The Rebel Flag is just cloth - red, white and blue. The American flag is just cloth - red, white and blue.

A 'symbol' of an idea is not the idea. Just as burning the American flag does not destroy its meaning, repressing the Confederate flag will not destroy its meaning either. Indeed, there is historical precedent to show that repressing a symbol often reinforces the underlying concept.

If you believe that it's okay to burn the American flag (and as long as fire codes are followed, it's perfectly fine in my opinion), it should be okay to say people can wave the Confederate flag...

I know that there's all sorts of bullshit, guilt trip, self-loathing and self righteous claptrap baggage that goes with this ... but it's time we got over it people.

Don't repress speech, bring it out into the open. Let's admit that we're all goddam racists and be done with it.

Waving the Rebel flag is no more offensive than displaying a crucifix in a mason jar of urine (ala Mapplethorpe).

So wave your Confederate flags or burn your American flags...it doesn't matter to me if you wipe your ass with both of them.

I mostly agree with you. I would not want law forbidding flying that rebel battle flag or burning this US flag. Strong expressions should be limited (by the users not goverment) to when they are needed. Symbols that inflame but do not inform are useful only to our inner-idiots.

The point is we need to recognize this piece of cloth for the ideas it represents. Its wavers claim it's all about proud Southern heritage and the noble sacrifice of the brave soldiers who fell in battle... blah, blah, blah... Not a chance. As Hitchens points out, the St. Andrews Cross design popped up in civilian life in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a response to forced integration of the public schools. Before that, it was kind of a historical relic.

I'm with you on the freedom of expression issue. I don't care what people do with any flag. The point is, when they wave the Confederate flag (figuratively in this case), it means more than paying homage to fallen soldiers, etc. Huckabee's speech made a parallel between the forced integration of the 1950s and current attempts by "outsiders" to "come down here and tell us what to do." This is made all the more silly by the fact that the Southern states are mostly our from under the old consent decrees that constituted the "interference." Huckabee is just trying to whip up resentment by alluding to something that happened 50 years ago, something which everybody except racists agrees was a good thing.

"A 'symbol' of an idea is not the idea."

This has to be the single most fatuous opening to a post that I have ever read.

So what is the idea? Symbols of the idea could include its written expression, its verbalisation or even its translation into action (which in this case could be active discrimination against certain sectors of society.) Presumably you would excuse these as only symbols of an idea. Since an idea is an internal intangible mental construct or image which can never be accessed by others, I suppose you would conclude that there is no point in ever opposing an idea since you can never get at it.

"...Since an idea is an internal intangible mental construct or image which can never be accessed by others..."

I'd say this is the most fatuous statement on the subject. Yes, an idea springs from a mind, but an idea can then be accessed, shared and expanded by others through various means of communication.. The idea of "freedom"...or "liberty"...for instance. I have these concepts whether the flag flies or not. I don't need the symbol to tell me what I have.

In the case of hard symbols, it is exactly as stated. The cloth we call the flag isn't the actual circumstance of our freedom or liberty, but it represents those ideals...at least in theory. The concept can easily be accessed and shared by others.

Paul is right in saying I cannot "know" your idea. Paul is right in pointing out symbols, particularly those capable of pushing emotional buttons, are the closest we can come to sharing ideas in a way that allows others to experience each others' emotions, etc. associated with a particular idea. Good job, both of you. This is a tough subject. If you really want to confuse yourselves, read what Wittgenstein had to say about language, naming things, etc. "Herr Schweitzer ist nich ein Schweitzer."

"Yes, an idea springs from a mind, but an idea can then be accessed, shared and expanded by others through various means of communication.."

And what are these means of communication? Symbols. Whether visual or auditory, they are symbols- they are never the actual idea. The best we can do to approach the idea is via symbols which signify the idea. In terms of what the idea actually "is" we can't really say. The idea in itself is an object of metaphysics and cannot be shared except symbolically.

I was objecting to the original post which claimed that the entire debate over the flag was irrelevant because the flag was not itself the idea. Of course it isn't the idea but it hints at the idea and clearly to many people it still signifies something distasteful and/or disturbing. Whether or not it should arouse these feelings is the subject of the debate. However, it is equally clear that (for many people) it does.

Still, I state that the "idea itself" cannot be accessed any more than I can "know" your idea of freedom or liberty. Your grasp of such abstract attributes is never open to me as they will consist of personal reflections, memories, emotions etc which I can never fully share. You could write me a definition, paint a picture, compose a symphony which pointed in the right direction but I never have full access: basically because (thank fuck) I'm not you.

However, if your "idea" is one that I consider harmful then I feel I should be fully at liberty to attack its symbolic representation. Argue to the contrary, vote against those politicians who advocate it, maybe try to legislate against it and more relevantly try to have its flag pulled down.

No one's saying you CAN'T display the flag of the Cracker Confederacy, only that it says something about you and your racial opinions when you DO display it.

And it was Serrano who displayed a crucifix in urine, calling it "Piss Christ," BTW...

Sorry, not no one. I'm saying that there are places it shouldn't be flown. Flying it on government or public buildings is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Horus:

No one's saying you CAN'T display the flag of the Cracker Confederacy, only that it says something about you and your racial opinions when you DO display it.

Exactly the point. The people of South Carolina already voted to take this off of their state house so Huckabee's claim that outsiders made that states citizens take it down is just plain wrong.

As a side note does the H in Jesus H. Christ stand for Huckabee? It seems that he'd like you to believe it does...

I don't say you can't wipe your ass with anything you want.

But if I want to say that the Southern Cross flag = racism + treason + slavery + moral terpitude issues who are you to say I can't. You just finished arguing for freedom of speech and then said people can't "repress" people by voicing their opinions in return.

Your logic is that of a CLOWN. Anybody in that thar noggin'

StinkMonk: Thanks for your support. Irrespective of the value judgment, strong expressions are appropriate in political campaigns - or just to piss people off becuase it's funny.

Arlington: By making the symbol so special with your acknowledgement, you've enhanced it's power for the bigots who would appropriate its use. The use of the 'rebel' flag SINCE the (overall success) of the civil rights movement usually means 'fuck-off and don't tell me my business' (see 'Daisy Duke and Lynyrd Skynard).

BTW - I've read Tractatus and Investigations in both German and English, and the squirrely little queer is arcane, obtuse and inarticulate no matter how interpreted.

Paul Nichols: 'Fatuous' is exactly the point - now put that thesaurus down before you give yourself a papercut and cry...like you did when you were seven in the school yard when someone called you a name.

Craig: Be careful making the list bro'...hope busines is good.

Horus: Thanks...I don't recall asking for your permission. Besides that, all those arsty queens look the same to me.

Progressive Bulldog: 'H' stands Hillary Humpin' Jose Can You See.

Spiker: "Southern Cross flag = racism + treason + slavery + moral terpitude". No matter how many times you repeat it is it aboout as elucidating as:

<link>

When you say nothing it encourages people. They think they the have tacit approval to do what they want to. Whether it is to escalate from flag waving or crucifix pissing. Words gather mobs and align sentiments.

You are about as elucidating as a wet noodle. Please don't try to compare words with riots. Those who oppose need not rant and rave and burn other's flags, or throw rocks, or whatever as has been done over political cartoons.