Free Republic

PROTEST on WEDNESDAY 6pm http://ourland.bureaucrash.com/

Great article from Lauren Racine at Gettysburg College

From the Gettysburg Forum, the Independent Newspaper of Gettysburg College

Gettysburg College Sponsors Flag "Lynching"

by Lauren Racine
September 3rd, 2004

The small town of Gettysburg was the site of a controversial art exhibit on September 3rd, when at 6PM, Gettysburg College hosted artist John Sims divisive exhibit, "The Recoloration Proclamation: The Gettysburg Redress." The exhibit, which opened in Schmucker Hall, included Confederate flags with alternate color schemes, including African liberation colors, as well as purple, pink and fur "drag flags." In addition to this, the exhibit also boasted a "ReVote" piece, employing four actual voting booths used in the 2000 presidential election, backed by a "Floridian Rebel Flag."Dr. Walter L.Powell, Director of Planning and Historical Preservation of the Borough of Gettysburg, estimated that between 400 and 500 people attended the exhibit opening.

The most controversial aspect of the exhibit was the "lynching" of a Confederate flag upon a specially constructed crossbeam, entitled "The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag." The event, which was moved indoors to the gallery from an original site outside of Schmucker Hall, failed to attract large groups of protestors, despite the desire to demonstrate that was expressed by members of Southern Heritage groups who uphold the protection of Confederate symbols. The Sons of Confederate Veterans was one such group. With over 32,000 members, they insisted that their members boycott Gettysburg’s tourist industry, an action that may have future economic repercussions in a town where tourism is a critical source of revenue. The SCV and their partner organization, the Southern Legal Resource Center held events in Gettysburg on Friday beginning with a candlelight vigil, led by H.K. Edgerton a former officer of the NAACP, honoring the fallen Confederate soldiers, and a rededication of the Peace Light Memorial on Friday, which was held at the same time as the exhibit opening.

John Sims, from a picture posted on his website.

The event sparked the complaints and concerns of local residents, who were wary of the potential security issues, as well as the social and economic ramifications of the event. It was estimated that the security costs for the lynching could exceed $120,000, according to Gettysburg Mayor, William Troxell. Security forces included college Safety & Security Officers, Gettysburg Police Officers and State Police Officials and unnamed federal officials. Repeated requests to different officials for the identity of the federal officials were denied. The economic burden placed upon the town in providing the funding for this extra security, coupled with what many people see as the dishonoring of their ancestors and the reopening of racial divisions, put pressure on Gettysburg College administrators to call off the event.

Gettysburg alumnus and a dual resident of Gettysburg and Falls Church, VA, Harry W. Buzzerd, expressed disgust and dissapointment at the exhibit, saying that it was "shameful and below the standards of Gettysburg College" and later described the exhibit as "crap."

However, the college held the event as planned, with only minor changes to the location of the actual lynching of the flag, and the missing presence of John Sims himself.

Sims has also colored other flags in a similar way. Notably, he changed the Chinese flag so that the yellow stars were altered to be the symbol of McDonalds.

Another flag colored by Mr. Sims, in this instance changing the Chinese flag to McDonald's golden arches.

 

I've got good news!

You're unemployed, out of work, socially pathetic and protesting for PETA.

*asks* that's the good news?

No, I saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

I've got good news.

You're related to Saddam Hussein and my Apache just blew up your family, fortune and future.

*asks* That's the good news?

No, I just saved a bunch of money on my Apache insurance by switching to Geico.

so, let me get this right, "going south" means lying to Southerners about cultural and social issues so they don't, as Howard Dean put it, "stop voting on God, guns, race and abortion" because, what the real message here is, you people are too stupid to understand politics- it's about more than those trite little issues that you seemingly care so much for. How about the Democrats recognize that their special interests are inimical to the interests of the South. How about "going south" means you don't think all babies should die, taxes shouldn't be astronomical, guns should be a protected right and God is something we can talk about even in public places. Is that really so controversial? Is that so complicated? Look at Zell Miller and tell me if he could win any Democrat primary anywhere other than in the South.

because convicts vote their interests. (read: Democrat)

"fag muggers"

nice.

"Alter is a pustulating zit in the cancer that infects todays mass media."

awesome quote. That should be attached to everything ever said on FR about Alter from now until forever.

good theory, but I think the more likely answer is that some of the script got leaked to drudge.

he was being sarcastic.

name a few positives, I'd be interested to hear.

lately, I've been listening to U2's "Peace on Earth" while thinking of 9-11. The thought that continually goes through my head is what good President Bush has done for world peace. Taking out two tyrants in two years, freeing millions of people from tyranny while taking out those threats to America. He's done more for peace on Earth than any other leader in modern times. It sounds cheesy and partisan I suppose, but I really thank God that he's our commander in chief and leading us through this troubling time.

thanks for the link, I needed to see some of those pics again.

Tavis Smiley has his own foundation, if you can believe it.

No, seriously, I'm not kidding. Quit laughing, I'm serious!

http://www.tavistalks.com/CONTENT/Tavis_Smiley_Foundation/

http://www.msnbc.com/news/989262.asp

look at how this is worded- the mythmaking, hero-worship, and his tactics.

he uses hyperbole to illustrate non-sensical points.

he concedes several important points in the beginning so that he won't be dismissed as a hack

he brings up the Clintons, but is comparing apples and oranges. conservatives were upset that the Reagans was a fabrication, not that it covered controversial material. If someone made a documentary with Clinton where he fought in Vietnam and raped a bunch of children, and got the clap and spread it to his wife which then made Chelsea so ugly- yea, I bet Alter would be upset. I bet he'd even ask CBS not to produce it. It was the historical fabrication that got people upset, not the touching of controversial material.

No conservative would expect a Reagan documentary NOT to mention Iran-Contra. We understand it's going to come up, we just expect fair treatment. We're not afraid of the record, just that things are rarely in black or white. This documentary was a hit job, it was completely black, there was no empathy to be had. That was our beef with the documentary. Not even as Republicans, Democrats or what have you, but as Americans who want to have their President go into the sunset before we start having to fight pitched partisan battles over his record. Granted, it's tough to expect political activists to wait so long, almost ten years now, for that to happen. But, sadly, Reagan will pass from this world someday, and that's the appropriate time to begin this crazy political and historical process. To do it now is, as Alter notes, tactless and especially spineless.

But even though Alter says it's tactless, even though he says he won't watch it, that's just liberal code for "I agree with this but it's too controversial for me to explicitly admit at this point."

his only real beef is that CBS shouldn't be so cowardly? then, by default, doesn't he feel that the Reagans documentary was 'courageous' without actually having to say it? Read closer, and you'll see that later, even after saying that he won't miss or watch the documentary, he says some of their claims are accurate- such as the context of the anti-Christ quote, the 'dysfunction' of the Reagans, etc. So he proves some of the claims of the documentary, thereby giving it an implied 'historical basis' - making it, again by default, 'courageous' in that it depicts a real Reagan administration rather than the 'myth' perpetuated by 'conservatives' and 'hero-worshippers'

he expands the conflict in the last paragraph to something totally unrelated, Bush and the war on terror. One assumes that he means the war on terror is going badly, and that a documentary, such as the Reagans, will reflect that truth even though people don't want to believe the 'myth'- it's a real quick sleight of hand. Almost too quick to notice. In one line he brings a perceived failure on the war on terror to bolster this argument as well as solidify the other argument about the documentary. If the Reagans is a lie, then will the Bush documentary be a lie as well? One isn't even asking whether Bush is actually winning, it's been framed in such a way that the only 'truthful' way to answer is that Bush's documentary must be just as damning in order to be legitimate.

this guy's a snake, and he wrote this well. His clear rage toward Drudge should show us he realizes he's on the losing end of popular support, history and technology.

I usually really dislike Alter, enough that I don't bother reading his columns, but this one needed some examination.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/762531/posts

bump

bump