But I bet she really doesn’t disagree that she’s not a Rainbow Confederate, and I’m simply agreeing with her self-assessment. And yet Connie doesn’t disagree with me.Problem for who? Yep, that's pretty narrow ground but it's not my ground. It's not my problem that some people offer only two alternatives, usually one idea and its total opposite -- and try to fit you in one or the other.
(Quoting Connie): Link to where I have depicted the Confederacy of as a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant. Link to ANY statements of mine that argue that the Confederacy was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy.Now here’s Connie’s problem: she’s staked out some narrow ground for herself by daring someone to post that she’s said these things. Note, however, that she does not say whether she believes in them … just that she’s not expressed them in print. But let’s embrace the logical conclusion that Connie now accepts that the Confederacy has something to do with the efforts of white southerners to protect slavery and preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society. Watch her deny that she’s ever said that, either … and you’ll see that she’s just trying to be clever because she doesn’t want to share with everyone her understanding of the Confederacy.
There are two, and only two, alternatives you're allowed to choose from, according to these two verbal Procrusteans: Either the Confederacy was (1) a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant that was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy or else is was (2) populated by people who didn't give a damn about their families, children, farms, shops, churches, communities, livelihood, etc. because they only cared about enslaving and oppressing helpless blacks...
Either way, leftist Dixie-bashers totally define Confederates of the past and Southerners today by their (imagined, or worse, assigned) racial beliefs.
Granted, Simpson doesn't go that far in this particular post but that mindset of seeing human beings as nothing more than their racial beliefs is prevalent among his ilk, and it has been implied numerous times.
Of course the Confederacy was not culturally and racially tolerant, and it was not about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism”. Neither was the United States. These are leftist notions that did not come to the USA until the 1960s. And those called Rainbow Confederates know it.
Simpson says I NOW accept that the Confederacy has something to do with the efforts of white southerners to protect slavery and preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society.
I have never NOT accepted it. I simply say that was not the only reason for secession. My position that the Southern states seceded to protect slavery and for other reasons has been clearly articulated on my blog, Facebook and elsewhere. Simpsons willingness to lie about this has been demonstrated before. http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/03/backsassin-yet-another-journalist.html
Here's another example of how he lies ... by omission. He sez, Note, however, that she does not say whether she believes in them [i.e., "rainbow" beliefs, such as that the Confederacy was racially tolerant] … just that she’s not expressed them in print. What he fails to mention is that I have expressed what I do believe in.
Incidentally, I disagree that Confederates fought to preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society because there was no threat to white supremacy and intolerance in the culture of the army that came South and made barbaric war on Southerners. There may have been a handful of northerners who believed in, or at least promoted, tolerance, but the politics and culture of the United States at the time was white supremacist and racially intolerant -- and to an extent, it still is.
My position on the war is, and always has been, that the Union had no moral authority for invading the South, laying it waste and keeping it's people in economic, cultural and social hardship for five generations afterward.
References in my blog to this belief are numerous...
180 Degrees True South
Brooks Simpson is a professor of history at a major state university who loves to denigrate other people's intelligence. I mention it because presumably it takes some level of intelligence to attain such a position. I don't know Hunter Wallace's educational level, but he can at least hitch two sentences together fairly well, so he's not a complete dimwit. Both of these men attempt to smear others who hold positions they disagree with -- but they have to lie in order to do it. The false dichotomy is one of their favorite methods for throwing off on somebody's beliefs.
Thus, if you don't agree with A you believe wholeheartedly in its total opposite, Z. Either the Confederacy was racially tolerant and fought "racism" or else Confederates were racist haters and nothing else. Now, these guys know A and Z aren't the only alternatives. There is also B through Y (which, I note, is emphatically not "narrow ground.") A person whose intelligence they are savaging may believe in numerous alternatives to A and Z but Simpson and his pet white supe, Wallace, have to falsely narrow it down to only two alternatives in order to (1) lie about the person's beliefs and (2) attack their intelligence.
As I noted, these men are not boneheads, so it isn't their intellect that is questionable here.
It is their integrity.