Now that the liberal leftist racists have succeeded in getting South Carolina to capitulate to removing the Confederate battle flag, Tennessee to dig up the bones of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife and a city in Alabama to remove a confederate monument, their attention turns to another symbol they have declared as representative of slavery -- the Fleur de Lis. Originally used by French monarchies going back to the 13th century, the Fleur de Lis adorns the helmets of the New Orleans Saints as their team symbol. Those complaining about the symbol, now calling it a sign of slavery and racism, are drawing comparisons to the Confederate battle flag uproars.

"As an African I find it painful, and I think people whose ancestors were enslaved here may feel it even harder than I do as African," said slave historian Dr. Ibrahima Seck to WWLTV,

According to the Daily Caller:

He [Seck] connects the usage of the fleur de lis to "code noir," or black code, which was adopted in Louisiana in 1724, and used to govern to (sic) state's slave trade.

Seck said a slave caught running away, "would be taken before a court and the sentence would be branded on one shoulder and with the fleur de lis, and then they would crop their ears."

Seck isn't alone. Tulane history professor Terence Fitzmorris said, "It was a brutal way of scarring someone and also identifying someone as a particular troublemaker."

Let's start off with some brief pertinent history. In 1724, Louisiana, which was part of the Louisiana Territory, was a French colony, spanning from the coast of current day Louisiana up to the Canadian border. The "black code" was a product of French
culture, not an American one. Additionally, Louisiana, at one time, played host to a Spanish colony. History shows the Spanish and French were heavily into slave trading and slave marketing.

In 1763, the French ceded much of their territory comprising the Louisiana Territory to Great Britain after the Seven Years' War or more commonly known as the French and Indian War. During the same period in time, the area around New Orleans became a colony of Spain by the Treaty of Fontainebleu. Napoleon Bonaparte reacquired the area from Spain in the Treaty of San Idefonso in 1800.

In 1803, under President Thomas Jefferson, the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France for $15 million. However, France received only $8,831,250.00. The purchase doubled the size of the united States and solved the problems of transport of goods eastward across the Appalachians, the concern of having a European power on the western border, and the push west of American settlers. In 1812, Louisiana gained statehood in the united States of America.

As the Daily Caller reminds individuals, "the symbol is also used currently in the coat of arms for the King of Spain."

Fitzmorris through won't go as far as to say it should be removed, "The fleur de lis was the symbol of a monarchy. The United States of America was a slave-holding republic, not just the south. Where do you stop? Do you get rid of all symbols?"

In the WWLTV report, Fitzmorris was asked should the symbol be "compared to the likes of the confederate flag." His answer was no. Even Seck agrees the symbol should remain in place and not be removed since the city has embraced it as a sign of unity. So, what exactly is all the mumbo jumbo about regarding the symbol, which Dr. Seck started? Who knows, but one can surmise it is for some type of gain that may not be readily identifiable.

While professor Fitzmorris will not say the symbol needs removing, plenty will. Anything and everything is up for grabs for removal from history if someone, anyone, or any group finds it offensive. One would think many Americans have turned into ISIS, who goes around destroying historical, ancient and archaeological sites because it is "offensive" to Islam. In fact, ISIS destroyed artifacts in the Mosul Museum. Is this really what "free" people want to emulate?

If some individuals consider the fleur de lis symbol to be indicative of slavery and racism, these individuals need to contact France, Spain and any other foreign country who still uses the symbol. It originated there so individuals can direct their complaints and requests for removal to the source. Good luck with that as the fleur de lis is a monarchical symbol. France no longer is a monarchy. They'll need to direct their requests to Spain.

At the rate things are going, anything that can be associated with slavery and racism is up for censorship. Tobacco, cotton, watermelon, chicken, and Campbell Soup (the fleur de lis appears on the can) may be on the chopping block as reminders of slavery and indicative of racism. As Fitzmorris asked, "where do you stop" once this has started. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is now calling for the removal of confederate monuments.

Will book banning be next if the subject matter, fiction or non-fiction, deals with slavery, racism, confederate history, or some topic someone finds offensive? There has been some mention of banning Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With The Wind." Will movies be next? Are we to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany in banning or burning books and removing all history except for what is "acceptable?" Who is to decide what is acceptable? It's like a snowball rolling down a hill gaining steam and starting an avalanche.

But, since we're going down that road, there's flags that are offensive that should be struck down and not allowed to fly in a free nation.

Let's start with the Islamic Flag -- the flag which absolutely symbolizes slavery, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, murder and censorship. Muslims destroyed the Temple of Solomon to eradicate a symbol of Christianity in order to replace it with a mosque. Oh, you say that is a holy site for them as well. What gave them the right to destroy a Christian building that had been there long before the invention of Islam? The flag is offensive and needs banning.

Ban the Nazi symbol and flag. It shouldn't be allowed in this nation. It doesn't matter that Hitler took a symbol of peace and perverted it into something evil by turning it on its side. Get rid of it; it's offensive.

Next, the flag of Mexico worn by La Raza members needs banning. It is a symbol of racism, lawlessness and criminal activity. Yes, it is the flag of a country, but it is being used as a symbol of a criminal gang. What -- it's their heritage and can't be banned? That has not stopped those calling for removal of monuments and flags relating to the Confederacy, which, like it or not, is part of US history and heritage.

Are we to remove stars, crosses, the letter "T" as it resembles a cross, the "devil horn" sign, the "OK" gesture or any other symbols whose meaning morphed into an alternate interpretation? Should we remove all monuments regarding the War to Enslave the States? If people want to negate and deny the Confederacy because of slavery and racism, the same should occur for the Union as well. All Union monuments should go as well as all memorials dedicated to Union soldiers. For while no one likes to speak of it, northerners participated in slavery through slave trading and ownership of slaves. Moreover, as they defend that position through mantras as "the war was fought to free slaves," they negate the true intent of that war and history itself while diverting their own participation.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That is because it is ridiculous. A symbol receives its power through the interpretation applied to it. Once the interpretation replaces the original meaning, the symbol takes on a new meaning -- one that can be opposite of its original intent. The rainbow is God's promise not to destroy the world again using water. Now, through alternate interpretation, the rainbow symbolizes the sodomite community for many.

It's the same with the Fleur de lis.

It is amazing that intelligent individuals place alternative interpretations to symbols and flags, skewing the original positive or neutral interpretation into a negative and vice versa. Any symbol or flag can receive an interpretation that would be offensive if enough people gather to declare it so, regardless of the original meaning. Simply put, offense can be found in anything if we look hard enough for it or choose to relegate ourselves to the past.

Some in this nation would do well to remember Ezekiel 18, verses 19-20:

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Isn't it time to put as much effort in more important issues than focusing efforts on the past iniquities by our ancestors that should not be borne by the generation today? It is important to remember history so as not repeat it, not to use it for shame, guilt or secondary gains. Those who continue to place the "iniquity of the father onto the son" are guilty of violating God's Word.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.