Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it because society's just too narrow minded to realize the south fought for more then just Slavery. I was just watching Dukes of Hazard and it hit me.

I also call awesome on legal home-brewing.

So why do you think it's still a racist symbol?

I don't consider it to be one, although it has some valid associations with racism.

So its more personal preference?

I know theirs a world of difference to flying this flag then flying Hitlers Swastika.

Even though the ladder has been used in several different cultures.

In Asia, some people have problems with the flying of the Hi no maru, the Japanese flag, because of it's association with the Pacific War. To each their own.

Well, here in the capital of the Confederacy it's hard not to notice that the the battle flag of the 1860s has little to nothing to do with the (misidentified) "Stars and Bars" of today's rednecks. While the flag of the CSA (along with the CSA itself) stood for much more than the preservation of a slave society, the Dixie cross as appropriated by white trash for the last sixty years or so is indeed a rallying point for latent racism. Although emblazoning it upon one's property (particularly t-shirts and trucks) does not necessarily translate directly into "I hate black people" it certainly carries that connotation. If you doubt this, I would suggest you spend an evening drinking with someone who goes around in such a t-shirt and--after they've had about fifteen Miller lites--ask them why they think the local Walmart has gotten so dirty and run down lately. You'll quickly figure out the connection between that symbol and racism.

I think it, ironically, has more benign connotations in the north.

Fair enough so its all perception.

Which really all racism comes from.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think it, ironically, has more benign connotations in the north.

I think the offense in the North (from my time living in MI, at least--so Northern Midwest, really) is more shallow. Outside of an overt historical context (museum, reenacting, etc), it can cut very deep down here in Richmond.

Shadowbrand wrote:Fair enough so its all perception.

Which really all racism comes from.

I get what you're trying to say but think this assessment trivializes the problem.

@manchu -shrug- I just wanted to ask why really people are still offended. I'm not naive enough to think racial violence will ever really stop though.

Or racism overall.

Like I said, I get what you mean--there is no rational basis for racism. But a lot of things are "just perception," right? Shakespeare's plays, Mozart's music, Rodin's sculpture, etc--it's "just perception." That statement doesn't tell us much about what's really going on with any of these subjects. Similarly, by downplaying the racist sensibility as merely irrational we're turning a willful blind eye to where that "perception" comes from and why, as you pointed out, we can't seem to (or maybe don't want to) shake it. Defending the Confederate flag as a simple historical artifact while disavowing what it is today is good example of that willful blindness.

Ah, well not that I understand what your saying I agree wholeheartedly Manchu.

I am just a simple man/boy from the Forest who cuts up dead animals for a living, big words really confuse me.

Shadowbrand wrote:Is it because society's just too narrow minded to realize the south fought for more then just Slavery. I was just watching Dukes of Hazard and it hit me.

I also call awesome on legal home-brewing.

So why do you think it's still a racist symbol?

Because it is. This isn't the civil war any more and the confederates lost 145 years ago. The confederate flag is little more than an anti liberal bumper sticker at best and racist tattoo or secessionist patch at worst. The history of the flag is irrelevant, it stopped being about the souths reasons for war or it's ideals when they lost. The only people that continued to use it for the next century and a half were the KKK, nutjobs, and idiots. A trend that holds quite true to this day.

Shadowbrand wrote:Is it because society's just too narrow minded to realize the south fought for more then just Slavery. I was just watching Dukes of Hazard and it hit me.

I also call awesome on legal home-brewing.

So why do you think it's still a racist symbol?

The South really did start the Civil War to protect slavery, they really, really did. They wrote their own Declaration of Independance, which copied the original with only one change - they added a bit about the absolute right of white men to own negroes. It's charming stuff.

Lots of stuff has been written since claiming it was about state's rights and other revisionism and I can understand why this has been done - no-one wants to think their ancestors were jackholes who started a bloody war so they could keep on owning people. Unfortunately, that's still the truth of it.

As to the flag itself, well it's got a history of turning up whenever there's racial issues. It's no coincidence that South Carolina put the flag up at the State house in the midst of the civil rights movement. There are certainly folk who proudly display the flag without being racist, using the flag as a statement for rebellion, or for Southern pride or whatever, but that doesn't remove the flag from it's racial origins, nor from it's use in racially motivated protest from the 60s onwards.

^^ What he said.

Also you young'uns don't perhaps remember that blatant racist discrimination carried on in the southern states into the 1960s.

ShumaGorath wrote: The only people that continued to use it for the next century and a half were the KKK, nutjobs, and idiots. A trend that holds quite true to this day.

Not really true.... Hank williams Jr., Lynyrd Synyrd, Pantera.... all use or have used it. And the darker connotations don't really exist outside the US. To some its just a symbol of another aspect of "American" Culture. The Swastika of Hitlers followers is internationally recognised due to the nature of the conflict it was used in. The Civil War was viewed as more of an internal "american" issue.

IMHO, Some of the people that view it as a racist symbol, on Either side of the debate, are just as culpable in the continued perception of that meaning. It's more than them wanting people to "not forget". It's them not wanting to get past issues that mostly fallen to the wayside. Yes, there are 'nutjobs' out there that believe things were better or what have you. The truth is, everytime some-one protests some symbol of mostly forgotten offense, they force the issue back into the open and basically tell newer generations that they "Need" to be offended.

To quote the popular film....."A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals...." and people that want to continue to promote racial tension and such, know how to use this to further their beliefs.

You want some real insight into how stupid some of these beliefs are google "Racist Symbols" and browse a few links. I have seen symbols commonly referenced in Pagan, Wiccan, and Asatru literature also listed as "Racist".

Racism is a matter of perception. And it is a perception that flows in both directions. A symbol may be 'racist' when viewed by a person that perceives it to be either for or against his particular racial origin.

helgrenze wrote:Not really true.... Hank williams Jr., Lynyrd Synyrd, Pantera.... all use or have used it. And the darker connotations don't really exist outside the US. To some its just a symbol of another aspect of "American" Culture. The Swastika of Hitlers followers is internationally recognised due to the nature of the conflict it was used in. The Civil War was viewed as more of an internal "american" issue.

Funnily enough the swastika is used by fascist groups all over world, including some in Russia.

People will ignore history to make a symbol mean what they want it to mean - but the history is still there.

Sebster: Your accusation of revisionism is itself revisionist. States' rights and slavery are obviously not mutually exclusive and while the former is often trotted out to blunt the latter these issues were two sides of the same coin. It might even be more appropriate to say that they were the same side of the coin. Furthermore, the anti-abolitionist rhetoric of the South was not totally insincere in its aim of protecting blacks. One need only look to the conditions in the North awaiting blacks who fled the South after the war to see why. I don't think that thoughtful leaders in the Confederacy believed that their (genuine) worries about what we've come to call "wage slavery" in the industrialized North (and that way of life generally) could support a timeless apologetics for slavery, either. Slavery could not last forever even if iniquity, especially racial iniquity, might be endlessly perpetuated. You cannot understand the Confederacy without accepting that Southern leaders, likely to a greater extent than their Northern counterparts, wanted to resolve the moral paradox of slavery in America.

@Helgrenze: In the case of the Confederate flag, the racism seems to come more from people who are racist holding it up as a symbol for their culture than from people who recognize that racists want to use it as a symbol for their culture. Similarly, I don't decide that red means stop when I stop at a red light. The state decided that. I'm merely acknowledging it.

Like I said.... Outside the U.S. the Confederate Battle Flag (More correctly the Battle flags of Northern Virginia and Tennassee) is viewed as another "American" culture thing... like Blue Jeans (especially Levis), cars from the 50s-early 70s, and Elvis.

Manchu wrote:Sebster: Your accusation of revisionism is itself revisionist. States' rights and slavery are obviously not mutually exclusive and while the former is often trotted out to blunt the latter these issues were two sides of the same coin. It might even be more appropriate to say that they were the same side of the coin.

The state's right at issue was the right to allow citizens to own slaves, and it was the only right at issue. No-one was worrying about gambling or anything. The rights of each state is just an effort to deflect from the real issue - the right to own slaves.

Look at the actual changes made to the constitution in the confederate version;

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed"

The other changes are minor technicalities, impeachment rights and qualification for voting (arguably included to stop Northern migration to influence state votes on slavery anyway) and certainly nothing to go to war over.

Furthermore, the anti-abolitionist rhetoric of the South was not totally insincere in its aim of protecting blacks. One need only look to the conditions in the North awaiting blacks who fled the South after the war to see why. I don't think that thoughtful leaders in the Confederacy believed that their (genuine) worries about what we've come to call "wage slavery" in the industrialized North (and that way of life generally) could support a timeless apologetics for slavery, either. Slavery could not last forever even if iniquity, especially racial iniquity, might be endlessly perpetuated. You cannot understand the Confederacy without accepting that Southern leaders, likely to a greater extent than their Northern counterparts, wanted to resolve the moral paradox of slavery in America.

It's very hard to reconcile that concern with the living standards of blacks and whites living in poverty in the Southern states.

Not really true.... Hank williams Jr., Lynyrd Synyrd, Pantera.... all use or have used it. And the darker connotations don't really exist outside the US. To some its just a symbol of another aspect of "American" Culture. The Swastika of Hitlers followers is internationally recognised due to the nature of the conflict it was used in. The Civil War was viewed as more of an internal "american" issue.

Well personally as a man with good music tastes I'm just going to throw lynard skynard under a bus and say that if this were the 1800s he'd beat his slaves. As for pantera, they have a very strong "the south will rise again" motif, and while they had some great songs colonel claypools done better things in his solo and collaborative career since they broke up. It's not surprising either of these groups would use the confederate flag, Skynard because he's a tasteless vacuum of money and pantera because they reeeaaaalllly liked the south. I can't comment on hank williams except to say that his wiki page never mentions the flag.

The way other cultures view the flag is largely influenced by our popular media which significantly downplays it's historical context and typical use (the impetus for this thread being the dukes a hazard, a satire of southern culture). Views internationally and locally are quite different.

IMHO, Some of the people that view it as a racist symbol, on Either side of the debate, are just as culpable in the continued perception of that meaning. It's more than them wanting people to "not forget". It's them not wanting to get past issues that mostly fallen to the wayside. Yes, there are 'nutjobs' out there that believe things were better or what have you. The truth is, everytime some-one protests some symbol of mostly forgotten offense, they force the issue back into the open and basically tell newer generations that they "Need" to be offended.

Except, y'know, It's still being used as a racist symbol. It's not a "historical symbol". It's a symbol. It still carries meaning and it still finds a considerable amount of distasteful use.

To quote the popular film....."A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals...." and people that want to continue to promote racial tension and such, know how to use this to further their beliefs.

Yes, just as people that want to promote racism know how to use it to promote racism. Quoting men in black doesn't get you very far when it's out of context and doesn't work as a relevant quote.

Racism is a matter of perception. And it is a perception that flows in both directions. A symbol may be 'racist' when viewed by a person that perceives it to be either for or against his particular racial origin.

Yep.

That pic is a better answer to the original question than the whole of the rest of the thread.

ShumaGorath.... For the record, Lynyrd Synyrd is a Band, not an indivual. And their biggest hit (by far) "Sweet Homa Alabama" is about Southern pride and was written in direct response to Neil Young's "Southern Man" which is alledged to be about decrying slavery and racism.

(Its also the first popular song to "call out" another artist..... Something found in Rap/hiphop in the last 10-15 years.)

helgrenze wrote:ShumaGorath.... For the record, Lynyrd Synyrd is a Band, not an indivual. And their biggest hit (by far) "Sweet Homa Alabama" is about Southern pride and was written in direct response to Neil Young's "Southern Man" which is alledged to be about decrying slavery and racism.

(Its also the first popular song to "call out" another artist..... Something found in Rap/hiphop in the last 10-15 years.)

Seriously? Huh. I thought they were a band in the same way that the Dave Matthews band was. A headman and his nameless instrument holding minions. That said I am well aware of what they play, and sweet home Alabama is one of the most insipid songs to have ever graced a radio.

The band was named, allegedly, for a high school shop teacher, whose class was attended by several of the founding members.

sebster wrote:

The South really did start the Civil War to protect slavery, they really, really did. They wrote their own Declaration of Independance, which copied the original with only one change - they added a bit about the absolute right of white men to own negroes. It's charming stuff.

And of course, the Union only fought the war to free the slaves, right? Odd that, considering that neither of the Executive orders of Emanciaption Proclamation actually freed all slaves. The first only freed slaves in CSA states that didn't return to the Union by a set date, and the second only freed slaves in specific states. In addition, the first EO of the Proclamation wasn't issued until 1 1/2 years AFTER the war started. Heck, Lincoln only campaigned for president on a platform of no more slave states being added, not on a platform of abolition.

From Wikipedia:
The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[1]

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

It wasn't until Dec 1865, over 6 months after the war ended, that slavery was finally abolished due to the 13th amendment. I'll agree that the southern states did indeed secede so as to protect their "peculiar institution" as I believe they called it, but I have problems accepting that the freedom of slaves was the primary motivator for the North.

don_mondo wrote:It wasn't until Dec 1865, over 6 months after the war ended, that slavery was finally abolished due to the 13th amendment. I'll agree that the southern states did indeed secede so as to protect their "peculiar institution" as I believe they called it, but I have problems accepting that the freedom of slaves was the primary motivator for the North.

And I'd agree entirely. The motivation for the South was fear the North would force them to stop their slavery. The motivation for the North was the preservation of the Union.

That the war likely hastened the end of slavery in the South would be a funny piece of irony, if there weren't so many people killed.

Well the actual "start" of the war is oft debated.... Both sides agree that it officially started with the incedent at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. However, this is where opinions diverge. Some contend that a Union Ship fired first. Others maintain that the Fort fired the first shots, especially alumni of the Citadel Military Academy, who claim students therein fired the first shots from the fort.

Whichever side fired first, what followed is part of historical record. Lincoln called for "volunteers" to assist in putting down what he saw as open rebellion. That ordering of troops led several states to add their names to the already growing list for secession.

In essense, the union states would have been sending troops in accordance with the call to arms from Washington.

To the average soldier in the field, Politics mean nothing. You follow the orders of your commanders and go. That has been part of the training of soldiers for as long as the idea of professional soldiers has existed.

Stage 1: Y you do this?
Stage 2: It's all just a matter of perception and meaningless
Stage 3: Oh, yeah, symbols and words have power
Stage 4: ???
Stage 5: PROFIT!

Ahtman... I think the second quote in your sig defines things perfectly.

Perception is literally everything. I'm willing to bet that inter-subjective analysis would throw up more instances of percieved racist symbology than anything else, with regard to that particular flag.
What the Confederate flag MEANT is totally irrelevant - what it MEANS now is what's important. The swastika is actually a perfect example, as it was once a symbol of peace. Not any more!