South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[dudalb]

Its ironic that you claim that taking down the flag would lead to a decrease in freedom of speech, whilst here explicitly calling for a reduction in freedom of speech.

Yeah, taking down the Flag from a tax supported public building is a direct threat to freedom of speech.but wants amount to massive censorship of the internet is not. Crazy,man,Crazy,,

 

[dudalb]

Western Virginia, surely.

Actually, I've been surprised by how many people think Kentucky was a Confederate state. It wasn't, even though many people today think of it as a "southern" state. Missouri, too, often mistaken for Confederate.

Throw in Maryland and you have the three border states which were badly divided over secession, and contributed regiments to Both sides. All three never seceded,but in all three cases it was a close ran thing, In the Border states, even families were divided,and "Brother Against Brother" became more then an expression.
It really got bad in Missouri, where the war got mixed up with long standing polticial feuds that had little to do with the main causes of the war,giving birth of such delightful people as William Quantrell and Bloody Bill Anderson on the "southern side" and Jim Lane and his Redlegs on the Northren side. Not much to choose between them.The irregulars on both sides seem to have used the war in MIssour as a excuse for looting and killing on a grand scale.
The Movies "Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Ride With The Devil" are pretty accurate to how the war in Missouri became a horror unto itself. Both the Union and Confederate Government disavowed a lot of what was done in their names in Missouri.

 

[SezMe]

My point is Black and White are Targeting the wrong thing to focus their anger. What needs to be done is stop with the flag and work to make laws to block race related Hate groups from making websites. Which Teens and children can view. At least that will be worth While effort. But sadly all their efforts is on a flag.

In addition to the others who have pointed out the problem with, why the emphasis on web sites? How 'bout pamphlets? Can they print them? Or ads for hate group meetings? Can they print broadsheets on their own dime?

In other words, where do you draw the line?

 

[Mumbles]

I agree except for Al Sharpton,who I consider to be a liar and and a demagogue.

This is an aside, but can you really think of any situation in the past...say, decade, where he showed up, where he wasn't invited? Or where there wasn't already a controversy?

In any event, the point is that there's this idea that some interloper simply walks in and suddenly causes black people to be angry. And that's false. Folks were always angry about these matters. People like Sharpton attract mainstream media attention to that anger, and they know it.

 

[Craig B]

Furthermore, The right to protest things in the U.S. existed long before the Confederate flag was flown. Absolutely nothing in the past several weeks has strengthened, weakened, or in any way changed the American right to protest. To espouse otherwise, as you do, is nonsense.

The right to protest one particular thing was severely restricted in the Antebellum South. Can you guess what thing people were not permitted to protest against? Yes, that's right. Slavery.

More important, as abolitionism gained support in the North in the 1850s, white southerners feared that abolitionists would incite slaves to violent rebellion. Abolitionism was, as the saying goes, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Southern states banned abolitionist literature and enforced the bans formally with fines and prison sentences and informally with mob violence.

 

[Ladewig]

The right to protest one particular thing was severely restricted in the Antebellum South. Can you guess what thing people were not permitted to protest against? Yes, that's right. Slavery.

The more I learn about these slave owners, the less I like them.



.

 

[marplots]

Which is why since the 1930's the Scottish Highland Games festivals in the US have not burned a cross at the closing ceremonies...yes, it is indeed a old Scottish symbol of loyalty to the Clan that the KKK swiped,but the Scottish Americans groups considered it to be too corrupted by the KKK to be used.

A number of those popular (and,IMHO, God Awful) Scottish Historical Romances have described the original use of the Burning Cross,and this created a proposal for Scottish American groups to "reclaim" the symbol but it has been solidly voted down as an impossible task.

Ironically enough, there is NO evidence that the Klan during Reconstruction ever used the fiery cross as a symbol. All the evidence is that it only came in with the Klan Revival of 1920,inspired by "The Birth Of A Nation". The author of the novel that DW Griffith based his film on apparently created the Burning Cross as a KKK emblem out of whole cloth.

Yeah, it's funny how these things work. Appearance becomes reality. But I suppose that's to be expected with symbols. After all, they have no intrinsic meaning - a hangman's noose could just as well represent justice as racial intolerance.

And I can see how the adoption of a symbol by a tainted group would corrupt it. It reminds me of the disgust mechanism: Don't eat out of a bedpan, even if it has been sterilized.

Across cultures it gets really strange. Why do shoes in the Middle East have such a negative connotation? Where I live, people pay hundreds of dollars for a branded pair and put them on display. We expect people to appreciate and admire our shoes. Go figure.

 

[Aepervius]

The more I learn about these slave owners, the less I like them.



.

Well once you start handling human like animal goods, there is not much else you will not stoop too low for. I would say it is on same level with the rest of the "heritage".


mmmh. I need bigger scary quote.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My point is Black and White are Targeting the wrong thing to focus their anger. What needs to be done is stop with the flag and work to make laws to block race related Hate groups from making websites. Which Teens and children can view. At least that will be worth While effort. But sadly all their efforts is on a flag.

I think that is because doing what you suggest would be blatantly and obviously unconstitutional.

Also, pretty useless. These kids aren't getting their racist ideas from websites; they're getting them from their parents, friends, and neighbors.

 

[Mumbles]

The right to protest one particular thing was severely restricted in the Antebellum South. Can you guess what thing people were not permitted to protest against? Yes, that's right. Slavery.

And now we're back at the heart of it. as much as people like to say that this is about "freedom", it's actually about oppression.

Leave the flag to the oppressors. Take it down.

 

[luchog]

This is an aside, but can you really think of any situation in the past...say, decade, where he showed up, where he wasn't invited? Or where there wasn't already a controversy?

In any event, the point is that there's this idea that some interloper simply walks in and suddenly causes black people to be angry. And that's false. Folks were always angry about these matters. People like Sharpton attract mainstream media attention to that anger, and they know it.

The problem with demagogues like Sharpton is that they take the existing anger, and either inflate or create controversies in order to use that anger for self-aggrandizement, self-promotion, and generally building their own support base; rather than to accomplish anything worthwhile.

The Tawana Brawley case would be a classic example. A minor controversy that would have died down fairly quickly after the grand jury failed to indict; but demagogues like Sharpton and Farrakhan blew it up into a major incident by denying clear evidence (or lack thereof) and gaping holes in Brawley's story, in order to further their own agendas, and incite tensions and conflict that otherwise would not have existed. They used Brawley to get themselves and their issues in the spotlight.

 

[Mumbles]

The problem with demagogues like Sharpton is that they take the existing anger, and either inflate or create controversies in order to use that anger for self-aggrandizement, self-promotion, and generally building their own support base; rather than to accomplish anything worthwhile.

The Tawana Brawley case would be a classic example. A minor controversy that would have died down fairly quickly after the grand jury failed to indict; but demagogues like Sharpton and Farrakhan blew it up into a major incident by denying clear evidence (or lack thereof) and gaping holes in Brawley's story, in order to further their own agendas, and incite tensions and conflict that otherwise would not have existed. They used Brawley to get themselves and their issues in the spotlight.

Two things:

First, the Brawley case was almost 30 years ago.

Second, and more importantly, you've conceded my point. The claim made by people is that everyone is happy and smiling, and then Al Sharpton shows up and says "Be angry about *this*", and then there are riots. The reality is, people are already pissed, the family of whoever got killed calls Sharpton in, and he shows up with the national media behind him to call attention to what people are angry about.

 

[Upchurch]

To the extent that's true, it's because he is arguing against a straw man.

Is the flag a symbol of racism? Of course it is, to an awful lot of people, including supporters and detractors of the flag. There's no argument there, so any attempt to argue against that is just arguing against a straw man.

Interesting. Let's review:

And let's be sure that you understand the actual claim. My actual claim is that that flag means different things to different people. I am claiming that among 300 million modern Americans, it is possible to find at least two different things symbolized by that flag.

You are arguing that it is possible to find some people for which the Confederate flag symbolizes something other than the racist Confederacy. That is the claim I'm asking you to support.

How is that a straw man?

My argument is that it is, among other things, an historical symbol. It is appropriate to sell it in a place that commemorates the history associated with that symbol.

Are you suggesting that, for some, the Confederate flag symbolizes taking money from people who commemorate the racist Confederacy? Is that the alternate symbolism you were referring to, which isn't so much symbolism as it is literalism?

Another aspect of my argument is that when the sale of a product is restricted by private parties for fear of economic reprisal, then freedom of expression has been restricted. The Libertarian Party would disagree. Only government can restrict free expression, according to the Libertarian philosophy. I disagree with them.

The Supreme Court and pretty much all of US legal history would also disagree with you. Freedom of speech has never protected individuals from negative consequences or criticism of their speech.

Store owners, after all, have the freedom of expression as well. Would you deny them their rights to express themselves? Should they be legally forced to sell something?

Plus, Confederate flags are still available for purchase and no one is prohibited from making their own Confederate flags. How in the world do you equate that with a restriction of free expression?

One other element that has come up is the people who are saying the flag represents "heritage, not hate". Some people, specifically including Upchurch, have denounced that position. I believe that people who do so would say that the heritage of that flag IS hate, so the position makes no sense. I don't disagree with that reasoning, but I think it misses an important point. When someone defends the flag by saying "heritage, not hate", what you have is a Confederate flag waver who is denouncing racism. That's a win. You should see it that way.

The problem is that, in terms of the Confederacy, "heritage, not hate" is a contradiction in terms. There is no "Confederate heritage" that is not rooted in the dehumanizing institution of slavery and racism. From the Civil War itself to Jim Crow to the Segregationists to opposition to Civil Rights, that particular heritage has been based in one thing: racism and white supremacy.

"Heritage, not hate" has never been a denunciation of racism. It is a denial that racism exists, or ever existed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Two things:

First, the Brawley case was almost 30 years ago.

Second, and more importantly, you've conceded my point. The claim made by people is that everyone is happy and smiling, and then Al Sharpton shows up and says "Be angry about *this*", and then there are riots. The reality is, people are already pissed, the family of whoever got killed calls Sharpton in, and he shows up with the national media behind him to call attention to what people are angry about.

But he's black and should know his place.

 

[Mumbles]

But he's black and should know his place.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking luchog here. I'm just saying that s/he agrees with me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking luchog here. I'm just saying that s/he agrees with me.

I am just bringing light to the situation as I see it. Many people criticize Al Sharpton, not because of his tactics and message, but because he's black and commands media attention.

 

[ponderingturtle]

CNN pushed this to my iPad this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/confederate-flag-poll-racism-southern-pride/

In part:

"American public opinion on the Confederate flag remains about where it was 15 years ago, with most describing the flag as a symbol of Southern pride more than one of racism, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. And questions about how far to go to remove references to the Confederacy from public life prompt broad racial divides.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride. Opinions of the flag are sharply divided by race, and among whites, views are split by education."

In any case, 57% is a significant number. Of course, if you're in the 43% who disagree, it's easy to paint that 57% as racist, inbred yahoos that just don't know any better, while you're in the "enlightened minority".

BTW, I'm in the 57%. I've never flown the Confederate flag, being born and raised a Jewish liberal Yankee. But here in GA, I see it flown a lot, while at the same time rarely hearing racist views put forth by anyone.

Well that 57% by and large is historically ignorant. And saying southern is clearly incorrect, because that should include blacks and the flag is about white southern pride.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's your viewpoint, and one shared by about 43% of Americans.

I think there's a more generic pride in being from the South, one that can include a revulsion for racism and slavery. And that pride can be expressed with a flag.

I think there's a certain elitism at work, or at least a narrowmindedness. A person views the confederate flag and sees racist hate, and assumes it means that for everyone.

Per the survey, at least, it does not.

A lot of pride in how it was used as a symbol to fight the integration of their schools to. That is the kind of traditional values it represents.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not being a southerner, except by current residence, hard for me to say.

My overall impression can likely be gleaned by watching "Gone With The Wind" - a work of fiction but I think it tried to portray the feelings and motivations of many of the ordinary people fighting for the Confederacy.

Don't forget Birth of a Nation.

 

[DavidJames]

Well that 57% by and large is historically ignorant. And saying southern is clearly incorrect, because that should include blacks and the flag is about white southern pride.

Anyone flying the confederate flag today may make whatever claims they like. They cannot hide from the fact they are flying it knowing full well racists will nod in agreement when they see it blowing in the wind.