Firefighters refuse to ride on truck with American flag
September 20, 2001 3:37 AM Subscribe
Firefighters refuse to ride on truck with American flag saying Old Glory was offensive. Are they Arab-Americans? No, they're African Americans who believe that "the flag [is] offensive and said it represented oppression." Valid complaint, or jumping on the bandwagon?
To my thinking they are putting their feelings on a higher level than the lives of people in danger?. Any firefighter who refused to do his or her job because they are offended deserves to be fired.
posted by revbrian at 3:58 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by revbrian at 3:58 AM on September 20, 2001
I bet if they read their employment contracts they won't find 'flying the flag' to be a stipulation.
posted by vbfg at 4:08 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by vbfg at 4:08 AM on September 20, 2001
Here is an African take on the situation. Sorry if it's been posted somewhere else.
I find myself in a difficult position in that I utterly denounce terrorism, and yet feel that there is a certain legitimacy to complaints about America's actions in the third world. I hope people still feel they can express these complaints without being tarred with the same brush as terrorists.
I was staggered at the arrogance with which America pulled out of the Kyoto treaty and the UN racism conference, and I have always been cynical about America's motives when it gets involved in the affairs of third world countries.
Don't get me wrong: I'm white, English and I can't condone much of my country's past either.
None of this is as horrifying or heart-stopping as those attacks, however. And none of it could quell my human sympathy for the victims and their families.
My hope is that the West will look to salve it's political standing in these regions, and not simply bomb indiscriminately based on little or no evidence. Yes, take Bin Laden, and take anyone else who is involved, but do it through understanding and mutual consent, and use this as an opportunity to stop future terrorism by ceasing to stand up as such an obvious target.
Those African American firefighters refusing to ride with the American flag? I think it's incredibly insensitive at this time, whatever their past feelings. Now is the time for reaching out to each other in peace and understanding. I certainly wouldn't find it offensive to ride under an American flag right now, despite my grave doubts about her political stance.
posted by walrus at 4:33 AM on September 20, 2001
I find myself in a difficult position in that I utterly denounce terrorism, and yet feel that there is a certain legitimacy to complaints about America's actions in the third world. I hope people still feel they can express these complaints without being tarred with the same brush as terrorists.
I was staggered at the arrogance with which America pulled out of the Kyoto treaty and the UN racism conference, and I have always been cynical about America's motives when it gets involved in the affairs of third world countries.
Don't get me wrong: I'm white, English and I can't condone much of my country's past either.
None of this is as horrifying or heart-stopping as those attacks, however. And none of it could quell my human sympathy for the victims and their families.
My hope is that the West will look to salve it's political standing in these regions, and not simply bomb indiscriminately based on little or no evidence. Yes, take Bin Laden, and take anyone else who is involved, but do it through understanding and mutual consent, and use this as an opportunity to stop future terrorism by ceasing to stand up as such an obvious target.
Those African American firefighters refusing to ride with the American flag? I think it's incredibly insensitive at this time, whatever their past feelings. Now is the time for reaching out to each other in peace and understanding. I certainly wouldn't find it offensive to ride under an American flag right now, despite my grave doubts about her political stance.
posted by walrus at 4:33 AM on September 20, 2001
> Valid complaint, or jumping on the bandwagon?
The bandwagon is that noisy vehicle trundling down Main Street, USA, crowded with flag-waving instant patriots. These firefighters are refusing to get on the bandwagon.
posted by pracowity at 4:39 AM on September 20, 2001
The bandwagon is that noisy vehicle trundling down Main Street, USA, crowded with flag-waving instant patriots. These firefighters are refusing to get on the bandwagon.
posted by pracowity at 4:39 AM on September 20, 2001
vbfg: No, but I'm sure that there are words to the effect of "...and obeying other such orders and directives as deemed appropriate by supervisors." Displaying the flag as a show of respect for the rescuers/firefighters/police who perished is appropriate, considerate, and right.
Conflicting reports of the cause of their concern: first it's because the flag represents "oppression." GIVE ME A BREAK. If the events of the last week aren't one of the most powerful arguments that the USA cherishes freedom for all citizens, I don't know what is. It is precisely because of our freedom that these evil people committed their wicked acts. Flying the flag right now is a visible reminder that our nation stands for liberty.
Second, they claim that the flag hanging from the truck is "dangerous" as it may flap uncontrollably. Hmmm...I suppose that's possible, but I really don't think that this was the cause of their refusal to ride. Even if true, I don't see how a simple matter like this got elevated to such proportions; after all, if it truly is unsafe, wouldn't other fire departments around the country have realized this, too, and ceased to hang the flag from their trucks?
posted by davidmsc at 4:39 AM on September 20, 2001
Conflicting reports of the cause of their concern: first it's because the flag represents "oppression." GIVE ME A BREAK. If the events of the last week aren't one of the most powerful arguments that the USA cherishes freedom for all citizens, I don't know what is. It is precisely because of our freedom that these evil people committed their wicked acts. Flying the flag right now is a visible reminder that our nation stands for liberty.
Second, they claim that the flag hanging from the truck is "dangerous" as it may flap uncontrollably. Hmmm...I suppose that's possible, but I really don't think that this was the cause of their refusal to ride. Even if true, I don't see how a simple matter like this got elevated to such proportions; after all, if it truly is unsafe, wouldn't other fire departments around the country have realized this, too, and ceased to hang the flag from their trucks?
posted by davidmsc at 4:39 AM on September 20, 2001
walrus: and I can't condone much of my country's past either.
What on earth are you talking about???
posted by davidmsc at 4:41 AM on September 20, 2001
What on earth are you talking about???
posted by davidmsc at 4:41 AM on September 20, 2001
The British Empire, setting up the situation in Israel/Palestine, arbitrarily drawing lines across Africa and divvying it up to take the spoils. Colonialism in India, Opium Wars in China, involvement in slave trade. Want some more?
England has a lot of past I can't condone. Why do you ask?
posted by walrus at 4:46 AM on September 20, 2001
England has a lot of past I can't condone. Why do you ask?
posted by walrus at 4:46 AM on September 20, 2001
On a slight tangent from these specific firefighters:
I have two friends in Los Angeles, thousands of miles from "Ground Zero", who are being hassled by neighbours because for their own reasons they happen not to be flying the Star Spangled Banner outside their home.
Seriously, who is insulting the Stars and Stripes more in this situation? I don't understand how people can trumpet democracy and civilisation and then complain just because people don't have the national flag in their window. It's patriotism gone crazy - not much better than the fools who have attacked turban-wearing Sikhs this week.
posted by skylar at 4:55 AM on September 20, 2001
I have two friends in Los Angeles, thousands of miles from "Ground Zero", who are being hassled by neighbours because for their own reasons they happen not to be flying the Star Spangled Banner outside their home.
Seriously, who is insulting the Stars and Stripes more in this situation? I don't understand how people can trumpet democracy and civilisation and then complain just because people don't have the national flag in their window. It's patriotism gone crazy - not much better than the fools who have attacked turban-wearing Sikhs this week.
posted by skylar at 4:55 AM on September 20, 2001
Good thing I wasn't their supervisor. Four words: You are so fired.
I agree with those who have voiced opposition to the confederate flag, but showing disrespect to the American flag is another matter. If you don't want to pay respect to the symbol of our country, then Delta is ready when you are.
posted by darren at 5:28 AM on September 20, 2001
I agree with those who have voiced opposition to the confederate flag, but showing disrespect to the American flag is another matter. If you don't want to pay respect to the symbol of our country, then Delta is ready when you are.
posted by darren at 5:28 AM on September 20, 2001
skylar -
I have two friends in Los Angeles, thousands of miles from "Ground Zero", who are being hassled by neighbours because for their own reasons they happen not to be flying the Star Spangled Banner outside their home.
What amazes me is the statement which I think is implicit in acts like these (and bear in mind, I have been wearing a flag more or less constantly for quite some time now): that you can trust anyone with an American flag, and can't trust anyone without one.
Does anyone honestly believe that if a terrorist were to put on the flag, it would cause him some physical harm, like water on the wicked witch?
It's ludicrous.
posted by Sinner at 5:32 AM on September 20, 2001
I have two friends in Los Angeles, thousands of miles from "Ground Zero", who are being hassled by neighbours because for their own reasons they happen not to be flying the Star Spangled Banner outside their home.
What amazes me is the statement which I think is implicit in acts like these (and bear in mind, I have been wearing a flag more or less constantly for quite some time now): that you can trust anyone with an American flag, and can't trust anyone without one.
Does anyone honestly believe that if a terrorist were to put on the flag, it would cause him some physical harm, like water on the wicked witch?
It's ludicrous.
posted by Sinner at 5:32 AM on September 20, 2001
davidmsc: When you are forced, in the land free of oppression, and under threat of the cost of your livelihood, to show the requisite level of patriotism or face the consequences then I would contend that you are no longer in the land of the free. Firefighters having to abide by rules to not push their mates off the top of a ladder for a bit of a merry jape I can understand. Firefighters having to fly the flag or walk the walk I don't.
This seems to me to be different from flying the flag from a government building. That is commonly accepted practise the world over, as is flying it at half mast in the event of tradgedy. Introducing a new custom and threatening the sack if you don't abide by it is something else.
The "we're free so you'd better be grateful or else" argument just doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. Somethings are absolute. Individual freedom is one of them, patriotism isn't.
posted by vbfg at 5:32 AM on September 20, 2001
This seems to me to be different from flying the flag from a government building. That is commonly accepted practise the world over, as is flying it at half mast in the event of tradgedy. Introducing a new custom and threatening the sack if you don't abide by it is something else.
The "we're free so you'd better be grateful or else" argument just doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. Somethings are absolute. Individual freedom is one of them, patriotism isn't.
posted by vbfg at 5:32 AM on September 20, 2001
I challenge said firefighters, and the MeFi community for that matter, to find any country's flag that's at least one hundred and fifty or so years old, that has not at one time stood for oppression or injustice of some kind.
posted by saladin at 5:34 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by saladin at 5:34 AM on September 20, 2001
These guys should not only be forced to fly the flag on their truck, but I think we should make them wear it on an armband. But then, really, each citizen should be forced to declare their love of the flag. I've been going down to my local fire departments, trying to teach them all the proper way to salute the flag. Arm bent, hand on the chest and then straightened out directly in front of them. Repeat a few times.
posted by Doug at 6:21 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by Doug at 6:21 AM on September 20, 2001
yah this whole "im living in america and savagely devouring the fuits of its trees, but hey, that flag is offensive" is rather asinine.
Said firefighters can move to Canada.
posted by Satapher at 6:49 AM on September 20, 2001
Said firefighters can move to Canada.
posted by Satapher at 6:49 AM on September 20, 2001
I used to work for pizza hut.
I had no say over the company logo or what manner or stuff they wanted to stick on the trucks. If these guys think that it's more important that they take a stand and refuse to ride in a truck with a flag on it than to do their job (putting out fires and saving lives..etc) then perhaps they are in the wrong business.
posted by glenwood at 6:55 AM on September 20, 2001
I had no say over the company logo or what manner or stuff they wanted to stick on the trucks. If these guys think that it's more important that they take a stand and refuse to ride in a truck with a flag on it than to do their job (putting out fires and saving lives..etc) then perhaps they are in the wrong business.
posted by glenwood at 6:55 AM on September 20, 2001
This gentleman seems to have no problem with the American flag. He was decidedly anti-opression.
posted by owillis at 6:56 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by owillis at 6:56 AM on September 20, 2001
It is precisely because of our freedom that these evil people committed their wicked acts.
It is precisely because of our wicked acts that these evil people are now restricting our freedom (in collaboration with our own govt).
The comparison of the US flag with the Pizza Hut logo does not make sense IMO. The US flag is a political statement, something that is better left out of workplaces, just as we leave religion out of public schools and just as we do not say the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the workday. The Pizza Hut logo is a commercial symbol and has few political overtones.
What's next? loyalty oaths?
posted by locombia at 7:21 AM on September 20, 2001
It is precisely because of our wicked acts that these evil people are now restricting our freedom (in collaboration with our own govt).
The comparison of the US flag with the Pizza Hut logo does not make sense IMO. The US flag is a political statement, something that is better left out of workplaces, just as we leave religion out of public schools and just as we do not say the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the workday. The Pizza Hut logo is a commercial symbol and has few political overtones.
What's next? loyalty oaths?
posted by locombia at 7:21 AM on September 20, 2001
Said firefighters can move to Canada.
Compulsory acts of allegiance and obedience are the beginning of the end of a free society. How can it be that, in only 8 days, we have reached a state where if a minority opinion respectfully disagrees with the majority, they shouldn't be allowed to live in our country?
My advice: simmer down. Take a deep breath. America is diverse, and isn't that the point?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:48 AM on September 20, 2001
Compulsory acts of allegiance and obedience are the beginning of the end of a free society. How can it be that, in only 8 days, we have reached a state where if a minority opinion respectfully disagrees with the majority, they shouldn't be allowed to live in our country?
My advice: simmer down. Take a deep breath. America is diverse, and isn't that the point?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:48 AM on September 20, 2001
did they actually refuse to go on a call because of the flag? if a call came in and they refused to go, then i think we'd have reason to bitch. since they didn't endanger lives, i don't see the problem. we can't say that they didn't do their jobs when the flag was removed to avoid that opportunity. we can only speculate that they may have.
this is a time to honor you fallen comrades
you can't force anyone to honor their fallen comrades. or the flag.
It isn't a time to make a political statement or a stand
i think it's more imperative to make a stand right now than it was 2 weeks ago. all this rainy day patriotism by all the just-add-flag-and-candle patriots is a great way to force people to conform, to force them to shut up under the guise of 'unity.' it's bullshit.
If you don't want to pay respect to the symbol of our country, then Delta is ready when you are.
the 'love it or leave it' argument. love the symbol of freedom or get out. brilliant.
Said firefighters can move to Canada
or they can stay here and exercise their right to dissent and their right to express that dissent and their responsibility to accept the consequences of how they express that dissent.
If the events of the last week aren't one of the most powerful arguments that the USA cherishes freedom for all citizens...
how does a terrorist crashing an aircraft into the side of a skyscraper argue that the USA cherishes freedom? in fact, considering some of the legislative proposals we've been hearing about, it'd seem to argue the opposite.
posted by tolkhan at 7:53 AM on September 20, 2001
this is a time to honor you fallen comrades
you can't force anyone to honor their fallen comrades. or the flag.
It isn't a time to make a political statement or a stand
i think it's more imperative to make a stand right now than it was 2 weeks ago. all this rainy day patriotism by all the just-add-flag-and-candle patriots is a great way to force people to conform, to force them to shut up under the guise of 'unity.' it's bullshit.
If you don't want to pay respect to the symbol of our country, then Delta is ready when you are.
the 'love it or leave it' argument. love the symbol of freedom or get out. brilliant.
Said firefighters can move to Canada
or they can stay here and exercise their right to dissent and their right to express that dissent and their responsibility to accept the consequences of how they express that dissent.
If the events of the last week aren't one of the most powerful arguments that the USA cherishes freedom for all citizens...
how does a terrorist crashing an aircraft into the side of a skyscraper argue that the USA cherishes freedom? in fact, considering some of the legislative proposals we've been hearing about, it'd seem to argue the opposite.
posted by tolkhan at 7:53 AM on September 20, 2001
The US flag is not a political statement, it is the international emblem representing our country -- the physical symbol of the very system which allows these morons the freedom to go on about their unending "oppression." And wow, they're oppressed. They're so oppressed that they have government jobs of their own choosing. They have it really, really bad. The man is clearly keeping these guys down. I don't know how they live.
Puh-lease. No one asked them to "fly" a flag, no one asked them to wear it, no one asked them to have any association with it other than to get into a vehicle which happened to have a flag on it. It's not their personal vehicle. They do not have the option as to what their superiors choose as appropriate displays on those vehicles. They do not have the option to refuse to perform their critical job duties -- and they said 'we will not ride' which equates to 'we will not work' -- because some peripheral "problem" clashes with their political ideals.
In truth, it is only because they work for government -- which can only be presumed to be the primary agent of their supposed oppression -- in essential civil service capacities that these dunderheads weren't fired (or suspended, at the very least) for their refusal to do their assigned work. But they're terribly oppressed. Yeah, sure, whatever. Cry me a river. If they'd been employees of a private company, these guys would be filing for unemployment today.
posted by Dreama at 8:05 AM on September 20, 2001
Puh-lease. No one asked them to "fly" a flag, no one asked them to wear it, no one asked them to have any association with it other than to get into a vehicle which happened to have a flag on it. It's not their personal vehicle. They do not have the option as to what their superiors choose as appropriate displays on those vehicles. They do not have the option to refuse to perform their critical job duties -- and they said 'we will not ride' which equates to 'we will not work' -- because some peripheral "problem" clashes with their political ideals.
In truth, it is only because they work for government -- which can only be presumed to be the primary agent of their supposed oppression -- in essential civil service capacities that these dunderheads weren't fired (or suspended, at the very least) for their refusal to do their assigned work. But they're terribly oppressed. Yeah, sure, whatever. Cry me a river. If they'd been employees of a private company, these guys would be filing for unemployment today.
posted by Dreama at 8:05 AM on September 20, 2001
Right now, this is a time to honor you fallen comrades, many of who were also African-American.
Anyone who thinks they have the right to tell people who put their lives on the line whenever they go to work the "correct way" to "honor" their fallen comrades is sorely mistaken.
If they're standing up for what they believe in, for their civil rights -- more power to them.
The US flag is not a political statement, it is the international emblem representing our country
Which is exactly why the US flag is a political statement, Dreama.
posted by lia at 8:13 AM on September 20, 2001
Anyone who thinks they have the right to tell people who put their lives on the line whenever they go to work the "correct way" to "honor" their fallen comrades is sorely mistaken.
If they're standing up for what they believe in, for their civil rights -- more power to them.
The US flag is not a political statement, it is the international emblem representing our country
Which is exactly why the US flag is a political statement, Dreama.
posted by lia at 8:13 AM on September 20, 2001
I have to admire the way this problem was handled:
The crew chief then ordered the flag's removal so that the seven-member unit could answer 911 calls, Fernandez said.
``He (the crew chief) felt the best thing to do was for the administration to deal with this later,'' Fernandez said.
Good management.
posted by DBAPaul at 8:17 AM on September 20, 2001
The crew chief then ordered the flag's removal so that the seven-member unit could answer 911 calls, Fernandez said.
``He (the crew chief) felt the best thing to do was for the administration to deal with this later,'' Fernandez said.
Good management.
posted by DBAPaul at 8:17 AM on September 20, 2001
if these guys lived in my city(city of flags) i hate to say, they may have to worry about putting out their own fire. Now if some guys were waving it and just were going on and on and chiding these guys for not having the "proper"enthusiasm, i can see why they would be upset. But to refuse to do a duty because of a flag(which does not inhibit engines performance) then these guys are idiots. I can think of greater hills to die on. These guys have a right to protest. They also have the right to work elsewhere. The Flag is flown at everyfire house i have seen. Where were their protests before the WTC? of course, we assume on what little info we have.
posted by newnameintown at 9:43 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by newnameintown at 9:43 AM on September 20, 2001
Which is exactly why the US flag is a political statement, Dreama.
No, Lia, it's exactly why the flag is not a political statement at all, unless you're of the exceedingly narrow minded opinion that the only thing that the US is, is a political entity, and worse, a political entity which only represents the perspectives of a very narrow segment of society.
In fact, by representing the nation as a whole, the flag represents every facet thereof, the political/governmental aspects being only a part. This is exactly where these kinds of issues start -- people decide that the flag is only what they dislike or disagree with, deny that it is the very symbol of their freedom to publicly dislike and disagree, and get wound up about it -- especially at times or in situations where their tantrum throwing is neither warranted, appreciated or appropriate.
posted by Dreama at 9:50 AM on September 20, 2001
No, Lia, it's exactly why the flag is not a political statement at all, unless you're of the exceedingly narrow minded opinion that the only thing that the US is, is a political entity, and worse, a political entity which only represents the perspectives of a very narrow segment of society.
In fact, by representing the nation as a whole, the flag represents every facet thereof, the political/governmental aspects being only a part. This is exactly where these kinds of issues start -- people decide that the flag is only what they dislike or disagree with, deny that it is the very symbol of their freedom to publicly dislike and disagree, and get wound up about it -- especially at times or in situations where their tantrum throwing is neither warranted, appreciated or appropriate.
posted by Dreama at 9:50 AM on September 20, 2001
There's been a lot of presumption here about what actually happened. Just for those who didn't read the second story, this is what one of the accused flag-haters says (in the second linked story):
Clark says Fernandez and union representatives never spoke to him or the two other firefighters for their side of the story before going public. ...Clark, who says he and the other firefighters never refused to go on a call, thinks someone at the fire station connected the removal of the flag to the sentiments the men expressed [about racial justice in America].
The emphasis is mine. I don't say that this is necessarily the whole story either -- and I agree with those who think this would be an incredibly stupid time to take such a position -- but this whole story strikes me as a sensationalist attempt to find some villains. Cheap, fan-the-flames journalism. Followed by a public pile-on.
There are better things to do right now than pick fights among ourselves.
posted by BT at 9:59 AM on September 20, 2001
Clark says Fernandez and union representatives never spoke to him or the two other firefighters for their side of the story before going public. ...Clark, who says he and the other firefighters never refused to go on a call, thinks someone at the fire station connected the removal of the flag to the sentiments the men expressed [about racial justice in America].
The emphasis is mine. I don't say that this is necessarily the whole story either -- and I agree with those who think this would be an incredibly stupid time to take such a position -- but this whole story strikes me as a sensationalist attempt to find some villains. Cheap, fan-the-flames journalism. Followed by a public pile-on.
There are better things to do right now than pick fights among ourselves.
posted by BT at 9:59 AM on September 20, 2001
Geez, what's next, they refuse to ride with whites, since they "symbolize oppression"? They refuse to rescue folks who are flying a flag? They refuse to rescue folks with distasteful ideologies, or -- gasp -- might even be bad guys? Whatever the reasons, the behavior is entirely unprofessional and I'm shocked that they're so willing to erode public confidence like that. The last thing I want when I'm in a fire is some firefighter sitting there trying to decide whether or not it's morally right to come on out and rescue me.
posted by greengirl at 10:07 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by greengirl at 10:07 AM on September 20, 2001
I know that you don't HAVE to have a master's degree in political science to be a fireman but last I heard, that flag was created as a result of an historical fight against oppression. Maybe I got it wrong...
posted by OldGuard at 10:08 AM on September 20, 2001
posted by OldGuard at 10:08 AM on September 20, 2001
In fact, by representing the nation as a whole, the flag represents every facet thereof, the political/governmental aspects being only a part.
Oh, hogwash. If the flag represents every facet--every single thing about our nation--then it represents nothing at all. Let x=x. The flag is neither small enough nor big enough to fit the variable.
Oh, and America's workers? Feeling oppressed or disgruntled? Think you might have a "tantrum"? Please clear it through Dreama, our nation's arbiter of all that is warranted, appreciated and appropriate.
posted by Skot at 10:09 AM on September 20, 2001
Oh, hogwash. If the flag represents every facet--every single thing about our nation--then it represents nothing at all. Let x=x. The flag is neither small enough nor big enough to fit the variable.
Oh, and America's workers? Feeling oppressed or disgruntled? Think you might have a "tantrum"? Please clear it through Dreama, our nation's arbiter of all that is warranted, appreciated and appropriate.
posted by Skot at 10:09 AM on September 20, 2001
people decide that the flag is only what they dislike or disagree with, deny that it is the very symbol of their freedom to publicly dislike and disagree, and get wound up about it
Dreama, how can you possibly define what the flag means to any particular individual? The US flag, particularly at this point in history is a huge political statement, loaded with all kinds of implied meaning. Just one example: by displaying the flag today, you may as well be saying, "Yes, please, let's go to war!" Impending war is the position of the US government, of which the flag is a symbol. Thus, if I display the flag, I am implicitly communicating my support for its decisions.
Whether you think the flag's possible symbolic representation of their freedoms to disagree with what they consider bad about this country is its sole meaning or not, your opinion cannot require them to like the flag or to want to be associated with it.
especially at times or in situations where their tantrum throwing is neither warranted, appreciated or appropriate.
This conflict was brought up by a supervisor deciding to display the flag due to recent events. That action brought up their objection, and they should not be required to hold down their objection just because you deem it inappropriate because of current events! Have you no respect for the ideals the flag represents to you?
The flag represents the US government, not that of the town in question, for whom these men work. Unless these men have some other reason to be fired, this cannot possibly be a good reason to get rid of two needed firemen. If they really have that big of a problem with what is a totally unnecessary addition to their vehicle, then a smart supervisor would remove it! Surely there are other ways to honor the firemen who lost their lives than by displaying the US flag?
posted by daveadams at 10:10 AM on September 20, 2001
Dreama, how can you possibly define what the flag means to any particular individual? The US flag, particularly at this point in history is a huge political statement, loaded with all kinds of implied meaning. Just one example: by displaying the flag today, you may as well be saying, "Yes, please, let's go to war!" Impending war is the position of the US government, of which the flag is a symbol. Thus, if I display the flag, I am implicitly communicating my support for its decisions.
Whether you think the flag's possible symbolic representation of their freedoms to disagree with what they consider bad about this country is its sole meaning or not, your opinion cannot require them to like the flag or to want to be associated with it.
especially at times or in situations where their tantrum throwing is neither warranted, appreciated or appropriate.
This conflict was brought up by a supervisor deciding to display the flag due to recent events. That action brought up their objection, and they should not be required to hold down their objection just because you deem it inappropriate because of current events! Have you no respect for the ideals the flag represents to you?
The flag represents the US government, not that of the town in question, for whom these men work. Unless these men have some other reason to be fired, this cannot possibly be a good reason to get rid of two needed firemen. If they really have that big of a problem with what is a totally unnecessary addition to their vehicle, then a smart supervisor would remove it! Surely there are other ways to honor the firemen who lost their lives than by displaying the US flag?
posted by daveadams at 10:10 AM on September 20, 2001
last I heard, that flag was created as a result of an historical fight against oppression. Maybe I got it wrong...
Is there no possible way that you and these men could have two different opinions about the US flag? In any case, no matter the reason for its creation, the US, under this flag, has done its share of oppressing and repressing over the years. Do you deny this?
The last thing I want when I'm in a fire is some firefighter sitting there trying to decide whether or not it's morally right to come on out and rescue me
Have they ever done this? According to the article, "he and the other firefighters never refused to go on a call". So what's the problem? They clearly realize that saving lives is the number one priority, but when such things aren't at stake, don't they have a right to disagree with your ideas?
posted by daveadams at 10:18 AM on September 20, 2001
Is there no possible way that you and these men could have two different opinions about the US flag? In any case, no matter the reason for its creation, the US, under this flag, has done its share of oppressing and repressing over the years. Do you deny this?
The last thing I want when I'm in a fire is some firefighter sitting there trying to decide whether or not it's morally right to come on out and rescue me
Have they ever done this? According to the article, "he and the other firefighters never refused to go on a call". So what's the problem? They clearly realize that saving lives is the number one priority, but when such things aren't at stake, don't they have a right to disagree with your ideas?
posted by daveadams at 10:18 AM on September 20, 2001
Have they ever done this? According to the article, "he and the other firefighters never refused to go on a call". So what's the problem? They clearly realize that saving lives is the number one priority,
No, the problem is that it's not so clear any more. It doesn't matter whether or not a firefighter has actually refused to go on a call for moral reasons, the doubt has been raised.
don't they have a right to disagree with your ideas?
No, not while on duty. I am not paying my firefighters to wrestle with moral quandries.
Have they ever done this?
Before today I would have said, "No way." But now I'm not so sure (not these guys specifically but firefighters in general).
posted by greengirl at 12:29 PM on September 20, 2001
No, the problem is that it's not so clear any more. It doesn't matter whether or not a firefighter has actually refused to go on a call for moral reasons, the doubt has been raised.
don't they have a right to disagree with your ideas?
No, not while on duty. I am not paying my firefighters to wrestle with moral quandries.
Have they ever done this?
Before today I would have said, "No way." But now I'm not so sure (not these guys specifically but firefighters in general).
posted by greengirl at 12:29 PM on September 20, 2001
Let me put this in terms even haters can understand: These guys are FIREMEN. Their job consists of one thing - when the call comes in, they get on the trucks and go to where the problem is. Their job description DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to decide whether or not to ride particular fire trucks, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. If they refuse to fulfill their duties, for any reason whatosever, they should be fired on the spot. All arguments about the "meaning of the US flag" are 100% irrelevant to this case.
If a single human being experiences so much as a singed hair because of the refusal of these men to fulfill their duties, they should be charged with a crime corresponding to the level of injury suffered by the victim, anywhere from assault to murder.
posted by aaron at 12:31 PM on September 20, 2001
If a single human being experiences so much as a singed hair because of the refusal of these men to fulfill their duties, they should be charged with a crime corresponding to the level of injury suffered by the victim, anywhere from assault to murder.
posted by aaron at 12:31 PM on September 20, 2001
Their job description DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to decide whether or not to ride particular fire trucks, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
how many job descriptions specifically include what rights an employee has? my job description doesn't include the right to refuse to participate in the company sponsored charity drives, but i won't be fired when i don't.
these guys didn't refuse to go on a call. that didn't happen, so any discussion of it is speculation. these guys did not make their statements at an inappropriate time. they made their refusal, and a temporary solution was put into place, a solution to assure that, should a call come in, the truck would go out with all of them. that's the way something like that should have been handled.
greengirl: i suggest you be filled with doubt about everyone then, because you don't know who may have hesitated, or who may have second guessed something. it happens. it's something people do all the time. just doubt the motives, commitment and professionalism of everyone and get over it.
what's next, they refuse to ride with whites
thanks for taking things to ludicrous extremes. it's helpful.
posted by tolkhan at 1:56 PM on September 20, 2001
how many job descriptions specifically include what rights an employee has? my job description doesn't include the right to refuse to participate in the company sponsored charity drives, but i won't be fired when i don't.
these guys didn't refuse to go on a call. that didn't happen, so any discussion of it is speculation. these guys did not make their statements at an inappropriate time. they made their refusal, and a temporary solution was put into place, a solution to assure that, should a call come in, the truck would go out with all of them. that's the way something like that should have been handled.
greengirl: i suggest you be filled with doubt about everyone then, because you don't know who may have hesitated, or who may have second guessed something. it happens. it's something people do all the time. just doubt the motives, commitment and professionalism of everyone and get over it.
what's next, they refuse to ride with whites
thanks for taking things to ludicrous extremes. it's helpful.
posted by tolkhan at 1:56 PM on September 20, 2001
Let me put this in terms even haters can understand: These guys are FIREMEN. Their job consists of one thing - when the call comes in, they get on the trucks and go to where the problem is. Their job description DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to decide whether or not to ride particular fire trucks, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER....All arguments about the "meaning of the US flag" are 100% irrelevant to this case.
You're absolutely right aaron. But based on the articles, it sounds like it was all a press misunderstanding, and that the men in question never refused to ride any truck. Was anyone arguing that they shouldn't go to fires? Was there anything besides hearsay in the articles that implied that these firemen really would have done such a thing? It's pointless to argue about something that (as it seems to me, anyway) never happened, and never would. No fireman would refuse to go on a call because of something like that. Thus, any argument about that particular element of this topic are pretty irrelevant.
At the same time, no fire station should try to do something that (1) doesn't meet with approval of the firemen doing the work and (2) isn't absolutely necessary. If some of the men didn't like the flag on the truck for whatever reason, there shouldn't have been any argument and the flag should have gone. If the fire chief happened to be a neo-Nazi and the town was Skokie, Illinois, if he wanted to place swastikas on every truck, would the Jewish firemen have a right to object? Obviously, they should continue to fulfill their duties, but I would think it would be hard to do. There's no reason to fly the flag on the trucks. If the men don't like it, don't do it.
In any case, such arguments are nearly irrelevant. The haters like myself (at least I can only assume you were addressing me, though I disagree with the label and am confused as to what it could be referring to... using actual usernames is a more effective method of addressing individuals) were instead arguing against Dreama's interpretation of the flag as something all Americans must have nothing but absolute admiration for and others' apparent dislike of the fact that firemen might just have political opinions of their own.
posted by daveadams at 1:59 PM on September 20, 2001
You're absolutely right aaron. But based on the articles, it sounds like it was all a press misunderstanding, and that the men in question never refused to ride any truck. Was anyone arguing that they shouldn't go to fires? Was there anything besides hearsay in the articles that implied that these firemen really would have done such a thing? It's pointless to argue about something that (as it seems to me, anyway) never happened, and never would. No fireman would refuse to go on a call because of something like that. Thus, any argument about that particular element of this topic are pretty irrelevant.
At the same time, no fire station should try to do something that (1) doesn't meet with approval of the firemen doing the work and (2) isn't absolutely necessary. If some of the men didn't like the flag on the truck for whatever reason, there shouldn't have been any argument and the flag should have gone. If the fire chief happened to be a neo-Nazi and the town was Skokie, Illinois, if he wanted to place swastikas on every truck, would the Jewish firemen have a right to object? Obviously, they should continue to fulfill their duties, but I would think it would be hard to do. There's no reason to fly the flag on the trucks. If the men don't like it, don't do it.
In any case, such arguments are nearly irrelevant. The haters like myself (at least I can only assume you were addressing me, though I disagree with the label and am confused as to what it could be referring to... using actual usernames is a more effective method of addressing individuals) were instead arguing against Dreama's interpretation of the flag as something all Americans must have nothing but absolute admiration for and others' apparent dislike of the fact that firemen might just have political opinions of their own.
posted by daveadams at 1:59 PM on September 20, 2001
Talk about taking things to ludicrous extremes. Conflating the American flag with a swastika is beyond the boundaries of absurdity. This is the United States and fire departments are government entities. Flags are a routine part of the decor at government offices at all levels, in fact, there are flags flying at most fire houses. There may be no reason to fly a flag, but so long as this is still the US, there aren't very many good reasons not to.
And I never stated anywhere that all Americans should have nothing but "absolute admiration" for the flag. What I did say is that these morons were railing against the flag because they've ignored the fact that it represents more than just the government. It should also be noted that when you are a civil service employee, you check your political opinions at the door. Thousands of people around the country -- whose jobs are far less crucial than firefighters -- do so everyday, and it is galling that these guys refused to and do so under the premise that they're oppressed. Their oppressed by their own stupidity, little else.
posted by Dreama at 2:14 PM on September 20, 2001
And I never stated anywhere that all Americans should have nothing but "absolute admiration" for the flag. What I did say is that these morons were railing against the flag because they've ignored the fact that it represents more than just the government. It should also be noted that when you are a civil service employee, you check your political opinions at the door. Thousands of people around the country -- whose jobs are far less crucial than firefighters -- do so everyday, and it is galling that these guys refused to and do so under the premise that they're oppressed. Their oppressed by their own stupidity, little else.
posted by Dreama at 2:14 PM on September 20, 2001
It certainly looks like the press is more interested in doing a hatchet job on the employees than actually reporting the story. From the two articles it's not clear what the heck is going on in the fire department other than a flag was removed from a truck because it was getting in the way.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:24 PM on September 20, 2001
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:24 PM on September 20, 2001
> what's next, they refuse to ride with whites
thanks for taking things to ludicrous extremes. it's helpful.
Are you suggesting that there is a non-ludicrous reason to refuse to ride on the trucks?
posted by greengirl at 2:32 PM on September 20, 2001
thanks for taking things to ludicrous extremes. it's helpful.
Are you suggesting that there is a non-ludicrous reason to refuse to ride on the trucks?
posted by greengirl at 2:32 PM on September 20, 2001
sure. it wouldn't be ludicrous to refuse to ride on a truck that was on fire. or one in which the seats had been replaced with 10 inch razor sharp spikes. or a truck packed with hungry sea otters. or because the truck was dripping ectoplasmic ooze while Sigourney Weaver, clad only in plastic wrap and a toothbrush, writhed lewdly on the big extendo-ladder and sung the love theme from "Ice Castles".
all are good, non-ludicrous reasons to refuse to ride on the trucks. the situation may be ludicrous, even unbelievable (except that Sigourney Weaver one), but the refusal is not.
but that's not what i meant by 'taking things to ludicrous extremes' anyway.
posted by tolkhan at 8:33 AM on September 21, 2001
all are good, non-ludicrous reasons to refuse to ride on the trucks. the situation may be ludicrous, even unbelievable (except that Sigourney Weaver one), but the refusal is not.
but that's not what i meant by 'taking things to ludicrous extremes' anyway.
posted by tolkhan at 8:33 AM on September 21, 2001
« Older Taliban clerics meet to discuss bin Laden | Nail. Head. Hit it. He did. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Firefighters are a tight bunch, and something like this will not go over well with the rest of the Firefighter community.
Right now, this is a time to honor you fallen comrades, many of who were also African-American. It isn't a time to make a political statement or a stand.
posted by da5id at 3:55 AM on September 20, 2001