Petitions spring up in response to New Orleans Mayor's plan to move Confederate statues
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48196844]Sick nasty slippery slope man you sure showed those lefties!!!
Nobody is trying to erase the civil war from your fucking history, calm down. People are merely recognising a symbol for what it is, a symbol of oppression. You can still actually fly the flag, build monuments, etc. if you really want to, there's no legal precedent against it. You'll just look more like a racist hick than ever before.[/QUOTE]
It isn't oppressing anyone, sitting there.
Does a poster being put up that says "All women are inferior to the dumbest of men." offend you so much it'd "oppress" you? Do you know what real oppression is? Because what you call oppression is merely offending you.
Please, correct your diction. Thank you.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48196814]Creating a monument implies you're not just remembering that history but glorifying those the monument was built for. Removing a monument doesn't "erase history".[/QUOTE]
Ww1 monuments are not glorifying ww1 or the causes of it. They aren't about rabid nationalism, secret alliances or imperialism. They're about the soldiers and the heroes, etc.
The same applies to monuments from the civil war and slavery. Now if it was a statue of a white guy with a smiling black person on a leash with chains you might have a point but that certainly is not the case.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48196820]How long until Schools in the South stop teaching about the Civil War and people are forced to learn about it outside of School?[/QUOTE]
Texas' curriculum has stopped teaching that the Civil War was about slavery at all - instead it was a war of "states' rights." It also stopped teaching about Jim Crow laws and mandated segregation at all.
This is the opposite of what you're talking about. It is racists whitewashing the losing side of history. I would absolutely much rather see a monument come down than have an entire state saying "didn't happen lol"
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48198479]Ww1 monuments are not glorifying ww1 or the causes of it. They aren't about rabid nationalism, secret alliances or imperialism. They're about the soldiers and the heroes, etc.
The same applies to monuments from the civil war and slavery. Now if it was a statue of a white guy with a smiling black person on a leash with chains you might have a point but that certainly is not the case.[/QUOTE]
This monument was made 20 years after the Civil War by Civil War veterans to remember the dead soldiers. It is [I]very[/I] different than a flag put up 100 years later to support racists fighting the civil rights movement.
People are clearly opposed to this and I haven't heard a single person talk favorably about it. Most of New Orleans thinks it's stupid overkill, which it is, and most liberal friends of mine think it's dumb too.
[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;48198467]It isn't oppressing anyone, sitting there.
Does a poster being put up that says "All women are inferior to the dumbest of men." offend you so much it'd "oppress" you? Do you know what real oppression is? Because what you call oppression is merely offending you.
Please, correct your diction. Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Amazing. Truly the perfect post.
"Symbols of oppression" does not mean I believe said thing is actively oppressing others. Though what it does mean is the thing being discussed is a representation or manifestation of the oppressive society that created it (shit, people have actually been posting around evidence from the creator of one of the flags saying quite clearly it is to represent the superiority of the white man over the black).
Does a poster saying "women r dum lol" oppress me? Kinda hard with this penis being between my legs. But it does normalise the ideas that are the basis of female oppression ("women are dumb cunts get them in the kitchen"). Much of the backlash against things such as objectifying portrayals of women and other races, symbols of racist societies being flown as if they are meaningless, etc. is not because "oh well that makes you sexist/ oppressive straight up", but because it makes seeing that stuff normal. Why do you think there was such a backlash against rape jokes on the Internet over the last few years? Because it's demeaning and makes a pretty fucking severe thing seem trivial for the sake of a few yuks.
I did not misuse the terms in that post at all. Thank you and I hope you enjoyed this.
God damn do I need to get the confederate flag avatar back
this is still going on?
[QUOTE=J!NX;48198618]God damn do I need to get the confederate flag avatar back
this is still going on?[/QUOTE]
the fact you changed it to it is pretty petty in the first place tbh. there's a serious discussion going on about this shit, you aren't proving any kind of point by changing your e-portrait to a picture of it other than looking like a knee-jerking muppet really.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48198479]Ww1 monuments are not glorifying ww1 or the causes of it. They aren't about rabid nationalism, secret alliances or imperialism. They're about the soldiers and the heroes, etc.
The same applies to monuments from the civil war and slavery. Now if it was a statue of a white guy with a smiling black person on a leash with chains you might have a point but that certainly is not the case.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't see many people flying the flags of the losing sides from WW1 (well, neo-nazis sometimes get that German Empire flag going, but they're reactionary babies anyway). People are more than aware of the ties such a flag has to it's history. But apparently the Confederate battle flag has no ties to it's history according to a lot of posters? Why is that one special?
I also don't tend to see many monuments to those who lost the world wars glorifying them. Memorising the soldiers who fought and died? Maybe here and there. But making them out as righteous? Can't say I see that much. If these monuments to the Civil War are remembering the soldiers on the front line and just that, cool, whatever. But remembering the reasons they fought for as if they were right? Not something you really want a memorial for, owning people isn't right.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48198649]I also don't tend to see many monuments to those who lost the world wars glorifying them. Memorising the soldiers who fought and died? Maybe here and there. But making them out as righteous? Can't say I see that much. If these monuments to the Civil War are remembering the soldiers on the front line and just that, cool, whatever. But remembering the reasons they fought for as if they were right? Not something you really want a memorial for, owning people isn't right.[/QUOTE]
I like that you neatly dodged the question about what's wrong with glorifying someone who actively opposed the same things you are opposing just so you could carry on with this rhetoric about glorification.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48198494]Texas' curriculum has stopped teaching that the Civil War was about slavery at all - instead it was a war of "states' rights." It also stopped teaching about Jim Crow laws and mandated segregation at all.[/QUOTE]
No it hasn't - I live here, I was taught under the state developed curriculum, I only graduated last year. It was discussed at length all through school.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48198713]I like that you neatly dodged the question about what's wrong with glorifying someone who actively opposed the same things you are opposing just so you could carry on with this rhetoric about glorification.[/QUOTE]
Didn't even see that bit tbh. And yeah I'm gonna continue with the "rhetoric" about glorification because it's kind of an important point in my posts? But whatever, on to that point;
Okay cool. Someone opposed the bad thing. If they were against the bad thing, then they're probably pretty alright, and if they took actions to prevent the bad thing then sure, monument away.
[QUOTE=Comcastic;48193179]Apparently one of the monuments they want taken down is a statue of of P.G.T. Beauregard, who didn't even support slavery.
Are these people just lashing out at the first sign of anything "confederate"? I mean really, this is getting ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
So what? He was a Southern sympathizer from the beginning of the war who fled back to Louisiana immediately after it seceded from the Union so he could begin giving military advice on how to defend New Orleans, and more importantly, he was a Confederate commander during the war who wanted to invade Maryland and capture Washington after his success at Bull Run and who was responsible for thousands of deaths (as a commander) both there as well as at Shiloh, Corinth, and Petersburg (among others).
After the war, yeah, he supported civil rights for former slaves and became more accomodating towards the Union and Reconstruction, but so what? Does that absolve him of his responsibility for the lives lost and taken under his command during the war at battles where he was a field commander? No, it doesn't, and it doesn't change the fact that he chose to support the wrong side in the war either. So not only is his legacy one of responsibility for again thousands of deaths during the war needlessly, but it's also one of failure and treason.
We can argue the relativism of "well so-and-so from the Union did this and that and was bad too", but that's just an attempt to distract from the fundamental truth of this issue: that the very act of secession from the Union in the first place was an act of treason, and that the Confederacy's supporters and sympathizers were treasonous.
I've been saying this from the beginning: this isn't even something that should be about racism-- in spite of the fact that slavery and racist principles behind it were undeniably tied to the politics and social economics behind the war. The simple fact of the matter is the Confederacy lost. They illegally seceded from the federal government of the United States, bombarded Fort Sumter thereby instigating the war, and they were ultimately defeated by the federal government.
Racism shouldn't have anything to do with this honestly; it's a simple matter of the Confederacy was treasonous, and they (deservedly) lost the war in the end. That's reason enough to prohibit flying their colors over government offices or public buildings in general, to prohibit streets and schools from being named after their political figures and military figures, etc. That isn't "erasing history", that's rightfully denying them any glorified recognition for who they were and what they did.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48198713]I like that you neatly dodged the question about what's wrong with glorifying someone who actively opposed the same things you are opposing just so you could carry on with this rhetoric about glorification.
No it hasn't - I live here, I was taught under the state developed curriculum, I only graduated last year. It was discussed at length all through school.[/QUOTE]
I'm also from Texas, and it was discussed in-depth when I went to school there. The new Texas history curriculum (as of the 2015-2016 school year) has textbooks and curriculum requirements that seriously downplay slavery as a cause of the civil war and completely omit the KKK and Jim Crow.
[url]http://rt.com/usa/272293-texas-history-slavery-kkk/[/url]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48196814]Creating a monument implies you're not just remembering that history but glorifying those the monument was built for. Removing a monument doesn't "erase history". Denying the actual history of something does though. 90% of the people I've seen crying about the removal of Confederate items love to screech about "erasing history" then go on to say that the battle flag or whatever means nothing more than "Southern pride" (imagine being proud of being born somewhere). It's super hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of being hypocritical, will you ever answer the question I've asked you several times already about this subject and which you blatantly ignore every time?
Why the fuck do you keep on clinging to symbols with no intrinsic meaning and insist they represent bigotry? You admit that the meaning of symbols can change overtime yet when it comes to symbols such as these suddenly it's set in stone and eternal. Somehow according to people like you the KKK's use of the flag consolidates its racist connotations but people who fly it without supporting nor promoting any racist causes are still guilty of flying a "racist" flag even though, according to your logic, they should be commended for ridding the flag of its negative connotations.
Parading a representation of the "stars and bars" doesn't normalise racism any more than wearing red normalises communism. What it normalises is the use of the symbol itself, not its supposed connotations (which, it seems, varies greatly according to the individual).
And yes, people are proud of where they're born. Generally people are proud of the accomplishments of the groups they belong in even when they didn't contribute because humans are capable of empathy and such positive emotions help strengthen the group, that's sociology 101. Whether you want to admit it or not, you certainly indulge in such a behaviour yourself.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199016]Speaking of being hypocritical, will you ever answer the question I've asked you several times already about this subject and which you blatantly ignore every time?
Why the fuck do you keep on clinging to symbols with no intrinsic meaning and insist they represent bigotry? You admit that the meaning of symbols can change overtime yet when it comes to symbols such as these suddenly it's set in stone and eternal. Somehow according to people like you the KKK's use of the flag consolidates its racist connotations but people who fly it without supporting nor promoting any racist causes are still guilty of flying a "racist" flag even though, according to your logic, they should be commended for ridding the flag of its negative connotations.
Parading a representation of the "stars and bars" doesn't normalise racism any more than wearing red normalises communism. What it normalises is the use of the symbol itself, not its supposed connotations (which, it seems, varies greatly according to the individual).
And yes, people are proud of where they're born. Generally people are proud of the accomplishments of the groups they belong in even when they didn't contribute because humans are capable of empathy and such positive emotions help strengthen the group, that's sociology 101. Whether you want to admit it or not, you certainly indulge in such a behaviour yourself.[/QUOTE]
the flag can mean "southern heritage," that's fine, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the South Carolina government started flying the flag in the [B]1960s[/B] to denigrate the civil rights movement and show support for racists and segregation. It doesn't excuse the fact that Georgia changed the state flag in [B]1956[/B] to have the confederate flag for the exact same reason (though they've now changed it) - to show the state's solidarity in combating equal rights for black people. Really the only flag that can possibly get a break is the Mississippi flag, because it was given the confederate flag in 1894, long before the KKK was co-opting it to fight the civil rights movement.
Buy flags, fly them to show your southern pride - [I]nobody cares[/I]. Most people will just make the assumption that you're at least moderately racist and avoid you, but you have a right to fly that flag. Companies have a right not to sell that flag. There's no censorship or anything going on - the flag is legal and it can mean what you want it to mean - just don't get upset when people assume the flag you're flying to represent your southern pride is actually you tacitly expressing support for racism and segregation.
[QUOTE=Govna;48198771]We can argue the relativism of "well so-and-so from the Union did this and that and was bad too", but that's just an attempt to distract from the fundamental truth of this issue: that the very act of secession from the Union in the first place was an act of treason, and that the Confederacy's supporters and sympathizers were treasonous.
I've been saying this from the beginning: this isn't even something that should be about racism-- in spite of the fact that slavery and racist principles behind it were undeniably tied to the politics and social economics behind the war. The simple fact of the matter is the Confederacy lost. They illegally seceded from the federal government of the United States, bombarded Fort Sumter thereby instigating the war, and they were ultimately defeated by the federal government.
Racism shouldn't have anything to do with this honestly; it's a simple matter of the Confederacy was treasonous, and they (deservedly) lost the war in the end. That's reason enough to prohibit flying their colors over government offices or public buildings in general, to prohibit streets and schools from being named after their political figures and military figures, etc. That isn't "erasing history", that's rightfully denying them any glorified recognition for who they were and what they did.[/QUOTE]
Since when is treason an objectively evil act? The war of independence was an act of treason towards the British and I rarely see people criticising it.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199076]Since when is treason an objectively evil act? The war of independence was an act of treason towards the British and I rarely see people criticising it.[/QUOTE]
Because the US's treason was supported internationally and recognized and legitimized over time - ironically most strongly by the country you're from. The CSA's treason was never recognized by any foreign country. The CSA was never a country by any measure - it was a rebellion and nothing more. Same vein as the Whiskey Rebellion. Declaring independence doesn't make you an independent nation, that depends on the recognition of other countries. The USA achieved that - the CSA didn't.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199049]the flag can mean "southern heritage," that's fine, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the South Carolina government started flying the flag in the [B]1960s[/B] to denigrate the civil rights movement and show support for racists and segregation. It doesn't excuse the fact that Georgia changed the state flag in [B]1956[/B] to have the confederate flag for the exact same reason (though they've now changed it) - to show the state's solidarity in combating equal rights for black people. Really the only flag that can possibly get a break is the Mississippi flag, because it was given the confederate flag in 1894, long before the KKK was co-opting it to fight the civil rights movement.[/QUOTE]
And? Countless symbols have been used as backgrounds to atrocities and yet nobody bats an eye when they see them in everyday life. Guilt by association is not a sensible way of determining people's alignment.
[Quote]Buy flags, fly them to show your southern pride - [I]nobody cares[/I]. Most people will just make the assumption that you're at least moderately racist and avoid you, but you have a right to fly that flag. Companies have a right not to sell that flag. There's no censorship or anything going on - the flag is legal and it can mean what you want it to mean - just don't get upset when people assume the flag you're flying to represent your southern pride is actually you tacitly expressing support for racism and segregation.[/QUOTE]
Those people are retarded for making this assumption in the first place is my point.
And even then there's people like Hexpunk over there who insist that the flag's meaning remains the same regardless of your intentions.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199097]Because the US's treason was supported internationally and recognized and legitimized over time - ironically most strongly by the country you're from. The CSA's treason was never recognized by any foreign country. The CSA was never a country by any measure - it was a rebellion and nothing more. Same vein as the Whiskey Rebellion. Declaring independence doesn't make you an independent nation, that depends on the recognition of other countries. The USA achieved that - the CSA didn't.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not they get recognised internationally doesn't determine whether their rebellion was morally right.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48199139]It's funny when a non-southern american dweller tries to say the flag isn't mostly flown by rednecks and neo-nazis.[/QUOTE]
It's funny when a serial shitposter barges into the thread and completely misses the point.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199140]Whether or not they get recognised internationally doesn't determine whether their rebellion was morally right.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
It's funny when a serial shitposter barges into the thread and completely misses the point.[/QUOTE]
Gonna have to go with RichyZ on this one tbh, I've never seen the 'stars and bars' flown by anyone that wasn't a redneck, neo nazi, bigot, or without bigot tendecies.
weird, the monument they want to remove is actually the one thing from the confederate state's that isn't a "symbol for racism" as it's for the person(General Lee) who wasn't entirely for slavery in the CSA. I don't understand why they want to get rid of it..
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199140]Whether or not they get recognised internationally doesn't determine whether their rebellion was morally right.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
It's funny when a serial shitposter barges into the thread and completely misses the point.[/QUOTE]
I'd say fighting to [I]have the right to own other human beings as property[/I] is pretty fucking clearly in the "morally wrong" territory.
I live in Texas. I know that not everyone who owns a confederate flag is racist - most aren't. I don't care if you have a flag. I have friends with tattoos of the flag. I don't fucking care. I don't assume you're racist if you have the flag - I assume you're [I]more likely[/I] to be a racist than somebody who isn't flying the flag.
The reason I want the flags removed from all government areas is because [I]they were added to support segregation and racism[/I], with the singular exception of Mississippi's state flag. They weren't added to express southern pride. Yes, the flag [I]can[/I] mean southern pride, I'm well aware - I see it all the time and it doesn't bother me. These specific flags and modifications of state flags [I]were added with the intention of expressing solidarity with people who wanted other humans to have fewer rights than the rest of them solely because of the color of their skin.[/I]
It's fucking laughable that a French person somehow thinks they have a clearer view into the intricacies of the confederate flag than someone who [I]sees them pasted on bumpers every single day.[/I]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199224]I'd say fighting to [I]have the right to own other human beings as property[/I] is pretty fucking clearly in the "morally wrong" territory.[/QUOTE]
Have you read my post from the beginning? The post I was responding to said that the CSA was morally wrong not because of slavery, but because they were the "treasonous" side, as if that argument alone held moral value. That's what I was criticising.
[QUOTE]I live in Texas. I know that not everyone who owns a confederate flag is racist - most aren't. I don't care if you have a flag. I have friends with tattoos of the flag. I don't fucking care. I don't assume you're racist if you have the flag - I assume you're [I]more likely[/I] to be a racist than somebody who isn't flying the flag.
The reason I want the flags removed from all government areas is because [I]they were added to support segregation and racism[/I], with the singular exception of Mississippi's state flag. They weren't added to express southern pride. Yes, the flag [I]can[/I] mean southern pride, I'm well aware - I see it all the time and it doesn't bother me. These specific flags and modifications of state flags [I]were added with the intention of expressing solidarity with people who wanted other humans to have fewer rights than the rest of them solely because of the color of their skin.[/I]
It's fucking laughable that a French person somehow thinks they have a clearer view into the intricacies of the confederate flag than someone who [I]sees them pasted on bumpers every single day.[/I][/QUOTE]
That's the thing there, I'm not talking about this specific symbol, I'm talking about how symbols work in general and the CSA flag is no exception. Arguing about nationality doesn't bring anything useful to the table at all.
What I'm against is the haughty behaviour of people who are being disdainful towards those who want to reclaim the flag to represent a more positive cause.
And even then your reasoning about people's use of the flag is dubious. Would you avoid racial minorities because they're statistically more likely to be criminals?
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48199207]Gonna have to go with RichyZ on this one tbh, I've never seen the 'stars and bars' flown by anyone that wasn't a redneck, neo nazi, bigot, or without bigot tendecies.[/QUOTE]
You never seeing any doesn't mean they don't exist. Unless you're an ostrich that's really stupid reasoning.
This isnt an attempt to delete history, they aren't saying, "lets never talk about the civil war!" they are saying, "Lets not romanticize a war fought to keep slaves."
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199258]That's the thing there, I'm not talking about this specific symbol, I'm talking about how symbols work in general and the CSA flag is no exception. Arguing about nationality doesn't bring anything useful to the table at all.
What I'm against is the haughty behaviour of people who are being disdainful towards those who want to reclaim the flag to represent a more positive cause.
And even then your reasoning about people's use of the flag is dubious. Would you avoid racial minorities because they're statistically more likely to be criminals?
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
You never seeing any doesn't mean they don't exist. Unless you're an ostrich that's really stupid reasoning.[/QUOTE]
arguing that "flying the confederate flag" = "being a racial minority" is idiotic. one is a choice to fly a flag that [I]everyone[/I] knows has racist connotations. the other is having a certain skin color.
reclaim the flag, that's fine, go for it. it will never lose racist connotations because it'll always stand for a rebellion that wanted to keep slavery alive [I]even if you reclaim it.[/I] that's historical - just like the US flag still stands for the horrors of the atomic bomb and agent orange. you can't erase the history in an attempt to "reclaim the flag."
modern uses can outshine past ones, absolutely. if a bunch of totally not-racist southerners started flying the flag and really made an effort to make it a non-racist flag free of racial connotations, i would be far less likely to make the assumption that someone flying it is likely a racist. that's not how it stands [I]right now[/I] - a fair slice (probably around a quarter) of the people who fly the flag [I]absolutely are[/I] unabashedly racist. they're the type of people to yell "nigger" out of their lifted truck if they see a black guy walking down the street. it's not that unusual. i've seen it happen.
[I]once it is reclaimed and given a less negative connotation[/I], i'll be less likely to judge people for flying it. the opposite of that is happening right now, though - it's being given even more of a racist connotation, so it's very unlikely that the flag will ever really stand for "southern rights" in the mind of the public more than it stands for "oppressing black people and fighting for slavery and segregation"
i love you pulled that 25% statistic out of no where, nice.
[QUOTE=bdd458;48199356]i love you pulled that 25% statistic out of no where, nice.[/QUOTE]
anecdotal. a majority aren't racist at all - but there is some percentage that is. noticeable enough for me (as a texan) to see people flaunting confederate flags and saying vile and racist shit even though I don't make any effort to actually socialize with those people.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199367]anecdotal. a majority aren't racist at all - but there is some percentage that is. noticeable enough for me (as a texan) to see people flaunting confederate flags and saying vile and racist shit even though I don't make any effort to actually socialize with those people.[/QUOTE]
I live in rural west Texas and I've never seen people shouting NIGGER out of their trucks in my life. My first encounter with genuinely bone chilling racism was in Louisiana.
I see people saying shit about Muslims but that's ignorance more than genuine hatred.
If it's Anecdotal, then it's not a statistic then, is it?
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
I'm sorry, you can't just make up a statistic and parade it around as a fact lmao
[QUOTE=bdd458;48199391]If it's Anecdotal, then it's not a statistic then, is it?
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
I'm sorry, you can't just make up a statistic and parade it around as a fact lmao[/QUOTE]
No you don't get it, he lives in Texas, he's seen 25% of all Texans being racist hicks, it's true.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48199379]I live in rural west Texas and I've never seen people shouting NIGGER out of their trucks in my life. My first encounter with genuinely bone chilling racism was in Louisiana.
I see people saying shit about Muslims but that's ignorance more than genuine hatred.[/QUOTE]
It happened to me when I was walking in a park with a friend (before any of us could drive).
There was a guy at my school who I only knew as an acquaintance - drove a lifted truck with a confederate flag bumper sticker and the whole stereotype. Shirts with sleeves cut off, torn up pants, cowboy boots, all of that.
He posted on Facebook that my (largely black) high school was "looking like planet of the apes."
The super super blatant racism? Not that common. Subtle racism, like people talking about how they wish the whole high school could be "less ghetto/have less thugs, like the upper level (largely white) classes," was incredibly common.
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;48199391]If it's Anecdotal, then it's not a statistic then, is it?
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
I'm sorry, you can't just make up a statistic and parade it around as a fact lmao[/QUOTE]
jesus christ i'm sorry let me edit it to say "some percentage" instead of asspulling a specific percentage because obviously that means that it is literally scientific and exact
it was meant to be a rough estimate from my own experience not a scientific study, i was never parading it as fact and citing "IT IS EXACTLY 25% OF RACISTS"
now it says "a quarter" is that less "parading it as fact" for you??
Middle-upper class kids in an urban environment being retards isn't a problem inherent or exclusive to Texas or related to the Confederate battle flag
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199347]arguing that "flying the confederate flag" = "being a racial minority" is idiotic. one is a choice to fly a flag that [I]everyone[/I] knows has racist connotations. the other is having a certain skin color.[/QUOTE]
No, you have the same reasoning as people who engage in racial profiling in that you judge people by their appearance rather than their behaviour. Whether it's a choice of theirs or not is irrelevant.
[QUOTE]reclaim the flag, that's fine, go for it. it will never lose racist connotations because it'll always stand for a rebellion that wanted to keep slavery alive [I]even if you reclaim it.[/I] that's historical - just like the US flag still stands for the horrors of the atomic bomb and agent orange. you can't erase the history in an attempt to "reclaim the flag."[/QUOTE]
So are symbols fixated or are they not? The swatiska didn't retain its original, historical meaning. It went from a symbol of peace and prosperity to a symbol of fascism.
[QUOTE]modern uses can outshine past ones, absolutely. if a bunch of totally not-racist southerners started flying the flag and really made an effort to make it a non-racist flag free of racial connotations, i would be far less likely to make the assumption that someone flying it is likely a racist. that's not how it stands [I]right now[/I] - a fair slice (25% or more) of the people who fly the flag [I]absolutely are[/I] unabashedly racist. they're the type of people to yell "nigger" out of their lifted truck if they see a black guy walking down the street. it's not that unusual. i've seen it happen.[/QUOTE]
Replace the flag with a race and reconsider your stance.
[QUOTE][I]once it is reclaimed and given a less negative connotation[/I], i'll be less likely to judge people for flying it. the opposite of that is happening right now, though - it's being given even more of a racist connotation, so it's very unlikely that the flag will ever really stand for "southern rights" in the mind of the public more than it stands for "oppressing black people and fighting for slavery and segregation"[/QUOTE]
How can those negative connotations go away if people keep on insisting that it's the flag's intrinsic meaning? According to your model symbols' connotations can only worsen over time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.