as the explanation for the Civil War. It's the best alternative yet to slavery, because many of the western states also complain about their state's rights, and they are not advocating slavery. However, this does not mean that southern state's right issues were not about slavery.
Yep. And now, it's apparently all about independence and freedom. How very noble. (And comical, considering the actual motivation)
And the old standby is that it's the war of "Northern Aggression" with no particular acts of aggression named. You simply had to imagine that the North was bullying the South and Southerners were just defending themselves. The actual history paints a very different story.
Quote from: SGOS on May 18, 2014, 06:18:17 AM
It may have been around 30 years ago when the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery became fashionable. I actually considered the possibility that it might be true, although I felt like I had to take liberties with reason. Usually, it was simply stated, "It was not about slavery!" You had to then fill in your own explanations.
Eventually, it was frequently stated, "It was not about slavery. It was about economics!" OK, I guess you could make a case for that, being that the economics of the South were viewed as being dependent on slavery. But it was still about slavery.
Now, the issue of state's rights seems to often be used as the explanation for the Civil War. It's the best alternative yet to slavery, because many of the western states also complain about their state's rights, and they are not advocating slavery. However, this does not mean that southern state's right issues were not about slavery.
The Civil War was an important and necessary war because it wiped out the gross inhumanity of slavery. Many southerners now understand that slavery was a barbaric act of inhumanity, and they would like to forget that part of their past, so they come up with other explanations for the Civil War. However, I have met Southerners that openly admit they fully support making black people slaves, even today. But I think some Southerners that have a less barbaric attitude still wave their confederate flags because that's a popular thing to do in the South. It probably means different things to different people.
But I don't buy that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery.
I did a fair amount of arguing with Confederate apologists in high school and it's always the same excuses.
Apologist dumbass: "It wasn't about slavery, it was about economics."
Me: Economics like "labor" for instance?
Dumbass: The North had slaves too.
Me: The north also had a considerable anti-slavery movement. Tell me all about the anti-slavery movement in the South.=D
Dumbass: Lincoln said if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery he would.
Me: Which makes the Declarations of Secession and the South's perception that he hated slavery all the more mystifying. Actually, no it doesn't. It was obvious by the 1860s that slavery would tearing the country apart, and Lincoln also said he'd get rid of slavery, if that preserved the Union.
Dumbass: Most of the South didn't own slaves.
Me: That's not the same thing as being anti-slavery.
Quote from: Savior2006 on May 18, 2014, 06:47:07 PMDumbass: The North had slaves too.
Me: The north also had a considerable anti-slavery movement. Tell me all about the anti-slavery movement in the South.=D
It did exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States#Manumission_by_Southern_owners), especially in the Upper South, but yeah, it didn't do so well and Southern abolitionism basically died out in the years before the Civil War. It didn't help that laws were passed that restricted slavemasters' ability to free their own slaves (which seems like a terribly unjust restriction on one's freedom *tongue-in-cheek*)
QuoteDumbass: Lincoln said if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery he would.
Me: Which makes the Declarations of Secession and the South's perception that he hated slavery all the more mystifying. Actually, no it doesn't. It was obvious by the 1860s that slavery would tearing the country apart, and Lincoln also said he'd get rid of slavery, if that preserved the Union.
Lincoln stated that he wouldn't interfere with slavery in the territories where it existed, but it's pretty clear that Republicans, including Lincoln, opposed the westward extension of slavery and generally favored a plan of containment and gradual erosion of slave states (http://books.google.com/books?id=MaVp-YES1F0C&pg=PR12#v=onepage&q&f=false) with a few calling for immediate abolition.
The timing of the Confederate secession was remarkably prescient; Lincoln (and successive Republican presidents) would've surely curtailed slavery in new territories and gradually weakened slave states' power. Secession wouldn't have fared nearly as well as it did if they had waited.
QuoteDumbass: Most of the South didn't own slaves.
Me: That's not the same thing as being anti-slavery.
That part is actually true. Though with the number of families owning slaves (http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html) ranging up to 49%, that's a pretty damn sizable minority.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 18, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Yep. And now, it's apparently all about independence and freedom. How very noble. (And comical, considering the actual motivation)
And the old standby is that it's the war of "Northern Aggression" with no particular acts of aggression named. You simply had to imagine that the North was bullying the South and Southerners were just defending themselves. The actual history paints a very different story.
There has to be a psychological reason for denial of the ridiculously obvious.
Quote from: Berati on May 15, 2014, 08:09:24 AM
Yah, it was over states rights... States rights to own slaves. If it was just southern pride, how come I don't see any black people from the south saying that crap?
So, every soldier on the Confederates side, most of whom did not own a slave let alone could feed themselves regularly, were fighting for slavery?
QuoteI've heard this revisionist stuff before but the fact is the southern slaves states formed the confederacy strictly over the issue of slavery. They were the bad guys.
I am not saying we should continue to point fingers at people from the south, in the same way that we should not blame all Germans for Nazism. However, assholes who wave around the swastika or the confederate flag should be reminded that they are the bad guys.
This is the first flag of the Confederacy:
(http://www.ultimateflags.com/images/P/1st-Confederate-national-flag.jpg)
Is that a flag of hate? The war lasted for 4 years. This flag was flown from was flown from March 4, 1861 to May 1, 1863.
This was the second but not technically the last flag of the Confederacy:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg)
This is Georgia's current flag:
(http://thegavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Grunge-Flag-Of-Georgia-US-State-750x400.jpg)
Look familiar?
What should be noted is that these two flags were national flags of the Confederacy; each state had different flags, and in turn, each division had a different flag. Which means, by your logic any flag of the Confederacy can be concluded to be a flag of hate, right? Like this one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Bonnieblue.svg)
The only flag that you see as a flag of hate is the Battle Flag -- why not all these other flags? And, is not the US flag a flag of hate to Native Americans? The British flag to Americans? etc.,
What people like you fail to realize is they are just flags. They do not represent hatred or peace, they are inanimate objects. Only people represent those things; and their convoluted viewpoints.
I'm not saying people can't use objects as a vehicle to drive their ideological point-of-view what I am saying is: any object, like a flag, can be seen as hatred to certain people.
How, as stated, is the American flag not a flag of hate by your logic?
QuoteI think this just shows how easy it is to get people to act against their own self interest if you blind them with ideology.
Yes, ideology not objects.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on July 10, 2014, 12:42:25 AMThe only flag that you see as a flag of hate is the Battle Flag -- why not all these other flags? And, is not the US flag a flag of hate to Native Americans? The British flag to Americans? etc.,
What people like you fail to realize is they are just flags. They do not represent hatred or peace, they are inanimate objects. Only people represent those things; and their convoluted viewpoints.
I'm not saying people can't use objects as a vehicle to drive their ideological point-of-view what I am saying is: any object, like a flag, can be seen as hatred to certain people.
How, as stated, is the American flag not a flag of hate by your logic?
Well... the battle flag is far and away the most symbolic of the Confederacy and its goals of secession and defense of the institution of slavery, and I'd imagine other Americans might have a pretty understandable problem with either/both. It's also important to bare in mind that the confederate battle flag was enthusiastically adopted by southerners opposing reconstruction, segregationists, and your garden-variety racists (most notably, the KKK). Lots of really nasty associations that just happen to cluster around opposition to any form of Black enfranchisement.