At least, is a safe assumption that he believes that, based on his evident rejection of this:
He has recently gone into attack-Connie mode. His latest is an attack on me made entirely of straw men, in which he accuses me of ... yep, you guessed it -- straw man arguments. Among other distorted accusations.
It appears that what set him off this time was my posts about Gone South, my novella-in-progress. I'm still not sure what it is about my novels, which he has said or implied are insignificant, poorly written, racist and trashy (though he purports to have never read them) that has the ability to send him into such a frenzy. He even goes into a tizzy over one that's still being plotted and hasn't even been written yet.
So he's in attack-Connie mode... while I'm in research-and-plot my novella mode. Most of his overwrought attack is so distorted by his animosity for Southern heritage in general and me in particular, it isn't worth commenting on. But there are a few tidbits I might address at some point down the road.
For now, I'll mention, rather than Simpson's distorted post, a couple of comments.
The first is by LibertyLamprey replying to "P Diddy," (who claimed that Simpson was "regressed to your little knowledge of history..."
P Diddy, you’re telling one of the most respected academics of history in the country that he has “little knowledge of history”? REALLY? Well, where are your creds as expert in history? Or do you really believe that reading the crap Sea Raven press peddles around? Because a propaganda press service knows more than those who have actually gone to UVA and have degrees in the subject? And you wonder why your group of ConFetishists are never taken seriously…"
I would say to Lamprey that a history professor who allows his ideology to trump history is greatly diminishing his knowledge. Respected by whom? I would also say that the university publishing racket in the USA is itself a gigantic propaganda press service, http://bit.ly/19EVeue and I would say there's no such thing as a "ConFetishist".
The second is by Rob Baker.
"Pointing out that New Englanders participated in the slave trade does not absolve white southerners of anything." No kidding. The tu quoque deflection methods used by the advocates is a moot point to begin with.
Lemme 'splain it in a way Tu Quoquers can understand. A little boy is walking down the sidewalk. Two other little boys come up to him. The first one grabs him and holds him while the second one punches him in the stomach and takes his lunch money. The two boys then split the lunch money and walk away. Who is guilty of beating up the little boy and stealing his money?
In the yankee-apologist mentality, the first little boy is guilty. He's the one who punches. He's the one who digs around in the little victim's pocket and grabs the money. The first little boy really isn't guilty because he didn't punch and he didn't dig around in pockets. All he did was hold the little victim, and didn't hurt him in any way.
What this ignores is that the second boy would not have been able to punch and steal from the victim if the victim had been able to fight back or run away. The first boy prevented that. In fact, he enabled the punching and theft. Saying so does not absolve the second little boy of punching and stealing -- he did it, no doubt. But saying that he did so does not absolve the first little boy from enabling the attack, and profiting from it afterward.
Without northern enabling, slavery in the South could not have existed, and saying so is not "absolving" the south, as so many wish to absolve the north by ignoring, minimizing, disguising or otherwise perfuming the north's enabling and participation in slavery. In fact, the accusation that heritage folks want to "absolve"the south of slavery is likely a projection of the yankee-apologists desire to absolve the north of its role in slavery, without which -- as noted -- slavery could not have existed.
Everybody have a nice day.