Tha General Lee , Ironclads and Figures

Did you hear that NASCAR has requested that fans refrain from displaying the Stars and Bars at their upcoming races?

They also would like people to turn in their flags for U.S. flags.  They said that they will take their opposition on confederate flags and other items as far as they can.

Heard that TV Land has dropped the Dukes of Hazard series.  I expect the DVD sets will go away too, very soon.  Maybe one of the other retro stations will do away with "The Rebel" series from their lineup.

Some expect movies to be pulled soon.  Gone With the Wind was the first one mentioned.  Song of the South had been banned for many years but Disney still uses the characters on one if its rides.  Which one will be next?

This is way out of hand.

Do you know how many Civil War movies has been out? Glory, North and South, Gods and Generals, etc....

Ate they going to be banned too? Sounds like 1984 to me.

ikar01

.............................. the Dukes of Hazard series.  I expect the DVD sets will go away too, very soon.  

GMorrison

Does anyone say stereo any more?

Don't confuse the kids and try to explain what's a stereo is. LOL!

BlackSheepTwoOneFour

Don't confuse the kids and try to explain what's a stereo is. LOL!

Barnes and Nobles had them. Brings back fond memories. Wanna confuse them more? Show them what an 8 track is and how it works. then ease them down to a cassette tape and VHS tape and VCR.

A funny prank I pull on my mom when she was in the nursing home. She had a VCR/DVD combo player in her room. The first year I bought her first DVD movie. I explained to her that she gonna need a DVD Rewinder if she was going to watch the movie again. The look on her face was priceless for she thought I was serious. I had her so wound up I finally bust out laughing. Yeah,  that was cold. LOLOLOL!!!

BlackSheepTwoOneFour

Do you know how many Civil War movies has been out? Glory, North and South, Gods and Generals, etc....

Ate they going to be banned too? Sounds like 1984 to me.

Go back and read the post I put up a while ago, the statement of Secession by the State of South Carolina. Their issue was that they wanted their runaway slaves back as they represented stolen property. And that flag is the symbol of that treason, there's just no getting around it.

Spare us the semantics about "it's the battle flag", it's the square one" etc. To any observer, it's the symbol of the Confederacy, a failed evil that is best sent to the scrap heap of bad ideas.

BlackSheepTwoOneFour

Barnes and Nobles had them. Brings back fond memories. Wanna confuse them more? Show them what an 8 track is and how it works. then ease them down to a cassette tape and VHS tape and VCR.

A few years ago, a someone drove his late 1950s Chrysler to a local car show.

The car had a 45 RPM record player!

I was amazed such a thing survived all these years.

Oh, yes.

Don't forget the Laser disk and the RCA version that played like a long play record.

I still see both types of video disk on racks at the local half Price Books.

Let's step back a bit and review some facts.

To my knowledge nobody in any position of authority, and certainly no government official, has seriously suggested banning anything. The South Carolina state legislature has put the question of the flag outside its statehouse on its agenda, and it looks like the measure to remove the flag probably will pass. (Among those favoring removal of that flag is Republican State Sen. Paul Reynolds Thurmond, son of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond.) The issue under discussion is not whether the Confederate flag(s) should be banned in some way, but whether it's appropriate for such a flag to fly next to a government building where a legislature that represents all the people of the state holds its meetings. 

The leap from a proposal in the SC Legislature, regarding one flag on one pole, to movies, TV shows, re-enactments, books, and even plastic kits is a mighty big leap.

TV Land (which, drat it, our cable company doesn't carry) decided for its own reasons to quit showing "The Dukes of Hazard." I'm not party to TV Land's executive decisions, but I've seen no evidence that any government entity had anything to do with that one.

My strong suspicion (supported by this thread) is that the disappearance of "General Lee" kits from hobby shop shelves is due simply to the sudden popularity of the kit. The 1/16 kit is currently sold by Round 2 Models. I don't know much about Round 2, but on the basis of its website I have the impression that it orders limited runs of old kits and sells them, through a single wholesaler, till they're gone. (Three of my favorites, the old Inpact Flycatcher, Fury, and Bulldog, have vanished from the website.)

I took a look on the Round 2 site at the photos of the "General Lee" kit. Only one of those photos shows the model's roof. There's no flag on it. (What's on the decal sheet I have no idea.)

One of Round 2's latest announcements is that it's bringing back the MPC 1/25 kit of the "General," the Civil War locomotive - operated by a Confederate railroad - that was taken by Union forces for part of one day in the "Great Locomotive Chase." I may buy that one - mainly because I find steam engines fascinating and there are so few locomotive kits that aren't intended for operation on a layout.

I haven't read anything in any serious news source about any suggestion by any governmental agency at any level to "ban" any movie, book, model, TV show, or anything else. If companies like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc. have decided to quit selling particular pieces of merchandise, they do so not because somebody has ordered them to but for the same reason they do virtually everything else: because it makes sense in terms of money. That's not political correctness; that's capitalism.

The other day I went down to Kinston, NC and visited the C.S.S. Neuse Civil War Interpretive Center - a first-rate new museum that's operated by the State of NC. Several Confederate flags were to be seen in the building. The people who work there tell me that nobody has even remotely suggested that anything should be done about those flags. The same is true of Bentonville Battlefield, the other Civil War site near here.

I've been teaching college students about the Civil War/War Between the States for forty years, on both sides of the Mason/Dixon Line. I find the rapid change in public viewpoints on the subject extremely interesting from the historical standpoint, but it's way too early to analyze just why that change has happened at this particular time. 

The 1861-1865 Unpleasantness was one of the key events in the history of the United States. It certainly deserves to be remembered and studied in depth. (And it has been. Books about the Civil War have been coming out at an average rate of about one per day since 1865 - with no letup in sight.) But on the basis of what I see in the classroom (and on essay exams), I think I can state with some confidence that the war is not a topic of particular interest to the vast majority of Americans. (Those students, let it be noted, are not a representative cross-section of American society. They've all graduated from high school, and their SAT/ACT scores are high enough to get them into college. And at the beginning of a freshman-level survey course in U.S. history, about 90 percent of them can't tell me the year in which the Civil War ended.) To most Americans, no movement to forget about the Civil War is necessary. It's already happened.

I think that's a deplorable, frightening situation. But surely the solution to the problem is to consider the facts objectively (I do think that can be done), rather than by spreading stories that are either hyperbole or outright urban legends.

Last month, in Chicago, alone, 34 black people were murdered. Several between the age of 15 to 21

Yet, because of an isolated, and very rare, incident, caused by a mentally deranged individual, there has been somewhat of a national obsession over a banner that hasn't been in service as anything more than a historical decorative for 150 years

If a growing group of people with burgeoning and tangible political power, using the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia as their banner, starts calling for lynching black people and those sympathetic or friendly with black people, or if a similar group, also with tangible power, uses the swastika and calls for genocide against the Jewish people, then we have a serious problem. Until then, if seeing either symbol on a plastic model makes you nervous - whether you're black or Jewish or whatever - I suggest taking a deep breath, maybe even a Xanax, and try working through your personal issues. Or just let it go. It will be fine

In the meantime, maybe we can take some of the misplaced outrage and try to figure out why we don't want to seriously discuss the reasons for the insanely outrageous murder rate of black youths in America's cities

All I see in this ridiculous flag debate is sore losers and sore winners. The American Civil War was a battle for this country's soul, and over 600,000 paid with their lives - almost as many as have died in every other American war combined. Maybe slavery in the US ended with that? I don't know. In a debt-driven economy maybe slavery just looks different? Again, I don't know. But I wonder who the families of those killed in Chicago last month thinks won?

The other day I was telling someone at work bout the quadrophonic systems and the battle they had with stereo. In those days a decent speaker could cost as much as a couple hundred dollars, a lot of money back then, and these things needed four of them.

I run an 8 track receiver at work in my room and have two different types of speakers attached.  One is a regular rectangular type and the other is an old Bose circular type that in its day cost well over a hundred dollars.  I picked everything up for about 40 dollars in a thrift shop.  

I have had customers come into my room and some just stare while others stand and remember that they had that same tape.  I have one from American Motors, Chrysler and a couple other car companies.  Back then when you bought a car, usually a luxury type with a built in player they would give you a couple tapes to get you started.  Us poorer people would have to buy a separate deck, bolt it into the underside of our metal front console and wire the thing into the cars electrical and speaker systems.  Later you could buy a cassette adapter for your 8 track

I have an 8 track recorder at home that I use to record the tapes because there's some recordings that have never been released since then and some of them have had their content changed.  I have an original concert on 8 track and the CD is missing a couple songs.

I just got back some records that were at my brother in laws house.  The soundtracks of Dark Shadows and Victory at Sea, all three volumes.  I also have a couple other albums here that I haven't gotten around to transferring onto disc yet.

I still have the first front loading video tape player to hit the market.  It's from Sony and plays Beta tapes, of which I have several because it was the format of choice in Okinawa.  I was going to transfer some of the rare movies onto DVDs but my recorder stopped working and I have ot get another one.

Then there's cars and how much they cost before the government got involved and how they were equipped.....

Jetmaker - don't get me wrong I and everyone get it. The media tends to be the root of all evil when reporting the news whenever a ban takes effect on certain frivolous things (confederate flag for example). With that being said, stores like Walmart and Hobby Lobby (who I despise their Christian points of views of certain subjects) feel the need to jump the gun and follow suit in the ban. This is where it's wrong. They're nothing but sheeple with our government and would do anything to uphold their Christian beliefs.  

BTW - I am Catholic and not anti-Christian.

Well said jtilley. I too haven't read anything about the government trying to ban anything. I would also think the Supreme Court would rule any such ban as unconstitutional.  I also agree with you on a waning interest. I'm a high school history teacher, responsible for teaching 1877 to the present. The timeframe that most students start paying attention to is World War II and then it drops off again until the civil rights movement/Vietnam War era.  I agree with you that we should take a step back and look at what is happening objectively.

Hey Gmorrison, do you know who upheld the fugitive slave act? Your beloved Supreme Court!

The Confederate flag has not been "banned." "General Lee" kits have not been "banned." No book, movie, or TV show having to do with the Civil War has been "banned." No government entity has demonstrated any inclination to "ban" anything. And no non-government entity has the legal power to do such a thing.

My favorite model genre is sailing ships. Over the past twenty years or so, plastic sailing ship kits have virtually disappeared. The manufacturers quit making them, and the stores quit selling them, because they didn't sell.

I regret that situation. But I don't claim there's been a "ban" on plastic sailing ship kits. The Constitution doesn't give me a right to buy the kind of kits I want - and it doesn't guarantee me a right to buy a Confederate flag at Wal-Mart.

P.S. I have a stereo system. And over the past 200+ years the Supreme Court has issued quite a few rulings with which I disagree. 

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.

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.

I wonder if the swastika will be next!

philo426

I wonder if the swastika will be next!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

"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."

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

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

Imagine that.

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