No Sensayuma Except Ridicule

Andy Hall is tickled that heritage folks would get upset with the image of RuPaul in a Confederate flag dress without knowing who RuPaul is. Apparently Andy knew who he was, and found nothing offensive about his disrespect of the flag and the soldiers it represents.  Of course not. He glories in spouting the same disrespect. That's the underlying purpose of his blog.

It doesn't surprise me that a proConfederate commenter at Crossroads had to do an Internet search to learn who RuPaul is. For some reason, for Andy, that negates any legitimate claim to disapproval of the image showcased at the Museum of the Confederacy in Appomattox. The display was removed before the museum's opening.

Ah, no, Mr. Hall. The person wearing the dress could be an anonymous stock-photo model -- heck, it could be a plaster department store mannequin -- and the purpose of the dress, the wearing of it, the photo, and the showcasing at the museum, would all come through, loud and clear. That the model happens to be a degenerate public figure contributing to the decline of the morals of the country just adds insult to injury. 

One of Andy's visitors, a Pat Young, notes, "How exactly is Ru Paul any more outrageous than some of the Confedecrap that I’ve seen Southrons attach the battle flag to over the years? I’ve seen bikinis, bras, etc. with the flag. Is it just the LGBT angle they find so disturbing, or is it Ru’s race?"

Hmmmm.... I wonder how Young knows that everyone doing said attaching were Southrons....  and I wonder if Young completely missed the fact that the bikinis, bras, etc., aren't on a billboard created especially as a display for the opening of the Museum of the Confederacy....

In any case, Andy's posts in a comment thread at Crossroads make the same point -- little kids wouldn't know who RuPaul is. Therefore, showcasing the image at the museum wouldn't have an effect on them unless their parents make a big deal out of it.

Never mind that they'll probably asked if they don't know, and never mind that their questions will have to be answered and explained honestly -- unless Andy approves of lying to children. Or perhaps he thinks all kids are like his kids, who evidently pay no attention to anything unless their parents make a big deal out of it.

In fact, kids who would have asked, and were told the truth, would have come away from the display with the notion -- which Waite Rawls no doubt intended for them to have -- that it's okay to associate the Confederate flag with sexual degeneracy rather than with soldiers who fought valiantly and died horribly to protect their homes, families and communities from a brutal military invasion force.

To the heritage advocate who posted at Crossroads, Andy asks, "So now, having said that, do you repudiate the suggestion — even as a “joke” — that the director of the MoC should be lynched? (That’s a yes or no question, BTW.)"

I'll be glad to answer it, but first, Andy, why did you put the word joke in irony-quotes? Do you sincerely think the person who suggested it wasn't joking? That, rather than being a frivolous comment made in very poor taste, it was meant as an actual threat? If it had been an actual threat, yes, it would require actual repudiation. Since it wasn't, would it somehow satisfy you if somebody had said, "That's a frivolous comment in real poor taste."

As it is, it is no more a threat than the picante sauce commercial where the reaction of the cowboy to sauce made in ... "New York City !" "Git a rope." Did you think that commercial should be repudiated, Mr. Hall? 

My response to Andy's comment at Crossroads, which will probably never see the light of day:

Stupid parents, wanting to protect their children from such images. Where have they been? This is the Age of Multicultural Enlightenment --all viewpoints are equally respectable, huh, Mr. Hall? Cross-dressing transvestites are promoting just another acceptable  -- even laudable -- lifestyle. Nothing insulting toward the flag or those who honor the men who fought under it intended by that paragon of virtue, Ru Paul, huh?

But apparently not everyone views it that way, and seeing a humongous picture like that in a museum *might* cause children to ask about it --ya think? -- and then it will have to be explained to them.

What is "Ru Paul's Drag Race"?  It may not be regular viewing in your house, but you knew what it is.  I never heard of it until I read your comment.

As to the "references" to lynching you linked to (all both of them) what's interesting to me is your "concern" over rhetoric nobody takes seriously -- even you, which you acknowledge with your use of the term "casual." I also note there are 21 responses to the post at SHPG, that you linked to, most of them outraged at the museum's blatant disrespect, but only one out of the 21 references lynching -- but you ignore the 20 others to zero in on that one for mention. Moreover, SHPG is an open group on Facebook, but the other reference you linked to is in a forum almost nobody knows about or sees but its own members -- and civil-war thought police such as yourself.

Basically, you're doing exactly what I said -- lumping.  Searching for and then showcasing the most negative thing you can find -- which nobody takes seriously -- and attempting to smear an entire movement with it --all because some of the people in said movement don't see everything exactly like you think they should. Where on earth did people get the idiotic idea that they are entitled to their own opinions? Crazy, huh? Everybody ought to know by now that they should conform their education, beliefs, viewpoints, thoughts and feelings to the Levin/Hall/Simpson Civil War Thought Police...huh, Andy.

Apparently all viewpoints *aren't* equally respectable, after all.

_______________________________________________

 Update

Reply blast from the Perfesser in... 3...2...1

Talk about right on cue... LOL, you really CAN'T post about me without lying, can you?   There's no outrage at my blog post above. Satire? Yeah. Sarcasm? No doubt. But outrage? LOL.

So now it's "extremist" to disapprove of the deliberate act of Waite Rawls to use an image of a degenerate transvestite in a Confederate flag dress to denigrate Confederate soldiers in a place that is supposed to commemorate the Confederacy.

One wonders what Rawls would have to do before you'd be outraged, or even moved to faint disapproval.  In fact, there's probably no insult bad enough to earn your outrage, is there, Perfesser?  Your hatred of the Confederacy, and of contemporary heritage advocates, would no doubt delight in the insults; and the worse they were, the happier they'd  make you.

Ya know, Perfesser, maybe you need to stop haranguing the "blissful ignorance" of the Flaggers for criticizing the museum without visiting it, or the Crawfish for the same thing, until you stop criticizing my books without having read them. Otherwise, it makes you look like a colossal hypocrite. Oh, wait.  You are a colossal hyp--  Never mind.

If being blasted is all the evidence necessary that one is doing something right -- I'm doing way more right than you are. You get return-blasted by me not for doing something right, but for blasting lies about me and heritage advocates. If you want them to stop, all you gotta do is quit initiating them....

BTW, the video you tried and failed to link to is thoroughly dull-witted and totally devoid of any creativity.  No wonder you were attracted to it.  Here's the proper link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWHOIowtzXA