Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Friendship Flag by humon Friendship Flag by humon
You can read the next comic here [link]

Damn you Southern States for using the idea first!!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmiz-jynx:
Miz-Jynx Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh my god Ms. America has a Chihuahua on her head, perfect!  XD
Reply
:iconmapleteaa:
MapleTeaa Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Friendly my ass.
Though I love how everyone is taking this seriously xD
Reply
:iconfairydust07:
Fairydust07 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2015
I don't agree what ppl say about the confederate flag, but I do find this comic amusing :lol: 
Reply
:icongaijohn:
Gaijohn Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2015
As a Civil War buff, I LOL'd! And I could see some Americans doing this.
Reply
:iconstarshipfuel15:
Starshipfuel15 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Lol the confederate flag XD
Reply
:icondewani90:
Dewani90 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
the confederate army flag, more into slavery and treat people like shit, not very friendly, so Norway is right about it.
Reply
:iconthepokemonpony:
ThePokemonPony Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm not taught about the civil war in New Zealand. That was interesting
Reply
:iconredwolfradolf:
redwolfradolf Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2015
Well, maybe you should read about it elsewhere, because there was far more to it than slavery.  Most people in the South never owned slaves, and the average Confederate soldier didn't care about slavery one way or the other.
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
This is accurate in the generalities but untrue in the details. This is like saying that the Iraq War was launched primarily to rid the region of WMDs and tyranny, because the soldiers who went into that war entered it expecting as much. In truth the motivations rested in the hands of a very small minority, a less-than-1% which many scholars now agree had intended to enter war in Iraq and only sought to justify the invasion. So yes, most people in the south didn't own slaves and most Confederates did not care significantly about slavery proper (though you cannot argue easily that they did not care about the indenturing and oppression of blacks in America, particularly given the post-Reconstruction South). This alone does not argue the point; war is rarely waged as the result of a mass consensus and America then was not the democracy that we know in America today (democracy is part of why, significantly, we have never witnessed a major war between two democratic countries, but democracies go to war against non-democracies).
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Edited Nov 15, 2014
Yeah, people like to teach stereotypical history and avoid actually doing real research because it's too much work. If history seems very cut and dry, or if one side is WAY demonized, then it's safe to assume that political agendas have gotten in the way somewhere and it becomes foolish to blindly repeat history as it's been told to you. You have to do the real research on your own instead of being told what to think.

The United States census only shows 1% of southern Americans were rich slave owners (and some of them are actually black, like in New Orleans, Louisiana). Most people aren't going to die in a war so rich people can have slaves. And, the Emaciation Proclamation (the document freeing the slaves in 1863) didn't come until half way through the war 2 years later.

History books also leave out that 4 northern states were slave owners at the start of the war--which is very bizarre if they hated slavery enough to kill their actual family over it. After all, even the president's wife was accused of treason because her brother was southern. During this period in time, slavery in the United States as a whole was already decreasing. It only remained more prominent in the south because of agriculture. In fact, the leader of the confederacy said that whether they won the war or not, slavery was already on it's way out.

The war was started (and is even documented) because the south succeeded from the United States, taking with it the majority of the agriculture (and thus money). The south succeeded because of little political representation in the white house and hard taxes and tariffs on the imports and exports being made on the southern states as a source of revenue.

The American north and south never really got along well since the nation's founding because southerners were primarily loyal to England in the early days and held onto a lot of English culture unlike the north (funny fact: this is why many southerners drink tea and northerners drink coffee--look back to the Boston Tea Party). In fact, England (who was slave free and did not support slavery) aided the south during the civil war by providing medicine and supplies to them. Unfortunately for the south, their succeeding from the union came at a HUGE financial blow to the north--and the north couldn't let that happen. Lincoln (president of the United States at the time) said in his election campaign that he had no intention of freeing slaves. Later, he's quoted that he proposed the freedom of slaves during the war hoping that the slaves would turn against the southern women and children at home and kill them, breaking southern moral. But, surprisingly, this did not happen as he expected. Most free slaves simply left peacefully or stayed with the white families (even after they were free). Some even ran away to join the Union, but they did not murder the families as Lincoln had hoped.

The famous and respectable Charles Dickens (author of "Oliver Twist" and other human rights novels) even wrote about the war: "The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

New Yorkers even began to riot in the streets when they were told that they were going to be drafted into the civil war. This wasn't because they liked or disliked slavery, but rather that they felt that this was the government's war. Further, nothern Americans were rather cruel to blacks even after the war, not allowing them jobs and burning their homes to chase them from their neighborhoods--so to say that the north fought because they thought the south treated them badly is a bit contradictory to actual events.

If history seems too convenient and simple--or if one side is WAY too demonized--the chances are that someone is telling biased history. Think about it, just like today, families in the United States have family members in both the north AND the south. Why would you kill your brother for someone else's behalf? EVEN MORE, if you were southern, why would you go to DIE so that some rich guys can have slaves? I wouldn't--and neither would most people.

People make WAY too big a deal out of this today. It's actually stupid when you see how angry people still are at the southern United States. It's like: What's the point? The heck YOU so mad about? Still hating the south and insulting them all the time is just ridiculous and childish. Mocking them and insulting them because of where they are from is just a way of saying you think you're better--and if you're saying that, then you've become the sort of person you supposedly say you hate.
Reply
:iconmaestromorte:
MaestroMorte Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Its true that a lot of the basis for the Civil War was fiscal, but saying that the South was somehow innocent in the crimes theyre accused of is revisionist in itself. And slavery WAS a large motivator, abolitionism had gained quite a bit of political power in the pre-war US. The South mainly gets shit today because of its stubborn refusal to own up to the crimes of their ancestors, , not to mention their monstrous behavior during the Reconstruction era, the racial inequalities which are still being felt today. Even after African Americans were given rights, the South did everything they could to force them into servitude and second class citizenship, such as the Jim Crow laws and segregation which werent even reappeled until the 60s. The American South has NOTHING to be proud of, its a legacy built on the blood and suffering of others. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism and opression ,no matter how you try to dress it up.
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Dude, this guy is a revisionist of a flagrantly under-informed breed. I predict she or he is a high-school aged commenter, or else beginning university undergraduate, who has gained a little bit of insight into the Civil War and is too quickly eager to be iconoclastic in his/her claims.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015
I responded below--since you posted to me more than once.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015
First of all, I said nothing about innocence or anything like that. My only claim was that 90% of history surrounding the American Civil War is biased propaganda used to perpetuate hatred (as your angry tone reinforces). Plus, you seem to have some of your facts a little askew. Not sure what region you're referring to, but African-Americans faced MUCH cruelty in the North, including being burned out of neighborhoods, refused jobs, and even severely beaten.

But, to first address this comment:  "And slavery WAS a large motivator, abolitionism had gained quite a bit of political power in the pre-war US"
No, slavery wasn't a large motivator, and Yes, abolitionism was on the rise--but it was so even in the south. Jefferson Davis was even quoted in a letter as saying that regardless of the outcome of the war, slavery was already nearing the end of its days in the United States. If you go to the Library of Congress, US census will show that surprisingly only 1% of southern Americans were slave owners at the time of the war--and that some of them were actually even African-Americans. In 1860 (a year before the civil war), 125 African-Americans in the city of Charleston, SC freely owned slaves. Even more, the North still had 4 slave-holding states at the start of the civil war--which REMAINED slave holding until just before the war's end.  Even more disgusting, later Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was carefully worded so as to only free Southern slaves--not the northern ones--because the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to cause upheaval to break southern moral. This all comes after an election campaign in which Abraham Lincoln said he had no intention of freeing slaves.

Sadley, for someone to focus on one region and to say "The American South has NOTHING to be proud of, its a legacy built on the blood and suffering of others. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism and opression" shows a continual problem in young Americans today--if not a trending mentality globally. Let me tell you, EVERY---SINGLE---NATION---IN---THE---WORLD was built on the "blood and suffering of others." Japan, China, England, America, France, Greece, Rome, Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Australia, Zimbabwe--seriously, take your pick. They were all built on war, discrimination, politics, money, power, and often times slavery--sometimes the slavery of their own people.

The anger people STILL harbor against the southern USA today proves the damaging effects politics play on history--and how that history effects society. An old Nigerian proverb says it best: "Until lions have their own historians, it is the hunters who tell the tales," i.e.--the victors are the ones who write history.

Obviously, without a doubt slavery was wrong. No one is arguing that--ergo why slavery no longer exists in the United States. However, shockingly, what people don't seem to realize after all this time is that slavery wasn't a black-white thing or even a North-South thing. It's an event that happened in every culture around the world. The United States has made a point to specifically turn it into a black-white / North-South thing like a bad trademark--and continues to play off those resentments today to such a point that Northern Americans tell southerns they are the scum of the world who should just wipe their history from the planet; and Southerns rebel by flying huge flags in their face to say "Screw you North. You don't know me."  (Which is ~technically~ the true meaning of the Southern flag, to be honest. Not hatred of African-Americans, but rather disdain for the North which dates back to when the South was loyalists to England during the American Revolution. While most Southerners are proud to be American today, a lot of them still have a distrust for Northerners--which is the represented by a flag which bares resemblance to both the American and British flags).

Sherlock Holmes emotePS: Something to keep in mind--during the Civil War, England had already LONG gotten rid of slavery and was VERY anti-slavery. Yet, they helped the SOUTH during the Civil War by providing them supplies and medicine. Why would a country completely opposed to slavery help the South if the South was supposedly going to war "to protect slavery?" The answer--they wouldn't. They helped the South because the war wasn't about slavery. It was about money--and who controls it.
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Money was indeed the prime thing for England; there is a bit of mentality you may consider as well. There is a classic arrogance which is sometimes under-credited to the national psyche, which posits that English soil and English air represented too free and pure a land to tolerate slavery. So they moved their slave trade to the United States-- besides which, there was never much fiscal advantage to slavery within Great Britain. Thus to call GB a country "completely opposed to slavery" is to offer a good deal too much credit. :)
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015
England did not officially end slavery in Britain until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833--Well after the establishment of the United States and before the American Civil War. The Somersett's Case in 1772 only proved that slavery was "unsupported" by their current laws during that time period and in that particular place, as seen by that particular judge (Lord Mansfield)--but in many places the law was much more vague and slavery continued until 1833 when it was altogether banned.

To then imply that the only reason England did this was because there was no "fiscal advantage to slavery within Great Britain" is erroneous to say the least. England did have some issues during this time (English industrial revolution era) with turning their civilians, especially children, into (for all intended purposes) slaves. Technically, they could often buy and sell "apprentices" against the apprentices' will. Factory machinery was, in many cases, made specifically for children to opperate. Children were auctioned off like cattle, and masters who did not approve of their young apprentices could even trade them over to be workers on warships--where many (some as young as 6) died in bloody battle. Some workers were flogged brutally and/or starved. In one recorded instance, a chimney sweep told his young "apprentice" to climb up a chimney and put out a chimney fire, threatening to violently beat him when the boy begged to be spared of the task. The small boy became stuck in the chimney and his screams could be heard for 2 miles as he burned to death.

--My point in saying this is that one of the greatest eras of growth in England was tragically founded on the "slave" labor of their own people. Thus to say England got rid slavery because it offered them no financial advantage is naive. Additionally, as you can image, many activists like Charles Dickens were born into this age and under these circumstance. They developed a disgust for these inhumanities and liberally spoke out against these crimes imposed by those with money on those without.  Keeping that in mind, Dickens--who had no reason to have any interest in the American Civil War--still made a point to say that money was the sole motivation of the war between northern and southern United States (not slavery).

This isn't an argument about whether slavery was wrong and should have ended. It was. It did. The point is that the war itself wasn't specifically about slavery. Yet every. single. discussion about the Civil War (or America in general as I've discovered when speaking to international friends) always comes back to slavery--and not slavery as a whole but particularly only the slavery of African-Americans by whites. That's the main thing Americans focus on these days. It's what shapes American culture, laws, television, holidays, relationships, and history--slavery. It's like Americans are those flagellants from the 13th century who use to whip and self-harm themselves to punish themselves for sins, all-the-while overlooking the big picture and never making any real progress. Just more harm. With Americans being so sensitive on the subject, it's like they erroneously assume that if the civil war wasn't based on slavery that it somehow means people are justifying slavery--and that's not true. One has nothing to do with the other. Slavery was wrong--but it was a completely different issue altogether deserving equal but separate recognition from the civil war. All pinning slavery to the civil war does is undervalue early American struggles with state rights and representation in government--which works well for modern American government. It's no wonder that these are the EXACT same things American politics are struggling with today--because it was never settled.

FYI: If you like reading primary sources and seeing both sides of history, I highly recommend these books. These are only a few I found most interesting, but there are many more. Each one of them lists their sources (both primarily and secondary) for their information in their indexes for reference. They also state where certain documents (presidential speeches, censuses, etc) can be found in the Library of Congress (where applicable, as obviously autobiographies don't typically).

1. Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington (autobiography of a former slave who learned to read and sought education and equality while observing America during and after the civil war)
2. Black Slave Owners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina by Larry Koger (discusses the hundreds of black slave owners in South Carolina--not including those in Louisiana or other states)
3. The Real Lincoln By Thomas Di'Lorenzo (discusses the actual start of the civil war, Lincoln's opposition to equality of races, and his encouraging war on unarmed civilians).
4. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Cisco (discusses horrible war crimes committed against both black and white civilians from the south)
5. The South Was Right by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy (discusses state representation and political battles before and during the war as is recorded in the Library of Congress; also reveals the taboo discussion on how there were 4 northern slave-holding states during the civil war whose slaves were not freed by Lincoln's emancipation proclamation but rather by the 13th amendment later; refers to more primary sources on Lincoln)
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
*One sentence makes me think that with the same details and ideas, we have different categorical conclusions; not rare with broad generalities. But again, I haven't read through yet.
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Dude, I am really busy right now but nice reply and I'll find the time to read it through later, just because it looks like you took the time to write it out pretty thoughtfully.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Edited Dec 6, 2015
Wink
ps: there might be some typos since I was up to 4:00am typing this (night owl). I saw a couple when I re-read it, but it won't let me edit them now. Just as a heads up.
Reply
:iconsquidwardfan101:
squidwardfan101 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015
Yeah right, England opposed to slavery, ha, tell that to Ireland!
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2016
You clearly did not read the entire discussion.
Reply
:iconbloodlily16:
BloodLily16 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Preach it!
Reply
:iconravenway:
RavenWay Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
This was actually really interesting to read.

In England we don't get taught about the American Civil War at all; the only way to do so if to go on from high school to a course that teaches it, or, go out and research yourself.

I think most of us over here (who didn't fall into either of those two options) just simplify it to "North and South disagreed about something* and decided the best way to settle it was beat each other up"

*And normally I think the something is normally narrowed down to loyalty to England and the Empire (so bias I know)

So thank you :) always nice to hear about our American brother's history ^^
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2015
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it.  Panda Emoji-10 (Blush) [V1] 
It turned out longer than I was expecting. Unfortunately, I think a lot of history is pretty bias no matter where it comes from. I think that's just the way history is. That's why I've always enjoyed studying history myself instead of just using my textbook.

Sadly, American textbooks have recently adopted a lot of self-hate perspectives of history / or sometimes have false information from poor research--one example being of a inaccurate historic portrayal of a famous figure based off an undergraduate student's term paper. The paper inspired a history channel documentary and several publications in school textbooks before discovered that it was not true and removed. (It was my mother--a big American and English history buff--who first pointed out to me that it was inaccurate when she saw my 5th grade textbook. It blew my mind as a kid that a textbook could be wrong).

So, independent study from primary sources has become a sort of hobby of mine. ^^

Thanks for reading! I really appreciate it.
(and sorry for the late reply)
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Are you from the south? You're doing a classic bit of manhandling I've only witnessed in my Carolinian friends. There's a joke among historians of America Studies that goes along the lines of "When you first start history, you think the civil war was mostly about slavery. Then you learn a little more, and you realise that it wasn't actually about slaves at all. Then you learn more, and you realise wait, no, it actually was mostly slavery." There are layers of complexity involved, not in the least because there was a dearth of charitable good will among Northerners towards slaves/blacks, but nonetheless, the arrows of evidence do bring us back to the slavery problem.
Reply
:iconrealta012:
Realta012 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Let me quickly append what I'm saying, by adding that I'm from the South myself, and that I grew up first with the revisionist mentality, second with the bigger picture, and that the very correctly identified tendency towards biased history (that you are pointing out) causes me to look as much as I can to primary source documentation. The wonderful thing about the Civil War-- a generally not wonderful event otherwise-- is that it is not an age which lacked for documentation. So, in personal correspondences and militia tallies and legislature from one side and the other, I have formed my position. Not the second-hand information of books and historians alone, though I have referenced arguments from different positions while coming to my own thoughts. :)
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015
It's good to hear that you have read primary sources as well, though I must say it is very insulting for you to say that you have read many positions and primary sources before coming to your own thoughts, but consider my thoughts and research to be "manhandling," and me  "a revisionist of a flagrantly under-informed breed" as you told another in the comments above--adding that I am "too quickly eager to be iconoclastic" and must be a high school student or undergraduate. That plus the "are you from the south?" jab comes off as a slight bigoted attempt to discredit my research as if I was only a sensationalist. I have not come to this conclusion by hasty or selective means, though I admit that original curiosity of it may have initially sparked from wanting to know more about my culture way back in grade school. However, I have a deep love of history and no time for petty, self-gratifying "manhandling" of history. It either is or it isn't, it happened or it didn't. No true lover of history seeks to revise it, but reveal it. Everything I've said is based on rigorous research over the past several years.

You are right about the Civil War not lacking in primary sources. For that very reason, however, I must disagree with your conclusion. US census showed that slavery in the south was declining before the start of the Civil War. In fact, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the majority of the Confederate generals not only did not own slaves, but didn't come from slave-owning families and had no interest in owning or maintaining slaves. Robert E. Lee called slavery a "moral and political evil" and hoped for all to bring about its end--yet passionately fought for the south as one of its greatest generals. Additionally, (often less publicized) there were still 4 northern states during the war that were slave states (or should I rather say that though slavery had been declared "abolished" in those states, they allowed current slave owners in there to maintain their current slaves. The 13th amendment is what actually freed them, not the emancipation proclamation as the proclamation was carefully worded to target southern states). Given current historical motive, it's additionally perplexing why northern states, right before the southern secession, denied African-Americans the right to be considered dependents of slave owners (as the wife and children were considered to a man since they could not vote) instead of property like mules. It was the southern hope that, because southern states lacked representation (as northern votes counted more since the north was industrial and greater populated than the agricultural south), having these new dependents would give them more voice on taxation and other political issues. It was for this very reason that the North chose to keep African-Americans legally identified as property instead of dependents--all part of a long standing power struggle between the north and south. Then, when the North enacted the draft in 1863 to draft men into the civil war, riots broke out across New York City. Men were angry that they were being called to war--and even angrier that rich men could pay their way out of the draft. A protest broke out into a riot that ended in 119 innocent African-American bystanders murdered and Lincoln sending an army to control the city. During the war, Union soldiers carried out war crimes against black and white civilians alike in the south. Immediately after the war there was a great migration of newly freed slaves who hoped to start a new life in the Union states--only to find that they were not welcome. Their homes were burned out of neighborhoods and they were rejected from jobs--by the same people who supposedly thought it was so cruel to have slaves that they went to die in war for their freedom (even while some apparently still owned them). Furthermore, Lincoln even wanted to deport slaves back to Africa--though many (if not all of them) knew nothing of Africa. They spoke English and had been born and raised in the United States.

None of this information (apart from Lincoln deporting former slaves back to Africa) appeared in school social studies books--most of it not even in textbooks in college--but they are plain to see in primary sources. This adds to the continually growing evidence (in addition to what was stated before in my other comments) that the North's ambition was not freedom for the slaves or slaves in general. Unfortunately it was a much less honorable, much more worldly motivation that used slaves as a war strategy to further their agenda.
Reply
:icondewani90:
Dewani90 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
okay okay, you got me, Lincoln was an ass even before the "sic semper tyranis", also he wasn't only trying to release slaves, he wanted them outta the country, and about the confederate and yankee flags, both of them cannot represent friendship at all, still, only one of them went to became the national flag, kinda shows who won.

and i know what you say about the info being biased at times... see how well the brainwashing goes
www.huffingtonpost.com/krystie…

i'd rather not see those two flags around as they symbolize when america was divided, man, if only south and north korea learned about our mistakes... those morons have been at it since forever, the onu should stop helping them and let them either fix their differences or stop fighting altogether to feed their people, two morons wanting power doesn't mean the country should be divided.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014
Yeah, biased media can get pretty ugly--and I think it only provokes and prolongs hard feelings about the war. It ended about 150 years ago, but people still use it to attack one another.  Sadly, Americans often bicker over the dumbest things--which I guess can be expected when you have so many different cultures from all over the world in one place. There's bound to be internal conflict somewhere. But the best part about being American is that, when push comes to shove, I believe for the most part that we are all there for one another.

As far as the flag thing, that's what I found funny about the comic above because it definitely doesn't represent "friendship," but rather propaganda, tariffs, war, and a grievous battle between brothers over money. So, yeah. Definitely not a sign of friendship. :nod:

As for North and South Korea, I haven't researched it enough to confidently say either way. My only understanding of it right now is that one side believes in communism and the other side in democracy. But that's not enough to go on to express my thoughts on it.
Reply
:iconlittle-miss-american:
Actually it stood for the promises the union government had made and weren't keeping to the southern states. Slavery was just a faze. The union had slaves as well before the whole "equality" movement happened, and even then women didn't have full rights quite yet. So the confederate flag stands for the fight to regain those promises and rights. So yeah, look into history before you go saying horrid stuff you know nothing about. Thank you.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014
Agreed. :nod: People don't even do their own research anymore. They believe whatever people tell them to. It's actually really sad (and scary to be honest. They are like zombies).
Reply
:icontokiwartoothgirl:
TokiWartoothGirl Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
@ Little-Miss-American, physician, heal thyself.
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014
What does that mean? Facepalm 
Reply
:icontokiwartoothgirl:
TokiWartoothGirl Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
You're facepalming? Honey, it's a pretty basic saying where I'm from (if you have a basic education).
Reply
:iconiamsketchh:
iamSketchH Featured By Owner Edited Nov 16, 2014
Alright, "honey," I'm not saying I didn't understand what the quote meant, but rather that you used it as a nonsensical response where it didn't apply. Do you always jump in and tell people to "fix themselves?" What about yourself? You're the one being hostile against someone who was trying to defend their culture. Maybe you should mind your own business, or else at least provide a calm, mature, and more sound argument in a historical conversation apart from a catty, sarcastic, name-calling retort. Little-Miss-American wasn't being rude or offensive--but you sure were, and for no other reason than that her opinion was different from yours.  A saying where I'm from: "It's better to let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."  Grow up a little. No, I disagree! 
Reply
:iconreasonablerobot:
ReasonableRobot Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
the south. land of better cooking, respect, honor, strength, and being to stubborn to listen to dumbass yankee crybabies.
 history is history, and as a man with roots in south carolina, i have respect for that flag.
 but as a sporting southern gentleman, i got a kick out of this.
Reply
:iconlightscamerapassion:
LightsCameraPassion Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2015  Professional Photographer
I used to be extremely liberal, taking great offense to the Confederate flag, thinking it only stood for racism. I spent four years down in Arkansas with some in-laws, and I learnt a whole new side to it. It's actually quite fascinating.
Reply
:iconabby7horizon:
Abby7horizon Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I'm a Texan, and I also found this crack-up hilarious. But your right, I'm betting a yankee would only shake their head at this and respond something like:
"Omg, that should so not be acceptable! This comic is stereotypical. And racist. And sexist. And Anti-gay! Come on homies! Let's all go protest at the White House! Until Obama makes a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution!"
Reply
:iconladylidah:
LadyLidah Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
i'm from the south, too, but my grandparents on both sides weren't respected, because of on one side skin colour and the other their culture. 
Reply
:iconjummbl:
jummbl Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
>respect
Did people in the south only respect white people?
Reply
:iconlittle-miss-american:
No, we respect people of all colors shapes and sizes. Though typically thought to be very bad, that flag stands for the fight to reclaim the rights the north was removing from the south.
Reply
:iconjummbl:
jummbl Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Which, at the time, was because Abraham Lincoln was trying to abolish slavery.
Reply
:icongooglygoggles:
GooglyGoggles Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2014
Often not acknowledged by highschool history books, Abraham Lincoln's goal was not the abolishment of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was mostly to punish the south for rebelling. The abolishment itself was progressive, but the intentions were not so much so.
Reply
:iconjummbl:
jummbl Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
TIL, thanks for informing me.
Reply
:icongooglygoggles:
GooglyGoggles Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2014
Quite welcome.
Reply
:iconlittle-miss-american:
Yes, but did you know the union had more beaten, abused, ect. slaves than the southern or confederate states. After the civil war, the confederacy became the scape goat.
Reply
:iconxexusthesilver:
XexustheSilver Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Actually it no longer represents the southern union it actually is a Tennessee? Battle flag...
Reply
:iconrhea9d:
Rhea9d Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
LMFAO Yeah, pretty bad wrap that flag gets.
Reply
:iconcjtheassassin333:
CJTheAssassin333 Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012
In West Virginia, flying the Confederate flag will likely get you beat up above the Mason-Dixon line (and you may find your tires mysteriously flat all the time), but further south it's pretty much regarded as the equal to taping a big banner with "JESUS LOVES YOU" in big letters with a cross on it to the bumper of your truck.
Reply
:iconabby7horizon:
Abby7horizon Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Well in TEXAS, it's simply a symbol of someone who is...patriotic?... to their state and follows not so much of the bad things it USED to stand for, and more of what kind of Texan culture you associate yourself with (redneck for the most part)

Unfortunately, it still of course references to slavery and all that crap, so I personally don't think it should be represented in public.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
November 28, 2011
Image Size
362 KB
Resolution
600×1975
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
165,410 (2 today)
Favourites
5,210 (who?)
Comments
1,370
Downloads
437
×