Crocodile Tears For Tripp's Son

It's been utterly fascinating, as well as appalling, to read the Floggers' posts about the arrest of Tripp Lewis, and the comments of their followers. 

That Levin, Hall and Simpson showcase the arrest on their blogs, as if this is the biggest news in Civil War historigraphy to come down the pike in years -- as if it's news at all -- is mystifying, because it is not news the civil war community is particularly interested in. This "reportage" is the behavior of people whose obsession and motive is ... well, more on that in later posts...

The first thing I'll mention about their criticism is the pretended interest in Tripp's son.  I don't believe for a New York second the moaning and wailing on the kid's behalf.

For example, we have one commenter upbraiding Lewis for "exposing" his child to such "abuse". That's from a commenter who calls himself Bummer and references himself in the third person, Bob-Dole-like, i.e., "Bummer has a hard time watching the video of the father..." 

He thinks Mr. Lewis is mentally ill and prescribes horsewhipping...twice. I don't know whether that suggestion is more progressive and enlightened than recommending, say, a lobotomy  -- or less. You gotta hope Mr. Bummer is not employed in the mental health field, though....

Brooks Devious Simpson informs us that the presence of the child was "no accident." Being a female, I can't actually speak for fathers, but I can make a guess that when fathers and sons do things together -- hunt or fish, toss a baseball, collect stamps, or, as in this case, attempt to honor their ancestors -- most of the time, it's not by accident.  Of course, by using that sort of manipulative language, Simpson is implying that Lewis is deliberately subjecting his son to a hurtful, negative experience.

Andy Hall says that the child's crying on the video is  "deeply painful to hear, for any parent. But it's also infuriating, because he clearly set out to get himself arrested, and challenged the police to a physical altercation, for no particularly good reason, in front of his own child."

Clearly set out to get himself arrested? ("Clearly" appears to be one of Andy's favorite adverbs.  Levin's, too.) Andy doesn't say how he clearly knows this. Are you surprised? Hahaha.  I'm not.  Frankly, I don't think he does know it. He suspects it, based upon his prejudice and bigotry toward the Flaggers in general and Mr. Lewis in particular.

But that's not the same thing as knowing and it sure as heck ain't clear.  It's Andy's opinion, which he clearly elevates to a higher position than knowledge or truth.  So now, a man and his son sharing time and fellowship is "reprehensible behavior" to Andy.  Clearly.

I'm amazed at all the mind-readers among critics of Confederate heritage.  At one point, Levin tells a commenter, "The father clearly wanted a conflict and at one point even looked in his son's direction to ensure that he was getting all of it on video." See? Didn't I tell ya? There's that "clearly" again -- a clarity that exists only in the eyes of the beholder -- or is it accuser?  Yes, clearly both.  Beholder and accuser.

Is Levin himself a father? Is that how he knows what fathers want?  He knows that's the only possible reason a father would have for looking at his son?  Not to make sure he's all right, especially in the development of a negative situation -- but to make sure the camera's rollin'? In fact, that was probably the only time during the whole entire flippin' outing that Tripp looked at his son.  Huh, Kevin....

More comments.  Richard sez, "Having a child involved in this nonsense is f***ed up." (Andy Hall sagely offers a brilliant reply, "Yes, it is.") Somebody who calls himself "Cotton Boll Conspiracy" sez, "How the hell do you undo the damage of having your child see you arrested? Listening to that child cry for his father was one of the most upsetting things I’ve heard in a long, long time." (Again, Andy sagely observes, "It’s horrible — and the entirely predictable result of the father’s foolish actions.")

So ... if Tripp and his son had been tossing a baseball on a ball field somewhere, and cops arrested him for trespassing, or on any other phony, trumped up charge -- would these self-righteous shyster-historians and their sycophantic commenters be offering such lamentations over the experience of Tripp's son?