Bentley, the Flag and pussification

[Catphish Tilly]

a mountain out of a molehill

http://www.startribune.com/as-long-as-we-re-discussing-flags-what-about-minnesota-s/311320071/

As long as we're discussing flags, what about Minnesota's?
It, too, may fail to reflect current sensibilities.
By Judith Harrington
July 2, 2015 — 10:15am


The Minnesota state flag depicts a white man as a hardworking, rugged individualist, and an Indian riding a horse and holding a spear.

The current interest in the removal of the Confederate battle flag from public displays and store shelves provides an excellent opportunity to examine what the Minnesota state flag represents. The images on the flag are interpreted by state documents as innocuous symbols of the state’s history. A critical examination of what the flag is saying, however, should make Minnesotans reconsider what their state flag projects about their state.

The state flag of Minnesota is often something that is taken for granted. Thousands of people see the flag flying without giving it a second thought. First unfurled in 1893 (a date found on the flag), it has the state seal featured prominently in its center. The seal was based on a painting by Seth Eastman and was promoted by Gov. Henry Sibley; it did engender criticism when first used in 1858, but was not changed.

The “great symbolism” of the figures on the seal, as described by the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, include an American “Indian on horseback … riding due south and [representing] the Indian heritage of Minnesota. The Indian’s horse and spear and pioneer’s ax, rifle, and plow represent tools that were used for hunting and labor” (Minnesota Legislative Manual).

A close examination shows the central figure to be a white pioneer dressed in work clothes, wearing a wide-brim hat and pushing a plow. He is an iconic image of a hardworking, rugged individualist who works alone to chop the trees, plow the land and protect his home. He is looking over his shoulder at the Indian, who is riding a horse and holding a spear.

The contrast in the images of the figures is interesting: The image of the pioneer, a peaceful man who has laid down his gun and is plowing his field, is juxtaposed with the image of the Indian, who may still want to fight (his spear is at the ready) but who seems to be riding away. The pioneer/farmer is using a plow, a symbol of civilization. The white man is depicted as a “doer” who is entitled to the land, trees and water, empowered by the concept of Manifest Destiny. The Indian is the vacating tenant. A peaceful transition is suggested, but this ignores the tense and problematic history of conflict between European settlers and Indians, such as the complicated history of treaties and the Dakota War of 1862. More problematic, however, is the depiction of a racist, stereotyped Indian, who wears only a loin cloth and a feather. ...

[GH2001]

http://www.startribune.com/as-long-as-we-re-discussing-flags-what-about-minnesota-s/311320071/

Hey, preaching to the choir man. I dont agree with the extreme PC-ness. Just saying I understand why corporations with millions on the line do things some times. More about perception than reality...and its sad. They didnt create it, but they are involved in it.

[Kaos]

Business sets policy on impact to its bottom line.  Associating itself with a product/symbol that it feels would negatively impact profits is counterproductive...and would likely violate its obligations to shareholders.

Your beef is with the racists that besmirched the image you wish the flag had.

By the same token, suppose I run a business where the presence of black employees is unsettling to my clients and  has the potential to cost me business. 

Why then can the government demand that I hire people of that ethnic persuasion?

[CCTAU]

By the same token, suppose I run a business where the presence of black employees is unsettling to my clients and  has the potential to cost me business. 

Why then can the government demand that I hire people of that ethnic persuasion?

Because you are the white devil. Your privilege must be exposed and then doused.

You are lucky. You didn't build that business. Be proud to give up your piece of the pie.

[wesfau2]

By the same token, suppose I run a business where the presence of black employees is unsettling to my clients and  has the potential to cost me business. 

Why then can the government demand that I hire people of that ethnic persuasion?

Since that can't be a serious question, I'm not going to engage.  You're not that stupid.

[WiregrassTiger]

Since that can't be a serious question, I'm not going to engage.  You're not that stupid.

Yep. That's about the stupidest question I've ever heard asked. So, what's the answer then? I'll just let you handle it.

[wesfau2]

Yep. That's about the stupidest question I've ever heard asked. So, what's the answer then? I'll just let you handle it.

I know you don't mean it, but here you go:

A business deciding to refrain from selling a inanimate product due to the potential reaction from its customers is so unlike that same business's inability to hire/promote a person solely because of the employee's ethnicity that the issue does not bear serious discussion.

[WiregrassTiger]

I know you don't mean it, but here you go:

A business deciding to refrain from selling a inanimate product due to the potential reaction from its customers is so unlike that same business's inability to hire/promote a person solely because of the employee's ethnicity that the issue does not bear serious discussion.

I didn't understand k's scenario as being a company's inability to hire a brother but a mandate from the gov't saying he has to. I get your saying it's not related and agree, not directly anyway.

We have a public company deciding not to sell something based primarily on the PR factor.

Even if not directly related, the question is legitimate IMO. Why should they be able to tell me who to hire? Out tax dollars are paying for ads that promote the hiring of less qualified individuals (black lady in the ad without a college degree) based on their "life experience". WTF is that about? I'll tell you what I think it's about. It's about making a college degree less valuable, promoting the same program of hiring minorities that the Feds use, redistribution of wealth and socialism.

I don't understand why there isn't outrage re: this campaign.

[wesfau2]

I didn't understand k's scenario as being a company's inability to hire a brother but a mandate from the gov't saying he has to. I get your saying it's not related and agree, not directly anyway.

We have a public company deciding not to sell something based primarily on the PR factor.

Even if not directly related, the question is legitimate IMO. Why should they be able to tell me who to hire? Out tax dollars are paying for ads that promote the hiring of less qualified individuals (black lady in the ad without a college degree) based on their "life experience". WTF is that about? I'll tell you what I think it's about. It's about making a college degree less valuable, promoting the same program of hiring minorities that the Feds use, redistribution of wealth and socialism.

I don't understand why there isn't outrage re: this campaign.

Ok...so you don't get it either.  That saves time.

[WiregrassTiger]

Ok...so you don't get it either.  That saves time.

Poisoning the well doesn't actually mean that one wins the debate. I've found that it usually means someone either doesn't really know what they're talking about or they know that they only have a weak rebuttal.

[Snaggletiger]

I didn't understand k's scenario as being a company's inability to hire a brother but a mandate from the gov't saying he has to. I get your saying it's not related and agree, not directly anyway.

We have a public company deciding not to sell something based primarily on the PR factor.

Even if not directly related, the question is legitimate IMO. Why should they be able to tell me who to hire? Out tax dollars are paying for ads that promote the hiring of less qualified individuals (black lady in the ad without a college degree) based on their "life experience". WTF is that about? I'll tell you what I think it's about. It's about making a college degree less valuable, promoting the same program of hiring minorities that the Feds use, redistribution of wealth and socialism.

I don't understand why there isn't outrage re: this campaign.

Bingo!!!

[GH2001]

I didn't understand k's scenario as being a company's inability to hire a brother but a mandate from the gov't saying he has to. I get your saying it's not related and agree, not directly anyway.

We have a public company deciding not to sell something based primarily on the PR factor.

Even if not directly related, the question is legitimate IMO. Why should they be able to tell me who to hire? Out tax dollars are paying for ads that promote the hiring of less qualified individuals (black lady in the ad without a college degree) based on their "life experience". WTF is that about? I'll tell you what I think it's about. It's about making a college degree less valuable, promoting the same program of hiring minorities that the Feds use, redistribution of wealth and socialism.

I don't understand why there isn't outrage re: this campaign.

Although I get what you are saying, the main difference I see is no one is making the store sell or not sell a confederate flag. All voluntary. That flag is also not a protected class like a race of person is. In the end it's just a piece of merchandise where different people have different opinions about. And last I checked it isn't outlawed legally at the state or federal level for personal purchase or owning. Are these companies cowards? That's debatable. But as Wes said there is a lot of bottom line riding on public perception and shareholders.

[Kaos]

Although I get what you are saying, the main difference I see is no one is making the store sell or not sell a confederate flag. All voluntary. That flag is also not a protected class like a race of person is. In the end it's just a piece of merchandise where different people have different opinions about. And last I checked it isn't outlawed legally at the state or federal level for personal purchase or owning. Are these companies cowards? That's debatable. But as Wes said there is a lot of bottom line riding on public perception and shareholders.

And there's the problem. 

[wesfau2]

And there's the problem.

No, it's not.

People, left to their own devices, are a shitty majority. 

[Kaos]

No, it's not.

People, left to their own devices, are a shitty majority.

You are what's wrong with America. 

[wesfau2]

You are what's wrong with America.

Clearly.  Says the guy who seemingly can't leave the house without apoplectic rage.

[WiregrassTiger]

You are what's wrong with America.

Wait. Get out of here. Wes is black?

[jmar]

Wait. Get out of here. Wes is black?

That's right! And not only that...Mr. Wes done won the innerwebs fo the entire week with his forward thinking view of how things are instead of dwelling in the past like so many others on this site.

 He give this place some class.

[GH2001]

Clearly.  Says the guy who seemingly can't leave the house without apoplectic rage.

You have a swell vocabulary counselor.

[jmar]

You have a swell vocabulary counselor.

He can use 'em like a sharp stick when he wants to make a point.