By Al Colombo

Mfume was talking about a small group of white protesters that demonstrated outside the NAACP's national convention in Baltimore.

The NAACP has worked hard to disassemble all remaining vestiges of the old South using the threat of a tourism boycott, thus forcing state legislators to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from state grounds.

I can recall in the not too distant past when members of the black community marched for their "civil rights," and the Confederate flag is part of Southerners' civil rights. Why is it so hard for folks to understand that denying these folks the privilege of flying their flag of choice will only in the end come back to haunt them?

If someone like the NAACP, or any other group, is successful in strong arming a state legislature or the federal government into thwarting the civil rights of an entire people within this country using economic gain as the crowbar, then the same thing can one day take place in reverse, regarding the offending group.

So, Mfume considers these "white" protesters as "repugnant?"

• This is "tolerance?"
• This is "civil rights?"
• This is "freedom?"

Perhaps the NAACP is acting entirely on self interest on behalf of the black community. Oh, but if you remove the acronym NAACP, what do you have?

In other words, by their very name the NAACP represents the interests of a single group of people--the black community.

My black brothers and sisters, those who live in the real world, surely you can see that this is entirely self serving and counterproductive to your cause? I would think that a people who believe that they truly know what subjugation and slavery are would also recognize the importance of abolishing "self interest," which is exactly what subjugation and slavery was and is about.

It is my belief that racism is certainly not just a product of the white community. As you can see here, it is being practiced by some in the black community as well. Perhaps some blacks believe that this is pay back time, but keep in mind one fundamental fact:

There is no doubt in my mind that many black folks who practice this kind of intolerance (not that I like using this word) are acting out of genuine concern and love for their own race. But, by this very description, this genuine concern breeds racism, the very thing that the black community has sought for a century to eliminate.

Perhaps Kweisi Mfume and other leaders in the black community need to step back, take a deep breath, and look closely at what they are saying and doing. After all, again, NONE of us, black or white, were here to witness the slavery that went on in this nation's early history. Not only that, it was not the Americans that introduced slavery to this nation.

A Little Bit of History

Behind the push to rid America of this historical icon are many of today's Democrats. Oddly enough, during the pre-Civil War period, it was the Democrats that agreed with slavery. The state of South Carolina actually threatened to withdraw from the Union if a Republican was elected, and Abraham Lincoln was that Republican.

"In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected president as the candidate of the Republican Party, which opposed the spread of slavery. South Carolina had threatened to secede if the Republicans won, and on December 20, 1860, it became the first state to leave the Union. Ten other Southern states followed. In March 1861 the breakaway states organized as the Confederate States of America and got ready for war" (Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, on CDRom).

Just prior to the on-coming civil war in the United States of America, as the secessionists worked to organize the Confederate States of America in 1861, Russell of the London Times, while visiting New York, said that,

"according to the Constitution the government could not use force to prevent secession or to compel states which had seceded by the will of their people to acknowledge the Federal power" (American History for Colleges; David Saville Muzzey, John A. Krout; Columbia University, Ginn and Company, (c)1943).

Many others of that day agreed.

"In the cross currents of public opinion the pacifism of the idealist, the merchant, and the constitutionalist was mingled with the easy acquiescence of those who thought that the south was not worth fighting for, and that a Union held together by force was not worth living in" (American History for Colleges; David Saville Muzzey, John A. Krout; Columbia University, Ginn and Company, (c)1943).

Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, in 1860, wrote,

"If the cotton states shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we shall insist on letting them go in peace. We hope never to live in a republic where one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets" (American History for Colleges; David Saville Muzzey, John A. Krout; Columbia University, Ginn and Company, (c)1943).

Even the ranking general of the Union Army urged the U.S. Government to let the South depart in peace. We know the rest of the story, or at least the outcome. Little is really known about the many hardships that the South suffered at the hands of the victors. After the Civil War was over, graft, corruption, and greed spread like a plague. The end result was the loss of great wealth and plantations that had been handed down through generations of families.

Therefore, the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of a proud effort to preserve the right to self-determination at the state level. It marks the South's all-out effort to retain their unique way of life. This goes far beyond the slavery issue. It represents a gallant effort on the part of the South to maintain their identity, apart from that of the Yankee North. It represents the death of a grand, slow paced, gentle way of life where men were gentlemen and the women were ladies.

The Confederate battle flag also serves as a reminder to those who, today, live there of the 600,000 to 1.5 million Southern boys who lost their lives fighting for something they believed in (The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1997; World Almanac Books; Mahwah, N.J.; (c)1996, pg. 184).

In closing, perhaps it ought to be the U.S. Constitution that dictates whether South Carolina can fly the flag of their choice above their statehouse and not the NAACP. At the very worst, allowing the citizens of that state to decide whether the Confederate Battle Flag goes away or stays is what "freedom" is really all about.