dagblog - Comments for "A Flag Is What We Make It"

Oh c'mon, Ramona. Really. YOU

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 28 May 2014 17:45:51 +0000

Oh c'mon, Ramona. Really.

YOU are the one who brought up the topic and suggested "we need to allow them" to fly the CSA flag as if what "we" thought or could do about it were even question, assuming, and it was your assumption, that doing something about it was even an option.

I'll ask you again: Is there an actual movement to disallow flying the CSA flag on grave sites or from one's porch or car? In short, to ban the flag?

There's been a big controversy over official state use of the flag. Is THAT what you're arguing for? Or are you arguing for something else?

And who is the "we" you keep mentioning?

I can honestly say that until your post, it NEVER occurred to me that "I" had any say over the matter. I spent ZERO time thinking about it.

YOU invited us to think about it and now we have. That's what blogs with comment sections are for.

If you find that so offensive you would actually consider trying to convince (or worse, force) the families of those soldiers that they should stop flying them, you've both forgotten your own terrible histories.

Nowhere above did I or RM say anything about "convincing" or "forcing" anyone to do anything. Nor do either of us--at least I don't--have any opportunity to convince or ability to force anyone to do anything.

If you can honestly draw an equivalence or even an analogy between being ghettoized for centuries and being physically eliminated, gassed and otherwise killed, for one's religion and enslaved, lynched, and Jim Crowed for 160 years...

...and being "forced" to give up a flag...which, again, no one is doing...but even if they were...then the kindest thing I can say to you is that you should take a step back and readjust your perspective.

BTW, in the Deep South

rmrd0000 — Wed, 28 May 2014 17:03:13 +0000

In reply to We are voicing an opinion.

BTW, in the Deep South especially, mortality rates among slaves were high. The Confederates fought for those who supported that wastage. The Confederates were part of a system that was contributing to the Black deaths you mention.

We are voicing an opinion.

rmrd0000 — Wed, 28 May 2014 16:44:24 +0000

In reply to I'm just stunned by the

We are voicing an opinion. Neither of us can halt any display of the Confederate flag. Interestingly, another admirer of Maya Angelou used her words to criticize displays of the Confederate flag, even on a windshield.

http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/article/20131028/OPINION03/310280014...

I'm just stunned by the

Ramona — Wed, 28 May 2014 16:09:50 +0000

In reply to That might be a good solution

I'm just stunned by the insensitivity shown here by two men whose own ancestors were in danger of being marginalized, if not eradicated.

RM says, "I would support American flags being flown over Confederate gravesites."

Peter says "If CSA flags are etched into the head stones at Confederate graveyards, then fine, let them stay. We shouldn't try to erase history; just the opposite."

What neither of you seem to realize is that since Confederate soldiers are buried in Confederate cemeteries you are not required or even invited to decide on what is appropriate there. To the ancestors of those Confederate soldiers the Confederate flag is an appropriate symbol and they've placed them on graves to commemorate the war dead for more than a century and half.

If you find that so offensive you would actually consider trying to convince (or worse, force) the families of those soldiers that they should stop flying them, you've both forgotten your own terrible histories.

Now I'm done here. A great lady has passed, a woman who sang of peace and understanding and acceptance in words that pulled us all in and made us understand that love and kindness are the things that will bring us together.

My heart is broken today. Maya Angelou has died.

"He wasn't beaten or tased,

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:26:42 +0000

In reply to C'mon. Played a significant

"He wasn't beaten or tased, which would have been cruel, he was shamed." No, he wasn't shamed by our side's measure - shaming includes naming, which is why liberals were upset the press didn't run after them to get their names. Throwing them out of the event wasn't enough.

So do you think they should have been named since they were GOP delegates, or are you a racist defender who thinks throwing them out was enough response?

That might be a good solution

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:22:21 +0000

In reply to I would support United States

That might be a good solution in principle.

After all--leaving aside questions of morality and offense--the CSA doesn't exist any more. If in fact it was a bona fide country, it isn't one any longer. The army that carried the CSA flag into doesn't exist any longer, either.

If CSA flags are etched into the head stones at Confederate graveyards, then fine, let them stay. We shouldn't try to erase history; just the opposite.

But what is the justification for erecting NEW flags that represent a country and an army that no longer exist and haven't for 160 years? A country and an army that disappeared once they were defeated and because they were defeated along with the principles for which they stood?

Of course, when the act isn't

Verified Atheist — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:30:49 +0000

In reply to C'mon. Played a significant

Of course, when the act isn't shameful, then shaming should be ineffective. I say "should", because there are obviously cases where acts that shouldn't be considered shameful are nevertheless considered shameful by the society at that time.

I would support United States

rmrd0000 — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:16:29 +0000

In reply to Pulling back a bit from the

I would support United States flags flying over Confederate grave sites,

Pulling back a bit from the

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:09:47 +0000

In reply to In light of the Memorial Day

Pulling back a bit from the controversy we've been debating...

It is an interesting question how the losing side in an immoral conflict should honor its dead. It's unquestionably true that the grunt, the great mass of cannon fodder that gets chewed up in every conflict, has little to say about the conflict and probably isn't an ideologue. I say this without proof, but I think it's true. And yet they are fighting so that that ideology may prevail.

So, for example, and I asked this before: How do Germans honor their WWII war dead? To be sure, not with Nazi flags (I hope), but it's still an interesting challenge. It doesn't seem right, somehow, that the sacrifice of these soldiers not get acknowledged and even honored.

Perhaps with Germany's current flag, even though that wasn't the flag they fought under?

Perhaps the US flag should fly at CSA cemeteries since the war in which they died strengthened the union, the idea that the US is one country, and served to eliminate the scourge of slavery, and delegitimatize ideas like nullification and secession as constitutional remedies, once and for all (at least for 99% of Americans). They died to test those ideas--it was a contest in the old sense of the word--and their side lost. One side had to lose to arrive at a result, and theirs did. A good outcome for the country.

C'mon. Played a significant

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 28 May 2014 13:56:40 +0000

In reply to Played a significant role in?

C'mon. Played a significant role in the event--the disturbance--they created.The disturbance wasn't deemed run of the mill--like drunks getting thrown out of a bar--but incendiary. That's a judgment call; maybe you disagree with how incendiary it was. But if someone is incendiary, then it doesn't matter how many people the person is or how many other people aren't being incendiary. If hundreds were doing the same thing, you'd have a point; there'd be no need to single out two people.

Heck, there must be thousands of people who at one time or another have offered to tell a crowd about the Negro. Bundy's one guy. Why get upset at him? And frankly, his racism isn't necessarily connected to his real offense, i.e., stealing. Not only that, he's probably not the only rancher not paying for grazing rights. Why are we singling out him and letting the rest go free (if in fact we are)?

A word about shaming: When we say that letting Bundy have his free speech say "worked" to marginalize him in the public eye, we need to recognize that the way that marginalization worked was through various forms of shaming. Perhaps the biggest one was when FOX turned on him and said that what he said--not his stealing, but just his exercising his free speech rights and talking like thousands of other racist yahoos--was shameful. He wasn't beaten or tased, which would have been cruel, he was shamed. I don't think he has much shame, but shaming is what worked. Shaming him as he was exercising his free speech right to let loose with any brain fart he deemed interesting, truthful, or appropriate in the circumstance.

Arguing in the extreme--tasing and thumb screws--isn't an effective rhetorical device when your analogy breaks down on the substance. Getting named in a newspaper article isn't the same (at all) as getting tased or pinned down with thumb screws. Shaming someone is a much better way of expressing social disapproval than many of the alternatives. Of course, when the act isn't shameful, then shaming is wrong and can even be cruel. This turns on a judgment about whether an act or speech is, in fact, shameful, hurtful, wrong.