« Looks like I'm an FOB | Main | 'Grady Patterson: The Prequel' »
Sunday, 15 October 2006
Flag column
Hey, let’s just get it over with
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
TOMMY MOORE was right to refuse to go to Georgia for the annual meeting of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP. By refusing to go, he sent the message that no one who wants to lead a state should participate in a boycott intended to hurt that state.
Mark Sanford was right to go to Georgia to deliver the message he did — that if you think your boycott is going to get us any closer to moving the Confederate flag off the State House grounds, you’re deluding yourselves.
What neither man said, but what anyone who would lead South Carolina should say — and to all South Carolinians, not just the NAACP — is this:
“Yep, the NAACP should see that they’re going nowhere with this and drop it. But they probably won’t. So what you should do is ignore the boycott, and do what you would do if it didn’t exist, if it had never existed. That shouldn’t be hard; you’re ignoring it now.
“That is, you ignore it until someone says, ‘Hey, why don’t we go ahead and move this flag; it’s got no business here.’ Then a loud bunch of you start howling, ‘No, we’ll never give in to the NAACP!’ As if the NAACP were the reason to remove it. That’s what the NAACP wants everybody to think — that it’s up to them. Well, it isn’t. Never was, never will be. It’s not up to any national organization. It’s up to us, the people of South Carolina — black and white, young and old. Or at least, the sensible ones.
“We came together off and on for six years back in the ’90s to talk about getting the flag off the dome. It was a truly wonderful thing to see, as church after business group after civic organization, black and white, joined the effort. That process culminated in 2000, with a compromise that got the flag off the dome, but that created a new problem. Some think the flag came down because of this boycott, which was started right at the end of the process. But you know what I think? I think we would have come up with a better solution — a permanent solution — if the boycott hadn’t happened.
“Sure, it created an additional urgency. People who already wanted the flag down thought, ‘this is getting crazy; let’s get something done now.’ But in that atmosphere, the only kind of plan that had any chance of passing was one that did not please the NAACP. So better ideas — such as replacing the actual flag with a bronze historical plaque or such — were shoved aside, and we got a nonsolution-solution. This had the desired effect — the NAACP was mad, and stayed mad. And all of the reasonable people walked away, leaving the NAACP and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in possession of the issue.
“Well, we’ve let them have it long enough. Those State House grounds are ours, not theirs, and we have a lot of important issues that we need to come together there to solve. Hear that? Come together. We must do that, or we’ll always be last where we want to be first. A symbol such as this doesn’t bring us together; it achieves the precise opposite.
“You tell me I should be talking about more important things — education, jobs, taxes and spending, reshaping our government, the Two South Carolinas? I agree, which is why those are the things I talk about most of the time. You say the flag is a distraction? You’re right. So let’s get it out of the way. Why not just ignore it? Because if we can’t get together to agree to move past something this pointless, we’ll never solve any of the hard stuff.
“So let’s put this behind us, roll up our sleeves, and get to work.”
Neither of them said that. But someone should have. So I did.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 04:47 AM in Confederate Flag, Elections, Leadership, Race, South Carolina, Southern discomfort
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00d834bc51a053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Flag column:
Comments
This guy has got it right. I’m surprised that the Chamber of Commerce hasn’t got rid of him yet.
Here is what corporatism does for poor states:
Debt woes in S.C. worst in nation
Late loan payments, home foreclosures increase at rapid rate as economy staggers
By JIM DuPLESSIS
jduplessis@thestate.com
To understand why such egregious levels of wealth inequality are statistically built into capitalism, and to learn what to do about it-click HERE
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Oct 15, 2006 7:00:33 AM
I've been here my entire adult life and love South Carolina and the people here. Flying the flag on the capital grounds is not something I support.
While I am proud to be from the South, I don't understand why this must be part of our official identification. This flag was created as a symbol of a rebellion against the US with the purpose of breaking up the country. Why should we revel in this?
I find it hypocritical that many of the same people who support and even fly this flag are the same ones who bash immigrants and "America haters" in the name of patriotism.
It was originally flown in the early 60s for reasons other than heritage so why is this the argument for it now?
Posted by: Randy Ewart | Oct 15, 2006 7:04:39 AM
Randy,
You’re probably a nice, well-meaning person. Let a native South Carolinian briefly explain this situation to you. Brad is bringing this up right before the election because Brad in effect works for the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of Commerce is controlled by big money in both parties (i.e., today, mostly by the Republican Party). This topic is meant to divide working class voters (black and white) into separate camps. Otherwise, ordinary people might vote for their economic interests. Brad has cleverly written the escape clause into his piece. Don’t be fooled by it.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Oct 15, 2006 8:12:06 AM
Pardon me for saying this...but I would rather take a bullet to the head than hear about this flag. Up, down, burn it or enshrine it...I don't care, and I am convinced most other people don't care either.
For goodness sake...can't we just leave it be...can't we just pretend we don't see it.Exactly who long do u guys intend to pick at this scab?
There is nothing new or clever to be learned from this. Only pain and argument. There is nothing uplifting or life enhancing…only strife. So why persist?
Posted by: chris W | Oct 15, 2006 8:23:28 AM
Chris, "pretending we don't see it" is something Americans are generally pretty good at when it comes to a whole host of problems in this country. Truth is, you and I can probably both pretty easily pretend we don't see the flag, but I can certainly understand how a great many African-Americans cannot so easily do so, especially when the flag is so prominently placed at the governmental heart of our state.
The Third Reich was a part of German history, too, and many regular German citizen-soldiers gave their lives on behalf of it in the Second World War. But could you imagine how Jewish citizens of Germany would feel if, on pretense of honoring part of its history and culture, Germany still flew the swastika on government grounds? Hard to pretend not to see.
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 15, 2006 9:52:15 AM
I thought this issue was resolved when the flag was taken off the top of the capitol dome. Some will never be satisfied. Let's NOT purge our history so that we all can learn from it. What next, removal of the Confederate soldiers memorial in Abbeville, where the first secession planning meeting was held? Then maybe we can move on to outlawing the name Robert E. Lee in any public place. When does this purging of history stop?
Posted by: Dave | Oct 15, 2006 10:12:43 AM
Philip,
Firstly, I have NEVER met one ordinary black person that cared one wit about the flag. In my occupation I work with many blacks and they just giggle at the nonsense bandied about by the “leaders” of SC, for the “benefit” of blacks.
Secondly, “pretending we don’t see” is not an American condition…it is a human conditions. As we speak, the Europeans don’t see problems in N. Korea, or Iran and the Russians don’t see a problem with genocide in Darfur, etc. etc. Why liberals insist that all bad portions of the human condition are particularly American traits is beyond me. (assuming you are a lib, my apologizes if not…but my comment stands on it own).
Thirdly, when u see a resolution that is agreeable to those involved, and enhancing to the general public, send up a flare and I will come running. Till then it is the same ole bla bla bla that serves to divide us, not bring us together. Money is made off of this issue. Political careers are launched…the only thing that does not happen is that rank and file blacks are not benefiting from the controversy.
Posted by: chris | Oct 15, 2006 11:26:59 AM
This is a freaking post about the FLAG. People will blog about the FLAG.
I give Brad more credit than being a stooge for the Chamber. He seems to evaluate critically. Of course he will try to stir up the hornets nest, he is the Editorial page editor after all!
Dave, it's a tired reply to extrapolate an issue to involve other possibilities. While some extremists may want to get outlaw the flag and rid us of confederate day, many in the general public takes issue with the flag issue in of itself.
I don't particularly enjoy having to explain to my wife's best friend who visited from Connecticut last weekend why we have this flag flying. It reflects on us as a people.
"Purge our history?" Jim Crow and bathrooms for white's only are part of our history. So was slaughtering indians. Should we honor that history as well?
Why was the Confederate flag raised over the capital to begin with?
Posted by: Randy Ewart | Oct 15, 2006 2:26:24 PM
The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and principles. Thus it represents the same principles as the Betsy Ross U.S.flag--the principles America was founded upon. As America experiments with Globalism, Socialism, and Secular Humanism it is important for every patriotic American to fly the Confederate flag as a reminder of these basic principles. America has 2 choices--1.Reclaim our heritage or 2.we will eventually surrender our Constitution and Sovereignty to the one world government--a Godless Socialist Unired Nations.
Posted by: James W. King | Oct 15, 2006 2:33:27 PM
"Why was the Confederate flag raised over the capital to begin with?"
Because racist Democrats saw it as a way to resist desegregation.
Posted by: LexWolf | Oct 15, 2006 2:41:20 PM
Why doesn't Brad stir up the hornets nest about the right to unionize? That would help most workers here, black and white? Why don't I have the right to form a union with my coworkers without being fired from my job? Why is SC a right to work state? Why hasn't The State ever addressed the issue? Why are the other editors hand picked by Brad? Why does Brad use virtual talking points from Chamber of Commerce literature in his writings? Who pays Brad's salary? Why was Brad's former boss on the board of the Chamber of Commerce?
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Oct 15, 2006 2:59:34 PM
I’m sorry about the poorly written previous sentence. It should be written as follows:
Why doesn't Brad stir up the hornets nest about the right to unionize-that would help most workers here, black and white.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Oct 15, 2006 3:05:47 PM
The South is the most Christian Conservative part of the nation. Liberal socialists have two goals for America 1.Destroy Christianity and replace it with Secular Humanism and 2. replace what is left of Democracy with total Socialism. Once they destroy the Christian conservative South the rest of America will fall in line like sheep behind Secular humanism and Socialism. That is the real reason they want to destroy Confederate principles and values. The infamous Communist Karl Marx said "a people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded". So under the "Moral High Ground" guise of black civil rights they have carried forth their propaganda campaign. They are using black activists to unknowingly do their "dirty work" for them. They also use what the infamous Communist Lenin called "useful idiots" to help accomplish their agenda. Those who are helping destroy Confederate heritage fit in this group-- "white liberals with a guilt complex". Liberalism is all about "feelings" as opposed to "fact". These "useful idiots" also include Southern politicians who help remove Confederate flags which are a symbol of the principles and values America was founded upon.
The politically incorrect 752 page book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" explains in detail what has happened and is currently happening in America. It is available from Amazon.com or from myself jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net
Posted by: James W. King | Oct 15, 2006 3:07:11 PM
The Confederate Flag and the United States Flag are judged by different standards and criteria, and are not held to the same levels of accountability. In analytical science and weights and measures, comparisons are made against known standards. However, in politics comparisons are never made in a fair and impartial manner.
In order to understand the hypocrisy, ignorance, and bias that have been directed against the Confederate Flag, it is necessary to use the U.S. Flag (Stars and Stripes) as a standard of comparison. The purpose of this comparison is not to berate or disparage the U.S. Flag, but rather to prove that the Confederate Flag has received unfair and unequal treatment.
The genocide and racial cleansing of the American Indians took place under the U.S. Flag. The U.S. Flag flew over an unconstitutional and criminal war conducted against The Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln conducted this war for the benefit of wealthy Northern industrialists. Slaves were imported from Africa to America primarily by five Northern States: NY.,MA.,CT.,NH.,and RI. The Confederate Flag was not involved. The U.S. flag flew over the concentration camp incarceration of loyal Japanese citizens during WWII while some of their sons, husbands, and brothers fought and died for America as American soldiers. The U.S. flag flew as part of Allied WWII raids that firebombed Dresden Germany which was a cultural and population center and not involved in the war effort. Thousands of innocent children were burned alive. The official flag of the KKK is the U.S. flag. Finally, the U.S. Flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 50 million babies by abortion.
Political Correctness has been used to attempt bans of The Confederate Flag from schools, parades, public and private property, and even historical monuments and sites.
The Confederate flag represents Constitutional Limited Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. These are the principles America was founded upon. To say that it represents racism and bigotry is a negative and shallow interpretation comparable to saying the U.S. flag represents the genocide of the American Indians and abortion. Both flags should be respected for positive reasons.
Contact me at jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net to request my article "The 10 Causes Of The Civil War".
Posted by: James W. King | Oct 15, 2006 3:16:06 PM
Mark, you are so 1950's. Do you realize we are in a global economy now? Going on strike in SC to gain huge wage increases and benefits is a thing of the long gone past. Here you have Delta's pilots accepting huge pay cuts to stay competitive and your theory is, let's form a union and go on strike. How about starting up your own company? That would be interesting. If your workers wanted more money than you could afford to stay in business, what would you tell them as the owner? Would it be, yes, you can have all that money, and we will happily go out of business together?
Posted by: Dave | Oct 15, 2006 4:21:49 PM
The flag was a phony issue the first time around, cooked up by the NAACP as a distraction from their treasury being looted by the leaders. The second string Knight Riders at The State paper saw an ideal story line to show management how they could cook up big crusades like the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Charlotte Observer.
Posted by: Lee | Oct 15, 2006 4:55:12 PM
Tourism in South Carolina has INCREASED every year since the NAACP boycot. 2005 was up 12% and 2006 is looking at another record increase.
Governor Ernest Hollings,(1959 to 1963), signed the legislation,( a House of Representatives Resolution), ordering the Confederate Flag to be raised over the state capital to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.
When the South raised its sword against the Union's flag it was in defense of the Union's Constitution!
Posted by: Woody | Oct 15, 2006 5:25:39 PM
The flag was raised above the State House in the 1960's as a celebration of the Civil War and those who fought it and those who suffered from it as well. (NOT those who profited from it, though, and most of these were non-southerners). This was a NATIONAL event, not a South Carolina event nor a southern event. The President who made this happen was _______ ?
Unfortunately, the South Carolina "PRCs" (pronounced pricks as in "don't prick your finger with that pin!") left it up and so we are embroiled in this needless controvery after forty years of squalling, whining and crying about it.
And no one will do anything about it (or anything else). Next month we'll all head to the polls and vote for our favorite PRCs, or perhaps the ones who will screw us the least. Nothing will change because "the more things change, the more they remain the same".
Oh, yeah. PRCs. Politicians, the Rich and Celebreties. "No matter who wins the elections, the government still gets elected" -- to paraphrase one Mr. JG.
Posted by: Spencer Gantt | Oct 15, 2006 6:01:06 PM
Dave,
My parents grew up during the Great Depression and they understood what free market capitalism had done to the US. After the war, my dad was one of the few people in the South that benefited from a good, blue-collar, union job. After the war, there wouldn’t have been another Honea Path because the vets wouldn’t have tolerated it-even the mill owners would not have dared to try it again. The Communications Workers of America negotiated decent pay and benefits for all its members at A&TT, and similar negotiated agreements by other unions across the US improved worker living standards and wages greatly. The big difference between now and then is that the tax burden has been shifted from the wealthy (from the end of WWII to the mid seventies the capital gain tax rate was in the 70%-80% range) to the middle class (through property taxes) and the working class (through sales taxes). Additionally, America now is a virtual plutocracy with bought and paid for elections and gerrymandered congressional districts. A country with a 97% congressional incumbent re-election rate isn’t democratic.
Unions have existed now for many centuries (as has capitalism) and they perform a vital function within capitalist society. It’s wrong to think that somehow the “Global Economy” has evolved beyond the union concept so as to make unions obsolete. Globalization is just the same ole capitalism in new clothes, with new buzzwords and new victims. In the future, we’ll need strong national unions to deal with global corporations. It’s going to happen.
Despite my 50s style respect for unions, perhaps you can appreciate a very 21st century idea born right here in SC: huge levels of wealth inequality are statistically built into capitalism and they can be verified using stochastic programming methods with large arrays of numbers in a model economy. Here are a few other observations that will one day be accepted:
* Wealth is a conserved quantity-currency fluctuates to conserve wealth.
* The wealth distribution is neither a Pareto distribution nor a Boltzmann-Gibbes distribution. However, certain portions of the curve can be approximated using these distributions. It’s not log-normal either (a log normal distribution is pretty close though). The wealth distribution follows the Woods-Saxon potential curve (i.e., the log of wealth vs. number of entities)
* The personal wealth distribution and the stock market capitalization distribution are the same distribution.
* Both personal wealth and market cap have a shell structure that follows a pattern similar to nucleon shell structure (of all things!) at any given instant of time.
* To generate correct wealth distributions, you have to put an investment hierarchy into place in conjunction with exchanges and wealth conserving currency fluctuations.
* Wealth inequality can never be totally eliminated-even without capital investment. Monetary exchange necessarily produces an exponential (Boltzmann-Gibbes)
distribution.
How do I know this is right? There is no way I could otherwise consistently generate correct distributions using totally random numbers with equal chance.
Posted by: Mark Whittington | Oct 15, 2006 8:31:32 PM
Simple solution. Let the people decide.
Put a question on the 2008 ballot that says "Should the Confederate flag be flown on the grounds of any state government property?"
Why is this so complex an issue that we can't allow the residents of the state to decide?
At the very least, it would probably increase the percentage of registered voters who actually show up at the polls
by a fairly sizable percentage.
My guess? 60% of voters would choose to remove the flag. Maybe higher.
Any red-blooded/necked South Carolinian can fly the Confederate flag on their property whenever they'd like. Why isn't that good enough?
Take it down.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 15, 2006 9:05:48 PM
Hell, Mark, I am rich, make half a million dollars a year, and all along I thought it was hard work, integrity, and long hours that let me achieve. If only I had known…just think how much easier it would have been…
In hindsight, cheating the poor and unwashed has been so easy.
Posted by: Chris W | Oct 15, 2006 9:25:34 PM
Steve, in time this is exactly what will happen. With each passing year South Carolina will be increasingly made up of those who moved here from other parts of the country or indeed are foreign-born themselves. Even the SC-born citizens will be further removed generationally from some of the attitudes that a few (as we see above) still cling to. Brad and Woody both talk about the ineffectiveness of the NAACP boycott, which is really pointless if you're talking about taking the moral high ground on this issue. The NAACP boycott will continue, the flag will fly for a few more years, 5 or 10, then it will be gone. The final impetus will come from the business/corporate community, which will realize that the transformation of South Carolina into a 21st-century place to do business cannot be complete with such a potent symbol of its lingering 19th-century-ness remaining.
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 15, 2006 9:25:39 PM
Mark W,
you are right on one thing but dead wrong on everything else. The one you're right on is this:
- a 97% congressional incumbent re-election rate is absolutely pathetic and we need to come up with a way to force our politicians to change this. Obviously they like it just the way it is so the only way to force this change may be through a referendum, term limits, constitutional amendment or other ways to bypass the usual "looking out for # 1" system.
The tax burden has NOT been shifted from the wealthy. On the contrary, they pay more than they've ever paid before, both absolutely and on a percentage basis. You need to learn the difference between tax rates and tax revenue. Don't feel bad! Most lefties have that same problem. They think the higher the rate the better, never mind that the higher the rate the less actual revenue there is. Most of the wealthy didn't become wealthy by being stupid and that's something lefties don't usually understand. If you take away 90% of their earnings most will simply stop making money and instead live a life of leisure. So would I, and I only make a tiny fraction of a percent of what Bill Gates makes. Even if you take it all away, you won't win the class struggle. Sure, Bill Gates would be just another Bill but I have to confess that I've never seen a regular Bill employ anyone - only rich Bills do that. Then how would you unionize?
"Unions have existed now for many centuries (as has capitalism)"
My foot. Both have existed less than 2 centuries, far from "many". Before that it was feudalism, mercantilism, serfdom, slavery and misery.
"[unions] perform a vital function within capitalist society."
No, they don't. They might have done that decades ago but not at all in today's society. At this point the only function they perform is to make companies uncompetitive and to lose their members' jobs. Not for nothing are only 7% of private companies unionized. Even workers realize that the quickest and surest way to lose their jobs in a global marketplace is to unionize. Almost without exception the unionized companies are also the worst economic basketcases in the country. Some might be that way even without unions but there can be no doubt that unions made things much worse.
"To generate correct wealth distributions"
What the **** is "correct" wealth distribution? Who decides what's "correct"? We've already lost 100 million people to that preposterous conceit in the last century. Do we need to lose even more before we realize that capitalism, for all its faults, is vastly preferable for humanity (even income distribution) than any other currently existing system? Personally, I think if one guy works his butt off and makes $1 billion while another guy sits on his butt and makes $10K that's perfect income distribution. You get what you work for.
"How do I know this is right? There is no way I could otherwise consistently generate correct distributions using totally random numbers with equal chance."
So you say, but how do we know? Even if you are right in predicting these numbers, so what? The distribution probably still is correct, even if you don't agree with it.
Posted by: LexWolf | Oct 16, 2006 12:27:20 AM
The only way to change that 97% rate (above: Mark W.) is to elect those who are NOT "Dumbs, Repugs or Incums". Ain't no referendums, amendments or term limits gonna happen. The only way is a groundswell of the people voting for non-politicians. It could happen, but ain't likely.
What about the guy who DOES WORK HIS BUTT OFF, but STILL only makes 10K per year? Somehow, $500,000 per hour for a year's "work" doesn't seem right. And, no millionaire or billionaire ever makes that kind of money simply by the sweat of his own, personal brow.
Capitalism may be just dandy, but it's not the answer. Neither are unions. Somewhere in between, I would think. But, CHANGING THIS ain't gonna happen either.
Posted by: Spencer Gantt | Oct 16, 2006 6:57:37 AM
The only correct wealth distributions are those produced by bargaining in a free market which has minimal fraud and coercion. Only in such a situation can both parties to a transaction achieve a bargain for themselves and maximize their satisfaction and financial benefit.
The relative wealth of someone else is not that important to the wealth of another person. It is not important that everyone have almost the same level of wealth. In fact, it is detrimental to all of their economic prosperity, because they will all be near a subsistance level, and unable to invest and create new wealth and employment for others.
The important thing is that the lowest level of of society are workers - that they have jobs, are literate, are skilled and are moral, so that they will show up and perform those jobs.
Posted by: Lee | Oct 16, 2006 7:20:40 AM
