I think that this charitable interpretation may be how a few people feel about the flag, Izzy, but probably not most. In my little quest to find hard data, I stumbled on some interesting research.
In 2000 in Alabama, state legislators voted on both the state anti-miscegenation law and on whether to fly the confederate flag in AL house chambers. Dino Falaschetti calculated that:
He maps his findings on a graph, which reveals nearly perfect direct variation between the probability that a legislator voted to maintain the anti-miscegenation law and voted to fly the battle flag in the legislative chamber.
He argues further:
My emphasis.
Whether the battle flag is ontologically a symbol for racism is less important than how it is received by the electorate. I believe that this study, located here, presents sufficient evidence of a correlation between racism and the battle flag that no amount of plaintive logic or appeals to the glories of the Old South can overcome.
Quite so. Bunch of pandering cowards, aren’t they?
I was speaking of the 2000 election where it was actually an issue, of course, but I love the way you opened the floodgate of years all the way back to Nixon once again. Hear that, everyone? Scylla says Nixon’s relevant again!
And of course, Gore did condemn the Confederate flag in 2000, as you would know had you read the links I provided on the issue lo these many pages ago. Here’s another:
Yeah, what a courageous, non-waffling sorta guy that George Bush is, refusing to take a stand on the leading symbol of hate in America. You South Carolinians do whatever you want, knowing that George Bush’ll support ya!
To your satisfaction, you mean. Sorry, but I have no interest in pandering to your demands for comprehensive census data. Fair-minded people can decide for themselves whether the point has been made.
Maeglin, the analysis you link to is bogus. It is obvious that a person who is a racist is more likely to support the flag than a person who is not a racist. So of course the correlation he shows will exist. The question is whether that is the only motivation that a person might have. Simply showing correlation adds nothing. (Similarly, a correlation will exist between people shaving their heads and racist views, but that does not mean that a person who shaves his head is a racist).
(Also, you’ve erred in saying that “state legislators voted on both the state anti-miscegenation law” and “a legislator voted to maintain the anti-miscegenation law”. The voting was done by the electorate at large. The study linked the distrcits voting pattern on one issue to the legislator’s vote on another).
I wish Falaschetti had included party data. Ultimately, I think that regional constituencies are much more important than party lines, since above all, politicians are interested in keeping their jobs and party leaders are willing to compromise in order to maintain their legislative headcount.
Nothing real controversial. What would be more interesting to discuss is whether constituencies that tend toward racism elect predominantly Republican or Democratic legislators. The data for that is out there. Like I said for the flag in my previous post, whether there is anything inherently racist is less important than what the electorate perceives.
So rather than sniffing for racism in the campaigns of prominent politicians, let’s try to pick some electoral districts that we can all agree are relatively racist and see who they elect.
I think perhaps minty and spoke are in a good position to help us here, since both Texas and Georgia have a rather ambiguous reputation with respect to racism. In time, we could expand this project to more and more states.
Hence the flag is a racist and divisive symbol, Izzy. There are people who are trying to take back the meaning of the swastika in order to restore its meaning to its more benign Sanskrit roots. Maybe lots of people no longer wish to believe that the swastika is an anti-Semitic symbol.
But honestly, are their opinions all that relevant?
You say:
I say that obviously, things haven’t changed all that much.
It doesn’t have to be the “only motivation” for the flag to still be a racist symbol. Sheesh, now that is a bogus objection.
Nope, but a brief search of the internet will reveal that most people have a strong presumption that skinheads are also racist. Like I have been trying to say, whether this is true in any ontological sense is less relevant than the perception of society at large.
You’re absolutely right, sorry about the imprecision. If the legislators themselves had cast the vote, the graph would not have measured probabilities.
Nah, I ain’t playing that game, Maeglin. The Southern Strategy is inherently a question of national politics, not state and local representatives. The question is whether the national Republican party panders to bigots for the sake of gaining or maintianing national majorities, not whether Trent Lott, Fritz Hollings, or Joe Blow kiss bigoted butt for the sake of getting elected in the deep South.
Nevertheless, if you want to play trivia, the first place that popped into my mind was the infamous burg of Jasper, Texas:[ul][li]State Representative (District 9): Wayne Christian, Republican and self-described "pro-family conservative.[/li]State Senator (District 3): Todd Staples, Republican and “twice named one of Texas’ Top Ten Conservative Legislators.”[/ul]Not that that proves much of anything, since basically the whole darn state is Republican.
Whatever, minty, for my part, I am inclined to agree that the Republican party has a national strategy of pandering to bigots. But short of Karl Rove’s secret memos to his mom, I just don’t think we are going to find out for certain one way or another, hence I am more interested in looking at specific district officials pandering to racists.
I don’t want to play trivia, and I am a little surprised and annoyed that you are trivializing what I think would be a useful inquiry.
Nope. You missed out on Bradley. Both of them repeatedly pounded the 'Pubbies for their refusal to condemn the flag. Once again, you’d know that if you’d bothered to read the fucking cites once in a while. In fact, the title/headline of one of the CNN links explicitly states that Bradley was condemning the Pubbies over the flag. Even if you didn’t bother to read the story, the link itself gave you the information needed to avoid such a ridiculous assertion.
But of course it does. He participated in the bigot-fellating too, though he came to regret it later on.
He is not disqualified. He merely recovered his dignity later.
Sure, Maeglin, it would be a useful inquiry if the point was to demonstrate local voting patterns in the deep South. I just don’t think it tells us anything about whether the Southern Strategy exists or has been repudiated, much less whether the local voting patterns are a result of pandering to bigotry as opposed to any number of other factors. Please don’t let me dissuade you from making the inquiry, however.
Yes, it depends on the percentage of the population that they are. If a minority of racists adopts something as a symbol, it does not usurp the identity of the symbol. If that is the primary use of it - if it means that to most people - then it does. Your swastika example falls into the latter category.
I didn’t say skinheads - I said people who shave their heads. Not the same thing. If I see a guy who shaves his head I do not say that regardless of his intentions he is perpetuating a racist image. YMMV.
BTW, I agree that a racist is more likely to vote for a Republican than for a Democrat. But that is because many Republican platforms - while non-racist by themselves - are more appealing than the Democratic alternatives. Such as opposition to affirmative action and welfare etc.
Fair enough. But do you think it is possible to build some kind of model from the ground up? If there are demonstrable voting patterns on the local level that the Republicans are aware of, does it not seem likely that they would use this data to form a national strategy?
Izzy
I agree, but I also believe that the Confederate flag falls in the latter category as well. Exactly how great a majority is required to determine the meaning of a symbol is open for lively debate, so I understand how people can oppose the idea that the flag is a racist symbol. I just think that, based on the data and based on my own subjective experience, that a majority has been reached. The fact that many others have come to the same subjective conclusion also gives my interpretation greater weight.
I am sorry if this sounds hopelessly postmodern, but I think it is the only way to go about evaluating the meaning for popular symbols that are in a constant state of flux.
Of course not. But then again, there is no relationship by theme or proximity between head shaving and racism. But there are proximate and thematic relationships between the battle flag and racism, which is why the correlation demonstrated by the above-linked study is useful.
I think this is partially true, but there are significant problems with this analysis. First and foremost, the data suggest that there are a lot more poor white welfare recipients in the south than black ones, hence is surprises me that so many southerners are resistant to social programs. Furthermore, while it will be a month of Sundays before I argue that opposition to affirmative action constitutes racism, it seems that they often go hand in hand. Obviously.
Sure, but (as Scylla would undoubtedly object) that doesn’t tell you whether the national party does try to take advantage of it. As you say, it’s not like Karl Rove is stupid enough to put such things in a memo and circulate it to the team. That’s why I prefer to look at what the R’s are saying and doing on a national level. Lord knows there’s enough resistance to judging the candidates by their words and actions; if we try to acribe the unexpressed thoughts of voters to the candidates they support, Scylla might go epileptic on us.
Fun game. Much as I hate to label any particular district as “racist” Forsyth County has a bit of a reputation. It was there that Hosea Williams was stoned as he staged a march for an end to racism some years ago. Until fairly recently, Forsyth County had zero black residents (and many countians liked it that way). Many, many years ago Forsyth County featured a legendary sign at its border: “N**ger, don’t let the sun set on you in Forsyth County.”
Times are changing there, as Atlanta expands northward and Forsyth County becomes a suburb, but my experiences affirm that racism lingers on.
Forsyth County’s state representatives:
Casey Cagle (Republican)
David J. Shafer (Republican)
Thomas P. Knox (Republican)
Well I am not saying that I am proving that the CF is not a racist symbol. Or even that I’m sure that it is not (as I said I am inclined to think it is not). But I am saying that your study does not show anything. Because it shows something that would be true regardless of the truth about the CF/racist issue. And something that would be true of situations such as the headshaving.
So if you want to continue to assert your belief that it is a racist symbol, go ahead. But you cannot make your case with that study.
I don’t know if they are - I wasn’t talking about Southerners specifically here. And as I’m sure you know, as a percentage, Blacks are a lot higher.
Yes, obviously. A person who hates blacks is not going to support giving them an extra leg up. What are you trying to suggest?
Republicans made hay of this vote in the past election, and as a result, Republicans now control the Senate. At least two of the Democrats who voted to keep the flag have since switched parties.