Kanye West discussion

[Diemen]

Lighten up, gabe. He's trying to have a discussion.

 

[Imperor]

Worth keeping in mind the Cobbs is not from North America and therefore likely has a different understanding of the Civil War that those of us who grew up with it taught in history class.

 

[PhilsFan]

And that America puts way more stock in the symbolism of flags than ... any other country.

 

[Imperor]

Speaking as a Southerner, I don't equate that flag with slavery right off the bat. It's not the number one connotation for me. If Yeezy wants to co-opt the image, more power to him. I totally understand where the association between the two is, but I think calling it a racist symbol is a bit shortsighted. A lot of people look at it as a point of pride in differentiating their lifestyle from that of the Northeast. Doesn't necessarily mean they want to own black people in 2013.

I should clarify that while there are elements of the South I love dearly, I don't identify myself with it or (by extension) the confederate flag. Just trying to play devil's advocate here.

 

[LemonMelon]

Kanye considers himself an influential individual and wants to turn a negative into a positive by taking a racially inflammatory symbol and placing it in a new context. He already did it with Klan imagery months ago, it's not exactly surprising that he's putting the Confederate flag on tour merchandise.

Misguided, stupid, insane, whatever; one of Yeezus' themes was supposedly the experience of the black male in 2013 in contrast to the past (pretty evident in New Slaves, BOTL) and now he's taking imagery like this and trying to update it. In the grand scheme of the album's promotional cycle, it makes a lot of sense, even if it looks ridiculous out of context.

 

[Imperor]

Well said.

 

[gvox]

Right, and an even greater number of people think it's patently offensive.

Which is also likely why I've never tattoo'd multiple swastikas all over my body, even though I've had dreams where an old man with a white beard and long flowing white garments came to me and told me it was my duty to reclaim it as a positive symbol.

 

[PhilsFan]

Right, and an even greater number of people think it's patently offensive.

Which is also likely why I've never tattoo'd multiple swastikas all over my body, even though I've had dreams where an old man with a white beard and long flowing white garments came to me and told me it was my duty to reclaim it as a positive symbol.

This isn't the same thing, though.

 

[Imperor]

That so many people get off on being offended is one of the worst things about our culture.

 

[gvox]

This isn't the same thing, though.

You're right: the swastika, unlike the Confederate flag, has actual legitimate historical uses that have positive meanings.

 

[gvox]

That so many people get off on being offended is one of the worst things about our culture.

I'll tell you what else is one of the worst things about our culture: revisionist bs like 'it's just a symbol of our wish to live a different lifestyle than the north'.

No. That is false. It's a symbol of the Confederacy, the major purpose of which was to defend the "right" to own slaves, treat black people as inferior, prevent other states from harboring runaway slaves, and continue slavery right on into the 20th century had they been permitted.

And if you've forgotten that, maybe re-read your respective state's Declaration on the Immediate Causes of Secession (or related title, as applicable)

 

[phanan]

Do you always have to be so abrasive when it comes to a normal discussion?

 

[gvox]

You mean a discussion in which you aren't even participating?

 

[PhilsFan]

You're right: the swastika, unlike the Confederate flag, has actual legitimate historical uses that have positive meanings.

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

[phanan]

You mean a discussion in which you aren't even participating?

It was a general observation.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[Diemen]

Do you always have to be so abrasive when it comes to a normal discussion?

You mean a discussion in which you aren't even participating?

So, yes then?

Seriously, Gabe, back off the trigger a little.

 

[gvox]

I didn't attack anyone here. I spoke vociferously in denouncement of revisionist ideas. Phanan's involvement was nothing more than an over generalized attack of my character which was neither called for, nor did it add anything relevant to the discussion, as he himself notes:

It was a general observation.

Thanks for confirming.

If Phanan is so regularly offended by my posting style, my understanding is he can exercise the right we all have, to make use of the ignore button.

 

[gvox]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

No, are you?

Or maybe you can enlighten me on what legitimately positive historical connotation the Confederate flag has, much less in a discussion remotely related to race relations?

 

[PhilsFan]

No, are you? Or maybe you can enlighten me on what legitimately positive historical connotation the Confederate flag has, much less in a discussion remotely related to race relations?

Enlighten me on how a guy from Toronto is more qualified than a guy from Texas to discuss how the Confederate flag is viewed in the south. You are awfully dismissive of Impy's post when it would seem that someone from the south would have a much better grasp on symbolism than you. We're not talking foreign policy where anyone from anywhere is on equal footing if they are well read. This is a more subjective topic. You are not treating it as such.

 

[lazarus]

Insufferable, as usual.

 

[Imperor]

There's a really interesting conversation about perceptions of icons from one culture to another to be had here, but to dismiss my firsthand knowledge as "revisionist bullshit" is willfully obtuse. Also notice I didn't make any blanket statements in my post, liberally peppering in "for me" and "I think."

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, and it's worth taking into account for the discussion at large, but don't start with telling me I'm wrong when you have no clue what it's like down here. If you truly think people hold onto that flag as a symbol of wanting to own black people, I can't help you. I understand the perception of it from the outside and how the connotation is still heavy on the slavery, so try and understand when I tell you what it's like on the other side.

 

[phanan]

I didn't attack anyone here. I spoke vociferously in denouncement of revisionist ideas. Phanan's involvement was nothing more than an over generalized attack of my character which was neither called for, nor did it add anything relevant to the discussion, as he himself notes.

My question was a general observation, nothing more. Not sure how you translate that into "an over generalized attack" of your character.

You honestly don't think you come across in a negative way on this board at times?

 

[gvox]

Enlighten me on how a guy from Toronto is more qualified than a guy from Texas to discuss how the Confederate flag is viewed in the south. You are awfully dismissive of Impy's post when it would seem that someone from the south would have a much better grasp on symbolism than you.

Well that's a nice sidestep to the question, but anyways.

Since when was the discussion about how the Confederate flag is viewed in the south? Is Cobl, for instance, from Texas? Are you? So how does where one is from change the historical significance of an image if it is overwhelmingly negative? It's not like I make that perception up. It factually is.

But, speaking of what respected educators/historians who, unlike us, are actually from the south, have to say about the symbolism behind the display of the confederate flag, here is one example:

Now that the Sons of Confederate Veterans have held their Sesquicentennial Ball, which may remain as Charleston's most widely reported commemorative event (The Washington Post's story drew more than 400 reader comments), perhaps the time has come to remember how 116 South Carolina historians have assessed the causes of secession. They researched and issued their statement near the peak of our state's great debate a decade ago over removal of the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse dome.

The chief author was Charles Joyner of Coastal Carolina University. He is among three signers elected as president of the Southern Historical Association. They and the 113 other signatories speak with authority about this central issue.

Here's what the historians concluded a decade ago:

"The crux of the present controversy is not in the flag itself but in conflicting interpretations of the meaning of the Civil War. Some South Carolinians deny that the Civil War was fought over slavery, maintaining that it was fought over the rights of the states to control their own destinies. Slavery, they believe, was incidental.

"But when South Carolina delegates walked out of the 1860 Democratic National Convention in Charleston as a prelude to secession, their spokesman William Preston minced no words in declaring that 'Slavery is our King; slavery is our Truth; slavery is our Divine Right.' And a few months later when the signers of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession issued their Declaration of the Causes of Secession, they specifically referred to the 'domestic institution' of slavery. They objected that the free states have 'denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery.' They charged that the free states had 'encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures, to hostile insurrection.'

"Moreover, in 1861, as President and Vice President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens each candidly acknowledged that their new nation was created for the specific purpose of perpetuating slavery. In an address to the Confederate Congress in April of 1861, Davis declared that 'a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States' had culminated in a political party dedicated to 'annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.' Since 'the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable' to the South's production of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, Davis said, 'the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.'

"In a speech in Savannah, Stephens made it even clearer that the establishment of the Confederacy had 'put to rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions -- African slavery as it exists among us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.' He added, that the Confederacy was 'founded upon' what he called 'the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.'

"Running successfully for governor of South Carolina in the critical election of 1860, Francis W. Pickens left little doubt of his support for disunion and even war to perpetuate slavery. His sentiments were echoed by his old friend Edward Bryan, who declared in the campaign, 'Give us slavery or give us death!' Pickens committed his state -- and ours -- to a ruinous course. 'I would be willing to appeal to the god of battles,' he defiantly declared, 'if need be, cover the state with ruin, conflagration and blood rather than submit.' These are not interpretations by historians; they are statements made at the time by Confederate leaders explaining what they were doing and why.

"After the war had been lost, and the Lost Cause was in need of justification, Davis and Stephens backed away from their original statements, casting the cause of the war in the context of 'states rights.' Their revisionist interpretation, in which slavery became not the cause but merely the 'question' resolved on the field of battle, still misleads many South Carolinians. The historical record, however, clearly shows that the cause for which the South seceded and fought a devastating war was slavery."

(source: http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20101226/ARCHIVES/312269943)

I'm also quite aware that there are still many people (not necessarily Imperor, it sounds like he doesn't necessarily support it's display) down there who have a hopelessly romanticized view of it that blatantly ignores or at minimum tries to reframe it's history and meaning.

 

[gvox]

Insufferable, as usual.

 

[Imperor]

Yeah, I don't support or denounce its display. I don't give a fuck as it doesn't affect me one way or another. Kind of an impartial observer.

 

[gvox]

There's a really interesting conversation about perceptions of icons from one culture to another to be had here, but to dismiss my firsthand knowledge as "revisionist bullshit" is willfully obtuse. Also notice I didn't make any blanket statements in my post, liberally peppering in "for me" and "I think."

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, and it's worth taking into account for the discussion at large, but don't start with telling me I'm wrong when you have no clue what it's like down here. If you truly think people hold onto that flag as a symbol of wanting to own black people, I can't help you. I understand the perception of it from the outside and how the connotation is still heavy on the slavery, so try and understand when I tell you what it's like on the other side.

I am actually very much trying to understand you. But the simple reality is that the continued use of the flag either turns a willful blind eye to what it stood for or grossly tries to reshape it.

I've read similar comments online about how the flag doesn't really mean that, that secession was about choosing their own lifestyle, etc etc, and to cut to the heart of it, it's a load of bs. I'm not attacking you, so I'm sorry if it comes across that way, I'm attacking these ridiculous notions. To be fair you may in fact merely be referring to how some young people in the south now see the flag, and not all the other issues behind it, so I also apologize if there's a bit of spill-over there from other discussions.

 

[gvox]

You honestly don't think you come across in a negative way on this board at times?

I never said that, I'd be the first to recognize it. However this is a fairly charged topic and I do tend to write passionately on such subjects. My beef was more you just parachuting in with no real reason other than to tell me this.

 

[corianderstem]

Honestly, I'm surprised you feel so strongly against Kanye using the symbol.

Considering all the connotations and controversy surrounding it, it seems pretty clear to me that it's a hearty FUCK YOU to the stereotypical Confederate good-ol'-boy flag-fliers. I'm sure he knows damned well what statement he's making.

 

[PhilsFan]

Honestly, I'm surprised you feel so strongly against Kanye using the symbol. Considering all the connotations and controversy surrounding it, it seems pretty clear to me that it's a hearty FUCK YOU to the stereotypical Confederate good-ol'-boy flag-fliers. I'm sure he knows damned well what statement he's making.

Exactly. Which is way different than some white dude tattooing a Swastika to his arm.

 

[gvox]

Honestly, I'm surprised you feel so strongly against Kanye using the symbol.

Considering all the connotations and controversy surrounding it, it seems pretty clear to me that it's a hearty FUCK YOU to the stereotypical Confederate good-ol'-boy flag-fliers. I'm sure he knows damned well what statement he's making.

I get that too, but to what end? Where does it lead?

That now the flag becomes the symbol of racial harmony? Is that even realistic or is he hopelessly deluding himself?

And I do think the swastika is a perfect example. If the Beastie Boys up and decide to start wearing Nazi armbands, does this work? What if they start selling them as tour merch?