Depending on whom you ask, and in
what context, you could receive a multitude of different thoughts on the notion
of rebellion and the multi-faceted identity of one deemed a “rebel.” The word
“rebel” calls to mind various stereotypes, pop culture references, and even
sports teams. Upon hearing the word “rebel,” one might think of the stereotype
of the angsty fifteen year old rebelling against their parents’ rules by
picking up smoking, staying out past curfew, and dying their hair blue. This
face of the rebel is generally looked down upon as immature, “going through a
phase,” and obnoxious yet harmless. However, from the perspective of the
teenager, their rebellion is a necessary step to escape their parents’ stifling
grip and express who they truly are. In some cases, they are right.
A Star Wars fan might think of the
Rebel Alliance, comprised of a gang of likeable, protagonistic characters
fighting valiantly against the Galactic Empire. The face of this rebel is
positive, and contrived to be so, seen as brave, morally upright, and justified
in their rebellion, as they are fighting for their right ideals against the
corrupt and evil powers that threaten them. However, from the Dark Side’s
perspective, the rebels are deviants, disobedient, a threat to be squashed or
assimilated to maintain the “correct” or “natural” order.
A student at Ole Miss might think of their
infamous mascot, the Ole Miss Rebels, whose marching band – “The Pride of the
South” – formerly played the song “Dixie” at football games, despite its
long-time associations with secession, racism, violence, and white supremacy.
This example brings us nearer to our recent conversations of rebellion, because
an Ole Miss student’s opinion on his/her school’s mascot depends on a number of
factors: perhaps including, what is their race? Are they from the South? How
were they raised? Do they know much of African-American history and its
inseparable roots intertwined with Southern history? To what extent are they
aware of present day racism that pervades every aspect of our nation? If they
are white, are they complacent in their white comfort and perhaps their
Southern pride? How does it affect me? In our culture, especially Southern white culture, it would be
quite easy for a white Ole Miss student to take no issue with their school’s
mascot, thus viewing the rebel as a dear, valiant, and resilient figure. Or at
least one with corrupt roots that can now merely symbolize the South without its history of slavery, as if
such a thing is possible. It is likely that there are white supremacists in
attendance at Ole Miss, who idolize and adore the Southern Rebel as being the
one on the right side of history that
fought for his noble cause and lost to those below him. Those aware of and
opposed to racism might feel a disdain towards this mascot for the very hatred,
violence, white supremacy, and secession that it symbolizes.
It is clear that a lot goes into
the formation of an opinion on rebels and rebellion, making it entirely
subjective and pliable from one context – and one person – to the next. It then
makes sense that white America would largely glorify the white rebels that we
know as “revolutionaries” and “Founding Fathers” and condemn as “delusional,”
“unstable,” and “psychotic” a rebel – such as Nat Turner – that fought for the
exact same ideals, in the exact same country, but within – and for – a black
body. It begs the question, what is the operating characteristic? Was it Nat
Turner’s religiosity - his religious fervor - that makes him unstable and
delusional and thus unjustified in his rebellion? Or was it perhaps his
blackness, his inferior status, his white-imposed identity of one to be
suppressed, that delegitimizes his desire to gain his freedom and his
subsequent actions to do anything it took to gain it?
When the same people who chant “All
Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter” proceed to chant “Blue Lives
Matter,” they reveal, as has been noted and spread on social media sites, that
the operating word to which they are opposed is “black.” They are not indeed
against advocating for the worth of one specific group of people’s lives at one
moment, as they claim to be, or else they would retort “All Lives Matter” to
chants of “Blue Lives Matter,” rather than expressing their affirmation. They are not
as “universalist” as they claim to be. They are, in fact, unwilling to assert
the worth of black lives because they are unwilling to see the reality of
racism, injustice, inequality, and inequity in our nation and in our world.
Likewise, when we exalt the white rebels that helped secure American freedom
from Britain yet we classify as delusional, unstable, and unjustifiably violent the black
Americans that attempted to secure that exact same freedom through the exact
same means, we discover, once again, what our "operating word” is: black.
No comments:
Post a Comment