Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

I think the number of people that have even seen the movie that the characters are based on is in the low single digit percentages. I suspect that Disney is more worried about the animatronic they have to put in the attraction on Liberty Square.

Jeff said:

I think the number of people that have even seen the movie that the characters are based on is in the low single digit percentages.

The funny thing is that plays into the whole "forgotten history" argument in a weird sort of way.

That attraction is "ok" because we removed the offensive source material (the movie) and no one knows the truth behind it.

Not sure I understand the context as it relates to this story. Are you comparing the controversy of pop art made 70 years ago to memorializing people who wanted to persist slavery?

I don't know, really. It just instantly connected in my mind.

Somehow Splash Mountain is ok because we've erased the source material from the general consciousness and disconnected it from that offensiveness. Disney pulled Song Of The South because it was offensive and after enough time, the ride based on that movie is no longer offensive.

That's really weird. Like we erased that offensive element. It's been forgotten and the context of the ride is suddenly acceptable. Or something.

It immediately brought the idea of removing offensive statues to mind. Can you remove those and make things ok? Or at least create a gap in connection? I mean, isn't that sort of what the pro-statue side is trying to argue?

I get that it's not really at the same level; one is our history, one is a movie made for entertainment. But the movie exists within our history and was deemed too offensive long before the statues were.

I dunno. I'm just thinking aloud.

Then I go back to our last thread where this came up and think of the Pirates ride and the wench scene. We're not far enough removed from Pirates centuries-old historical misdoings and a single part of a scene needed changed. But a 70 year old movie is forgotten enough to keep an entire attraction based on it.

I suppose it's that level of difference that draws the line. Statues of actual slave owners and pirates actually trafficking humans is real. A movie that portrays the time right after the civil war on an offensively stereotypical level is real too, but not in the same way. Like singing "Cop Killer" vs going out and killing a cop.

But it's still offensive. I mean, the statues are still there. That movie hasn't seen the light of day in ages.

Are there degrees of offensiveness?

Again, no real point. Trying to sort out ideas. It just seems funny to me that Splash Mountain is acceptable because we've removed ourselves from the source material enough to bring it back around to non-offensive.

I don't know. Discuss.

*walking away singing*

"Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh, my, what a wonderful day"

Well, "we" didn't remove Song of the South, Disney did. And it's still widely available, you can pick up a DVD the next time you're in, say, Tokyo. Just not in America. I have a copy in one these boxes I've yet to unpack from my latest move.

I suspect that 99.9 % of Splash Mountain's riders have no idea that there was a movie on which the attraction was based.

What I find fascinating is how many cities, universities and states have moved so swiftly to remove [puts on flaming liberal hat] statues celebrating traitors [takes off flaming liberal hat].

Lord Gonchar said:

Are there degrees of offensiveness?

There are degrees to everything, a sentiment completely lost on Americans. We treat politics like a sports rivalry, where an objectively despicable person can become president just because of the team he plays for.

1) I never once stated that Charles Barkley speaks for all black people. It was one example.

2) As far as monuments and statues are concerned, what I said was asking a serious question, not making an "argument" for or against removing any monuments. At this point, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it.

3) From George Orwell, which is what I am merely asking, does anyone feel this is where we may be heading. Not once have I said that everything Orwell wrote has anything to do with what we are discussing. However, this quote does. Why people here insist on putting words in my mouth that I never said is beyond me.

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

slithernoggin said:

I suspect that 99.9 % of Splash Mountain's riders have no idea that there was a movie on which the attraction was based.

And that's exactly the point. Or at least the point that made me start wondering.

The attraction doesn't change because the source material is unfamiliar, but somehow "forgetting" the completely offensive origin makes the attraction acceptable.

That's strange to me. And it feels a little like "forgetting history" which is why my mind goes right back to the pro-statue argument.

And yeah, probably not a completely equal and fair comparison, but there's similarities.

You can't forget what you didn't know. People don't know the movie, but they know that there was slavery, and that people fought to preserve it. Those aren't people to put on a pedestal, quite literally.

If there is a God, do you think that He would allow a statue of Satan to be on display in Heaven for all the angels to glorify?

Although I don't participate a lot in this debate, I love it, because it's finally showing the true colors of the Republican party.

So, what about removing a statue of George Washington that has been called for? No saying that it will happen, but the point being made was that it is a slap in the face to black people because he owned slaves. So, what say you?

Lost Kause, I am neither democrat or republican, if you were referring to me. I vote for whomever the best person for the job is. For the record, most of my votes have gone to the democratic party.

Jeff said:

You can't forget what you didn't know. People don't know the movie, but they know that there was slavery, and that people fought to preserve it. Those aren't people to put on a pedestal, quite literally.

Yeah, and I'm not taking sides or even trying to play devil's advocate for sport here, but that sounds exactly like the "remove it an forget it" argument.

We (Disney?) removed the ugliness and we collectively forgot...even while the movie remains prominent (widely available according to slithernoggin) in other places...where presumably it's not offensive to begin with.

Stuff is hard...and stuff.

Sorry to keep going here. I just struggle with the idea that the ride isn't offensive because we 'forgot' the movie. I wonder what would happen if Disney decided to give it another release in the US? Does it magically become offensive again?

Like a ride entirely based on a movie so offensive that everyone thought it best not to show, sell or otherwise make it avilable to the public is fine, but the flag of a defeated movement with bad ideas being displayed as a piece of the history as one of six other flags with historical significance to the product, has to go.

But then it plays into it all perfectly, I guess. The company is still Six Flags and that includes the confederate flag. But if they don't show it, it's ok...even though the meaning is still the same.

We're so weird.

You get hung up on the weirdest things. I can't have a conversation about pop art relative to a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people started to preserve America's original sin.

extremecoasterdad: You're still making a strawman argument. That said, you should read Chernow's bio of Washington. You'd learn a lot. Washington generally supported abolition but was conflicted about it because slaves largely enabled his status as a landowner. Eventually he freed his slaves. Washington doesn't get a pass for this... history has been extraordinarily critical of him despite his status as a founding father. We can only speculate on his intent, but despite his desire to kick the slavery can down the road, despite the urging of Franklin, Burr, Hamilton and others to address it, I'm confident that he would have been on the right side of history had he lived to see the Civil War. That's one of the things I love about Hamilton, that in the closing moments of the show they imply that perhaps slavery was his biggest regret and unfinished business.

Like I said, it's still a strawman argument. Lee and Washington aren't in the same realm of people. One defended the Constitution, the other sought to separate from it. The real reason though that it's a strawman is that it's an argument absent of intent. Washington isn't honored because he owned slaves. Lee and the Confederacy existed solely to preserve slavery, so if you're honoring them, what for? For defending a morally indefensible institution?

That reminds me when I was in law school, there were a group of kids who were trying to get "in the year of our Lord" removed from the school's diplomas. But if you removed those words, the reference to the year meant the same thing. 199x means the same thing as in the year of our Lord 199x. You would have to go back to a Chinese calendar to get rid of the meaning there.

Washington freed his slaves upon Martha's death. From what I have read, she actually freed them before she died. As he had no children, he basically freed them when he had no use for them. Had he had children, he may well have kept them to maintain his children's financial wellbeing. Not easy to know. I wouldn't necessarily view his actions as a plus in terms of slavery.

Jefferson owned slaves as well. There is strong evidence that he had multiple children with one of them. By today's standards that would be rape (both in terms of owner/master perspective and her believed age at the time of the first child's birth).

I agree though with the distinction between Washington/Jefferson and Lee portrayals in statues. Though when I think you look back using the eyes/views of today, you can run into problems.

That a lot of the confederate statues were, from what I have read, erected in the 1950s/60s (around the time of the Civil Rights movement) is more problematic to me than had they been erected back in the 1860s.

Thank you Jeff. It looks as though I have some reading to do. Truly, I was not for slavery ever nor really arguing for or against the removing of statues, even though it might have been read that way. Or I poorly conveyed what I was thinking. At any rate, these were just some things that had crossed my mind and quite honestly, have not had intelligent conversations about this subject with anyone. I appreciate everyone's insights and POV's as even though I am 46, I don't ever feel like I know everything or pretend to. It is refreshing that I have seen a lot of open minded responses, outside of being called a Confederate sympathizer and racist/bigot or whatever you wanna label me with.

I also think there's an important distinction to be made in terms of what the memorial is memorializing. Spalsh Mountain exists to memorialize a story and some songs (if even that), not to memorialize racial stereotypes. George Washington statues exist to memorialize a founding father, not a slave owner. Historically, most statues of Lee exist explicitly to intimidate minorities and to memorialize the pro-slavery / anti-minority attitude of those locations, not for whatever virtues we've gone and dug up recently to defend their existence.

I think Lee himself said it best...

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that, however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt, in the present condition of the country, would have the effect of retarding instead of accelerating its accomplishment, and of continuing if not adding to the difficulties under which the Southern people labor."

“I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife & to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”

http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/american-turning-point-civil-war-virginia-1/who

This is what I am also trying to understand more fully. Yes, Washington defended the Constitution, but he also rebelled against the established government of his day. Had the English won, he would've been classified as a traitor, punishable by possible death for treason to the English government which was the ruling government. Not sure it's so black and white.

Jeff said:

I can't have a conversation about pop art relative to a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people started to preserve America's original sin.

That's one angle.

Still feels more about symbolism, imagery, motive, intent and stuff like that to me.

We're on three different levels at this point:

1. The original story of the flag removal at SF parks
2. The weird SotS side tangent
3. The overarching current events story with the statues/monuments

To me they're all similar...but admittedly different. Like flavors of the same thing, maybe.

I struggle (and again, I'm more than aware of this and willing to admit it) with those ideas of symbolism and intent and stuff. Where lines are drawn seem completely arbitrary to me.

GoBucks89 said:

But if you removed those words, the reference to the year meant the same thing. 199x means the same thing as in the year of our Lord 199x. You would have to go back to a Chinese calendar to get rid of the meaning there.

Yes. Exactly. A lot of this feels exactly like that to me.