Jon Henke, guest blogging for Megan McArdle, has a very interesting post on her Atlantic Monthly blog, discussing the controversies surrounding Confederate History Month (April) and, inevitably the nature of the Confederate ‘battle flag’ (popularized, ex post facto) that still flies rather ubiquitously in certain areas in the American South. It’s an understatement to say that talking about this opens up a big, fat can ‘o worms, but, as we all know, I enjoy worms with horseradish and ketchup.
Henke ends up trying to take something of a ‘third way’ position, both recognizing the non-racial symbolism that the flag enjoys to many people and the great offense to others. Of course, this manages to ruffle the feathers of both sides, although I think the kernel of his argument is entirely sound.
Most Southerners have a relationship with the Confederate flag that has nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. Over many years, it gradually became a symbol of regional identification, pride and, yes, rebellion. But rebellion in the sense of “James Dean” rather than “secession”. This is exacerbated by the condescending, antagonizing way in which southerners are treated by outsiders, including the media and politicians.
Still, in the end he recommends that detractors take a chill pill, and that Southerners find another way to celebrate their regional nationalism. Oops.
I see the logic of the argument, but I’m of the firm and full belief that the burden for change remains with the accusers; people shouldn’t have to abandon their symbols because someone else merely finds it offensive. To be sure, a little care goes a long way (as my father always told me after breaking a dish), but in every symbol is the propensity for dealing offense. Islam’s crescent certainly offends some people – both reasonably and unreasonably – and so does the Christian Cross, but I haven’t heard much about asking Muslims or Christians to do away with those symbols because of misdeeds done under its banner (though I think I have heard that said about Judaism, unfortunately). I think the most difficult obstacle, in reality, is almost entirely cultural. Since southern, white culture seems to be the last demographic of acceptable prejudice and scorn, there’s really very little impetus among many to reevaluate the South when generalizations and stereotypes are perpetuated ad nauseam.
What many don’t understand is that many Southerners are not only proud of their culture, but have reason to be. Unlike the caricatures, the South is not a cultural wasteland; I always find it ironic that the same people will pooh-pooh Country Music and Bluegrass – Southern musical styles directly descended from Scotch-Irish folk music – while endlessly celebrating one foreign ‘indigenous’ musical style after another.
But, make no mistake, though Confederate history for some might be about racism and chattel slavery, for far more its meant to celebrate a proud – if flawed – and able people of the land, who saw their rebellion as being a fight for freedom, as a defense of their land, and very nearly succeeded. Let’s be frank: the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery. However, that statement’s gravity obscures a complex picture of a culture that believed in so much more. And today, as we see the South and southwest race ahead of the rest of the country economically, it’s worth noting that to underestimate the South comes at some peril.
So, I say, let’s let the South celebrate their heritage, because it is indeed worth celebrating -and- they absolutely have nothing close to a monopoly on racism and prejudice in this country. The Confederacy isn’t merely an organization of stubborn bigotry so many years ago, but today represents a continuing narrative – of the good and bad – of an amazing, distinctive part of the world as diverse as any (and more than most) and full of undeniable culture.
4 Comments
April 9, 2008 at 6:19 am
This assumes that the accusers have the same institutional power as the accused and are in an equal position to effect change.
But — to take an example from the moment of the Confederacy — this is obviously not always the case. Slaves in the antebellum South had no legal standing and could only effect change by violent insurrection, which always failed because special measures were taken to ensure that slaves could not organize. They could not effect change because they were specifically and violently oppressed.
To give another example, in the present moment, the power of the poor to affect legislation directly pertaining to their lives is limited, because their access to information is curtailed by lack of internet access and newspaper or magazine subscriptions. Their leisure time is also limited by having to work at multiple jobs or work long hours at a low wage in order to make rent; additionally, they tend to have have less access to conveniences like dishwashers, laundry facilities inside the home, and reliable cars. It is therefore difficult for the poor to enter political life precisely because they are poor.
So it’s a little bit ridiculous to say that the burden of change is on the accusers. Don’t those of us who are standing around watching also have a moral obligation?
I’m also confused as to why finding something offensive is insignificant to you — but that is another issue.
April 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Offense is too easily manufactured to coerce cultural change.
Also, I see your point but it’s irrelevant to the argument, as those who disapprove of Confederate anything generally wield rather considerable social and political power. Those who defend the notion are generally restricted to 7 states and are most heavily concentrated amongst the rural poor.
April 10, 2008 at 6:28 am
Defenders of the Confederacy specifically may not be powerful, but defenders of racism are, well, in public office.
Offense that is “manufactured” is not offense — n’est-ce pas?
April 12, 2008 at 11:38 am
You’re conflating Southern heritage with racism.
As the threshold for ‘offensive material’ continues to expand, there’s very little doubt that it occurs without some deliberate force; comprenez-vous?