South Carolina Flag Debate

[maxparrish]

Max, you are out spinning a centrifuge but to no avail. The Confederacy rallied about its support of slavery of blacks (not white) which is a form of racism. Which makes its flag a symbol of racism. The fact they may be people who fly the flag who are not racists is irrelevant to that historical fact.

The southern population supported the flag for many reasons, including that of regional identity, economic security, state's rights, racism, and fear of racial retribution. The flag may represent any one (or more) of those causes.

 

[Mumbles]

So when are we going to haul the American Flag down - being that it is clearly associated with racism?

We won't be.

Because that flag stands for the United States. It stands for us - with all of our faults, atrocities, and ideals. And we will not let some hateful bigots co-opt it.

Now the confederate battle flag? We consigned the people who flew it to history. We'll leave that one to bigots who like the idea of white supremacy.

 

[maxparrish]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Current_developments

The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the U.S. The formation of independent chapters has made KKK groups more difficult to infiltrate, and researchers find it hard to estimate their numbers. Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the Southern United States, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest

And in searching for a symbol they took up the Confederate Battle Flag.

"Your simple picture supports no important point other than saying that symbols don't have a copyright and people adopt them for whatever purpose they choose. I find it ironic that folks like you would grant a smattering of racist folk the power to dictate the meaning of symbols for the rest of society. Ironically, you do your enemies bidding."

Max

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Fine. Now suppose that the anti-drug/anti-sex movement in Sweden had an actual cottage industry behind it, with millions if not billions of dollars worth of investments on the line, plus a political party that made "End prostitution and punish drug dealers!" their number one campaign issue every single election. And suppose that any attempt to discuss openly whether or not the war on drugs/prostitution was really such a good idea somehow managed to be ignored by the major Swedish news outlets, papers, magazines and TV programs. And suppose, furthermore, that the puritanical party of Sweden became sufficiently vast -- garnering influence with banks, regulatory agencies, judges and law enforcement -- that anyone who deviated from "acceptable" political discourse coincidentally found it much harder than usual to run a business.

Which we have. We have this exact cottage industry. And they keep spewing their bullshit, because now they´re fighting for their survival. We have those political parties in power. It´s the exact same situation!

Probably the political party too.

So you can kind of understand the problem, then, except that in our case they don't limit themselves to sex/drug trafficking anymore. They case a much wider net and with much greater intensity than they used to even 15 years ago, and it's getting worse all the time.

Hmm... I think you´ve confused what a journalists job description is. it´s their job to write things that sell. Their job isn´t to tell the Truth. It´s your job as a reader to buy media that promotes Truth-writing. Yes, it is circular. But that is the situation we have. Putting this on the journalistic trade as their duty is ignoring economic realities of running a media house.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but that's a really depressing thought.

Don´t all sides do this?

Unfortunately, no. Liberals don't seem to have the balls -- or the media savvy, maybe -- to pull it off. Corporations do this for climate change denial and there's really nobody around to counter it.

I think you´re just wrong. Nobody wants their beliefs challenged. You don´t. I don´t. It´s human.

I think you're mostly speaking for yourself in that regard. In general, I see that people prefer to have information that challenges the way they look at the world, if only because it forces them to examine their beliefs and make sure they're really correct. Sometimes that reinforces their beliefs (if they're predisposed like that) and sometimes it makes them look at things differently.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Max, you are out spinning a centrifuge but to no avail. The Confederacy rallied about its support of slavery of blacks (not white) which is a form of racism. Which makes its flag a symbol of racism. The fact they may be people who fly the flag who are not racists is irrelevant to that historical fact.

The southern population supported the flag for many reasons...

The most significant of which is that it was the battle flag of a breakaway nation that was founded on a platform of institutional white supremacy; a breakaway nation whose ass we SOUNDLY kicked and reabsorbed into the Union; a nation whose legacy of white supremacism has been a cancer in America's heart for a century and a half and whose consequences we are still dealing with to this day.

It is the flag of the greatest and most pernicious enemy America ever faced, an enemy that attacked us without provocation, an enemy that hijacked half our country in the name of slavery and injustice and killed thousands of our soldiers on American soil.

That flag has no business flying on any pole in America; by all rights, doing so should be considered an act of treason. For whatever cause the people of the South ADOPTED that flag in the first place, they did so as the enemies of the United States of America. Anyone who flies that flag is America's enemy, and should be treated as such.

 

[Sarpedon]

My goodness, someone woke up on the wrong side of the Missouri Compromise Line.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I like the way that all the Klan members are wearing the final Confederate flag as well.

 

[laughing dog]

Max, you are out spinning a centrifuge but to no avail. The Confederacy rallied about its support of slavery of blacks (not white) which is a form of racism. Which makes its flag a symbol of racism. The fact they may be people who fly the flag who are not racists is irrelevant to that historical fact.

The southern population supported the flag for many reasons, including that of regional identity, economic security, state's rights, racism, and fear of racial retribution. The flag may represent any one (or more) of those causes.

You admit it is a symbol of racism, yet you continue to argue. I agree that someone who flies the flag need not be a racist, but the flag is still a symbol of racism. BTW, the issue of economic security for the South was tied to slavery as was the issue of states' rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Max, you are out spinning a centrifuge but to no avail. The Confederacy rallied about its support of slavery of blacks (not white) which is a form of racism. Which makes its flag a symbol of racism. The fact they may be people who fly the flag who are not racists is irrelevant to that historical fact.

The southern population supported the flag for many reasons...

You mean after 1961 when it made its comeback... in response to the Civil Rights movement?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Current_developments



And in searching for a symbol they took up the Confederate Battle Flag.

"Your simple picture supports no important point other than saying that symbols don't have a copyright and people adopt them for whatever purpose they choose. I find it ironic that folks like you would grant a smattering of racist folk the power to dictate the meaning of symbols for the rest of society. Ironically, you do your enemies bidding."

Max

Max,
Yes the flag as a symbol can stand for many things. Just like the swastika. The thing is the that meaning currently given is one of a Southern White Identity that downplays the oppression and enslavement of others based upon race. The only "state's rights" the South has ever stood for is the right to oppress others.

I know as an actual libertarian you stand against such oppression.

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

 

[Mumbles]

Comarisons to the swastika are misguided.

The swastika is actually a co-opted symbol. It's still shown at many ceremonies with no ill intent - I've attended a Hindu wedding where it was displayed, and we were good. The confederate battle flag has no such history.

 

[Sarpedon]

2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.

Nor was the Confederacy known for having a sound economy or economic policy, or even being remotely self sufficient.

Remember that time when Jefferson Davis asked (asked, not ordered) plantation owners to plant less cotton (which couldn't be exported because of the blockade) and more food for the starving armies, and Georgia's biggest plantation owner and fire eating secessionist (Rhett) responded by planting MORE cotton? There's also the fact that the Confederacy produced enormous amounts of cotton, but her soldiers dressed in rags. That's the sort of economy the south had.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Simple questions:

If there was no slavery, would there have been a confederacy?

When the flag made its comeback, it did so as an answer to desegregation. why did segregationists choose this flag?

TODAY, the KKK plans to protest the lowering of the flag on the SC capitol grounds. Why is this the Klan and not, say, Southern Christian Leadership Conference?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Simple questions:

If there was no slavery, would there have been a confederacy?

No, and Texas and the Southwest would have probably been part of Mexico.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Simple questions:

If there was no slavery, would there have been a confederacy?

No, and Texas and the Southwest would have probably been part of Mexico.

???

Texas fought a war for their own independence.

 

[maxparrish]

"Your simple picture supports no important point other than saying that symbols don't have a copyright and people adopt them for whatever purpose they choose. I find it ironic that folks like you would grant a smattering of racist folk the power to dictate the meaning of symbols for the rest of society. Ironically, you do your enemies bidding."

Max

Max,
Yes the flag as a symbol can stand for many things. Just like the swastika. The thing is the that meaning currently given is one of a Southern White Identity that downplays the oppression and enslavement of others based upon race. The only "state's rights" the South has ever stood for is the right to oppress others.

I know as an actual libertarian you stand against such oppression.

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

Perhaps some of the confusion with you and others stems from some of my imprecision. So I shall try to be precise:

a) There are two categories of 'meaning' to any symbol...the meaning intended to be communicated by the user, and the meaning received by the observer. Once the observer understands the meaning intended by those communicating it, there is no other meaning, i.e., unless the observer is disingenuous and pretends the symbol's use meant something else.

And what WE think is communicated TODAY in 2015 can be far different than what was actually communicated in 1860. What we call "racist" (a concept from the 1930s) has little or no meaning to those of the flag's originating era.

IN 1861:

b) The battle flag of the Northern Army of Virginia, the bars and stars, were derivative of the US Flag (as were several versions of the flag of the South). At the time it's makers and users intended to convey a new unifying national identity: that of a confederacy of states who wished to be free of 'these states of the US' identity and Yankee rule, and who wished to allow slavery on a state by state basis (hence they adopted the then current US constitution).

c) The flag was the new identity of the South. It was a symbol that represented a unique aspiration and fear of that era, the most important of which was to protect their political freedom and the economic institution of chattel slavery. While everyone was racist (including Lincoln) by modern definitions, the North increasingly insisted on ending slavery and providing equality before the law...even for the seemingly inferior slave.

The Confederacy, if anything, represented those differences between Northern and Southern. Remember that racism was normal for either the North or South - most in the North and South believed black people to be inferior and the modern concept of, and rejection of, racism did not exist. However, the South wished to represent what made them different, to represent the denial of human freedom and liberty to black slaves, and the protection of an oppressive economic arrangement the South depended upon. In short, for the people of the era, the flag could similarities with the north because that was not what was intended to be conveyed, nor what observers of that era get that got as a message.

In short: the flag did not represent OUR differences with the racist people of 1860 BUT their differences with each other.

NOW in 2015:

The confederacy and the flag for almost all who use the term and symbol are intended to convey a long lasting regional identity. It is nostalgia for a partial fiction; that of an agrarian, bucolic, and mannered society or, for others, a fierce independence from 'the Yankee' - be it in religion, trucks, food, dance, and/or music. It is a distinct pride in being of a different sensibility.

Almost no one who displays the flag really thinks it is a support of a new Southern nation or slavery. And most rational people know that. In fact the majority of Americans see it as nothing more than a flag of heritage. For these folk, the message conveyed and the message received is identical.

There are only two groups who want to believe otherwise; the tiny number of white supremacists using the flag (and the American flag) allied with the larger number of white liberals and many blacks who WISH to believe it is the main message. The real question is why would they want that? Why would they wish to misconstrue the intent of those who fly it in State capitals ?

That is the real question.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, and Texas and the Southwest would have probably been part of Mexico.

???

Texas fought a war for their own independence.

But one of the biggest reasons for the war was the "right" to own slaves.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Max,
Yes the flag as a symbol can stand for many things. Just like the swastika. The thing is the that meaning currently given is one of a Southern White Identity that downplays the oppression and enslavement of others based upon race. The only "state's rights" the South has ever stood for is the right to oppress others.

I know as an actual libertarian you stand against such oppression.

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

Perhaps some of the confusion with you and others stems from some of my imprecision. So I shall try to be precise:

a) There are two categories of 'meaning' to any symbol...the meaning intended to be communicated by the user, and the meaning received by the observer. Once the observer understands the meaning intended by those communicating it, there is no other meaning, i.e., unless the observer is disingenuous and pretends the symbol's use meant something else.

And what WE think is communicated TODAY in 2015 can be far different than what was actually communicated in 1860. What we call "racist" (a concept from the 1930s) has little or no meaning to those of the flag's originating era.

IN 1861:

b) The battle flag of the Northern Army of Virginia, the bars and stars, were derivative of the US Flag (as were several versions of the flag of the South). At the time it's makers and users intended to convey a new unifying national identity: that of a confederacy of states who wished to be free of 'these states of the US' identity and Yankee rule, and who wished to allow slavery on a state by state basis (hence they adopted the then current US constitution).

c) The flag was the new identity of the South. It was a symbol that represented a unique aspiration and fear of that era, the most important of which was to protect their political freedom and the economic institution of chattel slavery. While everyone was racist (including Lincoln) by modern definitions, the North increasingly insisted on ending slavery and providing equality before the law...even for the seemingly inferior slave.

The Confederacy, if anything, represented those differences between Northern and Southern. Remember that racism was normal for either the North or South - most in the North and South believed black people to be inferior and the modern concept of, and rejection of, racism did not exist. However, the South wished to represent what made them different, to represent the denial of human freedom and liberty to black slaves, and the protection of an oppressive economic arrangement the South depended upon. In short, for the people of the era, the flag could similarities with the north because that was not what was intended to be conveyed, nor what observers of that era get that got as a message.

In short: the flag did not represent OUR differences with the racist people of 1860 BUT their differences with each other.

NOW in 2015:

The confederacy and the flag for almost all who use the term and symbol are intended to convey a long lasting regional identity. It is nostalgia for a partial fiction; that of an agrarian, bucolic, and mannered society or, for others, a fierce independence from 'the Yankee' - be it in religion, trucks, food, dance, and/or music. It is a distinct pride in being of a different sensibility.

Almost no one who displays the flag really thinks it is a support of a new Southern nation or slavery. And most rational people know that. In fact the majority of Americans see it as nothing more than a flag of heritage. For these folk, the message conveyed and the message received is identical.

There are only two groups who want to believe otherwise; the tiny number of white supremacists using the flag (and the American flag) allied with the larger number of white liberals and many blacks who WISH to believe it is the main message. The real question is why would they want that? Why would they wish to misconstrue the intent of those who fly it in State capitals ?

That is the real question.

Why this flag? Why this particular thing?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Max,
Yes the flag as a symbol can stand for many things. Just like the swastika. The thing is the that meaning currently given is one of a Southern White Identity that downplays the oppression and enslavement of others based upon race. The only "state's rights" the South has ever stood for is the right to oppress others.

I know as an actual libertarian you stand against such oppression.

Now let's take a look at the reasons you list:
1) regional identity -- actually regional white identity. The symbol is not inclusive and represents an identity that ignores a large part of it's population.
2) economic security -- you are going have to explain this one. I have no idea why it represents economic security. I've never seen it on a financial website.
3) state's rights -- As pointed out above the only state's rights it signifies is the right to restrict the rights of others.
4) racism and fear of racial retribution -- undoubtedly.

Perhaps some of the confusion with you and others stems from some of my imprecision. So I shall try to be precise:

a) There are two categories of 'meaning' to any symbol...the meaning intended to be communicated by the user, and the meaning received by the observer. Once the observer understands the meaning intended by those communicating it, there is no other meaning, i.e., unless the observer is disingenuous and pretends the symbol's use meant something else.

Not necessarily. Max, "I love you." I mean that. "You are a beautiful man." Now that I said those things, do you really know what I was trying to convey? Did you take the message as a come on or one of spirituality or one of jest? Regardless of what I say and mean the receiver will never get the complete message. Remember Khruschev's "We will bury you"? How was that taken by the American public even though the context was explained? Symbols are especially powerful in this regard.

And what WE think is communicated TODAY in 2015 can be far different than what was actually communicated in 1860. What we call "racist" (a concept from the 1930s) has little or no meaning to those of the flag's originating era.

But it doesn't matter what the original symbol meant in the past as it is a living symbol. And yes, it can represent Southern Heritage, but it excludes a large number of people from the South and it continues to be repeatedly used by white supremacists as a symbol of white supremacy, segregation, and hate.

IN 1861:

b) The battle flag of the Northern Army of Virginia, the bars and stars, were derivative of the US Flag (as were several versions of the flag of the South). At the time it's makers and users intended to convey a new unifying national identity: that of a confederacy of states who wished to be free of 'these states of the US' identity and Yankee rule, and who wished to allow slavery on a state by state basis (hence they adopted the then current US constitution).

c) The flag was the new identity of the South. It was a symbol that represented a unique aspiration and fear of that era, the most important of which was to protect their political freedom and the economic institution of chattel slavery. While everyone was racist (including Lincoln) by modern definitions, the North increasingly insisted on ending slavery and providing equality before the law...even for the seemingly inferior slave.

The Confederacy, if anything, represented those differences between Northern and Southern. Remember that racism was normal for either the North or South - most in the North and South believed black people to be inferior and the modern concept of, and rejection of, racism did not exist. However, the South wished to represent what made them different, to represent the denial of human freedom and liberty to black slaves, and the protection of an oppressive economic arrangement the South depended upon. In short, for the people of the era, the flag could similarities with the north because that was not what was intended to be conveyed, nor what observers of that era get that got as a message.

In short: the flag did not represent OUR differences with the racist people of 1860 BUT their differences with each other.

True

NOW in 2015:

The confederacy and the flag for almost all who use the term and symbol are intended to convey a long lasting regional identity. It is nostalgia for a partial fiction; that of an agrarian, bucolic, and mannered society or, for others, a fierce independence from 'the Yankee' - be it in religion, trucks, food, dance, and/or music. It is a distinct pride in being of a different sensibility.

While excluding African Americans who wish to participate fully in society and no become second class citizens which this nostalgia includes.

Almost no one who displays the flag really thinks it is a support of a new Southern nation or slavery. And most rational people know that. In fact the majority of Americans see it as nothing more than a flag of heritage. For these folk, the message conveyed and the message received is identical.

But what about African Americans to whom this is a symbol of oppression, of Jim Crow, and segregation? Most Americans know little of the flags history let alone what conditions were like in the South in the 20th Century. After all it wasn't until television brought home some of those realities did most Americans begin to act and not sit back and believe that African Americans would be fully assimilated like the Irish were. Until the Civil Rights movement revived it, it was just an old relic. For a while it could have been the symbol for the "New South", but that time has passed.

There are only two groups who want to believe otherwise; the tiny number of white supremacists using the flag (and the American flag) allied with the larger number of white liberals and many blacks who WISH to believe it is the main message. The real question is why would they want that? Why would they wish to misconstrue the intent of those who fly it in State capitals ?

Max, these are the same types of people who were the oppressors. The people who fly it in the state capitols are doing it to appease the conservative voters who want remember segregation. (Almost all of the Klu Klux Klan photos I looked up online did not have any US Flags. This might be the photographer's choice, but the message was clear: "we are Southern supremacists and this flag is our symbol."

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps some of the confusion with you and others stems from some of my imprecision. So I shall try to be precise:

a) There are two categories of 'meaning' to any symbol...the meaning intended to be communicated by the user, and the meaning received by the observer. Once the observer understands the meaning intended by those communicating it, there is no other meaning, i.e., unless the observer is disingenuous and pretends the symbol's use meant something else.

And what WE think is communicated TODAY in 2015 can be far different than what was actually communicated in 1860. What we call "racist" (a concept from the 1930s) has little or no meaning to those of the flag's originating era.

Completely irrelevant,

IN 1861:

b) The battle flag of the Northern Army of Virginia, the bars and stars, were derivative of the US Flag (as were several versions of the flag of the South). At the time it's makers and users intended to convey a new unifying national identity: that of a confederacy of states who wished to be free of 'these states of the US' identity and Yankee rule, and who wished to allow slavery on a state by state basis (hence they adopted the then current US constitution).

c) The flag was the new identity of the South. It was a symbol that represented a unique aspiration and fear of that era, the most important of which was to protect their political freedom and the economic institution of chattel slavery. While everyone was racist (including Lincoln) by modern definitions, the North increasingly insisted on ending slavery and providing equality before the law...even for the seemingly inferior slave.

The Confederacy, if anything, represented those differences between Northern and Southern. Remember that racism was normal for either the North or South - most in the North and South believed black people to be inferior and the modern concept of, and rejection of, racism did not exist. However, the South wished to represent what made them different, to represent the denial of human freedom and liberty to black slaves, and the protection of an oppressive economic arrangement the South depended upon. In short, for the people of the era, the flag could similarities with the north because that was not what was intended to be conveyed, nor what observers of that era get that got as a message.

In short: the flag did not represent OUR differences with the racist people of 1860 BUT their differences with each other.

Completely irrelevant.

NOW in 2015:

The confederacy and the flag for almost all who use the term and symbol are intended to convey a long lasting regional identity. It is nostalgia for a partial fiction; that of an agrarian, bucolic, and mannered society or, for others, a fierce independence from 'the Yankee' - be it in religion, trucks, food, dance, and/or music. It is a distinct pride in being of a different sensibility.

Almost no one who displays the flag really thinks it is a support of a new Southern nation or slavery. And most rational people know that. In fact the majority of Americans see it as nothing more than a flag of heritage. For these folk, the message conveyed and the message received is identical.

That heritage includes slavery of blacks. BTW, your little ditty ignores the Confederate flag's renaissance by desegregatists.

There are only two groups who want to believe otherwise; the tiny number of white supremacists using the flag (and the American flag) allied with the larger number of white liberals and many blacks who WISH to believe it is the main message. The real question is why would they want that? Why would they wish to misconstrue the intent of those who fly it in State capitals ?

That is the real question.

The real question is why do some people insist on using a well-recognized symbol of racism even though they have no racist intentions when there are plenty of other methods to show one's pride in one's "heritage".

No matter how you sugarcoat this, no one is fooled by the shit-sandwich of an argument you are serving.