Back to the Politics of Hate
I wanted to share this story with you: Supreme Court Dismisses Case Banning Rebel Flag in School
—
“Supreme Court Dismisses Case Banning Rebel Flag in School”
The recent Supreme Court decision to dismiss a First Amendment case centered on a student’s right to wear the Confederate flag to school highlights not only the limitations placed on student expression but also the cognitive dissonance of public officials who wish to inhibit the flag from being worn to school in order to prevent racial tension.
The author of this piece speaks of the swastika in the same breath as the Confederate flag. I would assert that while he makes some excellent points, X does not equal Y.
1. The Civil War WAS over slavery (states rights only in the sense that the states demanded the right to own other human beings by legislating that blacks were naturally inferior to whites – and if this isn’t an argument for a strong federal government I don’t know what is)
2. U.S. history is presented in public schools in a sanitized version. We are more interested in not offending people than in presenting facts and by so doing we do everyone a disservice.
3. Symbols can promote hate.
My problem is, of course, that being a Heathen, the swastika (which we call the holy fylflot) is a sacred symbol, and not at all negative. It has been appropriated by a racist group and misused for evil purposes. It is not right to equate this with the Confederate flag, which does not have ancient antecedents but which was created specifically by and for a nation which promoted the idea of the inferiority of blacks and their suitability for enslavement.
In other words, the Confederate flag was never a symbol of anything that was NOT negative, while the swastika (holy fylflot) existed for thousands of years in various cultures as a positive religious symbol. We can, in time, perhaps rescue the swastika from the dustbin of history (even the Anti-Defamation League recognizes its antecedents) but you cannot separate the Confederate flag from its negative associations.
I understand that whatever the South officially fought for, that many southern soldiers did not own slaves. Most, in fact, did not. And that as with the Revolutionary War, people fought for different things, and not everyone got what they wanted. Some men were fighting for States Rights. They could hardly be fighting for slavery when they did not own slaves. So I can understand some groups taking pride in their Southern heritage wanting to promote the Confederate flag, but the fact is, whatever some men fought for, the war as a whole was a war over slavery and these people have to understand how others legitimately view it as a hate symbol. If I, as a Heathen, have to accept that people are going to be offended if I use the swastika (holy fylflot), then these people should be able to do the same, because I have much more reason and cause to embrace the holy fylflot than they the Confederate flag.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He maintains a second blog, Digital Gods (www.digital-gods.com) which focuses on polytheism for the digital age. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion. 
It is distressing when sacred symbols are misappropriated for nefarious purposes. The Nazis misappropriated not only the holy fylfot, but also a number of the runes, which were used by the S.S. Contemporary white racist groups continue this bad practice.
Jason has blogged about this at The Wild Hunt (with numerous comments), and there's a longish, illustrated post about it at Munson's Mead Hall.
It pains me to see hate groups use the confederate flag in association with thier anti- Obama campaigns or skin heads using it as a symbol. For those of us who's roots surely are Southern, this isnt what the flag represents to us. But make no mistake, it doesnt give anyone the right to ban or banish my right to fly it. The present day Tea Party flag "Dont Tread on me" is the flag of choice for this group, what? In a hundred years when your rights as a society are pretty much disintergrated, your guns are confiscated and you cant take a piss with out paying a tax on it, will the groups trying to decimate the Confederate flag hang the same connotation on the "Tea Party Flag" something tells me they will..so I will continue to fly my confederate flag and take it as you will. I have no time to teach you history or American Government, I am college educated and very well respected among my peers and friends and for every Confederate Flag you try and bury I will donate more money to the "Sons of the Confederacy" to fly another one.
Makarios, thanks for the tip and I'll check out their posts as well.
Valigator,
While I respect your right to feel differently, it cannot be denied that the "stars and bars" were chosen to fly over a nation that enshrined the right to enslave human beings based on the color of their skin. As I said, I realize not every soldier who fought for that nation owned slaves and I recognize as a fact that some of those soldiers fought for "states rights", but they still swore allegiance to that nation (and I speak as someone whose ancestor fought in the First South Carolina.
The thrust of my own post was that the holy fylfot is ancient while it's use by the Nazis and more recent hate groups is very recent, and that therefore the two are not identical, as the author of the original piece seems to suggest.
Valigator,
You said "For those of us who's roots surely are Southern, this isnt what the flag represents to us."
Could you tell me what the Confederate flag represents to you?
Quote: "While I respect your right to feel differently, it cannot be denied that the "stars and bars" were chosen to fly over a nation that enshrined the right to enslave human beings based on the color of their skin"
Ahhh gotta love wanna be historians, you preface your rebuttal with the above and then go on to state an opinion as if it is fact. I am not quite sure why people do that? It is a workday for me, so I must be off Mr. Haraldssan, but rest assured I look forward to bantering with you.
"Wanna be historians"? And what are your historians credentials, Valigator?
I did not state an opinion as a fact. I stated a fact as a fact. If you pretend to a knowledge of history you should be aware of that as well as I am.
From the Confederacy's Declaration of Independence:
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
SLAVERY. You can call it states rights if you want, but it's the right of states to own slaves. There isn't really anything to argue about here. It is what it is, as they say.
Oh, and by my count, the word "slavery" appears six times in the south's declaration of independence and slave/s appears a dozen times. This is all about slavery, make no mistake about it.
Valigator,
Please answer the question I asked you.
You said "For those of us who's roots surely are Southern, this isnt what the flag represents to us."
Could you tell me what the Confederate flag represents to you?
Another thing. You are not a regular commenter on this blog. Unless you read all the previous posts by Hrafnkell (you have spelled his name wrong incidentally), you cannot gauge how much of a scholar he is.
You've only jumped into ONE discussion, so you have no right to abuse Hrafnkell by calling him a "wannabe historian".
You don't know him. So stop judging.
I, too, would like to hear an answer to Cheeks' question. Obviously a flag came mean something different to people a century after it was made, but the flag itself was conceived in hate, unlike the swastika (holy fylfot).
Second, I have noticed that it seems to be my month for reaping abuse on my own blog. I was in a hurry this morning when I answered so I didn't take the time to say this but I won't tolerate that here. The rules of hospitality will be observed. I you disagree, then disagree, but respectfully. I did not insult you, Valigator, when I answered your comment.
Third, I just want to say that in my experience, the first one to accuse somebody of being childish is themselves either a child or is acting childish, and when somebody accuses somebody else of lacking scholarly erudition, quite often they themselves fail to come up to scratch in the education department.
Finally, Indrani, thank you for standing up for me. It speaks well of you (not that I needed any convincing after all this time).
I, too, would like to hear an answer to Cheeks' question, "you two are hoot, (look it up)" I got up and went to work today and by the time I got home, I was "child" you wanted my "historian credentials" and you already used the term "states rights" that insinuated I made that argument. I hate to be the one to break it to you two, but I doubt either one of you will be the one to break out some monumental argument on this issue that will make people like me cower in your logic..dont get me wrong I am sure yout two are wonderful guys, but the "Confederate flag" doesnt seem to be either of your Fortey's, I never did learn how to spell that word, but I am sure you get where I am coming from.Good luck guys and I am sure the "Son's of the Confederacy" appreciated that donation I made last night, cause your two got my blood pressure up. But I am the one who feels secure, safe and connected to something bigger than my self after reading your responses to just a "different way of thinking: whether you agree or not." and at the end of the day isnt that what is is all about? Thanks guys for making my stance nicer today than it was yesterday…I am sure I will be called chicken and non responsive and any of those other words you want to use, but I can see this is a no-win blog, but that ok, keep up the good work, we always need another side…
Valigator,
I like crazy people. Sometimes. I mean, they're challenging.
You've used everything from personal insults to bad language…everything, EXCEPT answering the question I've put across to you.
You would like to think of yourself as "educated", but you couldn't even gauge that I am a WOMAN, from my name and not a "guy".
Since you've haven't given us your side of the argument, making an easy escape, and still have had the audacity of insulting this blog's owner, I'll call you "flippant" and "evasive". Howz that?
I guess you don't have an answer.
Valigator: "but I can see this is a no-win blog,"…perfect response for when you don't have an answer.
You are afraid that we may find good points again to come up with an argument against you, and so you've tried to run away, tail between legs. LOL.
Unless you can make us run with shame, by giving us a mighty convincing argument for your support and PERCEPTION of the Confederate Flag, you've LOST the debate.
Look, this blog is about debates and discussions and not about dotty, idiots like you, who come in, shout their mouths off, CANNOT give us an answer, and then think that they've won.
From your attitude here, I can only imagine the stuff you must be ranting about on your blogs; one of your blogs had a pretty short shelf-life, is it not? Arrested Development. LOL. I've been there and have had a look around.
You have lost. Bye, bye. Rant with out reason, somewhere else. All the best. And GOOD riddance, to BAD rubbish.
Oh and I left out the best part, for all your posted comments about the "hate" the Confederacy Flag represents, let me remind you of something perhaps a little more prolific and just might hit a little closer to home…I know I am suppose to be the idiot in this forum, but just pause for thought this..for every school name change you want to make because it's roots are Southern and affiliates itself with the Confederacy, for every Bridge name you want to change, for every Flag carried by a soldier who was designated the "flag carrior" that was slaughtered walking across a battlefield…you sir are begging for the African Americans Reparations Act to Pass. now I dont know about you, but I dont quite feel good about giving all the black people in my country including those in prison, thousands of dollars in an apology, I had nothing to do with!But what I want you to get more importantly than that, is your name has 4 different variations of origin, any of the 4 would have had three quarters of your ancestors fried in ovens, if it wasnt for the decendants of those "Confederate Flag" veterans…Something to think about as much as it pains you!and no sweetie I am the woman on this forum, not you..
Funny I didnt read this last one by you cheekie or what ever you want to call your self until my last post…good luck "guys" you really do need it…
Amusing…I was speaking in general in response to Cheeks and you took it as a personal attack…that in itself is an answer of sorts.
So what you're saying is, Valigator, that you are a sophist – you like to argue but there is nothing really of substance there. There is a reason sophists were not respected by the Hellenes, and you have provided exact evidence as to why that was.
Hello all. To Hrafnkell and Cheeks: you two are tops. I have had the misfortune of running into Valigator on multiple occassions, and I have yet to see ANYONE “place her tail between her legs” as you have. Thank you. I know nothing of your site, or about you two, and merely stumbled in here while doing research on the Confederacy. Val (or Valerie Parkhurst) has a tendancy of shining her “not so bright” credentials on ANYONE who disagrees with her ( or she percieves as having disagreed with her. Truth be told she’s a gun-toting (literally), racist (every problem in America is because of illegals), redneck hick from S. Florida. I’m sorry to fill your minds with all this useless information, but I thought maybe you like to better understand your opponent. She’s a hillbilly, and you spoke of “Her” flag without “the utmost respect” (sarcasm). So in her twisted, twit of a brain, you insulted her personally. Thank you again for the belly laugh!!