Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Amazon reviewers have a lot to say about the company’s Confederate flag merchandise
Source:
Quartz
URL Source: http://qz.com/434639/amazon-reviewe ... -confederate-flag-merchandise/
Published: Jun 23, 2015
Author: Lily Kuo
Post Date: 2015-06-23 12:32:50 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 13393
Comments: 60
US retailers like Walmart, Kmart and Sears have pledged to stop selling Confederate flags and related paraphernalia, but major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and eBay have yet to pull products bearing the emblem. A church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine black Americans dead has prompted a wave of protests over the presence of the flag, especially in the south where it is considered a symbol of southern pride for some and a potent reminder of the racism inherent in the region’s history for others. South Carolina has said it will take the red banner with a blue X and stars down from its state capitol building. Lawmakers and protesters are calling for similar measures in other states. Amazon and eBay, though, have remained silent on the issue. Neither company responded to e-mailed questions from Quartz about whether they will join the ban. A search for “Confederate flag” on Amazon yields over 30,000 results—including bikinis, electronics, and home decor decorated with the flag. There’s a Confederate flag “mink” bedspread, antique-look flag iPhone covers, and even elaborate lampshades. A search on eBay pulls up over 1,600 listings. While these companies remain mum, Amazon customers have taken to the platform’s question and answer sections to express their thoughts. Regarding a polyester “Confederate Rebel Flag” sold by Rhode Island Novelty for $5.05, shoppers recently asked: Some previous patrons of Rhode Island Novelty’s Confederate flags offered helpful answers: Others told the reviewers to shut up. Poster Comment: Confederate bigotry & racism is bad for business.
(Amazon)
(Amazon)
(Amazon) 
(Amazon)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58.
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
When blacks riot and kill whites, can we call for statues of Martin Luther King to be torn down?
no ;because that isn't what MLK stood for . Now the Confederate flag ;the flag of treason and rebellion against the United States should be removed from State Capitols. However ;we are not the Taliban or the Islamic State . We don't destroy history or heritage regradless of how unpleasant and misguided and evil it was . We should instead never forget what the true reason of the rebellion was about ....slavery .
Didn't the South call it the War of Secession? Didn't Southern states have the 10th amendment power to secede? I see nothing treasonous about it. There are many on this forum today calling for states to secede. "The revolutionary right of secession is based on the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, that: whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government ..." --------------------------------- Lincoln wanted to stop the states from seceding and preserve the Union. He didn't give a FF about slavery. "Lincoln replied in an open letter to Greeley. In the letter, Lincoln emphasized his primary goal: “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it."
Yes. Didn't Southern states have the 10th amendment power to secede? Yes,again. Don't expect people with kneejerk leftist educations to aggree with anything not PC,though. It would make their heads explode. Even a casual look on the face of it would tell anyone with 2 IQ points to rub together than anyone that enters a VOLUNTARY union also has the right to leave that union. There were conditions established to get the states to agree to enter the union,and one was that if the government violated any of those conditions they had a right to secede. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court advised Lincoln he had no legal right to prevent the south from seceding,and Linon's response was to threaten to send US Marshals to lock up the Chief Justice and the entire SC in a military prison until the "end of the emergency" if they published such a decision.
Yes,again. Thankfully you used the words 'state power' instead of that silly concept of 'states rights' People have rights ,states have powers which are only good if enforceable . Secession would've only been peaceful if all the states of the union had agreed to the secession. SCOTUS later determined in Texas v White that there is no such power and that the secession of the southern states was an illegal act ;a rebellion. The best quote on this can be found in US Grants Autobiography. "Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result. "
One more thing. I expect answers to these questions. Was the revolutionary war treason? If you don't say it is I will know you as a hypocrite and not a thinker.
Yes ,revolution is treason . English law in the 1351 act stated that an act of treason was 'a man do levy war against the king in his realm'. Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution defines any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason .
Did Lincoln uphold his oath of office? It sounds like Lincoln levied war against the United States. Lets not get into what is right or wrong. Lets just go by the text of the constitution and the law. If you do that you would clearly see that the South didn't commit any treason. Which is why none of them were charged. Which is why you have no answer to that question.
As I said ,the combatants were paroled under the terms of the Appomattox surrender . Other than that ,the North was more concerned with rebuilding the nation. If you are looking for a pragmatic reason then it would've been a collosal waste of time to charge thousands of Southerners and finding juries to convict them.
Then there was no treason. Thanks for being honest and admitting you were wrong.
There are no replies to Comment # 58. End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: misterwhite (#2)
When blacks riot and kill whites, can we call for statues of Martin Luther King to be torn down?
#31. To: tomder55 (#21)
"Now the Confederate flag ;the flag of treason and rebellion against the United States"
#44. To: misterwhite, tomder55 (#31)
Didn't the South call it the War of Secession?
#49. To: sneakypete, misterwhite (#44)
Didn't Southern states have the 10th amendment power to secede?
#50. To: tomder55 (#49)
secession of the southern states was an illegal act ;a rebellion.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Was the revolutionary war treason?
#52. To: tomder55 (#51)
who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason .
#56. To: A K A Stone (#52)
Which is why none of them were charged. Which is why you have no answer to that question.
#58. To: tomder55 (#56)
Replies to Comment # 58.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]