Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple, and Others Remove Content Related To the Confederate Flag
davek writes with news that Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace. They're also blocking advertisements involving the flag. They say, "We have determined that the Confederate flag violates our Ads policies, which don't allow content that's generally perceived as expressing hate toward a particular group." At the same time, Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere). Major online merchant websites like eBay and Amazon have already taken the step of banning merchandise relating to the flag.
Only Luddites want Luddite software with confederate flags.
Modern app appers want apps with app flags!
Apps!
Enemy oppressor?
Every slave ship sailing from Africa to the USA sailed under the US flag.
For over 100 years of slavery, it was all done under the US flag.
Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, His name was not even on the ballot in 10 states. There were only 33 states at the time so close to 1/3 of the states did not have him on the ballot and he still won. That was the key that started the whole civil war! An election that even today would cause riots, to have a candidate win when he was not even on the ballot in 1/3 of the states!
Yes racial tensions were high and yes the south decided to make slavery a key point of there cause, but when the Civil war broke out it was not all about slavery. Abraham Lincoln himself was "Anti-Slavery" meaning against slavery's expansion, however he was not calling for immediate emancipation.
"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." -- Abraham Lincoln September 17, 1859: Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio
Ever heard of Corvin Amendment (approved by Lincoln!) which would preserve slavery in states where it was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!
They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.
Paul B.
It doesn't mean slavery or hatred or bigotry or treason. The national flag of the Confederate States does means secession and slavery, but that's not the flag we're talking about. (That flag is currently the state flag of Georgia, the only difference being the state seal added inside the circle of stars, so you should take up those issues with the state of Georgia.) The flag we're talking about was created to boost morale of the soldiers, and was only for use in battle. It was created first for the Northern Virginia Infantry and was adopted by other state infantries as it gained popularity. It was not a political flag. To the soldiers and their families it symbolized bravery and valor in battle and it honored the dead. After the war it was adopted by the United Confederate Veterans, and it was referred to as "the soldiers' flag."
Its meaning has evolved in complex ways after the war, but if we're talking about its early history its meaning always had to do with the honoring the dead and the brave, and not so much with the political causes for which those people were sacrificed.
While your argument is correct, it also points out the glaring issues with the walled gardens created by apple and google with their ubiquitous marketplaces. If software is speech and if mobile apps can only be installed via app stores (which for 99% of phone using Americans is the case) then we can easily say that google and apple now have more control over our speech than we should be comfortable with.
Who cares if the government allows free speech only to have it taken away by the corporations that control our means to make our speech?
First; you make some excellent points.
All right; you've got some salient details wrong.
The American flag did not exist until 1776, and that was only the continental colors, or 1777 for a recognizable version of the stars and stripes. And no slave ships sailed to the US after the abolition of slavery in 1865 by the thirteenth amendment - that's right, the END of the civil war, not the beginning. So the longest that "slave ships" could possibly have sailed under the "US flag" is 91 years, not "over 100 years".
Far from every slave ship sailed under the US flag, anyway. Not only did that flag not exist before 1776, but many/most slavers were from other nationalities anyway. "The Atlantic slave traders, ordered by trade volume, were: the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empire."
By far the greatest number of slaves sent to the Americas were not sent to the US or the area which would become the US, anyway. Breakdown by destination of distribution of slaves, 1519-1867:
Portuguese America, 38.5%
British America MINUS North America, 18.4%
Spanish Empire, 17.5%
French Americas, 13.6%
British North America, 6.45%
English Americas, 3.25%
Dutch West Indies, 2.0%
Danish West Indies, 1.3%
Reference: Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and David Eltis, W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research, Harvard University. Based on "records for 27,233 voyages that set out to obtain slaves for the Americas". Stephen Behrendt (1999). "Transatlantic Slave Trade". Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. New York: Basic Civitas Books. ISBN 0-465-00071-1.
[Note: I'm not sure what the separate categories are for, "British America MINUS North America" and "English Americas"; I don't have a copy of the reference to hand to see if/how it explains]
[BTW: re "Danish West Indies", I had to look that one up myself]
A bit of detail of which many people are unaware: the US was far from the last area to abolish slavery. Just some which held out til later were:
Portuguese territories (4 years later)
then-Spanish colony of Puerto Rico (8 years later)
then-British colony of the Gold Coast (9 years later)
Egypt (12 years later)
Ottoman Empire (17 years later)
then-French protectorate of Cambodia (19 years later)
then-Spanish colony of Cuba (21 years later)
Brazil (23 years later)
Korea (29 years later) (but not fully implemented until 65 years later)
then_French colony of Madagascar (31 years later)
then-British protectorate of Zanzibar (32 years later)
Ethiopean Empire (37-77 years later)
China (41 years later)
Siam (47 years later)
Morocco (57 years later)
Afghanistan (58 years later)
Iraq (59 years later)
Iran (63 years later)
Tibet (94 years later)
Saudi Arabia (97 years later)
Really? Those are the states' own words - those words are even enshrined in each states' legislative houses document libraries. It's not Wikipedia or CivilWar.org - it's reality. Go check - you can read the stuff for yourself in the various state houses.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
In their own words... slavery... blame it on your schools, but you're still wrong. Look it up in your own state houses - these words are in those documents housed therein.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The 3/5ths compromise is so misunderstood. Southern, slave-holding states wanted the slaves to be counted as people for the purpose of apportionment for of Representatives and Electors for President. Northern, non-slave states said they shouldn't be counted since they weren't going to be citizens. By counting them as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of apportionment, it bolstered the power of the Southern states (who had a much smaller White population relative to Northern States) in the legislature and allowed them to come to terms and agree to move forward with the Constitutional Convention. It's convenient how people who misinterpret the 3/5ths compromise also generally neglect the "and Indians not taxed" portion of the clause, which is meant to draw distinction between those paying taxes and submitting to the power of the State and those who weren't.
For the tl;dr crowd, the South wanted to count them as 5/5ths of a person and the North wanted to count them as 0/5ths of a person.
Slavery was an economic necessity due to trade restrictions imposed on Southern crops, not to mention that industrialization had far more effect on Northern states, where most manufacturing was based.
Of course, that's not to say the North were benevolent gods - as we should all well know, "labor rights" didn't particularly exist until the 20th Century, and there are countless incidents documented in Northern states of corporations going as far as murder to keep their workers in line. Conversely, many slave states had laws against killing a slave without due cause.
Then, of course, there's the Fugitive Slave Act to take into consideration, passed by the United States (Union) Congress in 1850.
So basically, a slave could escape the south, get a job in a Philadelphia factory, and assuming they didn't get sent back to their master by the government, get bludgeoned to death either by the machinery they worked on, or, if they dared complain, their bosses. Better than slavery? Probably, but not the utopian promised land that a lot of people want to believe.
Here's a good article on the causes of the war: http://teachinghistory.org/his...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese