South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Giordano]

Here's a petition that made me laugh, they think a petition with 50K internet users will influence the SC legislature to tear down a monument.
Petitioning South Carolina State Legislature, Remove The African American Monument

This other petition, that the previous petition is supporting, is also funny.
Petitioning The Governments of the United States of American and The State South Carolina, Ordinance of Secession

Lovely people behind those! I think I can guess (not being able to read minds) just what kind of heritage these individuals have in mind. There are a surprising large number of them, and I am certain that many of them would not consciously consider themselves to be racist; what I think is different. It intrigues me sometimes how people often don't see that what they are doing and saying gives a lie to their stated views of themselves.

In any case, I am still willing to reaffirm the apparent points of agreement in this thread: the Confederate flag should not be displayed by the government except in a museum and the government cannot (as part of the First Amendment) and should not (in my opinion) ban private individuals from using the flag. But of course I reserve the reciprocal right to draw my own opinion as to what these private individuals are advocating, whether they know it or not.



But I am still happy with

 

[Belz...]

We don't have to, because it's nonsense.

The post I was replying to was about interpreting reheat's post about the GAR being a philanthropic organization and not the KKK.

 

[pgwenthold]

The post I was replying to was about interpreting reheat's post about the GAR being a philanthropic organization and not the KKK.

OK. But why would that be subject to a public opinion poll?

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's a petition that made me laugh, they think a petition with 50K internet users will influence the SC legislature to tear down a monument.
Petitioning South Carolina State Legislature, Remove The African American Monument

The "reasoning" in the paragraph explaining this petition makes my head hurt.

 

[Belz...]

OK. But why would that be subject to a public opinion poll?

Perhaps the first step before making your reply to me would've been to read the post I was replying to, which was, helpfully, quoted:

Quite obviously I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization not the KKK.
...

Maybe in your mind.

Not to most of us.

(Emphasis by Rare Truth)

I was reminding Rare Truth to speak for himself, and not for the rest of us.

 

[pgwenthold]

The "reasoning" in the paragraph explaining this petition makes my head hurt.

You are going to have to be more specific, because I see a lot of things that could apply

 

[paulhutch]

The "reasoning" in the paragraph explaining this petition makes my head hurt.

I'm sorry I should have warned everyone not to try to make any sense of it, I owe you and everyone else some free internet Ibuprofen

On a serious note, if anyone sees any news about that crazy ban the mini-flags on a few graves on Confederate Memorial Day amendment being seriously considered please do let us know. If it starts to get any serious traction I'll want to contact my Senators and Representative to express my extreme disapproval. As a country we treated the Confederate war dead atrociously in the 19th and early 20th century, that amendment felt like an attempt to go back to the disgusting behavior.

 

[Checkmite]

Imagine a KKK march with a goofy bumbly cartoon soundtrack. A single sousaphone can even make 'Ride of the Valkyries' sound silly.

Interview with the sousaphonist

 

[Meadmaker]

On a serious note, if anyone sees any news about that crazy ban the mini-flags on a few graves on Confederate Memorial Day amendment being seriously considered please do let us know. If it starts to get any serious traction I'll want to contact my Senators and Representative to express my extreme disapproval. As a country we treated the Confederate war dead atrociously in the 19th and early 20th century, that amendment felt like an attempt to go back to the disgusting behavior.

Not only is it taken seriously, it passed. It was an amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, and it passed on a voice vote. It isn't law, but it is attached to a bill following a successful vote.

Now there is a bunch of politicking going on around it, and the appropriations bill is stalled as a result. The entire appropriations process has been sidetracked as a result of that amendment. There aren't enough representatives willing to vote to remove the amendment, and there aren't enough votes to pass the bill with the amendment in it.

 

[Giordano]

The "reasoning" in the paragraph explaining this petition makes my head hurt.

What came through to me was the proposal that: "they" (Blacks) got "their" monument so "we" deserve "ours" (the Confederate flag); if "we" have to give up ours so should "they."

This is a theme that I have noticed among many of the pro-Confederate flag advocates. Although they would never consciously consider themselves racist, many of the same people put forward their arguments in terms of "them" (the other races) versus "us" (the white race). Even for those who don't see it in these explicit terms, the concept of "heritage" that is often discussed seems to me to be a form of heritage that excludes the participation and history of the many black people in the South.

Of course I recognize that this is not true of all who discuss possible alternative symbolism of the Confederate flag. I thank Meadmaker in particular for his often thoughtful posts.

 

[pgwenthold]

What came through to me was the proposal that: "they" (Blacks) got "their" monument so "we" deserve "ours" (the Confederate flag); if "we" have to give up ours so should "they."

Don't forget the part about how this memorial contains reminders of how slavery was bad, and it makes white people ashamed.

Because, you know, we want to feel bad about slavery.

 

[jimbob]

We don't have to, because it's nonsense.

Very obviously, the most apparent meaning of the flag is one of hate. When folks are using the confederate flag to protest the President as he arrives, they don't have to clarify to make sure everyone understands that they are using it to express their dislike of him.

Meanwhile, those who are claiming that it means something else are the ones who have to plead "Heritage, not hate" to try to convince everyone that they really aren't racist, see. They work so hard that they have to make flags that have the "Heritage, no hate" written on them.

Those who are using the flag as a symbol of hatred don't need to do that. Why not? Because that's the default position of it, as a symbol of hatred. Everyone recognizes that, including those who want to insist it means something else. That's why they work so hard to make sure everyone knows that, to them, it doesn't mean that.

All true - however flying Nazi flags, and KKK banners with the Confederate flags, and performing Nazi salutes (as shown in the photos) helps to make it that little less ambiguous.

 

[jimbob]

Interview with the sousaphonist

Closing comment in the video...

When the family tree has no branches

 

[luchog]

Here's a petition that made me laugh, they think a petition with 50K internet users will influence the SC legislature to tear down a monument.
Petitioning South Carolina State Legislature, Remove The African American Monument

This other petition, that the previous petition is supporting, is also funny.
Petitioning The Governments of the United States of American and The State South Carolina, Ordinance of Secession

Heritage, not hate.

 

[paulhutch]

Not only is it taken seriously, it passed. It was an amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, and it passed on a voice vote. It isn't law, but it is attached to a bill following a successful vote.

Now there is a bunch of politicking going on around it, and the appropriations bill is stalled as a result. The entire appropriations process has been sidetracked as a result of that amendment. There aren't enough representatives willing to vote to remove the amendment, and there aren't enough votes to pass the bill with the amendment in it.

Thanks for the recap, that was how I remembered it being left. AFAIK the Senate did not put anything like it in their version of the appropriations bill. If for some reason it ends up passing the House then of course it will need to be reconciled with the Senate's version which IME will be the best time for action.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Heritage, not hate.

Come on it took the dialog to go in two weeks from heritage not hate to flying Nazi flags.

Is this a real life Godwin? Talk about the confederate flag too much and the Nazis are bound to come out?

 

[Meadmaker]

What came through to me was the proposal that: "they" (Blacks) got "their" monument so "we" deserve "ours" (the Confederate flag); if "we" have to give up ours so should "they."

This is a theme that I have noticed among many of the pro-Confederate flag advocates. Although they would never consciously consider themselves racist, many of the same people put forward their arguments in terms of "them" (the other races) versus "us" (the white race). Even for those who don't see it in these explicit terms, the concept of "heritage" that is often discussed seems to me to be a form of heritage that excludes the participation and history of the many black people in the South.

That seems to be it.

It's just weird, though. Not unexpected, just weird.



Looking at the petition, though, I was struck by something else, related to how images get manipulated. Early on in the thread, someone compared the Confederate flag flying at the statehouse with the African American monument at the statehouse. The suggestion was made that there was a great big flag, and a little monument off to the side. The photographs showed a flag flying in front of the statehouse, and a plaque.

The flag was photographed from a very low angle to exaggerate its proximity to the capitol building, and to make it look more integrated into the plan of the building. Meanwhile, the monument itself wasn't shown, just a plaque, suggesting that it was some little marker on the side of the building.

Seeing the picture, it is quite an impressive monument. Very attractive. Very fitting, in my opinion. I think the petitioners were trying to make just the opposite statement: They have this huge pretty monument and all we wanted was our little bitty flag.

It's just an observation about how people are really trying to control the imagery.

 

[Foolmewunz]

That seems to be it.

It's just weird, though. Not unexpected, just weird.



Looking at the petition, though, I was struck by something else, related to how images get manipulated. Early on in the thread, someone compared the Confederate flag flying at the statehouse with the African American monument at the statehouse. The suggestion was made that there was a great big flag, and a little monument off to the side. The photographs showed a flag flying in front of the statehouse, and a plaque.

The flag was photographed from a very low angle to exaggerate its proximity to the capitol building, and to make it look more integrated into the plan of the building. Meanwhile, the monument itself wasn't shown, just a plaque, suggesting that it was some little marker on the side of the building.

Seeing the picture, it is quite an impressive monument. Very attractive. Very fitting, in my opinion. I think the petitioners were trying to make just the opposite statement: They have this huge pretty monument and all we wanted was our little bitty flag.

It's just an observation about how people are really trying to control the imagery.

Precisely which people are trying to control the imagery, though?

I know the picture of the Confederate standard that you're referencing. I really don't think it's a trick, but someone used a long lens and the capital in the background got foreshortened. The reason I don't think it's propaganda is that a full view of the Confederate memorial says enough. Here's a more accurate representation of the entire setting. (I'm not plugging the article or Daily Kos - it was the best photo I could find.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-Hate-in-Your-History-Do-It-In-South-Carolina

You will note that that is the front of the building and the memorial is on the "quad". It's not exactly minuscule. And, are you aware that if that camera was pulled back about 200 feet, you'd see that the Confederate memorial is at the end of a tree-lined avenue, Main Street. It is as prominent a feature on the Capitol grounds as the building itself and a focal point. Get an overhead view and you can see that it's as distinct a feature of the capital as one could imagine. The African American monument, OTOH, is not even visible from the streets (it's on the side of the building, not the rear as someone else posted a long while back). You have to get to the Af-Am monument via windy paths.

Here's the overhead view.

https://www.google.co.th/maps/@34.0010191,-81.0324932,936m/data=!3m1!1e3



Would you care to adjust your statement? Apparently you accepted some other photo angle that suited your proof.

 

[Meadmaker]

Would you care to adjust your statement? Apparently you accepted some other photo angle that suited your proof.

No, I wouldn't. The previously posted photograph of the African American History Memorial showed a plaque. I didn't know what the memorial looked like, but I figured maybe a historic marker. Perhaps an obelisk. It looked like the plaque might be on a pedestal, and it referred to a "sculptor", so I figured maybe there was a bust, or a small statue, or something on top of the pedestal. Together with the words that accompanied the photographs, I figured that the legislature agreed to put up an African American monument, and then stuck some tiny thing back in the back 40.

On the petition, I saw for the first time a photograph of the monument. It's huge. It's a very impressive piece of art. It's not a plaque.

 

[bruto]

Looking at the pictures, the African American monument looks to be of a good size, and rather well done. You can see it if you know where to look for it, and it's certainly true it's more than a plaque. It also seems clear that the placement of the Confederate standard on a 30 foot pole in front of the Capitol, smaller though that flag is, could be seen by all who approached the Capitol without looking for it.

No doubt there are many reasons why one thing goes one place and another in another place, and not all of those reasons need to be nefarious, but imagery can be manipulated in many ways.