Racist Symbols

[MagusYanam]

I bring up this topic because yesterday on the way to the bookstore I saw a Dodge Dakota truck with Rhode Island plates and a big Confederate battle flag bumper sticker stuck on the back window. And I wondered to myself, why would any Rhode Islander worth his sea salt put on such a display? That flag represents slavery, sectional intrigue and after that segregation and racism. It's an ugly symbol which, like the swastika, has outlived any useful purpose and serves only to threaten and intimidate ethnic minorities.

Germany has laws against the display of Nazi symbols such as the swastika and the wolfsangel, though it is perhaps not a comparable situation. The Confederacy died (or should have) over a hundred and forty years ago; Nazi Germany was defeated sixty years ago. There are Germans still living today with the guilt of the Third Reich. The Confederacy was, by and large, a regional phenomenon; Nazism affected the entire continent of Europe.

Still, should we demand that such a symbol be removed from display? The Georgia state flag removed the Confederate emblem in 2003, but it is still retained in canton on the state flag of Mississippi and Confederate symbolism is used in the flags of other states of the old South. Should the government disallow its own agents from using such divisive and intimidating symbols?

[micatala]

I understand the concern expressed here, but I did vote no.

I have a hard time supporting such a blanket prohibition, without having some more details, and reasonable safeguards that such a prohibition will not be abused.

Yes, to many people the confederate flag symbolizes evil and racism. On the other hand, to others it merely symbolizes a sort of 'regional pride.' FOr such people, displaying the flag in no way is making a statement in support of the racist practices of the past (or the present for that matter).

Consider the U.S flag. One could legitimately argue that the U.S flag represents racism and all sorts of evil based on the past actions of both the government and the people of the U.S. After all, the entire country was complicit in supporting racism from the foundation of the republic. It was enshrined in the constitution.

Now, we don't normally associate the U.S. flag with racism because it has a lot of other associations in people's minds, which would not be true to the same extent of the confederate flag. However, I don't think we should ignore the fact that the confederate flag does have some other associations in people minds.

The Nazi flag, of course, has even fewer associations with anything other than Hitler and his Third Reich. In this case, it would be easier for me to support a ban on the display. The flag was used over a much shorter period of time, and was used more intentionally as a symbol of a racist ideology.

I do think it makes sense to lobby for a voluntary 'non-display' of confederate symbols, and I do think it behooves southern state governments to be sensitive to the associations the flag has in many people's minds.

However, I think banning it will create something of a backlash, and not just on the part of racists. Heavy-handed tactics, even when well-intentioned and supported by reasonable rationale often backfire.

[MagusYanam]

Now, we don't normally associate the U.S. flag with racism because it has a lot of other associations in people's minds, which would not be true to the same extent of the confederate flag. However, I don't think we should ignore the fact that the confederate flag does have some other associations in people minds.

The Nazi flag, of course, has even fewer associations with anything other than Hitler and his Third Reich. In this case, it would be easier for me to support a ban on the display. The flag was used over a much shorter period of time, and was used more intentionally as a symbol of a racist ideology.

I do think it makes sense to lobby for a voluntary 'non-display' of confederate symbols, and I do think it behooves southern state governments to be sensitive to the associations the flag has in many people's minds.

However, I think banning it will create something of a backlash, and not just on the part of racists. Heavy-handed tactics, even when well-intentioned and supported by reasonable rationale often backfire.

I can understand and respect your position. But I question whether the Confederate flag has any legitimate, positive use. The swastika is an old sun symbol in Hinduism and a symbol of creation in Buddhism, but to try to use it in that way again is difficult or nearly impossible because of the instant and visceral connotations, as you say, with Nazism.

As a matter of fact, I would almost argue that there is greater grounds for the use of the swastika in a different setting than for the Confederate flag. To my knowledge, the Confederate flag has been almost exclusively (and intentionally) used as a standard for subjugation and enslavement of black people, and later segregation, and has served as a dubious (at best) standard for 'states' rights'.

A couple of questions, just out of curiosity: do you support Germany's stance banning public displays of Nazi symbols (it was a little unclear from your post)? Also, do you think that in certain domains where special sensitivity is needed such limitations could be warranted? For example, I know for a fact that public schools do not allow gang colours or swastikas to be worn, as they are intimidating to certain groups.

[Cathar1950]

It is a tough call.
I value our freedom of expression. But sometimes freedom comes with a cost including disapproval. When I see some one with a swastika being displayed I see racism, bigotry, and an idiot.
It is good to know where they are at and who they are.
When I see a confederate flag I see a redneck.
At the same time I also see that the Civil War was not just about slavery but also a class of cultures and region as well as the direction the future would take as a country. Slavery might have been enough justification but many lost their lives and loved ones on both sides as brothers and sisters.
The loss hardly seems justified and is there really a right side when so many were slaughtered needlessly? You can't help but think, surly there was an alternative?
There is much I am not proud of as an American historically. We have many great tales and some are real evils. Some times you focus on one so you don't forget the others. I don't blame Germany for outlawing it. But you wonder if they are just hiding and denning something that should not be forgotten. I favor free expression but I also appreciate good taste.

[Cephus]

Of course we shouldn't restrict racist symbols, or anything else for that matter. It's just a picture or a flag or a word, it has no weight on it's own. It's what people assign to it that matters and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets threatened by a picture or a flag or a word has serious problems to begin with.

We have this thing called "freedom of speech" in the U.S. which allows us to make our opinions, even unpopular opinions, known. It's not the popular speech that needs protection, it's the unpopular speech. Who knows, if you start limiting people's ability to speak today, maybe tomorrow they may be at your door when your particular beliefs become unpopular.

[MagusYanam]

Of course we shouldn't restrict racist symbols, or anything else for that matter. It's just a picture or a flag or a word, it has no weight on it's own. It's what people assign to it that matters and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets threatened by a picture or a flag or a word has serious problems to begin with.

Pictures, flags and words can be powerful things, and what people to assign to them should not be so glibly dismissed. There are people today who were beat on, bitten, sprayed with fire hoses and otherwise brutalised in the backlash to the Civil Rights movement who undoubtedly have a stronger reaction to seeing the Confederate flag than would I or many of my peers.

We have this thing called "freedom of speech" in the U.S. which allows us to make our opinions, even unpopular opinions, known. It's not the popular speech that needs protection, it's the unpopular speech. Who knows, if you start limiting people's ability to speak today, maybe tomorrow they may be at your door when your particular beliefs become unpopular.

Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between the guy I saw in the Dodge Dakota and the official state flag of Mississippi? I'd argue that while the guy in the Dodge was an idiot and a jackass (at best), he was within his rights. But Mississippi is not: when a state government (or any government, for that matter) does such, they are, whether they mean to or not, making a statement about their policies. They are implicating themselves in what their flag connotates: lawlessness, white supremacism, slavery and segregation.

I agree that the government needs to be protecting individual freedoms of speech. But they should also not get in the way of individual freedom of speech. At best, the Confederate flag is unproductive in this regard; at worst, it is detrimental in the extreme. I wouldn't feel safe giving testimony in a court where that flag was displayed, for example.

[Cathar1950]

I have to agree you Cephus.
I sure don't want them coming for me or the guy next door.

[Cephus]

Pictures, flags and words can be powerful things, and what people to assign to them should not be so glibly dismissed. There are people today who were beat on, bitten, sprayed with fire hoses and otherwise brutalised in the backlash to the Civil Rights movement who undoubtedly have a stronger reaction to seeing the Confederate flag than would I or many of my peers.

But if you see something that offends you, the problem isn't the thing, it's you. You're the one who chooses to be offended, the object is just an object, it has no inherent meaning.

Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between the guy I saw in the Dodge Dakota and the official state flag of Mississippi? I'd argue that while the guy in the Dodge was an idiot and a jackass (at best), he was within his rights. But Mississippi is not: when a state government (or any government, for that matter) does such, they are, whether they mean to or not, making a statement about their policies. They are implicating themselves in what their flag connotates: lawlessness, white supremacism, slavery and segregation.

No, you are TAKING it that way. Unless the guy comes up to you and says they support lawlessness, white supremacism, slavery and segragation, you haven't got a clue what he supports. You are making an assumption based on your biases, nothing more.

I agree that the government needs to be protecting individual freedoms of speech. But they should also not get in the way of individual freedom of speech. At best, the Confederate flag is unproductive in this regard; at worst, it is detrimental in the extreme. I wouldn't feel safe giving testimony in a court where that flag was displayed, for example.

So how about we all get offended at the Christian cross and have it banned? After all, it's been used for all manner of horrors over the years. Let's just ban it. Is that fine with you?

[micatala]

Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between the guy I saw in the Dodge Dakota and the official state flag of Mississippi?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about private citizens.

Yes, I would say there is a difference between display of a potentially offensive symbol by a private citizen versus a state or other government entity. Freedom of speech does not apply to the 'government entity' as such, and governments do have a much higher level of responsibility, I think, to consider the views and feelings of all their citizens.

I can understand and respect your position. But I question whether the Confederate flag has any legitimate, positive use. The swastika is an old sun symbol in Hinduism and a symbol of creation in Buddhism, but to try to use it in that way again is difficult or nearly impossible because of the instant and visceral connotations, as you say, with Nazism.

I also recall the swastika was used as a symbol by a sort of boy scout group called something like the 'order of the the white swastika' which was extant in the first half of the 20th century primarily.

A couple of questions, just out of curiosity: do you support Germany's stance banning public displays of Nazi symbols (it was a little unclear from your post)? Also, do you think that in certain domains where special sensitivity is needed such limitations could be warranted? For example, I know for a fact that public schools do not allow gang colours or swastikas to be worn, as they are intimidating to certain groups.

I am comfortable with the German's deciding what is best for themselves (how's that for a dodge ).

I would also say in certain contexts, restrictions would be appropriate, where they might not be in the 'public domain at large.'

As noted above, in government spaces, including court rooms, I would be more supportive of potential restrictions. Same for schools.

Let me throw out a couple alternative examples.

Some in the U.S. are offended by Islam, and are fearful of Islam, based on 9/11 and other actions by Al-Qaeda, et. al. Some Islamists have aruably distorted the meaning of the Koran in general, and the word 'Jihad' in particular. Should we ban public display of the Koran, or the word Jihad? What about the Palestinian flag? What about pictures of Osama Bin Laden?

Part of what I would look at would be the potential for actual violence, harassment, or other forms of oppression to take place as a result of the display or by those making the display. For example, having a restriction on 'gay related symbols' would not make sense to me, because even though they might deeply offend some Christians and others, there is no history of widespread gay on CHristian violence, and little potential for such acts. The same would be true of public displays of the 10 commandments (although these of course are typically prohibited on different grounds, namely separation of church and state).

[MagusYanam]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about private citizens.

Yeah, I should probably have made that clearer. The incident with the private citizen was what brought the issue to mind; the issue I posed for a question was:

Should we demand that such a symbol be removed from display? The Georgia state flag removed the Confederate emblem in 2003, but it is still retained in canton on the state flag of Mississippi and Confederate symbolism is used in the flags of other states of the old South. Should the government disallow its own agents from using such divisive and intimidating symbols?

Part of what I would look at would be the potential for actual violence, harassment, or other forms of oppression to take place as a result of the display or by those making the display. For example, having a restriction on 'gay related symbols' would not make sense to me, because even though they might deeply offend some Christians and others, there is no history of widespread gay on CHristian violence, and little potential for such acts. The same would be true of public displays of the 10 commandments (although these of course are typically prohibited on different grounds, namely separation of church and state).

That makes sense. The oppression part is what most concerns me with this question - if, to black people or to Northerners, the Confederate flag indicates assent to policies and attitudes that are directly detrimental to their well-beings, their happiness and even their lives, it simply furthers the oppression.