News and Notes: April 11, 2012
Apr 11
A look around and about …
1. Someone thinks that we should celebrate John Wilkes Booth as a Confederate hero who did the right thing.
I don't think so. I have no admiration for an assassin, but then, I'd have no admiration for this character even if he hadn't assassinated Aby-baby.
2. Someone can’t get anything right. This blog was never named “Civil War Crossroads”; the address (cwcrossroads.wordpress.com) reflects the fact that “crossroads” as an address was already taken. She also got my job title wrong: her stalking me on the web led her to a rendering on an ASU website that is in serious error (these documents date from 2011). My correct title can be found elsewhere. Then again, this person confesses she doesn’t know her history, anyway, so why should this be different? But, so long as she spends her time ranting away, she’s not exactly serving the cause of “Confederate heritage,” now, is she? And perhaps that’s my secret plan after all. Now I have to ask my friends in Washington to start visiting her blog again. Shhh.
LOL! Doing a Google image search is stalking? Talk about paranoid.; Ho, this from a man who constantly rakes Facebook's proSouthern forums with a fine-toothed comb looking for posts he misconstrue and posters he can lie about.
Regardless of the name of the blog, (petty, petty, petty point, perfesser) there are no more Union generals in the header, and rather than the civil war -- or the "history" mentioned in the tagline -- the emphasis at Crossroads is now on bashing whoever the perfesser doesn't like, or those whose views he disagrees with, usually Confederate heritage advocates and primarily me. The perfesser is also repeating his currently favorite lie. I've never, ever said I don't know "my" history, or history in general. I challenge anyone to find where, on Facebook or my blog, I have said thus. Nebber said it folks. The perfesser lies.
3. Someone can’t get anyone to read her books. How to remedy that? Why, by plastering the Confederate Battle Flag on the cover, thus commercializing that banner yet again! Goodness, she is just like Ed Sebesta!
Actually, it is the proSouthern community who hasn't read my first book in the numbers that I would like. Romance readers (usually conservative women) have read it, liked it and given it good reviews. Moreover, if I'd had the money to promote it, it would have found more proSouthern readers. After all, as P.T. Barnum said, "Without promotion, something terrible happens. Nothing." As it is, only a handful of people know it exists.
Moreover, some commercialization of the Confederate battle flag is not a problem for me, as long as said commercialization does not dishonor it. My novels do not dishonor the flag -- quite the opposite.
And again, the humor-impaired professor doesn't realize that the Confederate battle flag on the cover of the second book in the series dates back to about 2007, before I was on Facebook or had ever heard of the perfesser. This cover reflects what happens in the story -- the three main characters become Confederate advocates in their teens...and are attacked for it with lies not unlike the ones the perfesser perpetuates -- only these lies have very serious potential consequences for these innocent boys -- thirty years in the state penitentiary for crimes they didn't commit.
There is nothing about Confederate heritage in the first book of the series, Southern Man -- hence, no flag on the cover, and I'm not planning to put one on it. 4. And speaking of commercializing the Confederacy … here’s another proposal to cash in on it. I’m sure this will go over well all over the country.
Sounds like a good idea, to me.
5. Someone’s frustrated. “We can’t save our heritage posting our opinions on Facebook.” But don’t let that stop you.
Right. Posting opinions on Facebook does serve a constructive purpose ... but saving our heritage will depend on organization and activism to defeat those working so hard to eradicate it, like the perfesser...
So what are we to make of a man with a responsible position at a state university, whatever his title may be, who gets his rocks off trolling Facebook looking for posts by people he hates that he can lie about on his blog? Remember, he attacks. He admittedly GOES LOOKING for things and people to attack. I defend or counterattack.
Attacking -- the more brutally the better -- is what damnyankees do. Defending is what Confederates do.
______________________________
Book cover designs by C. Chastain. Photos and comp images copyrighted by C. Chastain and various microstock photo companies and their photographers.
I can't imagine telling someone from Oregon, Maine or some foreign country how to celebrate their heritage...even if I were to move to one of those places. I guess it's all due the disease known as Yankee Busybody Syndrome.
ReplyDeletePerfesser, do you have "YBS?"
There's a cure for it. Want me to tell you what it is?
1. How can the point about the URL address by petty when it is a retort to a post you made about it? Petty retort to a petty attack maybe?
ReplyDelete2. Winning apparently is what the Yankees did, losing is what the Confederates did.
Rob, my point is that his blog used to put more emphasis on the civil war; now it puts more emphasis on attacking Southern heritage, even though it still has "cw" in the URL. He took down the pic of the union generals once in the header, apparently so visitors to his blog wouldn't expect civil war emphasis in the text. His pointing out that the name of the blog is still the same while ignoring these changes in content, theme and tone is ... petty.
ReplyDeleteBrooks also stated that the "cw" did not actually represent the "civil war" but rather the use of URL names in order to achieve exclusivity. I, as well as Kevin Levi and Corey Meyer, have adjusted the banners on our blogs as well at one time or another. What is your point? How is that conclusive evidence to support your point? Is this the justification that Brooks is somehow attempting to bring down "Southern Heritage" on his own?
ReplyDeleteYour argument of "petty" is lacking in justification.
Ms. Chastain,
ReplyDeleteI would like to say, that from the outsider point of view, you sound obsessed. It’s clear that you’ve spend many many blog posts writing about other people’s posts than writing anything of substance. Has it ever occurred to you that you’re always on the defensive because you’re clearly wrong? I want to refer you to a much lengthier comment I left on Rob Baker’s site because I'm not going to re-write it. However, I did want to make the point that you’re clearly distracted by silly things rather than focused on making your point. For example, I’m a friend of Rob’s and I usually talk to him about the trivial things posted on the Southern Heritage blogs, like yours, and I worked for the Department of Justice until very recently. So, I was likely the person who’s IP address you referenced in the previous post – about the same kind of thing you’re still going on about here. I also often pass around things I find entertaining to others in the area – so don’t worry no one in Civil Rights was looking for hate crime propaganda or anything – I was just reading those things that were being referenced in conversations.
Isabel, I would like to say that, if your point of view is that of an outsider, maybe I sound obsessed to you because you don't understand what my blog is for.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm on the defensive (which is not always the case) it's not because I'm wrong, clearly or unclearly, It's because I'm responding to ATTACKS. That's mostly what "other people's posts" are -- attacks.
BTW, I consider defending against these attacks on my region and its people, heritage and culture to be quite substantive. Yes, I sometimes focus on silly things. It's called satire, which is a form of social commentary that dates back centuries before the birth of Christ.
If you want me to read your lengthier comment, bring it over here. No rewriting necessary; this is the digital era. Just do a highlight-copy-paste. Although I must tell you, if it's the same kind of grammatically chaotic mish-mash Rob ususally posts, I'll either ignore it or rip it to shreds.
Thank you for commenting. Have a nice day.
Reinforcements, Rob? LOL!
ReplyDeleteActually she just saw it on my feed last night. I don't really need reinforcements Connie. Especially since your breed has been dying out since 1953.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, not my feed. She followed the links from my recent posts below.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.historicstruggle.com/2012/04/yankee-that-scared-connie-chastain.html
http://www.historicstruggle.com/2012/04/180-degrees-true-south-is-running-from.html
I do find it funny that you "rip" anything of mine to shreds Connie. Your lack of historical knowledge demonstrates quite well that you are basically absent minded when it comes to historical analysis.
Ms. Chastain,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I have better things to do than to participate in the “I’m more Southern Racist than thou” Olympics. In a moment of boredom and mixed up in conversation I decided to express my thoughts, and while I knew they wouldn’t make a dent in the incredibly personal and silly discourse I hit “post” anyways. Don’t worry, it probably won’t happen again.
I understand what your blog is for, Ms. Chastain. It’s for the promotion of a preposterous ideology. It’s not, however, for defending something that in fact isn’t under attack – your Southern-ness? By all means, we live in America so be a racist and a classist, but don’t be surprised when a majority of reasonable people disagree with you.
I also understand the difference between disagreement and attacks. However, I’m not sure you do. Someone pointing out giant gaps in the logic or “historical” facts described on blogs like yours doesn’t mean they are attacking you personally. Those people are calling you and others out on the BS that runs freely through these “Heritage” blogs.
I grew up in the region and culture you speak of and idolize, and I know its history and its people well. By the sound of your blog and your opinions though, you lived in a radically different time and place – or would like to anyways. Good luck with that.
I don’t much care if you read my lengthier comment. My guess is you’ll disagree, attack, and “satirize (another word you don’t seem to understand).” It’s ok to be embarrassed, and it’s ok to admit you’re wrong – but I’m not holding my breath. The world will continue to turn, and eventually your advocacy will more obsolete (as it should be) and your mish-mash will be forgotten.
Me, I’ll move on with my life and worry about more pressing, not to mention real, matters. Have a nice day as well and thank you for allowing me to comment.
P.S. - You misunderstand my conversations with Rob. Our friendship is mostly based on disagreements lol. So reinforcements, nah. When we agree – something is very very obvious.
^ this is true.
ReplyDeleteI can attach emails if you'd like.
Rob, the attacks on my heritage and culture that I'm defending against are happening NOW, so that's not about history.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, I do rip your attacks to shreds.
What is my "breed," Rob? The term marks you as a racist, unless you're giving it one of your cockamamie, off-the-wall, out-of-the-blue definitions nobody can find at dictionary.com.
Piece of advice Ms. Chastain - don't walk into these: "What is my "breed," Rob?" arguments. The answer is not going to be pretty.
ReplyDeleteNo one is attacking your culture but yourself. You are promoting a stereotypical version of the South. That's the problem. No one cares that you, personally, are a Southern and proud woman. What they're annoyed with is your interpretation of facts and history of the place that you love.
Isabel.
ReplyDeleteScram.
Hahahahahahahahah! Oh man. What a great Friday. I guess I hit a nerve? Don't worry Ms. Chastain. I won't bother you again. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThat is the same tired argument that has been going on since the 1980's or so when the League of the South formed Connie. Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteYou rip my attacks to shreds about as much as a snowball's chance in hell.
What is my "breed," Rob? The term marks you as a racist, unless you're giving it one of your cockamamie, off-the-wall, out-of-the-blue definitions nobody can find at dictionary.com.
Breed (noun)
1. A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation.
2. A kind; a sort: a new breed of politician; a new breed of computer.
3. Offensive A person of mixed racial descent; a half-breed.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breed
The term doesn't imply a racist. Unless of course that is your "off the wall definition." I am certain it stands on its own accord. I liked the deflection though Connie. Ultimately a logical fallacy.