Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Suppression of Ideas and Free Thought in the Service of Hate

I mentioned in my previous post that Kevin Levin's blog entry about the SCV's proposed museum advocates the suppression of ideas and beliefs he disagrees with. Of course, it isn't just him. Progressives have held that position, and made that effort, for generations. This is particularly true in education, especially higher education.

Perfect example: One of his commenters says,
"I may have to write a ‘letter to the editor’ about this one. I do think there are a lot of people who simply don’t understand that, as my grad school advisor once titled an op-ed “confederate history is about race.” Yet it may be for some, they are reachable and their opinions could be changed."
Heaven forbid somebody does "wrong-think" -- i.e., hold wrong beliefs that needs changing, in this person's opinion.

In fact, this commenter, who happens to be a college teacher of the progressive, all-slavery, only-slavery persuasion, did indeed write a letter to the editor of the Columbia (TN) Daily Herald blatantly advocating that people be indoctrinated into HER views, and not be allowed to hold their own.

Sez she,
".... the proposed museum would offer a highly skewed version of local and regional history, one which, crucially and intentionally, diminishes the significance of slavery. If this 'museum' is to be built, local people should insist that it raises (sic) critical questions about the role of slavery within the Confederacy, and that it includes (sic) the input of trained historians and/or of groups which specialize in African American history. Short of this, we cannot support local officials or schools associating with this institution, nor can we allow this version of history to seep into students’ curriculum."
This totalitarian attitude would do a Soviet dictator proud.

What lies beneath this mental tyranny, I believe, is not genuine respect for true history, or even for the African-American/slavery experience, but hatred of white Southerners, past and present, and the dedication to evilizing them in every way possible. For some, it is accomplished by lurid novels and movies, for others it is "history" and civil war "scholarship."

If you asked this "visiting instructor of history" whether she hates white Southerners, she would probably be appalled and babble denials -- I believe she identified Columbia as her home town, but of course, being a white Southerner is no guarantee that you will escape the indoctrination of self-hatred, because said indoctrination  runs the gamut from mushroom-cloud obvious to barely detectable subtlety.

Hatred of Southern whites is a subset of the progressive effort to foment hatred for whiteness overall, and we will look at the pheonomena more in future posts.


  1. History isn't about free thought and ideas Connie, its about facts something you and the Va. Flaggers are deficient in.

  2. Kevin Levin doesn't present facts, he presents "interpretations". In fact, he frequently cites the need to "interpret" history.

    He has an agenda,and his interpretations are shaped to serve that agenda, which is not to keep the interpretations as factual and accurate as possible. They are shaped to conform to his ideology.

    This is the case with many ideologically driven civil war "historians." It is why Levin savaged Mattie Clyburn Rice on his blog, for example, and why he savages the SCV. It is why Simpson savages the Virginia Flaggers. Said savaging has nothing to do with presenting historical facts, or even interpretations. It has to do with the leftist ideological craving to control what people can believe, think and say.

    What Mrs. Rice believed about her father's service to the Confederacy is none of Kevin Levin's flippin' business. What the SCV plans to put in their museum is none of his flippin' business, either. They have as much right as he does to interpret history and the ideology that shapes their interpretation is far less damaging than his.

  3. Yet you and the Virginia Flagger constantly tell others what to do with their flippin' business or they will get a big ass flag in their town. So how does that work again?

    1. What businesses do you fantasize have been told this?

      And what authority do businesses have to decide what other people can display in their down, assuming it isn't unlawful?

      The Virginia Flaggers have the same rights as anyone else.

    2. Did you have a stroke while reading my post. I wasn't talking about any specific business like a florist, but a persons "business" as in "mind your own business"...LOL

      Go see a doctor.

    3. You didn't make that distinction in your comment. But in either case, whether commercial business or mind-your-own business, nobody is telling anybody what to do with it. Besides, every place where a flag has gone up, it is on private property owned by somebody living in the community who wanted it there. The Flaggers get many replies to their ads seeking land to lease; they also get correspondence from people asking for a big flag on their property. The notion that the whole community is hostile to the Flaggers and the flags they raise is false. You are projecting your hostility onto whole towns of people you don't even know.

    4. Now, tell me how the Virginia Flaggers constantly tell others what to do with their flippin' business?

  4. Forester @cwmemory:
    There are so many hundreds of examples of black men being referred to as loyal servants, and not one mention of them as "soldiers." Like that one in my family who “served his master” according to pension records. They were all still slaves.
    Only the very foolish among us would expect to find anything else.

    I would post this at Levin's flog but most likely it would suppressed:

    Statements of witnesses in support of applicants for Confederate servant pensions (from Tennessee Colored Confederate Veteran Pension Applications):

    Pension file of George Matthewson

    H. E. Frazier (witness): "I was a member of Company F, 20th Tennessee Cavalry, Bell's Brigade, General Forrest commanding General. I am now a member of Fitzgerald Kendall Camp, in good standing and draw a pension from the state as a Confederate Soldier. During the progress of the War, I met George Matherson, colored, who before the war belonged to Dr. W. P. Smallwood, and know that he was a soldier in the Confederate Army. He has been a member of the Fitzgerald Camp at Paris since it was first organized, and has been recognized by the Camp and by all Confederate soldiers, as being one among their number." (p.36)

    Clay Hickerson

    Isaac T. Frazier (witness): "Clay Hickerson was in the Confederate Army and was in my command and was a servant of Dr. Bridges and Dr. Farris, and was with me at the time I was captured near Tullahoma Tennessee at Poor House Creek Bridge....The Yankees tried to get Clay Hickerson to go with them but he would not. So they told him to go home and he went. I know that Clay Hickerson was in the Confederate Army as is stated in his application, and was a faithful servant and soldier." (p.85)

    R. H. Bradley (aka Dick Spann)

    S. A. Pepper (witness): "I was a member of Co. C, 29th Mississippi Regiment, and served during the greater part of the War, I was in Co. C, until after the Battle of Lookout Mountain, when Cos. C.F.G. & I were consolidated, and was personally acquainted with Dick Spann, who was a colored servant and Cook in Company I, 29th Miss. Regt., and served during the War as such. He came into the army through his master Harper Spann, and served continuously throughout the War as a cook and servant to Co. I, as aforesaid. He was a faithful soldier and was never guilty of unbecoming conduct, in fact his record was excellent. That after the War the name of Dick Spann was changed to R. H. Bradley, under which name he now goes." (p.112)

    George Anderson

    J. J. Craig (witness): "the said George Anderson (col) went into Confederate army with his master DR Anderson Sr and drove wagon team & tanned leather for Confederates by reason that I belonged to same Co as DR Anderson Sr Uncle George served until close of war and made good soldier." (p.254)

    Statement of Isaac L. Walker (Servant): "I feel that the service I did was very essential and helpful to the Confederacy, and, that I was as much a soldier in the Confederate Army as those who shouldered and carried the musket." (p.294)

    1. Forrester's research on this looks as reliable as Simpson's when he did my "genealogy." They don't look to see what's there. They're looking for something specific, and that's what they "find." If it doesn't have what they're looking for, they don't "find" it....

    2. BTW, good work, BR and thanks for posting here.

    3. How many soldiers...real soldiers...have masters?

    4. No Connie, Masters that legally owned them?

    5. Yes, the government and the various branches of the service basically own servicemen, for their term of service. Legally.

      But you're talking de jure, and soldiers don't have masters that legally own them the way the own houses, cars, dogs or whatever. I'm talking de facto, and life for service personnel is experienced much the way a slave experiences his life. His time is not his own, he can't do as he pleases when he pleases, he can't speak his mind, he even has to dress the way they make him dress ... So a soldier's life is similar in many ways to a slave's life; the basic difference is slaves had a private sector master and soldiers have a public sector master -- the government, operating through the various branches of the military.

    6. You are splitting hairs Connie...trying to talk your way out of being wrong and you are failing.

      In the military if you are wounded or develop a medical condition that keeps you from completing your duty you can be Honorably Discharged. In slavery that doesn't happen.

      In the Military if you commit a crime you can be punished by jail or be Dishonorable slavery there isn't a Dishonorable Discharge.

      The only way the Military and Slavery are similar is that in both you could die during your service.

      Thanks for playing!

    7. Corey: "real soldiers"

      Corey, No one is claiming that the servants listed were 'soldiers' by a technical or legal definition. The claim by Forester (Levin agrees with his statement) is that no white Confederate soldier would ever refer to a servant as a 'soldier' - not even in a general sense of the word. It would violate the 'propriety of white supremacy.' They are wrong.

  5. Ms. Rice was not savaged, those who made her father/grandfather into something he wasn't were though.

    1. Oh, yes, she was savaged by Kevin Levin. He smeared her for the opinions she held of her father ... for being proud of him. Remember his snarky remark about how she would never turn down a request for an interview about him from the media? Unless Levin was her personal PR guy, how would he know such a thing? Obviously, he wouldn't so hus remark was just to belittle her. He looked down on her and held her in utter contempt for her "wrong-think."

      Face it, Corey, you and a lot of the people on your side do not have good hearts. Tolerant? Live and let live? No, absolutely not. Think what they don't like and they will savage you on their blogs, and take gut-deep pleasure in doing it.

    2. Documentation proved that her understanding of her father's service was wrong...and it likely came from the SCVs who continue to show, like you, that they don't know the first thing about history or historical methodology.

    3. No, somebody's "interpretation" of the documentation concluded that; it didn't prove anything. Besides, what good is it for you fake "historians" to know about history or historical methodology" when your real purpose and your real activity is to distort history to support your malevolent ideology?

    4. How am I a "fake" Historian...I make my living by teaching history and use historical methodology on a daily basis.

      It isn't hard to interpret a letter from the State of NC in which he was applying to for a pension says blacks were not allowed to be soldiers in the confederacy?

    5. You're a fake historian, Corey, at least with respect to the civil war, Confederacy, the South and Southerners (though maybe other areas, too), because you are BIASED. (Since you, er, teach it, I hope you have a better grasp of history than you do grammar and composition).

      Historical methodology is just another thing made up by humans; it didn't come down from on high and it is no Holy Scripture. Basically, people thought it up (in the 17th and 18th centuries, mostly). It's supposed to be like the scientific method for history, but it fails because it can't be subjected to testing. So basically, what historical methodology is, is something a bunch of men made up and said, "We decree (or agree) that this is the proper method for doing history..." blah, blah, blah....

      Obviously, Corey, the total history of the war and the Confederate Army is not contained in the letter from the State of North Carolina.... See, that's why you are a fake historian ... you are here on this blog trying to establish that that one document is all that's pertinent to the subject of Levin's savaging of Ms. Rice. It isn't.

    6. Well that document from SC speaks to the history of the war, blacks were not soldier in the south...Period.

      Historical Methodology is like the Scientific Method, it provides for a consistent way to apply standards to history like in science. That way, people like you cannot just come along and say whatever you want about a subject and call it history.

      If you think you can prove that methodology wrong, how come you never do it?

    7. Fake Historian? my degree in History and Education that says I am a Historian fake too?

    8. That document from SC is not the only one that should be considered when assessing Weary Clyburn's service to the Confederate Army.

      Historical methodology as you explain it sounds like Stalin-ish suppression of what those "in power" disagree with.

      The state of education in this country proves it wrong ... the suppression of free speech on campus, the idiotic "safe zones" and "trigger words" are the direct result of leftist manipulation and deterioration of education, especially higher education, since WWII.

      If you got your degree after WWII, you got it from a educational establishment deteriorating across the nation, and I have little respect for it. But mostly, your own approach, attitude and statements verify your status as a fake historian. (Corey, I've met people who have ADVANCED DEGREES whose brains are basically empty, and others whose brains are pickled in indoctrination. A degree is no guarantee of anything.)

    9. LOL...Connie, you have never stepped one foot into a modern college classroom or even tried to obtain a degree in anything but utter stop with the "Stalin-sih" look the fool, but no one will notice since I doubt anyone but me comes here on any regular basis.

    10. Can you point me to other documents regarding Weary Clyburn?

  6. BORDERRUFFIAN SAID: "Forrester's research on this looks as reliable as Simpson's when he did my "genealogy." They don't look to see what's there. They're looking for something specific, and that's what they "find." If it doesn't have what they're looking for, they don't "find" it...."

    Um .... not exactly. If I might volunteer a bit of context, my research on the Civil War is almost exclusively related to one city (Norfolk, VA). At this point the other bloggers just know I'm always talking about Norfolk ... I don't really have to specify it anymore. Your quotes are interesting, but they're from Tennessee and Mississippi, areas I know very little about. I only have one book on the Army of TN, and it's a medical account.

    My research sources are as follows:

    - Fighting For the Confederacy by E.P. Alexander
    - Civil War Diary of the Norfolk Blues by John Walters
    - The Norfolk-Virginian (newspaper on microfilm @ Old Dominion University)
    - History of Norfolk Virginia by H.W. Burton (1877)
    - A Pair of Blankets by William Stewart, 61st VA infantry
    - The diary of William Lamb (Col. @ Fort Fisher, Norfolk mayor)
    - Wartime letters of Col. Frank Huger
    - Deliver us from this Cruel War by Joseph J. Hoyle
    - Letters of Robert E. Lee
    - From Manassass to Appomattox by James Longstreet
    - A Brief History of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis
    - Hospital Life in the Army of TN - Kate Cummings
    - Mary Chestnut diary

    I never saw anything about black Confederate soldiers in any of these works, and every reference to the idea of black soldiers contained two common notions:
    1. Black soldiers were always associated with the North
    2. Black soldiers were one heck of a novelty

    Now on to another comment, also by BORDER RUFFIAN:

    No one is claiming that the servants listed were 'soldiers' by a technical or legal definition. The claim by Forester (Levin agrees with his statement) is that no white Confederate soldier would ever refer to a servant as a 'soldier' - not even in a general sense of the word. It would violate the 'propriety of white supremacy.'

    No, that was Kevin (or someone). I can't read every Confederate's mind, so I don't know what they would have called them. Also, I don't think white supremacy was as big of a factor as the other bloggers think. I said that there was no mention of black Confederates in Norfolk:

    The “Norfolk-Virginian” newspaper decried USCTs in 1866 as “black soldiers,” as though they were the first and only. It’s very strange that the Norfolk-Virginian would be unaware of black Confederates if their own local unit served with the integrated Richmond Howitzers. (comment @CWMemory, February 24, 2014).

    1. Not so strange when you consider the attitudes of the times.
      Black men were largely invisible to the majority of whites and seen as part of the background. This would be the case anywhere in America in the 1860s.
      The fact that black men served in the US military and had a proud service from the French and Indian War till more recent times was itself something not regularly taught in American history to school children up till the late 60s and early 70s. This country has an unfortunate habit of forgetting that some of the people who made it what it was didn't look like characters in a Norman Rockwell painting.
      I fail to see the point of the comment from CWAmnesia (my term for the disjointed hack blog you sited) dated.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.