Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Suppression of Ideas and Free Thought in the Service of Hate

I mentioned in my previous post that Kevin Levin's blog entry about the SCV's proposed museum advocates the suppression of ideas and beliefs he disagrees with. Of course, it isn't just him. Progressives have held that position, and made that effort, for generations. This is particularly true in education, especially higher education.

Perfect example: One of his commenters says,
"I may have to write a ‘letter to the editor’ about this one. I do think there are a lot of people who simply don’t understand that, as my grad school advisor once titled an op-ed “confederate history is about race.” Yet it may be for some, they are reachable and their opinions could be changed."
Heaven forbid somebody does "wrong-think" -- i.e., hold wrong beliefs that needs changing, in this person's opinion.

In fact, this commenter, who happens to be a college teacher of the progressive, all-slavery, only-slavery persuasion, did indeed write a letter to the editor of the Columbia (TN) Daily Herald blatantly advocating that people be indoctrinated into HER views, and not be allowed to hold their own.
http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/opinion/20161017/letter-to-editor-confederate-museum-skewed-version-of-history

Sez she,
".... the proposed museum would offer a highly skewed version of local and regional history, one which, crucially and intentionally, diminishes the significance of slavery. If this 'museum' is to be built, local people should insist that it raises (sic) critical questions about the role of slavery within the Confederacy, and that it includes (sic) the input of trained historians and/or of groups which specialize in African American history. Short of this, we cannot support local officials or schools associating with this institution, nor can we allow this version of history to seep into students’ curriculum."
This totalitarian attitude would do a Soviet dictator proud.

What lies beneath this mental tyranny, I believe, is not genuine respect for true history, or even for the African-American/slavery experience, but hatred of white Southerners, past and present, and the dedication to evilizing them in every way possible. For some, it is accomplished by lurid novels and movies, for others it is "history" and civil war "scholarship."

If you asked this "visiting instructor of history" whether she hates white Southerners, she would probably be appalled and babble denials -- I believe she identified Columbia as her home town, but of course, being a white Southerner is no guarantee that you will escape the indoctrination of self-hatred, because said indoctrination  runs the gamut from mushroom-cloud obvious to barely detectable subtlety.

Hatred of Southern whites is a subset of the progressive effort to foment hatred for whiteness overall, and we will look at the pheonomena more in future posts.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The SCV's Gonna Build a Museum, and Kevin Levin is Pissed

Levin has a post about the SCV's project of building a museum near its headquarters in Tennessee. He sez the SCV's "decision to call it a museum, however, needs serious qualification."

No, it doesn't. A museum is "a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed" (Random House via Dictionary.com) ... and ... "a place or building where objects of historical, artistic, or scientific interest are exhibited, preserved, or studied" (Collins English Dictionary via Dictionary.com).  

Levin further sez, "Let’s be clear that the epistemological foundation of this endeavor has much more in common with the Creation Museum, Noah’s Ark Encounter or even the Museum of the Confederacy in its earliest incarnation than anything that we normally designate as a history museum."

Than WHO "normally designate as a history museum?" YOU, Levin?

For the folks in Rio Linda, "epistemology" is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge (Dictionary.com). If Levin is concerned about that with regard to civil war museums, he needs to understand that a great many of them existing today are not about knowledge of the civil war at all. They are about indoctrinating visitors into the progressive view of the South (evil), Southerners past and present (bad), the Confederacy (really, really evil), slavery (the greatest sin of mankind) and Abe Lincoln  (saint) and the union (sinless).

This is also the purpose of adding "interpretative plaques" to Confederate monuments that have been standing, quite well understood without them, for decades -- to indoctrinate visitors in the progressive mindset of the items named in the above paragraph. If you thought it was about "knowledge" and "truth," boy, are you wrong.


Levin concludes, "Ultimately, what we are seeing here is the further acknowledgment that the Lost Cause continues to lose credibility as a legitimate interpretation of the past and as something worthy of honoring or celebrating. ...It is another acknowledgment (at a cost of $5 million) that the Lost Cause has surely lost."

Well, Levin, obviously, the "Lost Cause" is not lost enough for you. You're obsessed with it.

But here's what's most instructive about your blog entry. I note that your post and many comments following it advocate the suppression of ideas and beliefs you disagree with. (That is standard fare on your blog, btw.) It's not enough for you to disagree with it -- it has to be figuratively strong-armed to force compliance, or else the public has to be verbally strong-armed to avoid it. Since the SCV isn't likely to knuckle under to progressive haranguing, you folks will have to go to Plan B.

The post and comments are a stark, clear example of the leftist mentality and the leftist approach. Progressives bill themselves as "tolerant" and welcoming of the free exchange of ideas. In fact, if they cannot suppress that which they disagree with, they will lie about it and strive to influence others against it (Plan B).

I don't think it will work, as it has in the past. Many recent events demonstrate that Americans are are sick and tired of the decades-long progressive strong-arming (i.e., political correctness) and they are pushing back. That's why Target is losing money hand-over-fist (and why it changed its "bathroom policy" yet again, and is spending $20 million to accommodate its customers and undo its earlier arrogance toward their beliefs). That's why the Washington Post speculates that the "NFL ratings plunge could spell doom for traditional TV" (although the article doesn't even touch on the reason for the ratings plunge; many commenters get it, though). That's why "Birth of a Nation" and "Free State of Jones" bombed at the box office.  That's why a brash New York billionaire who knows nothing of the verbal diplomacy needed in political exchanges is running neck and neck with his lying, dirty-trickster progressive opponent in the presidential race.  That is why, according to a Gallup poll and other indicators, Americans' trust of the media is at an all-time low.

But y'all sharpen your pencils, or get comfortable at your keyboard, and start churning out them efforts at the suppression of ideas. Write those blog posts. Comments.  Letters to the editor.... Show the world what you really are.

And to the SCV -- can't wait to visit your museum!

(Stay tuned -- I'll be addressing some of the more bizarre "progressive" ideas found in the comments in my next post).

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Mt. Shoshana Bee Erupts

Simpson has posted at XRoads a funny hit piece on me, complete with graphic memes I've made -- I'm sure he didn't mean for it to be funny; it's supposed to reverberate with righteous indignation over my "war on women" -- and it caused an awesome eruption of Mount Shoshana Bee. She seemed particularly fixated on this meme:


Since she gets just about everything about it wrong, I figured she'd appreciate clarification.

She started: We have gone from a presidential candidate gloating about his sexual predation...

Ah, no. He wasn't a presidential candidate when he did the gloating -- see how dishonest they are, folks? The presidential candidate said he wasn't proud of it, and he apologized for it. One wonders how somebody as (apparently) politically savvy as the SBee missed that ... or whether the "missing it" was deliberate.

Is this okay with you as it is with Connie? she asks of another commenter, whose comment indicates nothing of the kind, and of course my meme doesn't indicate that.

One wonders how much firewater was served up at the latest powwow to conjure up such an extraordinary hallucination. Okay with me?  I've made no statement to that effect. Haven't implied it, haven't suggested it, haven't hinted at it.

What the Bee is doing, folks, is using her hatred to color her conceptualization of my words. Read on, we'll see more of this, because it's about all she does.

Take this, for example, "According to Connie, women 'wanted to abandon the kitchen….' so they deserved to be punished by predatory behaviour for the audacity of going to work?"

Well, the terminology was "home and children," not "kitchen," (that was a reference to "heat" and "getting out of..."). And I wasn't talking about "going to work." How many of you can read the meme and NOT see that I was talking about the world of politics?????. Is there anything in my meme that suggests women should be "punished by predatory behavior" for either pursuit?  I think it is extremely clear from my meme what I'm talking about. I mean, how can you miss "...MEN HAVE BEEN INSULTING MEN IN POLITICS...." and the point is, if you want to enter that world on the basis of your fitness to be there, don't go around citing your delicateness...to WORDS.

 So, who thinks the Bee somehow...
1. missed that
2. didn't understand it
3. is ignoring it in order to make an illegitimate point?

One would have thought she would at least have caught that I'm talking about politics because of my use of the phrase "get out of the kitchen," since it was used by Harry S Truman, POTUS. He didn't coin it, but popularized it. (As an aside, it's ironic that he took a domestic household reference and gave it political application.)

Any clearer for you, pumpkin?

I have a hot flash for folks like Connie: There are ladies — yes, LADIES — whose husbands died, and they were left to carry the workload. (Yep. See my note at the end of this blog post: https://polygraff.blogspot.com/2016/10/fact-checking-simpsons-hysteria.htmlAnd then there is the single mother, who kept her baby which was a result of an assault, who had to go off to work.

Work yourself up into a pleasurable rage for nothing, puddin'. These aren't the women I'm talking about. I'm talking about women who get their mugs on national TV commentatin' on politics, as if they're the be-all and end-all of knowledge re: "wimmin's issues" but then put forth the notion that wimmins is delicate creatures who can't take being insulted.

These women are real, and they exist in my family. Even if the choice is their own to enter the workplace, no one, NO ONE deserves to be preyed upon at any time for any reason.

No joke. If words are predatory, ask Susan Hathaway how it has felt to have Brooks Simpson, his fellow floggers and comment thread haters such as yourself harassing, bullying and cyberstalking her for about half a decade....

Yep. These women probably exist in everybody's family, including mine, as referenced above. My mother entered the workplace before and after she married. So did one of my grandmothers. So did my aunts. So did my sister. So did I. What is there in my meme that suggests I think we/they deserve to be preyed upon? Absolutely nothing.

Feminist leaders don't care about women like us, anyway.

How many women in your family were on Fox News telling the world what they should think of Donald Trump, Bee? As if women can't make up their own minds about him. (That's the way leftists feminists are, and this is their message to ordinary women -- "You are smart, you are strong, equal and free to do as you will -- but you'd better THINK what we tell you to THINK, schweethaht. Got it?")

The discussion is not about “whining” or “screeching” or “sexism”. This about the revelation that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, and not only is it okay with Connie, rather, she demeans and belittles those find this behaviour repugnant.

Well, no, that's not what it's about. It is not okay with  me and nothing I said suggests it is, and I haven't belittled those who find the WORDS repugnant.  (Perhaps you should check with the refreshment committee before the next powwow and suggest they substitute Pepsi or Snapple for the firewater). Read on.

Let's get the least point out of the way first. He said it was all talk; he didn't actually DO what he was talking about. He said this at the debate when he flippin' APOLOGIZED AGAIN for the incident.

Second, if he's a sexual predator for talking, we need to change our laws. And if he's not a sexual predator but the things he says are just as bad,  maybe we need to repeal the First Amendment and criminalize speech. Make the punishment for talking about sex the same as it is for sexual assault. Right now, offensive speech is protected. I'm not defending Trump's words, the Constitution is. Maybe it's time to rethink that, huh, lefties?

Third, it's not okay with me, but what's  not okay with me even MORE -- and this has been my point when I've discussed this on Facebook and elsewhere -- is that I vehemently disagree with the lamestream media's elevating the reprehensibility of Trump's WORDS above the monstrousness of Bill Clinton's ACTIONS and DEEDS. Bubba really did commit sexual assault, rape and violence, and neither Bee nor Simpson nor the Fox News guest hens even mentioned that.

Not relevant because Bill's not running for office now, you say? Well, Trump wasn't running for office when he engaged in that locker-room man-banter, either, but that doesn't seem to matter to some people, especially leftists clinging to their beloved double standards. What makes it relevant to this election is that Hillary Clinton, who IS running for the highest office in the land now, enabled Bill's sexual predation and viciously attacked verbally (and some say violently) some of the women he had already preyed upon sexually.

Did the hens cackling on Fox News even CONSIDER that? Does Simpson, SBee or any Trump hater or Hillary devotee even CONSIDER THAT?

So let's recap, to make sure Shoshana Bee gets it.

Trump's words were repugnant. They were spoken long before he was a candidate for office. When they came to light (probably through Democratic dirty-trickery) he apologized. He apologized three times -- on video, in writing (in a tweet) and on live television.

Bill Clinton's deeds were worse than repugnant, they were injurious and  criminal and they ruined lives. Some of them occurred while he occupied the Oval Office, and some specific acts occurred while he was conducting the business of the nation. Hillary Clinton further victimized some of these women. Neither of the Clintons publicly apologized.

The four guest hens cackling on Fox News  need to get a clue...If Trump's insulting one of us insults us all, then Bill Clinton's raping one of us rapes us all, and Hillary Clinton's "bimbo eruption" attacks on one of us is an attack on all of us.




Saturday, September 24, 2016

Calling Out Kevin Levin -- Produce the Pledge

...two lost causes, the first being the defeat of an army pledged to establish an independent slaveholding republic... Kevin Levin
PRODUCE THE PLEDGE MADE BY THE CONFEDERATE ARMY. PRODUCE IT -- NOT SOME MODERN "UNDERSTANDING" OF WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR, BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT FIGHTING FOR SLAVERY.

SO PRODUCE THE PLEDGE, WORD FOR WORD, AND SHOW WHERE AND HOW THE SOLDIERS PLEDGED IT ...

OR STAND BRANDED BEFORE THE WORLD AS A LIAR AND A HATER....

Juicy Tidbits from Andy Hall's Hate Blog

In a recent comment thread, Andy quotes one of his visitors: “As a bit of a side note, I can’t help but notice the responses posted by dixie supporters (and heritage types in general) use terms like liberal, PC, socialist, communist, and butthurt in reference to people on the opposite end of this issue. There’s also a lot of unhenged emotion on display.” Andy replies:

Much of that is cliched jargon, repeated so often it doesn’t have much real meaning anymore.
 Really? Kinda like right wingnut, fascist, racist, white supremacist, extremist, inbred hick, toothless redneck, etc. Kind of like those words that don't have much real meaning anymore, especially when they are wrongly applied so the name-caller can get some warm-fuzzies of "moral superiority?

Confederate heritage, as it manifests itself online, is what academics would call a form of cultural, political, and religious tribalism. It’s about both defining one’s own group, as well as the “other” — the latter, in this case, being political correctness, liberals, communists, academics, craven politicians, Black Lives Matter, etc. If you follow these folks on social media, you’ll see that they spend a lot of their time identifying and targeting various people and organizations who (they’ve decided have betrayed them in one way or another. Vanderbilt University, Jack Daniels whiskey, and the Southern Baptist Convention have all been added to the list recently. It’s a very long list

And if you listen to liberals, leftists, you will hear people -- oh, say, the Democratic candidate for president -- claim that conservatives, traditionalists, Christians, Southerners, etc., are "deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic -- but of course, people like Andy and his blog visitor probably think that the reverse namecalling is accurate and thus okay. (It isn't accurate. Most of the people labeled as "racist," and these other epithets, are not

I note that y'all spend a lot of time "following" and obsessing over heritage folks on social media. Don't y'all have lives of your own? I follow some of these people on social media because I'm part of the heritage community, and I think Andy is seeing what he wants to see and expects to see, and his expectations makes them materialize. Most of what he calls "identifying and targeting" usually occurs after some big media splash, like Kaepernick getting his 15 minutes of fame, or, with heritage folks, after some piece of our heritage is targeted for vandalism, or worse, removal.

But this still doesn't explain why so many leftist civil-war hate bloggers are so obsessed with heritage supporter, to the point of diving into social media to follow them, and then to write about them on their blogs. Is it truly hate? Or is it jealousy? There's a new meme out that shows a Confederate flag with the caption, "They hate us because they ain't us..."  So why zero in on Southern heritage people? There are groups out there that are far more racist, far more homophobic, far more sexist... why not pour over their Tweets and Facebook groups?

Andy continues,

They often assure each other that their movement enjoys wide and deep support, and that a day of reckoning will soon come when the Sons and Daughters of the South will rise up in their millions and put an end to the cultural genocide supposedly being inflicted on the South.
It may happen yet, Andy. Southerners really are fed up with being made the scapegoats for a country where other regions are as bad or worse. But people have to work, to make a living, and being called a racist in the South, even when it's not true, can have serious repercussions. If those repercussions ever lighten or disappear, you can bet people will be much more vocal about their affinity for, and support of, their region and its heritage and culture.

But in truth, these very loud folks are very few in number, and while they believe passionately in their cause, all they are really accomplishing is to isolate themselves further and further from the rest of the world.
Ah, if that were true, you, Levin, Simpson, "RBLee" and numerous others wouldn't have blogs...  Leftist blogs that purport to be about the "civil war" are really about culture, race, politics TODAY, and if the people you all target and marginalize on your blogs were to disappear into isolation, you and your buddies would freak out with withdrawal....

Andy, you and your commenter buddy might want to consider checking your arrogance and judgmentalness to a reasonable, human level. Those feed hatred...  And hating is just as wrong for you as it is for some hood-donning Klucker....

Friday, September 23, 2016

For Shoshona Bee (if she has the guts to read it)

The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.  Proverbs 18:17
After Buzzy Bee read Simpson's basically dishonest post about my Chastain kinsman and the Cherokee removal, she posted this:
Oh, wow. All sorts of clever remarks come to mind such as: The apple that did not fall far from the tree sure knows how to cherry-pick ancestry.
I shredded Simpson's post AND the claims he made about me in a comment thread at XRoads. Of course, I don't expect Buzz will be receptive to the truth. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.  Copied below is a post I made after his hit piece on my ancestor appeared at XRoads -- and it includes Simpson's original hit piece. I'm bringing the whole thing over here so Buzz (and anyone else) won't be put off by the trouble of having to click a link and go to the original post....

============================================

Friday, August 3, 2012

How a Professor of History Does ... History?

Bear with me, folks. This is going to be a long one.

On April 15, on his Crossroads blog, Brooks Simpson, professor of history at Arizona State University, posted this:

Support for Southern Separatism

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/support-for-southern-separatism/


He quoted the blog titled The Catholic Knight http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/ which included this passage:

"I do confess to having a strong biological connection to Southern culture through my mother, both in Southern English, Irish and Scottish descent, as well as a strong Cherokee ancestry which is deeply connected to Southern history."
Simpson snidely remarked,

"Someone ought to fill him in on who advocated the removal of the Cherokee Nation."
Implying (1) he didn't know and (2) having both Southern and Cherokee ancestry/heritage requires a person to choose one and reject the other.

I addressed this the following day, April 16, in the comments following Simpson's post:

Are you saying *you know* he doesn’t know who advocated removal? How do you know? He probably does know, and it probably doesn’t change things for him any more than it does for me. I have ancestors on several of the feds’ Cherokee census rolls — The 1817 Emigration Roll; the 1835 Henderson Roll; the 1851 Siler Roll; the 1852 Chapman Roll; the 1883 Hester Roll; and the 1909 Guion Miller Roll, and perhaps others. My grandmother is listed on the last two named here. She received payment from the feds in compensation for some offense or other it committed against her and her Cherokee ancestors. Twenty dollars in gold. She bought a sewing machine with it. Her relatives and descendants all self-identify as Southerners. It’s a Southern thang. New Yawkers can’t understand.
The verbal cowplops from Simpson and his "diversity"-worshiping and "tolerant" comment-drones were as filthy and smelly as they usually are:

Simpson: Thanks for admitting that you fashion a version of southern heritage to fit your own political agenda. Your ignorance of Indian removal, something instigated in the case of the Cherokee first by white Georgians seeking to make money from a gold strike, is stunning but not surprising. So in this case you confess you know nothing about your own heritage. Let’s keep that in mind the next time you tell people about the need to defend southern heritage … because you can’t remember your own.
(I admitted no such thing. I confessed no such thing. I simply documented my Cherokee ancestors and noted that they and their descendants identified as Southerners. But then, I can't find a better illustrator than Simpson that ... .liars gotta lie.)

John Foskett: Well, Connie is as confused about the Cherokee Removal as she is about Confederate history. As you point out, the Cherokees were ultimately forced to leave as a result of the Georgia Gold Rush, which saw white Georgians grabbing Cherokee ancestral lands. So what’s the “Southern Heritage” here – that of the Cherokees who ended up in present-day Oklahoma or that of the folks who drove them out and who stayed home in Georgia? Ironically, the most vociferous opposition to the removal came from the North. Must be a case of “Northern Heritage”.
Plop, plop, stink, stink.

Astute readers will note that my post didn't even address the Cherokee removal (** see my comment at the end of this post) except to note that it didn't change my self-identifying as a Southerner. The salient point, which Simpson and Foskett grandly, and dishonestly. ignored, was "Her [my grandmother's] relatives and descendants all self-identify as Southerners."

On April 17, one day later, Simpson posted this on his blog:

Connie Chastain’s Family Heritage: A House Divided
by Brooks D. Simpson
Although Connie Chastain has changed the status of her Facebook group to closed, she continues to provide ample opportunity for readers of this blog to comment on her views … because she’s a frequent visitor and commenter here (it’s as if she’s never gone away). Recently she brought attention to her Cherokee ancestry, much as she’s in the past highlighted her family ties to Elijah Webb Chastain, a member of Congress from 1851 to 1855.
There is, of course, more to the story.
Elijah W. Chastain’s father, Benjamin Chastain, was born in North Carolina, moved to South Carolina, and then moved again to Georgia, where he served in the Georgia state legislature intermittently between 1826 and 1834. He also served as an Indian agent in the Toccoa Falls area. Fort Chastain was named after him: it was established to assist in the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia along the Trail of Tears. As one source put it, Benjamin Chastain “worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears.”

Connie Chastain delights in telling us of her Cherokee heritage. But she’s declined to reveal the role of some of the members of her family tree in deporting other members of her family tree … or perhaps she never knew about it. Now she does. Who do you think you are, Connie?

This is what we call history, not heritage.

By the way, some family members suggest that another Elijah in the Chastain family had a Cherokee mistress.

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/connie-chastains-family-heritage-a-house-divided/

________________

This, of course, elicited more smelly verbal cowplops from his myrmidons -- and, surprisingly, a few criticisms of Simpson. A sampling

John Foskett: Not surprisingly, facts get in the way of a good family tradition. Or “heritage”. Connie started off okay in the “Southern and Romantic Fiction” category. It’s when she branched into “heritage” that things began to unravel. Once you depart the realm of fiction you need to get a good grasp on facts. That hasn’t happened here, all too obviously.
Brooks D. Simpson: She can celebrate whatever her little heart desires. But surely you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history.
Mike Moore, a Southern Facebook friend of mine posted:

So Comrade Simpson…can you elaborate on just where she has spoken or written an untruth about this issue?
Simpson replied:

I’m simply providing a more complete historical context.
Oh, really? LOL. Continue reading, folks, and let's just see how "more complete" Simpson's "historical context" is. But first, back to the comment thread. One of the commenters suggested:

"Perhaps posting about another’s ancestry is taking a personal confrontation just a bit too far? Especially if it is intended as a form of insult or belittlement?"
Simpson replied:

Neil–if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”?
(There it is again -- Simpson's claim of posting a "more complete story" -- don't forget that, gentle readers. As for "fantasy masquerading as heritage" -- whose fantasy? Mine or the federal government's, whose Indian agents put my ancestors' names on the Cherokee census rolls?)

Connie’s brought her heritage into the discussion. She’s also brought into the discussion heritage versus ancestry, and it was she who mentioned her Cherokee ties. She opened the door. Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way.
(There's another phrase to remember, folks -- Presenting a fuller historical context... As for history being messy -- maybe it depends on who is presenting history, and how they present it and -- as we shall see -- why they present it.)

But there are some people who would prefer to evade that issue by making every disagreement or discussion into a clash of personalities.
(Who's the one who started the clash with the snarky and highly personal insult: "Someone ought to fill him in on who advocated the removal of the Cherokee Nation"?)

Later, Simpson posts,

"And that’s the difference between heritage and history. Some people are all about heritage, which, as Connie freely admits, she shapes to serve her own personal agenda.
(I've admitted no such thing, freely or otherwise. Again, Simpson demonstrates that liars gotta lie.)

I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history … including the dark stuff in the closet, which includes the Trail of Tears.
(This is an absolute SCREAM, folks, considering what I post later in this thread. Explore history to show complex relationships? Or show some and ignore some and twist some in order to attempt to embarrass somebody you don't like?)

As Connie opened the door in referring to her Cherokee connections, I found it remarkable to observe the history involved. If one would rather embrace the whitewashed fantasy known as made-to-order heritage, then to each his or her own.
(And if one would rather embrace partial and/or twisted history in order to embarrass somebody they don't like, then to each his own.)

Somebody named Sid posted:

"Brooks…me thinks you have a lot of spare time on your hands."
Simpson replied:

Not at all. It was a very simple piece of research. I am just efficient....
(Simple especially when you only post part of it .... )

So let's recap what Simpson says he found....

"As one source put it, Benjamin Chastain 'worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears.'"

The source, presumably, is the website Chastain Central, which notes, "Chastain Central was advised by Georgia historian Ethelene Dyer Jones that Fort Chastain was in what is now Fannin County, but was then Union County. She continues, "The fort was near the convergence of Star Creek with the Toccoa River in what became Fannin County. The site of Ft. Chastain was covered by the waters of Blue Ridge Lake. Benjamin Chastain, who was sent as an Indian agent, opened the first post office in 1837 in what later became Fannin County, called the Tuckahoe Post Office. The fort was named for him and he worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears. I did a good bit of research on this person, father of Elijah Webb Chastain."

Interestingly, I can find no source documentation for Jones' claims that Benjamin Chastain helped "to round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears," even among her own writings online. Even more interestingly, Simpson doesn't mention this! What a surprise, huh!

Excerpts from Jones's book, Through Mountain Mists, are online.

Here is an excerpt about Benjamin Chastain

http://throughmountainmists.blogspot.com/2010/07/focus-on-benjamin-chastain-1780-1845.html

And here is an excerpt about Ft. Chastain and the Indian Removal

http://throughmountainmists.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Jones tells us Benjamin Chastain "was appointed" an agent to the Cherokee. She doesn't say by whom, but presumably he "was appointed" by the federal government during the Jackson administration.

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/agency_system.htm

She also says that the building and operation of a fort at the Toccoa River and Star Creek was a task "assigned" to Benjamin Chastain." Again, no identity of the "assigner" given, but presumably it was an agency of the federal government.

In "Fort Chastain and Indian Removal," Jones gives a description of the conditions in which the Cherokee were held in the removal forts prior to their departure on the Trail of Tears, but she does not substantiate that these were the conditions at Ft. Chastain. Presumably, we are just supposed to think that this description fits the Cherokee "held" at Fort Chastain.

However, other information about the fort, and the removal itself, cast doubt that Jones's description applied to Fort Chastain. (Simpson, of course, gleefully posted Jones's description without noting the doubts, so strong was his determination to embarrass me.)

First, Fort Chastain wasn't a "fort" at all. There were no buildings, no stockade, in which to confine the captives. Jones says the operation of this fort "was assigned" to Benjamin Chastain, but records indicate that others (rather incompetent others) actually operated the, um, facility. From Georgia Trail of Tears http://www.georgiatrailoftears.com/forts.html#chastain

Chastain’s Station
County: Fannin
City: Blue Ridge
National Register of Historic Places: No
Local Designation: None.
State Designation: None.
Site Significance:

One of 15 removal posts in Georgia, Chastain's was one of five that were never stockaded. Its proximity to the North Carolina mountains where the most numerous conservative Cherokees lived made the post particularly important to the Georgia governor. The post was assigned to the Eastern Military District commanded by Gen. Abraham Eustis. Lt. Col. Camp commanded three infantry companies who were sent to a post "near Chastain's." One of the three was Capt. John Fowler’s DeKalb County militia company.

While Capt. Peake and his Tennessee company waited at the post for the Georgia companies, Gen. Charles Floyd received reports of their disorderly behavior, drunkenness, and tardiness. Floyd alerted Eustis and Camp resigned his command. The three companies remained at the post until relieved some time after the removal from Georgia was completed. They reported back to Gen. Floyd.

In 1930 a dam was completed across the Toccoa River forming Lake Blue Ridge and inundating the sites of Benjamin Chastain’s and the camp nearby.

Significant Dates: May 11, 1838 - July 5, 1838
Significant Persons:
Benjamin Chastain, store owner
Lt. Col. Benjamin J. Camp
A. P. Bush, Quartermaster, 2nd Regiment, GA Foot
Capt. John W. Fowler

Store owner? Store owner? But-but-but what about "rounding up" the Cherokees?

Here's some more very interesting information about "Fort" Chastain from Cherokee Removal: Forts Along the Georgia Trail of Tears by Sarah Hill (A joint partnership between The National Park Service and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources/Historic Preservation Division)

The encampment at Chastain’s raises so many questions that the absence of records about the post has proven particularly frustrating. It seems the post’s establishment was not initially planned. No mention was made of northeast Georgia until late May when other companies were already underway with their collection of prisoners. The assignment of three companies to Chastain’s indicates the expectation of a high number of prisoners, yet the late assignment and failure of command suggest a lack of attention about their capture. The delayed arrival of Gen. Eustis to his command at Ft. Butler exacerbated the problems since no one was sufficiently near to monitor the post’s establishment. Most puzzling of all was the behavior of and toward the commander, Lt. Col. Benjamin Camp, whose leadership and discipline failed from the very beginning. Yet he was allowed to pass from Ft. Buffington to Ft. Floyd and on to Union County, with complaints following him along the route. Although he resigned his commission, it is surprising that he did not face a court martial. The discovery of additional papers, particularly those of Gen. Eustis, will be a welcome addition to this body of literature about the removal of Indians from Chastain’s.
Hill's account of this "station" or "encampment" (not fort) is found beginning on Page 46 of this document:

http://www.murraycountymuseum.com/adobe/Cherokee_Removal_02nov2011.pdf

Interesting things to note. There was no stockade at this "fort" -- apparently no buildings at all. There was a "lack of attention" to the capture of prisoners (Cherokees) and a "failure of command" in that endeavor. And note -- Benjamin Chastain is not mentioned even once in this short narrative HISTORY.

It's possible that the "fort" (or encampment) may not have even been on Benjamin Chastain's land, as Hill notes, "In anticipation of the 1838 removal, Ft. Hetzel was established in Ellijay and a military encampment was proposed for Union County 'near Chastain's.'"

"Near" is not "on."

Chastain Central further notes: "... Chastain's is listed on page 22 as one of five posts that were not fortified. In fact, page 47 states that there is no record of any construction at Chastain's Encampment, and that the circumstances of the camp make significant construction unlikely. The late arrival of the militia there makes barracks unlikely, and there was no need for stables since the militia was infantry. Storage facilities would be necessary, but the report speculates that they may have used Benjamin Chastain's buildings for that."

According to the Georgia Trail of Tears website Chastain station operated from May 11, 1838 to July 5, 1838 and Benjamin Chastain's name is not listed among those of the officials who operated the encampment. http://www.georgiatrailoftears.com/forts.html#chastain

_________________
I mention all this not to exonerate my kinsman -- I don't know what his involvement was in all that, and I don't really care. But I do note that primary source documentation seems to indicate little to no involvement by him.

No, the reason I mention all this is to demonstrate the sloppy scholarship, the leaving-out parts of history that don't fit with the "historian's" agenda of personal attack -- and the indication of questionable ethics that underlie it all, stemming from personal animosity. I mention it to show something about Simpson's claims.

These claims --

"...you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history ... I’m simply providing a more complete historical context ... if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”? ... Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way ... I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history"
-- are not only complete and total bullcrap -- they're smelly, slimy flat-out lies.

Is this how they do history at Arizona State University? Putting forth statements that have no source documentation? Ignoring documentation that doesn't estblish what you want established?

Simpson's lying-by-omission about someone's personal history, motivated by some kind of personal internet vendetta, establishes that his ethics are questionable -- just as the lies sprinkled liberally throughout his personal blog establish the same thing. And if ethics are questionable in one place, they're questionable, period. Which means ... how many lies has he told about the civil war and Southern heritage -- by omission or otherwise?

_______________
**Foskett and Simpson deliberately ignoring the point of my comment -- that my grandmother's descendants self-identified as Southerners -- in order to claim I knew nothing about the Cherokee removal, is particularly skanky evidence of a lack of ethics. In fact, I researched the Trail of Tears for a keepsake notebook I wrote for a family reunion of my father and his brothers back in 2000 or so.... As for the $20 in gold my grandmother received from the feds -- I don't know if that was compensation for her grandparents being sent west on 'the March" as my father called it (the Trail of Tears) or some other reason. The government compensated Indians for several reasons.

I also discovered information about Ft. Chastain at that time, so I've known for 12 years or so that there is no evidence that Benjamin Chastain "rounded up" Cherokees -- and that there is evidence that other people did so, and that the "fort" was named "Chastain" probably because it was adjacent to Benjamin's property.... But I guess if your aim is to smear somebody, if you are folks like Foskett and Simpson, truth is a triviality you can dispense with....

========================================
Shoshana Bee, have you got the guts and the intellectual honesty to recognize the truth about my claims here, and the utter mendacity of Simpson's?  His repeated false claims of "providing more" ...  more historical context,  a more complete story -- and the utterly risible claim that he "prefers to explore history" -- but then leaves out historical information easily found online because it doesn't fit with the narrative he's putting forth.... Why didn't he IDENTIFY the "source" that claimed Benjamin Chastain“worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears.” Don't historians know that sources should be IDENTIFIED? Why didn't he mention that Benjamin Chastain's name was not mentioned at all in Sarah Hill's history of "Fort Chastain", and not listed among the officials who operated the encampment on the Georgia Trail of Tears website? It's risible to imagine a HISTORY PROFESSOR (who claimed to be efficient at research) could have somehow missed this easily found information.

I'll tell you why. He didn't "miss" it. He IGNORED IT because it would interfere with the narrative he was constructing -- fabricating, actually -- for the sole purpose of trying to embarrass me. It didn't work, of course, because I already knew about "Fort Chastain." I had found information about it online myself years before, as I said, when I was putting together a notebook for the last reunion of my father and his brothers, and I knew Benjamin Chastain did not "round up Cherokees."

Just try not to get too distressed that I -- a two-bit racist hag -- am morally superior to the lying, deceitful, cyber-stalking bully "professor" you have such misplaced respect for....

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Histrionics of Shoshana Bee (and Dimmy's Dullness)

Back in late August, Simpson posted at his blog another hate-filled, cut-throat, full-of-lies attack on the Virginia Flaggers -- with an occasional lie about me.  That post generated the usual smug, self-back-patting comments from his peanut gallery, a part of which is posted below. Most of the comments in the excerpt, but not all, were made by a Shoshana Bee (aka "Buzz,"), a leftist who travels the circuit of civil war blogs to post comments which sometimes include attacks on Confederate heritage supporters.

Before we get to Buzzy's pompous melodrama, let's look once again at how Simpson lies... how trippingly the hate and fraud flows from his keyboard. This is typical of the tone he sets at his blog...encouraging his peanut gallery to be as unscrupulous and as offensive as he is....
It is evident that Chastain’s claims of impaired health do not prevent her from posting extensively elsewhere, calling into question her assertion that she no longer blogs due to health concerns. (I have not asserted, claimed or said I no longer blog due to health concerns.) I see no reason to reproduce examples of her crude language and vile temper in my comments section. (But he has no problem linking to the utter filth that the cowardly anonymous blogger writes and posts at Restoring the Honor, or okaying Shoshana Bee's crude language and vile temper in his comments section. I guess crude and vile and filth are okay when HIS side does them.) Apparently she’s looking for a larger audience than she can attract on her own while hiding her views from people who might be interested in reading her novels (an admittedly small number).  (I'm not hiding my views from anyone. My author site links to my portal, which links to all my websites and blogs including Facebook and Twitter. So one wonders how he conceptualizes "hiding her views...."  Apparently the number of people interested in my novels, and posting positive reviews of them, stuck in Simpson's craw so bad, he made up a series of false and deceitful Amazon IDs and posted fraudulent reviews of my books, all out of his lust to hurt me and my books, because that's just how he rolls. The reviews are fraudulent because at the time he posted them, he had admitted he had not read them.)  After all, most people don’t want to buy and read books written by a bigot. (Well, apparently, some people buy and read his, and he is a colossal bigot -- and a hater to boot!) She’s an embarrassment to Confederate heritage even as she claims that she is one of its most important spokespersons.  (I've never made that claim, either. Is Simpson's hate, his desire to hurt, interfering with the functioning of his brain and making him lie? Or could it just be early onset Alzheimer's?)
Now back to Shoshana Bee. In this thread, Dimmy Jickkk mentions the "conversation" I had with him about my Cherokee ancestry (see previous Backsass entry).

Shoshana Bee
Observing this implosion from the sidelines conjures up a strange mix of a “Lord of the Flies” redux with a dose of schadenfreude on the side.
==========
Brooks D. Simpson
Well, Ms. Chastain has been throwing tantrums all over the place.
==========
Shoshana Bee
Maybe she will come out of “retirement” and write another entertaining blog post? It seems that you are her only muse these days??
==========
Brooks D. Simpson
That’s the problem. Her outrage is our entertainment.
==========
Jimmy Dick
Now KKKonnie is claiming Native American ancestry as proof she isn’t racist. For someone who has identified herself as white, proudly announced her racism for years on multiple blogs, and has no clue whatsoever what Native Americans have been through, I find her claim to be nothing more than the usual attempt to mask her racism.

I think we should let the Cherokee nation know just exactly who she is and what she claims to be and see if they want such a miserable excuse for humanity as a member of their tribe.
==========
Shoshana Bee
WHUT???!! Beeing of half Native ancestry. nothing irritates me more when some two-bit racist hag wants to hide behind our feathers to justify her BS. I will out her sorry arse six ways to September if I see her mug cozying up to our table (I belong to a very large Native social network). What a #$$% coward poser. Geez, I must be out of the loop — I missed that one.
==========
Brooks D. Simpson
You might enjoy this.
==========
Shoshana Bee
Curiosity is killing this Leo: the link did not come through!
==========
Brooks D. Simpson
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/connie-chastains-family-heritage-a-house-divided/
==========
Shoshana Bee
Oh, wow. All sorts of clever remarks come to mind such as: The apple that did not fall far from the tree sure knows how to cherry-pick ancestry. But what REALLY scares me is that maybe one of my ancestors mixed it up with one of hers when everyone “got together” in Oklahoma. No no no: I don’t need a long lost cause cousin!!
==========
Brooks D. Simpson
Then you’ll enjoy this … https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/my-cousin-connie/
==========
Shoshana Bee
OMG. Don’t scare me like this. I can see it now: I arrive at the next Pow Wow and the whole Chastain branch of tribe is there to greet me. I think I need to go wash my hands and burn some sage.

Although there's a lot here that begs to be addressed, I have to address just a very few peripheral issues, so I can get on with the meat of the post...

I note that the phrase, "a 'Lord of the Flies' redux with a dose of schadenfreude on the side," gives us a stark look at how Buzzy Bee's mind works. The comment, "It seems that you are her only muse these days??" is risible on the face of it (she doesn't know why I'm on blog-hiatus, or the heavily muse-involved projects I'm working on) but Simpson's reply is just too rich: "That’s the problem. Her outrage is our entertainment." Being as how I'm not outraged, their entertainment quotient must be lower than a snake's belly.

But now onto the genuine issue. Dimmy sez, "Now KKKonnie is claiming Native American ancestry as proof she isn’t racist.* For someone who has identified herself as white, proudly announced her racism for years on multiple blogs, and has no clue whatsoever what Native Americans have been through, I find her claim to be nothing more than the usual attempt to mask her racism."

I'm white. Why shouldn't I identify myself that way? I have to check "white" on virtually every medical record I've had to complete, and other forms as well. Maybe Dimmy's phony anti-racist jackassery kicks in when he has to check "white" but that's his problem, not mine.

But here's what I really want to point out. Dimmy's big claim showcases more than his characteristic befuddlement -- it clearly illustrates his cognitive dissonance, which is the "Stress (psychological) or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time (Wikipedia). Cognitive dissonance can lead to irrational decision making, as a person tries to reconcile his conflicting beliefs (Investopedia).

I mean, in the same sentence, he claims I have both "proudly announced" and made "attempts to mask" the very same (nonexistent) thing (racism). And this is a relatively minor contradiction; he's a walking bundle of contradictions (and irrational thinking).

Which is it, Dimmy? Proudly announcing? Or attempted masking? Make up what is jokingly called your mind!

Dimmy then issues this ominous threat: "I think we should let the Cherokee nation know just exactly who she is and what she claims to be and see if they want such a miserable excuse for humanity as a member of their tribe."

Well, do it, Dimmy. Here's the Cherokee Nation's website.  http://www.cherokee.org/   Here's the Government's page. http://www.cherokee.org/OurGovernment.aspx. And here is contact info: http://www.cherokee.org/Contact.aspx  And here is the email addy for questions about citizenship and tribal registration: registration@cherokee.org

Now put up or shut up, Dimmy.

But Buzz embellishes her threat with some great theatrics: "WHUT???!! Beeing (sic) of half Native ancestry. nothing irritates me more when some two-bit racist hag wants to hide behind our feathers to justify her BS. I will out her sorry arse six ways to September if I see her mug cozying up to our table (I belong to a very large Native social network). What a #$$% coward poser. Geez, I must be out of the loop — I missed that one."

Two-bit racist hag? What a stark and marvelous display of the reality of the leftist heart... proving the leftist fable of "tolerance" isn't just a fable, it's an outright lie. (Folks, I don't know when I'll get to it, but I'm planning a blog post of all the filthy and hate-filled names and labels I've run across that anti-racist jackasses try to  pin on heritage people, conservatives, Christians, etc. Already collecting the material, and Shoshana Bee's "two-bit racist hag" is at the top of the list.)

Hide behind your feathers?  Not the least bit interested, so keep your feathers, Poka-hontus. I don't hide, period, behind anything. So get on with "outing my sorry arse six ways to September. I can't wait for the legendary outing to begin! Sounds like fun! (I note in passing that obviously, Simpson doesn't mind crude language and vile temper in his comments section, after all -- as long as they're from people who share his ideology.)

I have absolutely ZERO interest in cozying up to any table you are sitting at, Sitting Bull. But It would be interesting to know why you think it is posing or cowardly to obtain government certification of my degree of Indian blood, and a certificate of citizenship in the Cherokee nation.

As for Buzzy Bee's hysteria after reading Simpson's lies about my Chastain kinsman, she makes an empty-headed comment worthy of Dimmy -- "But what REALLY scares me is that maybe one of my ancestors mixed it up with one of hers when everyone “got together” in Oklahoma. No no no: I don’t need a long lost cause cousin."

Poka-hontus, my Cherokee ancestors, except for the one on the Dawes Roll and her direct descendants, all stayed in Georgia... So calm your hysterics, Buzz... There will be five of us with Cherokee citizenship -- my sister, who already has it; myself, and my three nephews. None of us are interested in "pow-wowing." You can wash your hands and burn whatever you like, but it might better serve you to have your heart examined and get the hate amputated....

_______________
*(Actually, the issue wasn't so much racism as it was Dimmy's abysmally ignorant claims about minority subcultures. Sed he: "There is no white culture and never has been. Culture in this nation has always included minorities. You and your kind (My kind? Stop your bigotry Dimmy.) just don't want to acknowledge this." To which I replied, "Certainly there is a white culture. There are all kinds of cultures, and white is one of 'em. You'd argue with that? Are you saying they all exist except white? My gosh, Dimmy, I myself am of a nonwhite culture (my grandmother is listed on one, maybe two, Cherokee census rolls taken by the government, and earlier ancestors are on earlier rolls)." This is an acknowledgement, by me, that "....this nation has always included minorities..." proving that Dimmy is a liar.)

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

A Member In Good Standing of the Ugly Left

Various and sundry people who hate Confederate heritage -- and, more to the point, who hate the people who honor, support and promote it -- are clamoring for my attention and begging me, after a fashion, to return to blogging. Unfortunately, I can't really accommodate them right now with a total return to Backsassin'.  But I can take time out to relay some recent experiences and observations my readers will no doubt enjoy.

Solofilms/United Artists
There's a leftist, community college teacher in a very, very white section of Missouri, Jimmy Dick, whom I've given the moniker Dimmy Jick (because he really is dim, folks) who loves to (figuratively) point at people, open-mouthed, a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and shriek "Racist! White supremacist!" We've encountered each other over the years because I'm a Confederate heritage supporter and he thinks Confederate heritage supporters are all racists and he likes pointing and shrieking at us.  We meet up now and then on various blogs, but I can't say we have actual conversations, because he seems incapable of it.

(Dimmy superbly illustrates my theory that leftist, anti-racist jackasses, as opposed to normal people who disapprove of racial bigotry, screech "Racist!" at heritage folks, conservatives and others hoping to distract from their own racism, particularly those who live the kind of lily-white lives most white supes can only dream of. For example, Dimmy lives in a town and county that are basically 98% white, so it probably wouldn't be all that inaccurate to call him Dimmy Jickkk.)

He's not very articulate and seems lacking in ordinary thinking skills.  Like so many leftists, he substitutes feeling for thinking and blathers emotion instead of cognition. But he's not interested in discussion, anyway. He just wants to point and shriek and name-call. He has even stated he won't read my arguments and opinions -- and presumably those of anyone else he disagrees with -- the perfect illustration of  closed mind ... and a scared one. I can't help but wonder if he once had a normal intellect that is now stifled, dessicated and shriveled from leftism, combined with his hot-air balloon ego, to the point that it can't operate properly.

Recently, he has taken it upon himself to dictate to me, because of my American Indian ancestry, and thus to all American Indians, what they must think, believe, feel, support and not support. And even whether they ARE American Indians.*

It started this way. This, um, teacher took it upon himself to inform me that there is, and always has been, more than just white culture in the USA. I told him I knew that, as I was of one of the country's nonwhite cultures ... my grandmother and several other ancestors appear on the government's various Cherokee census rolls and ..."My sister has recently done genealogical research with the Cherokee so we can obtain tribal membership. Didn't know that, did you? Doesn't fit your fantasy, does it?'

This lofty intellect responds:
"What makes you think the Cherokee would want you as a member? Should we contact them and let them know just who you are and let them see your racism?** ... Here's a secret you don't know. If you identify as white, have no connection to Native Americans other than a piece of paper saying one of your ancestors was a Native America, and have no idea of what reservation life is, you are not a Native American. Don't try to pass yourself off as something you are not. Especially after you made so many racist claims over the years like you have."
Isn't that a scream? A secret ... known only to him. The Cherokee Nation doesn't know it. The US government doesn't know it. Nobody knows it but him.

Well, I had to explain....
LOL, Dimmy!  It doesn't matter what they want. Citizenship laws are what matter. If you meet the criteria set by the Cherokee government, you are in. (BTW, your swaggering claims do not determine who is a native American, and it is funny to watch you blow such totally-devoid-of-authority hot air.) My sister and I meet it (her sons, too). She has already applied for, and been granted, citizenship in the Cherokee nation by the government in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. All that remains for my application is to obtain a birth certificate certified by the state of Georgia, and I'll be a citizen of the Cherokee nation, too. I know that distresses you. hahahaah But ya know what? You don't have anything to do with it, and there's nothing you can do about it.  And it wasn't one ancestor ... it was several generations of them.
I wonder if he was on the phone all day that day, trying to get through to Bill John Baker to tell him not to let me in ...

Yes, this is funny, folks, but it is also sobering to think this strutting blowhard has access to young minds in a college classroom.... 

What's really funny, though, is the part where HE dictates what makes one a Native American -- and with regard to the Cherokee, at least, he gets it exactly wrong. Sez he:
If you identify as white, have no connection to Native Americans other than a piece of paper saying one of your ancestors was a Native American  and have no idea of what reservation life is you are not a Native American.
I don't know about other tribes and nations, but that is exactly what makes one a Cherokee, and eligible for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation -- the "piece of paper" being a ***CDIB card from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affais, and a blood ancestor listed on the Final Dawes Roll....

From The Cherokee Phoenix:
The Cherokee Nation does not have a blood quantum for citizenship or for holding office. Citizens only need to have a Cherokee blood ancestor listed on the Final Dawes Rolls. http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Article/Index/5025
I have a Cherokee blood ancestor listed on the Final Dawes Rolls.

Notice that there is also no requirement for "having an idea of what reservation life is," either.... I wonder what Dimmy would dictate that one must do to "have an idea" about reservation life? Look it up online? Read a book or see a movie about it? Visit a reservation? Live on a reservation????

If it's the latter, if living on a reservation is required to be a native American, then the vast bulk of native Americans are not native Americans

According to the Census Bureau, the American Indian population is 5.4 million, and 22% of them live on reservations. So if living there is what it takes to "have an idea" of reservation life and thus BE American Indian, 88% of the American Indian population are not American Indians....According to Dimmy Jick....

It's obvious that he doesn't know the Cherokee nation has a website for Cherokee citizens who do not live in Oklahoma. The Nation even has a name for them, "Cherokee at Large" and a website: http://cherokeesatlarge.org/  Recently, Principal Chief Bill John Baker  traveled to Florida, Texas and California to meet with "off the reservation" Cherokees. Hmmmmm, I wonder if he told them, "Sorry, folks, Dimmy Jick says you aren't native Americans...  Turn in your Cherokee cards...."

Since conditions on reservations approximate third-world hell-holes, my sister thinks because Dimmy "requires" NAs to live there to be true NAs, he wants them to suffer privation, disease and hardship.

This guy is making an utter fool of himself, spouting off with his all-emotion, no-cognition diatribes about things he knows nothing about -- just for the pleasurable but ignorant sensation of namecalling somebody, to let himself off the hook for the same infractions.

He's not the only anti-racist jackass who lives a lily white life. They're all very visible online calling heritage folks racists... Since this subset of heritage haters live a far whiter life than we do, I have concluded that these folks believe you don't have to walk the walk, if you talk the talk. You can live in white utopias with a 2% or less non-white populations, be employed in largely white workplaces, hardly ever come in contact with blacks.... as long as you slander Confederate heritage supporters as white supes and racist haters....

Dimmy Jickkk is one reason, among many, many reasons, why I have no respect for lying leftists, especially those obsessed with harassing, bullying, cyberstalking and lying about heritage people, just to stroke their own morally deficient egos....  Their decades long history of  lies and colossal hypocrisy is why the left is decomposing and putting an noxious pall over America...  ah, but think how refreshing it will be when the stench dissipates!

(Note: I may have another post or two before I return to my break from blogging...)

_____________________
* Note: I don't always use the politically correct term Native Americans because it is a misnomer. Native means "born here." So everyone born in America is a native American.
** Note: the classic tattle-tale component of the leftist mentality.  Apparently, I'm supposed to take that as some kind of threat and start trembling, and getting cold feet about submitting my application....
***CDIB -- Certified Degree of Indian Blood

Saturday, July 9, 2016

The Attempted Character Assassination of the Virginia Flaggers

Between the two of them, Brooks Simpson and the cowardly anonymous blogger at "Restoring the Honor" are doing their level best to character assassinate the Virginia Flaggers, particularly their founder and leader. Occasionally, these two are joined in their character assassination efforts by other bloggers, or by readers/visitors who leave comments. One method they all use is the despicable "links and ties" method practiced so expertly by the Southern Poverty Law Center (also top drawer character assassins). But it doesn't stop with that.

Wikipedia's entry on character assassination includes, in part:
Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation.  Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumors, and manipulating information.

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation.  It may involve exaggeration,  misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation  and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

In practice, character assassination may involve doublespeak,  spreading of  rumors, innuendo,  or deliberate misinformation  on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It may involve spinning  information that is technically true, but that is presented in a misleading manner or is presented without the necessary context.

Three features of character attacks are important to understand. First, their intention: character attacks are by definition deliberate. Second, the public nature of the attacks: private insults do not lead to reputation damage. And third, the importance of the public perception of the attacks, which means that the truth of allegations is irrelevant.
 Some examples of attempted character assassination against the Virginia Flaggers that has taken place over the last five years include: 
  • the public accusations (via blog entries) of child abuse leveled against Tripp Lewis by people who are not trained in child welfare or law enforcement, based solely on a few moments of video that didn't even show the children in question ... accusations made from sheer personal animosity for Tripp ...(If these people really believed child abuse had taken place, why did they not notify child protection agencies in Richmond? That they didn't verifies that they knew no child abuse took place, and they were attempting to character assassinate Tripp with lies even they didn't believe.)
  • the deceitful term "Virginia Flagger favorite Matthew Heimbach," and the false claim that they "embrace" Heimbach which is to imply that they "embrace" white supremacy ...
  • the implication that Susan Hathaway was involved in, or had knowledge of, the kidnapping of a child ...
  • the suggestion that the Flaggers had stolen a backhoe belonging to one of them, in an attempt to claim insurance money ... 
  • the implication that the Flaggers had foreknowledge of an acquaintance's false claim of thwarting a vandalism attack on historic monuments in Richmond
  • the claim that two Flaggers had put the home address of a Flagger opponent on the internet, when she did that herself, and the namecalling of the two Flaggers as "Susan's henchmen"
  • the implication that the Flaggers agree with or approve of negative statements spoken by someone they do business with
  • the implication that the Flaggers approve of or agree with negative behaviors or events simply because the accuser has not heard them disagree with or disapprove of them.
And, as I said, these are just SOME of the attempts at character assassination of the VaFlaggers. I will look at others in the future, particularly with language manipulation as the weapons -- exaggeration, misleading half-truths, manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture, innuendo, deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation -- and especially spinning information that is technically true but presented in a misleading manner or without the necessary context.

Unfortunately, what I cannot do is explain WHY these two bloggers, and everyone who joined them, would do this ... what motivates them to target people they don't even know, people who have not harmed them in any way. It is truly mystifying. What do they hope to gain by the smearing of people who've done them no wrong...  

I hope to get started on this study before I have to take the blog dormant again... if not, I'm sure the opportunity will still be here when I come back.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Fun with the Loony Left

Rob Baker thinks because I've taken a break from blogging that I've hidden in the woodwork, and Simpson's most recent attacks on Susan and the VaFlaggers have brought me out of it.  To which Simpson replied "Dance, puppet, dance."

LOL! I'll bet he stands on the corner in Gilbert, blowing a trumpet to keep the elephants away, too.

Simpson knows, and has known for a long time, that it is supremely possible that I will defend or counterattack when people of his ilk attack. For a number of weeks he's been posting a bunch of stuff about history at XRoads. Although I don't agree with a lot of what leftist bloggers claim about the South, the Confederacy and the war, my primary concern is the lies and attacks on Southern heritage. If he's not attacking that, I will likely leave him alone to mangle history as he sees fit.

But the recent attacks by Simpson at his own blog, and at a hate-and-attack blog I call Destroy the Honor, deserved responses, so I responded. Pissed him off, too. He got pettier and meaner with every comment at Destroy, and, at his own blog, succumbed to his usual cowardliness in not posting a comment from me. There are certain comments by heritage folks he is simply too scared to let his readers see....

Rob "TuQuoque" Bakur, I am only taking a break from blogging -- I'm still online everywhere else.  I will resume my recess in a few days, probably, and hope to return full time in early 2017.  But meanwhile, why don't you get some hate on and see if I stomp on-- I mean, "dance" for you.
______________________________________

Found at XRoads:
Mr. Ortensie is an academic ... or he used to be.  Presumably he still is. But like so many leftist, antiConfederate academics, he either has terrible reading comprehension skills, or else he assassinates his own intellect in order to wield the put-down.

Below are two paragraphs from the VaFlagger blog post Ortensie is referring to.
I have, sadly, come to expect a steady stream of slander, baseless personal attacks, defamation and libel from several leftist, amateur historian bloggers who just can’t stand the fact that we won’t sit down, shut up, and believe exactly as they say we should. Shamed by their own repeatedly incorrect predictions, childish accusations, immature posts, and utter failure to accomplish anything other than drive more and more folks to our side with their antics, they had, for a period of time, retreated and attempted to refocus their blogs on their twisted view of “history”.

In recent months, a new crop of bloggers has made their presence known. These folks are made of leftist extremists of the “social justice warrior” nature. Their hate blogs, (or at least the ones we know of) are written anonymously, so there is absolutely no accountability, and are apparently authored by folks who have nothing else to do all day besides sit in their parents’ basements and look for “gotcha” moments on social media… and finding none…choose to fabricate their own, all the while hiding behind a fake identity.
Note in the first paragraph the reference is to, "amateur historian bloggers" who, for a while "retreated and attempted to refocus their blogs on their twisted view of 'history'."

The second paragraph refers to "a new crop of bloggers..." who are leftist extremists of the “social justice warrior” nature and whose blogs are anonymous.  These are the folks who are described as sitting all day in their parents' basements looking for "gotchas" on social media.

My question is, what do you suppose is the case with Mr. Ortensie? Does he have terrible reading comprehension skills, or is he assassinating his own intellect in order to wield the put-down?

This isn't my first experience with Mr. Ortensie's put downs ...  Let's go for a stroll down memory lane...

http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-ortensies-debut-at-trashing.html

______________________________________

Hope I can be around for a few more posts, but it depends on other things going on in my life. Time will tell....