Medford bus driver fired over confederate flag

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I believe to some people it is exactly like seeing a swastika.

It's also the flag of the largest collective group of traitors to The United States of America, so you'd pretty much have to be some ignorant inbred redneck to not expect some people to be upset by it.

Which is what he appears to be. Dumbass has probably never even been to the south and now he's jeopardized his family's welfare by "playing redneck".

As far as "Freedom" of Speech applies as currently legally interpreted, I think he loses his case simply because it's on school property.

I support Freedom of Speech, unconditionally.

But there is no guarantee your speech will be warmly received.

Its similar to expelling a student for wearing a Che Guerrera t-shirt.

 

[Denny Crane]

The confederate flag was the flag of the confederate army. A flag specifically representing secession at best, racism at worst.

The US Flag is offensive to minorities too. I wonder if they would fire someone for having a Che Guerrera bumper sticker.

What minorities?

I never really got the noise over the confederate flag. It symbolizes less about slavery, racism, etc., than the US flag. The US flag flew over the whole nation when slavery was legal and before secession. It flew over the whole nation while the KKK was doing its worst. It flew over the whole nation during Jim Crow and the indian wars, and so on.

On the other hand, the confederate flag is what a few hundred thousand southerners fought under and died under. It as much symbolizes the patriotism (toward the confederacy which was American, like it or not), bravery, and service of those who died.

I get that some black people claim it is offensive, but I don't get it. I don't believe that most who fly it or want to fly it do so to be offensive, but to show pride in their region of the country and as tribute to their ancestors.

So this begs the question, "what's wrong with secession?"

I don't see anything in the constitution that outlaws it. The USSR fell apart into many sovereign states through secession and I don't think any of us are upset about that, nor are the people of those states. And there is a not-too-meaningless secession movement in the state of Hawaii, where we overthrew their government and took their land and moved a bunch of white people in to vote them a state - against the wishes of the native people. If they want their own land and distinct culture back, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm not sure this applies here since it is a school district.. but, companies should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

should they be able to fire cross dressers? to some that is offensive.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Hmm, well, Oregon is an at will state. All employers in the private sector have the right to let you go for any reason. As far as the state and federal jobs, they have union reps, tenure etca and are far more protected.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'm not sure this applies here since it is a school district.. but, companies should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

What about if someone is a tea partier or an anti-war protestor? What if someone puts an anti-war sticker on their car? That could be offensive too.

 

[jlprk]

If he's a government employee, he should have complied, then contested the order through his union. Or maybe contested it while not complying.

Oops, I forgot the New Order is to be against all that bargaining and negotiating. No more unions.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

I never really got the noise over the confederate flag. It symbolizes less about slavery, racism, etc., than the US flag. The US flag flew over the whole nation when slavery was legal and before secession. It flew over the whole nation while the KKK was doing its worst. It flew over the whole nation during Jim Crow and the indian wars, and so on.

On the other hand, the confederate flag is what a few hundred thousand southerners fought under and died under. It as much symbolizes the patriotism (toward the confederacy which was American, like it or not), bravery, and service of those who died.

I get that some black people claim it is offensive, but I don't get it. I don't believe that most who fly it or want to fly it do so to be offensive, but to show pride in their region of the country and as tribute to their ancestors.

So this begs the question, "what's wrong with secession?"

I don't see anything in the constitution that outlaws it. The USSR fell apart into many sovereign states through secession and I don't think any of us are upset about that, nor are the people of those states. And there is a not-too-meaningless secession movement in the state of Hawaii, where we overthrew their government and took their land and moved a bunch of white people in to vote them a state - against the wishes of the native people. If they want their own land and distinct culture back, I don't have a problem with it.

So, do you believe that the secession of the southern united states had nothing to do with slavery?

 

[Natebishop3]

I never really got the noise over the confederate flag. It symbolizes less about slavery, racism, etc., than the US flag. The US flag flew over the whole nation when slavery was legal and before secession. It flew over the whole nation while the KKK was doing its worst. It flew over the whole nation during Jim Crow and the indian wars, and so on.

On the other hand, the confederate flag is what a few hundred thousand southerners fought under and died under. It as much symbolizes the patriotism (toward the confederacy which was American, like it or not), bravery, and service of those who died.

I get that some black people claim it is offensive, but I don't get it. I don't believe that most who fly it or want to fly it do so to be offensive, but to show pride in their region of the country and as tribute to their ancestors.

So this begs the question, "what's wrong with secession?"

I don't see anything in the constitution that outlaws it. The USSR fell apart into many sovereign states through secession and I don't think any of us are upset about that, nor are the people of those states. And there is a not-too-meaningless secession movement in the state of Hawaii, where we overthrew their government and took their land and moved a bunch of white people in to vote them a state - against the wishes of the native people. If they want their own land and distinct culture back, I don't have a problem with it.

Some people fly it because of racism. Some people fly it because of southern pride. Some people fly it because they're redneck wannabe's. Different people have different reasons.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, do you believe that the secession of the southern united states had nothing to do with slavery?

Of course it did. You can read the declarations of secession by those states, and slavery was a large part of it. However, nobody banned slavery in those states until 1863, three years after the Civil War started, so they weren't exactly reacting to an attack on slavery per se. There were a lot of other factors involved, like states' rights and particularly the economics of becoming a small number of states trying to procure benefits from the federal govt. against a super majority of states that denied those benefits (but voted them for themselves!).

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Hmm, well, Oregon is an at will state. All employers in the private sector have the right to let you go for any reason. As far as the state and federal jobs, they have union reps, tenure etca and are far more protected.

Not really.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

Of course it did. You can read the declarations of secession by those states, and slavery was a large part of it. However, nobody banned slavery in those states until 1863, three years after the Civil War started, so they weren't exactly reacting to an attack on slavery per se. There were a lot of other factors involved, like states' rights and particularly the economics of becoming a small number of states trying to procure benefits from the federal govt. against a super majority of states that denied those benefits (but voted them for themselves!).

The attack on slavery was the abolitionist movement which was well underway. Those states understood that as a threat to end it.

 

[Denny Crane]

The attack on slavery was the abolitionist movement which was well underway. Those states understood that as a threat to end it.

There was no threat to end it. Lincoln was more about "house divided cannot stand" than about "let's abolish slavery."

Why would South Carolina care to secede if there was no threat to its own slavery?

Consider this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604276.html

Archives exhibit explores little-known aspects of Civil War

But the archives' exhibit seeks to probe beyond the sagas of the grand battles that pack the shelves of bookstores.

It will present, for instance, an earlier, and long forgotten, proposal for what could have been the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery in the United States. But in December 1860, Congress proposed a very different version.

Although never ratified, it read: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will . . . abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state." This was a 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery, instead of abolishing it, archives historians say.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

There was no threat to end it. Lincoln was more about "house divided cannot stand" than about "let's abolish slavery."

Why would South Carolina care to secede if there was no threat to its own slavery?

Consider this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604276.html

Archives exhibit explores little-known aspects of Civil War

But the archives' exhibit seeks to probe beyond the sagas of the grand battles that pack the shelves of bookstores.

It will present, for instance, an earlier, and long forgotten, proposal for what could have been the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery in the United States. But in December 1860, Congress proposed a very different version.

Although never ratified, it read: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will . . . abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state." This was a 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery, instead of abolishing it, archives historians say.

I'll take a look. But to say there was NO THREAT? That's a wide brush to stroke with.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll take a look. But to say there was NO THREAT? That's a wide brush to stroke with.

The threat was in things like the Missouri Compromise - which said no future states entering the union would be slave holding states. Thus the minority (states) vote in congress would be even lesser as the union grew.

If you look at era maps of the railroads, you'll see the north was voting itself a complete and comprehensive railroad while the rails in the south were barely connected. The South had all that cotton and tobacco to get to market.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

What about if someone is a tea partier or an anti-war protestor? What if someone puts an anti-war sticker on their car? That could be offensive too.

Private companies should be able to fire (or not hire) anyone for any reason.

 

[jlprk]

This idea that most of the North didn't want to ban slavery in the decade before the Civil War is not correct. Southern states prevented it in Congress. Some Northern states only allowed slavery in their states for Southerners visiting with their slaves, no one else.

 

[barfo]

I mean, people in Portland were rear ending people's vehicle and injuring them and even setting a house on fire with no concern about killing the people inside because they had a conservative bumper sticker on their car or sign in their yard. No one made a big deal out of that.

It's just amazing how no one makes a big deal out of imaginary incidents.

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

Well, he made a choice. To fly a stupid flag over having an income. Sounds like something a person who rock a confederate flag would do.

 

[bodyman5001]

If black people are offended by that, they should watch Bait Car or Hardcore Pawn. THAT would be offensive to me if I were a black guy.

When I think of the confederate flag, I think of Dukes of Hazzard. Them was just some good old boys, never meaning no harm.

 

[MARIS61]

The US Flag is offensive to minorities too.

Then they should GTFO of this country they hate so much.

What minorities are you refering to, that are offended by our flag?

 

[MARIS61]

What if someone puts an anti-war sticker on their car? That could be offensive too.

To whom? Maniacal psycopaths?

What sane person with good intentions is pro-war?

 

[Bob Dobalina]

The confederate flag represents a group of Americans who fought and died for their state's rights. One of those rights was to enslave black people. This was not the SOLE reason they fought I know. However there's no denying it was on the list. Jump forward to the 21st century and you have racist groups using the flag as a symbol of their organizations. I understand that there are those in the south who fly the flag as homage to southerners who died, etc. To believe that black people have no reason to be offended by this flag is ridiculous in my opinion. The question I ask myself is this: If the confederates had won the war, how much longer would slavery and oppression have lasted? That might not be the most important question for some with regards to the outcome of the war, but for blacks I have to assume it's at the top of the list.

Medford, OR has been associated as a base for white supremacy groups like Volksfront. I doubt the guy who was fired was flying the flag because he had some great grandpa die in the civil war. Though this is just an assumption not based on knowledge of the dude.

 

[julius]

It does seem odd for a non southerner to fly that flag, and truthfully (anecdotal here) every person I've known who 'proudly' flew the rebel flag, was a bigot. And that included some family members and people who never had lived in the south (or even been there).

 

[Denny Crane]

The confederate flag represents a group of Americans who fought and died for their state's rights. One of those rights was to enslave black people. This was not the SOLE reason they fought I know. However there's no denying it was on the list. Jump forward to the 21st century and you have racist groups using the flag as a symbol of their organizations. I understand that there are those in the south who fly the flag as homage to southerners who died, etc. To believe that black people have no reason to be offended by this flag is ridiculous in my opinion. The question I ask myself is this: If the confederates had won the war, how much longer would slavery and oppression have lasted? That might not be the most important question for some with regards to the outcome of the war, but for blacks I have to assume it's at the top of the list.

Medford, OR has been associated as a base for white supremacy groups like Volksfront. I doubt the guy who was fired was flying the flag because he had some great grandpa die in the civil war. Though this is just an assumption not based on knowledge of the dude.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I never said black people should have no reason to dislike the confederate flag, just that it has meaning to the people who fly it that has nothing to do with the reasons black people dislike it.

I mean, it might be comparable to the "White" House, which was built by slaves, worked by slaves, and only recently were black people elevated to positions near the top of the Executive Branch. We're talking until ~120 years after the Civil War was over! It's a travesty.

And you rightly point out overt racism (and worse) in a Northern state like Oregon, a state that never flew the Confederate flag. There have been lynchings in California, and Ohio, and Michigan and many other Northern states all along, as well.

I agree it may be highly questionable in this case (the bus driver), and I don't know him nor can I read his mind.

You ask yourself a question with a complex result. If the confederates had won the war...

Realize the Northeast Liberals of the time tired of the war quite early and favored calling and end to it with the confederates ultimately being another country. European nations were ready to establish traditional diplomatic and trade relations with the South.

The war wasn't going so well for the North when Lincoln freed the slaves - the battle of Gettysburg was fought in July of 1863, and the Proclamation was issued in January. Last time I looked at a map, Gettysburg was on Union soil, not on Southern soil.

The North wasn't exactly friendly to black people, either. I mentioned the lynchings, etc., but even being free meant poverty, terrible living conditions, etc. Except for the being free part, maybe worse conditions than for slaves. The North was lilly white, too - about 4.4M black people in all states combined, 488,000 of them "freemen" in all states combined.

The abolitionists weren't exactly friendly to black people. Most of their ideas I've read about weren't about freedom and citizenship, but about shipping black people off to someplace in Africa and other intellectually reasoned schemes.

Then there's after the war, when Jim Crow flourished in states in the South and the North. Here's a list of Jim Crow laws by state, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State#California

Baseball was desegregated until 1947. The last two teams to have at least one black player were the Red Sox and the Yankees (Northern States). The military was desegregated in 1951. Schools desegregated in 1954. Black people disenfranchised from the voting right by poll taxes and the like until the 1960s.

More specifically to your question, the answer is that we can only speculate, and it really depends on what "winning the war" means. It could mean the confederacy was allowed to be a separate nation, or it could mean one country run by the South. Since the latter wasn't the South's objective, I'll speculate on the former.

For starters, the South was agrarian and would have suffered greatly from not having partner states who had strong industries. Maybe they'd look for a partner in Europe or even go back to being British colonies.

If that didn't happen, the pure economics of things would have likely led to abolition rather quickly anyhow. Consider it's cheaper to pay a guy $.10 a day and for him to have to figure out his own housing than it is to provide housing, food, etc., for slaves.

The whole Manifest Destiny thing would have devolved to both nations making land grabs in the West and likely continuous military confrontation.

 

[MARIS61]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I never said black people should have no reason to dislike the confederate flag, just that it has meaning to the people who fly it that has nothing to do with the reasons black people dislike it.

I mean, it might be comparable to the "White" House, which was built by slaves, worked by slaves, and only recently were black people elevated to positions near the top of the Executive Branch. We're talking until ~120 years after the Civil War was over! It's a travesty.

And you rightly point out overt racism (and worse) in a Northern state like Oregon, a state that never flew the Confederate flag. There have been lynchings in California, and Ohio, and Michigan and many other Northern states all along, as well.

I agree it may be highly questionable in this case (the bus driver), and I don't know him nor can I read his mind.

You ask yourself a question with a complex result. If the confederates had won the war...

Realize the Northeast Liberals of the time tired of the war quite early and favored calling and end to it with the confederates ultimately being another country. European nations were ready to establish traditional diplomatic and trade relations with the South.

The war wasn't going so well for the North when Lincoln freed the slaves - the battle of Gettysburg was fought in July of 1863, and the Proclamation was issued in January. Last time I looked at a map, Gettysburg was on Union soil, not on Southern soil.

The North wasn't exactly friendly to black people, either. I mentioned the lynchings, etc., but even being free meant poverty, terrible living conditions, etc. Except for the being free part, maybe worse conditions than for slaves. The North was lilly white, too - about 4.4M black people in all states combined, 488,000 of them "freemen" in all states combined.

The abolitionists weren't exactly friendly to black people. Most of their ideas I've read about weren't about freedom and citizenship, but about shipping black people off to someplace in Africa and other intellectually reasoned schemes.

Then there's after the war, when Jim Crow flourished in states in the South and the North. Here's a list of Jim Crow laws by state, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State#California

Baseball was desegregated until 1947. The last two teams to have at least one black player were the Red Sox and the Yankees (Northern States). The military was desegregated in 1951. Schools desegregated in 1954. Black people disenfranchised from the voting right by poll taxes and the like until the 1960s.

More specifically to your question, the answer is that we can only speculate, and it really depends on what "winning the war" means. It could mean the confederacy was allowed to be a separate nation, or it could mean one country run by the South. Since the latter wasn't the South's objective, I'll speculate on the former.

For starters, the South was agrarian and would have suffered greatly from not having partner states who had strong industries. Maybe they'd look for a partner in Europe or even go back to being British colonies.

If that didn't happen, the pure economics of things would have likely led to abolition rather quickly anyhow. Consider it's cheaper to pay a guy $.10 a day and for him to have to figure out his own housing than it is to provide housing, food, etc., for slaves.

The whole Manifest Destiny thing would have devolved to both nations making land grabs in the West and likely continuous military confrontation.

Yeah, you're probably right.

That's the reason why he had the Confederate flag on his PU.

Or it would have been the reason, if he had read about the Civil War in school.

If he had gone to school, that is.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I never said black people should have no reason to dislike the confederate flag, just that it has meaning to the people who fly it that has nothing to do with the reasons black people dislike it.

I guess I misunderstood this quote from your earlier post then.

I never really got the noise over the confederate flag. It symbolizes less about slavery, racism, etc., than the US flag...

On the other hand, the confederate flag is what a few hundred thousand southerners fought under and died under. It as much symbolizes the patriotism (toward the confederacy which was American, like it or not), bravery, and service of those who died.

I get that some black people claim it is offensive, but I don't get it. I don't believe that most who fly it or want to fly it do so to be offensive, but to show pride in their region of the country and as tribute to their ancestors.

For what it's worth I disagree with your last sentence. I think more bigots fly that flag than not.

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess I misunderstood this quote from your earlier post then.



For what it's worth I disagree with your last sentence. I think more bigots fly that flag than not.

I don't know many people who fly the flag, so I can't say. I was merely pointing out there are a great number of bigger fish to fry is all.

Let me ask a direct question. Why isn't the US flag offensive?

 

[Bob Dobalina]

I don't know many people who fly the flag, so I can't say. I was merely pointing out there are a great number of bigger fish to fry is all.

Let me ask a direct question. Why isn't the US flag offensive?

In my mind the confederate flag represents the group that fought to keep slavery alive. Once they lost, that flag kind of ended there. I see the fact that White supremacist of today have chosen that as one of their symbols of representation and it reinforces my thoughts concerning the flag. It's as if the confederate flag is the black mans swastika and the bigots know it.

The US flag did fly over the nation during some dreadfully horrific times, however it did not end there. I do not see the the US flag as only a representation of its dark past I guess. To me it represents those times as well as the changes which have occurred since. I guess I'm not one to hold a grudge. It makes no sense to me to take issue with the flag because it happened to be the one we had during a time in which blacks were oppressed.

I'm not sure if my ramblings make sense, but I have appreciated the discussion Denny. I get the impression that you are very knowledgeable and appreciate you taking the time to school me.

 

[STOMP]

the school has a policy that they felt their employee was in violation of. They appealed to him to comply with the policy (which would have been easy), he refused, so he was let go. It all seems pretty straight forward to me. Dude is 28, was a school bus driver, & lives in a trailer with his wife and 4 kids.

here's a link to the story in the local paper with a picture of this fine American who is probably about to bring a lawsuit against the school district/local taxpayers over this

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110303/NEWS/103030301

ha ha... just read some of the comments. Classic stuff! According to one of the posters who counts him as a friend, apparently Kenny thought it was appropriate to bring his guns to school and fought against his company's drunk driving policy.

STOMP