Where Petulance and Arrogance Meet

Lower-echelon Dixie-basher and self-appointed civil war thought cop Rob Baker has grown increasingly petulant since I enable comment moderation on my blog. Apparently, he has no problem with his buddies doing it -- only when I do it.

In my blog post of May 22, I pointed out the what the difference would be between former Confederate states, counties or municipalities (1) flying a rainbow flag and (2) acknowledging a government and nation they were once a part of by flying that nation's flag -- on public property.

He left a comment, "When exactly was there a new southern nation. I know of a rebellion, or perhaps a Southern independence movement, but a country?"

As if what he "knows," or claims to know, is universal truth. The Confederate States of America was a sovereign nation-state with a government, a constitution, territory defined by borders, constituent states, citizens, an organized economy and treasury, foreign and domestic trade, a military. That it was unnecessarily and brutally warred upon from its inception doesn't negate any of this.

As Douglas Harper has so ably noted, "Any nation fighting for survival from the cradle, invaded and blockaded all its life, doesn't get a chance to express the finer points of democracy and civil culture. If all we knew of Americans was how they actually behaved from 1776 to 1783, we wouldn't think much of our sense of "democracy" or commitment to "personal freedom."

Rob finished, "And what of this country's population that had allegiance to their home and not the country? What about those in East Tennessee that did not want to leave but were forced to under occupation?"

Again, Douglas Harper more than adequately explains it --

The CSA was a bid to form an independent nation out of a region that had a common enemy and some collective regional identity. But the CSA comprised many sub-cultures (a few of them didn't want to be there), and it had a leadership that sometimes confused self-interest with public policy. It had its fair share of charlatans and profiteers and criminal opportunists. It had some brilliant generals and a great many men in uniform who would be the pride of any army in human history. It was committed to 18th century republican values that were incompatible with fighting a modern war, and it had internal social conflicts that the war aggravated.

In nearly all of this it was entirely like the American Revolutionaries. The colonists in 1776: one-third for independence, one-third against, one-third uncommitted. That must be the standard for legitimacy, or else our United States lacks it. The CSA fought a much larger enemy than George III, mostly on its own soil, without a Dutch loan or a French fleet to aid it, and the majority, 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.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm

When I pointed out to Rob that he and I don't see things the same way, and that I don't have to believe what he believes, he responded with, "...my 'belief' is based on fact. Your belief parallels the Santa clause (sic) fable."

Me: You BELIEVE your belief is based on fact. My beliefs are based on facts you refuse to recognize.

Rob: You beliefs aren't based on anything but "Confederate Heritage" revisionism Connie. Your "facts" constantly get torn apart because you don't have the slightest idea how to interpret or analyze those facts. I posted on your blog. You chose to email me personally."

Me: You don't know what my beliefs are based on. Yours are based on PC indoctrination foisted off by those who must evilize somebody else in order to feel better about their own uncertain morality and beliefs. My facts haven't been torn apart. Your post came to me in email from Blogger; I hit "reply." You don't like it? Stop harassing me, you won't get the emails, capisce?

Rob: Again Connie you know nothing of my back ground. I've experienced various view points from different professors. I went to Private Schools for my Undergrad. I've experienced apologists and what you deem as PC revisionists. You've also demonstrated, or attempted to demonstrate, the revisionism you call heritage on several occasions given me a decent perception of what you base your "facts" on. I never stated I didn't like it. You're the one that claims harassment from disagreement, if you don't like it, then stop writing absurdities. Capisce?

Me: You know nothing of my background, Rob. I've experienced different viewpoints from professors. I went to a private high school and college, plus state universities. I've experienced apologists and PC revisionists. Yes, my observations on political correctness, state-sponsored and otherwise, hold up. You're perception is skewed, not decent. You can disagree without harassing; you can reply on your own blog. Don't tell me what to do. You don't have the authority.

Rob: LOL. What a reactionary response. I'm glad you had differing view points, but I am not arguing your background am I? I am arguing what you present as facts. Obviously you didn't pay attention in history class. I also don't remember telling you what to do, outside of a comical mocking of you telling me what to do of course."

I guess when he wrote that, he had already forgotten that he just told me, "...stop writing absurdities. Capisce?" And didja notice he didn't identify what facts I presented that he's arguing with? (It's as rare as hens' teeth for them to identify our "facts" that they say they're challenging.)

Interesting thing about Rob and his fellow self-appointed civil war thought police is they they claim to have facts on their side, but what they present as fact is their opinion.... It's interesting also that they label our facts as fables, but, as I just noted, they rarely if ever identify what facts/fables they're challenging. (Rob didn't identify any in the exchange under discussion here.)

My issue with the self-appointed civil war thought police isn't differing viewpoints. Confederate heritage folks disagree amongst themselves about some things so that's not the issue. My problems are: (1) The totalitarian attitude that underlies their "policing' and (2) their basic motivation -- the evilization of Confederates, of white Southerners then and now --as well as the dishonest arguing techniques and harassment, as Rob has just demonstrated (also illustrated by Corey Meyer's repeatedly messaging me, out of the blue, on Facebook). And, frankly, the sheer arrogance they display.

I don't write absurdities except, possibly, when I do satire. Apparently, satire goes right over their heads. In any case, Rob's telling me to "...stop writing absurdities," perfectly illustrates the totalitarian attitude (guess he doesn't believe in the First Amendment), the arrogance, the dishonest arguing techniques and harassment of the self-appointed civil war thought police and Dixie-bashers -- all rolled into three little words...

I don't care what people believe about the civil war. I don't comb the Internet looking for people whose beliefs about it contradict mine... I don't even care what the Dixie-bashing brigade bloggers think of the war, and you won't find comments from me challenging them. What I care about is when their underlying motive/agenda of evilizing Southerners surfaces on their blogs and comments, and when they distort or ignore history in order to advance that agenda. Go find any comments on their blogs that I have left, and you will see that's exactly what I challenge.