If you’ve been watching the news recently, you’ll know of the huge debate in the U.S over the role of the Confederate flag in contemporary America. Many see it as a reminder of the many pre-Civil War injustices while others see it simply as a way to honor the soldiers who died for the Confederacy. Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow’s Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn’t come as a great surprise.
While it’s obvious that the Confederate flag has no place in, on, or around government buildings, it seems a bit insane to ban games (movies? Books? Comics?) that take place in the US Civil War era for showing the flag.
On a sidenote – three Apple stories in a row? What’s happening?
Surely, US Civil War games should be promoted, even those with the flag. Because those racist f–kers lost and should be reminded all the time.
The South shall NOT rise again. And that’s what the flag should now represent in games.
Edited 2015-06-25 23:37 UTC
Why is it that people forget the civil war had nothing to do with slavery? News flash, the north didn’t give a damn about slaves until ol’ Lincoln realized just what a propaganda weapon it could be. In fact, Lincoln himself held racist views up until this point. The civil war started for much the same reason as the revolutionary war before it: taxation without representation. This has been swept under the rug long before the current events, because it is such an effective propaganda weapon to only tell one side of the truth. Ask yourself one simple question though: If indeed the civil war was about slavery, why did it take until the middle of the war for Lincoln to finally get around to declaring all slaves freed? Hint: don’t ask that question in our public school. They will not appreciate you bringing up that little chink in their armor.
Yes, slavers are assholes. No, we should not promote their agenda but I think it’s important that we remember (and discuss) what really went on back in those days. Because the Confederate flag isn’t all bad, and the stars and stripes aren’t all good. Then again, the victors do write history.
Disclaimer: I’m a northerner.
Read the various Southern states “declarations of independence”. All about Slavery. Other points made are correct, Lincoln didn’t care about anything but keeping the union together.
Yes and No. IANAH(istorian) The Northern state had not banned slavery. They just didn’t allow new slaves to be bought there. You could still own slaves though. The big problem that the South had was representation. As states were being added to the Union, they were added as anti slavery states and the South feared it would soon be a small minority in the Union of states that used slave labor. Later during the war, the sentiment to free ALL slaves became popular and Lincoln used it to gain support. Another reason that the “free all slaves” sentiment took so long was debate about what to do with the slaves. Many in the North feared the slaves would starve or be killed if they were freed in the South. Thus can the idea of “40 acres and a mule”.
News flash: that makes the Civil War about slavery. Regardless of how it came about during the course of the war, it became about slavery. Even if Lincoln was using it for very cynical ends (and that is not at all a given), the fact was other people fighting for the North WERE about emancipation.
And as another commenter noted, the various declarations of independence by the southern states mention slavery. To them, it was about slavery.
To summarize:
A war can be about MANY things.
A war can be continually REDEFINED during its course.
Lincoln’s agenda was not the ONLY agenda in that war.
Lincoln didn’t own the war, so the war is not only about what Lincoln wanted it to be about, but what all participant groups perceived it to be about.
The South lost, and one its causes was slavery. If it had nothing to do with slavery or racism, groups like the KKK would not have evolved in the South. Nor would the federal government have found it necessary to send in armed forces so that black people could go to “white” universities. Nor would southern states continue to find ways to reduce the number of “coloured votes” under the guise of voter fraud.
Edited 2015-06-26 03:12 UTC
Slavery was a dividing issue that caused an already divided union to fracture. The primary issue were tariffs and U.S. government putting all the money taken from the southerners and putting it almost exclusively into northern industries and into the pockets of lobbyists and special interests (sound familiar?).
Indeed, it appeared as if the U.S. and the Confederated States would part ways peacefully. The Confederacy even promised to pay all of the debts owned by the states, it portion of the national debt, and purchase all federal lands within its borders. So, what went wrong? What sent the States into war? The answer is very simple: money.
The Confederacy reduced port tariffs to around 10%, while the ports were previously taxed at almost 50%. Lincoln could not possibly compete, they had become dependent on the taxes and other incomes generated by southern States. So, he intentionally took actions that would invariably lead to an attack. He sent resupply ships to Ft Sumter. To make the headlines look good, he only loaded the ships with food.
Gov Pickens had repeatedly requested the peaceful departure of the U.S. Federal troops from Ft Sumter, but they held fast. Around this same time a nearby indefensible fort’s soldiers were relocated to Ft Sumter on the sole initiative of its C.O., Robert Anderson. This troop movement was seen as posturing and an attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter in preparation for attacks on the Confederacy. Repeated requests to vacate were ignored, and finally the south opened fire on Ft Sumter, leading to war.
Nowhere here was the issue of slavery a cause of the war. It was, to a point, a major cause of the secessions of the southern States. Many freed slaves volunteered for the Confederacy, be they black, Irish, Native American, Chinese, or any combination thereof.
Maybe, maybe not. But there is no law of historical analysis saying that only the proximate causes of a war can be counted. Slavery was a dividing issue that split the union. End of story (for that aspect).
Because it had *everything* to do with slavery, and you apparently don’t know history that well. There were other issues, but none bigger than that.
Meanwhile Apple uses Communist slave labor in its Chinese factories.
Perhaps we should ban the Apple logo?
Are you kidding? Their old rainbow logo just became relevant again thanks to the U.S. declaring same sex marriage to be a constitutional right. I’m surprised it’s not up on their website right now.
As for the Confederate flag purge, it’s just another part of the movement to reduce emotional depth to the superficial. Anything that can connect to hate, lust, rage, or fear is being purged from the information market, and penises are as dangerous as Nazi flags in this brave new world. Those who keep their users consistently content are rewarded, while those who exposed them to ethical choices and extremes of emotion lose sales. And like sports, video games will be moving to forms of conflict and challenge which are devoid of any troubling sexual or ideological content, but full of the kind of behavioral conditioning you see at casinos.
Personally, I think this is a horrific nightmare scenario, but I’m not sure what can be done about it.
At least Apple did reinstate Ultimate General: Gettysburg after discussions with the developers, so this isn’t an nonnegotiable blanket policy.
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/our-game-has-been-removed-from-…
So maybe there’s hope after all.
I rewrite history ?
What is next ? Take down any American Historical Person that had slaves ? Should we revise all historical events in the light of what we think today ? I guess, there will be not much things to stand for in the end.
These politically correct ad absurdum acts are stupid to say the least.
Yes, racism, hatred and slavery, as any form of prejudice, are despicable but I fail to see how sweep things under the carpet is going to improve the situation. Actually, the opposite is quite more effective, show the symbols and discuss what they stand for now and let the people expose themselves. If we cannot convince them of what is wrong about something, at least we will know who we should avoid.
History can not be changed nor the views of people that are gone, no matter how poor they may look to us currently. We need to improve discussing what were simplistic, distorted or wrong, not avoiding them.
Edited 2015-06-25 23:43 UTC
Yes, and we need to keep things in context. Slavery, while not a good thing in our modern view, was not necessarily mean spirited. It was a fact of life back then, similar to how we keep pets today. Slaves were often part of the family, albeit with a lower status, and lived in the same house. This was even true in the “cruel” Roman days, and while there are stories of harsh treatment, it wasn’t really widespread. Slaves were often tasked with cleaning the house, cooking, raising and even teaching the kids – day in, day out. It would be really hard to keep such a relationship without any form of affection. But sure, the criminals who mistreated and abused slaves should be called out, especially those who did it on an industrial scale.
I wonder how, at some point in the distant future, we will speak ill about all those evil folks who had a cat or a dog. They took away their freedom, paid for them, they locked them up in cages, held them on a leash, they even sterilised them! And their government even encouraged it. Such Nazis. Yet *we* all know that most people who keep pets treat them with care and love as they consider them part of the family, with a lower status, but still part of the family. And yes, there are cruel pet owners that do horrible things which might show up in the media, but for every one of those, we have hundreds of good owners whom you never hear about. And let me assure you, many of those owners do cry when their pet passes away, not because they lost an object, but because they lost a family member.
In short: slavery is bad, it wasn’t necessarily evil, keep things in context before judging people and banning stupid shit over it.
Edited 2015-06-26 09:12 UTC
Slavery is necessarily evil regardless how well a minority of them were treated. The evil of slavery isn’t all about how bad they were treated but the idea that a person could own their equal is evil.
Just because you don’t want things banned doesn’t allow you to go back and say slavery wasn’t necessarily evil.
That’s my whole point, they weren’t viewed as their equal back then. The same way we don’t view pets as equals. But not viewing them as equal doesn’t necessarily imply treating them like shit. The two concepts are related, but are not the same. If you judge other people while ignoring their intentions, you’ll end up as an extremist with a very black and white view. That goes for pretty much anything.
In some things, like slavery, intention DOESN’T MATTER.
And also, non-equality may not “imply” treating like shit (which again I point out is beside the point), but it tends to lead to it. It is not a matter of logic but a matter of fact and history.
The only reason we don’t treat pet animals like shit (in the West today) is precisely because we view them has having rights, and thus having some measure of equality.
“Some measure of equality” is bullshit talk for “no equality”.
And stop implying I treat my pets right because of some imposed rights system. I treat them well because I have morals and believe we should treat anyone and anything with respect. I don’t know about you but at least I don’t need society to do the right thing, however I do not consider pets having equal rights at all. They have as much rights as slaves had: pretty much none, as listed in my first post.
Edited 2015-06-27 15:22 UTC
I didn’t say equal rights, did I? I said “some measure of equalITY”.
Slavery is just a word. In every post I was very clearly talking about “the act of having one or more slaves” with a clear emphasis on “the people who participated in such system are not necessarily evil”. Please don’t redefine what I was saying by changing the definitions of my words.
If you were talking about the slavery system itself, you should have said so, and I’d have agreed too. You confused me by saying intentions do not matter, because to me a system is a concept and hence cannot have intentions. (I’d say you cannot ascribe a moral attribute such as “evil” to a concept either, but that’s a debate I’m not willing to enter here.)
Edited 2015-06-29 09:31 UTC
I don’t have to redefine. You are performing so much acrobatics on definitions I don’t know where to start untangling.
“the act of having one or more slaves” – how is that different from what I was criticizing? That act is evil. That institution is evil. That act is evil regardless of intentions or the person carrying it out.
“the people who participated in such system are not necessarily evil”
Really? People who deliberately participate in evil acts are not necessarily evil?
See? No redefinition necessary. You are digging yourself into a hole.
And we’re back to post one. You have a complete lack of nuance and context to even consider that ‘deliberately’ may not be so deliberate as you think it was, and that there are other reasons why people do things that we (rightfully) consider bad now. If you ever had a pet, I’m sure that in a few hundred years, people like you now will consider you an evil incarnate for that, regardless of how you actually treated them.
I made my point several times, you just keep shifting the goalposts around so I’m not going to bother any more. Read back what I said, try reading in good faith and try not to think in absolutes for once. Have a good day.
Edited 2015-06-30 09:16 UTC
Yeah. I read back what you said. Full of double standards and pedantry when you can’t win an argument, and a complete lack of historical accuracy.
No, if you have pets *now* and treat them right in good faith, then you’re not an evil person, just ignorant or misguided. You can’t retroactively be turned into an evil person because some definition changed but your actions can, however, retroactively be declared as bad and terrible.
Bad = about the result of the action
Evil = about the intention behind the action
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#EviWro
This distinction is so important that it is a major part of our justice systems. It’s the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter, between accountable and unaccountable. Different intentions, different crimes, different punishments.
I can’t believe I had to explain such a basic concept to you.
And I still can’t believe I keep having to explain the concept of slavery not being a person to you.
You may as well also argue that rape is not necessarily evil if the victim wasn’t hurt or didn’t resist. Or maybe if rape is part of a culture at a time, then it’s more okay. Or maybe there’s some intention for which rape is perfectly legitimate.
This is the logical progression of you trying to argue that something isn’t evil if someone isn’t killed or tortured for it. Both slavery and rape takes away a person’s agency and humanity, regardless of how not horrific it looked on the outside for each specific case.
Edited 2015-06-30 14:22 UTC
Ah, keep making up your own definitions for established concepts to fit your absurd examples. Enjoy your private hippo zoo at home like the rest of us ordinary people who can afford it. I’m done with you.
Wow. The lengths you go to to avoid the simple fact that people mistreated animals way back into the ancient world.
Wow. The lengths you go to to avoid the simple fact that some things, like slavery (and rape and genocide) are evil regardless of intent or visible wounds.
Wow. The lengths you would go to to argue that some slave owners were merely the product of their times, but somehow pet owners from today and into ancient times, magically aren’t.
Wow. The lengths you would go to to deny that the article may be using the word zoo differently to what you’re expecting and you can’t handle the fact that words can have different meanings in different contexts. Or that “pets” can only ever cover animals kept for companionship, regardless of the fact that other people have used the word pet for status animals.
So much contortion, you should be at Baku winning gold medals in gymnastics.
* One dictionary defines pet as “a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or PLEASURE“. Who’s redefining things to fit their absurd arguments now, dickhead?
Edited 2015-06-30 15:08 UTC
No, it was always evil and bad. That bit about being part of the family is something everyone tells their kids to absolve their ancestors of guilt. Trust me, I know. “Yes we had slaves, but we treated them really, really well.” Its Bullshit.
Why?
The ones who had the intention to exploit people and mistreated them (e.g. plantation owners)? Yes, they’re evil. The ones who didn’t haven that intention? No, I wouldn’t say they’re evil. They did a bad thing out of ignorance, but they didn’t intend evil.
Also, my family was never involved in slavery, I’ve never heard that excuse, nor needed it. I just know my history, and yours apparently, without it being sugared by the victor’s propaganda. During that time pretty much no-one saw slaves as equals, the abolishment was used as a political, economical and even religious tool, which was just a way of exploiting people differently.
If the confederate flag should be banned, then so should the VOC, the NSB and the Dutch flag (as a former slaver nation as well)
It is up to the people in the states in what they want to represent them, no social justice warriors from outside should dictate what or how they decide to express themselves.
Problem is, for some reason our country goes absolutely crazy when something like this happens. It’s as if we need something, as a people, to blame because we can never accept that maybe, just maybe, one American isn’t a perfect person. Nope, that damned flag told him to do it. Yeah yeah, that’s it. It could never be that he was mentally ill, nope. Maybe if we’d held a modern American flag at him he’d have come out of his senses, after all.
Sarcasm aside, I mean it when I say I do not understand our society, and I’ve lived in it all 29 years of my life. It’s as if we talk about freedom yet we take any opportunity to sensor any little thing we can. It’s almost as if we survive on hate and blame, somehow. I was born in the wrong country.
So everyone who kills are mentally ill by definition? How convenient. A person can spout of racist views and join racist organizations determined to use violence, but until they take the actual step of killing, they are mentally okay then? And their association with the pre-existing group had absolutely nothing to do with their actions?
Must be a lot of mentally ill police killing people who happen to be black who are either running away or can’t put up a fight.
The overwhelming majority of [racists/Batman fans/gun owners/NFL players/trenchcoat wearers/Muslims] woke up this morning and did not kill anybody, have never killed anybody, and will never kill anyone. Killing multiple people is such a rare event, so far beyond the realm of anything a reasonable person would ever consider, that I’m going to go out on a limb and say that mental illness is the only thing that mass killers have in common.
So people never kill multiple people because of their racial theories? It’s always the mental illness. Nice hypothesis.
I guess those cops that specifically target blacks who happen to also be part of racist organizations are mentally ill then, and not motivated by ideology.
What people don’t understand is “mental illness” covers a lot of area, which is not simply “they crazy”. This isn’t the case of a postman hearing voices in his head and shooting people from a tower. This is a premeditated and thought out attack influenced by political ideology espoused by organizations, not a spur of the moment attack induced by hallucination.
100% agreed.
Edited 2015-06-26 11:39 UTC
Because we’re not talking about grand theories of mass killings. We’re talking about this instance. And incidentally, it also applies to all the other times black churches and other organizations have been similarly attacked in the past. They all have the one thing in common, which is not mental illness, but the glorification of the confederacy and the revisionist whitewashing of history.
You are complaining about something that has been taken out of context. What you know as the Confederate flag is actually the battle flag flown by the Army of Northern Virgina during the Civil war. This was never an official flag of the Confederate States of America. (Legitimate question here.) Do they teach US history in Australia?
Nice attempt at a red herring. The fact is that flag is taken today as a symbol of the confederacy.
And the union flag, and the UK flag, and the Belgian flag, and the Arab flags, and pretty much all the African tribes and …
Let’s face it: every nation, no matter if it was European, American, African or Asian, was involved in slavery at some point. As nations evolve, their symbols evolve too. Let’s learn from the past and do things better, rather than erasing everything.
“If the confederate flag should be banned, then so should the VOC, the NSB and the Dutch flag (as a former slaver nation as well)”
No. The confederate flag was the flag of a nation that existed specifcally to maintain slavery. The Dutch republic was not a slave nation, Dutch merchants traded in slaves. The difference being that slavery in the Netherlands was already illegal in de 16th century.
I just wish we could do with Zwarte Piet what the Americans are doing to their confederate flag. There’s a clear parallel here.
Edited 2015-06-26 19:16 UTC
edit replied to the wrong comment.
Edited 2015-06-27 01:42 UTC
Technically four, since OS X is an Apple product.
Edited 2015-06-26 00:32 UTC
Since Thom and I seem to actually agree on something
EDIT: Update to this story:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/25/8847381/apple-app-store-confedera…
Edited 2015-06-26 00:45 UTC
I personally dislike the Confederate flag but I wonder how people today would feel if someone painted “Yellow lives matter!” on the Vietnam Memorial. Hate sucks regardless of the target.
It’s stupid to ban the confederate flag in those games as it’s equally stupid when the nazi flag in banned in games across Europe. You can’t erase history and replacing the historic symbol with a fake one (as they do in Europe) is useless.
To be honest, the Cross flag was never even the flag of the CSA, it was a battleflag used only by the army so people would not get confused in the smoke as the official CSA flag looked very much like the US flag.
Here is a fun animated video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
Should the confederate flag be removed from government buildings and properties? Yes. Should it be banned from video games? Hell no.
On a side note, why isn’t there ever any discussion about what the foreigners, aka the American founding fathers, did to the Native Americans? Slavery is bad, but genocide is much worse.
Because it would run counter to our government’s agenda?
On a sidenote – three Apple stories in a row? What’s happening?
Er.. you can’t count?