To Those Still Wondering Why Displaying a Confederate Flag Isn't Super Cool

Disclaimer: I am a privileged white male. I do not claim to have a significant understanding of what it is like to me a minority, because I am not one. My opinions are only my own, and I do not claim to speak for any other ethnic group, but rather in solidarity with them. This post is mostly for white people like myself who don't understand why many people (both African American and white) are offended by the use of the Confederate flag. If any member of the Black community takes issue with my presumptuousness about sentiments toward the flag, please feel free contact me, as I am trying to be as accurate as possible.

A week or so ago a student hung a Confederate flag in his window on the fraternity quad at U of R. Another student, offended by the display, posted a picture to a UR FB group chastising him. After a discussion on this group, the student gave an explanation, apologized, and removed the flag. But since this is the internet, that was only the beginning. 

An explosion of arguments from both sides ensued. People took two sides: the first said that the flag was offensive, because it was a symbol of racism, and the second said that it was not offensive, because it was a symbol of Southern pride. But this unfortunate and circular discussion misses the point. To move the conversation forward, I would like to clear some things up.

In order to examine this incident we must engage with simple semiotics. In a social vacuum, the Confederate flag means nothing. It is a combination of colored fabrics arranged into an arbitrary shape. However, we, as humans, attach a great deal of value to symbols. These symbols can have different and conflicting meanings depending on multitude of factors (geopolitical region, race, religion, gender, socioeconomic status etc). Therefore it is impossible to say objectively what a symbol, in this case the Confederate Flag, does and does not represent. Those who view it as a symbol of Southern pride are correct. Those that view it as a symbol of bigotry are also correct. It does not have one true meaning, but many meanings, all equally valid. Since these meanings exist, so do their tangible effects on people.

It is a fact that a significant number of people are offended by this symbol. It doesn't matter why the flag is offensive. It just matters that it is. For some, it may be that it was used extensively by the Klu Klux Klan. For some, it may be that it was used as a symbol of protest against the ruling of Brown v Board of Education allowing racial integration in schools. For some, it may be of reminder of the Confederacy's desire to maintain the exploitative economic structure of slavery. It is also important to remember that these meanings are being applied to a group with a history of hundreds of years of economic, social, political, psychological oppression (watch Louis CK's explain the importance of historical context in a way that is equal parts hilarious and disturbing). 

The positive meanings of the flag, Southern pride, freedom, individuality, do exist. However they do not discount its aforementioned negative meanings.

Think of it this way. Imagine you walk by a stranger on the way to class. You go up to this stranger, yell "fuck you!" and give him or her the middle finger. This person will most likely become very upset. You then explain that its okay to use the middle finger and the phrase "fuck you" in this way because they are not offensive. You say this because, for you, they represent something entirely different. You then get angry at the stranger for feeling offended.

That would be kind of ridiculous right? Sure, the middle finger isn't an an objectively evil finger, and the combination of letters that make up the word "fuck" aren't inherently bad. And sure, you might have different associations with these actions. But many people attribute negative meanings to them, and therefore they are considered widely offensive. This is the case with the Confederate flag, except that the meanings go much deeper. Most people are offended by the use of the middle finger. But they do not experience a reminder of the systematic oppression of their people when the finger is displayed, in the way that African Americans might when they see a Confederate flag. 

Sure, the Confederate flag might represent Southern pride for some people, but you are celebrating it while disregarding the sentiments of a good portion of the Black community. Perhaps there is a different, less racist way to celebrate Southern pride, like buying a Paula Dean cookbook (oh wait...)

To argue that the flag means this, or the flag means that, is misguided. The flag means whatever people think it means. But something with a significant amount of negative meaning should be examined. You have the freedom to hang a Confederate flag wherever you want, just as you have the freedom to shout "fuck you" to strangers, but in both cases you must be ready for people to be offended. You must be ready for people to be upset by it. And you must be ready for people to take a stance against it. 

This whole debate makes me very sad. Instead of actually engaging in a critical discussion of racial equality, we are stuck picking apart the basics of semiotics and what it means to be "offensive." This is not progressive stuff. I am not writing an academic thesis on the Marxist-feminist readings of the Confederate flag. This is simple critical thinking in order to gain a basic understanding of the world we live in. In these discussions instead of moving forward, we simply fight not to fall backward, as we ultimately stay in one place. 

Things: "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" and "House of the Devil

Today I read the story "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" by Jorge Luis Borges. It was only the second story I've read by him. I don't remember what the first one was called, but it was in Spanish. The story I read today was the first in a collection called "Ficciones." I really liked it. I didn't understand a lot of it, but reading things you don't understand is important. There's a nice feeling that comes with it, like being guided through a narrative by someone older and wiser than yourself.

This story is heavy on imagery/thought experiments and light on plot. I don't know much about philosophy, but, from what I understood, the story focuses on the concept of idealism; that nothing actually exists except for your mind. Therefore, anything you imagine and perceive is just as real as anything else. This creates a important kind of magic within the story. Its not the intangible magic of "Harry Potter," that you wish you could experience, but ultimately can't. Its a magic that is real, and affects your reality.

One of my favorite moments happens in the beginning, when Borges writes: "Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of man." He implies that the perceived images of the mirror are just as real as an actual person. I doubt I'm the only one fascinated and creeped out by mirrors and the ambiguous levels of reality represented in my reflection.

When he talks about the world of Tlön, he talks about a place I would probably like to live. Or at least visit. He says that some people in Tlön think that "the whole of time has already happened and that our life is a vague and fragmented memory of dim reflection, doubtless false and fragmented, of an irrevocable process." Imagine if time had stopped moving, that our lives were just remnants of thoughts that had already been thought. This might explain some of the more confusing parts of life, why time sometimes seems to move quickly and other times slowly, why memories are wildly inconsistent, why sometimes you feel completely in control and self determined and other times you seem to float through life aimlessly like a jellyfish in the ocean .

Another Tlönian idea is "that the universe is comparable to those code systems in which not all the symbols have meaning, and in which only that which happens every three hundredth night is true." I can't even think about this without being frustrated and bewildered. But it also makes me happy. How many times have you wished that something that happened in your life had not happened? According to this theory, it probably hasn't. This means that most of our life isn't true. When it is true, we could never know. So if most of our life isn't real, it opens of endless possibilities for creativity. The fact that one's actions are not actually happening means that most of the time there are no consequences. This is a theory of almost complete freedom.

Another idea is that "while we are asleep here, we are awake somewhere else, and that thus every man is two men." I feel like everyone has thought of this sometime in their life, as the line between the supposed reality of waking life and the surreality of the dream world becomes blurred.

In the end we realize that Tlön doesn't exist, and was imagined by a group of intellectuals. Slowly, though, these ideas seep into the real world and enter the public consciousness. These ideas replace already established ideas. As people become to forgot their current beliefs, they adopt those of Tlön. This imagined world becomes reality. In world where social media not only connects us all, but influences the information we receive, and the way we perceive the world, this concept is both timely and tangible.

This story is hard to read sometimes. There is a lot of name/concept-dropping. I feel like I only barely understood the full extent of the narrative. But Borges establishes a literary world with magic that that has the ability to seep into the real world, the world of the reader. I felt a little less real after reading this.

I'm watching "House of the Devil" with my housemates right now. I am also drinking. This is a great movie. I saw it a year ago, around this time. It is a perfect fall Halloweenish horror movie. Its nothing new really. But it looks great, aesthetically. Watching it feels great. It is a breathe of fresh air in a world saturated with found-footage pop-out scariness. It isn't really scary. But it is creepy. Very creepy. It builds an atmosphere of creepiness. I get so immersed in it that I never want the climax to happen. I wish this movie kept slowly building and never ended. I also wish I had a pint of ice cream. This movie goes well with ice cream. 

Whats So "Exotic" About Priyanka?

First of all, I love Priyanka Chopra. I think she is a great actress, a beautiful person, a wonderful role model. Apparently she can sing a little too. She starred in the 2008 Hindi movie "Dostana" which may be my favorite Bollywood movie of all time. Seriously, go see it. And with the release of her new song "Exotic" featuring everyone's favorite rapper/city-namer Pitbull, she is clearly trying to expand her audience outside of the Indian market. Which she should. She deserves it. But the song itself makes me uncomfortable.

Though the actual lyrics are sparse, and I don't know enough Hindi to understand some of the verses, the song seems to be about the allure of being "exotic." It struck me at first because, given my familiarity with Priyanka, I hardly found her exotic at all.

Chopra doesn't come from a small country with a stagnant entertainment industry. She is Indian (born in Bihar, though she moved frequently). India is the largest producer of films in the world. India's music industry is directly tied into the film industry. Most chart topping songs are numbers from Bollywood films (one of the many language based film industries throughout the country). Given this, Priyanka's movement in the entertainment industry is more parallel than upward.  

Chopra is as "Westernized" as any other international celebrity. She speaks perfect English, is involved in global charities, lived in and attended school New York, Massachusettes and Iowa, and participated in the Miss World pageant. Not super exotic sounding.

But does this even matter? Should someone's background really have any impact on how exotic they are? What makes her more "exotic" than the millions of other Indians who are part of the diaspora living around the world?

It seems that the marketing strategies of major record labels in the West ("Exotic" was released by Interscope) relies on distilling a person down into a digestible, marketable, yet edgy product. And this seems to be exactly the case with Priyanka. There's no better proof of the fact that we do not live in a post-orientalist society than "Exotic" which plays on the ancient stereotypes of the "exotic east" and "civilized west" by playing up and commercializing the appeal of her foreignness.

Edward Said, who popularized the word "Orientalism" in his 1974 book of the same title, claims that with this otherness also comes an assumption of inferiority. 

"My contention is that Orientalism is fundamentally a political doctrine willed over the Orient, because the Orient was weaker than the West, which elided the Orient′s difference with its weakness . . . As a cultural apparatus, Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth, and knowledge" p204

Whether you agree with Said's claim that otherness, and in this case exoticness, is equated with weakness in the Western imagination, this view of difference is clearly problematic. 

I am not trying advocating a post-racial and post-ethnic society in which all cultures are homogenized and therefore destroyed via assimilation. However I would argue that by promoting the idea of the exotic, Priyanka Chopra's song does not give us a glimpse of her native culture but rather distances us from it. In order to view a culture as exotic, it must be considered "other." If you become immersed in a culture, it is no longer "other." For example: more you watch Bollywood movies the less you find the winding plots, dramatic motifs, and lavish song and dance numbers exotic, and the more you begin to view them as normal. You even may even expect them to happen in the other forms of entertainment you consume (Shah Rukh Khan item song in Expendables 2 anyone?). What I'm trying to say is that the music industry's interest lies in maintaing the lack of cultural competency and understanding in order to keep the "exotic" appealing.

This exoticization is the reason that Americans (mostly on Twitter, but I would assume in real life too) couldn't wrap their head around the fact that even though Miss America was in fact Indian, she was also American. The terrible racism, xenophobia, and ignorance all seems to stem, in part, from how easy it is to lump together vastly different cultures if they all fall under the label of "exotic" (Indian=Egyptian=Arab=Muslim=terrorist=wtf?)

Interestingly enough "Exotic" reached number 1 on the iTunes India charts, and fared well in non Western countries as well. This is probably more of a testament to the prestige of Chopra's career and the size of her fanbase rather than the fact that the song is thoughtful and well-written (lets face it, Pitbull's biggest lyrical influence is Google Maps). 

But as much as I find the idea of exotification problematic, Priyanka did chose to sing this song, and is even partially credited in writing it.  She probably didn't give a second thought to the notion of the "exotic" and its questionable appeal to Western audiences. Which is fine. Why should she? Thats what bloggers are for. And while we might assume that she is being taken advantage of, we should avoid condescending her like that. For all we know she is fully aware of what she is doing, and views it as a necessary evil to expand her superstardom. Or maybe she realizes the idea of being "exotic" is ridiculous, but is subverting it by showing how such a cosmopolitan and multicultural celebrity can be reduced to a single primitive description by Western audiences. Maybe she feels empowered by other people's views of her as exotic. And ultimately, I am not Indian, or a POC. I will never know how it feels to be in her situation. I can only speculate.

I love Priyanka Chopra. I think she can do no wrong, and has done nothing wrong. What I don't love is the West's (and particularly America's) readiness to brand difference as something to be simplified, commodified, and distanced from, rather than something to be embraced and understood.