SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Courthouse News Service reports
A woman climbed a flagpole and cut down the Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina statehouse Saturday before promptly being arrested and seeing the banner raised again less than an hour later.
Bree Newsome, dressed in climbing gear, spoke respectfully with police gathered at the base of the flag pole as she continued to move ever closer to the flag. A video of her climb captures Newsome, a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina, talking to police from about two-thirds the way up the 30-foot pole, evidently acknowledging her imminent arrest.
"I know sir. I'm prepared", she says.
"Ma'am, come down off the pole", the officers yell as passing motorists honked their horns at the scene.
"You cannot get to me with hatred and oppression and violence", Newsome shouted as she cut the flag down. "In the name of God, this flag comes down today."
The New York Daily News identifies the woman as Brittany Ann Byuarium (Bree) Newsome of Charlotte, NC and continues
[...] When she reached the bottom, State Police took the flag out of her hands and arrested her. Another North Carolina activist, James Tyson, climbed over the four-foot wrought-iron fence and held the pole to make sure Newsome didn't fall, Lewis said. He was arrested alongside Newsome as a group of onlookers cheered off camera. The 30-year-olds were charged with defacing a monument on state Capitol grounds, a misdemeanor that can bring up to three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
A judge ordered $3,000 bond for each of them and said they were free to travel to other states.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by penguinoid on Monday June 29 2015, @04:04AM
So, someone who damages someone else's property because they can't stand their flying a flag they disapprove of, is a champion in the fight against hatred and violence?
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:29AM
The confederate flag was not flown between the civil war, and the beginning of civil rights legislation / decisions. Flying the confederate flag really began with the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, and the subsequent attempts to integrate schools as a symbol of the opposition to recognizing black people as full human beings.
It is a symbol of racism that the white southern racists, and the the white northern racists rally around. It really has no other symbolism in its modern usage. And, it was virtually non-existent prior to the civil rights era of the mid twentieth century, so whatever pre-civil rights era historical symbolism it had was not powerful enough for any of these state capitols to bother flying the flag.
So, yes. Taking down a symbol of racism flying on an official government building is championing the fight against racism (and all that entails-- including horrific state sponsored violence).
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:31AM
You're right on the broad strokes but missed the date in this specific case.
Brown v Board was decided in 1954.
1953 - 1961 (Republican) Eisenhower was in the White House.
He did as little as possible on the Civil Rights front and only acted -after- there was violence.
Such events [wordpress.com] were depicted brilliantly [wordpress.com] by Norman Rockwell. [scottmcd.net]
The South Carolina legislature resolved to start flying the Southern Cross in 1961 when (Liberal Democrat) John F. Kennedy was elected President and his administration showed support for Civil Rights.
The period you reference was the beginning of the migration of Southern politicians to the Republican Party and actually began in earnest in 1948 (See also: Dixiecrats).
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @07:44PM
1953 - 1961 (Republican) Eisenhower was in the White House.
Yes Eisenhower was BEFORE the "White Democratic Party" became just the Democratic Party, and all the southern racist white Democrats (also called Dixicrats) moved over to the Republican Party.
Republicans used to be the less racist party, then the Dems and Repubs swapped.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday June 29 2015, @05:49AM
What better flag to fly in the face of disputed federal intervention than the one of ultimate defiance? The defining battle of American politics is what jurisdictional areas belong to which layer of government. Do we accept complete and limitless power held in the hands of the feds? Or do we use the Tenth Amendment to let states decide what is not expressly reserved by the feds? Take a look at cannabis and hemp politics and you'll see the same discussion - the federal government has no right to limit intrastate trade.
The Southern flag has been losing its racist meaning for some time now, becoming effectively a regional pride flag. It has been worn by black rappers like Ludacris. Was Lynyrd Skynyrd's prominent use of the flag racist while they were playing music that was strongly influenced by black artists? Maybe to people in other parts of the country who only see the flag on television view it as solely racist, just as people who only see black people on television news have warped views of black people being only criminals.
For a not insignificant portion of white (and some black) Southerners, the Confederate Battle Flag stands for the valor and sacrifice of their ancestors. To coastal urbanites, this sort of sense of history and legacy isn't something we have. How many of us here know our family history back more than a century and a half? To those Southern folks, having an official state government building proudly showing the flags makes sense. Remember that the men who fought and died under this flag were doing so under the authority of the very states where this flag flies on state grounds.
I'd rather see more use of the flag, even by proud black Southerners, than to see it slandered and hidden.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by mendax on Monday June 29 2015, @06:39AM
It seems that South Carolina needs reconquered once again to remind those nutcases once again that they lost the Civil War. The adage coined by James Petigru, one of its senators I believe in 1861, when South Carolina left the union remains an accurate statement today: "South Carolina is too small to be a state and too large to be an insane asylum." The war is over, the South lost, live with it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:43PM
> The war is over, the South lost, live with it.
The South didn't lose, the slavers lost. Plenty of people in the South were not on board with fighting for the right of the rich to keep slaves, they just didn't have economic clout to impose their will on their neighbors. It is important to stop giving the slavers and racists false legitimacy by conflating their loss with a defeat for South as a whole. The rest of the South actually won when the slavers lost.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:15PM
>The rest of the South actually won when the slavers lost.
Well, that might have been true, if not for the carpet-baggers and other exploitation levied against the South following their defeat. Not to mention all the friends and family who lost their lives after being drafted by the Confederate army. Being on the losing side of a drawn-out shooting war is rarely a victory, no matter whose ideology you might support.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Monday June 29 2015, @06:52AM
You're wrong on just about everything you say.
The confederate flag has been GAINING racist meaning for decades. As others have pointed out, the flag wasn't used till the 60s.
There are a lot better flags with a lot less racist overtones to wave in the face of the feds. Try Gadsden flag.
If being a racist is how you think you will control the federal government you are sadly mistaken. Guys like you empower federal overreaching.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:12AM
Gaining? With the Klan and racist politicians largely unable to have any significant impact for the last few decades I'd say that's not true at all. The future is bright, despite the media's narrative.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:52AM
"And this is why I am justified to disregard your property rights."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:10PM
Government buildings are property of The People. There are no private property rights to disregard here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:09AM
In this case, The People of South Carolina. The woman that did this is from North Carolina.
(Score: 2, Informative) by deathlyslow on Monday June 29 2015, @05:08PM
Just a point of fact here. The flag was removed from the state house proper around 15 years ago. The currently flying flag is on the grounds, on a 20 foot tall pole next a monument for fallen confederate soldiers, but not on the state house itself like it used to.
Neither good nor bad just the facts.
Personally I think it should be in a museum just like any other historically significant piece. That's where it belongs, not on the even on the grounds of my home state.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:45AM
It originally started as a battle flag for the Northern VA army in the battle of Bull Run, for the most prosaic of reasons: The original confederate flag looked too much like the US flag and commanders couldn't tell them apart in battle. It's origin in Fairfax county is documented by this nondescript [washingtonpost.com] sign along the highway.
It became a symbol of racism and hatred later, and while I don't think it should be banned by the government (freedom of speech and all that), it definitely has no business flying above an official government building these days.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:31AM
That flag is the property of the people of South Carolina, 30 percent of whom are black and consider the display of a symbol of 400 years of their oppression to be a slap in their faces.
...not to mention the other citizens of SC who aren't racist Reactionaries--a total of 44 percent by my count. [ballotpedia.org]
So, would it be OK to burn a giant cross on the grounds of the Capitol?
Your White Privilege is showing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmn32480 on Monday June 29 2015, @03:20PM
So is your complete intolerance of someone's views who don't match your own. For someone who wants tolerance for their viewpoint, you certainly seem to not care about what others have to say.
This is the problem with many on both sides, but seems to be more prevalent on the left. "If you don't agree with me I will name call and insult you try to turn the conversation to some other topic instead of having a genuine discussion about the issue that can be backed up with facts."
There are MILLIONS of people who have come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back and have prospered regardless of their race or color of their skin. My family is an example of this. They fled Cuba AFTER Castro took over, and left with what they could fit in their suitcases. They have worked hard, gotten educated, and prospered. They
The chant of racism is most often screamed by those who prosper from it. The Al Sharptons of the world are the most ready examples. These people are divisive and should be called out as such by all sides.
Please, take your white privilege argument and find a nice place to stick it.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @09:47PM
There is a reason the Founding Fathers chose to adopt a written Constitution (with the individual states following suite).
It was to specify what powers the government(s) have and what is strictly out of bounds.
There is a reason that they also set the bar at 75 percent to change the rules.
The 50.0001 percent getting to impose unjust and inhuman paradigms on everyone else was what they meant to exclude.
Your scorn for the principles of Constitutional Democracy is showing.
You seem to like the First Amendment--until you don't (because it would limit someone's expression of his racist prejudices in the name of all).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:51AM
Obviously I missed something that I said for you to go off on this tangent and talk around the issue. Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1) by Eristone on Monday June 29 2015, @09:47PM
It is posts like this that remind me that people don't pay much attention to history, the laws that were in effect until roughly 1965 and then the societal rules that were in effect til roughly... (looking at my watch) yep. Look up red-lining. Look up racial restrictive covenants. Look up "white flight". Unlike those who fled Cuba (and personally I am glad that your family was able to make it starting out with as little as they had available), the typical negro family could either not get credit, or if it was available it would be at crazy interest rates, were restricted in where they could live, who they could associate with and $DEITY help the poor sap who thought the white girl was cute - if he was lucky he was able to crawl away.
After 1965, it became illegal for the government to officially keep you down, but that did not change the bureaucracy - that change took the people running it to retire, die, be replaced or see their error. Considering some police departments, the "die" part hasn't happened yet. Speaking of family stories, my father used to tell the one where (early 70s) an aerospace company in Southern California would supply the pens the applicants would use to fill out applications. African Americans would be given blue pens, White applicants were given black pens. Applications filled out in blue ink would go to the very bottom of the pile when they started to screen people.
If you move to say 2014, wasn't there a case of a fraternity that stated it would never have African American members in Oklahoma? Racism in this country is still there, just not as up front as it was in the days of "Whites Only" water fountains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:14PM
Which is why only people on the so-called "left" readily call everyone who disagrees with them an "SJW" and have nothing but sophistry to their arguments. Oh wait...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:17AM
I'll take "Statements That SJWs Won't Admit Are Racist" for $1000, Alex.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @04:35AM
Taking it down, from a public place, is not damaging it.
Its a public service.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by penguinoid on Monday June 29 2015, @05:06AM
Then how would you feel about someone illegally taking down an American flag, or a church's cross? There's plenty of people who would consider those also a symbol of hatred, intolerance, murder, racism, etc. and would consider it a public service to take them down.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @05:22AM
Pretty much happens all the time. Someone's always tearing down and burning the flag. Its illegal, but we consider it a valid form of speech, and pretty much ignore it.
Next?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @06:45AM
The difference here is that those people burn flags they themselves own.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 29 2015, @10:10AM
Dafuq? If you burn YOUR flag, it's not my biz. If you ruin the flag on public buildings, it's my biz too. Would you like me to come to your home and destroy all windows partitions? Believe me, the confederate flag is NOTHING compared to windows. And I'll destroy your TV too. Much crap comes through it. Again, the confederate flag is nothing compared to TV. Fact is, my violation of others property is worse than the moral statement I'd do against whatever flag.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:18PM
All this comparison of things on public, government property to anything privately-owned or on private property is fallicious. Come on, I know you know this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:28AM
Trying to argue that the two are too different to compare is fallacious. Come on, I know you know this. It's illegal to damage or destroy anything that you don't own yourself, and you personally do not own public or government property. Therefore, it's illegal to damage or destroy public or government property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:46AM
They're not the same, but The People have collective ownership of that property. It's not one or a few person's job to take it down.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 29 2015, @12:16PM
Not illegal: http://thelawdictionary.org/article/is-flag-burning-illegal/ [thelawdictionary.org]
The only gotcha is you can be cited for starting a fire without a permit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 29 2015, @12:34PM
That is free speech. But of course you are trespassing and causing property damage if those items do not belong to you. This woman was prepared to accept her arrest in order to make a statement.
The difference here is the American flag represents an entire nation. As a nation, The USA and its flag were never explicitly created to represent any of those things you listed. Of course this nation has its fair share of misdeeds but the Flag has never and does not outright represent those misdeeds.
The confederate flag was explicitly created to represent racial bigotry. If you want a good comparison: can you separate the racial ideologies of the Nazi party from its flag? Do you ever think it would be appropriate for a German government building to fly a Nazi flag? Of course not. And the same thing goes for any government building in the USA in regard to the Confederate battle flag.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by penguinoid on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:46AM
The confederate flag was explicitly created to represent racial bigotry.
...said the lying racist bigot.
Look, I get that you're trying to make yourself seem politically correct and virtuous and anti-racism, but this statement just shows you for the bigot you are.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:10AM
Childish name calling. Is that the best you got? If your going to attack me you better bring some real arguments to the table. Otherwise go back to the child's table and finish your veggies.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:12AM
And before you get all grammar Nazi on me, I realize I misspelled you're.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:40AM
Childish name calling.
...said the childish name-caller.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:48AM
If your going to attack me you better bring some real arguments to the table. Otherwise go back to the child's table and finish your veggies.
OK, proof that LoRdTAW is a bigot:
"The confederate flag was explicitly created to represent racial bigotry." -- LoRdTAW June 29, 08:34AM (#202753)
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:05AM
No that is a statement of fact. Bigotry is simply an intolerance of another persons opinion. And if being intolerant of racism is bigotry then I am guilty.
And word of advice: Name calling is not an argument. It's pretty damn weak. Now, finish your veggies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:34AM
Do you have any proof to back up that statement, or are you just using the logic "Confederate flag -> the 'south' -> slavery -> racism"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:40PM
You just answered your own question: Confederate flag -> the 'south' -> slavery -> racism. DUH!
I suppose Americans are not only bad at geography but also their own history. Talk about bad at history, so many of them think the world is only a few thousand years old. No wonder why they are on a downslide.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:23AM
What if you're intolerant of state's rights, freedom of speech, *soldiers who died defending their land, but pretend that what you're intolerant of is racism? And what if you use **lies to justify that? You're exactly the sort of person who, 100 years ago, would have been telling everyone exactly what God gave people black skin as a representation of -- because back then, that would have been a popular viewpoint.
*which the specific flag in this story is about
**"The confederate flag was explicitly created to represent racial bigotry." -- LoRdTAW June 29, 08:34AM (#202753)
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:14AM
that's not what "proof" means, nor what "bigot" means. how does pointing out facts make one a bigot? please, do explain.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:13AM
Using lies to disparage a large group of people, sounds like bigotry to me.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:14AM
and who is the large group of people being disparaged with lies here, with a comment about an inanimate object?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:11AM
What does "politically correct" mean?
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday June 29 2015, @11:25AM
OK, who has taken over frojack's account? He's making sense, and this is seriously starting to worry me!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday June 29 2015, @09:12AM
Curiously, I think she'd have been more likely to get away with it if she'd have used a flamethrower to burn it from a distance, as there's precedent for flag-burning being constitutionally-protected free speech.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:38AM
It damaged her own reputation. My first thought was, "what a fucking idiot!" and I snickered while I read the summary.
She didn't "make a statement" or anything by doing this. She probably would've had better luck just writing a letter to her representatives. All she's done by doing this is make it clear that she's a moron who can climb poles and hates confederate flags.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:44PM
God hates flags!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:30PM
> It damaged her own reputation. My first thought was, "what a fucking idiot!" and I snickered while I read the summary.
You know ... damaging your opinion of someone you've never heard of before and won't even remember her name tomorrow is no damage at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:39AM
Ouch, why so cold?
Everyone's opinion matters. Everyone's thoughts matter.
I think she's a moron and it was a funny story. Her opinion still matters too. But because my feelings for some reason make me think this is all funny, you don't think my opinions matter as much as hers anymore? Geez.
I think it's hilarious and that she's a moron for the same reason that I think The Three Stooges are hilarious morons when they do ridiculous things. It's not malice. How does my opinion weigh on your scale with that in mind?
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Monday June 29 2015, @07:19PM
The damage is the 45 minutes it took someone to put it back up. If I let the air out of your tires, wouldn't you consider that damage?
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:21PM
> there's precedent for flag-burning being constitutionally-protected free speech
There is. But without checking I strongly suspect it's limited to burning flags that YOU own - burning a flag owned by someone else is, at the very least, destruction of property. Just like burning someone's bedsheets would be.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:25PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves