On flag bans and freedom
National debate swirls about banning the Confederate flag. Those insisting that the Stars and Bars be furled cite historic race hatred and a commendable desire to eradicate vestiges of bigotry.
I understand different persons support the Southern flag for different reasons, and I do not intend to judge the validity of claims that it can represent non-racist heritage. But I do fully endorse the right to think and speak whatever ideas suit one, and to fly an unpopular banner.
Keep in mind that the US flag is the object of similar, growing challenge. Opponents of the Stars and Stripes base their animosity on the same ground as Confederate flag banners. And it is logical that the success of a Confederate flag ban would inspire them to further action. (Progressivism means never stopping.)
Before you scramble for adjectives like 'hysterical,' know that this is hardly extremist speculation. It's already taking place.
In March, an official group of UC Irvine students who champion illegal immigration voted to banish flags, including the American one, from their California office. The reason? Some UC Irvine students in this country illegally complained that their feelings had been affronted, and that the on-campus presence of the US flag had "triggered" in them negative emotions.
According to the flag-banning student activists, "The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism." That same flag, of course, flew over noble efforts to undo those and other injustices, as well as raising peoples' living standards and general welfare. It was hoisted above countless, freedom-ensuring military victories, waves over democratically elected government, and was an inspirational presence over civil rights marches.
It is a globally acknowledged symbol of liberty and hope. Not without reason do so many flock to America each year, including "undocumented" lawbreakers, themselves. But nevermind the abundant positive - immature, irresponsible social justice warriors still in the spring of life do not discern gray areas. Nor do they grasp that stories generally have more than one side, or that fairness and justice may not exist solely on any single partisan bank.
I know what many might say: That that was only a single college experience, one hardly meriting wider concern. Some people are too quick to naysay.
As news media picked up on the UC Irvine anti-flag story, a national letter was drawn up supporting the flag-banning. That effort realized over 1,200 signatories, including a reported 60 California professors. Campus Reform reported that included in that number were a professor of classics, a UCI endowed chair in rhetoric, an associate professor of comparative literature, and an associate professor of Spanish and Portugese.
Hardly callow upstarts unmindful of their undertaking's significance.
"We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby," their letter began. "The resolution recognized that nationalism, including US nationalism, often contributes to xenophobia and racism."
The professors also noted that their opposition to nationalism - including that of the American variety - was, "a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community."
In actuality, the dispute is over the ideal of a distinct nation state. One with autonomously defined borders, laws, principles, customs, and, yes, flag.
The apparently desired alternative is a sort of mongrel country, in which anyone who wishes citizenship can simply walk in and declare it, all the while waving whatever foreign flag they prefer.
Unlike Confederate flag bearers - or, say, Americans displaying flags of Ireland or other lands of heritage - these belligerent separatists do not recognize overriding national loyalty. To them, there is no unifying "American Way," no singular national character, and no identity other than, well, all the world's identities.
Janet Napolitano, former Obama Administration Secretary of Homeland Security and now president of the California University system, recently declared that professors must never refer to America as "the land of opportunity." According to the latest fancy, that might strike non-citizens as discriminatory.
To undo the centuries-old American experiment in self-governance and to completely eliminate individual national character, step one would be to banish the American flag, a distinctive national symbol.
Think of a Confederate flag ban, then, as a precedent or gateway.
And remember that those who would some day defend the Stars and Stripes can expect to be slurred as racists and bigots, regardless of their actual motivation, just as are citizens today who advocate for the Stars and Bars.
- DC Larson
National debate swirls about banning the Confederate flag. Those insisting that the Stars and Bars be furled cite historic race hatred and a commendable desire to eradicate vestiges of bigotry.
I understand different persons support the Southern flag for different reasons, and I do not intend to judge the validity of claims that it can represent non-racist heritage. But I do fully endorse the right to think and speak whatever ideas suit one, and to fly an unpopular banner.
Keep in mind that the US flag is the object of similar, growing challenge. Opponents of the Stars and Stripes base their animosity on the same ground as Confederate flag banners. And it is logical that the success of a Confederate flag ban would inspire them to further action. (Progressivism means never stopping.)
Before you scramble for adjectives like 'hysterical,' know that this is hardly extremist speculation. It's already taking place.
In March, an official group of UC Irvine students who champion illegal immigration voted to banish flags, including the American one, from their California office. The reason? Some UC Irvine students in this country illegally complained that their feelings had been affronted, and that the on-campus presence of the US flag had "triggered" in them negative emotions.
According to the flag-banning student activists, "The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism." That same flag, of course, flew over noble efforts to undo those and other injustices, as well as raising peoples' living standards and general welfare. It was hoisted above countless, freedom-ensuring military victories, waves over democratically elected government, and was an inspirational presence over civil rights marches.
It is a globally acknowledged symbol of liberty and hope. Not without reason do so many flock to America each year, including "undocumented" lawbreakers, themselves. But nevermind the abundant positive - immature, irresponsible social justice warriors still in the spring of life do not discern gray areas. Nor do they grasp that stories generally have more than one side, or that fairness and justice may not exist solely on any single partisan bank.
I know what many might say: That that was only a single college experience, one hardly meriting wider concern. Some people are too quick to naysay.
As news media picked up on the UC Irvine anti-flag story, a national letter was drawn up supporting the flag-banning. That effort realized over 1,200 signatories, including a reported 60 California professors. Campus Reform reported that included in that number were a professor of classics, a UCI endowed chair in rhetoric, an associate professor of comparative literature, and an associate professor of Spanish and Portugese.
Hardly callow upstarts unmindful of their undertaking's significance.
"We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby," their letter began. "The resolution recognized that nationalism, including US nationalism, often contributes to xenophobia and racism."
The professors also noted that their opposition to nationalism - including that of the American variety - was, "a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community."
In actuality, the dispute is over the ideal of a distinct nation state. One with autonomously defined borders, laws, principles, customs, and, yes, flag.
The apparently desired alternative is a sort of mongrel country, in which anyone who wishes citizenship can simply walk in and declare it, all the while waving whatever foreign flag they prefer.
Unlike Confederate flag bearers - or, say, Americans displaying flags of Ireland or other lands of heritage - these belligerent separatists do not recognize overriding national loyalty. To them, there is no unifying "American Way," no singular national character, and no identity other than, well, all the world's identities.
Janet Napolitano, former Obama Administration Secretary of Homeland Security and now president of the California University system, recently declared that professors must never refer to America as "the land of opportunity." According to the latest fancy, that might strike non-citizens as discriminatory.
To undo the centuries-old American experiment in self-governance and to completely eliminate individual national character, step one would be to banish the American flag, a distinctive national symbol.
Think of a Confederate flag ban, then, as a precedent or gateway.
And remember that those who would some day defend the Stars and Stripes can expect to be slurred as racists and bigots, regardless of their actual motivation, just as are citizens today who advocate for the Stars and Bars.
- DC Larson
posted by DC Larson at
June 21, 2015
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home