Back to the Flag debate

[Kilmer17]

Notice please the the GOP EXPLICITLY calls for a flag that predates the stars and bars.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/0103/02flag.html

Poll: Let voters pick flag

Georgians split on designs, symbolism

By RHONDA COOK

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Related:

• Poll results

Georgians disagree on what their state flag should look like, but they do agree that the people should decide.

A recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll found that 41 percent favor keeping the current flag that Gov. Roy Barnes championed in 2000, 23 percent want to return to the old banner with its dominant Confederate battle emblem, and 28 percent prefer another, undefined alternative. And while voters didn't cite the flag question as their top priority, 67 percent of voters said it was "very important" or "somewhat important" that voters decide it.

"Something this important should be put to a vote," said Sonny Miller, a self-employed Atlanta businessman.

That sentiment is keeping Republican Gov.-elect Sonny Perdue in a political pickle. One of his campaign promises called for a referendum on the controversial flag issue. Now he is being pressured on one side by business leaders who fear economic boycotts if the old flag is restored and on the other by those who favor the Confederate battle cross -- or at least a statewide vote on it.

Not surprisingly, the "let-us-vote" viewpoint was strongest outside metro Atlanta, where 55 percent said voting on the matter was "very important." It's the region that helped sweep Perdue to victory over Barnes in November.

Though a plurality of poll participants favored keeping the current flag, that's not necessarily a rejection of the old flag's Confederate symbolism. The poll also found that 55 percent consider the Confederate emblem a symbol of "heritage and history" while one-third view it as a reminder of "oppression and racial division." The breakdown fell along racial lines: 75 percent of African-Americans considered the Confederate symbol divisive and 72 percent of whites said it signified heritage.

The flag debate has been part of Georgia's political landscape for decades, after the Legislature adopted the banner with the Confederate St. Andrew's Cross in 1956 amid court orders to integrate public schools. It came to a head in early 2001 when Barnes, in a stunningly sudden move, pushed through a new flag that dramatically downsized the Confederate emblem in favor of the state seal. The change caused resentment not only because of the reduction of the Confederate cross, but because it was accomplished in a style opponents called dictatorial.

Perdue was one of those opponents. Since the election, he has not offered specifics on how he would resolve the issue -- except to reiterate that the people should have a say.

"The governor-elect made that promise, and he has stated publicly he plans to keep the promise," said Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah), who is in line to be the Republican leader in the GOP-controlled Senate when the Legislature convenes Jan. 13. "But how we'll do it and when, we don't know."

'It's too controversial'

Alice Gibson of Catoosa County, along the Tennessee border, typifies those angry over the change. A grandmother of four, Gibson is a native Georgian who sees the previous flag as a reminder of her family's history and resents pressure to change it.

"I don't see a purpose in changing things because of one group of people," said Gibson, who is white. "It's really sad we have to change things just because some people want something to gripe about. . . . It's not fair to white Americans. We should have the flag because it's history. We don't set out to change things they want to keep."

Others who back the Confederate emblem said they understood the opposition. Sandra Bailey, a pharmacist in the South Georgia city of Douglas, has heard customers complain of the current flag.

"I like the Confederate flag. It's a historical thing," said Bailey, who is white. "[but] I don't think we ought to have the Confederate flag back on our state flag. It does represent slavery to the black population. It's too controversial."

In that spirit, more than a quarter of poll respondents favored some third alternative. Republican leaders have discussed returning to the flag that predates the Confederate-dominated banner. Though it resembles an early Confederate flag, it does not feature the battle cross.

"Certainly there could be something that's not offensive to the blacks and pleasing to the whites," said Miller, the Atlanta businessman. "They probably ought to . . . move on to something different.

"The cross of St. Andrew is a beautiful design," Miller said. "But if I were black, I would think it was ugly."

According to the poll, the flag is not a top priority for Georgians. When asked how important addressing the state flag should be to the governor and Legislature, poll respondents rated it lower than establishing tougher ethics laws or changing the direction of education policy. About 92 percent cited ethics as very or somewhat important, 69 percent said education, and 46 percent said the flag.

Arthur Fanning, a retired Atlanta sanitation truck driver, said he favors the present banner but has more important things to worry about.

"It's a symbol of slavery, but [slavery] is gone," said Fanning, who is black. "I'm more concerned now about putting food on the table."

Legal barriers to vote

A statewide referendum may not be as simple as it sounds. In 1993, then-Attorney General Mike Bowers said in an official opinion that the state constitution did not allow a public vote on the flag design; two-thirds of the Legislature and then the voters would first have to agree to change the constitution to allow for a referendum before one could be held. Assembling the legislative votes to do that could prove difficult.

And the flag issue has gotten even more delicate for Republicans. Last month, Trent Lott of Mississippi was toppled as Senate majority leader for his statements endorsing the 1948 presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond, who ran as a segregationist. National Republican leaders have already expressed discomfort with seeing a flag referendum and President Bush's 2004 re-election bid on the same Georgia ballot.

Ferrell Blair, a LaGrange businessman who is white, suspects that a referendum may not quiet the flag debate and could cause further damage to race relations.

"Until you change the hearts and minds of the people, it doesn't matter what flag you fly," said Blair, who wants another design. "[People] aren't going to change just because they're under a different state flag. It didn't change their lives any because we removed the battle flag. It didn't cause anybody to get a job who was suffering from racism before -- nor did it make a racist out of anybody."

[BG]

This is tiresome. As a resident of the southern of all southern states (can I say that?), I don't see the confederate flag as anything but a symbol that stirs controversy and anger. The civil war is long since over. The only flag that should be an issue is the American flag. Created on a notion of sound moral beliefs (yet also controversial means) the American flag should be the only flag that residents of any state salute. If it is ok to raise ol dixie, then Trent Lott should still be majority leader, Strom should have been president and Missisippi could raise their new flag with a picture of a klansman riding his horse en route to a lynching.

Get rid of this flag. It's bull**** and everyone deep down knows it. I would $ on the possibility that the numbers from those polled

in favor of the flag were not in the city of Atlanta and nor were they taken in black neighborhoods. Keep in mind as well that the majority of Georgians are white.

Go a step further and think about the symbol of our favorite team. The time may come for us as well and I won't put up much of a fuss.:gus:

[Kilmer17]

I believe in the states residents right to decide for themselves as this article states.

WHy is that wrong? SHouldn't they have that right?

What if I said that the new flag offended me? Would the state then be forced to come up with another one?

[BG]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I believe in the states residents right to decide for themselves as this article states.

WHy is that wrong? SHouldn't they have that right?

What if I said that the new flag offended me? Would the state then be forced to come up with another one?

First, as I mentioned before, I question the validity of those so-called polls. Second, the majority of those who approve the flag would be more than those that dissaprove. The majority of Georgians are white and not neccesarily upper-calss. There is still much racism here in the south.

It is easy to simplify the issue to a matter of choice. To break it down to a resident's right to choose his/her states flag, but this not so simple. The amount of taxes we all pay every year offends all of us, but that does not seem to change. I have hundreds of dollars taken from me every month without my say so. Even if I was a bible thumper down here in the bible belt, and I wanted my children to pray every morning, I couldn't do that because it is unconstitutional. I digress a bit but my point is that this isn't some little thing that a few people are offended by. I donmt need to go into what it means and says to the world but more important to the people of this country if it stays as a state flag.

[Kilmer17]

The root issue is whether or not the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol. That is the debate. Who gets to decide if it's racist if not the people who it will represent?

This is not a picture of Tarbaby eating a watermelon or another carichature (sp?) that is blatantly racist. What if another group of people in GA (or any state for that matter) make the claim that the current flag is offensive? Would the state have to take it down?

And why do you question the validity of the polls? Because it doesnt support your position? This is a major news source and a respected polling outlet. Claiming otherwise is shortsighted.

[JackC]

Kilmer

You raise a tough question. Who decides when it's a issue for the people or a "tar baby" situation? For individuals I think they should be allowed to wear anything they want, but for the government to display it in the form of a state flag I believe it has no business using a symbol that has such negative reactions by such a large number of people, even if the majority of people don't agree.

I guess common sense is what is needed although that would be asking a lot of any government.

Either way it really is a tough question to answer. I would prefer to error on the side of not allowing the confederate flag as part of any state or local flag.

[Kilmer17]

My own opinion is that the Confederate Flag shouldn't be part of the state flag. But why should my opinion matter more than those who DO want it as part of the flag.

I dont have the easy answer. I do think that the state gets to decide this themselves. Whether it's through a referendum, a bill, or Governor decree. My choice would be a vote.

[gbear]

Kilmer,

We aren't a pure democracy. The reasons for this is that the majority is not always in the right. If you were in Germany in the late 30's and forties, could you see a situation where the ghetto was a solution that would be backed by a plurality if not majority of people? Would that mean it would have been the right thing, or mearly that money and speakers and bigotry can persuade people to do awful things?

When it comes to the treatment of a group of people, I think its human nature not to value the hurt we inflict on others as much as we would charge for hurt done to us. It's sad, but I'm not sure we can reliably put our faith in democracy to ALWAYS be on the right. In one of the federalist papers, this was used as a reason for checks and balances and not having a pure democracy. We must look out for the minority opinions and hurt as well.

I'm not saying the people of Georgia would vote to restore the old confederate flag. However, I think a point can be made for it not being a voting issue. Can you imagine if it was put to a vote, and Georgia voted for the confederate flag? What would you do then?

[Kilmer17]

I totally agree with you. So how do we decide what is offensive, or in this case racist?

Who gets to decide?

[gbear]

The tradional reply would be to take it up with the courts. They have been the traditional arbiters of social injustice when it comes to changing the status quo. If nobody cares enough to file a suit, the hurt being done is probably small, and we shouldn't worry either. Most of the people seem to put it way down on their priority list, so I'd tend to view it as a non-issue. That's just me. It's a non-issue that was used to score political points. The downside is that a promise was made.

If it goes to a vote (something I don't think it should in principle), in all likelyhood it'still no big deal. However, if the racist contingent shows up en mass, don't be surprised to see a bad result challenged in court. Then we'll get to see of what stuff the men and women of our court system are made. Personally, I wouldn't have taken the chance.

Side issue: France recently had an election where a political party took an outragous stance and made it through the primary with low voter turnout. While the public reacted in the general election and basically said "this guy is nuts" the international comunity didn't take it well that the nut job recieved a startling % of votes in the primary. If the flag were put up for a vote and say 30% voted for the confederate flag, but not enough to replace the flag with the confederate flag, could this hurt race relations and the perception of a racist South? Sometimes, even the votes can hurt by giving legitamacy to all sides of the arguement. In this case, it may make people think "See I'm not alone in thinking the confederate flag is the right one and all those who have suffered under it can go ..." On the other side, Minorities might say "See, there is still so much racism. I'm still not getting a fair shake. These people could care less what they do to me." (both sides exagerated). I just see a lot that this vote can hurt even if the vote turns out the way I think it should.

[Kilmer17]

The courts would be an appropriate venue.

I also think that race relations need to come to the forefront in the US. IF it's because of the flag, so be it. We will all be much better off in the future.

[Tarhog]

I'll throw in my 2 cents. From a purely legal standpoint its entirely up to individual states and their elected officials to determine what their state symbols look like. I do not personally view the confederate flag as a symbol of racism or pro-slavery sentiment. When I see a pickup with one plastered on it, I don't think 'there go a couple of kkk members' but rather 'there go a couple of bubbas'. So in my mind, if the state legislature of a southern state wants the confederate flag to be a part of their state symbols, I don't believe its part of a grand white conspiracy to keep hopes for a future return to the 'good old days' alive. On the other hand, and I think this is the salient point, if your state symbols are offensive to a significant portion of your populous, that is a problem. Yes, you can view it as a political decision and simply side with the majority. But I think it is disrespectful of a large minority (who are also represented by those state symbols) to use the confederate flag when it is clearly offensive to those folks.

I'm not for political correctness, and I guess you could turn my arguments against me and make a case for getting rid of the 'Redskins' moniker. But the distinction is, the Redskins organization are not my elected representatives. State governments are supposed to represent every citizen and have to be accountable and at least consider what message their state symbols send or are perceived to be sending. Can't we all just get along?

[Kilmer17]

But who decides what a "large" minority is?

And why would they get more say than a "small" minority and more say than the majority?

[fansince62]

this is an amazing thread.....some of the same folks who I would guess are adamantly committed to free-speech & non-invasive government are apparently comfortable with controlling symbols because of the apparent signal they represent for how people MIGHT be thinking. moreover, the evident desire to control certain forms of thought is more supportable as a function of the number of people thinking it rather than the content itself!!!

why not just change the Flag as a matter of state authority simply because "we can" and not bring race into it at all?

[BG]

I question the polls becuase one is not informed who is polled. Consifer the geography of Georgia. If that seems irrationalk to anyone, its because I've lived in Georgia and other parts of the south for sometime. It's also quite peculiar that when this was an issue in South Carolina (still is to an extent), the majority of those polled and interviewed by the media werenot residents of the either of the major cities in SC. This is important due to the fact that the majority of South Carolinians live in Charleston, Columbia, Spartenburg and Greenville. The media chooses to use people outside of this area because they know their viewpoints and terminoligies on the issue will be "newsworthy."

I agree with letting the courts decide. If opponents choose to put forth enough effort to bring the flag down or ban it from further use, I applaud that. If there isn't any suport then no one deserves to ban it or remove it. There are obviously enough opponants to the issue that one would feel compelled to believe there would be a strong opposition.

Personally, I do not favor this flag. My family on my fathers side fought for the confederates here in South Carolina and in Chatanooga during the civil war. I am not proud of that. I see no reason to be. If anything they were forced to fight so I feel angry about it.

I'd like to see it gone once and forever. Can't go that far? Fine. Put it in a meuseum. Not on a state flag.

[Kilmer17]

The same can be said for any poll.

[gbear]

Fan since 62,

If you mean that the number of people thinking racist thoughts isn't reallt important compared with a flag causing more, I'll agree with you. In this case, it's taking a symbol with some seriously warped history as a symbol for our government. We should do the right thing and not worry about how many disagree.

As for the just changing becuase we can, isn't that what the previous Gov did? Wasn't he then accused of being too dictatorial? That was my reasoning behind using the courts. It's a politicaly safe way to do the right thing.

[Kilmer17]

Which brings us right back to the beginning.

Why do you (or me or anyone) get to decide that the flag has a warped history? Cant the same be said for the stars and stripes?

[JackC]

Kilmer,

You're right it's a tough call for sure. I would like to understand why some people feel so strongly about having this flag as part of their state flag even though they know how badly it makes another large group feel.

Does it bring any pride to them about their ancestors that they would already have?

Do they really want this because they can't stand being told they can't have it? It this a backlash against what some call being politcally correct?

Why do some want to push their beliefs on others? This happens on both the right and left for sure. Maybe it makes them feel rightous?

[Kilmer17]

I think it's bit of all of it.

I think there are many in Georgia who view the flag as a symbol of their freedoms and individualism.

I also think there are plenty who feel it's a way to slap the yankees.

And I am certain there are some that think it's a great way to hurt blacks.

[fansince62]

I don't favor policies based on how groups of people feel...that's a slippery slope with no resolution in sight - and it is morally ambiguous. a Gov with some kahunas & authority should change the Flag period. If the citizens are dumb enough to vote on the basis of a Flag rather than core issues such as economic and physical security........then they deserve whatever they get.....

[codeorama]

As a history major, I'd like to point out that the Civil War had less to do with slavery than most would like to admit. The North did not treat the South fairly in business and the South became fed up and would have preferred to govern themselves.

Blacks were treated much harsher in the north in many instances. Look up information about New York during that time period. The Draft Riots were crazy. Blacks were hung on the streets and murdered routinely.

The ONLY reason the whole flag thing is an issue is because some white idiots decide to wave the stars and bars at KKK meetings or other hate group meetings. Those idiots who choose to use the flag as a hate symbol ruin the heritage aspect for those of us how have ancestors that fought for that South. I'm proud that my great great grandfather was a confederate general. Does that mean that I hate black people or wish that slavery still existed......? No way. The South was not just fighting to keep slavery legal. They were fighting from being oppressed from the North. Don't just look at the typical surface issues, examine the entire picture.