Where Petulance and Arrogance Meet

Lower-echelon Dixie-basher and self-appointed civil war thought cop Rob Baker has grown increasingly petulant since I enable comment moderation on my blog. Apparently, he has no problem with his buddies doing it -- only when I do it.

In my blog post of May 22, I pointed out the what the difference would be between former Confederate states, counties or municipalities (1) flying a rainbow flag and (2) acknowledging a government and nation they were once a part of by flying that nation's flag -- on public property.

He left a comment, "When exactly was there a new southern nation. I know of a rebellion, or perhaps a Southern independence movement, but a country?"

As if what he "knows," or claims to know, is universal truth. The Confederate States of America was a sovereign nation-state with a government, a constitution, territory defined by borders, constituent states, citizens, an organized economy and treasury, foreign and domestic trade, a military. That it was unnecessarily and brutally warred upon from its inception doesn't negate any of this.

As Douglas Harper has so ably noted, "Any nation fighting for survival from the cradle, invaded and blockaded all its life, doesn't get a chance to express the finer points of democracy and civil culture. If all we knew of Americans was how they actually behaved from 1776 to 1783, we wouldn't think much of our sense of "democracy" or commitment to "personal freedom."

Rob finished, "And what of this country's population that had allegiance to their home and not the country? What about those in East Tennessee that did not want to leave but were forced to under occupation?"

Again, Douglas Harper more than adequately explains it --

The CSA was a bid to form an independent nation out of a region that had a common enemy and some collective regional identity. But the CSA comprised many sub-cultures (a few of them didn't want to be there), and it had a leadership that sometimes confused self-interest with public policy. It had its fair share of charlatans and profiteers and criminal opportunists. It had some brilliant generals and a great many men in uniform who would be the pride of any army in human history. It was committed to 18th century republican values that were incompatible with fighting a modern war, and it had internal social conflicts that the war aggravated.

In nearly all of this it was entirely like the American Revolutionaries. The colonists in 1776: one-third for independence, one-third against, one-third uncommitted. That must be the standard for legitimacy, or else our United States lacks it. The CSA fought a much larger enemy than George III, mostly on its own soil, without a Dutch loan or a French fleet to aid it, and the majority, 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.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm

When I pointed out to Rob that he and I don't see things the same way, and that I don't have to believe what he believes, he responded with, "...my 'belief' is based on fact. Your belief parallels the Santa clause (sic) fable."

Me: You BELIEVE your belief is based on fact. My beliefs are based on facts you refuse to recognize.

Rob: You beliefs aren't based on anything but "Confederate Heritage" revisionism Connie. Your "facts" constantly get torn apart because you don't have the slightest idea how to interpret or analyze those facts. I posted on your blog. You chose to email me personally."

Me: You don't know what my beliefs are based on. Yours are based on PC indoctrination foisted off by those who must evilize somebody else in order to feel better about their own uncertain morality and beliefs. My facts haven't been torn apart. Your post came to me in email from Blogger; I hit "reply." You don't like it? Stop harassing me, you won't get the emails, capisce?

Rob: Again Connie you know nothing of my back ground. I've experienced various view points from different professors. I went to Private Schools for my Undergrad. I've experienced apologists and what you deem as PC revisionists. You've also demonstrated, or attempted to demonstrate, the revisionism you call heritage on several occasions given me a decent perception of what you base your "facts" on. I never stated I didn't like it. You're the one that claims harassment from disagreement, if you don't like it, then stop writing absurdities. Capisce?

Me: You know nothing of my background, Rob. I've experienced different viewpoints from professors. I went to a private high school and college, plus state universities. I've experienced apologists and PC revisionists. Yes, my observations on political correctness, state-sponsored and otherwise, hold up. You're perception is skewed, not decent. You can disagree without harassing; you can reply on your own blog. Don't tell me what to do. You don't have the authority.

Rob: LOL. What a reactionary response. I'm glad you had differing view points, but I am not arguing your background am I? I am arguing what you present as facts. Obviously you didn't pay attention in history class. I also don't remember telling you what to do, outside of a comical mocking of you telling me what to do of course."

I guess when he wrote that, he had already forgotten that he just told me, "...stop writing absurdities. Capisce?" And didja notice he didn't identify what facts I presented that he's arguing with? (It's as rare as hens' teeth for them to identify our "facts" that they say they're challenging.)

Interesting thing about Rob and his fellow self-appointed civil war thought police is they they claim to have facts on their side, but what they present as fact is their opinion.... It's interesting also that they label our facts as fables, but, as I just noted, they rarely if ever identify what facts/fables they're challenging. (Rob didn't identify any in the exchange under discussion here.)

My issue with the self-appointed civil war thought police isn't differing viewpoints. Confederate heritage folks disagree amongst themselves about some things so that's not the issue. My problems are: (1) The totalitarian attitude that underlies their "policing' and (2) their basic motivation -- the evilization of Confederates, of white Southerners then and now --as well as the dishonest arguing techniques and harassment, as Rob has just demonstrated (also illustrated by Corey Meyer's repeatedly messaging me, out of the blue, on Facebook). And, frankly, the sheer arrogance they display.

I don't write absurdities except, possibly, when I do satire. Apparently, satire goes right over their heads. In any case, Rob's telling me to "...stop writing absurdities," perfectly illustrates the totalitarian attitude (guess he doesn't believe in the First Amendment), the arrogance, the dishonest arguing techniques and harassment of the self-appointed civil war thought police and Dixie-bashers -- all rolled into three little words...

I don't care what people believe about the civil war. I don't comb the Internet looking for people whose beliefs about it contradict mine... I don't even care what the Dixie-bashing brigade bloggers think of the war, and you won't find comments from me challenging them. What I care about is when their underlying motive/agenda of evilizing Southerners surfaces on their blogs and comments, and when they distort or ignore history in order to advance that agenda. Go find any comments on their blogs that I have left, and you will see that's exactly what I challenge.

Confederate Flags On Public Property

Listen to Dixie Bashers talk about displays of Confederate flags and you'll hear things like...

It has no right to fly in front of a courtroom, which is supposed to represent all the people, not just those with Confederate heritage.

The Confederate Battle flag, rightly, is associated with slavery and in our own times with racism. It has no business whatsoever to be flown at a public building.

These buildings and public spaces are for us as a society, not for our niches. I don’t demand, nor would I want to see, the so-called African-American flag, the Cherokee flag, a pentagram-emblazoned banner, a Vodou (sic) banner or the rainbow flag (all of which are meaningful to me in one way or another) displayed in this manner. To demand such would not be right, and neither are the demands of these apologists.

The major problem with this line of reasoning is that it sees Confederate flags as a "niche", or a symbol of a few partisans. It is a complete misunderstanding to classify Confederate flags as representing an exclusive group (Confederate descendants or "those with Confederate heritage," the SCV, or whoever) or organizations that have misused the banners.

Confederate flags can certainly be flown in public places in particular states -- those that were part of the Confederate States of America. In this context the flag doesn't "represent" anybody; it identifies the nation of which a state and its counties and municipalities were a part at one time in their history. It goes without saying that a Confederate flag does not belong in front of, say, the state house of Montana or a courthouse in Oregon, as these were not member states in the Confederacy.

The so-called African-American flag, the Cherokee flag, a pentagram-emblazoned banner, a Vodou (sic) banner or the rainbow flag were never elements of the flag of a sovereign nation that its constituent states recognized and flew. One wonder how hard it is to grasp such a simple but crucial fact.

There is nothing wrong with official buildings, from state capitols to city halls, to courthouses and other official property, displaying a Confederate flag to acknowledge that the Confederacy was once their official national government. Many states fly on public property the flags of other governments they have been a party to during their history. In my town, five such flags represent the historical countries/governments to which Pensacola has belonged. In these applications, the proper Confederate flag would be the third national, the political flag of the CSA.

In public and private parks commemorating Confederate soldiers and cemeteries where they rest, the flag chosen by Confederate veterans themselves to represent them and honor their service and sacrifice, is the rectangular battle flag -- the Southern cross. As it is not a political flag of a historic government, it can and should be flown above Confederate cemeteries and memorials in states inside and outside of the old Confederacy.

Of course, there will be those who refuse to see the difference between the official flag of a nation of which a state once was a part and, say, the rainbow flag. Sad commentary on the state of propagandistic education in the USA.

__________

Photo by C. Ward

Who's the new Dixie-Bashing blogger?

On April 30, a new blogger joined the anti-Confederate blogger brigade with a blog titled "Dixie Bashin'." Apparently, that was inspired by my use of the phrases "South-bashing bloggers" and "Bash-Dixie blogs" and similar phrases on my Facebook group, Backsass.

I identified the blogger as new but it may be that only the blog that's new. The blogger is likely one of our regular Dixie bashers playing anonymous. I don't know for certain who it is (or whether it is a he or a she) nor do I really care. But it's fun to speculate.

The likeliest candidate is Cousin Perfesser Brooks Simpson, with Waurene Roberson running a very distant second. The blogger is too glib to be Corey or Rob, and too frivolous to be Andy.

I've made Waurene a possible candidate only because we've recently run cross each other in cyberspace after a few years being out of touch. We go back a long way, to 2000, at least, and used to spar on various pro- and anti-Confederate Yahoo groups. We recently met up again in a comment thread on Cousin Perfesser's Crossroads blog.

Waurene is a self-styled anti-racist from Mississippi who has gone by various internet handles -- Furry Blues, Lazuli Silke, Bluzlover, and others. She was once a member of the ACLU and may still be. She is, or used to be, huffily disapproving of those who honor Confederate heritage.

That means she disapproves of Confederate flag prom dress wearers, and on the Crossroads blog, she recently aimed a great gust of derision at the most recent such prom-goer because of her footwear. Best I can tell, though Waurene seems to run silent on the outlandish and sometimes blatantly immodest pimp-and-ho ghetto prom outfits sported by some African American kids because, well, she apparently doesn't like to criticize African Americans.

My impression from my years of dealing with her is that she thinks blacks have been so mistreated, they should be above criticism, or at least that their criticism-worthy behavior is understandable and whites should be sympathetic to it, or at the very least, overlook it.

I also get the impression that she thinks that a period of being oppressed confers virtue on a people.... But that may depend on who the oppressors and the oppressed are.

She's a weak candidate for the new Dixie-bashing blogger because of timing. She shows up on Cousin Perfesser's blog -- for the first time, to the best of my knowledge -- on April 25 And the Bash Dixie blog premiers with two posts a mere five days later, on April 30.

But Cousin Perfesser is the prime candidate. He's the one who "discovered" the Dixie-bashing blog and posted a link to it at Crossroads on May 5. That alone greatly ups the odds that he's the "new" blogger.

A little background is in order. Back in mid-April, Cousin Perfesser attempted to smear me with a tragic circumstance from my family history. He actually did genealogical research on my family, evidently to prove that my Chastain ancestors had victimized my Cherokee ancestors by participating in the north Georgia removal that led to the Trail of Tears.

I'm not sure what he expected my response to be -- outrage or mortification at his "exposure" of my family "secrets", perhaps. In any case, I wasn't either one, though I was a bit flabbergasted at this latest evidence of his obsession with me. My response was to post a comment with a list other surnames in my lineage, in case he gets the urge to work on my genealogy some more....

He even claimed to have found that we're kin -- that we have a common ancestor back there -- hence, my new name for him, Cousin Perfesser.

In any case, I think some of his regular readers thought that the genealogy thing was carrying his obsession a little too far. I've even wondered if someone at the university might have expressed disapproval of his display of blatant pettiness, but that's just speculation.

Since then, he has posted about seven (7) blog entries bashing Southern heritage, some of them featuring yours truly. But this represents a tapering off. Nineteen other blog posts during the same time period are about other stuff -- his take on the civil war and related matters, as well as hockey, baseball, race (another of his obsessions), and so forth. I don't read his blog posts on those subjects, as they do not interest me. I monitor his blog for Dixie-bashing and that's all. Ditto Corey's and Andy's and Levin's.

So for whatever reason, Cousin Perfesser has been backing off his attacks on Southern heritage and on me. That greatly enhances the probability that he's the new Dixie-bashing blogger, because he's obsessed with bashing Confederate heritage and its advocates -- and if he isn't going to do it on Crossroads, he needs another place to indulge his obsession.

There are other clues, too. After a five-line introductory post, the very next entry is about -- you guessed it -- me! Both It and Cousin Perfesser refer to me as "biker babe," presumably based on this photo of me that I used as my Facebook profile pic for a while.

Both mention the number of members of Backsass. Apparently, they judge success by number of members and/or readers. I judge it by who's reading ... LOL!

Both Cousin Perfesser and It mention my writing, and both mention my current WIP, Sweet Southern Boys by name.

And that's just in the second post...

Next is a post about member of Backsass and his comments about which states have the most hate crimes -- and they ain't in the South. The next is about the Virginia flaggers (also an obsession of Cousin Perfesser). Then there's an irrelevant music video and after that -- guess what... Another post about me!

This one references the term, "sensahuma," that I first used on my blog in September 2011, here. So now It is using a term that Cousin Perfesser already ripped off from me in December, here, here, and here.

In this post, It adds a screenshot of a Facebook comment, which Cousin Perfesser has done repeatedly. Another clue -- both like to denigrate the intelligence of people they don't like.

Then there's a post about the Southern Heritage Preservation Group that It identifies as a "hate" group -- and provides "evidence" (including two more Facebook screenshots) that proves no such thing.

And the current post (as of this writing) It puts up is about -- ME! What a surprise, huh!

The new Bash Dixie blog, despite its limitations, is much better than Simpson's Crossroads blog -- better than Andy's and Corey's and Kevin's, too, because it doesn't try to disguise its purpose of South-bashing behind a phony interest in the civil war....

____________________________

Images:
Roberson, Sea Grant Week 2012 Blog (no copyright notices found on blog)
Simpson, Civil War Bookshelf Blog (no copyright notices found on blog)
Dixie Bashin', screenshot of blog header (no copyright notices found on blog)

Notes on the Dixie-Bashing Blogosphere...

---New Southern organization -- Wanna join?---

Dixie-basher Kevin Levin posted a blog entry about some new organization for the descendants of Southern planters. The organization has caused a minor stir among South-bashing bloggers. Since I don't have any planter ancestors, I posted at "Civil War (Obsessed With Slavery) Memory" a comment similar to this: "I'm thinking of starting an organization for Descendants of Southern Hardscrabble Farmers, Sharecroppers, Sawmillers, and Railroad Workers..."

Levin didn't post it, of course. No sensa-yuma.

---Do white southerners deserve to survive?---

Andy Hall's "civil war era" blog features quite a number of posts about contemporary subjects that hardly date from the civil war "era." Most recently, Andy has agitated, in his laid-back Texas manner, over Dr. Michael Hill's desire that white Southerners survive as a people. (I think Dixie-bashers like these bloggers don't see white Southerners as a people, anyway.) I have found over the years that people obsessed with race and slavery like these bloggers, always have a profoundly different understanding of the League of the South, its positions and the writings of its leaders than I do. What a surprise....

---It IS about us---

Corey Meyer keeps bugging me with Facebook's messaging utility. He's one of the self-appointed civil war history cops who thinks everyone should believe about the war exactly what he believes for exactly the same reasons. His obsession with Confederate heritage advocates dates back to at least 2000, when I first got online -- and very likely much longer than that.

He and Cousin Perfesser ("It's Not About You") Simpson and several of their myrmidons think that if someone living today identifies with the Confederates by saying "we" or "us," that person is claiming to have experienced what the people who lived through the war experienced.

You should've read the righteous indignation when a proSoutherner recently used "we" and "us" that way in a comment on Corey's blog -- "'We' did not fight in the Civil War," said one commenter. "'We' did not experience even one iota of the pain and suffering of the men of either side of that time. It strikes me as the absolute height of stupidity to place one’s selve (sic) with those men while sitting in a comfortable home in front of a computer screen, stoking up an imagined rage over what one can not even conceive of the horror of that time."

Well, of course when we say "we" or "us" in relation to the war, we're not claiming that we experienced the pain and suffering of the war. We are simply acknowledging that we're taking sides.

My town has a new baseball team, the Blue Wahoos. Recently my husband mentioned the team's next game and I said, "Oh, who are we playing?" Frankly, I don't much care for baseball. I've been to a couple of games but I don't know any of the players, and I'm not a fan... And yet, I referred to the Blue Wahoos as "we," meaning, in this case, that the team belongs to the town where I live -- i.e. my town. Only an idiot would think I was claiming to BE one of the team, understood baseball's rules, did the practice sessions, etc.

Now, I'm sure the Dixie-bashing bloggers and their commenters understand this, but they have to pretend to NOT understand so they can express their pleasurable outrage. They pretend to misunderstand a lot of what we say for that reason.

---Confederate Flag Prom Dress Brings Out the Hate---

...but not the way Dixie-bashers would have us believe. Cousin Perfesser recently posted a video about a high school student in Tennessee barred from attending her senior prom because of her Confederate Flag dress. He even acknowledged that it's a non-issue with the "Zzzzzzz" in his headline, leading one to wonder why he posted about it.

Well, it doesn't take long to see that it IS an issue -- and what kind of issue, and with whom. Confederate flag dresses and their wearers are better than sledge hammers for bashing Southerners. Consider these comments from Cousin Perfesser's lovely blog followers....

martin says: What about her Brother? Did they let him in without his date?

tonygunter says: What a shame! That’s the prettiest size 18 prom dress I have ever seen.

Waurene Roberson says: I’m surprised the dress got her thrown out. Did you see the flip flips she was wearing with that sequined dress? OH. MY. GAWD. To the prom in a sequined dress and flip flops….call the fasion police, y’all….

Al Mackey says: Nice to see another old friend commenting. I agree the flip flops were an egregious fashion faux pas, but the dress itself seemed to me to be of a cut that was not made for a prom, leaving aside the CBF motif. The whole reason for the dress appears to have been to make a controversy, and the principal obliged.

Waurene Roberson says: No doubt it was to make a controversy, but I’m not sure the principal should have obliged. Note the “zzzzz” in the subject head. We get into freedom of speech issues, too, as well as my old mainstay (which is: some things really need warning labels, and that girl wore a big one). As an African-American dress designer told me the other day, at least everything was covered. :-) She’s had girls ask her to design prom dresses that were, shall we say, less than they should have been.

This little kerfluffle is the sort of thing that merely makes you roll your eyes and go on about your business. The shoes were the icing on the crapcake.

Waurene Roberson says: By the way, professor, I congratulate you on achieving the impossible, something I never thought I’d live to see (someone shutting Connie up). Bravo!

Just a few observations about the above....

The "scum-sucking, inbred racist hick" stereotype of white Southerners, which is what lies behind martin's remark, is rooted in hatred, not truth.

---Incest---

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[27] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[27] Ohio only targets parental figures,[27] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[27] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[27] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[27]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[28]

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
_____

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."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/06/west_virginia_incest_virginia.html

If tonygunter thinks the controversial flag dress is the "prettiest size 18 prom dress he's ever seen" (feeding the stereotype of fat, white Southerners), I guess he's never seen these dresses... Absolutely stunning!

http://cdn.nowaygirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/x2_5b89d89.jpg
http://www.jayzoo.com/earchive/data/July2/ghetto-prom3.jpg

Oh, and there's lot's more size 18+ prom dresses out there... Just google "ghetto prom" and see for yourself... If would be interesting to see how many of them Al Mackey considered to "of a cut that was made for a prom..."

And If the girl's footwear deserves Waurene Roberson's orgiastic ridicule, I have to wonder what Roberson thinks of this.

http://www2.youknowdamnright.org:81/ghetto-prom/pic18.jpg

And if she thinks clothing like Confederate flag dresses are some kind of "warning label," one has to wonder if she considers this to be a "warning label".

http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/86187711.jpg?w=420&h=315

And methinks these young ladies should have gone to the African American dress designer Roberson spoke with...

http://i.imgur.com/FJ9g7.jpg
http://www.jayzoo.com/earchive/data/July2/ghetto-prom3.jpg

As for Cousin Perfesser shutting me up -- he obviously has not. He has petulantly stopped posting my comments on his blog, that's all. LIke the other Dixie-bashing bloggers, he likes slandering folks without allowing them to respond -- a very, very American concept.

But I am far from silenced....

---

Speaking of which.... Marc Ferguson, were you the one who opined that Cousin Perfesser would let my comment through if it was in response to a direct question from another commenter?

Guess what. You're wrong.

Unless You Say Yer Agin' It, You Must Be Fer It?

There's a fellow named Marc Ferguson who post frequently on civil-war-era-memory-type bash-Dixie blogs -- another critic who (1) wears race-colored glasses, so that it tinges eveything he sees, and (2) focuses on a small, worst segment and pretends it is the whole.

He recently posted this to me on Cousin Perfesser Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blawg. (I'm editing it slightly but only to add paragraph breaks, and remove non-pertinent "introductory" sentences, not to otherwise alter wording or meaning.)

I have read your exchanges with Hunter Wallace on his racist blog “Occidntal Dissent” and your replies to other commenters here on “Crossroads” however, and it is noteworthy that you have never taken an opportunity to disavow white supremacy.

I can easily imagine that Mr. Wallace would include you, as he has me, among those who are N****r Lover, and that I probably live in some “Whitetopia,” and should take my kids to live in a minority neighborhood, where I would learn that non-whites are evolutionarily inferior to whites, and have never created, nor been able to sustain a real “civilization.”

For anyone wondering what this “civilization” might be, I would refer you (yes, you, Connie, and anyone else who is not certain what this might mean) to the episodes of the documentary “Eyes on the Prize,” especially the ones featuring the murders of Emmitt Till and Medgar Evers, and Bull Connor turning the fire hoses on activists protesting white businesses that refused to hire blacks. Examples of “civilization” in the segregated American South.

For the record, Hunter Wallace accuses me of being a N****r Lover because I believe that African Americans are human beings, and should be accorded full civil rights, and treated with human dignity. Do you?

I await your disavowal of this, Mr. Wallace’s, style of racism.

Waal, Mr. Ferguson, I have read your comments on Crossroads and elsewhere, and I find it is noteworthy that you have never taken an opportunity to disavow pedaphilia. I find it noteworthy that you have never taken the opportunity to disavow torture by the CIA and the U.S. military. I find it noteworthy that you have never taken the opportunity to disavow the U.S. government killing its own citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State). I find it noteworthy that you have never taken the opportunity to disavow Mike Nifong's attempted railroading of three innocent young men for rape.

You see, Ferguson, it isn't necessary to disavow support for everything one doesn't support. As long as one has not openly supported or advocated it, it can safely be assumed that one doesn't support it. Capisce?

 This is particularly true of those who support Southern heritage, when so many people, such as yourself, attempt to conflate such support with racial hatred.... It is not incumbent upon Southern heritage advocate to "disavow white supremacy" as their lack of support for it should be sufficient. What's incumbent, Ferguson, is for you to not automatically conflate support of Southern heritage with support for white supremacy.

Your citing "examples of civilization in the segregated American South" (and the ones you cite) is itself an example ... an example of focusing on a small, worst segment and attempting to pass it off as the whole. Overall, segregation in the South was a not a positive experience; however, to totally define it as murder is a lie that, in my opinion, is motivated at least in part by hatred of white Southerners.

I don't believe in macro-evolution; I believe all human beings were made by God in His image (which, to my understanding, means possessing a soul that can exist in the dimension of timelessness we call eternity). As we used to sing in Sunday school, that means "red and yellow, black and white."

Satisfied, Mr. Ferguson? Good. Now you can run along to your NAMBLA meeting without worrying about my views on race....

A great voice now silent....

OH, NO! SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Oh, my GOSH! Me, kin to Perfesser Simpson? That's what the perfesser revealed on his blog today....

The kid in this video very closely approximates my reaction when I found out....




How embarrassing! I won't be able to show my face amongst good Southrons anymore! I'll have to get a hat with a veil, which will no doubt bring on more snide posts at Crossroads attempting to liken me to the KKK.

Actually, as one of my group members (a life-long New Yorker pointed out) it's not our ancestors who discredit us, though out descendants might. That's a moot point for me, since I'm not leaving any descendants.

Still, it's sooooo embarrassin', having yankee ancestors. Until now, my research showed my northern-most ancestors were the Silvers, in Maryland and Pennsylvania... Of course, that's direct ancestors. Rebecca Denton is not a direct ancestor. She married Benjamin Chastain, who was a cousin to my direct ancestor....

Perfesser Simpson says he wasn't "using facts about the Chastain family simply to make fun of Connie (as opposed to revealing the important difference between history and heritage."

What horse hockey. The perfesser implied that I was attempting to hide something about my family in this remark: "Connie Chastain delights in telling us of her Cherokee heritage. But she’s declined to reveal the role of some of the members of her family tree in deporting other members of her family tree … or perhaps she never knew about it."

Somehow, the perfesser construes that if you mention anything about your family history, you're trying to conceal everything that you don't mention.  Apparently, if you mention anything about your family's past, you have to post your whole, entire family  history ... in blog comment. Yeah, right.

Let's remember how this whole discussion came about. The perfesser posted excerpts from a blogger known as The Catholic Knight. Said exerpt included this, "I do confess to having a strong biological connection to Southern culture through my mother, both in Southern English, Irish and Scottish descent, as well as a strong Cherokee ancestry which is deeply connected to Southern history."

To this the perfesser snidely remarked, "Someone ought to fill him in on who advocated the removal of the Cherokee Nation." Implying (1) he didn't know and (2) having both Southern and Cherokee ancestry/heritage requires a person to choose one and reject the other.

I simply addressed that cockamamie idea by showing I'm a person with both in my ancestry, and I reject neither.

Now the perfesser sez, "Perhaps next time some folks will refrain from assuming certain motives before they know the complete story."

Oh, please, perfesser. Your blog is continuously telling the complete story and continuously revealing your motive of animus for Southern heritage advocates in general, and me in particular. You know it and we know it.

Perfesser Unhinged!

It looks like closing my group has had a terrible effect on the perfesser... He feels abandoned and has become totally unhinged -- doing my GENEALOGY and posting it on his blog!!

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/connie-chastains-family-heritage-a-house-divided/

How do you spell obsession?   B-R-O-O-K-S   D-O-N-O-H-U-E   S-I-M-P-S-O-N

Careful, perfesser. Those nice young men in their clean, white coats could show up at your doorstep any moment!

 

 He even looks kinda like the perfesser, don't he?

Damnyankees Attack. Southerners Defend.

The perfesser's been stomping throught the Internet with his jackboots on, looking for people to bash. Again. You'd think he'd get tired of it...  But then, that's what damnyankees do.   Interestingly, out of the five things he's noted in his current Crossroads post, three --count 'em, three, t-h-r-e-e-, (3) -- are about ... you guest it ... MOI!

---

News and Notes: April 11, 2012
Apr 11

A look around and about …

    1. Someone thinks that we should celebrate John Wilkes Booth as a Confederate hero who did the right thing.
 
I don't think so.  I have no admiration for an assassin, but then, I'd have no admiration for this character even if he hadn't assassinated Aby-baby.

    2. Someone can’t get anything right.  This blog was never named “Civil War Crossroads”; the address (cwcrossroads.wordpress.com) reflects the fact that “crossroads” as an address was already taken.  She also got my job title wrong: her stalking me on the web led her to a rendering on an ASU website that is in serious error (these documents date from 2011).  My correct title can be found elsewhere.  Then again, this person confesses she doesn’t know her history, anyway, so why should this be different?  But, so long as she spends her time ranting away, she’s not exactly serving the cause of “Confederate heritage,” now, is she?  And perhaps that’s my secret plan after all.  Now I have to ask my friends in Washington to start visiting her blog again.  Shhh.
 
LOL! Doing a Google image search is stalking? Talk about paranoid.; Ho, this from a man who constantly rakes Facebook's proSouthern forums with a fine-toothed comb looking for posts he misconstrue and posters he can lie about.

Regardless of the name of the blog, (petty, petty, petty point, perfesser) there are no more Union generals in the header, and rather than the civil war -- or the "history" mentioned in the tagline -- the emphasis at Crossroads is now on bashing whoever the perfesser doesn't like, or those whose views he disagrees with, usually Confederate heritage advocates and primarily me. The perfesser is also repeating his currently favorite lie. I've never, ever said I don't know "my" history, or history in general. I challenge anyone to find where, on Facebook or my blog, I have said thus. Nebber said it folks. The perfesser lies.

    3. Someone can’t get anyone to read her books.  How to remedy that?  Why, by plastering the Confederate Battle Flag on the cover, thus commercializing that banner yet again!  Goodness, she is just like Ed Sebesta!
 
Actually, it is the proSouthern community who hasn't read my first book in the numbers that I would like. Romance readers (usually conservative women) have read it, liked it and given it good reviews. Moreover, if I'd had the money to promote it, it would have found more proSouthern readers. After all, as P.T. Barnum said, "Without promotion, something terrible happens. Nothing." As it is, only a handful of people know it exists.

Moreover, some commercialization of the Confederate battle flag is not a problem for me, as long as said commercialization does not dishonor it. My novels do not dishonor the flag -- quite the opposite.

And again, the humor-impaired professor doesn't realize that the Confederate battle flag on the cover of the second book in the series dates back to about 2007, before I was on Facebook or had ever heard of the perfesser. This cover reflects what happens in the story -- the three main characters become Confederate advocates in their teens...and are attacked for it with lies not unlike the ones the perfesser perpetuates -- only these lies have very serious potential consequences for these innocent boys -- thirty years in the state penitentiary for crimes they didn't commit.
 

---

There is nothing about Confederate heritage in the first book of the series, Southern Man -- hence, no flag on the cover, and I'm not planning to put one on it.

    4. And speaking of commercializing the Confederacy … here’s another proposal to cash in on it.  I’m sure this will go over well all over the country.

Sounds like a good idea, to me.

    5. Someone’s frustrated. “We can’t save our heritage posting our opinions on Facebook.”  But don’t let that stop you.
 
Right. Posting opinions on Facebook does serve a constructive purpose ... but saving our heritage will depend on organization and activism to defeat those working so hard to eradicate it, like the perfesser...
 

---

 
So what are we to make of a man with a responsible position at a state university, whatever his title may be, who gets his rocks off trolling Facebook looking for posts by people he hates that he can lie about on his blog? Remember, he attacks. He admittedly GOES LOOKING for things and people to attack. I defend or counterattack.

Attacking -- the more brutally the better -- is what damnyankees do.  Defending is what Confederates do.

______________________________
Book cover designs by C. Chastain. Photos and comp images copyrighted by C. Chastain and various microstock photo companies and their photographers.

Obsession? What a Scream! I'm Just Reciprocatin'!

In the four years I've been blogging, and the two or three years I've been on Facebook, I have mentioned my hit stats and visitor counts maybe eight or ten times.  Because I've posted on Facebook a couple of times some interesting visitor locations (the Department of Justice and now a law firm in Washington, D.C.) the perfesser says I'm obsessed.

I guess, to his understanding, posting about something on Facebook is tantamount to being obsessed (as opposed to, say, attacking someone on your blog every other day)....  Ya think?  Or is he, as usual, lying?

I note that he's made more posts about me in the past five to six weeks than I've made about my visitor stats in four years. In March 2012, through April 8, 2012, he made eleven (11) posts about me, directly or indirectly -- and this does not count the times he mentioned me in comment threads during the same time period, at  his blog and others'.

Here lately, he's been attempting to mischaracterize folks, mainly me, without mentioning names. He's not real good at it, and it makes for some really tangled and convoluted (and unintentionally hilarious) posts.

In one particularly obscure post about a "Confederate heritage advocate" -- that would be moi --  he mentions that blogging software comes with hit counters. I suppose so, but if mine does (Blogger or Blogspot, run by Google), I don't use it.  I use independent visitor stat software.

My tracking software recently recorded that I received a visit from a law firm by the name of O'Melveny and Myers. Yes, it identified them as the IP address, by name, and provided their numerical IP address (151.194.49.145) and location, Washington, D.C.  See?

More  here:

O'Melveny & Myers website
http://www.omm.com/

Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Melveny_%26_Myers

The visitor tracking software told me this visitor came to my site by clicking on a link to it found at: cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/...<snip>.

So Simpson writes, "That advocate, in yet another effort to draw attention to herself, now claims she’s being checked out by a Washington, DC law firm (she’s previously claimed that the Department of Justice is on her tail).  All that’s happened here, people, is that a reader of this blog clicked on a link to another blog … although the post in question doesn’t even mention any Confederate heritage blogger by name.   So, tell me … is this Confederate heritage blogger simply stupid?" 

I have a better question.  Are you simply a liar, Perfesser?  Ah, yeah, you are.

At least two blatant lies stand out in just that one paragraph.  First, that visit from the law firm was not to my blog. Second, I've never claimed that the DoJ is "on my tail."

Also note I never claimed that the Crossroads "post in question" mentioned me by name. However, the link that the  D.C. law firm visitor followed at Crossroads was in a comment posted by me, which identified me by name. Geez, do you imagine somebody that works at a law firm might be able to put two and two together and at least guess whose site they'd be visiting?

Anyway, back to my comment on Facebook about the DoJ visit to my blog.  Here is the FB post where I told my group about the visit: "My 180 blawg has been visited by Eric Holder's US Department of Justice. LOL! Hey, Eric! (Waves.) How's Fast and Furious goin'?"

Obviously, I wasn't obsessed with the visit from the DoJ; I didn't even take it seriously, as anyone who isn't humor-impaired could see.  Later in the thread, I posted:

Anybody have any thoughts or ideas about how I might parlay this visit from the DOJ into ... book sales? I recently changed the cover of Southern Man and reduced the price to $12.95. If I just had some other marketing gimmick... Could Holder's DOJ fill the bill?
 
Corey "Kindred Blood" Meyer also posted on that thead: "Maybe it is just someone who works there and was looking for something and google pointed them your way. Or you could just be paranoid."
 
To which I replied: "So I sound paranoid, Corey? What's paranoid about "LOL" and "Hey, Eric! (Waves.) How's Fast and Furious goin'?"  Humor, sarcasm and irony really DO go over your head, don't they? You yanks are sooooo SOUR."
 
The same observation holds true for Perfesser Simpson.  Even when he deliberately attempts humor, it falls completely flat.

Anyhoo, Corey continued, "Why else would you comment about the DOJ visiting your site."
 
So I had to 'splain it to him:  "Corey, why would I comment? Well, it's a concept you evidently don't understand. HUMOR. Entertainment.  My original 180 ezine got hits from the feds all the time -- the State Department, mostly, but the Justice Department, too -- but the miltary more than anyone, esp. the Army and the Coast Guard. I always just assumed the visits were from homesick southerners sneaking around and using their gubmint employer's internet access to have a little cyber-visit to Dixie. My e-zine rocked -- really. I played great rock midis..."
 
So, back to the visit from the D.C. law firm recorded on my visitor log.  The perfesser sez, "All that’s happened here, people, is that a reader of this blog clicked on a link to another blog."  Yeah, the "reader" whose visit he mentioned was from the D.C. law firm.  Does the perfesser imagine that because the click-through came from his blog that it couldn't have come from the D.C. law firm, as recorded by my tracking software?

The more I read the perfesser's complaints about me, the more I realize that what he's complaining about describes himself far more than it does me.  He's the one who's obsessed -- with Southern heritage advocates in general, and with me in particular. He admitted that he trolls the internet looking for such folks to bash on his blog.  He calls it tiptoeing "through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War." 

People say, "You do the same thing with his blog." 

Ah, no. He goes looking for people to attack.  I read his blog looking for those attacks in order to defend against them, or counterattack.  The perfesser attacks.  I defend or counterattack. I virtually never post on his blog, or post about him at mine, or on my Facebook group, except to defend or counterattack.

Remember when the emphasis of this blog was the civil war and the header included a version of this image?

The "cw" is still part of the URL of his blog, although when he grew less interested in  the civil war and more interested in spying on and lying about and just generally bashing Southern heritage and its advocates, he took the emphasis on "civil war" out of his blog and now it's just Crossroads....

The tagline reads, "Where history, scholarship, the academic life and other stuff meet."  Since the first three seem to be in short supply on his blog, most of it is "other stuff" -- usually attacks on Southern heritage folks. 

Yes, I know posting this image here violates the perfesser's new copyright policy on his blog... but as long as he posts things like this, in violation of mine (not only posting a copyrighted image, but photoshopping it), he can expect the same thing from me.

After all, when he announced his new copyright policy, he said that I "should reciprocate." So that's what I'm doin'.  I'm reciprocatin'.

Every now and then, he tries to quit us, and he'll post about other things for a while... But then it gets to be too much for his predatory nature, and he always resumes his attacks.  It's happened over and over.  And not just on his own blog, but in comment threads at other ostensible "civil war" blogs...

Keep in mind that this man who exhibits so little regard for truth is a Distinguished Regents’ Professor of History, in the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies at Arizona State University.  Explains a lot, doesn't it?