Flags and Heritage

In the wake of all the discussion about the Confederate flag lately, I've been thinking, off and on, about heritage. How individual heritage is constructed and perceived vs heritage at the scales of family or region or country, and what the relationship is between history and heritage.

The stars and bars makes me uncomfortable when I see it. It symbolizes racism, among other things (not all of which are negative) in my mind. How do I communicate that in a rational way to someone who does not have those associations?

Beyond that, the United States flag, not unlike a tremendous number of current nation-state flags, is also tied to acts of racism and genocide. I don't think I have the time to fully unpack the similarities and differences between: A, the stars and bars' association with slavery of the 19th century and Southern racism during the mid 20th, and B, the US flag's association both with the same 19th century racism and with, for instance, our national past of cultural genocide against native people.

These things are complicated. Maybe it matters that the US flag has changed as more states have been added. But does that actually make it a different flag? And if a new flag was created to fly in place of the Confederate flag, would that difference be meaningful anyway or would it just be a replacement?

Can we justify mandating removal of the Confederate flag from public buildings due to it's historical imbrication with racism while not having a conversation about the troubled history of the US flag? I don't know how to answer these questions. What do you think?

The excellent point was made to me that I'm conflating "Stars and Bars" with the Confederate battle flag, the latter of which is the current subject of controversy. They aren't the same thing, though they are both Confederate flags. Thanks!

Academic Lit: Urban Sociology and Global Cities

I just read a piece by U of Chicago Sociologist Saskia Sassen (The Global City: Introducing a Concept - The Brown Journal of World Affairs: Vol 11 Issue 2, 2005). She's conceptualizing global cities, as opposed to world cities, as places where the practices and processes of globalization are tied to space and place. This is great for me, for whom bridges between the more local urban issues that concern me and global neoliberal forces I oppose are a welcome area for better understanding.

"The emphasis on the transnational and hypermobile character of capital has contributed to a sense of powerlessness among local actors...But an analysis that emphasizes place suggestst that the new global grid of strategic sites is a terrain for politics and engagement."

She suggests a research agenda informed by issues of local inequalities, urban space becoming "de-nationalized" and transforming into part of extra-state economic networks, and awareness of groups like immigrants and service workers who are huge, and often overlooked, parts of the system that enables globalization.

Big-box Retail's Tax Evasion

A discussion of parasitic methods big-box retailers use to systematically avoid paying what I would argue is their fair share in taxes.

A lawsuit brought by Lowe's in Marquette, MI forced tax assessors to value a store not based on its new construction cost, but on the value of abandoned Lowe's in other areas. Why? Because the stores are intentionally built to be disposable with no eye toward reuse. In fact, deed restrictions may make the property even less reusable. Therefore, the chain argues, the property value is drastically lower than they invested into land and improvements.

Some analyses have even shown that big-box retail is a *net tax loss* for some communities. This is parasitism.