Absolutely. The meaning has changed to such an extent that, as you say, the flag itself is ruined. Regardless of what white people say, it is no longer simply a symbol of southern heritage. It is a symbol of power, privilege and modern-day rebellion.

In this case, it is effectively communicating exactly what the flag owners intend, no matter how fervently they try to redirect attention.

The question is why fly the flag? You have to go deeper than the initial responses...southern heritage, pride, connection to ancestors...

Why fly the flag when they know it has lost its original symbolism? Because they can.

Dig deeper...why do they feel they can do something so blatantly offensive and not be bothered by it? The answer to this question is the bottom line.

Actually, I think this is a terrible analogy.

The cross is (generally) a positive symbol that has been used for thousands and thousands of years across different religions. The Klan using this symbol didn't taint it forever, as most people had thoughts and beliefs about what it meant that were so entrenched in its history that the Klan couldn't change that. It was known that this symbol represented something other than white power, and did so long before the creation of the KKK.

Now, in terms of cross-BURNING... this was practiced before the creation of the KKK, but if I was to burn a cross today, most likely no one is going to think of its Scottish origins and let me off with a warning. Here in the US, cross-burning is associated with the Klan, and I doubt that association will ever be changed.

In other words, there's a difference between a flag/symbol that was created for a positive reason and used later for a negative one (by a small group of people), and a flag/symbol that was initially used to represent something negative and is then attempted to express something positive.

The Confederate flag being flown proudly in the US isn't comparable to the Klan using the cross, but it IS comparable to the Klan burning the cross, in that both symbols were (in this country) initially associated with despicable thoughts and actions. To attempt to reverse that completely would most likely be impossible.

This!!!

I don't have a problem if you want to display it in your house. Hell, you could have a Klan meeting at your house if you wanted, just as long as you aren't plotting to commit an act of violence. But when you leave your house with a t-shirt or a bumper sticker displaying that flag, you shouldn't be surprised if you're met with people who think you're racist. But hey, that's your right.

However, in my opinion, a symbol that makes, most likely, at least 50% of the country uncomfortable at the least and pissed off/offended at the most, shouldn't be flown at a government building. The fact that states fight to keep that flag flying on the front lawns of their capital buildings is baffling to me.

This sentence made me laugh.

I see where both of you are coming from.

However, unlike SydneyK, I would not use the KKK as an illustration of the negatives associated with the "cross." Christianity, and Christian symbols such as the cross, has represented the "religious arm of power," European-white diasporic dominance, colonialism, missionaries, slavery, the push to civilize the unGodly savages, racism, sexism, homosexism, rape, and overall social exclusion. Religion, specifically Christianity in this instance, has been used to perpetuate social inequalities around the world and keep oppressed populations compliant. Since we're thinking about the history behind symbols, and telling people that they cannot rightfully respect symbols that have an oppressive history and offend masses of people, there are people around the world who cringe when they see Christian symbols including the cross. For instance, the Black Church and the role of Christianity in Black oppression and assimilation has always been criticized by people of African Diaspora around the world who believe that Christianity was forced on the African Diaspora; and a "white Jesus and His cross" should not be worshipped.

Is there a substantive difference when we look at national/international history regarding this or only a difference in what people personally believe in (since Christianity is the world's largest religion)? If it is the latter then that defense of personal beliefs and the positive despite the negative are why people justify respecting and displaying the Confederate Flag.

LOL. Speaking of symbols and familiar images:

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/85/39A2D9...F877BB4AFC.jpg

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ken-for-kkk-/1

The difference is the owner of this store is from Puerto Rico and claims she has never heard of the KKK.

Ideally, common areas would be free from any type of potentially offensive displays, including Confederate Flags and crosses.

Speaking to your question, though, I'm looking at two aspects.

First, what is the base meaning of the symbol? For the Confederate Flag, it is secessionism, treason, slavery, etc. For Christian/other religious symbols, the base meanings are intended to be morally positive or perhaps neutral.

Building on the base meaning, it is not a far jump for the Confederate Flag to have evolved into a symbol of hate. Could the Confederate Flag become a positive symbol? Perhaps, but it is not currently so.

On the other hand Christian symbols may take on a negative connotation in certain contexts, but there has always been a conflicting positive connotation in other contexts.

Second, going back to the question I asked, what is the real root of the reason people in the 21st century are displaying a Confederate Flag? I would ask the same question of people displaying Christian symbols. If a person is holding a cruel protest sign in one hand and gripping a cross in the other, the cross is takes on the symbolism given it by the individual. However, the same cross around the neck of a volunteer doctor carries a very different symbolism.

Reasonable, empathetic human beings will recognize the difference and use symbolism appropriately in various contexts.

To their own people, they are.

You're an idiot.

What kills me about white people are ignorant ass comments like these... always quick to tell somebody else how to feel about something degrading that has never had any affect on them. There's no way in hell I'm going to sit here and let somebody tell me some shit like I just read here.

Shut the hell up. Seriously.

Good.

Intended. I don't think the base meanings of Christian symbols are only positive and neutral when you look at the origins.

But, it is convenient to focus on "intended" to rationalize support for spirituality and beliefs. Removing the spirituality and belief from the equation and only discussing religion as a social institution, humans cannot create something that is neutral.

Theology and the Bible as literature (or any religious doctrine as literature) can highlight some interesting things about history and human dynamics. Therefore, arguably, humans cannot create something that is completely positive with absolutely no negative components or implications. When you look at the history of religion, Christianity specifically, there were things that had to happen to make Christianity possible. Christians, in particular, discuss this history with pride because it is seen as Jesus/God's work. If you remove the spirituality and belief system from the origins of Christianity, the origins can be seen a lot different.

Is there truly a conflicting positive connotation or only conflicting for the Christians who want to stand by Christianity? What makes this so different than what the supporters of the Confederacy and Confederate symbols say about the positive connotations in their contexts?

It only carries very different symbolism for those who only identify the cross and Christianity as positive. For those who do not, seeing that cross is like a flashback to the missionaries who were "here to help" but did much more than "help."

And, again, what makes that so different than people who display the Confederate Flag in environments in which the Confederate Flag is not considered threatening? Based on what some people in this thread are saying, it is impossible to personally identify with the Confederate Flag regardless of intent, tone, and context.

No, Christians will keep our religious privilege as the largest religion in the world and not be careful about where we display our symbols around the world.

Unless there are laws or social control mechanisms that restrict displays around the world. Such restrictions are not the same thing as being reasonable and empathetic by choice.

I take it you've never been to the Florida Panhandle. :)

I'm actually pretty desensitized to that specific Confederate flag. That doesn't mean I like to see it, but I don't get all up in arms when I do. Fortunately, I don't see it that often in my neck of the woods.

Make me shut up..."seriously".

Ditto.

Yeah, I have, but if you ask anyone in the South, they'll all say Florida is in the South, but it's not southern. :D

Thanks, Dr. Phil.

I was just going to post about how well PreciousJen's last few sentences summed up what I think is a cause of so many of our problems:

And then PincGator Que weighed in with his hate. Blew me away. I've learned a lot from this thread. Enjoyed the open discussion and the heretofore solid, well-considered exchange of knowledge and opinions.

I'd say that's true for anything south of Orlando--but an area of the country called "Lower Alabama" is probably pretty Southern. ;)

I did. :)

This is one of the only threads in the years of GC that has discussed a whole lot of dynamics without becoming a fun "(insert group) war." People have done pretty well with disagreeing without going off on each other even when expressions of opinions became testy. I will let you know when we're resorting back to calling people idiots and stuff. That's also fun. See you then.

Oh parts of it are plenty southern, and I think a lot of the south knows that so idk who you're asking. At least everyone in southern Georgia/Alabama knows it :p

I love where this thread has wandered. :)

I have spent 100% of my life in Tennessee and Georgia, I have heard people from both states speak of Florida as "not the south." I have also heard people in Georgia tell me Tennessee is "not the real south." I've heard people in south Georgia call Atlanta the north because of all the transplants. I've seen people on GC lump Texas in with the south when everyone should realize that Texas is its own impressive self.

As a professional, I routinely do business in and frequently visit these states: Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. I've found that we all have more in common than not as southerners, you know, except for all those transplants in Atlanta.

Sorry I had to read back through many post to answer this!

Who ever asked if I was drunk, NO.

But some of the comments by either North or South is inane!

We now are a Country of many colors and relegions and have been for many years, right? Or am I wrong?

Civil War is over, right? Maybe no, maybe not?

History is history and cannot be change no matter how some want to change it!

Within the USA were virtualy are a square county. N,S,E,W, and there are a whole lot of us in the big square.

But, from what I have seen, there is less racism in white Glos than b Glos or am I error?

Whast upsets me are the haters.

Who was it who asked do Ye protest to much?

^^ what no smileys?

Probably the fact that you have to put the caveat that parts of the state are southern is why people don't consider it southern. It's a pretty wide spread thought outside Florida, apparently. The discussion even made it on a nationally televised series called, "You Don't Know Dixie" on the History Channel http://www.history.com/shows/you-don.../episode-guide that discussed everything from which states are southern to what a "southern" accent is. If you haven't heard this before, you haven't been far out of Florida.

I should have specified that I'm referring only to public displays. Confederate Flags do have positive connotations within the group of people who fly them. However, there is no conflict when flown publicly.

My point is that the meaning can change and people can accept their own conflicting opinions about symbols.

Then, these people are neither reasonable nor empathetic. I personally know Christians who use Christian symbols in an aggressive way not only to set themselves apart, but also to keep people at a distance.

From a theological standpoint, I don't appreciate the overuse and lack of reverence for the cross among American Christians. How many crosses are sold on a t-shirt or necklace in this country? Why do this if not to show "pride" in one's faith or to make a statement? I'm certainly not an iconoclast and I do reverence icons in the Orthodox Church (where only Priests and Bishops tend to wear crosses).

Somewhat off-topic, I would venture to say that the closest modern-day equivalent to the cross in the ancient world is a lynching rope. The cross represented utter dehumanization and was reserved for the so-called criminals that didn't "deserve" a fair trial.

How disgustingly ironic that Christians have marched behind the cross on their way to subjugating and dehumanizing entire civilizations.

I've heard it before. It's just incorrect.

Obviously, but the rest of us don't since half of our states aren't northern conclaves.:p

Lol fair enough

:) Then you agree with my point. And you know that there is no substantive difference between discussing religious symbols versus other symbols like the Confederate Flag. People believe in what they believe in and will justify their belief no matter what. People will assert that there is more positive than negative to their beliefs.

Therefore, there can be a problem with telling people that their beliefs and the symbol itself are inherently and uncontextually flawed, and their belief in it makes them not only privileged but a bigot. There are people who would say the same to me when I wear my Jesus tshirt and Ichthys/Jesus fish bracelet. Many of these people would also call me a lost and foolish Black person for acknowledging the negatives, that began during Jesus' movement and throughout history, and choosing to allow the positive to outweigh the negative.

The Confederate Flag (which is associated with whiteness and white privilege) is considered a sign of power, privilege, and domination and Christianity (which is linked to the white diaspora) is a sign of power, privilege, and domination around the world.

I never disagreed that there is no substantive difference between discussing religious symbols and other symbols. Regarding the subject of this conversation, I grew up believing that Christian symbols were good and Confederate Flags were good.

Now I believe that Christian (along with other other religious) symbols are tainted, but they are accepted as more positive or more negative depending on the context, when displayed publicly. And, I believe that the Confederate Flag no longer carries a positive connotation, when displayed publicly.

Regardless of the symbol itself, my real concern is the purpose of public display. If the purpose is to be instigative, why do it?

All symbols are controversial on some level, whether superficial or deeply embedded. So, my question is always going to be the deepest level of "why" when it comes to the reasoning behind the public display of symbols.

ETA: The test of an instigator is their reaction to negativity expressed toward a particular symbol. If they take it down and put it somewhere private, I'm good. If they leave it up or do what the woman in the article did, we have a problem.

Got your point now, cool. I thought you were disagreeing based on the belief that the origins and foundation of the Christian symbols (you said positive and neutral) differed from the origins and foundation of the Confederate Flag.

The easy response is "this is our belief...don't keep us from being outwardly proud of our beliefs."

Even if someone said "I want to assert my beliefs even if it pisses people off," that has also been an acceptable response for group interactions. It is just like phrases like "I will not be silenced;" "sometimes you have to make some enemies to get to the top"; or "stand by your beliefs regardless of who doesn't like it."

The woman in this story was being a white privileged instigator in an environment where she is the population minority. Are there other instances where being the lone voice is acceptable? Sure...but who determines that?

It's a lot more complex than that.

It's not as problematic for someone to make a statement with a symbol when that symbol has not be used to oppress or demonstrate hatred/violence. Both the Confederate Flags and Christian symbols have been used for terrible things. People need to know how damaging it is to a community to display these symbols when they are not regarded in a positive light.

Other symbols may be controversial, but they have not been used oppress or demonstrate hatred/violence. The LGBT Flag comes to mind.

ETA: My perspective is, of course, skewed by my problems with both whiteness and Christianity.

Yes, that's why I responded as I did.

I vote you. Seriously.

I've lived in the North (specifically the Northeast) for 30 years and can probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard "At least we won the war" or "get over it." It's just not that big a deal up here. That includes having gone to college with a number of Southerners, and having family members from Mississippi come up North to visit. You must have lived in a particularly (and oddly) sensitive pocket of NJ.

Other than that I think DrPhil and MysticCat have covered it pretty well, so I don't know if I have anything to add. It's a complex issue, and when you have a symbol that has such strong, yet directly opposite meanings for different people, you're going to have conflict.

And...since you've met...ALL OF THEM, I guess you are qualified to make that kind of a statement. :rolleyes:

He does not need to meet all poor whites/poor white farmers to make that statement. Don't take that statement too seriously and assume that it has to apply 100%. He may be talking about the stereotype of rednecks as aggressive and mean and overall ignorant based on bigotry. I disagree with that stereotype but I also do not care whether people are polite to each other. Politeness is not the crux of racism and discrimination.

Poor white farmers (what the derogatory slang "redneck" is based on because the necks were red from working in the land and in the sun) did not have the same role in slavery as the more well off whites. However, slavery and racism would not have/would not persist without poor whites. Poor whites have white privilege which buffers much of the impact of social class inequalities. Poor whites were also instrumental in social exclusion and job discrimination for generations. When the more well-off whites/capitalists needed someone to maintain the class and race hierarchies, poor whites were and still are a vital tool.

Anti-capitalists/economists/conflict theorists who believed that the working class would unite against the capitalists found that poor whites (in general) always preferred racial alliances over social class alliances. Poor whites believed that they were protecting their jobs from "those people" and protecting their own white privileges. That is how political parties, labor unions, etc. were able to develop on the basis of the extremely high correlation between race and social class.

/I love threads with a whole lot of subtopics that are based in the same dynamics

Agreed. I grew up in the South but I've lived my entire adult life in the Northeast and I've never heard anything like that unless a Southerner is talking about how much better the South is than the NE--while they're in the Northeast. I've lived in both and neither is better, really. I will say that I've seen worse cases of segregation in the Northeast. In most Southern cities, there's not a "little Italy" or a "Koreatown" the way that there are in Northern cities.

I've noticed that people tend to romanticize the South as this genteel paradise that most Southern natives, particularly those of color or who could be "outsiders" in any way, tend to roll our eyes at. I've even noticed this on GC, where people who've never lived in the South go into a conniption fit when it's SEC rush time.

I think a lot of people feel that the South is this wonderful place where manners never died; there are, conversely, people who feel that the South is a terrible place where Jim Crow never died. The truth lies somewhere in between. The Confederate flag argument is one of the places where this division is more obvious.

So far, this is one of the most interesting, best threads I've seen on here. (since I've been a member).

Indeed.

Most of us have cyber-grown up together. LOL. You should have read us 1 year - 10 years ago. Or see us when we're feeling less interesting and more ass whooping.

LOL I looked at some of the old threads, and some of the topics were interesting "reads". I wish I would have known about this site back then. Folks on here have some really interesting opinions.

HAHA.

More ass whooping = recruitment troll threads, lately.

It is this phenomenon that never ceases to amaze me, especially when they assume that I agree with them solely because I am white.

There was a propaganda effort by the defeated South after the end of the Civil War. It emphasized the noble, ideological reasons for the war ("State's rights") and downplayed the role of slavery. It also made heroes out of people who should have been hung as war criminals. (Nathan Bedford Forrest, I'm lookin' at you.) That propaganda has a tremendous amount of influence on the way the narrative about the war is constructed today.