Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Previous flag is linked forever with racism

Harold Harrison has seen right through me.

He implied that my opposition to the 1956 flag reveals my Marxist leanings. I'm not sure how he detected it from what I had to say, but I confess: I am indeed a devoted follower of Marx. To quote Marx himself: "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

I prefer Groucho to Zeppo and Harpo, but so, I suspect, do most people.

As a Floridian, I may be just as bad as a Yankee to Mr. Harrison, but I do not advocate "Southern cultural genocide." I would keep grits, okra and, most importantly, the Allman Brothers Band. Probably some other stuff, too.

Mr. Harrison, I make a gift of much of what you say. You are correct: people in the South do not have a monopoly on racism. I have personally encountered instances of racial prejudice in the North as well as the South. I have also encountered an unjust Northern prejudice against Southerners of the sort that you wrongly foist upon me (Consider Bill Bryson's assessment that Southerners are "murderous, incestuous, sh-tty-shoed rednecks." Consider Neil Young).

And you are right: racism is certainly not limited to any group. All sorts of combinations are possible with regard to who is on the giving and who on the receiving end. It is immoral wherever it is found. Knowing far less about the era of Reconstruction than you, I'll even concede your historical claim that whites were singled out unjustly during this period.

You say much else of a dubious and doubtfully coherent nature. At least one point that I cannot allow to stand is your claim that "the only apartheid that existed in the South is called Reconstruction." I am not quite sure how to work decades of white-imposed segregation into this interpretation of history.

But how does any of this affect my argument? I argued that the 1956 flag was unfurled in defiance of federal authority, and explicitly in defense of hateful, racist segregation laws. This is my main reason for opposing its reinstatement. To challenge the argument you should show that (a) I am mistaken in linking the flag to segregation or (b) I am mistaken in thinking that segregation laws are racist and hateful or (c) the fact that the flag originally stood for hateful, racist segregation (and that a large segment of our population has poignantly understood this) somehow does not matter.

Glen Allen seemed surprised by my paragraphs extolling the virtues of Lee and his soldiers. But my intention here was to register my appreciation for the fact that many flag supporters associate the battle flag only with their rich and interesting heritage. I do not assume that anyone who wishes to return to the 1956 flag is a racist. Why, that would be almost as undiscerning as Mr. Harrison's various non sequiters regarding my own political views! My argument was that the reasonable association of that flag with racism is sufficient ground for leaving it folded in spite of the innocent intentions of many flag supporters.

Mr. Allen described my earlier piece as "overlong." The same ACC students who would choke upon hearing Harold Harrison characterize me as a liberal would roll their eyes and nod in knowing agreement with Mr. Allen. Alas, this is my curse and the curse of all who would bother to read me. But his piece is over-short. Specifically, it lacks any counterargument. I invite him to rehearse the "tiresome but persuasive rebuttal" to my argument that he mentions but does not yet produce.

Mark D. Linville, Ph.D.

Professor of Philosophy

Atlanta Christian College