The "anti-racist" smear mentality

~~On the "whiteness" of my novels~~

Simpson writes:

Connie Chastain constructs a strawman. We don’t see advocates of Confederate heritage celebrate African Americans’ struggle for freedom and equality. Certainly Connie doesn’t, as her all-white cast of heroes and heroines in her own “books” demonstrates.

And later he writes:

Observing the color of the cast of characters in Connie’s writing (which she admitted, because I haven’t read what she’s written … I’ve just read what she writes about what she has written) is just that: an observation.

An "observation." LOL! See the subtle progression from truth to lies in Simpson's statements above? From "...all-white cast of heroes and heroines" to "...the color of the cast of characters in Connie’s writing..." From only heroes and heroines in my books being white to all the characters in all my writing being white... which is simply not true.

I suppose I should cut him some slack, since he hasn't read my novels -- but in that case, he is making an assumption (a false one) about something he knows nothing about. But, hey, when the object is to smear somebody he doesn't like, who cares about his actual knowledge of the subject, right?

Yes, there are non-whites in my novels. Pathetic Simpson. If he can't find "racism" in people he doesn' t like, he'll make it up.

(Pop Quiz: Name five scum-sucking racist novelists and their novels that feature white heroes and heroines. See my answers below.)

~~More on the false dichotomy~~

In the same comment thread, I wrote,

"I’m not sure who you’re getting me mixed up with but I don’t put forth any efforts to promote a multicultural South and Confederate heritage. Multiculturalism is an insidious fabrication of the left that accompanied the rise of authoritarian political correctness in the last half of the 20th century. It didn’t exist when the Confederacy existed.

So much for my being a Rainbow Confederate. This was written months before the League Facebook mega-thread where I was accused of it....

In any case, look at how Simpson creates a belief in what he considers to be the exact opposite of multiculturalism (i.e. "whites-only") and then falsely attributes that to me: "I’m glad to see that Connie Chastain admits that she promotes a whites-only view of southern and Confederate culture. None of that multiculturalism or tolerance for her."

Of course, I made no such admission -- but Simpson's creation of the false dichotomy (your choices are multiculturalism or whites only) and attributing the "whites only" extreme to me is typical of his lying.

Some of the following comments in that thread are equally instructive of the odious attitude and willingness to lie on the part of self-styled "anti-racists."

Note -- you can only "get along with people who are different than you" if you're a "multiculturalist."

Moreover, my "exclusion of non-white people from southern heritage as well as Confederate heritage" is not a matter of record -- quite the opposite, considering my acknowledgement of the contributions of blacks, slave and free, to the Confederacy -- and, that of the Cherokees and other Indian tribes -- on my blog and elsewhere. (And no, that's not an example of a "rainbow" multicultural position, either, as we shall see.)

In any case, this comment thread contains some great illustrations of the false dichotomy, a leftist methodology I've posted about before on this blog -- that is, there are only two positions: an idea and its total, exact opposite. If you don't totally embrace the idea, then you totally embrace its opposite. Masters of the False Dichotomy

That blog post was about the attempt to pigeonhole Southern heritage advocates as defining Confederates as (a) multicultural, tolerant and anti-racist or as (z) racist slavers who possessed no other human traits.

So, the false dichotomy is you're either a multiculturalist or you're an all-white culturist. Well, first of all, cultures are neither races nor colors, so "multicultural" is like "racism" and "Rainbow Confederate." In how it is often used, at least, it has no objective meaning or definition -- it's fluid and elastic enough to cover whatever the user means -- culture, race, color, whatever.

At its most basic (and benign) understanding and use in the United States, it means that minority cultures are equal to the dominant European-drived culture, and their contributions to the overall culture of the country is as good as, maybe even better than, that of white European descendants.

But what this actually translates into, in education, government policy, and the popular culture is the portrayal of the dominant European culture (usually identified as "white") as mostly if not uniformly bad, and the other cultures (usually identified as "non-white") as good, positive and sooo much better than white culture. One of the oft-repeated claims of mulitculturalists is that whites (white culture) is responsible for most, if not all, the ills suffered throughout the history of man.

This is why I reject it as an insidious fabrication of the left that accompanied the rise of authoritarian political correctness in the last half of the 20th century. Just as feminism isn't really about advancing women but about tearing men down, multiculturalism isn't about promoting minority cultures but about tearing down the dominant European derived culture.

That is how the dichotomized commenters at Simpson's blog see it -- and then attribute their false dichotomy to me.

Here's the truth, for those who are interested (and I suspect Marc Ferguson, Forester, etc. are not):

I believe that the culture that evolved over the centuries in Europe was a superior one -- not perfect, not without flaws, but then the oft-touted minority cultures are not without their flaws either. In order to believe, along with Susan Sontag, that the white race is the cancer of human history, you can allow yourself to look only at its flaws. I am convinced that is what multiculturalists do. They refuse to acknowledge the positives and great accomplishments of the white, European culture and its offshoots in other parts of the world. I have my suspicions about why multiculturalists refuse to do this, but it is up to them to state their reasons honestly; and so far, they don't seem to be talking.

(As an aside, European culture and its offshoots around the world are declining from superior cultures to inferior ones, primarily because of the relentless attacks the last half-century by multiculturalism and political correctness.)

Regarding the culture of the South, I agree with a statement that used to appear on Dixie.net, the League of the South's website. Titled Southern Cultural Defense, the paper ended with this:

"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 essense, the South has always remained a predominantly Anglo-Celtic civilisation."

This view not only acknowledged the existence and influence of non-dominant cultural groups on the South -- it acknowledged that they enriched the South. Thus, this statement emphasized the positives of the dominant culture and the non-dominant ones -- which gives a huge clue about the conservative nature of the League -- at least, as it used to be. Leftist thought dwells on the bad, the negatives, the evils of a culture. Try to find their comments on the positives of other cultures they pretend to champion -- you'll far more likely find statements tearing down the dominant white culture.

~~The venom of anti-racism~~

Going back to Simpson's statement, "We don’t see advocates of Confederate heritage celebrate African Americans’ struggle for freedom and equality."

The comment thread I'm writing about here followed a video on Simpson's blog critical of Southern heritage. Commenter John Foskett wrote,

"The SH pushers ...[are] talklng about something that is supposedly “regional” and inevitably ends up being tied to the ACW/Confederacy.. Personally I think the whole thing is a shell game. What’s “Southern”? There seems to be no “eastern” heritage, “northern” heritage, “western” heritage – only “southern”. And the same problems lurk for “southern” culture. I won’t even touch the obvious racial issues which go to “whose” heritage/culture. As I said, shell game."

Somebody named Mike D. added:

"If it’s regional it must, perforce, include those elements of the regional culture that take into account the inextricable contributions of African-descended peoples to that culture. But you and I both know those elements are not intended for inclusion in these clowns’ definition of “southern heritage.” They mean white people. Period."

I attempted to explain it to him:

"Mike D, the contributions of African-descended people to the United States and to the South are not under attack, are not targeted for erasure. They are, in fact, celebrated and trumpeted.The contributions of whites to Southern regional culture is defined by critics solely as “racism” and is deemed fit for dropping down the memory hole for that reason. Southern heritage advocates deem that its “racist” component is no worse than the “racist” component of U.S. culture, and is not sufficient reason for the smearing of Southern heritage for the purpose of targeting and eventually erasing it from the national memory."

That elicited Simpson's irrelevant "strawman" comment already noted above.

Foskett comes back with,

"More beans hidden under shells, Connie. What “contributions of African-descended people … to the South” are “celebrated and trumpeted” by your “Souhern/Confederate heritage” spin, Connie? Their “service” as slaves?"

When I said that the contributions of African-descended people to the United States and to the South are not under attack, are not targeted for erasure, that they are, in fact, celebrated and trumpeted, I meant in academia, the government, the media and the popular culture. And it is true. Anybody want to contest that? My next reply to Foskett was,

"Why repeat what’s already being done by others? Our concern is with that part which is under attack. What is there about that that’s too difficult for you to grasp?"

Went right over his head... Or, at least, he pretended it did. But really, why should Southern heritage advocates abandon their defense of the South's culture and heritage, which are under attack, in order to spend their time and effort on something (recognition of African-American contributions) already being accomplished more than sufficiently by academia, the government, the media and the popular culture?

The insults thrown at me that followed this deliberate obtuseness on the part of Mr. Foskett are wonderful illustrations in the smear-mentality of leftists and anti-racists. If you missed this mid-April comment thread of manure from the good "anti-racists" who frequent Simpson's comment sections, here's a link. Just hold your nose before you go, and don't eat right before....

Comment thread....

========

Pop Quiz -- my answers: Jane Austen--Pride and Prejudice. Charlotte Bronte--Jane Eyre. William Shakespeare--Romeo and Juliet. Daphne DuMaurier--Rebecca. Margaret Mitchell--Gone With the Wind. (Yes, I know Romeo and Juliet was a play, not a novel; nevertheless, it was a romance with a white hero and heroine.)