Hear how representatives of the SCV justify the flying of that really big flag in Florida.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Hear how representatives of the SCV justify the flying of that really big flag in Florida.
Crossroads 
Ok, how does Obama qualify for SCV’s membership? That I don’t get.
And I think it is funny that southern soldiers had to become legal veterans by law when everyone else does so by simply serving.
Oh dear…the Morrill Tariff…do they read anything?
Well, again … it’s Florida. So these are just some sweet southern boys.
They lost me on the Morrill Tariff, too, Corey. My personal favorite demolition of the whole taxation as a cause of the war was done by the fire-eater Lawrence Keitt during the South Carolina secession convention.
Unless I’m mistaken, the flag in question is on private property, so I don’t accept the premise it’s display requires “justification.” Beyond that, at least these 3 gentlemen are sitting down and having a civil discussion on their different perspectives. I think that should be applauded.
Well, you’ll have to complain to the people who made and circulated the show as well as those people who appeared on it. No one said anything “required” anything (except you). Let these people speak for themselves, and if you have a reaction to that, feel free to share it.
I already did share, but thanks anyway. No desire to complain – just throwing in.
“No one said anything “required” anything (except you).”
Actually . . . “Hear how representatives of the SCV justify the flying of that really big flag in Florida.”
Aren’t those your words? I was just bouncing a thought off what you had said.
I don’t think they are “required” to do anything (which is why I wondered about your word choice). Of course they are justifying what they are doing … that’s why they’re on the program. I see it as a sharing of views, and I’ve offered no commentary on it … just broadening the audience to hear the conversation.
Here’s the meaning of the word “justify,” according to a certain Confederate “heritage” advocate’s favorite source, dictionary.com:
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don’t try to justify his rudeness.
You don’t think that’s what they are doing?
Have you ever seen me protest the display of Confederate flags on private property? Where? Link, please. I’ll remind you that I saw no problem with the idea that the Museum of the Confederacy’s Appomattox museum might choose to display the Third National flag. Of course, if they choose not to fly a Confederate flag, that’s their choice, too, no matter how much some folks may not like that. And I point you to this commentary for a little more detail on my views.
“You don’t think that’s what they are doing?”
Whether they are or not was not what I was specifically commenting on, but I’ll accept that they were. But that does not change the simple point I was making – there is no *need* to justify something like this on private property – at least not in my view. I did not watch the whole video, just a little at the beginning, middle and end – I was actually more interested in seeing whether or not their discourse was civil. I was pleased to see that it was. Most folks who are students of the WBTS have heard the pros and cons on the flag issue ad nauseum, I doubt there’s anything new here. Again, I wanted to observe the tone of the discourse more than anything else.
“Have you ever seen me protest the display of Confederate flags on private property?”
No, but I didn’t say you had. Again, I was simply commenting, in general terms, on the notion of “requiring justification” – I did not intend to accuse any party of that notion. If the SCV wants to “justify” the flag’s display on private property, then they should do so, I just don’t think it’s necessary.
“Of course, if they [MOC] choose not to fly a Confederate flag, that’s their choice, too, no matter how much some folks may not like that.”
True, though they do have a responsibility to be good stewards of their charge. That stewardship would include how their dues-paying members may view that choice. I suppose time will reveal that. Personally, I think it was rather silly but, hey, I’m just a lowly MOC member, why should my views matter? Thanks for allowing me to comment.
I think members of the MOC will make their views felt, and they should. Same with other groups that contribute to the MOC. To me, that’s their business. I’ll rest content with visiting the museum, as I already have.
And we agree that there was no “need” that “required” anyone to do anything. Glad to see that’s been cleared up.
I’ve not visited the new location, but I do hope to soon. While I realize Waite has a tight rope to walk, I think the decision to not display some type of Confederate flag at the Museum of the Confederacy is, as already stated, a bit silly. One man’s opinion. I’ve not yet decided whether or not to renew my membership this year. I’ll hold my fire on that until I visit the new location.
I particularly enjoyed listening to the Constitution being jabbed into the discussion when it is clear the reference was to the Declaration, skewed as the statement was. Conveniently forgotten is that the Declaration said it was the right of the people to “alter” or “abolish” the goverment, not simply walk away and create your own. On the other hand, listening to them essentially discount Tyrone’s point of view and twist it into how he needs to broaden his horizons is patronizing at best. Even their body language, especially the attorney, is more than revealing.
Heritage instead of history.