Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn

smooth · 01-07-2005, 12:20 AM

wow, I mean wow, this is turning into a really cool discussion I don't know if I've ever seen the likes of. hopefully this kind of presentation of ideas will continue.

konichi,

at least part of the problem is the notion that all groups speak for the invidviduals contained within them. In superbelt's experience, he has found Native American prefer that term.

I spoke up and said I was one who does prefer that term for political reasons.
Not as thought "Indian" offends me.

Now, sob points out that there are Indian gaming organizations. Well, I happen to live in the same place he does. The fact that the gaming organization refers to itself as an Indian org doesn't mean I prefer to be called an Indian.

For that matter, perhaps they would prefer not to be called that, but do what? engage in multimillion dollar campaigns to educate the public to stop? probably not.

as to your larger point, I agree. Most black people I know don't even really think about this kind of thing. they have enough to worry about! (as do we all these days).
But context is important. I've never been to the south and I don't expect very many urban blacks to have very strong opinions about the civil war.

Here we are again: are black people some monolithic/homogenous group? no.
blacks in the south have a very different historical relationship to the symbolism of the confederacy. for example, many people alive today have been abused under color of that flag. not a few have been killed, and not too long ago either. it isn't ancient history although we'd like to be, in my opinion.

but the simple fact remains that blacks weren't complaining (that we know of, other than deciding not to attend the university or live in the hall). the people with a particular agenda are the ones who brought the case to bear and I presume (without knowing) that they or some similar party brought it to the attention of the media.

they may have multiple reasons for doing so, but one plausible reason to me is for some people to conduct themselves like jb2000 is suggesting. under color of authenticity, for example. and then people like shanifaye may feel prosecuted for what she views is a heartfealt attachment to that symbolism.

I wasn't trying to deny that of her. and hopefully she didn't take my responses to critically. more of an exploration of how one's ideas might not be compatible with one's assumptions in general because of a particular emotional attachment to something.

so for example, it's not honor for fighting against our government, per se. but perhaps she believes that standing up for one's rights is always honorable. I agree with jb2000's analysis of the situation. I've always been careful to discuss my notions of treason (superbelt, I did use that term in an earlier thread, I just didn't want to come across as inciteful when it wasn't necessary since treason seemed to be more loaded than criminal) in regards to the way in which breaking away from the Union was carried out.

That is, I fully support and wish California would break from the union right now. Do I think we should do it with arms? well, if we did, I would certainly be a traitor to the US. But I might be proud of that label. of course, if we lost I shouldn't be surprised if everyone else in the nation took exception to me being proud about it. Likewise if I went on vacation in New York (assuming we were successful in breaking away) and bragged about my honorable actions for my new nation. I think common sense for myself anyway would lead me to realize such a boast would not be polite or prudent.

But the point I was trying to draw out was: if you think it's honorable to fight that way, maybe the assumption is skewed. perhaps someone doesn't really think it's ok to fight against the nation for a belief (that wouldn't mesh very well with numerous other threads about internal combatants right now and what kinds of rights they should be afforded if caught), but perhaps it's honorable to stand up for one's individualism.

Individualism is certainly very valued in our culture. But then I might wonder why some of the people espousing that view would criticise my statements against stop and frisks at the airport. After all, that was based on the honor of individualism. See, so shanifaye and I agree I would think that there is honor in individualism, but we have to filter it through all of our other attachments to socially important notions and symbolism.

for her, the symbolism of the confederacy (which I think she says she even engages in reenactment, and I think lebell does to--and I don't think either of them are supporters of slavery or racists)

and me in the airport when I think my individual liberty and individualism is being infringed for some faux-promises of safety by random frisks.

oh you know, this is just getting too long and convoluted. It's late, I'll look back at this in the morning. night all.

01-07-2005, 12:20 AM	#36 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	wow, I mean wow, this is turning into a really cool discussion I don't know if I've ever seen the likes of. hopefully this kind of presentation of ideas will continue. konichi, at least part of the problem is the notion that all groups speak for the invidviduals contained within them. In superbelt's experience, he has found Native American prefer that term. I spoke up and said I was one who does prefer that term for political reasons. Not as thought "Indian" offends me. Now, sob points out that there are Indian gaming organizations. Well, I happen to live in the same place he does. The fact that the gaming organization refers to itself as an Indian org doesn't mean I prefer to be called an Indian. For that matter, perhaps they would prefer not to be called that, but do what? engage in multimillion dollar campaigns to educate the public to stop? probably not. as to your larger point, I agree. Most black people I know don't even really think about this kind of thing. they have enough to worry about! (as do we all these days). But context is important. I've never been to the south and I don't expect very many urban blacks to have very strong opinions about the civil war. Here we are again: are black people some monolithic/homogenous group? no. blacks in the south have a very different historical relationship to the symbolism of the confederacy. for example, many people alive today have been abused under color of that flag. not a few have been killed, and not too long ago either. it isn't ancient history although we'd like to be, in my opinion. but the simple fact remains that blacks weren't complaining (that we know of, other than deciding not to attend the university or live in the hall). the people with a particular agenda are the ones who brought the case to bear and I presume (without knowing) that they or some similar party brought it to the attention of the media. they may have multiple reasons for doing so, but one plausible reason to me is for some people to conduct themselves like jb2000 is suggesting. under color of authenticity, for example. and then people like shanifaye may feel prosecuted for what she views is a heartfealt attachment to that symbolism. I wasn't trying to deny that of her. and hopefully she didn't take my responses to critically. more of an exploration of how one's ideas might not be compatible with one's assumptions in general because of a particular emotional attachment to something. so for example, it's not honor for fighting against our government, per se. but perhaps she believes that standing up for one's rights is always honorable. I agree with jb2000's analysis of the situation. I've always been careful to discuss my notions of treason (superbelt, I did use that term in an earlier thread, I just didn't want to come across as inciteful when it wasn't necessary since treason seemed to be more loaded than criminal) in regards to the way in which breaking away from the Union was carried out. That is, I fully support and wish California would break from the union right now. Do I think we should do it with arms? well, if we did, I would certainly be a traitor to the US. But I might be proud of that label. of course, if we lost I shouldn't be surprised if everyone else in the nation took exception to me being proud about it. Likewise if I went on vacation in New York (assuming we were successful in breaking away) and bragged about my honorable actions for my new nation. I think common sense for myself anyway would lead me to realize such a boast would not be polite or prudent. But the point I was trying to draw out was: if you think it's honorable to fight that way, maybe the assumption is skewed. perhaps someone doesn't really think it's ok to fight against the nation for a belief (that wouldn't mesh very well with numerous other threads about internal combatants right now and what kinds of rights they should be afforded if caught), but perhaps it's honorable to stand up for one's individualism. Individualism is certainly very valued in our culture. But then I might wonder why some of the people espousing that view would criticise my statements against stop and frisks at the airport. After all, that was based on the honor of individualism. See, so shanifaye and I agree I would think that there is honor in individualism, but we have to filter it through all of our other attachments to socially important notions and symbolism. for her, the symbolism of the confederacy (which I think she says she even engages in reenactment, and I think lebell does to--and I don't think either of them are supporters of slavery or racists) and me in the airport when I think my individual liberty and individualism is being infringed for some faux-promises of safety by random frisks. oh you know, this is just getting too long and convoluted. It's late, I'll look back at this in the morning. night all. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman