Thanks guys

Thanks for the feedback. All good stuff.

Rockery Press

I would use the confederate flag for the local classics. Those that would normally received an X rating, I can recommend the following:

Please, please, no offensive flags.

Why not symbols that actually have more to do with Chattanooga? Like stylized images of the walnut st. bridge or the aquarium with silhouettes of climbers dangling from the beams or trying to scale the shear vertical glass? Even a badass steam engine (a la the Chattanooga Choo Choo) would be better than a confederate flag.

SOUTH'S GONNA RISE AGAIIIN.

Are you serious? The stars and bars (confederate flag) is one of the most divisive symbols out there. I know that to a small portion of the white population the confederate flag represents "freedom" and "individualism." For the majority of Americans, it has a strongly negative connotation relating to slavery and unequal civil rights.

I am going to guess that the folks at Rockery Press are not ignorant of the meanings associate with the flag. With that in mind, the Rockery Press team is either trying to use the flag to stir up controversy and publicity, or they think that the unofficial logo of the KKK is an appropriate "uniquely southern symbol" to use in their book. Please, Rockery Press, tell me that I am wrong. Please, explain how using this symbol can in any way be a good thing. I am willing to listen, but at this point I'm already not a fan what Rockery Press is doing.

I really hope that the Rockery Press team will re-think this. My parents are from The South. I have a ton of relatives there. I lived in NC for 8 years. The south I know is a great place. Slavery, bigotry and racial inequality are not what I associate with the south in general, and especially not with the smaller southern climbing community. I see absolutely no reason to include the Stars and Bars in a climbing publication.

The confederate flag is not rascist.

Southern people are rascist.

All souther people are NOT racists. Saying shit like that is totally fucking ignorant.

heritage, not hate...fuktards

Just to further NC's point...
It is a proven fact that ignorance breeds hate.
Much love,
Mackley

The 11 states that seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (Stars and Bars) did so largely because they were opposed to powerful Federal Government. "Southerners" were all about states rights. They wanted to be able to nullify any Federal laws that were being imposed on them. States like South Carolina were fighting with the Federal government about this 30 years before anyone in the north began opposing the use of slaves.

The reason that slavery has always been seen as a central issue in the Civil War is because the economic effects that abolition would have on the southern states would be terrible. The states in the south wanted the option to nullify any federal legislation that would harm their way of life, because they felt that it was their right to protect their own economies. The US Government made the Confederates out to be racists, but in large part, the Confederates were fighting for a different (and ultimately better) way to govern our country. Of course they had to secede, they wanted more control over their states than the Federal Government was willing to give them.

Today, states rights is still a massive issue, and I'd be willing to bet that most climbers would fall on the same side of the argument as the Confederates did in the early and mid 1800's. Just think about it this way: What if California, Oregon and Washington decided to secede from the nation because the Federal Government overruled their decisions about marijuana? What if the states in the Northeast decided to secede because they were tired of our Federal Government allowing the sale of handguns and assault rifles? Most of us would support those causes. Just because the Confederacy picked a terrible cause to get behind (slavery) doesn't mean that we must forget that they were fighting for a way of government that could work better than what we have now.

To many people the Confederate Flag represents a time in history when people were not afraid to stand up for what they believed in. The southern states and their populations took on the US Government. In my opinion, we'd be better off if this happened more often (Thomas Jefferson was of the same opinion). In today's world, standing up to the Federal Government does not have to mean a bloody war. It could be done peacefully and democratically and could solve issues like gun control.

It is sad that a symbol that could rally like minded Americans together to fight for important issues has become a symbol of something as terrible as slavery.

I was with you until you compared slavery (slaves had no choice) to the second amendment (we all have the choice). Climb on.

^^^ Um . . . reread your history book. Not trolling when you use facts to base an argument on. The simplified version that is sadly taught in most American History classes is that the War of Northern Aggression was ONLY about slavery.

Ryan is not debating the ETHICS of slavery. That is an argument that would and should fail anywhere. His argument is over why the South went to war, which was about states rights to govern themselves without overbearing input from the Federal Government.

The facts are that without the war, the South would have been economically crippled by the Federal Government. It was a largely agrarian economy that was being taxed out of existence. Hmm . . . sounds similar to major issues that caused the American Revolution.

have we not learned how easily history can be re-written? hell, most of our memories are good for a few days at most judging by how easily people swallow everything the media puts in their head only to shit it right out the next day.

what was the war about Dana?

My favorite discussion is with true blue liberals who cant seem to grasp that Democrats historically have had just as many racists in the party as the Repubs.

Rockery Press wrote:Thanks for the feedback. All good stuff. Rockery Press

after looking at the facebook page I do wonder if women climb down there.

I bet we are one of the few countries in the world that tolerates the flag of the losing side of a civil war to still be flown!

CraigS. wrote:^^^ Um . . . reread your history book. Not trolling when you use facts to base an argument on. The simplified version that is sadly taught in most American History classes is that the War of Northern Aggression was ONLY about slavery. Ryan is not debating the ETHICS of slavery. That is an argument that would and should fail anywhere. His argument is over why the South went to war, which was about states rights to govern themselves without overbearing input from the Federal Government. The facts are that without the war, the South would have been economically crippled by the Federal Government. It was a largely agrarian economy that was being taxed out of existence. Hmm . . . sounds similar to major issues that caused the American Revolution.

Um . . . and they were going to be crippled economically why again? gee...this one is a head-scratcher. I just can't figure it out. Taxes were the only reason why they were being crippled economically? I'm pretty sure they weren't paying employment taxes, but hey, if they were paying through the nose while the north was sitting comfortably while being scantly touched by taxes then that's what was happening. I guess there isn't another side to this. Who knew?

Better Off Without 'Em

amazon.com/gp/product/14516…;pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-8&pf_rd_r=EBCBF2B24F5848B4BFBF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1535154402&pf_rd_i=283155

csproul wrote:I bet we are one of the few countries in the world that tolerates the flag of the losing side of a civil war to still be flown!

+1

Taken with a grain of salt, Ryan's post represents a perspective that is alive and well in the South and which represents the history as I understand it, reasonably well. Bigotry, racism, etc. are bad and we all agree on that. States rights, freedom, autonomy, were and remain major drivers in Southern culture. I don't fly the confederate flag, but I don't have a problem with it. To the degree that it is a symbol of an unfortunate tendency of the Old South, I recognize the sensitivity to minorities and liberals. OTOH, this same culture is rich with heritage and sustains a way of life for many of us in the SE that is fruitful, peaceful, independent, and largely misunderstood by folks form the NE and NW, especially. It always seems unfortunate to me that the rest of the country seems to put everyone in the South in a tidy box and label it redneck, racist, backwards. Desert and midwest folks seem to understand a bit more.

I.E., this....

Jake Jones wrote:Also, (and apologies for my verbosity) isn't lumping people into a group and labeling them without knowing them individually and without taking into account personal and unique attributes one of the prerequisites for discrimination in the first place? Just a thought. It works both ways. Not every hoodie-wearing minority youth in an inner city is going to rob you. Not every stars and bars flying good ole boy in SC is a klan member. Generalization by appearance, generally speaking, is not a great idea.

Here's an idea....especially for those with the most rigidly negative view of Southeasterners, buy Rockery Press' guidebook and come on down for a visit....There's more to the South that toothless, Meth-crazed, supremacists.

Go dawgs!

Jake Jones wrote:The problem is that the issue of states' rights is inextricably married to the issue of an agrarian society dependent upon slave labor.

Yes. Yes. Yes. What Ryan fails to mention is what states rights meant then versus what it means now, which is not the same thing at all. Of course, states rights vs. federal government had been debated since the country's founding. But the South's reliance on the states rights argument only began to arise after they lost firm control of the federal government and became even more prevalent after the Civil War when the South had to scramble to find a way to try to protect its race-based legislation (Jim Crow and all that) from the federal government. Which is why, in the South, when you talk about "states rights" and the confederate flag, you are referencing an ideology of race-based hatred. They are one and the same, and have been for 150 years.

Ryan Williams wrote:Today, states rights is still a massive issue, and I'd be willing to bet that most climbers would fall on the same side of the argument as the Confederates did in the early and mid 1800's. Just think about it this way: What if California, Oregon and Washington decided to secede from the nation because the Federal Government overruled their decisions about marijuana?

This is a huge, huge false equivalency. The South's idea of states rights was not some pie in the sky, libertarian ideal of the choice of the individual versus the federal government. The South was fighting for a very specific right, which was the right of states to make policies regarding the trade and ownership of human beings. In other words, the South was concerned with taking away individuals' freedoms, not granting them. Again, this is why, in the South, when you reference states rights in the context of the confederate flag, you are advocating a brutal and inhumane ideology.

If the climbing community is truly open and encouraging why would you want to represent it with such a divisive symbol? If you want to celebrate Southern culture, there are a 1000 ways to can do it better than with the confederate flag. I say that having lived in the South basically my whole life.