Talk:Johnny Reb

Cleanup done

I think this page has been cleaned up, as much as a generic "cleanup" tag deserves. If there are specific issues that should be addressed, please mention them here. It was a mess because it was vandalized multiple times, perhaps because of people's history and the pain involved in the American Civil War. Destroying history just gives people a license to recreate it. I, for one, don't think that civil wars are good, nor are the abuses that caused the war to happen in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcent1234 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Johnny Rebel Deserves an Article

I believe this article is well-written and appropriate. Johnny Rebel's songs are popular with a large segment of the American public. One only needs to visit YouTube to verify this. I am opposed to any form of censorship. If people are offended, let them be offended and be damned. Daver852 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Daver852

Johnny Rebel Deserves a Longer Article

"Because the Confederacy only existed for a few years, neither Johnny Reb nor Billy Yank has ever been as formalized and well-known as Uncle Sam, who represented the USA as a whole" simply isn't true and should be rephrased to something like "Although his northern counterpart Billy Yank fell back out of use in favor of Uncle Sam, Johnny Reb had a longer life and continues to function as a representative of Southern culture." However, it needs documentation and (if appropriate) examples of his defense of discredited ideas such as the Klan, Jim Crow, etc. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias against Confederacy

• The article states "Johnny Rebel is the national personification of the Southern states of the United States, or less generally, the antagonists during the American Civil War." It probably isn't appropriate to designate the Confederacy the antagonists, since from their perspective, the American Civil War was known as "The War of Northern Aggression," just wanted to leave the Union, and the President declared war on them to prevent it.
  • Also, there's really no reason to link to "white seperatism," since slavery and white seperatism are really totally seperate issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.32.101 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a less than accurate assessment of the Civil War on multiple counts. The term "War of Northern Aggression" is a post-war creation of Neo-Confederates. The Confederacy started the war, not the Union. And there was no "declaration of war" because that would have implied that the Confederacy was a legitimate nation. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The Dixies fired the first shot, yes, making them the ones that started it, but evicting Fort Sumpter without bloodshed is different from what would follow in the years ahead. That's neither here nor there: the point that the first gentleman is arguing is that a website pretending to be an encyclopedia should stick to the Neutral Point of View that its own founder says has been formally abandoned in favor of something about "undue weight or whatever". Not even the Nazis are called the antagonists of WWII despite that clearly being the case. Are you going to tell me that the Old South, whose practices of slavery and racism were mutual in every fashion, was somehow worse than Hitler? --2600:1700:9190:2EE0:8DFB:C872:4DF4:11E7 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        >br/>

• I should also note that a reference to some random Youtube channel is not notable and was probably added by the channel itself, or by a fan, to solicit views. --2600:1700:9190:2EE0:8DFB:C872:4DF4:11E7 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)