I address this one to those who oppose the continued display of our Southern Cross banner, and condemn those of us who make the "horrible sin" of honoring it and the good memories of our honored Southern dead.
I would like to issue a personal challenge to one of you, one I welcome you to respond to on this forum...with your permission David.
My challenge is simple: I will concede the entire issue of the display of the Southern Cross banner - and effectively quit Southern heritage defense on facebook and other media online - if any member of the politically correct Establishment, Floggersphere, or any one of their useful idiots, can answer the following questions both logically and in such a way that the overall answer cannot be disputed rationally.
(1) How would the removal of the Southern Cross banner accomplish in any way, shape, or form - beyond a meaningless "symbolic gesture" - the advancement of Black Americans socially, academically, and morally?Well, there y'all go. If you can offer a reasonable, common sense response with flawless logic (I will settle for circular logic since it might be the best y'all can manage) to each of those questions. One that:
(2) How would that flag's removal and social condemnation reasonably constitute any significant victory over any lingering social injustice in America, or effectively strike a serious blow against bigotry?
(3) How does labeling the majority of people in America who honor that flag free of racial intent along with the handful who denigrate it as a racially charged symbol not in any way constitute an act of hate and bigotry itself on the part of the flag's opponents, or taint their own "good intentions"?
(4) What is to gain from the continued status quo thinking of those same people in regards to labeling that flag a symbol of evil?
(5) Why would it not be better in the long run to advance realistic efforts to teach people - particularly young people - not to hate or fear the display of Southern Cross banner, or the people who honor it correctly, as a more effective way of taking away the power that flag - in the wrong hands - to offend another human being?
(A) Offers NO contradictions.
(B) That expressly explains how efforts to end a racial identity view of that flag are pointless.
(C) Reasonably makes the point that the "right answer" is to do away with that flag forever from public display and concede it to its historical negatives.So, I leave it to you, the intellectuals, the so-called "Progressives" and "forward-thinkers" here's your chance to educate, to offer enlightenment to the filthy masses (or at the very least get rid of me, a simple country writer from South Carolina)....thrill me with your arguments.
Let me ask you a question or two: Can a neo-Nazi in Germany honor the swastika "free of racial intent"? Was the German government right in banning the use of that symbol? (Of course, in the USA we have the First Amendment, so we can't and shouldn't ban the CBF.) You seem to want to view the CBF free of historical context -- both from the War of the Rebellion era and from the later KKK usage. I submit that that's an impossible task without extreme mental gymnastics. Good luck! ;-)
ReplyDeleteMr. Denbow, I see your avatar is a stylized reproduction of the U.S. flag. Can you view that flag without the mental gymnastics its historical context of official government policy of genocide of the Plains Indians (red folks)? Do you have no problem with its being the flag of a nation that imprisoned American Indians (red folks) in concentration camps artfully called reservations, in conditions worse than plantation slavery?
DeleteDo you believe dropping the atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (yellow folks) was justified and does not besmirch the starznstripes and the nation it represents? Do you think it flies over a nation that was NOT disgraced by the CIA's MK Ultra experiments perpetrated against unknowing civilians? (Or was that okay because most of them were probably white?)
Does your flag give you no qualms of conscience over the CIA's participation in or at least turning a blind eye to horrific torture against civilians in Central America (brown folks) and Argentina (or is that okay because Argentina is multi-ethnic?).
Do you support the nation your flag represents having a military presence in 150 countries around the world, which makes it not a nation but an empire, in direct violation of what the Founders intended? Do you agree with forcing "democracy" on other countries via military violence? Are you seriously okay with violent "nation building"? Are you proud of Abu Ghraib?
Now, do not ever come in here to my blog and compare the Confederacy to Nazi Germany, ever again, because the attempt to equate them, or even establish some sort of similarity between them, will not be posted. The similarities are in your indoctrination or imagination. The dissimilarities are what's important:
There were nine million Jews in Europe before the Third Reich -- three million afterward. By contrast, the black population in the United States, before the war, during it, and afterward -- both during slavery and after emancipation -- grew at basically the same rate as the USA's white population.
There were no concentration camps that slaves were herded into in the Confederate states. Jews in death camps were worked to death and/or given rations scientifically calculated to starve them in three months. By contrast, American slaves ate much the same thing white people ate -- at least, in the South. (The slave narrative of James Gill tells that the slaves who belong to his master ate the same thing the white folks ate, cooked in the same pots). What they ate is called "soul food" today and it's viewed very positively -- tasty and nutritious, if rather high in starch.
Laws in various states mandated that slaveowners support aged slaves who were no longer able to work and that pregnant slaves be given lighter duties. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that my opinion is right in line with reality; and my opinion is that those who would claim Confederates were on a par with Nazis are engaging in hate speech.
Back in 2000 or so, during the South Carolina Confederate flag controversy, a high school kid got on an internet group where the flag issue was being discussed and said, quite hysterically, that the flag represented the Confederacy, which genocided ALL the ancestors of today's African Americans. I asked him if they were ALL genocided -- i.e., ALL killed, ALL wiped out -- between 1861 and 1864, where/who did the almost 40 million blacks in America today come from. He didn't answer. In fact, he never posted again....
I honor the flag of the Confederate soldier because, whatever the politicians were doing and saying, HE was fighting to protect his family, home and community from a brutal army of invasion. No mental gymnastics needed for that.
Ms. Chastain: Quick reply to your reply since I have limited time at the moment. First, I did not say the antebellum and war-time South was the equivalent of Nazi Germany. I was making the point that it is hard to separate a symbol from its historical context. It appears to me that that's what you are trying to do. While it is true that some slave owners treated their slaves with kindness, it is also true that many did not. I've read a number of slave narratives and they paint a wide spectrum of levels of kindness and cruelty. I don't expect you to agree with this, but the war was not an invasion but the suppression of a rebellion. You might be interested to know that the Ohio University Archives calls it the War of Southern Aggression in its official 150th CW Display. Who fired the first shot? ;-)
ReplyDeleteMr. Denbow, people separate the U.S. flag from its historical context all the time -- even as it is making new negative historical context.
DeleteI'm not trying to separate anything. I am emphasizing what I see as the symbolism of the flag that is suppressed. If you want to indulge negative views of the war, the flag, the Confederacy, the South, white Southerners, etc., there's gracious plenty stuff out there to accommodate you. It isn't going to suffer obscurity if I don't participate.
There aren't many of us telling the rest of the story, or showing the other side, and we are constantly attacked, denigrated, harassed and lied about by people who think only their view is right.
The war was an INVASION. Over 10,000 battles, according to one source, from minor skirmishes to days-long heavy combat, and virtually all of it on Southern soil.
There was no rebellion. http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktY
Who fired the first shot isn't material. Who initiated the aggression is what's material. The first shot was a response, not the initiating factor. It was, in fact, a response TO aggression that had already been initiated.
Now, what makes you think I'd find what Ohio University calls ANYthing to be interesting?
The first shots were fired in Missouri in 1854, by the New England Immigrant Aid Society. Then by John Brown
Deleteat Harper's Ferry, Virginia.
Mr. Denbow,
DeleteYou absolutely did make the comparison between neo-Nazis, the swastika and the Confederate battle flag. That being the case do you have documented proof to back up your false claims?
You should apologize to us.
Now that being said I can absolutely prove that more UNARMED Negro civilians were killed in Louisiana than armed UNION NEGRO soldiers who were killed in action during the war. Do you accept a challenge to discuss war crimes???
Yes let’s view the CBF in its historical content. Then we will view the United States flag in its historical content and see which one carries the most baggage. We will even talk about the KKK if you like. Are you up for the challenge???
I see that in your reply you mentioned you haven’t the time for a reply. All of us are running out of time, we just don’t know when the clock is going to run out. You haven't the time because you lack the knowledge to defend your position.
I too have read the slave narratives. I have also read some about the New England slave traders, so which was worse????
Who fired the first shot? No matter how you twist the facts the North did. Do you wish to challenge me??? If so I have a domain you can post your responses to. You can have all the time and space you need to make a convincing argument. Shall I start a thread just for you?
George Purvis
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
(Part One)
ReplyDeleteWell time for me to officially respond to this....uh, I'm not sure I'd call it a formal response since the angry little fella didn't actually offer anything resembling a reply to my points.
While I do not mind answering his rather transparent question, I would have respected at least an attempt at a response before offering them, but oh well, I'm sure the guy did his best given his ideological limitations.
Let's start with his beginning:
Denbow: "Let me ask you a question or two"
Which is it one or two? (note: based on the full text its apparently two.)
Denbow: "Can a neo-Nazi in Germany honor the swastika "free of racial intent"?"
Uh, I fail to see how that question relates to the topic at hand.
Not being a neo-Nazi, nor living in Germany, I could not reasonably offer anything beyond speculation on such mindsets to those ends, and since they do not relate I won't try.
On the other hand I have done a significant study of American-born Neo-Fascists groups. Know your enemies, first rule of engagement you know. Their ideology, based on the same basic outline as their European counterparts with just a touch of American individualism - abet in extremely limited qualities since Nazism by its nature abhors individuality in favor of group-think mentalities. In some regards not all that different from their far-Leftist counterparts.
Now if you were to ask if one such of these creatures here could do so, I would have to say that given their ideological bent I rather doubt any would try to construe the swastika free of racial intent. Their ideology would never allow for it. (*Although I did see a study about a Goth subculture that uses Aryan symbolism
http://www.theeverydaygoth.com/2012/01/military-style-for-goths-insensitive-or.html ...and it should be noted that some of these people are non-white themselves and very much anti-racists...the Goth's I mean.)
Denbow: "Was the German government right in banning the use of that symbol?"
C.W. Roden: Again an irrelevant question since it does not relate in any meaningful way to topic. It's getting rather tedious and boring, but if you insist on an answer, here we go.
While the German Constitution was written with the US Constitution as a model, it is not exactly the same document. American values and German ones are fundamentally and culturally different.
Of course, your question asks if I think it was right to do so, wasn't it? Well sir, right and wrong are perspectives in this case.
I am aware - as I am certain you sure must be since you brought up the subject - that the laws banning the use of the swastika do in fact make several exceptions, particularly in regards to Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism and several pagan groups who traditionally used the symbol long before the Nazis co-opted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
So apparently even the German government seems capable of making distinctions in the use of symbols...alas if only certain Establishment elitists in America could be half as open-minded.
Or maybe by comparison you suggest that the US should adopt a similar law and ban the use of the Southern Cross by Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, while recognizing its symbolism by Confederate heritage groups and making exceptions? Well sir, it would be nice - indeed it would solve the entire issue pretty much - but since such a law violates the First Amendment of our own US Constitution....oh well. More is the pity, I only wish it could be so simple. Believe me I do.
(Part Two)
ReplyDeleteNext Mr. er, what's his name again...oh yes, Denbow writes:
"(Of course, in the USA we have the First Amendment, so we can't and shouldn't ban the CBF.)"
Since this isn't a question exactly rather it's a statement of fact - perhaps the only one he seems to make in context with any degree of accuracy - I would point out that in answering his last question, I made the same point.
Next comes a strange little statement from Mr. Denbow:
"You seem to want to view the CBF free of historical context -- both from the War of the Rebellion era and from the later KKK usage."
Uh.....wow....I wouldn't even know we're to begin to respond to that. It seems to be personally directed at my ideals, strange considering that before now I have never heard of Mr. Denbow and certainly he must be new to the whole Floggersphere given his lackluster questioning up to now, and unfamiliar with my humble backstory in regards to the defense of Confederate heritage.
I believe a number of people on our side can vouch for the fact that I am very much on record in my disdain for covering up any misuse of that flag. Indeed, I very much believe that the negatives deserve to be remembered - if only as a reminder of why they should always be opposed by those of us who honor that flag as a living symbol of Southern identity and Confederate remembrance. I certainly do not support censorship of history, rather I believe all of it should be remembered in its proper context.
Oh and FYI...it's not the "War of the Rebellion" sir, it's the "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence"...at least it is here on this side of the Mason-Dixon Line. Of course, I believe there even your academic peers would agree (certainly the Floggers point this out to no end....*cough cough, Mackey*....that the formal term is the "American Civil War"). Though I think we can all agree to disagree, just saying. :)
And finally (at last!) Mr. Denbow concludes his rant with the following:
" I submit that that's an impossible task without extreme mental gymnastics. Good luck!"
Well sir, since the former part was factually incorrect, responding to this would be pointless. Besides Connie did such a masterful job of doing so, anything I would add would just be anti-climatic.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Carl Denbow. Another object lesson in why one should do proper research before opening one's mouth and inserting one's foot into it. LMAO!
Mr Denbow,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote--
"I was making the point that it is hard to separate a symbol from its historical context."
I guess that's true but you seem to "ignore" the KKK's use of the Stars and Stripes. That's what a lot of CBF opponents do.
You might wanna be careful, the Balance beam is narrow and slippery.
And your comment -
"You might be interested to know that the Ohio University Archives calls it the War of Southern Aggression in its official 150th CW Display."
Twisted History ? Who invaded who ?
OK, since several of you have responded, I'll make a few replies to the most salient points in one brief response, as I don't intend to make this a drawn out discussion since I think no attitudes are going to be changed one way or the other:
ReplyDelete1. Comparing the symbolism of the US flag to that of the CBF is preposterous. Though the US government has certainly done some bad things these were more aberrations than adherence to core principles. Please read the constitution of the CSA to find out the core principle of racial inequality embedded in that document.
2. As I thought I made clear earlier, I'm not for banning the CBF. I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment, which gives you guys and gals the right to be wrong and to express your feelings and ideas any way you want to.
3. In terms of names for the war -- of which there are many -- my own ancestors referred to it as "the Great Slaveholders War." They were in the 78th Ohio, and you can visit my website if you'd like to find out more about this rabble rousing, abolitionist-leaning, outfit: 78ohio.org.
4. I know the question of who fired the first shot is debatable and honest folk may disagree, but without the shots fired against Ft. Sumter the war would have at least been delayed. Lincoln once credited Harriet Beecher Stowe with starting the war. I think there's some truth in that statement.
Delete1. "Comparing the symbolism of the US flag to that of the CBF is preposterous."
Oh is it?
Both of them are recognized as "American" banners.
"Though the US government has certainly done some bad things these were more aberrations than adherence to core principles. Please read the constitution of the CSA to find out the core principle of racial inequality embedded in that document."
Well sir, I'm certain in the US Constitution the core principle of racial equality is probably written somewhere past the unfortunate part where black people are regarded as three-fifth's of a person....eh?
2. "As I thought I made clear earlier, I'm not for banning the CBF. I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment, which gives you guys and gals the right to be wrong and to express your feelings and ideas any way you want to."
Good then we are in total agreement right?
3. "In terms of names for the war -- of which there are many -- my own ancestors referred to it as "the Great Slaveholders War." They were in the 78th Ohio, and you can visit my website if you'd like to find out more about this rabble rousing, abolitionist-leaning, outfit: 78ohio.org."
I'll do just that sir. Oh and of course you're free to use whatever name you want for the war, just as we are.
4. "I know the question of who fired the first shot is debatable and honest folk may disagree, but without the shots fired against Ft. Sumter the war would have at least been delayed. Lincoln once credited Harriet Beecher Stowe with starting the war. I think there's some truth in that statement."
I rather think he was humoring the ditzy broad. LOL!
"Well sir, I'm certain in the US Constitution the core principle of racial equality is probably written somewhere past the unfortunate part where black people are regarded as three-fifth's of a person....eh?" You do know why that statement was added and who wanted it, don't you? It wasn't meant to classify blacks as of less value than whites but to reduce the power of the slavorcracy in Congress. And, of course, you also know that the founders were so embarrassed by the whole slavery thing that they didn't actually mention it in the Constitution. They used euphemisms like "person held to service or labor." The luminaries of the CSA had no such reservations. They put such statements as -- "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.“ -- into their constitution.
ReplyDeleteOh dear me sir, was that really you trying (and failing badly) to make a point?
DeleteI am fully aware of the reason why that was put into the US Constitution.
As for the CS Constitution, remember that it (unlike the US Constitution) also expressly forbade the importation of slavery to America, actually supported the International Ban on African Slave Trade.
Pretty strange...for a so-called "slaveocracy" unlike the good ole US of A for 89 of its early years....a true slaveocracy. LOL!
Of course what any of this has to do with the modern interpretation of the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of cultural identity is beyond me. Seems more like YOU are the one stuck in the past, rather than dealing with the realities of the here and now.
Well, let's see. The U.S. passed a law in 1807 banning the importing of slaves. It went into effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the U.S. Constitution. So, at the point the CSA Constitution was written the U.S. had already banned international slave trade. So, Sir, what was your point?
ReplyDeleteMy point, though its off topic, is that if the CSA was truly out to create a "slaveocracy" certainly they would have done away with the international ban.
DeleteHey Connie,
ReplyDeleteSomeone sent me a link where I think Rob Baker actually responded to my challenge. I post a somewhat overdue reply since it was done back in May.
I have no idea if the reply will be published or not, so I thought I'd post what he wrote and my responses here.
Response To Baker (Part One)
ReplyDeleteGreetings Hysterians....oops, I mean "historians" LOL!
I do apologize for not getting around to you sooner but....well, frankly, nobody informed me that you actually responded to this challenge. Well, someone might have, but I've been somewhat busy as of late with a thing called a life and a job, oh and a novel I'm working on.
I suppose I could have just passed it up, dismissed it, but I did in fact offer the challenge and you did respond to it. As a man of honor I always keep my promises and will respond to your answers.
Let's begin shall we?
Baker: How can one answer any question ripe with logical fallacies adequately? Most of the questions are loaded and stand on a false premise. But here is a shot at it:
Moi: (Do take your time sir.)
I’d like to concentrate on the academic values first, as they are issues most prominent and most important. First one must define “removal.” Does one remove the flag from all sight, to wind up on the ash heap of history? Or are we talking about regulating the flag to its proper context (i.e. museums, classrooms, historic sites, etc.)? A complete and total removal of the flag does little to benefit anyone. The educational value will be lost which can impact the social and moral progression of any society.
(Wow, something we agree on! No seriously, we do actually agree that the removal of that flag is unacceptable. We just fail to agree on what defines: proper context.)
To regulate the flag to its proper context serves numerous purposes. The flags relegation to the classroom improves the academic growth of people of all races. The aspects of that are obvious and limitless. It’s use as a marker for command tactics, it’s use as a rallying symbol for soldiers and veterans, and its evolution as a repressive race symbol can be studied so all can come to understand the colorful evolution of the Confederate Battle Flag.
(The evolution of that flag does not end with 1965 FYI, so I hope you would also include the modern fight to reclaim that noble banner from those who misuse it wrongly in your little history lesson.)
The flags relegation to proper context (museums, historical sites, etc.) ensures the flag’s appreciation as a historical entity and not a symbol of active oppression.
(Relegating the US flag to the same place would also - using your theory - accomplish that goal considering how some of the same people who actively oppress people also misuse our national colors - that's also not including how much of the world sees our flag given the last two administrations and their pretty much giving us a black eye internationally.)
Flags posted alongside highways void of context leave much to wonder. To people like David Tatum, such flags do not need context.
(Don't presume you know what's in the mind of David Tatum. I don't presume to know another person's thoughts. Heck at times I doubt Tatum himself knows either, LOL - sorry David, I had to say it dude!)
The reality is much different. John Doe and his American family driving along I-95 will be free to interpret the flag in whatever manner they fit with the flag presented in such a way, this includes the feelings of racism and oppression.
(Unfortunately true. Ignorance and bigotry for the South is prevalent in many places in America today.)
The flag alongside the highway does not command the same sort of reverence and/or resentment as the flag inside of a museum or classroom. In those contexts, they are historical images not active symbols of oppression.
(Since the idea that the flag is recognized universally as an active symbol of oppression is highly questionable and can be debated at length for months, I think we should not presume to argue it now. Nor should we assume that the motive behind the display of those flags along the highway is mean to promote any alleged oppression. Indeed, those flags are there in response to perceived acts of oppression and bigotry - even if you don't recognize blind acceptance of those flags as such.)
Response To Baker (Part Two)
ReplyDeleteIt would be incredibly hard to estimate the social and moral advancement of any race of people with the removal of symbols, aside from perhaps general happiness.
(Happiness is fleeting, no different than eating large quantities of chocolate).
Social advancement is usually ascertained by the defeat of poverty in the type of society we live in (consumerist).
(Save it for the classroom.)
However, educational advancement usually leads to social progression.
(Which is exactly what I promote myself.)
We, as a nation, become more intelligent and more accepting of differences in order to heterogeneously interact and compete. Such a situation would only lead to progress. One might argue that the removal of the flag is one step forward to the defeat of racism and a push for acceptance, helping millions to spring from poverty.
(One could argue that - with some mental gymnastics involved to be sure - but it does not really answer the question of how the blind acceptance of a flawed premise would advance anyone or anything, aside from a political agenda that may well not exist in a few decades.)
The people that advocate the flag’s display void of context have already demonstrated their resentment towards different NAACP initiatives to ban the flag and other Confederate symbols.
(I'm proud to count myself among that group.)
The flag’s ultimate removal in such a situation would lead to resentment from these groups. Essentially, the removal of the flag would have both positive and negative effects in such a situation.
(A mostly negative one in the long run I would wager sir.)
Black Americans would see a general increase in the understanding of the flag, void of the competing rhetoric from Heritage advocates and White Supremacist Groups.
(That can be done even as those arguments continue. I can assure you sir that those "Heritage advocates" - by which you mean Southern Heritage Defenders - are not going anywhere anytime soon.)
This helps to provide a more accepting world around them. By consequence, Black Americans might fall victim to the resentment of having the CBF regulated to the confides of history. In short, social advancement will only come through the actions of those that advance the prominent use Confederate Battle Flag presently. Will they allow social advancement to take place?
(You could give us a chance to try it our way, grant us the benefit of the doubt, and see what happens, you might actually be surprised. We may have a difference of opinion regarding how that social advancement will proceed, but I am certain we are all marching in step into the next century together. Hopefully by the time we get there, no child of color will ever look at anyone who displays that flag in fear, nor anyone who honors that flag's personal meaning respectfully will be made to feel like a second class citizen for it.)
Morality is a matter of perspective. One man’s moral advancement is another’s decline.
(There we agree sir.)
There really is no appropriate answer to this question as the answers would be circular between two different moral arguments; neither of which can, or should, be applied to humanity as a whole.
(Also in agreement.)
Such an argument only leaves us with a view of the world from the confides of one’s own moral judgement.
(Um, you misspelled the word "judgment" FYI...no insult just an observation. I make little snafus all the time, no big thing.)
The question should be geared towards those that are currently oppressed, Black Americans. Do Black Americans feel that personal moral growth will take place, and how do they gauge that growth? These are not questions for me to answer.
(No I suppose not, though you seem pretty worried about the plight of that personal moral growth...I am too actually. But if that growth depends greatly on the removal of a simple flag then it's conceivable that some priorities are out of whack, wouldn't you agree?)
Response To Baker (Part Three)
ReplyDeleteThe flag has a long and enduring history as a symbol of racism which is understood by numerous parties, not just one side of the debate.
(Again we are in agreement.)
Numerous groups (mostly white) used and use the flag as a symbol of their rebellion against integration and the preservation of status quo (i.e. Jim Crow Laws).
(Misuse I believe is the proper term since they do not have a moral claim to define that flag for their own gain, and their views are formally rejected by the SCV and have been since 1988.)
Millions of Black Americans view the flag as a symbol of that oppression, understanding the flag as held by White Supremacists, with a clear sign that relates the message: “You are not equal, you are inferior, you are not wanted, and you cannot live among us.”
(An unfortunate view, one that I fight daily to see eliminated in the future, and the power of that flag in the wrong hands to spread that wrongful message made irrelevant, rejected by American society - as it pretty much is in the rest of the world at large.)
Gallup Polls in 1992 and 2000 show that more and more Americans are coming to terms with this reality.
(Polls are not accurate portrayals of public opinion, and can be biased based on who put them out. I do not argue their validity, mere offer reasonable doubt to their usefulness as a sample of public opinion.)
Black Americans remain adamant about the flag’s racist connotations in both polls. To see the flag’s relegation (not banning) to museums, classrooms and historical sites represents that Americans understand the flag’s history and decided not to tolerate it any more. It sends a clear and symbolic message that America does not appreciate nor condone racists.
(By labeling anyone who does not conform to that bit of circular logic to be a "racist" even if the charge is not true? Speaks very little for "diversity and tolerance" or rather speaks very little for how some segments of America's population define those terms outside of their literal meaning as defined by Webster's Dictionary.)
That is a serious blow to racism
(Pfft hardly)
and to say that it is not, is simply an aspect of denial.
(Is it really? Love to know how that works.)
Will it fix the disease of racism? No.
(Technically if our side in this fight win it won't fix the moral sin of racism. That is a human condition. I think it will however strike a better blow against racism if people of all ethnic groups reject the view of the flag advanced by white supremacists - even wave it back in their hateful faces. I've done that a couple of times myself, its kinda fun. He he!)
If an overweight person stops eating cake, that does not guarantee that they’ll lose weight.
(No it doesn't, trust me I know!)
However, cake will no longer enable that case of obesity much as the flag will not enable racism.
(Rejecting the misuse of that flag as a symbol of hate will do the same thing if people open their hearts and choose that honorable path.)
Also, how did Carl Roden decide that people label all those who wield the Confederate Flag as racists?
ReplyDelete(Did I say that? I think I actually said that those who have an active political motive to keep that view of the flag relevant for personal gain decided to label all those who dare honor it racists. You'd be a fool to deny that's true.)
Lastly, why does Carl think that hating racism is a bad thing?
(Wow now please explain how I said THAT at all. I think I'm more than on record in stating that I defy racism and actively fight against it whenever and wherever I can. This is one of the main reasons I took up this fight in the first place.)
For example, I hate racist acts.
(Good for you.)
If that makes me a bigot, oh well.
(You actively support a view of the flag that racists accept to be true. In my worldview if you walk past a group of people beating up on another person and do nothing, you're as guilty as if you were there stomping away yourself. It's an uncompromising view to be sure, but I've never abided bullies. I would also point out that on many occasions I've made the same charge to fellow Confederate heritage activists, if you know someone is being unsavory and look the other way, you're as much a part of the problem as the person committing the insult.)
I do not hate the racist, I hate the act.
(Hate the sin, not the sinner. Again we are in agreement - wow that's more times than I thought we would find common ground.)
Granted, I have never suffered the emotional hysteria that racism can cause for a person of color.
(I have, or rather a girl I knew in high school I was dating was, and it's not pretty. And people of color are not the only ones racism can be a victim of. To presume that again is a flaw in logic.)
I understand where a racist can be hated in such a situation, but I’d hope that said victim can understand that the racist actions were those of a fool not worth hating. I digress.
(No need to be insulting, but that's sorta how I feel about you hysterians (Floggers I believe Connie calls y'all. For all of your juvenile insults of individuals you disagree with, I've never once felt hatred for any of y'all. Hell you guys never even managed to raise my blood pressure at all honestly.)
In short, the question is somewhat unanswerable without breaking down and explaining the false premises it is based on.
ReplyDelete(I think I just proved otherwise. That you may or may not accept the answer is another matter.)
I’ve done this above. Which leaves little to answer. I do not lump the two flag wielding groups together, nor do I ‘hate’ the groups. So what is there left to say?
(I think you said enough actually, and not all of it is wrong, just misdirected based on your own point of view. You're not all-together wrong, but neither are you all-together right either.)
Did I say the flag was a symbol of evil?
(I don't have an exact quote, but the company you keep and their rather repetitive opinions implies it.)
I admit, I may have said that somewhere in a moment of passion, so let me clarify. I see the flag as a symbol of racial oppression. I believe that term is applicable to its use in the Civil War and beyond.
(As I pointed out before, you limit yourself to the negatives.)
Beyond that, the question is rather redundant. Premises of it are answered above (What is to gain, how does it advance, etc.) Simply, what is to gain is that recognition of what the flag symbolizes will liberate millions of Americans living under its shadow.
(Um, I'm not entirely certain how millions are living under its shadow, and no I'm not being sarcastic or too literal here.)
It allows America to socially progress past the racist symbolism which plagues its past. As said previously, what is to gain will be dictated by those currently oppressing others with inconsiderate uses of the flag in question.
(Well, if social progress is to be defined by little more than banishing a piece of cloth to a museum and labeling it, then the bar for social advancement is set pretty damn low wouldn't you say?)
Realistic? What exactly would be taught? That the flag is only the flag of the Confederate solider,
ReplyDelete(You misspelled the world "soldier" but I concede that you didn't have time to proofread.)
that Flaggers wield the flag effectively and honorably, and that the CBF’s use in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. is a violation of the flag’s interpretation? No one has a monopoly on the “honor” of the flag.
(No sir they do not, a fact I myself have pointed out on many occasions.)
To label one interpretation as correct and the other as incorrect is a perversion of the evolution of the symbol.
(I think I more than proved before I did nothing of the sort, Derp.)
Do the Flaggers have a more honorable claim to the flag than the League of the South? The latter of which advocates secession and racial superiority, just like the Confederacy.
(Actually I don't think that the League itself advocates anything of the sort - at least most of its rank-in-file membership don't. Then again that particular bowl of fruit and nuts has gone through a number of changes since it's conception and the people who run it now - well, I won't bore you with the details.)
The Confederate government appropriate the flag as a military identifier used by a quasi-country that fought to defend and expand the institution of slavery. (Not entirely true but I won't be bogged down in an argument neither of us will "win" in any meaningful way.)
The flag became a symbol of the Southern rejection of integration laws and Civil Rights legislation.
(Actually I think you will find that even then many prominent Southern historians of the time openly spoke out against that misuse. I only regret that more people didn't speak out. And if our side is successful, I sincerely hope that political use of that flag never falls into favor again since politics - like fish - stink after a day or so.
The flag is wrapped in the ideas the racial superiority from beginning to end.
(Pretty much every Europeans and American banner that existed since the Middle Ages to today can also be accused of that charge - or at least the first part of it, but as I pointed out those aspects alone don't define them. As for "the end"....the history of that flag is still going on and I suspect will continue to do so for a very long time to come regardless of all the effort of "progressives".)
I can hear the replies: “The Flag is a symbol of ‘Southern Pride!’
ReplyDelete(Ah here we go, the generic presumptions....bring em on!)
Southern pride for what?
(Identity. Self-determination.)
Fighting a Civil War to keep slaves?
(Fighting to defend ones home from invasion, remember it was the boys in blue who crossed the Mason-Dixon first. Ultimately that War was the result of both sides not listening to reason. If you look for a defense for war, you responded to the wrong fellow.)
Southern attempts to block federal legislation to mandate equality?
(No denying that unfortunately, but then again America as a whole pretty much shares in the guilt there.)
“It’s Heritage!” Heritage you say?
(Actually YOU said. Derp.)
The Heritage of owning another human being, or the heritage of rejecting equality?
(What about the heritage of those whom that flag represented, the Confederate soldier that our own US government defines as an American Veteran, same as his Union counterpart and every other US Veteran, including the sons and grandsons of those same Confederate Veterans who literally saved this world from Fascism and Imperialism in World War 2 - two ideologies that produced far worse oppression than any whip-wielding Simon Legree did on his worst day. Their blood and their legacy are also a part of that same heritage too, a BIG part of it even if you fail to acknowledge it. Southern heritage is nowhere near as shallow as you perceive it, and thankfully more and more people are seeing that.)
What makes you think that teaching people these things is more realistic?
(A good deal of experience as someone who promotes education and reading initiatives.)
It’s revisionist whitewashing, intent on exoneration.
(Uh, see above to show you're clueless.)
More importantly than anything else, to teach the flag in this manner does not diminish, in any way, the power of the flag or the power of the symbol.
(I would not want it to. It's still going to be a powerful symbol. The only differences is its ability to create unneeded fear and pain on sight. I certainly think that a worthy goal.)
To teach the flag as you want, merely shifts the flag’s power in your favor.
(MY favor? I don't desire personal power at all. I have never wanted to be anything more than a simple country writer. Beyond that I have no ambitions for politics or personal fame.)
If you want to decrease the power of the flag, then teach Americans how to know when to disregard the flag as a symbol of morons and when and where to study it in its proper context.
(Which is exactly what I said all along - and I certainly hope you've been paying attention since I'm beginning to get finger cramps.)
In closing I would like to ask one question, and one question only; what do you (Southern Heritage defenders who wield the flag) lose if the flag is relegated to historical sites, museums, and the classroom?
ReplyDelete(I am so glad you asked that - not really glad, but maybe you'll learn something.
Lets begin with the prospect that those who have a vested political and social agenda to get rid of that flag will simply leave them alone if they were only relegated to historical sites, museums, and the classroom. I somehow doubt that, and have little reason to trust they would, even if you seem to think they would.
Add to the fact that these actions are being taken without any say at all from those who disagree with all your presumptions - indeed their opinions dismissed entirely as irrelevant.
That flag was surrendered once before in 1865 to a foe. That enemy - fellow Americans - at least showed it and the men who fought under it respect and returned it later in 1905. It will not be surrendered again. Not to this enemy. No so they can use it to commit evil. Not after we passed resolutions rejecting that misuse in 1988. Not after we firmly stood and said, "No more!" Heritage Not Hate may be just a slogan to you, to many of us it's a personal code that we will stand up to that evil from that time forward.)
As for what I would lose. I would have to stand back and watch white supremacists continue to wrongly wave a flag my great-great grandfather died under as a tool to frighten and hurt other Americans. Worse, I would have to do so knowing full well that society at large approves their misuse even as it rejects their message. To us, that flag is a living symbol that connects us to those who fought under it, to our own blood. Seeing that flag in the hands of evildoers, watching them laugh and jeer at people, is painful and unbearable to me on every level. And even worse, watching others frightened of a symbol of my birthright, a symbol that I have never once flown out of anger towards another human being - and never will - sickens me beyond description.
If I gave up, if I conceded the argument and simply accepted your view, it would be the same as me saying to those agents of bigotry: you win, it's yours forever.
If you understood me at all, you know that I would never, could never accept that.
Well sir, I hope that answers your questions. I don't know what you will make of the answers themselves, of if you will take anything at all from them, but I answered as truthfully as I could. I owe you that much. ~C. W. Roden (esq)
Well, that's it.