Monday, January 16, 2017
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Communist governments murdered an estimated 100 to 150 million people in the 20th Century. These figures don't include war deaths. These were deliberate murders.
So a bunch of anti-fa whack jobs that worship mega-murdering communism are saying they want to "shut down Southern heritage" --by what method? If last century's communist leaders are the example, they did it with extremely brutal mass murder.
There may be somebody or some thing that can shut down Southern heritage, short of mass murder, but not these whack jobs. The yankee army couldn't do it. The one-nation indivisible United States couldn't do it. The weaponizing of our language using authoritarian political correctness couldn't do it. The left, with which these anti-fa whack jobs are associated, or at least in tune with, couldn't do it.
So much for that subject.
But Southern heritage isn't the only thing in their sights. They're agin' white supremacy and patriarchy, too. That's probably not a surprise. But they're also against.... Well, here, let them tell you: "...we are an anarchist movement for the full abolition of capitalism and the State..."
Abolish capitalism and the State? That will take more than a few out-of-touch dreamers in Virginia. (Or are they, more accurately, nightmare-ers?)
Here's part of the nightmarish quality to their ideology (idiot-ology?) -- they say they're non-violent ... then say they use violence, but "liberatory" as opposed to "dominating" violence.
Violence is violence, particularly to its victims, regardless of the intent or attitude ot the perpetrator.
Looking over their online presence, I see photos of people whose faces are hidden behind bandanas. I see fake names. Hiding, deceit and destruction are their hallmarks. Hiding faces and identities indicates shame, fear or both.
Fearful and ashamed destroyers who hide and deceive and perpetrate violence.
Their hate and violence makes white supremacy look not-all-that-bad by comparison ... and patriarchy is largely responsible for the success of mankind. But leftists, commies, anti-fas, aren't interested in success. The left is all about destruction.
As Igor Shafarevich concluded in his book, The Socialist Phenomenon, a "striving for self-destruction, for nothingness, for the 'death of mankind,' was the true goal of socialism. Instinctively, without stating it or even seeing it as the conscious goal, the socialist phenomenon seeks the death of the human race." (http://www.sobran.com/hive/hum.shtml)
Remember that next time these nutcases march somewhere in Virginia...
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
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.
".... 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
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
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
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.html) And 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
...two lost causes, the first being the defeat of an army pledged to establish an independent slaveholding republic... Kevin LevinPRODUCE 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....
OR STAND BRANDED BEFORE THE WORLD AS A LIAR AND A HATER....
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?
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
After Buzzy Bee read Simpson's basically dishonest post about my Chastain kinsman and the Cherokee removal, she posted this:The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17
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.
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
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 Dividedby 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.________________
This, of course, elicited more smelly verbal cowplops from his myrmidons -- and, surprisingly, a few criticisms of Simpson. A samplingJohn 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
And here is an excerpt about Ft. Chastain and the Indian Removal
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.
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
City: Blue Ridge
National Register of Historic Places: No
Local Designation: None.
State Designation: None.
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.Store owner? Store owner? But-but-but what about "rounding up" the Cherokees?
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
Benjamin Chastain, store owner
Lt. Col. Benjamin J. Camp
A. P. Bush, Quartermaster, 2nd Regiment, GA Foot
Capt. John W. Fowler
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:
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....