How Not to Cover Hate Symbols

One of my favourite YouTube channels is named Atun-Shei Films. The channel mainly focuses on pre-1900s US history and/or pulpy fisticuffs, but is mostly known for the series covering disinformation about the American Civil War titled “Checkmate Lincolnites.” The videos make for entertaining viewing and are vastly more informative than your average YouTube fair, using well-researched arguments about a time that’s largely oversimplified in the public consciousness. The arguments rebutted in the series show the depth that has been reached by Confederate defenders to try and justify the south’s motivations for war. The attempts to deny the Confederate States of America’s (CSA) ardent and bloody defense of the enslavement of Black people are shown for the incomprehensible nonsense they are.

For the purposes of this piece, we can briefly rebut any claim that the South’s Civil War’s motivators weren’t based in this racism by looking to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ speech in Savannah, Georgia March 21, 1861.

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The American Civil War for the CSA was about defending slavery, its expansion and the supremacy of white Americans. Pure and simple. As such, the modern Confederate flag, while not being the official flag of the CSA, is meant to represent this entity and is therefore a symbol of white supremacy. Any argument to the contrary is dishonest bullshit.

So why is CTV waffling on these facts?

During the convoy occupation early in 2022, hate symbols such as Nazi and Confederate flags were prominently on display. The defence provided by the convoy’s lawyer was that these flags were being flown by government provacateurs. This is, of course, nonsense. However, as CTV rightly debunks this claim, they make an unforced error and validate the view that the Confederate flag is not inherently tied to racism.

The headline alone is disappointing. It directly quotes the truck-driver who displayed it, Maurice Landriault, saying it was a “rebel sign.” A much better headline would be “'Freedom Convoy' supporter denies white supremacist symbolism of Confederate flag.” This would put the reality of the flag’s use front and centre, while still accurately representing the story.

Instead, according to CTV, the status of the flag is reduced to one of controversy, offering the idea that a designation for its true symbolism has yet to be settled. The article’s only consistent descriptor of the flag is the word “offensive.” The word “racist” is only used to describe the flag in the article once. That instance describes what the flag represents to only a select amount of people. “But to many, the flag is a racist symbol and a disturbing reminder of the U.S. Confederacy’s fight to preserve slavery.” Imagine this descriptor for any other white supremacist symbol. Is the burning cross only a racist symbol “to many?” What about the swastika? Well now I suppose flying the Rhodesian flag is only a symbol of fascist white supremacy to those who look at it a certain way.

The hole-digging goes deeper. When explaining that other protestors asked him to take down the flag, Landriault states that he told them “It’s not racist. You guys are making it racist.” His personal justification is that it’s a sign of independence, citing its use in the biker community where “a lot of people have the Confederate flag because we’re rebels.” How are the people concerned about the American slavery flag a bigger factor in its racism than the flag itself? An answer is not provided and a rebuttal is not offered.

The video is somehow worse. “During the war they were called the rebels,” Landriault says, completely unchallenged as to what they were rebelling against. To which an appropriate response would be, “They were called that during the war over what, sir.” The journalist reporting (Glen McGregor) waffles that the flag is a “divisive image of racial injustice.” Divisive being between those who know the flag represents American slavery and those who insist otherwise.

In summation: there is no concrete refutation of the Confederate white-washing going on throughout either the video or the article.

How? How on Earth are these statements published in a national news organization and not being refuted?

This absolute failure to accurately label one of the most prominent symbols of racism as such shows that news media is fundamentally incapable of objectively analyzing white supremacy. Divorcing the American Civil War from the entrenched systemic racism has been an ongoing project by a defeated and humiliated American South that ties their identity to the CSA. Organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans were merely two of the pillars that have pushed the “Lost Cause” myth of the CSA since their defeat.

Have you ever heard “states rights?” That justification is Lost Cause mythology, and one routinely countered by available facts.

Despite this settled question, a story about this blood-drenched symbol of racism and slavery is framed as one that can apparently be interpreted in two equally valid ways. Is it a symbol of white supremacy? Or independence? Who’s to say? Certainly not CTV, who feels it’s their place to not present reality as a contrast to these ludicrous claims. After all, he bought it for a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, as if this is relevant to the discussion in any conceivable way.

It’s truly upsetting to see one of the largest news organizations in Canada fall behind an independent YouTuber who dresses up as a Witchfinder General and speaks to strangers in a period-accurate American accent to curse modern Christianity. But I suppose alienating the racist and the ignorant restricts too much of a potential audience from reading your work, CTV. What other explanation could there be?