On June 17th Dylann Roof open fired in an AME church killing 9 people. He stated starkly upon his surrender that he wanted to start a race war. He stood holding the confederate flag as a testament to his disdain for the racial situation in America and his stance was heard resoundingly loud!
So loud that there is now a large debate surrounding the state of South Carolina's decision to fly the confederate flag even still today in 2015.
A little history on the confederate flag.
In 1860 South Carolina was the first state to succeed from the union following the election of Abraham Lincoln. The civil war fought between confederate states and union states from 1861-1865 ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee's army to Ulysses S. Grant.
The current flag that is considered the "confederate flag" is actually the flag of Robert E. Lee's army. Following the war in the atmosphere of intolerant racism and insurmountable violent crimes, the flag became the emblem of notorious white supremacist groups including the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Likewise political groups such as the "Dixiecrats" adopted the flag as a representative symbol in their opposition to civil-rights platforms of the democratic party. Essentially, Gen. Robert E. Lee's army's flag became synonymous with racial inequality, bigotry, and the divide of great country.
Today, many white supremacist groups still utilize the flag as a symbol of their superiority and the inferiority of any and all other races. It is true that some southerners believe the flag to be a sign of southern pride or a symbol of remembrance for their family members who fought in the war.
If the flag that Robert E. Lee flew when he led his troops into battle had been the only symbol of the confederacy then the sentiments regarding cultural relevance and historical homage might make sense to me. However, Robert E. Lee and his army represented Northern Virginia....therefore the memoirs of that flag should be contained to those that fought at its staff. Since, there are several versions and people are so hell bent on remembering one of our nations most tumultuous times it would seem only sensible that the flag associated with the confederate state would be flown. Instead, former confederate states have chosen to fly a flag that has become symbolic with racism, inequality and perpetual hatred of African Americans.
The insistence on flying this symbol provides not only controversy but a contradiction to the mission of the US to be an inclusive country.
The confederacy lost the war, so to me the constant flying of the confederate flag assumes the opposite. Perhaps states that still fly the flag in some way are in denial of the concession of the confederacy to the union.
Aside from the inherent meaning of the confederate flag and its embedded racist history, the laws surrounding it's display are noteworthy in that they allow the flag to fly at full mast regardless of the nations flag or the state flag. Proponents of this practice admonish that lowering the flag would give it sovereignty of which it is not due, while opponents find it's stark stance over the American flag morally defiant and derogatory.
If the confederate flag is a symbol, a war veteran's homage, I would like propose that instead of the racially infamous confederate flag why not build a memorial? States across the nation have war memorials for battle fought. these monuments memorialize soldiers lost as well as triumphs gained. They are not outwardly offensive in nature nor do they represent any other groups in our nation. They are strictly dedicated to the memory of the war. Why would a war vet want to share his memorial symbol with a racist hate group unless he was a part of said group? And why would a state choose to fly the symbol of a racist hate group unless they condone and concede the beliefs and practices of that group? Seems these southern states have some thinking to do.
I can remember another group in history who has a symbol that if flown today would be derogatory as it is discriminatory against a group of people regardless of its representation of an ancestry. You guessed it, the swastika. Surely there are people on this earth in this country who identify strongly with the politics of Adolf Hitler and his crew and would gladly see a swastika painted on every government building in the nation however because we are a nation of inclusivity we do not allow such symbols to be displayed.
And just to really ice the cake on this debate:
Keith Harmon of South Carolina has publicly declared that should the confederate flag be removed from public property and banned from being flown by government authorities, he will petition for the African American Monument to be removed as well.
Keith- If your flag is a tribute to your heritage and not an attempt to reinforce racist ideals, then why would you meet the action with a racist reaction?
Unfortunately for him, he is reinforcing the reasons that the flag must come down. It is disrespectful that even in the nation plight on September 11 2001, or on Veterans Day, or memorial day the confederate flag where flown remains at full mast while the American flag and state flags fly low in reverence for the occasion.
Perhaps states that fly the flag, should be treated if they have yet concede to the union and as such should not be privy to privileges of the states who stand united! United in the idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!
It has been nearly a year since I've graced you all with my opinions. Too long I know. So much has happened that I cant even begin to recap...or whatever. I'm going to start here.
Rachel Dolezal is the former NAACP leader who according to her parents has perpetrated being an African American for several years...I'm not CNN so if you want the full story Google it!
I'm here to share my opinion.
There are some serious issues that need to be addressed in this situation. First I want to explore what made her parents wait this long to suddenly expose her? News outlets claim the parents feel "she needs help". But did she not "need help" when she started presenting herself as a Black woman? She did, but it was not until now that her parents decided to publicly humiliate her.
Okay dealt with that initial WTF moment. Lets talk about the rest of these shenanigans.
Rachel, a white woman, spray tanned her peachy white skin and crimp curled her silky blonde hair to imitate another ethnicity. Rachel is not the first person to imitate a race other than her own for social acceptance.
Historically Black people have had imitate other races as a way to avoid social persecution. This is why still today over 50% of African Americans claim some percentage of native American heritage. because though the native Americans were killed and exiled they were still considered better than black.
Likewise, with the rape and impregnation of slaves on plantations striations in shades of brown skin began to appear and became almost expected. As such post slavery many "light skinned" black people would "pass" as white. That way they could live in good neighborhoods, eat good food, use clean restrooms. this "passing" was a way of achieving a better life than typically allowed for people of color.
Passing for another ethnicity did not come without it's issues. Often blacks who passed for white were seen as traitors to the race. Likewise, holding fast to historical native American bloodlines is a way to dilute the race and be less black indicating shame in the color of skin.
What Ms. Rachel has done here is reverse passing perhaps for similar reasons. It is unclear how long her identity crisis (which I have deemed as such) has gone on. However it is speculated that around the time she received a full scholarship to Howard University she began to identify differently.
An article I read referred to Howard as " the black Harvard". As a black woman who attended a "traditional university" for both undergraduate and graduate studies, I take offense to the idea of a black Harvard. It has something to do with the idea of segregation and comparative educational facilities. Black people go to Harvard and white people go to Howard. Howard's prestige comes from it's own nature and should not be compared to Harvard. No one refers to Harvard as the white Howard! Okay, rant over
Now, should Ms. Dolezal choose to identify with a group which is currently and has been historically disenfranchised and deemed lesser than the majority, I believe that it is her prerogative.
There is also controversy surrounding Ms. Dolezal's prominent leadership roles in the black community. When thinking about this I have two visual cues. The first is an image from the Motion Picture Malcolm X, where the oh so fine Denzel Washington (Malcolm) is approached regarding his crusade for justice and equality by a young and eager white woman. She inquires "What can someone like me ( a white person) do to help further your cause? Cold and dismissive the civil rights leader said "nothing" and walked away. This scene comes to mind because Dolezal obviously felt that she couldn't affect the changes she wanted to as herself. That is in her natural form. She had to take on the persona, a persona that she identifies with strongly now, of a black woman. She had to experience the world in the way that black women experience the world she had to dispose of her innate white privilege to fully embrace, empathize and advocate for the African American Race.
The second visual that comes to mind is the opposite Images of white protesters marching alongside Dr. King, participating in boycotts and freedom rides, sheltering blacks in the south, teaching them to read, write and be all around sufficient. This truth shows that white people can undoubtedly shed their privilege for a cause but not without accepting the consequences for doing so. At this time the efforts to elevate the black community do not allow for the shedding of white privilege. In fact in light of recent movements like Black Lives Matter someone of Rachel's ethnicity would not be received well for aspiring to lead in black organizations. This fact justifies her actions even more.
I am not defending her actions. I'm just pointing out that perhaps she has reasons for wanting to be black and beautiful.
The flip side of all of this is that just as black people have been "passing" for years, and even still idealize lighter skin tones; white people have dawned "black face" as a defamatory and degrading taunt of the black race. Rachel's actions could be seen as a modern day black face performance, where she danced and acted stereotypically to purvey a black persona. This is offensive.
NAACP made a statement concerning the allegations against Ms. Dolezal, quoting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". They stated that her resignation is held in the same esteem as would any chapter's leader's.
Let's tie this in with social media shall we. This controversy has brought about a string of posts with stereotypical anecdotes posed as quizzes to assess the blackness of someone. I mean.....I think I don't even have to say how utterly ridiculous that is. I won't say it...Y'all know.
What do you think about this topic? Is she getting around racial barriers to support a cause, passing for her own benefit, or making a mockery of an entire culture?
Aside from the inherent meaning of the confederate flag and its embedded racist history, the laws surrounding it's display are noteworthy in that they allow the flag to fly at full mast regardless of the nations flag or the state flag. Proponents of this practice admonish that lowering the flag would give it sovereignty of which it is not due, while opponents find it's stark stance over the American flag morally defiant and derogatory. 
