"One of the problems with the idea that America needs a ‘Conversation On Race’ is that it presumes that ‘America’ has something intelligent to say about race. All you need do is look at how American history is taught in this country to realize that that is basically impossible."

Ta-Nehisi Coates (via theatlantic)

(via theatlantic)

Tags: race racism

pol102:

From shortformblog:

Today In Bad Ideas: Some guy named Brad Paisley recorded a song, with LL Cool J, talking about how hard it is to be a white man who just wants to wear the Confederate flag in peace. It’s called “Accidental Racist”, and you can find the (completely problematic) lyrics here. source

Here’s the thing that you just need to understand. The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Confederacy and what it stood for, not the traditions and values (like hospitality) of the South. 

The Confederate flag was adopted only by the Confederacy. It doesn’t predate the Confederacy, and it stopped being used with the fall of the Confederacy. In fact, the flag was only rarely used in the Confederacy; it was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (Robert E. Lee’s army) and only later became associated with the entire confederacy. In fact, the “Confederate flag” you’re familiar with was never the official flag of the Confederacy.

The flag had a renaissance of sorts much later. Much later. The flag began appearing during WWII on units with Southern histories. The first use of the Confederate “stars and bars” on a Southern state flag was as early as 1894: no surprise, it was Mississippi. But that means that Mississippians didn’t mind revoking their heritage (the Magnolia flag, which was carried into battle during the Civil War by Mississippi regiments). Georgia’s controversial Confederate flag wasn’t introduced until 1956.

My problem with the “it’s part of our history” argument is two-fold: (1) The history of Southern states extends much further back than the Confederacy, so I’m left wondering why that pivotal (and controversial) moment has become identified as the historical juncture that should define what “the South” is about. (2) The history of the Confederacy was extremely brief: it lasted less than five years. (By contrast, the Third Reich lasted more than twice as long, giving the Nazi flag a stronger claim to historical tradition.)

So we’re left with an interesting historical juxtaposition. The Confederate flag was not widely used within the Confederacy, but is clearly identified with the Confederacy’s cause. And that flag had a boom in popularity starting in the 1950s. Coincidentally, the 1950s was the start of the modern US Civil Rights Movement. In other words, a symbol of the Confederacy (which will forever by identified with slavery) became popular in South at the same time as African-Americans began advocating for political and social equality.

Now you see why the Confederate flag is “controversial” (to say the least). It seems remarkable that people who want to defend their region’s rich cultural traditions and history (and they have many good reasons to do so, I should point out) have gravitated to a very particular symbol identified with racism. Attaching themselves to that symbol meant jettisoning historical state flags (where was the reverence for history then?) and doing so at the same time as Jim Crow and segregation was being challenged in the South.

Perhaps it’s because I’m just a “carpetbagger” (as I’m sure many of my students think), but I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone who—once confronted with the sheer historical narrative of that flag—would continue to embrace it. Waving a Confederate flag around is a clear sign that either (1) you don’t like black people very much, (2) you are in favor of violent overthrow of the US federal government, or (3) you really don’t care if people think you believe in the first two options or not. 

EDIT: And please don’t even get me started on people in northern states that embrace the Confederate flag. When I see the “stars and bars” in Indiana, I know exactly what it means.

motherjones:

Michael Jordan = “failed baseball player”
Carmelo Anthony = “noted anti-police activist”
… UM …
Fox Nation = “notorious race-baiting troll site”
(via)
UPDATE: Fox Nation = “unoriginal notorious race-baiting troll site,” which bogarted this from the “aspiring online rag” Washington Free Beacon.

motherjones:

Michael Jordan = “failed baseball player”

Carmelo Anthony = “noted anti-police activist”

… UM …

Fox Nation = “notorious race-baiting troll site”

(via)

UPDATE: Fox Nation = “unoriginal notorious race-baiting troll site,” which bogarted this from the “aspiring online rag” Washington Free Beacon.

sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).



Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

"Leadership starts at the top. All of the alleged violations that are outlined in the complaint are the product of a culture of disregard for basic rights within the culture of MCSO that starts at the top and pervades the organization."

— Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez • Commenting on the Department of Justice’s decision to sue infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, alleging a pattern of abuse towards Latino inmates. The decision follows the conclusion of a three year investigation, and is the second time that the Department of Justice has filed suit against Arpaio for his conduct as sheriff. In 1997, the DOJ accused Arpaio and his employees of using excessive force on inmates, though the case was ultimately settled outside of court. When asked about the 1997 lawsuit, Perez said that the settlement in that case lacked oversight, and as a result the demanded reforms  ”proved not to be sustainable.”  source (viafollow)

theatlantic:

New Racism Museum Reveals the Ugly Truth Behind Aunt Jemima

David Pilgrim was 12 years old when he bought his first racist object at a flea market: a saltshaker in the shape of a mammy. As a young black boy growing up in Mobile, Alabama, he’d seen similar knick-knacks in the homes of friends and neighbors, and he instinctively hated them. As soon as he handed over his money, he threw his purchase to the ground and shattered it into pieces.
Pilgrim’s story brings to mind the young biblical Abraham, smashing idols in his father’s shop. But that mammy was the only racist icon Pilgrim ever destroyed. Today he owns thousands of them: cereal boxes, statuettes, whites-only signs, and postcards of black men being whipped and hung. The public will soon be able to see his entire collection and more at the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, which opens April 26 at Ferris University in Michigan where Pilgrim spent years as a sociology professor.
The museum is divided into sections, each reflecting a different distorted vision of black people in America. One features Uncle Toms: cheerful, servile black men like Uncle Ben or the chef on the Cream of Wheat box. Another showcases “brutes”: muscular ogres who lurk in dark alleys and ravish white women. Most of the objects predate civil rights, but there’s a section devoted to modern racism: It includes dozens of caricatures of President Barack Obama as a monkey, a terrorist, and a watermelon-eating “coon.”
Read more. [Images: Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia]

theatlantic:

New Racism Museum Reveals the Ugly Truth Behind Aunt Jemima

David Pilgrim was 12 years old when he bought his first racist object at a flea market: a saltshaker in the shape of a mammy. As a young black boy growing up in Mobile, Alabama, he’d seen similar knick-knacks in the homes of friends and neighbors, and he instinctively hated them. As soon as he handed over his money, he threw his purchase to the ground and shattered it into pieces.

Pilgrim’s story brings to mind the young biblical Abraham, smashing idols in his father’s shop. But that mammy was the only racist icon Pilgrim ever destroyed. Today he owns thousands of them: cereal boxes, statuettes, whites-only signs, and postcards of black men being whipped and hung. The public will soon be able to see his entire collection and more at the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, which opens April 26 at Ferris University in Michigan where Pilgrim spent years as a sociology professor.

The museum is divided into sections, each reflecting a different distorted vision of black people in America. One features Uncle Toms: cheerful, servile black men like Uncle Ben or the chef on the Cream of Wheat box. Another showcases “brutes”: muscular ogres who lurk in dark alleys and ravish white women. Most of the objects predate civil rights, but there’s a section devoted to modern racism: It includes dozens of caricatures of President Barack Obama as a monkey, a terrorist, and a watermelon-eating “coon.”

Read more. [Images: Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia]

latimes:

A decade after the dissolution of the Aryan Nations compound in northern Idaho and the arrest of the Montana Freemen, white supremacists, far-right militias and radical patriots have revived their dream of a homeland in the Northwest.

SPLC background on the Aryan Nations, Montana Freemen and the Sovereign Citizen Movement as a whole.

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

paxamericana:

stfuconfederates:

kadiannymphet:

The flag has nothing to do with slavery.

Yes, it does.

I do not know that it ever had.

Then you’ve probably never read a book other than the Confederate Catechism.

So, you’re telling me because the Confederate flag had ties to slavery, it should be spoken down to?

Umm. Yes. But I thought you said didn’t? Except it does. And I’m not speaking down to it, I’m more condemning it as the mindlessly backwards symbol of hatred that it is, given its usage by anti-civil rights causes and, you know, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi’s alike.

Well, America drove thousands of people out of their homes, amassed a body count comparable to the holocaust, and ‘reeducated’ the survivors so we could erase their culture, so why do we DARE fly the American flag if Native Americans might be offended?

The American flag is not a battle flag, unlike the one pictured above. It’s not considered treason to fly the American flag, unlike the one pictured above.

And those slaves that white people went down to grab? I will agree, it was wrong of us to take those people. Slavery is never right, be it against blacks, whites, Asians, Indians, Arabs, anyone (oh, yes, slavery has been used against every race, you ignorant bleeding heart.) Whites were not the only ones dealing in the slave trade. Africans would sell their enemies to slavers. That’s right, black people were in the slave trade beyond being bought and sold. How shocking that no one ever points this out.

Ooh look, something we agree on! As this is factual. Except that people do point it out, and know about it. It’s just that we live in America, and part of being an American should be recognizing the horrible things we’ve done instead of mindlessly following ancient symbols of anti-PoC oppression. But you know, why dwell on the past when racism is clearly dead in the present? Oh.

The Civil War was not all about slavery.

I think that was actually the 2nd answer in the Confederate Catechism. Or maybe the first. It was one of those. Actual history starts out: Chapter One: The Civil War was about Slavery.

It was about economics.

Yes, the economics of slavery.

I don’t know how stupid and racist you have to be to make everything about the plight of the black man.

I don’t know how stupid and racist you have to be to make everything about the plight of the black man. Congratulations. You win slavery apologist of the week.

Sit through any American History class with a non-biased teacher, and you will hear how the North and South had been ready to fight long before the slavery issue began. Both sides wanted money from Southern trade. I won’t even get into who was right or wrong in that affair, but that’s how the Civil War started. The South wanted more control, and the North said no.

If by more control you mean more slaves, then you’re entirely correct. The South actually drew up compromises that would evade war if the North allowed permanent slavery to exist in the South. All those state’s rights arguments you’ve heard centered around the right to own slaves, as many as we want, however we have to get them, including hauling back in freed slaves.

Not every person who hung the Confederate flag in the past even owned slaves. You had to put forward a lot of money to own a slave, money that the average planter simply did not have. The plantation owners were obviously well off and kept as many slaves as they could, flaunting their bodies as evidence of their wealth. I come from a long line of farmers from my great-grandmother, a minor family from a small town in Mississippi. As far as I know, no one in that area ever had slaves. Why? Because they had no such money. That’s an entire town that hung the Confederate flag without owning a single slave.

Yes, because poor men have never been sent to fight rich men’s wars. Who do you think pays campaign contributions? Who brides politicians? Rich men bride politicians into going to war, wars which neither rich men nor politicians fight themselves. Also, historically, American politicians have come from rich families. In those times, slave-owning families. You are ignoring all of the facts human nature and the history of American government.

Men fought and died for their way of life, to have freedom from oppression.

You can fight for freedom or you can fight for slavery, or you can fight to be free to own slaves. You can put a lot of names to it but, in the end, they were fighting for the right to ‘own’, rape, abuse, and murder human beings. That’s it.

They fought under orders, under the Confederate flag. They were like any other soldier anywhere else on Earth, but people say those red-blooded Americans were nothing but damnable racists because they fought under the Confederate flag. Many of these soldiers likely never owned a slave, and it goes back to the aforementioned money. In the Civil War era, gentlemen of means could buy a position in the army, while the poorer folk fought as simple soldiers. You could not own slaves if you could not afford them.

The excuse that they were just following orders is a slippery slope, wherein you have to acknowledge that most of the Nazi soldiers were just following orders, so why can’t we fly the Swastika?

The Confederate flag is a part of my heritage in much the same way the German, Italian, and Cherokee flags are.

…..no. The German flag represents that you have ancestors from Germany. The Italian flag represents that you have ancestors from Italy. The Confederate battle flag represents that your ancestors committed treason against the federal government for the right to own slaves. It’s not quite the same thing.

I refuse to allow anyone to twist it and make it out to be something evil.

I don’t have to twist it to make it out to be something evil.

You may go ahead and say that I am horribly racist and backwards, that I am just some ignorant bitch living down South. However, I have said my peace, and I am glad that I did. I leave it up to you to decide which argument you like. Doesn’t phase me at all whether you agree or disagree.

Well. It is actually racist to defend a symbol of racism, it is backwards, and it is ignorant, unless you actually do know how hateful these things that you’re saying are. I live down South, and I have all my life. I am white, and I was raised by white supremacists who flew that flag. I escaped. I hope you do, one day.

“The Confederate flag is a part of my heritage in much the same way the German, Italian, and Cherokee flags are.”
The CSA existed for four years. Unless you’re from Mississippi, (currently the only state flag to feature the Confederate battle flag) or your family only lived in the South between 1861 and 1865, this isn’t really a valid way to represent your heritage, unless you want to glorify the actions of the CSA. The flag of whatever state you’re from (or better yet, the American flag) covers a much more varied history than the Confederate flag, while also not representing a wholly immoral, defunct, and treasonous government. 
Do you fly the German flag? Which one? I bet you don’t fly the one of the murderous regime that murdered 6 million people. Fixating on the rebel flag ignores the other 200-odd years of history at your disposal. A “proud German-American” who displayed the Nazi flag would be shunned and ridiculed; those who insist that flying the Confederate flag is the only way to remember “Southern heritage” should be as well. 

I hate to be “that guy” but that isn’t the Confederate Flag, nor is it the Confederate Battle Flag. That’s the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack. Have some CSA flag history.
The First Navy Jack looked like this:

The second looked like this:

The national flag of the CSA went through a few variations in the four-year existence of the confederacy. The earliest incarnations showed seven, nine and 11 stars in a blue field, before settling on the 13 displayed in this version from November 28, 1861 to May 26, 1863:

That flag is what is referred to as the “Stars and Bars,” for obvious reasons.
Unhappy with this flag, the Confederacy adopted a new flag that flew from May 26, 1863 to March 4, 1865:

Notice the inclusion of what one might recognize as the “Confederate Flag.” This is actually the Confederate Battle Flag in the canton. The difference between this flag and the Second Confederate Navy Jack - shown above - is the ratio. The Battle Flag is 1:1; the Navy Jack is roughly 1.5:1.
But what’s this? The CSA had a third national flag? Yup. The second was deemed “too white” [insert obvious joke] and was feared it would be interpreted as a sign of surrender. So they added a vertical red bar to the fly end of the field.

Of course they didn’t adopt this flag until March 4, 1865, by which time the CSA was effectively done for, as Lee surrendered to Grant just one month later.
TL;DR People confuse the Confederate Navy Jack with the Confederate Flag and the Confederate Battle Flag, all of which changed over time. Of course, none of these should be seen as anything other than symbols of a collection of states illegally attempting to separate from the federal government and never gaining recognition of legitimacy from any entity other than themselves.
More Confederacy history: Town Line, New York, a community of 2500 people, seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn’t vote to rejoin until 1946, because they forgot they had seceded.
Also, I really like this cartoon by Walt Handelsman of the Times-Picayune.

paxamericana:

stfuconfederates:

kadiannymphet:

The flag has nothing to do with slavery.

Yes, it does.

I do not know that it ever had.

Then you’ve probably never read a book other than the Confederate Catechism.

So, you’re telling me because the Confederate flag had ties to slavery, it should be spoken down to?

Umm. Yes. But I thought you said didn’t? Except it does. And I’m not speaking down to it, I’m more condemning it as the mindlessly backwards symbol of hatred that it is, given its usage by anti-civil rights causes and, you know, the KKK, and Neo-Nazi’s alike.

Well, America drove thousands of people out of their homes, amassed a body count comparable to the holocaust, and ‘reeducated’ the survivors so we could erase their culture, so why do we DARE fly the American flag if Native Americans might be offended?

The American flag is not a battle flag, unlike the one pictured above. It’s not considered treason to fly the American flag, unlike the one pictured above.

And those slaves that white people went down to grab? I will agree, it was wrong of us to take those people. Slavery is never right, be it against blacks, whites, Asians, Indians, Arabs, anyone (oh, yes, slavery has been used against every race, you ignorant bleeding heart.) Whites were not the only ones dealing in the slave trade. Africans would sell their enemies to slavers. That’s right, black people were in the slave trade beyond being bought and sold. How shocking that no one ever points this out.

Ooh look, something we agree on! As this is factual. Except that people do point it out, and know about it. It’s just that we live in America, and part of being an American should be recognizing the horrible things we’ve done instead of mindlessly following ancient symbols of anti-PoC oppression. But you know, why dwell on the past when racism is clearly dead in the present? Oh.

The Civil War was not all about slavery.

I think that was actually the 2nd answer in the Confederate Catechism. Or maybe the first. It was one of those. Actual history starts out: Chapter One: The Civil War was about Slavery.

It was about economics.

Yes, the economics of slavery.

I don’t know how stupid and racist you have to be to make everything about the plight of the black man.

I don’t know how stupid and racist you have to be to make everything about the plight of the black man. Congratulations. You win slavery apologist of the week.

Sit through any American History class with a non-biased teacher, and you will hear how the North and South had been ready to fight long before the slavery issue began. Both sides wanted money from Southern trade. I won’t even get into who was right or wrong in that affair, but that’s how the Civil War started. The South wanted more control, and the North said no.

If by more control you mean more slaves, then you’re entirely correct. The South actually drew up compromises that would evade war if the North allowed permanent slavery to exist in the South. All those state’s rights arguments you’ve heard centered around the right to own slaves, as many as we want, however we have to get them, including hauling back in freed slaves.

Not every person who hung the Confederate flag in the past even owned slaves. You had to put forward a lot of money to own a slave, money that the average planter simply did not have. The plantation owners were obviously well off and kept as many slaves as they could, flaunting their bodies as evidence of their wealth. I come from a long line of farmers from my great-grandmother, a minor family from a small town in Mississippi. As far as I know, no one in that area ever had slaves. Why? Because they had no such money. That’s an entire town that hung the Confederate flag without owning a single slave.

Yes, because poor men have never been sent to fight rich men’s wars. Who do you think pays campaign contributions? Who brides politicians? Rich men bride politicians into going to war, wars which neither rich men nor politicians fight themselves. Also, historically, American politicians have come from rich families. In those times, slave-owning families. You are ignoring all of the facts human nature and the history of American government.

Men fought and died for their way of life, to have freedom from oppression.

You can fight for freedom or you can fight for slavery, or you can fight to be free to own slaves. You can put a lot of names to it but, in the end, they were fighting for the right to ‘own’, rape, abuse, and murder human beings. That’s it.

They fought under orders, under the Confederate flag. They were like any other soldier anywhere else on Earth, but people say those red-blooded Americans were nothing but damnable racists because they fought under the Confederate flag. Many of these soldiers likely never owned a slave, and it goes back to the aforementioned money. In the Civil War era, gentlemen of means could buy a position in the army, while the poorer folk fought as simple soldiers. You could not own slaves if you could not afford them.

The excuse that they were just following orders is a slippery slope, wherein you have to acknowledge that most of the Nazi soldiers were just following orders, so why can’t we fly the Swastika?

The Confederate flag is a part of my heritage in much the same way the German, Italian, and Cherokee flags are.

…..no. The German flag represents that you have ancestors from Germany. The Italian flag represents that you have ancestors from Italy. The Confederate battle flag represents that your ancestors committed treason against the federal government for the right to own slaves. It’s not quite the same thing.

I refuse to allow anyone to twist it and make it out to be something evil.

I don’t have to twist it to make it out to be something evil.

You may go ahead and say that I am horribly racist and backwards, that I am just some ignorant bitch living down South. However, I have said my peace, and I am glad that I did. I leave it up to you to decide which argument you like. Doesn’t phase me at all whether you agree or disagree.

Well. It is actually racist to defend a symbol of racism, it is backwards, and it is ignorant, unless you actually do know how hateful these things that you’re saying are. I live down South, and I have all my life. I am white, and I was raised by white supremacists who flew that flag. I escaped. I hope you do, one day.

“The Confederate flag is a part of my heritage in much the same way the German, Italian, and Cherokee flags are.”

The CSA existed for four years. Unless you’re from Mississippi, (currently the only state flag to feature the Confederate battle flag) or your family only lived in the South between 1861 and 1865, this isn’t really a valid way to represent your heritage, unless you want to glorify the actions of the CSA. The flag of whatever state you’re from (or better yet, the American flag) covers a much more varied history than the Confederate flag, while also not representing a wholly immoral, defunct, and treasonous government. 

Do you fly the German flag? Which one? I bet you don’t fly the one of the murderous regime that murdered 6 million people. Fixating on the rebel flag ignores the other 200-odd years of history at your disposal. A “proud German-American” who displayed the Nazi flag would be shunned and ridiculed; those who insist that flying the Confederate flag is the only way to remember “Southern heritage” should be as well. 

I hate to be “that guy” but that isn’t the Confederate Flag, nor is it the Confederate Battle Flag. That’s the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack. Have some CSA flag history.

The First Navy Jack looked like this:

The second looked like this:

The national flag of the CSA went through a few variations in the four-year existence of the confederacy. The earliest incarnations showed seven, nine and 11 stars in a blue field, before settling on the 13 displayed in this version from November 28, 1861 to May 26, 1863:

That flag is what is referred to as the “Stars and Bars,” for obvious reasons.

Unhappy with this flag, the Confederacy adopted a new flag that flew from May 26, 1863 to March 4, 1865:

Notice the inclusion of what one might recognize as the “Confederate Flag.” This is actually the Confederate Battle Flag in the canton. The difference between this flag and the Second Confederate Navy Jack - shown above - is the ratio. The Battle Flag is 1:1; the Navy Jack is roughly 1.5:1.

But what’s this? The CSA had a third national flag? Yup. The second was deemed “too white” [insert obvious joke] and was feared it would be interpreted as a sign of surrender. So they added a vertical red bar to the fly end of the field.

Of course they didn’t adopt this flag until March 4, 1865, by which time the CSA was effectively done for, as Lee surrendered to Grant just one month later.

TL;DR People confuse the Confederate Navy Jack with the Confederate Flag and the Confederate Battle Flag, all of which changed over time. Of course, none of these should be seen as anything other than symbols of a collection of states illegally attempting to separate from the federal government and never gaining recognition of legitimacy from any entity other than themselves.

More Confederacy history: Town Line, New York, a community of 2500 people, seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn’t vote to rejoin until 1946, because they forgot they had seceded.

Also, I really like this cartoon by Walt Handelsman of the Times-Picayune.

(via maxhonore)

NYMag:

Conservatives Are Outraged … at Herman Cain
It’s been a tough couple of weeks for Rick Perry, and now, with the Washington Post throwing him into a racial controversy, things are about to get … much better! Wait, what? Let’s backtrack a bit. Yesterday, the Post published a bombshell story about a hunting camp the Perry family has leased on and off since the early eighties. 
[…]
Asked yesterday about the story, [Herman] Cain, the only black Republican in the race, lashed out at Perry. “Since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place,” Cain said on This Week.
[…]
Cain’s reaction is certainly understandable. Anyone could find the revelations offensive, and Cain is a black man who grew up in the segregated South. And yet, as Michael Tomasky points out today, it’s Cain, not Perry, who could be damaged the most by this story. To understand why, you have to consider that there are two things Republicans hate more than anything. One is being accused of racism, which has happened with increasing frequency since President Obama became president, and, if you ask Republicans, is never, ever justified. Two is unfair treatment by the allegedly biased mainstream media. So among Republicans, the widespread response to the Post story was not, “wow, Rick Perry messed up.” It was, “the liberal media is smearing another Republican as a racist!”

NYMag:

Conservatives Are Outraged … at Herman Cain

It’s been a tough couple of weeks for Rick Perry, and now, with the Washington Post throwing him into a racial controversy, things are about to get … much better! Wait, what? Let’s backtrack a bit. Yesterday, the Post published a bombshell story about a hunting camp the Perry family has leased on and off since the early eighties. 

[…]

Asked yesterday about the story, [Herman] Cain, the only black Republican in the race, lashed out at Perry. “Since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place,” Cain said on This Week.

[…]

Cain’s reaction is certainly understandable. Anyone could find the revelations offensive, and Cain is a black man who grew up in the segregated South. And yet, as Michael Tomasky points out today, it’s Cain, not Perry, who could be damaged the most by this story. To understand why, you have to consider that there are two things Republicans hate more than anything. One is being accused of racism, which has happened with increasing frequency since President Obama became president, and, if you ask Republicans, is never, ever justified. Two is unfair treatment by the allegedly biased mainstream media. So among Republicans, the widespread response to the Post story was not, “wow, Rick Perry messed up.” It was, “the liberal media is smearing another Republican as a racist!”

shortformblog:

No you’re not. 

"3nd."
Sounds like Grover needs to go back to school.

shortformblog:

No you’re not. 

"3nd."

Sounds like Grover needs to go back to school.

(via shortformblog)

da-vizulist:

Met an old man like this today…smh

I feel like I’ve told this story before, but still:
A few years ago I was in West Virginia with some friends, one of whom is from West Virginia, Huntington to be exact. We were driving through a small town when I saw an older man wearing a t-shirt with the Second Confederate Navy Jack* and the words “The South Will Rise Again.”
I turned to my West Virginian friend and asked, “Do you think he knows his state exists because it refused to join the Confederacy?”
His reply: “Sadly, no; he probably doesn’t.”
*HISTORY LESSON TIME!:
People confuse the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack with the actual flag of the CSA. The First Navy Jack looked like this:

The second looked like this:

The flag of the Confederate States went through a few variations in the four year existence of the confederacy. The earliest incarnations showed seven, nine and 11 stars in a blue field, before settling on the 13 displayed in this version from November 28, 1861 to May 26, 1863:

That flag is what is referred to as the “Stars and Bars,” for obvious reasons.
Unhappy with this flag, the Confederacy adopted a new flag that flew from May 26, 1863 to March 4, 1865:

Notice the inclusion of what one might recognize as the “Confederate Flag.” This is actually the Confederate Battle Flag in the canton. The difference between this and the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack - shown above - is the ratio. The Battle Flag is 1:1; the Navy Jack is roughly 1.5:1.
But what’s this? The CSA had a third national flag? Yup. The second was deemed “too white” [insert obvious joke] and was feared it would be interpreted as a sign of surrender. So they added a vertical red bar to the fly end of the field.

Of course they didn’t adopt this flag until March 4, 1865, by which time the CSA was effectively ending, with Lee surrendering to Grant just one month later.
TL;DR People confuse the Confederate Navy Jack with the Confederate Flag and the Confederate Battle Flag, all of which changed over time.
More Confederacy history: Town Line, New York, a community of 2500, seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn’t vote to rejoin until 1946, because they forgot they had seceded.

da-vizulist:

Met an old man like this today…smh

I feel like I’ve told this story before, but still:

A few years ago I was in West Virginia with some friends, one of whom is from West Virginia, Huntington to be exact. We were driving through a small town when I saw an older man wearing a t-shirt with the Second Confederate Navy Jack* and the words “The South Will Rise Again.”

I turned to my West Virginian friend and asked, “Do you think he knows his state exists because it refused to join the Confederacy?”

His reply: “Sadly, no; he probably doesn’t.”

*HISTORY LESSON TIME!:

People confuse the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack with the actual flag of the CSA. The First Navy Jack looked like this:

The second looked like this:

The flag of the Confederate States went through a few variations in the four year existence of the confederacy. The earliest incarnations showed seven, nine and 11 stars in a blue field, before settling on the 13 displayed in this version from November 28, 1861 to May 26, 1863:

That flag is what is referred to as the “Stars and Bars,” for obvious reasons.

Unhappy with this flag, the Confederacy adopted a new flag that flew from May 26, 1863 to March 4, 1865:

Notice the inclusion of what one might recognize as the “Confederate Flag.” This is actually the Confederate Battle Flag in the canton. The difference between this and the (Second) Confederate Navy Jack - shown above - is the ratio. The Battle Flag is 1:1; the Navy Jack is roughly 1.5:1.

But what’s this? The CSA had a third national flag? Yup. The second was deemed “too white” [insert obvious joke] and was feared it would be interpreted as a sign of surrender. So they added a vertical red bar to the fly end of the field.

Of course they didn’t adopt this flag until March 4, 1865, by which time the CSA was effectively ending, with Lee surrendering to Grant just one month later.

TL;DR People confuse the Confederate Navy Jack with the Confederate Flag and the Confederate Battle Flag, all of which changed over time.

More Confederacy history: Town Line, New York, a community of 2500, seceded from the Union in 1861 and didn’t vote to rejoin until 1946, because they forgot they had seceded.


Illinois State Senator Dave Syverson (R-Rockford)

Illinois State Senator Dave Syverson (R-Rockford)

ChristianityToday:

Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals
This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. A 1968 Gallup poll found three-quarters of whites disapproved of a whites and blacks marrying. Today, opposition to interracial marriage is low, but it still lingers. Among religious groups, evangelicals remain the most opposed to interracial marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Pew).
Pew’s February Political Typology Poll asked people about recent trends in American society. Pew asked if “more people of different races marrying each other” was good or bad society. Overall, only nine percent of Americans said it was bad for society. However, 16 percent of white evangelicals said this, more than twice the opposition found among other Americans (7 percent). The survey found that 27 percent of Americans overall said more interracial marriage was good for society, compared to 17 percent of evangelicals.
Evangelicals may have the most negative view of interracial marriage, but there is also opposition among white mainline Protestants (13 percent) and Catholics (10 percent). Statistically, the percentages in these traditions who saw interracial marriage as bad for society were about the same as for evangelicals.
The views of white Christians stand in stark contrast to two other groups: black Protestants and those with no religion. Only three percent of either group said interracial marriage was bad for society. Eight-in-ten respondents said the trend “doesn’t make much difference.”  Those who are not religious were more optimistic, with 38 percent saying it was good for society.
Such a poor view of interracial marriage comes despite its near universal acceptance—even celebration—among evangelical leaders even as they acknowledge sensitivity to the issue. For example, in a 2005 sermon, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis said, “interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.”  He followed this by noting that the issue remained “extremely controversial since it is opposed by people from all sides.”
Bob Jones University removed its rule against interracial dating in 2000; the university apologized for this and other racist policies in 2005.
Today, the issue of interracial marriage is most likely to be breached during debates over same-sex marriage. Ted Olson and David Boies released a video this month for the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER). The video features the two lawyers (who argued successfully against California’s Proposition 8) discussing Loving v. Virginia as the foundation for the argument for same-sex marriage.
Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton said the video is emotionally persuasive but makes an invalid comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.
“Segregation was a profound social evil. Full stop,” Stanton said. “Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation, that was wholly racist at its core … It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies.”

ChristianityToday:

Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals

This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. A 1968 Gallup poll found three-quarters of whites disapproved of a whites and blacks marrying. Today, opposition to interracial marriage is low, but it still lingers. Among religious groups, evangelicals remain the most opposed to interracial marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Pew).

Pew’s February Political Typology Poll asked people about recent trends in American society. Pew asked if “more people of different races marrying each other” was good or bad society. Overall, only nine percent of Americans said it was bad for society. However, 16 percent of white evangelicals said this, more than twice the opposition found among other Americans (7 percent). The survey found that 27 percent of Americans overall said more interracial marriage was good for society, compared to 17 percent of evangelicals.

Evangelicals may have the most negative view of interracial marriage, but there is also opposition among white mainline Protestants (13 percent) and Catholics (10 percent). Statistically, the percentages in these traditions who saw interracial marriage as bad for society were about the same as for evangelicals.

The views of white Christians stand in stark contrast to two other groups: black Protestants and those with no religion. Only three percent of either group said interracial marriage was bad for society. Eight-in-ten respondents said the trend “doesn’t make much difference.”  Those who are not religious were more optimistic, with 38 percent saying it was good for society.

Such a poor view of interracial marriage comes despite its near universal acceptance—even celebration—among evangelical leaders even as they acknowledge sensitivity to the issue. For example, in a 2005 sermon, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis said, “interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.”  He followed this by noting that the issue remained “extremely controversial since it is opposed by people from all sides.”

Bob Jones University removed its rule against interracial dating in 2000; the university apologized for this and other racist policies in 2005.

Today, the issue of interracial marriage is most likely to be breached during debates over same-sex marriage. Ted Olson and David Boies released a video this month for the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER). The video features the two lawyers (who argued successfully against California’s Proposition 8) discussing Loving v. Virginia as the foundation for the argument for same-sex marriage.

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton said the video is emotionally persuasive but makes an invalid comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.

“Segregation was a profound social evil. Full stop,” Stanton said. “Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation, that was wholly racist at its core … It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies.”

 

 isitsafe replied to your photo: The Atlantic: The Geography of Hate…
I’m surprised at you Montana. Mississippi - not so much.
The picture above, from the SPLC website, shows the number of active hate groups in each of the 48 contiguous states.

 

 isitsafe replied to your photo: The Atlantic: The Geography of Hate…

I’m surprised at you Montana. Mississippi - not so much.

The picture above, from the SPLC website, shows the number of active hate groups in each of the 48 contiguous states.

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.
 
But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).