Time to move beyond the Confederate Battle Flag
While many Southerners object that the flag simply proclaims the battlefield honor of those who were defending their homeland, the Confederacy was so entwined with the idea of preserving slavery that the flag, even today, can evoke racial polarization. For all the Southern patriots who understandably see in the Confederate battle flag the historical resonance of Pickett’s Charge or the resistance to Sherman’s March to the Sea, there are probably just as many who equally understandably consider it a nostalgic icon of white supremacy. In a racially diverse society, it makes sense to phase out state sanction for the battle flag — as South Carolina governor Nikki Haley advocated yesterday, in calling on the state legislature to vote for the removal of the battle flag that has been flying over the grounds of the state capitol.
But perhaps we should not stop there, given increasing ethnic tensions and widening racial fault lines. There are plenty of other overt racialist symbols that separate Americans. One is the prominent use of La Raza, “The Race” — seen most prominently in the National Council of La Raza, an ethnic lobbying organization that has been and is currently a recipient of federal funds. The National Council of La Raza should be free to use any title it wishes, but it should not expect the federal government to subsidize its separatist nomenclature. […]
La Raza is just such a racialist term. It goes beyond a common language and country of origin, and thus transcends the more neutral puebla (“people”: Latin populus) or gente (“people”: Latin gens). Raza was deliberately reintroduced in the 1960s to promote a racially superior identity of indigenous peoples and mestizos born in the Spanish-speaking countries of the New World. That is why the National Council of La Raza once had a close affinity with MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán), the infamous racialist U.S. student group (its ironic motto is “Unity creates strength”), some of whose various past slogans (cf. the Castroite derivative “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”) finally became sources of national embarrassment. […]
One wonders why in 2015 there is still nomenclature such as “the Congressional Black Caucus,” over half a century after the civil-rights movement sought to promote integration and the idea that Americans should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.. The Caucus ostensibly seeks to ensure the end of exclusion by race from full participation in American society by creating a lobbying group focused entirely on one particular race. The postmodern rationale is either that groups that have suffered past disfranchisement and discrimination should not be subject to current anti-discriminatory protocols, or that they should at least enjoy a compensatory period of exclusion from color-blind values to offset centuries of oppression.
Thus the group’s membership is entirely race-based. The Caucus is not open to those members of the House of Representatives who are not African-American, but who might share the Caucus’s racial or political agenda — as the Jewish-American Representative Steven Cohen learned when he was elected to Congress in 2006. The Lebanese-American Ralph Nader was once attacked at a Caucus meeting in clearly racial terms on the understanding that the group was exempt from charges of racism. How far is the racial concept transferable — “the Asian Caucus”? “the Latino Caucus?” “the White Caucus?” “the European-American Caucus”? The premise seems to be that African-American House members seek to promote a common “black” agenda that transcends their local, county, or state interests. If an Asian, white, or Latino voter’s congressional representative is a member of the “Black Caucus,” does that mean that the voter will receive less attention than a black voter — as de facto white caucuses in the Old South most certainly did ignore the interests of their non-white constituents? Is that why conservative African-American legislators who see all their constituents in terms that transcend race tend to avoid joining the Caucus? Could not the “Black Caucus” rebrand itself as the “Civil Rights Caucus” or the “Progressive Caucus”? […]
In the last half-century, Americans have increasingly tended to emphasize race and tribe in promoting “diversity,” rather than seeking to strengthen the more tenuous notion of unity with their fellow citizens. We have forgotten that human nature is fond of division and must work at setting aside superficial tribal affinities to unite on the basis of core values and ideas.
Symbols, flags, organizations, and phrases that emphasize racial difference and ethnic pride are no longer just fossilized notions from the 1960s; they are growing fissures in the American mosaic that now threaten to split the country apart — fueling the suspicion of less liberal and more homogeneous nations that the great American experiment will finally unwind as expected. That would be a great tragedy, but a catastrophe entirely predictable if citizens seek symbolic solidarity with their tribe rather than in the common idea of just being American.
The Left’s insistence on tribalism via “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” needs to be seen for what it is — a divide and conquer ideology dedicated to the eradication of American individuals and Rule of Law.
WaPo couldn’t have picked a better time to sneer that “There’s not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal”, demonstrating the 180 degree shift Left-liberalism has wrought in “mainstream” that becoming American is a despicable act of treason to one’s ancestors and melanin level.
Hillary and ilk want a “national conversation” on “race”?
You got it, sweets. In spades.
People did not see much “Black” in Obama until Oprah blessed him.
While we are about it, I would like to add:
the NAACP, the New Black Panthers Party, Ebony magazine, the BET channel, any college “Studies” program based on racial/gender/sexual preference, and Affirmative Action quotas of all stripes at any level.
Feel free to add whatever group/identity/membership/scholarship based solely on who your ancestors were, what color they are, or where they were born.
The only thing distinguishing “identity politics” from flat-out racism is media approval.
“You get a crappy president! And you get a crappy president! You all get a crappy president!”
[…] Instapundit/Ed Driscoll: Calls to ban Gone With The Wind (that didn’t take long) but then again if the Dukes of Hazzard have to go… and have we reached peak leftism? EBL: John Boehner would rather make love, not war Rush Limbaugh: This is not about wiping out flags, but Republican opposition and Rush predicts the left will go too far (sooner rather than later) American Power Blog: Guess what’s next Protein Wisdom: E Pluribus Unum […]
It’s also a lying hypocritical strategy if one remembers that the raciss redneck crackers have all the guns. Think about it: If the left really believed the bullshit they’re trying to sell, they’d be quite as churchmice.
Just like they are when the Muzzies get upset over some scribbles on paper…..
this is a lot like the kind of cultural purge fuckbama’s isis friends have pioneered
and they said it couldn’t happen here
jiminy cricket what a shitty country
[…] As Darleen Click remarks: […]
Beyond shitty now, it’s gone absolutely tyrannical to the bone. King v Burwell comes down with decision which says rewriting any law on the fly is perfectly acceptable.
If that doesn’t ignite revolt, nothing will.
Speaking now of that which has been nullified, namely, “the State”, one might suppose that those entities which regard themselves as a “State” would take umbrage at being so nullified. If this is so, then one would further expect such entities to now assert their existence, if they ever.
The law no longer means what the words in the law say, but rather what a judge can be persuaded to cast a vote in favor of what they want it to mean. (PS: why did they bother to define the word “State” if judges can come along later and ignore it?)
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” — Humpty Dumpty
” . . . it means just what I choose it to mean . . . “
What is less the question than when.
This deserves a new topic, but oh well.
Scalia’s dissent: “We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct.”
That is a DISSENT.
In a sane world that would be the 9 – zip decision.
But that’s the thing isn’t it?
The Rule of Law is dead.
Under this ruling, you could literally shit on a piece of paper, have it passed by Congress and signed by the President–then interpret it to mean whatever you want–because intentions!!!
The Blackmailed (I firmly believe this) John Roberts and Obama have broken the United States of America. The Humpty Dumpty Principle is now operative. Under the socialist Obama:
The USA is bankrupt.
We are no longer a world leader.
Our middle class is dwindling.
The destruction of the family is nearly complete.
Nearly fifty million Americans are on food stamps.
Almost 100 million Americans are out of the work force.
And there is no functional opposition to any of this.
Dead solid perfect, Curmudgeon.
But, battle flag !
And statues !!
OMFG !!!
But, battle flag ! guinspen says June 25, 2015 at 10:05 am And statues !!
Some years ago, Julian Bond, living on the fumes of his Civil Rights cred, ranted that “Tea Party Members long for the Confederacy”.
Meanwhile, Julian Bond longs for the Soviet Union.
Once I believed that with enough Real Republicans to overwhelm the RINOs, we could actually make a difference.
But I believe that the Left Media Smear Machine is too strong. And where that doesn’t silence opposition, the Left Blackmail Machine does. How else to explain Justice Roberts and former Speaker Hastert?
Meanwhile, too many people are tuned out on twerking or drugs or sports or The Bachelor(ette) or who knows what. And perhaps they are correct to be, as we can no longer win.
I think it’s time to admit that the tide has turned against liberty and responsibility and the rule of law.
Obama and his ilk won for a reason.
Same sex marriage is being accepted for a reason.
“Politically Correct” mau-mauing is being accepted for a reason.
Our economy is in the shitter for a reason.
The GOP can’t effectively respond for a reason.
The media can lie and obfuscate for a reason.
Etc.
The reason, sadly, is that the majority in the country believes those actions or situations are okay.
We’re on the minority side, and probably will be from now until “they run out of other people’s money”, and the cumulative effects of these uninformed and ill conceived ideas overwhelm the country. And perhaps even beyond that point, as some Commiecrat decides he can nationalize everything like Allende in Chile or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The importing of millions of illegal aliens from the banana republics may be no accident.
Perhaps another Reagan or an American Thatcher can arise and try to turn the tide, but we would need a planned succession of at least 4 terms of their minions–and solid Tea Party Congresses in place concurrently.
Perhaps another Tailgunner Joe can arise to counter-demonize and neutralize the “Politically Correct” mau-mauing, but he would probably be driven to drinking himself to death, just like the original Tailgunner Joe was.
Perhaps The Obamunist and his successors will try to overreach like Allende did down in Chile, but will the only response be to get a Pinochet of our own to have a dictatorship and rule over the nation of socialist dupes for 16 years until the mess is straightened out and the dupes grow up, die off, or wise up, depending upon their ages? That certainly wasn’t libertarian.
Well, just some happy thoughts for the day…..
Might as well get rid of state flags while we’re at it. Since state doesn’t mean state anymore.
When Washington D.C. is burned lock stock and barrel to the ground*, in the new manner of interpretation, a shining castle for ClownNogre will have been built in its stead. Those smoldering ruins you see? They are the castle intended.
Rush just made a good point: “Conservatism has become fine-tuning Socialism.”
Which, come to think of it, is what it was when Eisenhower was President.
Also Ford, Bush, and Bush.
But not Nixon.
Under Nixon, conservatism was doing socialism better than the socialists.
“I think it’s time to admit that the tide has turned against liberty and responsibility and the rule of law.”
Yeah, a few years late to that realization, but welcome to the real world…
it don’t matter*
Yeah, a few years late to that realization, but welcome to the real world…
All right then, pass the Kool-Aid cyanide. Please make mine tangy and not too sweet so I can taste it going down.
Kool-Aid? Hells no, in this Banana Republic us’ns go for Banana Puddin’ — ain’t that a slippery groove?
Meanwhile, too many people are tuned out on twerking or drugs or sports or The Bachelor(ette) or who knows what –
Bread and Circuses!
Jeff, delete my account so I won’t be tempted to wallow anymore in the echo chamber of defeatism this site is becoming in your absence.
Jeff, delete my account so I won’t be tempted to wallow anymore in the echo chamber of defeatism this site is becoming in your absence.
If anything, he’d be leading. And rightfully so.
I used to think there was hope too.