Rebel or Racist?

[frazzledspice]

I am so embarrassed to be living where I'm living.

I related my story about the Confederate flag at the end of our block, and how my new piano student asked "if I minded teaching a black lady?" to a friend. She said, "Oh, that must be on the house of a football player."

Well, say what?

The high school in our area (where my daughter would go, since there is not Catholic high school) has a team called the "Southside Rebels." I had heard the name in passing, but, being an innocent, ignorant northerner, always identify the term rebel with James Dean. Their mascot is the Confederate soldier, and apparently one sits on the lawn of the school (I've driven by but never really paid much attention.) During the games, people show their school spirit by flying confederate flags, and with various other confederate memorabilia.

My friend says that they've tried to change the teams' names a few times but never got anywhere with it. She says it's more embarrassing to the parents than to the kids, because the kids just think about the rah-rah stuff and not the implied racism behind it.

I looked up some information on the school (hadn't paid much attention when I moved, because tenth grade was five years away, and I was more concerned with elementary school.) It was a national blue ribbon school in 2000 (the only high school in Arkansas to be recognized.) It is one of the top high schools in the state (of course we are talking about Arkansas here.) It is 88% white, 3% black, 2% Hispanic, 3% American Indian, and 5% Asian. 5% of students are living in poverty. There isn't any information on the web about the "rebel"...the school itself doesn't have a website. There was one newspaper article talking about a schedule change in the football schedule because Marshall, Texas wouldn't play them, but there was no mention of WHY they wouldn't play them. I know they've played teams in Missouri and Texas and Oklahoma, and I don't know how often other teams might request schedule changes because of fears of racial tension (or whether that, indeed, is even the reason for the schedule changes.)

My daughter would like to become a cheerleader in junior high and high school. She is gymnastically inclined and graceful (she doesn't play any competitve, ball-playing sports.)

I know that I want to see the Rebel disappear as a school mascot before she would attend (three years down the road...) I think that there are people here who are burned out trying. Some have opted out of sending their kids there by sending them to the culturally diverse school on the other side of town under a "cultural diversity" provision.

But I think that even if I sent her to the other high school three years from now, I'd still want to see the rebel run out of town for good.

I am trying to think of a preliminary plan of action. Any suggestions? (I suppose I could run for the school board, but as a new resident with two adult sons and a daughter in private school, it would be a hard battle.)

[amykhar]

What about using your little newspaper to start feeling out the issues?

Honestly, most parents probably just aren't that worked up about it - it's not that they oppose getting rid of the rebel name - they just don't see any pressing need to do so. It's probably not on the top of their priority lists. Let's face it, going to work, handling the kids, getting the bills paid, those are the top of my list. The name of the school football team is somewhere waaaay down on my list of priorities.

Amy

I think most people would be thrilled about the excellent academic record of the school. In a time where most schools are struggling to get children reading at grade level, most parents would be hopping up and down with joy at the prospect of their child having the possibility of attending a blue ribbon school.

Amy is right that you have a voice with your newspaper. Find a freelancer to do some legwork and find out what people think about the issue. Perhaps it's not so much that no one is offended as much as it that no one has bothered to think about it or to want to put that much effort into it.

I have to wonder though. I know that slavery was terrible. I know that racism is terrible. But look at the kids in the school. Are they racist? If they are, is it because of the mascot or because of the parents' attitudes?

I am constantly amazed by the number of people who think that eliminating symbols will correct attitudes. Not having a Confederate flag flying over the statehouse won't stop people from being racist. Eliminating Chief Illini at the University of Illinois will not make people better understand Native Americans.

Perhaps it's more important to talk with the school board superintendent and the school principal to see what they are doing to educate the kids on Civil War history, racism, and equality. Find out if there are adult outreach programs in the community so that the parental attitudes that are being passed on to the kids are being changed.

Only when parents and children are better educated will it matter if the symbols go away. Only then will people be interested enough to try to eliminate them.

[frazzledspice]

I have strived to make my newsmagazine non-political.

Although I supported the conversion of our two-year college to a four-year college (and anyone who ever read the paper would probably realize that) I did not discuss that issue in my paper.

I did write an article for another regional newsmagazine which presented both sides of the issue, and put a sign on my lawn and a bumper sticker on my car.

It passed, thank goodness, by a 76%-24% vote.

Rather than take on the high school, I think it would be more productive writing features on different groups working to promote racial and ethnic harmony in this town, and possibly get more people interested in working with them.

I know that it is an issue which has more to do about changing people's hearts than changing a mascot.

But Amy, it is very hard to move somewhere involuntarily, following your husband's job, and to realize that every time you meet someone and tell them where you're from, they would form a misconception about who you are based on things just like this.

And that's why my new piano student, after passing the Confederate flag down the block, said, "You don't mind teaching a black lady, do you?"

When I've had to move to a place I've tried to be philosophical about it, and figure that God must have sent me here for a reason. I discovered that the first reason was to bring Catholic church music into the 20th (and hopefully the 21st century), and have made friends and felt a great deal of fulfillment in moving music down from the choir loft, away from the pipe organ, and further towards lively participation.

The second reason God sent me here, I felt, was to make this town more of a center of culture and education, and, through my paper, which publicizes all the good things that are happening in the community, I hopefully increase attendance at these events and encourage organizations to do more of the same and businesses to fund more of the same.

Yes, the cynical would say that I was unhappy moving here and will not be satisfied until I get the place to change my specifications.....but isn't it nice that I want to make things better for everyone and not just me?

Now I see that the third reason is to change people's hearts. There are many, many wonderful people here although it takes some time to find them, even though there are many not so wonderful ones as well.

[amykhar]

Fraz,
I grew up in Texas. When I was 14, I interviewed for a summer babysitting job. The family happened to be black, and I'll never forget the mother asking me if my parents would mind me babysitting for a black family. The look of disbelief I gave her must have said it all.

Sure, areas like that do have racist people. But, there are also plenty of people who were raised like I was and like you were. People are people. Just live by your convictions and people will soon grow to understand who you are.

Finally, if it comes time for your daughter to go to that school, I wouldn't cut your nose off to spite your face. You have said that its a good school. Your daugter isn't going to turn into a racist by going there - you raised her. She'll still reflect the values that you taught her. In addition, if you teach her to be a strong leader, she might be able to help initiate change from within the school. Teenagers are notorious idealists.

Amy

And now, the Voice of Doom and Gloom.

Teenagers may be notorious idealists, but they are also notoriously cliquish and rude and insensitive and when they get bored people get hurt.

Will change happen from within if you plant the right seeds? Probably, probably not. Just planting seeds doesn't work. You got to nurtuee, water, maintain, and check up on that plant. Plus, you've got a lot of pruning and weeding to do, becuase all that effort and nutrition you put into the soil of society can sprout some bitter weeds of resentment, too.

I don't mind people for the color of their skin all that much anymore, and it took a lot of work to get to that point. What I do mind is an intentional language barrier imposed by the local Hispanic community here, expecting everything to be bent towards their comfort when all they have to do is melt a little more in the pot and not spend to much of jacking up their stereos. A little education, please!

Maybe that's why I don't mind Atlanta all that much compared to here... there may be chunks floating about, but there's a little heat under it all to bring people together. Heat can be uncomfortable, but the desired outcome is delicious.

No heat here... just fingerpointing and getting what's yours. Chunks, floating about and chipping teeth. All I can hope to say to Houston is Vaya con Dios some day, and good luck with hoping all these racial divisions will just vanish overnight.

[vemartin]

Will we ever get past this? It’s a sad shame that the South cannot get over the fact that they lost the Civil War, and let the rest of the nation get on with it. The rebel flag was, is, and will continue to be a source of bad feelings and a symbol of hatred and intolerance for a large portion of the American society. The fact that those who swear undying love for it, and worship it is a symbol of their heritage, speaks volumes about how Americans will never truly be a society in which the common good triumphs over individual concerns and declared freedoms.

In the end, we Americans are no better or no worst then any other peoples on the earth; the Grand Experiment has failed utterly. The principles by which the nation was formed have long been forgotten by her peoples, if indeed they were ever practiced at all. The highest achievement of man should not be measured by how much material wealth he was able to accumulate, or how he weathered the storm of life by himself, but how his life touched the lives of others in an attempt to better the whole.

We are a race of beings that despite our self declared superiority over the other creatures that inhabit this planet, continue to prove that we are the most thoughtless, self destructive, and pathetic of all. Our intelligence has availed us not, except to devise new and brutal ways in which to kill each other. The ways in which we treat each other drains every ounce of optimism about our future as an evolved compassionate race capable of great deeds, from my heart and leave it evaporating in the hot sun. We are not—as a whole—a species of principles and morals, and that to me is sadder than mere words can hope to convey!

[benho]

I am ambivalent about the Confederate flag. It stirs strong feelings on both sides. I am undecided about such symbols. You make a good point about the flag on your street.

However, I am always in favor of tolerance and understanding, so here are my two cents, on explaining the other side.

My school mascot was the colonials. I was in the Marching Band, and our uniform was a continental soldier remake, and yes it looked dorky, but I was proud of what it represented. Many people in the South feel the same way. If you ask any historian (particularly a Marixst one (in terms of historian, not political system), but this view is mainstream nowadays), the Civil War started as a war between two clashing economic systems, slavery was just a side note, a tool used by Lincoln to enlist foreign aid. It is reasonable for someone to look to pride at the hundreds of thousands of men who died honorably under the Rebel flag, who gave their "last full measure of devotion" to their home.

Yes, the flag was unfortunately misappropriated as a symbol for the KKK and other hate groups. But I don't think when people watch the Duke's of Hazard jump a river in their orange car, they are thinking about the KKK, so clearly the symbol is not that strongly associated.

In a similar way, the Cross has been used to commit great atrocities. The Catholic church has done its fair share of murder. And it perhaps offends many people. And yet no one would deny you the right to celebrate the many good things the Church has been responsibile for.

If there is a problem of racism in this school, then that should be addressed. However, focusing on the symbol may not be the best way to do it.

-- Ben

Vemartin, you are wrong. We are a great people, a shining city on the hill that can accommdate a great diversity of views. I can debate this point all day. But that would be off topic.

[vemartin]

Originally posted by benho
If you ask any historian (particularly a Marixst one (in terms of historian, not political system), but this view is mainstream nowadays), the Civil War started as a war between two clashing economic systems, slavery was just a side note, a tool used by Lincoln to enlist foreign aid...

Vemartin, you are wrong. We are a great people, a shining city on the hill that can accommdate a great diversity of views. I can debate this point all day. But that would be off topic.

Slavery a side note? The historians I regularly converse with, and those I have read hold no such notion or opinion of the causations of the Civil War. The reason there were two clashing economic systems in the country was BECAUSE of slavery, not in spite of it. Slavery was at the core of the conflict to be sure, without it there would have been no Civil War. The founders knew what a flash point the Institution of slavery was and in the back of all their minds they knew that the country would shed blood before the Institution was laid to rest.

Not so strongly associated for whom sir? You a White male graduate from MIT, or a Black graduate of the University of Alabama, or a Black graduate from Hawaii Pacific University and DePaul School of Law? It’s all a matter of perspective and experiential living.

Ben, I am not wrong, I wish I were, but I am not. I love my country, but I am not so blinded by her political and prideful rhetoric that I cannot see the truth. America has never been “a shining city on the hill” for all her peoples; our society will not allow it. A country build on the backs of slaves, where the practice of racism was and is institutionalized, thereby denying equal rights and justice before the law for all, cannot and should not be considered great. We as a nation fall far short of that distinction.

[poseidon]

It may not be a shining city on the hill as you put it, but by God people are willing to die to get here... so it can't be the worst of the worst, or even really all that bad, can it?

You act like this is a pile of dog manure. It's really the best thing going, despite its flaws.

Jeff

[erik_kosberg]

Why would one ask a Marxist historian about the Civil War? Since Marxism rests on the false premise that ALL of history is based on a clash of two economic systems, why would such a “historian” stoop to doing a critical analysis of a particular era in history? He or she already knows the answer and therefore doesn’t need to bother with all those nasty little details.

Sure, there were two fundamentally different economies in the North and the South but they were fundamentally different because the South’s economy (and, in particular, the Deep South’s) was based on slave labor. It’s sophistry to imply that slavery was a peripheral issue.

In the early stages of the war, ending slavery may not have been anywhere near the top of the list of Things To Do for a typical Union soldier, but that doesn’t mean that slavery wasn’t the dominant underlying factor in the road to war.

[benho]

Not that it matters a whit, but I am not white.

You apparently have only talked to historians with a single point of view. Talk and read more, and you will see this view is not so out there. It's not just the Marxist historians who believe this. The reason for the difference of economic systems was in part due to slavery, but also the fast rivers and poor farm land of the north versus the fertile fields of the south. (this north-south distinction is repeated around the world even where slavery had nothing to do with it, see Europe especially. [north italy vs south italy, england vs france, germany vs spain]). Most southerners were farmers. Few southerners owned slaves.

And on eric's note, slavery was a dominant factor, but it was not necessarily underlying. And what sparked South Carolina's secession was the North's ability to elect a president without winning a single southern state. Lincoln never had any intention on ending slavery. If there never was slavery, a similar conflict might have arose over some other legislation (though I will admit that this is rather unlikely).

But all that is academic.


Just as I can root for the Morristown Colonials, despite the American Colonists' poor treatment of the Native Americans, just as I can support a Catholic, despite the Church's atrocities through the ages, I cannot condemn a highschool for rooting for their Rebels.

Ben, I am not wrong, I wish I were, but I am not. I love my country, but I am not so blinded by her political and prideful rhetoric that I cannot see the truth.

And I am not blinded by negativity and pessimism. I can see past the problems, and see the path to finding the solutions. I said we were a city on a hill, but of course not heaven itself. There are problems to be solved, but point to me another society that has solved them better. Other countries appear to have better race relations, but they achieve this only by their utter lack of diversity. We were never perfect, and we are not perfect, nor can we ever be perfect, but it is in the process, in the dialectic, where we shine.

[mnehr]

Don't forget to throw the Arkansas state flag in there Frazzled.. It is a confederate battle flag.. not the popular stars and bars X but it is one of the battle flags...

I still do not understand why any government entity would fly the flag of a defeated nation over their offices.. I do not see the hammer and sickle flying over the US Capital.


(not even getting into the slavery issue..) Here in East Texas we see the stars and bars on old trucks all over the place, and it is usually followed by the thought..
'White Trash' I know, bad stereotyping by me, but......

[mnehr]

..which is something I thought I would never do...
but... .Slavery was a perdominant factor in the South's economy.. it was economic.. but that economy was dependent on slavery.

[benho]

I still do not understand why any government entity would fly the flag of a defeated nation over their offices..

The French have been doing it proudly over and over again for 200 years.

The economy was dependent on slavery, but it didn't have to be. The slaves were actually more expensive to maintain and were better fed and lived longer than the immigrants that crowded the factories to the north. If they weren't there, they could have perhaps gotten immigrants to do the work instead.

The South was agrarian because France, Spain, Southern Italy are agrarian. Purely geographical reasons.

-- Ben

[erik_kosberg]

this north-south distinction is repeated around the world even where slavery had nothing to do with it

I’m not sure what, if anything, that proves in the case of the American Civil War. Sure, there was a “rich” North / “poor” South divide but that was a symptom of the slave economy, not the cause of the distinction.

In Italy the dichotomy is also rich north/poor south, but in England it’s rich south/poor north. In China it’s rich east, poor west. In Hungary it’s rich west/poor east. Not much of a pattern.

[mnehr]

The French have been doing it proudly over and over again for 200 years

Yea but that is the French, they also think that when cheese gets mold on it, it is better, and things that are dug up by pigs are delicacy... lol.. ( I am trying to lighten the mood here...)

[vemartin]

Originally posted by benho


The economy was dependent on slavery, but it didn't have to be. The slaves were actually more expensive to maintain and were better fed and lived longer than the immigrants that crowded the factories to the north. If they weren't there, they could have perhaps gotten immigrants to do the work instead.

The South was agrarian because France, Spain, Southern Italy are agrarian. Purely geographical reasons.

What the heck are you talking about?? The southern economy was totally and wholly depended upon the institution of slavery! Why else go to war over the issue if this were not so?

How sir is it more expensive to enslave a group of people and pay them nothing, have them live off scraps, buy not their clothes, make them construct their own dwellings, then to hire immigrants to do the same work? What is your rationale? The southern Black American diet is testimony to eating habits of the slaves.

And what of the south being agrarian “because France, Spain, Southern Italy are agrarian…?” Please explain the rationale there?

[mtbat]

Originally posted by vemartin


What the heck are you talking about?? The southern economy was totally and wholly depended upon the institution of slavery! Why else go to war over the issue if this were not so?

The Civil War wasn't really about slavery but about states rights-the freeing of the slaves was secondary to the rest of the war-more of a PR type thing for the President.

If the Civil War had been about freeing the slaves, they would have issued the Emancipation Proclimation in the beginning of the war-not twards the end of it-

[erik_kosberg]

Maybe I’m beating a dead horse here, but the “state’s rights” interpretation of the main cause of the outbreak of the war is mighty thin, it was in effect a symptom rather than a cause. The political and economic divergences between the south and the north had been widening for many years (a plausible argument could be made that a civil war over slavery was almost inevitable after the issue was “swept under the rug” during the Constitutional Convention two generations earlier). Any halfway rational outsider looking into the United States in the 1850s would have said that slavery was doomed, the only real question was whether is would be abolished peacefully and slowly over the period of a generation or more (and why would the slaves or the abolitionists ever agree to this?) or violently over a much shorter period of time. Lincoln cared above all else about preserving the Union. If that meant delaying the Proclamation of Emancipation a few years so that border slave states like Maryland and Kentucky wouldn’t turn against him, that was a Faustian bargain that he was willing to make.

It is however a mistake to say that the south was totally dependent on the slave economy. Although this was true for some slave states (South Carolina and Mississippi in particular), it wasn’t as true for Virginia, the slave-holding border states that sided with the Union (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) or for parts of some other southern states (such as eastern Tennessee).

[erik_kosberg]

Some moderator I am... :o

Okay, maybe we should move back to Fraz’s question and answers to it and spin off a second thread about the causes of the Civil War.

[benho]

Ok, so on Fraz' point, my whole point was tolerance, and that perhaps the Rebels can and should be tolerated (as the catholic church can and should be), but then again, perhaps the symbolism is so strongly connected to slavery, that it shouldn't be. I am not sure, but until I am sure, I will not feel comfortable impinging on others rights. As for the civil war arguments, I cannot let my point sit undefended, so until we start a seperate thread:


I personally haven't thought about the north/south argument myself very much, it was more an interesting point posed by a friend of mine. Within countries, in Europe, it works not as well, but as a continent, those that industrialized were those with climates less suited for agriculture, had cold winters, and fast rivers.

England, Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, the North of France, whereas the mediterranean countries had an easy enough time with agriculture that it became unnecessary. This pattern carries on on a global scale, with the classic North/South developed/developing bifarcation (ooh, there's a $20 word), and perhaps even the slightly colder climes in South America have been responsible for making it better suited toward economic growth than Africa.

In asia, I am not sure how well this carries out. In China, it doesn't as well, as the industrial sectors are in the South, but then it's not like the north is particularly cold or has fast rivers. In India, I believe it is the case where the North is richer than the south, but I am not sure.



As for the cost of slavery. The eating habits of the slaves of course were a responsibility of the owners who had to provide the food in order to maintain their health. Costs could be cut in the north, because if one immigrant worker got malnourished, there was another one to take its place. This, I am pretty sure I have statistics for, it will take some digging. I know we discussed this in my super politically correct text book in high school, and currently near the top of my non-fiction reading queue is a American Economic History book that spends a good deal of time on the Civil War. I am not saying it was better to be a slave. Of course not, because the immigrants, no matter how poorly treated were given the opportunity to move up. I'm just saying that the South could still have survived without the institution of slavery, because a supply of equally cheap labor was readily available.

As for the South being agrarian (this goes back to the North-South thing), geography made the South agrarian, for the same reason that the geography of France, Spain and Southern Italy made them agrarian while the north of Europe was industrializing.

None of this implies that slavery had nothing to do with the war, because to change from slave labor to paid labor, would be immmensely dislocative, and the Southerns weren't going to take that, even if it would be better for them in the long run. (just like most farmers in the United States (and Europe and Japan more so) today shouldn't be farming, farmers in the United States are costing the tax payer billions of dollars while helping to keep countries in Africa poor, this is a bad thing as well (of course not as bad as slaery), but we maintain it for the same political reasons slavery was maintained)

But the war, very possibly could have happened anyway had slavery been banned all along. If somehow the constitution had banned slavery outright, chances are it wouldn't have been ratified, or if it had, the south would have broken off much sooner.

To say that it had nothing to do with States Rights, forgets that only 4 score and 7 years before (one lifetime, and actually, at that point, 3 score and 11), each state was sovereign, and only with difficulty had they agreed to union. To dismiss the state's rights argument means trying to put the values of today on the people of 150 years ago.