IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i2p346-364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reexamining Confederate symbols displayed on flags and monuments in public spaces: Two fallacies in the heritage versus hate debate

Author

Listed:
  • James Michael Martinez
  • Mary Christine Cagle

Abstract

Objective This article examines ongoing arguments over the meanings of Confederate symbols—especially symbols displayed on flags and monuments—to assess two fallacies that frequently influence the debate. Method The article explores the historical record concerning public displays of Confederate symbols. Results The traditional debate is based on two fallacies. First, it presupposes that the meaning of a symbol can be limited to a single referent or set of referents and fixed in time. Second, it assumes that the meaning of Confederate symbols can be divorced from hateful messages of white supremacy and bigotry. Conclusion A symbol cannot be limited to its original meaning because the context is constantly evolving. Even if it could be limited, the original meaning of Confederate symbols was always hateful. The debate sometimes has been cast as “heritage versus hate.” Because displays of Confederate symbols in public spaces have always been in a context of “hate”—to defend a slaveholding republic, to promote white supremacy, to defy court‐ordered integration of public schools, or to promote the agenda of racist advocacy groups—the meaning of Confederate flags and monuments was never about heritage alone. Hate was always part of the message.

Suggested Citation

  • James Michael Martinez & Mary Christine Cagle, 2022. "Reexamining Confederate symbols displayed on flags and monuments in public spaces: Two fallacies in the heritage versus hate debate," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(2), pages 346-364, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:2:p:346-364
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13133
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Chamberlain & Alixandra B. Yanus, 2021. "Monuments as Mobilization? The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Memorialization of the Lost Cause," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 125-139, January.
    2. Christopher A. Cooper & Scott H. Huffmon & H. Gibbs Knotts & Seth C. McKee, 2021. "Heritage Versus Hate: Assessing Opinions in the Debate over Confederate Monuments and Memorials," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(3), pages 1098-1110, May.
    3. Michael Reksulak & Gökhan Karahan & William Shughart, 2007. "Flags of our fathers: Voting on Confederate symbols in the State of Georgia," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 83-99, April.
    4. Sara Z. Evans, 2021. "The Removal of Confederate Monuments: Reflections on Power and Privilege in Shared Spaces," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(3), pages 1044-1055, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Curtis Bram & Michael Munger, 2022. "Where you stand depends on where you live: county voting on the Texas secession referendum," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 67-79, March.
    2. Jeffrey Grynaviski & Michael Munger, 2014. "Did southerners favor slavery? Inferences from an analysis of prices in New Orleans, 1805–1860," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 341-361, June.
    3. Adam Chamberlain & Alixandra B. Yanus, 2021. "Evaluating federated voluntary associations’ membership data: An application of Benford's Law," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1590-1601, July.
    4. Christopher A. Cooper & Scott H. Huffmon & H. Gibbs Knotts & Seth C. McKee, 2021. "Heritage Versus Hate: Assessing Opinions in the Debate over Confederate Monuments and Memorials," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(3), pages 1098-1110, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:2:p:346-364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.