Friday, July 26, 2013

What Has Andy Hall Got Against White Christians?

At the Southern Nationalist Network, Palmetto Patriot has posted information about anti-Southern comments at some civil war chat group/forum/whatever. Apparently, somebody came across the SNN in a discussion of the "controversy" surrounding the flying Confederate flags at civil war events. Sergeant Major Diana9 posted a link to SNN and asked, "Thoughts?"

Corporal UKMarkw replied, "What a terrible website and content. Didn't think such ridiculous, outdated views still existed. Who knows how the soldier himself felt about the flag, maybe he learned to love his joined up country and despise the confederacy. I don't know and I don't suppose anyone does either "

So if nobody knows how they felt, what's ridiculous and outdated about the SNN views?

But the most interesting comment (aside from 2nd Lieutenant JerseyBart's acknowledgment that SNN is a scary website) is one by none other than Flogger Andy Hall.

Andy tells Sergeant Major Diana9, '@Diana9, the Southern Nationalist Network is a modern-day secessionist group that seeks to break away from the "Empire" and "restore" the South as a protected enclave for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture. They are closely aligned with groups like the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens. So consider the source.'

Although he attempts to hide behind a few weasel words and the protection of irony quotes -- or is it scare quotes, in this instance? -- Andy's flogger explanation is remarkably accurate, though I'm quite sure he meant for his description to put Southern nationalism in a very bad light.

If you're an enclave -- which means territory isolated or enclosed within a foreign or uncongenial enviroment --of course you want it protected. Andy says that which is to be protected is "the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture." This is a bad thing?

It would be nice if Andy would come right out and say what he has against white folks and Christians. I can guess what his problem is -- he's bought into the PC notion that whites, especially white males, and most especially white Christian males, are responsible for all the world's ills and evils throughout history.

They're not, of course, and they are responsible for a great many of the world's advances and positives throughout history... But PC folks aren't allowed to say that, even when they know it's true.

But this is all speculation, and that's what it will remain until and unless Andy comes out and says what he's got against white Christian culture, and why he opposes protection for it, as his comment seems to indicate. I mean, would he have cheered for the lions in the Roman Colosseum?

Image Credits: The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer by Jean-Léon Gérôme is in the Public Domain. Downloaded from Wikimedia Commons.


  1. You know a lot of those Roman-Christian Persecution stories are over-exaggerated and have no real evidence to support right?

  2. The reference to the lions was simply to illustrate Andy's apparent attitude toward white Christians in his comment (i.e., they should have no place to safely practice their religion). His "explanation" to Diana9 doesn't come right out and exhibit hostility toward white Christians, but it is certainly implied.

    I didn't say anything about how widespread Roman persecution of Christians was. However, Christians were certainly persecuted in ancient Rome, by any number of methods. The mention of the Colosseum is simply a reference to the killing of Christians as entertainment. Some sources say there was probably more of that done in the Circus Maximus than the Colosseum.

    A note that accompanies Gérôme's painting at Wikipedia says that it depicts the Circus Maximus (goal posts, chariot tracks) as the setting, but shows the "entertainment" -- lion turned loose on Christians, and martyrs being burned alive on crosses -- that took place in the Colosseum. The painting is to illustrate the drama of the persecution, not historical accuracy.

    A historically accurate painting would have shown the martyrs that were thrown to wild animals encased in animal skins. Lions were just one of the wild beasts that fought each other, and killed people. Others were dogs, bears, and boars. They were usually starved for several days before turning them loose on helpless prisoners.

    Moss appears to have written her book in order to paint present day Christians in a bad light.

    Also, the notion that these accounts of persecution are suspect because they were written by Christians -- is that a universal principle, or does it only apply to Christians writing about persecution in ancient Rome? If it's not universal, why not? If it is universal, should we take the claims of mistreatment of slaves in the South with a grain of salt, if they were made by slaves or former slaves?

    Also, in the interest of disclosure, what are your religious beliefs, if any?

  3. You seem to base a lot of your criticism of Andy on "implied meanings."

    The last things I will say on this topic is that there is no evidence of CHristian Martyrs being fed to beasts. It is a popular legend. There are actually numerous misonceptions about Rome that most people "know" today that are false, that came from these same Christian myths. They are not suspect because they are written by Christians, they are suspect because of the lack of evidence to support. This is not the case in the South, because of the plethora of sources to verify and the physical evidence as well.

    In the interest of disclosure, I was raised Methodist and still attend today. I view the bible as a library and certainly not infallible given its numerous editions and re-editions over time.

  4. Well, Rob, you tell me. Does this imply approbation?

    '...the Southern Nationalist Network is a modern-day secessionist group that seeks to break away from the "Empire" and "restore" the South as a protected enclave for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture. They are closely aligned with groups like the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens. So consider the source.'

    The sources you cited aren't proof that Christians were not persecuted in Rome, and that being torn apart by wild beasts, including lions, is a myth.

    There is also a plethora of sources to verify that slaves were not mistreated, but it is dismissed in the PC era, and people who bring it up are called "slavery apologists."

    An attender of the Methodist church. Fascinating. If I may ask, do you believe the gospel?

  5. Smh.

    No, it isn't.

    I never said the sources indicated that Christians were never persecuted in the Roman Empire. The sources I posted indicate that much of what we know of the "horrendous" accounts most "know," are popular legends, perpetuated by Christian myth.

    Actually the "PC" crowd, as you call it, talk about it all the time. Those that maintain the "good slave owner" status quo, are apologetic. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

    You'll have to be more specific Connie, there are many gospels.

  6. It isn't? WHAT isn't?

    Isn't what?

    Your sources didn't prove that what we know of Roman persecution of Christians is myth and legend.

    I didn't say anything about a "PC" crowd. I referenced the PC era. And in the PC era, people who bring up sources that verify that slaves were not mistreated are called "slavery apologists."

    The gospel of Jesus. Do you believe it? If not, do you believe ANY "gospel'?

  7. It isn't approbation. Nor is there any implications of disapprobation for "White Christians," as you put it. There is simply the disdain of those that preach such a bigoted and obviously racist point of view.

    I gave you just a couple of sources to get your feet wet, there are a plethora of other sources. I read a review of Moss's book in the National Catholic Reporter last night, it was well received.

    Based on evidence, no laws were passed specifically against Christians. Most saw Christians as against the state because worshiping the Roman gods tied into Nationalism. It's the same as seeing someone not stand for the national anthem. Meaning that most saw Christians as disloyal to the empire, rather than "heretics," for lack of a better word. That means Christians would have been lumped in with those seen as treasonous. In the end it simply makes sense. Early Christianity has a foundation of political persecution. But again, it makes no matter. History is not about making brash statements such as, "you didn't prove that didn't happen."

    You use "PC crowd" routinely, let's not engage in such petty arguments. And again, no, not everyone that brings up such things are called Slavery apologists". I've been to numerous conferences and witnessed presentations and lectures on the treatment of slaves. In those presentations, there are numerous accounts of good-treatments and barbaric treatments; most fall in the middle.

    I suspect numerous prodding questions about one's faith, especially in these circumstances, has ulterior motives. That being said, you can classify me as someone stuck between Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views.

  8. Ah, no, Rob. Andy didn't write, "...the Southern Nationalist Network is a modern-day secessionist group that seeks to break away from the "Empire" and "restore" the South as a protected enclave for the preservation and dominance of those that preach such a bigoted and obviously racist point of view." He wrote, "... for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture "

    It's telling, though, that you think white Christians preach a bigoted and racist point of view.

    What's bigoted and racist about wanting a place where white Christians can be protected? Would you prefer that they be unprotected, and vulnerable to peril?

    Most everyone understands that a reference to Christians and lions describes an adversarial situation that is hostile or dangerous for Christians. Only somebody determined to miss the point of my post would zero in on one sentence and obsess over it and bring up all kinds of historical irrelevancies in order to distract..

    "PC crowd" means people. "PC era" means a period of time. People are not time. Time is not people. I said PC era. For you to morph it to "PC crowd" simply because I've used that term in the past is erroneous. Whether intentional or inadvertent, it was still erroneous and needed correcting. Correcting it is not a petty argument.

    Sorry, I don't have a lot of confidence in your interpretation of what you hear in conferences and presentations, which you conveniently didn't identify. However, if there are academics, historians or others who sometimes acknowledge when slaves were well-treated, it doesn't filter out or trickle down throughout the culture at large, and certainly not the popular culture, where such claims result in screeching or snide accusations of racism.

    Rob, I suspect nearly everything you say to me has ulterior motives. I suspect that you interact with me at all from ulterior motives.

    I don't know what Dynamic and Neo-Orthodox Inspiration views are. Let me specify it for you. Do you believe mankind is fallen, sinful ... that Jesus was God come to earth in the form of man...that he died for the sins of humanity, was buried for three days, and was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven ... and because he did, human beings can be saved from their sins and live eternally after physical death ... and that this does, or should, have an effect on how they live their earthly lives?

  9. Connie, if you cannot see the parallels between, racism and bigotry, and "....the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture," then there really is nothing further to discuss on this issue.

    It's not telling at all since I never said, nor implied that. Though I'm sure you have already concluded I perpetuate a "white guilt" ideology.

    There is no implication of "protection." The rhetoric used is "dominance."

    Most people do recognize the symbolism behind Christians and Lions, primarily because of the Christian mythology I spoke of. Which was my point in the "obsession." Mythology.

    Again, petty argument.

    Society of Appalachian Historians, Appalachian Studies Association, Georgia Historical Society, Southern Historical Association, Georgia Association of Historians and the East Tennessee Historical Society. I've gone to conferences hosted by each, and have talked to professors, listened to presentations, and read papers at each. Some of these I mention on my blog, some I presented at myself. This is in addition to articles, presentations and lectures I've heard at LaGrange College, Carson-Newman College (now Carson-Newman University) and North Georgia College and State University (now University of North Georgia). The truth is I don't really care how much "confidence in (my) interpretations" you have. I am immersed in the field, you are not. My track record alone justifies my opinion of historical scholarship on slavery over yours.

    Then you're not asking if I believe in the "gospel." You are now asking numerous things, assuming they are lumped into one. In this question, you seem to be asking if I believe what you believe.

    1.) Do I believe mankind is fallen, sinful?

    That's two questions in one. As for the latter, "are men sinful?" yes. Man does wrong, all the time. As for the idea that men have "fallen," I would first have to believe that men were created at the beginning in a perfect, righteous image and fell. This comes from the Adam and Eve story of creation in the bible. I view that story as an archetype about the condition of humanity rather than a literal narrative.

    2.)"that Jesus was God come to earth in the form of man...that he died for the sins of humanity, was buried for three days, and was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven?"

    Which would be the same as asking "do I believe in the divinity of Christ." Although I do believe in Christ's divinity, I tend to focus less on the miracles, and more on his teachings and methods.

    3.) "because he did, human beings can be saved from their sins and live eternally after physical death ... and that this does, or should, have an effect on how they live their earthly lives?"

    The concept of salvation. I plead the Wesley.

  10. I don't see the parallels because there aren't any, Rob. Yes, what you have said here indicates you think white Christians preach a bigoted and racist point of view:

    You said Andy had neither approbation nor disapprobation for white Christians, but disdain of those that preach such a bigoted and obviously racist point of view.

    Andy didn't mention "those that preach such a bigoted and obviously racist point of view," so you associated that with those he DID mention -- white Christians (which is implied in the phrase white, Christian culture -- unless you think Andy is using "white, Christian culture" to refer to Asian Buddhists, or Arab Muslims?).

    You think "protected enclave" doesn't imply protection? And the terms used are "for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture."

    SOME culture WILL dominate, Rob. Far better that it be white, Christian culture than some other.

    If you recognized my point with the reference to Christians and lions, why on earth did you bring up all the irrelevant historical crap? Yes, you indeed made a petty argument.

    Nope, your "track record" does not justify your opinion over mine, since the "field" you are "immersed in" has become steeped in political correctness since the civil rights movement and the leftist domination of higher education in the last half of the 20th century.

    What I asked you about IS the gospel, according to St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians in that flawed book you evidently don't believe.

    "...I declare unto you the gospel ... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures ... But now is Christ risen from the dead ... so in Christ shall all be made alive..."

    I don't know what "the Wesley" concept of salvation is.

  11. Maybe in your twisted logic Connie, but reality holds a different picture.

    I didn't associate "White Christians" with anything. That's a rather absurd accusation and a cherry picked line in order to perpetuate a straw man argument. The context of Andy's article clearly demonstrates that I referred to such groups as the Southern Nationalist Network, League of the South and Council of Conservative Citizens. Never, not once, did I refer to "White Christians" in general as being racist/bigoted.

    So rather than attempt balance, your intent is subjugation through domination. Smh.

    I honed in on the premise of Christian-Roman myth because it is a metaphor for your argument. A myth.

    I have a degree in History, Masters in Teaching History, and am in my last year of a Masters of History. I've been accepted at, and presented to numerous conferences. My CV, as it were, is pretty much in all arenas superior to your "PC" argument. Despite the opinions of those that share your sentiment. TO say otherwise is a demonstration of denial, and your way of tap dancing around the generalization you made that everyone that mentions a "good slaveowners" is a "slave apologist."

    Again, assumptions. I never said "did not believe." If you knew anything about Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and the biblical scholarship connected, then you would know better than to make such statements. For starters, Corinthians is a letter, not a gospel, though to some loveably named Paulites and the religion of Paulianity, it is. Second, Paul's letter addresses specific problems at a specific time, though lessons can be drawn from his recommendations as a paternal figure, they should not be catch all instructions for numerous reasons. One of those reasons is because certain instructions in Paul's letter float. They appear in different sections, the beginning, the end, or sometimes not at all. Two of those instructions are: 1, praying and prophesying with a head covering; and 2, the role of women.

    Perhaps you shouldn't argue the bible when you are not familiar with the scholarship or the terminology. The verse you are looking for is 1 Corinthians 15. You've offered a few cherry picked lines about Christ's Resurrection which is a cornerstone of faith though, technically presented not out of context.

  12. My logic is not twisted, Rob. And neither is my intellectual honesty, which is more than I can say for yours.

    First, my blog post wasn't about any article Andy wrote. It was about a comment he wrote and posted on some civil war forum.

    Second, my blog post was about Andy's reference to white Christians implied in his phrase, "the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture." There can be no mistaking what I was talking about because I QUOTED the exact words I was addressing in the 7th paragraph of my blog post.

    You posted five comments in response to my blog post speculating about what Andy has against white Christians, which is implied in his phrase "white Christian culture," so it is logical to assume that is what you were referring to. The groups you mentioned were in the copy-paste of Andy's forum comment, but *I* did not mention them at all in my blog post -- not a single syllable about them. So if you were talking about something different from what my blog post was about, you should have made that clear long before you did.

    My intent is subjugation through domination? Nope, subjugation is not my intent, and it is not the intent of the Southern nationalist movement (although there may be some individuals who advocate that). Try to get the true picture here ... we are talking about the words of a man describing something he is hostile to. I didn't even touch on that aspect of Andy's comment (though I plan to in a separate blog post). The only thing I discussed here was the likely hostility to white Christians implied in his phrase, "...a protected enclave for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture." If there is subjugation implied, it's implied by Andy, not by me.

    The phrase is "homed in on," Mr. Master's degree holder. "Honed in on" is a erroneous variation of "homed in on" that is in the process of becoming acceptable because it is used (misused) so extensively by dumbed-down Americans, but its usage isn't accepted by all grammarians yet.

    If your grammar is any indication of your overall education, I don't hold your immersion in history in very high esteem...

    Corinthians is a letter, not a gospel? Well, duh, can't you read? Didn't you notice my phrase, "according to St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians"? Didja see that word, LETTER?

    *I* didn't say 1st Corinthians was a gospel. Paul was the one who used that word IN the letter, writing, "...I declare unto you the gospel..." The gospel... The GOSPEL... Did you happen to notice that? And then he goes on to say what the gospel is. (It is sometimes abbreviated as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the salvation of man from sin.)

    In your attempt to make yourself look so learned and scholarly, and your attempt to discredit somebody you can't stand, you're just making yourself look mean-spirited and foolish -- not to mention dishonest, since I stated unmistakably that Corinthians was a letter. All the rest of your comment about Paul and his letters is irrelevant to the discussion.

    What is it with you floggers and your desire to denigrate people you disagree with?

    I'm very familiar with the Bible (which should be capitalized, Mr. Master's degree holder) and I'm far more interested in the spiritual aspects of it than the "scholarship."

    1st Corinthians 15 is not a verse.

  13. It does not matter, you brought Andy's article and by connection, that article's context into the frame. To ignore his context is intellectually dishonest.

    Again, you ignoring the context of his argument by suggesting he referred generally to "white Christians," is dishonest. He plainly states who his issues are with. You are either willfully ignoring his points in order to trivialize and demonize, or you are blatantly ignorant. I choose the former as it is your modus operandi.

    If your preference is White dominance, then how do you suppose white Christian culture maintain that dominance without subjugation Connie? Dominance comes with some sort of subjugation. Sometimes it is as simple as competitive defeat, and sometimes it comes from abuse. They are one in the same.

    I see you'd rather play the grammar/typo game than look at context. You seem to be right about "honed in" vs "homed in." In the end it doesn't matter because you knew what I meant, and as I've told you before, I usually do not proof read internet comments.

    Again, attacking grammar Connie. Tisk tisk. If that is your argument then by all means. History is not a grammar course, much like grammar is not a history course. You'd be wise to remember your training vs mine.

    In reality, you said "that IS the gospel, according to St. Paul's letter...," and then went on to quote Paul. So am I to take Paul's quote as gospel? In reality Paul refers to the gospel but goes more in depth on the resurrection as confirmation of the gospel. So Paul's words are gospel or Paul refers to the gospel? See what I'm getting at? You have to be overly specific when quoting biblical scripture because this is one of the few fields where semantics, and an argument thereof, is actually important.

    I'm sorry you take criticism as "mean spirited." I'd hate to see you present at a conference.

    Again, I didn't proofread at 2 in the morning. I initially intended to write verse as I looked to find it, but then realized that chapter 15 was important in, and of itself. My mistake. But still the point stands. It's interesting though that you tend to focus on the spiritual aspects without the scholarly aspects. You very well could be putting your spiritual faith in items under wrong pretenses. Happens a lot. But again, you ulterior motives for asking these questions, and to paint me as a non-believer which you've already said, are too clear. It's easier for you to demonize "floggers" if they are godless, huh?

  14. For the second time, it wasn't an article, it was a post on a civil war forum.

    Rob, did you even read Andy's statement? It is about the Southern Nationalist Network, which he describes as "...a modern-day secessionist group that seeks to break away from the "Empire" and "restore" the South as a protected enclave for the preservation and dominance of white, Christian culture."

    He further describes the SNN as "closely aligned with groups like the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens. So consider the source." But those are tacked on. The subject was the SNN, and his description of it.

    What I'm curious about is what problem Andy has with white Christians -- without whom you cannot have white, Christian culture, correct? Or do you imagine he can have a problem with white, Christian culture, but not with white Christians?

    Dominance doesn't require subjugation. You're getting it confused with domineering. The word Andy used is dominance.

    Dominance is a noun and means rule; control; authority; ascendancy, or the condition of being dominant.

    Dominant is an adjective which means ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence:... or, occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position.

    Dominate is a verb that means to rule over; govern; control ... to tower above; overlook; overshadow ... to predominate, permeate, or characterize.

    Domineer is a verb that means to rule arbitrarily or despotically; tyrannize.

    "...rule arbitrarily or despotically; tyrannize..." which implies or requires subjugation, is what differentiates domineering from dominate and its variants, which do not necessarily imply or require subjugation.

    Re, your paragraph about St. Paul's letter and the gospel. Yadda, yadda, yadda... More of your creating a blizzard of irrelevancy to try to make yourself look learned and scholarly.

    Your exhibition of mean-spiritedness had nothing to do with criticism. You were simply taking meaningless potshots to make yourself look scholarly. Didn't work.

    Yes, the point stands that 1st Corinthians 15 is not a verse. The scholarly aspects of scripture without the spiritual ones are totally meaningless. One may be the most learned scholar of scripture in the history of humankind, but if one ends up in hell, what's the point?

    I could very well be putting my spiritual faith in items under wrong pretenses? Sorry, you don't have the authority to make that kind of judgment....

    My asking about your religious beliefs has nothing to do floggers. I asked about it because you basically called early Christian writer liars, and I wondered if you had the same contempt for the entirety of Christianity


Comments are welcome, but monitored.