Beware the symbols of belonging that mean exclusion and hate

Quick quiz: what does this flag represent?


It's the state flag of South Carolina.
Why does that matter?

Because this isn't.



How powerful are our symbols of belonging.
Why was it so hard to remove the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse in Charleston? 

It's not even the South Carolina flag.

But the dogged devotion to 'Confederate pride' meant that belonging to past associations overtook a century and a half of history and emancipation. And ignored the symbolism of the flag brandished online by the accused killer, after the massacre in Charleston of nine African-Americans churchgoers.

Much is revealed about how attached we can be to the symbols of belonging in the commentary from inside the debate of South Carolina State Representatives, in this article - revealing the extent of Republican filibustering. Michael A. Pitts introduced more than 60 doomed amendments that stalled the vote for nearly 15 hours. 

Jenny Horne, a petite blonde Republican - a descendant of Jefferson Davis, the Confederate States of America’s President during the Civil War - called time. She poured shame on the debate for lacking the “heart” to respond to the massacre.

“I have heard enough about heritage.  

Well I am a descendant of Jefferson Davis, OK? But that doesn’t matter. Because it’s not about Jenny Horne!”

The debate still went on. 
Yet more fuddling with amendments.

Till Representative Joseph Neal, an elder statesman of the caucus, an African American and a close friend of Senator Pinckney, one of those murdered (and, like him, also a pastor), expressed his weariness:

“I sat and I listened, all day long with great interest, and empathy, for what was said. I understand you loving and supporting your ‘heritage.’ But ‘grace’ means that you ought to also love and support mine. It’s not a one-way street. 

My heritage is based on a group of people who were brought here in chains. Who were denigrated. Demagogued. Lynched and killed. Denied the right to vote. Denied the right to even have a family."

He summed up the divisiveness of the flag - a symbol against those who are deemed NOT to belong as much as for those who do. 

"That flag that stands outside has stood as a thumb in the eye of those families in Charleston who lost loved ones, and we all know it. 

And the response that this body should give is a moment of grace to those families. Not just grace to the Confederate dead, but grace to those who are suffering right now, who’re still alive.”

Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, called it out, no-nonsense:

“If you’re not trying to stall, then what’s the problem?"

It took 15 hours to agree, by 94 votes to 20 - to lower a flag that had originally been raised in conflict against the United States. In Charleston Bay, April 1861.

The Confederate flag was finally folded away. A longstanding symbol of 'Southern pride', along with exclusion and hate. But the conflict of division and belonging still flies in plain sight.

It's 150 years since the Civil War ended. Jefferson Davis was captured May 1865. Though the message took a while to get through. Apart from the final drama of the ship CSS Shenandoah, accounts say the last shot was fired on 22 June 1865. The massacre in Charleston was 17 June 2015.

Heritage, and the symbols we choose to hang on to, can guide behaviour even more than statute.


The USA's noble motto is a heck of a belonging challenge.

E pluribus unum 

'Out of the many we are one'

South Carolina had better give some real meaning to its own flag. Or commission a new one.

It's time to nurture a shared sense of belonging.

Creating a sense of Belonging sounds simple but the challenges can be complex. We help make it easy.

info@belongingspace.com

Belonging, ethics, Starbucks - and what you say 'No' to


What would you say no to?

It's a great question to ask if you want to see how ethical your culture is.
 
How does this play at Starbucks?



I'm sitting in Starbucks in Covent Garden. My first time in a Starbucks for some time. Partly I wanted a cup for the photo above. And, in the interests of fairness, to experience a company I've tended to avoid.



Starbucks seemed to say 'No' to taxes for quite a while, had some bad press suggesting it was grumpy it couldn't quite say 'No' to homeless people hanging around a branch nursing one cup of tea all day, and recently said 'No' (pretty soon after saying 'Yes') to its rather blighted #racetogether campaign.



But last week it said 'No' in a way that may have brought it more of an ethical glow in a few minutes' exchange at a shareholder meeting than in the previous ten years.



At Starbucks' annual general meeting in Seattle last week a shareholder was disgruntled that the company had lost value because of its overt stance supporting gay marriage. 

The far-right Christian lobby had organised a boycott of Starbucks which apparently affected sales. The shareholder was identified by Huffington Post as Tom Strobhar, founder of anti-gay-marriage pressure group Corporate Morality Action Centre.



Without blinking, CEO Howard Schultz responded with

“Not every decision is an economic decision... I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months.

Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”

And then, the clear-cut 'no':
 

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country.
You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.
Thank you very much.”

The audience rose in cheers and applause.



From the rough film clips on news sites and YouTube it seems this was an on the spur response to an impromptu question. Though sometimes canny investor relations teams have an idea of the issues that may be raised by activist investors, this seems the real McCoy: a moral stand by a leader with conviction. 

It's a straightforward rejection of the investor, his ethics, and his cash.
 
If you don't share our values, then don't question our value: We don't want your money.

Howard Shultz has taken a stand behind what the company believes in. Belonging to Starbucks - as an employee or as an investor - means ensuring everybody can belong on an equal-footing. And if you don't believe in that, then you don't belong.
 

Purpose over profit? It's both, of course.
More importantly: ethos.


And that's the heart of belonging, at the heart of business.



It'll be interesting to see if any other big corporations are prepared to say no, quite so openly, to defend what they believe in.



Maybe we're beginning to nurture early seedlings of a new capitalism.


How would that feel to belong to?
 
So, what would you say 'no' to? 

And, in your organisation, would your CEO stand up boldly for what you all belong to?



At Belonging Space we help organisations put ethos and purpose at the heart of their business, and create a sense of belonging.

isabel@belongingspace.com


www.belongingspace.com