It seems quite clear that the "Confederate" flag under
discussion originated (or at least saw strong revival and
redefinition) as a political symbol in the 1950s.

That said, political symbols evolve with time, and it seems
unlikely that the flag now conveys or connotes, to those who
display it, quite the same meaning as it did in 1954.  In
1954 there was a vibrant and angry public political movement
to sustain and preserve Jim Crow.  No such movement exists
today--indeed, in our public life today there is pretty much
uniform consensus that Jim Crow was morally wrong.  Even the
most ardent southern "red neck" today, at least in public,
will say that equal rights for all American citizens is a
good thing.  So the Confederate heritage movement today does
not seem to connote, to those who support it, a
straightforward politics of nostalgia for segregation.
Whatever else the flag means to those who display it today,
it does not mean the same thing as it did 50 years ago.

I don't mean to argue here that the popular movement in
support of the Confederate flag (and Confederate heritage
generally) today is not regressive, or contentious, or
reprehensible, or laudable, or desirable, or admirable.  I am
not writing here either to support or to denigrate it.  What
I DO mean to argue is that the "movement" exists in a
different public and political context, and takes its meaning
as much from that as it does from events 50 years ago.  And
of course, that political context has evolved out of the
politics of 50 years ago, and has an interesting and complex
relationship to it that deserves our attention.

It seems to me that a good place to start would be with the
public statements of those various groups organized to
support display of this symbol.  My guess is that the symbol
means rather different things to those who support it than it
does to those who condemn it.  If we are to be fair to those
with whom we disagree, we need to begin with the assumption
that they mean what they say--so we should take a look at
what they say.

Of course, in today's political culture, the assumption is
wide-spread that public statements mask deeper agendas.
Perhaps so--indeed, likely so.  But even so, it is easier to
assert that than to demonstrate it.  This is such a
contentious public issue today, it is far too easy, even for
decent and reflective and thoughtful observers, for the very
best of us in other words, to resort to broader
generalizations.

Do let us know what you find.

Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html