Jophiel wrote:
I think most people are perfectly okay if Jed can't get his baby a Confederate Flag & Skull baby blanket but their actual main concern was the flying of the flag at the S. Carolina capital complex, on government land and other related government-related uses of the symbol that come across as endorsement.
It was flying over a confederate memorial, not over the capitol itself (next to it maybe, not sure). Having done a bit of research (cause I've never really cared that much about this issue), apparently there was a big kerfluffle about the flag flying on the same pole where the US and SC flags were flying, so as a compromise, the state government agreed to remove it from the flags flown "over the capitol", and to a memorial specifically set aside for remembering the sacrifices and lives lost by confederate soldiers during the civil war.
But let's just tear that down because some nutter happened to wear one (along with a pair of pants) while committing a mass shooting.
Quote:
Perhaps not but we should be better than a society that casually accepts racist symbols just because they've been around a while and we're sadly used to seeing them.
Is it a racist symbol though? I guess a symbol is what people perceive it to be, but to most people wearing/flying it, do they view it that way? Or is it that the people who don't fly it or wear it view it that way? At which point, you have to ask: What makes it a racist symbol? If enough people who aren't Jewish decide that the Star of David represents greed and conspiracy against everyone else, does it matter that Jews don't view it that way? Or do we all get so offended by this terrible symbol that we ostracize and stereotype anyone who associates with it? Cause I kinda see this as what's happened with that flag.
The perception of a symbol as a symbol of racism really ought to be based on how the people who use that symbol perceive it themselves. And what's interesting is that it's really a minority who view it as racist at all (but they do so loudly apparently). Interesting
page I ran across. 30% say it is, while 70% say it's not. Does that make it "racist"? Or is it that those who think so think so very firmly, while those who don't (like myself) aren't as passionate about it?
As I said above, I'm more concerned about the methodology being used here. It's a crappy way to effect changes IMO.