About the Confederate Flag....
The controversy has reached fever pitch the last few days. Not just because of the white supremacy correlations to the SC shootings, but since the SCOTUS ruled that Texas can ban that image on its state-issued auto license plates.
Now all sorts of state government authorized/sanctioned uses of that flag are being challenged in the South, and everyone is getting a re-fresher course in American History and political flags.
IMO, that's a good thing and long over-due. What do you think?
Tonight I was rather surprised that Rachel Maddow, in a piece about states getting rid of the flag, said that Georgia had in 2003 without mentioning that what the battle flag was replaced with is the Stars and Bars with the Georgia seal added.
It's not an argument I get excited about, it's just a piece of cloth. It;s an extremely offensive symbol to many, and that should be considered, but it's just not a subject I get excited about. Regardless, I think public debate is good - and I hope it continues and does not fizzle out.
It does puzzle me that a Confederate flag is what everyone is fixating on in the aftermath of this. It's not that I think it is a nonissue, I just keep wondering why gun control never comes up.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Probably because there is nothing new here to discuss. The same old arguments have been done to death and no one can be bothered to cover the same ground again and again each day that America has yet another mass shooting.Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Guns are everywhere; nobody wants to relinquish their right to have them; tens of thousands die each year; on and on.
I don't get the flag issue in this case either (though I do think it's racist and borderline treasonous to be flying it to start with). If some guy kills people while holding a Quran, do we ban Qurans? This guy was so out there that he wasn't even a member of any white supremacist group. To blame the latter for this idiot's actions makes no sense.
Hope is the denial of reality
Some white supremacist groups have even been making a point of distancing themselves from him.
Their attitudes, or similar ones from less vocal racists, contributed to the mindset that led him to this - but the fixation on the flag has just thrown me.
I'd like a renewed gun control argument, but don't expect one.
Now something from this on a topic that does excite me - the victims' families forgiveness, and demonstration of actual Christian ideals makes me feel like there could wind up being strong oppostion to the death penalty from the people affected by the crime, and I wonder if that will get a public forum.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
The South has a lot going on. I just hope the religious tangents don't dominate the secular moral arguments.
That said...I'm baffled why the southern states that incorporated the Confederate flag in their state flag after the 1940's try to call it "Civil War" pride, or ancestral heritage.
Last edited by GGT; 06-24-2015 at 06:59 AM.
The guy seems to have many issues and is quite possibly borderline mentally retarded. If he wasn't "influenced" by white supremacists, it would be by something else.
The flag was the military symbol of a political entity that violently rebelled against the US government. At the very least, those who fly it are glorifying secessionists.
Hope is the denial of reality
True, but if he had been influenced by, say, radical Islam, all Muslims would be blamed and expected to apologise. Now he's just a crazy line wolf..
Which is why I think it's insane that government institutions actually fly that flag to begin with. Other than that the fixation on the flag seems weird and not really the big issue. But hey, fixating on something small to avoid the important debate is hardly admitting new..
The flag was the military symbol of a political entity that violently rebelled against the US government. At the very least, those who fly it are glorifying secessionists.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
An equally stupid response. Though some internal debate is in order when it's not just the psycho members of your group who are joining terrorist groups.
Especially when the government institutions in question are the ones who freaking rebelled. It's a giant middle finger to the United States. This is like Frenchmen keeping flags of Vichy France.Which is why I think it's insane that government institutions actually fly that flag to begin with.
Hope is the denial of reality
Fair enough. But the utter lack of blaming supremacist groups (as far as I noticed, anyway, haven't been following it that well) seemed a bit contrasting to me.
To be fair, Vichy France didn't actively rebel, they just collaborated with the enemyEspecially when the government institutions in question are the ones who freaking rebelled. It's a giant middle finger to the United States. This is like Frenchmen keeping flags of Vichy France.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
This is why the flag is an easy target, those who claim its a sign of heritage are morons. The flag was never adopted by the Confederate Congress, never flew over any state capitols during the Confederacy, and was never officially used by Confederate veterans' groups. It would have been a space filler in museums if not for the KKK.
The flag very simply represents hate, not heritage. I couldn't care less how small your dick is by the size of the flag painted on the back of your mudding truck, but the design has no place on anything government related.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Yes.
Heritage/history not hate just gives people an easy out.The whole thing reminded me of the old Dutch flag (orange white blue, instead of red white blue). Originally this flag had no problems (it was just the official flag at the time). But since its association with the dutch national socialist party, and its use by the apartheid regime (it's one of the flags the shooter wore in one of those pictures) has tainted it and it's mostly used by racist organizations now. Hence there was some controversy when a political party had it in their offices (have a guess which..) which they then removed - though some members later wore it as a flag pin. Of course they claim they did that for historical reasons rather than symbolic support for racism etc., but you have to wonder why they use such a flag when they know its association with nazism and apartheid.
It's a pretty good indicator of people who are morons that I don't want to associate with in that sense, anyway. But are you including car tags in removing it from anything government-related? Our governor is making noises about getting it off tags here.
I've been trying to figure out how many government-owned/operated places in the south either fly the confederate flag or have it prominently displayed.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Yes, if they government is going to set standards for what's ok for a plate, this flag should fall outside those standards. I'm also against those religious "choose life" tags and pretty much all custom tags, seeing how Florida has over a 100 of the stupid designs to pick from.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The problem is that the Confederate Flag has been the symbol of White Supremacy....but Southern legislators have been reluctant to admit that. Might have something to do with campaign financing and our two party political system?
Probably so.
Living here, I can't think of anyone who would (possibly because of it being tainted by association) or any reason to display it other than that, not that there aren't plenty of apolitical people who don't see it as anything particularly bad, but they wouldn't be waving it unless an outside group gets them riled. In local races, or for the state house/senate here, in Georgia, I'd not likely blame campaign financing or the two party system - there are still people who have just been raised on the idea that it represents who they are living here.
I don't agree with Icky's assessment of it being borderline-treasonous to be flying it, unless the same objection applies to any other group or nationality flying flags associated with their beliefs/country.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Didn't you attend a southern university, Lolli? Didn't you see the Confederate Flag in dorm rooms, fraternities, or sororities? And didn't you see that the Confederate flag was incorporated into the state flag?
Assuming you did...how much of your benign acceptance was based on institutional 'tradition'?
Would you do the same for any other flag?
PS, I'm not picking on you personally, Lolli.
It is everywhere here - I didn't notice it particularly on campus - but it is, even now, prominently featured on the bumper stickers of vehicles proclaiming 'Lee surrendered, I didn't.' The battle flag was a part of our flag for a long time, then there was the flag showing all the previous ones, and now we have the stars and bars one again.Didn't you attend a southern university, Lolli? Didn't you see the Confederate Flag in dorm rooms, fraternities, or sororities? And didn't you see that the Confederate flag was incorporated into the state flag?
Assuming you did...how much of your benign acceptance was based on institutional 'tradition'?
Would you do the same for any other flag?
PS, I'm not picking on you personally, Lolli.
You're misinterpreting my disinterest, though - I'm quite aware that anyone who is waving it is likely a racist. It just isn't important to me, personally - I also don't relate to people who feel passionately about the American flag.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Interesting. You're not bothered by much, and say you're disinterested, for the most part. I'm having trouble putting the parts together. Especially since your fellow Southerners don't seem to share your views.
What I am bothered with is that the issue is pegged on this one incident. What if the flag hadn't been the confederate battleflag but the stars and stripes? Would we then have to come to the conclusion that the flag of the USA is a racist symbol that has no place flying at the flagpoles of the state(s) ?
I can imagine there are ample reasons why a government would not fly a flag that is not the official flag of the state, and that is seen as offensive and a symbol of racist attitudes by a big portion of the people, but the actions of a single person would not rank very high on a list of those reasons.
That logic has no place in the debate is shown by the fact that some people think the stars and bars is less offensive than the battleflag. If anything it is more offensive than the battleflag since the latter at least nominally didn't stand for a state that found it's raison d'être in the continuation of a slavery-based society.
Congratulations America
This.Isn't that because this battle flag was since used by the KKK etc. , more than its original use?
That logic has no place in the debate is shown by the fact that some people think the stars and bars is less offensive than the battleflag. If anything it is more offensive than the battleflag since the latter at least nominally didn't stand for a state that found it's raison d'être in the continuation of a slavery-based society.
The whole thing reminded me of the old Dutch flag (orange white blue, instead of red white blue). Originally this flag had no problems (it was just the official flag at the time). But since its association with the dutch national socialist party, and its use by the apartheid regime (it's one of the flags the shooter wore in one of those pictures) has tainted it and it's mostly used by racist organizations now. Hence there was some controversy when a political party had it in their offices (have a guess which..) which they then removed - though some members later wore it as a flag pin. Of course they claim they did that for historical reasons rather than symbolic support for racism etc., but you have to wonder why they use such a flag when they know its association with nazism and apartheid.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I concur with most posters that this particular event shouldn't be a substantial reason for removing the flag beyond all of the excellent reasons to get rid of it already. This may be an attempt to use the tragedy for something constructive, but on its own merits it isn't very convincing. Of course, though, I'd be delighted to see the flag go.
I'm curious about some suggestions that we should be instead having a debate on gun control issues. Roof purchased his handgun legally; he was over 21, did not have any felonies (though he was indicted for a misdemeanor possession charge), and I doubt he would have been flagged for mental health issues. He did not purchase an assault rifle or other controversial accouterments such as suppressors. AFAIK there is no version of gun control legislation with any chance of passing that would have restricted his ability to legally obtain the weapon.
The gun control debate in this country is absolutely ridiculously out of touch with reality. After every mass shooting we get people wringing their hands talking about tougher (and universally required) background checks, limits of concealed-carry laws, and banning of assault rifles. Yet few of these measures are likely to limit mass shootings, and none of them are likely to substantially affect the scourge of gun violence in this country. The vast majority of homicides in our country happen with handguns, and they are frequently legally purchased by people without records or substantial mental illness (though a large proportion of said murders are carried out by people who are not their legal owners, and would be disqualified from a gun purchase). Absent wholesale banning of handguns (along with other weapons) coupled with a mandatory buyback policy and a comprehensive shift in culture, it's wildly unlikely that any gun control measures are going to have a substantial impact on our gun-related violence. Furthermore, it's even less likely that mass shootings that galvanize such public outcries will be in any way affected - do we honestly think that Aurora, or Newtown, or Charleston would have been prevented if the perpetrator was determined enough? Breivik certainly didn't have much trouble; neither did the Charlie Hebdo shooters. Mass shootings by nutjobs are never going to be eliminated, and they can only be mitigated by good social support systems, sophisticated police work, etc. Gun control isn't all that likely a solution.
I don't have a problem with gun control per se - in fact, on the balance of things I'm not too attached to the 2nd amendment as it is currently applied. Yet there is no even remotely feasible gun control policy that is likely to really dent our gun violence epidemic... and that epidemic has very little to do with attention-grabbing stories like Charleston. Its reality is more prosaic, more depressing, and far more intractable.
I think a better mental health system would go a long way towards eliminating many of these mass shootings. There are too many problems with our system to name. It's almost impossible to force someone to get treatment. People are pushed out of the system as soon as humanly possible. There's a severe shortage of hospital beds in mental health facilities, as well as a similar shortage in psychiatrists (at least in large chunks of the country). Prevent a system where a whole lot of severely socially incompetent people with mental health issues are wondering the streets without any kind of treatment and you get rid of most of the perpetrators of the mass shootings.
Hope is the denial of reality
I agree it would help, but even in countries with far better provision of mental health, they still happen. Fundamentally there needs to be someone - a friend or family member generally - who initiates their mental health treatment. For far too many of these shooters, they are fairly isolated and I question whether better availability of mental health would be enough.
I'm not throwing up my hands and saying that we can't do anything about the problem, of course - I do agree that better social services is part of a broader approach to minimizing such violence in the future. I just recognize that we're never going to be rid of instances of mass violence, we just might reduce their frequency. President Obama was wrong when he claimed that this type of mass violence doesn't occur in other advanced countries. It does, just generally with lower frequency, and no amount of gun control or mental health provision will make it go away entirely. The people who carry out these atrocities are by nature at the fringes of society and the least likely to be caught up by government aid (or attention).
They still happen? No, not really. Compare the actual numbers. A vast majority of first world mass shootings occur in the US.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nt-happen-oth/
Germany, France, and England combine for 8 mass shootings. They have 2/3 of America's population. The US had 133. Think about that.
There might not be as many people killed in the US, but that's because we get a lot of mass shooters that just aren't very sane/competent, people who'd be either getting treatment or locked away in mental hospitals in other countries. So you're giving up way too easily by saying that mass shootings will always happen and therefore not much can be done. We should be able to reduce the number of mass shootings by 90% just by implementing a sane mental health system.
Hope is the denial of reality
Mass shootings have higher fatalities and total victims in three of the 10 other countries assessed there, and two of the other 10 hardly qualify as 'advanced'. So 3/8 of an admittedly small sample have higher proportions of victims. Their data is wildly granular and incomplete (I'm sorry, but not including terrorism gets into a morass of definition problems), but even so he had little basis for making that claim.
I think you may be right that many of that 100-odd mass shootings could be eliminated by better mental health and social services. But those are precisely the mass shootings that no one gives a shit about! The high visibility, high casualty shootings are the ones that still exist in Europe, and those are the ones that provoke a bit outcry in the US. I agree with you that better mental health is a good thing for all sorts of reasons - moral, fiscal, safety, etc. - but it's not going to appreciably change the rate of atrocities that lead to a public outcry.
edit: It's also telling how much higher the overall US murder rate is compared to even the countries that have higher mass shooting casualties. This implies that if we wanted to actually improve our country, there's a whole lot of low-hanging fruit that we should focus on.
Exactly. There are a lot of policies that could be passed that wouldn't be remotely controversial and would do a far better job of reducing the murder rate (and mass shootings) than the policies people constantly fight over. And yet those are ignored in favor of the culture wars.
Hope is the denial of reality
Good points, but I'd like to point out that Breivik, for example, didn't manage to buy an illegal gun. He tried to buy an ak 47 but failed and had to go for a hunting rifle instead. So that means on one hand that banning weapons does mean that it's harder to get them and hampers criminals.. but also that if you want to do something like that they will find a way. But making it harder also gives you more chance to stop them. But even then.. we had a mass shooting here a while back, with a legal gun. He should never have been issued that permit, and red flags should have been raised (as in, suicidal past, been refused a weapons permit before, etc), but the system failed.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You're obviously correct that the broad strokes of how people go from ostensibly normal to being mass murderers share a lot of similarities, but that doesn't have a whole lot of utility when designing policy to counteract such behavior. I've read into the very extensive research/thinking going on right now about radicalization in the context of terrorism (i.e. political mass murder rather than the run of the mill sort). They share a lot of the profile you mention above, though there are some differences. But I don't know if that profile is particularly useful for crafting policies to prevent such atrocities in the future... nor are the policies always discussed after these shootings likely to be effective, either.
It was the late 90s, but you're right that radicalization and indoctrination have obviously shifted more and more onto the Internet. That's kind of my point. The methods and motivations shift over time, and it's very challenging to shut down such a rare and difficult to predict event. On the one hand, it's awful that 100-odd mass shootings have happened in the US in 15 years. On the other hand, it means that law enforcement and social services would have had to sift out literally one out of two million Americans to identify and prevent such a shooting. Obviously you can argue that those 100-some people are part of a larger population, but it's still marginal. My point is that there is no policy panacea that will work - just a lot of common sense, slow to implement, incremental policies on a broad front that can help reduce the frequency of such events over a long period.
(Gun laws, btw, would have allowed Roof to get a gun legally back in the 90s, and would have disallowed Smith. So no substantive change there.)
I don't think that was the message of Loki's link at all (and I think Loki is actually pretty clear in this thread that he's well aware of the worrying scale of mass shootings in the US). The link was addressing specific comments by the President that implied mass shootings just aren't really a problem in other advanced countries. They may be more of a problem in the US - at least by some measures - but we're hardly exceptional. What is exceptional is our murder rate.
Someone who is sufficiently determined will be able to get their hands on weapons. It's easier in the US, but that hasn't stopped all sorts of nutsos in other countries with stricter laws from getting access to them. Breivik killed an astonishing number of people with 'only' a hunting rifle (and handgun?). Assault rifles are a nice boogeyman, but they don't account for most murders, not even most mass shootings.
What gun control will help is limiting a large chunk of the other murders and suicides in the US, which are greatly exacerbated by the wide availability of firearms. I just don't think it will do all that much here.
I know it wasn't what Loki was trying to say, he was just after the raw numbers, but I think it's pretty clear the article was itself was out to downplay the disparity between mass shooting events in the US and other first world nations in order to """"debunk""" a bizarrely literal interpretation of the presidents words (pretty sure he didn't mean mass shootings literally never ever happen in other countries, guys), but using a number of dubious statistical slight of hands which amounted to "and if you look at per capita fatality rate in mass shootings on that one island Breivik shot up and then compare it with the entire continental US then you can see the US doesn't really have a problem at all!"
The fact is, you really are exceptional in this regard. Based on those figures, if you scaled up England to the size of the US (~*6) we'd have had... 6 mass shootings in the period where you had 133. If you scaled up Germany, a people whose aggressive and warlike nature (Khen will explain about this) led them to have the most mass shootings of all the Europeans, by those numbers, they'd have had 24 . To your 133.
And also, while I am very strongly in agreement with Loki's premise that the most important issue here is access to mental health care and that the people who want to make it all about gun control are more interesting in fighting culture wars than finding solutions, I think it's a bit self-deluding to try and claim that gun control is just nothing to do with it at all.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Hey now!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote