I brought this up in a post in the Liberal definitions in it I quote what was said then the interpretation that was given to it. The two seem worlds apart. Now, I have posted a statement by Amlord that seems to do the same thing.

Here's what he quoted Julian bond saying



Emphasis mine

Here is what Amlord interpreted it to mean. In fairness, I also hear Hannity and, I believe, O'rielly say something similar.



Wow!! Lets reflect on this for a second. Jews were persecuted by people that flew the swastika as their standard. Blacks were enslaved largely by people who fought under the confederate flag. To many Jews, the swastika represents the holocaust. To many blacks, the confederate flag represesents the history of slavery and oppression. Mr. Bond is clearly comparing the confederate flag to the swastika, hence the Confederate Swastika. He is calling out southern Republicans, because they, for the most part, are supportive of this flag flying high. At no point does he compare Nazi's and Republicans. He may think it, but he didn't say it, nor imply it in that statement.

I admit, I don't have a huge deal with the confederate flag. But the fact that many other Blacks do see it as a symbol of racism seems enough reason to take it down. Either way, how do people make these freaky interpretations.

Questions for debate.

Is this a good or bad interpretation or purposeful misread of what Mr Bond said??

Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika.

1.)I also took Mfume's quote to be a comparison of the confederate "stars and bars" with the swastika only. I think Amlord misread that one big time.

2.) Is it right to compare the "stars and bars" to the swastika? The former was a battle flag, while the other was a national flag. A better analogy would've been comparing the CSA battle-flag to the Nazi deaths-head or SS bars since the latter were also primarily prominant military signs. You could argue that the stars and bars were a part of the official CSA flag since they are included in the inset of flag #2 & 3 that they had. However, yes, the comparison is very apt. The swastika is used to insult jews, hence why it is spray painted on synagogues and on the tombstones of Jews. Likewise, the "stars and bars " were used to taunt black civil rights marchers in the '60s. If you were African-American, how could it be argued that the "stars and bars " are not offensive? Visit racist websites, and you will not find the offical flags of the confederacy, you will find the "stars and bars" battle-flag. They aren't honoring "southern heritage" or anyting like that, to the likes of them, it stands for an ideology. If that weren't the case, then why do they rely so much on the use of a mere battleflag over any of the three former CSA flags?

Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika.
I guess it could go either way depending on the time it was used. The Swastika was the symbol to rally around for the die hard, faithful Nazi's. It was the symbol (usurped from the greek cross or the Bhuddist symbol for peace, whichever you believe) that represented a national policy of ethnic, racial and religious persecution and genocide.
The St. Andrews cross of the Confederate battle standard was the military symbol of the south, rallied around by most who didn't own slaves or engage in overt support of slavery, but merely understood that they were defending their homeland from the North, and equated that fight to the American Revolution some years prior. Unfortunately, the battle standard has been usurped by neo-nazi's and racists.
I personally don't hold the swastika and the battle standard to the same standards, other than the fact that they had both been stolen from their original symbolic purpose.

Not only is this statement wrong on its face, the word "swastika" immediately invokes "Nazi" not "slave owner" (although either statement would be wrong).

Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika.
I could be, if it is clearly spelled out as such. What Bond said was just a swipe at Republicans. As I said, just say "swastika" and the listener thinks of Nazis, not Southerners, even if you use the word "Confederate". Most people these days do not think about the Confederacy. Heck, most probably couldn't tell you that it was in the South...

There is a clear intent here, and being non-partisan or fair doesn't appear to be it.

I have to agree with Amlord here, the word Swastika conjures up images of Nazi Germany. It's intent would seem to me to be a way to paint the confederacy as an evil empire similar to Nazi Germany, and the Republican party as the same considering they "pardon (ed) Jefferson Davis".

Something to remember here, Lincoln, the man credited by many with the elimination of slavery was a Republican.

Racial division by pardoning Jefferson Davis? No more recent examples of Republican racism?

Who was the party in power throughout much of the south when the civil rights movement was in full swing and fought it in a "to the death" like fashion? Which party still has a member in national elected office who was once a leader of the KKK?

Seems to me, that the Democratic party has several skeletons in the historical racial closet as well. Enough about the past. What is either party doing now that would label them racist?

No, I don't think it was intentionally misread, or misread at all. I think the speaker was attempting to be inflammatory in a way that he could disavow if need be. Perhaps he was tutored in english by a certian former president?

Overland Sailor



For none partisan why do you make such leaps??

First these are two different statements both trying to get to a point. The Republican party could care less about people of color. I'm not trying to debate whether this is true or not, only say this is what Bond was getting at.

Now let's look at the confederate issue, I think I can change your mind on this, cause you are "non-partisan." It's not about what the Confederacy actually was, it is about what it represents to many Black people.

Take your statement "The Swastika conjures up images of Nazi Germany." So what?? What's wrong with Nazis? It is a political party that built up a nationalistic fever within the populous. They wanted people to have pride in Germany, just like Ronald Reagan sparked up nationalism in America. The Swastika was their symbol. No big deal... to the Germans. That is the heart of the issue... it isn't being a Nazi that is bad, it's what the Nazi's are known for doing that is bad. They massacred Jews!! The Swastika isn't bad because it is a sign of "evil", it is bad because it is a sign of the people who massacred Jews!!

Now, whether this is true, or revisionist History, the civil war is supposed to be about slavery. This is how I was taught in school. "Lincoln fought the Civil War to free slaves" I actually don't think this is true, and that slavery was the issue used to be "the righteous cause" to fight the war. But I am not debating this either. The point is many grow up believing the Civil War is fought for slavery. On the North they wanted to free the slaves, on the South they wanted to keep the slaves. They lynched, beat, massacred, and enslaved slave like animals. Blacks were property. Yet you are telling me that you can't see how putting up a Confederate flag, the symbol that the south fought under, would be equivalent to the Swastika. Again it is not about what the Confederates really stood for, just like it doesn't matter what the Nazi's stood for. It's about what those signs mean to the people that were brutalized by people who fought under them.

Both are signs of brutalization. He puts them side by side to show they are equivalent, not that they represent the same thing. The Confederate Swastika For some reasons, all Americans can see how the Swastika is a symbol of brutality to the Jews, but for even today 100+ years after the Civil War many people can not see how the Confederate Symbol is just as offensive to Blacks. Many Republicans, and a few Democrats of the South still fight to keep standards with this symbol flying over State Capitols.

I understand the problem many have with the Confederate flag. But unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible), you seem to be agree with me on the symbology and the effect in would produce in peoples minds.

So then, unless I missed some context somehow (again, entirely possible), why then do you not feel that this imagery is wrongly applied to the Republicans, or anyone who didn't fight civil Rights laws, slaughter innocent Jews, or own / advocate owning slaves?

I'm not sure what your trying to ask in your second paragraph...but let me differentiate from what I feel I am saying and what I think You are saying.

You seem to be saying to me that Bonds comments seek to paint republicans like an evil Nazi empire.

I am saying that Bonds is saying that Republican(in large part in the south) are supporting a Nazi like symbol, by supporting the confederate flag.

He using strong and inflammatory words to get across his point through the "thick" skulls of those who do support the Confederate flag. 100 + Years after slavery and the south still does not recognize what that symbol means to Blacks. It's like anything else in life, you can see what's wrong with someone else, but not yourself. Mostly all of America will see the Swastika as wrong or even "evil" Yet, we have States that still fly a symbol that is just as vile to another group of people for similar reasons of brutalization. He put those words together not to compare Republicans to Nazis, But to put those two symbols on the same level of vileness. He calls Republicans out on it because they largely support it in these Southern States from what I gather.

This is where we differ. For one, I think his choice of words was in fact to associate Republicans with evil in the minds of people he was referring too.

For another, I don't believe Republicans are largely in support of the Confederate flag. For example, it was Governor Jeb Bush, without an out cry from the Republican majority in Florida's state house that removed the Confederate (as well as French and Spanish) Flag from the Florida statehouse.

You should live here in Georgia, then, to see that it is indeed Republicans and some old-style Democrats who are mostly for keeping around the Confederate Flag. Caused a heckuva uproar when we changed the flag a few years back to remove the St. Andrews Cross from it... and caused a Republican governor to win for the first time since forever... all because the Republican supported the "flaggers".

Florida is different, because it's really more evenly split between old-timer Southerners in the North and all the retirees in the South. As more retirees move in, fewer people there care about Florida's history.

Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi... those are where the big fights over the flag have erupted and guess which party used that issue to come to help it come to power in those states?

But we drifted the topic.... back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika?

Yes!!!

In both Nazi Germany and the United States people had a special lowered status because of their race. Legitimate laws proclaimed racial inferiority.



http://www.usca.edu/aasc/timeline.htm

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_SC.htm

After the war began, Hitler assumed a new level of control in Germany, and decided to make war against all of his hated groups, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Communists, Liberals (all of these people had to wear identifying markers on their clothes, like the star of David) and started sending them off of work (slave) camps and eventually to extermination camps. Southern soldiers were ordered to kill black soldiers who tried to surrender, and confederate raiders would hang or shoot free black people in the north. Nathan Bedford Forrest even ordered the murder of numerous black civilians at Fort Pillow.

http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/micro/215/82.html

Both the Confederates and the Nazis practiced evil on their fellow humans because of whatever misbegotten urge that leads to racism. The symbolism is effective because it is true – there was a common thread between the South and the Nazis.

People can lecture for HOURS about how the stars and bars are being misrepresented, that it was really some other flag, but that misses the point. The Confederate States of America practiced a calculated campaign of murder and terror against African Americans that intensified as the civil war continued. The stars and bars is taken to represent the Confederacy – and therefore it gets that ‘other’ baggage as well. After the war, the Flag was used by racial terrorist groups for the similar evil purposes.

It is time for the south to take responsibility and get rid of the old flag!

That is entirely what Mfume's comment was about. If he was trying to label the Republicans as such, he would have said "Republican-Nazi" rather than use the word nazi in conjunction with the confederacy. Usually when you are comparing something, the descriptor word does not follow at the tail end of the sentence.



That is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. It's jus showing that the GOP is more friendly to modern day confederate sympathizers and their dead ideology than to the NAACP.



Your history is correct, but you didn't carry it to it's ultimate conclusion. What party did Strom Thurmond and othe "dixie-crats" flock" to after the democrats became more associated with the civil rights movement? From Truman's decision to integrate the military, to school integration and the somewhat warm relationship after 1968 between the democrats and the black rights movement, white ethnic voters(i.e.-Italian, Irish, and other "white-ethnic" Archie Bunker types) left in droves to the Republican party. It wasn't an overnight process, but southern democrats hated Truman, the Kennedys, and others who moved the party to a more enlightened stance, hence why they left. My opinion? The democrats gained a whole more than they lost in terms of the kind of voters you would want to have in your party.

Overlandsailor,

I guess this goes back to my original point about "bad interpretation" In front of you is the word "Confederate Swastika" in the context of the Confederate flag. You haven't really said that comparing the Confederate flag to the Swastika is wrong, so I'm not sure you believe it is. Yet, though these words are clearly side-by-side, you choose to interpret something more than what is said.

I don't think all republicans support anything. But if not for Republicans (of Today) the Confederate flag would likely not be an issue.

Is this a good or bad interpretation or purposeful misread of what Mr Bond said??


Swastika = symbol of oppression
Confederate Flag = symbol of oppression

Both are symbols of oppression, but Bond made an inflammatory and simplistic comparison to generate outrage and anger. Listeners truncated it to hear:

Republican = Nazi*

(*Though they could just as easily translated it as: Republican = Confederate, but well, that wouldn’t be nearly as outrageous, now would it?)

But they don’t. People selectively hear what they want to fit their own mindset, and to justify their disdain of, and anger at the speaker/speaker’s organization.

Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika.

I think they are comparable, in that they are both symbols of oppression, but I don’t believe that it is right to use them in the context Bond did. I think his statement was flippant, puerile and just plain mean-spirited. There are far better ways to make the point he was trying to make, because the point got lost in the incendiary rhetoric.

Exactly Amlord's point (which I agree with). The comparison being made then is that the southern Republicans are similar to the people who massacred the Jews.



Exactly. What makes them strong and inflammatory--the very comparison you seem to be arguing they're not making. It sounds like there really isn't any disagreement here--just two different sides to the very same argument. One can argue whether or not Bonds tactic was justified or successful--but there seems to be agreement on both sides here as to what his intent was....you just have to step back from the heat of debate for a second perhaps to see it.

I agree that the Confederate Flag is the equivalent of the Nazi flag in the eyes some.

I agree that the language was inflammatory to make a point about the flag.

Where we disagree is where the choice was made to apply this statement to republicans alone. There are alot of southern democrats supporting the flying of this flag, and there are alot of southern independents supporting it.

If the intent was to ONLY illustrate the problem with the flag they why not apply that problem simply to "Flaggers" rather then just Republicans?

There are many people, in all parties who support the flying of this flag for a myriad of reasons. Why limit the comment to one group that contains flaggers instead of all of them if not to ALSO paint the political opposition in a different light.

I don't have a problem with the comparison, I have a problem with limiting the comparison to only one group that contains problem people.

President Bill Clinton pardoned several Puerto Rican Terrorists during his presidency. Should we infer from that act that all Democrats support Latino Extremists that use terrorist tactics? Absolutely not. And that was recent history. Why go back to nearly ancient history (politically anyway) and use pardoning Jefferson Davis as a sign that the entire Republican party is racists? Why is that OK but suggesting the entire Democratic party supports terrorists (based on another pardon) is not?

OverlandSailor

No we don't. I can actually agree that acting like ONLY Republicans support the Confederate Flag is unfair. I won't say it is morally wrong, because when ever a large portion of a group does something than that group is subject to generalization, and generalizations are generally unfair. so I'm not sure we disagree there.



This seems legitimate complaint to me, but I never was arguing this and maybe thats why Hobbes stated:



I'm not arguing whether Bonds words inflammatory.
I'm not arguing if his generalization are fair/unfair or right/wrong.
I'm not arguing whether he was trying to vilify Republicans with his words.

None of the above is why I started the debate, though. My argument is the logic that Amlord used in his interpretation of what Bonds said is extremely flawed or a deliberate mislead. You supported his interpretation as did Hobbes Let's look back at what Amlords interpretation is again.



The interpretation Amlord has on what Bonds is saying is: "Bonds is saying Republicans = Nazis"

Yet what bond clearly is saying is "Republicans support a symbol that is = to the Nazi Symbol."

Few have argued that equating the Confederate flag to Nazi Swastika is a bad comparison. But look at this leap of logic

Bonds thinks Republicans support Nazi-like symbol. Therefore, Bonds believes Republicans are like Nazis.

That leap in logic is what I am debating. How were any of you, who agree with Amlords interpretation, able to make that leap?

And just to show you how this leap continues to go downhill and get distorted. Look at this comment.

GoAmerica


So now Bonds compared the Republican Party to the Taliban (which is another bad interpretation or deliberate mislead) and said the Republican party wears Swastikas.

source


No, he compared those Republicans appointed to cabinet offices to the Taliban. What else would you suggest that he meant by the "Taliban wing of American Politics"? Seems like a pretty direct comparison to the Taliban to me.

This seems like a blanket statement about the entire Cabinet. I'd like to know who among the cabinet actually support the Confederate flag. I would bet there are more who oppose it, and/or consider it an issue for the individual states to handle, then those who support it.

A question I have is how does Bond and the NAACP possibly think this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will help them politically? Seems to me, with the Republicans in control of the legislature one should at least reframe from making such radically inflammatory statements if one wishes to accomplish anything at all.

I know I personally would choose never to entertain a visit from, or accept an invitation to visit any person or group who choose to use such inappropriate statements when describing me or a group I belonged to. Though I am not a Republican, I find such statements to be outrageous and counter-productive. I would feel the same if asked about similar statements from the right, like the ever popular communist / socialist labeling used as a blanket description of all Democrats instead of just those on the extreme left wing minority of the party that advocate these systems of governance.

For clarification, what or who were the Taliban to you?? I ask this because it wasn't but a few years before September 11 that they were negotiating with American companies, but now they are synonomous with Al Queada, due to revisionism. I personally define the Taliban as religious zealots.

Yes, Zealots who controlled their government and country with an iron fist. They kept women from voting or even existing if a woman no longer had a man in her home (as a recent independent movie detailed, I believe it is called Osama). They oppressed and persecuted everyone who did not support them or believe as they did. If you spoke out against them publicly, you died. plain and simple.

Are you suggesting, that the Religious Right in America (who I personally dislike) would act just as brutally as the Taliban if given that level of control over the country?

Is it your contention that the entire Bush cabinet is a part of the religious right?

Yes we once worked towards doing business with the Taliban, as we do business with the Chinese now. That doesn't make their actions right or our choice to do business with them correct. But that certainly does not change the meaning of the word in common usage or the intent of it's use by Bond.

This is starting to sound like "that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is". Bond knew full well what using the word Taliban would mean in the eyes of the people listening. He is an intelligent man. Either his intent was to compare the right wing of American politics to the brutal Taliban regime, or his intelligence is far over-rated.

Let's review the quote: ""Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."

Bonds is making the clear point that Republican ideals of equal rights are on par with Naziism. There is no question that this is the intent of his statement.

And Amlord is the one misleading here?

Ok I don't mind going over the quote again. I'll present my logic on how I reach my interpretation, please present me yours

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side"

When Bond uses the word "their" my impression is he is speaking of "republicans" .

"idea of equal rights" doesn't seem to need interpretation.

"is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side"
What does it mean to "fly"? One would conclude it means to acknowledge openly, in this instance, to display on a flag pole.

O.K. does the American flag fly in this country?? Yes it does, I'd even say proudly.
Does the swastika fly in this country. I dare say...no it does not.
Can you fly the Confederate in this country? That would be impossible.
Can you fly the confederate flag? Yes, you can and some states in the south do, again, proudly.
Did Bonds say "the confederate flag"? No, he did not. His words were the "Confederate Swastika"

Now, just a question of opinion. Is it reasonable, even logical, to assume that Bonds is trying to make a connection between Confederate Flag and Swastika Could this be why he called it the Confederate Swastika Maybe to compare the two symbols. IMO, the answer is yes. Kind of like when Ben Affleck was engaged to Jennifer Lopez, people would refer to the couple as "Bennifer"
Back to the original question of the post. Is it appropriate to compare the Cofederate Flag to the Swastika?? Many agree that it is, what is your opinion

Now, which party gives the most support to the idea of flying the Confederate Flag?? Would you concede it is the republican party, for the most part??

This is my logic to how I come to the conclusion that

what bonds is saying is:
Republicans idea of equal rights is to support the flying of the American flag and the Confederate flag, a symbol comparable to the Nazi Swastika, side by side.

But I'd love to see the logic of how you got:

"Republican ideals of equal rights are on par with Naziism."

I see no reason to dissect that drivelous quote. You are putting far more work into analyzing and rationalizing it than Bonds did in its formation. It isn't clever, and barely debate-worthy. I'll answer this one time and expend no further energy on this topic. The second question to be debated, BTW, actually has nothing to do with the first, or the title of this thread. It's more of a race debate question. I might completely object to the confederate flag, but completely disagree with Bond's assessment of Republicans and the values they place on equality.

1. Is this a good or bad interpretation or purposeful misread of what Mr Bond said?? I agree with Amlord's interpretation.

2. Is it right to compare the confederate flag to the Swastika? Doesn't really matter whether the answer is yes or no. The quote itself is comparing Republican ideals of equality to flying a swastica-like flag next to the American one. Republicans have no concept of equality, according to Bonds. It's obvious that the use of the term "swastica" is an appeal to the listener to draw a parallel between Republicans and Nazis.

Mrs. P.

Thanks for pointing that out to me!!



I have to admit, stating your position is a lot easier than explaining it.



I know you said you wouldn't waste further energy but I am wondering...if it is so "obvious" why are only people who lean on the conservative side seeing it?
This is important to think about. If Bonds is some conservative demonizing liberal firmly in the pocket of Democrats. How come none of the liberals are getting the message. Are only conservatives smart enough to see through his complex weaving of inflammatory words and see the true message. "Republicans are like Nazis" lol... I don't think so!!
Here is my opinion of why conservatives see this comparison, while liberals see a comparison between the flag and the Swastika. It is because of the way conservatives react when put under pressure. The deflect, they mislead, they close their eyes, and most of all the demonize the messenger. So they don't have to address the issue. I am honestly not trying to inflame peoples sensibilities here but look at the issue.

The statement on it's face looks like the swastika being compared to the confederate flag and republican support for it. Now if conservatives say something like "oh, Bonds is just a looney liberal calling the republican party Nazis" they can effectively ignore what he is saying, because his comments are below their attention. What is the republican party stance on this issue?? They are behind the people who feel they should leave put up the confederate flag. They are the people who are supporting the flag. I know I am generalizing, and as I said before it is unfair to do so. But it is democrats in the south to remove these symbols for the most part, and it is republicans for the most part blocking them! Address that issue and stop putting words in the mouth of Bonds and he won't feel it necessary to say such inflammatory words.

OverlandSailor



We didn't mind then...it isn't like they just started doing it after 9/11. But you are right to call them brutal, that's what zealots are. They are full of zeal, righteous fury, and madly dangerous in their oppressive nature.



In essence, yes. It would take generations to come to such a stage, but yes. Before, you dismiss this all you have to do is look at history. Look back to the puritans. Look back to how women were treated, how they had to dress and be submissive to their husbands. People never want to make this correlation but the truth is, the more religion had an influence the more oppressive the society was. This goes for Christians, as well as, Muslims. We are a very secular nation and thos secular values greatly influence even those that believe in God. Take away our secularism you'll see freedom going behind it. Look at the present times for proof.
To ask the question if the religious right of America would be as brutal as the Taliban if in charge, is to deny the history that shows that they were that brutal when in charge of any nation.

Absolutely not. But he definitely caters to the religious zealots of our nation. He appeases them. I can't say how many, if any, he has nominated or appointed.




Here is what Bonds understands, it is also something I understand. Tell a conservative to demonize a person or group and you can find no one better to do so.
The Taliban...evil, evil, evil.
The Swastika....evil, evil, evil.

Turn it around on a conservative...

The oppressive religious right of our country. What you talking about, they only oppress gays.
The confederate flag... "It's tradition" they scream!!

How is it so easy to see the demons of what other societies and people do, but so impossible to see their own, our own? What Bonds is doing is showing those demons and how Republicans are associated or supportive of similar demons. Why after showing what the brutality and oppressiveness of what religious zealots can do to a nation, would you say "Come to my tent, you are welcomed." to the religious zealots of this nation?? What kind of party sees it acceptable to fly a symbol equivalent to the Swastika, yet at the same time calls the swastika evil??