next »

[busyslinky]

I still cannot accept your argument.

With the flag, you are providing a symbol without any context.  Such that people will use it for their understanding and advantages.  Many people are not enlightened enough to understand that it is supposed to represent a 'negative' and not a 'positive'.  I am one of those people who is not the enlightened.  I see it as a clear cut symbol of racism and the support of this racism.  There is too much edification that needs to be presented that it really means the opposite of what it means.  This type of nuance is lost on most of us, and especially me.

You mention that this is one of the last places for these symbols.  I say, not really.  A more clearly defined  contextual environment would be in history books, museums or state run websites, that truly explain the nature of this symbol.  A flag flying over the state Capitol, in parades or in professor's offices does not make people think it is an unacceptable heritage that needs to be conscientiously evaluated, but one that should be celebrated. 

It is too offensive a symbol for a major portion of our society. Especially, without the context that needs substantial explanation.

[statrei]

The stars and bars stands for white supremacy.  It did in 1861 and it does now.  A historian especially should know that.  And Robert E. Lee supported disenfranchising blacks after the war. The Confederate flag is to southern heritage as the swastika is to German heritage--a ugly reminder of the very worst the society was capable of.

And I would not mind knowing the people who still share those views so I can avoid them.  Unless you think that mere visual exposure to those symbols will change you into what you think they represent I have no problem with someone displaying them in spaces they control.  If the person has ill intent that will soon show itself in words and more serious actions.

[busyslinky]

A racist student comes into the office of the professor. 
He sees this flag and thinks, "Gee, the professor is very smart and is powerful. He thinks just like me, maybe it okay for me to make more open my racist beliefs and activities, since these people in power will defend my actions.  Wait till my buddies here about this!" 

A student who is offended by the flag will think, "Gee, this professor has this flag in his office. It is a racist emblem and it probably impacts my race.  I don't know if I can get a fair shake from this professor.  I am quite offended that he would make such a statement. I better watch what I say or do, because this community, with such an important professor clearly putting this emblem up supports this racist belief." 

No context is provided, they will believe what they want and have those beliefs reinforced by those in power.  Symbols are quite powerful we see them all the time and our judgements are clearly based on them.

[gennidad]

I never said you had to accept my argument.  

It is an extremely offensive symbol and it should be.  

The best place for that symbol is in places like Vicksburg Battlefield.  There a person is shown exactly what it meant to be there.  However, at Shiloh battlefield park unless you look carefully you would come away with the opinion that there was only one army at that battle.  So how do you make up the difference?

I like your idea of the history books showing and explaining what these symbols should stand for.  Do you know of any professors willing to teach this controversial subject?  I don't.  I don't think the flag is the best symbol for what we need to be reminded of.  However, it is currently the only one that is really out there for people to see.  

As I recall there were three other photos and flags there.  And it depends on the professor, if either of your students sees the professor as someone they can talk to then they will likely ask instead of assuming.  And everyone knows what is said about assuming.  It makes an a** out of u and me.

[americanist]

Do you know of any professors willing to teach this controversial subject?  I don't.

Oh, please.  I teach it and so do several of my colleagues.  In fact, I wonder if there's a history department worth the name anywhere in the country that doesn't teach this subject, and I have to believe you're being disingenuous to claim otherwise.

[gennidad]

How long do you spend on the civil war, its causes, its remifications, and the bigotry that has surrounded both sides since then. 

My history professor mentoned when, where, how many died, and moved on.  Cause of it?  Slavery nothing else was mentioned about it.  No mention of the economics of the situation, nor of the pressure being applied by the free states on the southern states.  My professor admitted later that he was afraid to mention things such as where the flag came from or anything else that might have been seen as promoting racist southern culture.  It seems that in the past he had a student complain about his discussion of the factors causing the war and where such things as the flag came from. 

[americanist]

Your history professor did you a real disservice, and I would go so far as to say he's a bad professor.  How much time spent on the war, its causes, ramifications, etc. depends on the type of course--in an American history survey, it gets just three or four weeks; in our Civil War and Reconstruction seminar (which I do not teach, as the Civil War is not my area of research), it gets a whole semester; in my classes on American thought and culture, we may spend very little time talking about the war itself but quite a bit of time talking about the political theory and cultural trends that surround it. 

When I teach rhetoric, the flag specifically comes in for a lot of discussion, because the class is designed to teach students to think criticaly about cultural symbols and how our perceptions of them change according our experience and knowledge of the history surrounding them. (I also use the pink triangle symbol here, because few of my students know about its Nazi roots, and many of them report that their perceptions of it are changed by that knowledge.  Similarly, I notice that my students discussions of the Confederate flag very often change depending on whether or not they know I'm from the South.)

[gennidad]

I salute you and you university on your program.  My professor was at a CC and was threatened with termination if he went much past what he discussed in my class.  It upset me tremendously and is one of the reasons I am not in history/ archeology now.  I felt that if I was going to be censored what use was it.

[gennidad]

One of the articles on Yahoo actually touches on the debate on this thread. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=dw-confederateflag100906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[writer]

I've been following this thread, and many of you have referenced the desire for Southerners, especially in Mississippi, to intimidate black voters. I thought you all might be interested in this article, where white voters in Mississippi are claiming that the black leaders in a particular county are trying to keep the white citizens from voting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/us/politics/11voting.html?em&ex=1160798400&en=77ba2770017c4a37&ei=5087%0A

[acrimone]

The agitator went and spoke with the President, who essentially told the agitator to pound sand.  Then the agitator went to Joan (note: Joan is described in more detail in another thread) and Joan told her essentially to pound sand.

Things seem to be cooling off, without press involvement (thank god).

[supernumerary]

I salute you and you university on your program. 

Oh, surely after expressing doubts that this is taught anywhere in the country, you could be more gracious than this. Your concession is as disingenuous as your original suggestion, since you're only saluting americanist, his uni, and his programme as if it were some unique thing. I think americanist, who is in a position to know, was saying that all history departments worth their salt do the same thing - so we should salute all the history profs out there across the country.

[gennidad]

Supernumerary, I suggest you go back and read my experience with this topic.  I would have loved to attend somewhere where they actually covered this topic.  More because where we live is surrounded by battle fields than any other reasons.  And your suggestion about saluting history professors everywhere based on one department is as bad as my statement was based on my one experience.  If a department does cover the civil war in depth, and I now suspect most universities do, then they do indeed deserve to be recognized.  But your statement about saluting all is just making the opposite mistake I made in my initial statement.  I am sorry if that offends you but that is true.

[supernumerary]

Ok, gennidad, I will go back and read your experience with this topic.

No, my comments were not 'based on one department', they were based on what americanist said about all departments worth their salt. Americanist, who teaches this subject, was commenting on what his colleagues at other unis do, and on all departments worth their salt, not just on himself and his own department. That's the point he and I are trying to make here - his views are not 'based on one department'. Whereas, yours were. I didn't think it fair for you to imply that americanist was speaking just about himself and his own programe. I mean, this is his field, he knows what goes on in it. Whereas you were speaking just about what happened at your own college.

No, I'm not offended, at all!! I really enjoy this forum, actually. I like the exchange of views. I don't get offended :-) I will certainly go back and read your posts (again).

[gennidad]

OK super. I don't mind a good argument and I agree with americanist that any worth their salt would cover the civil war.  In my survey class we spent more time on the 1920's than the civil war.