Saturday, August 31, 2013

Somewhere In Texas, Too!

See? After this, A Year and a Half Late...  Andy, too, starts burning up them Internet lines lookin' for Matthew Heimbach...

And after keepin' himself out of the fray since the Paula Deen racist-employer accusation scandal (which she turned out to be innocent of, and which he STILL hasn't acknowledged, as far as I can find)....  Ah, well, a heritage-hater's work is never done, huh....

Image composited by C. Ward from photos by the U.S. Government, T. Ward and the public domain.

Somewhere In Arizona, Part Deux

In reply to this: A Year and a Half Late... he does the above.... and finds a whopping FOUR Facebook posts!!! Man, he be smokin', iddinee? Got on his Gettysburg togs and everything!

Image composited by C.Ward using photos from the U.S. Government, T. Ward, and the public domain.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Questions for the White Floggosphere...

Brooks D. Simpson, did you marry a black woman? If not, why not?
Andy Hall, did you marry a black woman? If not, why not?
Kevin Levin, did you marry a black woman? If not, why not?
Corey Meyer, did you marry a black woman? If not, why not?

White peanut gallery floggerettes, did you marry a black spouse? If not, why not?

Brooks D. Simpson, do you live in a majority-black neighborhood? If not, why not?
Andy Hall, do you live in a majority-black neighborhood? If not, why not?
Kevin Levin, do you live in a majority-black neighborhood? If not, why not?
Corey Meyer, do you live in a majority-black neighborhood? If not, why not?

White peanut gallery floggerettes, do you live in a majority-black neighborhood? If not, why not?

I suspect hell will freeze over before we hear any answer to these questions. Nevertheless, the silence itself will be an answer.  I suggest these hypocrites lay off Southern heritage advocates, especially the Flaggers, and most especially the Virginia Flaggers until they get their own racist house cleaned up and in order.

Thanks to commenters Austin and Rebel Bill for giving me the idea for this post.

A Year and a Half Late...

... and many bricks shy of a full load of integrity....

The peanut gallery at Crossroads is all abuzz over picture of the Virginia Flaggers with some wet-behind-the-ears college kid identified as a white supremacist...  Oh, my gosh,  you'd think the Flaggers had done something terrible, like rounding up people and forcing them sit through two showings of Django Unchained or one showing of Miley Cyrus at the MTV Awards....

In this installment of Backsass, let's look at the contributions of ever-so-dignified flogger, Andy Hall, who strives so assiduously to come across as even-handed... He sez:
This was at the Confederate Heritage Parade (a.k.a. the “kill Yankees!” march) in Richmond last year. I’m sure there will be lots of assertions that Heimbach “isn’t a Flagger,” but but he did march in the parade — not just with the Flaggers, but front-and-center, immediately behind the Virginia Flaggers banner (5:50). Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc."
Just outta curiosity, how many other times has he walked and quacked like a Flagger, Andy? How many times before that march? How many times since? You don't know? YOU DON'T KNOW????? As much as you obsessively focus on Flagger minutia, you DON'T KNOW?????  Their photos and videos are all over the Internet, on their blog, Facebook and Youtube, yet you can't find Heimbach anywhere in there since that one march?



Andy again:
Confederate heritage/Southern nationalism slides seamlessly into white nationalism/supremacist advocacy, with lots of people (like Heimbach and his lady friend) in both camps.

I don't have any problem whatsofrickin'ever telling them apart. NOT A BIT.  Do you, Andy? Really? With all your learnedness and your powers of discernment, you really find the differences are that hard to spot? Or is it that you are highly motivated to find the differences EASY TO IGNORE?
It’s stretching things to say that the core membership of the Virginia Flaggers shares Heimbach’s rancid views on race, because I don’t think they do. But they would do well to ask themselves why their own activities attract people like Heimbach, and what about their message gives white supremacists reason to believe they’d be welcomed — literally, in this case — within the ranks of their organization.
He wasn't "welcomed within the ranks of their organization." Being welcomed within the "ranks" of the organization means being a PART of it, becoming a MEMBER -- not just marching with them at an event where a LOT of OTHER people were ALSO marching, and not marching with them before nor since. You're losing it, Andy, when you use schizoid reasoning like this.

One might ask why those of you who spout gratuitous "anti-racist" rhetoric don't condemn the Wichita Horror, the Knoxville Horror, the murder of Eve Carson, the murder of Lauren Burke,the murder of Antoino Santiago, the murder of Delbert "Shorty" Belton, the murder of Christopher Lane and on and on and on, the way you expect heritage folks to condemn white supremacists like Heimbach, who, as far as I can determine, hasn't MURDERED anybody....

Sooner or later, you fellows are going to goad some "anti-racist" nutcase who's half-crazy with self-righteousness into striking out, and somebody will get hurt, which we would all regret. At least, I'm assuming you'd regret it if somebody got hurt (unless, maybe, they're a white supremacist?)  I suggest you ratchet back on the condemnatory and mendacious rhetoric...

Thursday, August 29, 2013

You-Know-Who Here, Checking In....

Years ago, before the League of the South radicalized (which I write about HERE), it extolled traditional Southern culture, and advocated for the survival of same -- the core of which was the creation of, or the result of, white European settlers. White nationalists used to be attracted to the League because of that, thinking that the League's goal was an all-white South. That may be the League's position today, but it wasn't then, and such folks soon lost patience with the League's true position, and left on their own.

Ditto the Flaggers. It appears that Matthew Heimbach participated in one event by the Flaggers (one of dozens of events held before and after Heimbach's participation). I have not noticed his being involved in any other Flagger events, so he must have found it not to his liking, and moved on.

Do you think that matters to Brooks D. Simpson, Professor of History at Arizona State University? This is a man who has a long, long history on his blog of singling out the comments of one or a handful of people and attempting to smear a much larger group with them.

In the comment thread following this attempted smear, Simpson compounds it with this observation to his floggerette peanut gallery:

"I see these people as advancing a misleading version of history."

What, you think they somehow threaten the misleading version of history that YOU advance?

"I also think their associations should be of concern to those people who are interested in Confederate heritage but who are aware of some of the surrounding issues."

But since you despise Confederate heritage and those people who are interested in it, what's it to ya?

"If you want to decouple Confederate heritage from celebrating white supremacy, for example, you might want to wonder about these associations given the group’s commitment to speak for Confederate heritage."

These associations? The appearance of ONE guy at ONE flagger event is an ... ASSOCIATION?

"The Flaggers do influence people … just not always as they intend."

The same could be said of history professors.

"My readership’s broad enough that different people come here for different reasons, and that what interests one may not interest another."

Although it appears that fewer and fewer people are visiting there, for any least, if comment thread participation is anything to go by.

Speaking about associations, though, made me nostalgic... So, for your listening pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, especially you Boomer types, I present Along Comes Mary by The Association:

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Great Outpouring of Concern

Folks, have you seen the great outpouring of concern for dead Confederates coming from the floggerette peanut gallery at Crossroads?

Michael Confoy says, "Of course there are bodies buried all over battlefields, especially ones that have not been protected," to which Simpson replies, "That’s common sense, especially where there were fixed lines for a period of time."

It's truly amazing, the change of heart these Confederacy-haters have undergone, all because of the Virginia Flaggers' plans to put up a large Confederate flag beside I-95 near Richmond.

Geez, if we'd known that's what it took to change hearts and minds, by now we'd have giant Confederate flags waving beside major thoroughfares all over Dixie!

Just look at the truly touching comment from Flamethrower: "On first hearing about the place being just a “burial grounds”, and not distinguishing between cemetery and an unmarked graves site, then the Flaggers’ plans to zone out
the flag pole with top grade security equipment, my immediate concern turned to the possibility that all this media attention will attract the classic tomb robbers, therefore to completely destroy all of the effort put forth by their extremely misguided attempts to honor the dead, unto that of gravely consequences."

He's not concerned merely about tomb robbers ... he's concerned about classic tomb robbers.... Is that not just the sweetest thing? Brings a tear to your eye, don't it?  It's so touching, I've got a lump in my throat.

Image: Copyright Unknown

Constant Carping....

Watching Brooks D. Simpson, professor of history at Arizona State University, obsess over the Virginia Flaggers and their current flag project, reminds me of what Lewis Grizzard wrote about the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. He said a lot of men rooted for Willie simply because of the female prosecutor, who "bitched and moaned and said the same things over and over and reminded us of our ex-wives."

Kinda makes you wonder whether the floggerettes in his peanut gallery -- who, after all, supposedly care about history, not heritage -- are getting tired of it. How many times has he carped on Rob Walker, Tripp Lewis on video, and now, the I-95 flag project? What's interesting to me, though, is how he subtly -- and sometimes not so subtly -- "restates" what VaFlaggers and their supporters have said. For example, his current claim of Flagger hysteria -- most of it aimed at me. It's really not hysteria, btw. His problem with me is that (a) I don't respect him and (b) I don't mind saying so.

From Flagger Hysteria (Neither Heritage Nor History) --

What Simpson claims:  Grayson Jennings of Richmond, Virginia, has claimed that he’s worried about vandalism...

Report of what Grayson actually said: It now plans to light the flag at night and install security cameras and a fence to deter would-be vandals.

Doesn't sound like worry to me. Sounds like simple, reasonable precautions, considering vandalism to Confederate monuments and such (including the actual removal of stick flags from cemeteries) in recent years.

What Simpson claims: We’ve had talk of terrorism as well  by Flagger supporter Carl Roden of Chester (South Carolina).

What Carl said:  I worry that sooner or later some lone nut or two, possibly inspired by the anti-Confederate flag rhetoric of these people will – in the name of “tolerance” and “patriotism” of course – commit some heinous act of violence of the type that took place in Aurora, CO or recently in Boston, MA.

I'm not sure why that would ruffle Simpson's feathers. We live in an age of terrorism. Granted, most of what happens in the USA is Islamic terrorism, called "workplace violence" and other euphemisms by the Obama regime, but when you read some of the sheer malevolence of some comments toward the flaggers following news reports, it is only prudent to consider what some of them could lead to.

What Simpson claims: Chastain’s hysteria reached new levels this weekend when it was suggested that the Flaggers’ determination to dig into what they claim is historic soil where Confederate soldiers camped, fought, and died might have the unfortunate effect of disturbing important cultural and historical resources, including perhaps the bodies of buried Confederate soldiers.

What I actually said can be found by scrolling back through recent posts here on Backsass. Don't you love how Simpson's embedded links say things like, "...the implications of the Flaggers’ own declaration..." but you follow it and it takes you to something HE said on his own blog? He has a habit of that kind of circular reasoning. 

To make the case that there are bodies -- or could be -- RIGHT IN THE VERY SPOT WHERE THE FLAG IS GOING UP -- Simpson references ... Gettysburg, which, according to Mapquest, is 182.39 miles from Richmond...

Simpson says: Chastain confuses unmarked graves with a cemetery for reasons I’m sure she’ll explain away.

Actually, I didn't confuse them. Simpson didn't use the term "unmarked" in his previous posts. The term appears for the first time in Flagger Hysteria (Neither Heritage Nor History), which went up today, August 27, and a search of  his blog shows this post to be the only one of his entire blog where the term appears. What he said previously was "laid to rest" which implies deliberate burial -- which may or may not imply a cemetery, but usually does.

In any case, as Dave Tatum noted in a comment thread at Backsass (and I can't believe Simpson doesn't know this) -- "If during the excavation for the foundation of the Flag pole any evidence of historical significance is found, construction should stop. The State should then be notified. I've dug a lot of footers for buildings and that's the way it works."

That's the way it works in Pensacola, too. When excavation of the ground virtually anywhere in the area uncovers something that appears to be archeologically significant, the Division of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of West Florida (for years, ably headed by Judy Bense, now president of the university) was called in to assess the find.

In any case, as already noted, flag poles (and sometimes fences and lighting) are ubiquitous in military cemeteries, and are hardly considered "disturbances."

Simpson offers this parting shot: It would also be sad if the people who claim that they seek to honor the Confederate soldier find themselves in an embarrassing situation die (sic) to their failure to exercise due diligence. You would think they would want to take precautions to make sure that they won’t be disturbing anything beneath that soil.

Well, he doesn't know they have failed to exercise due diligence or failed to take precautions. He is making up these gloom-and-doom scenarios not because he cares about Confederate graves, but because he hates the Confederate flag and any who honor it, and the soldiers who fought and died beneath it. His carping is designed to add weight to any efforts to stop the flag project; but if it cannot be stopped, he will settle for just smearing and harassing the VaFlaggers.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Losin' It Before Our Very Eyes


The latest babble from Babbling Brooks at Crossroads:

The Flagger Proposal: Disrupting and Disrespecting the Confederate Dead?
Posted on August 25, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson   

Spokespeople for the Virginia Flaggers have claimed that the area where they plan to erect a fifty-foot flag pole from which to fly a Confederate flag that would be visible to motorists traveling north on I-95 to Richmond is sacred soil. After all, they argue, Confederate soldiers were stationed there and died there.

They may be right. After all, the area under consideration is near Drewry’s Bluff, site of an 1862 action, as well as a key moment in the 1864 Bermuda Hundred campaign (as this map shows):

(from Beyond the Crater)
Here’s the same area today, with I-95 clearly marked:
Chester, Virginia
From the Times-Dispatch article. "The site is particularly significant because Confederate troops are believed to have camped in and around the area during the Bermuda Hundred campaign, according to Hathaway."
You would think that a group dedicated to honoring the sacrifices of Confederate soldiers, including those who gave their lives in the cause of southern independence, might first do a little work to ascertain what just might be in the area before they commenced construction. (How do we know they didn't? How do you know the owner of the property hasn't long since done it?)

What evidence do we have that they have taken steps all of us would recognize as proper and responsible?  (We who? YOU? What makes you think you should be provided with such evidence?)

Is the simple claim that this is private property, so that the Flaggers can do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences …. including the disturbance of historical resources (the very ones they claim exist) (they didn't claim any "historical resources" exist there. They just said the area is "particularly significant" because "Confederate troops ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE CAMPED in and around the area...") and the disturbance of Confederates laid to rest in the area … enough to desecrate the very men they claim to honor?
WHO SAID THERE ARE CONFEDERATES LAID TO REST IN THE AREA? It was mentioned that soldiers might have died there. Not the same thing as being buried there. A HISTORIAN DOESN'T KNOW THIS??????
We have none other than the Flaggers themselves for alerting us to the possible destruction of valuable cultural and historical resources. (The anger is taking its toll on his composition skills, too.)

My gosh, let's take down all the flags in military cemeteries from border to border and coast to coast, as they are DISTURBING CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES. GET THOSE FLAGS DOWN NOW!
It would be a good idea to first ascertain the character of the area where the Flaggers propose to erect their flag pole, and to evaluate it in terms of cultural and historical resources, so as to prevent the possibility of reckless destruction.
Ya know what would be an even BETTER idea? For you stop pretending you care about anything Confederate, go back to "history" or whatever it is you do, and leave HERITAGE alone. You don't give a rat's patootie about "cultural and historical resources" there. YOU ARE JUST DRIVEN CRAZY BY THE IDEA OF THE FLAG GOING UP, AND YOU'RE DOING WHATEVER YOU CAN TO PREVENT IT.
I’m sure various agencies as well as Confederate heritage organizations would appreciate answers to these questions. So would anyone who is against the disruption of Confederate burial sites.
And if the Flaggers refuse or protest this reasonable request, then we know that it’s not about honoring Confederate heritage or the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier, but something quite different.
Update: For those of you who are concerned about this possible threat to Virginia’s cultural and historic resources, you may want to contact Kristin Kirchen ( at Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources.
Have you called, Simpson?  If so, do tell us about your conversation with Kristin Kirchen. Tell us what she said. If you haven't called... why not?

==========UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE===========

Comments from Crossroads:

Connie’s denying that the site is a burial ground.

Well, duh. I'm going by the extremely likelihood that the Virginia Flaggers, when looking at a piece of ground can, you know, recognize a cemetery by... oh ... I don't know ... HEADSTONES... you know, granite, marble, etc, about a foot wide and two feet high, with names, dates and other info etched into the surface....  Since they didn't say they're planning to raise the flag in a cemetery, it is a logical conclusion that the spot is not a cemetery.

Brooks D. Simpson;
The fact is that no one knows what might or might not be there. After all, the Flaggers themselves made claims about the historical nature of the site.

Someone may know.  Just because WE don't know, that doesn't mean nobody knows.

Besides "historical nature" and "burial ground" are not synonyms.

Besides again, the Virginia Flaggers did not used the term "historic nature" of the site in the Times Dispatch article. This statement: The site is particularly significant because Confederate troops are believed to have camped in and around the area during the Bermuda Hundred campaign, is attributed to Susan Hathaway by the Times Dispatch. It doesn't say "historic nature." It says, "particularly significant."

What exactly are Connie’s credentials for ascertaining (a) that her fellow Flaggers are full of hot air (b) the significance of the ground in question? Would you take her at her word? For her to make this claim, she’d have to identify the site and open it to inspection to verify her claim. Otherwise, her assertion is worthless.

Pay attention, Simpson and Flamethrower.. Simpson wrote "... and the disturbance of Confederates laid to rest in the area..." the first claim that there are graves, or a cemetery, on the plot where the flag will go up -- a claim not mentioned in any news report I have read.

My statement, "It is not a cemetery," is the logical conclusion to be drawn from information that has been reported in the Times-Dispatch and elsewhere. People said there were camps and battles nearby. Because soldiers die in battle, it is a logical conclusion that men died in the area. However, there were no reports of people claiming that Confederates killed in battle were "laid to rest" there. Ergo, it is not a cemetery.

After all, if she asks how could I know (when I’ve said I don’t, and that it’s an open question), how does she know for sure?

You made a gigantic leap from Susan's comment, "particularly significant," to "Confederates laid to rest" and "Confederate burial sites." There is no indication in the news reports that anybody knows, suspects or believes there are cemeteries or graves located where the flag will go up, or even in the vicinity. This is an extremely transparent attempt on your part to smear and harass the Virginia Flaggers.

Oops. Not working.

Images: U.S. Government

Saturday, August 24, 2013

More Gloom and Doom Predictions

 From Simpson at Crossroads: 
As this radio report reveals, the Virginia Flaggers now believe that their project to erect a flag pole south of Richmond along I-95 to fly the Confederate navy jack will be but the first of several such flags across the Old Dominion.

It’s another Flaggers tumble, because what was once simply a Richmond issue is now a Virginia issue. You would think that they would get one flag up first. Watch as opposition builds.

Powerful and Obnoxious Odor of Mendacity...

...wafting forth from Arizona.

Have a look at the latest sewage spewing forth from that otherwise lovely state...

Connie Chastain Is Right
Posted on August 24, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson
I bet you never thought you would see that post heading.
Over at her little blog, which Connie has rendered as “Backsass” and “Backass” (the second rendering coming in her frequent visits to the comments section of various articles last week), (which Simpson knows about because he has poured over the same comments sections) she has a practice of writing lengthy, long-winded posts about people she does not like, (actually, I write about the critics of Southern heritage and their attacks, hypocrisy, motives, lies, etc.) and, as you might imagine, I’m a special target. (Because of his attacks, hypocrisy, motives, lies, etc.) 

Some people who have discovered her blog have circulated it widely to those people who want a better understanding of the person who manages the blog of the Virginia Flaggers, and, to channel Kevin Levin, I couldn’t be more pleased at the response. Sometimes you have to see something to believe it. (I'm fine with people visiting my blogs so they can see the truth, and not the distortions of the floggers.)
Most recently Connie has taken exception to how some people in the comments section in an online article at Richmond’s Style Weekly have characterized southerners. Not satisfied with that, she rants: “A Challenge for Brooks Simpson.  Defend these vacuous, history-deficient, hate-filled comments from Flagger opponents posted to Style Weekly.”
I won’t. I think they are wrong-headed, and for a very good reason: a good number of them mistake the Virginia Flaggers and their supporters for representative southerners. Nothing could be further from the truth … and many southerners will second that observation. (You won't defend them because you agree with them, as you have repeatedly demonstrated on your blog, particularly with attacks on people's intelligence that means the same thing as "numbskull, idiocy, half-wit," etc.
The present burden of southern history and heritage happens to be the Virginia Flaggers and their supporters. Most southerners know that flying the very flag embraced not only by the KKK in recent memory but also by forces of white supremacy, racism, segregation, and massive resistance in the 1950s and 1960s sends a message of hate as well as heritage, and in some cases that heritage is one of hate. (And one of the clearly discernable effects of the Virginia Flaggers is the very visual, visible distinction between them and the uses/people Simpson is attempting to smear them with. Since he doesn't want that positive aspect of Southern heritage to receive any attention at all, he is furious at the distinction, and is doing what he can to blur and obliterate it. And he's smearing good, decent folks in order to do it -- but what does he care about that/them?)
The South I know today is much more tolerant than the South I entered in 1975 in my first year at the University of Virginia, when the university president defended his membership in a whites-only private club and the house of the Afro-American dean came under attack. I know that the South is a diverse region (Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina are very different), and, as someone who has family that is southern (including Texas and Louisiana), that education continues. (All of which has nothing to do with the VaFlaggers or decent and sincere Confederate heritage advocates, whom Simpson is doing his best to smear.)
It is one of the sad aspects of the Virginia Flaggers’ project to fly a Confederate navy jack along 1-95 south of Richmond that it attempts to define the South (and Richmond in particular) by an event that lasted four years out of the centuries of the rich history of the region and the Old Dominion. (Ah, no. That is NOT true.  It is not an attempt to define the South at all. Try to find that in ANY of their literature, Facebook groups, emails, blog posts. The entire point is to preserve and protect one aspect of Southern heritage that is under attack by forces determined to purge every aspect of  it from the South.** What Simpson is doing is what one HAS to do to successfully smear people -- lie about not only what they say but their motives. But don't take my word for it. Check out what the Flaggers themselves say -- but first, learn to tell the difference between genuine heritage people and plants/infiltrators.)  

It’s a banner that explicitly excludes the enslaved African Americans who welcomed the entry of Old Glory into Richmond on April 3, 1865, and cheered as the national colors were placed atop the state capital. As a native Richmonder recently told me, the Flagger proposal is nothing more than a middle finger thrust at the rest of the world. (Well, it doesn't explicitly exclude anybody. That's an interpretation not everyone shares. It certainly isn't universal truth. Besides, Old Glory, which ubiquitous in Richmond and across the South, is claimed to explicitly include everyone, so what's the problem? The oh,-so-inclusive Stars and Stripes won't miraculously dissolve on their poles when one [count it, one, (1), o-n-e] battle flag goes up. Although the battle flag is not exclusive as Simpson wants to claim, it is nevertheless true that not every symbol can or does include everybody. Next thing you know, he will be complaining that the Cross of Languedoc excludes Catholics....)
Many Richmonders oppose the Flaggers’ project, even as they concede the right of the Flaggers to do as they wish. The opponents clearly outnumber the supporters. Flaggers claim that this is a move of people from out of state, but then Flaggers welcome support from non-Virginians such as Florida’s Chastain and the pride of Chester, South Carolina, Carl Roden (the romance writer wing of the movement). (The difference is that the out-of-staters supporting the flag aren't signing petitions to be given to the government with the hope that it will ignore private property rights and force the flaggers to abandon the project. I'm certain a man of Simpson's intelligence and education can see the difference. Acknowledging it, though... different story. Besides, better to have a romance writer wing, which involves love, than to BE the hate-smear wing that the floggers are.)

Some Flaggers and their supporters say that if people in Richmond don’t like the flag, they should move, which suggests that they really aren’t anxious to welcome people to Virginia, and that they aren’t tolerant of free speech for anyone but themselves.
(But the vast majority of them DON'T say that, so look at what Simpson chooses to focus, and what he's ignoring. Besides, we don't know it is Flaggers saying that; or their supporters, really, since the comments are anonymous. In any case, it's tit for tat, which Simpson will also voluntarily blind himself to. It's the response to outlanders coming in and trying to tell Richmonders what they may and may not do. It just seems logical, if you don't like the place you move to, leave it. However, as noted, there's a problem with his "Some Flaggers" term in this claim. Read on...)

Much like their intellectual ancestors, the proponents of the Gag Rule barring the reception of antislavery petitions by Congress in the 1830s and 1840s, Flaggers want to silence discussion and bar dissent, signs of their own uncertain commitment to democratic values.
(Egregiously misleading to attribute anonymous statements on a news report comment thread to the Flaggers, who are specific people with specific identities, without identifying them. If you know which one made posts advocating silence and dissent, name them, Simpson. Otherwise, acknowledge that anybody could have said it, including Flagger opponents wishing to smear them, much the way you wish to. And finally, acknowledge that people already living in a place, and particularly those whose ancestors also lived there, have as much reason to tell newcomers who don't like how it is to leave, as the newcomers have to tell existing residents what they can and cannot do. )
Folks, the Flaggers and their supporters aren’t representative of southerners or southern values. They represent a thread of thought and sentiment that was once the fabric of a slaveowning society grounded upon white supremacy that subdued opposition through terrorism and violence. TOTAL, UTTER UNTRUTH. COMPLETE LIE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY REPRESENT.  YOUR PERCEPTION, SIMPSON, NOT THEIR INTENTION. STOP LYING about it.
That fabric is no more, and flying a piece of that fabric won’t change that fact. Don’t blame southerners, white and black, native and recent arrivals, for the actions of the Flaggers and their supporters. Don’t mistake their views for the views of all southerners. After all, Virginia is for lovers … not haters.
Note: Chastain declares: “If you want to know the truth about a person, do you really think you’ll get it from someone at enmity with them? Nobody with common sense would do that. Only those wishing to have their prejudices confirmed.” Read her postings at Back[s]ass with that in mind.

Yes, do. Read me. Then read his blog. See what he has said about me, about other Southern heritage advocates, and the movement in general. Go over Crossroads, and then my blogs, websites, Facebook posts, novels, short stories -- any and all my writings -- with a fine-toothed comb. And when you're finished, ask yourself why a professor of history at a major state university would bother himself about the little niche blogs of a retired insurance secretary half a continent away. Ask yourself why he would characterize as "hate" that which is not. What stake has he got in all this?

**Remembering and honoring Confederate soldiers and their bravery, endurance and sacrifice.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The Odious World of Flagger Opponents

A Challenge for Brooks Simpson.  Defend these vacuous, history-deficient, hate-filled comments from Flagger opponents posted to Style Weekly.
I'll never understand why cranks like these choose a flag from the Confederate Navy....  Posted by Pro-America, Anti-C.S.A.

One can never persuade conservatives that they are acting stupid. They revel in their stubborn idiocy. When they are called on being numbskulls, they not only don't care but double down on their numbskullery. It's the way they are.   Posted by kazoo


I wish the Media (sic) would STOP giving publicity to these idiots. That's what they want. They are just bullies and no amount of reasoning will ever get thru to them. They will make all of us look like a bunch of backward-a$$ rednecks. Flaggers need to go away!  Posted by Dianne Shaunessy 


The poor white trash that's angry about others (especially persons of color) making inroads in the community are the ones who want to wave this relic that belongs in a case in a museum and not on our highways. Of course, most decent people see this symbol for what it is - the remant (sic) of a lost cause, a pathetic last-ditch effort to repress others that was thankfully, by the Grace of God, put down once and for all by the army of the United States (aka Union). Yes, folks, God wasn't and isn't on your side or the south would have won. Get over it. Leave the library which is the only place you can use the computer to post your hatred, go back to your trailers and crack open a cold one, and spend some time with your half-wit, inbred children.   Posted by City taxpayer
Notice there's almost no attempt to make an objective case for not flying the flag -- it's mostly hurling insults -- probably because such arguments are easily refuted. In fact, you can read my refutations in the comment thread at Style Weekly.

I like City taxpayer's comment best. Poor white trash? But Simpson would never see that as racist (in fact, it's right up his alley) because City taxpayer is talking about WHITE SOUTHERNERS, who deserve such a hate-laced moniker, just for being white and Southern, even if they aren't poor and trash. And we know from past observation that evilizing white Southerners is a huge motivation for floggers/

Exactly why the "inbred hick" accusation is flung at Southerners is a mystery to me, since inbreeding is no more prevalent in the South (not even in Appalachia) than any other section of the country. But it is a common epithet that tells more about the hatred of the person using it than the person(s) they're aiming their hatred toward...

And besides, City taxpayer exhibits about as much knowledge of the subject as some of her posting cohorts exhibit about history, which is very little.

Re: his/her lovely invective, "half-wit," per WebMD, the following are the most common causes of intellectual disability. (Note: "inbreeding" is not among them. The most common cause of Down syndrome, for example, is the age of the mother):
 ~~Genetic conditions. These include things like Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome (neither of which is caused by inbreeding --cw)
 ~~Problems during pregnancy. Things that can interfere with fetal brain development include alcohol or drug use, malnutrition, certain infections, or preeclampsia.
~~Problems during childbirth. Intellectual disability may result if a baby is deprived of oxygen during childbirth or born extremely premature.
 ~~Illness or injury. Infections like meningitis, whooping cough, or the measles can lead to intellectual disability. Severe head injury, near-drowning, extreme malnutrition, exposure to toxic substances such as lead, and severe neglect or abuse can also cause it.
Here's some information that City taxpayer could use, if his/her interest in inbreeding was genuine, and not simply an invective to hurl at people he/she doesn't know

In 1980, anthropologist Robert Tincher published a study titled "Night Comes to the Chromosomes: Inbreeding and Population Genetics in Southern Appalachia," based on 140 years' worth of marriage records. He concluded that "inbreeding levels in Appalachia … [are neither] unique [n]or particularly common to the region, when compared with those reported for populations elsewhere or at earlier periods in American history."

And...  From io9, a daily publication that covers science, science fiction, and the future: Why inbreeding really isn't as bad as you think it is

But, of course, it's easy to tell from his/her comment that City taxpayer is far more interested in using words to hurl abuse than he/she is in using them to learn truth and facts. So who is really exhibiting intellectual disability?

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Somewhere In Arizona....

I can’t tell you what Flagger thinking is (and I know I’m assuming something not yet proven). But two things about the Flaggers should be obvious: first, their actions are motivated in large part not by a desire to honor the service of the Confederate soldier, but by a desire to draw attention to themselves. Thus we always see the photographs of Flaggers doing this, Susan Hathaway doing that, Tripp Lewis looking goofy, and so on. The pictures are not about the flags or the issues of Confederate heritage, but of the Flaggers having fun (or the numerous images of Susan Hathaway in her red top). Second, the Flaggers and their supporters have a shaky grasp of history that at times reveals less savory aspects of their historical and political beliefs.

It’s not about heritage … that’s for sure

~Brooks D. Simpson    .

Graphic: C.Ward

The Virginia Flaggers and PR

They're tsk-tsking over on Crossroads about an article in the Richmond Times-Disgrace  about the petition against the I-95 flag project. True to what passes for journalism today, Reporter Ted Strong sprinkles a few comments from "the other side" to make his article look objective, and that's what Flogger Simpson and his Floggerettes in the Crossroads Peanut Gallery focus on. Natcherly, I had to snip back at them, and since Simpson is skeered to post my comments on his blog, I hafta do it here.
First, from Simpson's post:  
So let me understand this: proposing to fly a divisive symbol isn’t inflammatory, but objecting to doing so is? The Flaggers as victims theme continues.
Pointing out what's happening is not claiming victimhood. Yes, the petition is inflammatory because the "divisiveness" of a symbol is in the eye of the beholder; while a petition is an instrument of divisiveness by its very nature. It exists for the purpose of opposing something others want, or promoting something others don't want. It is not symbolic but a concrete act and instrument of divisiveness.  
“Many” is defined as fifty, as we’ll see below. It’s far less that the number of signatures on the petition who hail from Virginia. Also, to be consistent, the Virginia Flaggers would have to validate the residency of the fifty people who are part of the organization. Just sayin’. Don’t want no outsiders involved, eh? Hear that, Connie Chastain from Florida?
Well, greater numbers don't necessarily indicate rightness... “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."  Just sayin'.
Besides, it all depends on how you understand what Jimmy said. I understood it this way: "We (VaFlaggers) are determed that the flag will fly." The "many of us" reference is defined immediately following.  The "many" are we who "have not,  and WILL not forget the honor, valor and sacrifice of our Confederate ancestors.” That's obviously a great many more than the VaFlagger membership, and extends far beyond Virginia.
Validate residency? What for? Consistent with what? Nonresidents signed the petition in Lexingtion, and this petition about the I-95 flag.
I'm not involved in the flag raising on I-95, except to defend it online. I haven't even been able to make a donation, which I certainly wish I could do.  
I will note that many of the Flaggers believe that the wrong side did win the Civil War.
I'm not a Flagger, but I believe that. 
I never knew that attendance at an event constituted membership in the group.
Nobody has claimed it does, and implying that they did is dishonest and hitting below the belt.  
This makes me a New York Yankee, a New York Islander, and a member of the United States Senate.
No, it makes you a liar.    
Last time I did the math, 50 … or 500 … is much less than 9,800. So who’s a fraction of the Richmond community? The Flaggers are a fraction of the petitioners. Thanks for the reminder, Jimmy.
But the Flaggers aren't the only ones who support the project. And their right to fly the flag on private property doesn't depend on how few or how many are opposed to it. And as noted above, greater numbers don't necessarily indicate rightness... “Enter through the narrow gate..." etc.  
If this constitutes the Flaggers’ new media strategy, when they need to work on it …
The Flaggers have no control over how they are portrayed by a hostile media, or a hostile critic who distorts what they say, how they are portrayed, their motives and actions....
... but then this is the group that embraced Rob Walker...
He approached them wanting to make videos of them. They appreciated the offer because that meant videotaping events wouldn't require taking a Flagger away from flagging. That's not "embracing" Rob Walker.  To say it is, is untruthful, and hitting below the belt.  
 ...and announced that his coming to the group was a sign of God’s hand in the affairs of the Flaggers. As Susan Hathaway announced last May:

There is no denying God’s hand in this… in bringing Rob to Monument Ave. last November, and then, miraculously again last night at the exact moment and time to prevent what could have been irreparable damage to one of our most treasured monuments AND facilitating the first arrest (that we are aware of) of these punk vandals that have no regard for the rule of law:  neither God’s nor man’s.
 Susan is a person of faith and trust. People who are not cannot understand it. Like many Christians, she is aware that the Lord works in mysterious ways, and that many times, what appears to be a setback (say, being betrayed by a wolf in sheep's clothing) becomes, with time, an abundant blessing.

For example, Susan's sincere explanation and apology was readily accepted by people because of her candor and serves as a great blessing for the VaFlaggers. For another example, the incident is showing how mean-spirited and predatory you are about the VaFlaggers, by constantly bringing up a minor incident in a continuing attempt to smear them, after everyone else accepted and appreciated Susan's statement, and moved on.

On to the comments section.

Thelibertylamp, who apparently came to Crossroads via the link posted in the Times-Disgrace comment thread, posted this:  
You might be right, they might be successful in getting that flag up, but I think they are going to run into a lot of problems and issues.    I think cost is going to be their major issue. They estimated $3000 for the flag and pole, but have they included the monthly payments for the land it is on? They signed a lease, I am guessing there is some sort of rental payment for the piece of property?
But, let’s just say some good ol’ boy supporter is letting them install their “performance art” for no charge, then what about this paranoid induced need for fencing, lights and … security cams? Who is going to pick up the electric bill for these big flood lights and 24 hour camera surveillance?  How are they going to get the wiring done and make it weather proof? All this just to wave a stupid (and ugly!) piece of cloth that is going to irritate and alienate more people than do any kind of good for society. 
 Ya know, libertylamp, I'll bet they didn't think of ANY of that. Cuz they're a bunch of hicks and morons with third-grade educations and teeth missing and no shoes and no indoor plumbing...  See?

They're too stupid in the way of the world for any of this stuff to even occur to them.... Except for, maybe, the fellow with two college degrees, and another who is a retired cop, and another who works in specialized complex commercial construction and another who's an expert in information technology (i.e., programming) ... and except for their pretty lady leader who is a heckuva lot more savvy regarding public relations than any of the Floggers who get their kicks besmirching her.

But just because you're sooo concerned, you know, I'll pass along your comments ........ (Sheesh.)  
Keep fooling yourself, Betty, and fetishsizing (I know not a real word but it works!) a rag that symbolizes some backwards fantasy of the most dreadful part of American history. Yes, it is about SLAVERY, TREASON, and reactionary ignorance. You might have your freedom of speech to wave your rag of hate, but the rest of us have the freedom of speech to call it out for what it is.
 Secession by some of the states was about slavery. Other things, too, but primarily slavery. The fighting was not. Secession and fighting an invading army were not treason. There have been lots of dreadful parts of American history. Most people think slavery is the only dreadful part, and it's mankind's worst sin. The government's attempt to genocide the Plains Indians by allowing the extinction of their food supply, the buffalo, rates right up there with slavery for dreadfulness. So does imprisoning Indians on reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery.
You have a right to call it out for what you THINK it is, but to imply that people who fly it are doing so from hatred is, well, something you can't know, unless you can see into hearts and minds, and only God can do that. So basically what you're doing is projecting  your beliefs about the flag onto others, and then condemning them for your projection.  
 I’d agree with the first sentence and dissent from the second. I wonder whether it would be possible to convince you that it was somehow about slavery, although not in the simplistic way pursued by some.
My gosh, MY GOSH! HELL MUST BE FREEZING OVER! I actually sort of agree with Brooks D. Simpson, professor of  history at Arizona State University, about some of this! Yes, it (secession, the war, etc.) was about slavery (among other things) but not in the prevailing simplistic way it is taught and accepted in this country.
 If it was used incorrectly during the Civil Rights Era in order to deny blacks their rights, was it not used to deny them there freedom between 1861-1865?
No, it was used by soldiers to identify themselves on the field of battle. And they were fighting to defend their homes, families and communities from a barbaric invading army, Corey. Secession involved slavery, among other things. The war involved defense against an invading army.  
 Interesting they now bring up “out-of-town” signers of the petition when those Flaggers protesting in Lexington were all “out-of-towners”. Keep it consistant flaggers, keep it consistant.
Corey, there is a difference between those who advocate by public demonstration, and those attempting to use petitions to the government to force their will on everyone. Besides, the real "out of towners" in Lexington were Anna Brodsky's students who signed the petition. The real "out of towners" in Richmond are people from all over the country who are signing Wonder Woman's petition.
The difference is that in the case of Lexington, the Flaggers sought to dictate what others should do, while in Richmond they claim that they are being dictated to.
They are being dictated to. Or rather, there is an attempt by some to dictate to them using the force of government.

Actually, the petition in Lexington had non-resident signatures, so those were the real outsiders dictating to locals. Most of the people protesting the ordinance were, well, protesting -- the same thing people are doing now that you're defending. And the 10,000 signatures on the anti-flag petition include some from all over the country. More outsiders.  
I’ll let you figure out why it is thus ironic that they lean so heavily upon Connie Chastain.
They don't rely on me, Simpson, except to upload content they email me to their blog, and letting me rip your attacks to shreds, which I'd do anyway -- blog uploading or no blog uploading..
From M.D. Blough    The Flaggers refuse to grasp the central principle of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment...
M.D., I wouldn't worry about this much if I were you. There've been very few complaints of free speech restrictions by the Flaggers, although if the petition is given to governmental authorities in a attempt to force the VaFlaggers to not raise the flag, and government prevents it, that will be a true violation of freedom of expression.  I wouldn't give Simpson's rendition of this much credence. It's never wise to trust his spin. 
If anyone has suggested denying the flaggers their right to express themselves with that flag on private property, I missed it.
Al, check some of the comment threads following news reports about the project. Also, this petition will be given to state and local authorities with the hope they will prevent the raising of the flag on private property. And look at the posts and comments by some of your Flogger buddies and their Floggerette commenters. It isn't always given direct wording, but that is basically what many of them want.
I have a bit of a problem calling confederate veterans American veterans.
I've come to have something of a problem with that, too, but some people see it that way, and I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't. They cite some act of the U.S. Congress recognizing Confederates as American Veterans. Which is all well and good, I guess, but I don't have a lot of respect for the US Congress or most of what it enacts. Confederates were American veterans in the sense that the Confederacy was American, as in The Confederate States of AMERICA. (Please capitalize Confederate, Al. It's a proper noun in this usage).

Image: Judy Smith, Photographer

Monday, August 19, 2013

Hitting Below the Belt

"...who cared about the Flaggers? Not most Richmonders. But that will no longer be the case. The next time Tripp Lewis stumbles, it may get more attention. So might the views of website maintainer Connie Chastain: after all, even Susan Hathaway says she leaves the heavy hitting (below the belt) to Chastain..."  Brooks D. Simpson
The Free Dictionary   
hit someone below the belt
1. Lit. [for a boxer] to strike an opponent below the belt. (An unfair blow.)
2. Fig. to deal someone an unfair blow. Cultural Dictionary
Hitting below the belt
To say something that is often too personal, usually irrelevant, and always unfair..The expression comes from boxing, in which it is illegal to hit an opponent below the belt. 
Brooks Simpson may not like what I write about him on my blogs and Facebook groups, but he can't legitimately say I hit below the belt.

My writings are not personal. Outside his blog and job, all I know about him is that he's a sports fan.

They're not irrelevant. They almost always deal with his smears of Southern heritage advocates and groups, and his demonization of white Southerners. I certainly comment on his  innuendo, falsehoods and other smears of me, and I don't soft-pedal my self-defense or counter-attack.

My responses are not unfair. They may be disrespectful, because I don't believe he deserves my respect; but that is not unfairness.

He accuses me of lying, which I don't do. He may misconstrue what I write to claim unfairness or untruthfulness, but that is actually him being unfair.

Simpson is a hockey fan and a baseball fan. His teams are the Islanders and the Yankees. He sometimes tweets about them, and posts articles and videos on his blog.

They have nothing to do with the civil war and Southern heritage and I have never written anything derogatory about them. In fact, I don't recall ever mentioning them at all,*** and I've certainly never thrown off on his being a sports fan, or on his teams, favorite players, or any other aspect of this interest of his.

Now, let's look at his treatment of me.

I write Southern novels -- stories that portray Southern white people as ordinary decent folks, not the stereotypical scum-sucking racist in-bred hick religious fanatic moron-monsters some writers (and readers) love.  Most of my books incorporate an element of romance.  My novels have nothing to do with the civil war,

Simpson has never read my novels, yet he has posted about them at Crossroads many times, in posts or threads that have nothing to do with them. He has described them, either directly or by implication, as trashy, racist, and poorly written, among other things.

He has brought up the fact that I am self-published numerous times, in a derogatory manner, in posts or comment threads that had nothing to do with me, my writing, my novels or self-publishing. He has used my writing repeatedly to attack me personally.

He has hinted that my characters were like the murderers of Emmett Till, and admitted he brought up one of my novels specifically to entrap me. He has implied that I'm a racist for portraying white Southerners sympathetically -- as honorable and as victimized.

Simpson's writings about my novels are both irrelevant to the purpose of his blog, and unfair to me. They are hitting below the belt.

His writings about Carl Roden's fan-fiction writing also hit below the belt, because they are irrelevant and unfair. They are written specifically to denigrate and hurt another person. Fortunately, Carl doesn't seem to be hurt by Simpson's attacks. That doesn't change the fact that Simpson's attacks are irrelevant and unfair, and thus hitting below the belt.

Because I once said on his blog that my Cherokee ancestors self-identified as Southerners, Simpson actually did my genealogy and found  an ancestor of mine who he said "helped round up the Cherokee" for removal from Georgia. He put it in a Crossroads post, where he mentioned a reference or two, but I found other sources that indicated that my ancestor had nothing to do with the removal. A professor of history doing the same online research on the same person would certainly have found the sources I found; but he ignored them because they negated what he wished to say. That is dishonest and unfair.

His purpose in doing that was solely to embarrass me. It didn't embarrass me; I mention it because it shows what kind of person he is, and that his post about my ancestor was hitting below the belt for all three reasons -- it was personal, irrelevant and unfair.

NOTE: Susan said: "I leave the heavy hitting to Ms Connie!"  So Simpson's statement, "Susan Hathaway says she leaves the heavy hitting (below the belt) to Chastain..." which adds to Susan's comment something she did not say is untruthful, making it unfair, and hitting below the belt.

***Update: I did mention Sidney Crosby in a comment thread at Crossroads once... But since I merely expressed hope that Sidney's broken jaw would not permanently disfigure his pretty face, it can't be construed as hitting below the belt.

Image: U.S. Government


Hang the crepe! Notify the VMFA! Call Waite Rawls! The floggosphere says that

Yankee floggers Brooks Simpson and Kevin Levin, along with scalawag flogger Andy Hall, all chimed in about the I-95 flag project over the weekend -- recycling much of each other's content. That isn't really significant because they do that a lot. And shared content makes for easier responses, because when you answer one, you answer them all.

But they sometimes do add some original commentary. For example, the manner in which the Flaggers will meet their doom. Babbling Brooks predicts that the Flaggeres will "melt" under the spotlight they've turned on themselves, and Andy says they have withdrawn into indistinguishable Confederate heritage grouphood -- either of which amounts to extinction to these floggers.

Levin isn't predicting the end of the Flaggers by melting or group-cloning. He's just predicting that there will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond.

Let's look at some of their arguments and see if they have merit.
The no-context argument: "...for all of the Flaggers’ talk about heritage, their choice of symbol and location leaves much to be desired, precisely because the flag is presented without context."
Without context? It's a Confederate flag flying near the capital of the Confederacy! How much more flippin' context do you need? Well, here's some more for ya -- it's push back against the onslaught to remove all artifacts of the Confederacy from the Southern landscape and all traces of it from American memory.
People who are whinging and moaning and bellyaching about the flag going up should have thought about the possibility that such actions as this would happen when they were happily scrubbing the South of all things Confederate.
Is that context enough for ya? And it doesn't even mention the context of honoring the soldiers of Virginia (and the South) who fought and died beneath that, and other, Confederate flags.
Sorry, gentlemen (and I use that term loosely), this project,and the flag at its center have context out the ying yang.
The "critics and opposition" argument: This one is mainly from Babbling Brooks and references the 10,000-signature petition, news coverage, editorial commentary, yadda, yadda, yadda.  I note here that I've seen none of the Flaggers whining about free speech. I'm waiting to find out who the organizers are gonna give the petition to. The Flaggers? Pfffft.

Simpson cites "cracks in the ranks of heritage advocates (I guess he's missed the gulleys, canyons and trenches that delineate different factions of the heritage community) and includes the comment of a "committed Confederate heritage advocate." (See note at the end of this article, edited from my post about this at the Backsass Facebook Group.) What I find predictably laughable is Simpson's suggestion of a mole in the VaFlaggers organization. Ve in Souzern Heritage haf ways of dealing vith moles...if we ever attract any. Right now, there are none -- at least, not in the Virginia Flaggers group, which makes Babbling Brooks' claim risible
The "being watched" argument:  Simpson says nobody ever paid any attention to the flaggers. before, (except, of course, for himself and Andy and Kevin and Corey and Tu Quoque, all of whom have been tight-focused on the group since its inception). They were "dismissed as little more than a fringe group..." he sez. (This is an example of his projecting his viewpoint upon everyone else). He takes opportunity of showing how un-watched the Flaggers have been in order to bring up a dead horse he loves to beat -- the Rob Walker non-issue -- not realizing, I guess, that it wasn't the Big Thing he made it out to be at the time, and by now, everyone but him has moved on.

He predicts that the days of non-attention are over and Tripp Lewis is being monitored for a "trip up."  And wouldn't you know it, he mentions little ol' moi! "...why anyone would welcome aboard the baggage-laded  Chastain is a question we need not answer." Yeah, he need not -- dare not -- answer it because he knows what'll happen on Backsass if he does...
The "melting" argument: "We might well wonder whether the Flaggers, given their behavior, might melt under the new spotlight they have placed upon themselves."

I dunno, folks. They don't look like they're melting to me....  They look cool, calm and a collected, which is probably what led to Simpson's wishful-thinking "melting" hallucination.
Most of Levin's hit piece is pretty much unremarkable. I simply note the gratuitous put downs designed to let the VaFlaggers know how unimportant they are, which explains why he is so obsessed with them (smirk), and which might be a bit bothersome -- if anybody cared about his opinions, which we don't.
There are one or two points, however, to put under the blade of the ol' Chops-A-Lot.
He says Confederate heritage folks are, at times, "painfully vague" about defining our heritage. I would just point out that just because he can't understand it, that doesn't mean it's vague, painfully or otherwise. And if others find how we define our heritage "offensive,' that's unfortunate, but we are under no obligation to bend over backward to accommodate their offendedness, just as they are under no obliation to honor our heritage as we do -- and we don't ask them to.
I would suggest, however, that Levin doesn't know that the Flaggers have "...done nothing (beyond talking with passerbyes) to work to improve interpretation of the grounds or take seriously the need to educate the general public. Instead, they chose to protest the opening of the .... new branch of the Museum of the Confederacy..." He also doesn't seem to grasp the notion that the two are not mutually exclusive. Can historians or "historians" not do two things at once?
I would also suggest, re: his hit on Susan for not demonstrating "real knowledge" of Civil War history -- her knowledge seems real enough. and as for history "platitudes found on the Internet," may I introduce my readers to Civil War Memory, Crossroads, and Dead Confederates? They're all on the Intenet and they're chock full of history platitudes.
Perhaps this hasn't occurred to Levin, but people are free to interpret the Confederate flag any way they choose, whether there is a flag on I-95 or not. And if anything in his hit piece belongs in the Chops-A-Lot, it's this, "...for the vast majority of people it will represent little more than a nameless reactionary movement with a flag fetish."
Don't you love how these floggers imply a claim of omniscience in knowing what huge number of people think and feel? People they don't know, have never met, never will know, never will speak with.  Wouldn't it be interesting to hear him explain how he nows this? ("I just know.")
All of which means his prediction that there "will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond.," falls somewhere between hot air and hallucination.
Last we have Andy, who has kept himself out of the fray for a good while, but it must've been killing him, because he nearly busted a gut writing his blog post, Welcome to Crackertown (formerly Richmond, Virginia)!
Andy's argument: Unless Southern heritage activities challenge institutional or powerful interests or authority, or any rule or regulation or city ordinance ...unless they require winning widespread public support ... unless there are great legal, administrative or public opinion obstacles to be overcome ... it's not really Southern heritage activity.
These artificial definitions are somewhat akin to Andy's oft-repeated claim that unless heritage defenders think and believe about everything exactly like "real" Confederates did, they're phony heritage defenders.
Here's some more implied omniscience "A giant, automobile-dealership-style Confederate Battle Flag out on the freeway does nothing to “educate” the public about the honor of the Confederate veteran, or any of the other things the Flaggers frequently claim their activities do, one-on-one with the public. The I-95 flag will not change the way visitors to Richmond view that emblem, or encourage people who are now indifferent or hostile to the Flaggers’ view of history to become more sympathetic to it. It will simply reinforce what people already believe about that symbol."

He has no idea what visitors to the city will think of the flag. He has no knowledge that people indifferent to the Flaggers' view of history will become hostile to it because if the I-95 flag. Most of 'em probably have no idea what the Flaggers' view of history is.  Andy sure doesn't, for all his confidence in his omniscience.

  As for "Welcome to Crackertown" -- right on, bro!

My encounter with the Southern heritage advocate Babbling Brooks suddenly finds to be the soul of veracity...
Somebody named John Zakrzewski at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group wrote this about the Virginia Flaggers I-95 project: :
"I hope they can get their project completed, however after reading countless stories on this I am not sure if this is for a publicity stunt or just a compete lack of vision. I have read for two weeks the posts on this, I have seen some of the interviews, and all the buzz sturred up. If this is on private land, put it up! Stop with the media onslaught, and the odd responses. Seems that there is more here than we are being told."
Although that group is attacked mercilessly by Brooks Simpson and his cohorts, Mr. Zakrzewski advised me that my battles with Simpson on behalf of Southern heritage had no place on the SHPG ... so I quit. I rather regret that now, because I have something to say about his post copied above and I'd like for him to hear it.
Yes, they will get their project completed. Countless stories? From whom? It makes a difference -- a huge difference -- who's writing them. Leasing land and committing to the pole installation, fencing, lighting, etc., takes time. You can't just wave a magic wand and >poof< it's done.
Lack of vision? The Confederate flag is under attack from one corner of Dixie to another but these folks are going to put one up beside a busy freeway in the capital of the Confederacy and you call that a lack of vision?
The "stur" you have noticed is from people who are opposed ot it and opposed to Southern/ Confederate heritage in general, which is what your group is SUPPOSED to be preserving.
Put it up? If you are as on top of this as you claim to be, you will know that Grayson Jennings has already explained to the media that the ground is wet due to recent and continuing rains, and it has to be dry for the truck that will set the set the flag. If you are genuinely concerned about the nonexistent delays (they did say, did they not, that the gaol for completion was some time in September, why don't you go blow on the ground and dry it out?
How, pray tell, are the Flaggers supposed to stop the media onslaught? Odd responses? WHAT odd responses? Every response I've seen from the Flaggers is direct and to the point. I'm not sure what you'd consider odd about that. There's more here than you're being told? I don't doubt it. No organization tells everything. You've been told what you need to know, now shut the heck up.
Images: Connie Chastain, Facebook and the Public Domain

Friday, August 16, 2013

Great News!

Trespassing lawsuit against Tripp Lewis dismissed!

From Tripp on Facebook:
Oh Goodness Gracious have you heard the news? My charge of Trespassing was dismissed this morning in court. Court was scheduled for 9:30am but the kids and I were there at 9:00am. The Commonwealth attorney and my attorney were both early at
9:10am so in we went. At 9:17am we left the court room with what I consider a victory! Dismissed!! While instructing my attorney on how I would like him to attack the retreating enemy we saw "sweat suit guy" (Rick Peasants) heading into the court room. I wonder how long he sat in there before he realized he was late for the party?
I would like to thank everyone for your words of support and for those who helped with a financial donation to the defense fund. This is not just my victory but our victory! The true victor though is that of the Confederate Soldier and his good name.
Plans are in the works to counter strike.. Stay tuned.
Thanks, Tripp, for keeping us informed.

And now....

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Silly? Then Why the Obsession?

Reply to Kevin Levin's ultra stupid question, Did Confederate Veterans Hate Confederate Heritage? and the post that follows it.

Kevin Levin writes, "Looks like I missed a great deal of Virginia Flagger silliness while away on my Civil War road trip."
If it was really silly, he wouldn't be so obsessed with it.

He continues, "This obsession with the visibility of the Confederate flag on the part of the Flaggers stands in sharp contrast with its use during the height of monument dedications at the turn of the century. It should come as no surprise that Confederate veterans didn’t prance about or demand the flag be placed in locations simply so it could be seen for miles around."
Different time. Different people. People fly the flag today for different specific reasons, but from the same general sentiments. Oh, not the sentiments of Confederate veterans, but those same men when they were Confederate soldiers. Their battle was physical; the one today is cultural.
"... they would not be the biggest fans of the goals of the Virginia Flaggers."
If they understood the culture today, in the face of their being demonized by academia, the popular culture ... bloggers ... and such, I suspect Confederate veterans would be joyful that SOMEbody in this godforsaken era is taking up for them, their sacrifices and their good name. And if they knew and understood the obesity of the federal government,its enormous violations of the Constitution, and its bullying around the world, I don't know that they'd feel warm and fuzzy about displays of the US flag.

You bloggers so frequently try to impose their time, their views on their descendants and admirers all these generations later, especially heritage activists, but you eschew our attributing to them our views. if they could know the world today. I suspect we are closer to them and they are closer to us.

BTW, the Virginia flaggers in particular, and heritage advocates and activists in general, aren't attempting to establish a monopoly on what that past means or how it should be interpreted by others. We are trying to keep others who claim such a monopoly from making a bizarre mutation of our heritage as justification for wiping it out.
Yes, I posted these to the comment thread at his blog, and no, he did not allow them through moderation.



On his personal blog, Crossroads, Brooks D. Simpson, Professor of History at Arizona State University, posts a list of items that he characterizes as a "heritage of hate."  On that list, he includes an earlier post on his blog featuring graphics I have made to counter multicultural lies. Below is one of them. I challenge ANYONE to find HATE in the graphic. Please post your findings, and why you consider them to be HATE in the comments. Thanks.

(Disclaimer: Since there is no hate in this graphic, and hate did not motivate the creating of it, finding hate in it doomed to failure. But, hey, give it your best shot!)

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Richmonders (?) Against the Flag?

The Facebook community, Richmonders Against the Confederate Flag on I-95, or something like that, created around August 7, is a most interesting page. Here's what the "About" section sez:

About --Let's do whatever we can to discourage the "Richmond Flaggers" from putting up a massive 10x15 foot Confederate Flag on I-95!

No creators, no owners, no administrators. Completely anonymous.

Howsomever, I think it's very interesting that the person putting up the most comments is not a Richmonder at all, but a Gilberter -- as in Gilbert, Arizona, which is either 2241.87 or 2335.37 miles from Richmond (driving distance), depending upon your route, or 1946 crow-flies miles.

Another interesting thing is that this Gilberter, in the past, has waxed adamant that only the residents of a community should have a say-so about flag issues that occur there -- for example, Lexington, Virginia.

I believe a certain Galvestoner and a certain Bostoner have echoed the Gilberter on that subject, but at last look, they have not spammed the Richmonders-Against community like the Gilberter has.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

I Have Pissed Him Off ... AGAIN!

It's fascinating to see how a little retired insurance claims secretary in L.A. (Lower Alabama, aka west Florida) can get a famous academic soooo wound up!

He trolled Backsass for over 40 minutes earlier this morning, and all he has to show for it is this:

I wonder what did it this time.

Maybe it was this: Ghost People At the SHPG 

Or it coulda been this: Bullying Floggers

Or this: Lying By Omission...

Or this:  He ... Just ... Can't ... Stop

I've got a few chores lined up -- a book to finish reading and review, and several other reviews to write.  I have a website update to finish, and some other little things that need to be done.

Oh, and I wanna play on Facebook for a while.

But I'll be back to talk about this some more when all the important stuff is out of the way.

He ... Just ... Can't ... Stop

Brooks Simpson to Carl Roden: is a little embarrassing for folks to find out that you place an adult sexual spin on Nickelodeon cartoon characters.
It is? Embarrassing for whom? Is it embarrassing for you, Simpson? Or is it a verbal taser-equipped cattle prod for you to wield?

And what folks are you referring to? Maybe the witch hunters who follow your blog, but they're predators, so what do you expect?  Normal people have a more, well, normal attitude. Besides, "adult sexual spin" is a weasel phrase that does not accurately descibe Carl's story.

Basically, you are trying to leave people with the impression that the story is erotic or pornographic. It is not. Not even close. But even if it was, what's it to you? Are Nickelodeon cartoon characters sacrosanct in the world of civil war blogging?

It is a little romantic story, and it has an element of sexual attraction common to all romance writing.

If memory serves, it was Eric Berne, developer of Transactional Analysis, who described romance as friendship plus sex.In romance writing, sex means sexual attraction. People who write romance must include both the "friendship" (caring for another person) plus sexual attraction. Without sexual attraction between the characters, it's just a friendship story. Without the friendship, all you have erotica or, worse, pornography.

What used to be the romance genre has become inundated with erotica (which Carl's story emphatically is not, btw). This transformation is a reflection of the hedonistic culture we live in; the inevitable result of the leftist, especially feminist, war on family and religion.

One of the reasons I, as a writer, cut back on participation in crit groups was that too frequently, I found myself in the position of having to help someone improve the grammar, spelling, composition, GMC of sheer smut and outright obscenity. No, thanks.

I would just point out to Simpson that different types of writing have different objectives and are aimed at different audiences. If something’s not your cup of tea, fine, but that in itself does not make it embarrassing, or a reason to try to embarrass someone.

The impression Simpson is trying to project about Carl's fan fiction is a blatant lie, prompted by his hatred of someone who doesn't worship his "authority" about the civil war. It is yet another manifiestation of Simpson's desire to denigrate, his thirst to hurt other people. There's absolutely no other reason for him to reference Carl's fanfic writing at all.

Brooks Simpson on the Virginia Flaggers
I am saying that they have a fondness for the camera, which is what drew them to Mr. Walker in the first place.
Simpson has put forth this lie repeatedly. It remains a lie every time he does it.  Mr. Walker approached them, not the other way around.

Regarding Susan Hathaway, he has said,
So she wants to admit that she’s a fool who invited a spy into the camp of the Flaggers, only to be betrayed?  
Hey, if Susan Hathaway wants to draw attention to the fact that either she’s been fooled or she lied, I’m fine with that.
As I made clear in an earlier post, if Walker had given any indication he was out to set up the VA Flaggers and embarrass them, they would not have accepted his services.

But Simpson just can't leave it alone. He tells Tripp Lewis,
"But you're a coward to fail to admit that you welcomed Mr. Walker into your group and bought his story."
All that has been explained, but that's STILL not good enough for Simpson. He needs an excuse to use his verbal, taser-tipped cattle prod, and he'll misconstrue nearly anything for a chance to use it. He prefers a living person, but if he can't find one, he'll happily beat a dead horse with it.

But why shouldn't they have bought Walker's story? As I've noted, he gave them no indication that he was anything other than he appeared. Only God is omniscient, but I guess Simpson is now expecting Flaggers to be omniscient, and will verbally taser-cattle-prod them if they aren't.

I wonder if Simpson voted for Obama. I can't imagine he could resist showing what a good little non-racist he is by voting for the black guy.  If he did, he's a far bigger dupe than any Virginia Flagger, and he needs to turn his cattle prod on himself -- and about half the people in the country -- because they knew what Obama was long before the election (buddies with domestic terrorists, absentee U.S. Senator, bullying "community organizer" [Obama's cattle prods were the knee-pad media, i.e., Ezra Klein's left-leaning Journ-O-List, and SIEU]-- and they voted for him anyway.

As for a "fondness for the camera" -- you betcha. Mr. Simpson, you may have a blog, and you may Tweet and get on Facebook, but you don't seem to be really comfortable with the digital revolution, or other people's use of the technology that has resulted -- i.e., the democratizing of communications, promotion, organization and a host of other endeavors.

Video is a huge part of the revolution. The days of monopolies by ABC, NBC and CBS are long since over. Over 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. More than a billion unique viewers visit YouTube each month ( Anybody with a cause ignores this resource at their peril. It is not to the discredit of the Virginia Flaggers that they use this medium. Indeed, they'd be crazy not to.

Brooks Simpson being a blatant liar
Now learn something about the people who support the Flagger proposal.
This comment accompanied a graphic on the "Richmonders against the Confederate Flag on I-95" Facebook community page, whose creators are not named, which has all of 33 likes thus far, and which Simpson seems to have taken over.

(Hmmm.... I wonder if he's the creator? But even if he's not, insinuating himself into a a flag issue of a city where he does not live, that is in fact 2241 miles from where he lives, negates all his criticism of non-residents of Lexington insinuating themselves into the flag issue there -- and shows him for the colossal hypocrite that he is.)

The graphic is from his blog,  a screen shot of a thread from the Southern Heritage Preservation Group. It is supposed to show how "racist" the group is; but his Facebook comment is a blatant lie because of one word --  "people," plural.  Because,  you see, only one person in the copy-paste made objectionable remarks and he was removed from the SHPG for doing so. But, of course, Simpson doesn't tell you that.

BTW, I've already dealt with that idiotic hate-mongering, HERE.

Dare I say to him,
"But you're a coward to fail to admit that only one person made the objectionable posts and he was removed from the group for it." 
Yeah. I dare.

Images: U.S. Gov. (Public Domain) and Wikimedia Commons (GNU Creative Common license)