Some of the comments to my post on why it’s not discourteous to wear American flag images on Cinco de Mayo seem to suggest there’s something discourteous about publicly expressing disagreement with some other group’s celebration, even in a public space. Here’s an example:
My college, did in fact, have a kind of celebrate Israeli independence day (more like a week). Some of our non-Jewish/pro=Palestinian students suddenly started wearing the scarves that, apparently, signify a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli view.I think that was rude of them. I think it was an intentional insult to the Jewish [or, at least, pro-Israel] students: they intended to insult and undercut the celebrations of some of their peers. I would think the same if students wore swastikas on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
I think this is also part of what Maureen Downey, the columnist to whose post I was responding, had in mind. But I think it’s mistaken.
There’s nothing at all rude when students who see some expressing Israeli independence day express an anti-Israel viewpoint. That’s disagreement, but disagreement does not equal discourtesy. Nor does the fact that the disagreement comes in response to others’ celebration make the disagreement discourteous, at least when the celebration is in a public place. If some people want to celebrate an event in a public place, others who share the place are entitled to express the view that the event doesn’t merit celebration.
That’s part of the nature of the contest of ideas (though here expressed by both sides symbolically rather than through detailed argument). There’s nothing inherently discourteous about this contest, at least if it’s carried out through means that avoid insults, intrusions on truly solemn events, and the like.
Likewise, another commenter suggests that it’s discourteous to “eat[] a hot dog at a vegan club meeting.” If you go to a private meeting as a guest, then your obligations as a guest are indeed greater. But if the vegan club sponsors an “Eat Vegan” day in a public place, where they conspicuously eat only vegan food, then it is not discourteous for others to use the occasion to eat hot dogs.
Swastikas on Holocaust Remembrance Day are of course a completely different matter, partly because of the solemnity of the occasion but especially because swastikas represent evil. But that has nothing to do with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.
Constantin says:
A not-insignificant sector of the faction that opposes displaying the American flag does so for what in their minds is the exact same reason.
May 6, 2010, 8:42 pmThe Unbeliever says:
I wonder: if you truly think it’s rude or an intentional insult to wear an American flag on a day Mexican-Americans celebrate the first half of their hyphenated identity… how rude is it to have the school say the Pledge of Allegiance on that same day? Did they take down the American flag from the pole, as well as any wall maps showing old borders with Mexico?
May 6, 2010, 8:43 pmMike says:
My uncle has, for most of his life, deliberately worn Orange on St. Patrick’s Day. Most people aren’t even aware of the sginificance. He has gotten a few dirty looks in some (American) Irish pubs, but, to my knowledge, no one has evern given him any major trouble.
May 6, 2010, 8:44 pmAnderson says:
The analogies aren’t working. Celebration of Mexican heritage on Cinco de Mayo is not expressing an opinion, unless it’s that this heritage is valuable. It’s not a propositional statement; it’s an affirmation of value.
So the students who “disagree” are disagreeing that Mexican heritage *has* value. Which is juvenile and crappy and, yes, discourteous.
To risk an analogy nonetheless, it’s like wearing Confederate flags to school on a hypothetical Black Heritage Day, for the express purpose of dissenting from the celebration of black heritage.
If these students are sending a message to their classmates, it’s not a “contest of ideas,” it’s a rejection of their heritage as worthless. That is a peculiar stance to spend so many blog posts defending, if not praising.
May 6, 2010, 9:09 pmMaryG says:
“Swastikas on Holocaust Remembrance Day are of course a completely different matter, partly because of the solemnity of the occasion…”
Swastikas probably don’t mean much personally to Mexicans. That’s not their fight. The American flag might, depending on their history, be a more oppressive symbol to non-Jewish Mexicans.
I think you miss the point too, if you think the wearing of the apparel is the end of the “rudeness”. These aren’t professional adults with sterile ideas of “rudeness” and “civility”. It’s all the comments, looks, and meanings behind the wearing o’ the shirts that day too. (and just because they might not have been mentioned in the article — use your imagination and go back to your own jr. high school days in mixed communities… Ooops. Surely some of you understand you don’t take this day in isolation? There’s growing pains when you mix races and ethnicities, and the fact that there’s absolutely no national leadership on immigration issues, well kids/parents tend to form their own opinions and these issue things play out in the schoolyards and on the streets.)
So much for “civil” leadership that is so afraid of being “rude” that we never really address the root of the issues.
May 6, 2010, 9:10 pmMaryG says:
Shock value is big in junior high school, remember.
Of course the kids have the rights to dress themselves every day.
But putting adult, law professor values of civility on this one is seems kinda a disingenuous way to make a point — assuming that there was no intent to takes “sides”.
Personally, I doubt these boys were trying to send the message, “We’re all Americans, today and everyday. No need to celebrate your Mexican heritage (or your ethnic heritage on St. Patrick’s or Casmir Pulaski day). Come join us in the wonderful celebration of America, though naturally we respect your background ethnicities too…”
Cinco de Mayo, taken in the current immigration context, is a hot topic. The kids were making their own points — why pretend they werent’ using the power of offense and desire to be viewed as “rude” by picking that particular day to express their collective patriotic feelings?
So what if it was “rude”? Let them wear their shirts, and opine in a non-verbal way where they stand on a current hot button issue. “USA… USA…” Is chanting that considered rude too if someone’s feelings are hurt?
Seems silly to create a “rude” or “discourtesy” factor, as if that matters in junior high expressing of opinions.
May 6, 2010, 9:17 pmAnderson says:
The commenter in another thread had a good one: Mexican flags carried to a 4th of July event? No one would find any “discourtesy” there?
May 6, 2010, 9:21 pmAnderson says:
Or imagine the American embassy in Mexico City puts on a little 4th of July shindig with flags and bunting, and some Mexicans make a point of attending with Mexican-flag t-shirts on.
What strikes me about that examples is how *gratuitous* the demonstration would be. The embassy wouldn’t be asserting that America is better, just that they remember and value their American nationality. It would be poor taste to flaunt Mexican flags at such an event. And it was poor taste for the students to deliberately pick May 5 for their U.S.-flag-wearing stunt.
May 6, 2010, 9:24 pmDG says:
Anderson, here’s the issue. The Mexican-American kids are, ostensibly American. Both of your examples are folks of two different nationalities – all of the kids we are talking about here are American.
I have been to pro-Israel demonstrations where there are easily as many American flags as Israeli ones. That’s because there is no sense of opposition – everyone there loved both.
The real problem is that those “Mexican” kids don’t love America. I’m not sure that’s their failure, but we need to figure out where that failure is. The only thing we consistently do right in our educational system is assimilate. If we are failing, we need to get on the ball.
And, btw, I’m the child of an immigrant, so I’m qualified to speak on the matter.
May 6, 2010, 9:42 pmMac says:
And, correct me if I am wrong, even though the swastika does represent evil and is insulting etc., it is still protected under the First Amendment, no?
I believe the First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech. It is the most in need of protection, is it not?
I think the school missed a great opportunity to teach about free speech in a free country and tolerance on all sides. I am afraid this is another example of “Of course I believe in free speech, but if it gives me offense, you are not free to speak.”
May 6, 2010, 9:42 pmZackS says:
Again, the whole issue of courtesy seems to me to be a forced way to find disagreement when there is none. I have yet to see a single Volokh poster defend the school’s decision to send these students home.
And unlike debates on law, we don’t really have good or consistent guidance on how to define courtesy. Are we talking middle school courtesy? Law professor courtesy? Victorian courtesy? Is there a difference between public courtesy and private courtesy? Government courtesy and non-government courtesy?
Ultimately, in my opinion, it’s rude and unnecessary confrontational to purposely define yourself in opposition to a group on a day that that group celebrates their heritage. But it’s certainly not any ruder than fart jokes, swirlies, or any of the many other indignities of middle school.
May 6, 2010, 9:42 pmJerry Vandesic says:
So who gets to decide the degree of solemnity, and what is the legal threshold for solemnity such that being on the wrong side of the threshold will cause someone trouble with the authorities? Are there seperate felony vs misdemeanor solemnity thresholds?
May 6, 2010, 9:45 pmAnderson says:
The real problem is that those “Mexican” kids don’t love America.
????
May 6, 2010, 9:45 pmunlawyer says:
I believe swastikas are also a symbol used by native Americans. I don’t think that it was used by them to represent evil.
May 6, 2010, 9:46 pmAnonsters says:
Been a lot of that lately.
May 6, 2010, 9:48 pmPHil says:
I don’t think EV understands what courtesy is. Courtesy is to indulge someone, even when, or especially when, you disagree.
May 6, 2010, 9:50 pmZackS says:
No. Totally different situations. The message of the pledge and the flagpole is that this is a nation that we live in and whose values we cherish. The flag costumes on Cinco de Mayo say, “This is what I am and it’s different than what you are. I don’t value what you value.”
It’s the difference between wearing a cross necklace every day and wearing a “Christ was killed for your sins” T-shirt on Jewish Pride Day (if such a day existed).
May 6, 2010, 9:53 pmElliot says:
No. They are simply stating American culture has value.
May 6, 2010, 9:53 pmunlawyer says:
Does this mean that it is impossible to disagree and be courteous at the same time?
May 6, 2010, 9:55 pmunlawyer says:
Oops, I meant express disagreement and be courteous at the same time.
May 6, 2010, 9:58 pmHarvey says:
To you all ethnic disputes are much ado about nothing except Holocaust Remembrance Day and swastikas. There we are talking Serious Stuff. Hmm.
Funny, I thought it was St. Bartholomew’s Day and Fleurs-de-li.
May 6, 2010, 9:59 pmPHil says:
Unlawyer? It’s rather the opposite. Reread: Courtesy is to indulge someone . . . when you disagree
May 6, 2010, 9:59 pmZackS says:
I think it means that there’s a polite time for disagreement, and that time is not typically in the middle of someone else’s celebration. Of course, politeness isn’t the be all and end all of the matter, so be rude if the matter is important enough to you. Just don’t pretend that don’t understand why others see a slight.
May 6, 2010, 10:01 pmConstantin says:
But the Mexican flag costumes don’t do this? How about staging a walkout, replete with Mexican flags, when the five American flag kids are let back into school? (This happened either late yesterday or some time today.) What does that value?
May 6, 2010, 10:02 pmMaryG says:
“Does this mean that it is impossible to disagree and be courteous at the same time?”
No. But if you’re passionate in your disagreement and wish to impact another’s thinking, often by creating minor discomfort or “rudeness”, you can break through their pre-conceived notions.
Offense works.
And it’s amazing how many folks tend to believe their own analysis of facts is the “correct” way of looking at things, so much that if you don’t cause them any discomfort by being discourteous to their own ways of thinking… they never reconsider.
Offense works, and while it’s often uncomfortable to have your eyes opened to how others similarly view things, you’d be amazed how many people hide behind the, “Stop saying that! You’re being rude! button.”
And then play the, “It’s ok to disagree with me, but you were being … RUDE, and therefore I no longer have to tolerate your views or listen to you.”
May 6, 2010, 10:02 pmBob from Ohio says:
You are assuming the reasons the Mexican flag/colors were worn.
It could also be that they were being used to say “we reject being American” or “Mexico is superior” or “we can do what we want and you can’t stop us (since we have the Asst. Principal in our pocket)”. And what comments were being made?
For that matter, what is the history on this day at this school? Did Mexican students use this in the past to taunt?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But you don’t know for sure that the Mexican display had only good motives either.
May 6, 2010, 10:05 pmZackS says:
Agree 100%. But it’s disingenuous, after using offense as a rhetorical ploy, to then say “but I wasn’t being rude.”
May 6, 2010, 10:06 pmMac says:
You are quite right. I forgot about that.
May 6, 2010, 10:11 pmMaryG says:
Bob is asking the right questions. How well are the Mexican-American kids, and the white American kids, mixing on other schooldays? Don’t take this one day in a vaccuum — the kids are put together all day, 5 days a week, for 9 months. Surely there are cultural differences, and perhaps resentments. Maybe it all came out on this day — when people are out and loud and proud about their heritage.
Interestingly, here’s a cultural value: Many Mexican-Americans highly value “gordito” children. The bigger the better. Apparently, an overweight child shows affluence. Take a simple cultural difference like that, and introduce more Americanized standards. I went to school with black American students (before African-American became the en vogue term.) Kids are kids, sure, and hormones/athletics brought the groups together. But I know some white students thought their culture often needlessly … loud, while we white students were thought of as bland and boring by some in the other group.
It’s a shame these things play out more honestly in our schoolyards than in our legislative chambers, but we pretty much become powerless when we put professional courtesy and mono-thinking above honestly addressing issues and looking for the key reasons behind one-day demonstrations.
May 6, 2010, 10:11 pmZackS says:
On Independence Day, sure the Mexican flag costumes would do so. If a student came to school every day dressed in the Mexican flag, sure that would be the same. If the student refused to stand for the pledge, again, I’d agree with you. But I don’t see celebrating a minority culture on a particular day set aside to celebrate that culture as an intentionally offensive act. Of course, I wasn’t at school that day, and it’s possible that the Mexican students are a group of radicals agitating for a reconquista of the southwest. I somehow doubt it, though.
As as for the sit out/suspension/retaliation, it seems to me a missed opportunity for a discussion about tolerance of different cultures and free speech. That seems like a whole separate conversation, though, than EV’s posts on “courtesy.”
May 6, 2010, 10:14 pmMaryG says:
” But it’s disingenuous, after using offense as a rhetorical ploy, to then say “but I wasn’t being rude.” ”
Absolutely. Much better to say, “I was harnessing the power of rudeness and discourtesy in service of a bigger ideal.”
This idea of playing nice lest we hurt others feelings … it comes from the politically correct elites who are all for open opinions and sharing diverse opinions, until their own feelings are hurt by someone who expresses their own opinion in an obviously effective way, rude or not.
May 6, 2010, 10:16 pmSara says:
Yes, MaryG, manners is the means of oppression.
So go ahead and hold up your fist; you’re so boorishly outre.
May 6, 2010, 10:21 pmIP98 says:
I’ve worked with Mexicans and they all laughed at the way Americans celebrated May 5. It is not the equivalent of July 4. The school’s vice-principal needs to remember which country he lives in.
May 6, 2010, 10:22 pmZackS says:
Did the students eventually learn to respect each other in an inspirational montage after the football coach gave an speech in Gettysburg? I think I saw that movie.
May 6, 2010, 10:22 pmRicardo says:
The topic here is discourtesy. It’s quite proper to argue by analogy with respect other nationalities.
By pointing out the American nationality of the supposedly offended Mexican-American students, you are arguing a different angle. Namely, that American citizens have no right to be offended when someone else wears an American flag regardless of the context.
As anyone who has ever been a teenager knows, though, anything can be rude given the right context. For some kids it is a hobby to devise ways to poke a stick in the eye of someone they don’t like while not explicitly breaking any rules (and some people never grow out of this — you may share an office with one such person). I suspect the message the students were trying to convey is not their own love of country but rather “we’re more American than you are.” Do these students wear American flag shirts on a routine basis? An American could indeed express discontent both with the gaudy nature of American flag clothing in general as well as these students’ possible misuse of such an important symbol for a point-scoring exercise.
Rules of courtesy and social norms don’t operate on the same rigid principles as the law and it’s a mistake to conflate the two. It is rude to wear an Egyptian or Syrian flag or symbol of Palestinian nationhood during a Jewish or Israeli celebration. As for the First Amendment, people certainly have the right to be rude to each other in public. Schools have to keep the peace (kind of like prisons) and so impose certain restrictions on rudeness for everyone’s sake. We’re not talking about the UC Berkeley campus.
May 6, 2010, 10:25 pmMaryG says:
“Yes, MaryG, manners is the means of oppression. So go ahead and hold up your fist, you’re so boorishly outre.”
Oh sweet Sara. Stop being so silly. You misunderstand me, so you put your words in my mouth, then proudly take on your strawman. Silly girl.
If you don’t understand how these things work on a base level, especially with junior high males just beginning to engage in the larger world around them and without your finely developed sense of manners and delicacy in stating one’s opinion without giving offense… well, let’s just say often the message gets lost in the pretty-smelling filter.
May 6, 2010, 10:26 pmMaryG says:
“Did the students eventually learn to respect each other in an inspirational montage after the football coach gave an speech in Gettysburg? I think I saw that movie.”
Lol. No — that’s some liberal filmmaker’s version of the world.
Pretty much, self segregation by lunchtable and friendship groups was the norm outside of school. They threw us together in some great social experiment, but kids find comfort in what they know.
We did have winning sports teams though, and students tolerated others, finding commonalities where they would. But this liberal dream that we all blended seamlessly together and “overcame” our cultural difference by realizing that the minority culture was the best and it only took opening our majority eyes to it?
Never happened. And now the school is pretty much majority “minority” … meaning it went from 30-50% black students (now African American) to about 90%, with a 10% white minority. Yep, change happens. I’m still waiting for the liberals to write that movie though.
May 6, 2010, 10:31 pmSara says:
Well, Mary G. since you’ve taken us on a magical mystery tour of “political elites,” “junior high,” “legislative chambers” and your own long ago, pointless school days, it’s a wonder anyone can follow.
May 6, 2010, 10:36 pmptt says:
Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the Mexican defeat of the French at Puebla. You’d think American conservatives would be all on board.
May 6, 2010, 10:53 pmNick056 says:
You know, we don’t have enough information in EV’s example.
If the anti-Israeli scarves are affiliated with a group responsible for acts of terrorism or a group with an anti-semetic charter, for example, then yes, wearing it is highly discourteous. If it’s even marginally associated with some of the more virulent anti-Israel organizations or dogmas, it shouldn’t be worn — and the occassion heightens the discourtesy.
Beyond that, we have to look at what in particular this week-long celebration was conveying. How fundamentally uncontroversial and innocuous was their event? Usually events like this have some literature. I’d have to read that to evaluate the courtesy of responding by wearing scarves. Mentioning Israeli independence today without reference to the issue of Palestinians might be seen, for example, as more controversial, less conciliatory, and more of an implied political position than when someone in America just celebrates his heritage on the day of victory over the French in one battle in 1862.
After all, Confederate History Month just ended in Virginia, where the Governor got in trouble for what he didn’t say.
Oh, and Anderson is also dead-on here. Are the scarf-wearers suggesting that it’s inappropriate to honor one’s Jewish heritage? Because that’s more in line with what the flag-wearers suggested.
May 6, 2010, 11:09 pmMaryG says:
“Well, Mary G. since you’ve taken us on a magical mystery tour of “political elites,” “junior high,” “legislative chambers” and your own long ago, pointless school days, it’s a wonder anyone can follow.”
Aw, don’t get down on yourself, Sara. Maybe step away, and then reread when you are in a better, more open-minded mood.
I really haven’t written anything that challenging that it’s impossible for you to comprehend, though I do understand you’re probably unfamiliar with facts on the ground, and how to interpret them; I’m guessing you’ve been spoon-fed your knowledge through the years? Meaning others not only gather facts on a topic, but then tell you how to interpret them?
Sleep on it, is my advice. Then reread in the morning when you are likely at your sharpest. It will be uncomfortable to consider facts that perhaps don’t jibe with your own comfortable knowledge base, but just like others who have learned to think and consider other points of view, I’m sure you can discover my point too, if you do the work thinking on it.
Good luck!
May 6, 2010, 11:15 pmMaryG says:
“Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the Mexican defeat of the French at Puebla.”
And if you think that is the primary message on the mind of those junior high schoolers both celebrating, and wearing their own patriotic American duds, I have a bridge over the Rio Grande to sell you…
May 6, 2010, 11:17 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Would it be discourteous to wear a rival school’s jersey on school spirit day? A “Decent people denounce child-molesting organizations” t-shirt on Good Friday? An Iraqi flag shirt on the day of a school assembly honoring a graduate killed in Iraq?
Would it be discourteous to ostentatiously bring cheeseburgers to a meeting to recruit students interested studying in Orthodox Judaism? To chew communion wafers by the handful, or perhaps grind them underfoot, at a meeting to recruit students interested in studying Catholicism?
Would it be discourteous to wear a shirt bearing Ted Bundy’s likeness to a support group for rape victims? An “End Foreign Welfare, Starting With Israel” shirt to a ceremony remembering Holocaust victims? A John Hinckley, Sirhan Sirhan or Lee Harvey Oswald shirt to a program commemorating their victims?
May 6, 2010, 11:23 pmptt says:
MaryG,
Cinco de Mayo is celebrated more in the U.S. than it is in Mexico. It’s not a Mexican national holiday. It’s sort of like St. Patrick’s Day for the Irish or Columbus Day for the Italians (though with less historical baggage). It’s a Mexican-American holiday.
Frankly, without support from beer companies and anglos who like to drink beer, I suspect the day would never have grown so popular.
May 6, 2010, 11:36 pmMaryG says:
I live in the north, so I’m not certain how y’all answer this question but:
Is it well acknowledged that Americans and Mexicans are rivals, and wearing one’s colors or the others is akin to wearing a rival school’s jersey?
Do you think the white boys perhaps were protesting against the idea that Mexico “beats” America, and somehow has the moral upper hand? Or were they just supporting the “home team”?
How does the overdramatic talk about Arizona’s new law, say, influence thinking down at the schoolyard level? Are the white kids being made to feel bad, for being “oppressors” if they don’t support open borders?
So much to learn from these little situations, if only we keep our eyes and ears open and don’t come in imposing our own politically correct thoughts on such situations.
May 6, 2010, 11:37 pmMaryG says:
Thanks for the background, ptt. Syttende mai is a bigger one around here, owing to our own ethnic heritage.
I suspect the boys indeed weren’t celebrating Cinco as a victory over the French any more than the Mexican American students were. (do we know that these students indeed are Mexican American? or might some be first generation perhaps without papers?)
May 6, 2010, 11:40 pmKazinksi says:
How about if the kids wore American flags on St. Patrick’s Day, or Columbus Day? I don’t think the vice-Principle would bat an eye, and I don’t think it would be an issue with Irish-Americans, or Italian Americans. I don’t think even a British flag would cause a problem on St. Patrick’s day.
What is it that would make the American Flag so incendiary on Cinco de Mayo?
Regardless, it was within the kids free speech rights to wear the flags, so what is the controversy about, are the commenters asserting the Mexican-American kids aren’t capable of asserting self control when seeing an American flag?
May 6, 2010, 11:46 pmChris Travers says:
There’s a semiotic problem here:
No Birkenstocks on Holocaust Remembrance Day! (The tread on birkenstocks is a set of interlocked, curved swastikas.) Also if someone wore a Swastika in a clearly Hindu, Buddhist, or ancient Greek context, would that necessarily be evil? After all the point could be how badly the Nazis misused the symbol, and how we should consider that a tragedy too….
Part of the problem here, as in the flag case, is that a lot of things can mean many things depending on all sorts of things. Categorical statements about what a symbol “means” are not helpful because a given symbol always carries multiple meaning, and in fact can only be defined by it’s relationships to other symbols.
—-
On the hot dog/vegan issue, I used to work at a cafeteria with a lot of foreign students from all over the world. It also served the main college campus as well, which had it’s share of activists for various causes. The local PETA group convinced the cafeteria to celebrate “National Meat-Out day” by only serving vegan meals on that day.
I didn’t like this at all. So instead of arguing directly against the policy, I made a formal request that we observe Ramadan with the Muslims. The management was somewhat less receptive to this idea though…..
May 6, 2010, 11:56 pmMaryG says:
” I don’t think even a British flag would cause a problem on St. Patrick’s day
Oh I disagree. Unless you’re a schoolkid ignorant of the background, that’s baiting and somebody’s gonna take that bait. Perfectly legal, of course, both to express oneself and to deliberately give offense.
May 7, 2010, 12:13 amGary Britt says:
My personal opinion is that in the USA there is no circumstance where wearing depictions of the flag or partial depictions of the flag are or should be considered inappropriate. I would expect the same sentiment to be true in Mexico regarding displays of the Mexican flag or in any other country regarding displays of that country’s flag.
What’s discourteous is to expect the host country and its citizens to disown its own symbols at any time and any place. What’s discourteous is to be a legal or illegal guest in this country and to think displays of another country’s flag to emphasize one’s belief in the superiority of and loyalty to the other country is appropriate behavior. Why such behavior might be considered by some to be racist behavior on the part of the legal or illegal guests in this country.
Gary
May 7, 2010, 12:19 amRicardo says:
Context is always key. If a non-Hindu chose Holocaust Remembrance Day to dig out an old swastika image he picked up on a trip to India 10 years ago and post it prominently outside his home, I think reasonable people could draw certain inferences of what his real intent was. Courtesy is based both on your own intent as well as a reasonable guess as to how your actions will be perceived by others.
This incident reminds me of the Simpson’s episode when Bart invites his Jordanian friend’s family over for dinner. Homer makes sure to have a gaudy American flag cake ready for desert and is always working in comments about how great America is. It’s funny of course because anyone can recognize obnoxiousness when they see it.
Likewise, I think the intent of people who insist on always referring to the current President as Barack Hussein Obama is usually pretty clear unless it is normal in the given context for the full name to be given. I think few intelligent people would doubt the intent of someone who writes a harsh article about the Federal Reserve and repeatedly refers to the current Fed chair as Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.
Context matters as much as content when it comes to issues of courtesy.
May 7, 2010, 12:33 amRicardo says:
Until fairly recently in the U.S., wearing depictions of the flag was considered quite inappropriate. Partly this is due to tradition and symbolism: the flag is meant to be flown from up high where it can flap in the wind as opposed to being a stationary symbol that’s at risk of being soiled. But also I think there is a sense that display of the flag should be dignified. Patriotic one-upmanship is not dignified and shouldn’t be encouraged.
I doubt these students were concerned there were not enough occasions for patriotic or national celebration: schools typically have the Pledge of Allegiance first thing in the morning, frequently play the national anthem as part of special programs or sporting events, and instill patriotism on days as varied as Columbus Day, Veterans Day, the time around Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, Memorial Day and Flag Day.
May 7, 2010, 12:51 amChris Travers says:
Some of the more traditional Kempo styles have swastikas on their dogis (from Buddhist lineage).
My point is that there are actually a lot of legitimate cultural reasons something could come up. I have generally found that display of a swastika is a reason to engage in conversation rather than necessarily jumping to conclusions (also if the person IS a neo-Nazi, deliberately misinterpreting it as a sign he’s Buddhist gets… amusing… results).
May 7, 2010, 12:53 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Disagreement Need Not Equal Discourtesy -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Disagreement Need Not Equal Discourtesy: (Eugene Volokh) Some of the comments to my post on… http://goo.gl/fb/0iFj8 [...]
May 7, 2010, 1:07 amArthur Kirkland says:
Did Larry Flynt wear a flag as a diaper in court?
Unqualified declarations are tricky.
May 7, 2010, 1:13 amunlawyer says:
Yes, that’s why I changed it to express disagreement as opposed to disagree. I realize that one can disagree without expressing disagreement. I was wondering if expressing a disagreement necessarily meant that one was not indulging another.
May 7, 2010, 1:39 amleo marvin says:
Seems pretty discourteous to me. Courtesy implies consideration and respect. If the point was to show their disapproval of celebrations of ethnic pride, they could have done that on any other day. Doing it on the same day as the celebration not only expresses disapproval, it’s an attempt to rain on the parade. That’s not considerate or respectful.
May 7, 2010, 1:49 amleo marvin says:
Put it this way: Protesting a pro gay marriage demonstration with an anti gay marriage counter-demonstration isn’t necessarily discourteous. Protesting a gay wedding with an anti gay marriage demonstration is very discourteous. Wearing the flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo is analogous to the latter.
May 7, 2010, 2:10 amdplomatique says:
EV–”There’s nothing at all rude when students who see some expressing Israeli independence day express an anti-Israel viewpoint. That’s disagreement, but disagreement does not equal discourtesy.”
I am troubled by this issue. I simply see no reason to define the ‘expression of disagreement’ and ‘an act of discourtesy’ as mutually exclusive. I am not entirely familiar with the case law on this subject in terms of the 1st Amendment. That being said, it seems clear to me that certain kinds of speech may be constitutionally protected while at the same time being offensive and discourteous.
May 7, 2010, 2:23 amWere a neo-nazi group to protest in a public space within close proximity to a synagogue during an important Jewish holidsy (such as Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashanah), I think this would be a clearly discourteous act, while simultaneously being an arguably permissible and protected act in light of the Constitution. It seems to me that the Supreme Court’s ‘time, place, and manner’ doctrine is specifically intended to achieve a balance between the right to express offensive speech and the right of others to not be offended by such speech. (Although, of course time/place/manner restrictions on speech are also primarily targeted towards allowing State legislatures to utilize their ‘police powers’ in terms of maintaining control).
That being said, it seems to me that the major philosophical issue in the context of freedom of speech is the balancing of one’s right to speak against the right of others to not be offended. This seems to clearly imply that the expression of disagreement, as justifiable and constitutionally protected as such speech may be, may simultaneously be tremendously hurtful and offensive.
Ricardo says:
In India earlier in the 20th century, there were several incidents of communal riots started by what you might call acts of discourtesy. For instance, there were a couple of cases where Hindus made sure a procession full of raucous music passed by a mosque during prayer time and this resulted in riots. On the other side, Muslims were known in some cases to slaughter a cow near to a Hindu temple which provoked a violent response from Hindus.
Of course, modern India has restrictions on freedom of expression that would be unacceptable in the U.S. to prevent incidents like this from happening. But a school has a bit more wiggle room if there is a genuine fear of violence or retaliation for certain kinds of discourteous speech or dress.
May 7, 2010, 3:41 amPHil says:
It depends on the situation, but when you are being courteous your focus is not on your own comfort or feelings but on the comfort and feelings of another. That’s why it’s tied in with indulgence and forbearance.
(Courtesy has little to do with the first amendment, btw. At any rate, I agree we don’t know what really happened, here. Especially, since other students, whom were wearing the American flag, were allowed to stay in school but these five boys were not.)
May 7, 2010, 6:25 amPHil says:
Speaking of the First Amendment and School – and no, not that it is the same situation as here for multiple reasons – but does anyone know the law concerning school rules that ban gang colors and symbols?
May 7, 2010, 6:33 amMike says:
What if your grandfather proudly served his country in the Nazi military? What if you honestly think Jewish people are wrong and a serious problem (as wrong-headed as this idea may be) but think that killing them all went a bit too far? What if you agree with the parts of Nazism that didn’t involve hating Jews, and want to remember it for its German nationalism and exceptionalism instead?
Sorry, the Holocaust was horrible, Nazis did terrible things, etc…. but I have a real problem with them being this one singular exception to all freedom of speech culture. I’m not a big fan of any culture being forced to forget part of their history and heritage, even the bad parts. Would you have the same opinion of wearing an American flag on the anniversary of V-J day, after the hundreds of thousands of civilians we slaughtered in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? If not, you’re saying there’s some very specific level of evil that makes a political statement rude. And somehow only the Nazi’s have ever crossed it, despite all of the other regimes that have killed millions of civilians.
I’m not trying to equate Nazi war crimes with American ones – there are shades of evil… but it just seems like a weird slope to me. Where’s the cutoff? 2 million civilians? 3 million? Just seems to be more “but the Jewish people had bad stuff happen to them so they’re off limits” than actual a consistent policy.
May 7, 2010, 7:35 amLargo says:
It’s hard for me to know how to give this a coherent reading, much less give a coherent reply, when I find the actions you describe in this grab-bag range from courteous, to discourteous, to amusingly clueless.
To the extent any of these are discourteous, I as one on the “offended” side would probably accost the discourteous one with a jovial “Hi,” especially if there were a natural way to broach the “offense”. Mmm! — Tasty burger? :-)
What do you think — a good response?
May 7, 2010, 7:45 amepeeist says:
Ricardo makes a good point. While I very much doubt the school was justified, there could be evidence of intent not mentioned in the story (EV’s post gave a hypothetical set of circumstances) which could justify the action.
I think the word “niggardly” (which if I recall a D.C. civil servant got in trouble for using by someone who didn’t know the word) is perfectly proper to use. But if one deliberately uses the word frequently to annoy someone, it’s rude because of the intent to be rude.
If one is originally from a state, the current state flag of which incorporates the Confederate battle flag, and wears a garment with that flag on MLK day deliberately to annoy others, it’s rude because of the intent to be rude.
In both of the above situations, IF a school had a reasonable basis to conclude there was such an intention AND it was disruptive of the learning environment, action might be justified (based on the lower standard for schools, though as the post noted California has greater protection than the 1st amendment). However, even assuming the lower standard for schools is justified, I would still think there should be a VERY high threshold on finding the reasonableness of a school holding that wearing a garment with the American flag (or wearing a garment with the state flag while within that state) was objectionable.
May 7, 2010, 8:05 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Right; the whole “on Holocaust Remembrance Day” is a red herring; wearing swastikas on that day is “discourteous” (or, rather, a lot worse) because wearing swastikas is always “discourteous,” not because the day is solemn.
May 7, 2010, 8:08 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
I’m imagining that, and finding it hard to imagine that anybody would be offended by this.
Many of the hypotheticals that people have posed which are arguably offensive are inanalogous because the behaviors they posit are explicitly anti certain groups of people. That’s generally “discourteous” (though not necessarily incorrect). But wearing an American flag is not anti-Mexico. And wearing a Mexican flag in Mexico City is not anti-America.
May 7, 2010, 8:22 amrimfire says:
I really can’t believe you people debating on whether wearing the US flag or it’s colors in the US is equivalent to wearing a swastika or a confederate flag.
May 7, 2010, 8:22 amPHil says:
I would think that’s correct, schools apparently constitutionally control, suppress, etc. rude words and behavior every day.
May 7, 2010, 8:27 amAdam says:
We. Are. Not. In. Mexico.
I don’t care if Mexicans wear Mexican garb on the 4th of July. That’s a whole lot of “not my problem.
In the same token, why can’t a citizen of the United States where an American flag bandanna? That’s absolutely absurd.
Just another reason to stay the hell away from the south west.
May 7, 2010, 9:05 amlibertariansoldier says:
I am with some of the commentators and find myself in disagreement with EV. I think Hitler’s regime was evil, as were many others–Stalin, Mao, Ida Amin. But the swastika was not the regime, and it is the symbol for other things as well. I especially liked rimfire’ comment–although I think centerfire rounds are better.
May 7, 2010, 9:10 amAnderson says:
These have been informative threads. The divide appears to be between those who think it’s worthwhile to be considerate of others, and those who reject such consideration if it impairs their own self-expression.
Obviously, few if any minds are going to be changed on such a fundamental difference in personalities.
May 7, 2010, 9:11 amAnderson says:
But the swastika was not the regime, and it is the symbol for other things as well.
The swastika was adopted by the Nazis in 1920. It became the national flag in 1935. It *was* “the regime.”
… Phun phact: the Finns have used swastikas in their air force flag and various medals since 1918.
May 7, 2010, 9:19 amEconGrad says:
Personally, I cannot think of any situation where wearing a symbol of U.S. pride or patriotism in a prideful and patriotic way, while *in* the United States of America should *ever* result in any adverse action by a government functionary (which public school officials are). If you’re offended by the U.S. flag, it is my ardent desire that you leave the country at once.
May 7, 2010, 9:27 amDesiderius says:
Anderson,
“These have been informative threads. The divide appears to be between those who think it’s worthwhile to be considerate of others”
So everyone else thinks its not worthwhile to be considerate? You do recognize how self-righteous that sounds, right?
Isn’t it a problem when Americans assume that the American flag is inconsiderate, without any knowledge that those wearing it intended it that way?
Maybe those wearing the flag had bad experiences in Mexico and wanted to celebrate being in the U.S.
The assumption that the American flag is anti-mexican is the problem here, and its the ostensibly enlighted making that assumption, not those the enlightened seem awfully anxious to paint as insufficiently sensitive.
May 7, 2010, 9:49 amDesiderius says:
“These have been informative threads”
Good that we have an informant then to note it.
May 7, 2010, 9:51 amZackS says:
Bait and switch. The post is about courtesy, not appropriate government action. And if your point is that you don’t believe wearing the flag “in a prideful and patriotic way” can be offensive, you should reread the Larry Flynt example earlier in the comments.
May 7, 2010, 10:00 amspo says:
People seem to be assuming that all of the Mexican-American students wearing Cinco de Mayo stuff weren’t being rude. Not sure that’s the case, particularly after there were reports of racial slurs being thrown out by some of the student protesters.
May 7, 2010, 10:01 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Pretending that your post was made in good faith (*), the problem I’d that your attitude gives all power to control discourse to the most thin-skinned. But It’s just as discourteous to gratuitously take offense as it is to gratuitously give it.
(*) I strongly doubt you’d have said the same thing if a bunch of black students decided to ostentatiously wear an American flag on Confederate History Day and a bunch of white southerners claimed to take offense.
May 7, 2010, 10:03 amLargo says:
David wins the thread.
May 7, 2010, 10:06 amunlawyer says:
How about this hypothetical. You are standing in line to buy something at a store. Somebody either intentionally or unintentionally (at the moment you can’t tell) cuts in front of you. What is the courteous thing to do?
May 7, 2010, 10:07 amGary Britt says:
To Arthur Kirkland,
The problem with wearing a diaper to court is wearing a *diaper* to court. Its color or the symbols thereon are irrelevant to the problem of wearing a diaper to court.
So if unqualified statements are tricky, my particular unqualified statement on this issue isn’t shown to be tricky by your example.
As to many other comments hereby others, its difficult, for me anyway, to understand why the entire discussion has morphed into what appears to me to be either completely irrelevant or barely related concepts of discourtesy, nazi symbols, etc.
IMHO, this is the USA. Wearing the colors of the USA in the USA should never be considered inappropriate or the creation of a hostile environment, irrespective of whether some other hyper sensitive perpetually a victim person or persons is personally offended thereby.
Those who demand tolerance from others should also be tolerant of the customs and culture of the country in which they reside. The customs and culture of the USA certainly includes displays of the colors and flag of the USA. Just my opinion.
Gary
May 7, 2010, 10:21 amZackS says:
I think the point he was trying to make (or at least the point I read) was that there’s a difference between positive affirmations of heritage (this is who I am and I’m proud of my heritage) and negative/comparative affirmations of cultural superiority(this who I am and it’s better than who you are). I think many people who support the idea that the US flags on Cinco de Mayo were discourteous read the second intent in the student’s actions. It’s possible the Mexican students also may have intended the second message, but in my experience, that’s not typically the intent of minority ethnic pride days.
The Confederate Flag is a trickier symbol. It’s arguable that, because of it’s history, any depiction will convey the second message. It’s similar to the way that EV identifies Nazi symbols as beyond the pale (although Nazi symbols certainly send a much clearer message than the Confederate flag – I’m certainly not trying to say they are the same). That’s why the Confederate flag is so tricky; it is simultaneously a symbol of pride in one’s heritage and a symbol of cultural superiority (if not outright racism). It many contexts, it’s hard to gauge which message is intended, and some audiences (not without justification based on experience) can only see the second message.
When dealing with issues of courtesy, there is certainly a premium placed on how the message will be received (i.e. courtesy, by definition, entails taking into account your audience’s sentiments, regardless of how “thin skinned” you believe your audience to be). That’s why the posters who are advocating a bright line rule that the flag can never be offensive are missing the point. The flag can be used to stigmatize others, and when it is put to that use, it can cause offense.
Standard disclaimer: Discourteous or offensive does not mean it’s not Constitutionally protected.
May 7, 2010, 10:21 amZackS says:
It’s courteous to respond to discourtesy with courtesy. If you’re the only person in line, it’s probably most courteous to let the person ahead of you. If there are others in line, courtesy towards them may inspire you to (politely) confront the scofflaw. It’s a tricky issue. Maybe you should Ask Abby.
Fortunately, we live in modern American and not Victorian England, so we can handle a bit of rudeness now and again.
May 7, 2010, 10:29 amKen Arromdee says:
There’s also the third option: “I think the other culture has gone too far”. This is usually taken as an affirmation of cultural superiority, but it really isn’t.
May 7, 2010, 10:47 amTNeloms says:
This is probably the first time I’ve disagreed with one of EV’s conclusions on an issue like this, and Anderson’s explanation is why. In general, it’s not discourteous to agree. But the kids who wore American flags weren’t disagreeing with anything, since it’s a cultural event.
And even asking the question of whether it’s discourteous is ridiculous in this case because clearly the kids were trying to offend. One of the key elements of the story is that a great amount of tension between these two groups already exists at this school, and it seems obvious that the flags were worn to incite.
As for the Israel Day example, I saw the same thing in college, and it also struck me as odd (and rude). There were students protesting and shouting accusations while we sat there eating falafel and singing songs. It just seemed silly and inappropriate. As Anderson said, because it was purely cultural, there was nothing to “disagree” with.
That being said, I understand how people feel about Israel, and I understand how you could see the Palestinian protest as a disagreement or a contrary opinion. (And I wasn’t offended, I just thought it was odd.) It would be something like, “These students are making it seem as if all Israel is is a docile, peace-loving, falafel-eating country, but we’re here to remind you of the atrocities the government commits and of what the Palestinian lives are like in contrast.” But I just don’t see how there’s anything similar for Mexican heritage and culture.
May 7, 2010, 10:56 amSuperSkeptic says:
You had me until the swastika exception…
May 7, 2010, 11:22 amConstantin says:
People also are assuming that the putatively offended students are Mexican-American, and thus their position is one taken against their own national flag. My guess is a good chunk of the kids aren’t American at all, and that their display on the 5th (and subsequent demands for “respect”) was a show of allegiance to their country, not their heritage.
May 7, 2010, 11:34 amCJColucci says:
What the law permits and what courtesy requires are two different things. Lawyers are not generally considered competent to speak on issues of courtesy, though people disagree about whether the failing is one of knowledge or character.
May 7, 2010, 12:01 pmMark says:
All these comments about whether certain symbols in certain situations warrant someone taking offense make me very thankful for the First Amendment. Thank God (or the Framers) that we never have to have an official decision on any of these matters.
May 7, 2010, 12:04 pmJust me says:
Is there a third option? Isn’t there a point where the reason given for being offended is so meritless, that it shouldn’t be recognized or given any deference?
I keep on thinking that this particular example of the US flag is distinguishable from wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day, etc, because in the latter situations, there somone can be reasonably offended based on the particular circumstances of the event. But isn’t this different from an American school? One of the primary purposes of a public school in the United States is to teach its students the virtue of good citizenship. If someone at the school is offended by the American flag (or the Pledge of Allegiance, or the national anthem, etc.), isn’t this offense so unreasonable as to have no merit?
May 7, 2010, 12:23 pmJane says:
W/r/t EV’s post, any discussion of the first amendment right to free speech is irrelevant. The question is whether the boys acted discourteously, not whether they had a right to do so.
May 7, 2010, 12:31 pm“Swastikas represent evil” to who? Do you think it’s possible that Palestine could represent evil to Israelis? Or that American military power and imperialism represented by the America flag could be offensive to conquered peoples?
Patriotism at the Schoolhouse Gate - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine says:
[...] Eugene Volokh, who knows more about the legality of this than you do, responds to the discourteous charge here and here. [...]
May 7, 2010, 12:50 pmJohn Smith says:
Most telling are the quotes from the offended Hispanic students. In reference to the US and our flag, you’d think they were talking about a foreign country and not their own nation. The major mainstream media (except of course FOX) have ignored this story because they know it’s a big fat loser with most of the Americans they’re currently desperately trying to convince that the AZ anti-immigration law is extremist, racist etc.
May 7, 2010, 1:16 pmJohn Smith says:
You have to love the left. The crucial point here is not that the students rights were violated, but were these boys courteous?
May 7, 2010, 1:51 pmZackS says:
Because EV = left? His original post is what triggered the courtesy conversation. At least on this board, I have not seen anyone jumping to the defense of the school’s actions. Personally, it seems more of a way to drum up disagreement (about courtesy) where there is none (about law). That said, I don’t understand why so many people seem to need to defend the “courtesy” of these students instead of simply stating that these US flag-wearing students should be free to express their views, even if some students may take offense.
May 7, 2010, 2:09 pmKatahdin says:
Am I to refrain from saying ‘I think my wife is a wonderful woman’ at my own dinner table because a guest might take offense? That seems like an analogous situation.
Frankly, I think the discourtesy is on the side of the students objecting to the U.S. flag. If I host a July 4th barbecue for coworkers, I hardly think it is courteous of me to take offense at a Canadian guest who shows up in a Maple Leaf tshirt. Viva la difference – you wear what you like and extend me the courtesy of doing the same.
May 7, 2010, 2:15 pmMikee says:
Schools are not public spaces. Even public places where school events are taking place are not public places, for the students there. See “Bong hits 4 Jesus” or as it is better known, Morse v. Frederick.
School administrators have a duty to suppress speech (even symbolic speech) which is inflammatory and can lead to violence. Given the predilection and history of pro-Palestinian groups for violence against Israelis and pro-Israelis here and abroad, I think this example meets the need for suppression on campus, especially during the pro-Israeli celebrations. Or has dhimmitude spread too far to do so?
May 7, 2010, 2:22 pmZackS says:
If you invite a guest and his wife over for his wife’s birthday, and you celebrate the night with a cake that says “My wife is a wonderful woman,” then yeah, I think your guest might take offense (especially if your wife is richer and prettier than your guest’s). It’s context of the statement, and the intent behind the statement, more than the actual statement itself that causes offense. It’s why I can see the dress of these students as offensive, even though the flag itself is certainly not.
May 7, 2010, 2:24 pmToby says:
Well, and margueritas…
So,when I was in grammar school, it was considered OK to pinch anyone who wore orange on St Patrick’s Day. I recall thinkg it was a bizarre tradition, afflicting those who could not remember.
It was a decade later before I knew of the symbolisim of Orange in Ireland
May 7, 2010, 2:36 pmConstantin says:
Again, it’s a near certainty that many of them actually are, as a technical matter, speaking of a foreign nation when discussing the American flag. And for those who are citizens, allegiances still lie elsewhere.
Who wants to be a part of the melting pot, anyway? There’s no future in it.
May 7, 2010, 2:43 pmPhilistine says:
Would it impact on your St. Patrick’s Day hypothetical if half of the school’s population had an Irish background?
May 7, 2010, 2:47 pmVejadu says:
I have to wonder what part of the country these comments are all coming from. In Oregon, my hometown has doubled in size in the past 20 years. At the same time the mix has gone from 5% to 20% Hispanic. This is a salad bowl, not a mixing pot. Perception is that ongoing efforts by the established community (Anglo/Hispanic alike) to embrace/enfold the newcomers has been rebuffed. The recent arrivals don’t want to learn English, don’t want to attend church (either Catholic or Protestant), don’t want to shop or drink or work with the rest of the community. They don’t register to vote and based on rental figures, not many of them are buying property. Parallel societies. Not sure if other communities are experiencing this willful detachment on the part of the newcomers. I emphasize that because Hispanics have been strong members of the community for 100 years here (Hispanic politicians, teachers, business men, sherrif’s, etc). This new lot – mainly from Central America/not Mexico, is very stand-offish. And no – they don’t stand for the national anthem at ball games/assemblies – and the teachers/administrators don’t care.
May 7, 2010, 2:52 pmEconGrad says:
Not a bait and switch at all. I can take umbrage with any part of it I like. I personally don’t give a damn if anybody thinks wearing clothing bearing the American flag is discourteous or not. Their opinion of my courtesy is irrelevant unless they: a) escalate their opinion to violence (which would be swiftly and terminally dealt with) or b) are a government functionary that uses their official station to suppress my (or my hypothetical childrens’) expression.
May 7, 2010, 3:03 pmZackS says:
Then why comment on a post about discourtesy?
May 7, 2010, 3:25 pmMarkF says:
A mind-reader! Just who we need to detect thoughtcrime! Please apply for a high-paying job with the FBI; you are needed to enforce the new hate-crime law.
May 7, 2010, 3:48 pmConstantin says:
Yeah. My side is the one going after thoughtcrimes.
May 7, 2010, 3:57 pmChris Travers says:
Because a couple of decades is more important historically than several millenia…..
Look: religiously I use the swastika (by another name) in rituals just as it appears in bronze-age and iron age finds. To me one of the tragedies of Nazism is the way that this great symbol from our collective human heritage (independently occurring in a number of different parts of the world) has been gravely tarnished.
Also “wearing” swastikas is more common than you think. Pay close attention to the treads on birkenstocks….
May 7, 2010, 4:16 pmleo marvin says:
But we already knew hippies were Nazis, didn’t we?
May 7, 2010, 4:35 pmChris Travers says:
Between the birkenstocks and Volkswagens….. And an uncanny resemblance between the “peace” sign and the way Germans use the “yr” sign to mean “death.”
May 7, 2010, 4:45 pmChrisTS says:
No. But the question of rudeness is the subject of this post.
I;m thrilled to have been the featured (if mistaken) commenter. Sorry I have been to busy to wiegh in today. However, I think any arguments I would have offered have been made by others.
May 7, 2010, 4:49 pmRich Rostrom says:
Chris Travers says:
“Anderson: The swastika was adopted by the Nazis in 1920. It became the national flag in 1935. It *was* ‘the regime.’
Because a couple of decades is more important historically than several millenia…”
Because very high-profile use on a massive scales outweighs previous low-profile and occasional use.
The sauvastika was used as a religious symbol by some Hindus, Buddhists, and American Indians, at some times. It was never the primary, universally recognized symbol of any of these religions.
The only group to adopt the swastika as the central symbol of its creed, and use it ubiquitously, was the Nazi – and they used it and displayed it on a massive scale. They took it over.
Hard cheese for others who had used it earlier – but that’s what happened.
May 7, 2010, 5:48 pmChrisTS says:
Good grief: here I am, the unnamed but featured guest-errer and the one message I posted is loaded with typos. Sigh.
I suppose we should be happy that it took most of the comments before we got to these lovelies:
Of course! Why would genuine, decent U.S. citizens celebrate any ethnic heritage? Pretty much what my great-grandmother said of the Irish.
May 7, 2010, 8:31 pmKarl Ketzer says:
Yet more evidence that multiculturalism is an abject failure that must be managed by creaking government bureaucracies.
May 7, 2010, 10:03 pmKev says:
Then perhaps we should discuss whether or not it’s appropriate to have “someone else’s celebration” in (everyone’s) school in the first place. Why not devote the school day to learning about our commonalities and save the “before the hyphen” type of celebrations for the home? (If I recall, schools were once charged with developing good citizens. Whatever happened to that?)
May 7, 2010, 10:22 pmKev says:
Celebrate it? Sure. Allow the whole of your existence to be defined by it? Bad idea; from those roots, so many truly awful things (group identity politics, PC, etc.) have sprung.
May 7, 2010, 10:26 pmleo marvin says:
ZackS,
I see you made the same point I did, but yours was first and better. And it only took me a day to notice.
May 8, 2010, 1:02 amTGGP says:
Robin Hanson disagrees:
May 8, 2010, 5:11 pmhttp://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/disagreement-is.html
Largo says:
And I disagree with Robin Hanson on this point — but I respect him :)
[As someone said in Robert's comment thread to that very post: If I had no respect for someone, I would not waste my time by expressing disagreement to him.]
May 9, 2010, 8:41 amTGGP says:
Don’t people who respond to someone by saying something like “F*** you! I hope you burn in hell!” both waste time and disrespect someone?
May 9, 2010, 3:22 pmLargo says:
They do. But I don’t get your point.
If a prosecutor asks me to identify who I saw with the knife that night, and I point to the defendant, and the defendant says “FU-Burn in hell!”, this is not a denial of my statement. There is no disagreement here, however much the defendant’s behavior is “disagreeable” (let language not bewitch us here. I might say that some foods do not agree with me (they give me indigestion), but not that we are in disagreement.)
In any case, discussion is likely to be unfruitful if we do not distinguish between disagreement and expressions of disagreement, and between the different forms these expressions can take.
Now TGGP, If I were to cry “strawman!” at your example, I would be disrespecting you. Instead of this, I am accepting it as a step in the conversation made my you in good faith. Perhaps we can use our exchange here as a case study. I invite you to to suggest how the following two questions should best be answered:
(1) I am disagreeing with you
(2) I am disrespecting you.
As for me, I will answer: (1) No, at least strictly speaking, since you said nothing which I would deny. Instead of asserting something, you asked a question. I do love questions; they keep even disagreements to a minimum, and help us find were the real and perhaps significant disagreements lay. (2) No, I hope not, but that is a social matter and I am socially somewhat tone deaf, so you may correct me here.
May 9, 2010, 6:32 pmLargo says:
Just one little followup, because the English language is really neat!
There are many ways to add qualifiers to what we say that act as grace notes, as it were. To say “I don’t think this is the case” is often more polite than saying “this isn’t the case”. It is nice that in English one can even choose to conjugate one’s verb to that effect. Someone over dinner speaks of a whale being a rather impressive fish. Another says to the first “I had always thought a whale was a mammal”. This is gentle correction compared to “I have always thought a whale was a mammal.” The first suggests the continuation “…but maybe I’m wrong? Perhaps I should reconsider or recheck” — even if this other is an esteemed marine biologist who does know the difference.
But as to one being disrespectful by not qualifying what one says with such grace notes, that I think is depends greatly on context. [What is often polite disagreement between professional philosopher can be considered quite rude in some other areas of the Humanities, as revealed by apologies made by a host to a speaker concerning some of the questions the audience raised, with the speaker saying "No apologies are need. This is always how we talk amongst ourselves!" at some mixed conference. I read this somewhere at Crooked Timber, but do not recall the post.]
May 9, 2010, 6:41 pm