In news that should surprise nobody, The National Post defends the use of the Confederate Flag in Canada:

Why the Confederate flag is surprisingly abundant in Canada

The National Post is Canada’s premier rightwing newspaper.

They don’t go as far as endorsing it literally, but they cite examples throughout the article of Canadians just viewing the flag as harmless, or being rebellious. There’s very little actual condemnation from the author beyond referencing the Charleston shootings or that they have been banned in various places.

Some excerpts:

According to Susan Braverman, the Vancouver-based president of the franchise, the flag suggested a brand of “rebelliousness” that appealed largely to teenagers.

In 2013, Hamilton, Ont.’s Hillbilly Heaven restaurant faced a barrage of criticism for hanging a Confederate battle flag over its front door.

Owner Cameron Bailey argued that he was just trying to find an iconic southern symbol to advertise his barbeque-laden menu, although the standard has since been taken down.

“In this world, you can’t do anything without someone getting upset,” declares the restaurant’s website.

A high school in Sutton, Ont. banned all wearing of Confederate symbols after the flag became trendy among seniors sporting it on bandanas, belt buckles and lighters.

And across Canada, the Confederate flag is closely intertwined with pickup truck culture.

The meanings behind these Canadian rebel flags vary, with defenders citing rural pride, redneck kitsch, or as a symbol of generic rebellion, almost like a right-wing version of a Che Guevara shirt.


Allies Sexuality Headcanons

America: bisexual
England: polysexual
France: pansexual
China: greysexual
Russia: homosexual
Canada: pansexual

Source: art by Himaruya and pride flags
Suggested by: nellyemmamaria and an anon
Pansexual!Canada suggested by: drawinmysleep

You know I have been thinking a lot about this confederate flag thing I have formed my opinion. Places the confederate flag belongs are at reenactments, museums, historical sites and maybe civil war memorials. It doesn’t belong on street corners, backs of trucks, and buildings of local government. It is a part of our county’s history and is from a time that should not be forgotten, but because of the flag suggests, it doesn’t need to be everywhere.

N.H. Tea Party leader defends Confederate flag, suggests Charleston shooting a false flag operation

The leader of the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition has posted messages on Facebook and Twitter suggesting the Charleston church shooting was a covert operation carried out by the U.S. government.

“All the ingredients were there..” her Facebook message read, “the photo trail of ‘racist’ activities, the drugs and the DRILL. Plus the fact his best friend who is BLACK says the racism bit is totally untrue. Who to believe?”

The messages link to a four minute YouTube video that claims to have “solid proof” that federal agents and local law enforcement were conducting an “Active Shooter Drill” in Charleston on the day of the shooting. “They were already in position and this is why FBI was on the scene like lightning,” the author wrote. “There is no denying the Proof we now have. Evidence continues to mount!”

Writing on Facebook under the pseudonym, “Chris J Gadsden,” the New Hampshire Tea Party leader also changed her Facebook profile picture to an image of the Confederate battle flag and compared it to the Gadsden flag, which is favored by Tea Party supporters.

“If we don’t stand for freedom of speech for EVERYONE, we could be next,” she wrote. “Support free speech. Remember they tried to do this to our yellow tea party flag too.”

“After all, if they can accept a white woman falsely posing as black,” she wrote, referring to former Spokane NAACP president Rachel Dolezal, “they can overlook a piece of cloth that simply represents a time in history….”

All this debate about the Confederate flag got me thinking about the first time I understood that it was inherently tied to racism. I was at a friend’s house with a group of people and my friend’s neighbour was gardening in her backyard. My friends all quickly noticed that she was wearing a shirt with a confederate flag on it and they turned and said to me “Oh, better watch your back around her, Aliyah. You never know what she might do to you” followed by tons of laughter. At the time I’d only been in the States for about 2 years and I was still learning about America’s societal structure and it’s history so I just kind of laughed and moved on.The next year I learned about the meaning behind the flag and became quite “woke”. So now I’m thinking back like…why was their first reaction to not only make a joke out of it but to suggest that I should be the one to “watch my back”? Why didn’t they think to themselves…“why the hell is she wearing that? She’s a grown ass woman and she’s either a blatant racist or is willfully ignorant..”

I haven’t seen anyone mention this yet so I guess I will. 

We have the Rose Diamond theory, which you can see HERE (where I first saw it at least.)

It’s short, sweet, and to the point, and if you don’t wanna click that link I will just quote what it says.

“Her Gem looks a lot more like pink diamond than it does rose quartz. When heading to space Pearl wore a pink diamond very similar to the yellow diamond peridot and jasper use to signify their servitude to yellow diamond. Her (Rose’s) gem and pattern allude to the Pink Star, a Pink diamond ring, and the most expensive gem in the world. Pearl, Roses confidant treats her like loyalty. Not just because she admires her, but also takes her hat off when she sees her flag. Suggesting that Rose Quartz was really royalty (a diamond) before she betrayed homeworld.”

We know it is an ancient gem training ground, more ancient than maybe even the Gem Wars. Before Rose Diamond rebelled and was denounced to Rose Quartz. 

It would make perfect sense that the area (if not destroyed) would sport the Diamond authority logo. And we know what their symbol is now…

In the triangle (pic on the right) we have Blue, White, and Yellow. The only missing color is Pink. The pink diamond that is revealed in Sworn to the Sword.


Obviously, removing the Confederate flag from the State House won’t erase racism in South Carolina. That will take far more than a symbolic gesture. But it can at least return the flag to its rightful place — a museum — and take one small step towards eradicating institutional racism in the South.
Oh, and hey, South Carolina: If y’all are looking for something to replace it with, might I humbly suggest not a flag of war, but a statement of peace. You could even try a flag with our own state motto, dum spiro spero — “while I breathe, I hope.”
God knows we could use a little of that hope right now, because for too many South Carolinians who aren’t safe in their neighborhoods or even their churches, it’s getting really hard to breathe.
A Reluctant Defense of the Confederate Battle Flag

Yes, a reluctant defense. It is reluctant because as I said earlier I am not a huge proponent of the Confederate Flag, especially not in front of a state house. This is despite being a southerner and even having considered joining the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization. I have always understood why people see the Confederate Battle flag as divisive and some having a strong distaste for it. I am not blind to their point of view, but this has gotten a bit out of hand.

Now the most common and annoying this I see here is the suggestion that the flag is inherently racist and those who support it at all are racist as well. This is a pile of horse manure. The flag was created a symbol of the military forces of the CSA, not of the state itself. It was only after its adoption by the Army and Navy did it find its way into the official flag. In this regard its originally a symbol of the military and its soldiers. In the soldiers is where the original meaning behind the flag lies.

You see, believe it or not; most soldiers fighting for the CSA weren’t doing it because of a deep hatred for black folks. Were many of them racists? Probably, but no more than the Federal troops they fought. These men joined and fought because they believed that they were protecting their homes and families, not because of their love of the institution of slavery. This of course differs from the wider politics which were certainly motivated in large part by the slavery issue.

I bring up these soldiers because it greatly reflects how almost all supporters of the battle flag see it today, as a symbol of their homes and culture, not of slavery or white supremacy. This is why you even see many Black Southerners use and display the flag; because they too are proud of their culture and homeland.

The flag is a symbol, as all symbols it is subjective in its content and meaning. I understand why people might not like it, in return I would hope people would have the critical thinking to understand why others do without jumping to racist and (quite amusingly) traitor.


The iconic Glen’s Fair Price Store in downtown Harrisonburg sells Confederate flags in a bucket on the sidewalk Tuesday. In the wake of the South Carolina killings – and Walmart’s decision to remove Confederate merchandise from its stores – I’ve reached out to Glen’s to see if it has gotten complaints and whether it is considering pulling the flags. (Suggestion: Do it, please.)


I know you some found it funny when I posted up the Imperial Galactic Empire flag as a new flag suggestion.. But there was truth behind it.

My response to “Further thoughts on a flag for the 'former' United Kingdom” by Creative Review

Read the article on CR here.

England and Northern Ireland have similar red-cross flags. Introducing the Welsh dragon or the green in one corner seems like a logical, simple and strong solution. Also, a solution along the lines of this will be better for each nation to keep to its own current flags, and thus seamlessly merge them.

CR’s suggestion of the flower used in different colours to represent different nations of the world is an interesting and diverse solution. I like the idea of it being adaptable as a concept. However, I think “borrowing” from other nations’ flags suggests that Britain has superiority over other nations – or is in itself a somewhat unidentifiable nation. While Britain is a historically colonial power and is progressively multicultural, so too are other nations.

The world itself is diverse and ever-changing. For me, I’m British, quarter-Polish and I live in Norway (which currently uses the same set of colours on its flag as Britain). But I just happen to live here. I don’t need Norway to adapt its flag in any way to visually represent my heritage. The flag effectively represents Norway and whomever lives there. Its adaptiveness comes from its timelessness.

Welcoming different nationalities to another nation should be done through the character and actions of the people who live there. The flag – whatever shape or colour – acts as a representation of those ideals (as long as the connotations of a flag’s design do not explicitly represent a particular, maybe negative, agenda). Therefore, in my opinion, one strong, simple, thus timeless, design that doesn’t need to constantly “adapt” is the best solution.

I sure do love being able to go onto Instagram to find someone’s straight pride picture followed by his lovely rant about how the confederate flag is a symbol of pride and by suggesting taking down the flags, aren’t we trying to call half of the people who fought in the civil war idiots?

anonymous asked:

I've been following you for awhile so I know the music you listen to but your blog title suggests you like Anti-Flag and I had no idea you like them??? you have the best taste in music out of anyone on this site tbh

i love anti-flag! people are always surprised when they find out i’m into punk-esque music. thank you

(CrossPost): Heritage of Hate: Dylann Roof, White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy -- Tim Wise

In the wake of the terrorist killings in Charleston by admitted white nationalist and neo-Confederate Dylann Roof, many a voice have called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse, and in general, from American culture. That flag—actually a battle standard of the army of Northern Virginia during the Civil War—is prized by Roof as a symbol of white supremacy and segregation: both of which his recently discovered manifesto makes clear he supports. Much as the Klan and Neo-Nazi groups have brandished that flag as a symbol of their cause since the 1950s, so too does Roof consider it an appropriate totem for his.

Naturally, those who defend the flag, whether on statehouse grounds or a bumper sticker, have been quick to condemn any suggestion that the flag is a racist symbol. No matter the use for which it has obviously been put by overt white supremacists, including Roof, they insist that the flag and more broadly the Confederacy itself was not about racism. Indeed, they insist the flag is about “heritage, not hate.” It’s an old canard and one that we who are southerners have heard all of our lives: The Confederacy was about state’s rights, they insist, or tariffs, or taxes, or an intrusive “central government.” That anyone could still believe such things is testament to the broken and utterly pathetic state of American education. Much as some apparently don’t wish to believe Roof was motivated by racism and white supremacy, even as he said so from his own mouth before slaughtering nine people, many white folks appear incapable of trusting the very words uttered at the time of secession by Confederate leaders, all of which make clear that enslavement and white domination were not only the biggest reasons for their breakaway government but indeed the only ones.

It’s as if we shouldn’t take at face value the words of Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.”

Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:

“This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.”

And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention and seeking their entry into the new breakaway government. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin. Stephens was dispatched so as to sway them to change their vote, and in order to do so, dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:

“As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.”

Immediately after Stephens’ address, in which maintenance of the system of white supremacy and enslavement was the only reason offered for secession, the Virginia delegates reversed course and made the decision to join the CSA, suggesting that their decision to do so had nothing to do with state’s rights in the abstract, but the specific right of the states in the south to maintain the system of enslavement permanently.

One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?

Although only five states ultimately issued formal declarations as to their causes for secession, those declarations leave little doubt as to the thinking behind the Confederate movement. Each of them noted that the “domestic institution” of slavery was their principal concern, and the one they felt was most threatened by the election of Lincoln. Whether their own states’ right to hold blacks in bondage, or the right of white settlers in the West to bring chattel there and establish new slave states, it was this end for which the breakaway states announced their secession.

Texas, being Texas, was perhaps the biggest, boldest and most blatantly bigoted of states when it came to explaining why they felt it necessary to depart the nation to which they had only shortly belonged. In their declaration of causes, Texas noted that it had been admitted to the Union “as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.” The problem, or so the declaration claimed, was that the Federal Government had sought to exclude slavery from the newly expanding national territories to the West, in effect choking off the economic vitality of the region and “destroying the institutions of Texas and their sister slaveholding states.”

The declaration continued:

“In all the non-slave-holding states…the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party…based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern states and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of Negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and Negro races, and avow their determination to press their crusade against us…”

The Texas secession delegates went even further than those in most other Southern states, by declaring:

“We hold as undeniable truths that the government of the various states and of the (federal) confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

As if this were not all quite putrid enough, they pressed on:

“…In this free government, all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil rights…the servitude of the African race, as existing in these states, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator; as recognized by all Christian nations…”

When South Carolina’s legislature voted for secession, it reported out two documents from its convention. The first was a Declaration of Causes, written by C.G. Memminger, who would become the CSA’s Secretary of the Treasury. The second was an address to the other slaveholding states, written by Robert Barnwell Rhett.

In Rhett’s document—an exhortation to the other slave states to secede—he argued:

“The fairest portions of the world have been turned into wildernesses, and the most civilized and prosperous communities have been impoverished and ruined by Anti-Slavery fanaticism. The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy…they have elected as the exponent of their policy one who has openly declared that all the States of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States…if African slavery in the Southern States be the evil their political combinations affirm it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic must lead them to emancipation. If it is right to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory, why should it be allowed to remain in the States?”

His address continued by insisting that South Carolina hoped to be part of a “great slaveholding confederacy,” and, in an interesting clause, argued that it was important for those regions of the world (such as the South) “where the Caucasian cannot labor” to be “brought into usefulness by the labor of the African.” In other words, whites were too lazy to work hard so as to produce the wealth of the South, and Southern whites were completely dependent on black labor.

Likewise, in December 1860, Alabama sent commissioners to the other slave states to advocate for their secession. One of the commissioners was Stephen Hale, whose job was to persuade Kentucky to leave the Union. In his letter to the Governor of Kentucky, he asked and answered the question as to which “state’s rights” were being violated by the North. “What rights have been denied, what wrongs have been done, or threatened to be done, of which the Southern states, or the people of the Southern states, can complain?” he inquired, rhetorically. Then, he proceeded to provide the answer:

“…African slavery has not only become one of the fixed domestic institutions of the Southern states, but forms an important element of their political power, and constitutes the most valuable species of their property…forming, in fact, the basis upon which rests the prosperity and wealth of most of these states…It is upon this gigantic interest, this peculiar institution of the South, that the Northern states and their people have been waging an unrelenting and fanatical war for the last quarter of a century. An institution with which is bound up, not only the wealth and prosperity of the Southern people, but their very existence as a political community…They attack us through their literature, in their schools, from the hustings, in their legislative halls, through the public press…to strike down the rights of the Southern slave-holder, and override every barrier which the Constitution has erected for his protection…The Federal Government has failed to protect the rights and property of the citizens of the South, and is about to pass into the hands of a party pledged for the destruction not only of their rights and property, but…the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race…Will the people of the North cease to make war upon the institution of slavery, and award to it the protection guaranteed by the Constitution? The accumulated wrongs of many years, the late action of the members of Congress in refusing every measure of justice to the South, as well as the experience of all the past, answers, No, never!”

Hale then explained that it would be best for the South to leave the union immediately, so as to maintain slavery, rather than waiting until new free states were added to the union and would be able to abolish it nationwide:

“Will the South give up the institution of slavery, and consent that her citizens be stripped of their property, her civilization destroyed, the whole land laid waste by fire and sword? It is impossible; she cannot, she will not…Will the South be better prepared to meet the emergency when the North shall be strengthened by the admission of the new territories of Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Jefferson, Nevada, Idaho, Chippewa, and Arizonia, as non-slaveholding states, as we are warned from high sources will be done within the next four years, under the Administration of Mr. Lincoln?…Shall we wait until our enemies shall possess themselves of all the power of the Government? Until Abolition Judges are on the Supreme Court bench, Abolition collectors at every port, and Abolition postmasters in every town…?”

Hale’s fanatical commitment to the notions of white supremacy and African savagery was made clear later in the letter when he argued:

“…this new theory of Government (as articulated by the Republicans) destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans…”

He continued by conjuring up the fear that whites and blacks would be made social equals under Republican rule: a fate that, to hear him tell it, was worse than death, and that this fate would harm slaveowning whites and those who didn’t own slaves—clearly an attempt to inflame those without direct property ownership of slaves, in favor of secession.

“If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern states. The slave-holder and non-slave holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side-by-side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting the destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism, of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?”

Hale then explained that a Southern triumph over the Union would allow the maintenance of slavery as its principal (and only mentioned) benefit, and would serve as a bulwark against black barbarism.

“If we triumph…we can…preserve an institution that has done more to civilize and Christianize the heathen than all human agencies beside—an institution beneficial to both races, ameliorating the moral, physical and intellectual condition of the one, and giving wealth and happiness to the other. If we fail, the light of our civilization goes down in blood, our wives and our little ones will be driven from their homes by the light of our own dwellings. The dark pall of barbarism must soon gather over our sunny land, and the scenes of West India emancipation, with its attendant horrors and crimes, be re-enacted in our own land upon a more gigantic scale.”

Just how much more proof do rational people need? How long before that which quacks and walks as a duck is recognized for the mallard it is? How long before apologists for the Confederacy are simply honest enough to admit that their favored symbol, the loss of which seems to threaten their very identity, is indeed no different functionally than the Nazi swastika, and of a piece with its ignoble message? The pathetic need for these stunted souls to cling to such a symbol and heritage as this bespeaks an emptiness, a vacuity of conscience, and a deep-seated identification with white supremacy, whether or not they are courageous enough to simply admit that. At least Dylann Roof, for all his other evils, isn’t a prevaricator on this point. At least he has been honest as to the true meaning of the images that he and so many others find inspiring. At least he is willing to announce his southern partisanship for what it truly is, and proclaim himself a solider in that centuries long battle, without pretense.

But now, and let us be clear on this point: it is time for the rest of us to finish that war, once and for all. It is time to  bury the Confederacy and everything for which it stood; to destroy for all time the white supremacist culture that Dylann Roof and his compatriots so cherish; and this time, completely and without pardon. Not by violence, not by retribution, and not by exchanging hate for hate; rather, we must destroy the culture and system of white supremacy by our resistance to its logic, our opposition to its policies, and our insistence that we can and must do better. We who are white must end white supremacy by our actions of solidarity with our black and brown brothers and sisters, and on behalf of racial equity; by our refusal to remain silent, to collaborate, to put up with the racism of our friends, family or colleagues for even one more second. We must end white supremacy by showing up to insist that Black Lives Matter, not merely as an aspirational slogan but a moral principle, and that we who are white will defend that principle and the principle of multiracial democracy with our voices, our money, our bodies and even our lives if need be.

The next Reconstruction must be permanent.