General Lee to get new paint job

[tjr42px]

So Bubba Watson is going to paint over the confederate flag.
mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/sports/golf/bubba-watson-will-paint-over-confederate-flag-on-dukes-of-hazzard-car.html?referrer=&_r=0
And this douche has a problem with it.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/06/new-home-for-dukes-hazzard-general-lee/

I was hesitant to even click that second link when I saw "Foxnews.com"

Interesting point to the conversation. General Lee...the confederate Army general, was personally against slavery. Now the car (with the Stars and Stripes) can link the man with ideals more in line with his own instead of linking his name with a flag that is synonymous with racial inequality.

[superlim9]

I have a problem with trying to re-write history and make believe that it will make things ok. When it comes to this particular item, I think its about getting publicity

[tjr42px]

I don't think this about rewriting history. I think it's more about putting what that history implicates in the present context. The symbolism of the confederate flag has deep ties to racism, slavery, inequality, etc. taking down the flag in SC or painting over it on a car won't change history. We shouldn't rewrite it IMO, but learn from it. We should teach it honestly and acknowledge where wrongs were made. But taking down flags also will help to not perpetuate validation of those ideals. That's not to say it will end racism or anything, but a state that flys a flag that represents inequality sends a specific and hateful message. It basically says "yeah we are proud with that part of our history." And tacitly may imply "let's bring that back."

There are a lot of comparisons being made with other symbols such as swastikas in this discussion. Not flying a flag with a swastika doesn't change history, but many would agree that it represents a specific set of ideals. Few people would have a problem if that flag was taken down or painted over. The confederate flag is no different IMO.

You aren't making this argument but others have: the confederate flag originally stood for things other than what it currently is thought of representing and is part of southern heritage so what's the big deal?
1) same could be said for the swastika. In most cultures that symbol had a positive connotation prior to its use by the Nazi party. That's partly why Hitler chose it.
2) such an argument further marginalizes those in which that symbol represents hate spewed at their ancestors. It essentially says, "yeah you find it hurtful and threatening, but I choose to ignore you and your feelings on the matter."

---
As for the car. The few articles I've read about Watson...A big reason he hasn't painted over it before now is because of the outcry he thought would happen for defacing an iconic car if he did. Now, not only can he paint over it without much issue, but can make a public statement on the subject and have huge support in doing so. So yeah it is about publicity, but Watson gets little out of it personally. But publicly he's saying I'm on the side of #takedowntheflag.

[superlim9]

Oh.. I completely agree with you on that point when it comes to flying the flag in public even private property, especially on government property. and in general, flying it, any way you look at it. It has been turned into a symbol of hate and racism.

but repainting a prop car from a 70's TV show because of it.. if anything, I'd rather just see it painted over orange then have a US flag painted on it

I just think people on both sides of the argument are seeing red and its turning into more then it should... stop selling it, stop flying it

[tjr42px]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other if it's Stars and Stripes or just orange. I'm curious though why do you favor just orange?

[superlim9]

I see putting stars and stripes on it as trying to re-write... in my opinion, the car should go into a collection or transportation museum and stay as it is.But if he wants to drive it around and take into public view then just paint it orange or cover it with a vinynl wrap... once its modified its no longer the general lee. The car and the flag had a different meaning in the show.

But that's the key to whole argument, it means different things to different people. Some used it to signify they're hatred for others and that's what people will always remember over anything else.

To me it's about understanding history instead of trying to change/or remove it from the history books, use it as a teaching moment and to spawn conversations as to what, how and why it happened and how to prevent it in our future. The surge of the movement to basically remove all the confederate monuments from everywhere that has spun up the last week is absolutely crazy. Where do you draw the line? Somebody will always be offended by something.

It could be argued that then you have bulldoze all of germany/poland/austria as well.. holocaust monuments and museums need to go... have to demolish the Colosseum in Rome after that, all the WWII monuments are next.

[tjr42px]

I can get with not glossing over or removing truths from history. I agree that historical pieces should promote discussion not just be swept under the rug. I don't think we need to bulldoze Germany, Poland, the colosseum or the U.S. for that matter. But I see those things as historical. Truths for us to discuss. It was what was, let's talk about it and be better for it. A prop used in a TV show is hardly historical IMO. Changing the flag to orange or Stars and Stripes only changes a fictional "icon" not the historical context. This is a similar argument to why all the LOTRs actors are white. "Well, we wanted the movie to be historically accurate." Pretty sure middle earth is fictional as is Hazzard County. Maybe a better rational is "we want things to be like they were in shows we like." Which lets be honest are created by white guys with tons of privilege.

[superlim9]

My point is that its been a knee jerk reaction to completely remove anything to do with the confederacy from the surface of the earth in the last few weeks, and now the NAACP has gone as far as to say that Georgia needs to destroy the facade on Stone Mountain.

I agree with a lot of whats gone on in the name of progress but I just think Dukes of hazard is so far on the other end of the spectrum of whats offensive.  I understand the argument but just don't see eye to eye with actions taken in some cases

There's the same argument going on over the new movie with Bradley cooper in Hawaii.. how there's no Hawaiian people in the movie

[tjr42px]

I see where people are coming from though. It's easy as a white man (referring to myself) to not see what the deal is. Frankly, it just doesn't occur to me because it doesn't has to. But if I'm watching something that is about Hawaiian culture (goes for any culture) and they aren't represented?...and I'm part of that group, I'd be pissed. It's so dismissive (at best).

***trigger warning, lynching mentioned***

What are your thoughts about this? www.ibtimes.com/black-history-month-2015-racial-justice-group-plans-mark-thousands-sites-where-blacks-1811260

I was talking about the Confederate flag the other day and asked someone their thoughts on marking sites of lynchings. they were appalled. "Why go there? That's just awful to point out and highlight." Well, that's exactly what the Confederate flag means to millions of people who see it. No matter if it's flown outside congress, painted on a car, or chiseled into a rock that's the message. It may not mean that to everyone, but if a large enough group is saying it is so...at the very least we need to listen. If it hurts to think about it in the abstract, just consider for a moment how it feels to be part of the group those messages/actions were/are targeted at.

[superlim9]

My POV on the article you posted is limited. If that is something that people want to put up, all the more power to them. Personally I don't feel its up to me be against it.

Commonsense would lead me to think it'd be a logistical nightmare if not an impossible feet to accomplish, in I'd say at least 50% of the locations the atrocities took place, due to being private property or just lack of community support. I'd think putting up a memorial plaque/monument in the Counties or town's would be a much more logical approach if I wanted to bring attention to the deaths.

It's a very difficult subject to not offend somebody at some point if not immediately.

For the sake of conversation I would want to ask what the organizers would hope to be gained by doing this because I disagree that it would heal any wounds, like the article stated as the motivation. It may increase the historical knowledge that today's younger generation possess (being only 33 yrs old myself, I feel that isn't very high) but I don't feel it'll heal anything.