The Confederate Flag...

[blah the Prussian]

AH HA! I am a fool. Thanks for the information.I think everything is a historical inevitability, but I don't think we'll ever know what outcome was inevitable until it has already happened.This was from one of my posts. Just want to make clear that I'm saying they should have the right to ban the flag on their premises.

Wait, so you believe in fate? That seems to be the only way this viewpoint would make sense.

huh, never thought of it that way. you're probably right, i'm not gonna debate with a history major.

Actually, I'm not a history major, too young for that, but thanks for the compliment!

[Phoenix Wright]

Regardless, it feels like you're blowing the issue way out of proportion, and I can't figure out why.

i feel the opposite--i feel he's trying to make it seem like it's not such a big deal. this isn't an isolated incident; racially-motivated crimes are still a big problem in this country. the difference is this dude shot up a history-rich black church. snowy's attempts at just calling the dude 'nuts' is fucking insulting. one doesn't call a terrorist 'nuts' and end the discussion there--there is a clear motive the terrorist has. he's doing the same thing to this incident as americans do to homeless people: either chalk them up as crazy or drug addicts so one doesn't have to feel bad about the problem.

*sigh* Let me explain what I said in a bit more detail.

The confederate flag has been flown for years now despite that the civil war has ended. While there may be resentment for it, it's been shown that it's entirely possible for it to be presented in public without hurt feelings. After all; it's been a state flag. Yet now because of ONE person who decided to go on a killing spree people are now willing to engage in mass censorship. His actions have provoked a response and not just a minor one too.

As the saying online goes, 'Don't feed the troll'.

Because of this person now a mass censorship campaign has started; doing their best to ban it from essentially EVERYWHERE. As someone pointed out...

Cake with the ISIS symbol: A-Okay!

Cake with the Confed flag: YOU MONSTER!

Now... As for the 'culture' aspect... Well... Quite frankly I don't think anyone who is not a southerner has a right to dictate if something is or is not part of a culture and the simple fact is that the meaning of the flag has changed. The same thing happened with the Swastika after all due to Hitler. What was once a benign symbol came to represent universal hate and oppression. Sure, you can say flying the nazi flag is hateful and the like, but why is it fine to play games with the nazi symbol present but not the Confed flag? Regardless... IMO some southerners have come to identify the flag as a symbol of rebellion and independence; that they were willing to stand up to the union and fight against them while still being American.

Of course, as I just said, it's not my place to decide if it does hold cultural value or not in this matter. That's just my best guess. My real beef is with the major degree of censorship that's been spurred on by effectively one nutball. Don't feed the troll after all. If your response is to censor things and if said censorship results in a conflict with people who either don't see it as wrong and/or object to censorship in general... you're closer to civil disharmony and war than he should have ever had an impact on.

Bury the dead, mourn the dead, remember their lives, but remember that their killer was a monster trying to provoke a response.

humans are a very reactive species. a problem presents itself and we react to it--we aren't proactive about pretty much anything. this issue was the catalyst that started what should have been started decades ago.

i simply can't believe you're trying to make this seem like it's not a big fucking deal. you know black people still get tied to trucks and fucking dragged until their body parts are severed, or skin ripped clear off? i don't get how this can't be construed as a big deal.

Raise your hand if you're from the South. (Looks around)

Look, it's very nice to say the Confederate flag represents racism, but it actually represents democracy to Southerners. It means that we can (and will) secede from an unfair government.

[it may be legally wrong to fly such a flag at a statehouse, but I would think that should be a Federal policy - not a state one. I'm not a lawyer, don't quote me on this.]

the united states itself is a representation of that ideology. you don't need a racist flag to do that.

Wait, so you believe in fate? That seems to be the only way this viewpoint would make sense.

Actually, I'm not a history major, too young for that, but thanks for the compliment!

ever heard of determinism?

Edited August 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

Yes, and it seems silly. So much can be chalked up to random chance, including the genetic makeup of every person on the planet, that to alter anything, even by being there, leads to the next unborn generation being completely different. Also, I fail to see how determinism is distinct from fate in this context.

[Phoenix Wright]

well, fate is generally regarded as being up to the mercy of the supernatural (god/gods, deities, etc.), whilst determinism isn't. in this context, they're synonyms.

it's nice that you feel that way, but that doesn't mean determinism is a false idea or an idea we ought to disregard. rather than discuss it here, though, i suggest reading up on it yourself.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Original Alear]

The genetic makeup of people on the planet is not determined by randomness as far as I know. I believe it is probably ultimately governed by physical laws. If crossing over, mitosis and mutation are considered random then I think most things are random.

I really have no experience in quantum physics. If I knew more about it I might think differently. But I probably wouldn't be able to understand it.

It is somewhat off topic. My quip on determinism was just a quip. But I am willing to try and explain my limited view on the subject elsewhere if that is your desire.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Severian

[Walker]

the united states itself is a representation of that ideology. you don't need a racist flag to do that.

So I should fly a flag of the United States as a whole? The Confederate flag represents something that Ol' Glory doesn't, namely, seceding when the national government impedes on your citizens rights. The South was effectively strong armed into coercion by the North, and didn't like that. Kind of like North Korea + South Korea ( America is not such an example. America was a colony that was paying taxes for a war they started! The colony America did not have voting rights.)

Yes, and it seems silly. So much can be chalked up to random chance, including the genetic makeup of every person on the planet, that to alter anything, even by being there, leads to the next unborn generation being completely different. Also, I fail to see how determinism is distinct from fate in this context.

The choices were ours to make, but the outcome already came about through them. In other words, all futures are possible, but only one will happen.

... Oh yeah.

I did a report on it/Eli Whitney in like 4th grade and I forgot all about it.

I hate to killjoy this, but the cotton gin saved slave trade by making it economically feasible to run a plantation. Economics refer to this as "The Law of Unintended Consequences" - create an invention to aid a slave in working easier, and exponentially increase the slave trade.

I really have no experience in quantum physics. If I knew more about it I might think differently. But I probably wouldn't be able to understand it.

Quantum physics - the laws governing sub-atomic matter? Also, I don't think it's even possible to make heads or tails of it. Kind of like the 4th dimension.

Edited August 3, 2015 by StWalker

[Phoenix Wright]

The genetic makeup of people on the planet is not determined by randomness as far as I know. I believe it is probably ultimately governed by physical laws. If crossing over, mitosis and mutation are considered random then I think most things are random.

I really have no experience in quantum physics. If I knew more about it I might think differently. But I probably wouldn't be able to understand it.

i don't think the effects of quantum mechanics is understood in biology at all...

So I should fly a flag of the United States as a whole? The Confederate flag represents something that Ol' Glory doesn't, namely, seceding when the national government impedes on your citizens rights. The South was effectively strong armed into coercion by the North, and didn't like that. Kind of like North Korea + South Korea ( America is not such an example. America was a colony that was paying taxes for a war they started! The colony America did not have voting rights.)

what strong-arming? what injustice? the south's way of life was threatened, but that way of life was a far greater injustice than forcing it to an end. the whole "states right's vs federal power" issue was also primarily over slavery.

people will form any sort of excuse they want, but the reality is that nearly every issue the south had with the north drew an arrow, somewhere, to owning people as property. and for those issues that didn't can instead be drawn towards the idea of sectionalism, which isn't a legal argument for secession.

even in your post, i sense sectionalism. it's not a bad thing, you feel how you feel about the united states as a whole v. the south, but using that as an actual argument in favor of secession is utter crap.

and let us not forget that the confederate flag, as i've said before, represents not only racism, but also treachery and anti-union sentiments. flying such a flag on union property is preposterous.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Acacia Sgt]

I do wonder though, with the reputation this particular flag has now, what stops any other Confederate flag from following suit? Depending how things go with this particular flag (after all, before all this it was only the battle flag of the Army of North Virginia), people could end up just rallying under another.

[I.M. Gei]

it's kind of telling that stwalker blames the north for "strong-arming" the south and infringing upon the rights of southern citizens, but stayed silent on the subject of the fugitive slave act of 1850 and the dred scott decision—both of which, as previously mentioned, expanded the power of the federal government in defense of slavery—and the subject of southern paramilitaries engaging in botched invasions of cuba, which they tried to annex into the u.s. as a slave state, and nicaragua, which saw slavery reinstituted by filibustero william walker from 1856-1857

I do wonder though, with the reputation this particular flag has now, what stops any other Confederate flag from following suit? Depending how things go with this particular flag (after all, before all this it was only the battle flag of the Army of North Virginia), people could end up just rallying under another.

the other confederate flags were not raised over the south carolina state capitol in 1962 in opposition to the civil rights movement, and it's unlikely that they will see an opportunity to be used to send a similar message in the foreseeable future

Edited August 3, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Snowy_One]

i feel the opposite--i feel he's trying to make it seem like it's not such a big deal. this isn't an isolated incident; racially-motivated crimes are still a big problem in this country.

And they should be dealt with as such. Crimes. Anyone who performs a criminal act has broken the law after all.

one doesn't call a terrorist 'nuts' and end the discussion there--there is a clear motive the terrorist has.

The whole point and purpose to what a terrorist does is to incite fear and unrest in a populace; typically through violent and massively destructive means. However it doesn't really matter in this case. If the dude was a terrorist then what he wanted was a reaction in which fear and distrust was sown. He WAS trying to start off the second civil war after all.

he's doing the same thing to this incident as americans do to homeless people: either chalk them up as crazy or drug addicts so one doesn't have to feel bad about the problem.

What? I've never done something like that. Homelessness is a very serious issue that does need to be dealt with. After all, simply being without a home skyrockets the chances of sickness and death. The problem is figuring out how to handle the issue. It's a solution many people haven't found. I recall having the vague idea once of offering farming homes to the homeless out in the mid-west but I have no idea as to if that's even possible or if it would actually help the problem beyond a select few who are both willing and capable of farming.

humans are a very reactive species. a problem presents itself and we react to it--we aren't proactive about pretty much anything. this issue was the catalyst that started what should have been started decades ago.

Saying things like this makes you sound less like someone with an argument and more like someone with a grudge.

i simply can't believe you're trying to make this seem like it's not a big fucking deal. you know black people still get tied to trucks and fucking dragged until their body parts are severed, or skin ripped clear off? i don't get how this can't be construed as a big deal.

I don't recall saying it wasn't; cause murder IS a big deal! If someone did that they should be tried and found guilty like anyone else. Buuuuuttt...

​The thing is that racism will NEVER go away. People will hate other people for being slightly different, or even having a different cultural background, until the end of humanity. Because there will always be assholes who just want to dump on other people and treat them like crap. Everyone becomes one biologically identical race? Someone will find a way to justify their hatred of people who embraced one heritage over the one they decided was right. People populate Mars? There will be people who will despise the martians simply for being from Mars. That will never change.

But we can control how we react to a situation. When someone commits a horrible shooting spree the response is to deal with the criminal for the crimes he committed; not suddenly go out and condemn anyone who has something in common with him; especially when said common thing can hold vastly different things to different people.

My stance is quite simple. I believe censorship is wrong or, at the least, needs to be handled VERY carefully or else it becomes very harmful to everyone. I believe that this man did what he did out of rage and to provoke a reaction. I believe that giving that reaction in any form allows him a victory. I believe that anyone who is proclaiming censorship is the right course of action in this case is acting entirely our of fervor and not rational. I believe that people who attach meaning to the flag should NOT be punished for the actions of someone whom they are not associated with who drew an entirely different one from their own.

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, after all. You can't speak whatever you want then censor whatever you don't.

[Phoenix Wright]

And they should be dealt with as such. Crimes. Anyone who performs a criminal act has broken the law after all.

The whole point and purpose to what a terrorist does is to incite fear and unrest in a populace; typically through violent and massively destructive means. However it doesn't really matter in this case. If the dude was a terrorist then what he wanted was a reaction in which fear and distrust was sown. He WAS trying to start off the second civil war after all.

then he is a terrorist. i don't see your point. you both didn't refute the point i was making, and agreed with the particular observation i made.

the root issues behind the crime change the way we should deal with the issue.

What? I've never done something like that. Homelessness is a very serious issue that does need to be dealt with. After all, simply being without a home skyrockets the chances of sickness and death. The problem is figuring out how to handle the issue. It's a solution many people haven't found. I recall having the vague idea once of offering farming homes to the homeless out in the mid-west but I have no idea as to if that's even possible or if it would actually help the problem beyond a select few who are both willing and capable of farming.

i think you missed the point and for some reason assumed i was talking specifically about you. the point is people are convincing themselves certain issues aren't actually problems (eg, racism, homelessness, etc. etc.) due to some arbitrary reason (eg, we have a black president, the homeless are all addicts or crazy, etc. etc.), so that they don't feel bad about those issues. or generally think about the issues a little deeper at all.

Saying things like this makes you sound less like someone with an argument and more like someone with a grudge.

no it doesn't. humans are naturally a reactive species, like any other one. we have the capacity to become a proactive species, but we aren't yet. i'm fucking terrible at finding non-physics scholarly articles, but i can easily build a case in favor of this conclusion over us being a proactive species.

My stance is quite simple. I believe censorship is wrong or, at the least, needs to be handled VERY carefully or else it becomes very harmful to everyone. I believe that this man did what he did out of rage and to provoke a reaction. I believe that giving that reaction in any form allows him a victory. I believe that anyone who is proclaiming censorship is the right course of action in this case is acting entirely our of fervor and not rational. I believe that people who attach meaning to the flag should NOT be punished for the actions of someone whom they are not associated with who drew an entirely different one from their own.

as i've said before, it should have been dealt with decades ago. if this was the catalyst, then so be it.

for the third time, i think only public areas should be prohibited from flying the flag. any confederate flag, not just the one everyone recognizes.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

Yeah.

The economy was one of the reasons.

And that economy was heavily reliant on slave labor.

It's not like any of that contradicts what I'm suggesting (that slavery was the primary cause - all other lesser causes were linked to it).

I'm not sure a war over Texas would have actually been a civil war. Have they actually seceded ever since becoming a state? They certainly don't like how us libs handle things now but they're not threatening war over it. Not liking/feeling threatened with how the other party does things now that they're in power is nothing new now and I don't think it was then.

It's a matter of semantics - I could say economy, you could say slavery, and we'd end up saying the same thing in the end. What's important is acknowledging the fact that they're so closely tied together.

There was a thread in here not too long ago about Texas seceding - that's what I referred to. Whether or not they'd actually do it is another matter (I vote "no", so I can see my cousin without a passport).

i feel the opposite--i feel he's trying to make it seem like it's not such a big deal. this isn't an isolated incident; racially-motivated crimes are still a big problem in this country. the difference is this dude shot up a history-rich black church. snowy's attempts at just calling the dude 'nuts' is fucking insulting. one doesn't call a terrorist 'nuts' and end the discussion there--there is a clear motive the terrorist has. he's doing the same thing to this incident as americans do to homeless people: either chalk them up as crazy or drug addicts so one doesn't have to feel bad about the problem.

That could've been worded better on my part, sorry.

What I meant to say is that Snowy's reaction to this is overblown. I agree that racism should've been discarded long ago, but I seriously doubt that it'll end in my lifetime. As long as the "different is bad" mentality exists, and as long as people try to justify that mindset via nonsense like blanket statements, stuff like racism will exist.

I have my own thoughts on homelessness, but that's another topic entirely.

(in a lot less words. . .we kinda came to the same conclusion)

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't think xenophobia can be erased either. but, and i'm sure you agree with this so this is mostly for snowy and similar thinkers, the problem can get a lot better.

[blah the Prussian]

So I should fly a flag of the United States as a whole? The Confederate flag represents something that Ol' Glory doesn't, namely, seceding when the national government impedes on your citizens rights. The South was effectively strong armed into coercion by the North, and didn't like that. Kind of like North Korea + South Korea ( America is not such an example. America was a colony that was paying taxes for a war they started! The colony America did not have voting rights.)

The choices were ours to make, but the outcome already came about through them. In other words, all futures are possible, but only one will happen.

I hate to killjoy this, but the cotton gin saved slave trade by making it economically feasible to run a plantation. Economics refer to this as "The Law of Unintended Consequences" - create an invention to aid a slave in working easier, and exponentially increase the slave trade.

Quantum physics - the laws governing sub-atomic matter? Also, I don't think it's even possible to make heads or tails of it. Kind of like the 4th dimension.

Well, every one else seems to be letting you get away with this, so I might as well step up to bat. The Korean conflict was nothing like the American Civil War. South Korea was never a part of North Korea. The division was born out of military matters, namely that the USA and Soviet Union occupied different halves of the Korean Peninsula after the Second World War. So there you go.

[Walker]

Well, every one else seems to be letting you get away with this, so I might as well step up to bat. The Korean conflict was nothing like the American Civil War. South Korea was never a part of North Korea. The division was born out of military matters, namely that the USA and Soviet Union occupied different halves of the Korean Peninsula after the Second World War. So there you go.

I was waiting for someone to mention that. True South was never part of North, but they both were originally the same country Therefore, i draw a parallel - The oppressive "we tell you what to do because of (voting) might" North vs the "we should choose how to run our lives" South.

The was was not about slavery. There were slave states in the Union! The war was about democracy!

Edited August 3, 2015 by StWalker

[blah the Prussian]

South Korea was a right wing dictatorship during the Korean War. The war was never about democracy, it was about who should inherit the peninsula. To say that either North or South Korea was a continuation of the old Korean Kingdom is ludicrous. I also like how you have yet to say how the North was actually oppressive. I again maintain that a people who keep another enslaved are unworthy of democracy.

[I.M. Gei]

My stance is quite simple. I believe censorship is wrong or, at the least, needs to be handled VERY carefully or else it becomes very harmful to everyone. I believe that this man did what he did out of rage and to provoke a reaction. I believe that giving that reaction in any form allows him a victory. I believe that anyone who is proclaiming censorship is the right course of action in this case is acting entirely our of fervor and not rational. I believe that people who attach meaning to the flag should NOT be punished for the actions of someone whom they are not associated with who drew an entirely different one from their own.

repeat after me, the confederate battle flag is not being censored. governments are not moving to filter google search results for the CBF or the like.

what's really funny about this whole thing is that we have people like you who try to misrepresent what are essentially acts of free speech/expression/association (e.g., refusing to bake a cake with the CBF on it or deciding not to stock it at your store or website) as the opposite thereof

also, stwalker, are you ever going to take on the examples of dred scott, the fugitive slave act of 1850, bleeding kansas, the filibusters trying to carve out new slave states in central america, or just about every declaration of secession going "are right to own people!", or confederate veep stephens flat-out saying that the CSA was founded on "the great truth that the negro is inherently inferior to the white man, and hence his natural state is enslavement and subjugation by the white man", or that the confederate constitution itself bans its constituent states from abolishing the institution of slavery

that you have repeatedly ignored these and instead fielded softball questions and responses to your posts makes me question whether you are arguing here in good faith

and freedom! yes! to use democracy to retain the right to own people. to tout the freedom that whites naturally deserve and blacks should naturally lack!

don't forget, the confederate constitution had a clause that more or less said "if a state wants to democratically abolish the institution of slavery, then they can go fuck themselves". so much for state's rights when states aren't using those rights to enshrine chattel slavery or apartheid or make anyone darker than a slice of wonderbread into a second class citizen (or worse)!

Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Edited August 3, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[dondon151]

i've observed that people from the US who have the privilege of diverse freedoms tend to least understand exactly what those freedoms are

[Phoenix Wright]

Quantum physics - the laws governing sub-atomic matter? Also, I don't think it's even possible to make heads or tails of it. Kind of like the 4th dimension.

that's not what quantum physics is, and whatever it is you're trying to say about the 4th dimension doesn't make any sense.

The was was not about slavery. There were slave states in the Union! The war was about democracy!

and freedom! yes! to use democracy to retain the right to own people. to tout the freedom that whites naturally deserve and blacks should naturally lack!

you've failed to respond to:

what strong-arming? what injustice? the south's way of life was threatened, but that way of life was a far greater injustice than forcing it to an end. the whole "states right's vs federal power" issue was also primarily over slavery.

people will form any sort of excuse they want, but the reality is that nearly every issue the south had with the north drew an arrow, somewhere, to owning people as property. and for those issues that didn't can instead be drawn towards the idea of sectionalism, which isn't a legal argument for secession.

even in your post, i sense sectionalism. it's not a bad thing, you feel how you feel about the united states as a whole v. the south, but using that as an actual argument in favor of secession is utter crap.

and let us not forget that the confederate flag, as i've said before, represents not only racism, but also treachery and anti-union sentiments. flying such a flag on union property is preposterous.

states' rights vs federal power is a nice cover for dissatisfaction with the fugitive slave law. if states begin to secede because they don't think gays should marry, but paint the issue in the very same light, "the federal government shouldn't be able to dictate what the states want individually," is secession justified?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

the fact is, the federal government does get to decide things that the states don't, even if some states might not like it.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

Man, this sure looks like a messy subject, and I'm not even sure why I'm entering it since people are usually picky about this, but whatever. I think I can hold my ground on this one.

I understand what Snowy means. He's saying it's an association fallacy to claim the Confederacy Flag is racist because racist people bore it. It's like claiming sugar is bad because Hitler ate sugar. "X people are associated with Y, and X people are bad, therefore Y is bad". The logic error is blatant. The Confederacy Flag is only racist only if the flag itself holds it as a value. If it doesn't, then it is not racist, regardless if racist people used that flag.

Note that I am not claiming the Confederate Flag is [not] racist. I'm just saying the aforementioned claim is a fallacious one. If anything, I'm against a lot of the confederates' values, their mercantilist and anti-liberal policies and discriminatory approach toward other people. They were, if anything, obscurantists and reactionaries.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

I understand what Snowy means. He's saying it's an association fallacy to claim the Confederacy Flag is racist because racist people bore it. It's like claiming sugar is bad because Hitler ate sugar. "X people are associated with Y, and X people are bad, therefore Y is bad". The logic error is blatant. The Confederacy Flag is only racist only if the flag itself holds it as a value. If it doesn't, then it is not racist, regardless if racist people used that flag.

it's been explained in this topic that one core reason in the CSA's desire to secede was so that their individual states could retain the right to continue slave ownership.

EDIT: also on the association fallacy. i tend to think of symbols like words. words have a connotation based on how they are used that can differ from their denotation. if a symbol is regularly used to represent a set of ideas, then that symbol adopts that meaning, regardless of how much people insist that its denoted meaning is different.

Edited August 6, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

it's been explained in this topic that one core reason in the CSA's desire to secede was so that their individual states could retain the right to continue slave ownership.

If it's true then it's a much better claim against the CSA than the weak association argument most people seem to be appealing to around the internet. I'm satisfied.

[I.M. Gei]

i'd make a comparison to the swastika, but then i realized it would be unfair to the swastika

the swastika actually stood for something good prior to the nazis getting hold of it, whereas the confederate battle flag was repopularized by the klan in the 50s as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement and desegregation—a symbol so potent and so unambiguous in its meaning that, as i've mentioned repeatedly, it was raised by the south carolina state legislature over their capitol in 1962 in explicit opposition to the civil rights movement. the CBF has no good history to speak of

Edited August 6, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Rapier]

i'd make a comparison to the swastika, but then i realized it would be unfair to the swastika

the swastika actually stood for something good prior to the nazis getting hold of it, whereas the confederate battle flag was repopularized by the klan in the 50s as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement and desegregation—a symbol so potent and so unambiguous in its meaning that, as i've mentioned repeatedly, it was raised by the south carolina state legislature over their capitol in 1962 in explicit opposition to the civil rights movement. the CBF has no good history to speak of

I knew someone would make a comparisson to swastika, and I thought of an answer before making that post. Now it feels pointless though.

I've read your posts. It does seem that the Confederate Flag upheld civil discrimination as one of its values.

Now, a question. Even if the Confederate Flag upheld bad values, can't people adopt it and take these values away and leave only what seems reasonable? For example, retaining the state's individual rights as a value for the Confederate Flag but taking the discriminatory part away. I particularly don't see what is wrong with upholding a state's individual rights in face of what the union dictates.

[dondon151]

it could happen, but it would have to be used extensively in completely different contexts or embraced ironically by black people. so it will probably never happen.