Fallout from the Pledge

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Either both are symbols of violent group or neither are!

No, both were used by violent groups, it's the interpretation that counts, and almost everyone has a similar image of the nazi salute and what it means, but the raised fist isn't automatically synonymous with the black panthers.[/QUOTE]Well we talking about what the raised fisted meant and was used as in the USA, which it was used as a symbol of a violent group in the USA. That is the context of the usage since the usage of the raised fist happened in the USA (in the context of this thread's starting post), not the UK, France, or the Old USSR.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Either both are symbols of violent group or neither are!

No, both were used by violent groups, it's the interpretation that counts, and almost everyone has a similar image of the nazi salute and what it means, but the raised fist isn't automatically synonymous with the black panthers.[/QUOTE]Well we talking about what the raised fisted meant and was used as in the USA, which it was used as a symbol of a violent group in the USA. That is the context of the usage since the usage of the raised fist happened in the USA (in the context of this thread's starting post), not the UK, France, or the Old USSR.[/QUOTE]Well, it doesn't look to me like the teenager in question had bvery violent intents, he merely stood there with his arm raised,that is passive, he did not attack someone while he was at it, he merely had his fist raised, and his actions were fully passive.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Hey, the black panthers as an organization only used violence for self-defense. Here is the homepage of one of the founders: http://www.bobbyseale.com/

Chewbacca I'm not argueing that the Black Panthers only used violence in Non-self defense. I saying that given the history of the symbol in the USA (right or wrong). It is disrespectful, and given that the current climate here in the USA is that the offended get stop what ever activity is offending them. The students that were offended by his raised fist get to stop his activity. Thats why I say if you want to say the Pledge with "under God" say it, if you don't Don't, and if you don't want to say the pledge at all don't say it at all. Just keep it out of the courts, once that door is opened, it swings both ways and it could and will be used against something you do.

Besides next time you get cut off in traffic by some Idiot, just remember that Idiot could very well serve on a jury one day making decisions thats why this kind of stuff shouldn't be in the courts

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: If you wish to use the logic that the raised fist, a symbol of a violent group can be used as a passive statment. Then the symbol of another violent group can also be used as a passive statment. Then you have choosen to accept that the user has the power to change the symbol into what they wish it to be at the time they use it.

No, because the Nazi salute is a symbol of a violent group, the raised fist is a passive symbol that was used by an aggressive group, before the black panthers et al used it, so the raised fit is correctly used when done passively, as this teenager was, but the nazi salute wasn't originally a passive symbol.[/QUOTE]Very well, Talthyr. If that is the case, what about the swastika? Should it be used as a logo for passive protests?

No? Why not? The Nazi's were NOT the first to use the swastika, Native Americans were! The Nazi'a perverted a symbol of a non-violent group to such an extent that it is now a global pariah.

AFA the "raised fist" issue, I have to agree with John D.. It is irrelevant what the "raised fist" may mean in the UK, Australia, France, or Italy.

We are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States, and in THIS country, it is associated with the Black Panthers - who were a violent, reactionary group in the late '60's - a time of changing social and political norms in this country.

Forgive me, Chewbacca, I have a lot of respect for you, but to base your opinion of the Black Panthers' actions on the word of one of its' founders is simply naive'. Charles Manson doesn't see anything wrong with the gruesome murders committed by him and his "family" either. Our society, however, has a far different view of both of these "groups".

I will agree that the treatment of the student was reprehensible. Nobody should be punished for not saying the pledge. However, I honostly can't help but wonder if there was more to the teenagers actions than has been brought out.

I know that there are always exceptions, but I honostly believe that if this kid had approached the teacher in a respectful manner, then the class would've respected his wishes. Yes, some of his classmates are going to give him a hard time, but others won't. The teenage years are all about challenging authority to begin with, so I'm sure several of his classmates would've approved and RESPECTED his wishes, if they had been presented in a respectful manner.

I will agree that just raising his fist in protest does NOT constitute "disruption of the class" and, if that's ALL that he did, then the court should definitely rule in his favor.

I also understand his POV. The school shoud not FORCE students to say the pledge, no matter what. Otherwise, this isn't truly a "free country".

I also agree - as someone else did (Calaethis, maybe?)- that his "gesture" probably led to a confrontation between him and the teacher and/rest of the class - which would be disruptive.

I'm not saying the teacher or classmates are right, but I do question the "total innocence" of the boy also. It'll be interesting to follow the story and learn the full details.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: No, because the Nazi salute is a symbol of a violent group, the raised fist is a passive symbol that was used by an aggressive group, before the black panthers et al used it, so the raised fit is correctly used when done passively, as this teenager was, but the nazi salute wasn't originally a passive symbol.

What group before the Black Panthers used the raised fist as a sign or non-conformity? I do not recall ever having witnessed it used as such, nor reading about it.

I didn't read anywhere that this kid was not disruptive, all I can find in the articles is how abusive his teachers were....they really appear to be written from one side of the story with no regaurd to what the kids "actaul" actions were...was he mouthy? Did he say anything to the teachers or other students to incite disobedience? Should he have been punished for not saying the pledge? No! ....should he have been allowed to make a display or disrupt the class....no! ....but so far I don't like the reporting I have seen on this too much was not covered.

[Smeagol II]

I find it amusing that when Americans don't like what they see of a story, they say that it hasn't been covered properly in the press or make assumptions that suit there view better. There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising a fist to show ones disregard towards something, and as for paddling school kids, thats just sick, why on earth would you paddle someone for anything except acts of violence or destruction of property. This is the first time I have heard of paddles being used on school children and I am appaled. As for the rather meaningless issue that has been raised about the raised fist represnting violence it seems stupid to suggest that the student had intended it to do so. The St Georges cross was used by far-right militants, but thousands of black and asians have been waving it throughout the World Cup and Wimbeldon, and even more will do so during the Commonwealth Games.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

To be honost, Smeagol II, there is plenty of justification in questioning our press, because it is FAR from objective in how the stories are covered.

The mainstream media has become more and more "liberal" over the years, and the way their stories are written reflect that. I'm not talking about papers or TV broadcasts that are traditionally "liberal" or "conservative", there are plenty of both targeted at their respective segments.

I'm talking about the everyday representation of facts by newscasters or reporters who are supposed to remain objective, but simply do not. They let their own political or religious beliefs "color" the way they report the story.

The BEST example I can think of (and I admit that it is an "extreme" example) was the public fallout Jerry Falwell received a few years ago for suggesting that one of the Teletubbies (a children's TV character) was gay. He was vilified all across the national media (TV and newspapers both).

However, once the story was investigated, it was discovered that the original story had actually been written by the Washington Post
AND New York Times. Falwell was blamed because the story had been re-printed in the newsletter sent to members of his ministry by the editor of the newsletter. Falwell actually knew nothing about it, but he did support the editor's decision.

The bottom line is that, for 2 days, ALL we heard on the TV and other media was "FALWELL SAYS TELETUBBIES ARE GAY!". When the truth of the matter was discovered, do you think the media made any effort to retract their earlier, erroneous statements? Not Hardly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT a Jerry Falwell supporter. The man has an uncanny ability make some of the most religiously intolerant statements of anybody I've ever heard. AND it was because of his previous history that the media jumped on him like a pack of jackals.

As I stated earlier, the students treatment was WAY out of line (although wooden paddles are a fact of life in schools here in the South).

But, I DO think they're may be more to the story than we have been told. Of course, I've been wrong before, and I may be again. If I am, I will readily admit it.

Like I said, it will be interesting to follow the story and see what happens.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Smeagol II: I find it amusing that when Americans don't like what they see of a story, they say that it hasn't been covered properly in the press or make assumptions that suit there view better. There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising a fist to show ones disregard towards something, and as for paddling school kids, thats just sick, why on earth would you paddle someone for anything except acts of violence or destruction of property. This is the first time I have heard of paddles being used on school children and I am appaled. As for the rather meaningless issue that has been raised about the raised fist represnting violence it seems stupid to suggest that the student had intended it to do so. The St Georges cross was used by far-right militants, but thousands of black and asians have been waving it throughout the World Cup and Wimbeldon, and even more will do so during the Commonwealth Games.

Smeagol II,
Majik and Cerek are justified in their distrust of the national (USA) press, I live less then 100 miles from Parrish, AL. I saw it on the local news where they did more in depth intrviews with both sides. The local press had more then the 30 sec sound bite to devote to the story.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Very well, Talthyr. If that is the case, what about the swastika? Should it be used as a logo for passive protests? No? Why not? The Nazi's were NOT the first to use the swastika, Native Americans were! The Nazi'a perverted a symbol of a non-violent group to such an extent that it is now a global pariah.

Cerek , check out this guy. He is more than a little strange , BUT he is trying to clean up the image of the swastika after what the Nazis did to it. It is realy some interesting stuff.

Link -------------> http://www.manwoman.net/