If I were the parents of one of the kids that were sent home, I would have no problem if my child engaged in disobedience of the request every single fucking day. It would be glorious if a large portion of the school took it upon themselves to dress in flags of any country, every day as a giant fuck you to the school.
I also think the court got it right based on precedent.
There really aren’t. The Reconquista movement is pretty much non-existant outside of a few college campuses.
And what’s wrong with La Raza?
If that were the case, I would certainly agree this was a bad move. It just does not strike me as particularly likely.
Would you agree that if a group of students were using the American flag as a deliberate symbol of their hatred of immigrants, the school would be justified in stopping them?
I think that would be very bad, just as I think it would be bad if kids were attacked just for being American. But I don’t think that’s what happened here.
Again, :roll eyes:. New schtick, please. And I agree that it is a small percent of the overall population that sign-on to the racist La Raza stupidity. But guess where they tend to be located?
As I already asked you, any cites of the kids wearing the flag threatening anyone?
Timeline issues again, the past threats were taken into account, the refusal to turn the shirts inside out took place under that context, that some students choose to follow the lead of one of the past perpetrators falls into the old “if someone jumped out of a bridge will you do it too?” admonition that many students that are defying authority do not care at the time they decide to be jerks.
This for another thread, but it is overtly and thoroughly racist.
I don’t think so. The reason is that, while I agree that meanings of symbols can shift, even be appropriated for ill, something as powerful as the American flag is resilient to that change. And even if it can be appropriated for another meaning, there is so much attached to it that it does not cease standing for what it’s stood for for decades. So, I don’t thing your hypothetical plays out the way you suggested.
I agree that they were not threatened/attacked for just being American, but for displaying pride in being American—on that day. And what comes after the dash there in no way excuses the behavior of the kids celebrating Cinco de Mayo.
I don’t think you’re quite following what I’m saying. It has nothing to do with the strength or resilience of a particular symbol, or the symbol losing it’s original or commonly accepted meaning in any way. If someone says, “When I say X, I mean Y,” then when that person says X, he means Y - even if no one else agrees that X means Y.
Maybe it would help to think of it like a code? If two racists agree that every time they say “seagull,” they mean “nigger,” then its reasonable to treat them like they said “nigger” every time they say “seagull.”
See, I don’t think the kids were just saying, “I’m proud to be an American” when they wore those shirts. I think they were deliberately communicating a different message when they did it, and were hoping to get away with it by disguising it as simple patriotism.
I guess magellan01 cannot read bold letters either.
There were threats and insults, perhaps you are trying to make the timeline and the background go away, but even that is very silly, not my problem that you are embracing that.
They had an allowed reason to be there. In the latest incident it was a Caucasian student who put the administration on alert. It was the background and past incidents that told the school that an intervention was needed.
You can take your repeated one-note condescension, wrap it in the flag of whatever country you’re from, and flush it. :)
Please cite that past threats or violence came exclusively from those wearing the American flag.
Do you read the opinion RNATB linked to? I guess not. BOTH a Caucasian student AND a student from those celebrating Cinco de Mayo alerted the administration. And it is not clear if either of those kids were those involved in any altercation or just good kid trying to help the school prevent an altercation.
I don’t deny that symbols can take on new meanings, but the strength of the symbol of appropriated matters greatly. Just try taking the Christian cross and have it mean “Tow-away zone”. But I see what you’re getting at, that the symbol has two meanings, a traditional one and a double secret one. Even in that case, the symbol does not cease having the traditional meaning. So one claiming it is being used that way is still correct.
I do agree that there was a bit more than “I’m proud to be an American”. But it was probably more akin to “I’m loud to be an American. It’s the best country there is. And we should all be grateful we’re here. And if you think Mexico is so great that you want to celebrate some battle from 150 years ago, why don’t you go celebrate in Mexico. You can do it here, sure. That’s one of the things that makes this country so great. But that doesn’t mean that I have to celebrate with you, or that the American flag has to go into hiding. If you do think that, you can go fuck yourself.”
I did not say that, (and I say that with condescension) you claimed that “The threats were made in the other direction—against the American flag-wearing kids” that was not the whole history so you are wrong. And I do concentrate on the T-shirts, you are the one that is still basically wrong, the flag was not really the issue.
And this is meaningless as it does not contradict anything I said. I olmy mentioned the Caucasian kid only to point out that white kids also did not agree with what some students were trying to pull out.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
In the latest incident it was a Caucasian student who put the administration on alert.
[/QUOTE]
Looks pretty plain that you were claiming that it was a Caucasian kid, and only a Caucasian kid, who put the administration on alert
.
Look out behind you. I think that Stephen Colbert sneaking up with his Truthiness Meter.
