>>where I can rest safely behind facts and reason.
I wouldn't rest too comfortably were I you--I'm concerned that you are reading statistics with an intentionally uncritical eye, Mr. Bearden. Whereas the statistics that you quote are accurate as far as they go, they obfuscate the particular question. The statistics you quote are of hate crimes in general--including not only crimes motivated by race (as you imply), but crimes motivated by religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. If you look further down on the page you cited, you'll see that only "[s]ixty-one percent of the incidents were motivated by racial bias." It goes on to say point out that "16 percent [are] by religious bias; 13 percent by sexual-orientation bias; and 10 percent by ethnicity/national origin bias."
So it becomes more instructive--if, indeed, we must go down this path--to analyze by region according only to race-based hate crimes. Looking at more recent information:
In 2002, 50.56% (or 0.76% above the national average of 49.8%) of hate crimes in the so-called "Yankee states" that you referred to were attributed to race-based motives. But 64.03% (or 14.23% above the national average) of hate crimes in ten of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy (Arkansas was not reported) were attributed to race-based motives. That's a substantial distinction, and not one that redounds to the credit of the localities in question.
Here is a breakdown if you wish to check my figures:
Bias Motivation By Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Ethnicity, Disability
Race Rel. Sex.Or. Ethn. Dis. Race as percentage of total
CT: 65 21 24 19 0 50.39%
DE: 5 1 6 1 0 38.46%
DC: 2 0 9 3 0 14.29%
IL: 82 26 35 12 0 52.90%
IN: 51 5 13 8 0 66.23%
ME: 21 2 10 3 0 58.33%
MD: 132 46 15 17 1 62.56%
MA: 200 90 96 43 1 45.51%
MI: 256 70 49 40 1 61.53%
MN: 145 14 29 12 3 71.43%
NH: 9 3 9 3 3 33.33%
NJ: 232 216 34 88 0 40.70%
NY: 179 331 87 95 1 25.83%
ND: 14 1 2 1 0 77.78%
OH: 174 18 33 38 0 66.16%
PA: 63 15 5 9 0 68.48%
RI: 11 8 19 0 0 39.29%
SD: 2 1 1 0 0 50.00%
WI: 12 2 13 5 0 37.50%
______________________________________________________
AVG: 50.56%
AL: 2 0 0 0 0 100.00%
AR: UNREPORTED
FL: 134 41 47 35 0 52.14%
GA: 18 0 9 4 0 58.06%
LA: 11 1 1 2 0 73.33%
MS: 2 1 0 0 0 66.67%
NC: 37 7 10 8 0 59.68%
SC: 36 5 5 7 17 51.42%
TN: 79 10 28 8 4 61.24%
TX: 181 32 52 80 2 52.16%
VA: 191 41 39 20 0 65.64%
______________________________________________________
AVG: 64.03%
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf
(And even then, they should really be broken down as a percentage of the population as a whole.)
If the formatting doesn't work, the statistics can also be seen here: http://www.factsmith.com/graphics/hatecrimes.gif
All that being said, your passionate use of statistics (as is mine, for that matter) does little to illuminate the larger question, since arguing the statistics on one "side" against the other "side" can be written off as "two wrongs don't make a right." Yes, blacks AND whites are in prison. Yes, blacks AND whites have out-of-wedlock births. To just accept the statistics presented at face value without examining them critically--trying to determine WHY they are as they are and what the societal background and history involved may be--is to deny an essential function of the brains God gave us.
Enough said there.
You raised a couple of interesting points and questions in your earlier post:
> The above is also confirmed by Mr Stephens
> himself, when interviewed about his infamous
> speech, that recieves virtually no circulation
You presented the comments attributed to Stephens as if to make the case that his "Cornerstone" speech showed that slavery was in fact NOT the precipitating crisis at the heart of secession. But they very comments you quote confirm to my eyes that it was. Did you not catch this:
"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of
compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to
comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from
service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and
guarantees."
Seems fairly clear to me that Professor Hardwick has more than made his case here.
> Why is it that a lot of media/educators refuse
> to allow us the right to reclaim the right and
> proper meaning of the flag?
That's a more compelling question than you might realize. It is just one of a larger question with which historians and society in general must struggle. In its simple form, can the bell be unrung? Can we just "ignore" the history of the flag and its use by hate organizations between the end of the Civil War and the present day?
The answer, it seems to me, is emphatically "no." The study of history is the interpretation of past events in the present day, and we cannot simply ignore those past events no matter how distasteful they may be. We do no service to ourselves or our progeny by pretending the Klan's use of the flag didn't happen, for instance.
But if it can't be "reclaimed," can it be "redeemed?" Or as you put it:
> Why are those of us who wear it or fly it as proud
> southerners told that we must not do that, we must
> take as fact that the Klan's meaning of the flag is
> the only fact that will be tolerated - all those who
> dare try and redeem the true meaning of the flag will be
> branded racist and bigot?
I think it would be fair to say that for most people that have objections to the use of the flag in modern society, they are troubled by an apparent lack of recognition of both the history of the flag's use as mentioned above (as a symbol of hate and segregation) and of the fact that slavery was the organizing principle of the Confederacy. (Some will argue that it was "states' rights," but the critical question would then be, "the right to do what?" And the answer is clearly, fundamentally, "the right to own slaves.")
Or to put it another way: what, if not those things, is the "true meaning" of the flag to which you refer? It seems fairly clear from the record that historically speaking, the basic "meaning" of the flag has been to represent the Confederacy, founded on slavery, or to represent segregationists after the fact.
It is my belief that the flag can only be "redeemed" by if its proponents: 1.) publicly recognize that history--the use of the flag as a hate crime and the recognition that slavery was the fundamental distinction at the heart of the Confederacy, and 2.) map out their intention to turn it into a more positive symbol from this day onward.
Though an honest assessment would, to me, indicate that that isn't a "redemption" at all--it's a "change," in that the meaning of the flag would change from what it was to something new and different that it never has been, in the war itself or since then. And as such, it may be an impossible task.
Then again, modern proponents of a non-racist interpretation of the use of the flag have argued that segregationists themselves changed the meaning of the flag, so maybe there is hope that it can be changed again. Though I would contend that changing it "back" to what it was before the segregationists got ahold of it helps no one--since before that, it was largely the symbol of the slave-based Confederacy.
So I'm left with a question of my own. If there are indeed aspects of the Confederate South that are worthy of remembrance and praise, as distinct from those aspects that are not (a task which necessarily promotes a sort of schizophrenic view of the complex web of history), why use a symbol that is so laden with history as the Confederate battle flag? Why not use a completely new symbol, drawn from that past?
There, I think, is the crux of the question--why the continued insistence on this particular symbol with all of its history and connotations?
Best,
Eric Johnson
Richmond, Virginia
Eric D. M. Johnson
Proprietor
The Village Factsmith Historical Consulting & Research
http://www.factsmith.com/
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Billy Bearden
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: VA-HIST Digest - 10 Mar 2004 to 11 Mar 2004 (#2004-33)
Ms Wills:
You are a blatant bigot with a severe leftist slant. I love to confront your
type, cause you deal with hyperbole, innuendo, lies, propaganda , and racism
- where I can rest safely behind facts and reason. Here are your words back
at you with facts and stats, ENJOY !!!!
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
