Its interesting that you want to ban the confederate flag, a country which existed for a short period of time and its repercussion on modern blacks inherently limited, but don't find the mere thought of the US flag offensive, when it represents a venerable genocide of Black and Native Americans. Irrational hatred towards a flag representing a group that by and large didn't in fact own slaves while being ok with a flag that in many cases created, subsidized and encouraged the slave trade doesn't make sense.
If we ever plan to retire the Confederate Flag, then we better start addressing the reasons why people fly it, of which racism plays only a very small part.
While I don't think the Confederate Battle Flag should be outlawed (though I do think State governments should not fly it, I'm looking at you South Carolina) I think you are vastly underestimating the role of racism surrounding current and past use of the flag. Your arguments sound a lot like the Heritage not Hate movement that has defended the flag, but I have deep misgivings about that organizations logic and motives. There has been an almost endless amount of scholarship regarding the religion of the Lost Cause and memorialization of the Confederacy and almost all of it acknowledges the undercurrent of racism involved in the white Southern's nostalgia for a past with more pronounced racial hierarchies.
One of the most accessible examinations of the modern disconnect between the use of the Confederate flag and southern heritage can be found in Tony Horowitz's Confederates in the Attic, particularly the chapter about the popularity of the flag in southern Kentucky.
The idea of black Confederates has seen a big push by some Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy groups and this guy has been one of their poster children. However, he has 0 following among the African American community and has received all of his funding from CSA friendly groups. Furthermore, there is absolutely no historical evidence that slaves fought for the Confederacy. In desperation shortly before the fall of Richmond, Jefferson Davis did sign an order authorizing the formation of slave regiments but only a company or two were raised and they never saw action.
For some, the War of Northern Aggression has only been on an extended truce and they continue to use propaganda and the battle flag to continue their cause, and both their imagined history and future are not even remotely just about state's rights.
KaterinLHC wrote:If we ever plan to retire the Confederate Flag, then we better start addressing the reasons why people fly it, of which racism plays only a very small part.
While I don't think the Confederate Battle Flag should be outlawed (though I do think State governments should not fly it, I'm looking at you South Carolina) I think you are vastly underestimating the role of racism surrounding current and past use of the flag. Your arguments sound a lot like the Heritage not Hate movement that has defended the flag, but I have deep misgivings about that organizations logic and motives. There has been an almost endless amount of scholarship regarding the religion of the Lost Cause and memorialization of the Confederacy and almost all of it acknowledges the undercurrent of racism involved in the white Southern's nostalgia for a past with more pronounced racial hierarchies.
One of the most accessible examinations of the modern disconnect between the use of the Confederate flag and southern heritage can be found in Tony Horowitz's Confederates in the Attic, particularly the chapter about the popularity of the flag in southern Kentucky.
I believe the point is not whether or not it is used more for one purpose or the other, but merely that symbols have different views to different people. For this reason alone symbols should not be banned. Heck, even a theoretically all negative symbol should not be banned, it must serve as a reminder to make us ever vigilant.
I believe the point is not whether or not it is used more for one purpose or the other, but merely that symbols have different views to different people. For this reason alone symbols should not be banned. Heck, even a theoretically all negative symbol should not be banned, it must serve as a reminder to make us ever vigilant.
Right, which is why I agree it shouldn't be banned, rather I just disagreed with her characterization that the flag's racial meaning is only a small part to many who fly it.
Totally understand. I don't look on the swastika with many warm fuzzies, either.
Its all context. Are people brandishing the swastikas or is it a flag in a museum display? The swastika ceased to have an impact worth noting on me when I found out that its a bastardization of a Buddhist monk symbol. It has as much relevance to me in kung fu movies as it does in holocaust movies.
I don't mean to belittle your feelings at all Kat. I just chose in Hebrew school to not let the swastika hold power over me. The idea of a master race is comically ludicrous to me.
In a way swastika is also a sad symbol in that it was a brilliant society's self destructive, fatal flaw. Think of all the things Germany could have accomplished if they had valued all of its citizens and used their ingenuity towards things other than war. Pride is a very deadly sin.
Totally understand. I don't look on the swastika with many warm fuzzies, either.Its all context. Are people brandishing the swastikas or is it a flag in a museum display? The swastika ceased to have an impact worth noting on me when I found out that its a bastardization of a Buddhist monk symbol. It has as much relevance to me in kung fu movies as it does in holocaust movies.
For me, context makes little impact on my immediate, visceral reaction to seeing the swastika, whether it's an armband in a history book, a thousand year old altar decoration, or a temple in The Legend of Zelda. I can recognize that the symbol does have other meanings, and for millenia (and still is) used as a positive symbol for millions. Yet I still cringe a little unconsciously when I see it. That's all I was saying to Pred.
In a way swastika is also a sad symbol in that it was a brilliant society's self destructive, fatal flaw. Think of all the things Germany could have accomplished if they had valued all of its citizens and used their ingenuity towards things other than war. Pride is a very deadly sin.
100% agreed. For me, it's a reminder of what can happen when a bright, proud citizenry can become when pushed too far. Both times Hitler tried to take power (he failed the first time) were during deep, desperate economic recessions/depressions, when people would take wheelbarrows of cash to buy bread and use their money as wallpaper. After such a crushing, demoralizing defeat by France and the crippling economic times that followed, there's a reason Hitler's message of "return to glory" appealed to so many. The swastika makes me very sad, partly because I worry that no society is immune from committing the same crimes, even ours.
IMHO, racism, anti-semitism, all the other "us-against-them"-isms are never about the minority being oppressed. It has very little to do with them personally. It has more to do with the majority feeling so incredibly dispossessed, hopeless and angry (usually because their economic future looks equally as hopeless) and needing something or someone to channel that anger toward. Minorities are an easy target.
Racism is intimately tied to poverty; poverty is racism's driver. If we can address poverty, then we also address racism.
They're pretty closely correlated, but I really wonder if either causes the other. You could potentially make the argument that racism is bad for economies, not just that a bad economy causes racism.
More whites than blacks believed black president was possible.
I think privildge may have played a role in forming this perception. Interesting article to read in any case.
Barack Obama's election to the President of the United States will not end racism. You can't stomp out hate. What it may do is serve to remove inequalities and imbalances systemically evident. That will hopefully increase the likelihood that race won't be a factor in poverty and victimization. This may eventually be a practical end to race issues in this country.
However, he has 0 following among the African American community and has received all of his funding from CSA friendly groups.
Do you have any proof of your funding accusation?
I found out that its a bastardization of a Buddhist monk symbol.
Well, sort've. The swastika is a universal symbol like the circle and equalateral cross that transcends all cultural boundaries.
Likely, it exists because the circle and equalateral cross were difficult to etch into stone, so artists took shortcuts and didn't bother "filling in" the entire circle. There's also a wagon wheel or sun symbol theory that I don't find as convincing, as it's tied to the Assyrians and not as universal. I know I'm nit picking, but the soles of Siddhartha's feet are not technically the earliest recorded swastika images.
Badferret wrote:However, he has 0 following among the African American community and has received all of his funding from CSA friendly groups.
Do you have any proof of your funding accusation?
Err, he is local and the Asheville newspaper has done a number of pieces on him, will see what I can dig up.
*Edit* Here ya go.
For starters, here is a Southern Poverty Law center piece, which explains his association with Kirk Lyons.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...
And here is a local newspaper piece detailing another Southern Poverty report on Edgerton's background with Lyons.
http://www.main.nc.us/wncceib/lyACT9...
Edgerton has repeatedly flown the flag at events attended by the Klan, and his speaking engagements are almost exclusive to CSA friendly groups. He actually tried to run for mayor here a few years back and some of the candidate questionnaires the local press submitted regarding his affiliations were answered to the effect of no comment.
I admit to be skeptical when it comes to the motivations behind all of this "states rights" talk, but it always seems to me that a sizable subset of the folks that insist that the Confederate Flag is an important part of Southern heritage are folks who think that "cross lighting" is a polite non-verbal expression of white identity.
I found out that its a bastardization of a Buddhist monk symbol.Well, sort've. The swastika is a universal symbol like the circle and equalateral cross that transcends all cultural boundaries.
Likely, it exists because the circle and equalateral cross were difficult to etch into stone, so artists took shortcuts and didn't bother "filling in" the entire circle. There's also a wagon wheel or sun symbol theory that I don't find as convincing, as it's tied to the Assyrians and not as universal. I know I'm nit picking, but the soles of Siddhartha's feet are not technically the earliest recorded swastika images.
And every now and then I'll see an anime that uses the Manji and do a doubletake.
Regardless of where it comes from, it now means something else. Something terrible. To use it is either to say, "Hey, remember the Nazis?" or "this reminds you of Nazis but that's not what it really means, aren't I clever?" Even in an appropriate context, even if you are referencing something in which that symbol was used in a different meaning (like historical art, for instance), even if you point out how the lines are going the wrong direction or aren't the right length or angle or whatever, anything like the swastika provokes a reaction in a modern audience. I don't think it should be censored out of historical art but artists need to be aware that the symbol has been tainted.
As for the Confederate Flag being a symbol of rebellion, I find it ironic that self-identified rebels are so gung-ho about unifying under a common symbol.
I personally mourn the loss of state's rights, and wish very much that hadn't been a casualty of the Civil War. We were supposed to be a federation of separate nations, a whole lot of different experiments in how to maintain social order, not a single monolithic entity.
Losing that idea was a high price to pay. It's a shame we couldn't keep it while eliminating slavery.
It was a high cost Malor, but the unity has also made us the most powerful nation in history, with such a high standard of living that one of our primary health concerns is obesity. Not starvation, obesity. If we were a disparate federation, I don't think that'd be possible. Each state would be too self-interested.
It was a high cost Malor, but the unity has also made us the most powerful nation in history, with such a high standard of living that one of our primary health concerns is obesity. Not starvation, obesity. If we were a disparate federation, I don't think that'd be possible. Each state would be too self-interested.
You miss the unifying thread outside of government, economy. A federation with a common trade union ala Zollverein has that to bind it together.
I think we'd probably be wealthier with a weak Federal government. We'd waste far less on military excursions.
I think we'd probably be wealthier with a weak Federal government. We'd waste far less on military excursions.
And we would have lost our independence.
Malor wrote:I think we'd probably be wealthier with a weak Federal government. We'd waste far less on military excursions.
And we would have lost our independence.
To whom? We managed to fight off the French and the British without requiring 20 cents out of every tax dollar going to the military. And the only time the Russkies came close was in Red Dawn, but luckily Patrick Swayze was able to fight them off.
We had a sane approach to the military until WWII. Before then, we'd mothball the military after a conflict until we needed it again. After WWII we somehow decided we needed a massive standing army and oddles of expensive, high tech gadgets to combat the mythical bomber or missle or whatever gap, none of which ever actually existed. Since WWII, we've dumped what, eleven or twelve trillion dollars into the military (non-adjusted dollars). I don't feel we've gotten an adequate ROI on that investment.
Malor wrote:I think we'd probably be wealthier with a weak Federal government. We'd waste far less on military excursions.
And we would have lost our independence.
I would have preferred our wars to be defensive ones rather than our vaguely discussed post-colonial wars for influence.
Racism is intimately tied to poverty; poverty is racism's driver. If we can address poverty, then we also address racism.
I'm wondering if its base animal instincts coming to the forefront. Because it isn't really us versus them from the start. As a child that liked to collect toads from local creeks, I noticed that if I caught too many, half of the toads would drown the others trying to claw their way out of the bucket despite having plenty of room to swim around.
Its the same in any oppressive society no matter how despotic the ruler or ruling class, the oppressed will claw at each other and try to appease or align themselves with the despot. At the start the oppressed are comprised of many factions rallied under seemingly any tie. Racism comes about when the oppressed have limited the competition to two significant factions of which one is flourishing of its own accord and the other is self defeating.
To whom? We managed to fight off the French and the British without requiring 20 cents out of every tax dollar going to the military.
Not true. Most early excise taxes went to pay off war debts; in times of conflict, income taxes were added, and most of those revenues went to the costs of conflict (even when not fighting, building ships and stocking and levying troops is expensive).
It's safe to say that *most* of our tax income through the Civil War was put towards Defense.
And we would have lost our independence.
What possible world power would have successfully invaded the federation of US states? Russia? No freaking way. We'd have stomped them. It's not like we wouldn't have the same manufacturing and research prowess. We would have utterly kicked their asses.
Perhaps a law can be passed banning the display of symbols of hate.
Trust me, you do not want to start going down this road. The right to free speech is not something you should give up easily - we've done it here in Canada, and are paying horribly for it now. We have laws banning 'hate speech' here, and commissions dedicated to prosecuting hate speech crimes - Human Rights Commissions. Do a couple of searches on the CHRC or BCHRC and Maclean's magazine to see the insanity that has resulted. Also Reverend Boisson and the AHRC.
The last thing you want in the US is thought police...
And we would have lost our independence.What possible world power would have successfully invaded the federation of US states? Russia? No freaking way. We'd have stomped them. It's not like we wouldn't have the same manufacturing and research prowess. We would have utterly kicked their asses.
I was responding to the idea that a weak federal government would have managed to maintain our independence despite our first hundred years being, at best, a third rate post-colonial power.
If Jefferson had had his way regarding weak federal power, Canadians would have sailed up the Potomac and burned Washington, DC to the ground. Oh yeah, that's right. He DID have his way and they DID burn it to the ground in precisely that manner.
For those who don't know, TJ, as cool as he was, was an idiot when it came to understanding the necessary steps to ensuring national defense. In the preparation to the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada, Jefferson refused to allow the Federal government to make use of Virginia slaves in constructing defensive positions along the approach to Washington. He considered this a violation of state's rights and an unlawful confiscation of property (albeit temporary). As a result, the Canadians burned our capitol to ashes.
Thankfully, the REST of the Founders learned from this and told him to pack sand with his ridiculous states rights nonsense.
After the Revolution, it wasn't until the 1860's that we achieved a military that could act on a par with European ones. Up until that time, a serious invasion would have been quite a threat, and the threat of war with England and Napoleon's France was quite real early in that period. Don't forget that Detroit was occupied for most of a year in 1812-1813.
Pages