'Old South' frat targeted over Confederate event

Source: My Way News

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - A white fraternity that traces its roots to the Civil War and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee is again facing complaints over its antebellum-themed events.

This time, University of Alabama alumnae are upset after Kappa Alpha Order members wearing Confederate uniforms and carrying battle flags paraded past a historically black sorority as the women celebrated the group's 35th anniversary.

The fraternity has been forced to halt its "Old South" festivities on some campuses because of claims of racial insensitivity, and Alabama members have apologized for pausing in front of Alpha Kappa Alpha's sorority house during this year's parade.

Alpha Kappa Alpha members said there was no confrontation or taunting, but they were shocked to see fraternity members in rebel uniforms and white women from another sorority in hoop skirts.

"I don't believe these young folks were in any way trying to be racist," said Joyce Stallworth, an Alpha Kappa Alpha alumna who saw the April 29 parade in Tuscaloosa and is an associate education dean at Alabama. "But they were being insensitive. I don't think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing."



Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090513/D985H2P02.html

---

This April 11, 2002 file photo shows members of the Kappa Alpha Order, dressed in Confederate military uniforms, escorting their dates from the James Dormitory at Centenary College during the Old South event in Shreveport, La. amidst protesting Centenary College students. The fraternity that traces its roots to the Civil War and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee is again facing complaints over its antebellum-themed events. (AP Photo/The Shreveport Times, Charlie Gesell, File)

Gone are the days when my heart was young and gay,
Gone are my friends from the cotton fields away,
Gone from the earth to a better land I know,
I hear their gentle voices calling Old Black Joe.

Chorus:
I'm coming, I'm coming, for my head is bending low,
I hear their gentle voices calling Old Black Joe.

Why do I weep, when my heart should feel no pain,
Why do I sigh that my friends come not again?
Grieving for forms now departed long ago.
I hear their gentle voices calling Old Black Joe.

Chorus:
Where are the hearts once so happy and so free?
The children so dear that I held upon my knee?
Gone to the shore where my soul has longed to go,
I hear their gentle voices calling Old Black Joe.

More: http://freepages.music.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~edgmon/stoldblackjoe.htm

My thanks go to them for being there.

Merely insenitive?

Klansters deserve.

Or, as my old man refers to the situation on his campus in the '50s, the "Tri-Kaps."

Alpha Kappa Alpha is the historically black sorority, i think. Though i could have read it wrong as well.

:shrug:

While at Memphis State (many) years ago, some friends were in Kappa Alpha. They had a gathering in Nashville during Spring break and my friends invited me to stop by. Not being in a fraternity myself, I had no idea what to expect. I found the usual booze, but was surprised to find them all dressed in Confederate uniforms. When I asked my friends about it, they told me of the "Old South" traditions. I didn't tell them how racist it was, but I left. The next year, they moved into the frat house and our friendship was effectively over.

People I knew at the time complained about the Pikes (PKA at MSU/UofM), but the guys at KA were no slouches when it came to being a bunch of assholes.

but racist? The Confederacy stood for a lot of things, not just slavery. Dressing up in Confederate uniform as part of a drunken party tradition doesn't seem all that nefarious to me. If anything, they are making light of their heritage by doing so.

I've never understood Confederate "heritage." Never.

and it's a big part of our not so recent history. It's not surprising you'll have those who still have pride in their Confederate heritage, even if they don't agree with what the Confederacy was.

Your argument is awesome!

while saying that they weren't celebrating the Holocaust. :wtf: :eyes:

Keeping slavery was the legacy of the Confederacy. There's no way to properly celebrate that heritage, frankly.

If one wants to celebrate "Southern" heritage, it should be apart from the disgrace that was the confederacy, especially as it relates to the civil war. Then you can celebrate William Faulkner, Martin Luther King, Davy Crockett as exemplars of Southern Heritage. But the moment that becomes a celebration of the confederacy, it's just lipstick on a pig.

Comparing the Confederacy to Nazis, I couldn't have guessed that would come along :eyes:

We celebrate the Fourth of July here in the US, not to mention Victory Day, Memorial Day, etc. We celebrate our soldiers even though what the US has stood for (and in some cases, continues to stand for) is horrible and wrong.

So while you wave your American flag on July 4th, just remember that somewhere someone will think you are now a racist, bigoted asshole for celebrating the evil nation that is the US.

In other words, celebrating your heritage says nothing about your personal feelings on historical events. It may say something about your interest in history or ancestry or maybe it says something about tradition, but everything else you're just assuming.

What about Confederate reenactors? A lot of them are proud of their heritage, are they celebrating slavery and intimidating people simply by wearing the uniform?

The "legacy" of the Confederacy will vary from person to person. Yours is not the only opinion, and many in the South, unsurprisingly, have a different view.

The idea that slavery was all the war was about is a sad legacy of the poor education system in this nation.

Oh, and you better not celebrate many of the Founding Fathers, who, you know, had slaves.

they changed the map of Europe and developed technologies.
The confederacy? They couldn't even conquer Pennsylvania.
Confederate technology? Well, they did build a submarine...that promptly sank.
Inept losers.

That's the only thing that matters here. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee should have been treated accordingly, not celebrated as part of our "heritage".

the treason was over the ability to own slaves in the new territories. It is not the same as breaking away from the US over mistreatment by the US of human beings, which could be viewed as honorably motivated, though still treasonous.

this thread, not yours.

the confederacy existed only as a means to make war against the United States so the south could continue to oppress black Americans, something so important to them that they would betray their own country rather than stop.

America itself, while imperfect, has extisted as an internationally reognized nation for over 200 years. How long did the Confederacy last--4 years? and was it even an actual country?

dress up as people who killed US soliders??? Why not dress up as British redcoats?

why were they flying that rag?

The white flag of shame and surrender is the last flag that flew over the Confederacy.

I'm going to use that one from now on.
Thanks

me too.

:hi:

Who wants to be ashamed of their ancestors and think "surrender" when they think of their culture?

Every culture romanticises its own past and cleans it up. The vast majority of Southerners who are proud of their Confederate heritage don't think of slavery and racism when they think back on why they're proud. Just like during the Fourth of July most Americans aren't thinking of all the innocent children who have died at the hands of US bombing in Iraq. It's not unusual.

And it is important to realize that many Southerners associate the Confederacy as a part of Southern culture. Judging one is like judging the other. They don't necessarily agree with everything the Confederacy stood for, but they might pick the bits and pieces they think are nice and go with them. Every nation does.

Human chattel?
Crushing defeat?
Being dupes of the planter class?
Hookworm?

Please elucidate.

The Confederacy was formed by slave holding states who were concerned most of all that the election of Abraham Lincoln would make it more difficult for them to keep slaves. So to say it was not "just" about slavery, while maybe technically true in the sense that nothing can be said to have just one cause - it was MOSTLY about slavery.

And it is disingenuous to put it down as "dressing up in Confederate uniform as part of a drunken party tradition." It is clear that it has been a lot more than that right down to the event in question, where the costumed Confederates paraded past a black sorority house while they were celebrating an anniversary and stopped right in front of the house. Why? Sounds like a clear case of not too subtle intimidation to me.

I just figured the parade happened to go by the sorority, but if they're going for intimidation, girls in antebellum dress doesn't seem to be the way to go. And in broad daylight too! I don't know, the people who dress up as Confederates in reenactments would probably be embarassed by this lot. This is more of a play around than honoring one's ancestors.

But anyways, the reason the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting had nothing to do with slavery. They didn't own slaves. It was the aristocrats who knew what it was really about, the money, but they convinced the poor whites very well that the Union was attacking state sovereignty. Really, most of the pride in Confederate heritage has to do with the cultural idea of "The South" as depcited in Gone With the Wind. It's pure romanticism, a sort of retelling of a "golden age". Lots of cultures do it, this doesn't surprise me. Nor do I think the intention is to intimidate.

Go to any country that has had rebellions in certain regions in the past, and you'll still find those regions have a certain pride in it. Heck, just take a look at Scotland and Wales. Are those with pride in their heritage there racists and traitors?

war. People fight because they get caught up in the patriotic fever. They fight because they are drafted. They fight because they get handed a gun getting off the ship from Ireland and promised 3 squares and a steady wage in the Union Army - this to refugees escaping starvation and unemployment as a consequence of the Irish potato famine. No the average infantry person in the South AND the North did not give a hoot about slavery. Nevertheless the CAUSE of the war had everything to do with slavery. Scotland and Wales were separate countries long before they were part of the UK so that is a lousy example. Most of the South, except for Texas, was an integral part of the United States from the beginning. And most of the Confederate battle flag wavers know squat about their history so it has little to do with heritage.

but whatever. Wales and Scotland were never really seperate countries, they were rarely unified and definitely not what we would consider a "country" today. It's a good enough example to me. I was just making a general inference to countries with previous rebellious regions.

As for the reason why people dress up, basically I'm saying it doesn't have anything to do with slavery or the wish for slavery to return.

Usually the hardcore reenactors do know quite a lot about their family's personal history and the war, but as for the frat, probably not. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing to dress up. As far as I can tell from the context of the story, they're being harmless...

And I'm glad you've appointed yourself to speak "for the rest of us" Haha.

Maybe it's offensive to you, and that's fine. Doesn't mean the "rest of us" get our pants in a knot over it.

Duh.

And, if your panties are not in a knot over the issue, why do you show up out of nowhere and start posting whenever a thread on the Confederacy appears.

Please.

territories. They have less than nothing to do with why so many people find the Confederacy so repugnnt, repulsive and shameful.

Romanticizing it is a delusion.

I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison (obviously) but I think that flew over your head.

Every culture romanticizes their ancestors. We have done the same with the slave owning George Washington and Thomas Jeffreson.

And you can find the ideas of the Confederacy as repugnant, repulsive, and shameful, and still realize it is HISTORY that you can acknowledge.

But your idea of the Confederacy can be applied to the Union as well. The Union government had very little not in common with the Confederacy. The only reason the Union didn't have slaves? Because it wasn't profitable or possible in the colder climate of the North. Didn't stop the "free" states from being more than willing to trade supplies with the slave states for decades to their factories, use child and immigrant labor in horrible conditions, have wars of imperial conquest and resource exploitation, etc. etc.

Really, what it comes down to is that the North was really no more moral than the South, it was just the luck of the draw that the South had a profitable enterprise for chattle slavery. In fact, the South would have outlawed slavery were it not for technologies that were invented which kept slavery incredibly profitable.

Many Southern generals towards the wars end were pushing for the slaves to be freed, and Longstreet even thought they should have freed the slaves before seceding, which is odd if the whole point of secession was just to keep slavery.

The Confederacy is a part of our history, and there is nothing shameful about acknowledging that. Most Confederate soldiers had nothing to do with the evils of slavery, and celebrating ancestors who fought and died in a war is not so uncommon, even a Civil War.

don't have a great need to duck all that often themselves.

I disagree with your premise. Every member of every culture does not romanticize everything every ancestor did. Rational and honest people recognize the unfortunately named "black sheep" individuals in their families; the dark periods of their family history; the dark periods in their cultural or national history, etc.. And the best of them take whatever responsiblity is appropriate for them to take.

I celebrate the accomplishment of Southern slave owners Washington and Jefferson for their accomplishments, but abhor their slave ownership and the rapes and brutalities that tended to go along with it. And I can certainly admire Jefferson's writing and Washington's skills as a General without dressing as a slave owner with a whip or a Confederate soldier with a saber and a gun and pausing before a sorority of African Americans trying to have an anniversary celebration.

Some of Jefferson's descendants have apologized for his ownership of slaves and for his and their own treatment of the Sally Hemmings and her children with Jefferson. Some of Jefferson's descendants don't want the Hemmings line at the family reunions.

These college students are not celebrating anything great their ancestors did. Rather, they are celebrating a treason committed over slavery that ended in defeat (but was nonetheless followed by a long period of Jim Crow).

"The only reason the Union didn't have slaves? Because it wasn't profitable or possible in the colder climate of the North." Baloney. Sorry, but I find glittering generalities like this that are backed by absolutely no analysis unworthy of serious discussion.

Slavery was certainly possible in the colder climate of the North. Farms abounded. So did early forms of manufacturing. So did domestic work. So did governesses. And on and on. People who would perform all that work for nothing but a bed and food would have made Northerners very happy. And sermons against slavery abounded, as did stops in the North on the Underground Railway.

However, all that--and more-- is quite beside the point as I am not defending Norhern college students who dress up every year as Northerners who got rich in the slave shipping trade, for example, and parading gleefully past a sorority full of the descendants of African Americans kidnapped from Africa and sold in slavery and claim something about that was oh so romantic.

You can't separate the two.

but it's not why they were fighting by and large. They could have cared less about the slaves.

Their economy was based on SLAVE LABOR.

of slaves, that's for sure. But the average Confederate soldier? He was actually worse off due to the slave economy. His lot was being a poor tenant farmer. So once again, getting poor whites to fight against their own interests, mainly through convincing them the war was for something else entirely.

But the slavery-dependent economy
was the reason for the war.

:hi:

War is not fought for the poor.

I just guess that the reasoning for the average soldier has to be taken into account, even if it wasn't the true reason behind the movers and shakers in the Confederacy who started it, the aristocrats and plantation owners. It's why the "state's rights" idea persists in the South to this day, totally absent of slavery.

:hi:

thing each and all of them knew and believed. That's some stretch. Second, look at the photo. Those kids are not dressed as backwoodsmen who became "the average soldier" and their women, but plantation owners turned officers in the Civil War and their wives. However, again, those folks are long gone. The claim that these college kids don't know exactly what the war was about and that their glorifying it is hurtful and offensive to many strains credulity.

individuals may or may not have fought in 1863 were varied. Sweeping statements suggesting that none of them cared about perpetuating slavery have no crediblity at all However, we are not discussing soldiers who passed on long ago. We are discussing college students seeking TODAY to glorify the South's role in that war, knowing and understanding full well what it was about. You seem to enjoy equating people like the college students today with civil war soldiers. Doesn't work. Especially when college students today in civil war uniform pause before a sorority full of African American women trying to celebrate their own success.

If so, which name do you use when you post on other subjects?

I only talk about the Confederacy on here, but I do have some other names:

RAcistwhiTey: I only talk about defending and promoting racist theories as this name

BootStrapBill: This is when I talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps and killing all government programs

No Elephants: I use this name when I want to have inane arguments with my other username, MellowDem.. err I mean.... oops didn't meant to let that out!


:P

on the Confederacy starts here and show up amazingly soon thereafter to remind us of all the virtues of celebrating the Confederate flag, the Civil War, and all the other good things about an era of treason over slavery, nigh unto the present day and beyond. "No elephants" is not one of those names, though.

I have it on the best authority that no elephants is the name chosen by a poster who came to DU because posting on boards where RW posts were welcome had become too tiresome for words--literally. Apart from that, the name "no elephants" has nothing at all to do with discussions about the Confederacy.
:-)

I'll be happy to explain to you why. But save me a lot of typing and simply admit it.

I don't think you understand. The Confederacy was an idea with a lot of different forces behind it. To pin it all on slavery is revisionist. You don't have to explain anything, you just need a history lesson.

While it is true the Confederate economy was based on the slave system, the reasons behind secession were somewhat more varied than that. Remember, several slave states stayed in the Union. Why do you think that was if it was all about slavery? It was the idea of state's rights, the leftover debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists. Slavery was a central part of that discussion, but it was only part of the overall idea of state's rights.

And for the people actually fighting the war, the soldiers, slavery had little to nothing to do with why they were personally fighting. For the vast majority of the Confederate states in fact, that was the case. Even the aristocrats had reasons besides slavery to fight. The South and the North were already considered different culturally and practically as different nations within the same State. Their interests and values were diverging to the point that many Southerners considered a break the way to go. To assume it was all about slavery and soldiers were fighting to keep slaves in the field is revisionist simpleton history.

In January, 1862, the Confederacy was winning the Civil War on all fronts. A Confederate victory was all but guaranteed. With this in mind, Queen Victoria's government in London sent a message to Jefferson Davis, offering a three-point plan for alliance: 1. Full diplomatic recognition. 2. Full military assistance; i.e. the use of the most powerful army and navy in the world at the time. 3. Potentially the most lucrative trade contract in history, selling cotton to the British Empire, which at that time was the world's largest consumer of cotton. Britain obtained most of its cotton from Egypt and India, but American cotton was both cheaper and of higher quality.

This offer came with one string attached. Just one. Care to take a guess what that condition was?

Abolish slavery.

Jefferson Davis said: "No thanks."

Davis passed up a guarantee of victory rather than abolish slavery in the South. If the war wasn't solely about slavery, Davis could have secured victory, and addressed the issue of slavery at a later time.

Three years later, in January, 1865, the Confederacy was losing the war on all fronts. Robert E. Lee was just three months away from surrendering at Appomattox Court House. Davis contacted emissaries to Queen Victoria, asking if the offer was still open. London said: "No thanks. You're going to lose. We prefer to keep our options with Washington open."

And it's a myth that poor Southern farmers weren't fighting to preserve slavery. Of course they were. To slave-owners, slaves were property. To poor Southern white-trash, slaves were a very powerful intangible symbol of their own "superiority." As long as slavery existed, the poor whites who did the bulk of the fighting would never be on the bottom rung of the social ladder. That is a much more appealing incentive to fight than mere property.

Davis is one man and he only represented certain interests. And besides, aboloshing slavery would've made it hard to keep producing cotton, which was really the only thing that funded the Confederacy, so of course he would refuse. And it wouldn't have guarnteed victory, that is your assumption.

And your assertion that Confederate soldiers fought primarily to maintain slavery is the most false part of all. You need to read up on your history there, me saying it won't convince you.

How do you think we produce cotton today? Paid labor. Granted, they don't get paid very much, but anything is better than nothing, and if you're working for nothing, and don't have the freedom to come and go as you please, that's called slavery.

I know this is difficult. It's not like I don't sympathize. It's become fashionable to laud the courage and sacrifice of the Confederate troops. What's not as fashionable, even if it is the truth, is the fact that they were fighting and dying for a cause unworthy of that bravery. Don't forget, the plantation owners who controlled the Southern economy controlled the Southern media, as well; newspapers, telegraph operations, etc. Control the media, and you control the message. It wasn't difficult to convince a bunch of ignorant dirt-farmers that they were fighting for "heritage", and "states rights." Do you think the Jim Crow era had anything at all to do with heritage and states rights? Of course not. The poor Southern whites who made up the bulk of membership in the KKK, the Knights of the White Camellia, and so on, were intent on putting Southern blacks back in their "place", that is, inferior to any and all whites.

If you're still not convinced, read the Confederate Constitution.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

It is essentially identical to the Federal Constitution, with two exceptions: the specification of the term of office for the President; a single six-year term. And the specific provision for slavery. Can you convince me that the Confederates were fighting for the right of their President to serve a single six-year term?

Article I of the document concludes with at least three provisos that begin: "No state shall, without permission of Congress..." Does that sound like states rights to you?

and textbook author. And I've never heard of such an offer from England.

Could you send me somewhere to find info on it.

What I had always read was that France was more willing to recognize the Confederacy but only if England joined them at the same time, and England was much too cautious to make any such offer. I'm very skeptical.

Also, how was the Confederacy winning the war on all front in Jan 1862? There had only been one major battle at Manassas, Virginia. In the west the battles of Fort Henry and Donelson hadn't even taken place yet. The Confederate Indians were kicking butt over the union Indians in Indian Territory though if that's what you meant by winning on all fronts.

Now there was a well documented offer that Abraham Lincoln made to vice-president Alexander Stevens in early 1865. The offer at the Hampton Roads Conference was that the slave-owners would be fairly compensated for their freed slaves if they would give up independence and rejoin the union. At that point the Confederates had a choice between the value of their slaves or independence. They chose independence even though Lee was by then besieged around Richmond and the Army of Tennessee was pretty much a remnant of the army that won at Chicamagua only one year ago.

but nice try! :D

I was never trying to remove the taint of slavery.... Sorry you can't read! :*

Duh!

I'm so sick of the sugarcoating given to the start of the Civil war by apologists for the Confederacy.

On every DU Civil War thread, there is invariably somebody sticking up for the Noble Fucking Confederacy. That state's rights thing really took off during the 60's, when guys like George Wallace used the term and tainted it forever more. You're spewing pure Daughters of the Confederacy revisionist bullshit, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to pretend that "Gone With The Wind" was a non-fiction work, be my guest; just be prepared to be laughed at---a lot....

Trying to rationalize other reasons why they seceded ALL have to do with slavery.

doesn't mean you stand for the Confederacy. Considering the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery, it's not too hard to see that dressing up in these outfits automatically doesn't make one a racist or wish to return to slavery or secede from the Union etc. etc.

And in the context of this being historical fact, there is nothing wrong with the frat dressing up in "Old South" outfits.

B-)

And really, the Confederacy had a lot of meanings to those who fought for it, slavery only being one of them. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. History is rarely so simple as to have one cause for a big event like the Civil War.

Either way, dressing up in Confederate uniform can have a lot of different meanings, and in this context, I think it is meant to be harmless.

Each state had its own articles of secession. And why the common soldier fights rarely has to do with the stated overall purpose of the country fighting a war.

own slaves. Link us to whichever ones you feel best support the honor in what these college students did.

have no idea what a Confederate flag and a Confederate officers' unifrom symbolize? So clueless that they thought pausing in front of a sorority of African American women was some kind of romantic honor, not an in your face, rub your nose in it gesture?

and it wasn't just part of the parade, then yeah I would question it. I don't think Confederate uniforms are necessarily automatically associated with racists or the KKK, considering they are usually considered in a more historical manner and used in reenactments.

And the Confederate battle flag has lots of meanings depending on context. In this context, it would be historical more than anything else. In others, it can stand for racism, or the underdog, being a "rebel" of society, you name it. It all depends on context.

From the article, it is hard to tell if they were intentionally stopping or anything, so I'm not going to just assume.

part of a parade."

Speaking of a parade route and pauses along the same as though they is practically preordained and simply cannot be helped is dishonest, plain and simple.

Someone plans both a parade route and a stop. Is it asking too much of college kids to consider the impact of their actions and have the least bit of sensitivity and respect? It isn't as though these Confederate flags and charades like this haven't been causing problems all over the South, including on other college campuses. This very group and this very "celebration" has been shut down at other colleges.

So, the grinning marchers were far from oblivious to the pain they might cause; and both the parade route and the pause were in their control, no one else's. (I don't know about the timing the parade to coincide with the anniversary of the African American sorority. Maybe that was deliberate, or maybe it was outside the control of the grinning marchers, so I won't take one position or the other.)

As for all the connotations of the flag today, sorry no. It means treason committed over the issue of slavery. And even to a lot of white Southerners as well that is what it means, regardless of their disingenuous attempts to claim otherwise.

At a minimum, the Confederate flag can never be totally separated from ITS heritage. It was never the flag of loyalty to country or of respect for all people, or even only of hoop skirts. And it still isn't, even in the South. It always was, and always will be, tied to treason, slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow and those who glorify and romanticize those shameful things. And even as you post it was not ONLY that, you affirm that it was (in your mind) at least partly that. And history tells us that was not tiny part.

Surely, the South, if it was indeed so honorable, romantic and glorious, can celebrate something without hoisting that shameful banner of treason and slavery or donning uniforms of treasonous warriors, fighting for the right of their group of rebellious states to extend slavery into new territories. That rag will never be rid of those stains and neither will the insurrection.

http://www.cafepress.com/southdiversity

Bunch of losers.

I hear their KKKeggers are a blast! :eyes:

southern traditions?

despite their idiotic fratboy plantation fantasies

though the romantics who pine for the antebellum South (much like the teabaggers today) find that fact inconvenient to their fantasies.

Fitting for us since our governor stood infront of black students trying to enter and had to be removed by the national guard. Didnt hear about this locally. I live 5 minutes away from campus. But the greek system here is horrible a bunch of spoiled whiny boys who still sport theyre W stickers, have no sense of their douchebaggery. And the girls are the worst example of women ever. Not all greeks are bad but I would say 95% are. The girls are more interested in getting a boyfriend that has a rich dad. Girls here willingly admit they are going to school to get their MRS degree. Many of the whore themselves out to anyone with greek letters on their truck or shirt. Its sad, the greeks dominate UA, they are the worst people on campus. They provide nothing useful except rich parents. Fuckbags. All of them.

Much better.

Coach Nick Saban is the man, he's returned our once great program to where it needs to be. We will win a National Championship in the next 2 years definitely. 2 straight recruiting titles, yes I know we played awful in the Sugar Bowl, but our team and fans had the all or nothing mind set, and once we lost the SEC I think most said fuck it. That wont happen again.

Roll Tide.

I've always admired Alabama Football all the way back to Ken Stabler. Some guys, from Alabama, I knew in the service were absolute fanatics, one from Childersburg is still a friend of mine after 40 years. He clues me in on the Tide year round. They used to play in Birmingham didn't they?

Well as I said good Luck this Year.

:eyes:

until that little speed bump named "Barack Obama"

Study the South during the last year of the Civil War and the first year of "reconstruction". 1865 and 1866. Their economy, politics, beliefs, views on labor, etc....could have been written by Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.

Southern gentlemen and all that crap. This is simply more of their racist bullshit that they're peddling.

You can go by any KA house in this country, and out front of the house is a cannon. That cannon signifies the fact that there was never a black member of that KA chapter. There are only two KA houses without cannons out front. One is on the campus of Westminster College in Fulton Mo, and they lost their cannon decades ago because they started admitting black and other minority members to their chapter. The second KA house without a cannon is on the campus of the University of Missouri in Columbia Mo. They have never admitted a black member to their KA chapter. However they no longer have a cannon because a few years back a bunch of these "southern gentlemen" got rip roaring drunk, stuffed the cannon full of fire works, lit the fuse and promptly blew the cannon into small pieces. The shrapnel injured people across the street, with one piece coming down through the roof and into a guy's apartment, breaking bones and sending him to the hospital.

The KA's, bringing racism to a campus near you.

Jesus... Well, good luck to you, you sure as hell will need it.

I think his sign refers to the American flag.

See the sign next to his -- "Oppression Is Not A Tradition"

I'm not surprised