[Pongo]

However, these concepts apply to all symbols.  Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery.  So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues.  It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol.  They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.

The meaning of symbols also changes over time. The swasitka is a good example - it's rather quite much older than the Third Reich, and quite clearly did not always mean "Nazi beliefs". I don't think it's fair to say that since the Confederate flag had racist connotations 200 years ago (if it did, rather), then it must always carry these connotations. The phrase "heritage, not hate" is thrown around quite frequently when it comes to this flag, and, frankly, I don't see the reason to believe that the actually racist supporters of the flag are the majority of all its supporters.

The swastica was repurposed, it didn't gradually mean something different over time. The Nazi's choose the symbol, for whatever reasons, and made it something different. The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.

The Civil War was not that long ago. The last Civil War widow died in 2004. There were many people alive during the Civil War that watched the moon landing. Symbols do change over time, but this one hasn't been given enough.

[Pongo]

http://io9.com/the-power-of-symbols-why-people-still-defend-the-confe-1713229880

Here is an interesting and related article I came across today.

[Pongo]

And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.

Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.

[Pete Svarrior]

The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.

From my perspective, the only way you could make this relevant is if you argued that Mississippi currently upholds that old symbolism, but your posts don't read like that's an implication you're trying to make.

[juner]

The most important voice has been heard. Wal-Mart is going to stop selling confederate flag merchandise.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.

Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.

Which side's historians? Which side's "facts"?

[Pongo]

The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.

From my perspective, the only way you could make this relevant is if you argued that Mississippi currently upholds that old symbolism, but your posts don't read like that's an implication you're trying to make.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're asking me to demonstrate that Mississippi is currently holding all the ideals of the Confederacy? If I can't then it's not relevant that they have a Confederate flag on their flag?

[Pete Svarrior]

The only reason to bring up the flag's historical meaning would be to claim that that meaning still holds. In other words, that by flying the flag the state is identifying itself with whatever bad things you think the flag used to mean.

If we agree that the flag is not used in that context in this case, then it's clear that the meaning has changed.

[rooster]

Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.

I would like to see these "facts". Most facts concerning this issue are just quotes from individuals.

Historians are also a terrible authority on this subject and it's always dependent on who you ask. During my interview at a Civil War historic site, I was asked "what was the Civil War about?" I gave him the obvious answer he was looking for after swimming around it in a delicate way. But he needed me to say it was about slavery because that was his opinion. And he wanted me to fall in line with that opinion before working with the international public.

Historians are very much influenced by contemporary political issues and will always shift their narratives.

At the end of the day, a flag is just a symbol and I think it should be up to the individual state to decide if they want it to represent them or not.

[Thork]

And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.

Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.

The American civil war was about debt. All war is always about money. It had nothing to do with slavery. European central bankers didn't like how prosperous the US was becoming without a central bank and debt based money. So they instigated rebellion in the southern states. There is a famous article that appeared in British newspapers explaining it.

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [i.e. honest Constitutionally authorized no debt money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt [to the international bankers]. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

Once a war is won by those who seek to profit from it, then you write the history to make it seem about the people that got killed and their rights.

Lincoln happened to win, so they shot him 41 days later. More than one way to skin a cat I suppose.

[Saddam Hussein]

That quote doesn't appear to be real, according to our fine friends at Wikipedia.  And even if it were real, it would hardly invalidate all the historical evidence we have of the tensions over slavery and other matters.

[Pongo]

Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.

I would like to see these "facts". Most facts concerning this issue are just quotes from individuals.

That's an interesting, if not irrelevant "fact."  However, a careful reader will note that I quoted Mississippi's declaration of secession (which isn't a quote from an individual).  In the deceleration, they list many reasons for secession, from not getting enough land in the Louisiana Purchase to some obscure laws on inheritance.  However, front and center, reason number one, is an unambiguous endorsement of slavery and a clear statement for that being the reason they are calling for a "dissolution of the Union".  I hope that "fact" satiates you.

So, on one hand, we have the actual document that the rebel state of Mississippi forged and publicly released obviously stating their primary reason for leaving the Union was slavery.  On the other, we have people putting the work fact in scare quotes and repeating ad nauseum that they think that the Civil was really about some other ineffable reasons.  Q.E.D.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

[rooster]

Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?

To me, the flag and war itself always represented rebellion from the USA. Even Abraham Lincoln didn't want black people in America. The Union still had slaves and not all Confederates were slaveowners. So how can all those things be true when the Civil War was just about Southerners keeping slaves?

[Pongo]

The only reason to bring up the flag's historical meaning would be to claim that that meaning still holds. In other words, that by flying the flag the state is identifying itself with whatever bad things you think the flag used to mean.

If we agree that the flag is not used in that context in this case, then it's clear that the meaning has changed.

I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change.  Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.



The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.

I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not.  This symbol still means these things.  If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag.  However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.

To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy.  They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there.  So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing.  Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.

[Pongo]

Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?

I can't quite see where you moved those goal posts.  Can you be more clear?

[rooster]

Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?

I can't quite see where you moved those goal posts.  Can you be more clear?

I just broadened the scope to include states outside of MS.

I thought this discussion had evolved into what the flag stands for and the reason for the Civil War. But if you want to focus on MS, then that's fine. I was pretty sure this whole thing started with a tragedy in SC though...
If we're sticking to MS, how bout we just let them vote on it? What Pongo thinks the flag represents doesn't really matter.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

MS did vote on it about 2002, and by a 2 to 1 margin, voted to keep the flag as is.

[Pete Svarrior]

I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change.  Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.



The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.

No, they have to use the addendum because you keep trying to shove your opinion down their throat. Much like atheists have to keep using addenda about how their stance doesn't mean they hate god, but that they simply lack the belief in deities, or how Gamergaters keep having to say "Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism", or how (some) feminists feel the need to point out that they don't hate men. Regardless of the validity of any of these claims, the reason they have to keep making them is that their opposition keeps trying to force a certain narrative on them instead of letting them represent their own views.

Personally, I'd argue that those who fly the flag are likely to know better what message they're trying to send when they fly it than you do (n.b. I do assume that you don't fly the Confederate flag. I don't think that's too controversial an assumption). They were even kind enough to write it out for you in a fancy red-and-blue font, so you don't have to guess.

I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not.  This symbol still means these things.  If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag.  However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.

In saying that, you're saying that those who think the flag is racist are right, while those who say it's not are wrong. To justify this, you use the fact that some people claim it's racist. That's not on.

To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy.  They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there.  So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing.  Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.

You just said it's possible to use a well-known symbol to mean something else than what it originally meant (swastika as white supremacy rather than swastika as Nazis). That, to me, sounds like an attack on your argument, not a defence of it.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I actually don't fly the thing. I am from California, and now Iowa. I lived in Tennessee for three years, but not long enough to acquire any loyalty to the South.

I just think it should be up to the people of the Sovereign State of Mississippi to make the decision what their flag looks like. in 2002 they chose by a 2 to 1 margin to keep it as it has been since something like 1894. That is their prerogative. As to whether or not they choose to vote on it again, that is ALSO up to them.

[Pongo]

I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change.  Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.



The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.

No, they have to use the addendum because you keep trying to shove your opinion down their throat. Much like atheists have to keep using addenda about how their stance doesn't mean they hate god, but that they simply lack the belief in deities, or how Gamergaters keep having to say "Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism", or how (some) feminists feel the need to point out that they don't hate men. Regardless of the validity of any of these claims, the reason they have to keep making them is that their opposition keeps trying to force a certain narrative on them instead of letting them represent their own views.

Personally, I'd argue that those who fly the flag are likely to know better what message they're trying to send when they fly it than you do (n.b. I do assume that you don't fly the Confederate flag. I don't think that's too controversial an assumption). They were even kind enough to write it out for you in a fancy red-and-blue font, so you don't have to guess.

I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not.  This symbol still means these things.  If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag.  However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.

In saying that, you're saying that those who think the flag is racist are right, while those who say it's not are wrong. To justify this, you use the fact that some people claim it's racist. That's not on.

To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy.  They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there.  So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing.  Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.

You just said it's possible to use a well-known symbol to mean something else than what it originally meant (swastika as white supremacy rather than swastika as Nazis). That, to me, sounds like an attack on your argument, not a defence of it.

Let me see if I can sum up my replies in a few paragraphs; I'm loath to engage in deeply branched quote trees.  While I may not have ever lived in Mississippi, I spent 29 years living in the American South.  I lived in both Kentucky and Georgia and these years constituted both my formative years as well as the vast majority of my life.  In this time, I formed an opinion about the Confederate flag standing for racism, hate, bigotry, ignorance (especially in the case of individuals from West Virgina), and oppression.  All this talk about me telling them what their flag means, feels to me more like I'm telling people what a flag that's been flown over my head feels like to me. 

Regardless, my background aside, it's ludicrous to argue that the Confederate flag does not mean racism.  I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and the fourth predictive result, right after history, was "confederate flag racist."



The Confederate Flag means racism.  This should be an axiom.

Now, I am fully aware that people say that it does not mean racism and I do maintain that they are wrong.  You don't get to hang a swastika somewhere and claim it means environmentalism.  You cannot rewrite the meaning of a symbol because you don't like part of it.  It's what I was saying earlier about a failure of communication.   If you want to have a symbol that represents your Southern heritage and don't want people to think you're racist, then pick something different than a Confederate flag.  Semiotics is a serious field of study with deep insights into not only how people perceive things, but also the way in which we associate feelings of loyalty, aversion, and pride; to say that all that can be undone by whatever the person flying the symbol thinks is frankly arrogant.

Now, I will fully admit that it's my opinion that the Confederate Flag means racism, but it's not a lonely opinion.  While it may not mean racism to everyone, one of the core meanings of the confederate flag is racism.  When you use that symbol, you get that meaning.  Plain and simple.  When the KKK uses the swastika, they are achieving the white supremacy meaning that they desire, but they are also getting strong antisemitic feelings attached to that.  If the KKK said that they are just using the swastika to only mean white supremacy (I don't think they would, but lets pretend) they can't change the feelings that the symbol evokes in those that see it.  If the KKK wanted to use the swastika to convey a meaning of only white supremacy, then they are doing a very poor job of communicating. 

However, as it turns out, the KKK doesn't mind getting these other elicitations because the symbolism of the swastika so closely aligns with their ideals.  I was criticized for this sounding that I was making an argument for symbols being able to mean different things.  It was in part (they can mean different things, but one meaning does not invalidate the other meanings), but what's really at work here is symbols can mean many things.  Lets say that the swastika means three things: Ayran supremacy, environmentalism, and Nazi Germany.  The KKK has no environmentalism agenda as far as I'm aware, but white supremacy is very close to Ayran supremacy and the things that Nazi Germany did do achieve Ayran supremacy align closely with the KKK's goals.  What about environmentalism?  Well, they don't much care for that, but that's fine because the swastika still is very close to their message and does an effective job of communicating their ideals.  Now, if an environmentalist group wants to use the swastika, because in our pretend scenario the swastika also means environmentalism, they cannot lose the Ayran supremacy or Nazi connotations associated with that symbol simply because they don't' want them.  One meaning does not invalidate the others.

People flying the Confederate flag cannot lose the meanings of racism associated with the symbol no more than our pretend environmentalist group can lose the negative connotations associated with the swastika.