Apparently, many NASCAR fans have a penchant for Confederate Flags, and some of them are upset about this editorial discouraging people from flying the Confederate Flag at a race at the California Speedway. They decided to come into the newspaper’s website and overwhelm the comments section with all the typical arguments. The same kind of comments I delete from here nearly every day.
Check out a few of the lovely comments. Let’s begin with this racism apologist RT:
We are constantly reading from sports writers like yourself that too many times politics are brought into sports yet here you are starting a debate that doesn’t need to be debated. The fighting of the Civil War was not about slavery but of state’s and man’s freedom to govern themselves. Once that war ended the healing between brothers started and continues. Shame on you for fueling this debate and stick to what you are supposedly paid to do and write about sports. Or better yet, transfer to the commentary section.
What strikes me about RT’s comment is how he decided that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about “man’s freedom to govern themselves.” Geez, I guess he has forgotten that slaves did not have the freedom to govern themselves because they were enslaved. (Grammarphiles I know this is a tautology :)) ) I’m also curious who the healing was with; does he mean between whites in the north and the south? Does he mean whites and blacks? I’m not sure, but this is the classic, “why are you even daring to talk about racism strategy?” Where some racism apologist minimizes racism, pretends to be a neutral/unbiased observer, and subsequently chastises the person acknowledging racism by telling them politely to shut up. Classic colorblind racist strategy.
Next we have GM. Who decides to play the “southern heritage card,” follows it up with nice rant against California, and then argues that he is a college professor who teaches constitutional law.
No, I agree as a proud Southerner who grew up in the shadow of the Darlington raceway and knew many of the early NASCAR drivers that the Confederate flag should not be flown at NASCAR events–in California that is. We would not want the proud symbol of our heritage and coursge in withstanding 142 years of illegal US occupation of our homeland to be smeared by being flown in the most socialist and un-American state in the union. To ignorance we can only say that no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. Our ancestors fought for the freedoms that had been written into the Constitution. When Lincoln proposed a Constitutional amendment that would protect slavery if the South would support his tariffs that would have, and did, bankrupt the South, the reponse was that slavery was dead and they would not support him. So please don’t fly our flag. As an educated, non-racist, Southern college professor who teaches American Constitutional history and government, I do not want it desecrated by ignorance Yankees who have no idea what it means.
I love how all of these southern heritage folks very conveniently forget that racism is part of that heritage. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think racism is unique to the south, but this country was built on the blacks of slave labor (I caught this typo and decided not to change it because it is just too ironic-the word is supposed to be backs.). The Confederacy was organized, in part, to uphold the state’s rights’ to retain slavery. If this guy has a PhD, I would hope that he had learned this in his history classes.
Next we have LDT, who can’t find anything “racist and regressive” about the south. In fact, I think LDT is still fighting the Civil War.
Lincoln fought against the constitution of the United States and everything that the U S stood for. He began the striping of power from the people that is so obvious today. He also did away with the only power that the people and that States had to keep the federal government within the constitution and that was the right of secession!
I wonder what LDT thinks about the Iraq War. Ok, sorry…I just thought the Civil War was over.
Next up is the classic “you are the real bigots strategy.” It is first used by a poster with the initials HBO, but then Charles comes in to save the day for the “you are the real bigots” racists.
Why is OK for blacks and other minorities to display pride in their heritage but when whites (especially southern whites)display pride or even indicate that they are proud of their heritage, they are immediately labeled racist and insensitive to others? This double standard has got to stop. If you are offended you have every right to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If someone were to found a White Coaches Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with the ensuing media circus. NASCAR’s roots aren’t in the north or the west or the east, it was started in the south and people should be proud of their heritage. There was a time when you weren’t anybody in NASCAR unless you had some “shine” in your background.
If you only knew, how many times I hear this crap. The NAACP was founded for the same reasons as the Confederacy? Well let’s investigate this. You can find more about the origins of the NAACP here, but I would just like to highlight this quote:
The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois’s militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.
Gasp!!!! The NAACP was founded by white people, gasp again!!! I guess they were race traitors, sell-outs, or anti-white bigots because giving black people their rights under the law obviously means taking rights away from white people. Especially, their right to own slaves and fly the confederate flag. (Yes, I know I’m being unusually sarcastic and snarky, but how else do you respond to these people.)
Then, we have the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument. Because if we can find one Black person who supports this, then it must be Ok. This guy doesn’t realize it works better when the one black guy you cite is also your friend, but I digress. Let’s get to the quote from LF:
We’ve been through this many times before: hate groups have no right to define the meaning of the Confederate flag. The flag means different things to different people. I have even heard that a black man said that he wanted to kiss this flag because it reminded him that he is probably much better off in the USA than he would have been in Africa. The Civil War is by far the greatest legend of American folklore. Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore. These attacks on Confederate flags are cultural genocide. To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. I see the flag as a fun thing and also as a symbol of the South, peace, tolerance, and national unity. When we fight over this flag, we set a very poor example for places where civil wars are still going on, like Northern Ireland. Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags impair objectivity in the interpretation of history concerning the Confederacy.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the argument, but I have to admit that it is rather hilarious to bring up genocide. Dude why don’t you go talk to some American Indians about genocide. Now that’s a real genocide. Plus, doesn’t genocide involve mass killings. When was the last time white southerners were killed in mass, and don’t use the Civil War because nobody was fighting to kill off white southerners. The fight was over maintaining the Union. And last but not least, you have to ask yourself why the KKK and other hate groups so love the confederate flag. Which came first the KKK or the Confederate flag?
Ok, this guy GL just can’t judge time properly, and he uses the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument, so I had to throw him into the mix for a good laugh.
The Rebel Flag is not a hate symbol, racist, It has nothing to do with that this is all opinion not fact because it happened almost 2000 years ago and you people who want to ban it from sports and everything need to get over it! I can give you millions of people who will play sports with the rebel flag flying above and most people can and will do it because it is a flag not a hate and racist symbol. I know Cowboy Troy played with charlie Daniels with the flag draped behind them and Cowboy Troy is black too and the guy who played Sherrif Little on the dukes goes to dukesfest every year and signs General Lee’s with the flag on top and I know a black man in one of the carolina’s also had the flag on a pole and walked up and down a Highway and proved the flag does not and will never stand for racism and a lot of black people fought for that flag wether you wanna believe it or not. So leave our flag alone dang you people!
If these folks don’t think the flag is offensive and it is about southern pride, not white supremacy, can somebody please tell me why they always have to find somebody black to back them up? However, I am very happy to learn that the US has been around for well over 2000 years!
Now if all else fails and you can’t convince them that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate, you can always blame the Jews like JM:
Any sign of white racial consciousness and racial solidarity is deemed “hate,” “racism,” — evil-ism by egalitarianists, and pretend-egalitarianists, (with 99.9% of the politically correct in the latter). While Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to be racially conscious, to organize along racial lines, to appoint racially defined leaders, and to discriminate when it serves their ethnic interests — whites are punished for showing just a hint of racial aggression. Why do you think that where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they aggressively, sometimes violently promote the interests of the majority. Where Jews live as a minority, they aggressively, sometimes violently, promote the interests of minorities.
Racists, you gotta love ’em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
Before we get to the comments, I would like to admonish people to stay away from shameless NASCAR or southerner jokes. The problem isn’t auto racing or southerners; it is racism. While there may indeed be survey data that suggests racial prejudice is higher among white southerners, they are by no means alone in using these arguments. There are also many white southerners who are on the side of racial progress, and many northerners who are not; let’s not turn this thread into an excuse to make blanket generalizations about southern folks. These kind of arguments come up every time the subject is racism.
Footnote: Several of these people put their first and last names. I am not reprinting their names in their entirty because I don’t want them Googling themselves and trolling around this site. I am not trying to protect their identities, and if you want to see their names, you can click on the link to the article.
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
God- I just read the article, and I have to say my favorite was the guy going on about “The War of Northern Agression.”
I mean, it’s like wearing a white sheet over your head and insisting that since you’ve decided that it means you like Jell-o or something ridiculous, that people shouldn’t feel offended by it. I mean, the swastika used to be a symbol of peace- once upon a time- it doesn’t mean that now- so if someone were to fly a giant flag at a sports event, I’m pretty sure it might upset some people, even if they insisted that, to them, it didn’t mean that.
Frankly, I wish these people who consider themselves “Confederates” would just secede again and get it over with, and stop annoying others.
Pingback: Jokes Blog Search » Blog Archive » Confederate Flags Belong in Museums Not at Speedways
This country was built on the backs of slave labor? Honestly, how much lower do you think our per-capita GDP would be today if we’d never had slavery?
Frankly, I wish these people who consider themselves “Confederates” would just secede again and get it over with, and stop annoying others.
They already tried. You shot at them until they stopped. This has created the perception that such a move is not, in fact, welcome. ;)
I was just amazed at finding these sentences so close to each other:
“Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore.”
and
“To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. ”
How does that make any sense at all?
You know, maybe we should let them separate. Is there any other better way to let them see for themselves how unsustainable their economy and way of life is?
Either let them separate, or let my own “most socialist and Un-American” state go *its* own way. New England and the metropolitan Mid-Atlantic can come too, I suppose, but they’d have to detach and come down here where the weather’s sensible. Yes, we’d probably be easier to split off, what with the fault lines and all, but if it snowed regularly in San Diego I would become annoyed.
Brandon Berg –
Who the hell knows? Quite possibly it would be higher. It sure would be distributed a lot differently. I think Rachel was just stating the obvious reality, not endorsing that reality for having been the best of all possible foundations for our ecconomy.
Count me in as a liberal southern ex-patriot neo-confederate. I call it the Let’s Help ‘Em Pack” movement.
The Stranger – you’d better take Oregon with you, too. Nothin’ but us pinko hippies up here anyway.
And I know it’s really pointless to pull any particular dumb statement out of the mess of quoted stupidity, but this just especially irked me:
Could someone please show that guy a newspaper from the last twelve years or so?
Actually, the Civil War was about “states’ rights” – the Constitutional principle that States and the people should retain all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government. However, the problem was that one of the rights that the States involved asserted was the power to keep slavery legal, despite both the humanitarian horror that it comprised and the economic disaster that it brought on for 98% of the population. No government rightfully has such power.
The defenders of the Confederacy would have you believe that one of the main reasons for the start of hostilities was an unfair tariff and taxation structure that kept the supplier of raw materials such as cotton, etc (i.e., the South) subservient to the industrialized North. But if they had abandoned slavery, the former slaves, getting to keep the fruits of their labor, would have raised the economic power and position of the South. Of course, that would have raised their social standing and political power as well, and would have depressed the standing and power of the people who occupied the top of the pyramid at the time. Neither result suited those in charge in the South at that time. They just couldn’t see, or couldn’t bear to face, that the change was inevitable. Even if the Civil War hadn’t come, how long would the black population have gone on before open revolt?
Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags
Which no one is proposing, unless there’s a suggestion to make the display of Confederate flags illegal that I missed.
Well, as a southerner and a Native American, I really dont have a problem with the confederate flag. It protests political dominance (which still happens to this day..there’s a reason southern states are so damn poor and it isnt because we arent self sustainable. We actually are.) especially after the way the north thought it would be a good idea to come in after the war and burn everything in sight and rape any female who couldnt get away fast enough, while pretending to have ended slavery out of a noble belief rather than simply just not needing slaves anymore. The north didnt abolish slavery because it was a good thing to do. Slaves were disposable and the idea was to ship them all back. Northern inability to acknowledge that is another motivation behind the confederate flag. That and their insistance at stereotyping southerners as stupid racist backwoods rednecks. The only time people give a shit about the south is when a hurricane hits. And the norths track record against my own people leaves me rolling my eyes when they get all high and mighty about human rights. Trail of Tears ring a bell?
And point of fact, immediately after the war it was illegal to fly the confederate flag. Attempting to strip people of their culture and heritage generally results in defiance.
MacKenzie writes: You know, maybe we should let them separate. Is there any other better way to let them see for themselves how unsustainable their economy and way of life is?
And Pheeno responds: …there’s a reason southern states are so damn poor and it isnt because we arent self sustainable. We actually are.
There’s no such thing as a self-sustainable country anymore. Every country trades. If the South and the North US split today, the South’s economy would be sustainable because they’d trade for what they need; not because they’re self-sustainable.
Pheeno, in the end, I think what matters isn’t s0 much why people do things as what they do. You’re right that the North didn’t abolish slavery only because it was the right thing to do; but for many in the North, abolishing slavery simply because it was immoral was important. The abolitionists aren’t a part of history that should be whitewashed away to make Southerners feel better.
The simplistic “the North was comprised of saints who cared only for freeing slaves” narrative is overly-simplistic garbage. But the opposing “the North was comprised of demons who didn’t give a damn about the slaves and victimized the poor, innocent South” narrative — which you haven’t quite endorsed here, but you’ve certainly veered close — is likewise overly-simplistic garbage.
By the way, no one here has claimed that Northerners are free of racism, currently or at any earlier time in history. So you’re mostly attacking a straw man.
pheeno –
The reason the North ended slavery was that democracy for poor white men took hold there better than in the South, and they realized that the slavery of blacks was against their own ecconomic interests: there is no way to get a fair wage when you are competing against slave labor. This is not a “sytems” answer; it is the explicit reason the abolishonist movement went mainstream. This was called the “Free Labor” movement. Lincoln was a moderate free labor supporter known as a “Free Soiler”, meaning he opposed extending slavery to new states so poor whites could move there and earn fair wages.
I agree that Northern refusal to acknowledge its own racism was catestophic. Reconstruction failed, imo, due to the failure of the U.S. to impose it on the North as well as the South.
It is also true that there is horible stereotyping of Southerners. However one unfortunate result of the stereotyping is that Southern whites define themselves by these very stereotypes and often try to live up to them.
Since the Jews have been dragged into this for some reason, can anyone explain to me why it is that whenever Europeans or their descendants go off the rails they become, in addition to anything else, anti-Semitic? It doesn’t seem to matter what rails they went off or in what direction.
My theory is that the Jews survived in Christian Europe by filling the niche of doing things that society needed but that had for one reason or another had been condemned, essentially setting the Jews up to be the needed scapegoats for everything. Take the greedy moneylender thing. The medievel church had pronounced ALL interest to be usuary and Christians who charged interest could be tried in church courts. But how could the European ecconomy survive without credit, and who is going to lend money for free? So the few Jews who had extra cash and were not allowed to invest in “honest” businesses became moneylenders. So many Christians only interacted with Jews when they needed to borrow money, and, shockingly, many of these moneylenders seemed a bit greedy. Jews also did a lot of the medical autopsies in Medievel Europe because this was “unclean” work. I suspect a similar dymanic was at work regarding records showing Jewish names as slave traders. Christians needed dirty work done by someone they could scapegoat, and Jews needed to survive. I think this tendency to blame the Jews for everything has just survived then for centuries like many stereotypes.
“Pheeno, in the end, I think what matters isn’t s0 much why people do things as what they do. You’re right that the North didn’t abolish slavery only because it was the right thing to do; but for many in the North, abolishing slavery simply because it was immoral was important. The abolitionists aren’t a part of history that should be whitewashed away to make Southerners feel better.”
Um, abolisionists existed in the South as well. Abolitionists weren’t the motivator behind the civil war. Lincoln wasn’t one, btw. In fact, many abolistionists didnt like him and didnt consider him anti slavery. Lincoln never mentioned slavery until 1854, so this whole “we wanted to end slavery, those racist Southerners didnt and thats *all* the war was over” is inaccurate. The truth shouldnt be whitewashed to make people in the North feel self righteous and smug.
Abolishing slavery because it was *important* is a horse of a different color, and both northerners and southerners contributed to that. But for some reason, whenever the civil war gets discussed and abolition is brought up, it becomes glaringly one sided.
“By the way, no one here has claimed that Northerners are free of racism, currently or at any earlier time in history. So you’re mostly attacking a straw man. ”
That claim is pretty implicit in statements such as ” let them separate, we’ll help them pack! hawhaw”. Really? And does this extend to the *numerous* Sundown Towns one finds in the North as well? Somehow I think thats conveniently forgotten when this subject comes up.
“It is also true that there is horible stereotyping of Southerners. However one unfortunate result of the stereotyping is that Southern whites define themselves by these very stereotypes and often try to live up to them. ”
That sounds an awful lot like racist apologists saying black people define themselves by ghetto rapper steretotypes and try to live up to them. Which is a passive way of saying ” its only a stereotype because its true”.
Since Lincoln explicitly said that he didn’t want to free the slaves (and the Emancipation Proclimation came late in the war), there is evidence to back the claim that the confederate flag isn’t about slavery. And since the North is every bit as racist as the South (and sometimes more segregated), um, well, might the NASCAR people have something of a point?
Ok, yeah, symbols change meanings over time, and the Confederate flag has come to represent racism to many. But some of southerners complaints about being unfairly picked on ring true.
“There’s no such thing as a self-sustainable country anymore. Every country trades. If the South and the North US split today, the South’s economy would be sustainable because they’d trade for what they need; not because they’re self-sustainable.”
My point (which wasnt made very well, sorry) is this
The south wouldnt crumble and fall to dust because we’re no longer part of the whole, anymore than the north would just cease to function if the south seceeded. So the whole quite childish attitude of ” let them leave and see what happens” type of comments is just..well…stupid.
Lincoln specifically exempted most areas occupied by federal troops in the Emancipation Proclomation…essentially the slave states. Those slave states not in rebellion ( mostly Union states) weren’t ordered to free any slaves.
Oh and just to let people know
I personally have no problem with the flag, but I am in no way suggesting other people cannot or should not have differing opinions on that.
My only problem is the stereotype the slave owning racist southerns bandwagon that never fails to drive by and aquire passengers.
Actually, economically speaking, the North was dependant on the South. Industrialization was based on looms. The North needed the South to have a source of cotton under it’s control. This was very much an issue at the time and is a big part of the reason we had gotten into a war with Mexico shortly before that. We wanted Texas’ cotton. the North wanted to keep the south around to exploit them and to maintain it’s industrialization. Remember that escaped slaved had to go to Canada because the North was happy to send them back to the plantations.
That said, the thing that was exceptional about John Brown wasn’t the degree of violence, but the side he was on. Abolitionists and others were routinely brutally murdered. Southern Gentlemen were often exceedingly violent when enforcing hegemony. Which is to be expected given that they owned other human beings.
Tangentally, places I’ve been surprised to see Confederate flags include a bar in Connecticut (um, weren’t y’all fighting on the other side?) and in Paris, France. Jack Daniels sells Confederate flag decorations in Europe. Given what that flag has come to mean for many (or most) Americans, it was extremely surprising to see it plastered on Parisian vehicles. I imagined a German company using it’s defeated war flag to advertise products overseas.
Anyway, if people want to use the confederate flag in a non-racist manner, they should come up with some way to specifically re-contextualize it as non-racist.
The right that the south really wanted to protect was the right to own slaves.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
They didn’t want to give up slavery and realized they might have to do so as part of the union.
From what I’ve read on Lincoln I think he would have liked to end slavery. He personally didn’t like it. But he wasn’t motivated enough to do it. He had a pretty hard line to walk. There was a lot of racism on both sides and he was trying to win a critical civil war. Everything he did after the start of the war was focused on winning the war. He made that very clear on a number of occasions.
He personally didnt like it? Doesnt explain why he defended a slave owner over a runaway slave.
If nothing else, the Confederate flag represents treason. Shouldn’t that be enough to not fly it?
Is it treason to resist an act that violates the constitution?
Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, declared martial law, blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication ect ect.
Replace Lincoln with Bush and imagine.
Kind of related, though not directly, FEMA is using its funds that are supposed to allocated to the rebuilding of Katrina vitcim’s homes and community to rebuild a confederates house, a historical landmark apparently. I find it a bit ironic that much of this money would go to disenfranchized people, many poor, many of color, and yet they have still found a way to divert it to white people, and more so, a white person who was mostly certainly a racist.
“The retirement home of Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis, tattered by Hurricane Katrina, is about to get a facelift, and US taxpayers will be paying for most of it. While countless blacks remain displaced after the 2005 storm season battered the Gulf Coast, $4 million will be spent to preserve just one home of a long-deceased slave owner and slavery defender. Three-quarters of that cost will be footed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, faulted for its continuing failure to meet the needs of Hurricane survivors.” AP.
Pardon my citation, it is wrong. That direct quote is from The Daily Standard, and was their critique after reading the article from AP.
Of course they did. But the abolitionist movement was larger in the North, while violence against abolitionists was a larger problem in the South.
The issue of slavery — which was kept on the front burner partly by abolitionist activism — was one of the major motivators behind the civil war.
I know. In many ways, Lincoln was an asshole, and from a lefty perspective there are enourmous reasons to be unhappy with his presidency. So what? That Lincoln was often a scumbag doesn’t change the fact that the white Southern leadership class was also comprised of scumbags.
Actually, whenever I fantasize about the South going its own way, what I think of is things like no more President Bush and single-payer health care and reasonable union-formation rights and stuff like that. In other words, I like to fantasize about living under a less right-wing government. And although certainly not all southerners are right-wingers, there are a lot more right-wing voters in the South than in the North; President Bush would not have been electable without the Southern vote, for instance.
Again, I doubt that anyone here would deny that racism is a big problem in the Northern states. Try letting go of your stereotypes about Northerners for a moment, please.
What makes the confederate flag a symbol of racism and slavery is that the leadership of the confederacy was explicitly dedicated to preserving and defending a system of racist slavery. That Lincoln was also a scumbag in many ways doesn’t magically absolve the Confederacy of being pro-slavery.
What makes the confederate flag a racist symbol is that the confederate flag was resurrected from obscurity in the 1950s by avowed racist southerners. The question of what the Confederacy was actually fighting for in the Civil War is largely irrelevant (they were fighting to preserve slavery, but it isn’t relevant to why some Southern whites like to fly the Confederate flag).
For plenty of white Southerners, the recent racist history of the Confederate flag has become blurred into a general positive association with Southern culture (and with the absurd white Southern sense of oppression).
“Of course they did. But the abolitionist movement was larger in the North, while violence against abolitionists was a larger problem in the South. ”
Yes it was. They were fighting for their own livlihood and what they percieved as a major threat to being able to make a living. After being illegally invaded by their own country’s military.
“The issue of slavery — which was kept on the front burner partly by abolitionist activism — was one of the major motivators behind the civil war.”
Major? Hardly. Not by those in charge at any rate.
“I know. In many ways, Lincoln was an asshole, and from a lefty perspective there are enourmous reasons to be unhappy with his presidency. So what? That Lincoln was often a scumbag doesn’t change the fact that the white Southern leadership class was also comprised of scumbags.”
So the leader of the country was not interested in freeing slaves anymore than the southern leaders were. Ship them all back to Africa was his lovely little compromise. He took advantage of a semi popular movement to gain more support.
“Actually, whenever I fantasize about the South going its own way, what I think of is things like no more President Bush ”
Thats funny, considering he was born in the north. The south going its own way would have meant we’d have never had him for a governor and he could have remained your problem.
“What makes the confederate flag a racist symbol is that the confederate flag was resurrected from obscurity in the 1950s by avowed racist southerners. ”
It was around long before that.
Pheno,
I haven’t read entirely upthread, just the last few comments so keep that in mind.
Are you seriously arguing that the confederate flag is not racist and there’s absolutely no problem with NASCAAR endorsing its use?
Because, isn’t that the topic at hand? I thought only white supremicists argued that the confederate flag was about “southern pride” and not racism.
Pheeno,
You’re right, the north was racist. In the Boston and New York are this manifested as anti-Irish discrimination (among other things). The union was NOT made up of good progressive people. But at least most of the people there didn’t want to buy and sell blacks like livestock.
But all of your points just skirt around the fact that the south wanted to leave the union to preserve the institution of slavery. Prior to the election of Lincoln the country was increasingly divided about the issue. Whether the USA would continue as a slave holding country or not was THE key question. The answer was being determined by whether or not new territories would enter the union as slave or free states. The argument that the succession was about rights just obfuscates the issue. The right in question was the right to buy and sell black people as property. They left the union to preserve that right. They left the union to preserve the right to buy and sell human beings. That’s what the battle flag of the confederacy represented. (I posted a link upthread to a comparison of the US constitution to the CSA constitution. take a look.)
But I think this is academic. Most people who like this flag aren’t having a historical debate. I think for them it’s cultural.
I think it’s because they don’t view themselves as part of a privileged class. It’s hard to get the standard of living they want doing what they want to do. So they struggle. And they’re told by the cultural elite that their demographic is responsible for a lot of bad things. And they feel that their culture is under attack. It used to be normal to be a white Christian. Now when they go to the store everyone doesn’t automatically acknowledge their religious holiday. They used to be able to put a temporary religious display in the center of town. They remember it from when they were kids. Now they can’t. So they want to take pride in who and what they are. This gives them a way to do that. They don’t intend it to be offensive or racist. So they don’t think it is.
But I think the history debate is just as interesting.
I am a white southerner living in the north for 8 years.
Despite what they still teach in public schools in the south, the Civil War was not The War of Northern Agression, and the Civil War was about slavery. Please read DuBois on this question, it is very convincing.
However, Pheeno, you are right that the issue was not the humanitarian aspects of slavery which concerned the North’s industrial capitalists, nor, for the most part, its white working class who opposed the spread and in many instances the continued existance of slavery. it was the economic ramifciations of slavery which were under dispute in the civil war.
I will also grant you, though, that you are not alone among southerners who insist that the flag is not about racism, but about resistance to economic and political domination. That is in one sense true; the civil war was not about racism, exactly, since all parties were pretty much racism. Slavery on the other hand, was very fundamentally about racism. This is widely recognized by all but the very extreme right wing in this country.
Thats why if the civil war was about economic relationships structured by the existence of chattel slavery in the south, there confederate flag since the at least the 1950’s connotes a kind of insurgent racism in contemporary politics.
You aren’t by the way from southern LA, are you? I met a bunch of self-id’ed Native Americans there who took your same position on the confederate flag. The arguement that convinced them a bit on this issue boiled down to “ok, but what about the fact that black people who see you with this tattoo/liscense plate/t-shirt/bumbersticker see it as a racist attack directed at them, which you dont want, and which you can’t explain to each and every person, and even if you could, you are unlikely to change their mind. cant we come up with some other symbol of pride and resistance that doesnt have all this baggage?”
ok terrible with the typos but hopefuly you get my drift
I don’t have a problem with the idea that Confederate flag is a racist symbol. I do have a problem with the assumption that all those who wave the flag are closet (or open) racists. We might think phrases like “the war of Northern Aggression” are hooey, but they’re often taken very seriously by the folks who use them. The number of intelligent, kind, thoughful people who continue to believe that this war was primarily a struggle for self-determination between a rapidly industrializing north and a still agrarian, feudal south is surprisingly high. Some of them are racists, some aren’t. Like any flag, that of the Confederacy can be used to symbolize many things.
In my California high school, the Confederate flag symbolized a kind of working class white rebellion against authority. The kids who had the decals on the backs of their Fords and Chevys belonged to a clique of tobacco chewin’, hat wearin’, denim-clad youngsters who saw the Stars and Bars as astatement of working class pride. In my all-white high school, it wasn’t about race — but about class. It differentiated them from the Lacoste and Ocean Pacific clad upper-middle class kids. No one was consciously thinking of the race implications.
The best argument against flying the flag is that it causes deep injury and offense. Whether the flag ought to cause offense isn’t as relevant as the fact that it does. The banner’s history is less the issue than the hurt it still apparently inflicts.
Since my husband’s family had forebears who actually served in the army of the CSA, I learned fast that there really are people who are nuts about preserving their own history, whether it’s that of their family or their region. I’ll bet you’ve never heard of Colonel Dahlgren, the murder of James Fleet and the plot to assassinate Jefferson Davis, but I know the story in some detail, and it’s interesting and generally a good thing that it will be preserved. I’m okay with this kind of fascination, but the overwhelming majority of those who promote the use of the Confederate flag do it either as a general show of rebellious tendencies or a screw you to Yankee “elitists” (especially the latter — I mean, Southerners are acutely aware of the fact that a lot of Northerners look down on them, and The Flag is sort of a substitute for other choice gestures that are too rude to be made in the presence of women and children). And yes, it’s also a tacit assertion of privilege over African Americans — if for no other reason than it states, quite clearly, that they don’t care what African Americans think about the matter. I assure you it would be considered rude by the same peopole to use language or symbols that offended Christian or female sensibilities.
In short, real Civil War buffs use the flag only in context (and probably find it too boring to display their usually in-depth knowledge of all things Union and CSA — my father in law once ran into a Civil War re-enactor in Taunton, England who knew more about the confederacy than he did, which is seriously weird). Everyone else has an agenda. And really, the complaints should be directed, as always, at advertisers and sponsors. Those flags will come down real quick if, for instance, Honda and Ford tell their teams that they won’t place their marks on cars with teams that use the flag anywhere — and the distancing will spread over time to include official displays by race courses.
This is one respectable analysis of the War Between the States, one which no good scholarly treatise could ignore.
However, any use of the word “primarily” in this context is problematic. The War Between the States was a very complex event, sort of an historic “perfect storm” in which a number of very different factors came together to make one giant catastrophe from which we have yet to fully recover.
That said, no respectable analysis can ignore the enormously important factor of bond slavery. Northerners were of course by no means as virtuous on this matter as they imagined themselves, but the fact remains that abolitionists and their sympathizers had a tremendous impact in bringing this conflict to open violence. And it is also true that a great number of Northerners who were not themselves abolitionists were nevertheless very uncomfortable with slavery. Abraham Lincoln was one of them, as any fair-minded review of his speeches (ALL of them, not just a selected few) will reveal.
And there is simply no painting over the fact that the “charming” “feudal” “agrarian” culture of the Southern states was built on the brutality of slavery, that anyone who voiced any misgivings about the “Peculiar Institution” south of the line was liable to ostracism and worse in the years before the war, and that the privileged whites of that region were prepared to fight to the death for, among other things, the right to hold other human beings in bondage. The flag under which they fought meant a great number of different things at the time, and means a great number of different things now, but there is no responsible way of separating it entirely from the fight to maintain slavery.
When the descendants of those slaves take offense at that flag, they have good reason for it. When whites wave that flag around, they know very well that a defense of slavery is inextricably entangled in that action.
“Are you seriously arguing that the confederate flag is not racist and there’s absolutely no problem with NASCAAR endorsing its use? ”
No, I’m not. As another poster has since written though, not everyone who has a confederate flag is a racist who supports the ideas of slavery or racial oppression.
It doesn’t mean the same thing to all southerners, and those that are NOT racist shouldn’t have their beliefs invalidated by those that are. And I take issue with the implications that never fail to rear their heads when this discussion comes up. Stereotyping an entire region weakens any arguement against using the confederate flag. If you (general use of you here) have to resort to stereotypes of southerners then your arguement seems biased and shows an ignorance of an entire region of people.
The southern states are among the poorest in this country and when the wealthiest start dictating how the poorer population MUST feel about a flag, there’s a problem. There’s an inherant dismissive attitude and wilful ignorance many people display towards southerners, and an unwillingness to learn about the people’s beliefs surrounding the flag. You may not agree, but your disagreement doesn’t make their beliefs secretly motivated by racism. If someone says that to them, that flag is a symbol of something other than racism, your agreement isnt needed to validate it or make it accurate.
And for those that insist its always racist, then the American flag is a symbol of deportation, since that was the ultimate goal and can never mean anything else.
In my opinion it is in fact (historically and into the present) very difficult to seperate this from racism either explicit or implcit. Its not that I am not sympathetic to the oppression of white working class people or that I dont believe that they have legit complaints wrt economic oppression (the organizing Ive done has been largely among such folk, and I come from a union family from Texas) but when the rebellious attitude is a badge of white identity and especially when it includes a confederate flag, racism of all sorts is part and parcel.
“But all of your points just skirt around the fact that the south wanted to leave the union to preserve the institution of slavery.”
That was one reason out of many. The most unjustifiable and repugnant reason, but still not the sole reason.
“Yeah, we’ll just forget about all those people — it’s so much easier to paint them all with one broad stroke based on the intentions of a few. Just so long as we don’t do that to Southerners, right? ”
Yup. Thats exactly what I said and meant. Thank you so much for informing the ignorant native american woman about injustice and womens rights.
Whatever would I have done without you? I might have gone through life as a half breed and never known it!
“I thought only white supremicists argued that the confederate flag was about “southern pride” and not racism. ”
When you base your thoughts on stereotypes, that can happen.
I’m not white and certainly dont fall into a white supremacist category.
“You aren’t by the way from southern LA, are you? I met a bunch of self-id’ed Native Americans there who took your same position on the confederate flag. The arguement that convinced them a bit on this issue boiled down to “ok, but what about the fact that black people who see you with this tattoo/liscense plate/t-shirt/bumbersticker see it as a racist attack directed at them, which you dont want, and which you can’t explain to each and every person, and even if you could, you are unlikely to change their mind. cant we come up with some other symbol of pride and resistance that doesnt have all this baggage?” ”
My counter to that (and no Im not from there) is
Great. Find another symbol for the american flag, unless you’d like a detailed explaination of what *I* percieve when I see it. And it doesnt conjure up images of abolistionists. It conjures up images of invaders happily murdering my people in the most cowardly manners possible.
That goes for the eagle too…and dont even get me started on Mt Rushmore. Carving our murders faces into our sacred lands. Nice.
sure, I agree with you about the American flag. No argument from me there.
They used to be able to put a temporary religious display in the center of town. They remember it from when they were kids. Now they can’t.
IIRC, the First Amendment is not interpreted to bar a municipality from setting up a creche in the center of town, as long as they give equal access to other faith groups in town to do similar things during their holidays.
Oh, I would not at all be surprised to find that the reason why a lot of people display the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, and a lot to do with the idea that it pisses liberals off. Not that I’m going to be using the Stars and Bars for that or any other purpose.
Its actually a good comparison though–I might be pro-American revolution, but I could recognize that the American flag represents not only that revolution but also jackson’s campaigns against native americans right through the vietnam war, and that if I run around with a US flag on my hat, its not up to me how my vietnamese neighbors interpret it. In fact, i might recognize that there are intellectual and historical connections between the revolution itself and the crimes represented in the flag.
ditch the stars and bars. It maybe an emotional sticking point, but your defense of it doesn’t mesh with your other comments on this blog w/r/t racism.
So you’re saying that it isn’t racist if the people using it don’t intend it to be racist?
I suppose…But can’t that argument be used to excuse just about anything? Theme parties for instance to pick a recent topic.
It was the main reason.
Pheeno wrote:
This rebuttal to Bean only holds water if we assume that if someone points out history your post didn’t acknowlege, they must be doing it to condescend to you, because they are racist. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make.
This implies that Bean called you a “half breed” or in some other way made a derogatory comment about your ancestry. She did not, and for you to imply otherwise is dishonest.
Please read the moderation policies , and attempt to be more civil in your approach to dialog on “Alas” from now on. Thanks.
pheeno, the eagle has been used by various cultures around the world as a symbol, including those of the cultures that many of the founders of this country came from. It’s use in the U.S. is not a rip-off of Native American culture.
Pheeno has a valid point. If the Confederate flag is indubitably bound up with racism, a yearning for slavery, etc. – and, by the way, I would agree that it is – then the question is perfectly valid: what’s indubitably bound up into other group symbols and totems?
Slave ships flew the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes (recall that the transatlantic slave trade had been shut down well before the Confederacy came into being). Indigenous groups were massacred under those flags, as well as under the Spanish flag. (And probably others.)
It wasn’t the Confederate flag flying above the internment camps, which in living memory held Asian Americans captive. The Confederates didn’t drop any atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, or firebomb Dresden. No stars and bars on the Enola Gay.
And so on and so forth.
There are probably folks on the left who would say that the US flag, too, is awful and bad and shouldn’t be displayed, and exists on the same moral plane as the Confederate flag. That’s certainly one viewpoint.
Another viewpoint, with perhaps more popular appeal, runs something like this: history happened. And there was, and is, a lot of bad shit going down. Nobody can honestly look back at their ancestral past or their group identity with smug virtue; Germans have killed a lot of people, and so have Jews. Capitalists have done a lot of damage to the world, along with their Communist brethren. The white settlers were brutal to the Indians, who in turn had been brutal to one another, and to their now-extinct forebears. People suck.
But along with the suck, there are always virtues. And part of constructing a heritage and a history is finding those virtues, emulating them, and expanding their role in a society. Iconography plays a part in that process, and flags are a big part of most nations’ iconic history. The Revolutionary battle flag brings a lump to the throat of an American patriot; why wouldn’t the Confederate flag choke up someone whose great-great-granddaddy died at Antietam?
Sometimes iconography exceeds the bounds of what we can permit as a society – and the virtues of one group are the vice of another. Very few people would be happy to see Germans flying Nazi flags as a remembrance of the vitality and exuberance of the Third Reich. It’s questionable to me whether the Confederate flag ought to rise to quite that level of moral revulsion; the Confederates weren’t genocidal. They were just somewhat more racial-supremacist than was fashionable for the time; the War Between the States was a war fought by two armies made up mostly of people who thought blacks were inferior to whites. The disagreement was about how the blacks ought to be oppressed and controlled by whites, not whether.
I see the point of those who feel the Confederate flag is oppressive to them personally or to blacks generally. I also see the point of people for whom the Confederacy is a significant piece of history – and I definitely see the point of Southerners feeling put-upon by culturally imperialistic Northerners coming around and telling the Southerners how bad and racist and evil they are. Pot, meet kettle. Racism seems more differentiated in terms of implementation, not in terms of geographical presence or absence; I had to live in the North before I saw blacks living in one part of town and whites another, and I had to live in the South before I saw private schools for one race only.
Maybe we should all back off a little bit and allow each other a bit of presumption of good will. Racism and hatred aren’t easily hidden. They have a way of popping out, even when the conscious mind is fighting hard to keep them down; cf. Michael Richards. I think it becomes pretty clear pretty quick when someone is flying the stars and bars as a signal to their black neighbors, rather than as an honest expression of heritage.
“So you’re saying that it isn’t racist if the people using it don’t intend it to be racist?”
No, Im saying the people using it arent always racist.
“It was the main reason. ”
No, it wasnt. Slavery wasn’t even brought up until much later.
“This rebuttal to Bean only holds water if we assume that if someone points out history your post didn’t acknowlege, they must be doing it to condescend to you, because they are racist. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make.”
Bean pointed out history my points didnt ackowledge, which had nothing to do with the points I made at all. I didnt say anything negative at all about abolistionists, and didnt broadly paint them with any brush whatsoever. I didnt generalize abolitionists. My post he quoted was about the southerners that violently resisted abolition. It had nothing at all to do with generalizing abolitionists or leaving out women.
”
This implies that Bean called you a “half breed” or in some other way made a derogatory comment about your ancestry. She did not, and for you to imply otherwise is dishonest.”
Thats not what it implies. What it implies is that as a native american, I dont need lectures on discrimination or injustice and as a woman I dont need lectures on womens rights. I live it, thanks.
“pheeno, the eagle has been used by various cultures around the world as a symbol, including those of the cultures that many of the founders of this country came from. It’s use in the U.S. is not a rip-off of Native American culture. ”
I didnt say it was a rip off. I said it was a symbol of murder, racism and oppression.
Pheeno Wrote
I agree. They’re not. But I think this is like white people using the N-word. Maybe the people that know them well understand how it’s meant. But if you use it around strangers they’re going to make some reasonable assumptions that put you in a bad light.
I think that many of the people use the flag want to be anti-pc. I think many of them are the same people who think that Black History Month is racist and that it’s unfair there isn’t a National Association of White People.
I’m not saying the North went to war to end slavery. It obviously didn’t. It went to war to preserve the union. Lincoln made it very clear that he’d do whatever it took with regards to slavery to win the war. (Partly this was to appease northerners that weren’t abolitionists and were racists that the war wasn’t being waged just to help black people.
I’m saying that the south left the union to preserve the right to own slaves. The union would have let them back in as slave states at any time if they’d asked.
“I agree. They’re not. But I think this is like white people using the N-word.”
That’s where I disagree. That word had negative meaning prior to it even being used racially. With the exception of slang (and Im not even convinced then) it has no other possible defintion. A symbol however, can and is subject to differing interpretations.
Take the american flag for example. Many people see it as a symbol of freedom. Personally, I see it as the ultimate ( rivalling with the swastika) symbol of murder and oppression. But that in no way means if you’re an advocate of native american oppression and slaughter by flying the american flag. A great deal of Native Americans have an entirely different interpretation of the american flag, but we allow the fact that our interpretation doesnt dictate the rest of the countries. If we didnt, the controversy around the american flag would mirror the controversy surrounding the confederate flag.
guh. Ignore typos and horrid grammar. I’m chasing around a weinie dog with a death wish. He keeps trying to mate with the cat.
Joe, you beat me to the theme party thing, with which I totally agree. If one is aware that a symbol provokes a feeling of oppression, then choosing to display said symbol is an active display of oppression. Whether or not that was the main intent is irrelevant if you know that people will be offended by it. If I throw a swastika patch on my bag, I don’t get to claim that I’m celebrating an ancient symbol of peace and expect a pass.
But I got confused here:
Did you mean to type ‘would have let them back in as non-slave states,’ or am I missing something?
and pheeno, the image of a dog lustily chasing a cat is cracking me up, thank you for that :D
pheeno–is there a particular history you are citing here? In what world did “slavery only come up much later?” I thought I was marginally familiar with southern revisionist historiography, but plase, out of curiousity, when did slavery come up, if not with bloody kansas & john brown?
The abolition of slavery idea wasnt the motivation behind Lincolns desire to keep the union intact. It was merely the opposition of *expanding* slavery.
The south didnt want to seceed over the slavery issue in and of itself. It was part and parcel of a huge bag of issues they had with states rights. You cant just cherry pick one and ignore all the rest, and declare that one as the main reason and sole reason.
“I was marginally familiar with southern revisionist historiography”
Then enlighten me, because I’ve yet to read any “southern revisionist historiography”.
My poly sci class was taught by an Irishman, with no bias towards either the north or the south.
“Joe, you beat me to the theme party thing, with which I totally agree. If one is aware that a symbol provokes a feeling of oppression, then choosing to display said symbol is an active display of oppression. Whether or not that was the main intent is irrelevant if you know that people will be offended by it. If I throw a swastika patch on my bag, I don’t get to claim that I’m celebrating an ancient symbol of peace and expect a pass. ”
And yet, the american flag and all the american symbols are proudly displayed with no regards to who in this country it offends.
Regardless, I personally am not advocating people just fly the confederate flag in public and expect no questioning to take place.
Oh and I have to say, southern revisionist history gives me a chuckle. Who’s unbiased description of events was revised? The norths? I wouldnt think that was an unbiased description to begin with.
Pheeno, we seem to be arguing about the extent to which the south’s desire to protect their ‘property rights’ motivated the succession.
My contention is that absent the issue of slavery the succession would never have happened. That it was the main factor.
My first piece of evidence is the comparison of the CSA and USA constitutions i linked to earlier.
No. I meant that the union would have perpetuated slavery if it had ended the war quickly. There came a point where this wasn’t true anymore but early on I think they could have worked something out.
Just for good measure, I should clarify that I’m not saying that the Confederate flag and the swastika are one and the same, just that they are both symbols which hold different meanings to different people, some of which are strongly negative.
Actually, pheeno, I don’t entirely disagree with you about the American flag. And on a much smaller scale than what you’re talking about, when I was knocking on doors for the Dems in New England, an American flag on a house was a pretty clear “Republican lives here” signal. And not the nice, fiscally-conservative-but-fed-up-with-Bush Republicans who often gave us lots of money, but the warmongering, angry types who’d sic their dogs on you. I actually had a guy run out of his house after I’d left his property, screaming “Hey! You see this flag?! It means get the hell off my lawn!”
At the same time, though, our perceptions are not necessarily the dominant ones, whereas it seems like the majority of people feel the racist connotations of the Confederate flag. I think the difference partly lies in the fact that while what we did to the Native Americans was truly atrocious, the country didn’t expand westward in order to wipe out a race. If the South had kept slaves in order to fight the Civil War, rather than the reverse, then the association wouldn’t be as strong in people’s minds.
Joe – ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. :)
Just got a scary thought about when GWB says “Clash of civilizations.”
the last one of those the US was involved in was the westward expansion.
Regarding the American flag: If someone starts a movement for a new flag, because of all the evils that took place under the old one (primarily, but not exclusively, the genocide of the Indians, and slavery), then I’ll be glad to sign on.
I think you’re mistaken. Read the confederate constitution, for example; slavery rights were held to be more important than states’ rights. (Under the Confederate constitution, States didn’t have the right to abolish slave ownership within their own borders). Statements by essential Confederate leaders and intellectuals before and during the war made the centrality of slavery clear.
From Mississippi’s seccession statement :
So slavery is the very first reason they list for leaving the Union.
From Georgia’s statement of seccession :
Clearly, what they find objectionable about the Republican party is that it was anti-slavery. And this is why Georgia felt it had to leave the Union.
From South Carolina’s seccession statement :
And from Texas’ statement of secession :
It is revisionism to claim that the leaders of secession did not see slavery as one of the primary issues causing dissolution; in fact, it could reasonably be argued that the Southern leadership class saw protecting “the beneficient and patriarchal system of African slavery” as the primary issue.
As Alexander Stephens, best known as the vice-president of the Confederacy, said in a speech (bold added by me):
So let’s see no more claims that the Southern leadership didn’t see the Civil War as a war to protect slavery.
Regarding President Bush:
So if the USA split, he couldn’t be President in the south (due to being born a Northerner), and he couldn’t be President in the north (due to lack of southern votes).
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. :-P
“I think you’re mistaken”
by “those in charge” I was talking about the Union government, not the confederate. Abolitionists were the only ones who truly held ending slavery high on the priority list.
And again, I’m not arguing the south didnt include slavery as a reason to seceed. I’m saying slavery was not the *sole* reason and Lincoln and his leaders didnt go to war because they merely wanted an end to it. He wasnt that noble, and the south wasnt upset over one single repugnant issue. If I take away your primary source of feeding yourself and your children, then triple your taxes it would be dishonest to later claim you were just upset over having your taxes tripled.
“So if the USA split, he couldn’t be President in the south (due to being born a Northerner), and he couldn’t be President in the north (due to lack of southern votes).
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. :-P ”
me too.
But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism. The confederate flag was a symbol used to represent southern states who declared that they considered slavery as an integral part of their social and economic systems, and further that there was an inherent superiority to the white race (per the quotes provided by Amp above).
The northern states didn’t create the flag, didn’t impose the flag as a symbol for the CSA and didn’t write the declarations of secession. How else are we to interpret a self-chosen symbol for a society that proudly declared its right to own and subjugate a particular race of people?
But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism.
And the American flag is a symbol of American heritage, ditto.
Pheeno, you’ve said repeatedly that slavery wasn’t the main cause for the secession of the slave states. People have offered evidence that it was. You don’t find that evidence compelling. That’s fine. But what do you think the reasons were? Specifically? As far as I can see the only right they cared strongly about to leave the union was the right to own slaves.
I’ll admit that there were other grievances but I don’t think they were nearly as important to the confederacy as the right to own slaves.
I find it extremely bothersome the degree to which black people and in particular southern black people have become completely invisible in this discussion.
That the confederate flag offends northern white liberals is not really the salient point. The idea that the confederate flag represents Southern cultural heritage omits an extremely important word. White Southern cultural heritage. The confederate flag doesn’t represent black Southern cultural heritage.
You’d think, from this discussion so far, that there weren’t any Southerners who are black.
Some people see the conf. flag as racist, others see it as a symbol of heritage, others might see it as a symbol for rebellion and non-conformity, still others as something else. I certainly wouldn’t be presumptive enough to preach to any of the respective groups about what it really means or doesn’t. Like most symbols there is no objective truth about what it “really” means; it’s subjective. To each’s own.
I think Lincoln was a disaster and his likeness should be removed from Rushmore at the earliest possible convenience. He established precedent that for the executive branch following the constitution and rule of law was optional.
“That the confederate flag offends northern white liberals is not really the salient point. The idea that the confederate flag represents Southern cultural heritage omits an extremely important word. White Southern cultural heritage. The confederate flag doesn’t represent black Southern cultural heritage.”
It represents mine, and Im not white.
“Pheeno, you’ve said repeatedly that slavery wasn’t the main cause for the secession of the slave states. People have offered evidence that it was. You don’t find that evidence compelling. That’s fine. But what do you think the reasons were? Specifically? ”
The rights as a State to govern themselves. Specifically. Be it concerning slave owning or anything else. Up to and including NOT being illegally invaded and having martial law declared.
You’re saying that the south was invaded and placed under martial law prior to it’s secession from the union?
“But the point is that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage, a heritage that is deeply entwined with slavery and racism. The confederate flag was a symbol used to represent southern states who declared that they considered slavery as an integral part of their social and economic systems, and further that there was an inherent superiority to the white race (per the quotes provided by Amp above). ”
The entire countrys heritage is entwined with slavery and racism. Slavery was upheld under the US flag as well. Racism continues to this day under that flag. But now it means something else, and people like to think it means freedom.
If the symbolism behind the american flag can change, why cant the meaning behind the confederate flag change?
“You’re saying that the south was invaded and placed under martial law prior to it’s secession from the union? ”
The union rejected any right of secession. If they didnt recognize it, then they invaded and imposed martial law.
Lincoln himself called the seccession legally void. According to the Union, that seceession didnt exist.
I’m confused so I’ll try again.
I think the south wanted to leave to mainly preseve their right to own slaves.
What do you think was the main reason the south wanted to leave the union?
Amen, to Charles’ point. We also should not forget that there were many black abolitionists.
And on #83, pheeno, you’re not going to find very many self respecting African Americans that consider a confederate flag a symbol their heritage; especially not something they want to put in a bumper sticker on their car.
This flag causes a very visceral reaction in many people (I wish I could say all people, but I’m rapidly losing faith in the idea that it causes a visceral reaction in many whites). No matter what the intention of the person waving it, many rightful view it as a hate symbol.
I’m a bit confused, Rachel and Charles S. Yes, the culture/heritage that’s being celebrated by the flag is white southern culture, not black southern culture. And the point is…? Not every celebration is going to include every other culture. Do Muslims have to stop doing the hajj because it ignores my tradition? No.
If your objection stems from the fact that the symbol in question is provocative or challenging to blacks, or some other group, well, I can’t argue that. It surely is a challenge to many people. I’m not sure where the problem comes in, however. Groups challenge one another all the time.
If your objection stems from the fact that the symbol in question is provocative or challenging to blacks, or some other group, well, I can’t argue that. It surely is a challenge to many people. I’m not sure where the problem comes in, however. Groups challenge one another all the time.
So do people as individuals. If you repeatedly challenge me in an offensive way I’m going to think you dislike me.
Now what’s the word for people that dislike blacks…
Robert,
I am specifically objecting to the use of “Southern culture” to mean “Southern Culture excluding all black people,” which pheeno in particular (but far from exclusively) has been doing continuously.
The provoking and “challenging” of black people by the dominant white Southern culture is indeed a long and storied tradition, but I’m not sure why you are pretending to think that it isn’t a problematic history and practice. If people want to celebrate this history and continue this practice of “challenging” black people, I think we can fairly call them racists and shun them. I don’t think that this is what pheeno is arguing in favor of, but in order to avoid arguing in favor of that while defending the flag, it is necessary to make race disappear from Southern culture. That vanishing act is what I am highlighting and objecting to.
The celebration of “Southern” culture with a symbol that is extremely offensive to a major component of Southern culture (black people) is the basic problem. Failing to acknowledge the existence of black people as a part of Southern culture makes it very easy to frame the issue of the flag as those nasty white liberal Northerners picking on the oppressed Southerners and denying them the symbols of their culture.
pheeno,
Are you aware that the Confederacy forbade secession to its members? While the southern states wanted to utilize the right of secession to dissolve their bond to the United States, they were careful to correct the oversight that arguable granted them this right. So it is hard to argue that they seceded in order to preserve their right of secession. Furthermore, the southern states had been ardent opponents of state’s rights up until the point they decided to secede, forcing the fugitive slave act down the throats of the Northern states (which is why escaped slaves had to flee to Canada – Southern hostility to state’s rights, not Northern hostility to black people (of which there was certainly plenty)).
Robert,
I think the objection was that “southern history” was presumed “white southern history”. “Southern history” should emcompass both.
The provoking and “challenging” of black people by the dominant white Southern culture is indeed a long and storied tradition, but I’m not sure why you are pretending to think that it isn’t a problematic history and practice. If people want to celebrate this history and continue this practice of “challenging” black people, I think we can fairly call them racists and shun them.
But it isn’t just black people. As someone said upthread, there is considerable energy invested by flag fans in rejecting white liberals. That’s hardly racist.
Great post, Charles.
* * *
Pheeno, trying to say what the South was fighting for if not slavery, writes:
You’re wrong about this point; the right for states to govern themselves concerning slave owning was something the Confederacy was explicitly against. All states had to fully support and legalize slavery, according to the Confederate constitution.
* * *
The most-often flown confederate flag is the battle flag. And the battle flag IS, without any doubt, a hate symbol; it represented white supremacy from the moment of its design.
The idea for the battle flag — which is the one I’ve seen flown the most often — first came from William Thompson in 1863, when he wrote: “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause…. Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and, sustained by the brave strong arms of the South, it would soon take rank among ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world WHITE MAN’S FLAG.”
Given its history, Robert, I think “insulting” might be a more accurate word than “provocative” or “challenging.” If someone says “I love my black-enslaving heritage,” that’s not a “challenge” to blacks; it’s an insult.
You ask, “Do Muslims have to stop doing the hajj because it ignores my tradition?” But the confederate flag isn’t a tradition that “ignores” blacks, any more than a bunch of folks getting together in Nazi uniforms and goosestepping up and down the public thoroughfare could be said to be continuing a tradition that “ignores” Jews.
Of course, I realize that not everyone who displays a confederate flag hates blacks. But I think that virtually everyone who displays it is aware that an effect of flying the confederate flag is to make many blacks feel less welcome and more like outsiders, wherever that flag is flown. And they’ve decided that whatever faux-rebel thrill (“I’m doing the exact same thing as a million other people! What a rebel I am!”) they get out of flying it is more important than the negative message sent to blacks.
That’s fine; they have every right to fly their flag, and I have every right to think they’re acting contemptibly.
As Hugo wrote:
I think the objection was that “southern history” was presumed “white southern history”. “Southern history” should emcompass both.
There was only one Confederacy, and it had black people in it. (And plenty of native Americans, too.) If the history encompasses both, then the Confederate flag encompasses all the peoples of the Confederacy.
If people(s) don’t want to be seen as under that banner, then that’s perfectly OK. But you can’t quit the Y and then call the Y evil because not everybody is a member.
Amp:
The best argument against flying the flag is that it causes deep injury and offense. Whether the flag ought to cause offense isn’t as relevant as the fact that it does. The banner’s history is less the issue than the hurt it still apparently inflicts.
OK, Amp. Now reconcile this with your position on Amanda Marcotte.
As I’ve pointed out before, the position of C.S. Lewis on the virgin birth logically implies that you should welcome as a growth opportunity any hurt you feel at Amanda’s comparison.
Robert, The Amanda thing is for another thread.