Replies

Do you propose relegating it to a back room in a museum as an historical symbol? I ask this seriously because I am familiar with your posts and know where your heart is. Same place as mine.

Well, we have a law here in Arkansas that it is illegal to desecrate the Confederate battle flag or use it for any purposes other than honoring the Confederate soldier. This was passed a long time ago, primarily to try and cut down on its spreading use as an advertising symbol.

The law is, of course, not worth the paper its written on due to 1st Amendment considerations.

But my sentiment is that it is a solemn symbol that represents soldiers who carried it across battlefields and should not be used for bikinis, or to sell beer, etc.

I think it should be displayed in museums, cemeteries, battlefields, historical reenactments, parades, and memorials. It also has a defacto role as a symbol of the South as a region and can, in my mind, be displayed in a respectful manner at public Southern cultural events, and on private property, bearing in mind its primary purpose as a representation of the historical Confederate soldier.

It is perfectly acceptable for it to be displayed on public property and at State and local public buildings in this context since it was State and local government that sent many of these soldiers into battle on their behalf and thus owe them at least a modicum of respect. (despite their distancing themselves from these facts in the modern day).

I'm not trying to be a hard-case, and I've got nothing against most displays. Its just my view that too many have adopted the Confederate flag as nothing more than a symbol of personal rebellion in the vein of Calvin peeing on a Chevy symbol. When its displayed, we should just keep in mind that it should be an honorable display.

Its just my view that too many have adopted the Confederate flag as nothing more than a symbol of personal rebellion in the vein of Calvin peeing on a Chevy symbol. When its displayed, we should just keep in mind that it should be an honorable display.

So you would object to the young woman's choice of pattern on grounds of good taste, whereas the other people arrived at the same conclusion, but from premises of political correctness instead, that require what the Romans called damnatio memoriae for all Confederalia, and all persons tainted (in their view) by association, except where publicly repudiated, with the Confederate past.

My own personal opinion is that this particular bit of PC is ill-disguised regional chauvinism emanating from the notoriously metrosexual and Leftist editorial dens of The New York Times, and reverse racism being whipped up as an election-season bloody shirt by professional race-issue politicians.

But your bottom line is, she should have gone home, I take it.

This story got on the local TV news in Houston today, btw.