Confederate Flag Avatars: Time to say Goodbye

[AngerDanger]

Yes, but pride in an identity that has been marginalised - and seeking to reclaim how that identity is expressed by appropriating some of the vocabulary of the oppressors - is one thing.

Pride in opinions, and views (views which were once expressed as deeply offensive and unfair and oppressive laws, whereby women, blacks and gays were deprived of, or denied, rights, simply by virtue of who and what they were) which seek to express such abhorrent attitudes is quite another.

I fully take the point that anyone who chooses to have a racist, sexist, or homophobic avatar identifies themselves is choosing to advertise the fact that their views are repellant.

I agree with the notion that these attitudes are abhorrent and was simply speaking to their motivations. I don't think the desire, when uploading inane avatars, is to offend, which isn't to say that the uploader is unaware of how offensive their image is.

 

[vrDrew]

The image references how the internet has the power to bring the worst of some people, making them lose any semblance of civility.

Thanks juanm and Scepticalscribe. My first laugh of the day was that (sadly missed) avatar.

There was for a long time a bit of an unexplained paradox: Economic theory - from Adam Smith; Hardin; to Marx and Friedman - all suggested that, absent draconian political controls, eventually all common-pool resources (i.e. "commons" of various sorts, of which this forum is one) would collapse through over-exploitation. And yet in the real world this didn't happen very often.

In 2009 the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Indiana University's Elinor Ostrom for her work in how groups can manage common resources without property-rights or top-down direction. You can see Ostroms 8 Principles for Managing a Commons here, and I would heartily recommend anyone managing similar situations refer to them.

I think any reasonable analysis would confirm that this community does, in fact, adhere pretty closely to those principles. But, like any such "management" exercise - its not something that can be left unattended indefinitely. The system has to change with the times and the needs of the group.

 

[juanm]

Thanks juanm and Scepticalscribe. My first laugh of the day was that (sadly missed) avatar.

There was for a long time a bit of an unexplained paradox: Economic theory - from Adam Smith; Hardin; to Marx and Friedman - all suggested that, absent draconian political controls, eventually all public goods (i.e. "commons" on various sorts) would collapse through over-exploitation. And yet in the real world this didn't happen very often.

In 2009 the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Indiana University's Elinor Ostrom for her work in how groups can manage common resources without property-rights or top-down direction. You can see Ostroms 8 Principles for Managing a Commons here, and I would heartily recommend anyone managing similar situations refer to them.

and @Scepticalscribe

What do you think of my new avatar? I like the word "dicewao". It doesn't mean anything, of course. wink wink wink

 

[vrDrew]

What do you think of my new avatar?

Deliciously ironic.

It is important to consider that, from a free-speech perspective, the current system has some curious effects:

Insults are permitted. Its just that they are always directed at people not participating in the discussion. Or they are directed at second- or third-person groups. One can call Barack Obama a bloodthirsty cretin. You can refer to Planned Parenthood as money-grubbing baby-killers. (Presumably if Barack Obama himself showed up as a member here such insults would cease.) But if you actually call user PandaBaby7645 a blockhead, its an actionable violation of the rules.

Does that system work? Usually, yes.

But that is not to say there aren't tensions created by constantly being indicted on guilt-by-association murder charges for supporting things like women's access to birth control and highway repairs. With somewhat limited means of pushing back.

 

[Oudinot]

Well I think we are going to have to get a little specific here. The flag that we now refer to as the "Confederate" flag had virtually no use during the US Civil War itself. It was only afterwards - when it was adopted by the KKK and Southern segregationists that it became controversial.

We wouldn't be having this conversation in 1980. Just as using certain racial epithets we now consider unacceptable would not have been unusual if we were having this conversation in 1930.

Times change. And its time for us to recognize that the Confederate flag, in 2015 means one thing, and one thing only: The person displaying it is a proud racist.

They might claim otherwise. Like a guy marching around in SS uniform claims he's just a WWII buff. But that is irrelevant.

I don't think that is acceptable behavior in the sort of community I want to be part of.

Your liberal slip is showing. The confederate flag you are having a hissy about was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E Lee. You are a Yankee carpetbagger and we have had our fill of you and your type. Y'all are trying to destroy our heritage by defacing monuments, digging up Southern Generals graves, tearing down statues, removing emotes, burning flags, and destroying Stone Mountain.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Your liberal slip is showing. The confederate flag you are having a hissy about was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E Lee. You are a Yankee carpetbagger and we have had our fill of you and your type. Y'all are trying to destroy our heritage by defacing monuments, digging up Southern Generals graves, tearing down statues, removing emotes, burning flags, and destroying Stone Mountain.

Hm.

But I think it a little disingenuous for those who choose to fly it - or seek the right to upload it as an avatar - these days to seek refuge behind the military prowess of General Lee and claim that this is the only reason they choose to use it as a signifier of their online identity.

This is because while that is what the flag may have started out as, these days it is viewed as a short hand for representing the actual Confederacy - and what it stood for, which was institutionalised racism and a state that could not exist without slavery.

 

[0x100]

The Macrumors Forum should not make political standpoints and ban certain ideological symbolism. It's the wrong platform to do so.

Macrumors should make a stance neither for or against racism. Same with every other ideology.

If we ban everything that some might find offensive, what's the point of a forum?

Use the ignore function if you do not want to see certain content.

The flag stays.

 

[Oudinot]

Hm.

But I think it a little disingenuous for those who choose to fly it - or seek the right to upload it as an avatar - these days to seek refuge behind the military prowess of General Lee and claim that this is the only reason they choose to use it as a signifier of their online identity.

This is because while that is what the flag may have started out as, these days it is viewed as a short hand for representing the actual Confederacy - and what it stood for.

I'm proud to be from the south. Both of my great great grandfathers fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War (War of Northern Agression) and I respect that. Just because a bunch of liberal nut cases have decided that the south was evil and should be expunged from history doesn't make it right. Contrary to modern liberal teaching (Winners always write the History Books) the Civil War was fought over States rights. Something which is still being discussed and argued over today. Lincoln (A Republican) didn't come up with the idea of freeing the slaves until after two years of gettin his ass whooped. He was losing the war and support and slavery became his recruitment slogan.

 

[vrDrew]

I'm proud to be from the south. Both of my great great grandfathers fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War (War of Northern Agression) and I respect that. .

I'm quite sure there are more than few people whose grandfathers fought and died in the German army - fighting Communists, no less! - under a certain flag.

But somehow that country has managed to honor and respect their sacrifice and heroism, as well as their national identity, culture, and history - without continuing to permit the public display of a symbol that has come to represent state criminality, murder, genocide, and armed aggression.

The Confederacy was wrong. It was fought to maintain and expand a practice that was the greatest stain on the honor of the United States. The Confederate flag was adopted post Civil War by people who apparently hadn't learned the lesson of that conflict. And who proudly waved it as they lynched their fellow citizens. Blew up their Churches. Refused to let them drink from water fountains and sit at lunch counters. And most recently - walked in a house of worship and cooly murdered nine innocent people.

Nothing good ever came from that damn flag.

 

[Oudinot]

I'm quite sure there are more than few people whose grandfathers fought and died in the German army - fighting Communists, no less! - under a certain flag.

But somehow that country has managed to honor and respect their sacrifice and heroism, as well as their national identity, culture, and history - without continuing to permit the public display of a symbol that has come to represent state criminality, murder, genocide, and armed aggression.

The Confederacy was wrong. It was fought to maintain and expand a practice that was the greatest stain on the honor of the United States. The Confederate flag was adopted post Civil War by people who apparently hadn't learned the lesson of that conflict. And who proudly waved it as they lynched their fellow citizens. Blew up their Churches. Refused to let them drink from water fountains and sit at lunch counters. And most recently - walked in a house of worship and cooly murdered nine innocent people.

Nothing good ever came from that damn flag.

Last time I checked the Nazi flag flew over the ovens where 6 million Jews were killed along with the millions of Europeans that fought and were collateral damage. To compare this activity to the confederacy is stupid and wrong headed.

You are so wrong on so many levels! STATES RIGHTS. The flag in question was the battle flag and was flown during the war. If a killer had his picture taken in front of a U.S. Flag should we outlaw our flag?

 

[z31fanatic]

Clowns who get offended by opinions different than theirs: Time to say Goodbye

 

[Blue Velvet]

What were the state's rights they started a war over?

 

[vrDrew]

If a killer had his picture taken in front of a U.S. Flag should we outlaw our flag?

Please, spare us the false equivalences.

The thing is: If the discussion was about flying a Confederate flag on your personal property. If it was about a bumper sticker. A patch on your jacket. From the back of your boat, or on the cover of a book you wanted to publish. If it was about putting a Confederate flag outside the bar you drink at, or the club where you play golf:

I'd support your First Amendment right to do so.

I might agree very strongly with the sentiments represented by that flag. But in a truly public space, I believe the rights of citizens to free expression trump those who disagree with them, no matter how offensive those sentiments might be.

But I suggest that this forum is not a truly public space. If I see you walking in the street wearing a Confederate Flag cap or t-shirt, then I can at least respect the fact that you have chosen to publicly identify with that symbol. That you accept the social cost associated with that display. (Your African-American friends might choose to avoid you. Many customers might choose to take their business elsewhere.)

But the online world offers considerable anonymity. It permits essentially cost-free opportunities to wave a symbol of oppression and hatred in the face of everyone who reads posts here.

That is, I suggest, taking advantage of the existing rules of this community in way that is fundamentally disrespectful of every other member..

 

[0x100]

@vrDrew Do you think the USA flag should be banned on this forum? The USA has been harassing and oppressed several countries using the USA flag for a very long time. Users from outside the USA like I could take the USA flag badly.

 

[Oudinot]

VRDrew: So do you support allowing the nazi flag to be used as an Avatar? How about ISIS, PLO, Hamas?

 

[Oudinot]

What were the state's rights they started a war over?

States Rights are about the laws of the states trumping the federal government the Confederacy wanted to secede from the U.S. and form their own country. The North and South had been squabbling back and forth for years prior to the war.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The Macrumors Forum should not make political standpoints and ban certain ideological symbolism. It's the wrong platform to do so.

Macrumors should make a stance neither for or against racism. Same with every other ideology.

If we ban everything that some might find offensive, what's the point of a forum?

Use the ignore function if you do not want to see certain content.

The flag stays.

To be honest, I am not sure whether your post is a statement, an opinion, a rant, or an argument.

'The flag stays'? Why?

And, as to whether MR or any other online body 'should make a stance neither for nor against racism', I beg to differ. Racism is a putrid belief system, a foul ideology, one predicted on the deliberate and forced oppression, denial of rights (and indeed, slavery) of one race by another and invariably buttressed by spurious recourse to soggy logic.

I'm proud to be from the south. Both of my great great grandfathers fought in the Confederate army during the Civil War (War of Northern Agression) and I respect that. Just because a bunch of liberal nut cases have decided that the south was evil and should be expunged from history doesn't make it right. Contrary to modern liberal teaching (Winners always write the History Books) the Civil War was fought over States rights. Something which is still being discussed and argued over today. Lincoln (A Republican) didn't come up with the idea of freeing the slaves until after two years of gettin his ass whooped. He was losing the war and support and slavery became his recruitment slogan.

Oh, dear.

Delusion and denial ('War of Northern Aggression'? And, remind me again, just who gave the order to attack Fort Sumter?) - so often go together, cosy mittened hand in protective glove.

Insult ('liberal nut cases') is no excuse for a post that is a clear example of egregious historical illiteracy.

Now, I am not from the US, and none of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy (thankfully) but I did grow up in a house where there were quite a few books on the American Civil War, thanks to my father's fascination with, and interest in, this topic.

What many apologists for the Confederacy, - especially those who try to hide, ever so disingenuously - behind the 'States' Rights' argument - fail to realise, are two key points.

The first is that the need to preserve the anachronism that was slavery, and the feudal economy based on cotton production, which needed slavery just to exist (profits without slavery were not possible), was what drove the agenda, the debate and the political movement for States' Rights. Slavery (and the need to preserve it legally which was already intellectually and morally debated throughout the 1850s) drove the debate for States' Rights, not the other way around.

The second is that precisely because the United States itself was founded on the very principle of human rights, (the old 'it is self evident that all men are created equal' rhetoric of the Founding Fathers) - rather than on the old idea of inherited wealth and position, as was the case in most of Europe at that time - if a significant portion of that country sought to build an economy and a society that could not function without the most atrocious oppression of one race by another, a contradiction existed which could not be reconciled except by conflict. The very debate over rights - human rights versus states' rights tore at the very foundation, moral and philosophical, as well as political and economic, of the young United States.

Thus, this debate meant that the choice became one whereby the fundamental founding principles of the USA had to be abandoned, or vigorously upheld. States' Rights could not be seen to trump Human Rights, because the states that claimed to argue for 'States' Rights' were the very ones that could not survive without the economic and social model of slavery. To construct and fight for a nation based on such principles was the very negation of everything that the United States claimed to stand for.

The very existence of the South was predicated upon the existence of and the robust defence of slavery, which was unsustainable without the movement for states' rights, and their Vice-President, Alexander Stephens gave clear expression to this in his notorious 'Cornerstone Speech' of March 1861, less than a month before the 'War of Northern Aggression' started with the shelling of Fort Sumter by the forces of the Confederacy, when he argued that the foundation of the south was the belief that "its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

And a final historical footnote. The South was never in a position to win the war. Irrespective of how many individual battles were won by individually gifted generals, they lacked the resources to defeat the North. Their best bet was to hope that embarrassment at defeats, residual sentiment for their cause (which eroded rapidly once the war actually started) and war weariness - which hadn't really begun to bite in the North by 1863 - might cause the North to seek a negotiated settlement. Their two attempts at invasions of the North failed when they were defeated at Antietam, and at Gettysburg in 1862 and 1863.

Ultimately, a feudal society will never defeat a modern industrialised society. Never. Especially a society which suppresses a significant percentage of its own people, because this is the only way it can survive economically.

Win the war? The South was unable to protect its ports, and unable to secure the export of its primary economic resource, which was cotton. I'd go so far as to argue that the doctrine of States Rights destroyed the South, rather than enabling it.

No country in Europe would ever have recognised them - the middle classes and working classes of western Europe loathed the South - only the retarded aristocracies has some lingering affection for societies constructed upon feudal principles.

I'm quite sure there are more than few people whose grandfathers fought and died in the German army - fighting Communists, no less! - under a certain flag.

But somehow that country has managed to honor and respect their sacrifice and heroism, as well as their national identity, culture, and history - without continuing to permit the public display of a symbol that has come to represent state criminality, murder, genocide, and armed aggression.

The Confederacy was wrong. It was fought to maintain and expand a practice that was the greatest stain on the honor of the United States. The Confederate flag was adopted post Civil War by people who apparently hadn't learned the lesson of that conflict. And who proudly waved it as they lynched their fellow citizens. Blew up their Churches. Refused to let them drink from water fountains and sit at lunch counters. And most recently - walked in a house of worship and cooly murdered nine innocent people.

Nothing good ever came from that damn flag.

I have to say that I am in complete agreement with you.

 

[Oudinot]

Let me get this straight after your dissertation. (Well written I might add). We should not allow the confederate flag to be used on these forums because, in your opinion, it represents the evil empire?

Can we allow the flags of Nazi Germany, ISIS, PLO, Hamas to be displayed?

How about the flags of Mordor, USA, any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, Boy Scouts of America.

Who makes the decision on what is considered bad versus whatever?

 

[juanm]

The Macrumors Forum should not make political standpoints and ban certain ideological symbolism. It's the wrong platform to do so.

Macrumors should make a stance neither for or against racism. Same with every other ideology.

If we ban everything that some might find offensive, what's the point of a forum?

Use the ignore function if you do not want to see certain content.

The flag stays.

You work from the assumption that all ideologies are worth the same, and respectable, and you put racism as an example. Please... Some things are not defensible, and should be always punished.

Taking the example to the extremely abject, should supporting child rape and displaying NAMBLA banners be granted the same rights and respect in a conversation as some controversial topic such as animal rights?

In a history buffs forum, for instance, I'd support displaying any flag, but in this situation, where despicable people have made that flag theirs, in an attempt to give legitimacy to their indefensible ideas -with your little speech being a prime example- I think the context has overflowed the arguments for it.

 

[sartrekid]

The Macrumors Forum should not make political standpoints and ban certain ideological symbolism. It's the wrong platform to do so.

Macrumors should make a stance neither for or against racism. Same with every other ideology.

If we ban everything that some might find offensive, what's the point of a forum?

Use the ignore function if you do not want to see certain content.

The flag stays.

By that logic, the German flag of the Third Reich and the Swastika should be allowed too.

 

[Eraserhead]

Let me get this straight after your dissertation. (Well written I might add). We should not allow the confederate flag to be used on these forums because, in your opinion, it represents the evil empire?

Can we allow the flags of Nazi Germany, ISIS, PLO, Hamas to be displayed?

I very much doubt it would be allowed to use any of those flags. And quite frankly, with the exception of the PLO flag you'd probably get stuck on a troublemakers list with the security services for extra scrutiny.

Try changing your avatar to the ISIS flag and then board an aeroplane. I doubt you'll be allowed on.

How about the flags of Mordor, USA, any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, Boy Scouts of America.

I can't really see how any of those would be an issue.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

and @Scepticalscribe

What do you think of my new avatar? I like the word "dicewao". It doesn't mean anything, of course. wink wink wink

Apologies for not spotting your post earlier. Yes, I rather like the new avatar.

@vrDrew Do you think the USA flag should be banned on this forum? The USA has been harassing and oppressed several countries using the USA flag for a very long time. Users from outside the USA like I could take the USA flag badly.

No, I don't think that the US flag should be banned on this, or any forum. And, despite profound disagreement with US foreign policy in a number of areas and over a number of issues, (such as starting wars on the basis of lies for one), nor do I agree with burning, defacing or torching this flag.

This is because not only does the US flag represent a country that currently exists, it also represents a set of beliefs that - at their very best - gave much of the rest of the world an ideal to aspire to, measure themselves against, and try to live up to. The same could never be said about the flag of the Confederacy.

Part of the resentment of, and frustration with, the US in international circles is because this country has, on occasion, so signally failed to live up to its own stated ideals, which were an inspiration and a blue print for much of the modernising world in the 19th and 20th centuries.

States Rights are about the laws of the states trumping the federal government the Confederacy wanted to secede from the U.S. and form their own country. The North and South had been squabbling back and forth for years prior to the war.

States' Rights were driven by the need to preserve a feudal model of agriculture and society, not the other way around.

The Confederacy wished to secede to form their own country so that they could construct and preserve an economic and social model of an oppressive legal and political system predicated upon the values of institutionalised injustice and a denial or rights which was already out of date by several centuries in western Europe.

Let me get this straight after your dissertation. (Well written I might add). We should not allow the confederate flag to be used on these forums because, in your opinion, it represents the evil empire?

Can we allow the flags of Nazi Germany, ISIS, PLO, Hamas to be displayed?

How about the flags of Mordor, USA, any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, Boy Scouts of America.

Who makes the decision on what is considered bad versus whatever?

Firstly, thank you for your kind - if slightly patronising - words for a post which tried to make arguments, and cite facts rather than trade insults.

(Once upon a distant time, I used to teach history at university for a living).

Now, I have not said anywhere that the Confederate Flag should not be used on those fora (although my sympathies lie with those who would prefer that it not be used).

However, I have asked - and nobody has offered an answer - why seek to post an avatar with such a symbol on it? What are you trying to say? What point are you trying to make? (And no, citing spurious arguments such as defence of 'Free Speech' when the avatar under discussion supports a state built on institutionalised racism and slavery won't cut it, in rhetorical or debating terms).

Please enlighten this European liberal/social democrat why posting an avatar which is synonymous with admiration for a state which was constructed on such a vile premise is supposed to be a good idea?

And why post something which knowingly gives offence? Yes, I accept that we may not have the right not to be offended, but why seek to offend in the first place? It is discourteous, disrespectful, and downright contemptuous to post something which you know gives offence (with good reason) to large numbers or groups of people.

 

[juanm]

And why post something which knowingly gives offence? Yes, I accept that we may not have the right not to be offended, but why seek to often in the first place? It is discourteous, disrespectful, and downright contemptuous to post something which you know gives offence (with good reason) to large numbers or groups of people.

The thing is, racists and bigots have consciously made the confederate flag their symbol over the last decades, and now that it's linked to them to the point that its modern meaning of white supremacy nostalgia mostly eclipses its original history, they try to use the historical argument when they feel the urge to wave it. The least they could do is show some decency, own their principles and be upfront about it.

 

[Oudinot]

The Battle Flag doesn't represent, to me, all the hype put forth in this forum. To me it represents the southern struggle against the north. There is a pride in me of the south which supersedes all the malingment comments heaped upon the south for hundreds of years. We have endured the snide remarks and unjustified slander for all too long. The trashing of the Confederacy which has taken place in the last few weeks I find intolerable. The liberal/socialist element sweeping this country makes my ties to the south stronger than they have ever been. This has nothing to do with racism. I find less racism in the south today than in Yankee country

I'm not very PC so the fact that something offends someone else is not very high on my hit parade. Very little can be said or shown today that doesn't offend someone.

The comment about your post was sincere.

 

[Oudinot]

The thing is, racists and bigots have consciously made the confederate flag their symbol over the last decades, and now that it's linked to them to the point that its modern meaning of white supremacy nostalgia mostly eclipses its original history, they use the historical argument when they feel the urge to wave it. The least they could do is show some decency, own their principles and be upfront about it.

Exactly what principles are you referring to?