Dukes of Hazzard re-runs pulled

[generic-user-1]

MikeRox said:

JWeinCom said:

It was about state's rights.  Particularly the state's right to own other people.  

Was that a particular right that was focussed on at the time? It's funny as just before all this kicked off in the US last week we had this:

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/revolution-bar-prompts-anger-huddersfield-9388344

If you banned all the flags that have been part of regimes that used slavery, pretty much every European flag along with the US flag should surely be equally offensive? As they've all been complicit at some stage.

The Swastika is slightly different, in that it represented nothing beyond the Nazi regime.

My knowledge of the US Civil war isn't spectacular, but from what I've read, and common sense would surely dictate that "we want slaves, we're going to war!" isn't exactly what happened, though many people now seem to say it did. I suspect most people getting their history from films such as Lincoln probably helps purpetuate such views as such a focus is placed on that aspect of the politics of the time.

I mean many people seem to think the reason Scotland is part of the UK is because the Evil English conquored and oppressed them, when the reality is they bankrupted themselves on a failed New World outpost and sought a bail out from England in exchange for Sovereignty.

they should ban the bible first.  the bible is not just pro slavery, it gives a lot of tips and rules how to be a slaveowner.