Confederate Grave, Part II. (Warning: dubious moral behavior mentioned)

[Xahm]

Most of what I have to say would be repetitive and not add anything to the conversation at this point.

On the confederate flag, though. It was always very, very jarring to see it being worn/flown when I was in Russia. It only happened a few times, but it was a signal to me to get out of the situation as fast as possible. There, people who hated minorities couldn't use swastikas or nazi symbolism because of how hated Nazi Germany was because of the "Great Patriotic War" (WWII), so some just subbed in the Confederate flag to signal that they hated all people who weren't "the Rus." I could easily be mistaken for Russian and was pretty defenseless, so I had to smile and nod through some super uncomfortable conversations.

[Melissa Louise]

@Pam in CT

It's more like a distinction between private and public. 

A letter on a grave is - to me - private. 

A flag on a truck is - to me - public.

If something is public and hateful, it's fair game.

If something is private and hateful, well. As Maize said, sometimes you let people just be wrong. 

So the taboo isn't grave, per se, but grave + private. Had our Confederate Lover sprayed a symbol of hate on a grave, that would be grave + public. Therefore, clean it off.

I'm utterly unconvinced the letter is a form of recruitment, because it's so darn inefficient. 

And I remain utterly convinced that justice is not found arguing on WTM 🙂 nor in the removal of any one  symbol, private or public, but in the time and money  we give to material causes. 

 

[Corraleno]

The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, was absolutely explicit that the "immediate cause" of the Civil War was slavery and that white supremacy was the very "foundation" on which the Confederacy was built. He does ramble on about tariffs and business in the beginning of his famous Cornerstone Speech, but then he gets to the point:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... [The US Constitution] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the storm came and the wind blew.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

 

 

[katilac]

18 hours ago, MercyA said:

Oh, definitely illegal. And probably a good way to get killed, unfortunately. But the woman has chutzpuh! 

Not really. The truck is clearly being towed, the owner is not in it. 

[Moonhawk]

3 hours ago, BetsyT said:

This is so interesting to me.  We were taught that the Civil War was over states rights, full stop.  And yes, sure, slavery was wrong, but eventually the states would have surely figured that out, and it was overstepping of the federal government to force the states to do the right thing before they were ready to.  

This is what I was taught also. DH was taught this too.

This was covered in elementary school. And middle school. I went through AP US History (and did well on the test). My dad has a masters in history and his pet topic is American wars (albeit 1900s more than before). So my education was simply not an "accidental" slip-through-the-cracks teaching, it was reinforced. 

For those who maybe were given a slavery-was-reason education, this is a summary of how I remember it being presented:

Slavery was presented as, at most, just the last straw. That really the die was cast as soon as Lincoln was elected regardless of any action he took (this is in conflict with other statements later, btw). Not because the Southern states *really* cared about slavery or defending it, they were standing up to the idea that the federal government could tell them they needed to stop something, anything, for any reason. And that Lincoln could have found a reasonable way to deal with it until the Emancipation Proclamation, and so even if Lincoln was right about slavery being bad, he had no authority to do anything about it, and the southern states were justified in seceding even if there were other less-volatile options (or at least debatably justified given the understanding of the laws/Constitution of the time). And, importantly, they were seceding to prove the right to secede from the Union, because it was only theoretical until they did so. 

Also, economically, Lincoln forced their hand because their economy was dependent on "certain costs of production", (ahem, not slavery, just low costs) that by doing anything to touch their economic system there really was no other option other than get poor and starve. Because not only would white Southerners not be able to feed themselves and create or sell goods, there would now be unemployed, unskilled people who have no place to live (because why would anyone regardless of race allow others to live on their land rent free?) or way to support themselves. So you are condemning the entire Southern population to destitution within a matter of years. Anyone rich enough to move out would immediately do so, only making the situation worse. 

It wasn't slavery that caused the War, it was the South wanting the right to make their own laws and the necessity to protect their economy. Lincoln could have chosen to outlaw something else and the result would have been the same, therefore slavery was just accidental to the war, not a material cause.

The state's right to disregard Federal intervention/laws, conduct their economy and regulate industries to their best interest, and to secede, were what were at stake. Slavery was not one of the things that was really at stake, and the South wasn't really "fighting for the right to slavery" or really fighting for anything, since their intention was to secede.

Furthermore, the fact that the war ended slavery was just an outcome of it, not the purpose of it, from the North's point of view.

(Please note I see logical inconsistencies in this, and it's been 15 years since I was learning this, but it's basically true to my recollection. I'm sharing so others can hear this perspective if they had a different educational experience, not because I agree with it or because I wish to defend it). 

[MercyA]

22 minutes ago, katilac said:

Not really. The truck is clearly being towed, the owner is not in it. 

Yes. I meant generally speaking. In this particular case it was probably lower risk because the truck was being towed. 

[katilac]

I guess I can be proud of my local school district! We're in the deep south, and slavery was never downplayed as a reason for the Civil War, not even in elementary school. Slavery and states' rights were always both mentioned (as I recall), along with other reasons, and it's complicated. 

Except for high school, I can't at all remember if this was thanks to the texts, the teachers, or both. In high school, I think the text was fine, but the teacher also brought in more details and nuance. 

I've seen some bad examples online, though, with textbooks referring to slaves as immigrants and/or workers. That's public school, books used in private schools can be far worse. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

Slavery and states' rights were always both mentioned (as I recall), along with other reasons, and it's complicated. 

I live in a whole other country, and I'd never heard/read anything other than the above until I got to WTM. 

[katilac]

As far as ripping the Confederate flag off of the truck: I think it is civil rights theater that is likely to cause far more harm than good. 

Supporting it is supporting the erosion of free speech. There is no way to erode free speech only in your favor; in the long run, people fighting against racism only have the amount of free speech that they allow the racists. A sticker of the Confederate flag stuck on a street sign does not belong there and can be removed with no qualms; a Confederate flag on someone's private property cannot. 

Stealing and/or destroying private property will lose support for whatever cause you are doing it for. If people steal Confederate flags and get cheered on, there will definitely be people who think, if they can do it, why can't I? I'm going to rip down that Pride flag because I think LGBTQ+ is a danger to children, I'm going to rip down that flag of Mexico because I think they shouldn't be flying it in America. And so on. An erosion of civility applies in general also. 

Work towards equal voting access. Join the effort to help your local police department design a better policy of acceptable force. Speak up when your neighbor makes a racist remark, or when your favorite tv show uses a racist trope. Do the hard things that are often boring but actually make a difference, not the quick and flashy things that, at best, do nothing more than give you a hit of dopamine. 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by katilac

[Eos]

6 hours ago, Catwoman said:

But people justify it by saying the candidate's views are wrong, so they are doing a public service by removing them.

I hear this, and I don't remove political lawn signs because that is to me protected political speech, within the framework of democracy however imperfect it is.  Confederate flags and swastikas are displayed to create fear and are associated with some of the most heinous crimes in human history.  I have no guilt about removing them, and I don't equate removing these symbols with removing political lawn signs.  I know that some modern-day names create fear in and of themselves, but there are not historical crimes against humanity associated with those names.

 

5 hours ago, SKL said:

We were taught as kids the simplistic story that the Civil War was over slavery, the good guys won, and the confederate flag was simply a symbol of all things bad.   

It's like still believing in Santa Claus.

I am speechless, and I will hold you in the light.

[1234]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

 

We were taught as kids the simplistic story that the Civil War was over slavery, the good guys won, and the confederate flag was simply a symbol of all things bad.  Just like we were taught only good things about Christopher Columbus, etc., etc.  As adults, it seems the childish narrative of the Civil War is one of the few big stories we don't question.  It's like still believing in Santa Claus.

Um, I was actually taught the Civil War was not about slavery. I was also taught the Black Panthers were as bad as the KKK. It was my education and research as an adult that made me realize I had been lied to. It’s horrific that for a period of time I believed that garbage. Honestly, anyone still trying to say the Civil War was about anything other than slavery are the ones still trying to believe in Santa Claus, and it’s these kinds of posts that show why things like the OP should be posted and discussed.

[WildflowerMom]

12 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

Um, I was actually taught the Civil War was not about slavery. I was also taught the Black Panthers were as bad as the KKK. It was my education and research as an adult that made me realize I had been lied to. It’s horrific that for a period of time I believed that garbage. Honestly, anyone still trying to say the Civil War was about anything other than slavery are the ones still trying to believe in Santa Claus, and it’s these kinds of posts that show why things like the OP should be posted and discussed.

Me too.   Sigh.   Just one more thing to relearn as an adult.  

[Catwoman]

24 minutes ago, Eos said:

I hear this, and I don't remove political lawn signs because that is to me protected political speech, within the framework of democracy however imperfect it is.  Confederate flags and swastikas are displayed to create fear and are associated with some of the most heinous crimes in human history.  I have no guilt about removing them, and I don't equate removing these symbols with removing political lawn signs.  I know that some modern-day names create fear in and of themselves, but there are not historical crimes against humanity associated with those names.

So you would steal a Confederate flag right off of someone's truck? 

What gives you the right to steal another person's personal property?

[Eos]

44 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

So you would steal a Confederate flag right off of someone's truck? 

What gives you the right to steal another person's personal property?

I would probably be too scared to take one off a truck.  I have no right to steal.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Eos

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Joker2 said:

Um, I was actually taught the Civil War was not about slavery. I was also taught the Black Panthers were as bad as the KKK. 

Same. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WildflowerMom said:

Me too.   Sigh.   Just one more thing to relearn as an adult.  

I think this would also make an interesting S/O thread: things we  had to relearn (or learn for the first time) as adults. 
 

For me, wrt history, I never learned about the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. I was almost forty years old when I heard about this and you could have knocked me over with a feather! 

[TravelingChris]

15 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Same. 

I am amazed that anyone ever got to the 60s in history.  Dh says he didn't get to the 20th century ever and I know I only got to the  NEw Deal.  

[Scarlett]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, was absolutely explicit that the "immediate cause" of the Civil War was slavery and that white supremacy was the very "foundation" on which the Confederacy was built. He does ramble on about tariffs and business in the beginning of his famous Cornerstone Speech, but then he gets to the point:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... [The US Constitution] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the storm came and the wind blew.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

 

 

I have to be honest…..I couldn’t read all of that. I was sick to my stomach and all I could think was how do POC feel when they read this?

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, was absolutely explicit that the "immediate cause" of the Civil War was slavery and that white supremacy was the very "foundation" on which the Confederacy was built. He does ramble on about tariffs and business in the beginning of his famous Cornerstone Speech, but then he gets to the point:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... [The US Constitution] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the storm came and the wind blew.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

 

 

I, literally, read this aloud to DD this fall b/c it was part of her assigned history reading. She had a hard time following until I did my best Col. Sanders impression/dramatic reading. THEN it’s pompous, wrong-headed, flawed logic was crystal clear. DD is 17 and rather disconnected from the time and language. She found it hilarious. Then she was shocked when I explained that there are fully grown adults who don’t believe he (and others, representatives of the confederate government) meant what he said. We don’t have to guess at the motives or meaning of their cause. They told us, in great detail, what they were fighting for.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I have to be honest…..I couldn’t read all of that. I was sick to my stomach and all I could think was how do POC feel when they read this?

Right? It was disgusting. 😞

And the Scripture twisting! Stephens wrote: "For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made 'one star to differ from another star in glory.'" That verse has zero to do with race. It's a passage about the resurrection. Same goes for Stephen's mention of the "curse of Canaan," which also has nothing to do with race. 

He would have done better to study Acts 17: "He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth."

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Eos said:

Confederate flags and swastikas are displayed to create fear and are associated with some of the most heinous crimes in human history.  I have no guilt about removing them, and I don't equate removing these symbols with removing political lawn signs.  I know that some modern-day names create fear in and of themselves, but there are not historical crimes against humanity associated with those names.

Right. I was talking to my husband about this. He's about the most law-abiding person you'll find, and his comment was something like, "What if you saw a sign on a truck that said, 'All black people should be killed'?"

The Confederate flag is absolutely tied to lynching and terror and enslavement and everyone should know that by now.

Would either of us actually steal a flag? I don't know. Probably not. But possibly a case can be made for it. An interesting spin off thread might be about when civil disobedience is justified. 

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I am amazed that anyone ever got to the 60s in history.  Dh says he didn't get to the 20th century ever and I know I only got to the  NEw Deal.  

Well I was in school then so it was current events, not history. We did get through WWII but that's about it. The assassinations of JFK, MLK, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy were current events. So was the Civil Rights movement, the moon landing, and Watergate. At some point the teaching of history stops for every generation. Kids today might learn about both Gulf wars and 9/11 as history but kids in school at those times wouldn't. High school kids might have discussed them in classes but they weren't in the history curriculum. I confess I have no idea how far current students (esp. high school) get but it must stop somewhere. 

[Sneezyone]

10 hours ago, SKL said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/30/why-some-black-defenders-of-the-confederate-flag-believe-slavery-was-a-choice/

Ignore the rather ridiculous title, and below, you can see how some black people view the Confederate flag, for example.

Neither black nor white nor any other people have a lock on ignorance. Using nut jobs to justify confederate apologia as if they represent some broadly shared consensus is gross. Coonery as entertainment/justification is older than the lost cause myth and never ends (see Diamond and Silk). I can’t believe that even needs to be said.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Well I was in school then so it was current events, not history. We did get through WWII but that's about it. The assassinations of JFK, MLK, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy were current events. So was the Civil Rights movement, the moon landing, and Watergate. At some point the teaching of history stops for every generation. Kids today might learn about both Gulf wars and 9/11 as history but kids in school at those times wouldn't. High school kids might have discussed them in classes but they weren't in the history curriculum. I confess I have no idea how far current students (esp. high school) get but it must stop somewhere. 

DDs class ends in a couple weeks. They’ll stop around 2010. They were born from 2003-2006 so that makes sense.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Neither black nor white nor any other people have a lock on ignorance. Using nut jobs to justify confederate apologia as if they represent some broadly shared consensus is gross. Coonery as entertainment/justification is older than the lost cause myth and never ends (see Diamond and Silk). I can’t believe that even needs to be said.

I remember the Diamond and Silk team; they were on FN for several rounds when a certain candidate was on the ballot. Dh said, “See? Those black women like (Despicable Candidate).” And ds, who was around 16/17 at the time said, “Dad, you’re being punked. I would bet money those ladies are just riding a gravy train. They’re capitalizing on right wing News’ desperation to find some black people who support (Despicable Candidate).” 

[scholastica]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I remember the Diamond and Silk team; they were on FN for several rounds when a certain candidate was on the ballot. Dh said, “See? Those black women like (Despicable Candidate).” And ds, who was around 16/17 at the time said, “Dad, you’re being punked. I would bet money those ladies are just riding a gravy train. They’re capitalizing on right wing News’ desperation to find some black people who support (Despicable Candidate).” 

Keen eye that one!

[livetoread]

15 hours ago, Catwoman said:

So you would steal a Confederate flag right off of someone's truck? 

What gives you the right to steal another person's personal property?

What gave the protestors in the South the right to march onto private property and sit at lunch counters thus trespassing and breaking the law? What gave them the right to walk in streets impeding traffic and breaking the law? If someone parked a truck waving a swastika flag outside a synagogue and left, would any of the congregants have a right to remove the flag?

It is an interesting thought experiment about when civil disobedience is justified. What's "good trouble"? I know for myself in following the swastika flag thought experiment, the more the private property is being used a provocation, the more comfortable I am with confiscating that private property, but the closer it is to even more private property (like flying it at their home), the less comfortable. We are very deeply ingrained to respect private property which has given me even more to ponder!

The value of providing spaces where people of color feel equally safe to white people is so so further down the value hierarchy compared to respecting private property. Not saying that's good or bad because it's complicated. Our society depends on respecting private property, and if society devolves, no one gets their rights respected except the most powerful. So yeah, not a big fan of society devolving but I am comfortable pushing that envelope a bit more in favor of valuing more inclusive spaces.

[Pam in CT]

re what constitutes "good trouble"

8 hours ago, livetoread said:

What gave the protestors in the South the right to march onto private property and sit at lunch counters thus trespassing and breaking the law? What gave them the right to walk in streets impeding traffic and breaking the law?..

...At the time of the lunch counter sit-ins the those protestors had no right to sit in a public restaurant (or stay in a hotel, or use a gas station), or swim in a municipal swimming pool or etc.  In the absence of federal protections, some states permitted private companies, or municipalities or states themselves, to prohibit blacks from using such facilities.  States' rights.

Good trouble, or lawbreaker? Or both?

8 hours ago, livetoread said:

... If someone parked a truck waving a swastika flag outside a synagogue and left, would any of the congregants have a right to remove the flag?...

So this is similar to the swastikas plastered over graves in a all-Jewish graveyard hypothetical that I posed upthread, where I would not have trouble making up my own mind. But for me it is an even *easier* decision if I imagine the truck in the parking lot of my own synagogue.

Because I don't have a sense of personal, vested ownership of my hypothetical graveyard. I am a visitor, in that imagined scenario.  In the parking lot of *my own synagogue*? Where  I've shown up weekly, often many more times than weekly, for 20+ years, where I'm on the board, where I've contributed my time and money and energy and creativity? Yeah. No. Photos would be taken of the license plate, flags would be removed, police would be called; license info would be handed over to them, and also to ADL

Has the driver broken any laws? I expect not. I want the incident in the system nonetheless, because the guy who does that sort of intimidation stunt once, does it more than once.

 

8 hours ago, livetoread said:

... It is an interesting thought experiment about when civil disobedience is justified. What's "good trouble"? I know for myself in following the swastika flag thought experiment, the more the private property is being used a provocation, the more comfortable I am with confiscating that private property, but the closer it is to even more private property (like flying it at their home), the less comfortable. ..

...We are very deeply ingrained to respect private property which has given me even more to ponder!

I don't think I'm following you here. Most cemeteries are privately owned/managed; and all synagogues are privately owned/managed.  Both are generally open to the public, in the rough (though not identical) sense that for-profit restaurants and hotels and gas stations are open to the public, and as opposed to public parks or municipal swimming pools or state parks.

But I'm not clear on what you mean by "private property being used as a provocation."

(FWIW: I would never steal a campaign sign, neither from a private house lawn nor from a "public" space like a municipal public park or community center. But that's because I strongly believe that campaign signs are a legitimate and positive example of the political process working as it's supposed to. I don't think a campaign sign, even for a candidate I loathe, has *anything to with* swastikas or Confederate flags or Iron Crosses. 

I confess to irritation at the enormous F*ck Biden flags now proliferating across America; and do not count them in the same category of political speech working as it's supposed to. It's hard to teach a 5 yo not to use nasty words when such flags are festooning the neighbors' yard. I ultimately count such signs in the same category as I do pornography on billboards, in my face (and in children's) without consent.

But in my lifetime I've never seen anything like them, before the last five years. That is a new degradation, ime.  Over time, if they continue, it may shift my perspective on signs and flags in individual yards as pretty sacrosanct. I have not yet crossed that line.)

 

re some people feel safer (I would argue, objectively are safer) than others

8 hours ago, livetoread said:

...The value of providing spaces where people of color feel equally safe to white people is so so further down the value hierarchy compared to respecting private property. Not saying that's good or bad because it's complicated. Our society depends on respecting private property, and if society devolves, no one gets their rights respected except the most powerful. So yeah, not a big fan of society devolving but I am comfortable pushing that envelope a bit more in favor of valuing more inclusive spaces.

What do you mean by "if society devolves"?

And to bring the idea back around to "good trouble," is the trouble "good" if the objective, or unintended consequence, is such "devolving"?

 

 

 

what you see depends on where you stand

[livetoread]

35 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

But I'm not clear on what you mean by "private property being used as a provocation."

I'm referring to the truck and flag. Those are private property belonging to the owner, even if parked in public spaces. Even if parked in a synagogue lot. But I know I'm more comfortable with you taking the flag if it's parked in the lot of your synagogue than I would be if you were driving by someone's house and saw it. Both scenarios are provocation by the flag flyer (I think flying a swastika is deliberate provocation no matter where) but one is more provocative than the other. BTW, I not saying taking it down from someone's house is necessarily wrong either. I'm just playing with my own boundaries here and trying to figure out what they are based on.

 

35 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

What do you mean by "if society devolves"?

I think society would literally break apart if private property rules are broken too much. People get very scared if they don't feel like their private property is safe, and they start taking protection into their own hands. There is a reason looting associated with riots is such a big talking point for anyone trying to discredit a movement. 

There are certainly societies who don't depend on private property rules for their civilization but western society isn't one. I could envision anarchy if enough people feel like their private property is at risk. Now taking down a swastika flag is hardly going to lead to anarchy, namely because they are few and far between. But imagine if enough people decide to take down any confederate flag they see no matter where it is displayed. And why stop at the confederate flag - why not confiscate anything that is racist? There would be bloodshed quickly and if enough joined, it could devolve into anarchy.

Editing to add, and that's what I mean by then only a few have any rights. Once society devolves into something more free for all, then worrying about civil rights is quaint, so trying to make spaces more inclusive for people of color is best done under a democracy that keeps most people feeling their property is relatively safe. Not a big fan of revolution, by and large.

Edited January 8, 2022 by livetoread

[katilac]

On 1/6/2022 at 12:16 PM, HS Mom in NC said:

Germans today aren't enemies of the US, but their ancestors during the war sure as h3ll were. Southerners today aren't enemies of the US, but their Confederate ancestors sure as h3ll were.

I don't doubt that many people did regard "Germans" as enemies of the United States, rather than the German state, but it's interesting to see that expressed as a current thought.  

I personally don't really regard the Germans alive during the war as enemies of America. To update the examples to wars fought while I was an adult, I never regarded Iraqis or Afghans in general as the enemies of the Unites States. Our government was at war with their government, and the average citizen and/or soldier had no say in that.  I would never have told my children that the Afghan people were sure as hell our enemy. 

 

[Matryoshka]

On 1/6/2022 at 3:29 PM, Lady Florida. said:

As for the rest, that comparison doesn't make sense. Gay people and their allies didn't try to secede and form the Gay States of America or whatever. That's the difference.

Or, y'know, subjugate all the straight folks as chattel slaves for hundreds of years either. That comparison doesn't work on any level.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Matryoshka

[katilac]

On 1/6/2022 at 5:51 PM, Eos said:

I hear this, and I don't remove political lawn signs because that is to me protected political speech 

America has freedom of speech. While refining what this means specifically is an ongoing process, It is by no means limited to specific types of political speech. Being allowed to advertise prescription drugs was a free speech case. 

11 hours ago, livetoread said:

What gave the protestors in the South the right to march onto private property and sit at lunch counters thus trespassing and breaking the law? What gave them the right to walk in streets impeding traffic and breaking the law? If someone parked a truck waving a swastika flag outside a synagogue and left, would any of the congregants have a right to remove the flag?

Restaurants are located on private property but are open to the public. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. The lunch counter sit-ins helped define and encode those points of law (what is private? what is public?). 

I think it's important to remember that they didn't have the actual legal right to do it. Large numbers of people went to jail and/or got roughed up by the police. Ah, some things never change. So, people who think that stealing private property is important to the cause and thus morally acceptable may be right, but they ought not be surprised when they get arrested. The civil rights demonstrators of the 50s and 60s absolutely knew jail and worse was on the table. 

Moral right? I'm sure the vast majority of people would say yes (now). But another important detail, that often gets lost in shortened or dramatized retellings, is that these acts of civil disobedience were discussed and planned at great length. The last thing most leaders of the movement wanted was for people to go cowboy and break the law on their own. To me, reasonable people can disagree about the morality of certain protest actions, but, if a person truly wants to help, any illegal protest action should only be undertaken after you have done some of the scut work of supporting (whatever movement you are supporting). And a lot of learning from people who have more experience in (whatever you are supporting). Don't be so all-fired confident that the movement has just been longing for someone to steal a flag, and aren't they lucky that you (general you) came along, kwim? 

It's all about being smart and effective. Which is why the congregants of that synagogue should never steal that flag. Instead, they should have the truck towed, which will cost the owner considerably more in money and inconvenience than replacing the flag. Possibly after taking many photos of the flag, truck, and license plate and leaking them to social media. Again, check with leadership. Calling the tow company isn't quite as fun as ripping that flag off with your bare hands, but long game, people. Long game. 

[livetoread]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

But another important detail, that often gets lost in shortened or dramatized retellings, is that these acts of civil disobedience were discussed and planned at great length. The last thing most leaders of the movement wanted was for people to go cowboy and break the law on their own. To me, reasonable people can disagree about the morality of certain protest actions, but, if a person truly wants to help, any illegal protest action should only be undertaken after you have done some of the scut work of supporting (whatever movement you are supporting). And a lot of learning from people who have more experience in (whatever you are supporting). Don't be so all-fired confident that the movement has just been longing for someone to steal a flag, and aren't they lucky that you (general you) came along, kwim? 

Yes, and even then, it's really hard to control such things. We remember the 60s civil rights protests that were nonviolent (on the part of the protestors) but there was a lot of chaos churning on the outskirts and other activists ready and willing to go cowboy as you said. I think it's the goal of almost all the protests in the last few years to be nonviolent and only selectively law breaking, and we've seen how that turned out at times. I've come to realize (in my ignorance) that civil disobedience is messy - much more messy than I had pictured from my earlier understanding of the movements I admired. When the messiness starts, then it's very hard to keep the focus on the cause because the messiness becomes the focus so easily. There is the morality of particular civil disobedience action but also the practical outcome, and I suppose they are often intertwined.

[Eos]

*

Edited January 8, 2022 by Eos

[Eos]

8 hours ago, katilac said:

Don't be so all-fired confident that the movement has just been longing for someone to steal a flag, and aren't they lucky that you (general you) came along, kwim? 

This is a hilarious image!

Edited January 8, 2022 by Eos

[Pam in CT]

re characteristics of "civil disobedience"

11 hours ago, katilac said:

..Restaurants are located on private property but are open to the public. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. The lunch counter sit-ins helped define and encode those points of law (what is private? what is public?). 

I think it's important to remember that [at the time of the lunch counter sit-ins] they didn't have the actual legal right to do it. Large numbers of people went to jail and/or got roughed up by the police. ...

...Moral right? I'm sure the vast majority of people would say yes (now). But another important detail, that often gets lost in shortened or dramatized retellings, is that these acts of civil disobedience were discussed and planned at great length. The last thing most leaders of the movement wanted was for people to go cowboy and break the law on their own. To me, reasonable people can disagree about the morality of certain protest actions, but, if a person truly wants to help, any illegal protest action should only be undertaken after you have done some of the scut work of supporting (whatever movement you are supporting). And a lot of learning from people who have more experience... i

I agree with all of this.

One of Formative Moments in my intermittently engaged political life occurred during my senior year of college, when my campus along with a handful of others on the East Coast was swept by sit-ins and encampments and teach-ins around the then-pressing issue of divestment of university endowment from companies in South Africa. A very great number of my fellow students -- including a substantial portion of the white ones -- participated in these events. For most of us, it was our first experience with organizing around an issue, the pre-planning around meeting times and messaging, inviting out-of-town speakers, figuring out logistics that no one had ever thought about like how to get projectors and screens where we needed them, and etc. And honestly, it all felt *terrific,* exhilarating and affirming. Shared purpose! Sitting in at the President's office! Marching! Night watches at the encampments!  Making a difference!!

Then organizers at one of the other universities where similar on-campus protests were happening proposed a coordinated event, whereby students from all the East Coast schools engaging around the issue would drive to Washington and do a joint sit-in on the steps of Congress. Enthusiasm abounded.  Awesome!! Can we fit it in before finals, before everyone starts scattering to the winds?

At that point one of the black kids pulled in a relative -- an aunt, I think -- who was a longtime activist in the NAACP to talk to "us" about organizational discipline.  While other planning sessions had been in the student center, this one was in the Charles Drew residence, which in hindsight, I can recognize as intentional.  While other planning sessions had been sprawling and exuberant and with nearly as many white kids as black, the audience to this one was much smaller, much more sober, and much, much, much blacker.

She began. And she delivered something along the lines of

Quote

y'all have done some good work, lining up speakers to learn about this issue, pulling in your white classmates, organizing some marches and a couple of sit-ins with your faculty and administration. Figuring out on the fly how to get pizzas and Coke delivered when you planned an overnight sleep-in in the President's office but overlooked details like food or bathrooms.

(vivid recollection of dramatic eyeroll)

Quote

But if you are seriously going to consider going to Washington, you need to understand the difference between staging a sit-in in the office of your college administration, versus staging a sit-in at the Capitol.

Here, the students are the privileged customers for whom this institution exists. Day to day, those of you living in this house, sitting in this room, may not feel that. But this college exists because students are here. That is the fundamental relationship between students and this college's administration.

So you do not face any serious risk of any serious consequence for the type of protest you've done so far. You will not be expelled for occupying the administrative offices to protest apartheid or demand divestment. So long as you do not deface or harm any property, and particularly if you continue to bring in white classmates along with you, you probably  will not even face any kind of internal disciplinary action.  Once you get a little older, you'll notice that student-led activism around one issue or another tends to sweep across the country every few years. Always in the spring.

(again with the eyeroll)

Quote

But if you decide to go to Washington to sit on the Capitol steps, it will be different.

You'll need a permit. If you do not get a permit, before you even arrive at the building the police will establish a restricted line. If you pass beyond the line you will be committing a crime. You will be subject to arrest. There will be people among the crowd who do not know this, and others who think they do not care.  They should care.

If the police choose to make arrests, they will speak rudely and move roughly.  It is common, when a person is spoken to rudely or pushed around roughly, for the person to yell back or resist. This will make it worse. It obviously will be worse for you, than for any white classmates who join.

(she glanced, briefly, at the not-very-many white faces in the crowd.)

Quote

I understand your plan is to sit in on the steps of Congress.  I will tell you right now, once a crowd is convened on the steps, there will be loud and fervent voices urging the crowd to go inside. Some of these voices will be swept up by the excitement of the moment. Some of these voices will be people who do not understand that while it's a misdemeanor to go past the restricted line on the grounds, it's a felony to go into the wrong section of the building itself. And you don't know where the line is.  You should know also that sometimes there are people in your crowd who *do* know this and want to drive you inside so that you are arrested under felony charges.

I'm going to talk now about the box. What it will mean for your future, if under penalty of perjury, say on routine employment paperwork for your future jobs in the law firms and investment banks and hospitals of America, you are asked if you've ever been arrested for a felony charge.

...

Ultimately she got around to What Civil Disobedience Means

Quote

There are two parts.

The civil part means you remain non-violent. Even if you're provoked by a protestor on the other side spitting abuse at you, even if a protestor on the other side assaults you. Even if a cop manhandles you, beats you.  This is very, very hard. It cuts against human instinct. We train activists for weeks on how, physically, to do this. Some people are too hot-headed to manage it, ever. Y'all have had no practice, and you're young, and I will tell you right now: most of you cannot do it.

The disobedience part means you recognize and accept that you are disobeying law or rule, and you accept the consequence of your disobedience. If you decide to go to Washington, you *very well* may be arrested.  If you stick to your plan of staying on the steps and refrain from any further action, that likely means a night or two in jail, then your parents or friends will put up some bail, then you'll get out but have to go back for a court appearance, where you'll probably get off with a fine.  Do not go, if you are not willing to pay that price. If your crowd gets swept up in the moment and decides to go inside, the price could be much, much higher than that.

(I paraphrase, but that was the gist)

I was 21 years old at the time I received this speech. I did not go to Washington that time, nor did anyone else from my school. A handful of kids from Yale did go, and were arrested, for misdemeanor trespassing beyond the line. Yale has a long tradition, among East Coast schools, for better student organizational discipline than most others.

 

Anyway. I'm a lot older now, and as I said, this was among the Formation Moments of my very long-time-political worldview. Do not do a political thing, unless you really know and are willing to accept the consequences of the thing.

• Civil = non violent, even if violence is perpetrated against me
• disobedient = I understand it is breaking a law or rule, and I accept the consequences of that

And....

11 hours ago, katilac said:

..Which is why the congregants of that synagogue should never steal that flag. Instead, they should have the truck towed, which will cost the owner considerably more in money and inconvenience than replacing the flag. Possibly after taking many photos of the flag, truck, and license plate and leaking them to social media. Again, check with leadership. Calling the tow company isn't quite as fun as ripping that flag off with your bare hands, but long game, people. Long game. 

... I said what I said.

If a big old honking truck with big old honking wheels emblazoned with swastikas came into the parking lot of MY synagogue (which is on a hill, nowhere near anywhere else), parked, and then snuck off (which, given the geography, would necessarily mean that the driver would have had to have had an accomplice a second, getaway car)..

I would take pictures of the whole scene, including a good clear shot of the license plate...

... and then I would remove the flags. 

THEN I would call the cops and the ADL; I'd have to think about in which order.  And I' would happily turn over the flags as evidence if the police wanted them ** .

And I would do so prepared to take the consequences.  Because the legal fact of the matter is, the stealth-swastika-truck driver has NOT broken any laws. And I have.  His truck is "private" and our synagogue parking lot is Not. HE has simply driven a private vehicle onto a publicly accessible parking lot! Exercising his First Amendment right to express his opinions! And I am the one who is stealing private property off a private vehicle!

Yeah: in this (hypothetical) case: I am prepared to be arrested.

 

Because in the meantime I have, literally, removed an impurity contaminating my Temple.

I have, literally, shielded my fellow congregants, whose sacred space the synagogue is, from a *perfectly legal* action that is *perfectly clearly* aimed at intimidation and suppression.

The law is, unambiguously, on HIS side.

And I would protest that. Civilly... but disobediently.

And I would be prepared to take the consequences. 

And -- this is one of the mechanisms by which civil disobedience operates -- use my arrest, use my court proceeding, use old form media and social media and poetry and music, whatever tools I could figure, Old School and New School, to creatively leverage the (hypothetical) incident, a clear action where antisemitic intimidation and hate is PROTECTED by law and response against it is AGAINST the law...

... to aim to spread understanding and, hopefully, over time, empathy, of the dangers of how American freedom also sustains American hate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

** ETA but they probably wouldn't. Because the truck driver did not break any laws. 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Pam in CT

[Lady Florida.]

12 hours ago, katilac said:

America has freedom of speech. While refining what this means specifically is an ongoing process, It is by no means limited to specific types of political speech. Being allowed to advertise prescription drugs was a free speech case. 

 

But freedom of speech refers to the government restricting or punishing speech. We're talking about private citizens here in this thread. Flying a swastika or confederate flag on your truck or yard is protected by the government. Private citizens might be doing something illegal by removing the flag but they're not restricting freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution.

[Pam in CT]

52 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

But freedom of speech refers to the government restricting or punishing speech. We're talking about private citizens here in this thread. Flying a swastika or confederate flag on your truck or yard is protected by the government. Private citizens might be doing something illegal by removing the flag but they're not restricting freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution.

The First Amendment is limited even further than that -- it only refers to FEDERAL government restricting or punishing speech. In its entirety:

Quote

AMENDMENT !:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Under the "conservative" understanding of the powers-not-delegated clause in the Tenth Amendment that a pp referred to somewhere several days' upthread, STATE governments *are* free to make laws abridging various forms of speech (forex, prohibiting flag burning; or banning CRT in private colleges.  ETA or hypothetically, under that particular theory of "states' rights," prohibiting swastika or Confederate flags from private trucks visible in public spaces). 

For sure, the First Amendment says nothing about private companies like Twitter abridging speech.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Pam in CT

[katilac]

50 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

But freedom of speech refers to the government restricting or punishing speech. We're talking about private citizens here in this thread. Flying a swastika or confederate flag on your truck or yard is protected by the government. Private citizens might be doing something illegal by removing the flag but they're not restricting freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution.

I was responding to the statement that the poster wouldn't remove a political yard sign because they regarded it as protected speech. If that's your yardstick, protected speech extends well beyond that. 

[Pam in CT]

re campaign lawn signs

7 minutes ago, katilac said:

I was responding to the statement that the poster wouldn't remove a political yard sign because they regarded it as protected speech. If that's your yardstick, protected speech extends well beyond that. 

I believe that was me; and if so what I wrote was

Quote

(FWIW: I would never steal a campaign sign, neither from a private house lawn nor from a "public" space like a municipal public park or community center. But that's because I strongly believe that campaign signs are a legitimate and positive example of the political process working as it's supposed to. I don't think a campaign sign, even for a candidate I loathe, has *anything to with* swastikas or Confederate flags or Iron Crosses... 

and what I meant by "the political process working as it's supposed to" is the jockeying specifically around campaigns and elections, a substantially narrower subset than "protected speech."

I absolutely concur that swastikas and Confederate flags and Iron Crosses are unambiguously protected* under the First Amendment.

As noted (getting toward what we call in my family culture The Repetitive Zone) above, there *are* circumstances in which I would remove Confederate flag and swastika signs, even where doing so could expose me to legal consequences. I truly cannot imagine any circumstance where I would remove a regular candidate sign -- individual household yard, supermarket entrance, municipal space -- during the election.   Even for a candidate I truly loathed.  Because those kinds of signs are what is *supposed to happen* in healthy democratic back-and-forth.

(2 years after the election, a broken down fraying sign, in an unattended corner of a municipal parks -- I suppose at some point a sign long past the election becomes "trash."  Not talking this scenario.)

Swastikas and Confederate flags, injected in spaces where they surely will be seen by folks who will be intimidated and hurt by them, in order to intimidate and hurt them, unambiguously *are* protected expression, but are, nonetheless, not healthy expression.  Their effect and their purpose is to intimidate.  Nonetheless: protected. 

That's how it goes sometimes. 

 

 

 

*  from *federal* abridgement (state laws may differ, see hate crime statutes; STATES' RIGHTS!; and private shopping malls and Twitter have yet more discretion to do what they may to allow or disallow expression they do not want)

[katilac]

25 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re campaign lawn signs

I believe that was me; and if so what I wrote was

and what I meant by "the political process working as it's supposed to" is the jockeying specifically around campaigns and elections, a substantially narrower subset than "protected s

No, not you, it was in response to Eos saying they didn't remove campaign lawn signs because they regarded them as protected political speech. 

[Drama Llama]

24 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

 

As noted (getting toward what we call in my family culture The Repetitive Zone) above, there *are* circumstances in which I would remove Confederate flag and swastika signs, even where doing so could expose me to legal consequences. I truly cannot imagine any circumstance where I would remove a regular candidate sign -- individual household yard, supermarket entrance, municipal space -- during the election.   Even for a candidate I truly loathed.  Because those kinds of signs are what is *supposed to happen* in healthy democratic back-and-forth.

So, to drag this back in the general direction of the original topic, what about a cemetery? 

What if someone came into a cemetery and looked for cultural markers on the graves, and placed campaign signs on them.  For example, if they looked at my MIL's grave, which is marked with a carving of the Blessed Mary, and assumed that she must be Catholic, and so must be pro-life, and planted a sign for a pro-life candidate that she might or might not support were she still alive?  Or if they went to a historical African-American cemetery and planted signs for a democratic candidate?

Is that something we'd leave, because it's a campaign sign?  Something we'd leave because it's a grave and thus "private" (obviously, I am still struggling with understanding that), or something we'd remove because it is putting political speech into a dead person's mouth.

Would it change anything if we knew that either the person leaving the sign, or the person picking up the sign was a loved one or distant descendent? 

[Pam in CT]

re targeted graveside politicking

55 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

So, to drag this back in the general direction of the original topic, what about a cemetery? 

What if someone came into a cemetery and looked for cultural markers on the graves, and placed campaign signs on them.  For example, if they looked at my MIL's grave, which is marked with a carving of the Blessed Mary, and assumed that she must be Catholic, and so must be pro-life, and planted a sign for a pro-life candidate that she might or might not support were she still alive?  Or if they went to a historical African-American cemetery and planted signs for a democratic candidate?

Is that something we'd leave, because it's a campaign sign?  Something we'd leave because it's a grave and thus "private" (obviously, I am still struggling with understanding that), or something we'd remove because it is putting political speech into a dead person's mouth.

Would it change anything if we knew that either the person leaving the sign, or the person picking up the sign was a loved one or distant descendent? 

Ah, interesting hypothetical, bringing "what graveyards are about" into "what protected speech is about."  And, as all interesting and hypotheticals do, setting up potential tension between competing interests/rights/sensibilities.

 

For me *personally,* normal candidate signs (I'm not talking the newly proliferating enormous "F@ck Biden" flags -- I'm not generally a pearl-clutcher, but the language there raises additional issues -- I'm talking normal signs, with candidate names, colors, maybe party affiliations, logos, normal-language slogans) do not raise any particular hackles, whether it's my guy or the other guy.

For me personally, candidate signs fall into a similar bucket to sports teams. Would I ever leave a Mets placard on a graveyard? No, it seems out of context. Would I have much of a response if somebody else left a Yankees placard? No, I don't think so. Even if placards were somehow sorted by grave, though I strain to imagine how that would look? No, I don't think so.  Would I be moved to remove it? No, I can't imagine I would. Would I report to cemetery authorities?  I can't imagine caring enough. Would I be angry / relieved / glad if I returned the next day and the placards were gone? Eh. I dunno, maybe a little. I don't think I'd much care one way or the other though.

I'm not QUITE leaving the Yankees placard intact because it's "protected," though I suppose it is.  I'm also not leaving it because the individual grave is "private," though there are a couple of levels at which it kinda-sorta feels like it is... distinct from the legal question of is the larger cemetery owned by a private organization, as most are; or a publicly funded entity, as some are.

I'm leaving it because there is no impetus inside me that moves me to take it.  I don't just walk around picking things up willy-nilly; I need a REASON to intervene, and my very-mild sense of "eh, that's not really what cemeteries are about" is not a strong enough reason.

I think I put candidate signs in largely the same bucket. 

Not really what cemeteries are about, but, oh well.

 

[And I recognize that a great many white Americans may receive Confederate flags with much the same NBD indifference; and similarly Christians with Iron Crosses.]

Edited January 8, 2022 by Pam in CT

[katilac]

58 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

So, to drag this back in the general direction of the original topic, what about a cemetery? 

What if someone came into a cemetery and looked for cultural markers on the graves, and placed campaign signs on them.  For example, if they looked at my MIL's grave, which is marked with a carving of the Blessed Mary, and assumed that she must be Catholic, and so must be pro-life, and planted a sign for a pro-life candidate that she might or might not support were she still alive?  Or if they went to a historical African-American cemetery and planted signs for a democratic candidate?

Is that something we'd leave, because it's a campaign sign?  Something we'd leave because it's a grave and thus "private" (obviously, I am still struggling with understanding that), or something we'd remove because it is putting political speech into a dead person's mouth.

Would it change anything if we knew that either the person leaving the sign, or the person picking up the sign was a loved one or distant descendent? 

Is this a thing that happens? 

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

re campaign lawn signs

I truly cannot imagine any circumstance where I would remove a regular candidate sign -- individual household yard, supermarket entrance, municipal space -- during the election.   Even for a candidate I truly loathed.  Because those kinds of signs are what is *supposed to happen* in healthy democratic back-and-forth.

(2 years after the election, a broken down fraying sign, in an unattended corner of a municipal parks -- I suppose at some point a sign long past the election becomes "trash."  Not talking this scenario.)

 

Sorry to pull the thread off topic again, but just a quick response to these quotes.

In my community both sides often claim that their candidate's yard signs get stolen. I suspect both are correct because no party affiliation has a lock on that behavior or lack thereof.

I do know that in 2008 a friend's political sign was repeatedly stolen from her front yard. Eventually she added a sign next to it saying "Go ahead and take this. I'll buy another one, which contributes to X Candidate's campaign." No more signs were stolen after that. 😂

In Florida and probably other states, there's a legal limit to how long your signs can stay in public locations. Of course it doesn't apply to vehicles, businesses, or private property. We do still occasionally see signs on a street corner long after an election but not as many as before this law was enacted. I don't know if it's really enforced or if candidates simply don't want to take the chance that it will be.

(1) Each candidate, whether for a federal, state, county, or district office, shall make a good faith effort to remove all of his or her political campaign advertisements within 30 days after:

(a) Withdrawal of his or her candidacy;

(b) Having been eliminated as a candidate; or

(c) Being elected to office.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Lady Florida.

[Eos]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

I was responding to the statement that the poster wouldn't remove a political yard sign because they regarded it as protected speech. If that's your yardstick, protected speech extends well beyond that. 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I think of political yard signs as political speech rather than a symbol intended to produce fear and incite hate, even if I vehemently disagree with their message or candidate.

[Eos]

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

Swastikas and Confederate flags, injected in spaces where they surely will be seen by folks who will be intimidated and hurt by them, in order to intimidate and hurt them, unambiguously *are* protected expression, but are, nonetheless, not healthy expression.  Their effect and their purpose is to intimidate.  Nonetheless: protected. 

I agree, and I will still remove them.  The people who display them are certainly protected in their free speech rights.  I'm sorry but I grew up with stories of my ancestors helping enslaved fugitives on the Underground Railroad, and I'm sure that gave me less regard for private property, lol.

[Sneezyone]

44 minutes ago, katilac said:

Is this a thing that happens? 

I don't know about cemeteries but I've definitely been in communities and parked in parking lots where racist recruitment flyers are left on windshields and in mailboxes. It's not enough for some people to place markers on their own property, they feel comfy placing it on yours. It's not a big stretch from those who posthumously convert or baptize  relatives into their faith sans consent either.

[Drama Llama]

47 minutes ago, katilac said:

Is this a thing that happens? 

I don't know. I'm offering a hypothetical because I'm trying to understand where people are coming from.  

 

[Drama Llama]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Is this a thing that happens? 

I'll also point out that it's a milder version of what happened in Quill's case.  Someone saw a marker on a stranger's grave (I think, maybe it was listed in a historic register or something?), made assumptions about the person's political beliefs, and left political material -- first a flag, then an envelope marked with symbols of a hate group, on the grave.