Friday, March 29, 2013

It's Not History -- It's Anti-Heritage


Didn't I tell ya? These flogger guys feed off each other's blogs -- NOT about history, but about attacking heritage. Today, Brooks D. Simpson has joined in the current round of bash-the-Flaggers.  With references to Kevin's and Corey's posts on the same subject, he's posted 370 words of claimed indifference about a subject about which he has shown almost morbid interest in the past -- just like the other floggers.

One thing these floggers have never done, however, is explain WHY they post about the Flaggers -- or any other heritage advocates and their activities. The flogger claim is that they're interested in HISTORY. The Virginia Flaggers are CONTEMPORARY. Heritage activities are CONTEMPORARY. Why are these guys so eaten up with obsession -- and animosity -- for the flaggers?

Judging by the tone of his post and comments, Simpson has been about to bust a gut to post a derogatory critique of the Flaggers throughout his recent series of long, boring posts about the future of civil war history, and his trip to Gettysburg. His animosity for Southern heritage and those who honor it is so great, is such an obsession, he can't keep it contained with pretended indifference, and it just has to burst forth onto his blog from time to time.

One wonders why he even pretends indifference. The other floggers, while often touting their interest in history, don't try to hide their compulsion to denigrate heritage folks, most especially the Flaggers.  Especially when his indifference is so poorly executed and displayed. (3/30/13)


Now Andy's trying his hand at psychoanalyzing, presumably without a license. He's posted a comment at Corey's blog about a post Corey made referencing Kevin's blog (what WOULD these floggers do without each other's blogs to inspire their own blog posts?) about -- you guessed it ... The Virginia Flaggers.

The floggers still haven't given a reasonable explanation (or any explanation at all, that I've found) why "history folks" who openly scorn "heritage folks" for putting heritage above history (so they say) turn right around and abandon history in order to attack heritage.

If anybody sees any history in this post or Andy's response,  please, do paste it in a comment here at Backsass. 

Andy's current effort at Corey's blog is to claim Virginia Flaggers are just into it for attention.  "I’ve never seen the Flaggers do anything that they don’t make, first and foremost, about them," he says.  (Emphasis Andy's.)

I'd be curious as to what Andy has seen the Flaggers do... and whether it was in person, or whether he "saw" it on the Internet. And, if he's getting his "views" from the Internet, who put them there? Someone hostile to the flaggers, or friendly to them, or neutral?

Even if Andy's source is neutral, he clearly is not. Anyone who writes crap like this is conspicuously displaying his hostility: "Even when they participate in larger functions, like the Decoration Day event in Fredericksburg or the memorial service at Sharpsburg, they go out of their way to make sure everybody knows that da Flaggers are in da house! (They call this establishing a 'Confederate presence.')" (Emphasis Andy's.)

Sounds to me like what they're doing IS establishing a Confederate presence. Of course, Andy is against a "Confederate presence" exactly as he is against Da Flaggers so naturally it's gonna leave a bad taste in his mouth, that he then spews it out in comments like this one (and numerous others at  his own blog).

Here's where he gets positively Freudian... "They’re very much like PETA — anything valid they have to say is quickly eclipsed by their shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention. It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public, but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base, whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."

Let's deconstruct this.

"Anything valid they have to say..."  Why even bring this up?  Andy doesn't think ANYthing they say or do is valid.

"...eclipsed by shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention." I haven't noticed  either one from the Flaggers. I think these are phony labels Andy is putting on (1) the promotion of flagging, to inspire similar activity in other states and (2) showing the public the difference between people who honor their heritage and those who misuse it.

Of course Andy doesn't want the public to know about that. (Yes, folks, I can do remote psychoanalyzing, too.) He wants everyone to hate Confederate heritage, and to see anyone who honors it as inbred scum-sucking racist morons.

"It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public..." he says, without a particle of substantiation, except his own bitter/sour disapproval. And why even mention this, as if he cares whether their goals are undermined, which he clearly does not.

"...but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base..."  So Andy views the support of the Flaggers by the heritage community as "adulation" by "fans"...  I wonder if that's anything like the "adulation" of "fans" showing up at his book signings, or the awed comments of blog visitors about his ship renderings...

And finally, "...whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."  Well, golly.  If the "resentment" of the Southern heritage community is so weak and/or artificial that it has to be "fluffed" why on earth is it such a visceral problem for the floggers?

No. Like all the floggers, Andy hates the heritage that we respect and honor. He will paint that heritage -- and our respect and honor -- in the worst possible light. Part of the reason why the Flaggers must do what they do for our heritage, is because people who hate it, like Andy, have for so long had the upper hand in public discourse and used it to influence the public to adopt the same hatred of Confederate heritage that they hold.

And now that Heritage folks are fighting back (and doing so with dignity and determination -- and fun!) it is really, really sticking in flogger craw. I mean, look at his risible PETA analogy. There is absolutely no comparison between PETA whack jobs and their insane demonstrations, and the Virginia Flaggers.  For Andy to make such a comparison, he either has to be knowingly lying, or so infuriated he can't tell fact from fantasy.

If history truly was what these floggers are interested in, they'd blog about history, and neither heritage nor anti-heritage would enter into it for them -- I doubt they'd even notice it. But history is not what they're interested in. It is a convenient excuse, a plausible cover, for indulging in their hatred of the Confederacy, its people, its memory, and the honor it receives from supporters and defenders today. And when someone challenges their hatred, it'll make your head spin how fast they abandon history to take up the tools of heritage-hatred -- the mocking, the ridicule, the lying...

No comments :

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome, but monitored.