Now the American Flag is a racist symbol

[Team Sergeant]

Personally, I'd like to "force" all of these "professors" to go and live in Somalia for the rest of their worthless, bottom-feeding scumbag lives.





Professors: US flag symbolizes racism, should not be displayed on campus

Todd Starnes

By Todd Starnes
·Published March 11, 2015
·FoxNews.com

A group of university professors has signed a letter showing their solidarity with students who tried to ban the American flag at the University of California, Irvine – because they said Old Glory contributes to racism.

“U.S. nationalism often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate,” read a letter obtained by the website Campus Reform.

A group of Californian lawmakers is working on a bill that that would prohibit publicly funded universities from banning the American flag.

Hundreds across the nation have signed the letter – including some U.C. Irvine professors, Campus Reform reported.

"We admire the courage of the resolution's supporters amid this environment of political immaturity and threat, and support them unequivocally" the letter stated.


How those professors can sleep at night knowing their salaries are paid for by a bunch of xenophobic racists is beyond me.


cont:


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/11/professors-us-flag-symbolizes-racism-should-not-be-displayed-on-campus/

[Sigaba]

With respect to members of this BB, the Fox News report is spinning irresponsibly the letter in question so that it over simplifies the University of California at Irvine's position on the now vetoed flag resolution.

The letter is supporting the right of members of the UCI community to speak their minds on a controversial subject (nationalism) without being subject to harassment and to intimidation.

In my view, the letter's signators are not a unified front that is labeling the American flag as racist. Indeed, one signator, UCI's chancellor, Howard Gillman, made it very clear that he disagreed with the resolution in an stinging rebuke dated 8 March (http://chancellor.uci.edu/about/writings-and-remarks/2015/150308-statement-on-asuci-actions.html) (emphasis added) March 8, 2015:

Statement on ASUCI Actions

Dear Friends:

When tens of thousands of young people are brought together and encouraged to explore new ideas, it is inevitable that small numbers of them are, on occasion, going to express views that are unconventional and even outrageous.

A few days ago, on a campus of more than 30,000 students, six of them expressed the view that no flags — not the American flag, and also not the flag of any other nation — should be displayed in a very small interior lobby area of the offices of student government. If these students were acting in a private capacity and expressing personal views then there would be no reason to pay attention. But these six students were acting in an official capacity, as members of a small sub-set of our student government known as Legislative Council, and it was outrageous and indefensible that they would question the appropriateness of displaying the American flag on this great campus.

The administration swiftly, strongly, and publicly denounced the action. Importantly, UCI students also immediately began to express their disappointment and outrage at the actions of these six students. Our elected student body president condemned the action, calling the decision “horrible” and “an attack on American values.” Those news organizations that sought a truthful account of the issue, and that interviewed UCI students, found one student after another saying that the views of these six did not represent the students at UCI.

As a formal expression of the true views of the UCI community, the Executive Cabinet of our student government has now vetoed this resolution, stating that they “fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by the ASUCI Legislative Council” on this issue. I applaud this action and am proud of the members of the Executive Cabinet, as I am proud of the many other students who made sure that their opposition to the original effort was clearly heard on this campus and around the world. Special thanks are owed to a member of our outstanding ROTC program, who volunteered to stand guard over the disputed flag while this issue was being resolved.

We are an institution created by the world’s greatest democracy in order to serve this democracy, and we feel privileged to be able to serve the cause of freedom and progress under the American flag. Our ROTC presents its colors at our most important events. Before too long we will see even more Stars and Stripes at UCI, as we add additional flagpoles near the campus entrance on Bison. Make no mistake: the American flag proudly flies throughout the University of California, Irvine, including outside my office window, and will continue to do so.

[Richard]

Seems to me the letter (below) is offering support for the student's protected {1A) rights, and not agreement with their failed resolution.

Richard

UCI Student Support Letter

To the Legislative Council:

We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby. The university ought to respect their political position and meet its obligation to protect and promote their safety. The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community. In fact, the resolution's perspective has been completely borne out by recent events. Over the weekend, UCI has been inundated with racist, xenophobic comments and death threats against the students from people who are, precisely, invested in the paraphernalia of nationalism. UCI's official Facebook page, for example, has filled up with violent and racist remarks. Its official moderator, representing UCI, has neither repudiated the comments nor deleted them--even the death threats. Meanwhile the university has linked its own communications to Fox News, a notoriously inaccurate media source associated with racism, xenophobia and U.S. nationalism. We are afraid that Chancellor Gillman's response [http://chancellor.uci.edu/about/writings-and-remarks/2015/150308-statement-on-asuci-actions.html] will have the effect of licensing further harassment. We admire the courage of the resolution's supporters amid this environment of political immaturity and threat, and support them unequivocally.

Sincerely,
{Signed}

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1t1ZhPZN2ohzgARuXwQUCwbB3YXNPgXGZQMI8heUYZnQ/viewform

[Sdiver]

Seems to me the letter (below) is offering support for the student's protected 2A rights, and not agreement with their failed resolution.

Richard

2nd Amendment Rights ???

When were weapons involved ???

:munchin

[Pete]

Richard, we can read the same thing and come to two different conclusions.

[frostfire]

Richard, we can read the same thing and come to two different conclusions.

Concur. I'm with TS. I know plenty American patriots who grew up in various sh*tholes all over the world. I'd like these student activists and their professors supporters to "sample" lives in these sh*tholes for a few years then see how they appraise the American flag on the ship/helicopter/soldiers that's coming to rescue their sorry ass.

Yes, I am aware of use of the flag in all kinds of faux patriotism activities that promote division and racism, but to blame the flag for those activities is ludicrous, or simply an attempt to insert a totally different agenda

I wont be surprised if these ingrate ******** receive the same treatment as this fool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzFd8nU4TI8

[Javadrinker]

For those that need the help..

[Richard]

2nd Amendment Rights ???

When were weapons involved ???

:munchin

Thanks - I meant 1A. I've been on the road all day and must be more tired than I thought.

Richard

[Joker]

Seems to me the letter (below) is offering support for the student's protected {1A) rights, and not agreement with their failed resolution.

Richard



Not the way I read it, in fact just the opposite.

[x SF med]

Maybe they should move to Russia and pull the same shit with the Russian flag which is definitely a symbol of xenophobia and racism. Anybody pogrom, mental health check in Siberia on Aisle 1, icepick to the eardrum, Black Russians or Ukrainians/Latvians/Lithuanians/Estonians/Chechens/Urali...?

Wow friggin clueless idiots... espousing the ideals set out by our enemies (Russia is NOT our friend nor ally) to destroy the structure and solidity of the US...

But hey, we're just knuckle dragging Neolithic soldiers who don't understand the 'benefits' of Socialism and Communism, much less spell them correctly or use them in a sentence properly. An example of a short direct sentence that disproves the libtard attitude: Socialism and Communism suck.

[Roguish Lawyer]

The Marxist seizure of our schools and universities by the left, starting in the 60s, was the key victory in the anti-American insurgency. This stuff is exactly why Giuliani says the President hates America -- it is hatred of natural rights and what Reagan called the shining city on a hill, not the people. I don't see how we can reverse the tide without giving the schools and universities a much-needed enema. Don't underestimate the power of these morons -- they have been teaching kids for decades now, and they are winning.

[PedOncoDoc]

The Marxist seizure of our schools and universities by the left, starting in the 60s, was the key victory in the anti-American insurgency. This stuff is exactly why Giuliani says the President hates America -- it is hatred of natural rights and what Reagan called the shining city on a hill, not the people. I don't see how we can reverse the tide without giving the schools and universities a much-needed enema. Don't underestimate the power of these morons -- they have been teaching kids for decades now, and they are winning.

A good friend of mine from high school (http://www.thefire.org/author/rshibley/) has been taking on the ivory tower for some time. He's been interviewed on CNN and Fox News as the founder and director of a foundation that fights censorship in the name of being "politically correct" on university campuses. :lifter

[craigepo]

Seems to me the letter (below) is offering support for the student's protected {1A) rights, and not agreement with their failed resolution.

Richard

UCI Student Support Letter

To the Legislative Council:

We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby. The university ought to respect their political position and meet its obligation to protect and promote their safety. The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community. In fact, the resolution's perspective has been completely borne out by recent events. Over the weekend, UCI has been inundated with racist, xenophobic comments and death threats against the students from people who are, precisely, invested in the paraphernalia of nationalism. UCI's official Facebook page, for example, has filled up with violent and racist remarks. Its official moderator, representing UCI, has neither repudiated the comments nor deleted them--even the death threats. Meanwhile the university has linked its own communications to Fox News, a notoriously inaccurate media source associated with racism, xenophobia and U.S. nationalism. We are afraid that Chancellor Gillman's response [http://chancellor.uci.edu/about/writings-and-remarks/2015/150308-statement-on-asuci-actions.html] will have the effect of licensing further harassment. We admire the courage of the resolution's supporters amid this environment of political immaturity and threat, and support them unequivocally.

Sincerely,
{Signed}

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1t1ZhPZN2ohzgARuXwQUCwbB3YXNPgXGZQMI8heUYZnQ/viewform

So, Fox News is a notoriously inaccurate media source associated with racism, xenophobia, and U.S. nationalism. When your remarks lack weight, always fall back on mudslinging.

"The university ought to respect their political position". Really.

When did this crap become the new normal for university professors? Who pays these clowns? Why is it that professors are selected, not for real world experience, but for academic (defined as having no practical importance) endeavors.

"We admire the courage of the resolution's supporters..." At some point, normal people are going to tire of hogwash.

[Sigaba]

A good friend of mine from high school (http://www.thefire.org/author/rshibley/) has been taking on the ivory tower for some time. He's been interviewed on CNN and Fox News as the founder and director of a foundation that fights censorship in the name of being "politically correct" on university campuses. :lifterMOO, the most effective ways to affect change in the Ivory Tower are (1) to make sure that junior high and high school students acquire the skills and confidence they will need to define their educational needs, and (2) let academics continue to have the increasingly energetic debates over higher education that are take place in the open (if one knows where to look).

IMO, treating academics as a monolithic group is the opposite of "divide and conquer." As an example, Howard Gillman, who built his career at USC, is the type of academic who is going to call BS on excessive asshattery in the Ivory Tower but will be among the most capable defenders of academics.

[Surf n Turf]

Seems to me the letter (below) is offering support for the student's protected {1A) rights, and not agreement with their failed resolution.

Richard,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you parse the paragraph it supports the position, not the right of the students to have an opinion --- see below

SnT

"We write to support the six members who offered the resolution to remove national flags from the ASUCI lobby.

The university ought to respect their political position and meet its obligation to protect and promote their safety.

The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community.

In fact, the resolution's perspective has been completely borne out by recent events. Over the weekend, UCI has been inundated with racist, xenophobic comments and death threats against the students from people who are, precisely, invested in the paraphernalia of nationalism."

[Trapper John]

I wonder how the faculty would react if conservative student's petitioned to have Condeleza Rice speak at their commencement ceremony?

Oh wait, we saw the answer to that last year! :D

[Roguish Lawyer]

MOO, the most effective ways to affect change in the Ivory Tower are (1) to make sure that junior high and high school students acquire the skills and confidence they will need to define their educational needs, and (2) let academics continue to have the increasingly energetic debates over higher education that are take place in the open (if one knows where to look).

IMO, treating academics as a monolithic group is the opposite of "divide and conquer." As an example, Howard Gillman, who built his career at USC, is the type of academic who is going to call BS on excessive asshattery in the Ivory Tower but will be among the most capable defenders of academics.

I would prefer to drown them all.

[Richard]

Richard,[/COLOR]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you parse the paragraph it supports the position, not the right of the students to have an opinion --- see below

SnT

Parsing the paragraph shows 4 things:

* support for the student's 1A right to voice an opinion
* support for a position that the university has a responsibility to protect that right and the students
* support to their claim that such an opinion has a historical foundation (atchd pic e.g.)
* support for an argument that such issues can still arise when somebody challenges a nation's patriotic symbol by citing the context of many current responses to the student's opinion

Richard

[Roguish Lawyer]

Big difference between protecting their right to express the opinion and letting them ban display of the flag, which is itself protected speech. In their world, it's OK to ban speech as long as it does not comport with their fucked up values.

[Streck-Fu]

The Flag has been used by many different groups with many diverse objectives and interests. Often they display the American flag as they identify as Americans. That does not mean that the American flag is symbol of whatever they stand for.

The flag is not a symbol of racism.

The students are free to express their opinion but they are asking for the removal of the flag from display. Perhaps they should be show pictures like the attached instead.

[sinjefe]

Parsing the paragraph shows 4 things:

* support for the student's 1A right to voice an opinion
* support for a position that the university has a responsibility to protect that right and the students
* support to their claim that such an opinion has a historical foundation (atchd pic e.g.)
* support for an argument that such issues can still arise when somebody challenges a nation's patriotic symbol by citing the context of many current responses to the student's opinion

Richard

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:
"The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community".

[Richard]

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:...

Falls under third asterisk.

The Flag has been used by many different groups with many diverse objectives and interests. Often they display the American flag as they identify as Americans. That does not mean that the American flag is symbol of whatever they stand for.

The flag is not a symbol of racism.

The students are free to express their opinion but they are asking for the removal of the flag from display. Perhaps they should be show pictures like the attached instead.

Unfortunately, the flag has been used on occasion as a symbol in ways other than what it is meant to represent to legitimize the intimidation of some groups of American citizens by other groups of American citizens in a "We hold these truths to be self evident...except for this group or that group" sense. Such is History and why I favor this view of 'patriotic duty' by 19th Century US Senator Carl Schurz (Rep - MO):

“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

As far as the students at UCI go - they put forth a resolution, it was considered and put to a vote, and it was voted down as being 'wrong-headed'. Students undertaking student affairs on a college campus IAW a normal system of accepted governmental practices within a democratically constituted federal republic. What a concept and what a lesson to be learned - for everyone.

Personally, I'm much happier to see something like this overly hyped bit of foofarah happening in lieu of the armed campus takeovers, bombings, and such of my generation. Perhaps we are making progress after all.

MOO.

Richard

[Sigaba]

What is the point of arguing that UCI should not do something that it has already said unequivocally it isn't going to do?

[Peregrino]

Big difference between protecting their right to express the opinion and letting them ban display of the flag, which is itself protected speech. In their world, it's OK to ban speech as long as it does not comport with their fucked up values.

Concur. Their concept of tolerance is a one way street - their way.

[Sigaba]

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:
"The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community".FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

In regards to the latter, diplomatic historians of varying political viewpoints have pointed to significant crises/lost opportunities that were exacerbated by nationalist sensibilities. Perhaps most notably, President Wilson's insistence upon redrawing boundaries based upon nationalism following World War I contributed to an unsustainable political order in Europe and Asia.

Of late academic military historians are increasingly focused upon the impact of nationalism upon the effectiveness of professional armed forces, especially IRT Germany in the twentieth century.

MOO, these findings add weight to Clausewitz's warning against "the passions that are to be kindled in war."* Further, these findings support the need for professional statesmen, diplomats, and soldiers to strike a sustainable balance between the national interest and the unchecked mandates of nationalism.

YMMV.
__________________________________________________
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds./trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.

[Hand]

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.


Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

I can see how unrestrained patriotism would be undesirable in matters of state, yet I would be disappointed to learn that anyone representing this nation at a state level position did not have to restrain their patriotism during business hours.

[craigepo]

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

In regards to the latter, diplomatic historians of varying political viewpoints have pointed to significant crises/lost opportunities that were exacerbated by nationalist sensibilities. Perhaps most notably, President Wilson's insistence upon redrawing boundaries based upon nationalism following World War I contributed to an unsustainable political order in Europe and Asia.

Of late academic military historians are increasingly focused upon the impact of nationalism upon the effectiveness of professional armed forces, especially IRT Germany in the twentieth century.

MOO, these findings add weight to Clausewitz's warning against "the passions that are to be kindled in war."* Further, these findings support the need for professional statesmen, diplomats, and soldiers to strike a sustainable balance between the national interest and the unchecked mandates of nationalism.

YMMV.

__________________________________________________
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds./trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.


Right. But, is this one of those times? We aren't talking about Nazis coming to power, diplomatic historians or President Wilson. We are talking about a few professors who want to remove an American flag from a state-supported university, because it's "racist".

Nobody disagrees with their freedom to speak. Rather, they disagree with what they are saying.

A person can be patriotic and disagree with their country's stance. Nonetheless, Sinjefe's and other's points were well-taken: this article's assumption that U.S. nationalism often leads to racism and xenophobia is perfectly and wholly nonsensical. The author's point of finding the original writers' courageous turns most people's definition of "courage" on its head.

[PedOncoDoc]

Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

Especially since this and most other institutions rely heavily on federal grants to support academic work....

[Sigaba]

Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

I can see how unrestrained patriotism would be undesirable in matters of state, yet I would be disappointed to learn that anyone representing this nation at a state level position did not have to restrain their patriotism during business hours.The answer to your question is no. My POV on this issue is this: I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates. Their idea never had any chance of becoming policy at UCI or any UC campus.

Moreover, I think that many who are critical of UCI's handling of this controversy are falling into a trap and thereby forfeiting a gift wrapped opportunity to discuss the benefits of American nationalism with those who have differing views, especially young adults.

Right. But, is this one of those times? We aren't talking about Nazis coming to power, diplomatic historians or President Wilson. We are talking about a few professors who want to remove an American flag from a state-supported university, because it's "racist". Judge, I think you and I have different readings of the letter quoted in post. (I agree with Richard's interpretation.) I think that the letter is poorly phrased and very badly written. I think that its writers failed to ask the basic question: Does this letter say what we think it says?

Nobody disagrees with their freedom to speak. Rather, they disagree with what they are saying. With respect, some of the public outcry suggests otherwise. The talk of the forced removal of American citizens--and worse--is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism that some find controversial.

[t]his article's assumption that U.S. nationalism often leads to racism and xenophobia is perfectly and wholly nonsensical.I disagree.

In the present day, terms like "Un American" are used to label politicians, policies, and persons as a means to derail debate and to demonize the opposition.

[MR2]

I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates.

:lifter

And with that, I think this Thread has run it course.

[frostfire]

The answer to your question is no. My POV on this issue is this: I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates. Their idea never had any chance of becoming policy at UCI or any UC campus.

Moreover, I think that many who are critical of UCI's handling of this controversy are falling into a trap and thereby forfeiting a gift wrapped opportunity to discuss the benefits of American nationalism with those who have differing views, especially young adults.

These individuals with "differing views" are prime targets for foreign intelligence recruiting/exploitation. It hardly made news, but our campuses and universities are prime recruiting ground. If they already have that much antipathy, getting $$$ to screw America is just icing on the cake.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-manhattan-u.s.-attorney-and-fbi-announce-charges-against-russian-spy-ring-in-new-york-city
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/the-insider-threat

[SF_BHT]

Sigaba fill in your profile. I would hate for some of those Undergrads to not understand who they are talking to.

:munchin

[Team Sergeant]

With respect, some of the public outcry suggests otherwise. The talk of the forced removal of American citizens--and worse--is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism that some find controversial.


So you think my comments are "inappropriate". Your idea of Free Speech only applies to those that would poke the tiger and call it good fun.

And yes I'd like them to leave and never come back and given the opportunity I would force them to leave. Patriotism, nope, I just have a very low tolerance for assholes, especially assholes that influence our nations children on a daily basis. (As you yourself mentioned they are trolls, I just call them assholes)

So now it's "nationalism", one cannot be a patriot without being your version of a nationalist?

I remember a quote that has haunted me since before I joined the military, it goes like this:

"If you have nothing that you would die for, you have nothing to live for......." (Guess who said it)

I'm paraphrasing but it has made me think about things I never would have had I been economics major at Harvard.

Tell me historian, is there anything you would die for? (And yes it has much to do with the tenor of this thread.)

[Sigaba]

Tell me historian, is there anything you would die for? (And yes it has much to do with the tenor of this thread.)TS--

To answer your question, I would die for my sense of self efficacy as a person. In day to day terms, that includes not allowing a thief to take my music from me while he was pointing a gun at my face. That includes intervening in altercations in which persons are getting beaten.

In the context of this thread, it also means that I would stand with Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights--provided that their acts did not seek to subvert the rule of law or the core concepts of our founding principles.

To reiterate, I think the resolution was noisome and it never had a chance of becoming policy at UCI. I think that the students who supported the resolution are going to get an unforeseen comeuppance that they've justly earned. Yet, I vehemently oppose the notion that these students should be subjected to extrajudicial punishment or the vitriol they're getting in cyberspace.
Your idea of Free Speech only applies to those that would poke the tiger and call it good fun.

So now it's "nationalism", one cannot be a patriot without being your version of a nationalist?
You are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. I don't appreciate it.

At no time have I articulated a one size fits all definition of patriotism nor nationalism. Nor have I said that anyone should not be allowed to voice their objections.

I have said that certain types of comments are counter productive to achieving broader goals. Consequently, I do stand by my view that advocating the expulsion of Americans for exercising their rights is inappropriate.

In addition to the reservations that I have articulated in earlier posts in this thread, I believe that such talk invites a piecemeal approach to the Bill of Rights. In my view, such an approach is inconsistent with the best intentions of the Framers. We either have a Bill of Rights or we don't. If tomorrow we can send people away for not liking how they exercise their free speech, then next month it is okay for others to send away other Americans for how they exercise other rights.#

I will also point out that by vilifying students and academics who hold controversial POVs, those who believe that the Ivory Tower is a stronghold of the left are sacrificing an opportunity to balance things out. The initial story line was a terrible idea getting publicly thrashed by Howard Gillman (who is revered at the University of Southern California) and others at UCI. The story is now about an academic community banding together against critics of the Ivory Tower. This turn is unnecessary. This turn is against the interests of Americans who want to reform the academic community. This turn is the opposite of "divide and conquer."
_______________________________________________
#FWIW, I have friends across the political spectrum. Some on the left make the same types of comments about those on the right who exercise their 2A rights as do some on the right make about those on the left who exercise their 1A rights.

[Team Sergeant]

"You are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. I don't appreciate it."

"is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism"

Ok, so you didn't refer to it as American nationalism...... oh but wait you did.

And as you can tell I'm having a hard time giving such morons a free pass on acting like idiots. That is how I read your words, a free pass.

At least you would stand for something (and I thought you'd give that sort of answer...) You might want to rethink jumping in just because someone is receiving a beating. I'd only jump in for a child, adults are on their own......

[Paslode]

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

In regards to the latter, diplomatic historians of varying political viewpoints have pointed to significant crises/lost opportunities that were exacerbated by nationalist sensibilities. Perhaps most notably, President Wilson's insistence upon redrawing boundaries based upon nationalism following World War I contributed to an unsustainable political order in Europe and Asia.

Of late academic military historians are increasingly focused upon the impact of nationalism upon the effectiveness of professional armed forces, especially IRT Germany in the twentieth century.

I am curious if all historians in the areas you mentioned above agree? Is it a majority of these type of historians, what percentage of historians agree on this versus those that do not? Or is this similar Climate Change?

[craigepo]

Dennis Prager's take on this issue was rather interesting.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0315/prager031715.php3

[Box]

It has been my own observation that what I might feel patriotic about the political left looks at as blind nationalism.
What most people on the left see as patriotism seems to me like it is little more than blind left-wing nationalism.

Liberals think it is patriotic to burn an effigy of President Bush in protest to his illegal war in Iraq...
Those same liberals would call anyone burning an effigy of the current POTUS as racist no matter the reason...

Liberals would say burring an American flag in protest was patriotic if it was done in protest to a Supreme court vote that banned gay marriage...
Those same liberals would call it a hate crime if that vote went the other way and a crowd was seen burning a rainbow pride flag...

Conservatives went nuts when Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar Assad a few years back; her patriotism was certainly called into question...
Those same conservatives are quite indignant about the 'letter of the 47' being not only a right but a duty of a patriotic senate...


For what its worth...
I am one of those folks that DOES pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Its also NOT lost on me that the author is historically described as a socialist.
...go figure, a socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance, and yet hippy liberals STILL don't want to recite it.

Dirty nasty left wing fruit cakes