The Confederate Flag

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

[thetaj]

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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by thetaj

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.

[thetaj]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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

Lol fair enough

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 is 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.

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.

[DrPhil]

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.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

It's a lot more complex than that.

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."

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

It's a lot more complex than that.

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

[amIblue?]

Sure...but who determines that?

I vote you. Seriously.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

After 4 years in New Jersey I can say that most above the Mason-Dixon don't get that - hence the whole "Why don't they just get over it" thing, which is insulting in its idiocy. It's right up there with "Well, at least we won The War!" which always made me wonder why those New Jersyians couldn't come up with anything in defense of themselves other than an event which occurred over 100 years ago.

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.

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by PincGator Que

To their own people, they are.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by *winter*

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

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

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[Cen1aur 1963]

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