The Republican primary in South Carolina is over, but not before showing the rest of the country some of the true colors of Mike Huckabee. He got involved with the seemingly perennial issue of whether to display the confederate flag on the grounds of the State’s Capitol. For those who don’t live in the US, the confederate flag is seen by blacks and by most reasonable people as a symbol of racism, while many white southerners consider it a matter of “cultural heritage” (I guess slavery and racism could be construed as cultural heritage, but why would anybody want to?). Far from me to want to simplify the issues surrounding the American civil war, which most surely wasn’t (entirely) about slavery, since the North had its own share of racism, not to mention obvious financial interests at stake. Still, it is hard to see what the confederate flag could stand for other than a symbol of oppression for black people.
It was therefore a bit shocking that, when was asked what he thought of the issue, Huckabee answered “You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag ... if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole; that’s what we’d do.” Shocking words from a former Baptist minister, I tell you! But the problem, Mike, is that this is precisely the sort of issue that should be of concern to the nation as a whole, not just the State of South Carolina. Let me explain.
Suppose the debate was not about the confederate flag, but about what colors or patterns to choose for the South Carolina flag. That, truly, would be a State issue. The federal government has no business getting involved in aesthetic choices. Do South Carolinians like their flag blue? Yellow? Fine. Do they want to put a palmetto on it? A yellow jessamine (the State flower)? Go ahead. But the confederate flag is an in-your-face symbol of oppression directed against a historically clearly identified minority of people in this country, and if some white southerners think that this is the sort of “cultural heritage” they want to display they should consider taking History 101 or, better yet, an ethics and cultural sensitivity class or two.
Should the federal government prohibit the display of the confederate flag? Nope, for the same reasons it shouldn’t pass any silly law prohibiting the burning of the federal flag, or endorsing any other limitation on freedom of speech. I think Germans and Canadians are wrong in enacting so-called “hate speech” laws: the best way to foment hate speech is to make it illegal (just like marijuana).
But contrary to what Huckabee said, it is very much the business of the President of the United States to weigh in and shame the people of South Carolina in taking the stupid flag off their Capitol grounds. That is precisely what “moral guidance,” of which the Republicans talk incessantly, means.
John McCain had a different take on the issue, when he said “my answer, sir, is that I could not be more proud that the overwhelming majority of the people of this state joined together taking that flag off the top of the [Capitol].” The good news is that a majority of South Carolinians ended up voting for McCain, getting Huckabee one step closer to going back where he came from. Presumably, he’ll be able to play with his own flag poles back in Arkansas.
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
And while we're at it lets get rid of the Stars & Stripes. I do believe that the U.S. Army carried that flag during their shameful agression against Native Americans. Anyone who salutes "Old Glory" is tacitly supporting genocide and oppression.
ReplyDeleteOr, maybe we should quit worrying about a piece of cloth and concern ourselves with actual behavior. All American citizens should have certain rights and freedoms. That's what the Federal Government should guarantee. If someone in S.C. is currently being discriminated against and the State is not upholding their rights then the Feds have a reason to step in and that's what we should concentrate on. Worrying about the (now ancient) symbolism of a flag is a waste of time and energy.
"Still, it is hard to see what the confederate flag could stand for other than a symbol of oppression for black people."
ReplyDeleteWell it stands for one other thing. It stands for succession from the United States. Now do these people want to be part of the United States, or do they still want to succeed? If it is the latter, then they should raise another confederate army and prepare to get their asses kicked again!
If one were able to find a candidate without a single moral conflict of some sort on his plate, I can almost guarantee you that he is not a real living human being. And tho Huckabee is not the person I would favor as a cons., I do seriously doubt that he is racist. Up to this point, he has practically "given away the farm" so to speak to Mexico. On some social issues he is far more dem than conservative.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Dem, lib and green candidates? Surely, Massimo, they must have at least *one* fault between all of them? BUT AT LEAST you don't put on the front of being objective, fair or not making an undeserved personal attack against a candidate. Makes me think you could definitely scrap it out there with the best of them, M.
Do you not wish to be better than that?
I know you do.
Deep inside, you are a good man. ;) right? c
Uh, Sheldon, I think you mean "secede". After all, who wants to be a loser?
ReplyDeleteAs usual Cal you take aim at the issue, and miss. Massimo didn't say that Huckabee was a racist.
ReplyDeleteThe issue was the confederate flag, what it symbolizes, and the moral leadership to denounce what it symbolizes. Huckabee chose to pander to the confederate sentamentalists.
Kimpatsu,
ReplyDeleteyep! No damn spell check on these things. Thanks
Yeah, it's a weird thing. What "cultural heritage", by the way? And I assume people are talking about the battle flag, the "Southern Cross", right? More accurately, the "Navy Jack". That's the one I always see stuck to some cars here in VA, have never seen the other ones. The current Georgia flag is almost the same as the "regular" Confederate flag, I think. Or something.
ReplyDeleteSticking with the Germans, it would be like them wanting to use the black, white, and red Hackenkreuz-bearing flag to symbolize their "cultural heritage". After all, wasn't their flag around for much longer than the Confederate ones (1861-65)? So it must have at least the same amount of "heritage" under it, surely much more, no?
But I somehow suspect any reasonable person would dislike such idea. Obviously.
I find it a little bit funny that Americans concern themselves so much with such futile things instead of thinking whether the candidates are not stupid ignorant assholes (like Huckabee) who would ruin the country if they got elected.
ReplyDelete"....instead of thinking whether the candidates are not stupid ignorant assholes (like Huckabee) who would ruin the country if they got elected."
ReplyDeleteOh, we think about those things alot, seeing as how we lived through 8 years of disaster with a similar ignorant moron. However, Huckabee might be an improvement over Bush. At least he can string several grammatically correct sentences together.
Actually it was a plurality of votes for Mccain not a majority. And only then because of Thompson sucking votes away from Huckabee. Without Thompson, Huckabee would have won.
ReplyDeleteHuinca said...
ReplyDeleteI find it a little bit funny that Americans concern themselves so much with such futile things instead of thinking whether the candidates are not stupid ignorant assholes (like Huckabee) who would ruin the country if they got elected.
Sir, you are seven years and several days late - we already have a stupid ignorant asshole who was "selected" and has ruined the country
MP recommends "an ethics and cultural sensitivity class or two" for the Confederate flag lovers. OK. But the business of not being offensive - or not too offensive - is a tangled and complex issue. Eg. just recently in Britain a "Three Little Pigs" video was removed from a competition because it might offend a) Muslims, and b) home builders. (See the R. Dawkins site, Latest News.)
ReplyDeleteWhen is that which is offensive-to-someone offensive enough to shun or seriously object to? Everyone probably offends someone by their words, cartoons, etc.
I don't know how to deal with this issue. MP's thoughts about it would be interesting.
"Or, maybe we should quit worrying about a piece of cloth and concern ourselves with actual behavior." -- Die Anyway
ReplyDeleteTo which I would quote Neil Peart:
"Better the pride that resides
in a citizen of the earth,
than the pride that divides
when a colorful rag is unfurled."
*****************
"When is that which is offensive-to-someone offensive enough to shun or seriously object to? Everyone probably offends someone by their words, cartoons, etc." -- Phiwilli
Allow me to refer you to another blog I regularly enjoy. The author wrote a fine piece on this topic.
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/in-defense-of-free-speech.html
Free speech is far too precious to accord it second place to someone's sense of propriety. If you're that easily offended, get some earplugs. The logical outcome of any abrogation of freedom of speech is the ultimate elimination of that freedom. The best antidote to ugly speech is the presentation of the countervailing thought(s). Put shortly: South Carolinians are free to hoist the Stars and Bars over their Statehouse; and we a free to think of them as retards. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Touché Dennis, you are right.
ReplyDeleteI think the 'three little pigs' incident deserves a post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"What about the Dem, lib and green candidates? Surely, Massimo, they must have at least *one* fault between all of them? BUT AT LEAST you don't put on the front of being objective, fair or not making an undeserved personal attack against a candidate. Makes me think you could definitely scrap it out there with the best of them, M."
ReplyDeleteAt least Massimo doesn't pretend that all problems in candidates' views are equally bad. Whatever "faults" exist among liberal candidates, none of them are endorsing racism. Pigliucci isn't required to treat all candidates equally when they're not equal at all.
The problem is that looking at that flag is not offensive in the same way as, say, a photo of George Bush declaring victory, or any random cover of "Cosmopolitan." It is -- is meant to be -- a constant daily reminder to Black Americans that their status is inferior and their presence only tolerated. It is an implicit threat of violence; not the same as just some annoying photo or item.
ReplyDeleteThe stars 'n' bars is a lower class white male icon. It decorates homes and vehicles; those who display it are always, in my experience and the experience of my friends and relatives across the country, very quick to express themselves with racist rhetoric and talk of violence. In South Carolina, the flying of the flag is a reminder to whites that their solidarity in racism is met with approval at the highest levels of state government.
The Confederate flag is not merely offensive. It is a visual reminder of the closeness of violence and the thin line that Black Americans are expected to walk.
Right on Christine!
ReplyDeleteand I would add that why is it that only the people who supported secession and the Confederacy get to be memorialized?
Not only were there African-Americans who were enslaved under the Confederacy, and in some states they were a very large percentage of the population, but there were also Southern whites who did not support the Confederacy either. Where is their monument to being loyal American citizens?
JF: "At least Massimo doesn't pretend that all problems in candidates' views are equally bad."
ReplyDeleteBad?
Hmm..So all the "right to life" candidates essentially are "bad" and all the right to kill your baby candidates are "good"?
Yes, I understand it perfectly. That's what really divides the two parties you know. Sexual autonomy. That's it. There's nothing else.
Let's be REAL clear about this,
it is not, and never has been, women saying "you can't tell me what to do with my own body" it's men and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Get it? Good.
Now.. who is it that is bad and who's good? Well, shoot, it must be the unborn child, because, after all it seems to be the ONLY one who gets the invitation to the "blanket party".
can't get away from this one.
Can you imagine yourself or anyone you claim to love being under a blanket and being beaten till first they are senseless then till they're dead?
But since practically everyone here has excellent brains and imaginations, "we" know that lower developmental, IQ, dependency and environmental conditions means "less" than human.
Right? Totally wrong!
The entire "Left" that considers itself pro-abortion is thoroughly unscientific and thus cares less about the fate of true humanity.
Get it? Good.
"Hmm..So all the "right to life" candidates essentially are "bad" and all the right to kill your baby candidates are "good"?
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand it perfectly. That's what really divides the two parties you know. Sexual autonomy. That's it. There's nothing else."
There are no "right to kill your baby candidates", just "right to have an abortion" candidates. Nor is abortion the only issue that divides the parties. I must admit, though, that you're right: personal freedom is valued much more by democrats than by republicans.
"Let's be REAL clear about this,
it is not, and never has been, women saying "you can't tell me what to do with my own body" it's men and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Get it? Good."
The only thing that's "REAL clear" is that you made this up. Chill out, get in touch with reality (I can give you her phone number), and we'll talk again. Maybe Reality will tell you this: some women actually value personal freedom.
"Now.. who is it that is bad and who's good? Well, shoot, it must be the unborn child, because, after all it seems to be the ONLY one who gets the invitation to the "blanket party"."
Nobody thinks that an unborn child is immoral any more than they think that a kidney, liver, or tapeworm is immoral. We don't endow them with moral responsibilities or qualities.
"Can you imagine yourself or anyone you claim to love being under a blanket and being beaten till first they are senseless then till they're dead?"
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
"But since practically everyone here has excellent brains and imaginations, "we" know that lower developmental, IQ, dependency and environmental conditions means "less" than human."
Being human has nothing to do with it. Your tonsils are human too, but they don't have a right to live.
"The entire "Left" that considers itself pro-abortion is thoroughly unscientific and thus cares less about the fate of true humanity."
The pro-abortion position doesn't rely on any pseudoscientific beliefs. The anti-abortion position usually does. Most of those who oppose abortion believe that an imaginary thing called a "soul" enters the zygote at the moment of conception.
Get it?
Obviously, because Huckabee is the most outspoken anti-abortionist candidate, and the object of criticism here on an entirely different issue, Cal then thinks this absolves Huckabee from the actual topic of criticism. She also thinks this gives her the right to hijack the discussion to her chosen topic, interjecting an anti-abortion rant.
ReplyDeleteIn any conversational situation, this would be considered despicably rude behaviour. See how you are Cal?
The topic is: what the confederate flag symoblizes, and how should citizens and presidential candidates react to it. I can't find abortion anywhere in there.
I, probably more than anybody else have been guilty of "feeding the troll", Cal. But we should really just ignore Cal if she is off topic.
Whatever your deal is Sheldon, Huckabee certainly does not strike me as someone to be afraid of.
ReplyDeleteBut if you've been up to no good, then I guess you might have something to be afraid of.
Personally, I am not afraid of whoever gets in. God is Just and we are not and THAT I know for sure.
Frankly, he and Mccain are too liberal for me. Honestly I don't even see any particularly great candidates on either side.
I mentioned Bill Richardson (NM) as someone I might have considered voting for if I was voting dem, but I believe I'll take it back after what he did this week. He might be a great negotiator, but other people can also "negotiate" him into doing some fairly ridiculous things.
That's part of why we're Gen X, you know. The theory is, we are currently so fed up with the political process that we would just about be ready to vote for a Kangaroo if at least it seems that he gets "somewhere" and appeared to get something done.
Sad.
cal
The topic is: what the confederate flag symoblizes, and how should citizens and presidential candidates react to it. I can't find abortion anywhere in there.
ReplyDelete...
But we should really just ignore Cal if she is off topic.
Hear! Hear!
:-)
Otherwise, let's talk about my new multitrack digital audio recorder too, quite some fun!
"Whatever your deal is Sheldon, Huckabee certainly does not strike me as someone to be afraid of.
ReplyDeleteBut if you've been up to no good, then I guess you might have something to be afraid of."
Oh! so now I am the topic? (for Cal)
Again, nobody said anything about being afraid of Huckabee, certainly I did not. Fortunately, he probably won't ever get a chance to do the damage of his predeccessor.
J: The topic is: what the confederate flag symoblizes, and how should citizens and presidential candidates react to it. I can't find abortion anywhere in there."
ReplyDeleteI can.
Hatred of oneself (and or your own offspring) does not provide much of a chance that one will have the insight to truly love others who are very culturally different from you. If a baby (who we could still shape and mold somewhat into our our word view) is an imposition, lord knows that a another person who holds remarkably different values and ways of seeing the world sure will be.
In order to set one sights on a more loving less racist world, one must take the first step in the right direction. And yeah, that means we don't kill our offspring, and we certainly do not subjugate any other race of people. I swear, what a people group will do to one vulnerable set of of human beings they will most certainly do eventually to another.
Absolutely guaranteed.
calissa