Posted on 05/14/2003 5:37:51 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
Confederate flag salute in program upsets parents
LARRY MCCORMACK / STAFF
Parents of some students at Avery Trace Middle School in Cookeville are upset because a history program by re-enactors included a salute to the Confederate flag.
By LEON ALLIGOOD
Staff Writer
COOKEVILLE, Tenn. — A program presented by a local camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans last Friday at Avery Trace Middle School has angered parents because students were asked to stand and listen to a recitation of a salute to the Confederate flag.
''My son told me something happened at school. I couldn't have imagined it would be anything like this,'' said Diane Paul, whose son attends the school. She asked that his name not be disclosed.
Paul also said the speakers promoted ''revisionist attitudes'' of the Civil War, particularly in regard to slavery.
The program by members of the Dillard-Judd Camp 1828 was similar to one they had presented last year for seventh- and eighth-grade American history classes at the middle school. The members, many of whom are active Civil War re-enactors, came dressed in period Confederate costumes to show the students what life was like during the 1860s.
According to Alma Anderson, the history teacher who organized the event, having the members come to the school offered a chance to ''make history come alive'' for her students.
Anderson said Friday's program began with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, for which students were asked to stand. Afterward, the teacher said, her eighth-graders were asked to remain standing for a salute to the Confederate flag.
''They explained they were going to salute not the Confederate States of America but to salute the thought of the folks who served in the Confederacy,'' Anderson said, adding that students were not required to salute. Neither were they provided the words of the salute.
''They were just to stand respectfully. You're not pledging. You're not saying anything. You're just standing there with respect,'' she said.
Diane Paul, however, said the re-enactors went too far when they asked her son to remain standing in honor of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. ''He knew it felt wrong, but he was there with his whole class, all these kids. No one wants to say anything,'' Paul said.
Anderson said no student or parent has complained to her about the program. She said that after the program, her students had a question-and-answer session with the group members. There were no questions about the salute, she said.
''If somebody had been upset, surely they could have come to me,'' Anderson added.
In contrast, she said, one parent thanked her for making the Civil War so interesting to her child.
In addition, Anderson said, Director of Schools Michael Martin attended the presentation. Martin could not be reached for comment.
Paul said she was troubled by ''revisionist attitudes'' of the Civil War that she said were promoted by the members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
''My son was told that a lot of black slaves liked their masters very much and that many blacks wore the Gray. There's a grain of truth there, but there were reasons why they were true. The whole answer wasn't given.
''What answers were given were distorted, and it's the distortion that disturbs me,'' the Cookeville mother said.
''The whole thing was minimizing slavery.''
Reavis Mitchell, chairman of the Fisk University History Department, said a few blacks did own slaves, as well as members of the Pequot Native American tribe in New England.
''Anyone who could buy slaves owned them, but the predominate owners were white,'' Mitchell said. ''However, most Southerners didn't own slaves because slaves were very expensive. What people don't understand is that slavery kept most people poor. However, their dream was to own them or have their children own them. They've identified with a social and economic quest that the great majority of today's South was not historically a part of.''
Anderson denied that the speakers revised Civil War history.
She said the group's commander, Ed Butler, pointed out that some people had made the Confederate flag a racist symbol.
''But it is not a symbol of racism for the Dillard-Judd group. He made that very clear. He said there's no way anybody on this stage is going to say to you that slavery and what we did to the blacks were appropriate.''
Butler, who lives in Cookeville, could not be reached for comment.
Allen Sullivant, spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans' national office, which is in Columbia, Tenn., said the school programs are a local initiative aimed at giving students a glimpse into the mindset of a Confederate soldier.
''We try to give historic presentations to schools that are willing to do it,'' said Sullivant, who lives in Brentwood.
Typically, a few members dressed in period uniform bring artifacts and speak about the life of the average Confederate soldier and his motivation to fight.
Sullivant said the presentations emphasize the complexity of issues such as slavery and the Civil War. ''People tend to boil things down, and sometimes they boil it to a point that the truth is taken out of the situation or distorted.''
Anderson said she would have preferred to have had Confederate and Union re-enactors talk to her students, but she said she could not find any Union ''soldiers'' in the Cookeville area.
''If I could find a Union re-enactor, I'd be all over that person like a duck on a June bug.''
Paul said she and several other parents, who would not talk to The Tennessean on the record, would schedule a meeting with Principal Skip Overstreet and Director Martin.
''We want our concerns to be heard. I think there's a need for dialogue on the issue,'' Paul said.
Staff writer Margo Rivers contributed to this report.
I think it's significant to note that Non-Sequitur, ordinarily Walt's fuzzy French poodle lap dog, called him down for starting this thread.
The Civil War is in the past. Leave it there.
I didn't go in a classroom and try to make heroes out of villians.
Walt
Grief? What kind of grief? Is that a threat?
Walt
I've a request by okchemyst to ZOT WhiskeyPapa. It appears that he is a troll of sorts. In fact he seems to have posted articles "blaming the 9/11 deaths on George Bush, etc".
Come on, guys--look at he poor man's tag line: "Please Kitties, ZOT Walt, I won't ask for anything for Christmas!"
What shall we do, fellow Kitties? Engage in battle, or sail on to Valhalla? You help is needed!!
In your own judgement--what do we do? Viking Kitties, help!
Then what was the SCV doing in a Tennessee class room this week?
Walt
My "obsession" is to honor the real heroes of the American Civil War -- the loyal Union men in Tennessee and elsewhere -- and point out the lies of groups like the SCV.
Walt
Before requesting a ZOT, you might want the opinions of WP's allies and foes on Civil War / "War of Northern Aggression" threads -- which I suspect would grow rather dull without him.
--------------------
In fact he seems to have posted articles "blaming the 9/11 deaths on George Bush, etc".
If true (links, anyone?), it would tip me towards the "zot him" faction. I don't recall any myself.
If true (links, anyone?), it would tip me towards the "zot him" faction. I don't recall any myself.
Saddam Hussein had ruled Iraq since 1979. In how may different plots to attack Americans was he implicated between 1979 and 1991? None that I know of.
He was humilitated by the Gulf War and two years later he attempts to kill former president Bush when he visits Kuwait. The same year Iraqi agents are involved in placing bombs in the basement of the World Trade Center. One of -those- agents was later involved in a plot to destroy 12 airliners at the same time as they flew over the Pacific. What set off Saddam Hussein that he would apply his assets to atacking American targets?
If he was NOT supporting attacks on America, why did we attack him and remove him from power?
Do you believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? I think most people have a gut feeling that he was, and seems like I just read that he was thought to have provided nerve gas to Al Qaeda.
So he just started doing all this out of the blue in 1993? If it were shown that Saddam actively sought to attack U.S. interests prior to 1990, then I wouldn't have a premise. Think back. Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 and siezed some of the oil refineries right across the border. He --thought-- the Iranians, racked by revolution, were an easy target. He was wrong. Eight years and as many as 500,000 KIA later, the war ended.
Remember this: The Reagan administration supported BOTH sides in this war. We gave Iraq satelite intelligence at least, and we, as is known, provided Iran with TOW anti-tank missiles, helicoptor parts and other aid. Now, while we were helping Iraq fight off their their deadly and militant enemy, was Saddam attacking U.S. targets? I don't remember that, do you? The war ended in 1988 in a stalemate. Do you recall any attacks on U.S. interests by Iraq in 1988, 89 or 1990? I don't. Okay, what do you think is the reason that Saddam had his agents help set a bomb off in the WTC in 1993? Why did he try and kill George Bush in Kuwait? It's because we kicked his butt on Desert Storm, and maintained no-fly zones, and shot at his anti-aircraft sites.
And all that is because we got into a war that was totally avoidable.
Think back again. April Glaspie meets with Saddam on July 25, 1990. Per the transcript, she tells Saddam that the U.S. is very concerned about the mass of forces on the Kuwait border. Over the next fews days the U.S. does.......nothing.
Even though we see all, hear all and know all. August 2, and Saddam's forces sieze Kuwait. And the U.S. had done nothing to prevent it. Had Secretary Baker flown to Baghdag on July 31, and said, "you better back down," Saddam could have saved some face and withdrawn. Granted, he is a better thug than strategist. I think it -reasonable- that the U.S. watch what is going on in the world and take appropriate measures. Is what I have suggested too off the wall?
And after we ejected Saddam's forces from Kuwait, he was attacking us as actively as he can. Do you think otherwise?
I still hold that the Gulf War was avoidable. George Bush was in charge. He bears the responsibility. I think it at least an interpretation that can be exlored and not dismissed out of hand.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.