Kilmer17 Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Looks like the people of GA will get to vote on the matter. Nonbinding of course. [ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 01/14/03] Perdue to seek referendum on state flag Supporters of old flag marched on the Capitol Tuesday By JIM GALLOWAY Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer Gov. Sonny Perdue today confirmed that he will seek a non-binding referendum on the state flag, a vote that would sample the opinion of voters -- but give the Legislature the final word in the matter. Ric Feld/AP Carl Sears, carrying two old Georgia state flags with the Confederate emblem, and Samantha Sears are told by a Capitol police officer that they must move away from the legislators' entrance Tuesday. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perdue confirmed his direction during a first meeting with House Speaker Terry Coleman. This morning, a column of 300 supporters of the old Georgia state flag and its Confederate battle emblem arrived at the state Capitol after a march from Turner Field. The purpose of the march was to celebrate the ouster of Gov. Roy Barnes and remind his replacement, Sonny Perdue, of the promise he made for a statewide vote on the issue. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans made up the bulk of the marchers. They issued instructions that only the old state flag was to be carried, not the Confederate flag. Perdue asked his supporters not to wave Georgia's former state flag with its prominent Confederate emblem when he was sworn into office Monday at Philips Arena in Atlanta. But the supporters sent a reminder that they want to change the flag back. They flew a banner over the downtown area Monday that said, "Let Us Vote. You Promised." A referendum on the flag issue would require the approval of the Legislature. Perdue said while running for governor that Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes strong-armed a change of Georgia's flag through the Legislature without asking for voters' opinions. Perdue, a Republican, proposed holding a statewide referendum for a new state flag. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans contend it was anger over the flag change that caused Barnes to lose the election. The Associated Press contributed to this article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 So Kilmer, since you are keeping this topic alive ... What meaning do you think the Sons of the Confederate Veterans intend the Confederate emblem on the old Georgia flag to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 If I may, Henry ... probably every meaning possible. The Sons of Confederate Vets are typically made up of a few hard core historians that lead a few more Civil War buffs and a number of yahoos. Some look upon the flag as a symbol of heritage and could care less about race, while others of the "militia"-type mindset do, in fact, probably recognize both meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 What about the fact that the Stars and Bars on these flags was only installed in the late 1950s. Do you think that was intended as a simple recognition of history or as a challenge to the Civil Rights movement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 I think the Confed battle flag represents many views. 1- Pride in the history of the south. 2- Respect for relatives 3- Thumbing the nose at "yankees" 4- Downright hatred and intimidation of blacks. There are many more as well. The state flag (in GA) added this to protest the force segregation of schools. There is no doubt what the purpose was. But the issue now is what the flag stands for now and whether or not the people of GA get to decide that for themselves. Self rule and all. As I have stated ad nauseum, I perceive anyone wearing said emblem to be an idiotic redneck racist. That's MY perception of them. If they think it means something else, that's THEIR interpretation. Why do I get to say my view is right and theirs is wrong. ANd more importantly, where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by Predicto What about the fact that the Stars and Bars on these flags was only installed in the late 1950s. Do you think that was intended as a simple recognition of history or as a challenge to the Civil Rights movement? Just so you know, this debate has been going on for a few weeks now. I brought this very point up in the first thread on the flag issue. It was summarily dismissed. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20311&pagenumber=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I think the Confed battle flag represents many views. 1- Pride in the history of the south. 2- Respect for relatives 3- Thumbing the nose at "yankees" 4- Downright hatred and intimidation of blacks. There are many more as well. The state flag (in GA) added this to protest the force segregation of schools. There is no doubt what the purpose was. But the issue now is what the flag stands for now and whether or not the people of GA get to decide that for themselves. Self rule and all. As I have stated ad nauseum, I perceive anyone wearing said emblem to be an idiotic redneck racist. That's MY perception of them. If they think it means something else, that's THEIR interpretation. Why do I get to say my view is right and theirs is wrong. ANd more importantly, where does it stop? I think it stops when we stop talking about it. Which, by the way, I assumed was the case last week. If you are bringing the subject up again, I figured you weren't comfortable with our agreement to disagree, so here I am. And I know you know that our government is not a pure democracy. It is a democratic republic. We vote for people who govern us, but we generally do not vote on laws themselves. And if the Governer of a state feels it is innappropriate for a battle flag of the Confederacy to be incorporated in a state flag, I heartily agree with him. This is not a free speech issue. Free speech has nothing to do with a state flag that is supposedly representative of ALL it's citizens. If these Sons of Confederate Veterans feel a disagreement over a symbol was enough to cause a governor to lose office, that's pretty scary. I am interested to see how this vote turns out. If it ends up 60-40 or something in favor of the old flag, that should make for some very interesting debates in the state legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 I just brought it up because it came out regarding the proposed vote. An argument I read but hadnt thought of myself was this. The same liberals who insist that burning an American flag is protected speech and okay because it's only a symbol and a piece of cloth are the ones arguing against the usage of the Confederate flag when it too is merely a symbol and a piece of cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Kilmer, that arguement cuts both ways. The same conservatives are against flag burning because the flag is a sacred symbol but okay with symbols of racism and intollerance and racially motivated threats being the sacred symbols? I'd argue that the difference really comes down to what we think needs protecting. As a liberal, I tend to think our country as an idea isn't really under assault or threat from a flag burning. When you burn a flag, you are saying you hate the country or what it has done, you aren't threatening it. The confederate flag has been used as a symbol of a group to intimidate and threaten for a generation. It's all about context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Sure, I agree it's all about context. The debate is who gets to decide the context. For the record, I support the right of individuals burn and/or desecrate the Flag as long as they dont receive public funding to do so. IE, the NEA cant give you money and use it to burn the flag and call it performance art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I just brought it up because it came out regarding the proposed vote. An argument I read but hadnt thought of myself was this. The same liberals who insist that burning an American flag is protected speech and okay because it's only a symbol and a piece of cloth are the ones arguing against the usage of the Confederate flag when it too is merely a symbol and a piece of cloth. Again, there's a difference between removing the stars and bars from a state flag and making it illegal to fly it on your front lawn. This issue as presented in the above article is not a free speech issue in any sense. It is the issue of what is appropriate to fly as a representative symbol of a State of the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 gbear...you're back to equating right/wrong with the feelings of variously defined/impacted groups. context can and does change. you have not proposed any standard but a justification for imposing momentary predilections; a stifling thought when it comes to free speech. you are fighting the expression of an idea - moreover, you are giving that idea an interpretation of a specific nature. if you are prepared to accept this - fine by me! i'll keep it in mind when there other ideas that large segments of the population find objectionable or feel uncomfortable with - say, for instance, when an anti-war protestor flies the Iraqi flag. selecting symbols and ideas that are acceptable/unacceptable gets to be dangerous business. as an example, suppose a state decides to adorn its license plates with a positive environmental message. there are many among us who may find this objectionable given that we might have some familiarity with the obstructionism practiced in the court system, the fudging of data or outright deceit, the intentional violence that has sometimes been practiced by environmentally "concientious" acolytes.....if we are large enough and aggrieved enough......do we have cause? are we impacted? who gets to decide when one is impacted enough to warrant these sorts of controls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Henry, would you allow people to burn the flag on Govt grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Fan, The standard I used was physically threatening. I think I'm on fair legal ground when using this standard. For example, free speech is not protected in the context of shouting fire in a movie theatre. In this case, the confederate flag has been the symbol of a physically threaten group. If you were (and maybe you are) Black and living in the South, would you feel threatened being in a society that takes the Confederate flag as its symbol given the past 40 years? maybe you won't feel physically threathened, but would you expect a fair shake? Let me put it this way, if you were Black, would you accept a ride home from a bunch of guys in a pickup with the confederate flag on the back of it? Keep in mind, you expect the Black people to pay taxes to a government flying the confederate flag (albeit it only as part of their flag). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 g. Where does it stop? and who decides that? Would you (assuming you are white) accept a ride from a carload of blacks in a tricked out Caddy (note, both this example and yours of a "pickup" are stereotypical) from a neighborhood known for gang violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Henry, would you allow people to burn the flag on Govt grounds? I think state-sponsored flag burning would be equally innappropriate. If you are getting at the NEA, I'm on your side on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Kilmer, I used that example only to counter the whole arguement of "That's what it used to mean." That came up frequently in the last thread. It was meant to show that the confederate flag still has many threatening conotations. I notice that earlier you still associated the flag with "Downright hatred and intimidation of blacks. " It's on that ground that I appose it as a symbol for our government. You draw the line right where the supreme court did when talking about freedom of speech. Your free speech is not protected when it implies threat. I think the government should be more mindful than any individual of that, but using the same logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 And if it were a symbol of the FEDERAL govt I would agree. But if the people of GA or Miss or SC or Alabama or wherever want to use it to represent their state Govt. I think that's their right to do so. I know what the flag represents to me, I cannot pretend to be able to guess what it means to someone else. But noone has answered my question and my only opposition. If we disallow this "symbol" because it is offensive to a minority of the population, what stops us from dissallowing any other symbols if someone says it is offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Not just offensive Kilmer, threatening. I'd also point out that while there is such a thing as slippery slope, but there is also a sane and reasonable approach that has been used in many legal situations. Why do you think the state government is different from the federal in this case? We pay taxes to both and are bound by both's laws. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 State laws are different g. Blue laws in the south keep people from buying booze on Sundays. It's just different. And how is a flag threatening? It cant harm a person, it cant DO anything. People can. And I agree that there sane and reasonable approaches that need to be enforced, but I'll ask again, who get's to decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.