Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of racism?


Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of racism? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Apr 17th, 2006 12:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
Ulysses
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 18th, 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 26
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javali...Really cold.  But I was so impressed that I took those two urns from the mantle that held my wife's parents ashes and threw them in the dumpster behind the 7-11.  I will be tossing out the family photos later today.  I will let my wife read your post when she figures out what I've done....I am sure she will understand.  DAMN SYMBOLISM!  ULYSSES   Gee, I thought you would at least stick a word or two in about the slavery/states rights comments I included in the post.  Or, is there 'symbolism" in that.?  Hey, it will take me a while to get with this new patriotic approach.!!  So be patient with me, OK.?  (My tongue is in my cheek!)    OOps, is that considered symbolic?

 

Attachment: rebsam.gif (Downloaded 120 times)



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Apr 17th, 2006 03:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


I know that I am in the minority here, but I've mentioned my high regard for the Ron Maxwell film "Gods and Generals" and Stephen Lang's portrayal of "Stonewall" Jackson. I also enjoyed Joseph Fuqua's performance as JEB Stuart in both "G&G" and "Gettysburg" and hope to see him appear again as the "Southern Knight" in the series finale ""Last Full Measure" (IF it ever sees the light of day.) One of my favorite scenes in "Gods and Generals" depicts the initial meeting between the then Colonel Jackson and Lieutenant Colonel Stuart as they prepare to command portions of the newly formed Army of the Shenandoah.

One particular line of Jackson's dialogue comes across as almost prophetic. In it he states that a northern victory will result in "anarchy, infidelity and the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent" and "the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory." Perhaps "Stonewall" and the founding fathers of the Confederacy predicted the "future America" as being corrupted by corporate scandal, foreign business monopolies, and the abuse of big government? Unfortunately, as I look at the shape of the United States in the 21st-Century, it appears that they were right. The "little guy" definitely got the shaft in favor of the almighty dollar.

Why do I present this? Merely as another example of an ideology that many southern citizens still favor that has nothing to do with the ever-present slavery issue. In other words, as we debate this issue, we need to keep in mind that there are many different aspects to the memory of " the cause" that individuals choose to acknowledge. To judge an entire group of people, by the abuse of some is the exact mentality that civil rights movement fought to overcome. IF America is truly the land of the free - then all of these groups (Yes, BOTH the good and the bad) have every right to express their views whether people agree with them or not. Although I disagree with a lot of groups and a lot of ideology, I am VERY thankful that I live in a country that allows opposing sides of an issue to be heard.

This discussion board for instance, is a perfect example of "freedom of expression" - AND that my friends - is what makes America great! How lucky we are to enjoy its benefits. Obviously, I do not support the "hate" groups that Ulysses has mentioned, but I have to support their right to be heard - just as I expect them to support our rights. The U.S. Constitution does not waver to agendas and political biases and in order to truly abide by it, everyone must have equal representation and opportunity to speak their mind. That means the good, the bad, and the ugly - which (whether we like it or not) always appears in the eye of the beholder.

Not sure if that added anything to the conversation... sometimes I get off topic. I'll step down before I fall off of my soapbox. :)



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Apr 17th, 2006 08:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy,

There are descendants of the crew alive today and went to the burial. We are not talking about the Confederate flag, but the U. S. flag. Please re-read my post you used.

The Confederacy was a soverign country. It had every right to secede from the union, i.e. the 10th amendement to the Consitution and the Declaration of Independence. After the war Samual Chase, a Supreme Court Chief Justice, stated it would be a mistake to bring Jefferson Davis to trail because you might find out the South had a right to secede and was soverign nation.

If as you state the Rebels were "traitors" then when did we start using the American flag at the funerals of traitors? Using the American flag in the manner would by a large thing to ask not  "a small thing to ask".

Thank you for you comments

Regards

John



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Apr 19th, 2006 12:55 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy,

I meant no disrespect to your use of my post. I thought you misunderstood it. Sorry.

 I agree this thread has gone in different directions. Which is not bad. You are right they were buried with the Confederate flag. Some family members did not what the U.S. flag used at the burial. This is not a frist. Many other war dead were buried without the U.S. flag being present. It should be up to the families. This is what I meant by using the American flag.

 I was unaware that for a nation to be soverign the U.S. govt. had to recognize it. The government has at times not recognize many nations. Nor does any nation have to recognize a nation to make it soverign.

 Justice Chase: Jefferson Davis refused to request a pardon because he wanted a public trial to prove that the Constitution provided for secession. S. Chase, Supreme Court Justice, said "we better not. A trial might conclude that the north invaded a sovereign nation." He may not have be Chief Justice at this time.

As I am sure you are aware, if the Constitution does not specify something it is a State right. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since secession is not covered by the Constitution no one can show you the procedure to secede. No one has shown me what stops a state from seceding. Since secession is not covered in the Constitution it is reserved as a state right, therefore it is up to the state to decide how to implement its' right, not the Constitution to tell the state how to secede. Most, if not all, the states that agreed to the creation of the Federal govt. and the Constitution did so with a clause to the effect the power of government could be taken back by the people. New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared -- "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:

Thank you for your post.

Regards

John



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Apr 19th, 2006 02:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Interesting conversation. I would suggest however that someone open a new thread on the legalities of seccession, rather than continuing it here. Not a demand, just a suggestion. To combine two hot topic subjects under one thread may make it too difficult to navigate.



 Posted: Wed Apr 19th, 2006 06:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
Confederado
Member
 

Joined: Tue Apr 18th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of racism?"

No.  Have some racist groups (white and black) used it for such purposes.  Undoubtably.  Will I cease to display it in private and in public because someone gets wrinkled-up over it?  Hardly.  People really should learn to be tolerant and allow a little "diversity", don't you think?

Love and kisses,

Confederado.



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Apr 21st, 2006 10:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
Confederado
Member
 

Joined: Tue Apr 18th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have no objection to indy19th's suggestion to move portion(s) of this thread to separate folders as new topics.  I presume some posts, which straddle topics, would have to either be split apart or duplicated in full in both folders.

On the topic of sovereignty I can not dispute the legal definition as I am not a lawyer (I had a proper upbringing, don't you know) but it would seem to my mind that there is some grey area here.  It is my understanding that one of the intended strategic goals of the campaign that led to Gettysburg was to give the South a victory which would facilitate the British government (and perhaps the French) giving formal recognition to the South as a sovereign nation.  If I remember correctly, this assurance had been given to Southern diplomatic agents by the British.  That lends credence to the legal definition as offered in Indy19th's post, which I again don't have expertise to argue.  From recent international events, I have seen that there are layers or degrees of recognition that form a spectrum between formal and informal, so I'm a bit confused as how external recognition can be the only test of sovereignty. 

Take Taiwan as an example.  China (People's Republic of) definitely does not recognize Taiwan as a separate nation.  Taiwan (ROC) does not recognize China as a sovereign nation.  The ROC was recognized as being sovereign, and was even one of the charter members of the UN security council.  Now they are not even members of the UN.  The U.S. refused to recognize China as being sovereign for the longest time, but the defacto state of their sovereignty was rather hard to ignore.  They were, and are, a player on the world scene.  Where does ROC fit in the context of the legal definition?

There are not point-by-point parallels between the PRC/ROC and the U.S./Confederacy, but the Confederate States of America was also a player on the world scene.  The CSA government, duly elected, as were the governments of the newly re-independent States, had all of the required offices and functions of a required of sovereign power.  The CSA engaged in commercial and diplomatic intercourse with the World's family of nations.  Is this any different than the fledgling United States of American was less than 100 years earlier? It declared its independence in 1776, but it wasn't until not just our war but the global British/French war ended that we became recognized with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  Until that time, I guess the Independent States were really not that at all, much less the United States, and all of their combatants could be and were classified as traitors.  The difference was that those States were declaring a right that had not existed until that point.  The Southern States were restating that same right.

If you really want to get neck-deep in the right-of-secession issue, I found the link below yesterday.  This was obviously written by a lawyer and my poor non-legalistic brain had to re-read it several times before I made sense of some of it, but according to this guy our Founding Fathers (most of whom were lawyers) didn't do a very good job of crossing their t's and dotting their i's and the United States itself isn't legit.  Before you decide he's a whacko (and he may be, for all I know, since I haven't done any checking on him) read his legal argument.  If any of you have some legal training, or even better are a bone fide constitutional scholar, I'd like your take on what he says. 

http://pharos.pricelesshost.net/Flaw_of_the_Land_Essays/Perpetual_Union/Perpetual_Union.html

I'm not a neo-secessionist; we all now have so much more in common now than then that the fabric couldn't be torn along the same broken thread.  We are where we are in history and we collectively have a lot more pressing things on our plates.  I do get miffed when the other parts of the country look down their long noses at us in the South and treat us as though we were all ignorant rednecks.  And I get chapped when all the racist trash gets dumped on our front lawns because we were the last ones (in North America) to practice it.  How did racism ever come only to mean something directed at blacks?  Blacks aren't racist?  Hispanics aren't racist?  American Indians aren't racist?  There has been a lot of attempts with this topic to try and isolate the argument to whether the Confederate flag(s) are racist and deflect any counter-argument as to whether any other flags might share the distinction.  Beyond trying to bottle-up the blame, are any of you honestly trying to claim that the Northern States were not racist?  The New England States were up to their eyeballs in the slave trade...while it profited them.  There were Northern businessmen who owned plantations and slaves in the South.  There were armed Northern townspeople after the war who turned blacks away because they were not welcomed.  There were ex-slaves who volunteered for the U. S. Colored Troops, but there were also ex-slaves who were forced into those units to fight and there were many more ex-slaves who were forced into construction crews.  And there were many slaves who were forced off the plantations and farms by "liberating" Yankees whether they wanted to leave or not and often as not left to starve.  And come to think of it, if the object of the North's altruism was to liberate the (Southern) slaves, then what kind of plan was that?  To crush the places where they lived, burn the fields, burn the houses, burn the warehouses, the mills, the shops.  The Yankee troops carrying back home all the valuables they could carry and the carpet baggers coming after them to steal the rest?  Hardly any stock animals left, no seed, no money, many households without men.  And to turn the nearly 9 million slaves lose into this, skilled mostly in now useless labor, penniless and property-less and not welcomed "up North" so left to compete for the same meager resources -and eventually power- as the ex-Confederates.  Well, why not?  It was the same plan used to push the American Indian further and further westward, using war and land-grabs and disease and later the wanton killing of their buffalo herds.  But that apparently doesn't count as racist.  Treating the large influx of Chinese workers as expendable railroad workers and denying them citizenship (same Supreme Court justice responsible for the "Jim Crow" laws) wasn't racist, either.  The uncomfortable truth is that all of the 19th century was racist, here in America and abroad.  To people of Northern European stock, anyone who was not white was beneath them and were treated with either benevolence or malevolance as time or circumstances or economics made fashionable.  And bigotism extended beyond races, as anyone from a different country or socio-economic background was looked down on.  If you can think of a derogatory name then it was used on all sides against all other sides: Jews, Irish, Germans, Italians and on and on and on.  If the Yankees had been half-smart, they would each and every one reached in their pocket and paid for the manumission of the Southern slaves (I think the Mississippi Decleration of Causes valued the loss of slave property at $4billion) and found some home for them and sent volunteers to train them for new trades and how to function independently.  This was proposed by James Monroe (Southerner) and others before the war (Liberia) and Ulysses Grant after the war (by annexing Santo Domingo and populating it entirely with "colored people", paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Conclusion in his Memoirs).  If Southerners had been half-smart they would have freed every slave and gave them a Xerox copy of a map to show the way North.  I'm sure the kindly Yankees would have opened their doors and hearts and larders and pocketbooks and would never have thought, with the problem so close at hand, to have segregated their schools and businesses.  Or their army up till the Korean Conflict.  And their numerous trade associations would have gladly allowed low-cost competition for their jobs.  The often-touted Underground Railroad was a trickle, but would the North have tolerated the flood or would they have turned out the militia to guard the borders and turn 'em all around?

Now that I've got you thinking that I'm a racist (the white on black kind) well, maybe I am some.  I wouldn't want my daughters to date or marry a black man, or a yellow or a red man, either.  But if I were black or yellow or red I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want my daughters to marry a white man, so I'm not sure what that proves except that I'm not a white-supremacist.  Ethnocentric, maybe, in the sense that I prefer my own kind - whatever that kind is.  I'm disgusted with welfare abuses, so-called "diversity" as it being implemented, corporate blackmail by Jesse Jackson, and the attitude that all of problems plagueing the black community somehow stem from slavery.  (Slavery may not given them te tools to jump right in as productive members of society, but the Northern "cure" sure didn't either, nor has most of the well-meaning modern cures, either.)  But I have friends who are black, I have no problem admitting that in college I had a black girl in my classes who, with her intelligence, had more right to be there than I did, or that I would have no problem with working for a black boss or voting for Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice for President.  So, if there is a scorecard for racism, I don't know how I would score or, if they were honest, how most people of any color would score. 

But I am a product of the 20th century (the last six or seven years haven't changed me much) and whatever scorecard can be used for me today cannot be used for a 19th century man.  I cannot imagine going to a public hanging and taking my family and us all eating treats from a vendor while watching some guy die.  I cannot imagine standing by while a sailor was strapped to a cannon or hatch and flogged into unconsiousness (U.S. Navy banned only in 1851).  Or having to work all day and well into the night to bring the crops in (under a harvest moon) for weeks on end.  Or settling "questions of honor" with a duel.  Or having death from disease (and quite often from the medical practice used to treat it) and from childbirth being rampant.  I am lucky enough to have letters written during those times by my ancestors and I can only marvel at their courage and their trust in God.  They expected only sorrow and toil during their walk on Earth -and why not?- with the only relief coming with the end of the journey when they were certain that they'd spend eternity in Paradise.  As a 20th century man I cannot imagine having slaves.  I would not even feel comfortable having a maid.  But I was not born into a slave-owning family, having grown up alongside slaves who's fathers had grown up alongside my father, all products of unbroken millenia in a slave-owning world.  Does that make slavery right?  Because one set of States outgrew the need for slaves, does that suddenly (in little more than a century) wrong?  Understand, I'm not advocating slavery.  I just don't understand how the use of slaves is like a game of tag; that the last one to have been touched is "it", where in this case "it" is the appellation of being a racist.

-Confederado (sorry so long...I had some extra time on my hands).

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi



 Posted: Fri Apr 21st, 2006 11:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
Ulysses
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 18th, 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 26
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Savez...I appreciate your opinions on Eric Foner and a Link to Trelease, both authors whom I referenced in my post  supporting my comments about the Reb Flag as a Racist symbol.  It was another great illustration of my claims of "misdirected attention" you will see described in a few of my posts. ( Like the magician who wants you to  look over "there" in hopes you won't catch his sleight of hand over "here".)  The link you posted on Trelease was a Positive review of his book ("one of the most important works on the...[earlyKlan]") and although you tried to discredit Eric Foner  while trying to expose some 'dangerous idealogy' he is following, I ask 'What the heck does that have to do with his work as an honored History professor from Columbia Univ. who has won every major History award  that Academia Offers???  Now, may I direct you to http://www.ericfoner.com , and hopefully anyone else who  wants an  honest view of the author and FAMOUS historian?   Let's focus on the message in this case, not the messenger. Best wishes....Ulysses



 Posted: Sat Apr 22nd, 2006 02:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ulysses,

Can you please explain why these hate groups you keep refering to use the American flag and other religious flags that only the Rebel flag is a racist symbol and not the other flags they use?  This hate groups have definite racist agendas. If  you are going to argue that slavery makes the Rebel flag different that does not justify using hate groups, they came into being after slavery, as a support of your position. I know the KKK was formed by former Rebels, but todays Klan has no such link.

It would seem to me that if you are using these hate groups abuse of  the Rebel flag to make it a racist symbol, to support your position on the flag,  then you must also classify the other flags they use as racist symbols. Thus giving them the same treatment you would the Rebel flag.

I will be interested to hear your reply.

Thanks

John

Last edited on Sat Apr 22nd, 2006 02:03 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 01:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
26th N.C
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 16th, 2005
Location: New York USA
Posts: 15
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

     When dealing with racism and Confederate flags, I would have to say that it depends on which Confederate flag you are refering to. The Confederate Battle flag, in my opinion, is a symbol of racism. Certain groups have tarnished what the battle flag symbolizes. This flag doesn't symbolize the effort of the brave men that fought and died for what they believed in. Instead, it has become a symbol of racism. The Stars and Bars, and the second and third national flag, on the other hand, do not symbolize racism. For example, if someone were to hold up one of these 3 flags in a crowded area, nobody would think much about it. But the instant that same person raises up the battle flag, people around this person may begin to wonder if he/she is racist. I feel that it is quite disappointing that this historic flag is known only to the average person on the street as a symbol of racism. In conclusion, it depends on which Confederate flag you are refering to when it comes to being a symbol of racism.

Last edited on Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 02:16 pm by 26th N.C



 Posted: Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 02:35 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

26th N.C,

As you stated: Certain groups have tarnished what the battle flag symbolizes, this does not make the flag a symbol of racism. The flag in and of itself is not a symbol of racism only the abuse of the flag. The flag does symbolize the brave and honorable men and women who died fighting under it for what they believed in.

Please see my previous post concerning other flags, imo, it applies to your post.

Regards

John

Last edited on Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 02:36 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 03:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I do feel a great deal of animosity toward many liberal groups that continue to attack the recognition and preservation of Southern history, but I am equally upset with the presence of hate-groups that continue to provide those same liberals with all the “ammunition” they need by hijacking Confederate symbology for their own racist agendas.

 

However, the rational that one CSA flag symbolizes racism while others (such as the Stars and Bars – CSA National flag etc.) don't is a tad ludicrous. Just because the general public is ignorant on their Confederate history is not an excuse to pick on one flag over the other. The flag is like a gun – it does nothing unless it is in the hands of an individual. Don’t blame the flag – blame the yahoo who is waving it at a rally. And once again I’d like to add – it’s all a matter of perspective. People need to stop being so sensitive to the point of infringing on other’s rights of freedom and expression.

 

I often hear these anti-flag liberals reminding southern preservationists that the Civil War ended a long time ago and that it’s time to get over it. Well, that is true, but I say that door swings both ways… So I want to remind them that slavery ended a long time ago and that they need to get over it too. We'll ALL be better off if we can simply agree to disagree and respect the opinions of others - but not at the expense of each other's freedoms - like choosing to fly a flag, or not to fly it.



 Posted: Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 03:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

MAubrecht,

I often hear these anti-flag liberals reminding southern preservationists that the Civil War ended a long time ago and that it’s time to get over it. Well, that is true, but I say that door swings both ways… So I want to remind them that slavery ended a long time ago and that they need to get over it too.

Extremely well said, one of the finer points that has been made about this issue.

Congrads.

John

Last edited on Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 03:31 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Sun Apr 23rd, 2006 02:01 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th Post
Ulysses
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 18th, 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 26
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

SHADOWREBEL...I can't say that I quite get it either, other than (1) a hate group with the battle flag INTENDS it to be a racist symbol, based upon it's wide spread usefor 140 yrs for that purpose, however (2) if the same hate group carries a flag from every country in the free world, as long as the Reb Battle flag is carried, that's theone that represents the fringe-hate-white-supremacy of the group. I debated aKlan member from the Tampa area in 1997 and asked him that very question. Hesaid  there were two reasons...First, the Klan feels they are doing the best thing for America by restoring white-supremacy and second, it's a reminder that they are protected  under the free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now that's according to him.  So I never read much into it.  Burning a cross in another Citizen'sfront yard only perks up a few racists dumb enough to ask..."well, shouldn't we ban crosses or call them racist symbols."??  Oh, yeh, that same Klan member kept referring to "his flag"  and  " YOUR flag" keeping the Battle Flag on equal status with the American Flag.  Pretty stupid.  Sorry I didn't have a better answer...but I never thought there was any significance. If the Klan representative was being honest,you can see there  is no misuse of the American Flag no matter where they wave it. Hence, don't ask why those of us who stand up for equality don't run out inthe street and rip the US Flag from the marching clowns. Old Glory somewhat protects them as stated above.  Nothing like that can be applied to the Reb flag.Best wishes...Ulysses



 Current time is 06:23 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of racism?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2500 seconds (17% database + 83% PHP). 37 queries executed.