Interesting leap there from “racism” to “racists.” The logo is an example of racism. I’m not seeing anyone serious here pointing to anyone else and calling them “racists.”
Did you read the indigenous perspectives quoted and linked in comments above?
Oh how I’d love to hear indigenous responses in person to your dismissal of their explanations of how harmful careless, white-supremacy-serving depictions of indigenous people can be. OTOH, I suppose I’d rather not see the pain you would cause by saying such blithely condescending and belittling things to an actual indigenous person’s face.
Again, what about indigenous people who explain the harm caused by such symbolism and imagery? Are you saying there’s something different about the “nature” of such people? That they’re what, whiny little babies who can never be placated? Do you even hear yourself? Can you hear the echoes of the self-justifying white supremacist infantalization of its subjugated, immiserated others?
Did you read the indigenous perspectives quoted and linked in comments above? Can you really read and acknowledge them, and then still say things like that?
I would flag your post as victim-blaming, but I think I’ll let it stand, as another example of just how common (and seemingly commonsensical) blithely ignorant and self-serving white supremacist attitudes can be, even today.
In an even more controversial move, the seal will be changed such that the white guy and native are making out.
-the only possible good outcome at this point
I think there’s a movement but you don’t recognize its goals. It’s not exactly to “not offend.” It’s to recognize that there are members of the public in the US who aren’t white guys, and everyone deserves as much respect as the white guys always have been given when it comes to public symbols and public property. Public flags and symbols that hearken back to the good old days for (some) white people where everyone else could be abused, exploited, and disrespected with impunity are totally inappropriate symbols to represent the public as a whole. If you want to fly some token of racist ignorance on your truck that’s your business, but flying it over a capitol, city hall, or in some way that’s intended to represent everyone as equals is just plain wrong. On the other hand, this is a logo representing gay interracial love, so maybe it’s less of a problem.
The goal of the movement is to become offended, as a process of manufacturing identity.
‘It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?’-- Stephen Fry
The title of the article at this time is “74% of Whitesboro voters support racism”. I would think that accusing someone of supporting racism is not very far from accusing them of being racists. I also believe strongly that if the time spent on outrage at this poorly drawn seal were directed at actual human suffering, the world would be improved. I think that the fairly new trend of demanding that everything be banned is ultimately destructive. Smashing monuments and burning books are not going to make us better people, and that is where this attitude has always lead in the past. And I stand by my assertion that the people who seem to spend much of their time looking for things to be outraged by are unlikely to be satisfied by any concessions that we might make.
Interestingly, there’s a town in Ontario called Swastika, founded well before the Nazis were a thing. After WW2, the government spent decades trying to force a name change, going so far as to install new town name signs in the middle of the night, etc. The town fought it tooth and claw until the government finally gave up. The residents viewed allowing a name change as something akin to letting the Nazis win.
Well yeah, it would definitely be bad to ban everything. Pretty sure that replacing divisive public symbols with public symbols that are more inclusive of the public they theoretically represent as a whole isn’t banning everything, though (it’s not banning anything, really). I feel like those who most vehemently oppose updating them tend to not consider the non-white guy parts of the public as being quite so equal as the white guy part, so they are fine with having public symbols marginalize segments of the public they theoretically represent. But the Whitesboro gay white-on-Native American tickling before embracing in man love logo, I have no option on that.
I would counter that the Stars and Stripes ( stereotypically flown to the sound of “Garry Owen”) are more symbolic of Native American horror than this seal could ever be. As is anything associated with Andrew Jackson. And there are calls for the removal of images and statues of the US Founding Fathers in many places, because those men have been found to not conform to 21st century progressive ideals. But my views on this come from my background in Archaeology, so I am pretty keen on not smashing things as they fall out of popular favor. I do not disagree completely with your political views. Just on implementation.
But what’s being focused on is the racism itself, not racism. You’re the one who seems nearly obsessed by this point with racists. Keep spinning around in that circle if you like, but I have no interest in dancing that dance with you.
I’m not “outraged,” and I don’t think others here who object to it are either. Disgusted maybe, or frustrated, or annoyed. So thanks but no thanks for the mischaracterization, and for the idea that “we” can only do one thing (do you really think that The Outraged don’t also work against injustice on other fronts? Sometimes even simultaneously?).
Again, did you read the indigenous perspectives quoted and linked above? If so, what makes you think they want to “ban everything”? Why are you lumping their specific protest and “attitude” (and pain) into some giant Ban Everything crowd?
Okay, now I know you didn’t read the indigenous perspectives linked and quoted above. Please do so. And if you did read them, your dismissal and failure to even acknowledge what they have to say signals your absolute refusal to listen to anyone who doesn’t spout banal generalities along with you about “pc culture” and so on.
I’m sure indigenous people like those quoted and linked above would find your designation of what they should and shouldn’t find horrible oh so very helpful. Would you want them to call you “Great Father” or maybe “daddy” and avoid eye contact while you dispense such wisdom to them?
So far as I’m aware, the stars represent each state, the 13 stripes the original colonies, and the red/white is some other innocuous thing. You can ramble about the colonies treatment of Native Americans and slavery and so on, but that’s not what the symbol was designed or intended to represent.
The confederate battle flag was flown by belligerents on the side of a war to ensure that black people could be forever treated as less than human, was mostly forgotten until it was revived in the 50s as a fitting symbol of resistance to desegregation/the Civil Rights movement. From it’s inception through its revival it was a symbol of treating black people less than human, and I’m 100% on the side of activists who want to see it removed as a public symbol. It was raised over most Southern Capitol buildings in the 50s as a symbol of defiance to ending segregation, and symbolically states that not all citizens are equals so I see why it never belonged there and deserves to be removed. It often took far, far to long to come down, which is no excuse for not dealing with it.
Other symbols should be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I’m personally very pleased to see people who traditionally have had no voice given one, and find it very wrong to ignore/marginalize people who aren’t white guys who point it out when we’re using terrible public symbols that don’t truly represent the public. Public symbols don’t just represent who we were. They represent who we are.
There are other pressing social problems to be dealt with, but fixing hideously inappropriate symbols is not a zero sum game.
Also, we should totally take Andrew Jackson off the $20. We have the genocidal maniac President on our money. What the Hell!? That’s absolutely insane. I vote for putting Kurt Gödel on the $20, because Gödel was the coolest (and his work was the basis for Turing’s famous paper), but I’m pretty sure nobody else roots for Gödel.
True. If there was a vote and Harriet Tubman was a choice I’d vote for her over Gödel. But I’m pretty sure Kurt wouldn’t make the ballot, despite deserving it - he nearly didn’t get citizenship because of his concerns over the logical consistency of the Constitution.
So far as I’m aware, the stars represent each state, the 13 stripes the original colonies, and the red/white is some other innocuous thing. You can ramble about the colonies treatment of Native Americans and slavery and so on, but that’s not what the symbol was designed or intended to represent. The confederate battle flag was flown by belligerents on the side of a war to ensure that black people could be forever treated as less than human, was mostly forgotten until it was revived in the 50s as a fitting symbol of resistance to desegregation/the Civil Rights movement.
So far as I’m aware, the stars on the confederate saltire represent the 12 most sovereign and independent states… blah blah blah. The fact that they fought to perpetuate slavery is as irrelevant as the fact that the United States was founded to perpetuate the dominion of the white race over the native Americans. These flags should therefore be seen as fundamentally separate from the racism that they respectively represent
The Battle Flag was what they hoisted over the Southern Capitol buildings, and it was hoisted as a symbol of defiance to desegregation. That’s what it represented and was intended to represent.
The US has had a bunch of flags, and sometimes hideous things have been done by people flying some version of that flag. Maybe we’ll admit Puerto Rico and get a new one some day. But those flags represented the ideals of a country founded on principles that are worthwhile (political equality, primacy of rights, democratic representation, constitutional governance, etc.). Even while the country was being founded the debate over slavery had already started, but the terrible things done under that flag were the country failing to live up to its principles, which is why MLK exhorted the US to “Be true to what you said on paper.” The terrible things done under the battle flag were successes at living up to its ideals. Big difference.
