Saturday, October 15, 2011

Credit Where Credit is Due

Yesterday (October 14) I received the following private message through Facebook's message service:
Connie...

Someone passed this link onto me today....

http://xxxxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxx.html

Not quite sure what it all is, but the top seemed like it had some private information. Please advise me what to do with this, I honestly do not want to be recieving your personal information online and I will try to stop the person(s) from passing this around.

Corey
The URL was to my home page, an html page with a table of three rows and eight columns filled with live links (169 of them). These links are the quickest way for me to access websites I visit most frequently -- quicker, even, than using a browser's dropdown favorites/bookmarks menu.

Normally, the links page resides on my C: drive and loads automatically as the home page of whatever browser I'm using -- most often, IE or Firefox. (I also use Opera and Chrome to view the webpages I design for Word Slinger Boutique customers, but I rarely use them for my own browsing.)

Anyhoo, for the past several weeks, I've experienced much grief with my computers, as I've written about a couple of places. Because the disk drives on both machines were corrupted and/or unreliable, about three weeks ago I uploaded my home page/links page to private webspace provided by my ISP, so I would have access to it regardless of what computer I was using.

When our machines finally got stable enough to use fairly normally, I started using the home page on my C: drive again and used the one on my ISP's server only when my browsers were were being difficult ("Webpage cannot be displayed.") rather than precipitating a blue-screen crash. As the systems stabilized, the misbhaving occurred less frequently and, frankly, I forgot about the page being on my ISP's server.

When I got Corey's message, I hafta tell you, I flew into a bit of a tizzy. There was indeed private info (log-on info) to a couple of very important websites. I immediately deleted the page from my ISP's server and changed the log-ons at the websites.

Since Corey is a member of the loyal opposition, I assumed someone from his circle sent him the URL to my page. Right now, I am in the crosshairs at Crossroads, so I asked Professor Simpson if he was the one who sent the link to Corey. In reply, Andy Hall posted on the comment thread to explain to me that when I clicked one of those links, it would send the URL of my page to the site I was visiting, so likely my personal page had been sent to any number of sites and blogs. Anyone checking their hit log could see a live link, click it and go to my page. Of course, I knew this, but it didn't occur to me because I normally browse using my home page on my C: drive, which cannot be accessed that way.

Andy was right -- it's my doing, and my responsibility, that the URL went to people's visitor logs; but I was mainly curious about who would email the link around. Corey ain't sayin', which is certainly his prerogative, so I likely won't find out who it was.

In any case, through my own oversight, because of my almost total focus on these misbehaving machines, very sensitive personal, private information (mine and my husband's) is now floating around out in cyberspace. The log-ons are no longer functional, but they would be -- for no telling how long -- if Corey had not notified me.

So Corey, we may be on opposite sides of the Civil War, and we may irritate the hell out of each other, and frankly, I don't have a lot of patience with some folks in your cyber-circle, but I have to tell, I do appreciate what you've done. My gratitude is plentiful and sincere.

Thank you, sir.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Answering the Anti-Confederate Bloggers

At one time, I was amazed by the interest two academic Civil War bloggers show in an anonymous social networking group and other discussion/chat groups on the internet.

You see, at some point in my life, I had acquired the notion that academics sat in their ivory towers thinking lofty thoughts, far above the rest of us common folk with our conventions and contentions...

Boy, was I wrong. I've learned they can be as petty and thin-skinned as any plebian down here on the sidewalk of life.

Before my recent computer crashes and resultant time lost online, I had planned to address some posts and comments made by these guys and their myrmidons, but ... time moves on, and there's a whole new crop of lies, half-truths, idiocy and egoism -- and an infrequent honest question -- to address...

Stay tuned. I may or may not post what I'm replying to. If you get curious, consult the Index below and follow the links to the blog posts in question. My comments, replies and observations are in no particular order -- just whatever I feel like addressing at any given time.

I'll start here with some comments to/for/from/about Crossroads:

Professor Simpson, Connie is my given name. Chastain is my maiden name (also my author name). Have you ever heard of the convention in western culture of women who marry taking their husband's surname? That's where Ward comes from. It is my married name. Connie Reb is a nickname.

You're trying awful hard to be condescending and you're only making yourself look foolish in the process.

More information for those to whom this subject is unclear:
Given name: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/given+name
Maiden name: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maiden+name
Married name: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/married%20name
Nickname: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nickname

The GROUP believes there was a Confederate regiment of black cooks? There are over a thousand people in the group, and they all believe that? They're all mental clones? They would all HAVE to believe it for the GROUP to believe it, wouldn't they? Maybe that's how you group-think people operate, all thinking alike, so you attribute it to others but I see a great deal more discussion, diverse ideas, and even disagreement in SHPG than I do from the sycophants who post at your blog and Kevin's.

I know about that mistake Ann made, you know I know it, because we discussed it on Andy Hall's blog. What you're doing by unnecessarily bringing this up over and over is known as piling on, "... a phrase used in American football, where defenders throw themselves onto a pile of other defenders, under which is the ball carrier. It's a needless activity, since the ball carrier is already down and the play is over." (Found in an online forum.) The whistle has blown, Professor. Show a little class, a little gentlemanliness. Let it go.

So, you doubt the WPA Slave Narratives? You think Prince Johnson ought to be "worked"? Did you actually mean "worked over"? That's slang, btw, which means to inflict severe physical damage on; beat up. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/work+over) Perhaps Prince needs a severe academic beating -- to show he's lying? Since he presents ideas you slavery-focused anti-Confederates disapprove of, he needs to be run through the academic wringer, beaten into submission and come out "proving" what you all believe -- or at least come out neutralized....
__________________________

Simpson told one of his commenters: "Connie’s had her say (and can continue to have it on her own blog). Among those who appreciate her message is Michael Hill of the League of the South, an organization Connie holds in high esteem. Connie waffled about her feelings about the League when I confronted her with this material, although she gladly links to it … but when Hill complimented her work, she did not object. I don’t think anyone’s fooled about how she feels about the League of the South, even if she lacks the courage to just come out and endorse Hill’s view of matters."

This is incredible! Truly astounding! Professor Simpson knows all this just from seeing a link on a blog. Isn't that amazing? He can just look a link on the Internet and know what the person who put it there thinks and feels... Doesn't have to consult a crystal ball, doesn't have to call Miss Clio, doesn't have to throw chicken bones -- He. Just. Knows.

This post from him illustrates the truth that you don't have to have common sense to be an academic. He apparently doesn't realize that I didn't waffle or lack courage when he "confronted" me (smirk) several weeks ago with this material -- "this material" being a link to the League, which you can see by scrolling down and looking on the righthand side bar for "Interesting Websites." There, you will also find links to Patriot Press Books, Black Confederate Soldiers, Discriminatory Freight Rates, Douglas Harper's Civil War Essays, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Author Nancy Brewer. (Wonder what THOSE links "tell" him.)

The fact that Simpson ignored them all to focus solely on the League tells you a whole lot more about him than it does about me. At any rate, my response, or non-response, was not from waffling or a lack of courage -- it was from my extreme contempt for his ludicrous demand.

However, since it really isn't an earth-shattering revelation, I don't mind providing information about my involvement with the League and my thoughts on its principles.

If memory serves, I have been a member of the League twice, possibly three times, in the past twelve years. I once served as the chairman and webmaster of a small, local chapter. I am not currently a member.

I originally joined the League after observing it for 18 months. Shortly after I discovered DixieNet on the web, I came across a claim that the League was a "racist hate group" and I wanted nothing to do with one of those. The claim came from a wholly unreliable source and I suspected it was dismissible, but I wanted to make sure, so I read League literature and observed League activities both online and in person, for a year and a half. I concluded that the claim was not true, so I joined for the following reasons:

1. I believe in the right of secession, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (the right of the people, endowed upon them by their Creator, to alter or abolish their government and to create another that suits them better). I believe it is the only way to keep a government from becoming tyrannical. (Well, revolution is another way, but I prefer peaceful secession to violent revolution.)

2. I believe the South would be better off as a nation on its own.

3. I believe the South has always been culturally distinct from the rest of the United States (which is why it has been known as "a nation within a nation") and I support the cultural strengthening required to keep it that way, particularly in the face of efforts, deliberate and inadvertent, to amalgamate and homogenize it into the rest of the country.

The League of the South supports the right of secession, and particularly the right of the Southern states to secede and form their own nation, and the renewal and strengthening of the South's unique culture.

And I certainly do not object to Dr. Hill's compliment about my writing.

~TO BE CONTINUED~

__________________________

INDEX


Civil War Memory, Kevin Levin

It’s Not a Good Day For the Black Confederate Myth Makers
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/12/its-not-a-good-day-for-the-black-confederate-myth-makers/
History Detectives Embrace Reconciliation at the Expense of History
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/12/history-detectives-embrace-reconciliation-at-the-expense-of-history/
History Detectives Tell Us What We Already Know
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/11/history-detectives-tell-us-what-we-already-know/
Portraying Silas and Andrew Chandler
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/11/portraying-silas-and-andrew-chandler/


The Blood of My Kindred, Corey Meyer

Black Confederate Researcher Fails To Read Her Own Discoveries
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/black-confederate-researcher-fails-to-read-her-own-discoveries/
Connie Chastain Forces a Long Post…as Usual!
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/connie-chastain-forces-a-long-post-as-usual/


Crossroads, Brooks Simpson

Monday, September 19, 2011

Satire and Video


It's September -- School Days --  and our favorite Civil War bloggers, the Four Horsemen of the Apoplectic, have evidently gotten too busy to write blog entries, because they've fallen back on posting videos.  Brooks is an academic, and Corey claims to be a school teacher, but I'm not sure what's going on with the other two. Levin doesn't teach anymore, since he relocated to Beantown, and I've never known Andy's occupation, so I don't know if he's in academia.

Aside from possibly a busy new school year, I don't know what has prompted Perfesser Simpson's string of outdated videos (the McPherson interview video displaying as I write this, is from 2009) , one-line blog entries and a rehash of Levin's Sebesta essay.  Nevertheless, he manages to find time to post snide comments about me on other bloggers' comment threads.

Levin recently posted a video titled "How the South Was Lost" -- an amateur production ridiculing Confederate soldiers (the video has them killing each other and their lieutenant or whatever, making like a coward and running away).  Sed Levin, "This has got to be my favorite Civil War video.  I’ve posted it before, but many of you who are relatively new to the blog have probably not seen it.  It’s a classic.  Enjoy."

I posted a link to it on Southern Heritage Preservation Group's Facebook page, along with photos of battlefields strewn with the bodies of Confederate soldiers, to show what Levin and the video are ridiculing.  In reply, he made another blog post, showing a screenshot of my SHPG entry along with a comment by a Lucas Bernard.

Levin's short blog post said, "The other day my friends at Facebook’s SHPG page got all worked up about a stupid video that I posted on Thursday.  Apparently, the members of this group have completely lost their ability to laugh in their zeal to stamp out the enemy that they see all around them.  Funny that they never speak out when I post videos about Abraham Lincoln that others have found problematic.  Oh well.  Lucas looks like he is right out of high school and I suspect he has little in common with the political and cultural baggage that the majority of these members carry around with them.  I anticipate that he won’t last long in this group.  Either Lucas will leave on his own or he will be forced out.  Good luck, dude." 

 So, in a mere two days, the video has gone from his "favorite" video and "classic" to... "stupid."  Looks kinda schizoid to me -- unless he really likes stupid videos (which shouldn't surprise any of us). Anyhoo, at the time, there were 55 comments, but he chose to display only this one by the aforementioned Lucas:

"It's just satire, my goodness.  So he as anti-Southern opinions, many of you have anti-Northern opinions. Why can't we enjoy satire for satire's sake, why take it so serious when it doesn't even take itself seriously? I thought it was hilarious, but hey, I'm a Mark Twain type of Southern guy, and I love a good piece of satire.  If you can make fun of yourself then you never learn to really laugh. Both sides did terrible things during the war, it's war, and war is terrible. No one comes out of it without transgression. To quote a great man, 'It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.'"

Where to start....  Does Levin no longer recognize lies when he tells them, I wonder?  Or does he know it, and do it anyway, specifically: Apparently, the members of this group have completely lost their ability to laugh in their zeal to stamp out the enemy that they see all around them.

Why, no. We have lots of fun over there.  Consider these comments made after Levin displayed his zeal to stamp out H.K. Edgerton's efforts on behalf of Southern heritage.

A little background. H.K. spoke to the Lexington City Council before their vote to prohibit Confederate flags flying from city flagstaffs and Levin posted this shrill screed he titled, "Entertainment for White People."
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/01/entertainment-for-white-people/

It included video of H.K. that had nothing to do with the Lexington issue and included this permissible racist observation about H.K. (leftist racism is acceptable, don'tcha know):  He comes from a long line of mythical black symbols that include “Mammy”, Aunt Jemimah, Uncle Ben, and countless other black minstrels during the twentieth century that perpetuated the myth of the loyal slave.  

In the SHPG comment thread about Levin's racist and disrespectful blog post, I noted, "You learn something new every day. I always just assumed that H.K. came from where all of us come from ... mamas and daddies. Wonder if Kevin has some scientific explanation, or at least a theory, about how a person can come from a line of symbols."

To which David Tatum replied, "So on HKs' birth certificate it should say, Father- Uncle Ben,  Mother-Aunt Jemimah!"

Ba-dum ching!

Can't laugh?  That absolutely Broke. Me. Up!  Southerners have a marvelous sense of humor, and of course we laugh ... when something is truly humorous.  Levin's problem is that he can't tell humor from ridicule and amusement from insult. At least, he pretends not to. Apparently.

The interesting thing about Bernard is that he'd never posted on SHPG before this thread, and very likely came to SHPG from Levin's site.  It's a safe bet the other new commenter on that thread also was directed to the SHPG by Levin's blog post.  They came over to set us hicks, rubes and scum-sucking racist Confederate flag flyers straight -- that the war was a laughing matter and the death of Confederate soldiers is a fit subject for parody, satire and ridicule. I don't think they were prepared for the vigorous defense with which we tore their arguments to shreds.

Anyhow, somebody at SHPG took the thread down -- not sure who or why. I wanted it to stay up, as I wasn't finished answering some of the comments.  However, it does provide me with the material to illustrate some rich irony....

Back over on Civil War Memory, Perfesser Simpson posted: Actually, what I found amusing is that a thread which complained about censorship ultimately disappeared when the owners of the group found that a few folks were hitting too close to home. ... BTW, I find perfectly understandable Ann DeWitt’s decision not to post under her own name given the quality of her scholarship. After all, Connie Ward/Chastain/Reb/whatever has problems sticking to one name as well. 

First, I started that thread and was involved in it throughout its existence, and I saw no complaints about censorship.  Second, the attacks on Ann DeWitt from this "academic" crowd, who apparently actually believe they know everyone's motives, thoughts, feelings (but claim nobody can know what black Confederates thought and felt) grow more and more breathtaking.  Finally, Brooks' comments about censorship at the SHPG is richly ironic, considering that he, like Levin, censors/blocks every comment I try to post at his blog and -- are you ready? -- he posted that to a thread at Levin's blog, from which my comment below had been blocked:
I know you won't let this comment through. It's too truthful and revealing. Nevertheless...
You and your commenters enjoy laughing about dead soldiers -- as long as they're Confederates? As for this blog entry, Mr. Levin, your motive is sooo clearly revealed -- in what you leave out. You put a link to YOUR blog entry with the video, and a screenshot of young Bernard's response -- but not mine. Not my point that this "favorite" video of yours ridicules Confederate soldiers who were killed defending their country. You like laughing about dead Southern soldiers?
 Mr. O'Hara, I don't go looking for video ridiculing dead yanks -- or dead American soldiers. Try to find anything even barely equivalent on my blog. Sorry if that disillusions you about me and my motives. Oh, and Mr. Lyons is a "they"? I thought he was a "he."
Michael, please go through the Southern Heritage Preservation Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/shpg1/ -- or my blog -- and try to find where we parody and satirize union deaths, and laugh at them. We are justifiably critical of the union army's brutality and their lack of moral authority for invading and warring upon the South, but we don't make "cute" videos laughing at their deaths. 
Mr. Simpson, we defend Confederate heritage because, as I've explained, and as you who monitor us ought to know, it is the part of Southern heritage that is under concerted and sustained attack -- which you, Levin, Meyer and others support and join in.

So I've been taken to task for my inability to laugh at satire. Maybe I should rethink my position...

Therefore, I'm considering seeking a bit of capital to finance the production of my own satirical video about union soldiers.  But not about them dying, oh, no.  About what living union soldiers did.  I'll call it "How the North Won the War" with a subtitle, "Bummin' with Sherman, Annihilating with Sheridan, Preying with Butler, Molesting with Turchin."


We'll have video vignettes of bluecoats brutally raping Southern women, black and white. Hilarious, huh?  Another quick scene of yanks burning a town, leaving the residents with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Hilarious!  How about another town-destroying scene filmed from the Southern POV of shells striking homes and buildings wherein civilians are cut in half by exploding shells and their bodies riddled with shrapnel?  Hilarous!

How about a series of flash scenes showing Sherman's bummers shooting family pets for fun?  Hilarous!  And another depicting yank soldiers burning homes -- after stealing the jewelry and silverware, taking what food they could carry and destroying the rest, leaving a family to starve!  Hilarious!

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Now, who sez we got no sensahuma?

(Photos: Wikimedia Commons)

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The Lexington Mentality

Okay, folks. Don't get yourselves in a tizzy over the illustrations below. They are SYMBOLIC graphic representations of the mentality shown by the Lexington City Council in its vote to prohibit Confederate flags from flying on city-owned flagpoles.

It's obviously repressive -- but how? It is contemptuous of its own past, so that gives us a clue. There comes to mind two examples from the previous century of repressive regimes hostile to the past -- the USSR under Joseph Stalin and Afghanistan under the Taliban. (Text continues below graphic.)
Stalin was infamous for his purges not only of those who opposed him politically, but of their very memory constructed in the past, carefully cutting their images out of photos in books and slicing away written references to them.

Likely we all remember the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues almost 2,000 years old, to the dismay of most of the world.

The city council didn't vote to blow anything up yet, so at this point, Lexington looks more like Stalinton than Lexingstan.

Bloggers hostile to Southern heritage are having a field day, attempting to evilize (or, at least in this case, stupidize) Southerners who honor that heritage because they might have been misinformed about what the city's vote was intended to do. The shrill derision aimed at opponents of the ordinance inspired me to post the following at Civil War Memory.
This decision was reactionary -- it was instigated after, and because, the SCV flew flags from city owned staffs for their Lee-Jackson commemoration. It wasn't instigated after some Girl Scout flags were displayed, or GBLT Rainbow flags were displayed. The ordinance was designed specifically to prohibit Confederate flags from flying on those staffs -- everybody else's organizational flag-flying was collateral damage -- sacrificed for the sake of sticking it to the SCV and Confederate heritage. It was the city's (and some university faculty's) middle finger in the face of the SCV.
And this is my response to a gentlemen who explained things in terms a little less offensive than what is normally aimed at me over there:
Mr. S---, I have never claimed that it was unconstitutional. In fact, I have explained this to people on Facebook groups where I post -- that the ordinance is not a First Amendment, free-expression issue. It doesn't apply to personal displays of the flag. Yet.

For some of us, however, there is a problem with it, whether you see it or not. I clearly understand that the city did this purposely to prohibit Confederate flags displays on city property. (From the photos I've seen, these are small flagpoles mounted at an angle on larger poles, apparently lampposts.) It is the city -- officials elected to represent all the people of the town -- sitting in judgment of those who honor its history, at the behest of a few instigators, the primary one being an immigrant to this country motivated by a deliberate or inadvertent misunderstanding of Lexington's history and heritage.

This is an example of the ongoing official eradication of the South's Confederate heritage accomplished in tiny increments. There are people who say that's not happening but here's an instance of it going on before our very eyes. And if the city can do this, it can ban people carrying flags on city-owned sidewalks or displaying flags on vehicles that travel city-owned streets ("Oh, no, we're not encroaching on your First Amendment rights. You can still display your flags -- just not on our poles, or on our sidewalks or on our streets....")
So, do y'all like the graphic? I'd love to see photos of these things duct taped to "city property" (flag poles? lamp posts?) all over Lexington. I'd love to see them all over Dixie's corner of cyberspace, too. You can see a larger version by clicking the image; and you can download a .pdf version by clicking the link below. (Note: Download at your own risk. The image/pdf files and my personal webspace supplied by my ISP were virus- and malware-free at the time of uploading, but who knows what happens after that....)

Friday, August 26, 2011

Tiptoeing and stalking and monolithic Dixie

"Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog)." ~Brooks Simpson, to Moi

I have a mission for my readers, complete with a reward. Find where I have admitted stalking on my blog, which Mr. Simpson charges. The stalking kitten post from August 23 does not count, because it was made 7 hours and 40 minutes after his claim.

If you can find where I "admit stalking" on 180DTS, you're a winner! You have your choice of reward: this nifty Lincoln-MLK T-shirt iron-on transfer, or a PDF copy of my novel, Southern Man.

Just email proof (a copy-paste from my blog and link to the page will be sufficient) to 180dts@cox.net. Yours truly will announce the winner if and when there is one. I am the sole decision-maker in that regard -- Hey! It's my blog and my idea. If you don't like it, don't play.

Since I've brought up one Brooks Simpson quote, how about another? And it's a doozy, folks:

"Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War."~Brooks Simpson.

This claim is yet another fascinating look into the academic mindset. When they troll our blogs, groups and sites looking for fodder to ridicule or mischaracterize on their blogs, it's "tiptoeing through the internet..." When we visit their blogs and post on their comment threads, we are fringe elements and cockroaches out stalking....

Perfesser Simpson is all het up about the link on my blog to the League of the South. He posted something, a speech or something, by Dr. Michael Hill and then made claims about it; I haven't read or listened to Dr. Hill's speech, so I don't know if or how badly Simpson is mischaracterizing it, but I do know, from observation roughly a decade old, that the League's writing sometimes gets mischaracterized and outright lied about.

I might assuage the perfesser's curiosity about myself and the League -- or I might not. But not until I'm good and ready to. Meanwhile, all this brings to my mind an anti-Southern liberal Mississippian I used to encounter on a discussion group way back in the very early 2000s -- I'll call him Mississippi Guy -- and how he breathtakingly mischaracterized a League quote. He so completely distorted it, even Brooks Simpson would be able to see the distortion. Here's the League quote:
"The League of the South champions without apology the traditional core Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community. Over the centuries, our culture has been enriched in subtle ways by the influences of other non-dominant, cultural groups, particularly by black Southerners and the French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana, but at its essence, the South has always remained a predominantly Anglo-Celtic civilisation." From: "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach"
Mississippi Guy said, among other things, that he appreciated the contributions our "venerable Scottish ancestors" made to the South, but he could not support the League's view that the immigrants who settled the South were monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) and he could not support the League's goal of a monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) South.

You don't have to possess a degree of any kind to see what's wrong with this, do ya?

Here's my reply to Mississippi Guy from all those years ago.
Mississippi Guy's assignment for the evening -- go to Dictionary.com, look up "dominant" and "monolithic" and learn the difference. Heck, I'll even save you the trip to Dictionary.com:

dominant -- exercising the most influence or control.
monolithic --characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity.
(As an aside, I would like to point out something before you fall down and have a seizure over the subject of Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance.... Exercising the most influence or control does not mean excercising total influence or control.)

Since you like putting words (in this case, "monolithic") in people's mouths (in this case, Dr. Hill's), I think you need another lesson. I have listed below ALL occurances of the word monolithic on DixieNet. As you will see, in no case does it refer to the Anglo-Celtic culture of the South. However, to make sure you really learn your lesson, I think you need to go to DixieNet and use the on-site search engine and search the word "monolithic" yourself. Here's what you'll find:
--------------------
From "To Alter and Abolish – Secession Movements on the Move"
Diane Alden
http://www.dixienet.org/dixie-dispatches/diane-alden.htm
"Thus, big government, mega-corporations, various cultural movements, the monolithic mainstream media, corrupted educational system, and feel-good, unprincipled quasi-religions have tossed the Western cultural tradition into the ash heap."

From a Book Review of "The South Was Right"
http://www.dixienet.org/books/tswr.html
"The Kennedys' description of the contributions of Southern black Confederates to the Confederate war effort punctures the 'conventional wisdom' which holds that the Southern cause revolved solely around a monolithic Southern effort to preserve slavery.'

From "The Snakey State: Enemy of the People"
Ambrose Gonzales Elliott
http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol6no4/members30.htm
"He had no trouble gauging the monolithic attitudes among American journalists and understanding their essential dishonesty."

From "A Green Mountain Independence Party"
Thomas Naylor
http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol6no2/members28.htm
"Vermont needs a new political party -- a local independence party -- to challenge the two monolithic national parties and encourage Vermonters to downsize, decentralise, demilitarise, localise, and humanise their lives."
--------------------
That's it. That's all of 'em.

Mississippi Guy, please note... Just in case you missed it, the League says that the South's traditional (not monolithic) culture, handed down by Anglo-Celtic people who settled the south, has been enriched by the influences of non-dominant Southern groups, particularly (though not only) blacks and Cajuns.

So I ask again. Who is presenting a "monolithic" view of the South's settlers as Anglo-Celtic? What the League is saying (and it's plain as the nose on your face for people who aren't willingly blind to it) is that the immigrant group with the greatest number of people determined the South's core culture, and other groups added their influence. Think of it this way -- the Anglo-Celts baked the cake; other groups added the icing.
I don't think Mississippi Guy was an academic -- I think he worked in a department store -- but he had clearly learned to mis-think like one.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Are You Being Stalked?












Over at the Civil War Crossroads thread, where Perfesser Simpson is telling us extreme fringes all about slave labor building the U.S. capitol, I have discovered I'm not only a fringe element and a cockroach eating garbage, but a stalker, to boot.

It started with this entry:
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/slave-labor-and-the-building-of-the-us-capitol/

Since he seemed to be mistaken about my position on this subject, I posted this in the comment thread:

In 1861, when the Union Army was making war on the South, Philip Reid, a slave from Maryland, was heavily involved in the creation of the statue of Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace that was later located atop the capitol dome. He was not emancipated until 1862. Now, if there were no slaves working on the capitol during the war then (1) the war did not start until after 1861 or (2) Philip was freed before the war started, not in 1862, or (3) Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace is not part of the capitol….
He replied: "He replied:
You seem confused, Connie. I mentioned the emancipation of 1862, and Reid was a part of that emancipation. I did not say there were no slaves working on the Capitol during the entire war; I pointed to the end of slavery in DC in 1862 as marking when that would have ended.

For Reid’s story, see this.

Could you show me the plaque marking the contribution of enslaved black labor to the buildings used by the Confederate government in Richmond? Thanks.

Naturally, I couldn't let that go unanswered, so I posted:
I’m not confused, Mr. Simpson.

Your essay implies that the “extreme fringes” of the Southern heritage movement make claims that are not true — i.e., that slave labor was used to build the U.S. capitol while U.S. troops were warring on Southerners. In fact, it is true.

What Richmond and the Confederacy did or did not do has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of claiming the north was fighting to free slaves when (among other factors) (1) there were five slave states in the union and (2) slave labor (specifically Phillip Reid’s) helped to build the U.S. capitol WHILE U.S. troops were making war on Southerners.

The plaques acknowledging that slave labor was used to build the capitol didn’t exist until 2010, so the U.S. government didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to recognize that contribution for 149 years.

Maybe some people think sticking up a plaque almost a century and a half after the fact absolves the U.S. of its hypocrisy. I disagree.

Well, he couldn't let that one go unanswered, so he posted....
You are confused … and now you are misleading people. As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (thus the plaques), and some people seem to have that confused with what was going on in 1861-62 (when slavery ceased in the District of Columbia). I haven’t said that slaves were not involved in the process in 1861-62: I’ve said that I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you. That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion.

Now you claim that people are saying that the North went to war to free the slaves. I haven’t, so what’s your point?

As for hypocrisy, my understanding is that southerners have been part of the United States government for some time, and in fact white southern slaveholders took the lead in locating the District of Columbia in slave territory (and using their own slaves in the process). I also understand that you’re a United States citizen. Care to tell me what role southerns played in overturning this omission in the historical record? Or are they just as guilty as everyone else? Wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite to overlook that fact as you point fingers? Why yes, it does. But I’m sure you don’t understand that, either, which suggests why it’s a waste of time discussing things with you. Thanks for the reminder.

Meanwhile, of course, you remain silent on your embrace of the League of the South, including its call for violence. So much for southern courage.

It’s been interesting. Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog). Without folks like me you would have nothing to blog about to your dozen devoted readers. But, as you have reminded me to ignore you, I agree that to continue this would be to wallow in your mud puddle. Just don’t complain when you see the result.

Interesting thing is, I replied to that, but my reply isn't showing, can you imagine!

Mr. Levin popped in for a quick comment, "I like the strategy, Brooks. You can make the historical point without directing readers to these silly little sites and still feel comfortable knowing that they will eventually get around to reading it," to which Mr. Simpson replied: "Oh, I think we already have evidence of that. Helga Ross and Connie Chastain … stalkers."

I don't know who Helga Ross is, but apparently she's somebody else who visits civil war blogs and posts on comment threads.

I know my readers are just dyin' to know what I posted that Mr. Simpson was too authoritarian to let through, so here 'tiz:

__________

"I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you." ~Mr. Simpson

Cite my comment, please. Along with a link? Surely if you're prepared to mention it, you're prepared to link to it.

"That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion." ~Mr. Simpson

Could you also post a couple of links to my "changing story" re: slave labor used to build the capitol while the union army was making war on Southerners -- one showing it one way, and one showing it another?

People do say the north went to war to free the slaves. Lots of 'em do. If you haven't said that, I'm obviously not talking about you.

My reference to hypocrisy was very clear and specific. It was the hypocrisy of the union's making war on the South for its practice of slavery while there five slaves states in the union and the U.S. capitol was being built using slave labor.

Quick question. Do you "embrace" every organization you post links to on your blog? The links on the sidebar of my blog (LS, UDC, SCV, and others) are for convenient access to the information on these sites for my visitors. Your imagination appears to have run away with your ideology. Nevertheless, since you asked, I'll probably post about the League on 180DTS -- when I'm ready to.

__________

Somehow, I just knew this would be the reply that got my participation in the thread derailed. Gotta have something to do with my asking him to cite my comment and changing story, with links.

I know what you're thinking. This is boring. You're right. Stalkin's a boring job, but hey, somebody's gotta do it.

(Photos: StockX.chng, Dreamstime)

=================================================
ADDENDUM

Simpson sez, "As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (sic) (thus the plaques)..."

Whose research? The only research he mentions is a couple of government papers. Is federal research the only research allowed on this subject? Who decides what research can be done and who can do it? Only the goverment in D.C.? Or is Professor Simpson himself the only one with the power and authority to declare what's legitimate research on it and what ain't?

Note that he also he mentions those who he says are mistaken about this issue without actually identifying anybody. There are the "extreme fringes of the Confederate heritage movement" (but no cockroaches, I note). He's slapped that fringe label on me, and he's also said I have written about this subject, and changed my story on it -- without identifying what I said and where I said it.

He also mentions "some corners" without identifying who they are or what they say.

See, unless he identifies specifically what he's talking about, we don't know whether he's accurately characterizing what these folks say or not. It may be that he's the one who's confused; maybe that's why he's so coy about specifically identifying what was actually said and who said it.... What he's describing might be his own misinterpretation. But since he's made these nonspecific criticisms that can't be verified, the only thing left to do is ... dismiss 'em.

Dispatches from the Fringe Element

(With occasional cockroach input)

Over the next few, oh, I dunno, days, weeks, months, I'm going to have fun here examining blog postings and comment threads from: Civil War Memory, Dead Confederates, Civil War Crossroads and The Blood of My Kindred, mostly as they relate to me and things I've written, but also as they relate to Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook Group and its members, and general subjects related to the war, the South, Southerners, etc.

A related subject will be my insights and opinions about the academic mindset, based on my (admittedly limited) interaction with, and observation of, the two academic bloggers, Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson. So people will know, I'm not followers of these blogs. I've read more posts on Levin's than any others, but even there, no more than a dozen or so.

At the end of this entry, you'll find the timeline and blog entries/comment threads that will provide fodder for my remarks. (If more are added as time goes on, I'll update the list).

I'm going to start with Simpson's blog entry about Michelle Bachmann's comments on slavery. I'm not real interested in Bachmann or anybody else running for president of a crumbling empire. I mention it for two reasons.

First reason, Mr. Simpson has denied being a leftist, but I note that when referencing Bachmann's slavery quote, he doesn't link to raw video of Bachmann so we can see for ourselves what she said. He links to a post by Adam Serwer, a leftist journalist at the leftist The American Prospect, so he can interpret it for us and make sure we understand it and the significance of it. Isn't that thoughtful of him? Interesting thing about Serwer -- he was one of Ezra Klein's Journo Listas. Not surprising when you realize that The American Prospect was Klein's perch at the time.

What? You never heard of the Journo List? By all means, make yourself acquainted with this private, closed email group of leftist journalists that was running hot and heavy back during the run up to the Presidential election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Read Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller Journo List archive: http://dailycaller.com/buzz/journolist/

(Mr. Simpson can hardly criticize me for using a rightwing source if he's gonna use a leftwing one, can he?)

Second reason, the comment by Andy Hall referencing Serwer's post on Black Confederates. Wrote Serwer:

The attempt to minimize the suffering caused by slavery and segregation, to recast the Lost Cause as one motivated by “honor” and self-determination rather than racial supremacy and the preservation of chattel slavery, arises out of the same contemptible emotional impulse. The Lost Causer insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers isn’t any less mired in guilt than the liberal quietly mouthing the names of their black friends as they count them on their fingertips. In both cases, the individual trying to free themselves from history ends up drowning in a bottomless pit of self-pity and self-deception that, over time, can only ferment into rage over inability to find an absolution that will be forever beyond their reach.

Serwer seems to be substituting his perception for other people's intention. He also seems to be placing total responsibility for racial supremacy on the South when we know it was as prevalent in the north, and Aby-baby himself was a racial supremacist who wanted to rid the whole freakin' country of blacks.

We also know that abolitionist Julia Ward Howe's views on race were an exact match for those of Alexander Stephens (only stated in much more insulting terms, and stated earlier) right down to the notion that slavery was necessary for blacks (she called it "compulsory labor" but it means the same thing).

We know that the "preservation of chattel slavery" is far, far too narrow a motive for the war, particularly when other motives were recorded in the documents of the day and we can actually, you know, read them.

Wonder if Serwer can name some "Lost Causer" insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers. A single one. Well, I wonder if he can name ten. Or a hundred. A thousand. Ten thousand. Unless he can and does, I'll have to chalk this up to his very vivid leftist, Journo-Lista imagination, and likely his own tendency to see everything in terms of race, a very common liberal tendency.

Maybe, as a liberal, he needs absolution. If so, he needs to quit projecting.

Look at the evidence, look at the history, and what you see is a South no worse than the north. You see northern sins every bit as shameful and ugly as any you can name on the part of the South. Of course, you don't hear much about northern sins in classrooms or on leftist Journo-Lista mentality blogs or even academic "civil war" blogs.

The north must be forever shielded from its slaving past with the "fighting to free slaves" fable. The south must be forever condemned and evilized with the "fighting to keep slavery" fable. These two falsehoods (false in the sense that they're presented as the whole story when they certainly are not) are masks on the country's history that must never, never, never be allowed to slip. Careful and don't jostle 'em, you black Confederate researchers....

We cannot let the north's true motives show, and we certainly cannot acknowledge its bloodlust and savagery toward Southerners. They have to be recast in terms of the war of the righteous North against unspeakable Southern evil that deserved all the misery and brutality it got....

Serwer's doing his part in the recasting, sure 'nuff.

________________

Blog Posts and Comment Threads Timeline

August 8 -- Great gusts of ridicule from Southern gentleman Andy Hall and commentators on his Dead Confederates blog, directed toward Black Confederates researcher Ann DeWitt http://deadconfederates.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/famous-negro-cooks-regiment-found-in-my-own-backyard/

August 8 -- Brooks Simpson and his sycophants jump on the let's-bash-Ann bandwagon.
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/a-primer-in-basic-research/

August 9 -- Kevin Levin and his myrmidons continue the ridicule, accompanied by a breathtaking display of his bootheel in the teeth of the First Amendment, telling Ann to take down her website. http://cwmemory.com/2011/08/09/an-open-letter-to-ann-dewitt/

August 11 -- Brooks Simpson throws in the towel, ain't gonna study war (with fringy, cockroachy Southern heritage defenders) no more. http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/an-embarrassment-to-southerners-and-southern-heritage/

August 11 -- Andy Hall blockquotes Simpson, confesses to enabling "odious folks," (but no mention of friggin' Opies) and sez he's gonna throw in the towel, too.
http://deadconfederates.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/maybe-i-am-enabling-some-odious-folks-after-all/

August 11 -- Corey Meyer announces he's jumpin' on the Simpson bandwagon and ain't gonna engage us in urinatorial contests any more. http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/time-for-a-change/

August 12 -- Simpson, unable to remain true to his resolve, posts about the League of the South
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/another-version-of-southern-heritage/

August 14 -- Simpson, STILL unable to remain true to his revolve, posts about ME
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/too-funny-to-pass-up/

August 14 -- Simpson on Michelle Bachmann
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/michele-bachmann-on-slavery/#comments

August 20 -- Corey Meyer, unable to hold it any longer, cites the League of the South Rebellion Blog. http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/rebellion-blog-sad-over-changes-at-tbomk/

August 22 -- Simpson, once again forgetting his resolve, rants about the League of the South
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/reenacting-redemption/

Now, what I choose to discuss based on these blog entries and their comment threads will come in no particular order -- just what I feel like addressing at the time. Stay tuned!

(Photos: Penny Lane and Wikimedia Commons)

Monday, August 22, 2011

The Evilization of the White South

(Note: The essay below was edited from a post that originally appeared on the Southern Heritage Preservation Group Facebook page on August 12, 2011. I wrote it shortly after this entry appeared at the Civil War Memory blog the same day:

http://cwmemory.com/2011/08/12/what-will-you-put-up-in-its-place/)

 
ProYankee Blogger Defends Confederate Flag?
 
IMO, the purpose of this (blog entry okaying Confederate flags in cemeteries) is to have a post up he can point to when he's accused of anti-Southern bias and say, "No, I'm not biased. See?"

Frankly -- and this is MY OPINION, a conclusion I've drawn based on my (admittedly limited) lookarounds over there -- that blog is not about the Civil War, or how it's remembered, despite the title. It's about slavery. It's about how slavery is remembered. Even that is a sort of generalization. It's about Southern slavery; it's about Southern slaveholding and Southern slaveholders. We know that because of the inattention given to Northern slaveholding and Northern slaveholders, and slaveshipping, a basically Northern enterprise.

This is the sort of inattention that will argue with you that the Union was fighting to free the slaves while ignoring that there were five Union slave states and slaves were helping to build the U.S. capitol.

The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil. When they say "slave women were raped," using the passive voice like that, what they really mean is evil white Southern men raped slave women. When they say "slaves were beaten," what they mean is evil Southern white men beat slaves. When they say "slave families were separated," what they mean is evil Southern white men separated slave families.

We know it's not about how the Civil War is remembered because of the references to the "Jim Crow white South" -- which occurred long after the war, long after reconstruction. But it does fall within the realm of discussion of evil white Southerners.

The question is, why?

Why such an interest in so evilizing white Southerners? We're no worse than anyone else -- our ancestors were no worse than anyone else. The great majority of antebellum white Southerners owned no slaves. (They have to be evilized by saying, "Well, yeah, but they wanted to. They aspired to being a slaveowner some day," though I've never seen anyone offer the "scholarship" that proves it.)

So why? Because Southerners have to be made deserving of the horrific brutality done to them by the north in the war. It is that simple. There may be a few critics, but basically, the United States cannot admit to ever having done anything wrong. But what the north, doing the bidding of the feds, did to the South during the war and for five generations afterward... Is. Not. Justifiable.

So they came down here and killed us, stole everything that wasn't nailed down, burned towns and farms, and laid our region waste; installed a military dictatorship over us, and puppet governments that would put state treasures so deeply in debt it would take generations to get out, leaving us little or no capital for investments, jobs, schools, and kept us in widespread poverty until almost WWII -- and then ridiculed us for being poor and uneducated.
 
THAT is why the South -- why Southerners (white ones) -- must still be evilized -- in the classroom, on television, on Hollywood's silver screen, in the corporation, the government bureaucracy, even in freakin' video games. Throughout the popular culture. And especially in academia. That mission of keeping Southerners evil is the motive, perhaps buried so deep it isn't recognized, behind nearly all the "Civil War" "scholarship" and that's what almost all the Sesquicentennial commemorations intend to commemorate, in one way or another.

Don't let the occasional token Confederate flag post fool you. Don't let the occasional "fairminded" comments fool you. Look at the totality.
_______________________________

(Note: On August 21, over a week after that post appeared on Facebook, I discovered that it had been referenced, more or less, at the Civil War Crossroads blog, where Brooks Simpson posted but one sentence from it: "The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil." He titled the post "Too Funny to Pass Up." Odd thing, though...he wasn't laughing.
 
Now, he put that on his blog on August 14 -- three days AFTER he posted (on August 11) an entry titled "An Embarrassment to Southerners and Southern Heritage" wherein he likened me, David Tatum and members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook group, to cockroaches feeding on garbage [and Andy Hall calls my "Huffpoo" comment childish -- but he calls us "odious" and blockquotes Simpson's entire entry, including this churlish cockroach comment, on his blog).
In that same August 11 blog entry, Simpson says,
"But I wonder about giving these fringe elements too much attention, and, after having reviewed some of their blogs and a Facebook page over the past few weeks ... I have come to the conclusion that to feature these groups and blogs is in fact to grant them a sort of recognition and legitimacy that they do not deserve. They simply aren’t responsible participants: indeed, they are rather childish ... I think that to give these fringe ranters undue attention is a disservice to the South and all southerners. Other bloggers may continue to draw attention to these folks, but, aside from highlighting specific examples of research claims, I will let them languish and stew in their own scalding juices of hate and resentment."
And then, a mere three days later, he devotes an entire blog post to me -- albeit a short one, but it identifies me by name and links to my blog. What resolve! What determination! LOL! Either he changed his mind, or else he considers my post about academic interest in white Southern evil to be a specific example of a research claim he's highlighting. LOL! Which do YOU think it is? And who do you suppose endowed him with the authority to up decide who/what deserves legitimacy and recognition? 
 
BTW, 180 readers, if you enjoyed my attention to Civil War Crossroads, stay tuned. There's more on the way.)

(Photo: C. Ward)

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Stupidizing Southerners

An anti-Southern blogger who shall remain nameless recently posted a link to this book on his blog: Dreaming of Dixie -- How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture by Karen L. Cox. (I'm not linking to the book on Amazon. Find it yourself.)

Now, I know the pitfalls of attempting to review a book I haven't read so I'm not going to attempt that. I simply note that one can draw reasonable conclusions based on a cursory examination -- not only about the book in question, but about larger issues.

Aside from the fact that the cover is truly awful, the theme of this book seems to be that an authentic South doesn't really exist -- it's a figment, created by the imaginations of nonSoutherners motivated to make money off their creation in the popular culture. Until the civil rights movement, the South in popular culture (music, movies, novels) was based on antebellum myth -- pastoral, peopled with happy slaves, cavaliers and belles, living in moonlight and magnolias ... The usual claptrap. Granted, she does give nonSoutherners "credit" (or blame) for this misleading, or at least incomplete, view -- but then she goes on to imply that Southerners themselves bought into this vision of their region.

In other words, those of us who are not inbred scumsucking racist hicks are ig-nernt morons who'll swallow anything that makes our region (and, by extension, us) "look good."

What this illustrates, folks, is a subset of the ongoing mission of evilizing Southerners -- that of stupidizing Southerners.

It's been going on for a while. From a newspaper article in 2000, when Richmond was in a dustup over General Robert E. Lee's inclusion on the Riverwalk flood wall -- just to show you an example of the mission from a decade ago, which illustrates that it hasn't changed much. AP writer Bob Lewis had the byline; his article, Richmond, Va., Struggles With Race, quoted (1) Richmond's mayor, (2) an unidentified "some," and (3) a Mississippi racial reconciliation activist. Maybe some others, but these are the best illustrators:
"Our particular legacy causes us some real problems -- additional difficulties that other communities do not have," said Mayor Timothy Kaine, who is white. "In a lot of ways, the Civil War has been an albatross around our neck."

The problem, some say, is the way many white Southerners romanticize the "Lost Cause," turning it into something out of "Gone With the Wind."

"A lot of people don't want to acknowledge the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause. One reason a lot of people are dishonest about their past is guilt," the mayor said. "Everyone knows slavery was evil, but nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people."

Susan Glisson, interim director of the Institution for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, said: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."
The Civil War has been an albatross around Richmond's neck? Gee, ya think? Let's overlook the obvious likelihood that Ex-mayor Wilder doesn't grasp the intended symbolism of Coleridge's albatross, and consider the words of Pennsylvania journalist Douglas Harper, "...the majority (in the CSA), in spite of internal divisions, put up a herculean effort, won spectacular victories, made shift with what little it had, and held out till the place was literally gutted and blood-drained by its foe."

Does the ex-mayor imagine there would be some reason why its capital would escape the gutted and blood-drained fate the rest of the Confederacy was subjected to?

Everyone knows slavery was evil and we don't acknowledge it out of guilt? I know that slavery must not have been as bad as we're told -- not total evil, as the ex-mayor implies, because, otherwise there would be no need for the campaign to evilize it that's underway today -- the effort to identify its worst components and abuses as the whole of it. This is like saying marriage is spouse abuse, and motherhood is child abuse...

Besides, many of the WPA slave narratives -- words out of the mouths of former slaves -- refute these words out of the former mayor's mouth. Yes, slavery was bad; no, it was not the total evil of the imaginary version being crammed down our throats today for the purpose of evilizing Southerners.

Nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people? Perhaps this is why yankees have developed such widespead amnesia about their ancestors' responsibility for slavery? For slave trading, slave shipping and for processing the products of slave grown agriculture? How much does the role of "guilt" play in their regional and cultural slavery-amnesia?

But of course, that was not what the ex-mayor had in mind, was it? Like so many others, in his eagerness to evilize Southerners past and present, he is completely oblivious to the complicity of the yanks who not only contributed to and benefitted from slavery, but in the world's most breathtaking act and display of hypocrisy, made war on the South ostensibly because of its evil, slave-holdin' ways.

Besides, slave ownership doesn't automatically confer ignobility -- and what about the 90% or so of Southerners who owned no slaves but who sent their sons to defend against the invading armies of the north? What about them, Ex-mayor Wilder?

As bad as that is, Glisson's comments take the trophy for stupidizing Southerners: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."

Now, aside from the fact that there were some -- a relative few -- who actually matched that description among the men who fought for the South, how many white Southerners today have such imaginings? I sure don't. Long before I knew much about the war, I knew my ancestors were Cherokee Indians and "Scotch-Irish" Appalachian mountaineers. I didn't know the particulars (I know some of them now) but I did know that any of my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy likely did NOT leave a column mansion, hoop-skirted moms, sisters and sweethearts and happy slaves to go off and shoot yankees. People who have done the genealogy research likely have a far more realistic view of their Confederate ancestors.

Didn't have to work? Just an example from my own family. My gg-grandfather Tilmon P. Chastain is listed as a "miner" on the 1860 census for Fannin County, Georgia. For the uninitiated, what people in those parts mined was copper. That part of north Georgia (McCaysville) and southeastern Tennessee (Ducktown) is called the Copper Basin. Do a little research on it, and you discover that the mining process destroyed vegetation for fifty miles around the area. Not "did a little damage" but totally destroyed it. Photos of the region at the time show a Mars-like landscape. Not a tree, not a bush, not a blade of grass left alive.



Imagine what the same process did to the lungs and health of the residents.

Didn't have to work? LOL! What a joke, Ms. Glisson, you're funny, a real card, ha-ha.

So now we come to Karen L. Cox and Dreaming of Dixie. I suppose, since it was written by an academic, and published by an academic press, this book falls under the anti-Southern blogger's concept of "scholarship" and may even have something, in his imagination, to do with the war (or at least its "memory").

I admit my prejudice about the book and its author, because of her membership in the academic world. If anything comes to my attention to change my suspicions, I'll change them. But for now, I'm classifying this book as Stupidizing Southerners Lite. This is based on my reading of the cover blurb and product description at Amazon, and a bit of googling about the author. Beyond her membership in academia and her focus on the South, my surface search found nothing to indicate that she's part of the crusade to evilize Southerners; but I didn't find anything to indicate she isn't, either.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Academic leftism and the Civil War

I recently visited an anti-Confederate blog's comment thread and made a few comments, among them the notion that American colleges and universities are not the zones of free thought and inquiry they once were, but now are centers that teach students what to think.

I posted a link to the website, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, The FIRE.org, which monitors restrictions of free speech on college campuses. One blogger is a professor at Arizona State University, and because ASU has a FIRE "green light" rating -- a good record on free speech -- he says I contradicted my own claim.

Not really. Some of you have encountered this idea from me: "If you want to understand ALL the reasons Mississippi seceded from the union, you have to NOT STOP reading after you encounter the word "slavery." The document goes on to list the ways Mississippi had been victimized, with slavery as the excuse, and since they are included in the secession declarations, they are reasons why the state seceded. If not, why were they included? If they were, that makes them as important in the decision to secede as slavery was."

It's the same situation now. You can't stop reading after the "green light" comment; you must read on to get the whole picture.

But first, you have to know what "green light" means. Here is FIRE's note about it:
"Green Light: If FIRE is unable to find a policy that seriously imperils speech, a college or university receives a 'green light.' A green light does not indicate that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that FIRE is not currently aware of any serious threats to students’ free speech rights in the policies on that campus."
Further, as FIRE notes, ASU's "green light" was recently earned. An Arizona State Press editorial from June 2011 (that's this year, folks) notes: "FIRE used to have ASU as one of the worst schools in terms of free speech, but a change in a university policy in January took away viewpoint restrictions in advertising and posting."

In January. As recently as seven months ago, this university, where the anti-Confederate blogger is employed, was one of the worst in terms of free speech.

Visit here and read more about it: http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/46

While you're there, read about ASU's recent history of segregated classrooms ("...Native Americans only...") and the university's denial of same, despite proof.

Everybody knows, and studies confirm, that educators are overwhelmingly leftist politically (two thirds to three quarters, depending on the study).


There are many reasons given for this, but the bottom line is that our college and university students, as well as elementary and high school students, are taught by those with a leftist political and cultural bias. And there is no doubt in my mind -- is there in yours? -- that the leftist bias influences what and how they teach to their students.

More about the ivory towers of academia in future posts.

For now, just suffice it to say that some anecdotal evidence can be found in comment threads that follow news articles about the "civil war" and related events of today. The mindless, all-emotion, no-cognition comments screeching that the war was over slavery, and Confederates were traitors made, presumably, by people educated in the USA, testify to the leftist bias they've been taught -- because history offers plenty of primary evidence to the contrary. Students, in my opinion, are just not allowed to be exposed to it.

More about that in future posts, too. So stay tuned.