According to CO. Hoosier, this "Walk" sign can mean "Don't Walk", depending on the intention of the sign's programmer.Symbols have no inherent meaning
I hope that if he has had children CO. Hoosier has taught them to be smarter than he is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
According to CO. Hoosier, this "Walk" sign can mean "Don't Walk", depending on the intention of the sign's programmer.Symbols have no inherent meaning
Once againThat wasn't my point. My point was that you don't give two shits about doing anything about racism and discrimination because those evils don't directly affect you, and you're selfish. And further, that this mindset is pretty common among white Americans.
I don't believe that mindset is common among white Americans.That wasn't my point. My point was that you don't give two shits about doing anything about racism and discrimination because those evils don't directly affect you, and you're selfish. And further, that this mindset is pretty common among white Americans.
Yet you still insist that we must be sensitive to the feelings of white people who can't quite get their heads around the notion that the South lost -- and that the South should have lost because its cause was despicable. We must step lightly around white Southern (and in your case Northern) insecurities and indulge Confederate flags and Confederate monuments and Confederate place names in the old-timey spirit of tired Union soldiers who wanted to go home and leave the South to its Lost Cause myth.The likes Professor Butler who can't move on are a large part of the issue.
Exactly.
Symbols have no inherent meaning. I've said this through the thread.
You're being judged based on what you post. If you don't wish to be regarded as a troglodyte, stop posting as one.Once again
Thank you for telling me what I think. You really are a pissant and a waste of time.
I don't think most white Americans think they hold that mindset, nor want to hold that mindset, but I think it's a lot more common than we'd like to admit.I don't believe that mindset is common among white Americans.
I don't have to tell you what you think. You broadcast it with every post. Every post you make about race could start with the phrase, "I don't hate black people, but..."Once again
Thank you for telling me what I think. You really are a pissant and a waste of time.
You are hitting brand new levels of stupidity here. Reconstruction, Plessy, Jim Crow, racism... you think it matters that the original actors are dead? Really? That's your fall back? No, the negative effects of not ending the Civil War properly were felt for decades and continue to be felt today.
If you stripped away all history and deployed only CO. Hoosier's personal decoder ring, then you'd understand. And by "understand" I mean that he is just making stuff up to justify whatever he prefers to believe.No one denies that symbols have no inherent meaning. The problem is that you've been arguing that symbols are defined solely by the speaker, ignoring the listening public entirely. Even when you disclaimed that argument, you made it anyway, in the very same post.
This is utter and complete nonsense and denies the most very basic tenets of how communication works.
You live in a different place than I do. Here in Duckburg things are more normal. Maybe you should consider immigrating.I don't think most white Americans think they hold that mindset, nor want to hold that mindset, but I think it's a lot more common than we'd like to admit.
According to CO. Hoosier, this "Walk" sign can mean "Don't Walk", depending on the intention of the sign's programmer.
I hope that if he has had children CO. Hoosier has taught them to be smarter than he is.
Said CO.Hoosier, briefly before being struck by a car at a busy intersection. According to witnesses, he "just walked right into the middle of the street like a dumbass." Mr. Hoosier told astonished witnesses that he will sue the city for failing to make its traffic intentions more clear to him.As I said, symbols have no inherent meaning.
Yet you still insist that we must be sensitive to the feelings of white people who can't quite get their heads around the notion that the South lost -- and that the South should have lost because its cause was despicable. We must step lightly around white Southern (and in your case Northern) insecurities and indulge Confederate flags and Confederate monuments and Confederate place names in the old-timey spirit of tired Union soldiers who wanted to go home and leave the South to its Lost Cause myth.
Why can't you move on, despite all your white privilege? And having obviously failed to move on, how can you demand it of the ancestors of the former slaves?
Again the set of things you regard as important excludes everything but the set of things that immediately affects you. That's small.
You're dodging my points and now ignoring all the bullshit you've offered instead of response. It's insufferable, but it's what you do.No
I've said in several different ways don't bitch about the Confederate battle flag and then tell me you are doing something important about racism. That's intellectually vacuous and analytically lazy. But as is obvious in this thread, bitching about the flag gives you a large measure of emotional satisfaction. If that is what you need, that is okay with me.
You're dodging my points and now ignoring all the bullshit you've offered instead of response. It's insufferable, but it's what you do.
I've quoted you and responded directly to what you said. You've evaded and squirmed and changed the subject, hoping that your bullshit is too far up the thread for anyone to remember by the time you're called on it. But I remember. If you persist in this bullshit while refusing to answer me, I'll keep calling out my specific points again and again. Any sentient human can see the game you're playing here.
Yeah I don't buy it. I've been in a lot of places, and I have yet to find a place where everyone is genuinely awesome. People are dicks, everywhere.You live in a different place than I do. Here in Duckburg things are more normal. Maybe you should consider immigrating.
If I was that guy I'd really be concerned about what some law professor thought about my ancestors.Georgetown law professor Paul Butler, on the Diane Rehm show, in response to a Southern caller who voiced respect for her ancestors' heritage:
I have no respect for your ancestors. As far as your ancestors are concerned, I shouldn’t be a law professor at Georgetown. I should be a slave. That’s why they fought that war. I don’t understand what it means to be proud of a legacy of terrorism and violence. Last week at this time, I was in Israel. The idea that a German would say, you know, that thing we did called the Holocaust, that was wrong, but I respect the courage of my Nazi ancestors. That wouldn’t happen. The reason people can say what you said in the United States, is because, again, black life just doesn’t matter to a lot of people.
Sope, I'm late to this thread and don't want to sound snarky. But your statement about the electorate got me thinking about the gay marriage issue. For instance in California they voted against gay marriage when they had the opportunity, and the court stepped in. Does this mean we don't really have a democracy? Sope, again this is a serious inquiry. I'm not a lawyer or politician,just a man who hears and observes. Thank you my friend.Sure, if they're elected and can pass the law, they could require a nazi flag to be flown at the state capitol. There's nothing that precludes that from happening . . . except us voters.
Witness the power of a democracy, Super. It can be used for good or ill . . . but it's still powerful. The theory of a democracy is that voters can distinguish between good policy and clever, temporary manipulation. That's why folks need to vote . . . some are susceptible to that manipulation, others can see through it.
Loud noises!Quiz show!
Go call people some more names. Or go look at a porno site or something. It is now obvious that you get the same satisfaction from either.
That's a pretty whitewashed history. The job obviously wasn't "finished" when the Civil War ended. Maybe you should Google "Jim Crow". And 150 years later, here you are claiming that the Confederate flag doesn't represent white supremacy.But most of all, General Chamberlain showed us the compassion and the dignified path to reconciliation after he finished the job of freeing the slaves.
You should read up on the fallacy of invincible ignorance. Your post is a perfect example of it.If I was that guy I'd really be concerned about what some law professor thought about my ancestors.
By criticizing those who still fly the Confederate flag? You've really got yourself twisted up on this.They are pissing on the grave of all who fought the war.
For historically-challenged posters:
In the days since Dylan Roof allegedly entered the Emanuel A.M.E. church in Charleston, South Carolina and killed nine people, many have called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the state house grounds in Columbia, among them the state’s governor, Nikki Haley. In a turn of events that few would have predicted, the calls have expanded beyond South Carolina. Alabama and Mississippi have also reconsidered their relationship to the flag, and many retailers have said that they will no longer carry Confederate flag merchandise. This rapid response, however, has led supporters of the flag to gather together in rallies. Their message has been that the flag stands for history, not oppression. “This is not a flag of hate. It’s a flag of heritage, and we have a right to our heritage,” Leland Browder of Greenville, South Carolina told the New York Daily News. “And, you know, I’m from the South and proud of the South and, you know, proud of this flag.”
The notion that the flag is a symbol of Southern heritage and nothing more is an ahistorical one. From the moment it was designed it was intended to convey the South’s reliance on the institution of slavery. When it has been revived by later generations, they, too, have imbued it with meaning. But it has always been a symbol of white power and racial oppression.
The flag was originally intended to symbolize the racial oppression central to the Confederacy. William Thompson, the designer of the official second Confederate flag (the “stainless banner” as it is often called), which featured the battle flag in the upper corner of an otherwise white field, said: “As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism.” The editor of the Savannah, Georgia Morning News was pleased with the new design, noting, “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored races.”
This symbolic association did not end with the South’s loss in the Civil War. If anything, it only intensified during Reconstruction, as Southern elites resented the political power afforded blacks through the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. During this period, the flag was rarely if ever seen in public settings. Northern politicians and supporters of Reconstruction saw the Confederate flag as a flag of treason.
With the fall of Reconstruction, however, the “southern cross” made a strong comeback, accompanied by a reassertion of white political power and belief in the “heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man.” The return of white political power also meant that Lost Cause ideology could be widely disseminated. The Lost Cause was an interpretation of history that argued that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but over states’ rights; that slaves had been happy and loyal; and that all the men who fought for the South were men of honor, none more so than Robert E. Lee.
We can see the rise of Lost Cause orthodoxy, and the return of Confederate symbols, in events like the 1890 unveiling of the Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederacy. Now that the political power of those who supported Reconstruction had been rolled back, the white elite in the city planned a three-day event to coincide with the unveiling of the monument and planned the largest reunion of Confederate veterans to date. It featured dinners, banquets, parades, speeches, published biographies, and fireworks. According to newspaper accounts, there were more than 140,000 spectators. The parade was so long it took two hours to pass; it was headed by former Confederate generals on horseback and 20,000 uniformed former Confederate soldiers. The Richmond Times proudly declared: “Richmond Reoccupied by Men Who Wore the Gray.”
Confederate flags, Confederate veterans, Confederate uniforms, and Confederate marching songs were everywhere. Such a bold and lavish display of the symbols of the Confederate States was noticed outside the South. Kansas Sen. John J. Ingalls, speaking at Gettysburg only a few days later, worried about the return of the “rebel colors.” Well aware of the extensive publications dedicated to promoting “Lost Cause” ideology and particularly disturbed by the attempt to rewrite the history of the Civil War in an effort to omit slavery, he reminded his listeners that slavery was the key to understanding the conflict. “Millions of human beings were held in slavery, cruel, monstrous, inconceivable in its conditions of humiliation, dishonor and degradation; ... Eleven states seceded, or attempted to secede from the Union, to make this system of slavery, the corner-stone of another social and political fabric, and carnage reigned on a thousand battle fields.” National newspapers were also stunned by the respect shown the “flag of treason,” and when Southerners “put up that ensign of treason—the stars and bars—and make it a god to display, and to worship, we, as an American citizen, offer our solemn protest.”
Black Richmonders understood what the return of Confederate imagery meant. The local black newspaper, the Richmond Planet, published a column titled “What it means.” It reported of the festivities: “No flags of the Union ornamented the procession. Only the stars and bars could be seen, the ‘rebel yell,’ under the flag of secession which waved proudly after twenty-five years rent the air.” The editor predicted that this resurgence of Confederate ideology would only result in “a legacy of treason and blood,” and noted that “It serves to reopen the wound of war and cause to drift apart the two sections … [it] forges heavier chains with which to be bound.”
Blacks who had lived through slavery were all too familiar with the violence that held up the institution of slavery. Former slaves who recalled the regular militia patrols that were part of the machinery of slave owner control would have thought these extensive military parades a familiar site. Since the end of the war, there had been a rise in racially motivated lynchings, another reminder of white power. For many blacks in the South, emancipation had done little to change the omnipresent threat of violence in their lives. In Richmond, the Planet regularly carried word of the most recent incidents of racial violence. Just months before the unveiling of the Lee Monument, the paper depicted such a killing with armed men standing guard. When 20,000 Confederate veterans marched through the streets of Richmond, it wasn’t difficult to make a connection between massive military parades and white power.
In 1890, black rights in Virginia were still protected by law, but not for much longer. This reappearance of Confederate symbolism coincided with resurgent white political power. Just weeks after the Confederate reunion, the editor of the Planet noted that many black residents had their names removed from voter rolls and that they had been intimidated in other ways as well. “We have been vilified, abused, maltreated and ostracized, whipped and butchered,” he reported. By 1902, Virginia had a new state constitution with provisions that successfully disenfranchised most blacks and set the Jim Crow laws of segregation firmly in place. The laws would remain in place until the state ratified a new constitution in 1971. A black man who watched “the mammoth parade of the ex-Confederates,” with all of its “rebel flags” sighed, “The Southern white folks is on top—the Southern white folks is on top!” No more needed to be said.
By the 20th century, white voters throughout the South had pulled power back from the Republicans and the supporters of Reconstruction. Jim Crow laws had instituted government-sanctioned segregation, and the displays of white political power coupled with Confederate symbolism continued. Confederate reunions were held annually in Richmond until 1932 and were a common practice in other cities throughout the South. Each year, mounted cavalry officers, soldiers, and parades filled the cities with the Southern cross. In Richmond, these ceremonies grew grander and bolder, as shown by the “living flag” re-creation below the Lee Monument in 1907. According to the back of the postcard pictured below, the event was staged by 600 costumed school children who dressed in the colors of the flag and stood in the form of the Southern cross. They sang “Dixie and other Southern airs.” In nearly every town, one or more Confederate memorials were raised. Equestrian statues, soaring columns, and standing soldiers created a landscape of steady reminders.
As the Confederate veterans died off in the 1920s, reunions diminished in their size, scale, and spectacle and the flag and other Confederate symbols became less frequently seen. To many, it might have appeared as if finally the Southern cross would leave the public sphere and fly only in museums, a relic of history. But it was not to be. It returned in 1948. This time it accompanied the rise of the segregationist “Dixiecrat” party. Led by Strom Thurmond, there is no doubt that this party, like the Confederate States of America, was a white supremacist organization. In 1948, Thurmond avowed, “all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement.”
When Dylann Roof photographed himself holding the Confederate battle flag and a handgun, he did so because the flag held particular symbolism to him, symbolism that he believed others reading his website, “The Last Rhodesian,” would easily understand. According to Roof’s manifesto, the Southern cross symbolized a deep and abiding racial hatred. For him, it was clearly a symbol of white supremacy. That was its attraction.
There are many today who see it instead as a symbol of family, history, region, or even a statement in favor of small government. But the flag has always been first and foremost a symbol of white supremacy: It was designed as such, and has functioned as such whenever it has returned to the public square. For more than 150 years, it has been used to communicate a history of racial oppression and to intimidate in the present. Those who want to argue for the flag’s “heritage” need to understand the full, complicated, and ugly history behind the symbol. There is no way that it can be cleansed of its historical meanings. It is forever stained with the blood of the millions who were oppressed by slavery, the millions more who were oppressed by the racial segregation of the 20th century, and now the blood of those slain in Charleston in our own century.
You say the Confederate flag is no big deal, yet here you are tying yourself in knots to deny that it's a symbol of white supremacy. I'm not just challenging the flag. I'm challenging the racist culture it represents -- and the defenders of that racist culture, whether they're racist or merely ignorant. As your posts illustrate, that requires some heavy lifting.That's fine
You can burn all the flags you want, demolish all the statues of Robert E. Lee you can find, and change the names of all the Harry Byrd buildings in existence, but at the end of the day, we will still find Dylan Roof's amongst us. This whole thing is intellectual vacuousness and analytical laziness. If you think seeing a flag or seeing a statue made Dylan Roof, you'd be wrong. Millions of people see those things and still want to end racism and live together in harmony. What keeps the issue alive is those who want to keep it alive. What keep the issue of alive is those who need to keep it alive. What keeps it alive is those who profit by keeping it alive.
But whatever turns your crank. Your argument is about as intellectually competent as those ISIS folks who are destroying Palmyra because it is "nonIslamic".
It's irrelevant whether the Confederate flag has an inherent meaning. (Letters are symbols without any inherent meaning, yet we're able to form them into intelligible words and sentences.) The flag doesn't fly in the abstract. It flies in reality, with an unambiguous social and historical context, just like the Nazi flag. Try telling people that you're flying the Nazi flag because you're proud of your German heritage. See how that works out for you.How many times and in how many different ways do I need to say symbols, including f[l]ags, have no inherent meaning.
I think I understand what you say.More about this, Henri
General Chamberlain's personal recollections
"Ah, but it was a most impressive sight, a most striking picture, to see that whole army in motion to lay down the symbols of war and strife, that army which had fought for four terrible years after a fashion but infrequently known in war.Reconciling began with personal and mutual respect from both sides of the fight. After all these lifetimes, the mutual respect shown in April 1865 that the fighters showed to each other is pretty much gone. Sad.
"At such a time and under such conditions I thought it eminently fitting to show some token of our feeling, and I therefore instructed my subordinate officers to come to the position of 'salute' in the manual of arms as each body of the Confederates passed before us.
"It was not a 'present arms,' however, not a 'present,' which then as now was the highest possible honor to be paid even to a president. It was the 'carry arms,' as it was then known, with musket held by the right hand and perpendicular to the shoulder. I may best describe it as a marching salute in review.
"When General Gordon came opposite me I had the bugle blown and the entire line came to 'attention,' preparatory to executing this movement of the manual successively and by regiments as Gordon's columns should pass before our front, each in turn.
"The General was riding in advance of his troops, his chin drooped to his breast, downhearted and dejected in appearance almost beyond description. At the sound of that machine like snap of arms, however, General Gordon started, caught in a moment its significance, and instantly assumed the finest attitude of a soldier. He wheeled his horse facing me, touching him gently with the spur, so that the animal slightly reared, and as he wheeled, horse and rider made one motion, the horse's head swung down with a graceful bow, and General Gordon dropped his swordpoint to his toe in salutation.
"By word of mouth General Gordon sent back orders to the rear that his own troops take the same position of the manual in the march past as did our line. That was done, and a truly imposing sight was the mutual salutation and farewell.
"At a distance of possibly twelve feet from our line, the Confederates halted and turned face towards us. Their lines were formed with the greatest care, with every officer in his appointed position, and thereupon began the formality of surrender.
"Bayonets were affixed to muskets, arms stacked, and cartridge boxes unslung and hung upon the stacks. Then, slowly and with a reluctance that was appealingly pathetic, the torn and tattered battleflags were either leaned against the stacks or laid upon the ground. The emotion of the conquered soldiery was really sad to witness. Some of the men who had carried and followed those ragged standards through the four long years of strife, rushed, regardless of all discipline, from the ranks, bent about their old flags, and pressed them to their lips with burning tears.
You are smart poster. You treat COH, Ladoga, me, and others like "it." We are people. You could ignore. Instead you are arrogant. You are Narcissus.Having conclusively established that HenriPasseur is a troll, I will now stop talking to it, and I encourage everyone else to ignore it. Its references to "Boiler up" suggest that this troll comes from some Neanderthal Purdue board, and its stupid exploits here may amuse feeble minds there. Engage it there, if you wish to soil yourselves, but please deprive it of oxygen and let it die in your silent contempt here. Otherwise it will continue to soil this board with its execrable presence.
Apparently you have it all memorized because you refuse to believe that ANYONE could have a different opinion from you and not be wrong.You should read up on the fallacy of invincible ignorance. Your post is a perfect example of it.
More content free posting.Apparently you have it all memorized because you refuse to believe that ANYONE could have a different opinion from you and not be wrong.
There's lots of good stuff there Mavin. The point still remains though is that we shouldn't judge people by their looks. I used to be really bad to do that but have gotten over a lot of that. Of course there are times when you have to take into account that other people will judge you by the way you look and you may have to make a different choice than what you might want to. However, think think the meaning of symbols evolve and is not set in stone as some would have us believe. I would hazard to guess that 100 years from now the swastika will not be looked at near as negatively as it is now.CO, at what point did you slip into devil's advocate here? You are a lawyer, law is rich with symbols. You stand when a judge enters a courtroom, why? I bet you always wear a suit to trials, why? Your legal argument would be precisely as valid in shorts and Hawaiian shirt. But you believe the suit conveys something more, further, you believe others believe that.
I was thinking about clothes as symbols a couple weeks ago at Cedar Point. Virtually everyone wore shirts with logos. I find it funny we pay Nike money to wear a billboard for Nike. So I thought about this in line a lot. The guy wearing Titleist obviously likes what he believes that says about him.
But a guy wearing a Ferrari shirt, Ferrari pants, and Ferrari driving gloves may well do so because he wants to be thought of as one who demands quality. Yet he would have to be intentionally obtuse not to know a lot of people are going to think he is a pretentious prick.
I an a geek, and IT is filled with geeks. I never wear my geek t-shirts to work or church. I certainly would never interview in them. But at a gaming or sci-fi con that is what I wear. It isn't because I believe I am less capable wearing a Firefly shirt. I recognize people that need my help may have that belief.
So how is the rebel battle flag any different? People who fly it/wear it have to know that perception exists. And some of the people I know who are into their southern heritage wear/display it for that reason. They want that discussion.
Culture assigns meaning to symbols. If you had a client accused of violating civil rights, would you encourage him not to get his swastika tattoo just before trial? Even If he were Navajo I believe you would stress to him how bad of an idea that is.
It's pretty irresponsible to boil this down to something as vague as "judging someone by their looks." There is a big difference between judging someone by the color of their skin (which they can't control) and judging someone by whether or not they choose to honor a symbol of hatred.There's lots of good stuff there Mavin. The point still remains though is that we shouldn't judge people by their looks. I used to be really bad to do that but have gotten over a lot of that. Of course there are times when you have to take into account that other people will judge you by the way you look and you may have to make a different choice than what you might want to. However, think think the meaning of symbols evolve and is not set in stone as some would have us believe. I would hazard to guess that 100 years from now the swastika will not be looked at near as negatively as it is now.
What will cause future generations to regard the Nazis more fondly? Or do you imagine people will have forgotten WWII 100 years from now?I would hazard to guess that 100 years from now the swastika will not be looked at near as negatively as it is now.