Persistence of Confederacy Imagery and Glorification

[muichimotsu]

This is more localized, since my alma mater high school made a decision to keep the mascot called the Rebel, which, while not always utilized in the manner here (there are examples of the Rebel as a Revolutionary Soldier or a cowboy styled character from what I gathered), is meant to be a depiction of a Confederate plantation owner, often referred to as Colonel Reb (like Ole Miss' version of the same mascot, utilizing the exact imagery I recall as a teen).

People supporting the decision keep talking about history and tradition, but seem to neglect that there are several solid objections to the persistent existence of something that used to have the Confederate flag utilized in older imagery (or was supposedly in the high school seal at least), in combination with Dixie as our fight song, which was utilized not only in minstrel shows that degraded black people, but was the de facto national anthem of sorts for the Confederacy.

And it's also been pointed out that the formation of the high school and choosing of the mascot was meant to buck against movements towards integration of schools, the Rebel not only evoking the idea of the Confederates rebellion against the Union, but slowly evolved into an idea that the essence was some kind of noble rebel against oppression.

And so much of that was done easily by not only the imagery being vague enough to try and say it was just a depiction of a Southern gentleman, but also disconnect that from the Confederacy while the association is still there historically of a slave owner or someone that would endorse such things under the Confederacy's combined goals that slavery was a natural state.

The primary argument seems to be that it's a tradition that shouldn't be changed, but that's dangerous thinking by any reasonable thinker's assessment from an outside perspective not colored by nostalgia and needless sentiment on it. As a graduate, I ignorantly thought nothing of it because of my privileged status as a white person in a white majority county, barely 12% minorities according some sources versus white people.

And a related idea is that this is a unifying thing that shouldn't be taken away from people: 1) no one is saying you cannot still hold to the racist symbol as something else as a private citizen and a historical society to preserve the imagery and such could be formulated with no objection from me on the surface, because it's a private group and not meant to represent the citizens at large. And 2) a symbol that is glorifying whiteness and the Confederacy as something to be proud of rather than an image that doesn't have that needless baggage and negative connotations is not anything that should be endorsed by a reasonable person not making appeals to the status quo.

Am I remotely in the minority for anyone in the South or even familiar with this particular mascot that is all too common, yet has mostly been rightfully consigned to the rubbish heap of history by most groups, like Ole Miss or even another high school in TN further.

 

[Archivist]

I don’t understand why people want to fly the Confederate flag, use symbols such a what you described. The Confederacy lost the war and fought for the evil cause of slavery. Why would anyone want to use such symbols.

 

[ironbjorn]

Traitors to the US shouldn't be glorified, and neither should racism.

 

[pescador]

I don’t understand why people want to fly the Confederate flag, use symbols such a what you described. The Confederacy lost the war and fought for the evil cause of slavery. Why would anyone want to use such symbols.

Because they are full of hate and want others to know that. It's the exact opposite of Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[DaveHTexas]

I think most reasonable people, of any backgriound would see that a school, public institution whatever that is names, and mascotted to intentionally stick a proverbial thumb in the eye of desegregation and mending of racial wounds probably ought to be renamed.

This does bring up a VERY touchy subject in current American social and political life that is incredibly volitile at the moment, which is should we remove symbols, names, etc... that have associations with past slavery or racism. This is a slippery slope discussion, but I will summarize.

No.

All human societies have at some point in their past practiced racism by its true, not modern grievance studies definition, and slavery. Thus the removal of any possible trace of either of these would mean to somehow completely erase all of humanity and our collective history. I do not believe that to be a realistic or beneficial goal.

Instead I believe we should work toward Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s dream, and follow Jesus teachings to love our neighbor as ourselves...

 

[dzheremi]

Why is the 'tradition' they want to keep always that of Confederate racism, as though there was nothing else of that time period worth preserving? Cassius Marcellus Clay (the abolitionist and politician who the boxer Muhammad Ali was originally named after) was from Kentucky, and an absolute hero of epic proportions compared to a bunch of people who fought instead to preserve the inherently unjust and evil system of human slavery.

Even if you wanted to limit the usage of civil war-era figures to those who seem most stereotypically 'rebellious' and 'manly' or whatever, there's a strong case that a man like Clay fits the bill better than any archetypal Reb ever could. From his bio on wiki:

Clay was elected to three terms in the Kentucky House of Representatives, but he lost support among Kentuckian voters as he promoted abolition. His anti-slavery activism earned him violent enemies. During a political debate in 1843, he survived an assassination attempt by Sam Brown, a hired gun. The scabbard of Clay's Bowie knife was tipped with silver, and in jerking the Bowie knife out in retaliation pulled this scabbard up so that it was just over his heart. Sam Brown's bullet struck the scabbard, and embedded itself in the silver. Despite having been shot in the chest, Clay tackled Brown, and with his Bowie knife removed Brown's nose and one eye, and possibly an ear, before throwing Brown over an embankment.​

Com'on...that's basically an action movie, except it happened in real life.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don’t understand why people want to fly the Confederate flag, use symbols such a what you described. The Confederacy lost the war and fought for the evil cause of slavery. Why would anyone want to use such symbols.

Idealized notions that the Confederacy wasn't traitorous and wasn't racist, because people want to cling to the past of the South and whitewash it, like Song of the South, which I've seen and it's definitely racist, even if it tries to paint Uncle Remus' relationship with his white master family as "positive"

 

[muichimotsu]

Traitors to the US shouldn't be glorified, and neither should racism.

They'll insist they're not racist up and down and will also claim the mascot isn't racist, with a blatant ignorance of racism's complex nature

 

[muichimotsu]

I think most reasonable people, of any backgriound would see that a school, public institution whatever that is names, and mascotted to intentionally stick a proverbial thumb in the eye of desegregation and mending of racial wounds probably ought to be renamed.

This does bring up a VERY touchy subject in current American social and political life that is incredibly volitile at the moment, which is should we remove symbols, names, etc... that have associations with past slavery or racism. This is a slippery slope discussion, but I will summarize.

No.

All human societies have at some point in their past practiced racism by its true, not modern grievance studies definition, and slavery. Thus the removal of any possible trace of either of these would mean to somehow completely erase all of humanity and our collective history. I do not believe that to be a realistic or beneficial goal.

Instead I believe we should work toward Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s dream, and follow Jesus teachings to love our neighbor as ourselves...

No one is claiming that the removal from public areas will remove racism, that's not remotely what's going on, because personal racism is distinct from systemic racism that people encourage by the idea that somehow the REbel with the Confederate imagery, like Ole Miss' Colonel Reb, is not racist and black people are "totally fine with it", especially "back in their day,"

The removal is not equivalent to erasure, because, even myself, nto a history buff, can appreciate that it is part of history, however ugly a part of the South's background it most definitely is, especially after reading bits of the Cornerstone Address, particularly on the notions that slavery is a natural state and that the Founding Fathers were wrong to regard slavery as horrible but "necessary"

As someone who's lived in the South my whole life and has gone along ignorantly as a privileged white person with racist ideas and jokes from fellow students, even my own neighbors that had a Confederate battle flag in their window (and I can think of 2 other people I know who likely either had or still have it in their windows at their house), I'm not pretending it didn't happen and certainly am not going to suggest that the lived experience of black people in my community is irrelevant because they're a minority. I will acknowledge the racist aspects of the South and move to make it so they are a faded memory that will remain a stain upon our past, but not something we glorify.

This isn't an all or nothing in terms of a solution, there can be a compromise without enabling ideas like the Lost Cause of the Confederacy or such or trying to commit historical negationism or revisionism.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why is the 'tradition' they want to keep always that of Confederate racism, as though there was nothing else of that time period worth preserving? Cassius Marcellus Clay (the abolitionist and politician who the boxer Muhammad Ali was originally named after) was from Kentucky, and an absolute hero of epic proportions compared to a bunch of people who fought instead to preserve the inherently unjust and evil system of human slavery.

Even if you wanted to limit the usage of civil war-era figures to those who seem most stereotypically 'rebellious' and 'manly' or whatever, there's a strong case that a man like Clay fits the bill better than any archetypal Reb ever could. From his bio on wiki:

Clay was elected to three terms in the Kentucky House of Representatives, but he lost support among Kentuckian voters as he promoted abolition. His anti-slavery activism earned him violent enemies. During a political debate in 1843, he survived an assassination attempt by Sam Brown, a hired gun. The scabbard of Clay's Bowie knife was tipped with silver, and in jerking the Bowie knife out in retaliation pulled this scabbard up so that it was just over his heart. Sam Brown's bullet struck the scabbard, and embedded itself in the silver. Despite having been shot in the chest, Clay tackled Brown, and with his Bowie knife removed Brown's nose and one eye, and possibly an ear, before throwing Brown over an embankment.​

Com'on...that's basically an action movie, except it happened in real life.

There's really just a problem that people refuse to even acknowledge the racism of the South and try, ironically, to do the thing they accuse people of doing who oppose the mascot: erase history or revise it so that the ugly parts are swept under a proverbial rug and you get the emphasis of them fighting an oppressive government or such rather than advocating secession, etc.

Or you have other dishonest tactics saying that because the original American founders used slaves, one can't condemn the Confederacy specifically, which is practically a relative privation fallacy, as if Confederate slavery was somehow lesser or that America was founded on slave labor reduces the more immediate problem of the Confederacy's advocacy of slavery as good.

 

[pescador]

There are no statues of Hitler in Paris. Why not? He ruled the country briefly with a new set of ideals.

The Confederacy made war against the United States. That should not be glorified in any way. No statues of its "heroes", no flags, nothing.

 

[pescador]

I think most reasonable people, of any backgriound would see that a school, public institution whatever that is names, and mascotted to intentionally stick a proverbial thumb in the eye of desegregation and mending of racial wounds probably ought to be renamed.

This does bring up a VERY touchy subject in current American social and political life that is incredibly volitile at the moment, which is should we remove symbols, names, etc... that have associations with past slavery or racism. This is a slippery slope discussion, but I will summarize.

No.

All human societies have at some point in their past practiced racism by its true, not modern grievance studies definition, and slavery. Thus the removal of any possible trace of either of these would mean to somehow completely erase all of humanity and our collective history. I do not believe that to be a realistic or beneficial goal.

Instead I believe we should work toward Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s dream, and follow Jesus teachings to love our neighbor as ourselves...

Nobody is erasing the past (which is of course impossible) but there is no need to glorify a nation which was in full rebellion and waged a war against the United States of America. They wanted to secede from the Union and create a new country; that was treason. They decided to wage a second war of independence, but it failed.

The history of the United States will remain because of the many, many books, articles, theses, dissertations, etc. that document society as it once was. There is no eliminating history but it is senseless to glorify an enemy of the United States.

 

[Albion]

If people keep working at this nonsense, we will finally arrive at the point that nothing will be permitted to anyone except some artificial references to completely mythical "history."

But that will suit the people very well who want, mainly, to strip from Americans every concept of us being a nation or a people with certain values. That makes ruling them easier to do.

 

[Albion]

There are no statues of Hitler in Paris. Why not? He ruled the country briefly with a new set of ideals.

The Confederacy made war against the United States. That should not be glorified in any way. No statues of its "heroes", no flags, nothing.

...and that is the judgment of...whom? What if I say that sugar should not be "glorified" (it's bad for you) or that no references to the losing candidates in presidential elections should be allowed anywhere, in books, libraries, schools, or even conversation? (After all, they were rejected by 'the people.')

 

[dzheremi]

...and that is the judgment of...whom?

According to the fact that there was a big war over it.

 

[Albion]

According to the fact that there was a big war over it.

Answer the question I asked, and I'll be happy to reply.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

If people keep working at this nonsense, we will finally arrive at the point that nothing will be permitted to anyone except some artificial references to completely mythical "history."

But that will suit the people very well who want, mainly, to strip from Americans every concept of us being a nation or a people with certain values. That makes ruling them easier to do.

Bit like if politicians used the Bible to manipulate others while falsely claiming they themselves believed any of it.

That would be horrendous indeed.

 

[dzheremi]

Answer the question I asked, and I'll be happy to reply.

The point is that it's not a matter of moral or medical judgments, unlike your other examples. Feel whatever way you want to about the confederacy -- it's not going to change the fact that the union and the confederacy fought a big war against each other to either put down or legitimize the confederates' attempt at withdrawing from the United States to form their own country. That very attempt is the evidence of how the confederacy waged war against the United States, not "according to the judgment of whom" (i.e., not because this person or that person says it was right or wrong that they do so), but according to the history of what actually happened.

"Facts don't care about your feelings", remember?

 

[muichimotsu]

There are no statues of Hitler in Paris. Why not? He ruled the country briefly with a new set of ideals.

The Confederacy made war against the United States. That should not be glorified in any way. No statues of its "heroes", no flags, nothing.

The historicity should be acknowledged, but yes, certainly not the stuff that took decades for the state government or schools to realize, after introspection and understanding about the problematic and systemic racism that permeates the South's culture in particular, that they needed to be removed from their endorsement

 

[muichimotsu]

If people keep working at this nonsense, we will finally arrive at the point that nothing will be permitted to anyone except some artificial references to completely mythical "history."

But that will suit the people very well who want, mainly, to strip from Americans every concept of us being a nation or a people with certain values. That makes ruling them easier to do.

Why would we want to promote or glorify in any sense a group of secessionists who would, I'm pretty sure, not be seen as embodying any American ideals of liberty and justice?