This Flag thing, Again

F

FluerVanderloo

New Member
My disclaimer: Though I am very opinionated about this issue, as are many others, I am not a racist by society's definition. Though some of my comments may seem so, I apologize in advance for offending anyone. But at the same time, I am trying to vocalize (well, express) my side of the situation. Tonks, I'm also apoligizing to you for bringing this up again, but this is a rather important issue.

There was a fight at school yesterday. A senior, Kevin, who was born in the South and moved here, put a Confederate flag on his truck. As word has it (it IS high school), Kevin was being harrassed for it, and lashed out at the kids who were doing so. Most of them were black. So automatically he became a racist, and after school a group of black kids came up to his truck, took the flag, snapped it in half by the pole and stomped on it.

Today, a letter was given to all students, banning EVERY type of display of the Confederate flag.

Now, I have many problems with this, and they include:

-The decision to ban the flag is a violation of our freedom of speech. Whether or not Kevin was in the wrong, it isn't right for the school to ban every student from displaying the flag.

-Racist or not, Kevin's private property was destroyed, and nothing was done about it. Without his permission, the guys hopped into the bed of his truck, took the flag, and destroyed it. If the act was done by white kids on a Malcom X flag, it is my full belief that something would have been done about it. Even if it wasn't a flag, or anything controversial, his property was destroyed.

-Society's views on the Confederate flag are badly confused. Yes, the KKK did adopt the flag as its symbol. However, it also represents a lost nation that tried to stand up for themselves and fight for what they considered freedom. It was done in the Revolutionary War, and repeated by the Confederacy.

Not everyone who displays and honors the flag is a KKK member. There is no reason for someone to be harrassed just because they show one. If I were to hang a first national flag outside of my house, no one would care. But if it were a battle flag, I wouldn't have a house. The immediate connection between the Confederate battle flag and racism is discrimination within itself. I know Kevin personally, and know that he is not a racist. But when provoked, his anger may have caused him to say things without thinking about it, and all of this resulted.


Again, please don't get me wrong, I do not wish anything bad on any other culture, but I felt it necessary to point out the irony in this as well. I would like some opinions on this issue, without a battle ensuing.
 
that was a bit much. though do understand that the flag itself may not be done in a racist way, it has been interperted as being a racist symbol and whatnot. but that was a bit much it was his property. and while I am not a fan of the rebel flag I think all flags should be banned not just the one
 
freako104 said:
that was a bit much. though do understand that the flag itself may not be done in a racist way, it has been interperted as being a racist symbol and whatnot. but that was a bit much it was his property. and while I am not a fan of the rebel flag I think all flags should be banned not just the one
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's one of the points I was trying to make. Just because he displayed it does not make him a racist. I don't seem to understand the need for them to destroy his flag when he didn't mean it like he did. Had the other kids not provoked him, he wouldn't have said anything about it.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
Again, please don't get me wrong, I do not wish anything bad on any other culture, but I felt it necessary to point out the irony in this as well. I would like some opinions on this issue, without a battle ensuing.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll add my 2 cents.

The only reason the flag causes problems is because of the way it has been used in the past, and even today. You hear the 'Heritage, Not Hate" speech time and again, but whenever you see an anti-minority (not just black) function, what are the two things you always see? Blame it on the media, if that helps you, but as long as the CBF is used by idiots, it will always be seen as a symbol of those idiots. Once that has been established, then, no matter how well-meaning you may be, you are associated with those idiots. If you wish to change the view of the greater society on how the confederate flag is seen, then, whenever it's used in a racist way, you, and those who claim it's heritage, should be the first to march up, and take back what's yours.

BTW...The CBF (Confederate Battle Flag) shouldn't be flown at all, given that it represents a culture that was beaten rather soundly in a war over 130 years ago. Let go. It'll be alright. ;)
 
I'm with Gato on this one. You want to be patriotic? Fine, fly the American flag, but flying the confederate flag is soing nothing more than trying to entice someone to act. I think Kevin is lucky they didn't clean his clock.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
Society's views on the Confederate flag are badly confused. Yes, the KKK did adopt the flag as its symbol. However, it also represents a lost nation that tried to stand up for themselves and fight for what they considered freedom. It was done in the Revolutionary War, and repeated by the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

My own reaction was primarily 'why would anyone want to display this flag?'. What exactly was your friend's intention in displaying it? Is it his pride in "a lost nation that tried to stand up for themselves"? I see that it has a history prior to its association with slavery, racism and the KKK, however, that is my association with it. Similarly, the history of the swastika goes back much further than the rise of Nazism, yet many people (myself included) associate swastikas with Nazis. The problem, I guess, is how do you take back a symbol once it's been coopted by another group? Not sure if that's possible.
 
PuterTutor said:
I'm with Gato on this one. You want to be patriotic? Fine, fly the American flag, but flying the confederate flag is soing nothing more than trying to entice someone to act. I think Kevin is lucky they didn't clean his clock.
Click to expand...


One caveat, though, PT. His private property was damaged and/or destroyed, and some compensation should be made. Perhaps 50% of the damages, because he knew that his flag was causing a disturbance, so he's partly to blame. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
One caveat, though, PT. His private property was damaged and/or destroyed, and some compensation should be made. Perhaps 50% of the damages, because he knew that his flag was causing a disturbance, so he's partly to blame. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suppose they did damage private property, but if they would have just kicked his ass, I'm betting they'd be walking free right now too. I just don't see the purpose of this kid flying that flag. They can talk all they want about the "lost nation" crap, but it just doesn't mean that anymore. As Nat's post says, it would be akin to flying a swastika flag today. Although it has meant more than the Nazi meaning, that is what most people associate it with.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
Be that as it may, it's still a matter of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...


Call it what you will, but it can also be classified as incitement to riot. Look that up sometime, and see what you think. ;)

Some years ago a book was returned to a branch of the Onondaga County Public Library, in the margin of which some unknown soul had written words to the effect that “Reagan must die.” The volume’s return led to an FBI investigation, the focus of which as to try to identify the author of that margin scribble: could she have been identified (which she never was) she would have been brought up on legal charges for threatening the life of the President. Advocating the death of our chief executive is prohibited by law.

I am tired of hearing about the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no principle of freedom of speech in the US, despite the habit of liberals always to retreat to the safety of the hallowed first amendment when faced with proposals to interrupt hate speech. Such controversies conveniently ignore those manners of expression which have always been and are legally regulated. Whether or not the framers of the constitution meant to imply that anyone should be allowed to say anything (and the evidence is strong that they intended no such thing), the historical reality in the United States is that certain manners of expression have traditionally been disallowed.

Expressed worries about freedom of speech tend to be disingenuous. We all know that certain speech is prohibited and illegal — were this not the case, laws prohibiting incitement to riot would be literally meaningless. Incitement to riot is after all nothing more than saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, in such a manner as to arouse illegally those people who happen to hear you while you’re saying it. There is no legitimate argument about whether or not certain speech should be interrupted: we have over 200 years of legal precedent which establishes that certain speech is not allowed in our society (which precedent tends to be distilled in conversation to a half-hearted misquote of Oliver Wendell Holmes speaking about yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater). The issue, then, is not whether we can interrupt certain forms of expression, but rather which forms of expression we choose, as a society, to interrupt.

We have of course long since arrived at that collective decision: the only manner of expression which is consistently interrupted and regulated is that manner of expression deemed dangerous to (not necessarily by) the government. That is why Leonard Peltier remains in federal prison. There is a corollary to that statement. If one, for example, voices opposition in principle to anti-pornography legislation, or to statutes opposing homophobic utterances, one is implicitly endorsing those manners of expression. The principle of freedom of speech is a fictitious one in this society. Therefore, by opposing such statutes, we state that while certain speech can, should and will be interrupted, hate speech should not. In effect we are stating that calling someone a faggot is more acceptable than calling for the overthrow of the state. Which statement some of us find more frightening than others.
Click to expand...

Source...
 
Fluer said:
Be that as it may, it's still a matter of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

True... another example would be when the ACLU defended the Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois (a neighborhood with a high percentage of Holocaust survivors).

I don't question your friend's right to display any flag of his choosing. However, I am curious why anyone would care to fly a symbol that is so closely associated with pain and hatred. That may not be your friend's interpretation of it, but it is clearly the usual association that's made. :shrug:
 
Gato_Solo said:
Call it what you will, but it can also be classified as incitement to riot. Look that up sometime, and see what you think. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't consider it inticement to riot when he didn't provoke any type of fight. So he had the flag on his truck, he didn't advertise that fact to the student body, nor did he preach about racism. He didn't encourage others to put the flag on their vehicles or put any on himself. I don't see how he's trying to start a riot in that respect.

I'm not being rude, I'm seriously trying to understand why putting a flag on a truck is a bad thing, and cause for his harrassment at school.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
I don't consider it inticement to riot when he didn't provoke any type of fight. So he had the flag on his truck, he didn't advertise that fact to the student body, nor did he preach about racism. He didn't encourage others to put the flag on their vehicles or put any on himself. I don't see how he's trying to start a riot in that respect.

I'm not being rude, I'm seriously trying to understand why putting a flag on a truck is a bad thing, and cause for his harrassment at school.
Click to expand...

Obviously, somebody saw it, or it wouldn't have been a problem. Re-read my last post, as I added something I think you should read.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Obviously, somebody saw it, or it wouldn't have been a problem. Re-read my last post, as I added something I think you should read.
Click to expand...

Now it's going to seem like I'm making up excuses. That article falls to your interpretation of the Constitution. This has been argued over since its drafting.

Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights itself. Had the first ten amendments not been written, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

But of course not many follow back that far where opinions are concerned. The basic idea remains though, that there are many ways to interpret the Constitution, therefore a clarification may be necessary.
 
FluerVanderloo said:
Now it's going to seem like I'm making up excuses. That article falls to your interpretation of the Constitution. This has been argued over since its drafting.

Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights itself. Had the first ten amendments not been written, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

But of course not many follow back that far where opinions are concerned. The basic idea remains though, that there are many ways to interpret the Constitution, therefore a clarification may be necessary.
Click to expand...

Actually, it falls on the modern interpretation of the Constitution, as well as PC speech and actions. If you do something that pisses somebody off, knowing full well and in advance that that person will be pissed off to the point of violence, are you exercising free speech? There-in lies the meat of the matter.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Actually, it falls on the modern interpretation of the Constitution, as well as PC speech and actions. If you do something that pisses somebody off, knowing full well and in advance that that person will be pissed off to the point of violence, are you exercising free speech? There-in lies the meat of the matter.
Click to expand...

That's why I was saying that the Jeffersonian idea doesn't matter much anymore. But why is it that a person judges another based on something that they see about them?

Well I guess that's something that can't be answered. But the people are just as much to blame. If they pushed Kevin to the point of making rude comments, they weren't going about questioning him about the flag the right way.

So why should someone stifle what they want to do simply because of what they think other's reactions would be?
 
FluerVanderloo said:
That's why I was saying that the Jeffersonian idea doesn't matter much anymore. But why is it that a person judges another based on something that they see about them?

Well I guess that's something that can't be answered. But the people are just as much to blame. If they pushed Kevin to the point of making rude comments, they weren't going about questioning him about the flag the right way.

So why should someone stifle what they want to do simply because of what they think other's reactions would be?
Click to expand...


The whole idea of Freedom of Speech was created to give people the right to speak out against the government, if they found it was necessary for the well-being of the country. In other words POLITICAL DEBATE. The Confederate flag issue has lost its credibility for political debate through the constant use of said flag for ulterior motives and justifications. You say you use it for historical background, so you, above all of us, should know the ramifications of your actions if you choose to display the CBF in public. Doing so can, has, and probably always will, cause a problem. There's a huge difference between history and hate, just as there's a huge difference between a political stance and outright overthrow of the government. If you do something that you know will cause a problem, don't you bear some responsibility when just such a problem occurs? If you sound like you're making excuses, you most likely are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top