Pathetic
Posted on January 18th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Considering how little of any real worth he contributes, I’ve never understood why Jamie Kirchick has been part of respectable conversation, but I haven’t made much of an issue out of it. If he would like to continue embarrassing himself with this pathetic obsession, that’s his business.
Filed under: miscellaneous
This calls to mind the controversy at UC Berkeley (where I’m a Ph.D. student) over whether it was okay to hoist the American flag after the 9/11 attacks. The graduate student union (successfully!) objected that it would be inappropriate because of the flat’s status as a symbol of imperialism. I for one think that the Confederate flag /shouldn’t/ be displayed while the American one /should/, but it’s certainly not our business to /force/ people (or universities, or states) to do one thing or another in such situations.
Worse, he’s a bore.
That’s a very reasonable position. Contra Kirchick, I believe that is probably also Huckabee’s actual view of the appropriate use of the flag, but since he isn’t from South Carolina he isn’t going to tell them what to do.
Separately, I am amazed by the argument that a flag can have only one meaning or association, which is implicit in most of the criticisms of Confederate flags. By the same logic that says that the battle flag is “tainted” by slavery, etc., and that the Confederacy is irredeemably “tainted” in the same way, we would have to declare our own flag and government also tainted.
Exactly right. Issues of public perception matter, though: and so it seems to me that because of the fact that displaying the Confederate flag will be widely viewed as indicating racist sentiments, it is probably best just to keep it in a drawer.
Separately, Daniel, and vis-a-vis your “4800 posts” post, let me say how much I enjoy your blog and admire the work you’re doing. I came on to it pretty recently (these damn primaries are turning me into an election junkie again), and have been very taken by your thoughtfulness and courage (not to mention your rhetorical skill). As I indicated, I’m also a Ph.D. student (in philosophy) - and while I used to be quite publicly involved in engaging with political and cultural issues, my cowardice at the possibility of facing the disdain of future colleagues caused me to store all that away when I entered graduate school. But I’ve been looking to find opportunities to “out” myself and start writing about some of the (crunchy-connish) issues that concern me more. If at any point you have the opportunity and the inclination, and wouldn’t mind shooting me an e-mail (I had to enter it in signing up for comments; does that give you access to it?), I’d really appreciate any advice you might have on possible outlets for publishing.
I agree that public perception matters. As I understood it the issue had been mostly settled in South Carolina, so this latest to-do is really much ado about not much at all. Perhaps I am misinformed on that, but I understood that the flag had been removed from the capitol and placed at a commemorative site as part of a compromise. If there are still those who want to push for its complete removal from any public context, including historical sites, that seems to me to be pushing too far in the other direction.
Thanks very much for your kind comments. The thought does sometimes cross my mind that some of my posts could come back and be thrown in my face later in my career, so I understand exactly what you mean, but I think we shouldn’t let ourselves be constrained or intimidated by fears of ostracism, no matter what our views. This week I have obviously been giving more thought to these questions than usual, but I remain convinced that speaking on the things that matter to me, however little influence it may have, has been the right thing to do and really the only thing that I could have done.
I’d be glad to help you in whatever way I can. I’ll be in touch soon.
Kirchick is a pathetic little neocon stooge. But he’s clearly baiting with you with that post in an effort to gin up some controversy and get some attention, you should just ignore him.
I know, and I will in the future.
This tedious gotcha-game makes me want to give some money to the League of the South. I missed Mr. Larison’s proposal to fly the Stars n’ Bars from high atop every flagpole, but when you’re on a guilt-by-association roll like Kirchick’s you gotta go with inertia.
It is hard work supporting a century and a half-long run of aggressive wars. We should be thankful Kirchick has shown us the light–perpetual war is necessary because all who oppose hate blacks, Jews, homosexuals, and Mexicans.
I’m split on the flag issue myself.
One one hand, it’s stupid to claim that “outsiders” (presumably, anyone north of the Mason-Dixon) have no stake in the flying of the Stars and Bars. That flag represents a rebellious movement that was ended only after hundreds of thousands of “outsiders” lost their lives, with many others coming away maimed or mentally disturbed. For all non-Southerners, the Stars and Bars continues to be a reminder of that brutal conflict, and a symbol with significant emotional resonance.
Furthermore, the Confederates were, in part, fighting to maintain the cornerstone of their caste-based agrarian society: that is, human bondage. Thus the flag — a flag of, for, and by the CSA — is an icon of an illegitimate white supremacist nation that not only defended but championed a system of racial subjugation and exploitation. That being so, its continued veneration is a massive insult to all African-Americans, whose descendents suffered the greatest cruelties.
But . . . it’s equally true that the Stars and Bars is a multifaceted icon. There are some liberal Yankees who are still eager to gloat over Appomattox. They would unfairly reduce the flag to an exclusively racist symbol, which is just wrongheaded. Undeniably, it is representative of the Old South, and its rich social, economic, and political heritage, not all of which is immoral or embarassing. Localism, particular community, respect of tradition, self-determination, popular sovereignty, anti-Caesarism, limited government — these fine principles constitute the DNA of the Old South. They are notions to admire, and if a man looks into the Stars and Bars and sees those ideas, then more power to him.
After all, many people (particularly where I grew up, in New England) fly Revolutionary banners, or flags from the early republic (the circle of thirteen stars, etc.), and these represented the nation when it still accepted human bondage as alright, if not ideal. Yet, to most, those old school colors are not perceived as symbols of American slavery, but of American liberty. Isn’t this somewhat of a double standard?
I suppose this is the ideal arrangment: keep the Stars and Bars off public property, but don’t heckle others for giving it respect. I see how, to many in Dixie, it’s a wonderful reminder of the South’s, er, pastoral beginnings. The thing is a powerful, complicated symbol, rich it connotation, with meanings that range from despicable to utterly admirable. C’est la vie . . .
Mr. Larison,
Like John, I am fairly new to your blog and enjoying it greatly. My compliments.
The sad part of your little spate with Kirchick is that your are on the very edge of “respectable” opinion, while he is in the mainstream. I guess it is an indication of how far into barbary our civilization has fallen.
I think the paleo position is quite reasonable, at least as expressed by Tom Fleming. Namely, the same symbols and events may have different meanings to different people. You don’t have to like or endorse these symbols, but it’s a bit much to ask a man to spit on his grandfather’s grave.
“As I indicated, I’m also a Ph.D. student (in philosophy) - and while I used to be quite publicly involved in engaging with political and cultural issues, my cowardice at the possibility of facing the disdain of future colleagues caused me to store all that away when I entered graduate school.”
I second this. You know as well as anyone that I don’t always agree with what you write, but your prolific and forthright publishing is commendable.
About “respectable”, I think we should avoid the “bounce like rubber and sticks like glue” argument. Frankly, until the Ron Paul newsletter business, I’d never heard of Kirchuk.
Thanks very much to you all. I take your last point, Koz, and I’ll bear that in mind in the future.
Hegel or no Hegel, I’m on your side.
Ever read Benjamin H. Hill’s Notes on the Situation? We could sure use a Hill or a Wade Hampton these days, that’s for sure.
Look, the Confederacy was a lot of things, but the flag is irreducibly a simple of racism. It was the battle flag of a poltical entity which saw slaveholding as worth destroying the USA over and revived as the banner of thugs and bigots who were willing to use terror and state-sponsered oppression to maintain a system of Apartheid. It’s a hateful legacy which which should be utterly repudiated. And there’s no sense in pretending slavery and segregation are essential to flag’s meaning.
A symbol can have multiple meanings.
The American flag is used as a backdrop from all kinds of politics-from liberalism to conservatism to communism (”Communism is 20th Century Americanism”). Sometimes the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of segregationism, but it also symbolizes reverence for ancestors who made the ultimate sacrifice, and respect for traditions that include honor, civility, hospitality and love of the land.
People the world over revere the memory of their kin who died even in wars that were ambiguous, mistaken, mismanaged and just plain wrong. I won’t gainsay their sentiments.
Kids, isn’t it about time you took that bloody shirt to the dry cleaner? D’you suppose they can still get the stains out after 150 years?
Dominique de Villepin, former French Foreign Minister, owner of the most aristocratic profile since Frederick the Great and father of major-league hottie Marie, is also a scholar and worshipful fan of none other than Napoleon. Yet somehow I suspect he was able to visit Vienna without protesters waving signs about Austerlitz. Hm.