Thursday, February 9th, 2006...6:12 am
Ron Gould: Coffee Cooler Sesh
I can already tell I’m going to get flamed for this.
Senator Ron Gould walked out of an interview with Phoenix station KNXV after the reporter questioned his flying of the Confederate battle flag at his home in Lake Havasu City.
Gould gave the tired excuse that the flag is only being flown for historical reasons. The reporter, Steve Irvin, asked “As a white male, what gives you the right to judge what’s offensive to a Black person?” Gould stormed out.
I used to buy the historical argument about the Confederate battle flag. You know, that this is all about Southern Heritage, et cetera. I bought it until I turned on CNN one day to see a story on white supremacists in of all places, Saskatchewan. Sure enough, there was a guy with a Confederate battle flag. Yeah, there is a lot of pride in “Southern Heritage” up there in the prairie provinces.
(Ever notice that when these guys say “Southern Heritage,” they are never talking about say, Richard Wright or Louis Armstrong? Why is that?)
I also don’t buy the argument because the Confederate Battle flag is just that, a battle standard. It didn’t fly over a court house or official building during the war. The battle flag only started flying over official buildings in the south during the 1950’s as a big “screw you” to growing calls for school desegregation by the federal government. You don’t have to believe me, go back and see what Southern politicians were saying at the time.
The flag that did fly was the so called “Stars and Bars,” it was quickly retired as a battle standard because at the long distances of artillery fire, it looked too much like a Union flag. The battle emblem was later incorporated into the flag, but not until mid 1863, more than a year after the graybacks beat a hasty retreat out of Arizona. There goes the “historical” argument that the “Southern Cross” flew over Arizona.
It would be so much easier to believe the arguments of the “southern heritage” enthusiasts if they wanted to fly the “Stars and Bars,” a flag that lacks the post 1950’s baggage of the “Southern Cross.” But, they insist on flying it. Yes, you can try to argue that it is a symbol that has been co-opted by racists, but not necessarily racist. Tell me something though, if we found a swastika painted on the side of the JCC tommorrow, would anyone believe that the person painting it was practicing a Navajo healing ritual? Symbols, through no fault of their own, acquire all sorts of meanings depending on who chooses to use them. When you use these symbols, you are communicating the bad history too.
I doubt the heritage argument would fly in any other case. What would happen to a Japanese man who flew a 1940’s era Imperial Standard in front of his business? Heck, Ron Gould’s native Orange County, California tried to pass an ordinance banning the display of the Republic of Viet-Nam flag, despite the fact that we granted the country recognition years ago.
I’ve never figured out the conservative obsession with the Confederate battle flag. Even presidential candidates have to pledge fealty to it. Why the heck would conservatives, who consider themselves so patriotic, want to protect the display of a flag of an army that fired on Old Glory? That rebelled against the mother country? Unless of course, they like those newer connotations.
NB - I love the irony of this, given the title of the blog.
By the way, Gould calls groups like No More Deaths and Humane Borders treasonous (those pesky phrases about serving the poor and forgotten have been razored out of his Bible, apparently), but he displays the flag of people that tried to destroy our country in the name of keeping other Americans as slaves. There’s an irony.
11 Comments
February 9th, 2006 at 11:24 am
On top of that, what does Lake Havasu city have to do with the Confederacy? There was a Confederate state of Arizona in existance for ten days (until Gen. Canby’s troops captured the capital), but its capital was at Mesilla (now in New Mexico) and roughly speaking it included only the southern halves of what is now New Mexico and Arizona. I doubt if Lake Havasu city was even within the legal borders of that ’state,’ and even if it was, the town wasn’t there then.
My question is why no one has run against him up there and made it an issue. As in, ‘too weird for Arizona.’
February 9th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Correction:
The Confederate territory of Arizona was never granted statehood status. I thought I had read somewhere that it was, as one of the last acts of the Confederate congress, and 10 days before Mesilla fell. Anyway, a brief history of the Confederate territory of Arizona (and the map seems to exclude Havasu city) can be found here.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:45 am
After the start of the American Civil War, support for the Confederacy was strong in the southern part of the New Mexico Territory, largely due to its neglect by the United States government. In March, 1861, the citizens of Mesilla, New Mexico convened a secession convention to separate themselves from the United States and join the Confederate States of America. On March 16th the convention adopted a secession ordinance citing the region’s common interests and geography with the Confederacy, the need of frontier protection, and the loss of postal service routes under the United States government as reasons for their separation.[1] The ordinance proposed the question of secession to the western portions of the territory, and on March 28th a second convention in present day Tucson, Arizona also met and ratified the ordinance.
Does that mean your ancestors supported the Confideracy Tedski?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
My ancestors, like most Tucsonians of the period, were solidly for whichever uniform was in town with the guns.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
My first thought was–Can’t the Dems find someone good to run against this guy? [I doubt that he can be ignorant of what this flag symbolizes.] However, the odds would not be good–voter registration in District 3 is
42,000–Republicans
28,000–Democrats
25,000–Non-Party
The Dems will need to do a lot of voter persuasion/registration there.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I saw the interview - what a jerk!
Unfortunately, Gould was the replacement for a reasonable Republican, Linda Binder. She practically got railroaded out of town by the wingnuts up in that district.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
anonymous:
It is possible for a Democrat to win in a Republican district when the Republican is exposed as sufficiently bad (i.e. Jay Blanchard beating Jeff Groscost).
And this would be a good year for it.
Wonder if Binder knows anyone who would be willing to run for the seat? Even if Gould pulled through on it, it would be a nice opportunity to highlight what Republicans are about.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Also cc burro:
Consider this math:
If 50% of registered voters vote in an off year election, and if Gould and a Democrat each get 90% from their party and 10% of the other party, and if independents (who have been trending Democrat during the Bush era) break for us 65-35% (an optimistic, but not an unreasonable assumption based on their recent trends and the Republican corruption issue that has pervaded the country), then Gould wins by a margin of 24,675-22,835 votes. Now throw in the ‘expose a nut’ factor that this kind of thing brings up, and suddenly you have at least a potential for an upset. A long shot I admit and based on several assumptions, but also not out of the realm of possibility if you can find an attractive Democrat.
February 11th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Eli’s point right above mine is the very reason why I think Democrats could, in this year, could get significant gains in the state legislature. If the cards are played correctly…and the Governor appears to be a mean poker player right now.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:13 am
A Democrat is a long shot in the district. What I suggest, and this will not sound good to some of our more liberal readers is………
help a more moderate Republican win instead of Gould. I find Gould so offensive that almost anyone else would be better. A Republican to work with is better than one who you cannot work with.
If a moderate ran against Gould I would contribute to his/her campaign.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:13 am
A Democrat is a long shot in the district. What I suggest, and this will not sound good to some of our more liberal readers is………
help a more moderate Republican win instead of Gould. I find Gould so offensive that almost anyone else would be better. A Republican to work with is better than one who you cannot work with.
If a moderate ran against Gould I would contribute to his/her campaign.