Skip to main content

We can't historically erase a symbol of hate

Is it just me or does it seem as though 70% of this country's businesses were waiting for an awful incident like the one in Charleston, South Carolina three weeks ago in order to provide them an excuse to stop selling anything associated with the Confederate flag? Ever since Dylann Roof shot and killed nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston three weeks ago, it's felt as though at least one major business has publicly announced they'll stop selling anything affiliated with the Confederate flag. Amazon even went as far as to temporarily stop selling games pertaining to the Civil War, before they decided to backtrack and start selling them again. While I can understand many of these companies' decisions regarding the matter, I hope it doesn't reach the point where we pretend this chapter in our history never actually took place.

I, for one, think that the Confederate flag should be removed from all government property, except from museums. If one wants to fly the rebel flag on their own private property, then that's another matter entirely. While I'd never wave the flag at my residence, I also don't think it should be illegal to do so. Judging recent poll numbers, it seems that a growing number of people feel similarly. So, the real question is, how far do we take this? While I applaud my fellow progressives' call for having this flag removed at the South Carolina state Capitol, the symbol removed from a portion of Mississippi's state flag, and the like, I also worry about taking the matter too far.

The Confederate flag has long been a controversial symbol, which most Southerners feel is symbolic of their heritage and most non-Southerners feel is symbolic of racism and slavery (approximately 3/4 of Democrats find the flag at least somewhat offensive and roughly 1/2 of Republicans feel similarly, and this includes Southerners, whom tend to be much less offended by it). While I'm definitely in the latter of the two groups, I also think the symbol is somewhat necessary (in museums, textbooks, and such) so we don't lose track of our country's history, lose track of how we got to this point as a nation, and suddenly forget why we were offended by the flag in the first place. Some have called for a ban or the revising of films like Gone With the Wind and Forrest Gump due to some of the subject matter and symbols depicted in them, but what would that accomplish? There is at least one chapter to everyone's lives we'd like to erase, but to deny one chapter is to deny the full truth and leave one more prone to repeating past mistakes. Similarly, if we attempt to historically erase this symbol of hate, we'll leave ourselves more prone to repeating past mistakes. Slavery is a chapter in our country's history we'd all like to pretend didn't exist, but it did, and we'll be all the better off trying to learn and grow from that awful chapter than attempting to ignore it altogether. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"