(this is a long one, the actual discussion bit is at the end)

There's been a lot going on this week with all the SCOTUS decisions this week, for good reason. Of course the big ticket item is nation wide legal marriage between same sex couples, however something that also got some attention is the issue of the confederate flag and its use in government speech.

The government part is rather important. The court decision earlier this week determined that state governments were not violating free speech by denying license plate designs, because governments are not subject to the protection of free speech under the constitution. This makes sense, free speech protects the population from government interference over their speech.
To be honest this case was the most fascinating for me as it opens up a can of worms for state governments. Can religious and non-religious designs now be denied for the same reason? should they? How does this work with Wooley v. Maynard? (a case that determined state's could not force people to have certain license plates if the plate violated the person's religious convictions)

I don't expect answers here, just interesting is all. Anyway in light of this ruling there's been a lot of talk of the confederate flag. Note that (so far as I am aware anyway) portraying the flag isn't illegal, it's simply that the government can choose to not display it in what would be considered government speech. That same logic, presumably, would occur if a state chose to deny any other type of design, such as the pride flag. Again this isn't that important though.

The case itself has brought up a lot of discussion about the nature of the flag itself. Does it act only as a symbol of racism, or is it that it can be representative of southern pride without the association with racism.

I'll state bluntly my opinion: I do not think the confederate flag will ever rid itself from the association of racism and no matter the intent in portraying it a person must keep this in mind.

That being said, I do not think everyone who wishes to display the flag or work with it are intentionally racist. I do not believe associating with the flag means that all persons involved dream of days where they could own people and eliminate rights. I think there is some legitimacy to the argument of using the flag to demonstrate southern pride or honor that does not necessitate also believing anyone is of a lesser race, but I think that such ideas are wishful thinking.

Again, I'll be clear. Yes racists use the flag to represent extremely racist views. I'm saying I don't think that's true for everyone.

[facetious]So how can someone believe things like southern pride and not be racist? Obviously the confederate flag is the flag of the south in the civil war, and the civil war was about racism. South was racist and the north was not [/facetious]

I think our idea of history has become very simplified, making it extremely difficult to separate more nuanced reasons, ideals, motivations, especially in things like war. History has a tendency to make the winner the good guy. After all, no one goes to war believing they are in the wrong. No one wants to believe their actions are morally wrong. So when it's time for the winners to write the history books, we see the reasoning for why the victor was in the right and the loser was in the wrong.

In the case of the american civil war we often simplify it down to racism, which is disingenuous. It paints a progressive light onto the north, as a bastion of freedom and tolerance, when in reality the north was still really fucking racist as it was. Still morally right in my opinion, it's hard not to be morally right when part of your stance is "you can't own people" but our simplified version paints things as more angelic than they actually were. It's easier to sell the battle of angels and demons rather than a horrible nasty bloodbath between two kinda shitty people where one is slightly less shitty.

There are a lot of reasons that we went to war, one of the primary ones was indeed slavery, but it was more than simply "haha fuck those people, I want to own and destroy them" on a large scale. The argument of slavery was bigger than that and dealt with issues of the governments as a republic (in which slavery was a moral transgression that could not stand) or if slavery was a matter of state property that was protected under the constitutions, in the manner of the romans (but roman slaves were a lot different from american slaves) Added to this was economics, the more agricultural south was in economic danger with the absence of cheap labor, while the technological advancements of the north left it poised for economic and in part representative supremacy. Political work in the west in regards to new territories and states being slave or non-slave states were seen by southern states as unconstitutional acts.

The large issue of slavery in the nation fed into another primary cause for war that we very rarely ever talk about. Again the civil war gets summarized as about slavery, and it was. There was one morally correct side, but the issue of slavery was political not necessarily just ethics. A big part of it was the determination of state vs. federal rights. The north was more republican, meaning they wanted to be a republic. The U.S. as it stands now is a democratic republic, we have a strong federal government (that's why the SCOTUS decision made marriage legal nationwide). The south was more inclined toward a confederacy. Keep in mind the U.S. started as a confederacy (each state acting as a sovereign authority that bands together), but the articles of confederation were rewritten to become the bill of rights, which gave the federal government more power. This was in 1787. The civil war occurred in 1861. 100 years is not politically that much time and between the constitution and the civil war there was a lot of political development on the rights of the states vs. the rights and power of the federal government.

So the southern states were concerned about a state's rights to determine laws and such for their own good. Again to the southern state they were in a very present danger of economic trouble when subjected to laws developed by northern states and representatives that had very different interests.

This is still something that we'll see today. In cases like marriage equality, the power of the federal government to protect the rights of everyone seems a no brainer, but for lesser issues it's a bit more annoying. Montana has much different problems than New York, California, or Florida, and yet often there are certain laws passed which are beneficial for those states and rather harmful for others.

This has all been rather long winded, but the point of all that history and such is to clearly address that the civil war wasn't just about racism, but also dealt with an array of political issues including the non-compatible views of a republic central government versus the state focused confederacy. Remember at the beginning of this long rant I said that I think someone can choose to display the flag without being intentionally racist or believing there is some greater race? I think when we stop taking such a simplified view of history it's easier to see how that could be the case. It is entirely possible that someone could advocate for stronger state's rights and use a symbol of confederacy to attempt to represent that.

Still even if someone completely innocently only supports state rights, the confederate flag is inherently tied to american slavery, an inherent racist system (not like roman slavery at all, even if that was the goal). Even if one is innocent of racist beliefs they must be aware of the symbolic association, and that association is never going to go away.

All that being said I wonder how true this is of other symbols as well or if it is only the symbols of the losing side that are doomed to symbolism without evolution. The confederacy of the south advocated a position that denied basic human rights, and now has no time to develop into something different.
You see the same with symbols of Naziism. The swastika while once a rather positive symbol was warped under Nazi use and will for the foreseeable future be a symbol of hatred (racist, ableist, any homosexual etc etc).

Both of these symbols are representative of losing groups, the original political or whatever force was destroyed and could no longer develop and evolve. Where as with other symbols and issues you see something different.

The democratic party today is vastly different from the one originally founded. The same with republicans. Lincoln is noted as a republican but the modern party would be unrecognizable for him. The symbols of the original group continued to exist and evolve so the original intent cant be said to represent the group now.

This got me thinking of something like the christian cross. Is the cross doomed to be an inherent symbol of homophobia? Some might say yes, others no. The christian churches all stem from the original catholic church, and the catholic church depending on the leadership have various levels of acceptance for homosexuality, but it is without a doubt, anti-homosexuality. Even the most tolerant of popes has stated that homosexuality is a sin (like many other things are sins and it doesn't necessarily damn you, but still). Undoubtedly had the christian church not risen to power under late roman empire we would have a different view of the symbol itself.

But that's not what happened. Christianity persisted and was able to evolve. I would find it doubtful if people saw the christian cross as fundamentally anti divorce or something like that, because Christianity developed beyond the representation of catholics. It's true that in this day and age people will use Christianity as a justification for their own homophobia, but can it be assumed that anyone displaying a cross is fundamentally homophobic in the same way we believe that those using the confederate flag are fundamentally racist. Seems rather harsh, after all there are churches across the nation that welcome and support homosexuals to their ministry.

Will the church always have this homophobic association or can it evolve? Are symbols and meaning stagnant only for the losers of politics and history?