SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Hidden Hazzard of Viral Activism
Targeting the symbols of racism alone distracts society from tackling the actual problem.
Jul 06, 2015
Last week, a daring young black woman climbed up the flagpole in Charleston and took down the Confederate flag. Bree Newsome's rebellious act at the South Carolina capitol followed a white man's killing of nine black people at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, the most recent tragedy that has intensified calls to do away with the Confederate flag - an emblem that, for many, represents both old and new Jim Crow.
Beneath the surface of the Confederate flag debate is an emergent discourse that centres around symbolic, instead of structural, racism.
Indeed, political symbols - like the Confederate flag or the Nazi Swastika - were designed to represent very specific structures and ideals. In short, they were spawned to signify the essential values of slavery and segregation for the former, and Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism for the latter.
Disproportionate attention
Whether these emblems can symbolise something else aside from the specific institutions or structures that spawned them is contested within academic spaces, while emergent movements on the ground and in viral spaces are ever more committed to removing them for good.
However, this question begs another, namely - whether disproportionate attention on eliminating racist emblems diminishes the deeper movement to erode, and ultimately remove, the roots of structural racism.
Apart from waving in front of the South Carolina capitol, the Confederate flag finds prominence in other spheres of American life. A Southern American fixture, the flag is immortalised in the Dukes of Hazzard, a television programme which originally aired from 1979 through 1985.
Dukes featured a bright orange 1969 Dodge Charger, aptly named General Lee, with the signature blue stripes crisscrossed on its roof. The programme, currently in syndication, has drawn the ire of anti-Confederate flag protesters.
Last week, the US television network TV Land removed Dukes from its schedule, in response to the public outcry against the flag, which reached a climax after Newsome's act at the capitol.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism. |
However, TV Land's decision was also met with opposition. Familiar voices from the right contended that the flag represented a distinct American heritage, dislodged from slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.
Southern sensibilities
Other critics stated that the Confederate flag has taken on a new meaning, appropriated to signify contemporary Southern sensibilities and values.
However, the most compelling views came from commentators who supported South Carolina's removal of the Confederate flag, but opposed the movement to eliminate it from popular culture.
The Confederate flag still waving as the official emblem of the State of South Carolina is (perceived to be) tantamount to government endorsement of everything the symbol stood and stands for; while its appearance on television, film, and other forms of popular media is private expression - goes the logic.
The distinction is an interesting one. Certainly, the US cannot ignore, erase, or entirely move away from its history of racial apartheid. This history residually colours modern American life, and through the lens of iconic television programmes like the Dukes of Hazzard, illustrates just how pervasive the culture of romanticising Antebellum America and Jim Crow truly was - not just in the South, but also throughout the US and its nationwide popular media.
Flag-clad Dodge Charger
The celebration of the Confederate flag-clad Dodge Charger on the Dukes of Hazzard, or even latent racist illustrations of American life on other heavily syndicated series like Leave it to Beaver or I Dream of Genie, for instance, offer reels of America's racist past. These "snapshots" of American history should be strategically deployed, not dismissed.
Indeed, calls to remove the Confederate flag anywhere and everywhere it exists highlights disproportionate attention on racist symbols, instead of the underlying structures that create them.
The removal of racist symbols should not be simply for political gain. Rather, these removals should be steps and springboards towards dismantling the racist baselines that spawned them, and the unequal institutions that are represented today.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism.
In addition to reducing the visibility of these symbols, removing an emblem is a short-term achievement, ultimately slowing the large-scale societal changes that must be undertaken to address entrenched racial issues in the US like the disproportionate policing and incarceration of black and brown bodies - reforming these problems requires sustained, systematic reform.
Social media generation
This is particularly true in today's social media generation, where hashtags, images, and catchy phrases steer political discourse far closer to the surface. Political speak and strategy, therefore, tend to focus on what is trendy and trending. While gravitating towards whatever is currently trending has a unifying effect, it also creates problems of its own.
On the positive end, the trend to remove the Confederate flag has mobilised a broad following of global, diverse, and even prominent voices, which has forced the hand of entities like TV Land to take action and drop Dukes of Hazzard from its schedule.
On the negative end, a unified, viral trend tends to homogenise the message, overpowering nuanced voices and positions. Voices that, in the Confederate flag debate, vehemently stand against government endorsement of patently racist symbols, but flag their strategic value as weaponry in the long fight against structural racism, and the even longer walk towards freedom.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Al-Jazeera English
Khaled Beydoun
Khaled A. Beydoun is a faculty member at the UCLA School of Law where he focuses on immigration law, criminal law, critical race theory, and legal history. Follow him on Twitter @khaledbeydoun.
Last week, a daring young black woman climbed up the flagpole in Charleston and took down the Confederate flag. Bree Newsome's rebellious act at the South Carolina capitol followed a white man's killing of nine black people at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, the most recent tragedy that has intensified calls to do away with the Confederate flag - an emblem that, for many, represents both old and new Jim Crow.
Beneath the surface of the Confederate flag debate is an emergent discourse that centres around symbolic, instead of structural, racism.
Indeed, political symbols - like the Confederate flag or the Nazi Swastika - were designed to represent very specific structures and ideals. In short, they were spawned to signify the essential values of slavery and segregation for the former, and Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism for the latter.
Disproportionate attention
Whether these emblems can symbolise something else aside from the specific institutions or structures that spawned them is contested within academic spaces, while emergent movements on the ground and in viral spaces are ever more committed to removing them for good.
However, this question begs another, namely - whether disproportionate attention on eliminating racist emblems diminishes the deeper movement to erode, and ultimately remove, the roots of structural racism.
Apart from waving in front of the South Carolina capitol, the Confederate flag finds prominence in other spheres of American life. A Southern American fixture, the flag is immortalised in the Dukes of Hazzard, a television programme which originally aired from 1979 through 1985.
Dukes featured a bright orange 1969 Dodge Charger, aptly named General Lee, with the signature blue stripes crisscrossed on its roof. The programme, currently in syndication, has drawn the ire of anti-Confederate flag protesters.
Last week, the US television network TV Land removed Dukes from its schedule, in response to the public outcry against the flag, which reached a climax after Newsome's act at the capitol.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism. |
However, TV Land's decision was also met with opposition. Familiar voices from the right contended that the flag represented a distinct American heritage, dislodged from slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.
Southern sensibilities
Other critics stated that the Confederate flag has taken on a new meaning, appropriated to signify contemporary Southern sensibilities and values.
However, the most compelling views came from commentators who supported South Carolina's removal of the Confederate flag, but opposed the movement to eliminate it from popular culture.
The Confederate flag still waving as the official emblem of the State of South Carolina is (perceived to be) tantamount to government endorsement of everything the symbol stood and stands for; while its appearance on television, film, and other forms of popular media is private expression - goes the logic.
The distinction is an interesting one. Certainly, the US cannot ignore, erase, or entirely move away from its history of racial apartheid. This history residually colours modern American life, and through the lens of iconic television programmes like the Dukes of Hazzard, illustrates just how pervasive the culture of romanticising Antebellum America and Jim Crow truly was - not just in the South, but also throughout the US and its nationwide popular media.
Flag-clad Dodge Charger
The celebration of the Confederate flag-clad Dodge Charger on the Dukes of Hazzard, or even latent racist illustrations of American life on other heavily syndicated series like Leave it to Beaver or I Dream of Genie, for instance, offer reels of America's racist past. These "snapshots" of American history should be strategically deployed, not dismissed.
Indeed, calls to remove the Confederate flag anywhere and everywhere it exists highlights disproportionate attention on racist symbols, instead of the underlying structures that create them.
The removal of racist symbols should not be simply for political gain. Rather, these removals should be steps and springboards towards dismantling the racist baselines that spawned them, and the unequal institutions that are represented today.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism.
In addition to reducing the visibility of these symbols, removing an emblem is a short-term achievement, ultimately slowing the large-scale societal changes that must be undertaken to address entrenched racial issues in the US like the disproportionate policing and incarceration of black and brown bodies - reforming these problems requires sustained, systematic reform.
Social media generation
This is particularly true in today's social media generation, where hashtags, images, and catchy phrases steer political discourse far closer to the surface. Political speak and strategy, therefore, tend to focus on what is trendy and trending. While gravitating towards whatever is currently trending has a unifying effect, it also creates problems of its own.
On the positive end, the trend to remove the Confederate flag has mobilised a broad following of global, diverse, and even prominent voices, which has forced the hand of entities like TV Land to take action and drop Dukes of Hazzard from its schedule.
On the negative end, a unified, viral trend tends to homogenise the message, overpowering nuanced voices and positions. Voices that, in the Confederate flag debate, vehemently stand against government endorsement of patently racist symbols, but flag their strategic value as weaponry in the long fight against structural racism, and the even longer walk towards freedom.
Khaled Beydoun
Khaled A. Beydoun is a faculty member at the UCLA School of Law where he focuses on immigration law, criminal law, critical race theory, and legal history. Follow him on Twitter @khaledbeydoun.
Last week, a daring young black woman climbed up the flagpole in Charleston and took down the Confederate flag. Bree Newsome's rebellious act at the South Carolina capitol followed a white man's killing of nine black people at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, the most recent tragedy that has intensified calls to do away with the Confederate flag - an emblem that, for many, represents both old and new Jim Crow.
Beneath the surface of the Confederate flag debate is an emergent discourse that centres around symbolic, instead of structural, racism.
Indeed, political symbols - like the Confederate flag or the Nazi Swastika - were designed to represent very specific structures and ideals. In short, they were spawned to signify the essential values of slavery and segregation for the former, and Aryan supremacy and anti-Semitism for the latter.
Disproportionate attention
Whether these emblems can symbolise something else aside from the specific institutions or structures that spawned them is contested within academic spaces, while emergent movements on the ground and in viral spaces are ever more committed to removing them for good.
However, this question begs another, namely - whether disproportionate attention on eliminating racist emblems diminishes the deeper movement to erode, and ultimately remove, the roots of structural racism.
Apart from waving in front of the South Carolina capitol, the Confederate flag finds prominence in other spheres of American life. A Southern American fixture, the flag is immortalised in the Dukes of Hazzard, a television programme which originally aired from 1979 through 1985.
Dukes featured a bright orange 1969 Dodge Charger, aptly named General Lee, with the signature blue stripes crisscrossed on its roof. The programme, currently in syndication, has drawn the ire of anti-Confederate flag protesters.
Last week, the US television network TV Land removed Dukes from its schedule, in response to the public outcry against the flag, which reached a climax after Newsome's act at the capitol.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism. |
However, TV Land's decision was also met with opposition. Familiar voices from the right contended that the flag represented a distinct American heritage, dislodged from slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.
Southern sensibilities
Other critics stated that the Confederate flag has taken on a new meaning, appropriated to signify contemporary Southern sensibilities and values.
However, the most compelling views came from commentators who supported South Carolina's removal of the Confederate flag, but opposed the movement to eliminate it from popular culture.
The Confederate flag still waving as the official emblem of the State of South Carolina is (perceived to be) tantamount to government endorsement of everything the symbol stood and stands for; while its appearance on television, film, and other forms of popular media is private expression - goes the logic.
The distinction is an interesting one. Certainly, the US cannot ignore, erase, or entirely move away from its history of racial apartheid. This history residually colours modern American life, and through the lens of iconic television programmes like the Dukes of Hazzard, illustrates just how pervasive the culture of romanticising Antebellum America and Jim Crow truly was - not just in the South, but also throughout the US and its nationwide popular media.
Flag-clad Dodge Charger
The celebration of the Confederate flag-clad Dodge Charger on the Dukes of Hazzard, or even latent racist illustrations of American life on other heavily syndicated series like Leave it to Beaver or I Dream of Genie, for instance, offer reels of America's racist past. These "snapshots" of American history should be strategically deployed, not dismissed.
Indeed, calls to remove the Confederate flag anywhere and everywhere it exists highlights disproportionate attention on racist symbols, instead of the underlying structures that create them.
The removal of racist symbols should not be simply for political gain. Rather, these removals should be steps and springboards towards dismantling the racist baselines that spawned them, and the unequal institutions that are represented today.
The Confederate flag is a far easier target to mobilise against than the school-to-prison pipeline, or other dimensions of institutionalised racism.
In addition to reducing the visibility of these symbols, removing an emblem is a short-term achievement, ultimately slowing the large-scale societal changes that must be undertaken to address entrenched racial issues in the US like the disproportionate policing and incarceration of black and brown bodies - reforming these problems requires sustained, systematic reform.
Social media generation
This is particularly true in today's social media generation, where hashtags, images, and catchy phrases steer political discourse far closer to the surface. Political speak and strategy, therefore, tend to focus on what is trendy and trending. While gravitating towards whatever is currently trending has a unifying effect, it also creates problems of its own.
On the positive end, the trend to remove the Confederate flag has mobilised a broad following of global, diverse, and even prominent voices, which has forced the hand of entities like TV Land to take action and drop Dukes of Hazzard from its schedule.
On the negative end, a unified, viral trend tends to homogenise the message, overpowering nuanced voices and positions. Voices that, in the Confederate flag debate, vehemently stand against government endorsement of patently racist symbols, but flag their strategic value as weaponry in the long fight against structural racism, and the even longer walk towards freedom.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.