Persistence of Confederacy Imagery and Glorification

[muichimotsu]

...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.')

Who is glorifying sugar, first off? And the acknowledgement of losers is not the same as glorification, you're throwing out a non sequitur to the discussion, since that isn't qualitatively the same as the Confederate Rebel mascot that was utilized by many colleges and high schools, some even today, 70 years after they were put in place

 

[muichimotsu]

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

It's not a judgment when you're stating a matter of basic historical fact that they were going to and tried to secede from America because they wanted, in no small part, to continue the institution of slavery

 

[Albion]

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.

Yes, so? That's not what the great majority of people who fly the Confederate flag today think or want, and it certainly is not a justification for vandalizing monuments that commemorate Confederate veterans. Political fanaticism, associated with whatever cause, and/or denying other people's rights, is not a thing to be admired.

 

[Albion]

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?

I'm not sure that the last part of that question is certain. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves and did not fight in order to preserve the institution.

Most fought for their homes and families and for their state(s). At that time, the "union" which we praise these days as united and indivisible was not seen that way, but it was one's state which commanded one's patriotic loyalty. It was only after the war that the idea of union, as for example described in the pledge of allegiance, took hold.

 

[pescador]

...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.')

Are you okay??

 

[Albion]

Who is glorifying sugar, first off?

It's an analogy, my friend. We can imagine, can't we, that the idea might take hold that sugar is something we can do without and that it causes diabetes and other maladies...so it must be forever banned in reality and, also, in literature, historical references, everything.

Certainly. This is not much different from the cultural Puritanism, complete with the newspeak and prohibitions that endeavor to banish any memory of the dreaded subject (or substance) or idea, that is growing these days.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, so? That's not what the great majority of people who fly the Confederate flag today think or want, and it certainly is not a justification for vandalizing monuments that commemorate Confederate veterans. Political fanaticism, associated with whatever cause, and/or denying other people's rights, is not a thing to be admired.

That doesn't mean their ignorance justifies that freedom in the context of a school mascot and such that is glorifying the Confederate flag.

And I never advocated such a thing, maybe don't leap to strawmanning based on the exceptions to the rule or trying to do a 2 wrongs make a right argument, as if someone defacing Confederate monuments means the monuments are fine in themselves rather than being relegated to private ownership rather than public endorsement

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not sure that the last part of that question is certain. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves and did not fight in order to preserve the institution.

Most fought for their homes and families and for their state(s). At that time, the "union" which we praise these days as united and indivisible was not seen that way, but it was one's state which commanded one's patriotic loyalty. It was only after the war that the idea of union, as for example described in the pledge of allegiance, took hold.

That's irrelevant to whether the Confederacy was founded on slavery as a natural state. Them thinking it was about their homeland is still nationalistic and needlessly divisive with the idea that they should be able to secede based on wanting to continue to benefit from an economy that utilized slavery

You can have a union and differing opinions, but not all opinions are equally valid in a free market of ideas, especially those which advocate white supremacy as the Confederacy did.

The ignorance of some citizens, making it about states' rights in some sense not connected to slavery, does not mean it was actually the case, versus compartmentalization of the institution of slavery in contrast to perceived oppressions that may have been based in mistaken thinking to begin with.

Seems to me you're trying to say the Confederate flag and a Rebel mascot with Confederate imagery is not racist in its essence and is somehow removed from that meaning because people have reappropriated it with the Lost Cause of the Confederacy nonsense that is basically in line with your argument

 

[muichimotsu]

It's an analogy, my friend. We can imagine, can't we, that the idea might take hold that sugar is something we can do without and that it causes diabetes and other maladies...so it must be forever banned in reality and, also, in literature, historical references, everything.

Certainly. This is not much different from the cultural Puritanism, complete with the newspeak and prohibitions that endeavor to banish any memory of the dreaded subject (or substance) or idea, that is growing these days.

We kind of need sugar for functionality, I'm pretty sure, it's the moderation that is difficult. Causing diabetes is not because it is sugar, but because it is consumed in excess, same with sodium and heart disease, while we still require a daily intake of sodium to be healthy, just not in excess

Banishing the memory is a strawman of what is being advocated, which is to consider that such a thing is not to be glorified in any way, shape or form, but thoroughly condemned for the unpleasant association and explicit messages made by that cause founded under white supremacy.

Conflating the idea of historical negationism with historical realism only muddies the waters and creates needless polarization, as if my opposition to the Rebel mascot in my high school means I want to forget my high school memories entirely, which is ridiculous

 

[Albion]

That doesn't mean their ignorance justifies that freedom in the context of a school mascot and such that is glorifying the Confederate flag.

I'm sorry, but free speech--although unpopular these days--remains a precious right of a free people in my view.

 

[Strathos]

I'm sorry, but free speech--although unpopular these days--remains a precious right of a free people in my view.

Free speech means the government can't censor you for your opinions. It doesn't mean that public or private institutions have to promote anything you want them to.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm sorry, but free speech--although unpopular these days--remains a precious right of a free people in my view.

I never said they couldn't use it as private citizens, even if I find it utterly stupid, but a public school is not privy to the same protections and I'm pretty sure that was the focus in terms of my OP, not whether people can advocate things that I think are wrong, but aren't trying to legislate it. There's a different problem there, but it's about changing the regard towards the Confederacy, which in the South seems to be shifting more towards an understanding they were traitorous secessionists

But if someone wants to have a Confederate flag in their window or have the Rebel Confederate mascot on their truck (because it's the South, get it?), I have no issue in terms of free speech and exercise thereof as long as it isn't infringing on minority rights, which is what is done by the school using the mascot that glorifies whiteness and the Confederacy

 

[Albion]

Free speech means the government can't censor you for your opinions. It doesn't mean that public or private institutions have to promote anything you want them to.

That's true, but it is amazing to me that people will argue that if somebody feels uncomfortable or insulted by what you might say or display, even if it wasn't directed at that person...

you have to be punished and the whatever banned. Maybe worse.

Yet it never works in reverse. If the President and anyone who votes for him is called a Nazi or white supremacist or racist, etc....that's perfectly all right with a great number of people. THEN the response is for them to claim "free speech" rights.

 

[dzheremi]

Who's talking about the President?

Why does Trump have to get brought into everything? Is the logo modelled on Trump?

 

[Strathos]

That's true, but it is amazing to me that people will argue that if somebody feels uncomfortable or insulted by what you might say or display, even if it wasn't directed at that person...

you have to be punished and the whatever banned. Maybe worse.

Yet it never works in reverse. If the President and anyone who votes for him is called a Nazi or white supremacist or racist, etc....that's perfectly all right with a great number of people. THEN the response is for them to claim "free speech" rights.

Are you trying to equate criticism of bigotry with criticism of people pointing out bigotry?

 

[Strathos]

Who's talking about the President?

Why does Trump have to get brought into everything? Is the logo modelled on Trump?

Would be pretty weird if it was, as he's from New York.

 

[DaveHTexas]

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.

I am sorry if you understood my statements to be a way of glorifying any enemy of the United States. That was never the intent. Rather to warn about suppressing history. The danger of supressing history comes with just too much blood and I am unwilling to stay silent when it comes to that.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's true, but it is amazing to me that people will argue that if somebody feels uncomfortable or insulted by what you might say or display, even if it wasn't directed at that person...

you have to be punished and the whatever banned. Maybe worse.

Yet it never works in reverse. If the President and anyone who votes for him is called a Nazi or white supremacist or racist, etc....that's perfectly all right with a great number of people. THEN the response is for them to claim "free speech" rights.

It's not merely an isolated thing, this is demonstrable and historically verifiable in terms of the association with the Rebel in the specific imagery that is Confederate as a mascot. And someone can call for free speech and be ignorant of nuances in application of the law, thinking Trump could just engage in libel or slander because "freedom", same with the existence of traditions for a school or university that are racist being maintained by the same idea that the status quo must be retained.

Free speech, as already noted, is not freedom from all consequences, only that the government cannot censor you, unless your speech is creating a harassing or dangerous climate.

And the situation with the Rebel mascots that are all but gone in the Confederate imagery is that, while people can hold it as tradition and value it ignorantly as mere Southern heritage (an argument I'm all too familiar with growing up in the South in more rural areas in proximity), that does not mean the school must conform to that social majority or pressure from a vocal minority.

Though looking at a poll from my local paper on this issue, it's a very close number at this point, which is concerning in the idea of even people not directly involved as alumni or such thinking it's okay to have the Rebel as a mascot with the imagery in question merely because, for many, it's an old tradition and history, rather than considering we can acknowledge history without endorsing it as praiseworthy, like the Confederacy's rebellion against the Union.

 

[dzheremi]

Is having statues of particular confederate generals or mascots idolizing the idea of the confederate 'rebel' the only way or even the best way to avoid suppressing history, though? I would argue that no, that's actually a very bad way to preserve and teach this period of history, as it leaves a lot of people out that are very atypical to either side's narrative, and all the more valuable to learn about as a result (e.g., people like the aforementioned Cassius Marcellus Clay, whose examples show that there were people in the deep south during the Civil War period who were seriously anti-slavery).

 

[muichimotsu]

I am sorry if you understood my statements to be a way of glorifying any enemy of the United States. That was never the intent. Rather to warn about suppressing history. The danger of supressing history comes with just too much blood and I am unwilling to stay silent when it comes to that.

And no one is trying to suppress history that is calling for the mascot of a Confederate nature to be removed from the school: if anything those who are trying to do that are those who would claim the Rebel mascot that is a Confederate imagery in association is not racist and argue that the Confederacy was not in any way founded on white supremacy (even when it says it outright that blacks serving whites in slavery is a natural state in their founding address)