Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

**InsaneApache** · 06-20-2005, 08:12

Nor was the United States without active friends in England. Such reformers as John Bright and Richard Cobden spoke up vigorously in support of the Lincoln government, and even when the cotton shortage threw thousands of textile workers out of employment, the British working class remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

I was told this as a child*. The workers in the Lancashire cotton mills refused to deal with Confederate cotton and placed it on an unofficial embargo. This was one of the first instances on the labour force flexing it's muscles, not for financial gain, but for a principle. So although it is generally acknowledeged that the war was not started on the issue of slavery, it quickly develpoed into that very thing. A similar scenario unfolded during WWII, which started as a response to the German invasion of Poland, but is now wildly seen as a war to combat Nazism.

I actually do think that the battle flag of the Confederacy represents the attempt to retain slavery, and therefore is a negative symbol. The Stars and Bars flag is not that generally well known (outside of the south that is) and I'd be surprised if anyone would be offended by it.

*by my great-grandmother who was born in 1874 and she was told by her father who took part in the protests.

**Al Khalifah** · 06-20-2005, 09:43

The Southern Cross issue may seem ridiculous, but here's another flag that many consider offensive and as a result is now rarely flown because people believe it has racist undertones:

Yup, the current flag of England is now sparingly used officially and is only comfortably used by the majority of the population at sporting events where England is represented seperately from the United Kingdom. This is because it is believed to have racist undertones because it is used by far-right groups and is also considered a symbol of English nationalism. St. Andrews cross on the other hand is freely flown in Scotland, because it represents Scottish pride.
This is the current flag of nearly 50,000,000 people and yet it has be shunned into almost non-existance away from sports events and even then the PC Police are complaining that its usage is innapropriate and excessive.

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 06-20-2005, 13:21

Al Khalifa:
In Wales people get to fly the official Welsh flag without trouble.
Some people also take the flag of Owain Glyndwr (so basically the royal flag of the last bit of totalw Welsh political independence) to sports matches etc. This has been complained about for being racist but I believe is still tolerated by the authorities: that is very weird, no reason for those accusations at all.
In Wales you also see people flying St. David's cross a fair amount too, I'm not sure in anybody has any problems with this.

**Al Khalifah** · 06-20-2005, 13:53

That's the annoying part. St. George's Cross is treated as having racist and nationalist connotations where as the other flags of the United Kingdom are seen as representing pride.

Its part of this larger issue of what represents pride and what represents prejudice. Where I think the PC police are falling apart is there inability to distinguish between the two. They seem to have selected certain symbols and ideals as being wrong, even though there are others that are more so.

The hammer and sickle and other USSR related symbology is another good example. It is acceptable to paint this everywhere whenever trying to brand something as 'revolutionary' or 'communist' (despite being propagated by a capitalist mass-marketing machine, but thats another issue). Imagery of Stalin also seems tolerable. However, National Socialist Party symbology and imagery of Hitler is completely unnaceptable and the ban of all related symbology in Germany and the attempted ban throughout the EU reflects this. Where is the difference? Both of these men and their regimes were responsible for the purging and destruction of millions from entire groups of society, both domestic and foreign, yet one is acceptable (even cool) where as the other is totally taboo.

This is not an endorsement of Nazi symbology nor an attack on Communist symbology, merely an example of a blatant piece of hypocrisy in today's sugar coated world.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 06-20-2005, 15:43

The flag ain't coming down anyway, not just out of my room

but throught the South. And I say this again: Too bad the south lost.

**English assassin** · 06-20-2005, 17:17

If "public opinion" is that a symbol can only have one meaning, then damn the public opinion. Everyone who raises a Confederate flag will have different reasons for doing so; anyone who passes early judgement on anyone else's intentions and meanings for promoting any kind of symbol is a bit of an idiot.

I don't agree with that, this sort of relativist argument causes a lot of trouble. Words and symbols do, largely, have an objective if not immutable meaning. That's how we manage to communicate with each other.

The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.

The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.

But I find the arguments that the swastika was a symbol for many nations before it was used by the Nazis beside the point. I might have been rude about relativism above, but its true a symbol's meaning can change with time. This symbol was adopted by one of the most evil regimes there has ever been, and that has irredemably changed its meaning today. Its almost the paradigm of it. The fact that it used not to have this evil meaning is wholly irrelevant. If the Nazis had marched under the banner of my mum's face, I'm afraid mum would have to accept that her previously perfectly harmless physiognomy had through no fault of her own become the symbol of ultimate evil.

**Steppe Merc** · 06-20-2005, 20:05

i get the whole southern pride thing, but explained, like the op's dad did, the popular understanding of the symbol is gonna get you labeled nasty things you might not want to be associated with.

And sadly they did. Not just by their detractors, but also by their fans. So it did cause them to be misundestud (how the hell do you spell that?). I blame the fans, my dad blames the fans but also Skynyrd for allowing room for the fans to misunderstand them.
Ronnie Van Zant (the leader of the band) also once went to a fancy record promotion, and they told him to dress up. So he wore a Confederate officer's uniform.

The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.

Which was exactly the view of the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd, I believe.
My friend from England considered getting St. George's cross on the roof of his car. He decided to go with the Union Jack instead. At the time, I was unaware of the racist conatation, so I didn't really get it. Why is it considered racist? Is it because of England's colonial past?

And I can see where Don's friend, Ichi and Pindar are coming from. Myself, I don't see any difference between flying the battle flag of the Confederates and say flying the Union Jack or St. George's Cross. Just because we fought Britian in our past doesn't mean British people shouldn't be able to fly their flag. Of course, it's not quite the same obviously, but I really don't see a problem.

**GoreBag** · 06-20-2005, 20:14

Originally Posted by English assassin

The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.

So a symbol's context is more important than the symbol after all. I rest my case.

**KafirChobee** · 06-20-2005, 20:28

Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive? Except to continue the stirring of a boiling pot?

As a simple courtesy they ought to be suppressed - kept from public viewing. However, freedom of speech remains a viable arguement for them. Therefore, they must be allowed, but acknowledged for what they are: Symbols of hate and intolerance.

Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting. And, they work in that process of creating hate, fear, and insulting the feelings of others. Which is the real intent of those using them. They have nothing to do with regional pride, and all to do with continuing a statement of subjigating one peoples' will over that of anothers.

Living in the South, I see the stars and bars frequently. It doesnot offend me personally, but I do realize there are others it does. And, that is the intent of most of those that use it - to show they support the local KKK and have disdain against all non-WASP groups.

Using history as a front to the continued displaying of offensive symbols is intellectual masturbation in its finest form. It attempts to put the blame for a symbols present meaning back into some warm and fuzzy time where it did stand for the pride of a people (regardless of how corrupt, foul, and/or degenerate those people were. It attempts to justify the actions of the past that the symbol represents today into some kind of morally correct (at the time) issue. The arguements for their continued use, employs false premices to justify their continuing use today. For me it is a bit sordid to use an arguement for slavery as a reason to fly or display the stars and bars. Or, to say - well, there were Northern slaves. Where? Missouri? [note: was a reverse underground railroad that was run near ShawneeTown, and Junction, ILL. 'til 1861 - some say 'til 1930. That I was introduced to as a kid. Lincoln once slept there, trying to garner the owners support for his run to the senate - he didn't get it.]

The point is, if something offends others ... why defend its usage? Not how can I defend it, but why should I?