![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Back at the beginning of May, I reflected upon the Travon Martin case, and the how actions can appear racist, even when they aren't necessarily intended to be such. About a week ago, a member of my wife's family shared an image on Facebook that has me thinking about this again. I wanted to comment on his post on Facebook, but decided that it wasn't worth creating a family feud.
I know enough people who would agree with the message in this picture to understand what they mean. If you ask them to explain, they will point out that this flag was a battle flag for the Confederate Army, a symbol for the troops to rally around. In that sense, they are right, the flag was not diretly racist (though this overlooks the fact that the fundamental causes of the American Civil War are deeply rooted in slavery, which is a point of history they generally gloss over). To these people, this flag is a tribute to the sacrifices made by the soldiers who fought and died in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. If this was the only history associated with this flag, then there probably wouldn't be any problem.
However, to claim that displays of this flag are not racist misses a couple of points. First of all, it completely ignores the intervening history of the flag. This flag has been adopted by groups that are radically racist in their views and purpose (most prominently, the KKK). Because these groups have embraced this symbol and used it as their own, they have associated this flag with their racist views. By ignoring this history, those who argue that this flag is not racist are presenting a blatently revisionist history.
The second point that those who want to use this flag miss is that racism is largely in the eye of the beholder. For many of these people, this flag is a symbol of regional pride, and I believe that most of them do not have racial motives in displaying it. However, that doesn't mean that their display won't be perceived as being racist. Because the flag has a long history of use by violently racist groups, it is hardly surprising that many people would see this flag as racist, regardless of the motivations of those who display it.
Personally, I don't find the flag offensive, in-and-of-itself. However, I understand that it has a long and sullied history, which loads the flag with many layers of meaning, much of it overtly racist. I understand the desire to reclaim it as a symbol of regional pride, but I believe that doing so demonstrates a tremendous lack of sensitivity to the those people who identify with the victims of the racists who wrapped themselves in this flag. That insesitivity may not be racially motivated, but that doesn't make it any less painful. If they insist on using this flag, then I think they need to be honest about its full history and the racist baggage that has become attached to it.
I know enough people who would agree with the message in this picture to understand what they mean. If you ask them to explain, they will point out that this flag was a battle flag for the Confederate Army, a symbol for the troops to rally around. In that sense, they are right, the flag was not diretly racist (though this overlooks the fact that the fundamental causes of the American Civil War are deeply rooted in slavery, which is a point of history they generally gloss over). To these people, this flag is a tribute to the sacrifices made by the soldiers who fought and died in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. If this was the only history associated with this flag, then there probably wouldn't be any problem.
However, to claim that displays of this flag are not racist misses a couple of points. First of all, it completely ignores the intervening history of the flag. This flag has been adopted by groups that are radically racist in their views and purpose (most prominently, the KKK). Because these groups have embraced this symbol and used it as their own, they have associated this flag with their racist views. By ignoring this history, those who argue that this flag is not racist are presenting a blatently revisionist history.
The second point that those who want to use this flag miss is that racism is largely in the eye of the beholder. For many of these people, this flag is a symbol of regional pride, and I believe that most of them do not have racial motives in displaying it. However, that doesn't mean that their display won't be perceived as being racist. Because the flag has a long history of use by violently racist groups, it is hardly surprising that many people would see this flag as racist, regardless of the motivations of those who display it.
Personally, I don't find the flag offensive, in-and-of-itself. However, I understand that it has a long and sullied history, which loads the flag with many layers of meaning, much of it overtly racist. I understand the desire to reclaim it as a symbol of regional pride, but I believe that doing so demonstrates a tremendous lack of sensitivity to the those people who identify with the victims of the racists who wrapped themselves in this flag. That insesitivity may not be racially motivated, but that doesn't make it any less painful. If they insist on using this flag, then I think they need to be honest about its full history and the racist baggage that has become attached to it.
Tags:
