I agree. It's one thing to stop selling actual Confederate flags, it's another to try and scrub any mention of a historical event or depiction of a certain symbol in context.
Apple is certainly within their rights to do this, but I think it's silly and impulsive.
No, it's wrong to stop selling the Confederate flag too. We don't seem to value freedom of speech and expression like we should. We are basically going on modern witch hunts against people who disagree with anything that's not politically correct.
If you want a Confederate battle flag there are lots of places you can buy one. If you feel they aren't available enough to your liking you are free to make one or even start selling them yourself.
Walmart making a business decision to stop selling something that is racist has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It would also be a poor business decision to start selling ISIS flags, Nazi symbolism, those racist figurines that were once popular, a holocaust reenactment video game, KKK robes, or any other merchandise that divides their customer base. So what?
Part of freedom is the freedom to choose what you do and don't sell.
Where does it say Nazi merchandise is allowed on Amazon?
>EBay specifically bans their sale while Amazon bans the sale of "products that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views."
Seems to me they both [generally] ban Nazi merchandise but have problems enforcing the ban.
Anyways, its irrelevant. Amazon can sell what it wants. That's a business choice they make. I don't care what they choose to sell, that is their choice.
Just as people should have the right to freedom of expression, businesses should have the right to sell what they want (there's exceptions here in cases of medical care for example when we want to make sure people have access to contraception or medication regardless of moral or religious belief). I'm okay with private businesses choosing not to stock the Confederate battle flag as long as we don't cross the line into not allowing the flag to be displayed or to even be made.
I didn't say it's morally right to stop selling the Confederate flag, just that I understand a business wouldn't want to be associated with them and may decide to stop being a venue for their sale. I think Apple went far beyond that with this, and I would hope that even the most ardent anti-Confederate-flaggers can agree how silly it is.
Choice is good for consumers. I'm an AAPL shareholder too but that doesn't mean you should be an apologist.
Someone else's phone won't access the huge amounts of data I have in iCloud. Or are you actually advocating for vendor lock-in as a force for good? I don't understand.
You signed a contract with Apple governing what they can and can do, and what you can and can't do. Your complaints on Hacker News after the fact are not binding on Apple.
When a movie like Iron Sky has no problem being shown in German cinemas with the swastika left untouched, because it's clearly art, then it should be fairly obvious to Apple that banning historically accurate representations in historically accurate interactive art is far overreaching; though not legally, but ethically.
These exceptions might apply to cases such as this one, whether they do is unknown and no publisher has dared to find out.
In practice all games that contain forbidden symbols get a German version in which these are replaced for example in the Wolfenstein franchise (that were not censored due to violence).
Only because the german government, like any government, is old and slow, and as of yet does not classify computer games as art, citing the interactive aspect as an enabler of contextual reinterpretation; AND because many foreign game creators simply censor themselves proactively instead of taking this matter to court.
There is a very reasonable expectation of this changing at some point in the future.
The German government hasn't declared them not to be art either and as long as they haven't the real question is whether a court would consider them to be art. I think there is a very good chance that a court would consider them to be art but I don't see it coming to that anytime soon.
A lot of gamers seem to be happy with versions that have these symbols replaced and everyone else simply imports them (which is as simple as ordering from amazon.co.uk instead of amazon.de). Publishers have simply no incentive to pursue this and because violence in games can be censored, publishers censor a lot of games on their own already anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that there are companies even profiting from the current situation.
Right, I used government to broadly. Nevertheless that games are not art is the opinion of that agency. As you already mentioned there interpretation of the law is somewhat shaky here.
Nevertheless to my understanding if a publisher were to get a game censored by the OLJB due to forbidden symbols, the publisher could go to court and I think they would have a decent chance at winning such a case.
What the German courts are doing is enforcing the taboo on swastikas and anything else H*tler-related. I can understand why they are doing it and would like them to continue.
You're being extremely vague to the point of making your comment a non-sequitur.
Are you agreeing with the law exactly as it is written? (I am.) Are you agreeing with the interpretation of the law as it applies to computer games? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should be allowed the usage if the usage serves the art? (I do.)
> Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups?
It depends on the context. The computer game should not facilitate identification with Nazism (e.g. by the player flying that flag in a RTS or being a member of it in an FPS) or downplay the disastrous results of Nazism. So potentially I would be okay with a Wolfenstein-like game where the player operates strictly against these powers/symbols, but doing this consequently in online multi-player games seems difficult.
Apple is quite explicitly uninterested in artistic expression on the app store. From the second paragraph in their guidelines:
"We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App."
Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.
I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech.
Essentially they want to separate themselves from most existing legal precedent.
I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech
Why would that end up in court? Apple is a private company. It's free to include/exclude whatever content it wants. Consumers don't have a right to force a company to provide the content they want.
Using a monopoly position in the market to influence what kind of media is available on the market at large, however, can get you in trouble with courts.
Get in trouble for anti-monopoly stuff usually requires two parts: that you be a monopoly and that you somehow use it. Shaping a market to your desires is an example of using your monopoly standing.
Apple won't get in trouble because they're not a monopoly, but that's how a private company can get in trouble for filtering speech in an eco-system they control.
For ~50M (statistics?) iPhone users, they're a monopoly, no?
IANAL, but I feel like there were previous monopoly cases successfully brought on behalf of far smaller groups than that. E.g. the fact that I'm a vegetarian doesn't invalidate a steak-knife monopoly
Apple runs a walled garden which is different from being an actual monopoly, legally. Unless and until Apple becomes an actual smart phone monopoly they're pretty safe from the current regulations.
difference being they scan and validate content and apply their own family rating, instead of relying on third party, so anything that gets under the radar is their liability, as opposed to book/music that have the explicit/mature label slapped from the origin.
this looks more the result of living in the land of the lawsuit-happy easily offended puritans than anything else. if they could shift liability to esrb for their apps and games, they would
actually, I wonder how did they managed to pass under the esrb radar so far.
Their stance makes perfect sense. The App Store is not a commons, it is the private property of Apple, in which they curate the works of others at their convenience. But unlike a book store or a music store, they can closely associate what they stock with the brand becaues the "App" medium is so new.
It's pretty similar to a local coffee shop maintaining a few book cases for customers to borrow or buy, but being pretty strict about what books can be put in their selection.
Ultimately, I suspect they are more controlling about apps than about books or music because apps are (or were) a new medium that, for both financial and marketing reasons, they wanted to think about differently. Apple probably feared (and/or hoped) that Apps would have a more intimate connection to their brand than e.g., the tracks in iTunes.
(edit: 1. Not saying I agree; 2. this post is a descriptive conjecture about why/how Apple treats apps differently, not an advocacy that they continue to do so. Jeesh.)
Your simile is completely off. It's not like a local coffee shop with book cases, it's like a (fictitious) company that has a monopoly on stocking the book cases in all coffee shops nation-wide. Your cellphone is the coffee shop.
The simile is only stronger in that case. The local coffee shop might be OK stocking some Marxist rags or hard core Libertarian texts or whatever the owner likes. Meanwhile, Starbucks only stocks the inoffensive books. Thus, the masses go to Starbucks because they want a cup of coffee from a nice normal person, and don't want to have to listen to a bunch of Marxists talk down to them while waiting in line or (perceive that they are being) condescended to by a Barista.
The book case simile is fictional, but Starbucks appropriating only the completely inoffensive parts of the canonical local coffee shop is a perfect parallel example.
The stance doesn't make sense because it prevents a particular type of symbol in media they sell - it doesn't make sense because they treat Books, Music and Movies as somehow different - perhaps they consider it a higher form of art - from Games and Apps.
Again, the issue isn't whether games are Art. The issue is that Apple wants a closer association/connection between their brand and the contents of the App Store, and they can get that association with Apps in a way that would be impossible with music or books. People already consumed music and books before the iPhone, but curated Apps were an entirely new thing.
Something like "Want a huge catalog of high-quality Apps curated by a company with good taste? Get an iPhone."
It makes sense because IT WORKED. People DO associate certain high-quality Apps with the iPhone, even when those apps are made available on Android at some point.
Just because you (or I) disagree with it doesn't mean it's not a policy that makes good sense. It gave a huge boost their their product's reputation...
But anecdotally, most people I know who own an iPhone and aren't Apple devouts chose it because "the software is better". I assume the typical consumer lumps Apps in with OS, because I doubt they are making purchasing decisions based upon the quality of the OS kernel or the quality of the background processes...
Acoording to statistics like this [1], smartphone users are highly likely to stay with whatever they are used to. Thus it follows that their impression that "the software is better" is based on outdated information.
Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.
US society has moved past moral panic over books and music. We're still in the thick of it with software (Brown vs. EMA was decided in 2011). Apple already chose to make themselves a certifying authority for software on other axes, so I don't find it surprising they sanitize content in the US-flavor of "family friendly" similar to other game consoles.
Are you implying that Apple wouldn't allow that? I can't find a way to browse their book store with a browser (it just tells me I have to download iTunes), but I would imagine they have erotica as a category there (or at least as a sub-category under fiction like Amazon does).
I thought the Union flag had somewhere around 35 stars.
It's Apple's playground, they can do whatever they want. This seems ham fisted to me, but i understand the desire to simply eradicate all evidence. They're not in the business of historical accuracy. They're in the business of selling stuff. bad feelings about imagery interferes with selling stuff.
This is absolute BS. Using a flag in a historical context should not be censored. Did they sensor history apps? Once again, app developer take a hit while "real authors / artists" don't have to deal with this crap.
So what about all WWII games that have a swastika, or any number of historical flags that are simply referencing history rather than supporting an ideal?
Well, I guess that's a very delicate subject to talk about.
In Wolfenstein 3D you can't play a nazzi shooting Americans (for example). You play the good guy shooting the bad guys.
I also don't think the problem is the flag. IMO the real problem is that in most of the games you can play on both sides. Kids can easily start identifying themselves as the side on which they play and forget the important details. Like... history.
As a kid growing up in USSR, we often played various WWII themed games and someone had to be the nazi. We usually did a coin toss and as far as I know, none of the kids turned into the actual nazis or far right extremists. Sometimes kids play is just that - kids play...
That's fine. I don't think Apple is saying, "We believe this game is morally wrong", I think Apple is saying, "We don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole."
They might as well ban the Turkish flag too as that is a symbol of the genocide against Armenians --or the Soviet flag as it symbolizes the oppression of many nations and peoples by the soviet regime.
And apple would cede, if the people affected made enough of a fuss, so this whole thing is more about perception and PR more than actual beliefs in justice, etc.
Actually, it was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia for the entire war following First Manassas, and since the Gettysburg campaign was an ANV campaign it most certainly was flown there.
They are. Games are not recognized as art here in Germany, so they do not get the same treatment as movies or books and have to remove the references. International releases of these games are actually illegal in Germany and owning them is an indictable act, although actual criminal charges are very rare (since there's hardly a way of controlling the digital distribution).
You're all right and wrong. They are in a quantum state. The youth protection agency thinks games are not art and as such wishes to not allow them. However the matter has never been in front of a legal court, and until that is done, they are only censored out or pro-active fear, not because they're actually illegal.
Why stop there? The Hammer and Sickle represent the slaughter and enslavement of tens of millions. The Chinese flag at one point represented normal people being forced to run small metal smelters in their backyards exposing them to the joys of heavy metal poisoning and rank air pollution (when they weren't being starved for political reasons).
Please don't hyperbolize. Removing the Confederate flags from public places like government buildings and refusing to sell merchandise with the flag is not erasing history.
And I'd call the regular terrorizing and murder of black people under this flag far more than "someone felt bad".
Apple simply took a way-to-heavy-handed approach here.
I'm not from the US and thus have no skin in this game, but even I can see that while this movement (to remove the Confederate flag) started out with good motivations (e.g. removing them from public buildings) now it has been taken too far (stopped sales, harassing the manufacturers, banned from places, removed from app store, etc). It really does seem like people are trying to erase it from existence (alright, a little hyperbolic, but still).
I totally understand the negative connotation and why that exists. And the fact that public institutions still fly it is "disturbing." But people against it should stop while they're ahead, they'll only see a massive backlash if this keeps up.
PS - I wonder how hard it will be for educators, civil war re-creationists, and similar to get a Confederate flag?
> Removing the Confederate flags from public places like government buildings and refusing to sell merchandise with the flag is not erasing history.
Maybe I'm wrong but I kinda got the impression rrss1122 was referring to Apple wanting games removed which were based on historical events where the confederate flag was used. Perhaps OP also meant it for the current events for removing it from government buildings, etc but I assumed not.
>Removing the Confederate flags from public places like government buildings and refusing to sell merchandise with the flag is not erasing history.
It is however a token effort that effectively signals "I care" while actually achieving nothing but the censorship of historically accurate games. Banning violence in comics didn't reduce crime. Banning symbols in art isn't going to reduce this wildly rare form of shooting.
It's the flag that is terrorizing people, or people doing it? Will the terrorizing be better if it happens under a different flag? I have a hard time believing the flag is at fault and not the people, or that removing a flag will stop people from doing the same acts.
The flag, flying on a statehouse, sends a message that racial hatred is acceptable to society. It doesn't make someone kill (and there are many more problems with racism than murders or that one incident), but it creates an environment where hate appears to be acceptable.
Regardless of what you think about the current reactions, they are not solely the result of someone feeling bad. They are the reactions to the murder of 9 innocent people by a white supremacist professing a genocidal desire. Now, whether this justifies this action or not is a different matter.
>Regardless of what you think about the current reactions, they are not solely the result of someone feeling bad. They are the reactions to the murder of [3000] innocent people by a [group of Islamists] professing [the need to eradicate nonbelievers]. Now, whether this justifies this action or not is a different matter.
Yep, which is why this hypothetical comment would also be an appropriate retort to someone referring to the Sept 11th attacks as "somebody felt bad." As I'd hoped I made clear, I wasn't suggesting Apple's reaction was appropriate or inappropriate, just that isn't simply about feelings.
Possibly this is just Apple pushing the burden of proof onto the developers? They could have had their app reviewers go through every app one by one and try to understand the context, or they can do this and force the developers that care to justify the use of the flag.
It's quite ironic that Apple is setting a precedent for the intolerance of any symbol of slavery while they are knowingly supporting manufacturing which utilizes child labor, which is often forced labor. The epitome of hypocrisy which hopefully leads Apple to change.
I would absolutely agree that Apple's workers in China and elsewhere work under harsh conditions that would simply would not accept in the West.
But do you know for a fact that Apple utilises child labour or is that more speculation? I know it is common in clothing manufacturing (and other cloth-like accessories e.g. shoes, bags, etc) but didn't know it was common in electronics and or in China.
As you point out, they probably approve WWII historical games with Nazi symbols in them. But they probably don't approve content that glorifies Naziism.
So if you have content that wasn't similarly vetted regarding the CORRECTION: Army of Northern Virginia battle flag (not "stars and bars"), what can you do but de-authorize all of it and start over?
Hardly a nitpick! That deserves a correction. "Stars and bars" is a commonplace misnomer. Army of Northern Virginia battle flag is probably the correct thing to call it.
What can you do? How about not kowtowing to the outrage of the week and indiscriminately banning games because they have images of the flag? I don't think any of these games are glorifying the Confederacy.
It isn't even historically accurate anyway because the CSA never actually used that flag. It was briefly used as the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
Even being extremely pedantic it doesn't seem accurate, that symbol was used all over the place during the American Civil war to support the Confederated states (both as a battle flag, and as their second and within their third official flags).
Essentially when the war ended that was their primary symbol, and would be completely appropriate to be used in a war game about the American civil war.
A slippery slope down the road to censorship. When you place yourself at the head of the censorship table, you open up a can of worms that is difficult to close. (and no, I am not referencing "censorship" of illegal material)
For me though, this is nothing new for Apple, and it's why I don't like their software in general. As RMS said, roughly, "Apple puts the user in a prison. It is a beautiful prison though."
Some people embrace the beautiful prison for it's simplicity and ease of use. I suppose that's their choice, but what will they do when they wake up and realize they hate the new warden, after they are so tied into the ecosystem?
I still think those who embrace FOSS now will be at a huge advantage as time progresses and the nanny mentality of companies such as Apple and Microsoft becomes more prevalent, and users of those will be at a large disadvantage. RMS is a man ahead of his time and only time will prove him right. As a matter of fact, I think that's part of the reason why MS is trying to get more ground in the open source community, because they understand that FOSS is actually becoming a threat these days, and they are trying wildly to stop the haemorrhaging.
In Apple's defense though, I do view them as the lesser of two evils, and would gladly push OSX/iOS on users rather than Windows/Windows Mobile. At least it's unix under the hood, and we can see most of the source code.
> I still think those who embrace FOSS now will be at a huge advantage as time progresses and the nanny mentality of companies such as Apple and Microsoft becomes more prevalent
I'm not so sure about that. Apple is doing this to gain favor with their customers, who want to feel safe in an insular bubble.
I had long thought that Free would win out economically, when centralized stores were forced to ban torrent clients and the like, but unfortunately the zeitgeist has even shifted to pay streaming apps. This is the real damage that centralization causes - the culture gets permanently warped from internalizing good-enough solutions.
Then again we've had decades of receive-only broadcast media conditioning people into thinking centralization is the natural way of things, so maybe it's just going to take that much longer to break it up. Still, I feel that this current decentralization swing might be our last chance to correctly distribute power, besides the otherwise inevitable societal collapse.
Political correctness has gone way too far in this country.
When the Boston Bomber was on trial, there was a point made that his actions, because it was in the name of Islam, in no way reflects the actions of the entire religion or culture.
Yet in South Carolina, the actions of one crazy person somehow now reflects on the entire culture and we need to remove the confederate flag.
I don't see Amazon and Ebay removing anything related to Islam and we have had way more deaths related to crazies in that religion than with the Confederate flag.
I also find it interesting that many people in government worked extremely fast to get the flag removed. I wished they could work this fast when it comes to actual important issues.
I think the comparison is fairly specious, frankly. There is a good argument to be made that the raison d'etre of the Confederacy was the subjugation of African Americans. Whether today's Confederacy enthusiasts agree or not, the Confederate flag surely sends that message to many of those who see it being flown -- particularly, of course, African Americans.
Islam, on the other hand, while associated to some degree with terrorism (largely by the definition of "terrorism", some would say), surely does not exist for the express purpose of cultivating terrorism. Moreover, even to the extent Islam is associated with terrorism in the public consciousness, it does not also convey a message of hate to a particular minority group, as do symbols of the confederacy.
There will be people who disagree with both of these points, but I submit that the former point is much more compelling than the latter. And, more to the point, the public reaction simply reflects, I think, widespread agreement that this is the case.
"whether today's Confederacy enthusiasts agree or not, the Confederate flag surely sends that message to many of those who see it being flows -- particularly, of course, African Americans."
If today's confederacy enthusiasts disagree, then it means the culture doesn't represent slavery. Many in the south had relatives that fought and died for the confederacy. It means something to them, but this doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
"surely does not exist for the express purpose of cultivating terrorism"
The confederate flag doesn't exist for the sole purpose of slavery. Just like Islam representing terrorism, it's just one of the many facets. I would also like to point out that Islam does represent the subjugation of women (even if the the people part of the religion don't see it this way). Any woman involved in the religion has to keep their head covered (some, their entire body) and in pretty much all Islamic countries, the laws are heavily biased toward men. Homosexuality is also illegal and can mean jail time.
"And, more to the point, the public reaction simply reflects, I think, widespread agreement that this is the case."
A small, vocal, minority of people agree (like in most things). We have had the confederate flag around for many, many years. I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown. Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident)
wanting it removed.
If it was really a huge issue, why the outcry now? And why are we blaming an entire culture for the actions of one person?
> If today's confederacy enthusiasts disagree, then it means the culture doesn't represent slavery.
What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it. The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended?
> The confederate flag doesn't exist for the sole purpose of slavery.
The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery, the flag in question is the symbol of the Confederacy. (Though I should have said "primary purpose" not "sole purpose.")
> Any woman involved in the religion has to keep their head covered
This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their heads. (Also, while I recognize that the discriminatory attitudes of many Muslims towards women run deeper than merely having them cover their heads, it's pretty funny that you're comparing this to slavery.) And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery.
> I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown. Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed.
Google it. This is blatantly false. (I agree that moves like Apple's decision today go too far, and may indeed be unprecedented. But certainly the general controversy is not at all new.)
>What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it.
This works equally in the other direction. The reason a symbol was originally created is not the final word on what it means today to large groups of people. For many people that flag means "the American South is a distinctive culture." I don't really care about the flag at all but I have seen people using it in various ways for years without any sort of racist intent and it's pretty crap to just write them off as racists or that they should have retroactively "known better" after this sudden, dramatic social pivot.
"The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended?"
If it's turned a specific way, it is the Nazi symbol. In Asia for instance (where I lived and studied for 5+ years), you will see the symbol all over the place. It is still a Buddhist peace sign in many other parts of the world and in fact, I have purchased multiple items online (and on Amazon) with the symbol on it.
I know plenty of people that purchase Chinese new year decorations and put them in their car with that symbol.
So, your example is flawed.
"The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery"
No it didn't. It existed to promote states' rights. Slavery is one of those rights (and the one brought up the most).
"This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their head"
You also see plenty of people with the confederate flag that do not support slavery. This is my point.
"And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery."
I don't see people with confederate flags creating laws that force African-americans into slavery. We do have examples of countries that force women to be partially covered (and in some instances, completely covered) and other extremely harsh laws like stoning if a woman gets raped (this is a real law btw.).
But it gets the magic pass, even though in some instances, supports the most vile and terrible human behavior.
So you support symbols of a religion that do in fact put people into slavery, by law. But you don't support a symbol that has done nothing of the sort for 100+ years.
"Google it. This is blatantly false."
This is the first time I've seen it on CNN or any main stream news site (and I read lots of news every day) and it was only after this incident that government officials needed to do anything about it. It must not have been a big deal before this incident.
*edit: This is why HN group think (and group think everywhere) is dangerous. I am trying to have an open an honest discussion about politics and I am silenced immediately.
It's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion, and ultimately the treason, committed by those ruling in the South. It was the choice of slavery over patriotism back when the states seceded then, and it's ever more abhorrent now to think one should wave the Confederate flag as some nod towards a "culture" that was nothing more than a wrapper around the terrible institution of slavery.
Now, I'm not blaming all of the people in the South. Surely the soldiers that fought and died weren't the same ones making the decisions and state house speeches. But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote? Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?
"t's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion"
It's also revisionist history that Lincoln cared about slaves' rights. The main reason slavery was made illegal was to gut the south if it's resources, and it worked. The side-effect was, however, morally right.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust."
With that said, should we also remove everything Lincoln supported or anything related to Lincoln from our government and stores?
"But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote?"
It's all about context, which seems to have been lost in today's society. The Buddhist peace symbol is no longer a symbol of Nazis and the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery. It's been turned into a symbol of southern pride, nothing more.
The US flag probably means oppression for many other cultures and people throughout history as does pretty much every single flag in the world. But somehow, those are okay. Should we remove it because we slaughtered the native americans and they are offended by it?
"Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?"
If this is the case, why aren't we having a conversation about Islam and other cultures that encourage the same thing..or worse?
Islam can't even be discussed with open and honesty without "Islamaphobe" being thrown out. It just seems very phony to me.
Islam has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is why it is being dismissed. It's perfectly reasonable to want to discuss a particular instance of ignorance ("the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride, nothing more" is ignorance, and quite literally white-washes the history associated with the symbol), without bringing into question the handling of other injustices, e.g. the treatment of women in Islamic cultures. If every discussion about every topic had to include every possible similar scenario, then humanity would achieve very little.
The American flag does probably mean oppression and injustice for certain groups of people, both within the States and outside the States. The collective "we" could probably do better about how we reflect on those past injustices so as to do better in the future.
The more I read your arguments, the more I feel that you are cornering yourself into the position that you are trying to argue against. The symbol of the swastika can have many meanings, and context has not been collectively forgotten: if it's spray-painted on a synagogue in the West by some angsty teenager, but has the orientation of the Buddhist peace symbol, is anyone really going to think that the kid was promoting world peace? Of course not. If the symbol's painted on a truck for good luck on a food delivery guy's rickshaw in some Indian city, is any visiting Westerner going to think that he's a Neo-Nazi? No.
The closest comparison that I can draw between the swastika and the continued flying of the Confederate flag would be if some non-Hindu or Jainist in Germany tried to pass off their use of the swastika on their car as a good luck token. That's a slap in the face to anyone (or their descendants) that had to deal with the atrocities promoted by the Third Reich. That's what the continued flying of the Confederate flag amounts to: a slap in the face to those impacted by slavery and the culture surrounding slavery. You're attempting to argue that the context surrounding the Confederate flag doesn't actually exist anymore. The legacy of slavery (and its incipient inequalities) still exists to this day, so I find it quite a stretch to say that "the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery." Who are any of us to individually decide whether or not it is still a symbol of slavery? I'm hard pressed to see it as a neutral symbol, when as recently as 60 years ago, legislators and citizens alike were passing it off as a cultural "homage" during the battle against integration. [1] There's not much of a slippery slope argument to be made here: we aren't talking about one or two people that are offended or impacted, we're talking about an entire socio-/ethno-/econo-demographic that wouldn't exist were the institution of slavery extinguished in a just manner. The flag is as plain a symbol as any for 1. the institution of slavery, 2. the socio-cultural romanticism of the "Lost Cause" of the South, 3. the legacy of Jim Crow laws into the present day, and, 4. the continued inequalities faced by African-Americans at the short end of the stick of the previous three.
EDIT: Do I think the Confederate flag should be removed from historical video games? No. Do I think it should be removed from any and all state offices? Yes. White-washing descriptions of history for the sake of hurt feelings is silly, but disallowing the adoration of symbols of cruelty and inequa...
> I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown.
Well, yeah, people did peep up. Georgia's flag had the Confederate battle flag on it from 1956–2001. We can presume that people gave a shit enough to change it.
Furthermore the Confederate flag used to fly over the State House (I believe, or Capitol Building, can't recall exactly). Moving it next to the Civil War monument was a compromise.
>Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed.
This is beyond silly.
"North Carolina taking down confederate flag from old capitol buliding[sic]" March 29, 2013 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-taking-down-confe... " A Confederate battle flag hung inside the old North Carolina State Capitol last week to mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War is being taken down after civil rights leaders raised concerns."
"SC marchers demand removal of Confederate battle flag" January 20, 2014 http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article1383... "Mary Ann Williams has been bringing her church youth group to the King Day at the Dome rally for 10 years, and, every year, they always sit in the same spot: by the statue of Benjamin Tillman."
"Most South Carolina Governor Candidates Stand Firm On Flying Confederate Flag" 05/31/2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/confederate-flag-so... "Still, it raises ire. There's an ongoing boycott of the state by the NAACP because of the flag and the NCAA refuses to bring tournaments here because of it. Football coach Steve Spurrier has said he doesn't understand why it flies where it is."
"Va. city bans public Confederate flag displays" September 2, 2011 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-city-bans-public-confederate-... "But many speakers complained that the flag was an offensive, divisive symbol of the South's history of slavery and shouldn't be endorsed by the city of 7,000 people."
These are all a minority group of people.....ie:nobody cared.
You are equating minority groups of people to being nobody. What a horrible belief. One gets the impression from what you've written on other posts that perhaps some self reflection is in order.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. "
The Confederate flag represents the desire to maintain slavery and oppression. The Confederate flag represents a the desire by white Southerners to maintain dominance of another race. Over 600,000 people died in the U.S. Civil War as a result of what the Confederate flag represents. No where near this many Americans have died at the hands of 'crazies in that religion (Islam)'.
Removing the Confederate flag and what it represents is an actually important issue to many. Especially those of that race of people who alone can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
In HN and other forums, I notice a strong correlation between the amount of prejudice in a post, and the amount of anger and ignorance in it.
There is no reason to tie these issues together. There are many problems in our country; to say one shouldn't be fixed because others persist is silly (and what you describe isn't a problem, but a benefit to our country).
It's also very sad that someone would casually and ignorantly insult a religion with over one billion innocent people as members, including many Americans. It's not Muslims or Southern white conservatives that are the problem, it's the bigoted and hateful minorities in all groups -- think what a wonderful world it would be without their anger, discrimination and violence.
> we have had way more deaths related to crazies in that religion than with the Confederate flag.
"It's not Muslims or Southern white conservatives that are the problem, it's the bigoted and hateful minorities in all groups -- think what a wonderful world it would be without their anger, discrimination and violence."
An entire culture should not be blamed for the actions of one. In Islam or with the confederate flag. But when it comes to the confederate flag, we are blaming the entire culture and removing the flag.
This is my point.
"That's not true:"
Since we are comparing the entire culture of people, this includes attacks worldwide..not just in the US. Also, do we know that all of the "Homegrown Extremists" had confederate flags? It seems you are lumping all racists into this group.
I get the feeling a lot of people here don't understand how important and destructive symbols like this can be. As stupid as it sounds symbols like that can have a huge impact on society and free speech isn't always the solution. I don't know how corrosive this particular symbol is as I'm not from the states but in general it is completely understandable to me coming from a place where stuff like this is a huge deal with big impacts on society.
There's a cultural difference that rears its head here. Free speech in the US seems to be nearly-absolute when compared to even its northern neighbour (Canada), which has some provisions for "hate speech". Europe, from what I can see, is even more interventionist. I'm not using this post to argue for or against either perspective, but only to show that people from outside the US bring a very different perspective to the table, and it is reflected in their laws.
Very true. I don't like the idea of being so rigid though. It seems like Americans stick to the idea of things like free speech or right to bear arms (basically constitutional ideas) without considering the fact they may not be right or times have changed. It's almost a religious zealotry as evidenced by the quick down voting of my post.
NB (to everyone not noarchy): Down down vote things you disagree with - down vote things that don't add to the conversation.
Apparently so. It's interesting to watch though. Both my posts, while perfectly reasonable opposite viewpoints are getting down voted a lot. HN feels like reddit when you touch a nerve on freedom of speech. Crowd mentality/emotion seems to take over even in a group that is usually very logical and rational.
"while perfectly reasonable opposite viewpoints are getting down voted a lot. "
Everyone else is discussing how to distinguish racist and historical use of symbols like swastikas and Confederate symbols.
You're actively advocating vicious totalitarian policy such as censorship that those symbols represent and that Conederates and Nazis used to promote, defend, and continue evil policies.
Free speech is a value, not just a law. You can't just stamp out free speech any chance you get and then say you support free speech just because you're not the government.
I support free speech, but that doesn't mean I am going to allow the KKK to do their demonstrations on my front lawn because "free speech." Disallowing that is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." Not even in the slightest.
Its a two way street - they are free to do their cross burning elsewhere and I'm also free to put signs on my lawn that support racial harmony.
Walmart (or whoever) is free to decide they don't want to sell the Confederate flag. The Daughters of the Confederacy (or whoever) are free to decide they want to sell the Confederate flag. Neither is stamping out free speech. BOTH are practicing free speech.
Free speech (as a value) doesn't mean "I need to facilitate everyone else all the time, always and so does everyone else." Free speech (as a value) means "you let me say what I want and I let you say what you want." The KKK can do their own thing and American Atheists can do theirs.
I can choose to hold an atheist convention and disallow priests to speak. Priests can choose to hold Mass and not allow atheist to speech. Its each party's choice.
If some types of items are unpopular with the public (or unpopular with the people who choose what to sell) it is a business decision to not sell them in order to appeal to their chosen demographic. It is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." There are niche markets everywhere for items that don't appeal to the general public. Most companies you are hearing about (Walmart, Sears, Apple) are trying to appeal to the masses.
Being forced to support everything is the exact opposite of free speech.
Let's also distinguish "the law" from "the Constitution." They are different.
Not really. I don't think we should forget about symbols like that flag. They should be debated openly and freely. Same goes for the debate here. But if a large group of people are intimated by the 'speech' (Flag) then I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove it.
So, they're in effect banning historical fiction? None of these games condone slavery, do they?
I totally get and agree with removing the Confederate flag from state flags in the United States -- The confederacy failed. But, must we deny an important part of US history happened?
224 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 267 ms ] threadApple is certainly within their rights to do this, but I think it's silly and impulsive.
Walmart making a business decision to stop selling something that is racist has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It would also be a poor business decision to start selling ISIS flags, Nazi symbolism, those racist figurines that were once popular, a holocaust reenactment video game, KKK robes, or any other merchandise that divides their customer base. So what?
Part of freedom is the freedom to choose what you do and don't sell.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/25/us-usa-shooting-so...
>EBay specifically bans their sale while Amazon bans the sale of "products that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views."
Seems to me they both [generally] ban Nazi merchandise but have problems enforcing the ban.
Anyways, its irrelevant. Amazon can sell what it wants. That's a business choice they make. I don't care what they choose to sell, that is their choice.
edit: de-ambiguified some terms
Choice is good for consumers. I'm an AAPL shareholder too but that doesn't mean you should be an apologist.
Someone else's phone won't access the huge amounts of data I have in iCloud. Or are you actually advocating for vendor lock-in as a force for good? I don't understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a
When a movie like Iron Sky has no problem being shown in German cinemas with the swastika left untouched, because it's clearly art, then it should be fairly obvious to Apple that banning historically accurate representations in historically accurate interactive art is far overreaching; though not legally, but ethically.
In practice all games that contain forbidden symbols get a German version in which these are replaced for example in the Wolfenstein franchise (that were not censored due to violence).
There is a very reasonable expectation of this changing at some point in the future.
A lot of gamers seem to be happy with versions that have these symbols replaced and everyone else simply imports them (which is as simple as ordering from amazon.co.uk instead of amazon.de). Publishers have simply no incentive to pursue this and because violence in games can be censored, publishers censor a lot of games on their own already anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that there are companies even profiting from the current situation.
(Even though, imo, the dude outright lies by stating that their interpretation of the law is what the law factually says.)
Also, do note that i said at some point in the future.
Nevertheless to my understanding if a publisher were to get a game censored by the OLJB due to forbidden symbols, the publisher could go to court and I think they would have a decent chance at winning such a case.
Are you agreeing with the law exactly as it is written? (I am.) Are you agreeing with the interpretation of the law as it applies to computer games? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should be allowed the usage if the usage serves the art? (I do.)
It depends on the context. The computer game should not facilitate identification with Nazism (e.g. by the player flying that flag in a RTS or being a member of it in an FPS) or downplay the disastrous results of Nazism. So potentially I would be okay with a Wolfenstein-like game where the player operates strictly against these powers/symbols, but doing this consequently in online multi-player games seems difficult.
Exactly that is my point. :)
"We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App."
Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.
Essentially they want to separate themselves from most existing legal precedent.
Why would that end up in court? Apple is a private company. It's free to include/exclude whatever content it wants. Consumers don't have a right to force a company to provide the content they want.
Get in trouble for anti-monopoly stuff usually requires two parts: that you be a monopoly and that you somehow use it. Shaping a market to your desires is an example of using your monopoly standing.
Apple won't get in trouble because they're not a monopoly, but that's how a private company can get in trouble for filtering speech in an eco-system they control.
IANAL, but I feel like there were previous monopoly cases successfully brought on behalf of far smaller groups than that. E.g. the fact that I'm a vegetarian doesn't invalidate a steak-knife monopoly
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/legend/id98922
this looks more the result of living in the land of the lawsuit-happy easily offended puritans than anything else. if they could shift liability to esrb for their apps and games, they would
actually, I wonder how did they managed to pass under the esrb radar so far.
It's pretty similar to a local coffee shop maintaining a few book cases for customers to borrow or buy, but being pretty strict about what books can be put in their selection.
Ultimately, I suspect they are more controlling about apps than about books or music because apps are (or were) a new medium that, for both financial and marketing reasons, they wanted to think about differently. Apple probably feared (and/or hoped) that Apps would have a more intimate connection to their brand than e.g., the tracks in iTunes.
(edit: 1. Not saying I agree; 2. this post is a descriptive conjecture about why/how Apple treats apps differently, not an advocacy that they continue to do so. Jeesh.)
The simile is only stronger in that case. The local coffee shop might be OK stocking some Marxist rags or hard core Libertarian texts or whatever the owner likes. Meanwhile, Starbucks only stocks the inoffensive books. Thus, the masses go to Starbucks because they want a cup of coffee from a nice normal person, and don't want to have to listen to a bunch of Marxists talk down to them while waiting in line or (perceive that they are being) condescended to by a Barista.
The book case simile is fictional, but Starbucks appropriating only the completely inoffensive parts of the canonical local coffee shop is a perfect parallel example.
Something like "Want a huge catalog of high-quality Apps curated by a company with good taste? Get an iPhone."
It makes sense because IT WORKED. People DO associate certain high-quality Apps with the iPhone, even when those apps are made available on Android at some point.
Just because you (or I) disagree with it doesn't mean it's not a policy that makes good sense. It gave a huge boost their their product's reputation...
[Citation needed]
But anecdotally, most people I know who own an iPhone and aren't Apple devouts chose it because "the software is better". I assume the typical consumer lumps Apps in with OS, because I doubt they are making purchasing decisions based upon the quality of the OS kernel or the quality of the background processes...
[1]. http://images.techhive.com/images/idge/imported/article/ctw/...
US society has moved past moral panic over books and music. We're still in the thick of it with software (Brown vs. EMA was decided in 2011). Apple already chose to make themselves a certifying authority for software on other axes, so I don't find it surprising they sanitize content in the US-flavor of "family friendly" similar to other game consoles.
edit: slightly rephrased.
An app with pictures of classic paintings that happen to include nipples will not be approved for sale.
After all, if you really want that kind of stuff, you can always install a different package manager and use someone else's selection of apps.
Oh, wait.
It's Apple's playground, they can do whatever they want. This seems ham fisted to me, but i understand the desire to simply eradicate all evidence. They're not in the business of historical accuracy. They're in the business of selling stuff. bad feelings about imagery interferes with selling stuff.
This is plain ridiculous.
The messaging on this is really bad. You can't feign outrage at symbols of slavery without doing the same for symbols of genocide.
In Wolfenstein 3D you can't play a nazzi shooting Americans (for example). You play the good guy shooting the bad guys.
I also don't think the problem is the flag. IMO the real problem is that in most of the games you can play on both sides. Kids can easily start identifying themselves as the side on which they play and forget the important details. Like... history.
And apple would cede, if the people affected made enough of a fuss, so this whole thing is more about perception and PR more than actual beliefs in justice, etc.
http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/flags/gett4.htm
I don't understand the ban on the historical apps - the civil war did happen and the confederate flag was used.
Are nazi flags and symbols banned from ww2 games ?
We have a lot of flags left to ban!!!
And I'd call the regular terrorizing and murder of black people under this flag far more than "someone felt bad".
Apple simply took a way-to-heavy-handed approach here.
I totally understand the negative connotation and why that exists. And the fact that public institutions still fly it is "disturbing." But people against it should stop while they're ahead, they'll only see a massive backlash if this keeps up.
PS - I wonder how hard it will be for educators, civil war re-creationists, and similar to get a Confederate flag?
Maybe I'm wrong but I kinda got the impression rrss1122 was referring to Apple wanting games removed which were based on historical events where the confederate flag was used. Perhaps OP also meant it for the current events for removing it from government buildings, etc but I assumed not.
It is however a token effort that effectively signals "I care" while actually achieving nothing but the censorship of historically accurate games. Banning violence in comics didn't reduce crime. Banning symbols in art isn't going to reduce this wildly rare form of shooting.
That said, this is silly.
Apple should respect their developers and let them use historical symbols used by the opposing sides.
Pretty stupid, anyway.
But do you know for a fact that Apple utilises child labour or is that more speculation? I know it is common in clothing manufacturing (and other cloth-like accessories e.g. shoes, bags, etc) but didn't know it was common in electronics and or in China.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chin...
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-apple-suppliers-accused-o...
The accusations are some widespread that it caused Apple to publish this: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
As you point out, they probably approve WWII historical games with Nazi symbols in them. But they probably don't approve content that glorifies Naziism.
So if you have content that wasn't similarly vetted regarding the CORRECTION: Army of Northern Virginia battle flag (not "stars and bars"), what can you do but de-authorize all of it and start over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_State...
Even being extremely pedantic it doesn't seem accurate, that symbol was used all over the place during the American Civil war to support the Confederated states (both as a battle flag, and as their second and within their third official flags).
Essentially when the war ended that was their primary symbol, and would be completely appropriate to be used in a war game about the American civil war.
For me though, this is nothing new for Apple, and it's why I don't like their software in general. As RMS said, roughly, "Apple puts the user in a prison. It is a beautiful prison though."
Some people embrace the beautiful prison for it's simplicity and ease of use. I suppose that's their choice, but what will they do when they wake up and realize they hate the new warden, after they are so tied into the ecosystem?
I still think those who embrace FOSS now will be at a huge advantage as time progresses and the nanny mentality of companies such as Apple and Microsoft becomes more prevalent, and users of those will be at a large disadvantage. RMS is a man ahead of his time and only time will prove him right. As a matter of fact, I think that's part of the reason why MS is trying to get more ground in the open source community, because they understand that FOSS is actually becoming a threat these days, and they are trying wildly to stop the haemorrhaging.
In Apple's defense though, I do view them as the lesser of two evils, and would gladly push OSX/iOS on users rather than Windows/Windows Mobile. At least it's unix under the hood, and we can see most of the source code.
I'm not so sure about that. Apple is doing this to gain favor with their customers, who want to feel safe in an insular bubble.
I had long thought that Free would win out economically, when centralized stores were forced to ban torrent clients and the like, but unfortunately the zeitgeist has even shifted to pay streaming apps. This is the real damage that centralization causes - the culture gets permanently warped from internalizing good-enough solutions.
Then again we've had decades of receive-only broadcast media conditioning people into thinking centralization is the natural way of things, so maybe it's just going to take that much longer to break it up. Still, I feel that this current decentralization swing might be our last chance to correctly distribute power, besides the otherwise inevitable societal collapse.
When the Boston Bomber was on trial, there was a point made that his actions, because it was in the name of Islam, in no way reflects the actions of the entire religion or culture.
Yet in South Carolina, the actions of one crazy person somehow now reflects on the entire culture and we need to remove the confederate flag.
I don't see Amazon and Ebay removing anything related to Islam and we have had way more deaths related to crazies in that religion than with the Confederate flag.
I also find it interesting that many people in government worked extremely fast to get the flag removed. I wished they could work this fast when it comes to actual important issues.
Islam, on the other hand, while associated to some degree with terrorism (largely by the definition of "terrorism", some would say), surely does not exist for the express purpose of cultivating terrorism. Moreover, even to the extent Islam is associated with terrorism in the public consciousness, it does not also convey a message of hate to a particular minority group, as do symbols of the confederacy.
There will be people who disagree with both of these points, but I submit that the former point is much more compelling than the latter. And, more to the point, the public reaction simply reflects, I think, widespread agreement that this is the case.
If today's confederacy enthusiasts disagree, then it means the culture doesn't represent slavery. Many in the south had relatives that fought and died for the confederacy. It means something to them, but this doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
"surely does not exist for the express purpose of cultivating terrorism"
The confederate flag doesn't exist for the sole purpose of slavery. Just like Islam representing terrorism, it's just one of the many facets. I would also like to point out that Islam does represent the subjugation of women (even if the the people part of the religion don't see it this way). Any woman involved in the religion has to keep their head covered (some, their entire body) and in pretty much all Islamic countries, the laws are heavily biased toward men. Homosexuality is also illegal and can mean jail time.
"And, more to the point, the public reaction simply reflects, I think, widespread agreement that this is the case."
A small, vocal, minority of people agree (like in most things). We have had the confederate flag around for many, many years. I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown. Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed.
If it was really a huge issue, why the outcry now? And why are we blaming an entire culture for the actions of one person?
What a symbol represents is not determined solely (or even primarily) by the intent of the person displaying it. The swastika on my forehead is a symbol of love and peace. How could you be offended?
> The confederate flag doesn't exist for the sole purpose of slavery.
The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery, the flag in question is the symbol of the Confederacy. (Though I should have said "primary purpose" not "sole purpose.")
> Any woman involved in the religion has to keep their head covered
This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their heads. (Also, while I recognize that the discriminatory attitudes of many Muslims towards women run deeper than merely having them cover their heads, it's pretty funny that you're comparing this to slavery.) And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery.
> I don't ever remember even hearing a peep about people even giving a shit that it was for sale or flown. Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed.
Google it. This is blatantly false. (I agree that moves like Apple's decision today go too far, and may indeed be unprecedented. But certainly the general controversy is not at all new.)
This works equally in the other direction. The reason a symbol was originally created is not the final word on what it means today to large groups of people. For many people that flag means "the American South is a distinctive culture." I don't really care about the flag at all but I have seen people using it in various ways for years without any sort of racist intent and it's pretty crap to just write them off as racists or that they should have retroactively "known better" after this sudden, dramatic social pivot.
If it's turned a specific way, it is the Nazi symbol. In Asia for instance (where I lived and studied for 5+ years), you will see the symbol all over the place. It is still a Buddhist peace sign in many other parts of the world and in fact, I have purchased multiple items online (and on Amazon) with the symbol on it.
I know plenty of people that purchase Chinese new year decorations and put them in their car with that symbol.
So, your example is flawed.
"The Confederacy surely did exist primarily to promote slavery"
No it didn't. It existed to promote states' rights. Slavery is one of those rights (and the one brought up the most).
"This is certainly true in some places, but not everywhere. You see plenty of Muslim women in, e.g., the U.S. who do not cover their head"
You also see plenty of people with the confederate flag that do not support slavery. This is my point.
"And, in any event, this doesn't establish that Islam exists for the purpose of subjugating women to anything like the extent to which the Confederacy existed to promote slavery."
I don't see people with confederate flags creating laws that force African-americans into slavery. We do have examples of countries that force women to be partially covered (and in some instances, completely covered) and other extremely harsh laws like stoning if a woman gets raped (this is a real law btw.).
But it gets the magic pass, even though in some instances, supports the most vile and terrible human behavior.
So you support symbols of a religion that do in fact put people into slavery, by law. But you don't support a symbol that has done nothing of the sort for 100+ years.
"Google it. This is blatantly false."
This is the first time I've seen it on CNN or any main stream news site (and I read lots of news every day) and it was only after this incident that government officials needed to do anything about it. It must not have been a big deal before this incident.
*edit: This is why HN group think (and group think everywhere) is dangerous. I am trying to have an open an honest discussion about politics and I am silenced immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
It's a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that slavery wasn't the main driving cause of the rebellion, and ultimately the treason, committed by those ruling in the South. It was the choice of slavery over patriotism back when the states seceded then, and it's ever more abhorrent now to think one should wave the Confederate flag as some nod towards a "culture" that was nothing more than a wrapper around the terrible institution of slavery.
Now, I'm not blaming all of the people in the South. Surely the soldiers that fought and died weren't the same ones making the decisions and state house speeches. But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote? Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?
It's also revisionist history that Lincoln cared about slaves' rights. The main reason slavery was made illegal was to gut the south if it's resources, and it worked. The side-effect was, however, morally right.
Here is a good example of this:
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-...
This is taken from a Lincoln speech:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust."
With that said, should we also remove everything Lincoln supported or anything related to Lincoln from our government and stores?
"But now that we are generations removed and have the opportunity to choose the legacy that we promote?"
It's all about context, which seems to have been lost in today's society. The Buddhist peace symbol is no longer a symbol of Nazis and the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery. It's been turned into a symbol of southern pride, nothing more.
The US flag probably means oppression for many other cultures and people throughout history as does pretty much every single flag in the world. But somehow, those are okay. Should we remove it because we slaughtered the native americans and they are offended by it?
"Why choose a legacy that encourages the romanticization of a culture that supported the inferiority of one race compared to another?"
If this is the case, why aren't we having a conversation about Islam and other cultures that encourage the same thing..or worse?
Islam can't even be discussed with open and honesty without "Islamaphobe" being thrown out. It just seems very phony to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation
The American flag does probably mean oppression and injustice for certain groups of people, both within the States and outside the States. The collective "we" could probably do better about how we reflect on those past injustices so as to do better in the future.
The more I read your arguments, the more I feel that you are cornering yourself into the position that you are trying to argue against. The symbol of the swastika can have many meanings, and context has not been collectively forgotten: if it's spray-painted on a synagogue in the West by some angsty teenager, but has the orientation of the Buddhist peace symbol, is anyone really going to think that the kid was promoting world peace? Of course not. If the symbol's painted on a truck for good luck on a food delivery guy's rickshaw in some Indian city, is any visiting Westerner going to think that he's a Neo-Nazi? No.
The closest comparison that I can draw between the swastika and the continued flying of the Confederate flag would be if some non-Hindu or Jainist in Germany tried to pass off their use of the swastika on their car as a good luck token. That's a slap in the face to anyone (or their descendants) that had to deal with the atrocities promoted by the Third Reich. That's what the continued flying of the Confederate flag amounts to: a slap in the face to those impacted by slavery and the culture surrounding slavery. You're attempting to argue that the context surrounding the Confederate flag doesn't actually exist anymore. The legacy of slavery (and its incipient inequalities) still exists to this day, so I find it quite a stretch to say that "the Confederate flag is no longer a symbol of slavery." Who are any of us to individually decide whether or not it is still a symbol of slavery? I'm hard pressed to see it as a neutral symbol, when as recently as 60 years ago, legislators and citizens alike were passing it off as a cultural "homage" during the battle against integration. [1] There's not much of a slippery slope argument to be made here: we aren't talking about one or two people that are offended or impacted, we're talking about an entire socio-/ethno-/econo-demographic that wouldn't exist were the institution of slavery extinguished in a just manner. The flag is as plain a symbol as any for 1. the institution of slavery, 2. the socio-cultural romanticism of the "Lost Cause" of the South, 3. the legacy of Jim Crow laws into the present day, and, 4. the continued inequalities faced by African-Americans at the short end of the stick of the previous three.
[1] (bottom of PDF pg. 33) https://web.archive.org/web/20141204200939/http://www.senate...
EDIT: Do I think the Confederate flag should be removed from historical video games? No. Do I think it should be removed from any and all state offices? Yes. White-washing descriptions of history for the sake of hurt feelings is silly, but disallowing the adoration of symbols of cruelty and inequa...
Well, yeah, people did peep up. Georgia's flag had the Confederate battle flag on it from 1956–2001. We can presume that people gave a shit enough to change it.
Furthermore the Confederate flag used to fly over the State House (I believe, or Capitol Building, can't recall exactly). Moving it next to the Civil War monument was a compromise.
>Not one person in government trying to get it removed or one article online (before this incident) wanting it removed.
This is beyond silly.
"North Carolina taking down confederate flag from old capitol buliding[sic]" March 29, 2013 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-taking-down-confe... " A Confederate battle flag hung inside the old North Carolina State Capitol last week to mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War is being taken down after civil rights leaders raised concerns."
"SC marchers demand removal of Confederate battle flag" January 20, 2014 http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article1383... "Mary Ann Williams has been bringing her church youth group to the King Day at the Dome rally for 10 years, and, every year, they always sit in the same spot: by the statue of Benjamin Tillman."
"Most South Carolina Governor Candidates Stand Firm On Flying Confederate Flag" 05/31/2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/confederate-flag-so... "Still, it raises ire. There's an ongoing boycott of the state by the NAACP because of the flag and the NCAA refuses to bring tournaments here because of it. Football coach Steve Spurrier has said he doesn't understand why it flies where it is."
"Va. city bans public Confederate flag displays" September 2, 2011 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-city-bans-public-confederate-... "But many speakers complained that the flag was an offensive, divisive symbol of the South's history of slavery and shouldn't be endorsed by the city of 7,000 people."
These are all a minority group of people that didn't like the flag. It didn't hit the main stream until this incident...ie: nobody cared.
You are equating minority groups of people to being nobody. What a horrible belief. One gets the impression from what you've written on other posts that perhaps some self reflection is in order.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. "
The Confederate flag represents the desire to maintain slavery and oppression. The Confederate flag represents a the desire by white Southerners to maintain dominance of another race. Over 600,000 people died in the U.S. Civil War as a result of what the Confederate flag represents. No where near this many Americans have died at the hands of 'crazies in that religion (Islam)'.
Removing the Confederate flag and what it represents is an actually important issue to many. Especially those of that race of people who alone can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
There is no reason to tie these issues together. There are many problems in our country; to say one shouldn't be fixed because others persist is silly (and what you describe isn't a problem, but a benefit to our country).
It's also very sad that someone would casually and ignorantly insult a religion with over one billion innocent people as members, including many Americans. It's not Muslims or Southern white conservatives that are the problem, it's the bigoted and hateful minorities in all groups -- think what a wonderful world it would be without their anger, discrimination and violence.
> we have had way more deaths related to crazies in that religion than with the Confederate flag.
That's not true: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-...
An entire culture should not be blamed for the actions of one. In Islam or with the confederate flag. But when it comes to the confederate flag, we are blaming the entire culture and removing the flag.
This is my point.
"That's not true:"
Since we are comparing the entire culture of people, this includes attacks worldwide..not just in the US. Also, do we know that all of the "Homegrown Extremists" had confederate flags? It seems you are lumping all racists into this group.
It's like an emotional drug addiction for some people, they can't get enough outrage. They'll invent it as needed.
The media loves it to, it's great for ratings. So you have both sides feeding on a perpetually worsening cultural spiral.
Can someone get Taylor Swift on the case please?
>I'm not from the states
There's a cultural difference that rears its head here. Free speech in the US seems to be nearly-absolute when compared to even its northern neighbour (Canada), which has some provisions for "hate speech". Europe, from what I can see, is even more interventionist. I'm not using this post to argue for or against either perspective, but only to show that people from outside the US bring a very different perspective to the table, and it is reflected in their laws.
NB (to everyone not noarchy): Down down vote things you disagree with - down vote things that don't add to the conversation.
Everyone else is discussing how to distinguish racist and historical use of symbols like swastikas and Confederate symbols.
You're actively advocating vicious totalitarian policy such as censorship that those symbols represent and that Conederates and Nazis used to promote, defend, and continue evil policies.
Of course I am.
I support free speech, but that doesn't mean I am going to allow the KKK to do their demonstrations on my front lawn because "free speech." Disallowing that is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." Not even in the slightest.
Its a two way street - they are free to do their cross burning elsewhere and I'm also free to put signs on my lawn that support racial harmony.
Walmart (or whoever) is free to decide they don't want to sell the Confederate flag. The Daughters of the Confederacy (or whoever) are free to decide they want to sell the Confederate flag. Neither is stamping out free speech. BOTH are practicing free speech.
Free speech (as a value) doesn't mean "I need to facilitate everyone else all the time, always and so does everyone else." Free speech (as a value) means "you let me say what I want and I let you say what you want." The KKK can do their own thing and American Atheists can do theirs.
I can choose to hold an atheist convention and disallow priests to speak. Priests can choose to hold Mass and not allow atheist to speech. Its each party's choice.
If some types of items are unpopular with the public (or unpopular with the people who choose what to sell) it is a business decision to not sell them in order to appeal to their chosen demographic. It is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." There are niche markets everywhere for items that don't appeal to the general public. Most companies you are hearing about (Walmart, Sears, Apple) are trying to appeal to the masses.
Being forced to support everything is the exact opposite of free speech.
Let's also distinguish "the law" from "the Constitution." They are different.
The irony is palpable.
>Down down vote things you disagree with - down vote things that don't add to the conversation.
We just removing something that "intimates" us, you understand.
I totally get and agree with removing the Confederate flag from state flags in the United States -- The confederacy failed. But, must we deny an important part of US history happened?