A lot of people who fly the confederate flag are doing it because they're proud to be southern. And when you consider how very much of what makes this country this country comes from the south, they've got every right to be proud.
It's seen by some as an offensive symbol too and many fly it just to be offensive.
But then in hanging the symbol, it could be taken as condemning people who fly the flag or it could be taken as condemning the south. One of those things is controversial the other is bigotry.
A sticker would let you know if the person was flying the confederate flag because of Mark Twain, Elvis, Tennessee Williams, Johnny Mercer, etc. or because they hated minorities.
Personally, I am of the school that if you know people are going to think what you're doing is offensive (even if you don't mean it to be so) you try to not do it around them but I've met a ton of people who love the confederate flag so much that they can't imagine how anyone would equate it with racism or intolerance.
I'm just saying, that's a thought provoking installation but I think it may be telling us more about the bigotry the south endures than the bigotry the south creates.
Symbols change in meaning. The swastika used to be a symbol of life and good health. Anyone who wears it now and claims they're doing so to celebrate life and good health is either dissembling or completely ignorant of its current connotation, and I find it hard to believe anyone is ignorant of what that symbol means.
Likewise, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the South could be unaware of the connotations that flag has taken on, most especially when it's hung in front of statehouses.
Personally, I am of the school that if you know people are going to think what you're doing is offensive (even if you don't mean it to be so) you try to not do it around them but I've met a ton of people who love the confederate flag so much that they can't imagine how anyone would equate it with racism or intolerance.
Do you think that they know that it's offensive to others, including large numbers of African-Americans?
I have no contempt for the South. The South is not equivalent to the Confederacy. Nor is the flying of the Confederate battle flag a value-neutral declaration of pride of heritage, not any more. This may be a sad thing, but it's true, much as it's true that as much as I love life and good health, I'm not about to wear a swastika on my jacket to honor that.
I do believe that some of my friends (porcinea comes to mind) may have things to say that may change my opinion on this, but "It might offend people to feel insulted that they perpetuate a divisive symbol" isn't very persuasive to me at the moment.
It's a symbol that started as the emblem of a rebellion against the United States in the name of perpetuating slavery (take a look at the constitution of the CSA if you doubt the latter), and was added to state flags as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement.
If you love Johnny Mercer and Elvis Presley, there are better symbols. If you love the South because it's the land of those great American leaders Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, you're not likely to choose that symbol.
I'm confused now. Serene says symbols are dynamic. swastikas were good now they're bad.
You say that symbols are not dynamic. Confederate flag means slavery end of story.
You could maybe resolve this with symbols can be tarnished by great evils like the holocaust or slave trade.
But then the pink triangle, which was a sign of persecution and is now a sign of pride, blows that to hell.
I'm just saying that this one symbol means different things to different people and that most any time it comes up each viewpoint basically just insults the other by refusing to admit that there could be more than one way to look at things. I'm not sure that does any good.
Personally, I think if you assume everyone who has a confederate flag is a racist, you are stereotyping.
I also think that everyone has the right to be offended but that doesn't mean they have the right to be free from free expression.
I believe that if enough people tell you they're offended by your expression, you're being inconsiderate even if your original intent was not to offend.
Finally, I believe that more free speech is always good even when it is offensive because the freedom to do what is acceptable rarely gets impinged upon.
So, if you and Serene disagree on something, I can prove you both wrong, because you both agree on free speech? Seriously, finding a disagreement between my argument and someone else's is hardly proof by contradiction.
More to the point, there's a difference between something being tarnished, and something starting out dirty.
Yes, one of the complications of symbols, and especially non-verbal ones, is that they mean many things to many people. However, if a symbol starts as the symbol of a racist rebellion, anyone who adopts it later should at least realize that they are risking offense for reasons historical as well as contemporary, and "but it was used for something innocent before it was tarnished" won't wash. Thus it is disingenuous for someone to take offense when people object to the use of that symbol; "I'm sorry, I mean no offense, but we haven't come up with another good symbol of the South" is believable in a way that "But no reasonable person could object to this innocent symbol of Southern culture!" is not. (If the innocent symbol of Southern culture were a Mississippi paddle-wheeler, or Monticello as pictured on the nickel, that would be a reasonable argument.)
The use of the pink triangle as a gay symbol isn't parallel: if the Confederate battle flag had been shunned by white Southerners and adopted by the Black Panther Party, the Five Percent Nation of Islam, or for that matter the NAACP, you'd have a case.
The constitution of the CSA is a weak peg upon which to hang the "Civil war was all about slavery" banner. You're referring to
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
and
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
But to make your case you must ignore
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
and
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
More importantly, the document to which you refer dates within a week of Lincoln's first inaugural address in which he flatly stated "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Hmmm, no lawful right or inclination...sounds like both sides were in agreement. No, I'm sorry, as much as you might like to color that conflict over with the glorious, freedom loving blue and old evil massa' gray it just doesn't work that way. It was a disagreement over federalism taken to its extreme. That's all.
Finally, lest you make assumptions, I'm a full-blown northerner with no particular appreciation or disdain for Confederate symbols. Why would I choose to grant them that sort of power. For that matter, why do you?
Sorry, I thought I'd better get out before I caught my second wind.
It distresses me on occasion that the tenth amendment lies dusty and forgotten because the Civil War's result made it acceptable for the federal government to meddle just about anywhere they like.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Yes, my phrase was simplistic but right there in that hotly debated yet still enacted phrase lies the root of the civil war. Did the federal government have the right to dictate policy to the states?
States' rights advocacy drifts in and out of vogue with groups depending upon which party has real or perceived control of the Federal government. In 1861 the touchstone issue was slavery. I maintain that if it hadn't come to a head at that point the split could have occurred over any of the issues that subsequently became constitutional amendments, over depression-era food policy, or over just about any of the issues that people like to wave flags over today.
The Civil War did put an end to what was a dying institution of slavery. It also radically changed our system of government, concentrating power in a manner antithetical to the intentions of the founding fathers. That hasn't always been bad, it hasn't always been good but it has been different.
Reading recommendation of the moment: Jeffersonian Legacies Edited by Peter S. Onuf 1993 University of Virginia Press
Um, the entire plantation system (and the early industrial capitalism that it represented, not just in the United States, but throughout the tropical Americas) was a killing machine. The biggest migration to the Americas (before the civil war) weren't those who came on their own free will, but those who were enslaved or endentured
Because, clearly, all right-thinking people will get it. And screw everyone else, I guess.
I don't like this piece of "art" but, hey, they're free to display it. On the other hand, anyone who objects to a more traditional display of the Confederate flag is equally entitled to a nice big slice of "shut the **** up" if they complain about that.
Fair enough, unless by "More traditional" you mean "On government property" in which case there is a fundamental difference.
Also, there's a difference between "Offensive" in the sense of unpleasant and "Offensive" in the sense of threatening. I don't think Southerners will feel threatened by that installation. I do think minorities can feel threatened by the display of a confederate flag, and I don't think that's unreasonable, even though I accept that not all Southerners mean it as a threat.
Unless your conception was nonstandard, saying your father was a motherfucker can be true, and it can clearly be used as a pun. If it was meant as a pun (and regardless of its accuracy), it's not automatically offensive, though some people would find the language offensive regardless. But, if it's just a joke about how certain phrases evoke certain ideas that are outside of their literal truth, it's not offensive to most.
I can all-but guarantee that the artist was not trying to suggest that the whole south could go hang for all he cared. I reckon you probably can, too.
that sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments that non-racist southerners use about the confederate flag though when they fly it.
To them, anyone taking offence, is clearly misreading the intended meaning.
Which gets back to my initial idea. It'd be a lot simpler if there were two confederate flags, one that symbolized slavery and the other that symbolized the south.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:06 pm (UTC)(ugh, no appropriate icon...)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:25 pm (UTC)It's definitely moving as a work of art but it seems just as bad as when state capitols fly the confederate flag.
it'd be a lot simpler if we could get all the people who like the flag to put a sticker on saying whether they're displaying it out of hate or love.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:53 pm (UTC)A lot of people who fly the confederate flag are doing it because they're proud to be southern. And when you consider how very much of what makes this country this country comes from the south, they've got every right to be proud.
It's seen by some as an offensive symbol too and many fly it just to be offensive.
But then in hanging the symbol, it could be taken as condemning people who fly the flag or it could be taken as condemning the south. One of those things is controversial the other is bigotry.
A sticker would let you know if the person was flying the confederate flag because of Mark Twain, Elvis, Tennessee Williams, Johnny Mercer, etc. or because they hated minorities.
Personally, I am of the school that if you know people are going to think what you're doing is offensive (even if you don't mean it to be so) you try to not do it around them but I've met a ton of people who love the confederate flag so much that they can't imagine how anyone would equate it with racism or intolerance.
I'm just saying, that's a thought provoking installation but I think it may be telling us more about the bigotry the south endures than the bigotry the south creates.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:07 pm (UTC)Likewise, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the South could be unaware of the connotations that flag has taken on, most especially when it's hung in front of statehouses.
Personally, I am of the school that if you know people are going to think what you're doing is offensive (even if you don't mean it to be so) you try to not do it around them but I've met a ton of people who love the confederate flag so much that they can't imagine how anyone would equate it with racism or intolerance.
Do you think that they know that it's offensive to others, including large numbers of African-Americans?
I have no contempt for the South. The South is not equivalent to the Confederacy. Nor is the flying of the Confederate battle flag a value-neutral declaration of pride of heritage, not any more. This may be a sad thing, but it's true, much as it's true that as much as I love life and good health, I'm not about to wear a swastika on my jacket to honor that.
I do believe that some of my friends (
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:23 pm (UTC)Its not about offending people who perpetuate a divisive symbol. It's about offending the rest of us.
It's about using a symbol that can mean the whole south and putting it into a killing machine.
How is that not offensive?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:33 pm (UTC)If you love Johnny Mercer and Elvis Presley, there are better symbols. If you love the South because it's the land of those great American leaders Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, you're not likely to choose that symbol.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 08:40 pm (UTC)You say that symbols are not dynamic. Confederate flag means slavery end of story.
You could maybe resolve this with symbols can be tarnished by great evils like the holocaust or slave trade.
But then the pink triangle, which was a sign of persecution and is now a sign of pride, blows that to hell.
I'm just saying that this one symbol means different things to different people and that most any time it comes up each viewpoint basically just insults the other by refusing to admit that there could be more than one way to look at things. I'm not sure that does any good.
Personally, I think if you assume everyone who has a confederate flag is a racist, you are stereotyping.
I also think that everyone has the right to be offended but that doesn't mean they have the right to be free from free expression.
I believe that if enough people tell you they're offended by your expression, you're being inconsiderate even if your original intent was not to offend.
Finally, I believe that more free speech is always good even when it is offensive because the freedom to do what is acceptable rarely gets impinged upon.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 11:16 pm (UTC)More to the point, there's a difference between something being tarnished, and something starting out dirty.
Yes, one of the complications of symbols, and especially non-verbal ones, is that they mean many things to many people. However, if a symbol starts as the symbol of a racist rebellion, anyone who adopts it later should at least realize that they are risking offense for reasons historical as well as contemporary, and "but it was used for something innocent before it was tarnished" won't wash. Thus it is disingenuous for someone to take offense when people object to the use of that symbol; "I'm sorry, I mean no offense, but we haven't come up with another good symbol of the South" is believable in a way that "But no reasonable person could object to this innocent symbol of Southern culture!" is not. (If the innocent symbol of Southern culture were a Mississippi paddle-wheeler, or Monticello as pictured on the nickel, that would be a reasonable argument.)
The use of the pink triangle as a gay symbol isn't parallel: if the Confederate battle flag had been shunned by white Southerners and adopted by the Black Panther Party, the Five Percent Nation of Islam, or for that matter the NAACP, you'd have a case.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 09:31 pm (UTC)Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
and
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
But to make your case you must ignore
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
and
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
More importantly, the document to which you refer dates within a week of Lincoln's first inaugural address in which he flatly stated "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Hmmm, no lawful right or inclination...sounds like both sides were in agreement. No, I'm sorry, as much as you might like to color that conflict over with the glorious, freedom loving blue and old evil massa' gray it just doesn't work that way. It was a disagreement over federalism taken to its extreme. That's all.
Finally, lest you make assumptions, I'm a full-blown northerner with no particular appreciation or disdain for Confederate symbols. Why would I choose to grant them that sort of power. For that matter, why do you?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 10:04 pm (UTC)An oddly simplistic line in an otherwise thoughtful comment.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 04:06 am (UTC)It distresses me on occasion that the tenth amendment lies dusty and forgotten because the Civil War's result made it acceptable for the federal government to meddle just about anywhere they like.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Yes, my phrase was simplistic but right there in that hotly debated yet still enacted phrase lies the root of the civil war. Did the federal government have the right to dictate policy to the states?
States' rights advocacy drifts in and out of vogue with groups depending upon which party has real or perceived control of the Federal government. In 1861 the touchstone issue was slavery. I maintain that if it hadn't come to a head at that point the split could have occurred over any of the issues that subsequently became constitutional amendments, over depression-era food policy, or over just about any of the issues that people like to wave flags over today.
The Civil War did put an end to what was a dying institution of slavery. It also radically changed our system of government, concentrating power in a manner antithetical to the intentions of the founding fathers. That hasn't always been bad, it hasn't always been good but it has been different.
Reading recommendation of the moment: Jeffersonian Legacies Edited by Peter S. Onuf 1993 University of Virginia Press
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:44 pm (UTC)I don't like this piece of "art" but, hey, they're free to display it. On the other hand, anyone who objects to a more traditional display of the Confederate flag is equally entitled to a nice big slice of "shut the **** up" if they complain about that.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 12:42 am (UTC)Also, there's a difference between "Offensive" in the sense of unpleasant and "Offensive" in the sense of threatening. I don't think Southerners will feel threatened by that installation. I do think minorities can feel threatened by the display of a confederate flag, and I don't think that's unreasonable, even though I accept that not all Southerners mean it as a threat.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 07:33 pm (UTC)I can all-but guarantee that the artist was not trying to suggest that the whole south could go hang for all he cared. I reckon you probably can, too.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 08:06 pm (UTC)To them, anyone taking offence, is clearly misreading the intended meaning.
Which gets back to my initial idea. It'd be a lot simpler if there were two confederate flags, one that symbolized slavery and the other that symbolized the south.
Another idea would be to burn all the flags.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 06:42 pm (UTC)still is, here. i know some austrian student volunteers who were very badly shocked by that.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-21 05:35 pm (UTC)I totally get it.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 02:30 pm (UTC)that's beautiful. Very powerful piece of art. Works for me.