Q&A With Jerry Patterson
The San Antonio Express News has up a Q&A with Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson. Sadly, it’s not over something like alternative energy. It is rehashing the “Confederate flag debate” that has been in the news recently.
On the bright side, Patterson had some very reasonable things to say and handled it nicely even if you don’t agree with him chapter and verse on each item.
Check out this one:
Q. A few years back, you filed an amicus brief backing the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their quest to restore plaques commemorating the Confederacy that were removed from the Texas Supreme Court building in 2000. What about Texans who are offended by these symbols?
I’m willing to say that we don’t have to fly the battle flag. We can fly another flag, like the (Confederacy’s) First National, also known as the Stars and Bars, that has not gained the offensive quality and has not been co-opted by racists like the Klan. … People say we shouldn’t fly the Confederate flag at the Capitol, but we do! Nobody knows that it’s the Confederate flag. It’s almost like a secret handshake. It’s not the Confederate battle flag. The Stars and Bars flies at the Capitol, and Bob Bullock Museum and at Six Flags Over Texas. People don’t find it offensive because they have no clue what it is.
I, for one, know the difference between the flags and discussed that some time ago in context with Ted Nugent and all of this uproar. I don’t have a problem with the First National flag, but terribly dislike the “Rebel Flag” for the reasons Patterson mentions: that it has been co-opted by racists. I do, however, have a problem with Nugent and his shenanigans. That was offensive to me.
The Rebel flag is offensive to me because it has become, as Patterson noted, co-opted by white supremicists. Otherwise, it’d just be another flag, and the Confederacy had hundreds of those for its various units. In its modern context, the Rebel flag doesn’t symbolize “history of the Confederacy” as much as it symbolizes “racism.” It is unfortunate that any piece of history can be so co-opted, but it is a fact that it has taken place. However, I also recognize that it is a part of history and when it is put in its appropriate historical context, I have less of a problem with it.
The other thing I wanted to point out is some more issues relating to monuments. As someone who has studied history extensively (History major, thank you!), I’ve always had that inner tug-of-war over removal of monuments versus whether to “revise and properly interpret” them.
Even though I’m a liberal, I’ve come down on the “revise and interpret” because I’ve always viewed the monuments themselves as historic artifacts more than “monuments” since public perception has changed so much over the years. I am mindful of the fact that some are offended by the fact that there are confederate monuments on the capitol grounds. But, removing the monuments won’t remove history. It is better that people see the monuments and understand why they are there, the mood of the nation and state when they were erected, and get a full sense of history rather than remove them. We are doomed to repeat history if we don’t learn from it. The monuments can teach us a part of history when properly interpreted.
Check this one out [Emphasis in Patterson's remarks mine]:
Q. Should monuments to the Confederacy be removed?
If you have statuary and monuments that were placed at a certain stage of the history of an institution, then I think those are regretful but valuable statements about the past … and probably in some cases should be allowed to stay. … I don’t, however, think they should stand alone. They need to be modified and explained with competing and alternative symbols. … On the UT campus, our idea is there needs to be competing symbolage. There’s a statute of MLK out there and there’s an effort to (honor) Barbara Jordon and César Chávez.
Are the (Confederate leaders) the only folks we should be celebrating? If they are the only people we celebrate, then I think we should not celebrate them. It’s better not to celebrate anyone than to celebrate only certain parts of our past …
It’s unusual for me to be in agreement with a Republican on pretty much anything including whether the sun is shining or not, but here I find myself once again saying that Patterson has articulated his feelings very well and that I’m pretty much in agreement.
In most cases, the monuments should stay with appropriate interpretation.
Now, as to why the MSM decided to yank this issue out of the blissful slumber it had finally found (seriously, how many photos of Ted Nugent can you look at?), I’m puzzled. If it was to give Patterson the chance to expound on his previous statements, then that’s a good thing. If it was just pot-stirring, it’s probably not appropriate, especially in the middle of Black History Month, when we should be focusing on people like Barbara Jordan and others and their contributions to Texas rather than re-hashing a month-old debate.
Written by Vince Leibowitz
If you like what you read here, please consider giving us a tip through Blog Patron or PayPal!
Visit Capitol Annex's Online Book Store!
If you liked that post, then try these...
Regardless Of Williamson's Replacement, Transportation Commission Says It Won't Back Off toll Roads by Vince Leibowitz on January 22nd, 2008
Are Bloggers Filling The Hole? by Vince Leibowitz on January 28th, 2007
Popularity: 11% [?]
