Hacker News Reader

Comparing the chant "from the river to the sea" with the confederate flag is completely preposterous. The chant is a call for liberation. Anyone who has a problem with someone's freedom is themselves a racist and probably has a lot of views in common with what the confederate flag stands for. Fwiw, the phrase was coined by Jewish settlers in the 1930's (https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2018-12-16/ty-artic...) and ADL is an anti-Palestinian hate organization whose opinions no one should take seriously.

> You can’t travel to my “moderate Muslim” country with an Israeli passport. Guess why that is?

Perhaps for exactly the same reason Russian passport holders aren't welcome in a lot of places?

isn’t the original context of the confederate flag liberation from federalism?

don’t think just the fact someone believes they are liberating something makes it right, as in their eyes the russians in the current war are liberating ukraine

From what I've read about the American civil war is that all historians agree that the rebellion was about the right to hold slaves. The argument about federalisim is a narrative constructed afterwards to evoke sympathy for the rebels.

If not those who use the phase - and have been using it in exactly the same way for decades - can decide what it means, then who can? Should we apply the same argument to "pro choice" and agreee that that it is a call for premediated murder of infants because that is what the "pro life" crowd thinks?

> From what I've read about the American civil war is that all historians agree that the rebellion was about the right to hold slaves. The argument about federalisim is a narrative constructed afterwards to evoke sympathy for the rebels.

People often say this but I see no contradiction between the American Civil War being about slavery and it being about states' rights. It was about the states' rights to own slaves!

That aside, the idea that "all historians agree" is absurd.

Sure slavery and racism is a huge part of it, but don't forget it's called 'the confederacy'. You can't claim this is constructed afterwards when it's plainly in the name

Yes, "liberation" of the land currently occupied by jews. Just need to find a solution for them. Preferrably something final.

> … whose opinions no one should take seriously.

Should we take your opinion seriously instead? Unfortunately you do not share it.

You’ve repeatedly been asked “What Israel should do in your opinion in current situation and what outcome you expect once it does it?” and you repeatedly have failed to produce any answer to that question even in simplified form.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582722

> The chant is a call for liberation.

Let’s try again : How this “liberation” would look like ? And what outcome you expect to see once it’s done ?

During the Civil Rights Era there were radical leftist groups that used the flag. The YPO in Chicago was allied with the Black Panthers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Patriots_Organization (ditto Southern Student Organizing Committee)

This is a very inaccurate comparison. Palestinians faced the violent expulsion of the Nakbah, and before that in the British mandate period there were attacks from violent Zionist groups. Currently, Palestine is militarily occupied and colonized. In this context, from the river to the sea must be understood as a desire for freedom and for justice.

The oppression faced under occupation by people in the West Bank and in Gaza for over 70 years now reminds us of how situations like Apartheid in South Africa formally continued until 1994.

To dismiss as simple “Jew hate” is really not the correct context; very disappointing to see these broad generalizations dismiss the fundamental needs for human life.

Muslims conquered that land to begin with, so that’s kind of an important bit of context for everything that follows.

And the antipathy in the rest of the Muslim world is mostly about hating Jews. In Bangladesh, where I’m from, people aren’t marching for justice for the Rohingya being genocided by Myanmar—even though Rohingya are closely related to Bangladeshis. But there are huge protests in the streets for Palestinians. What is the explanation for why people would be so much more concerned about a “human rights” issue involving a far away, distantly related people, in comparison to the amount of concern for the human rights issue happening to a closely related people next door? Because it’s not really about “human rights,” it’s about a Muslim solidarity against Jews.

The objective is an end to occupation, this is about establishing justice. it would be narrow minded and misguided to claim this is not about human rights and dignity first and foremost, which is a component of justice. People take solidarity with those being oppressed and wronged. The Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestine has been occurring for over 70 years now, and worldwide this is a galvanizing topic especially considering the major uptick in atrocities committed by the Israeli government and indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

The issue with Rohingya people is also an issue that people take solidarity with and partake in aid of.

I see your comment as dismissing the desire to establish justice in Palestine as if it is only about fighting Jews for being Jewish. Many people also protested the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which now in the US we recognize as being based on wrong premises. Apartheid was supported by many people but now it is regarded as a dark time in history.

If you wish to be on the side of ignoring the need for justice, know that you won’t be the first to do so. But it does not make it the correct thing to do.

Which occupation? Gaza (historical Filastin) and the West Bank? Or the whole of Israel? It depends on who you ask, but the most active and direct organizations working to end "occupation" take an expansive view --- hence the "river" and the "sea". When you talk about the Nakba, remember that Jewish communities in West Asia and North Africa were exiled at the same time --- the majority of the Jewish population of Israel are Mizrahi, the descendants of those exiles.

Very few things about this situation are simple.

> there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism

Never got that one. Nothing like the flag of a breakaway state founded to preserve chattel slavery as a symbol of… anti-authoritarianism?

It's known as the 'Rebel Flag' in the united states, and has indeed stood for being a rebel with none of the modern racist associations attaced to it. Many of your favorite antiracist rock stars of the 60s sported the flag. People under 40 mostly just know the culture-war version where its akin to a swastika, which itself originally had a different meaning. Symbols change, you have to view them through the lens of history and culture before recoiling to modern interpretations,

Most Americans refer to this as the “Confederate Flag” these days. I’m currently living in the south, though, and you’ll hear it referred to as the rebel flag in this region by liberals and conservatives alike. Regardless I appreciate your acknowledgment of the cultural aspect, and people like the Allman Brothers and Tom Petty certainly did fly the flag back in the day

I can't tell for the rebel flag, but the swastika never stopped to be used with its original meaning in India, and at least in Europe it's rather well known that nazis "stole" it from India cultural heritage where it doesn't have the same semantic to say the least.

> has indeed stood for being a rebel with none of the modern racist associations attaced [sic] to it

I grew up partly in the South of the civil rights era and went to one de-facto segregated school. (Dad was military, stationed in various places.) I was a kid, but I paid attention to the news, and my impression was that racism was the clear, undeniable subtext to the "being a rebel" part: Many Southerners — notably, most of those who held political- and economic power — resented federal "interference" with "Southern ways," namely the violent oppression of blacks to keep them as an impoverished, powerless, underclass workforce.

(In 2020 I read a tweet thread from an anonymous Army officer, recapping the history of post-Civil War Reconstruction and the Union's de facto surrender in 1877; the quote that stuck with me was, "Sherman should've mowed the deep south like a lawn, making multiple passes")

https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843

Part of that effort was to reframe the reasons why the Confederacy was “founded,” at least in part as a way of saving face (which is very important in southern culture).

Their narrative glossed over slavery, and focused on the other aspects of the conflict: the industrialized north, with its big banks and big corporations, versus the agrarian south. Do you remember the scene in Hamilton where they negotiate about where to put the capital? And the Hamilton says something along the lines of “let the south have the capital, we’ll have the bank where the real power will be.” It’s not hard to make the south look like the good guys if you ignore the Confederate elites’ actual reasons for the war.

If the US had not been founded then slavery would have been abolished much sooner, so I don’t think the US flag gets a pass either.