I wonder the what would be the reaction to a Gadsden-inspired shoe design. I sense an entrepreneurial opportunity.
What about the rank and file Patriots of the 1770’s and 1780’s who did not own slaves? There are thousands of people we are descended from that risked their lives under this flag to gain our freedom and found this country. Let’s piss on their graves.
Meh, your concern is noted. I figure, like the swastika on the hood of my co-workers car, a little context will kill off any problems I have with that.
Yeah, judging great men of yesterday by todays standards. :rolleyes:Guess what? They all fail. None were politically correct, they all had failings.
How does blocking the sale of a shoe with a Flag that celebrates America’s Independence “oppose brutality against black men”?
But it’s very doubtful that would have offended anyone. Except one football player.
San Fran spending up to $600k to remove George Washington mural since it’s now racist. It was painted during the depression.
San Francisco to paint over historic George Washington mural | AP News
That isn’t surprising since SF is the epicenter of liberalism. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars to do that when a $20 plaque could send the message.
Why haven’t they changed the name of the city since naming it after a Catholic saint could be offensive to non-Christians and atheists?
Do you really think there is a strong market for “overpriced” sneakers that display an outdated flag?
I’m asking this seriously. There is only one day of the year (Independence Day) that I can see could wearing this flag in a straight manner. That means only one day out of the year where trotting out these shoes would make some amount of sense. But outside of the context of July 4th, substituting the American Flag with the Betsy Ross flag makes an ideological statement whether one is intended or not. Even if you think that statement is an innocuous one, it’s ideological just the same. This makes a poor design to put on a shoe you want people wearing year round.
Do you disagree with this? Consider this is why the Betsy Ross flag is not exactly a ubiquitous marketing gimmick, even for Independence Day.
I agree the Ross flag was all over in 75 and 76. Have not really seen it since then.
That’s asinine. They should keep it *because *it’s racist and Manifest Destiny-ish. Not because racism is good, mind you - but as an example of “This used to be OK. Can you imagine this shit ?! But this is who we were. What have we learned ?”
Which is a p. good reason to not idealize, lionize, or enshrine them ; and question their axiomatic greatness. As well as question the institutions they created.
Also, fuck your use of “politically correct” there, on multiple levels.
Pretty much every foundational symbol will be seized upon by the White Nationalists if they can. They actually AGREE that the country at the time was racist and classist but they think THAT was part of what made it good.
Considering the Gadsden flag (snake + “Don’t Tread On Me”, for those who may not be familiar with the name) has been itself appropriated by the “Patriots” and the OMG Tyranny’s Coming For My Guns crowd since even longer, you probably DO have a good marketing opportunity already in place.
Indeed, it’s a cliché at this point. Which explains things like this (which I absolutely want hanging on my wall, please GoFundMe or somesuch)
(or this, for that matter and coming the other way)
There are some symbols that should be taken down (Confederate statues – they were not only racists but traitors and losers, why the fuck are we celebrating these asssholes?)
People like Washington, Jefferson, etc – this whole idea of judging figures of the past by standards of the present alarms me. I mean, think of how WE’LL be judged 100 years from now! It really does push the idea that human beings should be perfect before we choose to honor them, rather than present them as, well, humans, with flaws.
And history was ugly and disgusting because human beings are ugly and disgusting.
That’s exactly what I thought about it. Take your history class out to the mural. Point out various aspects of it, and explain the meaning, what people thought back then, what their mindset was, WHY it was painted like that. It would have made for such a wonderful lesson!
And it also would have helped art classes as well.
- Man, again…its a good thing (not really) that it was really about keeping slavery intact. Makes arguments simpler. No, I’m not being sarcastic. I could make a William Wallace analogy…if not for the fact, Will wasnt fighting to maintain slavery. And a good thing it was right there in the Confederate documents.
BUT…again we run into the issue of destroying art. And how far are going? We gonna plow under confederate graveyards? I mean fuck those losers and any “defending my family and property narrative”
I don’t think judging is the right attitude - I agree it’s important to understand that figures of the past were products of their environment and context ; and mostly did the best they could or what they thought was right (or most profitable to them personally, most often both) within that context. It doesn’t matter what you think about what they did : it was in the past (which is another country) and the wenches are *all *dead.
At the same time, it’s equally important not to whitewash or turn a blind eye to ideas, attitudes, opinions of the past *because *they were products of this selfsame context, or to absolve them of their sins entirely.
No, they probably couldn’t have known/done better and there’s no such thing as absolute or immanent morality. Yes, we’re standing on the shoulders of much larger giants than they were, with much bigger dicks. But that’s all the more reason for each new generation to re-examine the past based on their own, newfound understanding and evolving values in order to re-assess which ideas of theirs were good (if any) and which were just some bullshit ; and it’s all the more reason not to put these people on sacrosanct pedestals wot ought never ever to be toppled.
I forget which FF it was (apologies, damn dirty foreigner, all that) who thought the Constitution should be revisited and written over with every generation (or was it every second ? I honestly forget. Brain sloshing in beer, you know how it is). Contrast with people today still having heated debates over the specific wording of this or that article and what these dead powdered wigs *really *thought - when the obvious thought to have is “who the fuck cares ? What do *we *think about this ?”
I have no problem with local jurisdictions deciding that historic preservation is of lesser concern than modernizing public spaces to reflect and memorialize current day values and people. If we don’t allow old things to be retired and replaced with new, it creates the sense that humanity stopped doing notable things in the 1800’s and that only white men did notable things.
Perhaps the “how far are we going” question needs to be posed to die-hard preservationists. Is this restaurant in DC obligated to preserve this Obama mural for all eternity, because if left up long enough it too might become historic? If it’s not a big deal if this and similar ones get covered up just as soon as someone decides it’s time to see something different, why should we cry about it when the decision is finally made to retire a mural made in the 20’s or 30’s?
We all already know that we’re not talking about a legal prohibition. The point is that there is no form of prohibition, legal, moral, social or otherwise, that Nike is trying to impose on anybody else’s use of the “Betsy Ross flag” symbol.
They are simply declaring that they choose not to use it, and you and a bunch of other people keep freaking out about that.