Friday, August 26, 2011

Tiptoeing and stalking and monolithic Dixie

"Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog)." ~Brooks Simpson, to Moi

I have a mission for my readers, complete with a reward. Find where I have admitted stalking on my blog, which Mr. Simpson charges. The stalking kitten post from August 23 does not count, because it was made 7 hours and 40 minutes after his claim.

If you can find where I "admit stalking" on 180DTS, you're a winner! You have your choice of reward: this nifty Lincoln-MLK T-shirt iron-on transfer, or a PDF copy of my novel, Southern Man.

Just email proof (a copy-paste from my blog and link to the page will be sufficient) to Yours truly will announce the winner if and when there is one. I am the sole decision-maker in that regard -- Hey! It's my blog and my idea. If you don't like it, don't play.

Since I've brought up one Brooks Simpson quote, how about another? And it's a doozy, folks:

"Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War."~Brooks Simpson.

This claim is yet another fascinating look into the academic mindset. When they troll our blogs, groups and sites looking for fodder to ridicule or mischaracterize on their blogs, it's "tiptoeing through the internet..." When we visit their blogs and post on their comment threads, we are fringe elements and cockroaches out stalking....

Perfesser Simpson is all het up about the link on my blog to the League of the South. He posted something, a speech or something, by Dr. Michael Hill and then made claims about it; I haven't read or listened to Dr. Hill's speech, so I don't know if or how badly Simpson is mischaracterizing it, but I do know, from observation roughly a decade old, that the League's writing sometimes gets mischaracterized and outright lied about.

I might assuage the perfesser's curiosity about myself and the League -- or I might not. But not until I'm good and ready to. Meanwhile, all this brings to my mind an anti-Southern liberal Mississippian I used to encounter on a discussion group way back in the very early 2000s -- I'll call him Mississippi Guy -- and how he breathtakingly mischaracterized a League quote. He so completely distorted it, even Brooks Simpson would be able to see the distortion. Here's the League quote:
"The League of the South champions without apology the traditional core Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community. Over the centuries, our culture has been enriched in subtle ways by the influences of other non-dominant, cultural groups, particularly by black Southerners and the French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana, but at its essence, the South has always remained a predominantly Anglo-Celtic civilisation." From: "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach"
Mississippi Guy said, among other things, that he appreciated the contributions our "venerable Scottish ancestors" made to the South, but he could not support the League's view that the immigrants who settled the South were monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) and he could not support the League's goal of a monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) South.

You don't have to possess a degree of any kind to see what's wrong with this, do ya?

Here's my reply to Mississippi Guy from all those years ago.
Mississippi Guy's assignment for the evening -- go to, look up "dominant" and "monolithic" and learn the difference. Heck, I'll even save you the trip to

dominant -- exercising the most influence or control.
monolithic --characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity.
(As an aside, I would like to point out something before you fall down and have a seizure over the subject of Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance.... Exercising the most influence or control does not mean excercising total influence or control.)

Since you like putting words (in this case, "monolithic") in people's mouths (in this case, Dr. Hill's), I think you need another lesson. I have listed below ALL occurances of the word monolithic on DixieNet. As you will see, in no case does it refer to the Anglo-Celtic culture of the South. However, to make sure you really learn your lesson, I think you need to go to DixieNet and use the on-site search engine and search the word "monolithic" yourself. Here's what you'll find:
From "To Alter and Abolish – Secession Movements on the Move"
Diane Alden
"Thus, big government, mega-corporations, various cultural movements, the monolithic mainstream media, corrupted educational system, and feel-good, unprincipled quasi-religions have tossed the Western cultural tradition into the ash heap."

From a Book Review of "The South Was Right"
"The Kennedys' description of the contributions of Southern black Confederates to the Confederate war effort punctures the 'conventional wisdom' which holds that the Southern cause revolved solely around a monolithic Southern effort to preserve slavery.'

From "The Snakey State: Enemy of the People"
Ambrose Gonzales Elliott
"He had no trouble gauging the monolithic attitudes among American journalists and understanding their essential dishonesty."

From "A Green Mountain Independence Party"
Thomas Naylor
"Vermont needs a new political party -- a local independence party -- to challenge the two monolithic national parties and encourage Vermonters to downsize, decentralise, demilitarise, localise, and humanise their lives."
That's it. That's all of 'em.

Mississippi Guy, please note... Just in case you missed it, the League says that the South's traditional (not monolithic) culture, handed down by Anglo-Celtic people who settled the south, has been enriched by the influences of non-dominant Southern groups, particularly (though not only) blacks and Cajuns.

So I ask again. Who is presenting a "monolithic" view of the South's settlers as Anglo-Celtic? What the League is saying (and it's plain as the nose on your face for people who aren't willingly blind to it) is that the immigrant group with the greatest number of people determined the South's core culture, and other groups added their influence. Think of it this way -- the Anglo-Celts baked the cake; other groups added the icing.
I don't think Mississippi Guy was an academic -- I think he worked in a department store -- but he had clearly learned to mis-think like one.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Are You Being Stalked?

Over at the Civil War Crossroads thread, where Perfesser Simpson is telling us extreme fringes all about slave labor building the U.S. capitol, I have discovered I'm not only a fringe element and a cockroach eating garbage, but a stalker, to boot.

It started with this entry:

Since he seemed to be mistaken about my position on this subject, I posted this in the comment thread:

In 1861, when the Union Army was making war on the South, Philip Reid, a slave from Maryland, was heavily involved in the creation of the statue of Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace that was later located atop the capitol dome. He was not emancipated until 1862. Now, if there were no slaves working on the capitol during the war then (1) the war did not start until after 1861 or (2) Philip was freed before the war started, not in 1862, or (3) Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace is not part of the capitol….
He replied: "He replied:
You seem confused, Connie. I mentioned the emancipation of 1862, and Reid was a part of that emancipation. I did not say there were no slaves working on the Capitol during the entire war; I pointed to the end of slavery in DC in 1862 as marking when that would have ended.

For Reid’s story, see this.

Could you show me the plaque marking the contribution of enslaved black labor to the buildings used by the Confederate government in Richmond? Thanks.

Naturally, I couldn't let that go unanswered, so I posted:
I’m not confused, Mr. Simpson.

Your essay implies that the “extreme fringes” of the Southern heritage movement make claims that are not true — i.e., that slave labor was used to build the U.S. capitol while U.S. troops were warring on Southerners. In fact, it is true.

What Richmond and the Confederacy did or did not do has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of claiming the north was fighting to free slaves when (among other factors) (1) there were five slave states in the union and (2) slave labor (specifically Phillip Reid’s) helped to build the U.S. capitol WHILE U.S. troops were making war on Southerners.

The plaques acknowledging that slave labor was used to build the capitol didn’t exist until 2010, so the U.S. government didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to recognize that contribution for 149 years.

Maybe some people think sticking up a plaque almost a century and a half after the fact absolves the U.S. of its hypocrisy. I disagree.

Well, he couldn't let that one go unanswered, so he posted....
You are confused … and now you are misleading people. As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (thus the plaques), and some people seem to have that confused with what was going on in 1861-62 (when slavery ceased in the District of Columbia). I haven’t said that slaves were not involved in the process in 1861-62: I’ve said that I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you. That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion.

Now you claim that people are saying that the North went to war to free the slaves. I haven’t, so what’s your point?

As for hypocrisy, my understanding is that southerners have been part of the United States government for some time, and in fact white southern slaveholders took the lead in locating the District of Columbia in slave territory (and using their own slaves in the process). I also understand that you’re a United States citizen. Care to tell me what role southerns played in overturning this omission in the historical record? Or are they just as guilty as everyone else? Wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite to overlook that fact as you point fingers? Why yes, it does. But I’m sure you don’t understand that, either, which suggests why it’s a waste of time discussing things with you. Thanks for the reminder.

Meanwhile, of course, you remain silent on your embrace of the League of the South, including its call for violence. So much for southern courage.

It’s been interesting. Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog). Without folks like me you would have nothing to blog about to your dozen devoted readers. But, as you have reminded me to ignore you, I agree that to continue this would be to wallow in your mud puddle. Just don’t complain when you see the result.

Interesting thing is, I replied to that, but my reply isn't showing, can you imagine!

Mr. Levin popped in for a quick comment, "I like the strategy, Brooks. You can make the historical point without directing readers to these silly little sites and still feel comfortable knowing that they will eventually get around to reading it," to which Mr. Simpson replied: "Oh, I think we already have evidence of that. Helga Ross and Connie Chastain … stalkers."

I don't know who Helga Ross is, but apparently she's somebody else who visits civil war blogs and posts on comment threads.

I know my readers are just dyin' to know what I posted that Mr. Simpson was too authoritarian to let through, so here 'tiz:


"I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you." ~Mr. Simpson

Cite my comment, please. Along with a link? Surely if you're prepared to mention it, you're prepared to link to it.

"That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion." ~Mr. Simpson

Could you also post a couple of links to my "changing story" re: slave labor used to build the capitol while the union army was making war on Southerners -- one showing it one way, and one showing it another?

People do say the north went to war to free the slaves. Lots of 'em do. If you haven't said that, I'm obviously not talking about you.

My reference to hypocrisy was very clear and specific. It was the hypocrisy of the union's making war on the South for its practice of slavery while there five slaves states in the union and the U.S. capitol was being built using slave labor.

Quick question. Do you "embrace" every organization you post links to on your blog? The links on the sidebar of my blog (LS, UDC, SCV, and others) are for convenient access to the information on these sites for my visitors. Your imagination appears to have run away with your ideology. Nevertheless, since you asked, I'll probably post about the League on 180DTS -- when I'm ready to.


Somehow, I just knew this would be the reply that got my participation in the thread derailed. Gotta have something to do with my asking him to cite my comment and changing story, with links.

I know what you're thinking. This is boring. You're right. Stalkin's a boring job, but hey, somebody's gotta do it.

(Photos: StockX.chng, Dreamstime)


Simpson sez, "As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (sic) (thus the plaques)..."

Whose research? The only research he mentions is a couple of government papers. Is federal research the only research allowed on this subject? Who decides what research can be done and who can do it? Only the goverment in D.C.? Or is Professor Simpson himself the only one with the power and authority to declare what's legitimate research on it and what ain't?

Note that he also he mentions those who he says are mistaken about this issue without actually identifying anybody. There are the "extreme fringes of the Confederate heritage movement" (but no cockroaches, I note). He's slapped that fringe label on me, and he's also said I have written about this subject, and changed my story on it -- without identifying what I said and where I said it.

He also mentions "some corners" without identifying who they are or what they say.

See, unless he identifies specifically what he's talking about, we don't know whether he's accurately characterizing what these folks say or not. It may be that he's the one who's confused; maybe that's why he's so coy about specifically identifying what was actually said and who said it.... What he's describing might be his own misinterpretation. But since he's made these nonspecific criticisms that can't be verified, the only thing left to do is ... dismiss 'em.

Dispatches from the Fringe Element

(With occasional cockroach input)

Over the next few, oh, I dunno, days, weeks, months, I'm going to have fun here examining blog postings and comment threads from: Civil War Memory, Dead Confederates, Civil War Crossroads and The Blood of My Kindred, mostly as they relate to me and things I've written, but also as they relate to Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook Group and its members, and general subjects related to the war, the South, Southerners, etc.

A related subject will be my insights and opinions about the academic mindset, based on my (admittedly limited) interaction with, and observation of, the two academic bloggers, Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson. So people will know, I'm not followers of these blogs. I've read more posts on Levin's than any others, but even there, no more than a dozen or so.

At the end of this entry, you'll find the timeline and blog entries/comment threads that will provide fodder for my remarks. (If more are added as time goes on, I'll update the list).

I'm going to start with Simpson's blog entry about Michelle Bachmann's comments on slavery. I'm not real interested in Bachmann or anybody else running for president of a crumbling empire. I mention it for two reasons.

First reason, Mr. Simpson has denied being a leftist, but I note that when referencing Bachmann's slavery quote, he doesn't link to raw video of Bachmann so we can see for ourselves what she said. He links to a post by Adam Serwer, a leftist journalist at the leftist The American Prospect, so he can interpret it for us and make sure we understand it and the significance of it. Isn't that thoughtful of him? Interesting thing about Serwer -- he was one of Ezra Klein's Journo Listas. Not surprising when you realize that The American Prospect was Klein's perch at the time.

What? You never heard of the Journo List? By all means, make yourself acquainted with this private, closed email group of leftist journalists that was running hot and heavy back during the run up to the Presidential election.

Read Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller Journo List archive:

(Mr. Simpson can hardly criticize me for using a rightwing source if he's gonna use a leftwing one, can he?)

Second reason, the comment by Andy Hall referencing Serwer's post on Black Confederates. Wrote Serwer:

The attempt to minimize the suffering caused by slavery and segregation, to recast the Lost Cause as one motivated by “honor” and self-determination rather than racial supremacy and the preservation of chattel slavery, arises out of the same contemptible emotional impulse. The Lost Causer insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers isn’t any less mired in guilt than the liberal quietly mouthing the names of their black friends as they count them on their fingertips. In both cases, the individual trying to free themselves from history ends up drowning in a bottomless pit of self-pity and self-deception that, over time, can only ferment into rage over inability to find an absolution that will be forever beyond their reach.

Serwer seems to be substituting his perception for other people's intention. He also seems to be placing total responsibility for racial supremacy on the South when we know it was as prevalent in the north, and Aby-baby himself was a racial supremacist who wanted to rid the whole freakin' country of blacks.

We also know that abolitionist Julia Ward Howe's views on race were an exact match for those of Alexander Stephens (only stated in much more insulting terms, and stated earlier) right down to the notion that slavery was necessary for blacks (she called it "compulsory labor" but it means the same thing).

We know that the "preservation of chattel slavery" is far, far too narrow a motive for the war, particularly when other motives were recorded in the documents of the day and we can actually, you know, read them.

Wonder if Serwer can name some "Lost Causer" insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers. A single one. Well, I wonder if he can name ten. Or a hundred. A thousand. Ten thousand. Unless he can and does, I'll have to chalk this up to his very vivid leftist, Journo-Lista imagination, and likely his own tendency to see everything in terms of race, a very common liberal tendency.

Maybe, as a liberal, he needs absolution. If so, he needs to quit projecting.

Look at the evidence, look at the history, and what you see is a South no worse than the north. You see northern sins every bit as shameful and ugly as any you can name on the part of the South. Of course, you don't hear much about northern sins in classrooms or on leftist Journo-Lista mentality blogs or even academic "civil war" blogs.

The north must be forever shielded from its slaving past with the "fighting to free slaves" fable. The south must be forever condemned and evilized with the "fighting to keep slavery" fable. These two falsehoods (false in the sense that they're presented as the whole story when they certainly are not) are masks on the country's history that must never, never, never be allowed to slip. Careful and don't jostle 'em, you black Confederate researchers....

We cannot let the north's true motives show, and we certainly cannot acknowledge its bloodlust and savagery toward Southerners. They have to be recast in terms of the war of the righteous North against unspeakable Southern evil that deserved all the misery and brutality it got....

Serwer's doing his part in the recasting, sure 'nuff.


Blog Posts and Comment Threads Timeline

August 8 -- Great gusts of ridicule from Southern gentleman Andy Hall and commentators on his Dead Confederates blog, directed toward Black Confederates researcher Ann DeWitt

August 8 -- Brooks Simpson and his sycophants jump on the let's-bash-Ann bandwagon.

August 9 -- Kevin Levin and his myrmidons continue the ridicule, accompanied by a breathtaking display of his bootheel in the teeth of the First Amendment, telling Ann to take down her website.

August 11 -- Brooks Simpson throws in the towel, ain't gonna study war (with fringy, cockroachy Southern heritage defenders) no more.

August 11 -- Andy Hall blockquotes Simpson, confesses to enabling "odious folks," (but no mention of friggin' Opies) and sez he's gonna throw in the towel, too.

August 11 -- Corey Meyer announces he's jumpin' on the Simpson bandwagon and ain't gonna engage us in urinatorial contests any more.

August 12 -- Simpson, unable to remain true to his resolve, posts about the League of the South

August 14 -- Simpson, STILL unable to remain true to his revolve, posts about ME

August 14 -- Simpson on Michelle Bachmann

August 20 -- Corey Meyer, unable to hold it any longer, cites the League of the South Rebellion Blog.

August 22 -- Simpson, once again forgetting his resolve, rants about the League of the South

Now, what I choose to discuss based on these blog entries and their comment threads will come in no particular order -- just what I feel like addressing at the time. Stay tuned!

(Photos: Penny Lane and Wikimedia Commons)

Monday, August 22, 2011

The Evilization of the White South

(Note: The essay below was edited from a post that originally appeared on the Southern Heritage Preservation Group Facebook page on August 12, 2011. I wrote it shortly after this entry appeared at the Civil War Memory blog the same day:

ProYankee Blogger Defends Confederate Flag?
IMO, the purpose of this (blog entry okaying Confederate flags in cemeteries) is to have a post up he can point to when he's accused of anti-Southern bias and say, "No, I'm not biased. See?"

Frankly -- and this is MY OPINION, a conclusion I've drawn based on my (admittedly limited) lookarounds over there -- that blog is not about the Civil War, or how it's remembered, despite the title. It's about slavery. It's about how slavery is remembered. Even that is a sort of generalization. It's about Southern slavery; it's about Southern slaveholding and Southern slaveholders. We know that because of the inattention given to Northern slaveholding and Northern slaveholders, and slaveshipping, a basically Northern enterprise.

This is the sort of inattention that will argue with you that the Union was fighting to free the slaves while ignoring that there were five Union slave states and slaves were helping to build the U.S. capitol.

The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil. When they say "slave women were raped," using the passive voice like that, what they really mean is evil white Southern men raped slave women. When they say "slaves were beaten," what they mean is evil Southern white men beat slaves. When they say "slave families were separated," what they mean is evil Southern white men separated slave families.

We know it's not about how the Civil War is remembered because of the references to the "Jim Crow white South" -- which occurred long after the war, long after reconstruction. But it does fall within the realm of discussion of evil white Southerners.

The question is, why?

Why such an interest in so evilizing white Southerners? We're no worse than anyone else -- our ancestors were no worse than anyone else. The great majority of antebellum white Southerners owned no slaves. (They have to be evilized by saying, "Well, yeah, but they wanted to. They aspired to being a slaveowner some day," though I've never seen anyone offer the "scholarship" that proves it.)

So why? Because Southerners have to be made deserving of the horrific brutality done to them by the north in the war. It is that simple. There may be a few critics, but basically, the United States cannot admit to ever having done anything wrong. But what the north, doing the bidding of the feds, did to the South during the war and for five generations afterward... Is. Not. Justifiable.

So they came down here and killed us, stole everything that wasn't nailed down, burned towns and farms, and laid our region waste; installed a military dictatorship over us, and puppet governments that would put state treasures so deeply in debt it would take generations to get out, leaving us little or no capital for investments, jobs, schools, and kept us in widespread poverty until almost WWII -- and then ridiculed us for being poor and uneducated.
THAT is why the South -- why Southerners (white ones) -- must still be evilized -- in the classroom, on television, on Hollywood's silver screen, in the corporation, the government bureaucracy, even in freakin' video games. Throughout the popular culture. And especially in academia. That mission of keeping Southerners evil is the motive, perhaps buried so deep it isn't recognized, behind nearly all the "Civil War" "scholarship" and that's what almost all the Sesquicentennial commemorations intend to commemorate, in one way or another.

Don't let the occasional token Confederate flag post fool you. Don't let the occasional "fairminded" comments fool you. Look at the totality.

(Note: On August 21, over a week after that post appeared on Facebook, I discovered that it had been referenced, more or less, at the Civil War Crossroads blog, where Brooks Simpson posted but one sentence from it: "The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil." He titled the post "Too Funny to Pass Up." Odd thing, though...he wasn't laughing.
Now, he put that on his blog on August 14 -- three days AFTER he posted (on August 11) an entry titled "An Embarrassment to Southerners and Southern Heritage" wherein he likened me, David Tatum and members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook group, to cockroaches feeding on garbage [and Andy Hall calls my "Huffpoo" comment childish -- but he calls us "odious" and blockquotes Simpson's entire entry, including this churlish cockroach comment, on his blog).
In that same August 11 blog entry, Simpson says,
"But I wonder about giving these fringe elements too much attention, and, after having reviewed some of their blogs and a Facebook page over the past few weeks ... I have come to the conclusion that to feature these groups and blogs is in fact to grant them a sort of recognition and legitimacy that they do not deserve. They simply aren’t responsible participants: indeed, they are rather childish ... I think that to give these fringe ranters undue attention is a disservice to the South and all southerners. Other bloggers may continue to draw attention to these folks, but, aside from highlighting specific examples of research claims, I will let them languish and stew in their own scalding juices of hate and resentment."
And then, a mere three days later, he devotes an entire blog post to me -- albeit a short one, but it identifies me by name and links to my blog. What resolve! What determination! LOL! Either he changed his mind, or else he considers my post about academic interest in white Southern evil to be a specific example of a research claim he's highlighting. LOL! Which do YOU think it is? And who do you suppose endowed him with the authority to up decide who/what deserves legitimacy and recognition? 
BTW, 180 readers, if you enjoyed my attention to Civil War Crossroads, stay tuned. There's more on the way.)

(Photo: C. Ward)

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Stupidizing Southerners

An anti-Southern blogger who shall remain nameless recently posted a link to this book on his blog: Dreaming of Dixie -- How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture by Karen L. Cox. (I'm not linking to the book on Amazon. Find it yourself.)

Now, I know the pitfalls of attempting to review a book I haven't read so I'm not going to attempt that. I simply note that one can draw reasonable conclusions based on a cursory examination -- not only about the book in question, but about larger issues.

Aside from the fact that the cover is truly awful, the theme of this book seems to be that an authentic South doesn't really exist -- it's a figment, created by the imaginations of nonSoutherners motivated to make money off their creation in the popular culture. Until the civil rights movement, the South in popular culture (music, movies, novels) was based on antebellum myth -- pastoral, peopled with happy slaves, cavaliers and belles, living in moonlight and magnolias ... The usual claptrap. Granted, she does give nonSoutherners "credit" (or blame) for this misleading, or at least incomplete, view -- but then she goes on to imply that Southerners themselves bought into this vision of their region.

In other words, those of us who are not inbred scumsucking racist hicks are ig-nernt morons who'll swallow anything that makes our region (and, by extension, us) "look good."

What this illustrates, folks, is a subset of the ongoing mission of evilizing Southerners -- that of stupidizing Southerners.

It's been going on for a while. From a newspaper article in 2000, when Richmond was in a dustup over General Robert E. Lee's inclusion on the Riverwalk flood wall -- just to show you an example of the mission from a decade ago, which illustrates that it hasn't changed much. AP writer Bob Lewis had the byline; his article, Richmond, Va., Struggles With Race, quoted (1) Richmond's mayor, (2) an unidentified "some," and (3) a Mississippi racial reconciliation activist. Maybe some others, but these are the best illustrators:
"Our particular legacy causes us some real problems -- additional difficulties that other communities do not have," said Mayor Timothy Kaine, who is white. "In a lot of ways, the Civil War has been an albatross around our neck."

The problem, some say, is the way many white Southerners romanticize the "Lost Cause," turning it into something out of "Gone With the Wind."

"A lot of people don't want to acknowledge the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause. One reason a lot of people are dishonest about their past is guilt," the mayor said. "Everyone knows slavery was evil, but nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people."

Susan Glisson, interim director of the Institution for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, said: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."
The Civil War has been an albatross around Richmond's neck? Gee, ya think? Let's overlook the obvious likelihood that Ex-mayor Wilder doesn't grasp the intended symbolism of Coleridge's albatross, and consider the words of Pennsylvania journalist Douglas Harper, "...the majority (in the CSA), in spite of internal divisions, put up a herculean effort, won spectacular victories, made shift with what little it had, and held out till the place was literally gutted and blood-drained by its foe."

Does the ex-mayor imagine there would be some reason why its capital would escape the gutted and blood-drained fate the rest of the Confederacy was subjected to?

Everyone knows slavery was evil and we don't acknowledge it out of guilt? I know that slavery must not have been as bad as we're told -- not total evil, as the ex-mayor implies, because, otherwise there would be no need for the campaign to evilize it that's underway today -- the effort to identify its worst components and abuses as the whole of it. This is like saying marriage is spouse abuse, and motherhood is child abuse...

Besides, many of the WPA slave narratives -- words out of the mouths of former slaves -- refute these words out of the former mayor's mouth. Yes, slavery was bad; no, it was not the total evil of the imaginary version being crammed down our throats today for the purpose of evilizing Southerners.

Nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people? Perhaps this is why yankees have developed such widespead amnesia about their ancestors' responsibility for slavery? For slave trading, slave shipping and for processing the products of slave grown agriculture? How much does the role of "guilt" play in their regional and cultural slavery-amnesia?

But of course, that was not what the ex-mayor had in mind, was it? Like so many others, in his eagerness to evilize Southerners past and present, he is completely oblivious to the complicity of the yanks who not only contributed to and benefitted from slavery, but in the world's most breathtaking act and display of hypocrisy, made war on the South ostensibly because of its evil, slave-holdin' ways.

Besides, slave ownership doesn't automatically confer ignobility -- and what about the 90% or so of Southerners who owned no slaves but who sent their sons to defend against the invading armies of the north? What about them, Ex-mayor Wilder?

As bad as that is, Glisson's comments take the trophy for stupidizing Southerners: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."

Now, aside from the fact that there were some -- a relative few -- who actually matched that description among the men who fought for the South, how many white Southerners today have such imaginings? I sure don't. Long before I knew much about the war, I knew my ancestors were Cherokee Indians and "Scotch-Irish" Appalachian mountaineers. I didn't know the particulars (I know some of them now) but I did know that any of my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy likely did NOT leave a column mansion, hoop-skirted moms, sisters and sweethearts and happy slaves to go off and shoot yankees. People who have done the genealogy research likely have a far more realistic view of their Confederate ancestors.

Didn't have to work? Just an example from my own family. My gg-grandfather Tilmon P. Chastain is listed as a "miner" on the 1860 census for Fannin County, Georgia. For the uninitiated, what people in those parts mined was copper. That part of north Georgia (McCaysville) and southeastern Tennessee (Ducktown) is called the Copper Basin. Do a little research on it, and you discover that the mining process destroyed vegetation for fifty miles around the area. Not "did a little damage" but totally destroyed it. Photos of the region at the time show a Mars-like landscape. Not a tree, not a bush, not a blade of grass left alive.

Imagine what the same process did to the lungs and health of the residents.

Didn't have to work? LOL! What a joke, Ms. Glisson, you're funny, a real card, ha-ha.

So now we come to Karen L. Cox and Dreaming of Dixie. I suppose, since it was written by an academic, and published by an academic press, this book falls under the anti-Southern blogger's concept of "scholarship" and may even have something, in his imagination, to do with the war (or at least its "memory").

I admit my prejudice about the book and its author, because of her membership in the academic world. If anything comes to my attention to change my suspicions, I'll change them. But for now, I'm classifying this book as Stupidizing Southerners Lite. This is based on my reading of the cover blurb and product description at Amazon, and a bit of googling about the author. Beyond her membership in academia and her focus on the South, my surface search found nothing to indicate that she's part of the crusade to evilize Southerners; but I didn't find anything to indicate she isn't, either.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Academic leftism and the Civil War

I recently visited an anti-Confederate blog's comment thread and made a few comments, among them the notion that American colleges and universities are not the zones of free thought and inquiry they once were, but now are centers that teach students what to think.

I posted a link to the website, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, The, which monitors restrictions of free speech on college campuses. One blogger is a professor at Arizona State University, and because ASU has a FIRE "green light" rating -- a good record on free speech -- he says I contradicted my own claim.

Not really. Some of you have encountered this idea from me: "If you want to understand ALL the reasons Mississippi seceded from the union, you have to NOT STOP reading after you encounter the word "slavery." The document goes on to list the ways Mississippi had been victimized, with slavery as the excuse, and since they are included in the secession declarations, they are reasons why the state seceded. If not, why were they included? If they were, that makes them as important in the decision to secede as slavery was."

It's the same situation now. You can't stop reading after the "green light" comment; you must read on to get the whole picture.

But first, you have to know what "green light" means. Here is FIRE's note about it:
"Green Light: If FIRE is unable to find a policy that seriously imperils speech, a college or university receives a 'green light.' A green light does not indicate that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that FIRE is not currently aware of any serious threats to students’ free speech rights in the policies on that campus."
Further, as FIRE notes, ASU's "green light" was recently earned. An Arizona State Press editorial from June 2011 (that's this year, folks) notes: "FIRE used to have ASU as one of the worst schools in terms of free speech, but a change in a university policy in January took away viewpoint restrictions in advertising and posting."

In January. As recently as seven months ago, this university, where the anti-Confederate blogger is employed, was one of the worst in terms of free speech.

Visit here and read more about it:

While you're there, read about ASU's recent history of segregated classrooms ("...Native Americans only...") and the university's denial of same, despite proof.

Everybody knows, and studies confirm, that educators are overwhelmingly leftist politically (two thirds to three quarters, depending on the study).

There are many reasons given for this, but the bottom line is that our college and university students, as well as elementary and high school students, are taught by those with a leftist political and cultural bias. And there is no doubt in my mind -- is there in yours? -- that the leftist bias influences what and how they teach to their students.

More about the ivory towers of academia in future posts.

For now, just suffice it to say that some anecdotal evidence can be found in comment threads that follow news articles about the "civil war" and related events of today. The mindless, all-emotion, no-cognition comments screeching that the war was over slavery, and Confederates were traitors made, presumably, by people educated in the USA, testify to the leftist bias they've been taught -- because history offers plenty of primary evidence to the contrary. Students, in my opinion, are just not allowed to be exposed to it.

More about that in future posts, too. So stay tuned.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Civil War Thought Police

We once knew that 1984 was a time span. A year, to be exact -- 365 days stretching between 1983 and 1985. We also knew it was the title of a distopian novel written by George Owell in the latter half of the 1940s. Many pop culture references grew from the novel -- War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength ... Big Brother, doublethink, Newspeak, memory hole -- and thought crime.

In the mid 1960s, when my class studied this novel, these concepts seemed foreign to us as Americans, and wholly unlikely to ever see the light of day in here in the USA.

How wrong we were. We've had thought crimes for several decades; they just have a different name: hate crimes -- selectively applied. And we have Thought Police. They work out of a network of police stations known as colleges and universities and, to a lesser extent, grammar and high schools, in the fourth estate and in government bureaucracy.

When I was coming up, the purpose of school was to teach one how to learn, so that education became a lifelong ability, self-achieved. Today, the purpose of school is to implant and cultivate in you what you must believe. Higher Education in the USA has become the (mostly) taxpayer supported, self-appointed Ministry of Truth. It is not at all surprising that the insidious manipulator of speech and thought that we call Political Correctness found its most welcome home in academia.

There used to be a saying in Old America -- "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."

How far we have strayed from that concept of rights, and live-and-let-live liberty. There are many illustrations of the distance we've traveled. I'm reminded of the news report several months ago of some government bureaucracy victimizing a woman who advertized for a roommate on her church bulletin board because her ad specified a Christian roommate...

But nothing illusrates the push toward totalitarian censorship -- in this case, in academia -- like the recent blog post by "civil war historian" Kevin Levin, urging a researcher into the black Confederates issue to take down her website.

Look at it again, folks. He's telling her to TAKE DOWN HER WEBSITE.

Can you believe the unAmerican audacity of this demand? It's truly breathtaking.

And why the demand? Because she's made a few mistakes in her research? (Who hasn't?) No. Because her work is "incredibly disturbing" and because her "commentary/analysis clearly points to a lack of understanding surrounding the larger issues related to African Americans and the Confederacy" and because she does "not understand how to conduct primary source analysis" and because her work as "been discredited."

All this, of course, is his "interpretation." It means "You didn't do it the way I did, therefore you're wrong. Anybody who doesn't do it the way I did is wrong."

He just can't seem to pile on enough slimy ridicule, which seems to be an increasing element in academia today. (There's even more of it in the comments at his and his cohorts' blogs.) But when you hose it all away, what's left is the incredibly arrogant assumption that only people who believe what he believes about any aspect the war and who arrived at the belief by the same route he did (academia) are right. This is a theme that recurs with the monotony of a pile driver in his blog posts -- and I've only read a fraction of them dating from the past few months.

The dust-up over the Black Confederates research and website in the self-appointed Ministry of Civil War Truth -- the blogs of Kevin Levin, Andy Hall, Brooks Simpson and tagger-along Corey Meyer, and who knows how many others -- will be the subject of more blog posts here at 180 DTS. If you want to see truly incredibly disturbing, stay tuned.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Corey's back for more

I guess he can't get enough of banging his head against a brick wall.

He's posted a challenge to me here:

after I took him to task for his risible “think piece” about the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. You'd think he'd learn. Guess not.

He doesn't take me to task on every point. Just three. Therefore, I will address those three.

Corey writes, “Connie ranks as an amateur historian, whereas I and the other bloggers mentioned (minus Andy since I do not know what he does for a living) are Historians since we do history for a living. I mean really Connie, come on, Brooks D. Simpson is ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University and both Kevin and I are teachers…of history.

Connie responds: defines "historian" as:

his·to·ri·an [hi-stawr-ee-uhn, -stohr-] noun

1. an expert in history; authority on history.
2. a writer of history; chronicler.

Nothing there about "doing history for a living."

However, an interesting note about the suffix "an" follows the definition, and with regard to "historian," it says, "The suffix -an, and its variant -ian also occurs in a set of personal nouns, mainly loanwords from French, denoting one who engages in, practices, or works with the referent of the base noun ( comedian; grammarian; historian; theologian ); this usage is especially productive with nouns ending in -ic ( electrician; logician; technician ). See -ian for relative distribution with that suffix."

Still nothing that makes "doing" it "for a living" as part of the definition. So, I'm as much a historian as Corey, Levin, Hall and Simpson. I'm a writer of history; I work with history. No, I'm not employed to do that, but I nevertheless am a historian.

With the possible exception of Andy, as Corey notes, what these gentlemen do for a living is, um, work at educational institutions -- presumably teaching. What they do for a living is teach. That makes them teachers.

Being a historian, if you accept Corey's definition of "doing history for a living" is not the same thing as doing, say, plumbing for a living. As a plumber, you have to know what you're doing and do it well enough to please the people you're doing it for -- an employer and his customers -- if you're gonna get paid. (Getting paid is basically what "for a living' means.)

To be a historian at an institution of learning just means you have to show some papers that presumably verify that you've studied and learned.

Most people so credentialed get their papers from institutes of higher learning, which as we know, have changed over the last fifty or sixty years from places of free thought and inquiry -- a setting for acquiring knowledge -- to centers of indoctrination.

If you want to see just how the indoctrination works, read some cases from The While there, take a look at the page for Arizona State University, were Mr. Simpson teaches:

Obviously, I'm not as impressed with Corey's concept of "historian" and what it takes to become one as he is.

Next he writes, “First of all I have never disparaged any veteran from any time period. I have no idea how the fact that some of the members of Facebook’s Southern Heritage Preservation group are Vietnam veterans plays a role in my assessment of their historical understanding of the War of the Rebellion. Furthermore, I do not understand how my military career or lack thereof plays a role in my ability to interpret the past. There really is only one answer…it does not…and Connie knows it. But in an attempt to pacify Connie’s sense of honor I will mention that my family has taken part in just about every war this country has been involved in and then some. I have had ancestors fight in wars from King Phillip’s War in the 1600?s to the French & Indian War, The American Revolution, War of the Rebellion, World War II and Vietnam. And No I have no military service, but that does not exclude me from being able to comment on things of history."

Connie responds:

My mention of the Vietnam vets is because they have experience with war -- the same as Confederate veterans, and Union ones, too. The technology may have advanced, but the horror, the dying, the loss of war -- those don't change. One doesn't get that because one has relatives who were in war. One gets it because one has experienced it personally.

Corey says, "Furthermore, I do not understand how my military career or lack thereof plays a role in my ability to interpret the past. There really is only one answer…it does not…and Connie knows it."

I completely disagree. Men who have experienced war first hand are truly war historians in a way that the inexperienced cannot be. They lived the history -- literally did it for a living. Corey's appeal to his military ancestors doesn't appease me. They don't give him the knowledge-by-experience that our SHPG Vietnam vets have.

Of course, Corey's lack of military experience doesn't exclude him from commenting on history. My lack of military experience doesn't exclude me from commenting on it, either. The difference is that I willingly acknowledge that their experience gives these vets the status of war historian in a way that Corey does not, cannot, have. I suspect Corey doesn't recognize their status as war historians-by-experience.

The last thing he complains about is my comment, “Some of the Deep South states seceded over slavery, among other things (the other things are listed in their Declarations of Causes but you have to not stop reading after you encounter the word “slavery.”) The states of the upper South seceded because D.C., in violation of the founding principles of the USA, was planning a military invasion of the South. The fighting was because an army invaded the Southern states — but that army did not invade to free slaves, so the South could not have been fighting to defend slavery.

Corey responds, "The last sentence defies logic. How can one even type such a blatantly false statement…It simply does not make any sense. Since Connie challenge me about my military service, I too challenge her to explain this last point. I seriously doubt she can."

(Loooooooooooong pause.)

Oh. My. Goodness. People, I must humbly apologize. Corey is right.

Levin, Andy Hall, Simpson, all the anti-Confederate bloggers and South-bashers ... ARE RIGHT! They've been right all along!

We Southerners, who have always maintained that the war was about more than just slavery - WE'VE BEEN WRONG!

How could we have been so wrong? How could we have been so duped?

It's all there, right there, in Abraham Lincoln's proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. He called them up to march South and free the slaves! He did! He did! Here's his proclamation, word for word!

Whereas slaves are being held in the United States, and have been for some time past, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by people too numerous to be compelled by ordinary judicial procedings or the powers vested in the marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in me by my ego and my big-government agenda, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to free said slaves and oppress their oppressors, despite there being no law that justifies said action, and doing so violates the Constitution of the United States of America. I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, have deemed that in this situation, my decision is just and right, and transcends the Constitution.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to free said slaves, despite there being no law to justify it, and despite there being little love for slaves in the free states and little concern for their wellbeing.

I deem it proper to order the freeing of said slaves for the purpose of divesting Southerners and their region of their wealth, and preventing their ability to generate more wealth, and transferring said wealth and accompanying power (but not the freed slaves) to the northern states of the union, and the northern people.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by my gargantuan ego in combination with my limitless ambition, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

Okay. Just kidding. I made that up. In Aby-baby's actual proclamation there ain't one word, not a freakin' syllable -- not even a tiny, freakin' syllable -- about freein' slaves. To say the federal army came South for the purpose of freeing slaves is like saying the USA got involved in WWII to liberate Jews from Nazi concentration camps. Yes, slaves and concentration camp inmates were freed, but that was not why the fighting started.

Lincoln called up troops to bully the seceded states back in the Union, not to liberate slaves. If that had been his purpose, he wouldn't have waited so long to issue the Emancipation Proclamation; and he would have done something that wasn't just for show, as the EP was. If the union army invaded the South to free slaves, Lincoln wouldn't have told Gen. Freemont to return to slavery the slaves he'd freed in Missouri. And on and on.

Lastly, studies of the letters of federal soldiers reveal that the reason for fighting they listed most was to preserve the union. One such study was done by James McPherson, a conventionally credentialed historian, so Corey ought to be impressed....

Like so many people, Corey-the-historian apparently can't distinguish between secession and war. This is sorta on the order of not being able to tell the difference between resigning from your club ... and getting into a brawl with the remaining members and burning down the club house.

As I stated, some of the Southern states seceded to protect slavery -- among other things. But they fought because an army was marching South to kill them and their familes and servants, and force them back into the union at the point of a bayonet.

Lincoln's actual proclamation:

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the a ggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consiste n

tly with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, and destruction of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Corey attempts intellectual analysis

Corey Meyer has just posted a pseudo-intellectual think-piece -- his idea, I guess, of analysis -- about the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. I really don't have a lot of time for his silliness, but I had to answer... (Grammar and spelling are as they appear on his blog; this is an exactly copy-paste.)

Corey sez: In the past few days there has been an intense exchange of comments between several Civil War Historian bloggers and the Southern Heritage Defense supporters. You can read the exchanges here, here and here. The latter site has been very active today (8-6-11).

What I want to do in this post is try and shed some light on what is going on in the minds of those Southern Heritage Defense supports

Connie replies: A prerequisite would be for you to figure out what's going on in yours first.

Corey: Any discussion on the minds of Southern Heritage Defenders (SHD) must begin with the current political climate of the United States.

Connie: Sez who? And why?

Corey: I think it is fair to say that anyone reading these words knows the current polarization of the country over the debt limit and government spending.

Connie: Possibly. On the other hand, a lot of people in America don't pay much attention to national politics, and may barely have a grasp of it.

Corey: Also, many would agree some changes are needed in Washington to help this country out of the economic troubles we are currently facing.

Connie: "Economic troubles" is quite an artful euphemism for being so deeply in debt that we'll never be able to pay it off and therefore face economic ruin/collapse as a country.

Corey: Sadly much of what SHD deal with is a combination of present troubles and the troubles facing the country in the 1860′s.

Connie: I'm afraid not. You're confabulating, here, Corey.

Corey: We historians call this presentism…the applying of today’s attitudes and experiences to the past. SHD are unknowing experts of this and I shall explain how and why they do this .

Connie: Actually, defines presentism as, "the doctrine that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) are presently in the course of being fulfilled." You appear to be mistaken about presentism, Corey.

Corey: The SHD is someone who has an unshakable love of the Southern Confederacy that existed for only four years between 1861 and 1865. However the Southern Confederacy has lived on in the minds of people since their devastating loss at the hands of the Federal Government in 1865. The story of the reason the South went to war in 1861 has been altered by the Lost Cause Myth that sprung forth in the later half of the 19th century. This myth removed the issue of slavery from the history and made the Confederate soldiers struggle for “independence” its central them. It is, therefore, no wonder the SHD clings so tightly to the memory of the Southern soldier. The Southern soldier represents all that was good in the South during the war.

Connie: We psychologists call this "projection," Corey. You believe what you've just written, so you project this belief onto others. (Yes, I'm as much a psychologist as you are a historian. I'm as much a historian as you are, too. As much as Levin and Hall and Simpson are, as well.)

Corey: Now that the Lost Cause Myth has been dispelled and slavery returned to its rightful place in the history of the war, SHD have come to the rescue of the Southern soldier and his reputation. To think that Southern soldiers would have fought for something other than hearth and home is unthinkable to these folks.

Connie: It's not unthinkable to me. I know there were many reasons why they fought. Ye of narrow minds are the ones who try to narrow it down to one cause, usually slavery.

Corey: What SHD fail to recognize is that those soldiers fought for what the Confederacy was fighting for and that was slavery.

Connie: See? Diddin I tell ya?

Corey: I could go on and on here about the causes of secession and the writings of the Secession Commissioners from the South, but that is for a different time and place.

Connie: Sorry, that is not correct. Some of the Deep South states seceded over slavery, among other things (the other things are listed in their Declarations of Causes but you have to not stop reading after you encounter the word "slavery.") The states of the upper South seceded because D.C. in violation of the founding principles of the USA, was planning a military invasion of the South. The fighting was because an army invaded the Southern states -- but that army did not invade to free slaves, so the South could not have been fighting to defend slavery.

Corey: SHD find themselves in a precarious position.

Connie: Not me. My position is just fine.

Corey: They on one hand want to honor their ancestor soldiers and keep their memory untarnished while at the same time deny the big overreaching reason these men went to war.

Connie: The overarching reason they went to war was to defend family and home from a barbaric invading army.

Corey: During this process today’s displeasure with how things are being run in Washington overlap.

Connie: What claptrap. They do not overlap. The USA, while violating its founding principles to invade the South, was not the global bullying empire it is today. If you think the two situations are similar, the only thing similar is that the American empire was in its infancy back then and today it is a huge, strapping monstrosity of a bully.

Corey: They see their Confederate ancestors struggle against the “evil empire” as their struggle against, ironically the first black President who happens to be a Democrat.

Connie: Struggling against the first black President? You get more delusional with every paragraph, Corey. What difference does it make what color he is? He's presiding over, and assisting, the economic collapse of the country. You're fine with that? I thought you were this big USA supporter and defender. What most people are doing is struggling to keep their heads above water, economically.

Corey: Therefore if secession was legal and the best remedy for what ailed the country in 1860, something similar is good today. This is what prompts them to claim anyone who disagrees with their view of the Civil War to be a revisionist or Communist/Marxist.

Connie: Ah, who claims that? I only claim someone is a communist/Marxist if they promote, espouse or seek to bring about communism or Marxism. Most of the ones I've encountered have little knowledge about the War -- they just have the propagandist view of it.

Corey: So, in my humble opinion, to save face not only for themselves but their ancestors as well they must root for the United States to fall apart. That way they and their ancestors will be vindicated for what happened 150 years ago. For them there is no other course to prove that what their ancestors did during the War of the Rebellion was correct…or as the Kennedy Brothers say..”The South Was Right”. The one thing I find ironic is that their worship of Bobby Lee and all things Confederate seems even more diehard than the admiration for Lincoln by those they refer to as the “cult” of Lincoln.

Connie: Your humble(?) opinion is wrong. The USA is falling apart; what we say or don't say won't change that. It is past the point of no return. We are rapidly falling to third-world economic status. And yes, it was a long-haul process that began with Lincoln's destruction of the founders federated republics. And if everything the Confederates did wasn't correct, the union was even more incorrect, Corey. Whatever criticism you want to level at the South, the same and worse can be said of the north.

Corey: Oh well…I really should not try to understand them, but try to empathize with them…after all they did lose the war.

Connie: Exactly, you should not try to understand because you are not equipped to. Your cognition is way too distorted by your prejudice and your rigid subjectivity to understand anyone who believes the slightest bit differently than you.

BTW, Corey. How do you get "SHD" out of Southern Heritage Preservation Group?

Folks, one of the things you need to realize when reading this claptrap hooey from Corey is that a number of members of the SHPG are Vietnam vets. Regardless of whether you agree with the U.S. policy of "containment" in Southeast Asia, the men of today who went over there as boys, teenagers -- the average age was 19 -- put their lives on the line for their country. Fifty-thousand of them lost their lives. Thousands of others faced a host of medical problems (and still do) thanks to their own government's disregard for their health and lives over there. And the civilian culture largely gave them the back of its hand across their jaws.

I challenge Corey to tell us what is his military service to this country he falls on his face and worships. Let's hear it, Corey. Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines? Name, rank and serial number. Years of service. Duty stations. Type of discharge....

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Who, me? No way!

The basketball game is going fast and furious. A player is dribbling while he lopes down the court toward the goal, a defender running along side him, slapping at the ball, bumping against him to knock him off balance, and suddenly the official's whistle blows. He points at the defender and raises his hand to stop the clock, then signals pushing/charging.

The defender's face registers complete and utter surprise -- shock, really -- and he throws his hands out at his sides in an exaggerated display of innocence. As he looks from the ref to his coach to the crowd in the stands, the exaggerated innocence takes on a touch of righteous indignation.

Now, he fouled the guy. He knows it. The ref knows it. The coach knows it. Everybody in the stands knows it. But he still plays innocent when caught.

This is exactly the scenario that comes to mind when Mr. Civil War Memory attempts to defend himself from charges of South-bashing. He does it -- everybody knows he does it, and sometimes he gets called on it. And he throws out his hands in a display of exaggerated innocence, and offers up truly ludicrous "proof" of his innocence.

In one recent thread on his blog, he wrote, "No one here has attempted to turn this into a South bashing crusade. We are all aware of the North’s long and violent history surrounding slavery and the slave trade."

Really? His entire blog is a South-bashing crusade, and while he may be aware of the north's long and violent history surrounding slavery and the slave trade, he manages to do a supreme job of ignoring and yeah-yeah-yeah-style downplaying it.

In the same thread, he wrote a post that included the phrase, "the darker side of slavery," which I repeated in a response. Now, when *I* used that phrase, I was jumped on by a couple of his sycophants ("And what exactly was the bright side of slavery?" and "Slavery had a bright side?").

Mr. Memory himself came back at me with, "You said: 'Perhaps it is because the darker side of the institution of slavery is often dishonestly portrayed as the totality of it.' It implies that there was a lighter side. Perhaps you should take more responsibility for your choice of words. Exactly what aspect of the 'institution of slavery' fell outside of this darker side?"

Well, of course I had to remind him with this post:
Mr. Levin, in your post tagged “Kevin Levin August 1, 2011at 3:55 pm” you said:

“…They were not responding to the specifics of the show, but the broadest themes surrounding the darker side of the institution of slavery….”

Seems to me YOU are the one implying a lighter side. Perhaps you are the one who should take more responsibility for your choice of words.

I was responding to what you posted, and I didn’t imply anything about a “lighter” side of slavery — I said flat out that advocating for a more **realistic** view of slavery is to be called a “slavery apologist.”

Since you originated the “darker side of slavery” phrase, why don’t you tell us what fell outside of it? In your opinion.

So three of them -- which includes him -- jump on ME for using a phrase HE originated. Hmmm... That looks a lot like bias, practicing a double standard, and just being all around hypocrites.

This man is so transparently anti-South, anti-Confederate -- not to mention anti-fairness and anti-objectivity -- that only an idiot could believe he truly sees himself as fair and objective.

No, he knows exactly what he's doing. He feels justified in being unfair and subjective because he is convinced the South was/is morally deficient and the north morally superior. They aren't -- but the north and its self-appointed spokespersons have to maintain their warm- fuzzy illusions of moral superiority, and if that requires self-delusion...

Call 'em on their fouls, and watch the exaggerated displays of fake, "Who, me?" innocence. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

(Photo: U.S. Navy, Public Domain)