flag protests & counter-protests

Posted on May 11, 2015

A recent  Inside Higher Ed article described a) two small campus protests “denouncing the mistreatment of black Americans” that involved walking on the American flag and b) huge counter-protests on behalf of the flag. The article resonated with me because just last semester, a similar controversy took place on my own campus.

Although my discussion could go in a gzillion or so directions, I’m going to focus. I’m interested in the way the #blacklivesmatter protests on all three campuses (the 2 from the article and my own) have received less support than the counter-protests defending the flag. I’m curious about the oppositional rhetoric and the divisiveness, and I can’t help but wonder:

Is there a way beyond the seeming opposition of these two groups?

I’m interested in this question for several reasons. One is because I’ve never defaced the flag or even been involved in a huge protest, but I support the #blacklivesmatters protests. I also support veterans on my campus, and my husband is an air force veteran. I sometimes feel like I straddle two worlds, but the worlds don’t feel (like they should be) oppositional.

Second, I saw students on both sides of the issue speak to one another with good will in an on-campus forum arranged by the amazing professionals who work in Student Life at my university. I liked that students were speaking and listening to one another, but I wondered if the original protest about #blacklivesmatter was pushed to the side more than it should have been.

I’m also interested because a friend from high school posted something about kicking asses of flag defacers when I Facebook-shared the Inside Higher Ed article. I removed his comment and my friend asked why, pointing out that he wasn’t being racist. The exchange made me think.

Finally, more on flag controversy seems to be happening, with people joining both the “Eric Sheppard challenge”  to stomp on flags to make a statement and counter movements to overwhelm flag protests with pro-U.S.A. social media posts.

My initial response to the basic controversy

If I’m faced with the choice—do I feel more concern for lives or for a flag?—I’m going to choose lives every time. The flag is a piece of cloth. It’s great for bringing people together, but flags are also ways of pulling people apart and creating conflict. On a very basic level, flags don’t mean very much to me. And they never mean more to me than actual people.

So, my bigger challenge is to figure out why people stand up on behalf of flags so quickly and vehemently. Here are my best conjectures.

Flag-loving deconstructed

While I see the flag as a symbol with little meaning in and of itself, many many people view the flag as the ultimate symbol of the U.S. Thus, anyone who defaces the flag or otherwise disrespects the flag is explicitly defacing and disrespecting the actual country, as well as U.S. values of justice, freedom, and liberty.

Furthermore, the flag is often viewed as “belonging” to those serving in the military more so than to civilians. Veterans are viewed as having a greater stake in the flag and the country it represents because they put their lives on the line to protect it. Because of the popular association between the flag and the military, any defacement and disrespect of the former is viewed as defacement and disrespect of veterans themselves.

As the flag is conflated with

• the country as a whole;
• abstract values of justice, freedom, & liberty; and
• military personnel and veterans in particular,

it is not surprising that many become enraged when protesters deface the flag. It is viewed as a hostile action to the country, as if the flag protester is committing treason as an outsider rather than protesting as a citizen within the system.

Furthermore, many people are staunchly defensive of the military. I think this is partly a response to the poor treatment of American military veterans who served in Vietnam, as chronicled in movies as vastly different as First Blood and Forrest Gump. Of course, sometimes the military and the people who serve there do things wrong. There have been plenty of controversies in recent years, with torture in Abu Ghraib coming most readily to mind, not to mention the sexual assault chronicled in the award-winning movie The Invisible War.

However, despite evidence that the military is (or people in the military are) not always heroic or brave or good, in the popular imagination, military personnel and veterans are afforded the benefit of the doubt. They are regularly heralded as heroic and brave and good. No matter what. It’s just the default. Evidence of complexity and wrongdoing is tucked to the side because it feels good to love our country and the people who have risked their lives to defend it. In the process of praising the people who are actually heroic, we end up praising people who have not risked their lives at all, and we end up praising people who have done terrible things, and we end up feeling called to defend the military (and thus the flag) from any threat.

Even when the threat may not be a threat at all but instead a challenge for the country and the flag that represents it to be worthy of the best the military has to offer.

Why use the flag in protests?

If defacing the flag is likely to be interpreted as an attack on the country and, more specifically, those who have served in the military, it doesn’t make sense for protesters to deface it.

After all, #blacklivesmatters is about changing the way we value black lives as a country, both systemically (e.g., the problems of mass incarceration) and individually (e.g., the habit of assuming that a black person is more likely to be a criminal). Displaying disrespect towards veterans isn’t really a good means to that ends.

But what if the intention behind defacing the flag is not disrespect at all but instead a challenge to Americans to live the values the flag represents?

I believe there is a fundamental miscommunication in perceptions of the flag. While people offended by defacement of the flag perceive protesters as outsiders, the protesters see themselves as insiders who care enough about this country and the injustices experienced here to stand up, to make themselves (even more) vulnerable (than they already are), to find ways to get the attention of people who may not experience everyday microaggressions (never mind structural/institutional racism).

Defacement of the flag is a way of saying, “America, you are not delivering on your promises of justice, freedom, and liberty. America, we demand more. America, it is time for you to be worthy of the best the military has to offer.”

Part of the reason why flag protesters are not heard correctly is because they are perceived as outsiders. And part of the reason why they are perceived as outsiders is because the protesters in the #blacklivesmatter movement are assumed guilty. That is, the protesters are perceived in the exact opposite way that the military is perceived, even though both groups (or people in both groups) clearly have displayed a mix of heroism (standing on the side of justice & freedom), neutral action (not necessarily bad or good), and criminal action.

Even though I’m describing a huge (and unfair) divide in perceptions, my description doesn’t answer the question,

“Why use flags in #blacklivesmatter protests?”

After all, the divide I’m describing not only renders the flag protests ineffectual but also increases a divide that already exists. To the degree that protesters are perceived as against the (overly-idealized) military and against values of justice and freedom associated with the flag, the protesters are viewed as more guilty and criminal—and less worthy of appropriate treatment—than they had been before.

Let me pause for a moment to be clear:

• African American protesters (rather than white protesters) are likely to be viewed as already-guilty outsiders who reify their guilt and demonstrate their inability to appreciate American liberty as they deface the flag.
• White flag protesters are likely to be viewed as clueless liberal enablers who don’t value the military and who do not take pride in their country.
• Neither would be considered a “real” American, but the black person would be the one more likely to be viewed as “criminal.”

Changing the question

Have you noticed that I still haven’t answered the question? There’s a good reason for that.

I don’t think there’s a good answer. Without an extreme measure—defacement of the flag or destruction of property or violence—the #blacklivesmatter protest on my own campus, on other campuses, and in big cities like Baltimore hasn’t been given attention.

If I have to choose between a) speaking and not being heard or b) speaking in ways that will express my anger and frustration—even if that anger and frustration is misunderstood—what is the right choice?

The answer is that there is no right choice.

The answer is that it’s not up to the protesters to find a “correct” way to be heard. When the default perception is that the protesters are guilty and wrong, there’s no good way to be heard.

The answer is that those who have a problem with the flag being defaced better do a better job of listening and speaking up and intervening so that extreme action isn’t needed.

The answer is that the media can do a better job giving voice to the people who don’t usually have a voice. If you think it can’t be done or that it isn’t profitable or that people don’t pay attention, then you should spend some time looking at the work of Humans of New York.

The answer is that the question isn’t, “Why deface the flag in a protest?” but rather,

“Why do we find one reason after another to deflect the concerns of so many Americans?”

and

“How can we do better?”

#blacklivesmatter