Kevin writes: "It is hard to find any credible defenders of offically sanctioned racism today." How do you interpret a US Senator from Mississippi saying we would be a lot better off today if we had elected Strom Thurmond as a states' rights segregationist? Just so everyone understands my point: I am not saying that all people who fly the confederate flag are racists or in the KKK. I am saying that the Confed. flag stands for a racists, proslavery nation (that by the way also suppressed in unprecedented ways, the free speech of many white southerners). I am pointing out that it is simply not the case that racism has disappeared from our public discourse or that no one is openly racist any more. I am also pointing out that many openly dedicated racists -- Aryan nation, KKK, Nazi's etc. -- DO use the Confederate flag as their symbol. Paul Finkelman [log in to unmask] wrote: > The issue before us is one about how people construct an > identity through use of public symbols. Public symbols > usually are about contemporary issues and purposes. The > public politics of the present are different from those of 50 > years ago. Thus the meaning of public symbols today is > different from what it was 50 years ago, *of necessity.* HOW > different, of course, is a matter open to debate. But it is > incontrovertably and undeniably true that the symbols of > today function discursively very differently than they did 50 > years ago, because the public conversation in play today is > radically different than it was then. > > One of the major changes in the US in the last 50 years has > been the almost universal repudiation of officially > sanctioned racism. The Texas murder Professor Finkelman > refers to in his recent post was universally condemned > throughout the US--a stark contrast to lynchings in the early > 20th century. It is hard to find any credible defenders of > offically sanctioned racism today, one of the great > achievements of US politics in the last 25 years. I don't > mean to stand complacent here--racism is still a factor in > our public life, and needs to be condemned wherever it > exists. However, I think we are being unnecessarily and > unrealistically pessimistic if we deny the achievements of > the last half century. Our public life really has changed, > the residual survival of racist organizations notwithstanding. > > Just what the Confederacy stood for--and, a related matter, > just why many Southern men fought for it--is a matter of some > debate, at least here in Virginia. The myth that the > Confederacy was primarily about states rights is still > pervasive here. What this means, however, is that > Confederate heritage groups can construct their history in > what they presume to be a fashion that is not racist. Many > of them, so far as I can tell anyway, can quite sincerely say > that they are not defending racism by asserting public pride > in their Confederate heritage. Whether or not I am insulting > their intelligence is, I think, moot, if I am accurately > reporting their views of the matter. And at least for the > Confederate heritage groups with which I have had contact > here in the Shenandoah Valley, I can say with some authority > that this is in fact how they view it. > > We can ask whether or not their view of the past is wholly > accurate, and fairly conclude that it is not. (As an aside, > I think it is important to note that the reason political > societies go to war is usually quite different from the > reason why individual soldiers are willing to fight for > them. This distinction strikes me as a useful compromise for > historians who wish to be taken seriously by and perhaps have > some positive influence on the thinking of local heritage > groups in the South.) It is a very different enterprise, > however, to presume from their view of the past that their > ethical view of the present is evil, or that the identities > they construct through their retelling of the past are akin, > for example, to those of Nazis. At the very least, we owe > them, and indeed anyone who makes a public statement about > the good society, the effort to understand what it is that > they think they are defending, before we condemn it. > Otherwise we are just condemining straw men. > > Best, > Kevin > > Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. > Department of History > James Madison University -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [log in to unmask] To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html