• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

South Carolina, tear down that flag!

Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's large enough. It's not huge. Mt. Rushmore is huge. But in the overhead photo, it's not that circular bit right beside the (right) side of the building. You have to look farther to the right, but you can't see it as it's hidden by trees. It's one portion of that little brick(perhaps) clearing.

I'm not saying "the poor black people" got shafted, but I'm saying that it's in a less conspicuous place and does not dominate the vista the way the Confederate monument does. If someone actually mis-represented a picture of the plaque as being the entire memorial then I agree that whomever did that was quite likely being manipulative. But I don't think the picture that included the dome and the flag was intended to deceive. I think it was, if anything, representative. I further think that the fore-shortening of the pic was a visual choice as to how to get the flag and state house in the same picture and if you look, there's nothing between that quad of grass, the statue and the flag and the state house. I think that it's a fair representation of the relationship between the two structures, the open space, and the vista created.
 
Meadmaker said:
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. .
Click to expand...

At least the monument to African Americans is by the servants entrance. Imagine the uproar if it was front and center like the to those fighting to keep them enslaved?
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There are lots of people trying to manipulate on this subject.

There was nothing partisan about my observations on the monument. When I saw the picture of it, I was surprised, because my previous knowledge of that monument consisted of a picture of a plaque. I found it interesting that the person trying to make a point about the monument had chosen an image that was, shall we say, not indicative of the actual scale of the monument. I think the petitioners were doing the same thing, trying to exaggerate its scale.

Meanwhile, as for the flag, I saw it pictured in such a way as to exaggerate its association with the statehouse. Interestingly, I have seen very few pictures of the flag with the soldiers' monument that it is attached to. That monument is itself huge (though not quite as large as Mount Rushmore), but it was rarely featured in photographs about the flag. When I first started reading the thread, I didn't even know that the flag was associated with a monument. I got the image of a free standing pole placed near the steps of the statehouse. The monument itself is a dominant feature of the plaza in front of the statehouse, but the flag was the focus of the story, so camera angles were generally chosen to deemphasize the flag's association with the Confederate monument.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Exactly.

There are lots of people trying to manipulate on this subject.

There was nothing partisan about my observations on the monument. When I saw the picture of it, I was surprised, because my previous knowledge of that monument consisted of a picture of a plaque. I found it interesting that the person trying to make a point about the monument had chosen an image that was, shall we say, not indicative of the actual scale of the monument.

Meanwhile, as for the flag, I saw it pictured in such a way as to exaggerate its association with the statehouse. Interestingly, I have seen very few pictures of the flag with the soldiers' monument that it is attached to. That monument is itself huge (though not quite as large as Mount Rushmore), but it was rarely featured in photographs about the flag. When I first started reading the thread, I didn't even know that the flag was associated with a monument. I got the image of a free standing pole placed near the steps of the statehouse. The monument itself is a dominant feature of the plaza in front of the statehouse, but the flag was the focus of the story, so camera angles were generally chosen to deemphasize the flag's association with the Confederate monument.
Click to expand...

Yea it has been a few years since it flew from the state house itself to show the states resistance to integration from 1963-2001.
 
Meadmaker said:
Exactly.

There are lots of people trying to manipulate on this subject.

There was nothing partisan about my observations on the monument. When I saw the picture of it, I was surprised, because my previous knowledge of that monument consisted of a picture of a plaque. I found it interesting that the person trying to make a point about the monument had chosen an image that was, shall we say, not indicative of the actual scale of the monument. I think the petitioners were doing the same thing, trying to exaggerate its scale.

Meanwhile, as for the flag, I saw it pictured in such a way as to exaggerate its association with the statehouse. Interestingly, I have seen very few pictures of the flag with the soldiers' monument that it is attached to. That monument is itself huge (though not quite as large as Mount Rushmore), but it was rarely featured in photographs about the flag. When I first started reading the thread, I didn't even know that the flag was associated with a monument. I got the image of a free standing pole placed near the steps of the statehouse. The monument itself is a dominant feature of the plaza in front of the statehouse, but the flag was the focus of the story, so camera angles were generally chosen to deemphasize the flag's association with the Confederate monument.
Click to expand...

I concur other than that last sentence. I think emphasizing its association with a Confederate monument would serve the purpose just as well. The people who are against the flag are generally against state property being used for any such displays. (And I'm on that side. The flag and the monuments should go from state property. If re-enactors or Daughters of the Confederacy or John Q. Reb want to put such memorials up, I'm fine with them doing that on their own dime. Not on State property, though and not with tax money.)
 
paulhutch said:
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
Click to expand...


The fools are not even original;the secession petition is copied word for word from the Ordinance petition passed in the Secession Convention in Charleston in December of 1860,except for the date change.
They are taking living in the past to an all new level.
 
dudalb said:
The fools are not even original;the secession petition is copied word for word from the Ordinance petition passed in the Secession Convention in Charleston in December of 1860,except for the date change.
They are taking living in the past to an all new level.
Click to expand...
Well why not? It worked so well last time.
 
bruto said:
Well why not? It worked so well last time.
Click to expand...

How's their petition doing? I think we need to worry less about the silly petition than we have to worry about a more serious concern - the inevitable referendum coming in one our more conservative states. I don't see any way it won't happen. Personally, I vote for Alabama, but Mississippi is just as likely a venue, as would be (obviously) South Carolina.

What happens when said referendum passes, which it will?
 
logger said:
More proof liberals are like ISIS in trying to erase history.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Democrats-drop-Thomas-Jefferson-and-Andrew-6400544.php
Click to expand...
Did you actually read what the article is about? The Democrats are changing the name of their own fundraising dinner, to reflect the values they wish to espouse. How is this erasing history? Why should you be offended if the Connecticut Democratic Party, an organization I suspect you do not belong to, has decided to change the name of the dinner I suspect you do not intent to go to? Nobody is on record as attempting to say those people did not exist, or to destroy their monuments or their memories. If the party has decided the name of the dinner implies an endorsement of ideas that are odious to them, why on earth shouldn't they change the name?

People move on and change. If there's craziness here, it's in the minds of those who believe new ideas retroactively destroy old ones.

It would appear that the example you cite is one of people who have outgrown a bad idea admitting it and moving on, while the original subject of this thread is about those so afraid of dishonoring their past that they cling to the symbols of a bad idea that they have outgrown but cannot shed.
 
No, logger is right on this one. Taking the names of slaveholders off the dinner is exactly the same as smashing 5000 year old statues with a hammer. I heard a rumor that the Democratic National Convention next year will feature actual beheadings live on TV. They're trying to get Coulter as the guest of honor.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was my post #36.

Walter Ego said:
I photographed the SC state house about ten years ago and nothing has changed since then.

After much controversy, the Confederate flag was removed in 2000 from atop the state house. It was relocated next to the Confederate memorial in front of the building.

Belatedly, the SC legislature did give African-Americans a monument on the side of the capital building. Unlike the Confederate memorial and flag, it's easy to miss.
Click to expand...


You seem to be suggesting I had some ulterior motive in using the photos.

The photos were not from the internet. I was there and I took them. The "plaque" is the only photo of African-American monument on my hard drive.

If I hadn't been sightseeing and wandered around to the side of the building, I probably would probably not have even noticed the African-American monument.

The point I was making was that the Confederate memorial and flag dominated the view from the front of the building whereas the African-American History monument, which is a nice memorial, is tucked away on the side of the building.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Did you actually read what the article is about? The Democrats are changing the name of their own fundraising dinner, to reflect the values they wish to espouse. How is this erasing history?
Click to expand...
By logger's "reasoning" the lugnuts in congress tried to erase history when they wanted to rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". Right, logger?
 
Walter Ego said:
You seem to be suggesting I had some ulterior motive in using the photos.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would use the word "ulterior".

Your post was misleading. I got the impression that the monument was a plaque. Yes, it's off to the side, but I wouldn't say it was "tucked away". It's hard to tuck away something that big. There's only so much room in front of the statehouse. To fit a monument of that size in front would require a total rework of the plaza in front of the building. It wouldn't work.

Your post was reinforced by articles I read during the South Carolina debate. Some legislators were proposing amendments to remove all monuments or just the African American History Monument (AAHM from now on), and made the same point you did. The Confederate flag was front and center, in full view, while the AAHM was shoved off to the back. It was part of a compromise in 2001 and it was suggested that they did as little as possible to honor the commitment to an AAHM. I pictured a very small historical marker.

When I saw the picture on the petition, I realized that that was not correct. Your photos and the various articles had created a false impression.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
By logger's "reasoning" the lugnuts in congress tried to erase history when they wanted to rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". Right, logger?
Click to expand...

A very apt comparison. Neither move is actually erasing history. Neither move makes any sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom