Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

extremecoasterdad: You're falling into the trap of moral equivalence. The American revolution was morally defensible on the grounds of autonomy and religious freedom from England. Splitting from the United States to preserve slavery most certainly is not the same thing.

A flag - Confederate or otherwise - is a tool. Allow me to expound.

Money is a tool. A tool is simply something that is meant to be used. Most tools don't care one way or the other how its owner uses it - for good or for bad. Most tools don't have an agenda or an ideology that comes along with it - it simply exists to be used. The good or bad that comes along with money (or most other tools) can only be determined by how the user of that tool decides to use it. Most people don't have any moral or ethical issues with possessing tools like money because the tool itself is neutral - it doesn't inherently represent something that's good or bad.

The Confederate flag is also a tool in that the flag itself doesn't care how it is used - for good or bad. The difference between most tools and the Confederate flag is that the Confederate flag represents something that is not neutral because the people who created it designed it to be non-neutral. Because it is non-neutral, it forces people to make choices regarding its use. As a result, we can ask three questions to determine its value to us:

1. Are we fully aware as to what the item in question represents?
2. What does the item actually represent?
3. How are people using the item?

Question #1 is from personal experience. The first time I remember seeing the Confederate flag was watching Dukes of Hazzard re-runs as a 6-year old kid. At the time I thought "wow, that General Lee car looks really cool. It'd be awesome to get it as a Hot Wheels." I asked my mom for one, and I still to this day remember the shocked look on her face. She gave me a small history lesson and it immediately changed the way I viewed the Confederate flag. Sometimes we can be unaware of what something really represents.

Question #2 is pretty straightforward. If an individual truly knows what the Confederate flag represents and chooses to own and/or display one, then that individual identifies with it in some way.

Question #3 is the one that has the most weight. I can't tell you how many times I've been called the "N" word by someone who has either been wearing or displaying a Confederate flag on personal property. I am NOT saying nor do I believe that everyone who displays a Confederate flag is racist. The one issue that's always bugged me though is the sort of tacit approval of some Confederate sympathizers who use the Confederate flag as a thinly disguised veil for going out of their way to cause trouble. It's always reeked of hypocrisy to me.

It's not my aim to get involved in a political debate. Whether the governments continue to pull down Confederate flags or statues associated with that time period is their business. I just know this - anyone who uses any kind of tool as a veil for their own mischievous actions is disgraceful and brings dishonor on the very tool they seek to glorify.

Great response.

Jeff said:

More strawman/slippery slope arguments ranging from hypothetical to absurd.

Sorry to refer back to a response from much earlier, but I never in a million years thought I'd see "safe spaces" at colleges or the wench scene getting removed from Pirates of the Carribbean. What seems absurd now likely won't be absurd a little ways down the road if the US keeps moving along the course it does.

Side note: I've no real objection to the statues of Confederate "heroes" being taken down. That was a war the South lost and it was a war they fought to preserve some pretty reprehensible things.

Here's where my beef is. My husband used to be a Civil War re-enactor. He did it for about 10 years before we had kids to eat up our discretionary income and sleeping on the ground started to hurt. He was part of a Confederate unit based out of northeast Ohio/northwest Pennsylvania. They portrayed a Texas unit and were run by a high school hstory teacher who was very particular about their mission. They were not there to dress up, camp, drink, shoot black powder blanks and raise hell, they were to portray living history. Any time they could be seen by the general public they had better be in character. Obviously because of this we own stuff with confederate flags. Some of it is out in the open in our home, not being hidden in a box in some shameful, dark place. I honestly don't even think about it because it's just part of the background to me. One more thing sitting around from our past adventures sitting across the room from my Dukes of Hazzard DVD set. The present political climate would suggest that we must, therefore, be racist jerks and white supremacists because if we weren't we would not own such offensive objects. Until the Six Flags story hit the news I had no idea that the name Six Flags actually stood for anything. In the context of what the six flags for the park name were to represent in the Texas park I don't think the confederate flag or any of the others should have been considered offensive. It's their business they chose to make an attempt to distance the company from any controversy but I don't think they should have needed to. Having that opinion in the current political climate also would suggest I must be a racist jerk. I'm actually a relatively nice person except when I'm hungry and my feet hurt.

I don't think you're a racist, but you do understand that the flag was co-opted decades ago as a symbol of white supremacy, right? Sometimes there are things we do as a member of a functioning society because we should be considerate toward others. For me, it means I don't use the F-word in public or wear it on T-shirts, and I'll even wear a tie to a funeral. Similarly, I wouldn't use a symbol associated with people who wanted to cruelly treat people as property. I don't understand why people consider that so unreasonable.

Re: safe spaces, yeah, that's stupid. I thought it was largely a left-leaning stupid thing, but it turns out the Twitterer-in-chief doesn't want to hear anything negative about him either, so no side has the market cornered on snowflake-ism.

Paisley, thanks for sharing that. It’s a difficult situation. You have these objects that are deeply meaningful to you and your husband, that probably remind you of times of joy and friendships and all of that. It’s natural that you want to have them around you and share them with others. And yet, if I’m to be honest, I would say you have objects on display in your house that might make some people uncomfortable if you have them as guests. They might or might not tell you, they presumably would know you intend no offense (or you could tell them) and believe that your good qualities outweigh whatever discomfort they might feel. And yet, there it is. You have to decide what to choose in that situation.

I’m a fan of a baseball team in Cleveland that has an appalling caricature as its mascot and a name that reduces a historically oppressed race of people to the status of animals and mythological creatures. I remain a fan of that team, because it’s a connection to my childhood, because my late grandmother took me to games, because I’ve been following them forever and their fortunes feel like my fortunes. If I’m to be honest, I’m supporting a racist enterprise. Maybe not one that makes a massive difference in the scheme of things, but I do tend to think most inhumanity starts by denying the dignity and worth of other people – so it’s not nothing. I offer this to say: I get it. It’s not easy.

In the end, you have to be comfortable with the decisions you make (as does Six Flags, as does the Walt Disney Company, as do I). But you do owe it to yourself and your fellow men and women to be reflective about such things, and not merely reactive. And I would also say: we don’t get to say what other people should find offensive, and whether they’re right or wrong. We don’t live in their shoes.

hambone said:

And I would also say: we don’t get to say what other people should find offensive, and whether they’re right or wrong. We don’t live in their shoes.

The thing is, that's a two way street.

Is it one's job to not offend others or one's job to avoid things they find offensive? (and that's barely rhetorical - social norms, basic decorum, and whatnot)

I value personal freedom and personal repsonsibility, so I tend to err on the side of the latter. I think people should be able to do what they want for the most part and I think it's up to the individual to be responsible for what is acceptable to their own sensibilities.

I don't disagree with what you've said, Gonch. I think.

"I didn't mean to be offensive" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. "I get that I offended you, and I'm ok with that" is also reasonable, if possibly rude. "I wasn't being offensive" isn't really for me to say.

As I also said, in the end you have to be comfortable with the decisions you make, including, potentially, alienating other people. (To be clear, I'm not talking about tangible harm here.)

Jeff said:

extremecoasterdad: You're falling into the trap of moral equivalence. The American revolution was morally defensible on the grounds of autonomy and religious freedom from England. Splitting from the United States to preserve slavery most certainly is not the same thing.

I'm not saying that there is an moral equivalency. I think you misunderstand my point. The word traitor can and has been used to describe anyone who rebels against the ruling government. It has been argued several times here that Washington nor anyone else who fought for our Independence are traitors. Granted, they are heroes of America and the founding fathers. But they were also traitors to the ruling government of England.

You're going to play the dictionary game to make a point devoid of context? Really?

Lord Gonchar said:
I value personal freedom and personal repsonsibility, so I tend to err on the side of the latter. I think people should be able to do what they want for the most part and I think it's up to the individual to be responsible for what is acceptable to their own sensibilities.

Ugh, you know, on the surface I agree with this, but the way people use this ideology is to say, "**** everyone else, I'll do whatever I want and I don't care how it affects others." It's selfish and not sustainable in a functioning society. It's why we have laws, and hold doors open for people. Actions have consequences, and it's not just an issue of doing whatever is acceptable to you (the royal you, not Gonch).

Lord Gonchar said:
Stuff is hard...and stuff.

So true :-)

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?

I guess I don't understand the struggle. "We" didn't forget the movie because most of us have never seen the movie. The ride in and of itself is not offensive. It seems unlikely that Disney will ever release the movie in the U.S. again, but if they did, yes, the movie would be offensive to Americans, given our country's history.

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.

Comparing the two seems like a stretch to me. Disney long ago saw Splash Mountain as a new attraction, aside from the movie.. (Splash Mountain was, in part, seen as a way to re-use Animtronics from Disneyland's America Sings.)

Only Six Flags Over Texas and Six Flags Over Georgia had the Confederate flag as part of their theming. The historic signifance, at this point, is minimal.

I am a little curious that Disney hasn't tried to repurpose the "Song of the South" IP into a new film. I have seen it, probably in its 1972 theatrical release (thus probably 1973- I lived in a small town). And I remember being delighted by it, but I was 6 or 7 - what did I know?

In any case, they've got a popular ride that millions of people know, and they're certainly not above turning rides into movies. It seems like maybe they could take the cartoon portions and release them without the more problematic live action bits? Or maybe the cartoons are just as bad, or you'd have to get new voice actors. Or maybe no actor wants to touch this with a 10-foot-pole, or the potential controversy just wouldn't be worth the risk.

Jeff said:

You're going to play the dictionary game to make a point devoid of context? Really?

Lord Gonchar said:
I value personal freedom and personal repsonsibility, so I tend to err on the side of the latter. I think people should be able to do what they want for the most part and I think it's up to the individual to be responsible for what is acceptable to their own sensibilities.

Ugh, you know, on the surface I agree with this, but the way people use this ideology is to say, "**** everyone else, I'll do whatever I want and I don't care how it affects others." It's selfish and not sustainable in a functioning society. It's why we have laws, and hold doors open for people. Actions have consequences, and it's not just an issue of doing whatever is acceptable to you (the royal you, not Gonch).

I would have agreed with you waaaaay more when I lived in Fort Worth, but being a part-time teacher at a super rich private school in the Bay Area, I'm beginning to move towards Gonch's position. It's scary how fragile some of these kids are and how perfectly curated their environment needs to be for them to function at all. (Of course, I do take financial advantage of that fact by being part of the perfectly curated environment). That said, I'm still probably way left for an American in terms of the "personal freedom" vs. "communal responsibility" thing.

I think the key words here are "a popular ride that millions of people love". The ride and the movie, at this point, are two different things.

The problem with releasing only animated parts of the movie falls into how the Disney company used Song of the South as an experiment incorporating live action and animation; it would be difficult to break them apart.

ApolloAndy said:
I would have agreed with you waaaaay more when I lived in Fort Worth, but being a part-time teacher at a super rich private school in the Bay Area, I'm beginning to move towards Gonch's position. It's scary how fragile some of these kids are and how perfectly curated their environment needs to be for them to function at all.

You also live where the nutty anti-vax people are, so let's not make the Bay Area be the Charles Barkley for all Americans. ;)

slithernoggin said:

I guess I don't understand the struggle. "We" didn't forget the movie because most of us have never seen the movie. The ride in and of itself is not offensive.

So if I just change a couple of words, maybe that will explain why I struggle:

"We" didn't forget slavery because we weren't alive then. We never saw it. A statue (or flag) in and of itself is not offensive.

Comparing the two seems like a stretch to me.

Oh, it kind of is.

Jeff said:

Ugh, you know, on the surface I agree with this, but the way people use this ideology is to say, "**** everyone else, I'll do whatever I want and I don't care how it affects others."

It's an unfortunate potential side effect. But I still prefer it over the alternative.

In line with what Andy is talking and in more real world Gonch-speak (as opposed to measured, reasonable discussion):

"It's not my job to make sure your pussy ass can handle me." (smile)

I think it's a slippery slope. I still prefer to be wrong in the direction that allows **** like that to happen than be wrong in the other direction. My take has always been that it's more my job to deal with what I encounter than to stop people from creating a world where I encounter things I don't like (or even actual ****tiness).

You don't think that's selfish?

No more selfish than expecting the same degree in the other direction.

I think it's more selfish to expect people to bend to my sensibilities than for me to allow people to generally be themselves and avoid what I don't like. I extend that logic to everyone.

And Gonch, I think you can extend that to many things. I know that there are some Christians who avoid rated R movies because they find them offensive.