Occidental Dissent Answers Connie ChastainOnce again, Simpson is seeing, or purporting to see, similarities between people and the ideas they hold, for the purpose of guilt-by-association tar-smearing, while ignoring the differences, which are what's truly important. It's possible even Brooks and I agree on some things, but what's important, what distinguishes us, is what we disagree about.
This makes for very interesting reading.
By the way, Mr. Wallace displays a Confederate Battle Flag on his blog. It is my understanding that the people such as those who populate the gift that keeps on giving is determined to protest the appropriation of that flag by white supremacist groups. So where’s the protest? Does the lack of protest support Ms. Chastain’s argument about the ineffectiveness of the group? Or does it document its lack of sincerity, especially in light of the willingness of members of the group to attack other people with whom they disagree?
Pass the popcorn, please.
(For example, Wallace is an Auburn fan, per his Facebook profile; and I'm an Alabama fan from way back -- back before Wallace was even born ... back when Keith Jackson used to call the games at Legion Field in Birmingham. I made my hero in Southern Man a halfback for Alabama Crimson Tide playing for Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. Oh, one other thing ... Twenty-one to Zereaux. Just sayin'.)
I didn't know about the blog post about me at Occidental Dissent until I saw a post about it at Crossroads. I would attempt to post a response at Crossroads, but Simpson would just send it to the cornfield, so I'll answer here.
After reading the latest attempted smear of me at Crossroads, I went over to OD and read the entry Simpson referenced. Having visited that site once or twice recently, I found that there's a lot I disagree with Mr. Wallace about. This most recent visit there confirmed that disagreement. I suspect most of the disgreement is based on differences that result, ultimately, from my being a Christian and his being an atheist.
While I don't agree with or approve of Mr. Wallace's views on race, I have to acknowledge a couple of things about his one blog post about me.
First, it really isn't about me. Text Tally tells me the post at OD comprises 2295 words. Seventy (70) of them, distributed in three short paragraphs, reference me, but only one of them is actually about me. It reads: "Connie Chastain is a nice Southern lady of some notoriety in what can best be described as the “Southern Heritage Preservation movement.”" The second paragraph includes a copy-paste of a question I asked in a blog post here at 180 DTS, and the third is Wallace's mis-naming my question the Chastain Challenge. And that's it. The remaining 2225 words comprise his viewpoints about the cause and solution to the problem -- not me or mine.Beyond what I skimmed on these few recent visits, I haven't read Occidental Dissent, so I don't know whether Mr. Wallace shows the same contempt for truth that Simpson does in his efforts to smear people. For example, Simpson says: "It is my understanding that the people such as those who populate the gift that keeps on giving is determined to protest the appropriation of that flag by white supremacist groups. So where’s the protest?" (...people...is...? Subject-verb disagreement can be so ... jarring ... when it comes from a narcissistic academic.)
Second, however much I may disagree with Mr. Wallace, I have to acknowledge that he doesn't seem to be motivated by the same hatred and desire to smear that motivates Brooks Simpson when he post about me.
Actually, if you read the Southern Heritage Preservation Group, you will find disapproval of use of Confederate symbols by white supremacist groups, not a determination to protest as Simpson mischaracterizes it -- again with the motivation, I'm convinced, of hatred and a desire to smear. However, the group's prohibiting membership to people suspected of association with, or support for, racist groups, due to comments and symbols on their Facebook profiles is, indeed, a form of protest. Since I'm no longer in the group, I have no access to the private messages of the officers when they discuss and decide on denying or revoking membership, but I can't imagine that policy has changed much since I left the group.
And what of these activities by the group Simpson doesn't know about? He's like a little kid -- if he doesn't know it, it hasn't happened or doesn't exist. See, Simpson is a totalitarian dictator at Crossroads, as I am at 180 DTS blog. We are the sole authority at our blogs. But the SHPG is run by a group of administrators who share duties and must confer and reach consensus about decisions. And they're not all online 24-hours a day. As it was before I left the group, no one person can zap people and posts to the SHPG Cornfield, as Simpson so loves to do at his little fiefdom.
As for Southern heritage types in general, and SHPG folks in particular, attacking people -- the "attacks" are almost always defense. At most, they're counter-attacks. Surely a person with Simpson's intelligence and education can see that -- unless ego and agenda have created blinders nobody could see through....