Interesting Comments on the Confederate Flag Debate.

[Bill the Cat]

Seahawks Receiver Doug Baldwin:

Pensacola, FL. Home sweet home. I can respect freedom of speech.

To which I agree. He has regularly called penalties for things like the N-Word absurd.

Hell, I've been known to rub people the wrong way during times when I have publicly stood for something I believed in. And I guess there is the occasional football rant. But that is a different story. Today I want to discuss this picture, depicting individuals demonstrating their freedom of speech, taken in my home town. It is not surprising to see, however, that it's still a very frustrating image to me for various reasons. Why? Well, I grew up in this area and know the population all too well. A noose hanging from a rearview mirror wasn't outside the realm of what I would see in my high school parking lot. My experiences in life have taught me that you can't expect ignorance to educate itself. Being an African-American born in the South, there is some confirmation bias in play here but I'm going to attempt to share some history while stating my stance on the subject based on that history.

I am white and grew up in the east end of the capital of the Confederacy in a town called Highland Springs, affectionately termed "Harlem Springs" by our wealthier neighbors to the west of Richmond. I've seen all sorts of things in cars in the parking lot of school. Singling out one or two things is anecdotal at best. But I get that he is offering it to attempt to legitimize his position and offer some perspective from his experiences, so I don't think the noose comment was at all germane to the rest of his post though, so I question his motive for including it as a possible attempt to poison the well from the start.

First, let's discuss some facts of history. The flag that we are debating over is not even the original confederate flag.

THANK YOU!!!

This information may seem irrelevant but it is important to point out for the sake of validity in my argument. Although it wasn't the official flag of the Confederate States of America, it was the battle flag used by Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederate Army.

Correction, it was "A" battle flag used by Lee's troops from Northern Virginia.

So the flag at some point did indeed represent the "rebel" cause. These "rebels", for the most part, were fighting against the union in an effort to keep slavery in place.

Highly minimalist interpretation. The Confederacy was fighting a defensive war, intent on independence. The right to continue slavery was one part of the overall argument of states' rights of self-determination.

(You can check this fact by googling the Articles of Secession).

This is a common error in this discussion. Secession was not a declaration of war. The South did not fight to secede. They fought to remain independent AFTER secession.

For the sake of this argument, let's negate that simple fact. (This is a key element to an argument a lot of supporters of the flag are making.) So, what is the relevance of the flag without the context of the Civil War?

I wonder if the same guy who declared that the N word has become a term of endearment would allow for a new context to a new generation of Southerners.

Ever heard of the civil rights movement? In the late '40s, the flag was an adopted symbol of the segregationist Dixiecrat party. Article 4 of their platform stated, "We stand for the segregation of the races." In 1956, the battle flag was a prominent feature on the redesign of Georgia's state flag partly in response to the Supreme Court's ruling to desegregate schools just two years earlier. They have since removed it. The argument we hear today is that the flag represents "Southern Heritage" and "Southern Pride". The only relevant "heritage" I could find in history not pertaining to the Civil War was associated with racism and segregation. Is this the heritage and pride you speak of?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/teachers/huck/section1_2.html

Nigger (also spelled niggar): a word that is an alteration of the earlier neger, nigger derives from the French negre, from the Spanish and Portuguese negro, from the Latin niger (black). First recorded in 1587 (as negar), the word probably originated with the dialectal pronunciation of negro in northern England and Ireland.
--Anti-Bias Study Guide, Anti-Defamation League, 1998

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Langston Hughes - The Big Sea

Used rightly or wrongly, ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of comedy, it doesn't matter. Negroes do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or play ever so sympathetic in its treatment of the basic problems of the race. Even though the book or play is written by a Negro, they still do not like it. The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-40-fall-2011/feature/straight-talk-about-n-word

There's no way to know all of its nuances because it's such a complicated word, a word with a particular racialized American history. But one way of getting at it is to have some critical and historical discussions about it and not pretend that it doesn't exist. We also cannot pretend that there is not a double standard-that blacks can say it without much social consequence but whites cannot.

© Copyright Original Source

So, if young blacks can "reappropriate" the term "nigger" despite how white "outsiders" historically used the term, why can't this generation in the south reappropriate the Battle Flag into a lack-of-racist-overtone Southern Pride framework without substantial regard for how "outsiders" perceive it?

That brings me full circle. By understanding the significant historical symbolism of Robert E. Lee's battle flag, we can easily identify the various messages that flying the flag represents.

No more so than you can understand the message being given by white rappers/celebrities with "hood passes", like V-Nasty, Chappelle Show co-creator Neal Brennan, John Mayer or that girl with grills in the A$ap Rocky video. Heck, even Gwyneth Paltrow gets a hood pass

So, if you can excuse the history and appropriate the N word's meaning, why can't Southerners appropriate the flag?

But to all of you exercising your right to freedom of speech: Do you even know what you are supporting?

The pride of being from the South. Nothing more in most cases.

To those arguing against the flag, make sure your argument is based on the facts.

And the WHOLE facts too, not reductionist oversimplifications.

I'm sure there are those individuals that understand what the flag stands for and still support it. And to that group I say, may God bless you because I'm having a hard time with grace myself.

Let's rephrase this where it makes more sense to his argument.

I'm sure there are those individuals that understand what I believe the flag stands for and still support it.

As a 26-year-old who grew up in the South around many supporters of the confederate flag, I would like to ask those same people to answer this question: What does southern pride and heritage really mean? Is it the sweet tea and hospitality?

As part of the generation that really took this concept to heart and reappropriated the flag from the intent of the Dixiecrats, yes. That's exactly what it stands for. It's pride in everything that makes us who we are. Warts and all. It does not mean we are racist, or better than anyone for that matter. It means "I am proud of who I am and where I am from!" This simply isn't the 50's.

Or is this a sense of pride for the rebellious actions against a national government who had the audacity to say that secession was unconstitutional and slavery was wrong?

The Federal Government did not declare that slavery was wrong. They said that slavery would not be allowed in new territories, but that it could remain in the existing states.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
- Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address

And there was nothing in the Constitution against secession, which the New England states "Essex Junto" tried themselves half of a century before the Civil War. Not until Texas v. White, 4 years after the end of the war, did there exist a contention that secession was unconstitutional.

He whiffs on both accusations.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask, how does this symbol, which produces such a strong feeling of offense by those who were oppressed under it, best represent that pride and heritage?

Since when do outsiders get to dictate the specifics of the pride a group shows? Like with the N word, the group using the flag gets to define its intent, regardless of a century-long-dead historical context.

If you can answer these questions and defend this flag in a way that isn't rooted in a sense of emotional, stubborn pride for the oppressive intent this flag has represented in the past, then I'll gladly commend you for it.

I may link to this post on his FaceBook to see if he has anything to say on his errors.

But until then, I'll be patiently waiting for the day ignorance can educate itself and will do my part to try and educate it in an assertive, respectful manner.

Claiming that defending a person's use of the flag is "ignorant" is far from respectful. It seems to me that Mr. Baldwin has bought into the "Northern Messiahs" fable of the war. You simply can't make blunders like he made without that fable being an integral part of your thought process.

[fm93]

The Confederacy was fighting a defensive war, intent on independence.

I hardly believe it's fair to classify the Confederacy as "fighting a defensive war" when it was the side that jumpstarted the war by attacking Fort Sumter. I mean, it seems clear to me that if you're the one that launches the first attack, your actions can't be characterized as defensive.

The right to continue slavery was one part of the overall argument of states' rights of self-determination.

So the Confederacy was fighting to keep black people in slavery.

I wonder if the same guy who declared that the N word has become a term of endearment would allow for a new context to a new generation of Southerners.

The first problem here is that he isn't saying the word "nigger" is a term of endearment; rather, he's referring to the word "nigga."

So, if young blacks can "reappropriate" the term "nigger"

They actually have not, as explained above.

despite how white "outsiders" historically used the term, why can't this generation in the south reappropriate the Battle Flag into a lack-of-racist-overtone Southern Pride framework without substantial regard for how "outsiders" perceive it?

There's a different dynamic here. Black people--the group that had been on the receiving end of the insulting term "nigger"--created a variant of the word and appropriated that variant into a term of endearment among fellow black people. White people--the group that originated the insulting term--didn't do this.

So, if you can excuse the history and appropriate the N word's meaning, why can't Southerners appropriate the flag?

As we've seen, black people are not excusing the history or reappropriating the meaning of the word "nigger."

Now, there may be a situation that more closely parallels that of this flag debate. I have heard that white slavemasters fed the slaves the intestines of pigs (while saving the hog meat for themselves) as a sign of disrespect, believing that the intestines were the cheapest and most useless/disgusting parts. The slaves instead took the intestines and turned them into a cultural delicacy called chitterlings. But 1) they're still technically modifying the symbol of insult, since chitterlings are usually stewed or fried, and 2) the oppressed group is the one that's choosing to not view as hurtful a symbol that was intended to hurt them.

I think the second point is the key here. If some high school bullies obtain an embarrassing video of a classmate and share it in order to bully and shame him, the student could try to respond/interpret it in a positive manner--i.e. "I'm not ashamed of my body/actions; your attempts at bullying don't faze me." But if the student is in fact hurt and embarrassed by the video going public, I don't think the bullies can later say "Hey, we just want to reappropriate the meaning of this video of you." That is, the side of the oppressors can't reappropriate the meaning of the symbol if the symbol still holds a deeply hurtful meaning and history among the oppressed. The oppressed side has to be the one to reappropriate it.

The pride of being from the South. Nothing more in most cases.

I'm sure you mean that, but I've seen and heard of too many cases where people in non-Southern areas have used the flag to believe that in "most" cases the flag is used for merely expressing Southern pride.

It seems to me that Mr. Baldwin has bought into the "Northern Messiahs" fable of the war. You simply can't make blunders like he made without that fable being an integral part of your thought process.

People should certainly stop perpetuating the myth that the North was and is still an oasis or paradise of anti-racism. It wasn't and it still isn't. But I don't see how any part of what he said entails that he believes it. Pointing out the historical sins of the Confederacy doesn't mean he thinks the North was racially immaculate.

[Darth Executor]

I hardly believe it's fair to classify the Confederacy as "fighting a defensive war" when it was the side that jumpstarted the war by attacking Fort Sumter. I mean, it seems clear to me that if you're the one that launches the first attack, your actions can't be characterized as defensive.

Fort Sumter was on their territory.

[fm93]

Fort Sumter was on their territory.

Doesn't mean they had to attack it.

[Darth Executor]

Doesn't mean they had to attack it.

They asked nicely for its surrender first. How many countries would tolerate an enemy ramping up their military presence on their territory?

[rogue06]

Doesn't mean they had to attack it.

AFAICT, all of the other Union garrisons peacefully moved out, but not the one commanded by Robert Anderson. Instead, he took it on himself to move his men from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter (which was not occupied when South Carolina seceded) in the middle of Charleston Harbor and had the cannons (which had been aimed seaward) moved so that they were trained upon the city instead. At the time there was nobody who didn't acknowledge that this was a highly provocative act.

James Buchanan, who was still the president at the time when Anderson decided to take matters into his own hands, was said to have been less than pleased. The incoming president, Abraham Lincoln would be more supportive.

[Cow Poke]

They asked nicely for its surrender first. How many countries would tolerate an enemy ramping up their military presence on their territory?

I suspect our current President would be up for that, after first drawing a red line.

[shunyadragon]

They asked nicely for its surrender first. How many countries would tolerate an enemy ramping up their military presence on their territory?

Both the Union and the Confederacy claimed the territory.

[Cow Poke]

Both the Union and the Confederacy claimed the territory.

Gee, sounds like the stuff of which wars are made!

[Bill the Cat]

I hardly believe it's fair to classify the Confederacy as "fighting a defensive war" when it was the side that jumpstarted the war by attacking Fort Sumter. I mean, it seems clear to me that if you're the one that launches the first attack, your actions can't be characterized as defensive.

384 principal battles occurred in 26 states. States with fifteen or more include: Virginia (123), Tennessee (38), Missouri (29), Georgia(28), Louisiana (23), North Carolina (20), Arkansas (17), and Mississippi(16).
31 occurred in Nortern territories.

http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tvii.htm

90% of the major battles happened on Southern territory. It was a defensive war.

So the Confederacy was fighting to keep black people in slavery.

No. Consider it like this (I am NOT equating people to motorcycles)... If I were to fight agaqinst a law that made motorcycles outlawed, but I didn't own or have a motorcycle, would you say I was fighting to own a motorcycle, or was I fighting for the right for someone to choose to own a motorcycle or not themselves without the government mandating that I not own one?

The first problem here is that he isn't saying the word "nigger" is a term of endearment; rather, he's referring to the word "nigga."

It's the reappropriated pronunciation of the term.

They actually have not, as explained above.

They actually have. See above.

There's a different dynamic here. Black people--the group that had been on the receiving end of the insulting term "nigger"--created a variant of the word and appropriated that variant into a term of endearment among fellow black people. White people--the group that originated the insulting term--didn't do this.

Again, they chose to take a negative symbol and reappropriate it into something they feel is a positive term of endearment. Same with the flag.

As we've seen, black people are not excusing the history or reappropriating the meaning of the word "nigger."

Yes they are.

Now, there may be a situation that more closely parallels that of this flag debate. I have heard that white slavemasters fed the slaves the intestines of pigs (while saving the hog meat for themselves) as a sign of disrespect, believing that the intestines were the cheapest and most useless/disgusting parts. The slaves instead took the intestines and turned them into a cultural delicacy called chitterlings. But 1) they're still technically modifying the symbol of insult, since chitterlings are usually stewed or fried, and 2) the oppressed group is the one that's choosing to not view as hurtful a symbol that was intended to hurt them.

I think the second point is the key here. If some high school bullies obtain an embarrassing video of a classmate and share it in order to bully and shame him, the student could try to respond/interpret it in a positive manner--i.e. "I'm not ashamed of my body/actions; your attempts at bullying don't faze me." But if the student is in fact hurt and embarrassed by the video going public, I don't think the bullies can later say "Hey, we just want to reappropriate the meaning of this video of you." That is, the side of the oppressors can't reappropriate the meaning of the symbol if the symbol still holds a deeply hurtful meaning and history among the oppressed. The oppressed side has to be the one to reappropriate it.

Well, considering NO ONE ALIVE today was the target of slavery in the Civil War, that is just as pointless. If the bully's grandchild found the video and used it to show how far they have come from the mentality of their grandfather, that would be more fairly equivalent.

I'm sure you mean that, but I've seen and heard of too many cases where people in non-Southern areas have used the flag to believe that in "most" cases the flag is used for merely expressing Southern pride.

"Most" tells me nothing. As I said, I live in an area that is steeped with heritage and Southern pride. It does not mean we revel in our slave owning ancesters, nor that we desire to return to it. What it means to us is that we are proud to be from the South, and that the South has many virtues to extol, including our superior cooking and hospitality. The problem is that few people outside of the South can actually tell you what Southern pride is.


And just for full disclosure, my great-great grandfather fought for the North.

People should certainly stop perpetuating the myth that the North was and is still an oasis or paradise of anti-racism. It wasn't and it still isn't. But I don't see how any part of what he said entails that he believes it. Pointing out the historical sins of the Confederacy doesn't mean he thinks the North was racially immaculate.

It is always framed as the North heroically coming to the rescue of the poor slaves. Any insistence otherwise is bunk.

[fm93]

90% of the major battles happened on Southern territory.

I didn't say the North was fighting a defensive war--just that I don't think you can consider the side that launched the first attack to be fighting a defensive war.

No. Consider it like this (I am NOT equating people to motorcycles)... If I were to fight agaqinst a law that made motorcycles outlawed, but I didn't own or have a motorcycle, would you say I was fighting to own a motorcycle, or was I fighting for the right for someone to choose to own a motorcycle or not themselves without the government mandating that I not own one?

You would be fighting for motorcycles to be kept in your area, regardless of whether you personally owned one. Likewise, Southerners who fought for the continued right to own slaves would be guilty of fighting for black people to be kept in slavery, regardless of whether they personally owned slaves.

It's the reappropriated pronunciation of the term.

It's essentially become a different term altogether. After all, black people generally do not call each other "nigger" as a term of endearment.

Again, they chose to take a negative symbol and reappropriate it into something they feel is a positive term of endearment. Same with the flag.

If it was the same scenario, then black communities would have to choose to reappropriate the meaning of the flag--not white communities.

NO ONE ALIVE today was the target of slavery in the Civil War

True, but plenty of people alive today were the target of discrimination and hatred when the flag returned to public view in the early 1960s.

If the bully's grandchild found the video and used it to show how far they have come from the mentality of their grandfather, that would be more fairly equivalent.

It would be very odd if the grandchild said the video of his grandfather bullying someone was a symbol of pride.

"Most" tells me nothing. As I said, I live in an area that is steeped with heritage and Southern pride. It does not mean we revel in our slave owning ancesters, nor that we desire to return to it. What it means to us is that we are proud to be from the South

Right, but in that case, it stands to reason that the people who display it in places like Wisconsin, Oklahoma, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, etc, are presumably not expressing pride of being from the South, correct?

and that the South has many virtues to extol, including our superior cooking and hospitality.

Which is why I always found it odd that some Southerners stick so steadfastly to the flag as THE defining symbol of all proud tradition. Who act as if they would have nothing symbolic of their proud traditions if this one symbol was removed from public view.

[rogue06]

And just for full disclosure, my great-great grandfather fought for the North.

All of my ancestors who were involved in the conflict fought on the side of the North (not really a surprise considering that they all lived in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas). AFAICT two were in Sherman's army when he burned Atlanta which makes me really popular when I tell people here that (I live in the metro Atlanta area).

[shunyadragon]

All of my ancestors who were involved in the conflict fought on the side of the North (not really a surprise considering that they all lived in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas). AFAICT two were in Sherman's army when he burned Atlanta which makes me really popular when I tell people here that (I live in the metro Atlanta area).

I guess some (many?) still believe that we inherit the guilt sins of our ancestors.

[rogue06]

I guess some (many?) still believe that we inherit the guilt sins of our ancestors.

Why? None of them owned slaves. None of them were involved in the slave trade. I know at least one of them shed blood (don't know the extent of his wounds).

[shunyadragon]

Why? None of them owned slaves. None of them were involved in the slave trade. I know at least one of them shed blood (don't know the extent of his wounds).

I do not believe there is any responsibility involved. I was responding to this . . .

All of my ancestors who were involved in the conflict fought on the side of the North (not really a surprise considering that they all lived in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas). AFAICT two were in Sherman's army when he burned Atlanta which makes me really popular when I tell people here that (I live in the metro Atlanta area).