Cutia Bacon Brown argues in
Friday's Louisville Courier-Journal that the Confederate Flag is a "symbol of racism," presumably because it has been used by racist groups as a symbol, and therefore it is offensive. Trouble is, the American flag is used all the time by white supremacist groups as a symbol. So why shouldn't the American flag be considered offensive on the same grounds?
13 comments:
I know some people here in the South who DO find the American flag offensive.
The Confederate flag is offensive, not because some racist groups use it, but because of the reason it was chosen by those racist groups in the first place.
Implicit in all the discussion about "offensive this" or "offensive that" is that it is okay to offend, as long as you offend the right people. All you like, you may offend: conservatives, Christians, Southerners, and fat people. Not at all, you may offend: any liberal voting bloc.
I'm offended by how easily offended some people are. Buck up, people.
I couldn't agree more. At work, they shouldn't make us undergo sensitivity training. They should make us undergo insensitivity training. Problem is, there is an entire industry centered around grievances. You always have to know what a particular minority wants to be called. Today. Not last week.
One Brow,
Isn't the American flag chosen by white supremacist groups for equally racist reasons?
Martin,
The point is not why the flag is chosen by racist groups, but the hisotry of the country that used the flag. The primary aim of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery, so it's flag is offensive and racist groups choose it for that reason. The USA does have a checkered past on that regard, but also has shown a steadily increasing commitment to change into a better future (an opportunity the Confederacy did not get), and so is not offensive.
Martin,
Also, what makes you think racist groups choose the USa flag for reasons of racism, as opposed to patriotism?
One Brow:
The "primary aim of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery"? You don't think this is a dramatic oversimplification of history?
Can you tell me the country of which the Confederate states were a part before they seceded? And can you also tell me which flag they used?
Martin,
I think any timea person uses the words "primary aim", you are in for an oversimplification to one degree or another, and I am no exception. However, you did not expicitly disagree that slavery was the primary aim.
I'm not sure what you country you refer to, if not the USA, that must have existed between Dec 20 1860 (the first secession) and Feb 8 1861 (formation of the CSA). Unless you mean each state was a countyry unto itself.
One Brow,
I'm asking what country the slave states were a part of before they seceded. You seem to be assuming that the history of the U.S. itself did not include slavery.
One Brow:
I may not have explicitly disagreed before about slavery being the primary aim of the Confederacy, but I'll do it now. The issue was state's rights primarily, with slavery being an aggravating factor. Lincoln said several times that he would not order an end to slavery in the South. The issue was only newer states, so it was unnecessary for the South to secede in order to maintain slavery.
Slavery did become the primary justification of the war on both sides later in the war when Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a means to provide the North with a moral reason for he war. He needed a moral crusade to inform the Northern psyche, and slavery was ready at hand for the purpose. The Southern newspapers bit on it, and began to offer rationales for slavery.
But the idea that slavery was what the Civil War was about is, as I said, an oversimplification.
Martin,
I decided to craft my response as a blog post. In brief, the Crittenden Compromise, Corwin amendment, Cornerstone speech, secessation documents of various states, and the results of the Peace conference of 1861 all disagree with your position that the slavery was not aprincipal cause.
Post a Comment