Saturday, June 8, 2013

Boy, I Have Ticked Him Off Now!

 I would say I've pissed him off but I don't want to offend his delicate widdle professorial sensibilities.

In my most recent post, The Bitch is Back, I posted a table with a series of comments between Simpson and me from his blog. The last comment in the table was written by me -- a comment I posted that he refused to allow through moderation. (He called it a "tirade" and an "abusive rant." *Smirk* But you can read it for yourself and decide.)

However, he did cherry-pick it and used the cherries in a post about me. An entire post! About widdle ol' moi! He hasn't done that in months!

Here it is:
Connie Chastain on Emmett Till
Posted on June 8, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson

Sometimes there’s a reason why it’s heritage, not history, with some folks. That’s because they aren’t very good at history.

Take the case of Confederate heritage advocate Connie Chastain. In her recent e-novel, Sweet Southern Boys, Connie combined her interest in white southerners with another one of her preoccupations: false rape accusations (no word on whether she plans to write another story addressing what happened recently in Steubenville, Ohio). I reminded her of the Emmett Till case as another instance of false accusations:
For a woman who studies false accusations of sexual behavior, the fact that you can’t see how that links to the Till case suggests that history is indeed a foreign land to you. The difference, of course, is that Till was black, not white … and his case is history, not fantasy fiction.
Connie’s abusive rant in reply showed that she had lost control of her emotions, a conclusion reinforced by a recent vile post on her blog that uses language unsuitable for reproduction here (this from a woman who whines about name-calling and complains that she’s being denigrated). In blocking her reply, I had to omit what she had to say about what I said about Till. However, it’s now worth reprinting in light of her newest tirade, which includes the blocked comment:
Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it.
Of course, the facts were a bit more complex than that. But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till, who was 14 at the time of his death. You just keep on defending southern heritage, Connie. 

Before I get to the crux of my response, I would just inform everyone that Sweet Southern Boys is both an e-book and a dead-tree book:

Kindle Edition
Trade Paperback

Now, with that out of the way, here's a comment I left on the thread  following his clap-trap posted above:
Lie, lie, lie.  Lying by omission is still lying.
What I said was, "Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel."
I said, "The murder was an atrocity...."  Why did you leave that out?
Never mind, I know why.
He didn't even use any ellipses to show he had edited out part of my comment. Do you suppose a professor at a major state university, who has presumably written books, doesn't know this?
"An ellipsis is a series of three points with spaces between them (. . .) inserted into a quotation to indicate the omission of material from the original quotation."
Of course he knows, but the idea is to mislead his readers into believing that what he posted was the entire quote.

We find this little gem of professorial illogic in his rant about me:
"... In her recent e-novel, Sweet Southern Boys, Connie combined her interest in white southerners with another one of her preoccupations: false rape accusations (no word on whether she plans to write another story addressing what happened recently in Steubenville, Ohio).
Not sure why he brought this up. Does he really think the Steubenville case is the ultimate conversation-stopper about rape? The categorical shutter-upper?

Ah, no. It isn't.

If he wonders whether I plan to write about Steubenville, I wonder whether he'll write on his blog about the Tawana Brawley case... or the Duke Lacrosse case... or the Hofstra University case ... or the Tucker Carlson case.

Do you suppose maybe he thinks that because rape does occur that false accusations don't matter?   Or because some men rape, it doesn't matter that men who do not rape have their lives ruined by false accusation -- particularly if the men whose lives are ruined are ... dare I say it? ... white Southerners?

As I have mentioned before, I have to wonder if Simpson rooted for Mike Nifong and whether he agrees with feminist Catherine Comins, who argued (in Time Magazine in 2001) that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience.
"They have a lot of pain," she said, "but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them."
And since he brought up the Emmett Till murder, I wonder if he will also bring up the Wichita Horror case ... or the Christian-Newsome murders ... or the murder of Eve Carson ... or the murder of Lauren Burk ... or the murder of Antonio West ... Silly question. Hell will likely freeze over before Simpson acknowledges any of these atrocities. (On those very, very rare occasions when progressive reverse-racists are backed into a corner and have to say something about cases like this, they almost always blame white racism and poverty, not the scumbags who committed the murders.)

 But back to the lies in Simpson's post:
Of course, the facts were a bit more complex than that. But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till, who was 14 at the time of his death.
Yes, the facts were more complex than that, but significantly, Simpson made no claim that my un-complex statement was not factual. I wasn't writing a book, or even an essay or term paper. I was simply pointing out the difference between the Till case and my novel, because Simpson was dishonestly attempting to equate or connect them.

I trust the account of the murderers? No. And as I understand it, there were several conflicting accounts, and, also significantly, Simpson doesn't tell us which one(s) to believe. Moreover, I have never referred to the murderers  as sweet Southern boys, and for him to use the title of my book to imply that I consider murderers to be believable or that I approve of them and their appalling act -- well, that demonstrates with crystal clarity Simpson's desire to denigrate and love of lying and the sheer depths of his ethical insufficiency.

He makes a point of mentioning the victim's age -- which presumably makes the crime more reprehensible. But since he mentioned that Till was 14 when he was murdered, I will mention that Antonio West was thirteen months old when he was shot and killed by 17-year-old De'Marquise Elkins and 15-year-old Dominique Lang because his mother had no money to give them.

Of course, we know that this was an unfortunate incident, but not really heinous, not like the Till murder, (and not really the fault of the teen murderers), just as we know that murders like Till's and other crimes against blacks by whites up to, and especially including, the civil rights era, were the most heinous crimes in all of human history (except, of course, that slavery was the most heinous crime in all of human history).

 At the time of this writing, there aren't many comments following the blog post about little ol' moi, and currently, only one is worth responding to. M.D. Blough writes:
Till’s murderers were quite explicit what they did and why and quite proud of it. The only explanation for the acquittal is jury nullification (even pre-Civil Rights Mississippi did not make it legal to kill a black child for whistling at a white woman). BTW, apparently Ms. Chastain did not bother to find out that Emmett Till was born and raised in Chicago, IL (his mother was born in Mississippi but moved with her family to Illinois when she was two) and had been in Mississippi for only 3 days at the time he went with relatives to the store.
Remarkably, this is an extremely childish viewpoint that Simpson and his followers have exhibited numerous time on his blog -- that if they don't know it, it doesn't exist (or never happened). Specifically, the form that takes is, if somebody doesn't mention it in a Crossroads comment they don't know it, don't believe it, don't support it, never did it, etc. Information that doesn't make it onto a comment thread at Crossroads doesn't exist. All of anything that anyone knows is what they post on a Crossroads comment thread.

Thus, to M.D. Blough, the 24 words I posted about it was everything I know about the Emmett Till case. I know. I know. Hard to believe, but I think I know what lies behind this attitude, or at least part of it.

Some people -- progressives, especially -- are so dedicated to their cause they do whatever they think is required to support it, including jettisoning common sense (and in Simpson's case, also jettisoning integrity) when necessary.  And because they are willing to do that, they assume everyone dedicated to a cause will also jettison common sense and integrity to support their cause. Our cause is Southern heritage, so they assume all Southern heritage folks will abandon cognition and ethics to support it -- just the way they do the same thing to support their cause -- the demonization of white Southerners.

This is, apparently, why Simpson  and M.D. Blough think I know so little about the Till case -- they have to think we've tossed out common sense and integrity because as far as they can tell (and from their own experience) that's what you do if you're dedicated to a cause. So because I'm a dedicated Southern heritage advocate, I can't possibly know anything about Emmett Till. Thus, Simpson suggests I will have to "search" it and Blough sets out to "educate" me with her comment. I know, like I said, it's hard to believe.

I grew up during the civil rights era. I know about Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney.  I know about Viola Liuzzo.  I know about Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair. I was 14 - 16 years old and saw reports about these events on television, and read about them in the newspaper and magazines, when they happened.

I have to admit, though, my familiarity with the Till case is fairly recent, though, because I was only seven when it happened, and it sort of slipped past me. I didn't learn about it until the early 1970s, so I've only known about it for the last forty-flippin'-years.

Yes, Simpson, I knew his age. Yes, M.D., I knew he was from Chicago. Yes, I know some people said he just whistled at the woman; some said he tried to flirt with her, and some said he reached around her from behind. Yes, I know some accounts of the case say nobody knows for sure what happened. Yes, it was an atrocity. They were all atrocities.

But so are the Wichita Horror case ... and the Christian-Newsome murders ... and the murder of Eve Carson ... and the murder of Lauren Burk ... and the murder of Antonio West.  And countless other black-on-white murders.

In the future, Simpson, M.D. and any other white demonizers, please, don't think you have to abandon common sense and integrity on my account.

Before I end this post, one more thing, which also falls under tossing-your-common-sense-out-the-window. This one is thanks to the progressive meme regarding discrimination and preference -- that is, if you prefer one thing, that means you hate its opposite -- and sometimes, anything in between.  And, if you are against something, that means you are FOR its opposite  -- and vice versa.

Thus, if you are against false rape accusation, that MUST mean you are FOR rape ... or you're not as against it as you SHOULD be.  It is this idiotic meme that prompts ridiculous assumptions like Simpson's comment about Steubenville, Ohio. Because I oppose women falsely accusing men of rape, that means I somehow defend men who actually rape, like the gang who raped a 15-year-old girl in Richmond, California for two freakin' hours? Ah, no. And yet that is what Brooks Simpson would have people believe about me.



He can't seem to post about me without lying.  In one fairly new comment thread, Simpson posts, "Let me ask you a simple question: do those statistics of enlistment by region discriminate according to race? Or do they could African Americans as southerners? Do you? Connie Chastain doesn’t."

Assuming that the word "could" highlighted above is a typo and Simpson meant "count" -- this is a lie. He is saying I don't count blacks as Southerners. Nope. Wrong. Lie.  I've simply explained that they don't wear that regional label.Here's what his lie comes from:
SIMPSON:  “The four-year history of the CSA is not necessarily the place to seek an example of the values Southerners sought to uphold.” Black southerners would agree with this assertion. But Ms. Chastain has a blind spot when it comes to this issue. When she says “southerners,” she means white southerners.

CONNIE:  "Well, Mr. Harper, a Pennsylvanian, wrote that. However, traditionally, the term 'Southerner' has always applied to whites. Black Southerners don’t usually call themselves that but prefer 'blacks' or 'African American' without reference to region. I haven’t often heard blacks refer to themselves as yankees, or northerners or mid-westerners, etc., either."
This snippet was about what people are called; what collective name they go by; and the term "Southerner" has always been applied to whites. It seems that for blacks, their community is not their state or region, but their race and ethnicity.  (And note: I didn't start the tradition of applying the term "Southerners" to whites. It's been that way for generations.) 

To understand exactly how this equates to saying they "don't count," one would have to be able to relate to Simpson's misuse of the language to do what he seems to love best -- denigrate and lie about people.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome, but monitored.