A Carolina Inspired Apology: Why I’ve Removed the Confederate Flag from My Punk Jacket

This might appear to some onlookers as a very trivial thing – removing a patch from a personalised jacket – but if that patch is a symbol of racism and pro-slavery then it is worth explaining and apologising over.

I own two leather jackets – one of whom them is personalised with studs and patches of my favourite bands or references to films. And the other is a plain leather jacket which I’ve come to wear all the time. My patches jacket is one I’ve kept away for several years now, but I have officially decided to get rid of a part of it that I am fully ashamed of adding.

When I first became involved in the Punk Rock and Heavy Metal cultures, I was naive enough to confuse symbols of hate with those of shock value. I would have dismissed questions of why I was wearing the confederate flag on my shoulder as a piece of harmless shock humour – but even shock humour is capable of stepping over the line and delivering something profusely offensive.

I have therefore taken this flag of racism, sexism, homophobia and slavery off of my jacket and you can see what I’ve done with it below.

Having kept such a disgusting symbol on my clothing is something I don’t think I could ever forgive myself of doing. And recent actions in South Carolina, and a recent documentary on the Ku Klux Klan caused me to do something which I know I should have done a long, long time ago.

It is with this post that I sincerely, humbly and profusely apologise for wearing a patch so sickening that its ideology is equivalent to Nazism. I will see this as a learning curve.  A moment when you grow up and learn about how things you say and do can carry more weight and meaning than you might expect.

 

A memory of an act of pure stupidity.

One thing that I am now left to ask, is how was a naive youth like me ever able to get his hands on such a terrible symbol? I bought this patch in a music store in my hometown along with a patch which references The Omen, one of my favourite horror flicks. Why on earth are people being sold such atrocious things over the counter under the illusion that they are harmless pieces of paraphernalia? You wouldn’t sell a swastika flag to a child so why offer something like this?

All I can say now, is how could I have carried something so treacherous on my shoulders? I guess I made the stupid mistake of thinking the flag was harmless to handle because bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and Kid Rock have used it in the past. Anyone who has studied the American Civil War, knows that the confederate ideology was white supremacist and has no place in a multicultural society today.

Once again I am sorry to anyone who ever saw me wearing this symbol of hate. I don’t think I can ever forgive myself for it and I will do all I can to fight anyone who calls it ‘shock humour’ because you have to know where and when you’ve crossed the line – and this is it.

And I don't think any word of mine can ever describe the atorcities committed under the leadeership of this symbol, but you have my word that no other such piece will ever be carried on my clothing again. I committed the very crime of not thinking before I acted.

Top 4 Anti Capital Punishment Films

I can’t say I’ve ever held support for the death penalty. Thinking about why, I’ve narrowed it down to four key points: 1) What if they’ve got the wrong suspect? 2) The state in my anarchist viewpoint relies on a monopoly of violence, and there is no greater example of this than a ‘free’ state exercising a law that gives it the arrogance to take away a person’s life. It is the fear that holds up institutions and the forces that keep the people in place. 3) Taking the life of a person, regardless of how evil an atrocity they have committed, will never bring back who or what it was they took from you. Killing a murderer will not bring back the person they took, so how does taking the murderer’s life make us any different from them? And 4) Because life is the most important thing for me, nobody has the right to take it away, or to order it to be taken. This is why I do not support war nor national service, because the state thinks it can have the final say in how someone’s life ends. Every individual must have the final say in how their life ends. This is why I support euthanasia and abortion – in euthanasia it is best to put someone out of their misery because the individual would not want to be in pain, and in abortion a woman must be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body and if she does not wish to have a child it is her choice.

Now enough of my left wing rantings, let’s get down to why you came here. I have thought long and hard about the things that have influenced why I don’t agree with the death penalty and I have lined up the top 4 films which led to me having said opinions.

Ladies and gentlemen and third gender, here are the top 4 best anti capital punishment films. Why 4? Because 5 and 0 do not make everything equal.

4.Dead Man Walking (1995)

I was shown this movie in ethics whilst studying my GCSEs, and it reflects the debate on capital punishment among Christian groups. The film follows the true story of a catholic nun, Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon) as she gives guidance to death row inmate Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) as he awaits his execution. Poncelet has been sentenced for raping and murdering two teenagers – which is depicted in one of the most gruesome scenes I’ve ever seen in a non horror film. 

Prejean is a vocal opponent of capital punishment, and it is her arguments with the protestant prison chaplin which makes up the majority of the film’s message. Why should a Christian oppose or support the death penalty? In my atheist opinions, this is a good reflection of how ferocious debates on topics like this can spring up amongst denominations and splinter groups, be they religious, militant or political. In-fighting is something that has always turned me away from party politics and organised religion so this film is something to look at if you’re curious about how the death penalty is such a big debate in so many circles.

But what makes it such an anti death penalty story, is how the compassion, upset and realisation that this man’s death will not bring justice is seen in the final scenes. As Poncelet is put to death by lethal injection you can see how the parents of the victims and the pro-death chaplin have realised how wrong they really were. It is a scene without dialogue which makes it all the more poignant. And the performances given by Poncelet’s family, including Jack Black certainly shows how having a family member executed is not a service of justice but a humiliation that will hang on innocent people’s shoulders forever.

Whether or not you believe in God, this is a film you must see to look into how the US justice system is in dire need of a reformation.

3.The Green Mile (1999)

This is not an overtly anti death penalty film, but how the system is portrayed in a manner only a Stephen King novel can do so, certainly makes you wonder how such a gruesome act of rough justice is still practised today.

It follows prison guard Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks) as he recalls the year an innocent black man, John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) was sentenced to the electric chair. Edgecomb discovers that the man possesses god-like powers - such as the ability to heal him of his genital infection and resurrect the dead. 

There is plenty of Christian imagery in this film which again raises the debate on why a supposedly Christian nation should practice such an act of justice. I guess Stephen King wanted to express his wonder at why a religion so bent on forgiveness would legitimise such a non-forgiving act.

Coffey’s execution is certainly on a parallel with the crucifixion, but how it is portrayed would lead anyone with compassion and respect between their ears to shout out ‘why are we still doing this?’ The film is set in the 1930s, but even that wasn’t so long ago and was at the peak of time when the whole world had beaten itself up and was itching to do it again. I have to admit that this film made me realise just how disgusting the electric chair is to put someone to death – it is an abuse of science. 

For anyone who wants to know how brutal a history the USA has with its justice system, this is the film for you – based on the works of one of the finest storytellers of our generation.

2.Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman

Now how else do you tell such an amazing story of how wrong the death penalty is, than chronicle the life of the last man to hold the profession of Executioner in the UK.

Albert Pierrepoint (Timothy Spall) hanged over 600 people in his life, among them the Nazi war criminals sentenced at the Nuremburg trials. After the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1964, Pierrepoint became allegedly, an opponent of capital punishment. And how else do you know just how wrong the act is, if you took part in it? That for me is the same reason returning soldiers become such vocal anti-war protestors. I am in no way defending what Pierrepoint did, but it is always wise to look into those who took part in something in order to reveal just how wrong something is. It is similar to the story of Albert Speer, the Nazi munitions minister who was spared Pierrepoint’s noose because he plead guilty and apologised for his actions at Nuremburg.

This is also a keen drama to understand why someone would take up such a profession. In one scene, a coffin has not been brought for the man Pierrepoint has hanged and that angers Pierrepoint, leading to his line: ‘This man has been atoned for his wrongdoings, he now deserves a decent burial.’ So whether or not you agree with him, it’s worth watching to understand the logic for a state giving legitimacy to the gallows.

I found this film to be an excellent retelling of a time I’m pleased to say I did not grow up in. Death does not solve problems and this was a film that told me I am not a person who would ever work in a profession that involves taking other people’s lives. For a big part of my teenage years I wanted to be a fighter pilot and it’s films like this that told me I am not someone who would function in any profession where you must take another person’s life – that includes the armed forces.

This is also Timothy Spall’s most stellar performance in my opinion. And I must stress that these films are not to be watched for entertainment value, they are to be watched in order to understand why the death penalty is not something we all agree on.

And the number one anti capital punishment film is...

LetHim Have It (1990)

There is no greater story of British injustice than that of Derek Bentley. Bentley (pictured below) was an 18 year old boy with the mental age of an 11 year old and the IQ of 66. After he left a special needs school he got involved in a gang through peer pressure. One night in 1953, Bentley and the gang leader Chris Craig climbed onto the roof of a cenfectionary warehouse and they were followed by the police. Upon seeing the police, Craig pulled a gun and the unarmed Bentley, scared by all this shouted the eponymous line, which was not a call to open fire but to hand over the weapon.

Craig murdered two policemen and then tried to kill himself. Bentley was arrested and did not resist at all. And when the case came to the high court, the sentence of death was imposed upon Bentley because he was older than Craig (16) when found guilty. Craig served time in a state prison.

However when the sentence was passed, the judge ordered that mercy be considered for Bentley, but despite the public outcry that an innocent man had been sentenced to death, the British government refused to overlook the sentence until the execution had been passed.

I can think of no other story of a man being murdered by the state. It is no wonder Bentley’s gravestone reads: ‘Here lies Derek Bentley – A Victim of British Justice?’ And what is more upsetting is that his sister who spent her whole life campaigning to have his name cleared, did not live to see the day he was finally acquitted in 1998.

As for the film, there is no other movie I can recall that has made me cry uncontrollably. This is an example of a government wanting to crack down on a nation’s special needs population and is the film to show to any Brit who shouts ‘bring back hanging!’ Ironically, Bentley was hanged by Albert Pierrepoint. 

Anyone who has ever felt the death penalty should be reintroduced to this nation – I urge you to watch this film. This was Christopher Eccleston’s first film, and perhaps the finest performance he has ever given. 

Speaking as someone who qualifies as special needs, I cannot fathom how the judicial system of 1953 could ever have considered putting a young man in need of aid to the noose. This country claims to have the best justice system in the world, but it hasn’t the cleanest of pasts. Let anyone who campaigns for the reintroduction of the gallows see this film.

 

Why ‘Think of the Problems in Africa’ is not always the best phrase for an argument.

The women kidnapped by Boko Haram

First of all, let me stress that I am not encouraging people to ignore problems in Africa – nor the rest of the third world for that matter. I have chosen such a phrase because I’ve been hearing it a lot in recent debates, such as the shambles that was the recent general election.

This is a post about certain phrases which people will use to destroy entire arguments under the illusion that they carry substance and gives them the moral high ground. I want to debunk these phrase and explain why the arguments my peer group and I tend to have are not always suitable for them.

To begin with the ilk of the entitled phrase, this came up earlier on today when I was reading comments relating to Bahar Mustafa (pictured). The Diversity Officer at Goldsmith’s University who called for an anti-racism march which excluded white people and has now used the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen.

The comments I was reading were anti-feminist and branded feminism in this country as pathetic because the problems we campaign to change are nothing like those faced in Africa and the middle east, etc.

I’ll just add here that no true feminist would call for the killing of men because this is another classic example of some people using social media to confuse the discourse of gender equality with misandry – the hatred of men. I for one think this woman is not in the slightest bit feminist and think her comments about ethnic minorities not being racist are completely ludicrous and think she should be fired from her position because she’s fanning the flames that will burn into another social media farce akin to last year’s pile of crap that was GamerGate. (Here’s what I made of that if you’re interested).

I’ll defend feminism again and say to anyone who thinks we are like Mustafa, clearly needs to read about the campaign for gender equality in much more detail. If feminism is all about hating and killing men, how am I a white, heterosexual cis-male still alive and well after being taught about it by some of the finest feminist scholars of European and International Relations?

Anyway, back to the topic of this phrase.

While I appreciate, thoroughly, someone’s concern for the welfare of people abroad, you are not helping the argument because you are giving off the idea that problems we have at home should be something we ignore, and that they will all go away without direct action or social progression. I do agree that a lot of problems faced in nations like mine are not as big and extreme as those in Africa, they are still problems and need to be addressed. Regardless of mass and the social/economical differences of nations, our problems are still here and can fluctuate into even bigger concerns without us knowing it.

Therefore calling all activists in the UK, USA and the first world idiots who should shut up and do something else is plain ludicrous. Just because we are in a richer society where we are slowly progressing to a better way of life, does not excuse us from being concerned about the things that can harm and pose a threat.

Please think about what you are about to say before you say it.

“I’m Rather Offended By That.”

I’m pretty sure you’ve heard this excellent quote from Stephen Fry – someone whom I admire thoroughly as an entertainer and social justice activist.

Now one thing people do not seem to remember, is that Fry said this in a debate with Christopher Hitchens and Anne Widdicome in a debate about the Catholic Church’s attitude to homosexuality.

What he was attacking was homophobia and the tendency for people who read the Daily Mail and the like to use such a phrase to kill arguments of change. I do agree that such a phrase does not give you the moral high ground – but I do believe that people should have the right to be offended.

I’ve posted here about how I find jokes about rape and domestic violence offensive so I know what offends me. But when you are offended – you need substance.

I will defend people’s freedoms to be offended and use this phrase in the context of arguments, but I must urge you to have substance to back up why you are offended. Just using such a phrase to end someone else’s argument is pathetic because it shows how little an argument you have built up over time.

‘Offended’ is another tool to use in an argument for or against something and it needs the substance to make it work. I feel people got the wrong end of the stick with Stephen’s comment on this phrase and have used it to create a world of ‘everything goes’ where you cannot criticise things. The kind of people I’m talking about here are the likes of Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist, etc.

“Have you got kids?”

And now for the worst phrase I think anyone can use to destroy an argument.

Parents seem to think that because they have added to the population, then they are somewhat superior to others when it comes to discussing ideas of change.

Safe sex and sexual liberation and censorship tend to be the places this phrase crops up most often. It was pretty much the rhetoric behind the formation of the Parents Music Resource Centre and the trial of Judas Priest in 1990. Just because Tipper Gore and her lackeys had children somehow gave them the right to use them as weapons to stop people from having fun or making a difference to world.

What angers me the most about people who use such a phrase like this, is they do not think for a second about how their offspring must feel. How do you know your kids even agree with you for that matter? And you are stooping to the lowest of the low because you’re pretty much using your kids as a weapon to win a fight they - more than likely – have nothing to do with.

If you have children, I understand that you’d be concerned because they are of upmost importance to you – as was I to my parents. But how can you bring yourself to use your kids as a weapon when you don’t like an argument being made and you cannot think of a reasonable explanation for why you think it’s a bad idea.

Strangely, the 14 word slogan used by a lot of white power groups concerns the protection of children.

Apparently anyone who isn’t white just wants to kill your babies.

So this once again is Dimmu Wulfenhume saying: think before you speak.