COMMENTARY

Civil War was a product of national dispute over states rights, not slavery

Sean Oakley

The other night I was watching something on The History Channel that really made me think about the world we live in.

It was a program called something along the lines of "The Unfinished Civil War." On one hand, it dealt with re-enactors of the Civil War. But the other side of the program was dealing with the whole State of South Carolina flag controversy.

I know the controversy has settled down significantly, but this program brought you to ground zero and really let you hear some of the less revised comments people had to offer. I'm not writing to offer my opinion on whether or not the flag should be taken down; I'm writing because I could not believe how arrogantly ignorant people on both sides of the argument were.

On the pro-flag side, I heard people make such comments as, "Slavery was one of the best things African Americans ever had happen to them," and "Slaves had a better standard of living while enslaved than they did after they were freed." Now, anyone with any common sense would simply laugh at these comments because they are so blatantly untrue that I don't see how anyone could take them seriously.

Of course slaves were happier when they were freed and of course being ripped away from their families and sold as possessions were not the best things that ever happened to them. You would think that arguments such as these would easily be torn apart. No, they were refuted with just as ignorant rebuttals.

Here you have these people claiming that the Confederate flag stood for slavery and that it should be taken down because of the horrible events of the past. Further, there was a pastor trying to say that the Confederate flag was the same as a swastika. He was claiming that only his Jewish brothers could understand the terrible plight they had endured as slaves. He even went so far as to call slavery the holocaust of African Americans.

Now in no way am I trying to condone slavery or even trying to belittle the fact that it is probably the worst memory of American history. But there is no way you can compare slavery to the Holocaust. Nineteenth-century plantation owners did not set out to wipe out an entire race, they did not exterminate slaves and though they did steal them with the intent of using them as manual labor, not all slaves were treated as bad as present-day dramas would have you believe.

Yet, as unrealistic as both sides already appear, the simple fact is that the Confederate flag, and really the Civil War, did not revolve around slavery. One of the only intelligent things I heard during the program was this: trade ships transporting slaves to America did not fly the Confederate flag; they were flying the American flag.

The Civil War was fought over states' rights. Slavery was the match and states' rights were the straw and wood. It wasn't so much the slavery that people wanted to fight and die for; it was the fact that the industrial North was trying to take something away from the agricultural South that its entire lifestyle depended on. Slavery just happened to be the issue at the time.

Yet for some reason, everyone on this show took the flag completely out of context and made it entirely a racism issue. The Ku Klux Klan did use the Confederate flag in a racist way, but the Confederacy did not intend it as that. But this issue is nothing new to a society that loves to take things out of context and form them into some "holier than thou" campaign to change the world.

Slavery was part of the Civil War and 18th Century Southern life, but there is so much more to the Confederate flag than the issue of slavery. I think anyone who tries to bring racism into the argument really needs to read the history books before they end up sounding as ignorant as half the people on that show the other night.

Oh, and by the way, this opinion is courtesy of someone from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Our Perspective ...

SGA administration platform report card

The approximate halfway mark of the spring semester, Spring Break, is less than two weeks away. Student Government Association (SGA) is losing time to accomplish platform goals.

SGA President Ryan Bolick and Vice President Preston Powell made a few promises during last year's SGA election that they termed as their "Core Vision" -- a list of priority platform goals posted on their Web site www.votebp.com.

Below are grades on their progress from staff members of The Appalachian.

Major reduction in parking ticket fines. With this, we were expecting a drop form the standard $30 parking ticket fine to something like $15, constituting what would truly be a "major reduction." Instead, SGA dropped the $5 appeal fee and made it possible to appeal a ticket online. Grade: C

Project Nightlife. Right now, SGA subcommittees have formed to see the transport system (an effort to curb drunk driving) go through. This will likely be another uphill battle for SGA, as they attempt to pull necessary resources together, which includes community volunteering and university funding. We think there isn't enough time in the semester to see this go through, though it would be nice. Grade: C- (This grade hinges on eventual outcome of Project Nightlife.)

Eliminate plus/minus grading system. According to SGA, this is in "discussion stages," but that means little until it moves beyond this. Frankly, Bolick and Powell suggested it was in discussion stages when they ran on this platform goal last spring. We expect this stype of sweeping change will be met with opposition by faculty, especially since it was just switched to the plus/minus system a few years ago. With this in mind, resources could be better concentrated elsewhere. Good idea, but mighty lofty. Grade D+

AppCard Express account refunds. This was actually met, enabling students to recover leftover funds from their AppCard Express accounts at the end of the spring semester, something previously unavailable to students. The legislation written proposed the minimum students could request back to be set at $25, but the administration wants the amount to be $50. Nonetheless, SGA got administration to agree to the overall legislation, but details need to be agreed upon. Grade: B

A new and improved discount card. This was accomplished in great time, with more businesses than ever before in an attractive card that you might actually remember to pull out of your wallet. Only downside: what's the significance compared with the other platform goals? Grade: A

SGA passed more legislation than most other administrations in recent memory. Though this is important, quantity cannot be mistaken for quality. A few sweeping and effective pieces of legislation, such as the realization of the Bolick/Powell's "Core Vision," will do more for this campus than many less significant ones.

COMMENTARY

Answers lie in our hearts and heads

L. Nicole Tallent SGA Beat

Most Americans rarely take time out from their drive-thru, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., "my way or the highway" lifestyles in this day and age. In today's world, the majority of Americans rarely take time to pause and enjoy life or really look at the big picture of issues and events surrounding us.

Many times we try to search for the answers to those questions life presents us within our hearts and within our heads. But which, truly, is more accurate? Does the judgment of our hearts surpass the judgment of our heads? Or do our brains know more than our hearts?

There seemed to be only two distinct ways to view things long ago. Issues and ideas seemed to be discussed in terms of absolution and precision. Most things were either liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, white or black, right or wrong. But was that always the case?

In today's society, there seems to be a lack of consistency within our views of, and responses to, current events. Although these events no longer involve merely white or black, but instead are flooded with shades of gray, we still tend to use our heads to say one thing, and our hearts to say another.

For example, take George W. Bush's current proposal to provide federal funding to religious organizations which make charitable contributions to the community. If we take this plan to heart, our altruistic, do-good-deeds side comes out and we give our approval to the plan.

And at first glance, it does sound like a relatively good idea -- we could give churches and other religious groups monetary assistance so that they can continue to help the community; but is it really such a good plan?

Besides the fact that some will deem the proposal a violation of the separation between church and state, that really is not the major problem. The main dilemma lies within the fact that while this issue may seem black and white, it is not. Although this project seems so benevolent and charitable, is it really?

What will happen to the churches involved when the government begins imposing regulations on what they can do and what they cannot do? What will happen to the Christian churches that employ Christian ministers who have seminarian and theological background when the government is forced to implement the Equal Opportunity Employer label to avoid discrimination?

Will these churches be forced to hire people outside the faith to instruct people in the faith? Will those churches who lift up prayers and praises to the Christian God be forced to incorporate other gods in their worship?

All these questions and many more should be considered when we try to determine the correct response to the plan proposed by George W. Bush. While at first it seems to be a simple black and white issue, in reality it is very complex and is swamped with many shades of grey.

The correct response to the issue is not to give federal funding to the churches, but instead to allow the work of the Church to stay within the Church, and to let government's affairs stay within the boundaries of our government.

So, just how do we recognize when to use our hearts to reason things out, and when to use our heads? There is no absolute situation in which to only rely on our hearts, or to only rely on our heads. Instead we must reach into ourselves and cling to those beliefs we hold to be true to ultimately find the right answers to life's problems.

So, why is it so hard to find these answers within ourselves? Is it because we do not know or because we are merely confused? Perhaps it is because we do not want to take the time out of our hectic lives to find out.

Therefore, instead of being Americans who incessantly conform to shifting norms and the perpetual status quo, we must go against the crowd and search for the bigger picture of life within every issue presented to us.

We must take time off from this stressful life and seek to find real answers to everyday issues; the answers which, ultimately lie within the harmonious balance we will find in using both our hearts and our heads.