South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[thaiboxerken]

snip

But do you believe the government should be selling racist symbols?

 

[Mumbles]

The nature of symbols is that they mean whatever the person interpreting them thinks they mean. Certainly that flag has been associated with a lot of hatred, but it could mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. In other words, for many, it will always be associated with hatred, but for others it means something else entirely.

For an awful lot of people, it "means" nothing in particular. It's an historical reference to a famous time in American history. Nothing more. At a battlefield gift shop it's a reference to the event that occurred on that battlefield. If someone wants to put it on a coffee cup, I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with people seeking out negative symbols and trying to purge them from the land lest they inspire impure thoughts. It's just a coffee cup.

So, let's discuss this.

This is not about erasing the flag. It's about consigning it to history where it belongs, along with the view that it represents. We weren't seeking it out, people threw it in our faces.

There's no real need for debate here. If you're (and that's a general "you", not aimed at Meadmaker in particular) a white supremacist, by all means, fly the battle flag. Get a tattoo of it on your forehead. Let us all know. That little terrorist punk used it completely correctly. He burned an American flag, and waved confederate flags. He fully understood the implications of his beliefs, and he acted, and he murdered nine people, and left people alive so they could tell us what he did.

But stop whining. It's the fight you started, and now you're seeing the clap back. Or rather, the very first part of it.

Ferguson changed the game. Never forget that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, let's discuss this.

I don't think Meadmaker is one that flies the flag or condones the racist message it is meant to convey.

That said, I believe white privilege plays a large part of his opinion that the symbolism of the flag is largely dependent on the interpreter.

 

[RandFan]

I do have a problem with people seeking out negative symbols and trying to purge them from the land lest they inspire impure thoughts. It's just a coffee cup.

If people wanted Nazi regalia I would not care. If Swastikas were hung throughout Germany I would not say, it's just a "coffee cup".

You have a very valid point but, IMO, it's lost in the absolute nature of your post.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't think Meadmaker is one that flies the flag or condones the racist message it is meant to convey.

That said, I believe white privilege plays a large part of his opinion that the symbolism of the flag is largely dependent on the interpreter.

Possibly.

But in any event, if it's meaningless to someone, then they shouldn't care about it being taken down.

As I've said before, it's highly meaningful to me. It means "I hate you, I may kill you, and I want you to know this." It's a sign of danger. I appreciate the warning, but calm down, I'm just some black guy.

 

[Meadmaker]

But do you believe the government should be selling racist symbols?

I don't think it's quite so easy to say that.

What should our whole attitude be toward the Civil War? Should we talk about it as a great crusade where the Good Guys overcame evil? At the battlefields, should we rewrite the presentations so that they aren't so neutral? Edit the films to show the triumph of freedom against the forces of oppression and slavery?

There would be a lot of truth to that version of events, I am sure you will admit.

Should we not only lower the flag at that South Carolina monument to fallen Confederate soldiers, but also destroy the monument itself? After all, they were fighting in a cause that was, frankly, evil, were they not? Why should we memorialize them at all? Isn't it time those monuments came down?


I don't think so. They're part of history. The men who fought for the Confederacy fought for slavery, sort of, but for the most part they fought because it was their team. It was their home town. In the case of my grandmother's grandfather, it was because his father informed him that he and his brothers would be disinherited unless they joined the Confederate army. (And they had a financial stake in it directly as well, since some of their "property" consisted of people.)


At what point does it stop? How far should we go in purging those symbols that we associate with racism or slavery? That's a serious question, by the way. Is it just that flag, or should it include the monuments? I was somewhat serious about the question of music as well. Should a government band ever play "The Bonnie Blue Flag"? I know that no one is getting irate about music like that, but, well, where do you draw the line?

I think there's something very odd about flying a rebel flag from a government building, so it seems to make sense to me to take it down from an official display, but it's hard for me to get worked up over a coffee cup with a confederate battle flag on it. I feel more nervous about efforts to purge unpopular symbols than I feel about the symbols themselves.

 

[Mike!]

If people wanted Nazi regalia I would not care. If Swastikas were hung throughout Germany I would not say, it's just a "coffee cup".

You have a very valid point but, IMO, it's lost in the absolute nature of your post.

Maybe it's time for a new flag...

Gets right to the point, I think.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it's quite so easy to say that.

Yes, it is. It is a flag that was created to symbolize the fight to keep slavery alive. It is a flag that was used by segregationists to keep blacks out. What other meanings are there for the flag? I've heard apologists say that it's about Southern culture, but they have yet to describe what Southern culture is.

The government has no business selling this hateful symbol in anything but a historical context.

And yes, the Civil war was all about slavery. The South were the bad guys, and they lost.

Also, no one is calling for the purging of the symbol from society.

So your ancestors fought to keep slavery, deal with it. My ancestors flayed Chinese people. I don't fly the rising sun flag because of it.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe it's time for a new flag...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=781&pictureid=9934

Gets right to the point, I think.

There you go.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, it is. It is a flag that was created to symbolize the fight to keep slavery alive. It is a flag that was used by segregationists to keep blacks out. What other meanings are there for the flag? I've heard apologists say that it's about Southern culture, but they have yet to describe what Southern culture is.

The government has no business selling this hateful symbol in anything but a historical context.

And yes, the Civil war was all about slavery. The South were the bad guys, and they lost.

Also, no one is calling for the purging of the symbol from society.

So your ancestors fought to keep slavery, deal with it. My ancestors flayed Chinese people. I don't fly the rising sun flag because of it.

You chose not to answer the other questions from my post.

Care to take a crack at them?

ETA: And I don't mean a point by point discussion. I had a lot of question marks in it, so I'm not going to try some sort of gotcha defense saying you skipped the important one. I'm just wondering in general how far do we go in trying to eliminate symbols of the CSA and their cause? I'm particularly interested in the questions about monuments and music.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't think it's quite so easy to say that.

The government shouldn't be selling symbols of racism.

There. Easy. Obvious.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You chose not to answer the other questions from my post.

Care to take a crack at them?

You didn't ask any relevant questions.

 

[Mumbles]

What should our whole attitude be toward the Civil War? Should we talk about it as a great crusade where the Good Guys overcame evil? At the battlefields, should we rewrite the presentations so that they aren't so neutral? Edit the films to show the triumph of freedom against the forces of oppression and slavery?

Our attitude should be that it was a very sad war, that the south launched it in a campaign to create an empire based on racial slavery, and that the north fought to preserve the union, and eventually to end slavery. We should say that Lee's soldiers kidnapped and enslaved free black people, that Sherman's march was brutal and meant to end the war immediately, and that many slaves escaped and chose to fight *against* the Confederacy.

And then we should discuss the problems with movies like "Birth of a Nation"

And then, we should discuss the fact that the Battle flag (key word, "battle") was flown in many southern states as a naked rebuke of equality.

And then we'd discuss that time some terrorist punk white kid walked into the AME church, was welcomed with open arms, and killed Clementa Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Cynthia Hurd, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, Myra Thompson, and Daniel L. Simmons, Sr., if I'm not mistaken.

And yes, I'm deliberately not mentioning the terrorists's name.

Should we not only lower the flag at that South Carolina monument to fallen Confederate soldiers, but also destroy the monument itself? After all, they were fighting in a cause that was, frankly, evil, were they not? Why should we memorialize them at all? Isn't it time those monuments came down?

I wouldn't cry if random monuments to the CSA were destroyed. They have their place - as I said, tombs, battlefields, and the like. They don't belong in front of state capitols, as names of roads and schools, and the like.

I don't think so. They're part of history. The men who fought for the Confederacy fought for slavery, sort of

No, not "sort of". That was the stated goal.

At what point does it stop? How far should we go in purging those symbols that we associate with racism or slavery? That's a serious question, by the way. Is it just that flag, or should it include the monuments? I was somewhat serious about the question of music as well. Should a government band ever play "The Bonnie Blue Flag"? I know that no one is getting irate about music like that, but, well, where do you draw the line?

Again, you're missing the point of this. This is a fight against the people who freaked out once Obama was elected president, because he was black. The folks who called Trayvon Martin/Richard Sherman/Common/the people of Ferguson "thugs". The line is miles away. We'll discuss it when we get close.

Does that adequately answer your questions?

 

[lobosrul]

Should a government band ever play "The Bonnie Blue Flag"? I know that no one is getting irate about music like that, but, well, where do you draw the line?

We are a band of brothers and native to the soil

Fighting for the property we gained by honest toil[a]
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!
Chorus:

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

No they should not IMO, with the exception of re-enactments perhaps.

I think there's something very odd about flying a rebel flag from a government building, so it seems to make sense to me to take it down from an official display, but it's hard for me to get worked up over a coffee cup with a confederate battle flag on it. I feel more nervous about efforts to purge unpopular symbols than I feel about the symbols themselves.

Its already been noted that books containing the flag, or even gift items that don't solely display the flag are still allowed to be sold at official monument gift shops. A coffee cup with both the Southern Cross and Stars and Bars on it depicting what battlefield you visited is still allowed to be sold for example. And AFAIK no one is sponsoring a bill to make it illegal for private citizens to display the flag, so its hardly being "purged".

 

[RandFan]

At what point does it stop?

Put it in a museum and get the state out of the rest. Freedom doesn't mean that the state must sponsor your speech.

Anyone should be able to have a confederate flag or confederate chatskis if they like.

 

[Craig B]

Maybe it's time for a new flag...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=781&pictureid=9934[/qimg]

Gets right to the point, I think.

That is very ironic! Please forgive me for citing the following at some length.

The flag that Miles had favored when he was chairman of the "Committee on the Flag and Seal" eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy. According to historian John Coski, Miles' design was inspired by one of the many "secessionist flags" flown at the South Carolina secession convention in Charlestonof December 1860. That flag was a blue St George's Cross (an upright or Latin cross) on a red field, with 15 white stars on the cross, representing the slaveholding states, and, on the red field, palmetto and crescent symbols. Miles received a variety of feedback on this design, including a critique from Charles Moise, a self-described "Southerner of Jewish persuasion". Moise liked the design, but asked that "the symbol of a particular religion not be made the symbol of the nation". Taking this into account, Miles changed his flag, removing the palmetto and crescent, and substituting a heraldic saltire ("X") for the upright one. The number of stars was changed several times as well. He described these changes and his reasons for making them in early 1861. The diagonal cross was preferable, he wrote, because "it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus". He also argued that the diagonal cross was "more Heraldric [sic] than Ecclesiastical, it being the 'saltire' of Heraldry, and significant of strength and progress".

The flag is also known as "the Stainless Banner" and was designed by William T. Thompson, a newspaper editor and writer based in Savannah, Georgia, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner. The nickname "stainless" referred to the pure white field which took up a large part of the flag's design, although W.T. Thompson, the flag's designer, referred to his design as "The White Man's Flag". In referring to the white field that comprised a large part of the flag's design elements, Thompson stated that its color symbolized the "supremacy of the white man"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

 

[jimbob]

Here is a Maori member of the Mongrel Mob* explaining why they wear Nazi memorabilia

One of Rotman's subjects shared his grandfather's reasoning for wearing the swastika: '(He told me)' "You think you're the master race? Well I'll take your skin and put it on. Now who's the master race?"

*Not a pleasant group of people, but it highlights the difference between a non-white wearing a symbol of white supremacy and a white.

 

[Meadmaker]

The men who fought for the Confederacy fought for slavery, sort of,

No, not "sort of". That was the stated goal.

The goal of the politician who starts the war and the soldier who fights in it may be very different.

Does that adequately answer your questions?

Yes. Thanks. To you and the others who have (and will) address them. And even to Ken, whose dismissal of them is also illustrative.


I support the people who would like that flag taken down from the South Carolina capital. I just get nervous when suddenly retailers start removing things from store shelves like they are doing. There's almost a witch hunt mentality about it. It's like they are being forced to prove their loyalty.

There's also an element of meddlesomeness. Some government official took it upon himself to issue an edict that confederate flag coffee cups were no longer welcome at battlefield gift shops. Well thank goodness someone finally took care of that weighty issue. The chains of the oppression have finally been broken. And yet, somehow there's a voice inside my head saying that there might actually be something bad about it. Maybe someone who would impose such an edict might not be content to stop there, and might move on to something that affects me more directly.

And what could that be? I don't know, and that's the point. If someone is willing to condemn my choice of coffee cups, I'm not sure that anything is off limits.

 

[stevea]

That's where the dishonesty came in - the claim that, for the CSA, the reason for secession was "states' rights" specifically as opposed to slavery.

The proponents of that argument tend to be thinly-disguised (if disguised at all) fans of the Confederacy, and use it to pretend they are supporting something more than a bloody rebellion designed to continue slavery forever.

Your argument tends to be a thinly disguised attempt to slur, poison the well and introduce your unsupported biases.

Most academic sources list states rights as a substantial causative factor in the US civil war. It's a little hard to understand today, but we were an association of independent states/nations with a limited federal government (somewhat like the EU is today). The idea that the EU should send troops into Portugal if it decided to leave is a bit hard to swallow.

Yes slavery was certainly central, but the Northern states also had slavery and slowly successively outlawed it as it became economically unnecessary. They were fairly clearly using the Federal government unlawfully to restrict this economic form which had not yet become uneconomic in the South.

Another hard to accept notion is that our Federal government has extremely limited powers, enumerated in the Constitution, and many modern institutions, like Social Security or ObamaCare clearly violate the powers of the FedGov. This isn't some radical view - I've heard US Federal judges enunciate this clearly. Don't mistake the overwhelming Central government/weak-State system of the modern era with the Federal Government of 1860s. We have no Constitution any longer and live in a land of ad hoc-ery. Back then they actually considered the Constitution seriously.

 

[Aepervius]

Your argument tends to be a thinly disguised attempt to slur, poison the well and introduce your unsupported biases.

Most academic sources list states rights as a substantial causative factor in the US civil war. It's a little hard to understand today, but we were an association of independent states/nations with a limited federal government (somewhat like the EU is today). The idea that the EU should send troops into Portugal if it decided to leave is a bit hard to swallow.

Yes slavery was certainly central, but the Northern states also had slavery and slowly successively outlawed it as it became economically unnecessary. They were fairly clearly using the Federal government unlawfully to restrict this economic form which had not yet become uneconomic in the South.

Another hard to accept notion is that our Federal government has extremely limited powers, enumerated in the Constitution, and many modern institutions, like Social Security or ObamaCare clearly violate the powers of the FedGov. This isn't some radical view - I've heard US Federal judges enunciate this clearly. Don't mistake the overwhelming Central government/weak-State system of the modern era with the Federal Government of 1860s. We have no Constitution any longer and live in a land of ad hoc-ery. Back then they actually considered the Constitution seriously.

And yet as mentioned in another thread, the confederate left none of those state right to their new state confederacy....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10576075&postcount=262

So yes the north initially fought to keep the union, but the south clearly fought to keep slavery primarily, not about state right.

So from the south point of view the battle flag is not about state right, it is a battle flag to keep slave. In the end rapidly the north had anti slavery law (as mentioned 6 month afetr the end of the war) and slavery AFAICT become rapidly outlawed , not "slowly". In comparison how long took ACA ?


Which is why after something like a century of "sleep" it was resurrected middle of the 20th century as a battle flag FOR segregation by southerner racist organization. That is the part most "it is our culture" people seem often to skip off.