Rebel Flag

Currently, on my university campus, there is a big debate going on about the confederate flag. Black students find the flag extremley offensive and want it banned. White students, who are the vast majority, say its their right to free speech and expresison to be able to display the flag, those of traditional colors and those made with the university colors. They say its not about racism, but about southern pride nd culture.

The black students are REALLY pissed about this. They've been holding protest marches and various rallys to get the university to ban the flag on campus. But the angrier the black folk get about the flag, it just makes the white folk want to go out and buy a flag just b/c they dont like being told they cant. As a white person, I never really felt any urge to fly a rebel flag before. It always seemed kind of.......redneck. But now I suddenly want to go out and paint a rebel flag on the doors of my car, just b/c I dont like being told I cant, and I'm not racist at all. Its a really weird controversy, and its starting to insight some hate. A few white people, mostly tailgaters, were yelling some rather hateful remarks at black protesters during a march before a football game.

To me, this seems like a really stupid thing to get upset over. I mean, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the white people who display the flag are doing so out of southern pride and not racism or the promotion of slavery. Then again, Im white, so I cant really see this from a black persons p.o.v.

Id like to hear some opinions about this. Should the rebel flag be banned from a university campus, or should people be allowed to display it at their leisure?

If youre gonna fly a rebel flag then be about it, dont just shoot the breeze about it. It represents independence and ultimately secession from the union and it glorifies the practices of the south during the time of the civil war, whether you wish to see it that way or not. The fact remains that flag was flown to symbolize the south and its so-called "culture" at the time and mainly the right to own slaves. Flying that around and then having a black person ask you to take it down and you continue to fly or display it is like a spit in the face.

So if you want to put that flag up let me ask you, what are you rebelling against? And if you really are rebelling against something why must you use THAT flag? That which carries a noted history of hatred strife and racial disenfranchisement?

[ellie]

I'm white, but the rebel flag is still incredibly offensive to me. I live in the south, so I see the flag flying fairly often. I refuse to ride in cars with my friends who have rebel flags on their license plates because I don't want to be associated with it. It is demeaning towards black people. Clearly, if the black population at your school is offended by the rebel flag, then there is obviously a problem with it.

[belladonna]

i am white, live in the south, attend a majority black school, and grew up in a majority black neighborhood... that flag is offensive to me... i have friends who don't care - see it as southern pride and wear dixie outfitters clothes... you will never see me doing that... i know the boundaries...

[ruaidhri]

The Rebel Flag is just what the name implies, a flag that represents the South's rebellion against the government of the United States of America. I believe that today, 140 years following the end of America’s Civil War it is time everyone realizes that there is no independent South. We are all part of the same country, the United States.

Why did the South secede from the Union? Certainly there were differences between the Northern and Southern cultures other than slavery but it was slavery that caused the greatest rift. The question was which new states and territories would be free and which would be slave.

When I was young boy and man, the South clung closely to its past. They treated Blocks as second class citizens. Most Southerners accepted and participated in overt racism. When my cousin went to High School football games they sang Dixie to the “Rebel” flag instead of the Start Spangled Banner to the American Flag. When a Southerner committed an overt act of racism, the Rebel flag was always proudly displayed.

Is it any wonder that Blacks recognize the Rebel Flag as a symbol of their oppression. Isn’t it time that people at your University, which is supposed to be an institution of learning and understanding, accept that we are all Americans, regardless of our color. The Rebel Flag is not honorable. It does not represent an honorable act. Instead it represents a betrayal of the United States and a crime against a group of people by forcing them into slavery.

It is time for the Rebel Flag to be shunned by everyone.

[Mechs]

Originally Posted by ruaidhri

The Rebel Flag is just what the name implies, a flag that represents the South rebellion against the government of the United States of America. I believe that today, 140 years following the end of America’s Civil War it is time everyone realizes that there is no independent South. We are all part of the same country, the United States.

Why did the South secede from the Union? Certainly there were differences between the Northern and Southern cultures other than slavery but it was slavery that caused the greatest rift. The question was which new states and territories would be free and which would be slave.

When I was young boy and man, the South clung closely to its past. They treated Blocks as second class citizens. Most Southerners accepted and participated in overt racism. When my cousin went to High School football games they sang Dixie to the “Rebel” flag instead of the Start Spangled Banner to the American Flag. When a Southerner committed an overt act of racism, the Rebel flag was always proudly displayed.

Is it any wonder that Blacks recognize the Rebel Flag as a symbol of their oppression. Isn’t it time that people at your University, which is supposed to be an institution of learning and understanding, accept that we are all Americans, regardless of our color. The Rebel Flag is not honorable. It does not represent an honorable act. Instead it represents a betrayal of the United States and a crime against a group of people by forcing them into slavery.

It is time for the Rebel Flag to be shunned by everyone.

Here here to that.

[Pretentious]

I tend not to give a shit about the rebel flag. It's a flag. If they want to fly it, let them fly it. Unless they're going around practicing the art of lynching black people, leave them be.

Lets let people fly nazi flags too then eh?

It's the ideology behind the Confederate Flag that really disturbs me. Whether you like it or not, United States of America can't really exist without each and every race in American coming to an understanding or compromise between them. That's why people are always trying to be PC, even to the point it becomes lame and ridiculous. While The Confederate States are part of the history, it is the embarassing part of the history, and people who support the Confederate Flag are not willing to accept it as such.

People can fly Confederate Flag, Nazi flag, burn flags, or march in KKK uniforms right where MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech by Lincoln Memorial. Freedom of the speech is in works at that situation. However, there's something certainly wrong with you when you don't care much about that. Why would you go around and wave that flag around when you are offending every minority out there? Might as well go around and call people derogatory names and make fun of them, while giving a speech of how superior your race is. Because to me, that's the message behind the Confederate Flag.

The flag absolutely should NOT be banned by the campus.

I, too, am from the South (Atlanta, GA). Yes, the flag is a symbol of the Confederacy, Southern heritage, etc, AND it is an inextricable symbol of slavery and the oppression of blacks. Whatever else it originally stood for, TODAY it means racism. It is only honestly flown by people who wish to go back to that era and who harbor anti-black and other so-called "redneck" sentiments. (Although, the term "redneck" is itself an offensive label and stereotype, and the people who seriously use it should consider their own prejudices.) As such, the rebel flag is an embarrassment, as are the feelings projected by the people who fly it. It is something which needs to be religated to history.

HOWEVER, flying the rebel flag is not a direct threat against any individual or group, no matter how much some people would like to interpret it that way. Harboring and even publicly displaying offensive or racist beliefs is still protected free speech, because it is not a direct threat. (Compare KKK marches, which are still legal, because despite the views they espouse, they make no direct threats.) College campuses are supposed to be (and once were) bastions of free speech, places where opinions and belief structures, no matter how outside the accepted norm, were allowed to be spoken and receive feedback. They should remain such rather than becoming bastions of intolerant tolerance (be tolerant according to these guidelines, or else!).

Why? (1) Banning offensive but non-threatening items quickly becomes a slippery slope. Some cases are clear cut: the flag serves no true positive purpose. But what about the inevitable vaguer cases? Should Christmas displays in a student's dorm window be banned because it might offend a Jewish student whose people were once (and in some places still are) persecuted by so-called Christians? Or should a rosary hanging on a car rear-view mirror be banned because the Papist symbol offends a Lutheran (since Catholics may have persecuted them centuries ago)?

(2) In the same vein, banning offensive but non-threatening items quickly can become ridiculous in the interests of fairness. What about banning all images of pigs because they might offend a Muslim? (This actually happened at one place in Britain, although the town council rescinded the ban after a few weeks.)

(3) Free speech can be a bitch, but it is very important and necessary for higher learning. College should be a place to learn (a) to speak one's mind, (b) to rationally analyze, review, reconsider, and defend one's views against others, (c) to deal with and react to the views of others when they are different from one's own. It should NOT be a place where one learns to say "I find that non-threatening opinion offensive, so ban it!" rather than taking up a rational discourse.

Case in point: if the black reaction to the rebel flags at Boner's campus had been to review the history of the flag carefully, rationally, and thoroughly in the school newspaper or other public fora, and to address the claims of those who fly it on their own terms, rather than to stage protests and call for its ban, then they'd have had better success. Why? They cannot and will not change the opinions of those who fly the flag from racist intentions. In this case, banning the flag does nothing to address the underlying issues and may even cause them to fester further. They COULD POSSIBLY change the opinions of those who fly it from purely "Southern heritage" intentions. And they would not have incited people like Boner to want to fly it solely because they were being told they couldn't. That's as successful as one could possibly be.

Besides, one last positive of free speech: it lets you see all the more clearly and all the more quickly who the biggest idiots, bigots, and boors are. Think of it as self-demarcation.

Damn you Idlethought and Kobun, you stole my thunder.

Afraid I can't add too much, other than that I agree with your points.

The confederate flag is to blacks as the Nazi flag is to Jews. Would this even be an issue of free speech or not if it were a Nazi flag? You might say yes but you know damn well it wouldnt be. Its widely accepted that the Nazi flag is banned nearly everywhere and if someone were to fly it up theyd be put down in an instant. Why then does it become acceptable to put up a confederate flag, which stood for practically the same if not worse atrocities than the nazi flag?

In the end all I'm sayin is if those students who display the flag for whatever reason suddenly get jumped and bludgeoned near death by a black gang or what have you, they have no reason to wonder why. It's an outright slap in the face to blacks and to the Union itself.

Originally Posted by Idlethought

In the end all I'm sayin is if those students who display the flag for whatever reason suddenly get jumped and bludgeoned near death by a black gang or what have you, they have no reason to wonder why. It's an outright slap in the face to blacks and to the Union itself.

You just demonstrated the difference between offensive, yet non-threatening free speech (the flag), and offensive AND threatening speech (note the absence of "free" there).

Originally Posted by Idlethought

The confederate flag is to blacks as the Nazi flag is to Jews. Would this even be an issue of free speech or not if it were a Nazi flag? You might say yes but you know damn well it wouldnt be. Its widely accepted that the Nazi flag is banned nearly everywhere and if someone were to fly it up theyd be put down in an instant. Why then does it become acceptable to put up a confederate flag, which stood for practically the same if not worse atrocities than the nazi flag?

Genocide, eugenics, and attempted world domination do not equal slavery and secession. The first are much worse than the latter.

If you can't argue against a thing rationally, then you're only hurting your side, even if you're arguing for the right side. Besides, you're awfully close to Godwinning yourself.

Go easy on the guy. If you are angry, it's really hard being rational. If someone ever called me a chink, I'm more likely to kick the shit out of him than to argue what is wrong with him calling me that. Which happened once already.

You can't really compare the Holocaust and slavery. It's comparing apple and oranges, which are only connected by being 'fruits'. The suffering of the Jews stemmed from centuries of hatred, and the Nazi's crazy goal of eradicating them, period, whereas slavery didn't regard the slaves as human beings, but creatures barely above the level of monkeys, and spent years of breaking people's spirits and making them live in complete lack of hope and dreams. And you can argue that colonization, the driving force behind slavery, was an attempt at world domination, and in fact has a more lasting effect right now than World War II did, as many former colonies suffered the rule of European countries for hundreds of years yet only gained their independence in the past century, and still are under the influence of Europe.

Originally Posted by Kobun

Go easy on the guy. If you are angry, it's really hard being rational. If someone ever called me a chink, I'm more likely to kick the shit out of him than to argue what is wrong with him calling me that. Which happened once already.

I agree that anger makes being rational difficult. However, every time we give in irrationally to anger, we fail our humanity. (Note: there is such a thing as being rationally angry, but that's not what's at issue here.) Besides, this is the internet. It's not like there's a confrontation going on that needs an immediate response or justifies giving in to anger. We can only take what anyone writes at face value and respond to it as if they say what they mean and mean what they say. (Within reason, of course.) This is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Kobun

You can't really compare the Holocaust and slavery. It's comparing apple and oranges, which are only connected by being 'fruits'. The suffering of the Jews stemmed from centuries of hatred, and the Nazi's crazy goal of eradicating them, period, whereas slavery didn't regard the slaves as human beings, but creatures barely above the level of monkeys, and spent years of breaking people's spirits and making them live in complete lack of hope and dreams. And you can argue that colonization, the driving force behind slavery, was an attempt at world domination, and in fact has a more lasting effect right now than World War II did, as many former colonies suffered the rule of European countries for hundreds of years yet only gained their independence in the past century, and still are under the influence of Europe.

I agree that the Holocaust and US slavery can't be compared, and I would add that such a comparison in no way applies to the issue of the rebel flag. You could argue that colonization was an attempt at world domination, but that wouldn't be an accurate picture of either the motives or the effect. And it's European history, not American. You could also argue that WWII has had a more lasting effect than the colonial era because it brought an end to nearly all colonialies, and as such all further development will be under that penumbra rather than the colonial influence. It doesn't really matter, though, because neither arguments are on topic. European colonialism doesn't have a direct influence on flying a rebel flag, and in no scope is slavery worse than genocide.

[Komachi Angel]

Regarding free speech - as I see it, you are free to say what you like, and you're free to go to jail for it, too.

Funny, but people seem to equate being 'free' in a given society with being able to do what they feel like. That is more or less anarchy, however, as you remove constraints to behaviour that hold us together AS A SOCIETY. That's the cost of living with other people in an organised and considerate manner.

Originally Posted by cuibono

I agree that anger makes being rational difficult. However, every time we give in irrationally to anger, we fail our humanity. (Note: there is such a thing as being rationally angry, but that's not what's at issue here.) Besides, this is the internet. It's not like there's a confrontation going on that needs an immediate response or justifies giving in to anger. We can only take what anyone writes at face value and respond to it as if they say what they mean and mean what they say. (Within reason, of course.) This is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think anyone can keep their cool all the time. We are subjects to our emotions, and that's part of our humanity. And even though this is the Internet, you could afford some compassion, that's one of the better qualities of humanity, and besides, you can't take everything seriously on the Internet. For all I care, I'm merely sharing my thoughts here, not writing a paper on racial relationships of America.

Originally Posted by cuibono

I agree that the Holocaust and US slavery can't be compared, and I would add that such a comparison in no way applies to the issue of the rebel flag. You could argue that colonization was an attempt at world domination, but that wouldn't be an accurate picture of either the motives or the effect. And it's European history, not American. You could also argue that WWII has had a more lasting effect than the colonial era because it brought an end to nearly all colonialies, and as such all further development will be under that penumbra rather than the colonial influence. It doesn't really matter, though, because neither arguments are on topic. European colonialism doesn't have a direct influence on flying a rebel flag, and in no scope is slavery worse than genocide.

You implied that the Holocaust was worse than US slavery, thus making a comparison of it. That's all I need to say. Backtrack if you'd like to.

All very good points. But honestly, the way its looking now, with neither side willing to show tolerance for the other, its not gonna take much for a riot to break out. Both sides seem absolutley determined to prove that their side is right and the other side is wrong.

I hope this whole mess will get resolved soon so we can all get back to insulting each other behind their backs, and not in the newspaper, like we used to.

[Komachi Angel]

I am sorry if this is off-track, but it struck me once again that when people say things such as 'This is just as bad as ----' or similar comparisons to other events, clearly it isn't. If it were, the impact of the issue would not need to be propped up by comparisons, calling on the name of some tragedy or another to increase feeling about the subject matter. So I don't buy into that.

I do not intend to be a direct criticism - more of a general statement regarding my thoughts on this sort of thing. To each their own, however.

I just think Confederate Flag=Southern Pride as pure bullshit. Southern Pride of seceding from the Union, then getting their asses burnt to the ground? Southern Pride of slavery, only to backtrack it every now and then?

And for a riot- I doubt it.

Why can't we all smoke a joint/get drunk/get high and just chill?

We can discuss the nature of humanity in another thread if that interests you. It interests me very much.

You implied that the Holocaust was worse than US slavery, thus making a comparison of it. That's all I need to say. Backtrack if you'd like to.

I actually tried to state outright that the Holocaust was absolutely worse than US slavery, and FOR THAT REASON precludes comparison. Perhaps I was too subtle.

If you take issue with my use of a comparative "worse" in a statement saying there is no comparison, however, then consider that if you want to take it that far, mentioning the Holocaust and US slavery in the same sentence--even to deny comparison, as you did--is itself a kind of comparison. That means that saying they can't be compared is self-contradictory. Of course, that's pushing the thought farther than it was intended, as anyone who is interested in the content would recognize. If you would like for me to clarify any of my statements, you have but to ask and I would be glad to. Or, by all means, take intentionally perverted readings and defend them in the interests of linguistic one-upmanship. That can be plenty of fun, if you're interested in it, but it really should be confined to pms, in the interest of the thread.

On topic:

Originally Posted by Zero

Regarding free speech - as I see it, you are free to say what you like, and you're free to go to jail for it, too.

Funny, but people seem to equate being 'free' in a given society with being able to do what they feel like. That is more or less anarchy, however, as you remove constraints to behaviour that hold us together AS A SOCIETY. That's the cost of living with other people in an organised and considerate manner.

I don't know what you're arguing for or against here. Does "do[ing] what they feel like" apply to people flying the rebel flag because they feel like it or to other people banning the flag because they feel like it, or to both? Too much freedom can be anarchy, but too little can lead to fascism or worse, even if inspired by tolerance.

Originally Posted by cuibono

We can discuss the nature of humanity in another thread if that interests you. It interests me very much.

I actually tried to state outright that the Holocaust was absolutely worse than US slavery, and FOR THAT REASON precludes comparison. Perhaps I was too subtle.

If you take issue with my use of a comparative "worse" in a statement saying there is no comparison, however, then consider that if you want to take it that far, mentioning the Holocaust and US slavery in the same sentence--even to deny comparison, as you did--is itself a kind of comparison. That means that saying they can't be compared is self-contradictory. Of course, that's pushing the thought farther than it was intended, as anyone who is interested in the content would recognize. If you would like for me to clarify any of my statements, you have but to ask and I would be glad to. Or, by all means, take intentionally perverted readings and defend them in the interests of linguistic one-upmanship. That can be plenty of fun, if you're interested in it, but it really should be confined to pms, in the interest of the thread.

I'd rather not discuss about humanity, especially online. It's something I still need to learn, and perhaps never understand it in a lifetime.

I'm not denying comparison between slavery and Holocaust. I don't compare them, period, as they are from totally different contexts. Perhaps the only thing that ties them together is the plight of the minorities from the major social group? That's as far as I can go. And that's why I aruge that you can't say the Holocaust was worse than the slavery. From one perspective, slavery have a deeper resonance than the Holocaust, at least in US history, as it continues to affect America more than a century after it was abolished.

[Kaji]

There was more to the south than just slavery, people. It's not like every white man owned slaves (or even owned a plantation) down there, and it's not like no free blacks owned slaves either. It's about the respect, the manners, the Southern hospitality, and the independence, when you boil it down. The bulk of the people who fought for the south were only fighting in the war at all because their homes were attacked. Robert E. Lee only fought for the south because his home was in Virginia, and so when his state left he felt an obligation to defend his home and his birthplace. Same goes for Jackson, Longstreet, and a number of the other prominent southern generals involved (which as a class would comprise the bulk of your slaveowners). Sure, for some it definitely was an issue of slavery, but by and large it was a matter of defending the homefront.

Frankly, saying that the southern flag represents racism is like saying that the northern flag represents the subversion of rights. In waging the Civil War, Lincoln for all practical purposes nullified the 10th amendment of the Constitution, which stated that all rights not reserved to the federal government within the Constitution were to be given to the states and to the people. Considering we had just waged a war of independence from Britain, the glaring fact that secession and leaving the union wasn't a power explicitly reserved to the federal government in the Constitution is quite clear. The right to secede was given to the states by the 10th amendment. In waging a war to force them to stay in the union, the North was violating the rights of the entire South, making what they'd fought for 80 years prior a hipocrisy.

[Komachi Angel]

I suppose you might call it more of an observation than an argument, cuibono.

Assuming all people equally possess freedom of speech, if there are no laws restricting such actions, then people are free to fly the flag if they want. On the other hand, people may be free to protest against this, as there is nothing constricting their ability to do so and thus meaning they are free to say what they want about it. In this case, 'freedom' becomes a matter of law and what we can do in its constraints.

Needless to say, even if there is a law prohibiting something, people will still do it. Just because we do not externalise a particular action or thought does not mean we do not feel or think it, therefore implying that levels of freedom are measured by social pressure on the *outward* expression of a particular thought or action, correct?

If you want an argument, then I argue that such freedom is by necessity restricted within a society, and that this is an important part of being a whole.