WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:This entire thread is an attempt to isolate one symbol as being particularly more aberrant without consideration of the thousands of symbology in use in the world.
Any line drawn is an arbitrary line in the sand based on nothing that is justifiable. Any argument made for a particular standpoint can be equally applied to all others standpoints.
Why, if you're discussing the Confederate battle flag, should we also take into consideration the Washington Redskins name? If I'm discussing what to have for dinner (currently I'm leaning towards an Indian curry), should I first take into consideration that there are people in Africa who will go without? And what impact, if any, should that have on my meal choice? When considering whether or not one should marry, should they first consider that there is an ugly girl in an Arab country that is about to enter into an abusive marriage, one not of her own choosing? The discussion at hand can stand on it's own.
And why do you think the line drawn is arbitrary and, more importantly, without justification? And your statement about arguments being applied across the board only works in general terms. Take the battle flag that flew over the State Capitol grounds in South Carolina. The flag wasn't raised over the capitol until 1961. This was the 100 year anniversary of the American Civil War, but also a time when much of the south was vehemently opposed to the civil rights movement, and many southern states began adding the battle flag to their own state flags. It was seen by some as "an act of massive resistance to racial desegregation". An interesting article exploring this claim can be read
here. That would be a strong argument for the flag having racist roots, and is also an argument that cannot be applied to Nazi symbolism, or the Redskin's name dispute.
As I said before, your argument is illogical. Please stop the dumb.
Bollocks.