Is the "Betsy Ross" flag racist

Great Debates
181

Well, AFAICT that’s got nothing to do with any exercise of corporate branding power or any celebrity’s alleged “influence over social media”.

Many people assume that red shoelaces are a white-power skinhead symbol merely because many white-power skinheads wear red shoelaces to deliberately convey exactly that message.

In other words, skinheads used a particular, originally neutral, symbol enough that they successfully associated it with their toxic ideology. No significant pushback or “reclaiming” movement took place in response to that. And now people who want to use that symbol without ideological associations are bitching that other people might interpret it contrary to their intentions or point out that it does have recognized ideological associations.

Like I said: Can’t be bothered to shoot the enemy, always ready to shoot the messenger.

182

Reclaiming symbols is doable; in the 1980s, the non-profit “People for the American Way” was quite successful in reclaiming the flag itself, as well as “the American way” and related sentiments, for the left. People for the American Way - Wikipedia

Apparently there’s an overt effort on the right to stop the association of rainbow images with gay rights, and change that association to white supremacism. Quite recently they started using a variant on their “Pepe the Frog” with a rainbow wig and clown makeup:

183

Oh, look at that - being anti-racist pays dividends.

184

(aside)
Huh. Did that change recently ? Or is it an American thing ? 'cause back when I had long hair (… or just hair, period sigh) red shoelaces on a skinhead/punk meant “redskin”, the socialist/anarchist skinhead predecessors of the modern antifa. Guys who’d go around looking for the more traditional sort of skinheads to fight with, basically.

185

Not so “successfully” as I have never hear it before this post.

186

I hate to break it to you, DrDeth, but whether you personally happen to have heard of a particular cultural symbol prior to some more clued-in person pointing it out to you is not determinative of whether the adoption of that symbol qualifies as “successful”.

If you’ve got a counter-cite supporting the claim that this symbol isn’t recognized as having the meaning attributed to it, feel free to discuss it. But your stubborn anecdotal insistence along the lines of “well it can’t really be a thing because I’ve never heard of it before” is not persuasive.

187

Not being anti-racist.

Just getting a lot of publicity.

188

Well, the publicity was specifically for Nike’s decision to discontinue the “Betsy Ross flag” sneaker because of complaints that the flag has racist associations, due to its historical connection with the slavery era (and its consequent adoption by white nationalists).

You can certainly disagree about whether Nike’s anti-racist justification for cancelling the sneaker launch is sensible or sincere, but there’s no denying that what they’re getting publicity for is, at least nominally, an anti-racist stance.

189

“Just getting a lot of publicity.”…for being anti-racist. It’s laughable that you think the two are unconnected. Do you think if Nike had a lot of publicity for, say, putting swastikas on their sneakers, their share price would go up?

190

The Betsy Ross flag is NOT the same as the swastika. Not in any way. It’s only recently that some group of dumbass racists decided to start using it. Otherwise, it’s always been fairly benign.

Most people wouldn’t even know the association.

191

Nike stock got a boost because they got publicity for helping racists co-opt a symbol of the American revolution. They took no anti-racist stance.

192

The same can be said of the “okay” hand-gesture.

A U.S. history fan might see the Betsy Ross flag sneakers and buy them as an expression of interest in the historical reference----but might soon encounter many people who’d assume that the intent of wearing the sneakers was to express a belief in white supremacism.

193

Which I find disturbing. I wish more people would stop letting these 4chan types ruin everything. Pretty soon, we’re not going to have a symbol left that ISN’T associated with white supremacy!

194

Well, but they did, though. You can disagree with Nike about whether the Betsy Ross flag is or should be considered a racist symbol, but when Nike said that they didn’t want their sneakers associated with the Betsy Ross flag because of the flag’s (alleged) connotations of racism, that was ipso facto taking an anti-racist stance.

You can also, as I said earlier, disagree about whether Nike’s stance was sincere or sensible, but it’s still factually correct to describe the stance itself as “anti-racist”, because it was rejecting a particular symbol on account of its (alleged) racist associations.

How exactly are you “stopping” them? Share your secret, and maybe “more people” will be able to join you in keeping everything from being ruined.

195

Perhaps continue to use said flags, or gestures, and ignore the whole “oh, the ‘okay’ sign actually means White Power!!!”, for example. NOT give in to a bunch of trolls.

Honestly, I don’t think Nike was doing it to be anti-racist so much as they were doing it because they were afraid they’d lose money if people accused them of being racist. I doubt enough people were aware of the “white supremacists adopting the Betsy Ross flag”. Either that or they figured the controversy alone would sell more sneakers.

“Look at how anti-racist and conscious Nike is! Isn’t that great!” But maybe I’m just getting more cynical as I get older, perhaps.

196

How are you conveying your intention about the meaning of said flag or gesture to people who don’t already know what you intend by its use, though? Once a symbol becomes ambiguous in its interpretation, there’s no way for a random person to determine what any other random person means by using that symbol, considered in isolation.

The recommendation “just go on using the symbol and ignore any possible ambiguities of interpretation” kind of suggests the privileged position of somebody who isn’t the target of racist symbols and doesn’t have to worry about possible consequences of misinterpreting the symbol. As a white person, I can safely ignore all sorts of potentially racist connotations of ambiguous symbols that I might think twice about ignoring if I were non-white.

Or maybe, as you with the face suggested, the whole thing was just a PR ploy by Nike in the first place. Taking the issue of racism seriously doesn’t mean we have to take every anti-racist stance proclaimed by a highly sophisticated major corporate marketing department entirely at face value.

197

That was kind of my point. :wink:
As for continuing to use something, what ARE you going to do, if they start adopting every symbol to use for hate? It’s like Michael Bolton said in Office Space, “Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.”

I think EVERYONE should continue using said symbol. I’m tired of the assholes winning, that’s all. It’s pissing me off.

198

Which would be exactly one person, so that’s rather doubtful. And I am not even sure if he is sincere.

199

Because i dont know anyone who thinks the Ok sign or the betsey Ross flag is racist, so I could use either with a clear conscience.

Now the “dont tread on me” flag is a bit different, i will admit.

200

Isn’t that a bit of an argumentum ad hyperbole, though? It’s not like there are literally no symbols left that haven’t been co-opted for hate speech, nor are there ever likely to be. I still get through my days just fine not using the “OK” hand gesture or the Betsy Ross flag symbol, even though I don’t assume that anybody I see using them must have malicious motives.

In other words, I would be a bit disappointed in myself if a bunch of white supremacists and/or 4chan trolls were really capable of putting a serious dent in my self-expression by their symbol use. I like to think I’m far more articulate and adaptable in my semiotic capabilities than those sorts of assholes tend to be.

I’m not very familiar with Office Space, but if internet quote sites are to be trusted, that dialogue is about a man with the same name as a famous singer (whom he doesn’t like) being mad that his name is associated with the singer? And when his friend suggests that he use a slightly different name instead so he won’t have to deal with that association, the first guy objects to it on the grounds that he has somehow a better right to the original name, because the singer is “the one who sucks”?

ISTM that that dialogue’s more of a comic send-up of a self-absorbed person’s refusal to acknowledge inconvenient reality than an effective model for resisting racist inroads on shared culture. I mean, obviously the singer Michael Bolton has as much right to the name “Michael Bolton” as whiny-office-guy Michael Bolton does, right? And obviously whiny-office-guy Michael Bolton’s insistence on using his original name isn’t going to accomplish jack-shit in actually getting people to stop associating that name with the far better-known singer Michael Bolton, right?

So I’m not clear why whiny-office-guy Michael Bolton is being held up as a model to emulate here. If we don’t want to change our use of some word or symbol that has become associated with something/someone we don’t like, then okay, we don’t have to change it. But that doesn’t mean that the association doesn’t actually exist, or that our refusal to recognize it is anything more than egotistical denial. (Of course, that bypasses the question of how much the undesired association in question actually does exist, which in the case of the name Michael Bolton is undeniably definite and in the case of the Betsy Ross flag is still quite debatable.)

Well, like I said, that tends to seem easier to those of us for whom white-supremacy symbols, or symbols that could possibly be intended to carry a white-supremacy message, convey no direct threat.

You tell 'em, Michael Bolton.