A Note From The Director
On Friday, March 16th, some of you brought your children to The Brogan Museum to enjoy our first day of spring camp. The fact that members of this community entrust us with their children is of paramount importance.
Members of the “Capital Press Corp.” came on that same day to report on one organization’s desire to remove one artist’s work from The Brogan’s galleries. During the nine years I have been at The Brogan Museum, none of the hundreds of artists who have been featured (including Monet and Picasso) have ever focused the eyes of the community (indeed the world) on The Brogan as has John Sims.
I am certain that our nation’s first amendment rights give artists the privilege to express themselves, in all manners. Art has served as a cultural reflection of the times, for all times. What does the reaction to the work of John Sims say about our community? Are we intolerant of other’s views or will we embrace the opportunity to share our perspectives?
I wonder how my role as a “catalyst” for the Knight Ridder Creative Community Initiative can best be served as a result of these experiences. It is the intent of both The Brogan and the KCCI effort to lay a positive foundation for our community’s future. That effort will thrive with dialogue among people of different perspectives.
Please see the exhibition AfroProvocations and talk to your friends about it. Talk to your children about it. Talk to me about it. When we talk, we will discover what we have in common. Like it or not, we have much in common and it is that commonality that is humanity.
As of this moment, there have been thousands of e-mails and phone calls to The Brogan Museum about the exhibit. An AOL survey has received more than 247,000 responses. Clearly, people do want to talk about this. To create further opportunities for that dialogue we offer the following:
Starting today (Tuesday, March 20th) - The Brogan will launch a new Blog on its website. The Brogan’s website is www.thebrogan.org and you will then click on “The John Sims Exhibit Controversy” link.
I can’t help but wonder if members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans would be surprised if I shared with them a photo of an ancestor in a Confederate uniform? My point is no art, not even the work of John Sims is an insult to anyone. It’s not about you or your ancestors. It’s certainly not about me. John Sims’ art, is about the artist’s perspective. If his art stirred you, created emotion within you, it did exactly what art is meant to do.
Executive Director
The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science
350 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32309
850-513-0700
Labels: brogan, confederate, controversy, exhibit, flag, john sims
posted by The Mary Brogan Museum at
4:40 PM
57 Comments:
Certainly Mr. Sims and the Museum are both exercising their First Amendment rights and "doing what art is supposed to do" by generating a dialog. If the goal was to change the thrust and direction of who gets stereotyped, that goal has also been achieved.
Unfortunately, none of that makes this exhibit in good taste.
Chucha Barber
Executive Director
The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science
350 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32309
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dear Director Barber,
I am disturbed by your comments regarding the community's reaction to the John Sims exhibit.
Your questions, "What does the reaction to the work of John Sims say about our community? Are we intolerant of other’s views or will we embrace the opportunity to share our perspectives?" are themselves proof of the intolerance of Mr. Sims exhibited by his own creation, and your one-sided view of tolerance. You ask us to be tolerant of his views, yet he obviously does not tolerate and respect the views of the majority that thinks differently than he. We have all tolerated Sims' ignorance before. Why do we have to sit through it again? It is a fool who believes that Sims does not intend offense by his piece.
John Sims, by virtue of his exhibit's name, AfroProvocations, announces that he is simply going to provoke racial tension under the guise of art. Do you really believe that is the purpose of art? I dare say that as an artist, if I were to hang a flag of South Africa from a gallows, I'd be called everything from a bigot to a racist. I'm not surprised to hear that you have Confederate ancestors, Director Barber, but are you surprised that I grew up and live in the North and have no Civil War ancestors at all, yet I choose to defend the Confederacy?
The fact remains that the Confederate battle flag that Mr. Sims hangs never flew over slavery. In stark contrast, however, for 122 years the British flag flew over slavery in this country. What if I were to hang the British flag? For 88 years, after that, the United States flag flew over slavery in this country, both North and South. What if I created a gallows to hang the Stars and Stripes? In all actuality, few would care if I hanged the British flag, likely thinking it to be a statement against our current war, and I'm sure I'd have your full support under my right to free speech if I tried to hang the US flag, though I'd never stoop to such disrespect.
You mentioned that "During the nine years I have been at The Brogan Museum, none of the hundreds of artists who have been featured (including Monet and Picasso) have ever focused the eyes of the community (indeed the world) on The Brogan as has John Sims," however, I assert that Monet and Picasso never set out to intentionally offend and upset a group of passionate historians who are constantly defending American history against those who remain ignorant of that same history. John Sims is just up to his old tricks, which we've all seen before, spawned by his ignorance of historical and racial issues.
Your AOL coverage has so many visitors solely because of the close network of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who finds itself under constant scrutiny for defending a history which belongs to all Americans. Certainly, the museum is free to post whatever it likes between its walls, but to promote hate and racism under the guise of art is truly a sad and unjust use of the power of art.
If I may be of any more help in making you understand the historical importance of the flag or of the Confederacy, please feel free to contact me. My prayers are with you and Mr. Sims.
Yours,
Mark Kinan
- -
Mark Kinan
Recruitment Officer
Voices of the Confederacy
45 West Bellecrest Avenue #1
Pittsburgh, PA 15227
412-886-0881
The display of Sim's is not a racist issue. It's an issue of heritage and the Southern people being attacked. Sim's goal of offending has prevailed with the supported display of the Brogan Museum. Please explain any other reason for this slander than his own ignorant idea of what art is"now yours."
They have chosen the Southern white as the focal scapegoat of our time. This in, politics, media, comics, literature, film and television; dealing with religion, race relations, work and lifestyle in defining Southern whites. The Southron which represents faith, country, pride of heritage, hard work, kinship loyalty, traditional values and way of life is being trampled on by "those people" that hate us so...With all this hate, why don't they just let us go!!!
America's South is losing it's regional distinctiveness by progress, the PC crowd and appeasement of minorities. Society is demoralizing the Southern people through typecasting as stupid, rednecks and hillbilly's. Yet America is destroying a part of itself that should have been left alone, let go, explored and listened to. Because of the guilt and questioning which his/her existence creates in the world of the un-Godly, do-gooders and PCer's. Many Southron feel inadequate and orphaned in their own land!!!
"Those people" preach we should practice tolerance. Well I think we have practiced too much tolerance for too long!!! We have been so tolerant we are losing our past and future! We have let our children become second class citizens in their schools. They have been forced to be ashamed of themselves and their heritage! If we do not correct this, they will grow-up never knowing the truth and our future as a distinct ethnic people is doomed!
Why not do a display on this subject?
http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/colour.html
Tommy Aaron
Chattanooga, TN.
I'm thrilled that this exhibit is receiving this level of attention. While it's unfortunate that it took censorship efforts by the SCV to propel this work on to the international stage, I do not doubt that the power of this extraordinary work of art to demonstrate the undeniable linkage of this symbol with the most shameful period of our nation's history, is what will be remembered in the future. I discussed these issues in more depth at http://jeffreypresley.com/2007/03/19/hang-the-confederate-flag/
The argument I make is now far easier to explain thanks to Mr. Simms efforts.
This "art" libels all who served this country from its very beginning to the present, since the Confederate Battle Flag is an American one and deserves the same honor afforded Confederate veterans by the Federal government. This only enflames passions, and attempts to disgrace my g,g,g grandfather who fought as an Ensign while saving the flag at Brandywine, his seven grandsons who fought for the CSA, and me, a 100% service related disabled Vietnam veteran.
Brock Townsend
Gentleman,
I am simply a common man that lives in Illinois but who's relatives fought for the Confederacy...I am neither a racist nor an person who spends a lot of times at Art galleries. Maybe I should and that would open my eyes a little more, but simply I do not agree with Mr. Sims exhibit as I feel that flag for which my ancestor fought for is in bad taste...My words I know will not change the outcome of the situation, but felt I would explain my feelins as I know there are others who will read this and undoubtedly agree.
Randy Simpson
Mendota, Illinois
We saw the same sort of 'artistic garbage' in New York when 'artistes' such as Mr. Sims photographed a crucifix in a jar filled with urine and 'created' a 'portrait' of the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung. This 'exhibit' is the same old same old and, frankly, all of this infantile, attention-seeking behavior by this type of individual is getting VERY old indeed. It doesn't even have the minor compensation of being funny as are so many other such 'works'.
I am 66 years old and born in the environs of New York City, so I can hardly be considered a 'good ole' boy'. Furthermore, I have been exposed to TRUE ideological 'art', art that made a statement or espoused an idea or condemned injustice. Goya, David and a host of GREAT artists - not talentless hacks - have crafted such masterpieces through the centuries commenting upon the human condition. But these great talents wished to engage our MINDS and our HEARTS; they wished to show their passion, not just cause a rumpus in order to get their names in the newspaper.
Enough with such idiocy already. Mr. Sims has every right to waste his time, but he has no right to waste the the money of the people who support the museum or the limited space in which that institution is supposed to be bringing what is BEST to the public, not what is worst. If you wish to see this sort of thing, a tour of the mensrooms in the New York subway system will give you all that you need - or could ever want - to see.
I think that the museum knew and anticipated the mass publicity that this so called exhibit would stir. It all boiled down to one thing for the museum.. $$$$$
Now they are on the map, on headline news, and all over the web.
Clearly Sims is out to stir up emotion and cause more friction between the Southern/northern, Black/White communities..as if any more tension is needed. What an ignorant choice on his part. He is one of THOSE that will always blame whatever plagues his life on the injustice of slavery...that he personally did not indure. Excuses, Excuses.
I do believe in free speech. I personally am not offended easily and if something offends me, I make a consious choice to turn away and not submit myself to it.
That is freedom of choice as well. We all (for the time being) have that choice. Of course all these PC beaurocrats are trying to take that choice away from us by censoring everything.
Personally, I think the exhibit is garbage. But I also see it as a great opportunity to inform and educate the masses to the truths of Southern history and the corruption of lincoln and the US Government. SCV and other heritage groups: Get out there with your literature, forget about the PR for the museum and set your sights on education. Pass out Southern Truth literature to all who come by to visit the museum. Tell everyone about it. Purchase the "Catechism" of the Children of the Confederacy in mass quantity and pass them out. How bout a book by Stanley Lott,"Lincoln and the US Government". Have Mr. Lott do an appearance with you. I am sure he'd love to. www.researchonline.net for the book or call 803-439-2938 and ask for the book.
I agree with a previous post about the gallows and the British and American flags..of course in large print the historical facts so that all could see the US brought the slaves here under their flag not the Battle Flag or any other Confederate Flag.Oh yeah, and lets remind Sims that it was his own people of his African motherland that captured and sold his own people to the Americans. Put blame where blame is, he should be hanging his motherland flag.
Well actually,art is to do with communicating higher values as a consequence of a true artist being fully immersed in a deeply creative process. Today, only too often, what we are tragically, daily, ad nausuem,(particularly in the case of John Sims) confronted, with is the self-indulgent pouring out of negative states of mind onto canvas which depicts nothing more than a psuedo-artistic toxic chemical spill.
One walks away from it, not feeling uplifted but manipulated, and then depressed.
Oh, and wondering about the calibre of the museum.
Annie Macgregor, Auckland, New Zealand. (No kin in U.S.A.)
I really wonder what folks like those at the SCV would think if I were to support my German heritage by wearing a Swastika armband. Would they find that to be in poor taste or would they approve of it?
The Southern Cross, like the Swastika, is a symbol of hate. If the SCV were really so concerned about supporting "Southern heritage" and making better public impressions about the Confederacy, they would at least have the courtesy to parade the Stars and Bars instead of the Southern Cross. The Stars and Bars was NOT adopted as a symbol of hate by the Ku Klux Klan, unlike the Southern Cross battle flag, and it is therefore less controversial to support. To keep parading the Southern Cross around as a symbol of "Southern heritage" is no different from me adorning a Swastika armband to represent my German heritage. They're both repulsive due to their connotations.
I have sent the below letter to BB&T with other letters in varying formats to the other sponsors of the museum that I use which include Embarq, and LabCorp to name but a few.
Brock Townsend
"The BB&T Charitable Foundation is listed as a Corporate Sponsor of The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Tallahassee, Florida. They currently have a despicable display by an "artist" by the name of John Sims which libels my ancestry. I have been with you for many years, and currently have all my accounts with BB&T, however, I do have a choice in the services that you supply, and I will make a decision on this matter depending on how you handle my complaint. The museum should either remove the bigoted, hateful display or you should no longer sponsor them."
Brock Townsend
Mr. Sim's display is not art. It was an attempt to get his name in lights. The best way to achieve this is not natural, extraordinary talent that used to be required by those artists of the past, but to find something and make a huge controversy over it. This is the only thing Mr. Sim has succeeded in doing. There is absolutely no talent at all in this "piece of work".
He and others of his ilk who continuously perpetrate false history by false teachings and errant opinions do no service at all to the public.
Sure, Mr. Sims has the right to express his first Amendment rights however he wants. But in matters where he is historically wrong and obviously set on casting even more division, we will express our first Amendment right to cast him in a shameful light.
The sad fact of this controversy is that, if Mr. Sims' so called art had been in any way a celebration of Southern heritage, you would have pulled it at the first hint of controversy. So in fact, you're not interested in different perspectives, only Mr. Sims' perspective.
You've encouraged nothing but the hate he is espousing.
i wonder if sims and other people that are ignorant of southern history should stop with the confederate flag(which does not represent slavery. )? why not hang the northern flag that flew on ships bringing slaves to this country? also hang the black african flag that represents one group of black africans that sold fellow black africans into slavery to america!!!
While I would have preferred to reply directly and privately, pursuant to Ms. Barber’s request, I am posting my reply to her letter to the parents of Spring Camp participants on this blog. I understand the reasoning behind displaying the AfroProvocations exhibit and support the right of artists to free expression. However, what is appropriate for adults is not always appropriate for children, particularly those of elementary school age. Explaining issues such as states’ rights, concepts such as art as dialogue, and reasons for the use of disturbing images in art is not easy when a child has little or no background for such ideas. Preparing a child in advance for viewing such an exhibit would be highly beneficial. Certainly the description of the exhibit on the webpage did not inform parents as to what to expect. Perhaps it would be best if, in the future, parents were notified that their children would be viewing a controversial exhibit before being shown it by museum staff. I would have appreciated being told beforehand so I could have talked to my child about it in advance as well as afterwards. Thank you for your future consideration.
Sincerely, Elaine Hebenthal
I was born and raised in the North and moved south with retirement. I feel that Mr Sims "art" is very disrepectful.
Hanging a flag, from a gallows is extremely disrepectful, no matter who the flag belonged to. Should we hang a NAACP flag from a gallows? Would that be considered "art"? How would Mr. Sims and other members of that community feel?
Self expression is good but not at the expense of someone else. That is simply a lack of task and disrepect. It is obvious that Mr Sims is also lacking in his historical knowledge. He has chosen to ignore true historical facts and what the Confederate Battle Flag truly represents.
What was the War Between the States about? Have you done your homework? Do you believe the current propaganda of the NAACP that it was about slavery? It's funny how history changes over time and it is made to be what the victors chose. A perfect example is the Iraqi war. Congress was behind the war when it started and now the tide has changed. Now congressmen deny what is documented in public record--votes for the war because it is no longer popular.
Lincoln originally encouraged slavery at the beginning of the war and later when he felt that it was no longer popular and would help the North--he declared the slaves free.
I do not agree with slavery but we need to look at history with open eyes. We cannot allow someone, in the name of "art", to be disrepectful and slanderous. During the Revolutionary War, the people of the United States were considered slanderous and even libel for treason. If the War had turned out differently, would "art" be hanging the Betsy Ross flag on a gallows? Is this appropriate? No!
Is this "art"? No--it is a tasteless piece of self expression. If Mr Sims want it displayed in his living room--that is OK. Why are we encouraging this vulgar exhibit by putting it in a museum.
I feel that it shows the tastelessness of the museum. The only way, Mr Sims can get his exhibits viewed is by going to extremes and provocting people.
I would discourage people from viewing the exhibit nor visiting the museum in the future. During the Iraqi war, the French felt the wrath of Americans by the reduction of sales of French products. I suggest that Mr Sims and the Brogan Museum feel the wrath of the American public too!
Dear Chucha,
Thank you for allowing public discussion of this matter, although the childish, racist, non- artist doesn't deserve the free publicity. His intentions are clear to see. He is ignorant, as are those who can't see his purpose. He doesn't deserve the rights that he is blatently abusing. He is a poor excuse for an American. He intends to cause division in a time that this nation needs to be as one. He is a racist. He is the enemy, and is taking advantage of your naivete.
You are correct in stating there is a difference between the Stars and Bars and the Battle Flag. The Battle Flag bears the Christian symbol of the Cross of Saint Andrew. And the non-artist is desecrating it. It was the flag of a Christian Nation that was not out for conquest, but for only it's Constitutional right of Independence. Abraham Lincoln is on Congressional record agreeing to the states' right to secede from from an oppressive union.
I appreciate the fact that you will be honoring the Confederate Flags soon, but the damage of giving publicity to evil deception has already been done.
God Bless. Best of luck in this evil world.
Yours truly,
Bill Stroud
Calling what Sims does art is an insult to all artists. What he does, at best, is put together an intentionally offensive display. It's too bad that the Brogan staff is not bright enough to know what constitutes art. I truly believe that they are as fully culpable of bigotry as is John Sims.
However, I have come to one conclusion from this vile display; it proves that our Confederate flags have been used and misused in ways that we can not control. Neither our Confederate ancestors, nor we are responsible for the many odious ways that those venerable old flags have been misrepresented. The John Sims' of this world will never make me ashamed of my nine Confederate ancestors who fought nobly for their country under a Confederate flag!
A proud Confederate descendant,
Connie Dorsey
I am truly shocked by the comments here. Art is a matter of taste. There has been art created throughout the centuries that I have not enjoyed and yet it is no less art because I have a distaste for it. The person who labeled it self-expression and not art was truly amusing. What indeed is art if it is not self-expression?
The artwork being discussed is how I felt about the subject before the art was created. I would only say that even placing the flag on the gallows is affording it too much prominence. I found it funny when the person mentioned that the "majority" would not agree with the exhibit. My assumption (though it could be wrong) is that many in the country and many in other countries would find it as surprising as I do that a horrible period of history is continuously championed with this symbol.
The flag itself means nothing; like all symbols it merely represents what a society has attributed to it. The Confederate flag stands for a heritage linked to the horrors of slavery. The swastika is a matter of context. That symbol existed before and can still be seen as a religious symbol. When it is displayed in the context of hate, it is wrong. The only context I have personally seen the Confederate flag in however is related to the American South. There should be no pride in hate. It is disappointing that many Southern states had or continue to have flags that contain this hateful flag or remnants of this flag.
Any disagreement with what I just said is merely a different worldview. I grew up hating that flag and disgusted that the world had and continues to participate in things as immoral as slavery. There was no other view where I grew up. If you possessed a Confederate flag, you were a white supremacist skinhead. Of course this is as much a stereotype as any other. But when I came to the South, I was astonished to see the Confederate flag so prominent even in clothing. It seems to be linked to a rebellious attachment to a heritage that includes slavery etc. This is cultural, and the people who display the flag that way are attached to that view the same way I am attached to my ideal of freedom and hating inequality.
In the end, those who display that image for pride and those who display it as a hateful artifact are both desirous of the "freedom" this country is supposed to represent. I am disappointed with those that would attempt to censor this art but would decry an attempt to censor their "tradition."
Barber,
No art is offensive. What a crock!!! Would you like me to send you some offensive art to display?
The Sims display is offensive.
This blog is a joke. You posted some garbage about your stance to take the heat off your email. You has no intention of replying to any comments posted here or to your email because with good reasoning you cannot defend this trash.
As a matter of fact I invite you to
http://history-sites.net/mb/cw/shapemb/
and defend your actions and to have an honest factual dialogue. That is your goal isn't it?
I encourage all readers to not post here until Barber starts replying. Shut this joke down.
George Purvis
I am only in high school, born and raised in the north. I seen the picture of this so called "art" from my dad, and i was hurt by it. I believe someone who can make such a thing has alot of hate built up inside of them. Would a person be able to hang a flag from one of the 50 states like that and get away with it, or would you allow someone to hang a person and consider it art? I highly doubt it! I believe this man is not being a good role model for young adults. By hanging something like that I believe gives teens a belief that they can "speak freely" in wrong ways.
Dear Director Barber,
I am writing again in response to some of the posts that have been left on your blog here. Most seem to understand what's going on here, but folks such as "Ian in Florida" and others known only as "anonymous" seem to harbor a lot of hate toward the Confederate battle flag, and in the spirit of an open and constructive dialogue, I have some inaccuracies to correct.
This blog will get long, and it will only scratch the surface. But there's a whole world of information here that most American's aren't aware of and don't seek out. My wife and I spend our summers with friends in Gettysburg, PA teaching this very thing to Americans who leave, minds changed, and grateful for the experience. If you have interest in hearing some truth, read on.
"Ian in Florida" infers that the Ku Klux Klan has adopted the Confederate battle flag as its symbol and equates it to the Nazi swastika. "Anonymous" bemoans the horrors of slavery and the "hate" of southern whites to enslaved blacks. As a self-taught living historian, these statements gall me. I was able to visit our American battlefields and read books on this subject to find out the truth. Why do so many others have such a hard time doing the same?
I grew up in the North learning that the North was good, the South was bad and Lincoln freed the slaves. Then I started doing my own research and what I found made me feel literally duped by the education system. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let's note here, a few things. First, the Confederate battle flag is NOT a symbol of the KKK. The official symbols of the KKK are the U.S. flag and the Christian flag. This is well documented. We all know our beloved Stars and Stripes, and many of us have the Christian flag in our own churches. Do we villainize these two flags? Of course not. Nor should we. Just because any organization can adopt any flag as its standard does not change the original meaning of that flag. The swastika had meaning before Hitler took it over. To ancient civilizations, it symbolizes something very different than an army that murdered millions of Jews. And the South was merely seeking their own independence from an oppressive government. After all, that's what George Washington did. To compare an army whose goal was to carry out the whims of a mad man in collecting millions of Jews, barbarously starving and slaughtering them in crude gas chambers and burying them in mass graves in an attempt at ethnic cleansing, not to mention world domination, to an army who fought for its own independence is a ridiculous comparison.
And let's remember that slavery was legal. Slavery began in the days of the bible. It was nothing new. Africans were sold by Africans, sent all over the world, including the United States, who required that slaves arrive in northern ports so that the US government could slap extra taxes on them before they sold down south. The practice of slavery was completely legal in the United States, sanctioned by our own Constitution. And possibly the greatest myth about the slave-holding United States is that slavery existed solely in the eleven Southern states who become the Confederacy.
Slave holders didn't hate their slaves. They worked side by side in their fields with their slaves. Slaves were clothed and fed and housed, some acting as babysitters for the family's children, as beloved by the master's family as their own. In fact, the great Confederate general Robert E. Lee owned two slaves which he freed before leaving for war. One would expect that those slaves headed straight for the North and to live in the promised land, yes? No. They loved Gen'l Lee so much that they literally accompanied him to war.
Slavery had existed in our country since the British brought it here in pre-colonial times. In 1655, the first legal case of slavery was recorded when a black man bought a black slave! And when slaves made their way to freedom via the underground railroad, do you know where that railroad ended? Yes, in the North. But how FAR north? Canada, folks. It send black slaves to Canada, because people in the Northern United States didn't want more competition for their jobs. Ask the early Irish immigrants of the early 1900s about this - they encountered it too.
The War Between the States was not started over slavery. It was a matter of small federal government and strong state government. We as Americans do not know what this is like anymore. As the federal government began to take too much power, too many taxes, state governments balked at this. Many seceeded. Others, like Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky were forced to stay in the Union. Yes, militarily forced. This war was about states' rights until Abraham Lincoln, ruling a country full of war-weary women tired of having their men die to keep a country together, decided he needed a "more noble" cause than union to keep his war going. After all, it is well documented that he wasn't interested in the slave at all. He even created the African country of Liberia as a colony for freed black slaves, shipped there from here. Of course, it never happened, but the country bears its original name of liberty even today.
In an effort to create his "noble cause" he released the Emancipation Proclamation and declared that the war was now about slaves. However, a quick read of the Emancipation Proclamation, coupled with the knowledge that there were still slaves in Northern states, will prove that it is a worthless document. Keeping in mind that by then the Confederate States of America (CSA) was a separate country in every way, Lincoln freed slaves only in the CSA. That's like our US president today trying to enact policy in Canada or Mexico. He hasn't got that authority. Neither did Lincoln. Further, Lincoln failed to free any slave in any of the states that he himself had authority over.
Sounds pretty suspicious to me.
Folks, any of this stuff is easily found when you decide to look for it. If you want to talk about it, call me, or write an email. I'm a product of the northern education system who dedicates his time to telling the truth of 1860's America, because the truth is must be told, but is not yet prevalent. We could have discussions for hours and hours, and still not even scratch the surface of it. This was a time of great transition in our country. But let's remember that all this history is OUR American history - it belongs to ALL of us - and we'd do well to remember and honor it, and not to hide our faces from the Truth.
Respectfully yours,
Mark Kinan
Voices of the Confederacy
jebs2rtcsa@aol.com
412-886-0881
I think Southerners are being too Politically Correct when they bend over for pro-Confederate Flag junkies.
Before this exhibit sparked concerns, I did not have an opinion on the works displayed. I really did not take much interest; however, after reading all the comments posted I have to thank the museum staff for being brave enough to touch on this topic. As sensitive as this topic is, it has given me (and hopefully others) an opportunity to reflect on the subject matter. Not only on its historical points, whether inaccurate or not, but also on the social values of it. For whatever reason, Mr. Sims decided to express his feelings and thoughts with his work. It is not my place to say he is wrong or right just the same way it is not my place to say people do not have the right to get angry or not by it. Topics like these are very hard to discuss but I am thankful for the opportunity to have these avenues to discuss them with respect.
I have to say I do think there is any interesting and potentially important dialog being generated around this exhibition: the inversion of pride versus rage around the Confederate Flag. The very individuals that claim “heritage not hate” are furious about this work because of the way in which it is displayed, and for those that see the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, there is a presumption of justness--citing Mr. Sims title. Many of the comments around this particular art work tend to be: this offends me because….what if I did this… As offensive as Mr. Sims perspective may be to some, contemporary art does exist and is exhibited that does not represent Mr. Sims perspective on this issue. (See the Trinity - Elvis and Jesus and Robert E. Lee (1994, Acrylic on canvas) by Clyde Broadway at The Ogden Museum of Southern Art, The University of New Orleans in New Orleans, LA.) To some people this work may be offensive, but to others it is inspiring. There are actually two museums dedicated to Southern Art and Culture, the above mentioned, and the Morris Museum of Art in Augusta, Georgia.
The use of historic symbols in art is not new. In fact, much of art, historically and contemporarily, is a commentary on the society in which it is created. For me, this entire conversation is commentary on the state of the arts in this country. While the freedom of expression is integral to creative practice, it has become the responsibility of artists and the arts community to not only utilize this first amendment freedom in their work, but also defend it at almost every turn. While anyone is entitled to an opinion of this exhibition, no one is entitled to threaten people or the freedoms afforded everyone in this country. I commend the organization bringing the issue of creative expression to the attention of the public and providing a platform for discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions concerning the work of John Sims, one of six artists featured in AfroProvocations. As you can imagine, I have heard from thousands of people, from all over the world. I have had a chance to speak with many as well. During most of those phone conversations, I have managed to find some “common ground” on which to stand. It is my intent that I can do the same with this blog.
To those of you who have indicated your feelings have been hurt and that you do not approve of the exhibit, I only ask that you appreciate that Museums are venues for artists to share ideas and that artists have a right to express themselves even if some who view the art find it offensive. We do not strive to create that conflict and it was not the intention of the Museum to cause anyone pain.
To those of you, who have indicated you support the exhibition’s continuation, allow me to say that it was a very difficult decision which we did not take lightly. As we face possible financial losses in light of recent letters to our sponsors, you can imagine it is not in our best interest to offend anyone or any group and we did not plan for the exhibit to do that. It has been shown in other communities without controversy.
Museums sometimes present exhibits on difficult topics. You may or may not like some of our future exhibits on human anatomy, global warming, creationalism vs. evolution or even gaming technologies; and that’s just a draft list for the science side of the museum.
We are a community museum and while some of our community may not think we have made the right choice about this one exhibit object, it was done for what we consider to be the right reasons.
Sincerely,
Chucha Barber
Executive Director
People, people.... calm down. I think the display is a marvelous pun that would be equally clever whether it was a confederate flag, British flag, or even the stars and stripes--and perhaps the pun is even more clever BECAUSE it's the stars-n-bars, especially given the emotional responses to it so far. If provocation was the artist's goal, then I'm sure he's succeeded beyond his wildest imagination. However, I would caution against taking the whole thing too seriously; it's art, not rocket science, and besides, the flag is merely a symbol of whatever you think it represents--but it's NOT the thing itself. Beware when a symbol becomes more important than the thing it represents.
Cyndie Browning
Tulsa, Oklahoma
IAN IN FLORIDA compared the Confederate Battle Flag to the NSDAP swastika, and went on to say:
The Stars and Bars was NOT adopted as a symbol of hate by the Ku Klux Klan, unlike the Southern Cross battle flag, and it is therefore less controversial to support.
If Ian will go to www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm and scroll down, he will see numerous pictures of Kluxers using United States Flags. At www.nsm88.com/articles/nazi.html, he can see swastika-wearing American Nazis using a United States Flag. In short, he will see hateful people doing the same thing with the United States Flag that they have done with the Confederate Battle Flag.
I wonder if Ian in Florida will look at these sites. If he does, I wonder if he will jeer at the United States Flag – or if he will hypocritically apply a double standard.
[I would rejoice if someone would duplicate the John Sims piece and substitute a white supremacist for the Battle Flag. The white supremacists have insulted me and my ancestors, and I bear them no good will.]
Anonymous said in part:
The Confederate flag stands for a heritage linked to the horrors of slavery.
and
The only context I have personally seen the Confederate flag in however is related to the American South.
There is a book entitled Complicity; ISBN 0-345-46782-5; published in 2005 by Ballantine Books of New York that will put paid to the first statement above. It was written by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank -- three longtime journalists on the staff of the Hartford Courant, and its foreword was written by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham -- Harvard’s Victor S. Thomas Professor of History and African and African American Studies. No Southern apologists, they!
As for the second statement: If Anonymous will e-mail me, I will send him the Russian take on the Confederate Battle Flag.
TO THE MUSEUM DIRECTORATE:
You say you champion free expression.
If someone were to arrange a figure of a slain Native American under a sign bearing Philip Sheridan’s notorious quote about the prerequisite for the title Good Indian, would your museum display it as prominently as you display the John Sims piece under discussion?
If not, why not?
Clifton Palmer McLendon
SylviasDaddy@houston.rr.com
I am a Southerner, born and bred. I cherish my heritage, and yet I am able to see why we Southerners are so often negatively stereo-typed.
When I think of my family, of 'home' (i.e. Georgia), of what makes me proud of my heritage, I think of people who open their homes and hearts to others. I think of the graciousness we are taught by our parents and grandparents, I think of the traditions we embrace (ALL holidays are family dinners, with the whole extended family bustling about in the kitchen); and I am proud. For all these things, and many more, I hold my head high when I declare my Southern heritage.
Yet, there are negative stereo-types of the Southern culture that I cannot deny have credence. We did condone the enslavement of other peoples, and to this day many of us still refer to the descendants of former slaves in deragatory and insulting terms. I still live in the South, and am regularly shocked and repulsed to hear someone utilze racials slurs. For others, and especially Afro-Americans, the representation of the Confederacy does not bring to mind warm recollections of summer breezes laden with the heavy scent of jasmine and honeysuckle. The Confederacy, and it's flag, represents a period wherein Afro-Americans were subjugated to the will of white Southerners.
Like Ms. Barber, I have ancestors from both sides of my family who fought with the Confederacy. Both sides of my family have come from North Georgia since the early 1800's. I love the South, but I do not understand why we must continue to embrace representative symbols which originated in a period that condoned the enslavement of other people. I've read in some of the blogs posted on this site such comments as "yet he obviously does not tolerate and respect the views of the majority that thinks differently than he" or "The Southron which represents faith, country, pride of heritage, hard work, kinship loyalty, traditional values and way of life is being trampled on by "those people" that hate us so..." and "America's South is losing it's regional distinctiveness by progress, the PC crowd and appeasement of minorities". These comments only reinforce the point that many Southerners still perceive race relations as 'Us versus Them', and that as the 'Majority' we should not be subjected to such 'art'. That's just the point!! When will we stop categorizing majority and minority groups, and just allow people to be who they are? Why do we get all bent out of shape when we feel that our traditional dominance is challenged by non-white Southerners? Why do we worry that "We have been so tolerant we are losing our past and future! We have let our children become second class citizens in their schools"?? It's the 21st century. Why are we still trying to perpetuate a society that ignores our diversity? The South is more than capable of maintaining its uniqueness and charm without doggedly holding on to archaic notions of a monochrome South.
I've read in other posts that Sim's art only stirs up unnecessary animosity. Yet the vehemence with which some writers expressed their disapproval belabors this point. Many Southerners do need to be reminded that while the Confederate flag represents a beloved heritage, to many others (basically, the rest of the world), it recalls a time period of injustice. When I look at the Confederate flag, I don't feel a sense of pride, as much as a sense of shame. I love the South, and wish that others, who do not know the South, could see it for all its beauty and charm. But, it was under those Stars and Bars that the South committed crimes against humanity.
Thankfully, slavery is now only a part of our past, but as long as we hold up the Confederate flag as a symbol of who we are, we will always be reminding everyone else that we look to that period with pride. A thing we should not do.
If you look at John Sims art and are offended by the sight of the Confederate flag enduring such degradation, you should ask yourself why. Why does seeing a symbol of injustice being treated in this manner bother you? Why do you feel the need to defend such a symbol? Would you grant such sentiment to say, the Nazi flag?
My home is the South, and will always be so. I only hope that someday the South will be able to let go of the faded image of the Confederacy, and instead embrace the integral essence of it's beauty: warmth towards all.
If what Sims does is art, then I most surely am an artist. I "hang" towels in the bathroom all of the time.
For me, the offense is that the museum calls what he did "art." If they had the good sense to call what he did a display, then he would be relegated to the ranks of the untalented, where he beloves. They give credence to his bigotry by calling it art.
As if this museum doesn't have enough problems with regard to the Confederate Battle Banner.
Some busybody claims that I should be upset about one of the send-ups of the Confederate Battle Banner. Specifically, it is practically a duplicate of the photograph I use as an icon for my blogspot website. Wood'ja (?) buh-leave!
I actually proposed the design to be used by Republicans, intent on saving their party from becoming a regional party, completely restricted to the former Confederate states. Should that happen, the only national party will be the Democratic Party.
If that busybody's claim should happen to be true, we may need to talk. By the way, it's easy enough to check. One need only click on the bold underlined hewhoisknownassefton said text . . . ah, at the top of this comment.
Somewhere in my website, there's information about how to get in touch.
toodles
"Mr." Sims creation is distasteful, disgraceful, and reprehensible, to say the least. Regardless of the museums claim of equal time for all art, i have not seen an american flag, a flag that had condoned and legalized slavery before, during AND AFTER the war of Northern aggresion, atop a gallows.Nor have I saw the flag of any of the African nations that voluntarily sold their own countrymen into slavery atop a gallows either.Such an act, i am sure, would not be allowed for fear that someone would be offended; that is someone that matters, considering that the southern white males opinions are irrelevant in modern times, since we are all such evil bigots
I am also completely disgusted by the ignorance of some of these people here who claim to be "proud southerners" and then go on to expound on the evils of the confederacy. If anyone would care to take a look at history, they would notice that several THOUSAND free blacks, and slaves alike fought in the confederate army. Secondly the main factor that drove the secession of South Carolina was the passage of a tariff act that simultaneously helped industrial interests in the north and hurt agricultural interests in the south. Third If slavery was such an important issue in the war of Northern aggression, why did the south not simply rejoin the union and help to ratify the original 13th ammendment(the Corwin ammendment, which Lincoln supported ) which read:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
if the keen observer will read the so-called emancipation proclamation he will no doubt notice that this document which supposedly freed the slave only did so in confederate territory not already under Union control.
image of Lincoln has been altered to the point that a man who would violate every constitutional law he could is now to many"st. abraham" a man who knows no fault, while a man such as Robert E. Lee, an upsatning man is seen as being in league with the devil.
IN reference to the gentleman who equated the confederate battle flag with the Nazi swastika, how dare you.The Nazi party commited genocide on a large scaleas well as invaded peaceful nations with the direct objective of conquest and subjugation. teh confederate States of America did no such thing. the only nation in North America who could even come remotely close would be our socialist neighbor to the North, the good old U.S.of A., The Unioted states waged a bloody war of conquest upon a peaceful nation and then used propaganda to cover up the real reasons for their war; they commited wholesale genocide on Native Americans, and they perverted the meaning of the constitution and have bypassed it at every chance. When i build a gallows and hang the stars and stripes atop it , will you place that peice in a position of prominence alongside "Mr" Sims piece?
If you find my views of the United States as hurtful or disrespectful, dont worry, its art.
So, I read in this morning's newspaper that Ms. Barber has received threats, some of them dire enough to warrant the attention of our local police. Please, O sons and daughters of the South, those who say "heritage, not hate," please tell us all where your honor is and where the hate isn't. Y'all are a bunch of damn cowards, and none of you are any better than the Shiites and Shias fighting over insults to dead clerics made centuries ago. Just how long are you going to keep this meaningless defense of secession and civil war? Have you actually seen the exhibit? (I have, and while I don't think it's great art, it certainly is thought-provoking.) Are you Americans or are you Confederates? Are you truly honorable, or are you no better than petty criminals who make anonymous threats to female art museum directors?
Modestus:
How do you know who threatened Director Barber?
For all we know, it might have been a Ku Kluxer. They are notorious for doing things to embarrass honorable Southerners.
The present controversy is proof positive of that -- until the Kluxers started abusing the Confederate Battle Flag in the late 1960s/early 1970s, there was little if any brouhaha over it.
Making anonymous dire statements is the sort of lowlife behavior that one can expect from Kluxers. An honorable Southerner, on the other hand, will tell people to their faces what he thinks of them, or keep his opinions private.
An index finger can be dangerous even as a pistol can be dangerous. Before a wise man points it, he makes certain of his target.
"The Civil War began over the simple question of whether this was one nation, or whether any state or group of states could leave the Union and create a new nation. But soon, the North and the South were fighting over whether the institution of slavery should be allowed to exist."
This quote comes directly out of a history book entitled: A History Of The United States by Boorstin and Kelley.
I would like to expound on some of the half-truths that you have been posted. Yes, Africans did sell other Africans into slavery. They were usually sold the captives from warring tribes (not their very own brothers and sisters). Please understand that the concept of slavery was very different in Africa. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
Mr. Kinan,
You paint an idealized picture of the Old South. I do not doubt the half-truth of your story about Robert E. Lee's servants. But the fact is many slaves were whipped,lynched, raped, and abused
in various ways. While you are teaching yourself history, you might consider broadening your research materials. Have you ever heard of THE SLAVE NARRATIVES?
My fellow southerners,
Ask yourselves this question? WHAT IF THE SOUTH HAD WON?
Allow me to insert an issue into this fiasco that I don't think has been considered publicly...yet. Let's go WAAAAY out on a limb and give Mr. Sims and the Brogan Museum the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a worthwhile display. A display sponsored in part by the City of Tallahassee and Leon County. Now consider that these same two Municipal entities sponsor Springtime Tallahassee. When the Sons of Confederate Veterans requested that their float entry into the Springtime Tallahassee parade be allowed to pass out small Confederate battle flags with a friendly Southern smile and maybe a neighborly handshake, they were denied. We certainly can't have people going around casting a POSITIVE image on that mean ol' battle flag, now can we?
Just so we all get this straight. The City of Tallahassee and Leon County (through the Tourist Development Council) WILL spend taxpayer's money to support the display of a cherished Southern symbol in an negative, violent and controversial way, but they will not even allow these same taxpaying citizens to freely donate their own time and money to display/distribute that same symbol in a positive and uplifting manner in the Springtime Tallahassee Parade. Ray Charles could see the double standard and reverse discrimination in this liberal "PC" town! And the ignorant masses wonder why we are so defensive of our heritage...
What say you, Commissioners?
Proud Paul
sailboat13@hotmail.com
There. will always be people who allow /promote anger and dissention to be fueled by public display. Ms Barber sure hit a jackpot when pitting the past against the present... WHY?
Let's get real here. The good of the community would be better served by education through art.
Let respect or the lack of it be an individual issue not a blatant slap at anyone or anything. That's not art. Susan Fewell
Art by definition is: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination esp. in the production of aesthetic objects.
Aesthetic by definition is: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful.
While Mr. Sims may have some carpentry skills, carpentry skills are seldom considered truly artistic. And a gallows is not something that most folks would associate with beauty. While Ms. Barber may proclaim Sims an artist, it truly takes no skill or imagination to stick a real work of art, i.e. the Confederate flag, that someone else created, in a noose. There is nothing thought provoking about this menial display. It is only, exactly what it was meant to be, an insult to those who revere their ancestors who fought under the Confederate flag. Insults are intended to stir emotions, albeit, negative emotions. Sims did exactly what he intended with this bit of claptrap and Ms. Barber fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Much like the emperor, in the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes," who wound up walking down the street naked rather than to admit that he saw nothing when he was conned, Ms. Barber can't admit that Sims has conned her. There simply is no art there! Sims just conned her into helping him insult all of us who revere the Confederate flag , all the while, drawing attention to himself because he doesn't have any skill to compete with true artists. If Sims actually has any talent, it is simply in the art of manipulation.
What this flap is really all about is PC (politically correct) vs. non-PC (politically incorrect). It is NOT about free speech. When the sons of confederate veterans are not allowed to bring their small confederate flags to display in the Springtime Tallahassee parade because it is about "hate" or would "cause a controversy", but Mr. Sims's obviously hateful attitude toward those of Southern heritage and his ability to cause a controversy is given a pass by "those in charge", it is obvious that PC is at work here, NOT the exercise of free speech. The 2 Brogan board members that were quoted in the Democrat article (see http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703270328) display total contempt for many of the members of this community who do regard the confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage, and there are MANY in the community who do so, dear Brogan board members. And some of us ALSO financially support the Brogan, and serve on boards of various arts organizations around the community. If you are a blogger or are reading this blog and are offended by this display of PC "art", don't just get mad, get ACTIVE, join these Tallahassee arts organizations & museums, and become a member of their respective boards. Make sure that your voice is heard, and that you have a say in what is displayed as art in this community. Free speech is important, and I support the right of Mr. Sims to display his work, BUT I also support the ability of the sons of confederate veterans to display another work that is more respectful of Southern heritage. Trouble is, with the current board of the Brogan, I doubt that we will see this even-handed approach anytime soon. It's therefore time to vote with with whatever means necessary, with your pocketbook if you have to.
Flag Show is True Art - First of all, an artist knows a piece is successful if it elicts strong emotional response and controversy.
Given that, an artist's incentive is to provide a catalyst to propel the viewer away from the mundane and usual. Secondly, the theme is obviously showcasing the obscenity of the Confederate platform which promoted slavery as a right and primary cause of attempting to destroy the US.
I've seen art exhibits which show strong sexual themes in shocking ways, and some which portray human and animal forms in obscene and disgusting depictions. THIS IS A PATTERNED PIECE OF CLOTH, which is NOT an official symbol, except for greedy plantation owners who would rather tear the country apart than give up thier "way of life".
If this exhibit is such a atrocity to some, then they should take a good look at themselves and evaluate whether they REALLY are TRUE Americans, who have spent 200 years attempting to create a nation providing freedom from any maltreatment for ALL citizens. I am a true American, my family has been here over 200 years, were leaders during the Revolution and fought for the Union in 1812 and the Civil War. Prior to that in Europe, among my ancestors were statesmen who convinced rulers to free Jewish and non-white slaves alike. There is no good rationality for any slavery then or now.
I say those who object to this work, or any other, which points out America's shame should leave the US and go somewhere that endorses such mindless fervor to honor the dispicable acts and beliefs of slavers and bigots.
Have you ever heard the expression “this is just dumb” ? I’m a fifth generation Floridian with registered pioneers that arrived here prior to statehood. To their credits they served as scouts for the federal government during the second Seminal Indian war. Then later served as allies with the Seminole Indians against the federal government during the War between the States. Many of the Seminole’s were black freemen.
Their homestead is gaining increased popularity as a place of community heritage by various groups. It was donated by my great grand aunt who was the first female Florida State house Representative in Florida. This property which literally has “rebels” complete with a Confederate flag, buried on it has a black seminal over seeing its daily care. It is a multiethnic site. I await the day that someone comes along to say they are offended by the site. Where will the are director be?
This Confederate flag in a noose is not art. It is a political statement. It is intended to create animosity. It is intended to provoke the notion that there is a white “southern” racist around every corner. No matter how the “director” of the museum defends it as a work of art.
Florida State law prohibit the misuse of the Confederate flag. This law was perhaps created to prevent its misuse by white supremacy groups. Now we must protect it from the other.
The Brogan Museum has been diminished by allowing Sims to insult and belittle other patrons. I doubt that the Brogan would allow an exhibit that deliberately insulted African Americans yet they allow him to insult native Southerners. This type of art is typical of a person who has oh-so-little talent who is trying to get by on a gimick and a controversy.
Ms. Barber should feel ashamed and embarrassed by allowing this type of intolerance and hate speech to be shown in the Brogan. If this type of art is all the Brogan has to offer you may as well turn off the lights and lock the doors.
This is an in your face exhibit to demean and belittle and it is an outrage that it is on display in the Brogan Museum. Pitch it out now along with Mr. Sims! While you are at it, an entire new board would be a good idea.
Mary Brogan is a CHILDREN'S museum. This art exhibit is NOT appropriate for small children.
Mr. Sims "exhibit "? In a word (or two) it stinks. Certainly nothing artistic about it, but it was never intended to be art, was it?
I hope this is one way I can speak my mind and opinion, I am 17 years old from Clayton N.C. I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and have many who where in my family who fought and died for the flag that you desicrate and dishonor, im sure the artist in question is a very good artist, but it seems to me that he is attacking the flag and what it stood for, many people who know history and take the time to look into the Confederacy will anazingly learn that it was not the "evil racist country" that everyone has made it out to be, unfortinatly racist groups have misused the Confederate flag, as they misuse the United States flag, but you dont see the U.S. flag hanging from a nuse for artistic display, I would have thought that an established and proffesional institution as yours would have relized the profound results that would have transpired from such an ugly display, I hope that in the future you will turn down such disgraceful forms of artwork, maybe a better thing to have done would have been put the KKK flag on there, because of course that would have been a better way to display that racist flag, but I can only imagine what kind of horrific artwork will adorn the halls of your institution in the future....
The Civil War (that's War Between the States to you apologists out there) could not have happened without slavery, because the South never seriously considered secession except to protect the institution of slavery. By extension, the armies of the Confederacy who flew the St. Andrew's Cross were fighting, de facto, for a government created to protect racial slavery. The evidence is quite clear on this point:
If the Confederacy was created with the protection of States' Rights as the paramount goal, then why did the Confederate Constitution explicitly deny any member states the right to ban slavery within their borders in the future?
How can you SCV folks who quote postwar Lost Cause aplologia from ex-Confederates who didn't want to admit "The Cause" was about protecting slavery as an economic and social institution, but ignore their comments they made before and during the war? President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Alexander Stephens both denied that the War had anything to do with slavery AFTER 1865. But in the heady days of 1861, and later, they are both on record as admitting that slavery was the prime reason for secession.
According to Davis, in his farewell speech in to the U.S. senate in 1861, threats to the future of slavery had "brought Missississippi to her present decision [to secede]." Davis then went on to say that the Confederacy was forming to adhere to the true intended meaning of the U.S. Constitution, namely that "all mean are created equal" did not mean slaves.
Alexander Stephens, was even more explicit, explaining to a cheering crowd in Savannah, GA. in March 1861, after the completion of the new Confederate Constitution. Debates over slavery, he said, were "the immediate cause" of the Southern states seceding. Stephens went on to say that the U.S. Constitution was based on "fundamentally wrong" ideals of basic human equality. In happy contrast, he assured his audience, the Confederate States of America was "founded upon exactly the opposite idea...that slavery--subordination to the superior rae--is [the African slave's] natural and normal condition. This, our new government is the first...based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Oh yeah, and the state of Florida explicitly stated in its official ratification of its ordinance of secession that the protection of slavery was the reason for the state's breach with the Union.
Why would all of these people make slavery out to be the central issue of secession if it wasn't? Even the most dedicated of slaveholders admitted that "We fight for slavery" didn't make very good PR. So were Davis, Stephens, the state of Florida, and all the other voices all wrong? Were they that stupid that they mistakenly said they were seceding to protect slavery?
I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the point. Follow the evidence, people!
Yes, Confederate soldiers fought in defense of their homes. But they did so in full knowledge that it was also in defense of a government, dominated by planter aristocrats, that was formed to protect the Southern "way of life," meaning slavery and white supremacy. The Confederate Battle Flag was one of the fighting standards of that movement. Should we inflict our present-day beliefs on them and condemn them as evil? No. But applaud the government they fought for, which was based on racial slavery and the maintenance of the planter elite? Please.
When we try to sanitize history (including rampant Northern racism during the whole era), we shortchange ourselves and the soldiers on both sides, who themselves, despite their racism, were unable to ignore the fact that slavery was the be-all--end--all cause of the dispute.
Those "Heritage, Not Hate" bumper stickers and slogans should be replaced by "Heritage, Not History" placards. Come on, guys. Read the primary sources. Lost Cause fantasy isn't even real history. It's merely a collection of feel-good myths to help the white South retain its "honour."
John Sims, I salute you. And the fact that you have recieved so many death threats only proves the ongoing need to re-examine the legacy of the Confederacy. And as for you self-proclaimed "Southern Activists" should try reading something besides "The South Was Right!"
Dear Ian, Anonymous and everyone else who believes the myth of slavery as the cause for the war,
Since this has turned into one giant history lesson, rather than the discussion over a museum display, I feel compelled to attempt to educate you once again.
The basic stumbling block you meet here is the inability to understand the meaning of the term "States' Rights." I'm not faulting you for this, after all it's been well over 140 years since any American has experienced states' rights. In antebellum days (ie: "before the war" so you don't have to look it up), it was the right of each individual state legislature to govern itself. If you lived in Virginia, the government of Virginia ruled over you and your slaves. If you lived in New York, the government of New York ruled over you and your slaves. Washington, DC was a small place with a short reach. That is to say that the federal government was not a factor in most Americans' lives.
But then things changed.
Now, let's imagine that you were going along with your lives, paying the absolutely exorbitant taxes and tariffs that the small federal government was imposing on you and a small number of your immediate neighbors, while sending all the money to a different part of the country for a revolution of industry that had nothing to do with you. Fine, that's just the cost of living in a free country, right? You're not happy about it, but you pay anyway, and you hope that the federal politicians know enough to keep their greedy hands to themselves and not overstep their bounds given them by the U.S. Constitution.
But then they did go too far. Then they said "While we continue to overtax you on your chief crops, you Southron farmers, we are further going to take away the legal tool you use to grow, pick and process those crops. Yes, we know - this will cripple your economy and cost you more than you can even begin to afford to pay, and we know that we're taking something legal away from you even while there are parts up here that still have that legal tool, but we don't care. You'll still owe us as much tax money as you ever did."
Would any war resulting over this turn of events have to do with the tools for picking crops, or would it rather have to do with the fact that your very lives were now being dictated to you?
Now maybe you begin to understand the nuances of the right of the states to govern themselves. This is the way I explain the Northern tax and tariff system to children: If you had a dollar and I took 75 cents of that dollar and gave it to this kid to use as he wanted, wouldn't that upset you? Of course it would. It doesn't matter how you earned that dollar. The fact is that the dollar was yours.
Surely, this will sound callous to some. Today, we know that owning another human being is not something we'd do. But put yourself back in history and you'll understand that until 1865, there were always slaves in this country. Slavery was legal, and dated back to the time of the biblical Egyptians. Blacks, like it or not, were legally considered only 3/5 of a man. Black women and children weren't counted at all. Surely, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, blacks were mistreated by masters. But children today are mistreated by parents. Would we expect the next society, 150 years from now, to take only the cases of the abusive parents from today and conclude that all (or the majority) of parents beat and abused their children?
It's truly an easy mistake to make, because with the end of the war in 1865, the now-large federal government took the reins full on and have never looked back. Reconstruction was all about not allowing the truth of Northern aggression to spread, so Southrons were not allowed to write books or teach or hold office. Carpetbaggers came South to propagate the myths and lies started by Lincoln, and it's worked magnificently. It's surely fooled you people over a hundred years later. Heck, it fooled me too until I took the time to heavily study both sides and make an informed and intelligent decision.
We modern Americans have no idea what it was like when states ruled. Now, everything is alike. One state is the same as the next, but for the climate. PC runs rampant, telling us what we're allowed to say and what we're allowed to feel, and anyone who refuses to play that game gets branded a racist and a bigot, and lumped into a category of ignorance as a tactic of silencing an opponent and taking away his credibility. But it's easier than facing the truth, I suppose. It's brilliant really, the attempt of politicians, and those fooled on this website, to make us non-PC thinkers feel ashamed of our views. Heck, the lying started in 1863 when Abraham Lincoln himself attempted to change the cause of the war from States' Rights to slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, to placate a war-weary North and give them something "more worthy" to fight over. Unfortunately, the textbooks have succeeded in fooling many today, but back then, not many were duped into believing the propoganda. Consider the mere fact that the Underground Railroad ended in Canada and not the Northern U.S. Folks, back then, slavery was legal in both the NORTH and South of this country. Northerners didn't want freed blacks taking their jobs any more than the Southerners did. Do not be fooled into believing that slavery didn't exist north of the Mason-Dixon line (which is merely the dividing line between Maryland and Pennsylvania, and not the dividing line between North and South, as is commonly and incorrectly believed today).
It's amazing what you can find out once you start looking for it.
For example, did you know that the term "civil war" literally means two parties warring over the same government? Well that's not what this was at all. Though it's interesting to me that a piece of history that has so many lies passed off as government-sanctioned truth should have a misleading title for its very name. How appropriate is that?
Thank you to all of you folks here who have written and called me in appreciation for my comments. You are so very welcome and I'm proud to have made more friends through this "show of art." At least something good came from it.
To Director Barber, I thank you for continuing to post comments on your website that do not reflect your own views.
And to Mr./Ms. "Anonymous," if you wish to address me directly on this website, I ask you to have enough courage to actually leave yourself a name. The quote you left on your post is accurate in its form, but there is some content left out.
You left us with this quote: "The Civil War began over the simple question of whether this was one nation, or whether any state or group of states could leave the Union and create a new nation. But soon, the North and the South were fighting over whether the institution of slavery should be allowed to exist."
And I re-write it here, in large print to show the added parts, to allow you to understand what the author of that textbook left unsaid, for your benefit. Interestingly, I wonder if your author was thorough in his book by explaining this later on, or if he was just negligent. I explain: "The Civil War began over the simple question of whether this was one nation, or whether any state or group of states could leave the Union and create a new nation. But soon, BASED ON THE FACT THAT LINCOLN WAS FACED WITH A REBELLIOUS POPULATION EAGER TO LET THE SOUTH SECEDE SO THEIR SONS COULD RETURN, HE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AND ATTEMPT TO TELL THE WORLD THAT THEY WERE NOW FIGHTING FOR A MORAL CAUSE RATHER THAN MERELY TO KEEP THE UNION TOGETHER."
I know this is getting long, folks, but bear with me. Here's some astonishing facts regarding RACE that you might be interested in knowing (taken from "Warriors of Honor" a video by Brian Barkley, which I highly recommend):
- In 1637, the first slave ship named the Desire was built in Massachusetts Colony (that's in the North)
- According to the 1830 census, over 10,000 slaves were owned by FREED BLACKS.
- In 1830, in New York City, 8 FREED BLACKS owned 17 slaves. (again, that's in the North)
- In 1860, William Ellison, of Sumter, South Carolina, a FREED BLACK, owned 70 slaves.
- In 1860, in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, a FREED BLACK, Auguste Donato, owned 70 slaves who worked 500 acres.
- Constitution of the Confederate States opposed the importation of slaves from outside of the states - Article 1, Section 9
- Tenant farmers were the majority of the South; only 2-3% actually owned slaves
- Frenchman and abolitionist, Alexis DeTocqueville, traveled from 1831 - 1832 to both the North and South extensively and wrote two volumes about his observations, "Democracy in America" and came to the conclusion that there was more racial prejudice in North:
"The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slaves than in the states where slavery still exists. White workers will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do in almost every Southern state."
- Connecticut law stated that non-resident blacks could not attend public school because, "it would greatly increase the number of black people in the state." (again, North!)
- New Jersey passed one of the first laws prohibiting free blacks from settling there (yep, North)
- In 1853, the Indiana Constitution stated, "No negro shall come into or settle in the state." (North)
- In 1853, Illinois passed a law preventing blacks from "coming into this state and remaining ten days with the evident intention of residing in the same." (Illinois? The Land of Lincoln?)
- In 1862, Illinois amended its Constitution to state that "no negro shall immigrate in this state."
- In July, 1863 and just barely ten days after the Battle of Gettysburg, riots broke out in the streets of New York City mostly over the draft, but it quickly turned racial and at least twelve blacks were lynched. (New York citizens killed innocent blacks, in the North..)
- The Emancipation Proclamation when referring to the parishes of Louisiana and the State of West Virginia, reads "left precisely as if this Proclamation were not issued." (no slaves freed in those Southern states, and in fact, no slaves freed in the North at all.)
- Quote from a Northern newspaper: "If it {the Declaration of Independence} justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein why?"
--New York Tribune, December 17, 1860 (a NORTHERN newspaper)
and my particular favorite, penned by Ol' Honest Abe himself:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
- Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, August 22, 1862 (One year, four months and ten days into the war.)
Read it for yourself at http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Folks, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone wishing to hear more, please feel free to write at the email address below. It's important to me that Americans understand their own American history.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Kinan
jebs2rtcsa@aol.com
HOLD THE PRESSES, folks, I have some news...
The American Civil war began in April of 1861, right?
Many here have gone on record as stating that this war was about slavery, right?
I'd ask any one of them to explain this to me with a straight face:
WEST VIRGINIA ADMITTED TO THE UNION AS A SLAVE STATE, JUNE 20, 1863
That's right. Over two years and two months AFTER the war began, and over six months AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation was released, supposedly freeing all the slaves, US President Abraham Lincoln allowed West Virginia to secede from Virginia and become a US state, WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY INTACT.
From the state's own archives, I give you the official records:
http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehoo.html
Enjoy this little tidbit of history!
Mark Kinan
jebs2rtcsa@aol.com
Last week in NYC an artist attempted to display a CHOCOLATE JESUS during Easter Week.
The people demanded it be taken down and guess what it was taken down!
In my opinion, Your offensive displaying of the Confederate Battle Flag meets the same criteria - hate and divisiveness - Bigoted Discriminaiton against all Confederate Southern Americans.
Shame on you, you don't have the moral gumption to remove it. In fact you emblish it, and revile in it! I can only conclude that you agree with it. Shame, Shame, Shame, your actions are disgraceful.
Mark Kenan, sadly your argument has fallen into the same pattern as all the rest of the Confederate apologists of late do. You may not be aware of this, but I'm well aware of the heavy involvement of the Northern states in American slavery. Also, there were a small number of black and mixed race slaveowners, not to mention large numbers of Cherokees and othe Native Americans imitating their "civilized" American neighbors. The difference is that unlike YOUR argument, which is primarily concerned with spreading the guilt of slavery around and relies, as I said before, on an extremely partisan reading of the sources, I am not arguing to exhonerate the North, African Americans, or any other group. I'm just stating the historical fact that the Confederacy was formed to protect slavery.
To begin with: aside from the abortive Hartford Convention and South Carolina's leadership's brief nullification tiff in 1832, no even halfway serious threats to secede were made by any states in the Union that didn't involve the protection of slavery.
As for your facts, which can be pulled straight off the book jacket of any Confederate aplologia publication or two bit website, they are all correct. Again, the difference is that my argument allows, even freely admits your facts, without losing sight of the larger picture. I never said that the Civil War started as an abolitionist crusade. Indeed, most Northern whites were NOT abolitionists by any stretch of the imagination, and they shared white America's racism that knew no geograpic boundaries. The increasing Northern discomfort with the institution of slavery grew from economic, political, and social reasons that rarely included feelings that blacks should be treated as equal citizens. Many Northerners, like Lincoln, wanted to end slavery and ship the blacks back to Africa, founding the American Colonial Society in 1816, which also included members like Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay.
The War began over a disputes over the TERRITORIAL EXPANSION of slavery. Almost everyone except for the Garisonian abolitionists beleived the US government couldn't interfere with slavery in the states where it existed, but that it could regulate it in the territories. Hence the increasing tension when the US acquired so much new land after the war with Mexico in 1848.
Yes, many, (dare I say most, if not all) Free States in 1860 had discriminatory laws on the books ranging from segregation to disenfranchisement of blacks, to outright banning of blacks from the state, as in Illinios and Indiana. I must add, however, that Southern states like Virginia were also putting laws on the books by 1860 that were aimed at removing free blacks from the state.
The mainstream, professional historical community does not attempt to say the white South stood out for its racism, per se, which was just as virulent all across most of America. The difference was that the South, by 1860, was advocating that slavery was a POSITIVE GOOD, as the most famous "fire-eating" secessionist such as John C. Calhoun, Edmund Ruffin, and the the Rhett family of South Carolina were advocating.
Now for Mr. Kinan's obsession with Lincoln as being somehow not against slavery. Lincoln's widely quoted letter to Horace Greely's newspaper, in which Lincoln stated that his primary goal was to save the Union, was sincere. But what Mark leaves out in his quotation, which I'm sure he clipped from a "South shall Rise Again" source rather than oh, a history page, is Lincoln's next statement, in which he wrote that his PUBLIC stance on slavery was just what he stated above, but his PERSONAL sentiments were for it's end. And yes, Lincoln admitted West Virginia into the Union as a slave state, as its voters wished, just like Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware remained in the Union as slave states. Lincoln was no wide-eyed abolitionist. He had always advocated a very gradual, almost painfully slow end to slavery, with as little internal termoil as possible. He became more radical, as did many of his contemporaries, under the preassures of war.
And yes, you are absolutely right, Mark, that most Northerners were in the war to save the Union, not end slavery. The Northern position was, effectively, "The Union above all, even slavery." The South seceded because the North was increasingly uncommitted in its endorsement of the South's "peculiar institution."
You can fling trivia at me all day long, but in the end, Mark, you're not being logical. You're on a soap box. Your politically laced Lost Cause mythology is just bad history. And THAT is way more offensive to me than any artist's depiction of the Confederate Battle Flag. (Which was only hauled up over Southern capitol domes in reaction to Brown V. Board of Ed. And not coincidentally, "States Rights" was also the rallying cry for Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and the Dixiecrat segregationists.)
Why is it that you aren't citing any Southerners or Confederates from before 1865 in your arguments? Maybe because they, unlike you, knew what the Confederacy was REALLY about. You wax eloquent about tariff's and big government. But for the most part, the people of the 1850s and 1860s did not.
I'll debate you about this online, in public, any time, any place. You might have the Confederistas on your side, but I have the historical evidence on mine.
And to those posters out there who keep talking about your violated Confederate Heritage about this flag: go read the original speeches and sources about the Confederacy. Sherman did leave SOME libraries standing.
Oh, one more thing. According to modern researchers, including the very Southern John Coski, library director of the Museum of the Confederacy, approximately 30% of the heads of household in the 11 states in the Confederacy owned slaves. Mark Kinan's amazingly low count of 2-3% comes when you include women, children, and actual slaves in the total pool of potential slaveowners, even though the above categories legally couldn't own property, unless of course the ladies were widowed or unmarried, which was rare at the time.
To Ian, I've given you all I can, and it seems you have all the facts but none of the understanding. I've had other folks on here write to me and thank them for explaining the issues, so at least I've made some people understand. You may disagree, question my sources and label me as you like, but until you are able to see this from an 1860's standpoint, you'll never understand it.
To Mrs. Barber, I am sorry to hear that you have received threats to your welfare and I hope that they are now in the past. It is a shame that some folks find that to be an acceptable way to conduct themselves. We'd all be better off without people like that. Thank you for posting all my writings without edit.
To everyone who has written here and to me personally, whether you believe as I do or not, I have enjoyed the debate and happy that I have been able to reach a few.
As for me, I'm signing off and won't be returning to this forum. Good luck, everybody!
I commend the Director's stance on this issue. It seems ludicrous that a handful of citizens (NY Times states 54 sons of confederacy) would try to dictate what is on display in a public space that serves a population of around 400,000. In addition, my heritage is white and southern and fought in grey. I, too, as a child was filled with moonlight and magnolia renditions of the old south heritage. The bottom line has little to do with the civil war, however. It has to do with the confederate flag being used as a symbol of intolerance, fear, and hatred especially during the desegregation era. Quite frankly, if we honestly look at the horrors perpetrated against African-American citizens (emphasize citizens) in the past one hundred years... Well, if I were an African-American artist, I would have done a lot worse to that flag. Thank you, Chucha Barber for not backing down.
"its more than rain that falls on your parade tonight"
to deny negative expression is to deny 1/2 of yourself. often i feel the american flag hanging over the gallows. I FEEL IT. if you aren't allowed to express what you feel (in art or in any medium), then the suffering will continue because you will never get to articulating the solution. broadcast news is suppose to inform us, to alert us to the suffering of others, not to offend us with graphic depictions. you choose to look into your own blinders to avoid understanding what is trying to be communicated. your comments however stand as their own counter artwork. should it be banned?
I admire John Sims for his work. How provocative and inspired! It makes me very proud to have a museum like the Brogan Museum in our fine town, a museum willing to protect the First Amendment, as well as enrich the culture of our region. To the nay-sayers I say this: if Sims' work is in bad taste, it is MORE in bad taste to protect and cling to a flag and past that, whether you like it or not, is a symbol of slavery and torture for hundreds of thousands of blacks. It is equally in bad taste to complain and wish to take away someone's freedom of speech, not much unlike the stripping away of freedom that white Americans did to Africans for over a hundred years leading up to the day that flag and the slavery it protected were finally defeated in battle. I, a white historical scholar, am offended by the negative reaction to the art of Sims brought on by love of the racism of the Confederacy. You can come up with a million positive meanings for that flag, and perhaps many of them are accurate and correct, but none of that will take away from the FACT that the confederate battle flag was raised in battle to kill Americans trying to protect the freedom of slaves and wash away the sins of this nation that clearly contradicted the Declaration of Independence that gave birth to this country. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
--Shane H. Hockin, M.A.
It makes me laugh that so many people come on here and say that the confederate battle flag was an "American" flag, and that it honors the thousands of "Americans" who died for the south, and it is an insult to their great great great grandfather who fought for "America" under that flag. The last thing I heard, the south had seceded from the United States when that flag flew! Seems to me that they made a conscious effort to NOT be Americans anymore. Why? Because a majority of America, the country they were previously a part of, decided to vote for a President that opposed slavery. They left. They were wrong. So why should I, an American, care if their flag is insulted? Insult to the southerners? The only thing insulting to southerners is protecting the flag that flew for an ideal that has caused them nothing but trouble. Southerners now are a part of the United States, here, in the present. The past is best left there. It is no different than if someone in Germany tried to protect the Nazi flag from renegade artists. Give me a break.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home