Southerners resist the removal of a flag representing racism and treason from their government buildings. They resist because they see it as part of their heritage.
It is part of their heritage. Where they are wrong is in thinking that if one aspect of their heritage is rejected it negates their entire heritage. They see the removal of the Confederate flag as negating their heritage.
But what part of what that flag represents are they proud of? It has become a sanitized symbol, but in reality it is a symbol they should have rejected long ago.
Being proud of one's heritage in no way means you have to accept all aspects of that heritage. All cultures, nations, ethnicities, etc. have aspects of their heritage perhaps best rejected. We cannot ignore the bad aspects of our heritage and think our heritage is perfect. German heritage isn't just about amazing beer, great sausages, Beethoven, Durer, etc. It also includes some very brutal and nasty (and usually thankfully short) chapters. A German who feels rejection of Nazism threatens his pride in being German is making a serious mistake. On a somewhat less (to Americans) strong level, modern Japanese who consider pride in their WWII era actions as a necessary factor in being proud to be Japanese is also making a mistake. Both are blindly embracing ALL aspects of their heritage as necessarily good. But no heritage is all good nor does it deserve blind pride. Southern heritage is the same. A Southerner who thinks the Confederate flag is a defining part of his or her pride in Southern heritage is embracing racism, treason, and brutality as part of their pride.
More meandering thoughts below.
Been reading a book on the history of South Africa. Gotta say that the Nationalist led apartheid government led by the Boers was about as disgusting a regime as you can get short of the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler. And their justifications for their horrible practices sound all too familiar to any American familiar with antebellum American history and the right wing opposition to Civil Rights in America.
Heritage is great. I am all a fan of heritage. I have both Jewish (Latvian and German...and the Latvian may have come from Germany) and German (Catholic AND Lutheran) heritage. I have explored both and met relatives from both branches of my heritage. I have gone so far as to visit places in Latvia and Germany where my family came from.
But one has to look at one's heritage honestly and bluntly. My German heritage is not free from anti-Semitism.
German heritage is amazing. One of my favorite (if a bit, in a friend's word, "wooly") books is Germania by Simon Winder, a humorous/serious history/travelogue about Germany. I took it with me while traveling in Germany.
In this book I really was able to revel in the GOOD aspects of German heritage. But it also faces honestly how that heritage was perverted into Nazism and the tragic results. Nazis is a PART of German heritage, one that has to be recognized and REJECTED.
And Germany has done this, moving on from the early-20th Century madness to the late 20th century sanity.
I lived in Japan during the 50th Anniversary of the end of WW II. Japan maintained its pride in ALL of its heritage, including its militaristic and brutal 1930's/1940's madness. Japan's excessive and unquestioning pride in its heritage as sacred in all aspects reminds me of the Southern view of the Confederacy. In Japan politicians that year kept having to resign because they would embrace aspects of Japanese heritage like the occupations of Korea and China (which were brutal, vicious and illegal occupations). Needless to say, one of the few things the US, North Korea, South Korea, and China could all agree on was that these statements justifying a horrible aspect of Japanese heritage were unacceptable.
The circus of Japanese nationalists celebrating even their most disgusting heritage finally led to an open letter from the German Ambassador to the Japanese people urging them to face up to their WWII past, admit the mistakes, apologize, and reject those aspects of their heritage. Japan still largely embraces its WWII heritage, Germany rejects theirs. Germany is largely accepted and liked by its neighbors, Japan is despised and feared by China and Korea.
Dutch heritage is amazing as well. Need I say more than the Dutch Baroque painters? That alone would justify pride in Dutch heritage, though there is a lot more to it. But the South African Boers to this day glorify a myth of Boer heritage that is at its root racist and brutal. I find very little appealing about Boer heritage. There is certainly some amazing bravery and toughness about it, but it was from its start a slave holding society (shared of course with Britain at first) and when British rule forced them to abandon slavery, they created a form of pseudo-slavery that produced the apartheid laws after 1948. These laws were produced largely by a "Boer pride" Nationalist Party that had admired Nazi Germany. And this admiration shows in the apartheid era laws.
Any South African who is proud of his or her Boer heritage needs to be aware of the racist and brutal aspects of that heritage. If an Afrikaaner blindly embraces Boer heritage in its entirety, embracing even symbols of apartheid, then they are embracing racism and brutality.
Same goes for Southern heritage. The Southern States of America have as much to be proud of as the Northern States. Much of our heritage (good and bad) is shared. Some is not. In fact most of my life I have lived in places that were Southern sympathizers during the Civil War (Arkansas, Southern California, NYC). And yet anyone who embraces the Confederacy as a positive part of their Southern heritage is embracing racism and brutality exactly like the Boer who embraces symbols of apartheid or Japanese who embrace the militarism and brutality of WW II Japan.
The Confederacy is indeed part of Southern Heritage. But what about the Confederacy as an institution is in any way better than Apartheid South Africa or WW II Japan? All of these were proudly racist and were brutal in their institution of racist policies.
Heritage is a wonderful thing, even if it amounts to what Kurt Vonnegut called "Granfaloonery." But not all heritage is something to be proud of. Some heritage is a lesson in what NOT to do, an indication that any heritage can be taken to the point of insanity and symbols of those darker sides of one's heritage need to be examined, learned from, and rejected. The Confederate Flag is one such symbol.
Cambodian heritage now includes the Pol Pot era. Russian heritage now includes the Stalin era. German heritage includes the Nazi era. All of these are PART of the identity that very nice and sane people are proud of...but they are a part of that identity that MOST nice and sane people reject as a BAD part of their heritage. Southern Heritage has to go through the same process of honestly examining the Confederacy, recognizing that it was fundamentally a racist, disgusting, and brutal part of Southern Heritage and that symbols of that part of Southern Heritage are just as racist, disgusting, and brutal as the Confederacy was.
Looking at some modern situations where supposed heritage played a role in atrocities, it is interesting that the areas where there is most success in getting beyond those atrocities are areas where some sort of Truth and Reconciliation takes place. This is an imperfect process, but it forces everyone, both victims and perpetrators of heritage-inspired atrocities, to face the atrocities head on, talk about them, and move on. Southern America has never really faced up to its atrocities and have instead embraced them in a sanitized way and been proud of them. That prevents any genuine chance of America moving forward on race at any reasonable pace.
The Confederate flag is an embarrassment. The Confederacy was an embarrassment. Recognizing that does not negate Southern Heritage. But if Southern States insist that the Confederacy is a part of their heritage that they are proud of, then they are degrading their own heritage and insisting on embracing its worst elements just like modern Japanese nationalists do with their WW II history. This is a free country. Individuals do have the right to be racist and disgusting (but not brutal). But no part of our government should support that nor should individuals who proudly embrace the racist, disgusting, and brutal aspects of their heritage expect the rest of us to applaud them for it.
