The recent social media post from the Department of Labor has sparked significant controversy due to several pointed details that many online users have quickly noticed and interpreted as problematic.
First, the use of **11 stars around Abraham Lincoln’s head** drew immediate attention. Traditionally, the original American flag featured **13 stars** representing the 13 colonies, but this post only displays 11 stars. Critics see this as a potential reference to the **Confederacy**, which comprised 11 states during the American Civil War. Early Confederate flags also featured 11 stars, and some perceive this as an unintended or deliberate nod to a separatist and racist past, especially given the Confederate States’ association with slavery and rebellion against the Union.
Additionally, the choice of **symbols and terminology** in the post has been scrutinized. The term **”Americanism”** was flagged because, historically, this term has been co-opted or echoing tones of exclusion, nationalism, or even fascism. A quote from Professor Halford E. Luccock, from 1938, was circulated: **”When and if fascism comes to America, it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’…”** — highlighting fears that the symbolisms and rhetoric sometimes used by government entities can mirror authoritarian or xenophobic sentiments, even if unintentionally.
Some users accused the Department of Labor of subtle **dogwhistles** or coded messages embedded in their social media visuals: **”y’all not even subtle with the dogwhistles”**, one tweet read. Others drew stark comparisons to infamous symbols of racist regimes, such as the **Third Reich**, citing the font style and star count.
Overall, this controversy underscores how deeply symbols and language evoke historical memories and associations. The choice of 11 stars, combined with the rhetoric of “Americanism,” seems to have reignited debates about national symbolism, historical memory, and the subtle ways in which messages can be interpreted as echoing past divisiveness or extremism.
**Thoughts?** The incident highlights the importance of awareness and sensitivity in government communications, especially in a polarized environment where symbolism can quickly be misread or manipulated for political or cultural messaging.
