Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes Civil War Games From App Store Over Confederate Flag Usage [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely correct. And none of the three were the full field, rectangular "Dixie Cross" - although the second two incorporated the Cross in part.
Wow...I'm originally from the south as well, and I can only say that displaying this flag at your house or on your car is a good way to get your property destroyed.
Agreed its not a First Amendment issue, but it is clearly over-reductionism. There are clearly other things that could be addressed that are blatantly racist before an icon in a game that is identifiable with the southern army's in a Civil war game. If you want to demand historical accuracy then every time General Lee's army attacks you then that flag is correct.
It bears mentioning that Republicans changed the Pledge to include "under god".
Step 1: learn history.
Step 2: Comment on actual history.
Step 3: ...
Step 4: Profit?
How about we get on the historically accurate bandwagon then where the confederate flag is not a symbol of the confederate army but instead a symbol of racist segregation from the 1950s and 1960s.
Why don't we take this opportunity to correct the ignorance actually surrounding what the confederate flag is and what it represents. That so many people think it was actually the flag of the south in the civil war is reason alone to make this an issue and clarify it because we are collectively failing history here.
Can you tell them to enable trim support for third party ssd's and to stop soldering stuff to the motherboard.
I'm seriously questioning whether to buy another MacBook If I can't upgrade anything myself.
In that ONE SPECIFIC context you are kind of right. The Army of NOVA's flag was square. No objection if used in that specific context (though it really shouldn't be a rectangle).
Freedom is a word that is used very easily but it's not that easy to understand IMO. When americans talk about "bringing freedom" to the middle east, the nazi germany, whatever... they are simply talking about giving them their culture, or to colonize culturally. Nothing wrong with that, has been done since the world is world , but it's simply that they think that what they do is what it's universally correct and "freedom".
If a middle east country is, because of its culture, radically islamic, and they want of course to be free to choose to hit a woman to death because of adultery, saying them "that's wrong" or attacking them because of that is simply taking their freedom from them. Like it or not, but it's that, denying them their freedom to continue with their culture. It's their culture, if they understand life as that, you can't judge them, because no moral is better than other. Of course americans will say "oh give them freedom" and will forbid that just because their culture is different. That's a very biased position. If you don't like it, simply because it's not culture, don't fool yourself at least and admit it, and if you want to forbid it because you don't like it, you're a reactionary.
That's the way the world is. It's complex. There is no universal good or bad, because that depends on moral, and moral depends on culture, and culture depends on societies, and there are multiple societies. And that's why attacking a culture, even more, its history, is the epitome of ignorance.
If a middle east country is, because of its culture, radically islamic, and they want of course to be free to choose to hit a woman to death because of adultery, saying them "that's wrong" or attacking them because of that is simply taking their freedom from them. Like it or not, but it's that, denying them their freedom to continue with their culture. It's their culture, if they understand life as that, you can't judge them, because no moral is better than other. Of course americans will say "oh give them freedom" and will forbid that just because their culture is different. That's a very biased position. If you don't like it, simply because it's not culture, don't fool yourself at least and admit it, and if you want to forbid it because you don't like it, you're a reactionary.
That's the way the world is. It's complex. There is no universal good or bad, because that depends on moral, and moral depends on culture, and culture depends on societies, and there are multiple societies. And that's why attacking a culture, even more, its history, is the epitome of ignorance.
Dylann Roof and the hate groups that inspired him have ruined that symbol of southern pride. If the symbol was important to them, your non-racist friends should have protected their symbol from being used so hatefully.
I suggest that your friends find another symbol that is less sullied. Surely there is a symbol that both white and black southerners can rally behind.
No. Nikki Hayley made the kick that got this ball rolling, and guess what? She's a Republican.
And what we're seeing here isn't historical revision. It's Apple jerking their knee a little too stupidly hard.
[QUOTE="
Surely there is a symbol that both white and black southerners can rally behind.[/QUOTE]
They're ...not really talking right now.
Surely there is a symbol that both white and black southerners can rally behind.[/QUOTE]
They're ...not really talking right now.
You missed that they repurposed it back to a non-racist context to show pride of region. That real-life morph of the symbol is actively being ignored in this debate.
You focus on a brief snapshot from many years ago which was quickly eliminated.
Kinda like the President applying the events of 1500 years ago and forgetting to mention or take into consideration Christians have very substantially changed since then.
All these bruhaha's feel like propaganda and mis-direction to me. Suspended disbelief.
cites:
wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
"Designed by William Porcher Miles, the chairman of the Flag and Seal committee, a now-popular variant of the Confederate flag was rejected as the national flag in 1861. It was instead adopted as a battle flag by the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee.[30] Despite never having historically represented the CSA as a country nor officially recognized as one of the national flags, it is commonly referred to as "the Confederate Flag" and has become a widely recognized symbol of the American south.[31]" (my emphasis in bold italicized)
File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
The orange car with a flag on its roof from a popular TV show is "named" General Lee. Therefore it's use is not only not racist, but historically justified. To say otherwise is to intentionally lie.
Last edited:
Well good we can not only correct the misnomer of the confederate flag being the official flag of the confederacy in the civil war but we can clear up the real reason it rose to prominence. It was as a symbol to support segregation and limit the rights of black people within the last 60 years.
This is total ********. What if someone comes to Apple with this scenario:
"I'm offended by the Japanese flag and games that take place in Pearl Harbor because my grandfather was killed in Pearl Harbor. There are games where you fight in Pearl Harbor on the App Store. They must be taken down now! I'm very offended."
I'd like to see this. Apple may as well take down the App Store. This country is going down the drain by the day...
"I'm offended by the Japanese flag and games that take place in Pearl Harbor because my grandfather was killed in Pearl Harbor. There are games where you fight in Pearl Harbor on the App Store. They must be taken down now! I'm very offended."
I'd like to see this. Apple may as well take down the App Store. This country is going down the drain by the day...
Clearly what we need is for Taylor Swift to write an open letter.
Well given the debate so far historians have done an awful job as it relates to the confederate flag.
You're ignoring or being disingenuous about the real history of the Dixie Cross. It was resurrected and became a "pride" symbol during the 1950s SOLELY in response to desegregation. It was NOT a symbol of "Southern Pride" before then, and thus its use as a symbol of "Southern Pride" only has one inescapable connection. People make mistakes, people can not know the facts. They aren't bigots until they understand the facts and refuse to drop the "symbol of pride" even then.
It is not freedom or culturally or morally relative for the woman being hit to death. I say judge the hell out of anyone who thinks their culture allows them to harm, oppress, or otherwise brutalize anyone else. Religion, culture, country, prejudices are not acceptable excuses.
A lot of games use the Iron Cross instead, or use it in combination with the Swastika. I can see why a lot of people don't like the Swastika and I have heard of people turning down games due to its inclusion. I'm not up to speed on the confederate flag, but from the sounds of it I can imagine some people not liking that too.
Totally agreed.
Why is it so difficult to accept history? Right or wrong.
And where does one stop correcting things to not offend somebody with a different opinion, who btw wasn't even around at that time?
The PC crowd should just deal with it. It was part of the US history and will not go away by removing it.
People got upset when Japan re-wrote several history books and changed what was taught in schools about their imperialistic attacks on some neighbors. "We are all friends now"
Bad job by Apple, actually highlighting this unnecessarily.
Last edited:
Apple are such idiots these days.
Truly, Tim Cook is determined to politicise every level of Apple, which is a sign that they are out of ideas. Their last good idea was the iPad five years ago under Steve Jobs. Cook has contributed bugger all, other than financially engineering their accounts.
When a pop star has a better idea of how to run Apple than their CEO, you know they're in need of new leadership.
Ive once said, "It's not about the money." It is, now, which marks the end of the ethos of Apple.
Apple trying to rewrite history reminds me of Big Brother, Orwell's hideous totalitarian creation in 1984. They have become the monstrous evil dictatorship which they disparaged.
Truly, Tim Cook is determined to politicise every level of Apple, which is a sign that they are out of ideas. Their last good idea was the iPad five years ago under Steve Jobs. Cook has contributed bugger all, other than financially engineering their accounts.
When a pop star has a better idea of how to run Apple than their CEO, you know they're in need of new leadership.
Ive once said, "It's not about the money." It is, now, which marks the end of the ethos of Apple.
Apple trying to rewrite history reminds me of Big Brother, Orwell's hideous totalitarian creation in 1984. They have become the monstrous evil dictatorship which they disparaged.
Last edited: