I guess there is this thing where some jocks are doing a protest during the national anthem. They're jocks, so I don't give a shit. Rather, I have a general question. Who decides what a symbolic act means? Flying a flag-- confederate or otherwise? Displaying a statue of a particular historical figure? Kneeling at an unusual time? Whatever. I'm going to be general here, and you'll see why. I'm a social scientist. We generalize.
1) The actor. Defer to the stated intent of the actor. If someone flies a particular flag, displays a statue of an historical figure, traitorous or otherwise, kneels, uses a peculiar phrase (e.g. "___ lives matter," no matter what goes in that blank) or whatever, when you decide how to interpret the symbolic act, whatever the person says they mean, that's what it means, no questions asked. That would have to cut both ways, wouldn't it? Do you see anyone doing that? I sure don't. That kind of cuts to the heart of the difference between how people treat the phrases, "black lives matter" and "all lives matter."
2) The audience. Intent doesn't matter. If someone gets offended, offense matters intrinsically. That, too, would have to cut both ways. So, we could ignore the stated intent of the people who say things like "that flag is my heritage!" But, by the same token, if we are using Rule 2, we would have to ignore the stated intent of the people who say that "black lives matter" doesn't mean that white lives don't. My opinion on the concept of taking offense is pretty well established, so I can't pretend that I find Rule 2 remotely justifiable. Just because someone takes offense doesn't mean that they are justified in taking offense or that anything wrong has happened. Otherwise, I take offense at you taking offense, and I take offense at you trying to control my expression without thinking about what I really mean, and we wind up in a situation of infinite regress. So, fuck Rule 2.
3) History. Symbols and symbolic acts don't come out of nowhere. The swastika or a burning cross have history behind them. If someone tells you they mean something else, is it reasonable to expect an audience to believe them, given history? No. What about the history of the confederate flag? And that's why that flag has been on its way down. What, then, about new symbols? Like I said, symbols don't come out of nowhere. They develop in a political and social context. That becomes trickier when a symbol is new. If a symbolic act starts with one person or a small group of people in a modern context, do you defer to their explanation of why they do it, or does the audience get to gainsay them?
4) Which audience? I keep referring to "the audience," as though they are one entity, but that's bullshit. Symbols can unite people, but they can also be divisive, and I am writing this because of disagreements over how to interpret symbolic things and acts. So, if an audience gets to decide what a symbol means, then which audience? If there is any sub-audience that gets offended, is the symbol offensive? That's a Rule 2 kind of thing, so fuck that. Let's be really blunt about this and point out how much a lot of this breaks down along racial lines, but that leads to inconsistency in the application of any other rule.
These are just some assorted ramblings on the interpretation of symbols. Fuck symbols. To quote the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century, George Carlin, "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded."
If there is any historical figure I idolize, it is George Carlin, stand-up philosopher.
Related Posts :
Prince Harry's Claim That He Killed 25 in Afghanistan Draws Anger, Worry
As Covid Spreads In China Patients Overwhelm Chinese Hospitals
Russia - Ukraine War: Military Summary And Analysis For 6.1.2023 (Video)
Growing Number Of German Soldiers Are Asking Not To Be Sent To War
The Next Leader Of North Korea?