Pity Chrysler (was, The Dukes of Hazzard)

They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard" movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island" an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their cars and it's horribly bombing. Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that people can do or think?

-Rich

Reply to
RichA
Loading thread data ...

Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika. It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone here can explain it for me.

IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to do.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

But they did use them, so where did this rumor come from???

--------------------------------- One of the original series car from the '80s was also used in this new movie as a close-up car. It's a converted '68 Charger to look like a '69. The original engine was replaced by a brand new Hemi-engine. The car was used for a few close-up scenes and was send back to Warner Bros.

26 Dodge Chargers were used for the making of this film. Several 1968 and 1970 Dodge Chargers were converted to look like 1969 Chargers. Only one hemi Charger was used, the rest were 440s, 383s, and a few small block 318.

Two Dodge Charger's were purchased for a total of $2, given that after the making of the film they would be sold back to the original owner for $1.25 a piece.

formatting link

Reply to
William Claude Dukenfield

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Of course they were. Where else would they get 26 suitable cars for the project?

Reply to
Hairy

I'm sure Chrysler has a few tucked away for those special occasions.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

I've been lurking for quite a while, and I think I have even posted before. I'd like to help you understand this part. I've been a civil war buff since the mid '80s, and the biggest problem with the flag is that the post 60s era has misconstrued the facts to suit them. In the movie "Gods and Generals" there is a scene that hit me when I saw it, and that is when a character reads in a northern news paper that the emancipation proclemation had been signed by the President. The character's rationalization of that action was that the southerner's spirit would be broken by having the institution broken down in such a way.

The point that seems to be missed by EVERYONE since the generation after the war was over is that the war was fought to protect..........The State's rights to determine it's own laws and regulations.

This fight still goes on today, in that most of us are now beholden to the EPA to allow our highway taxes to be returned to be used to benefit our own state roadways, but only if the state agrees to be held to the emission standards arbitrarily handed to them from the big central government. Here in SW Pennsylvania, the air quality as measured by the EPA test sites on the western border of the state is 'not in attainment' with the standards for our region, so we get to have more stringent emission tests. Since the air coming into the sites doesn't pass, exactly what can be done here to make it better? Shouldn't the EPA be forcing these tests on the areas that produce the air we can't meet attainment with? The new emission test junk science farce is that diesel engines are now terrible polluters, but for the past 20 years weren't? For example it is now a "crime" complete with fines, to idle a school bus for more than 5 minutes, but the transit busses the local government agencies support are exempt? They routinely sit for up to 45 minutes during driver switches while at idle to keep the A/C or heat working. But that doesn't cause any pollution. While we're at it, lets return to High School Chemistry class. What makes a molecule of ozone? 3 atoms of oxygen. Remember that any other atoms added into this substance makes a different chemical, not ozone. can this compound have a variable molecular weight? by definition, NO. Why do we have too much ground level ozone and not enough atmospheric ozone? Because the ground level ozone is heavier than air, the same air that is lighter than the other ozone.........according to the strong central government.

That is the same government that now advocates the taking of private property by government, and using it for different private enterprises. Not public use anymore, PRIVATE use....as in government agencies forcing you off your land so that I can build on it and bring more revenue to the local officials than they would have made from you. The founders of our country set up the Federal Government with specific duties. The main reason for the central government was to protect the borders of our nation from invasions. Since the 1860's, there has been a shift to the present day, where we can't protect our borders (those that do are called anything except patriots) and the Central powers tell the states what they will do next.

In short, the Civil War was fought over the right of an individual State to decide it's own laws, and one of the laws in question pertained to slavery. To declare otherwise is simply a twist of the facts. Similar in effect to the way that Malcom X's change in beliefs near the end of his life never seems to be acurately reported, but there are a lot of "X" shirts worn near where I live.

Also, the Stars 'n Bars was never the flag of the CSA. It was a battle flag, used as such. As a pair of shirts I saw state......... "If this flag offends you, you need a history lesson." and "You wear your X and I'll wear mine".

Reply to
Eric G

It really was a war regarding economics of owning slaves in the South. That being said it doesn't make the South right in its cause. Are you saying a State should have the right to determine that other races can be enslaved? I can't buy that as being justified as a state's right. Under this logic any state could pass a law to legalize slavery and the Federal Government and the rest of the States would let it stand. Something as grievous as slavery is not justified for any reason whether it is the mid 1800's or 2005.

A State's rights does not supersede parts of the Constitution or what is just plain right. IMO, slavery is not justifiable for any reason. Would you support a State's right to exterminate all Jews residing in its borders? If you don't then you admit that a State has limits to its autonomy. Making someone a slave is just one step removed from killing them, IMHO.

Everyone should have the right to display anything they want that doesn't incite violence against others. The Confederate flag is a tie to a time when the South was fighting to maintain the right of whites to own black slaves. You can sugar coat it as being a fight about State's rights but that doesn't change the fact that is was a war over the economic benefits of owning slaves. There is absolutely no justification for one human to own another. Period. I still haven't been given a decent explanation as to why someone would want to display a flag that was, and still is, associated with the perpetuation of slavery.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

I would be listed as anti-slavery. At the same time, I think it is crap to try to cover up history in pursuit of being politically correct.

Slavery, for all it's ills, was legal at the time. It was an accepted part of life in many parts of the world. The majority of slaves were supplied by Africans and by Middle Eastern slave traders.

The so called Confederate flag was not the flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag. No different that the Rising Sun flag of Japan was a battle flag, not the flag of the nation of Japan.

As for displaying the battle flag, I believe it is an issue of free speech. If neo-Nazi can display the swastika, and the KKK can march with their Christian cross and Klan flags, and their right, and the rights of similar groups to display them may not be infringed, what makes the battle flag of the Confederacy any different?

All this "stuff" about changing the logos of states, their flags, and renaming geographical locations, school teams, etc, is idiocy. It is an attempt to bury history so that it will be forgotten. It steals the heritage, good or bad, of the people. It falls in line with the push to remove any and all, reference to a Christian God from public places. Where does it stop? Shall we send in the curators to remove such references from all historical documents? Physically cut the words out of them?

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. How then may the people remember if every sign of such ills is stripped away from view, and buried? When school text is re-written to reflect the thought of today and represent it as the thought of the past?

Then, too, we have the push to make atonement to various groups (blacks, Japanese, Eskimos, etc) for past transgressions. Bull. To go back in history and make amends for what was then legal is insane. It may not have been right morally, but it was quite legal, and it took place. Hiding any visible signs, or making financial restitutions does not change the fact that they took place.

It's time this nation stood up, and while condemning such practices, tell the ACLU that enough is enough. For both good and bad, this nation has a past; a history and heritage which belongs to the people who built it with sweat and blood. It may not be always pretty, but it is dishonest to bury it as has been the line of thought in recent decades.

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

It isn't but lumping it in with those you mentioned isn't putting it in good company. I believe anyone should have the right to fly it, wear it etc. I just don't understand what drives people to want to do it. It is a symbol of a past struggle to allow the continuation of slavery. I fully understand how some people are offended by it. Especially, when it is flying on or near a government building or it is part of a state flag. It seems like some people can still justify the South's struggle to retain slavery but then say they are against owning slaves. These two positions are mutually exclusive.

I'm not quite sure how flying a flag that a large number of citizens associate with advocating/justifying slavery equates to references to God in public places. I doubt God sports a Confederate flag in the back glass of his pickup truck. ;)

I'm not advocating removing it from our history books at all. It is a part of our history and should be studied. I just don't understand the need of some people to brandish this flag.

Reparations are not realistic and will never happen.

Anyone that bashes the ACLU will never see any opposition from me. ;)

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...

You don't understand it because you have bought the winner's argument that the war was all about slavery. After the fact, the Northern politicians adopted this view because otherwise they would look like a pack of greedy blood thirty pirates who's chief reason for the war was economic control of the South. The vast majority of Southern soldiers did not own slaves. The most prominent Southern Generals did not own slaves. Do you think R.E. Lee fought to protect slavery? I am sure that many of the fire brands that promoted secession wanted to protect slavery. This does not mean that the majority of Southerners agreed with them. Many Southerners believed that the Southern States had the right to secede from the Union and fought for that ideal. And in the beginning even Lincoln preached against the idea that the war was being fought to end slavery. Only when it appeared that the war might be lost did he grasp at emancipation as a way to forestall European intervention and increase support for the war in certain portions of the Northern population. Closer to our own time, the Domino Theory, or Anti-Terrorism have been presented as alternate reasons to go to war when the real reasons might not be so noble. Although slavery was not widespread in the North, it was not actually outlawed in many Northern States until after 1812. And even when it was outlawed, it was usual that it only applied to the children born to slaves and not the original slaves. If the South had actually won the Civil War, do you suppose slavery would have survived into the 1900's? I doubt it would have survived another 25 years after 1860.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Slavery comes in many forms. Most think of the black men and women picking cotton. They forget that many of the early white settlers of the colonies were sent here as indentured servants (Australia experienced a very similar condition). That they had to work for an individual for a specified period in order to earn their freedom. To run away was subject to severe punishment. That while an indentured servant, they were subject to the control of the person they were indentured to. Also forgotten, are those white people who went to work for mine owners, and right off the bat, they were in debt from which they could never hope to escape, to the "company store". Once indebted, heaven help the fool who ran away and was caught.

What action should be taken in such cases as these? Should any reference on a state flag or other government entity to mining ventures be removed?

Many years ago, a new man was assigned to my unit. A really great guy except with reference to slavery. He was black, and his thoughts I understood. However, he held the position that not one black person in the US ever immigrated voluntarily. That every black person in this country was descended from slaves who were brought here by force. He further believed that every black person should be paid for what their ancestors endured, and that a portion of the US should be set aside as a "Black State". Where he acquired his beliefs, I have no idea. But that long ago (1983) history was already being distorted in some way.

The California flag has a graphic of a bear... a bear which no longer exists, because it was hunted to extinction. Many would consider that a very bad thing. Suppose those PETA type people decided, as you have about the stars and bars, that this graphic is offensive to those who defend the rights of animals (and trees, owls, etc... and as we all know, California is filled with such people). Should the bear then be removed from the flag in order not to offend people? Where would it end? There are people, citizens, who reside within our borders, who find the US Flag objectionable because of the acts the US has committed in the past; think Nagasaki, and religious groups who deem respect for the flag to be "idol worship". And what if it was something you liked/respected/etc? Perhaps you don't think such things could happen. Well, who expected that Christian symbols would be expelled from public places? Who in the south expected that the battle flag would be banned from public places? Gay marriage approved? Mandates for prisoners to have cable television, and other privileges the average person can't afford?

While you may not advocate removal, there are many others who do; as well as the removal of many other things, and/or the "re-interpretation" of historical events. Already, steps have been taken to rewrite the history of WWII, among many other things, to say that the US committed a vile and unnecessary act when the bombs were dropped on Japan, and that that action was not needed to end the war; that it was done solely out of spite for an "inferior race".

When I lived in Scotland I had the occasion to read one of the UK history books about the American revolution. Essentially, there was one paragraph relating how these traitors rebelled against the legal and rightful rule of the King.... and an entire page about George Washington and what a fantastic military leader he was. No mention was made of the things GB had committed against the colonists.

And yet they have been awarded... just not funded.

I think too many are too quick to do what is considered politically correct in order not to offend others. In the process, they fail to realize that in doing so, they actually offend another portion of society, and that they erode the rights of one group over another. Their intentions are good and grand, but they give little thought to the big picture.

We may not agree on the battle flag issue... well, actually, we do in some ways... but here we seem to have reached a point of agreement. Cheers!

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

I'm not oblivious to why the Civil War was fought. It was basically a war over the economics of slavery. State's rights was just part of the justification used by the South. At the time the war was fought I don't deny that freeing the slaves was a by-product of the conflict. The nice thing about history is that we can see the entire episode and look at everything in context. When the dust settled, IMO, the best thing that came out of the Civil War was the end of slavery and in today's world there isn't much else that matters. As I said in an earlier thread, whether the war was fought over State's rights, economic repression, the South wanted independence etc. did not justify the continuation of slavery. I really don't buy that the Confederate flag is flown today because someone is still pissed off because the rights of the Southern States were violated in the mid 1800s or the Southern economy was going to be left in shambles by ending slavery. If I had lived in Atlanta at the time I probably would have felt the same way. Fortunately, those of us alive today can have a better view of the events of that era. Anyone who says the Civil War was not fought over the economics of slavery knows better. It was the major reason. BTW, if you were black, living in the South in 1865, I doubt you would rather wait another 30-40 years for slavery to end peacefully. ;)

Maybe at that time many in the South didn't know why they were fighting or had a myopic view but the people that promoted the war knew it was for economic reasons. Why do you think Europe tilted toward the South? They liked the cheap cotton and other goods that the use of slaves afforded them. Just because Lincoln promoted the emancipation of blacks later in the war doesn't make it wrong. Looking back, IMO, it justified the horrible cost of that war.

BTW, I still don't know why someone wants to fly that flag today. Do you? I need a more specific answer than something generic like southern pride.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

I never said I want to remove anything from the history books. All history is relevant whether is is good or bad. As I said in a previous post, the Civil War is now looked at as the war that ended slavery in this country. IMO, it was the most important by-product of that war, and if it wasn't, then I would like to know what was the most important.

You are making my point for me. There is no symbol of these forms of slavery. And if there was do you think it is proper to flaunt it in today's society? Whites tell blacks to get over slavery and move on, well I think there are some whites flying the Confederate flag that need to do the same.

I hope he is not holding his breath waiting for it to happen. It never will. I don't see where anything I have posted indicates that I support his beliefs. For the record I don't.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was for banning anything. If a State wants to sport the Confederate flag on damn near everything then have at it. I personally think it is callous and insulting to blacks to force them to live with a symbol on or near government buildings that are supposed to represent them too.

I really don't see where the offense from having an extinct bear on the California state flag even comes close to the offense felt by blacks when viewing the Confederate flag. The other things you mention are just controversies of our time that each of us can have an opinion on. Whether blacks have justification to be offended by the confederate flag is a settled matter for me. They do have a right and should be offended. Personally, I don't see what a white southerner gets from flying a Confederate flag that justifies that offense toward others. I would be more sensitive to the feelings of my neighbors... and I'm not a sensitive kind of guy. ;)

If the money isn't in their bank accounts then it never happened.

Imagine that, a politician doing what is in HIS best interests and not what is good for the group. Tell me that never happens. ;)

Now I would support enslaving all card carrying members of the ACLU. Then we could make them do something productive. ;)

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Actually, following receiving their mandated freedom, the vast majority of prior slaves remained right where they were, and continued to work on the same plantations which had owned them. They had no idea where to go, no education, and the government gave them no real help in starting over. A point which the Northern Federal Government knew at wars end. They knew the majority would remain where they were, and continue to work in the same way, and did nothing to correct the problem.

When the former slaves received the land and mule they had been promised, they found it came with strings attached (for those who actually received the land and mule). They became sharecroppers, indebted to the only store in town which would sell them seed, tools, etc. They were restricted with regard to selling their crops, to the same store, at deflated prices. Thus, for the majority, slavery ended officially, but continued in fact.

Many southerners supported the war (just as many colonists had supported the revolution) for economic reasons, it's true. They also knew that the federal mandates would change their way of lives. The days of mint julips on the veranda while blacks sang in the cotton fields was going to be legislated out of existence.

As for Europe, remember that many European countries were heavily involved in Africa, China, and so on where slavery was a common practice among the non-Europeans. That same slavery fueled European economies.

Not being a southerner, though I have lived there, I'd say there are a number of reasons. Southern pride is just one. As a sign of rebellion against big government. As free speech rights. As a sign of one's heritage. Just to identify a few.

The majority of southern people I have known; the good ol' boys and belles; don't identify the stars and bars with slavery of blacks, but slavery of all by the power of the federal government which mandates how they must live their lives. That part of it goes back to the Civil War. And most of my southern classmates would say that 'if the Federal Government had done to your great grand daddy like they done to theirs, you'd be flying a banner of some sort your own self.... and one day (they) expect you will.'

Heck, most of them; the everyday folk; have no use for the Klan type views. As usual, it only takes a small percentage to make a large group look bad.

Part of the problem has always been that the winners write the history. Imagine how the history books would read if the Axis powers had won WWII.

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

IMHO THE most important by product of the Civil War was not the end of slavery. The most important by product was the preservation of the union.

The North won the war... if you call that winning, which upheld the power of the federal government. That was the point of the war. Essentially to say that states (there are exceptions such as Texas and California) were not free to withdraw membership. States would retain certain rights, but the federal government would retain power over the whole.

The forced preservation of the union paved the way for what was to come in expanding the nation westward. In the period following the war, there was a great migration westward by people of all colors who had been displaced. Has the war never happened, that migration would likely have lacked the impetus for the growth, which in turn led to greater prosperity.

Economically, it was also preserving. The north was the primary industrial base, while the south was the primary agricultural base (which is why the South traded cotton and other commodities to England in exchange for arms and equipment).

Individually, each lacked the strength to persevere as a power base. Together, the union was a power to be reckoned with internationally... as was later born out during two world wars.

Since the majority of former slaves actually saw little or no change in their daily lives, I see little justification to say that it was such a monumental change in the social order.

Meanwhile, many European countries had already halted slavery, or were moving in that direction. The end of slavery would likely have taken place without the war simply from the social pressures on the international scene.

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

The economic byproduct eventually led to the creation of the automotive industry, particularly the creation of Ford Motor Company, which led to roadways and paving, to the freeways, and significantly the design of the first Mustang to roll off the assembly line. This in turn led to the creation of this newsgroup, where people of many colors, national origins, faiths, political beliefs, and economic strata might come together and discuss MUSTANGS : 0 )

That, >Please re-read what I said. I did NOT say you wanted to remove

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

IMHO THE most important by product of the Civil War was not the end of slavery. The most important by product was the preservation of the union.

The North won the war... if you call that winning, which upheld the power of the federal government. That was the point of the war. Essentially to say that states (there are exceptions such as Texas and California) were not free to withdraw membership. States would retain certain rights, but the federal government would retain power over the whole.

The forced preservation of the union paved the way for what was to come in expanding the nation westward. In the period following the war, there was a great migration westward by people of all colors who had been displaced. Has the war never happened, that migration would likely have lacked the impetus for the growth, which in turn led to greater prosperity.

Economically, it was also preserving. The north was the primary industrial base, while the south was the primary agricultural base (which is why the South traded cotton and other commodities to England in exchange for arms and equipment).

Individually, each lacked the strength to persevere as a power base. Together, the union was a power to be reckoned with internationally... as was later born out during two world wars.

Since the majority of former slaves actually saw little or no change in their daily lives, I see little justification to say that it was such a monumental change in the social order.

Meanwhile, many European countries had already halted slavery, or were moving in that direction. The end of slavery would likely have taken place without the war simply from the social pressures on the international scene.

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

I think Spike is saying that 1. Slavery was going to end regardless at the time of the war, and, 2. The more important result of the war was the beginning of the erosion of the very ideals your country was built on.

More of the same. Who knows what is coming down the pike? Every day it seems something that was ridiculous sounding only a few years ago is reality now. That's why we see so many right wingers these days drawing a line in the sand over issues like gay marriage: issues that seem so unimportant to some people, but building blocks of the destruction of our society by others. Both sides have a point (IMO).

Reply to
pawn

PRECISELY!

I was a child of the 60s. That was a time of great change in society, and I favored much of that change. Things like lowering the voting age and the drinking age. After all, if I could fight and die for my country, at least I could vote for who told me to fight and die, and i could have a drink on it.

Today, looking back, I seriously regret that those changes took place. Because those changes led to others, and still others. And, when viewed in toto, I see the loss of morals, the loss of respect, and the loss of other things which were virtues.

Some would say, if it doesn't affect me personally, then why not. But anything which erodes the society in which we all live affects each and every one of us.

Who is next to push through their own agenda? NAMBLA? A special law to give the ACLU extra rights?

Many of us are drawing lines in the sand. Not because we have something against anyone, but because we see the erosion of society as a bad thing; not as the progress many would have us believe it is. Most of us know we can't stop it from happening, but, hopefully, we can at least slow it down so that our children and grandchildren with live in a society where decency and respect is a good thing.

Look to history. Very few civilizations were actually conquered by invaders. The majority collapsed from internal decay.

No, I don't want some preacher telling me, or you, I can't vote for candidate X, or whatever. But I do want to live in a nation which has strong moral values. Not fanatical values. But enough that one and all can have pride in this nation, and work together for a better way of life for us all.

The road we have been on for too long is not taking us in that direction.

Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address

Reply to
Spike

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.