Talk:Confederate flag

	This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Southern rock and the flag connection

There should probably an addition to the article about the southern rock connection with the flag, particularly how Lynyrd Skynyrd's tortured history with it, and a genuine desire to make it stand for only heritage didn't play out, all this against the backdrop of the turn from the amazing, even progressive lyrics of Ronnie Van Zant before the infamous plane crash, and his younger brother's devolving into brash, cocky, redneck parodies and Teabagger lyrics ("Red, White & Blue", "God & Guns" and so on).Mmoore29 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, you sound to know what you're talking about, so... go for it? WalkerWalkerWalker 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to, but I'm literally a wiki virgin. I'm not fully sure about how to do citations for wiki, and I've never been good at point-counterpoint. Maybe I can write in a rough version, and other users can smooth things out?Mmoore29 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

First time for everything. Citations generally at the end of a sentence, with the ref tags surrounding the link to the webpage you are citing (and a few words describing the link). Click the edit button to see how others have added the HTML code. Ok, stupid question, this is all in HTML right? CorruptUser (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting but at the moment the article is talking about Southern rock in isolation, whereas I know (for example) that the flag also has a longstanding connection with truck driver culture & biker culture (especially but not exclusively in the South), which may be influenced by Southern rock or vice-versa. Anyone have any info on this? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks OP

Thank you to the creator/s of this article.
Here in Australia (and likely many other countries) we only heard bits and pieces of the whole story, and I for one was wondering whether it really was a big deal in the U.S. or simply much ado about nothing by a small but vocal group.
dEcib3L 08:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not racist cuz white pride

Are we really going to argue that the battle flag, which is heavily associated with the CSA, isn't a symbol of racism, oppression and intimidation purely because "The majority of Americans see it as a symbol of Southern pride"? I'd like to remind everyone that it's not even subject to debate if the Confederate States declared independence because of slavery or not, if you think it is then raise your hand. This is not about freedom of speech, the flag is flown over public buildings in South Carolina, a state with a 30% black population that does not associate it with Southern pride. South Carolina also doesn't get to make the "heritage" argument since they didn't start flying the confederate flag over public buildings until the times of the Civil Rights Movement, 1961 precisely as a means to mark the 100th anniversary of the civil war. I don't know about the history of that flag in other state but still, I personally don't give a fudge if you'd like to fly a symbol of racism/southern pride, whatever you associate it with, in your backyard, but using it as an official symbol in a state with a 30% black minority is like Germany flying the Nazi flag over a post office in a Jewish neighbourhood. Dapperedavid (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Union jack or St. Georges flag also be considered racist?

Now, I'm not a Southerner and I have no problem if people want to ban the flag. But one could argue that Union jack was also used to suppress the freedom of POC's. Talk about double standards? ^{— Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs}

@Interstellar Was the British Empire founded almost exclusively to protect and expand the institution of chattel slavery? Because the Confederate States of America damn well was... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They're the reason why slaves existed in America. They benefited a lot from the trans Atlantic slave trade. So did the North. Link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVsgQxIjuzw Interstellar (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the St. George's flag is considered racist outside sporting contexts. The key thing is not so much what any given symbol originally meant, or was used for historically, but what it means now. The stars and bars was specifically adopted by racists in the US during the civil rights era because of its links to historical racism (it wasn't even the Confederate flag), and as it wasn't in use that's what it came to mean exclusively. It's less clear cut with a national flag that's in regular use, but the St. George has been closely associated with the far right in the UK for decades. The Union Jack less so, despite the BNP trying to co-opt it. Part of the reason why that hasn't taken root as much is that the UK far-right is closely tied to specifically English nationalism, and it has not much appeal in Scotland, Wales, NI and Cornwall. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellar The fact that you've written two comments, one of which you removed, both waffling about the British Empire while failing to address the central question is, in my opinion, quite telling. The CSA was founded on slavery. On slavery they seceded, on slavery their constitution was founded, for slavery they fought, and on the matter of slavery their war was lost. The British Empire, by contrast, adopted slavery as one of many practices, and was not founded on this one issue. @Queex That's completely irrelevant. The CSA was founded explicitly to preserve and expand the institution of chattel slavery, and the British Empire was not. It doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion whether or not the Saint George's flag has found popularity among the far-right, as it does not signify the same thing as the Confederate Flag. And finally, It's interesting how this matter opened with someone admitting they weren't from the American South, and then when confronted by someone who is explicitly from the American South, they waffle about the moral failings of the British Empire when confronted with a blunt explanation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't really care now. Keep it,discard it. That's your problem. The thing is that Southerner think that the flag represents Southern values. Their parents tell them it's their 'heritage'. So that's probably why this controversy exists. Interstellar (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellar None of that is contradictory with it symbolizing White Supremacy and the preservation/expansion of chattel slavery. Also thanks, I a Southerner, had no idea what Southerners thought about the CSA. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie My point is that litigating what a symbol used to mean doesn't help discuss the use of hate symbols now. There's no symbol so innocent that, were it to be successfully co-opted by hate groups, it would be untainted. The CSA was a racist shitshow, founded on pure racism, sure; but the 'Confederate' flag was just the battle standard of one of its generals, one amongst many. At the time, it was a racist symbol on a par with any of the other battle flags, but not what it means now. After its adoption by US racists (and beyond the US, somewhat bafflingly), its historical meaning has been completely supplanted. It's racist because of its widespread use by racists now, as that's the only standard for judging such things that makes sense. Why those racists chose any symbol in particular is an insight into how they think, but irrelevant to the question of whether it should be considered a hate symbol. The stars and bars came right out of the gate as representing something loathsome, sure, but that doesn't mean that symbols used as hate symbols now that stem from a more benign origin should be judged less harshly. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex Utter horseshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieI'll be interested to hear why you think racist usage of a symbol here and now is a lesser determinant of whether something should be thought of racist today than its historical origin. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex Southerners chose that flag explicitly to reference the politics of the CSA, as part of post-war attempts to rehabilitate the CSA in the public eye and preserve its legacy. Modern usage of that flag is in reference to that. Again, please do tell me, a Southerner, what the fucking Confederate Flag symbolizes and why. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieSo you're saying is that the meaningful difference in how we should consider historically racist symbols is their contemporary usage? i.e. Exactly the same fucking thing I was saying. Because you can't consider any of the other battle flags - direct equivalents historically, bear in mind - as having the same racist power. What elevates the 'Confederate' flag above the others is how it was and is used by racists. That's exactly what I was saying. Perhaps if you'd read more closely you wouldn't have gone off half-cocked. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex "So you're saying is that the meaningful difference in how we should consider historically racist symbols is their contemporary usage?" Let me put this as bluntly as possible. No. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieSo, therefore Pepes and the 'okay' sign shouldn't be considered hate symbols? Because that's the inevitable consequence of elevating origin over actual usage. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex This is a derailment. The original question was "Why is the flag associated with the Confederacy considered racist and a hate symbol and not the flags associated with the British Empire?" The Answer is because the former makes reference to an explicitly racist and white supremacist country. This is the same reason as the Nazi flag and its variants being blacklisted. They make reference to an explicitly racist country. Not a country that happened to also be racist for most of its history. Not a country that did racist things. A country founded on racism and white supremacy, specifically. Everything else is so much hot air as far as this conversation is concerned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@GrammarCommieSorry, but no. That would explain why the Confed flag would have been properly considered racist at the time (but the Union Jack less so). If it being one of the standards of an army from an explicitly racist state was the most important factor, then every other Confederate general's battle standard would be approximately as much a hate symbol. They're not. So it simply cannot be down to origin alone as they all share the same origin. The reconstruction-era racist mythologising that adopted that flag in particular was usage, not origin, cementing it as a racist expression that people were allowed to get away with. (A small timeframe, given how brief the CSA was, but still.) Similarly, all the usage since then has reiterated its racism in a way that its kindred battle flags escaped. Trying to define whether or not something is considered a racist symbol based on primarily on origin risks playing into the hands of racists because it turns attention away from how and why it's being used today to cause harm, and instead towards (potentially obscure) historical argument and counterargument that they can attempt to litigate over and over. It's an incredibly common tactic of racists to try for plausible deniability in order to try and bog people down in "it's not really racist because it's actually blah blah blah" arguments and you cut through all of that chaff if you set the standard as "You're using as a racist symbol, QED". I honestly can't see any other way of handling it that doesn't leave wide open doors for racists to drive excuses through. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex "That would explain why the Confed flag would have been properly considered racist at the time (but the Union Jack less so). If it being one of the standards of an army from an explicitly racist state was the most important factor, then every other Confederate general's battle standard would be approximately as much a hate symbol. They're not." Most of them are more obscure, and yes, they would be. Again, I literally live around these people. I really can't stress that enough. I live around Southerners, because I live in the South. Ok? You got that? I'm not some dumbass Lib from Norway or whatever. I literally live in and have grown up around these people. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie"Most of them are more obscure, and yes, they would be." The idea that the standard of Random General X is as much of a hate symbol as the 'confederate' flag is utter horseshit. If you're not going to be remotely serious, there's no point continuing. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex I'm as serious as a knife to the ribs. "Why was that particular battle standard chosen over others?" I don't know. But that's a different question than "why is it considered a hate symbol and the Union Jack isn't?", and again The latter was the actual question asked. Everything else is just derailment because you don't like how I answered a specific question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie And the answer to that question is "Because of the way it is used by racists as a racist symbol, to intimidate the targets of their hate and signal their believes to other racists", because any other answer is simply incoherent. If the Union Jack started being used that way next month, on the same scale, it would have become every bit as racist. The same goes for literally any symbol. Because the alternative is to say that how the use of the symbol affects people (harming the victims of racism and offering support to other racists) is not the most important factor when trying to say if the symbol is racist, which is nonsensical. Have a nice day, anyway. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex Fine, We'll litigate the way symbols work, since you insist. Firstly, no. Your explanation is stupid. With it, a rubber duck could be a hate symbol just because racists used it as such. Where you are correct is that meaning is derived from use, but what you fail to understand is that use is derived from the establishment of precedent. Where precedent has not been set or is currently contested, the meaning and symbolism are themselves in flux. To put it simply, you've taken the concept of the euphemism treadmill and conflated it with the actual underlying meaning, rather than understanding it as simply obscuring the meaning. Now get back here and fight. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

--complicated edit conflict here--

@GrammarCommie"With it, a rubber duck could be a hate symbol just because racists used it as such." And as we all know, arbitrary symbols have never been adopted as such. Oh wait, they have Alt-right_glossary#.F0.9F.91.8C[1][2][3]. There are examples. You are demonstrably wrong. You don't fucking get to demand I 'fight' you about your obtuseness. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Queex Jesus Christ... You don't understand how codes work. Codes have no intrinsic meaning, as they act specifically to obscure the meaning of other forms of communication. To the rubber duck example, it would not be a hate symbol, but a standin for a symbol, depending on the context. But the original symbol would ultimately be referred to to determine meaning. However, literally none of this has bearing on the original question beyond the most tangential of tirades. I'm sorry that I don't buy into the idea that the meaning of a symbol is transformed utterly and completely when Bad People(tm) use it to obscure other symbols. And I'm sorry that you can't just point out that the CSA was founded specifically to preserve and expand the chattel slavery of African Peoples and that the flag commonly associated with the CSA ultimately symbolizes that goal, while the Union Jack's meaning is more complex. You literally didn't have to go beyond that to answer the question, and this whole thread has been derailed because you did. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie "Codes have no intrinsic meaning, as they act specifically to obscure the meaning of other forms of communication." So... it's how they're used that matters, hmm?

"To the rubber duck example, it would not be a hate symbol, but a standin for a symbol, depending on the context." This completely ignores the evolution of hate symbols in practice. A standin for a symbol is a still a symbol in its own right, that's the entire point.

"I don't buy into the idea that the meaning of a symbol is transformed utterly and completely when Bad People(tm) use it to obscure other symbols." Neither do I, and nowhere have I said that. Multiple usages can and do exist in tandem, depending on context. One meaning can come to overshadow others, however, as we've both said the example of the Confederate flag demonstrates. It's meaning now is a very different scope to its use as a battle standard.

I gave an answer - an entirely correct and on-point answer - which you then had a tantrum about. That's on you, not me. I'm done with this horseshit, it's just too tiring. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"A standin for a symbol is a still a symbol in its own right, that's the entire point." No, it isn't... Half the symbols in the Alt-right glossary aren't used anymore. They were meant to obscure, and when that was uncovered they just changed the code. The standins had no contextual meaning except as references to actual hate symbols.

"Neither do I, and nowhere have I said that. The direct implication of your explanation is that a hate symbol is a hate symbol because hate groups utilize it in communication. My primary problem with that is that it essentializes the symbol and does not actually allow us to understand the underlying meaning, if any.

"Multiple usages can and do exist in tandem, depending on context. The obvious question is still, "from whence do we derive said meaning?" I would say past usage and our relation thereto, while you deffer entirely to present usage. This is, again, just running on a euphemism treadmill rather than actually digging deeper.

"One meaning can come to overshadow others, however, as we've both said the example of the Confederate flag demonstrates. It's meaning now is a very different scope to its use as a battle standard." Sigh... Are you just fucking with me at this point? Yeah, no shit. Again, I'm not referring exclusively to the original meaning, but to historical usage and our current relation thereto. I really do not understand what's so hard to understand about this.

"I gave an answer - an entirely correct and on-point answer - which you then had a tantrum about." Can we not do performative face saving, please? It's stupid and petty. Obviously you think you're correct. Duh. This can be easily inferred and needs no explicit statement. Obviously you think I'm wrong, again, this needs no explicit statement beyond performance.

"That's on you, not me." See, above, obviously you'd think that, social performance, stupid and petty, etc etc etc.

"I'm done with this horseshit, it's just too tiring." At least I'm not the only one who suffered during this exchange.

I'll spare you complimentary performative bravado and call it a day. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two factors to take into account: 1) What is the intent of the symbol over time 2) How do people generally view the meaning of the symbol. The meaning of the stars and bars is very clear: it started as a symbol of insurrection and the cause of the insurrection the desire for southern landowners to own slaves. One can see that in the changes in the state flag of Mississippi for example. Mississippi had a relatively neutral flag during the Civil War, then no official flag until after the end of Reconstruction, at which point the whites who seized power put the stars and bars onto the flag. The meaning is clear about what the stars and bars mean here. The Gadsden flag started as an anti-colonialist symbol during the American Revolution, but right-wing anti-government assholes appropriated it during the 2021 insurrection attempt. The same flag clearly has a different meaning in each case. St. George's Flag (Flag of England) (1606) predates the first slavery in the American colonies (1619), so clearly it is disconnected, particularly since it refers to mythological extra-Biblical Christianity (St. George and the Dragon). The Union Jack incorporates the Flag of England and represents the Union of England with the other parts of Great Britain. Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bongolian This is a more fleshed out version of my answer. Apparently none of that matters if the Bad People (tm) use it though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Over my lifetime, I have seen the CSA stars-and-bars flag morph in its meaning a little. In the beginning, it was a symbol that was, at its core, racist (due to the racist insurrectionist origins mentioned above, not to mention that no one in the South really gave a shit about this flag until the civil rights movement). But it also had a cloak of "represents the South / heritage not hate", which had enough of a propaganda push as such that allowed it to be utilized in media that wasn't explicitly full-on white nationalist. For instance, the 1980s television show The Dukes of Hazzard had the stars-and-bars on the protagonists' car, which was named the "General Lee". It wasn't a white nationalist show, merely a dumb car chase show using "good ol' boys" moonshiners as a trope. But although the controversy existed even then, it was not strong enough to be as instantly offensive as it would be today.

My impression is that a lot of the cloakery of the "heritage not hate" nonsense (and make no mistake, a lot of it was obfuscation) is gone, simply because the flag's explicit usage in white nationalism / alt-right movements of late has made the intentions clear. What's new about the Confederate battle flag is how it is starting to lose its Southern United States origin and is starting to become an international symbol of white nationalism, like Nazi symbolism.

Nonetheless, comparing something like the Union Jack is apples and oranges due to this history. The Union Jack, like many countries, bears sins of colonialism. But the Confederate battle flag literally was revived because Southern racists needed a "battle symbol" to show their anger at Brown v. Board of Education and other civil rights decisions. It's hardly the same thing. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd say the Union Jack is in a bit more similar situation as the Japanese Rising Sun flag (though the Rising Sun is way less tolerated), correct me if I'm wrong. It's seen often in Japan but you definitely shouldn't be displaying this flag outside of it, especially in Korea. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, raising the former colonial power's flag within the form colony's country would definitely have implications of "Let's recolonize!" unless it's within a few reasonable contexts like embassies. The St. George/Union Jack issue seemed rather concern trollish to me. Bongolian (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so using this line of reasoning the swastika shouldn't be racist as it is used as a symbol of spirituality in the east. It wasn't made to denote white supremacy.

Maybe the media should refer to it as the hakenkruez. Interstellar (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellar Lol no. Sure, the Swastika can be non-nazi, but the Nazi flag and its derivatives are pretty distinctive. And given their meaning and symbolism has been consistently reified over the years... Yeah, your argument doesn't hold up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd actually be curious if a neo-Nazi swastika spouting shithead actually knew what Diwali was, tee hee. Generally, I would not assume a swastika is racist if someone of Asian culture used it, unless it was stylized very close to the German Nazi flag for some stupid reason. (In Asian cultures, the swastika is usually stylized way differently.) It's not the most important Hindu or Buddhist etc. symbol as I understand it, so there will probably be many other cultural clues to indicate that a person with a swastika of this sort is not saying Heil Hitler. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The CBF (confederate battle flag) and the Union Jack (UJ) are signs for historical narratives and entities. There is no CSA any more, and so, the CBF cannot represent an actual thing in the world, but only abstract ideas like racism, individuality, rebellion, or menace. The UJ represents a real nation, for all of its past transgressions or flaws. The problem with the argument equating the UJ with the CBF is that since Great Britain still exists, changing the flag changes the sign, yet the transcendental ideas they evoke can remain unchanged. If we change the flag of GB from the UJ to some other flag with no visual similarity to the UJ, can we say with confidence, "Oh there is no racism associated with that sign?" I doubt it. The history remains. No matter what flag you use, it would be a signifier for Great Britain. Likewise if we substituted some more innocuous design for the CBF, the new flag would inherit the reputation of its predecessor. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster BTW, An esoteric fascist named Savitri devi tried to combine nazism and Hinduism. It was pretty weird. ^{— Unsigned, by: CorporateBrinjal / talk / contribs}

Yeah, RW has an article on Savitri Devi. Parts of the modern American alt-right also have linked to her, and consequently have (badly) cherry picked a few Hindu concepts as a result. Like the 4Chan meme "surf the Kali Yuga", a phrase that's even more weird than their usual schtick. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian "Nods"

No, there are no Russian "nods" to Richard Spencer or the Southern USA. How more obvious can it be that the design of the Novorossiya flag has its roots in the Russian Navy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_navy_flags You really have to handwave reality to believe otherwise.

Additionally, the red and blue between the flags aren't even the correct shades of red and blue.

Ergo a pro-Russian flag has its origins in the Russian military; imagine that! ^{— Unsigned, by: 2606:8e80:7009:5400:7ff5:14ff:c834:7764 / talk}

I've corrected this section based on additional information. Bongolian (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)