First let me explain my opinion about these things. I am not racist. I understand and agree the southern cross flag has come to stand for racism. I understand the swastika has come to stand for racism.
So this thread is first and foremost a ‘fight my ignorance’ thread. Second I want opinions.
Recently, Nike reportedly cancelled a patriotic shoe design for Independence Day with a Betsy Ross flag because Colin Kaepernick objected to the symbol, according to the Washington Post.
Really? I get the Dukes of Hazard flag. I get the swastika hate. But does everything that some fringe hate group uses automatically go on the racist list? If I wear blue laces on my boots does that automatically mean I think cops should be killed?
So fight my ignorance, does America’s first flag stand for hate or are some people working to hard to be offended?
And, yes, I know Betsy Ross probably didn’t really design that flag.
.
As the swastika example shows, a symbol that has no inherent racist connotations may acquire them by being co-opted and employed by racists.
So there’s no doubt that the Betsy Ross flag could become a racist, or otherwise offensive, symbol.
Whether it has become so is not a question that has a simple binary answer. A flag may be innocent when displayed in one context but offensive when displayed in another. Or it may have innocent connotations for one group of people but offensive connotations for another.
It’s displayed in many other contexts as well. But if racists are the only ones making extensive use of the Betsy Ross flag then, yeah, it could get to be a racist symbol pretty quickly.
Which brings us to a certain irony. The more ready people are to eschew the use of a flag which they think has acquired or is acquiring racist connotations, the more they entrench, intensify, etc those racist connotations.
In the US the national flag is extensively used for commercial promotion by private companies seeking profit (as in the present example). That, second only to being displayed to signify government property, is probably its predominant use. So if private businesses are averse to using the Betsy Ross flag because they fear it might not contribute to their profitability, and of course the government doesn’t use it because it uses the current flag, that pretty much leaves the field clear for the fascists.
I have no idea, could it be people don’t know exactly what flag it is?
(Although Kaepernick’s shilling for Nike should tell you where his priorities lie. Seriously, they’re notorious for having some of the worst sweat-shops in the world.)
I’m not sure I see how Nike’s use of sweatshop labor invalidates Kaepernick’s opinion about racist connotations of the “Betsy Ross flag”, however. I mean, the Nike designers who suggested the “Betsy Ross flag” sneaker design in the first place are also working for Nike; should we consider their opinions about the acceptability of the design invalidated too?
As for whether the “Betsy Ross flag” actually does have racist connotations, as UDS said, it’s a matter of usage and opinion. I agree that it comes across as more racist when it’s being paraded around with a Trump banner and MAGA hats, other US flags, etc., at a high school football game.
Especially when the students parading it are white students from a mostly-white school whose opponents are a mostly-nonwhite school with a large population of recent immigrants. I mean, why would you use aggressively patriotic, politically jingoistic, and anti-immigrant symbols as a show of partisan support for your team in a football game between two US high schools, except to try to send the message that your team are the real Americans and the other team aren’t?
AKA, “why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.” Good point.
I think what bugs me that if he’s so eager to fight injustice, why is he willing to accept millions from a business like Nike? You know? It’s like, okay, I have no issue with kneeling for the flag, but don’t talk about fighting for injustice, and then take money from a company that treats its workers like Nike does.
If he REALLY wants to make a difference, he wouldn’t be working for them at all. THAT’S what bothers me. But that’s probably for a different thread.
It’s not about “letting” racists “control the narrative”, it’s about being aware of how racists have already changed the narrative. When racists seize on a particular symbol to represent their racist ideology, and it becomes associated with their ideology in popular consciousness, you can’t immediately un-ring that bell.
Maybe the subsequent evolution of popular iconography will further change the perceived meaning of the “Betsy Ross flag” away from overt white nationalism. But at present, Nike sees that the “Betsy Ross flag” is widely perceived as having been co-opted by white nationalists, and Nike knows that trying to market sneaker designs that are widely perceived as racist symbols will hurt their sales of sneakers, so they’re not going to do that.
Or possibly not. I’m not arguing that Kaepernick or any other well-known activist is 100% on principled consistency in all their thoughts, words and actions. I just don’t think that Kaepernick’s having a sponsorship deal with a company that has some glaring labor-policy-fairness issues necessarily invalidates his opinion on whether the “Betsy Ross flag” has connotations of being a racist symbol.
Yeah, but is it though? What about the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”
This thread wasn’t really intended to be about Nike (though I welcome those comments), they can do as they please. And apparently they thought the BR flag graphics were a good idea before Kappernick nixed it.
I do believe it’s about letting the racists control the narrative. Obviously an organization like the Third Riech coopted the swastika, but they were huge. I’m not sure every little grass roots mob should taint every symbol they use.
But that’s the thing. Given the dominance in the US of commercial considerations in decisions about how the national symbols are used and displayed, it is effectively the Nikes of this world who will decide whether to contest the possession of the Betsy Ross flag and reclaim it from the racists, or to leave it to them and allow them to own it. And they’ll do whichever is most profitable for them.
They can do as they please, as you say. But what it pleases them to do will probably determine the outcome of this contest for the signficance of the Betsy Ross flag.
But, I think we (US citizens) have a responsibility to un-ring that bell in this instance. I don’t want the founding symbols for my country to become co-opted by racists. I’ll defend your right to burn any fashion of the US flag, but to ban certain versions because certain idiots want to adopt it? Nope. I’m gonna have to find a Betsy Ross flag sticker to display, because I’m not the flag-y type. Were some of the founders racists and slaveowners? Yep. Does that make them the least little bit special in their time? Nope, but I’m overlooking that for their other collective good qualities. You can’t expect anyone to be all things, and a group is far less likely to be spotless.
I’m not sure that Kapernick even killed the design, and I generally support his turn of conscience WRT the national anthem. But I’ve got a real hard time justifying robbing Peter to pay Paul, in this instance. If you could be brave enough to take a knee against the anthem, you’d have the sense to say no to Nike if you thought about it hard. So, it does show that he might not think very far when he takes his stands, or might have limited or specific courage. Either way, Nike is an employer who’s using him for promotion. I’m not sure I have real problems if he decided to use them for his ends in turn, even if I think at that point it’s a silly gripe.
But in the end, I don’t have to accept his idea of what’s a racist symbol. Symbols mean a lot of things to a lot of folks, and I don’t really have to accept anyone else’s idea of what it means. To give a personal example, I’ve worn a series of leather biker jackets as winter wear my entire adult life. It’s a symbol that just means “Rock 'n Roll!” to me, and is a practical, very durable garment. I’ve only really had to own two since I turned 18. One is painted, and the other has patches on it. I’ve been asked “Are you a skinhead” by a couple of black guys while wearing it with hair that was at least 2’5" past my shoulders. I don’t know if they were scared or just interested in pointers on trying to identify skinheads, but they didn’t seem accusatory. I just smiled, pointed to my head and said, “Nope! Got Hair!”, and went about my buisness.
These days, I work with at an international company with a large number of immigrants from a great variety of places. The same jacket that might have meat specific things to Americans in the past means a different thing to them now. Most of them just see the jacket as “American”. A few of them will ask with different levels of excitement and a little bit of exotic revulsion if it is “real”. I assume the people who are absolutely revolted by me wearing a cow don’t even ask (and possibly they tried to go anywhere but Texas), so I always answer that it is really leather. I’m sure this jacket means something different to them than it does to me.
Similarly, I had a co-worker who decorated their car for a Hindu holiday. I apologize, I figured out which one, but I cannot recall it at the moment. On the front of their hood was an unmistakable swastika, but rotating the opposite direction from what I’m used to. They seemed to park across from me every day for around a year. I never said anything about it (yes, I should have at least asked if they were aware of the potential problems), but I do know a bit about the history of the symbol, and wasn’t personally confused. However, I do wonder what other drivers who might notice it would think about this Indian man driving around with what could be easily misinterpreted as a Nazi symbol painted in beige on his hood.
Using the proceeds or hardcore capitalism to solve the injustices and misery wrought by hardcore capitalism strikes me as a strategy wrought with a slight problem
And it’s probably not accurate to call it our first flag either. The history is murky, but the first flag is either the Grand Union flag with the Union Jack in the canton or its a flag with the 13 stars in a rectangular pattern.
The Betsy Ross flag with the 13 stars in a circle didn’t become popular until the centennial celebrations in 1876, when Ross’s family started pushing the Betsy Ross story.
The reflexive idea that if racists have commandeered a particular symbol or object means that we can no longer use that thing not only gives them great power (“4chan says the OK hand symbol is racist? No more OK hand symbols!”) but also misses a useful strategy: Diluting their power. If racists want to use the Betsy Ross flag for racist purposes, then why not have all of society deliberately use that same flag for non-racist purposes? If 4chan trolls want us to stop using the OK hand symbol for fear of racism, why not purposefully use the hand symbol a lot for innocuous purposes? You dilute the racist effectiveness that way.
It’s my understanding that Colin Kaepernick’s objection to the Betsy Ross flag is not because of it’s recent use by racists groups. Rather, it stems from the same reasoning that leads him not to stand during the playing of the National Anthem: it represents an inherently racists governmental system. His reasoning is that the United States, as constituted at the time of the Revolution, had the choice to be non-racist, and instead specifically institutionalized racism, especially slavery. So to idolize a symbol from that time period in our history is to idolize the institution that continued to oppress his ancestors.
It’s others who piled onto his objections by noting the use of the flag by racist groups recently.
