For some reason, that so incensed Andy Hall, he banned me forever forthwith from commenting at his blog, saying,
"Finally, you’re done commenting here. I should’ve done that last week. You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative. You have a blog and readership, there and elsewhere; you don’t need electronic real estate here to make your voice heard. I know that you will take being blocked as full vindication of the rightness — indeed, righteousness – of your position, and that blocking you simply affirms that an unwillingness to acknowledge the “truth” you offer. In fact, what you offer, as in the example above, is little more than rhetorical contortions, ugly insinuations and evasions best described using Stephen Colbert’s term, “truthy” — there’s just enough reality behind it to make it seem truthful to those who want to deem it so, if no one looks too closely."Mercy me! Wordy outrage worthy of a woman, huh? And way out of proportion to my "infraction."
But Andy does give a hint of the real reason why he's banning me ...
"You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative."Why, that is partially right! In fact, my purpose is exactly to question the motives, or agenda, or character, of certain folks, but not because they challenge my "preferred historical narrative." I don't really have a preferred historical narrative. I question the motives, agenda or character of folks who "civil-war-blog" with a political/racial agenda of stroking their overblown egos and showcasing their own "anti-racist" credentials by misportraying others as evil racists.
I am convinced that the underlying motive that Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, Andy Hall and hangers-on Corey Meyer and the pathetic Rob Baker (and perhaps others I don't know) have for "civil war" blogging is to portray white Southerners, past and present, as humanity's greatest manifestation of evil: racists. Of course, those civil war bloggers who are themselves Southerners are exempt from the racist label.
This desire to trash white Southerners as evil racists is tempered by the need to come across as scholarly and evenhanded, so it is cloaked in "civil war" crap. But it is certainly there, and certainly detectable.
This explains why their blogs are not "civil war blogs." They're "civil war memory" and "civil war era" blogs. And natcherly they decide what constitutes a "civil war memory" or what falls within the "civil war era." They love trashing the Virginia Flaggers, which have only been in existence a year or two -- meaning NOW is the "civil war era." And somehow, Kevin Levin's animosity for the SCV and the UDC are civil war "memories."
The overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners as evils racists explains the portrayal, chiefly by Hall and Levin, of the lives of blacks (slave and free) as total and utter misery. Because, you see, white evil exists in exact inverse proportion to black misery. You see this all over both their blogs.
Andy's over-the-top umbrage at my criticism of Arizona State University is actually anger at my earlier criticism of him for trashing Ann DeWitt's black Confederates research, here: http://deadconfederates.com/2011/08/08/famous-negro-cooks-regiment-found-in-my-own-backyard/
I posted, "Honest mistakes can be fixed. Purposeful arrogance, bullying and ridicule, even in their written form, are signs of a character flaw that is frequently permanent."
Andy sanctimoniously came back with, "I have always been careful to criticize Ms. DeWitt’s work, not to impugn her character. ... My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, “she’s wrong,” but go into considerable detail to show why and how."
"Andy says, “My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, ‘she’s wrong,’ but go into considerable detail to show why and how.”
Why, sure you have, to wit:
“You don’t hear much about them because they had to be stationed way, way in the rear. It’s just not possible to do a decent souffle with the concussion of artillery nearby.”
“Cupcakes were a critical resource, but in the South it was very difficult getting sprinkles in through the blockade. Bragg was reportedly grumpy all the time about that.”
Oh, that’s focus, all right. Real focus. ... The most impeccable historian credentials in the world can be totally nullified by rigid adherence to a hostile and/or self-aggrandizing agenda.THAT is what really got me kicked off Andy's blog -- that and his fear of taking me on.
Thus, the claim by Simpson, Levin and Hall -- that I don't "contribute anything of substance" in my comments on their blogs -- is their acknowledgement that I'm not there to comment on history but on their motives, agenda and character. I think those are legitimate subjects. They are afraid to take me on because because they know I will mercilessly question their motives, agenda and character and, frankly, they can't answer me.
I notice they don't ban folks who are overly emotional, or people whose loyalty to the South and its heritage may outweigh their book learning or understanding of history. These hate-bloggers LOVE to slap around these folks. They get off on it.
They also love to put on their phony displays of outrage over "violence" and "threats" that they know are not real. If they thought for a minute some crazed Confederate lunatic would actually come after them, they'd notify the authorities and then go silent and lay low on their blogs and completely ignore the threat -- what any reasonable and prudent person would do -- rather than bait and antagonize the lunatic. You can ALWAYS know whether they think a threat is real by whether they provoke and badger the threatener...
But because I'm not awed by their education or other credentials, because I point out their inconsistances and lies, because I see through their motives and say so, because if they try to slap me around, I'll slap them back, twice as hard -- they're skeered of me. So, they ban me. Cowards.