Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:56 PM ET, 01/19/2011

Southern without the Stars and Bars

By Adriane Fugh-Berman, Washington

Sweet tea and country ham are reasonable Southern culinary markers [“Dixie and D.C. region drift farther and farther apart,” front page, Jan. 16]; the District is also the northernmost point where grits are a common breakfast food. But the dearth of Confederate flags in Washington denotes a rejection of a potent symbol of Southern racism, not a lack of Southern sensibility.

I’m proud to say I’ve never seen a Confederate flag in the District in the 50 years I’ve lived here.

By Adriane Fugh-Berman, Washington  | January 19, 2011; 7:56 PM ET
Categories:  D.C., HotTopic  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Same state, different world'
Next: Traffic? What traffic?

Comments

I guess maybe you've not looked hard enough. I've seen plenty of Confederate Battle Flags in DC. The last ones I saw were on display last Memorial Day being paraded down Penn Ave.

Posted by: irish031 | January 20, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Flags, not so much. Bumper stickers, lots.

The greatest irony for me is the large number I see on vehicles from West Virginia, a Unionist stronghold, vs. the very few on vehicles from Northern Virginia, home to Massa' Robert E. Lee himself.

Posted by: krickey7 | January 20, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Take a look at the plates of the vehicles dislaying confederate imagery. I doubt you'll see a D.C. plate.

Posted by: jckdoors | January 20, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

No, and I don't see many swastikas in Crown Heights either. Good reasons in both cases.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | January 20, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

"Flags, not so much. Bumper stickers, lots.

The greatest irony for me is the large number I see on vehicles from West Virginia, a Unionist stronghold, vs. the very few on vehicles from Northern Virginia, home to Massa' Robert E. Lee himself."

---------------------------------------

Yeah I've observed the same exact thing. One issue I have with what you wrote though: Robert E. Lee was no "Massa" as you put it, he didn't own slaves. For better or worse he fought for the Confederacy because of his loyalty to Virginia not because he loved slavery.

Posted by: rebeccaabdallah | January 20, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, Lee did and he didn't. His wife certainly had slaves and he had the services of slaves. And when Lee was the administrator of his father in law's estate, and in the will the slaves were ordered freed, Lee waited the maximum amount of time possible before freeing them. That being said, he probably had an obligation to do that.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | January 20, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Though I disagree with the cause for which Robert E. Lee fought, he fought and he lived his life in a way that was extremely honorable for his time. There is much to admire in Lee.

But one cannot view Lee outside of the ignoble cause for which he fought. In addition, his generalship preserved the Confederacy far longer than most other generals could have, which led to greater devastation of the Commonwealth over time, hundreds of thousands of additional casualties and a prolonging of institution of slavery itself. One might well question his judgment, though not his integrity.

Posted by: krickey7 | January 20, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Well I think the Confederacy survived more because of poor leadership by both General Meade and General McClellan rather than Lee's good leadership. Lee was good, probably even great but any decent general could have taken the advantages the Union had and won the Civil War much earlier than 1865.

Posted by: rebeccaabdallah | January 20, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

No argument there.

Posted by: krickey7 | January 20, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company