Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Pointing With Dirty Fingers

Andy Hall is still enjoying airing Paula Deen's genealogical dirty laundry in public. What kind of attitude does that take, I wonder.

One thing I can be fairly certain of.  Hell will likely freeze over before floggers like Andy and Brooks Simpson, Professor of History at Arizona State University, air their own ancestral dirty laundry on their blogs -- particularly if it involves scum-sucking racist Southern slave owners, as Andy's does. At least, not with the same level of pleasure they show in smearing others....

      Update   Update   Update   Update    

Rob Baker leaves a comment, "Andy admits to it on his blog" -- "it" being finding slave-owners in one's ancestry.  I asked him if Andy "admits" it in a flurry of pleasurable self-flagellation? Does he exhibit the same pleasure excoriating himself that he does excoriating others who have "evil" ancestors?

Rob hasn't answered yet, but Andy has, after a fashion, and no, he doesn't take pleasure in smearing himself the way he does in smearing others, despite the same "infraction." In fact, he so deftly sprinkles self-sanctification on his "confession" that he comes out smelling like the proverbial thorny bloom....

In a comment following the original Paula Deen smear job, he posts this:
The slaveholding business was never denied in my family, but by the time I came along it was just sort of avoided altogether. I didn’t think anything much about it until I was grown. Unlike Deen, though, my views on the subject didn’t suddenly change (“heinous act” —> “like family”) upon discovering slaveholders in the family tree.
Translation (though it's really not needed, as Andy's meaning comes through loud and clear): See how much better I am than Paula Deen?  See? See how morally superior I am to that scum-sucking racist white mama? See?  

Careful, Andy, don't crack your humerus or throw your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on your ever-so-morally-superior back....

Andy continues:
There was at least one Reconstruction-era klansman back there, too — that was definitely swept under the rug by the time I came along but, as in your case, his immediate family was quite proud of the fact, back in the day. Again, I’m not going to change my views of that group because I learned I’m kin to one.

I really am bad at the “heritage” thing, I’m afraid.
Is that what "heritage" people have done on a widespread basis, Andy? Started cozying up to the KKK because they discovered an ancestor in it way on back yonder? Interesting... I am IN the heritage community and I haven't run across that very much. In fact, I can't think of a single instance.

Andy, if that is how you define "heritage" no wonder you delight in smearing it. But that is your mistake. That is not heritage.  It's not even "heritage." It is you deliberately substituting  your deliberate mis-conception for other people's intentions, and then smearing them based on your deliberate mis-conceptions.

But, oh, the "attaboys" it gets you from the PC crowd feel irresistibly, addictively  good, don't they, Andy, so to heck with all the good, decent people you smear to get your fixes.

       Update   Update   Update   Update    
Well, Andy has posted about a collateral ancestor of his who was a KKK member. And I was right. He doesn't do it to smear himself with even close to the same level of pleasure he shows in smearing others....

If time allows (and right now, it doesn't look promising) I'll look over Andy's post about his KKK ancestor.  I've only skimmed it at this point, but there is SOOOOOO much that begs to be pointed out and commented on...   Soon, hopefully....


  1. You have to remember that Andy Hall is a self-hating Confederate descendant.

    He's the sort that still calls himself "Southern" but believes he can simply pick and choose the aspects of Southern identity he likes and judge others for not sharing his conclusions--its typical Liberal elitism of the sort that Southern Leftists exhibit when they try and balance their so-called Southern identity with their "white guilt".

    The end result is an ugly souled person who constantly feels the need to promote their own alleged "superiority" over everyone else around them.

    The saddest thing is that people like him are viewed by Yankee Elitists much the same way that Leftists mistakenly perceive that we view Black Conservatives: as tokens, useful idiots, ect. They have no genuine loyalty among themselves its little surprise they fail to see the same in others who do not share their ideological retardation.

  2. Andy admits to it on his blog. Corey has admitted to it in numerous places.

  3. Rob, does Andy "admit" it in a flurry of pleasurable self-flagellation? Does he exhibit the same pleasure excoriating himself that he does excoriating others who have "evil" ancestors?

    I don't follow Corey to numerous places, so I don't know what he has admitted to. But does make such an admission to pleasurably smear himself the way Simpson and Hall take pleasure in smearing others?

  4. Carl, a lot of this is a result of the civil rights era, which strongly persuaded everyone (i.e., whites) to acknowledge and admit the disadvantaged position of blacks in the USA.

    It -- or some segment of it -- also demanded that whites -- at least, Southern whites -- be given the role of history's most evil people, and forever smeared accordingly. For people today, whose beliefs and positions are too questionable or weak to give them the warm fuzzies of moral superiority they crave, nothing beats smearing Southern white folks...

    The planet is undergoing a period of breathtaking savagery as people get hacked and beheaded on public thoroughfares before eager cell-phone videographers, the video played online for the world to see; Europe erupts in flames, women are beaten, stoned or hung for being raped, or have noses and ears chopped off, or acid thrown in their faces; year old babies get shot in the head by teenage thugs, and on and on -- but the WORST people in the world were Southern slave owners, and don't you forget it.

    Floggers will tell you that horrific current events have nothing to do with the focus of their blogs, which is the civil war (smirk) -- but then they transparently claim their blogs are about "memory" or "era" or "other stuff" precisely so they can talk about whatever they want to, and construe a "link" between whatever and the civil war.

    I guess feeling morally superior to a savage fanatic that beheads a child isn't satisfying enough -- practically anybody is better than that. No, these folks prefer to portray rich, cultured, societal and cultural leaders as having humanity's ugliest, meanest hearts and souls beneath their elegant broadcloth frock coats, silk cravats and top hats...and THEN feel morally superior to THAT.

    I wonder of they truly don't see how transparent their motives are...

  5. Connie, I know it must be difficult for you to get over the rage of someone questioning your heritage, but try to see what Andy is doing. He is not "flogging" anyone for having a slave owning ancestor. He is "flogging" those that take an apologetic stand towards the institution, or those that white wash it's impact on the Civil War.

    As far as Corey, I know he has expressed the opinion with much repugnance.

  6. Rob, I don't have any rage over someone "questioning my heritage."

    Andy isn't "flogging" those WHO (not THAT) take an apologetic stand towards the institution, or those that white wash it's impact on the Civil War. He flogs people who don't demonstrate what he believes is the proper level of groveling for the sins of their ancestors ... IF those ancestors were white Southerners, of course.

    He doesn't seem to have much problem with white yankees who don't grovel about the slavery-sins of THEIR ancestors. In fact, he seems to see them as you do -- "sinless," having shed their sins by coming south and making brutal war on white Southerners and keeping the South in economic peonage for several generations after the war.

    How long can you people hold a grudge?

  7. No one has ever used the word, "sinless," nor placed Northerners as sinless because they "shed their sins" and came south.

    The word grovel is never used, and never will be. The difference is acceptance, and whitewash.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.