Tha General Lee , Ironclads and Figures

IT'S ALL HIS FAULT!!!

What ever happened to tankerbuilder? 

 The confederate flag represents a group of people who attacked a federal installation without provocation 2 months before Lincoln took office. They attempted to destroy the union by permitting secession at will. They were lead by officers who broke their oaths of commission in the United States Army. They began their secession almost as soon as the last popular ballots were cast and months before Lincoln took office or the congress was sworn in, essentially trying to destroy the country because they were mad about losing the election. And the right those states' rights guys were afraid of losing? Yeah, slavery. As to having the flag over public spaces and pl;acing statues of the generals anywhere unrelated to a battle field or museum...picture London with a statue of Napoleon in Trafalgar Square or William Wallace in front of Parliament.

The General Lee is no more part of history than Blue Thunder of the Haunted Tank. It's an icon of a pretty poorly made show from the 70's whose main asset was a pair of shorts. No government agency has said you as an individual cannot display any flag you want, though private entities may do that. What some states have said is that the flag should no longer be displayed on public grounds.

Some have made the comment that it didn't bother anyone until now. Well, for those of us who look like the vast majority of modelers, we have not had the history of repression. And yes, ask your black friends if the constant display of the confederate flag is not disconcerting.

And, no, the blue cross on a red field is not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd national flag of the confederacy but it has become for generations teh symbolic flag of, as the real general Lee might was wont to say, "those people."

In short, had the confederates won even a negotiated peace, there would be no United States of America as we know her today. Secession at will whenever a state or region didn't like the results of an election would have the United States fragmented and weak. I suspect Mexico would have reclaimed Texas, new mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona with the help of the Commanches and Apaches. California would have left with Oregon and Washington state. The great plains and the rest of the Canadian border states would have been the target of Great Britain who would have found allies with the plains Indians who were more welcome in the Grandmother's Land. In any of these Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky would have likely seen this as a chance to keep its (gasp!) slaves and joined the confederacy. The capitol would have been forced back to Philly of New York.

ajd3530

I have no problem with people being offended by the battle flag. I understand why some might be. But at the same time, I am personally offended when I see two dudes make out in public. But I'm not going to sign a petition to get them to stop, because by God, thats their right to do if they want to, and I respect that.

The thing that irks me is that people correlate battle flag with the KKK. Go look up pictures of a Klan rally, and the American flag probably outnumbers the battle flag 20 to 1.

This'll sort itself out.

Armyguy

If the confederate army was made up of just slave owners the civil war would of been over in 6 months.

It was made up of men that loved their states more than they did a federal government. Farm boys that were lucky to have two mule's let alone  a slave.

 Do we forget about our past because it offends some one. Do we not talk about the 4th of July to an Englishmen for fear of offending him. I think many have forgotten our past, a past that came from rebellion against  a government that we felt was telling us what we could and could not do.

   HAPPY  4th JULY AMERICA

 

I can't help wondering if airbrushes cause as many arguments.
.

Happy 4th of July!  

If the confederate army was made up of just slave owners the civil war would of been over in 6 months.

It was made up of men that loved their states more than they did a federal government. Farm boys that were lucky to have two mule's let alone  a slave.

 Do we forget about our past because it offends some one. Do we not talk about the 4th of July to an Englishmen for fear of offending him. I think many have forgotten our past, a past that came from rebellion against  a government that we felt was telling us what we could and could not do.

   HAPPY  4th JULY AMERICA

ajd3530

On the flip side,........................

Did you grow up when vinyl LPs were king? 

I did. 

jtilley

............Personally, I think the Bill of Rights could do with some tweaking and clarification. But I hesitate to suggest that seriously because, frankly, I don't have any confidence in our current crop of government officials to do it in an intelligent manner.

Not to worry..................I'm sure someone important will tell us which of our rights is unnecessary.

And to think that some back then didn't even want to add a Bill of Rights..................

Regarding possible obsolescence in the Bill or Rights, I nominate this clause of the Seventh Amendment:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...."

Twenty dollars? Not being trained in the law, I honestly don't know whether a person - today - could demand a jury trial when he sued somebody for twenty-five dollars. My guess is there are ways around it.

Personally, I think the Bill of Rights could do with some tweaking and clarification. But I hesitate to suggest that seriously because, frankly, I don't have any confidence in our current crop of government officials to do it in an intelligent manner.

ajd3530

....................

The thing that irks me is that people correlate battle flag with the KKK. Go look up pictures of a Klan rally, and the American flag probably outnumbers the battle flag 20 to 1.

jtilley

...........To get back closer to model building - I confess I feel a little sorry for the Finnish Air Force. During WWII its main wing and fuselage insignia was a pale blue swastika on a white disk. (The swastika in Finnish tradition had nothing to do with Nazism.) The model companies feel obliged to sell Finnish versions of kits with all sorts of strange markings - crosses, plain white disks, whatever.

I wonder whether any court in any of the "no swastika" countries has actually ruled specifically on the subject of historical decals in model kits. If so, I haven't heard about it. I suspect the kit manufacturers are just playing it safe.

GMorrison

Sprue you are right, but that's been changed in the Constitution.

What I do predict is next is a revision of some of the other out-of date Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

"They absolutely did. The power to compel a person to purchase a good (health insurance) in order to remain a citizen in good standing (in compliance with law) was not even upheld by the court, it was injected into the government's argument by the court itself - the government was actually arguing against it - so long as the penalty is considered a tax. This actually happened, and not long ago."

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of that issue. (The dissenting justices made that clear.) But that's hardly "unlimited power."

Nor is it, as some people have contended, the first time the U.S. government has compelled people to buy something. The Militia Act of 1792 required every able-bodied adult male to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service" in the militia - which every able-bodied adult male citizen was required to join.

To get back closer to model building - I confess I feel sorry for the Finnish Air Force. During WWII its main wing and fuselage insignia was a pale blue swastika on a white disk. (The swastika in Finnish tradition had nothing to do with Nazism.) The model companies feel obliged to sell Finnish versions of kits with all sorts of strange markings - crosses, plain white disks, whatever.

I recently read an article in Aeroplane Monthly (great magazine) about the Finnish Air Force in WWII. Those pilots - and ground crews - performed remarkable feats - usually with inferior equipment (e.g., Brewster Buffaloes). The article pointed out that on a list of the top-scoring aces of WWII, Germany (of course) had the most. Finland was second. I didn't know that.

I wonder whether any court in any of the "no swastika" countries has actually ruled specifically on the subject of historical decals in model kits. If so, I haven't heard about it. I suspect the kit manufacturers are just playing it safe.

There's a lot of people that see it quite the opposite, however. Hitler put bad juju on the swastika, but it's still a religious symbol to many in the far east to this day. He also killed that moustache style, which is really uncool

Anyways, my apologies for diving into this silly argument about a colorful square. I'm out. Peace

A social ban developing on something that's a symbol of a political movement to preserve slavery.

Imagine that.

"The Supreme Court has never "bestowed upon the federal government unlimited power through taxation."

They absolutely did. The power to compel a person to purchase a good (health insurance) in order to remain a citizen in good standing (in compliance with law) was not even upheld by the court, it was injected into the government's argument by the court itself - the government was actually arguing against it - so long as the penalty is considered a tax. This actually happened, and not long ago

"There's a big difference between observing that something's unpopular and banning it"

That's a central point, I believe. While there is no government "ban" through any kind of fiat or legislation, there is somewhat of a social "ban" trying to develop. I think most of the commercial reaction is to social media, which is how contemporary society seems to operate, which is why there are so many knee-jerks, armchair generals, TLDR but have an opinion anyway internet experts throwing vast amounts of intellectual garbage into the collective consciousness - and the unintended consequences are beginning to pile up around us

As long as there is no governing force behind any kind of social movement, the point of discussion should be on what's wrong or right about the movement. And that comes down to the individuals themselves. That's where it should be. If certain symbols or words or clothes or whatever create controversy, then that's up to communities to work that out for themselves. If Walmart or Hobby Lobby decides they think they shouldn't sell anything with the rebel flag on it, then more power to them. If they discover they were right, then they did a good job, if not, then they made a mistake. If people who buy stuff want that and it's not there, then it might behoove someone to start producing those things for a mutually beneficial exchange: good ol' capitalism. And if TV Land loses viewers, then maybe it will show the bean counters that there might be a viable market for that type of thing after all, and the folks behind the cameras will most definitely jump on that bandwagon - actually, though, I don't believe most of the bundled cable channels follow ratings that religiously, which is why bundled cable has so many un-watched stations (I may be wrong about that though)

The Supreme Court has never "bestowed upon the federal government unlimited power through taxation." There are plenty of limits on what can be taxed - and what the government can do with the money.

On another subject - In an earlier thread, another member noted, with regard to the Confederate flag, that "Over 45,000 men of color served that flag."

I guess there's room for some flexibility in the use of that word "serve," but the image of black Confederate soldiers is 90 percent myth. The Confederate government authorized the enlistment of slaves on March 13, 1865 - less than a month before Lee's surrender. Prior to that time, if you'd walked through a Confederate Army encampment you would have seen plenty of black people all right. They'd be driving wagons, cooking meals, acting as officers' servants, and doing various kinds of scutwork - the same sort of jobs that initially were relegated to black troops in the Union Army. (I'm borrowing that version of Confederate camps from Gary Gallagher, one of the finest and most respected Civil War historians working today.") But until that last month it was illegal for black people to take up arms in the Confederacy.

Somewhere or other somebody started a rumor of a black "foot cavalry" regiment that supposedly served in Stonewall Jackson's army during his Shenandoah Valley campaign. Modern Civil War historians have been trying for years to figure out how that story got started. They've never succeeded. The story is pure fiction.

Black men who did enlist in the CSA during the last month of the war were rewarded with their freedom. A few thousand (I don't think anybody knows the exact number) took advantage of the offer. (I imagine a lot of other slaves never heard about it.) But, as the History Channel put it, the figure was minute compared to the 200,000 blacks who joined the Union Army. Here's a good link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiers .

I assume TV Land stopped showing "Dukes of Hazzard" because it was worried about its public image. And I suspect the show was getting low ratings. (That's usually the big motivator behind changes in TV schedules.) Nobody required TV Land to cancel "The Dukes of Hazzard." It was a corporate decision - just like Heller's and Airfix's decisions to get out of the plastic sailing ship kit business.

There's a big difference between acting on the unpopularity of a product and banning it.

To my knowledge, the U.S. government has never banned a symbol. Even Ku Klux Klan regalia is perfectly legal - unless the person wearing it breaks some law. For that matter, the swastika is legal in the U.S. The model companies doctor the markings of their kits because they want to market those kits in the various European countries whose governments have banned the swastika.

I've never been to Germany, and I've never been to a German museum. I'd be interested to find out, from somebody who genuinely knows, whether Nazi regalia is on public view in any of them. I genuinely don't know. I've had a couple of students from Germany; they've told me that WWII and Nazism just aren't discussed much. But we need look no further than "Das Boot" to see that German film-makers, at least, are perfectly willing to confront the subject.

My gut instinct is to think that banning swastikas on model kits is a bad idea. But I'm not German - or Dutch, or Belgian, or Jewish.

It's interesting to me that anyone would have any faith in a court that just bestowed upon the federal government unlimited power through taxation. Those "inalienable" rights literally go for a premium now. Tell me how that's not a serious crack in the foundation

Jtiilly - if they're not banned, then why did TV Land stop airing The Dukes of Hazzard?  Same thing with the media throwing the big controversial type and twisting around in the typical way they know how. You can thank CNN and Fox News for starting a s***storm of controversy over a stupid rebel flag.

The flag is not banned, so there's no next unless you are suggesting that the swastika be banned from flying on the Reichstag. Oh wait, it is. On account of bad behavior.

Sprue you are right, but that's been changed in the Constitution.

What I do predict is next is a revision of some of the other out-of date Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

philo426

I wonder if the swastika will be next!

Naw.....Old Glory; slavery existed under Old Glory before the Confederacy existed.

I wonder if the swastika will be next!

Take a look at the magazine cover at the top of this page, the one with the German fighter. The hand with the airbrush is carefully positioned to cover the swastika on the tail, I think. The entire thing is shown in the article inside.

I think it's a good example of controlling a message without "banning" anything.

Maybe it's time for a certain ship kit maker to jump in here with some aggressive marketing for a certain CSA subject-" get 'em while they last..."

A bad joke.