Ok, their antiracist spokesperson said, “That’s a white supremacist shoe!”. And they took it to mean the symbol might offend somebody. I wish I could see the connection, but I’ve learned from 1000s of public apologies over the past few years to easily discriminate between saying “Sorry they took offense” and “Sorry for being offensive”.
Because the White Supremacist use of the Betsy Ross flag is more recent than Obama’s inauguration.
I am not yet persuaded that it has become a racist symbol, but there is no question that they have recently begun using it in a way that is making it more associated with racists.
If the jerks would leave it alone, it could revert back to being just patriotic with no real problem.
It is not inherently racist.
I dont think he is that. He’s a second rate sportsball player who saw a great way to self-promote. I have no doubt he is sincere, but I think his main goal is self promotion.
You can “think” what you like. You’ll still be wrong. His record speaks for itself.
…except for those actual Nazis using it 80 years ago.
Not relevant to your point, I just think it bears repeating.
So we have established that racists should have the power to hijack any symbol they want, because once they start using it, it’s tainted with racism and must be abolished. Is that about right? You sure you want to give racists that kind of power?
God help us if a racist group starts using a rainbow as a symbol, because Pride will have to be shut down.
They already use the current US flag. I guess we can’t use* that* anymore, can we?
No, that’s wrong, because it’s an absurd strawman.
The issue is not whether or not racists “should” have the power “to hijack any symbol they want”. The issue is that swaggering around and boasting that you refuse to let racists dictate to you what symbols you can use does not actually determine whether or not racists do have the power to hijack a particular symbol in terms of its cultural associations.
It’s not internet tough guys thumping their chests on anonymous messageboards about “not giving power to the racists” who decide the question of whether a particular symbol is culturally recognized as having racist associations. It’s a complex cultural evolution throughout an entire society, which doesn’t stop happening just because internet tough guys loudly proclaim how dreadful it is that (other) people are “letting” it happen.
Nobody is claiming that any symbol that’s ever used by racists must therefore be immediately abandoned by non-racists. (In fact, nobody in all the pages of this thread has even told anybody else that they have to abandon the particular symbol of the Betsy Ross flag that’s the topic of the debate.)
All that the rational non-chest-thumpers here are saying is that you don’t get to control other people’s impressions of what is considered a racist symbol. The tough talk about not “giving racists power” is just ineffective posturing.
More feeble strawmanning. Which nonetheless highlights the point that a symbol like the rainbow for gay pride/inclusivity is much less vulnerable to being hijacked by bigots precisely because non-bigots are already vigorously using it in a way that directly opposes bigotry.
As opposed to all those people not giving a crap about the symbolism of, say, red shoelaces or the Betsy Ross flag, until it’s pointed out to them that the item in question already has been (or may have been: as I keep saying, in the case of the Betsy Ross flag the issue of how strong the alleged racist associations really are is still very much an open question) hijacked by bigots. Then the non-crap-givers erupt in outrage that the people pointing it out have cravenly and irresponsibly “allowed” bigots to hijack a symbol that they’ve suddenly started caring about.
I repeat once more: Can’t be bothered to shoot the enemy, always ready to shoot the messenger.