How a Professor of History Does ... History?

Bear with me, folks. This is going to be a long one.

On April 15, on his Crossroads blog, Brooks Simpson, professor of history at Arizona State University, posted this:

Support for Southern Separatism
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/support-for-southern-separatism/

He quoted the blog titled The Catholic Knight http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/ which included this passage:

"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."

Simpson 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 addressed this the following day, April 16, in the comments following Simpson's post:

Are you saying *you know* he doesn’t know who advocated removal? How do you know? He probably does know, and it probably doesn’t change things for him any more than it does for me. I have ancestors on several of the feds’ Cherokee census rolls — The 1817 Emigration Roll; the 1835 Henderson Roll; the 1851 Siler Roll; the 1852 Chapman Roll; the 1883 Hester Roll; and the 1909 Guion Miller Roll, and perhaps others. My grandmother is listed on the last two named here. She received payment from the feds in compensation for some offense or other it committed against her and her Cherokee ancestors. Twenty dollars in gold. She bought a sewing machine with it. Her relatives and descendants all self-identify as Southerners. It’s a Southern thang. New Yawkers can’t understand.

The verbal cowplops from Simpson and his "diversity"-worshiping and "tolerant" comment-drones were as filthy and smelly as they usually are:

Simpson: Thanks for admitting that you fashion a version of southern heritage to fit your own political agenda. Your ignorance of Indian removal, something instigated in the case of the Cherokee first by white Georgians seeking to make money from a gold strike, is stunning but not surprising. So in this case you confess you know nothing about your own heritage. Let’s keep that in mind the next time you tell people about the need to defend southern heritage … because you can’t remember your own.

(I admitted no such thing. I confessed no such thing. I simply documented my Cherokee ancestors and noted that they and their descendants identified as Southerners. But then, I can't find a better illustrator than Simpson that ... .liars gotta lie.)

John Foskett: Well, Connie is as confused about the Cherokee Removal as she is about Confederate history. As you point out, the Cherokees were ultimately forced to leave as a result of the Georgia Gold Rush, which saw white Georgians grabbing Cherokee ancestral lands. So what’s the “Southern Heritage” here – that of the Cherokees who ended up in present-day Oklahoma or that of the folks who drove them out and who stayed home in Georgia? Ironically, the most vociferous opposition to the removal came from the North. Must be a case of “Northern Heritage”.

Plop, plop, stink, stink.

Astute readers will note that my post didn't even address the Cherokee removal (** see my comment at the end of this post) except to note that it didn't change my self-identifying as a Southerner. The salient point, which Simpson and Foskett grandly, and dishonestly ignored, was "Her [my grandmother's] relatives and descendants all self-identify as Southerners."

On April 17, one day later, Simpson posted this on his blog:

Connie Chastain’s Family Heritage: A House Divided
by Brooks D. Simpson

Although Connie Chastain has changed the status of her Facebook group to closed, she continues to provide ample opportunity for readers of this blog to comment on her views … because she’s a frequent visitor and commenter here (it’s as if she’s never gone away). Recently she brought attention to her Cherokee ancestry, much as she’s in the past highlighted her family ties to Elijah Webb Chastain, a member of Congress from 1851 to 1855.

There is, of course, more to the story.

Elijah W. Chastain’s father, Benjamin Chastain, was born in North Carolina, moved to South Carolina, and then moved again to Georgia, where he served in the Georgia state legislature intermittently between 1826 and 1834. He also served as an Indian agent in the Toccoa Falls area. Fort Chastain was named after him: it was established to assist in the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia along the Trail of Tears. As one source put it, Benjamin Chastain “worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears.”

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. Now she does. Who do you think you are, Connie?

This is what we call history, not heritage.

By the way, some family members suggest that another Elijah in the Chastain family had a Cherokee mistress.

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

This, of course, elicited more smelly verbal cowplops from his myrmidons -- and, surprisingly, a few criticisms of Simpson. A sampling:

John Foskett: Not surprisingly, facts get in the way of a good family tradition. Or “heritage”. Connie started off okay in the “Southern and Romantic Fiction” category. It’s when she branched into “heritage” that things began to unravel. Once you depart the realm of fiction you need to get a good grasp on facts. That hasn’t happened here, all too obviously.

Brooks D. Simpson: She can celebrate whatever her little heart desires. But surely you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history.

Mike Moore, a Southern Facebook friend of mine posted:

So Comrade Simpson…can you elaborate on just where she has spoken or written an untruth about this issue?

Simpson replied:

I’m simply providing a more complete historical context.

Oh, really? LOL. Continue reading, folks, and let's just see how "more complete" Simpson's "historical context" is. But first, back to the comment thread. One of the commenters suggested:

"Perhaps posting about another’s ancestry is taking a personal confrontation just a bit too far? Especially if it is intended as a form of insult or belittlement?"

Simpson replied:

Neil–if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”?

(There it is again -- Simpson's claim of posting a "more complete story" -- don't forget that, gentle readers. As for "fantasy masquerading as heritage" -- whose fantasy? Mine or the federal government's, whose Indian agents put my ancestors' names on the Cherokee census rolls?)

Connie’s brought her heritage into the discussion. She’s also brought into the discussion heritage versus ancestry, and it was she who mentioned her Cherokee ties. She opened the door. Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way.

(There's another phrase to remember, folks -- Presenting a fuller historical context... As for history being messy -- maybe it depends on who is presenting history, and how they present it and -- as we shall see -- why they present it.)

But there are some people who would prefer to evade that issue by making every disagreement or discussion into a clash of personalities.

(Who's the one who started the clash with the snarky and highly personal insult: "Someone ought to fill him in on who advocated the removal of the Cherokee Nation"?)

Later, Simpson posts,

"And that’s the difference between heritage and history. Some people are all about heritage, which, as Connie freely admits, she shapes to serve her own personal agenda.

(I've admitted no such thing, freely or otherwise. Again, Simpson demonstrates that liars gotta lie.)

I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history … including the dark stuff in the closet, which includes the Trail of Tears.

(This is an absolute SCREAM, folks, considering what I post later in this thread. Explore history to show complex relationships? Or show some and ignore some and twist some in order to attempt to embarrass somebody you don't like?)

As Connie opened the door in referring to her Cherokee connections, I found it remarkable to observe the history involved. If one would rather embrace the whitewashed fantasy known as made-to-order heritage, then to each his or her own.

(And if one would rather embrace partial and/or twisted history in order to embarrass somebody they don't like, then to each his own.)

Somebody named Sid posted:

"Brooks…me thinks you have a lot of spare time on your hands."

Simpson replied:

Not at all. It was a very simple piece of research. I am just efficient....

(Simple especially when you only post part of it .... )

So let's recap what Simpson says he found....

"As one source put it, Benjamin Chastain 'worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears.'"

The source, presumably, is the website Chastain Central, which notes, "Chastain Central was advised by Georgia historian Ethelene Dyer Jones that Fort Chastain was in what is now Fannin County, but was then Union County. She continues, "The fort was near the convergence of Star Creek with the Toccoa River in what became Fannin County. The site of Ft. Chastain was covered by the waters of Blue Ridge Lake. Benjamin Chastain, who was sent as an Indian agent, opened the first post office in 1837 in what later became Fannin County, called the Tuckahoe Post Office. The fort was named for him and he worked to help round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears. I did a good bit of research on this person, father of Elijah Webb Chastain."

Interestingly, I can find no source documentation for Jones' claims that Benjamin Chastain helped "to round up the Indians for the Trail of Tears," even among her own writings online. Even more interestingly, Simpson doesn't mention this! What a surprise, huh!

Excerpts from Jones's book, Through Mountain Mists, are online.

Here is an excerpt about Benjamin Chastain
http://throughmountainmists.blogspot.com/2010/07/focus-on-benjamin-chastain-1780-1845.html

And here is an excerpt about Ft. Chastain and the Indian Removal
http://throughmountainmists.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Jones tells us Benjamin Chastain "was appointed" an agent to the Cherokee. She doesn't say by whom, but presumably he "was appointed" by the federal government during the Jackson administration.
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/agency_system.htm

She also says that the building and operation of a fort at the Toccoa River and Star Creek was a task "assigned" to Benjamin Chastain." Again, no identity of the "assigner" given, but presumably it was an agency of the federal government.

In "Fort Chastain and Indian Removal," Jones gives a description of the conditions in which the Cherokee were held in the removal forts prior to their departure on the Trail of Tears, but she does not substantiate that these were the conditions at Ft. Chastain. Presumably, we are just supposed to think that this description fits the Cherokee "held" at Fort Chastain.

However, other information about the fort, and the removal itself, cast doubt that Jones's description applied to Fort Chastain. (Simpson, of course, gleefully posted Jones's description without noting the doubts, so strong was his determination to embarrass me.)

First, Fort Chastain wasn't a "fort" at all. There were no buildings, no stockade, in which to confine the captives. Jones says the operation of this fort "was assigned" to Benjamin Chastain, but records indicate others (rather incompetent others) actually operated the, um, facility. From Georgia Trail of Tears http://www.georgiatrailoftears.com/forts.html#chastain

Chastain’s Station
County: Fannin
City: Blue Ridge
National Register of Historic Places: No
Local Designation: None.
State Designation: None.
Site Significance:

One of 15 removal posts in Georgia, Chastain's was one of five that were never stockaded. Its proximity to the North Carolina mountains where the most numerous conservative Cherokees lived made the post particularly important to the Georgia governor. The post was assigned to the Eastern Military District commanded by Gen. Abraham Eustis. Lt. Col. Camp commanded three infantry companies who were sent to a post "near Chastain's." One of the three was Capt. John Fowler’s DeKalb County militia company.

While Capt. Peake and his Tennessee company waited at the post for the Georgia companies, Gen. Charles Floyd received reports of their disorderly behavior, drunkenness, and tardiness. Floyd alerted Eustis and Camp resigned his command. The three companies remained at the post until relieved some time after the removal from Georgia was completed. They reported back to Gen. Floyd.

In 1930 a dam was completed across the Toccoa River forming Lake Blue Ridge and inundating the sites of Benjamin Chastain’s and the camp nearby.

Significant Dates: May 11, 1838 - July 5, 1838
Significant Persons:
Benjamin Chastain, store owner
Lt. Col. Benjamin J. Camp
A. P. Bush, Quartermaster, 2nd Regiment, GA Foot
Capt. John W. Fowler

Store owner? Store owner? But-but-but what about "rounding up" the Cherokees?

Here's some more very interesting information about "Fort" Chastain from Cherokee Removal: Forts Along the Georgia Trail of Tears by Sarah Hill ( A joint partnership between The National Park Service and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources/Historic Preservation Division)

The encampment at Chastain’s raises so many questions that the absence of records about the post has proven particularly frustrating. It seems the post’s establishment was not initially planned. No mention was made of northeast Georgia until late May when other companies were already underway with their collection of prisoners. The assignment of three companies to Chastain’s indicates the expectation of a high number of prisoners, yet the late assignment and failure of command suggest a lack of attention about their capture. The delayed arrival of Gen. Eustis to his command at Ft. Butler exacerbated the problems since no one was sufficiently near to monitor the post’s establishment. Most puzzling of all was the behavior of and toward the commander, Lt. Col. Benjamin Camp, whose leadership and discipline failed from the very beginning. Yet he was allowed to pass from Ft. Buffington to Ft. Floyd and on to Union County, with complaints following him along the route. Although he resigned his commission, it is surprising that he did not face a court martial. The discovery of additional papers, particularly those of Gen. Eustis, will be a welcome addition to this body of literature about the removal of Indians from Chastain’s.

Hill's account of this "station" or "encampment" (not fort) is found beginning on Page 46 of this document:
http://www.murraycountymuseum.com/adobe/Cherokee_Removal_02nov2011.pdf

Interesting things to note. There was no stockade at this "fort" -- apparently no buildings at all. There was a "lack of attention"to the capture of prisoners (Cherokees) and a "failure of command" in that endeavor. And note -- Benjamin Chastain is not mentioned even once in this short narrative HISTORY.

It's possible that the "fort" (or encampment) may not have even been on Benjamin Chastain's land, as Hill notes, "In anticipation of the 1838 removal, Ft. Hetzel was established in Ellijay and a military encampment was proposed for Union County 'near Chastain's.'"

"Near" is not "on."

Chastain Central further notes: "... Chastain's is listed on page 22 as one of five posts that were not fortified. In fact, page 47 states that there is no record of any construction at Chastain's Encampment, and that the circumstances of the camp make significant construction unlikely. The late arrival of the militia there makes barracks unlikely, and there was no need for stables since the militia was infantry. Storage facilities would be necessary, but the report speculates that they may have used Benjamin Chastain's buildings for that."

According to the Georgia Trail of Tears website Chastain station operated from May 11, 1838 to July 5, 1838 and Benjamin Chastain's name is not listed among those of the officials who operated the encampment. http://www.georgiatrailoftears.com/forts.html#chastain

_______________________________

I mention all this not to exonerate my kinsman -- I don't know what his involvement was in all that, and I don't really care. But I do note that primary source documentation seems to indicate little to no involvement by him.

No, the reason I mention all this is to demonstrate the sloppy scholarship, the leaving-out parts of history that don't fit with the "historian's" agenda of personal attack -- and the indication of questionable ethics that underlie it all, stemming from personal animosity. I mention it to show something about Simpson's claims.

These claims --

"...you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history ... I’m simply providing a more complete historical context ... if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”? ... Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way ... I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history"

-- are not only complete and total bullcrap -- they're smelly, slimy flat-out lies.

Is this how they do history at Arizona State University? Putting forth statements that have no source documentation? Ignoring documentation that doesn't estblish what you want established?

Simpson's lying-by-omission about someone's personal history, motivated by some kind of personal internet vendetta, establishes that his ethics are questionable -- just as the lies sprinkled liberally throughout his personal blog establish the same thing. And if ethics are questionable in one place, they're questionable, period. Which means ... how many lies has he told about the civil war and Southern heritage -- by omission or otherwise?

_______________

**Foskett and Simpson deliberately ignoring the point of my comment -- that my grandmother's descendants self-identified as Southerners -- in order to claim I knew nothing about the Cherokee removal, is particularly skanky evidence of a lack of ethics. In fact, I researched the Trail of Tears for a keepsake notebook I wrote for a family reunion of my father and his brothers back in 2000 or so.... As for the $20 in gold my grandmother received from the feds -- I don't know if that was compensation for her grandparents being sent west on 'the March" as my father called it (the Trail of Tears) or some other reason. The government compensated Indians for several reasons.

I also discovered information about Ft. Chastain at that time, so I've known for 12 years or so that there is no evidence that Benjamin Chastain "rounded up" Cherokees -- and that there is evidence that other people did so, and that the "fort" was named "Chastain" probably because it was adjacent to Benjamin's property.... But I guess if your aim is to smear somebody, if you are folks like Foskett and Simpson, truth is a triviality you can dispense with....

The "anti-racist" smear mentality

~~On the "whiteness" of my novels~~

Simpson writes:

Connie Chastain constructs a strawman. We don’t see advocates of Confederate heritage celebrate African Americans’ struggle for freedom and equality. Certainly Connie doesn’t, as her all-white cast of heroes and heroines in her own “books” demonstrates.

And later he writes:

Observing the color of the cast of characters in Connie’s writing (which she admitted, because I haven’t read what she’s written … I’ve just read what she writes about what she has written) is just that: an observation.

An "observation." LOL! See the subtle progression from truth to lies in Simpson's statements above? From "...all-white cast of heroes and heroines" to "...the color of the cast of characters in Connie’s writing..." From only heroes and heroines in my books being white to all the characters in all my writing being white... which is simply not true.

I suppose I should cut him some slack, since he hasn't read my novels -- but in that case, he is making an assumption (a false one) about something he knows nothing about. But, hey, when the object is to smear somebody he doesn't like, who cares about his actual knowledge of the subject, right?

Yes, there are non-whites in my novels. Pathetic Simpson. If he can't find "racism" in people he doesn' t like, he'll make it up.

(Pop Quiz: Name five scum-sucking racist novelists and their novels that feature white heroes and heroines. See my answers below.)

~~More on the false dichotomy~~

In the same comment thread, I wrote,

"I’m not sure who you’re getting me mixed up with but I don’t put forth any efforts to promote a multicultural South and Confederate heritage. Multiculturalism is an insidious fabrication of the left that accompanied the rise of authoritarian political correctness in the last half of the 20th century. It didn’t exist when the Confederacy existed.

So much for my being a Rainbow Confederate. This was written months before the League Facebook mega-thread where I was accused of it....

In any case, look at how Simpson creates a belief in what he considers to be the exact opposite of multiculturalism (i.e. "whites-only") and then falsely attributes that to me: "I’m glad to see that Connie Chastain admits that she promotes a whites-only view of southern and Confederate culture. None of that multiculturalism or tolerance for her."

Of course, I made no such admission -- but Simpson's creation of the false dichotomy (your choices are multiculturalism or whites only) and attributing the "whites only" extreme to me is typical of his lying.

Some of the following comments in that thread are equally instructive of the odious attitude and willingness to lie on the part of self-styled "anti-racists."

Note -- you can only "get along with people who are different than you" if you're a "multiculturalist."

Moreover, my "exclusion of non-white people from southern heritage as well as Confederate heritage" is not a matter of record -- quite the opposite, considering my acknowledgement of the contributions of blacks, slave and free, to the Confederacy -- and, that of the Cherokees and other Indian tribes -- on my blog and elsewhere. (And no, that's not an example of a "rainbow" multicultural position, either, as we shall see.)

In any case, this comment thread contains some great illustrations of the false dichotomy, a leftist methodology I've posted about before on this blog -- that is, there are only two positions: an idea and its total, exact opposite. If you don't totally embrace the idea, then you totally embrace its opposite. Masters of the False Dichotomy

That blog post was about the attempt to pigeonhole Southern heritage advocates as defining Confederates as (a) multicultural, tolerant and anti-racist or as (z) racist slavers who possessed no other human traits.

So, the false dichotomy is you're either a multiculturalist or you're an all-white culturist. Well, first of all, cultures are neither races nor colors, so "multicultural" is like "racism" and "Rainbow Confederate." In how it is often used, at least, it has no objective meaning or definition -- it's fluid and elastic enough to cover whatever the user means -- culture, race, color, whatever.

At its most basic (and benign) understanding and use in the United States, it means that minority cultures are equal to the dominant European-drived culture, and their contributions to the overall culture of the country is as good as, maybe even better than, that of white European descendants.

But what this actually translates into, in education, government policy, and the popular culture is the portrayal of the dominant European culture (usually identified as "white") as mostly if not uniformly bad, and the other cultures (usually identified as "non-white") as good, positive and sooo much better than white culture. One of the oft-repeated claims of mulitculturalists is that whites (white culture) is responsible for most, if not all, the ills suffered throughout the history of man.

This is why I reject it as an insidious fabrication of the left that accompanied the rise of authoritarian political correctness in the last half of the 20th century. Just as feminism isn't really about advancing women but about tearing men down, multiculturalism isn't about promoting minority cultures but about tearing down the dominant European derived culture.

That is how the dichotomized commenters at Simpson's blog see it -- and then attribute their false dichotomy to me.

Here's the truth, for those who are interested (and I suspect Marc Ferguson, Forester, etc. are not):

I believe that the culture that evolved over the centuries in Europe was a superior one -- not perfect, not without flaws, but then the oft-touted minority cultures are not without their flaws either. In order to believe, along with Susan Sontag, that the white race is the cancer of human history, you can allow yourself to look only at its flaws. I am convinced that is what multiculturalists do. They refuse to acknowledge the positives and great accomplishments of the white, European culture and its offshoots in other parts of the world. I have my suspicions about why multiculturalists refuse to do this, but it is up to them to state their reasons honestly; and so far, they don't seem to be talking.

(As an aside, European culture and its offshoots around the world are declining from superior cultures to inferior ones, primarily because of the relentless attacks the last half-century by multiculturalism and political correctness.)

Regarding the culture of the South, I agree with a statement that used to appear on Dixie.net, the League of the South's website. Titled Southern Cultural Defense, the paper ended with this:

"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 essense, the South has always remained a predominantly Anglo-Celtic civilisation."

This view not only acknowledged the existence and influence of non-dominant cultural groups on the South -- it acknowledged that they enriched the South. Thus, this statement emphasized the positives of the dominant culture and the non-dominant ones -- which gives a huge clue about the conservative nature of the League -- at least, as it used to be. Leftist thought dwells on the bad, the negatives, the evils of a culture. Try to find their comments on the positives of other cultures they pretend to champion -- you'll far more likely find statements tearing down the dominant white culture.

~~The venom of anti-racism~~

Going back to Simpson's statement, "We don’t see advocates of Confederate heritage celebrate African Americans’ struggle for freedom and equality."

The comment thread I'm writing about here followed a video on Simpson's blog critical of Southern heritage. Commenter John Foskett wrote,

"The SH pushers ...[are] talklng about something that is supposedly “regional” and inevitably ends up being tied to the ACW/Confederacy.. Personally I think the whole thing is a shell game. What’s “Southern”? There seems to be no “eastern” heritage, “northern” heritage, “western” heritage – only “southern”. And the same problems lurk for “southern” culture. I won’t even touch the obvious racial issues which go to “whose” heritage/culture. As I said, shell game."

Somebody named Mike D. added:

"If it’s regional it must, perforce, include those elements of the regional culture that take into account the inextricable contributions of African-descended peoples to that culture. But you and I both know those elements are not intended for inclusion in these clowns’ definition of “southern heritage.” They mean white people. Period."

I attempted to explain it to him:

"Mike D, the contributions of African-descended people to the United States and to the South are not under attack, are not targeted for erasure. They are, in fact, celebrated and trumpeted.The contributions of whites to Southern regional culture is defined by critics solely as “racism” and is deemed fit for dropping down the memory hole for that reason. Southern heritage advocates deem that its “racist” component is no worse than the “racist” component of U.S. culture, and is not sufficient reason for the smearing of Southern heritage for the purpose of targeting and eventually erasing it from the national memory."

That elicited Simpson's irrelevant "strawman" comment already noted above.

Foskett comes back with,

"More beans hidden under shells, Connie. What “contributions of African-descended people … to the South” are “celebrated and trumpeted” by your “Souhern/Confederate heritage” spin, Connie? Their “service” as slaves?"

When I said that the contributions of African-descended people to the United States and to the South are not under attack, are not targeted for erasure, that they are, in fact, celebrated and trumpeted, I meant in academia, the government, the media and the popular culture. And it is true. Anybody want to contest that? My next reply to Foskett was,

"Why repeat what’s already being done by others? Our concern is with that part which is under attack. What is there about that that’s too difficult for you to grasp?"

Went right over his head... Or, at least, he pretended it did. But really, why should Southern heritage advocates abandon their defense of the South's culture and heritage, which are under attack, in order to spend their time and effort on something (recognition of African-American contributions) already being accomplished more than sufficiently by academia, the government, the media and the popular culture?

The insults thrown at me that followed this deliberate obtuseness on the part of Mr. Foskett are wonderful illustrations in the smear-mentality of leftists and anti-racists. If you missed this mid-April comment thread of manure from the good "anti-racists" who frequent Simpson's comment sections, here's a link. Just hold your nose before you go, and don't eat right before....

Comment thread....

========

Pop Quiz -- my answers: Jane Austen--Pride and Prejudice. Charlotte Bronte--Jane Eyre. William Shakespeare--Romeo and Juliet. Daphne DuMaurier--Rebecca. Margaret Mitchell--Gone With the Wind. (Yes, I know Romeo and Juliet was a play, not a novel; nevertheless, it was a romance with a white hero and heroine.)

So, Brooks Simpson....

What did you think of the excerpts from the rough draft of Dumb Jock -- The Alex Austin Story? And how come you downloaded the cover?

Bigotry Against White Southerners On Display....

Connie Chastain wishes to remind us of how her mind works:

"… all the heroes in my novels are Southern white men, and all the heroines are Southern white women. But then, a couple of the villains are Southern white men. However, MOST of the villains are yankee wimmin."

Apparently segregation (or outright exclusion) reigns supreme in her fictional world, too....

Brooks Simpson
Crossroads Blog

This is interesting to mull over. Apparently, since he chose to comment on it, he finds something objectionable, or at least noteworthy, about writing that makes heroes and heroines of Southern white people. Presumably, that is a no-no for people like Brooks Simpson; presumably, we should conclude that his mind doesn't "work that way," and thus the only portrayal of white Southerners he approves of in fiction and drama would be negative ones....

Keep in mind that he draws such conclusions as "...segregation (or outright exclusion) reigns supreme in her fictional world, too...." without having read my book... and since "too" implies in addition to, I have to wonder in which other world of mine he imagines that segregation reigns supreme... Ah, heck, he doesn't imagine any such thing... He's just lying, as usual.

When I was doing re-writes and edits of Southern Man, I wrote a letter to someone in the publishing industry. These three paragraphs are from that letter -- a description of how I knew the novel would be seen in certain quarters...apparently Simpson is in those quarters....

Southern Man is an atypical, offensive 100,000-word mainstream love story I wrote for the impolite purpose of honoring Southern, white, Christian males. I have the effrontery to portray the title character, Troy Stevenson — coal miner's grandson, corporate executive, and former college football star — in a positive light.

Contrary to prevailing American beliefs, Troy hates and harms no one, despite being culturally traditional and politically conservative. He's an honorable man who provides for his family and helps others as he can. But he's far from perfect. The novel's conflicts revolve around his personal weaknesses, chiefly a nascent drinking problem, the haunting family secret that underlies it, and the mistakes he makes confronting them.

If an admirable Southern hero isn't odious enough, Southern Man also commits the unpardonable cultural sin of dissing feminism. The heroine, Patty Stevenson, is a homemaker happily fulfilled by her husband and children. The villain comprises three women—an amoral 1980s material girl romantically obsessed with Troy and two radical feminists who help her file a false sexual harassment complaint against him after he rejects her advances.

Perhaps the most egregious cultural sin I have committed in Southern Man, though, is my refusal to take on the obligation so many Southern (and other) writers evidently embrace—to atone for the South's “sins” and accelerate its “rehabilitation” by portraying white Southerners, especially men, as evil racists, religious bigots/zealots, inbred idiots, philanderers, domestic abusers and/or rightwing terrorists. My characters are flawed but decent and personable, not the repulsive regional stereotypes all too common in pop culture.

Since Brooks Simpson apparently objects to positive portrayals of traditional, conservative Southern white folks, presumably, he prefers them to be portrayed in fiction and drama as evil racists, religious bigots/zealots, inbred idiots, philanderers, domestic abusers and/or rightwing terrorists.

Sorry. Not from my keyboard. There are gracious plenty other writers who'll slake this thirst for such portrayals....

Simpson & Wallace -- Masters of the False Dichotomy

Brooks Simpson writes:

But I bet she really doesn’t disagree that she’s not a Rainbow Confederate, and I’m simply agreeing with her self-assessment. And yet Connie doesn’t disagree with me.

(Quoting Connie): Link to where I have depicted the Confederacy of as a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant. Link to ANY statements of mine that argue that the Confederacy was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy.

Now here’s Connie’s problem: she’s staked out some narrow ground for herself by daring someone to post that she’s said these things. Note, however, that she does not say whether she believes in them … just that she’s not expressed them in print. But let’s embrace the logical conclusion that Connie now accepts that the Confederacy has something to do with the efforts of white southerners to protect slavery and preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society. Watch her deny that she’s ever said that, either … and you’ll see that she’s just trying to be clever because she doesn’t want to share with everyone her understanding of the Confederacy.

Problem for who? Yep, that's pretty narrow ground but it's not my ground. It's not my problem that some people offer only two alternatives, usually one idea and its total opposite -- and try to fit you in one or the other.

There are two, and only two, alternatives you're allowed to choose from, according to these two verbal Procrusteans: Either the Confederacy was (1) a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant that was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy or else is was (2) populated by people who didn't give a damn about their families, children, farms, shops, churches, communities, livelihood, etc. because they only cared about enslaving and oppressing helpless blacks...

Either way, leftist Dixie-bashers totally define Confederates of the past and Southerners today by their (imagined, or worse, assigned) racial beliefs.

Granted, Simpson doesn't go that far in this particular post but that mindset of seeing human beings as nothing more than their racial beliefs is prevalent among his ilk, and it has been implied numerous times.
Of course the Confederacy was not culturally and racially tolerant, and it was not about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism”. Neither was the United States. These are leftist notions that did not come to the USA until the 1960s. And those called Rainbow Confederates know it.

Simpson says I NOW accept that the Confederacy has something to do with the efforts of white southerners to protect slavery and preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society.

I have never NOT accepted it. I simply say that was not the only reason for secession. My position that the Southern states seceded to protect slavery and for other reasons has been clearly articulated on my blog, Facebook and elsewhere. Simpsons willingness to lie about this has been demonstrated before. http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/03/backsassin-yet-another-journalist.html

Here's another example of how he lies ... by omission. He sez, Note, however, that she does not say whether she believes in them [i.e., "rainbow" beliefs, such as that the Confederacy was racially tolerant] … just that she’s not expressed them in print. What he fails to mention is that I have expressed what I do believe in.

Incidentally, I disagree that Confederates fought to preserve white supremacy in an intolerant society because there was no threat to white supremacy and intolerance in the culture of the army that came South and made barbaric war on Southerners. There may have been a handful of northerners who believed in, or at least promoted, tolerance, but the politics and culture of the United States at the time was white supremacist and racially intolerant -- and to an extent, it still is.

My position on the war is, and always has been, that the Union had no moral authority for invading the South, laying it waste and keeping it's people in economic, cultural and social hardship for five generations afterward.

References in my blog to this belief are numerous...

180 Degrees True South

Brooks Simpson is a professor of history at a major state university who loves to denigrate other people's intelligence. I mention it because presumably it takes some level of intelligence to attain such a position. I don't know Hunter Wallace's educational level, but he can at least hitch two sentences together fairly well, so he's not a complete dimwit. Both of these men attempt to smear others who hold positions they disagree with -- but they have to lie in order to do it. The false dichotomy is one of their favorite methods for throwing off on somebody's beliefs.

Thus, if you don't agree with A you believe wholeheartedly in its total opposite, Z. Either the Confederacy was racially tolerant and fought "racism" or else Confederates were racist haters and nothing else. Now, these guys know A and Z aren't the only alternatives.   There is also B through Y (which, I note, is emphatically not "narrow ground.")  A person whose intelligence they are savaging may believe in numerous alternatives to A and Z but Simpson and his pet white supe, Wallace, have to falsely narrow it down to only two alternatives in order to (1) lie about the person's beliefs and (2) attack their intelligence.

As I noted, these men are not boneheads, so it isn't their intellect that is questionable here.

It is their integrity.

Sweet Southern Boys E-book Available Now

Shelby, Randy, and John Mark have been best friends since grade school. Growing up in a small town in south Georgia, they've petted and spoiled Shelby's little sister, Ainsley, hunted and fished, played football, studied, worked and worshipped -- together. The sons of close-knit families, they have been raised to be responsible, to revere God, and to love.

But as seniors in high school, they are accused of unspeakable crimes.  Branded criminals in headlines from coast to coast, persecuted by the justice system, abandoned by their community, their lives shattered and their futures jeopardized, they have no one to turn but their families, their faith and each other.

Sweet Southern Boys -- a coming-of-age story ... a tale of misandry run amok.

__________________________________

Click h ere to go to the Sweet Southern Boys E-book page on Amazon.com.

(Paperback version will launch in early August.)

Useless Information

More than onece, Brooks Simpson at Crossroads has brought up the subject of white Southerners (i.e., the KKK) killing and terrorizing ex-slaves after the war. Kevin Levin loves to lament the plight of slaves in the Confederacy (he doesn't appear to say much about the plight of these same slaves before the Confederacy) and Andy Hall loves to lament the plight, after the war, of ex-slaves who assisted their masters during the war and turned into pitiable buffoons at veteran gatherings afterward.

Wonder what they'd say about this...

Sick from Freedom shows that as many as 1 million of the freed slaves died from cholera or smallpox while the federal government, controlled by The Party of Lincoln for half a century after the war, did essentially nothing at all about it. Thousands of ex-slaves returned to work on the plantations where they were previously enslaved because the alternative was starvation and death from disease.

The main priority of The Party of Lincoln at that time (from 1865–1890) was its war of genocide against another colored race, the Plains Indians, in order to "make way for the railroad," as General Sherman himself announced. The U.S. army, aided by ex slaves known as "Buffalo Soldiers," eventually murdered some 60,000 Plains Indians, including thousands of women and children, while putting the rest of them into concentration camps known as "reservations."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113789.html

Unless they can find some way to evilize white Southerners with this information, it's useless to them, regardless of how truthful it is, so I suspect their response to be dead, ringing silence and emain so until hell freezes over...

And there are still folks who say the yankees "shed their sin" of slavery...

FRAMED!

Mere hours after my news flash that "Victor 'Vic' Hatcher" was yet another made up profile of Corey D. Meyer, I got a Facebook message from Corey, again denying that he was the porno blogger. The entire thread, including time stamps, is posted at the end of this blog entry.

I figured that by messaging me, Corey was tryin' to tell me something -- he has a track record for telling on himself that way, messaging me when he gets impatient for me to "find" something on my own, just like the first time he messaged me about the porno blog back in March. So I took a quick peek at the Confederate Flagging blog to see what "Victor" was up to and -- lo, and behold! -- "Victor" has disappeared, the porno pics are back up, and the blogger is identified as ... MOI!

Yep, looks like Ol' Victor/Arie has been thrown under the porno bus. Corey is so mean to his fake profiles...uses them and then throws them away like an old Kleenex.

Impersonation is fraud. It is identify theft and strictly against Blogger rules. This case of identify theft has been reported to Blogger. Who knows how long it will take them to do anything about it. Meanwhile, I'm notifying my blog readers and Southern friends on Facebook about this vindictive attempt to frame me.

Identify theft is also against the law. Most statutes criminalize identify theft for the purpose of committing financial OR non-financial fraud.

It's unfortunate if these photos offend anyone -- they certainly offend me -- but I can't apologize for them because I have nothing to do with their existence or their appearance online. This has been somebody else's sick, degenerate project since March. My participation has been limited to denouncing it and attempting to expose whoever is behind it, to the extent that I can.

It's very simple. If Corey is not the porno blogger, all he has to do is post some proof, or at least neutralize the evidence against him I have collected and presented. Instead, he just says he didn't do it. He even tried to pin it on David Tatum, for cryin' out loud.

So now, here's this odious attempt to frame me as the owner/author of the porno blog but I'm not going to whine like Corey. I'm stating flat out, I not only deny owning and authoring the blog, I also denounce the porno blog both for its pornographic pictures -- something Corey did not do; he called them "funny" (and this person who thinks sexually degenerate photos online are funny teaches school kids...) and its denigration of the Confederate flag.

I state again, it is identity theft, fraud and simple hatefulness.

Evidence?

Blogger lists all my blogs on my legitimate profile. The identity-theft profile doesn't show them. It also doesn't show the list of blogs I follow -- and it would if it were legit. Fraudulent profile on left. My legit profile on right.

Click for full-size image

So Blogger has been notified that I'm being impersonated. The porno blog and the message thread have been cached. We'll see what happens next, and how long it takes....

========

Facebook Message Thread

Kindred Blood
4 hours ago

You are fully obsessed aren't you Connie. I can tell you now and with a straight face...I am not responsible for the "Confederate Flagging" blog you claim I am. I suggest you look closer to home. I don't like using Blogger, but David Tatum has several blogs under his name that use Blogger. To me this looks like an inside job if I have ever seen one. Someone trying to make us look bad...you know reverse psychology. Think about it. But I suggest you stop spreading false rummors about me.

========

Connie Chastain
3 hours ago

Sorry, Corey. I don't care what you tell me and with what kind of face. Your denials are hollow. You promoted that blog to me in this very FB messenger, with your Kindred Blood ID and as Robert Billy. You admitted that Robert Billy was a fake profile you made up to spy on the SHPG. That means everything you said as Robert Billy was a lie. When I recently posted screenshots of the messages where you admitted it, you said I had "photoshopped" it, implying the info was made up. No. You have a track record for lying and you have thoroughly discredited yourself.

========

Kindred Blood
3 hours ago

Be careful...

========

Kindred Blood
3 hours ago

You have very little credibility either.

Dixie Bashin': The Ugly, Hate-Filled People of Connie Chastain's "Backsass" Group
bashdixie.blogspot.com

A blog that makes fun of those people who embarrass southern heritage by a true southerner. (If that makes me a scalawag, I consider the source.)
Share

========

Kindred Blood
3 hours ago

OBTW, just because I gave you a link to that site, don't think I have anything to do with it...

========

Connie Chastain
2 hours ago

Corey, when I accuse you of being a liar, I don't use what someone else claims about you. I use YOUR OWN LIES.

That whole "blog" is Brooks Simpson's temper tantrum because I disrespect him and his hatred of the South. It was created just to attack me, taken from a phrase I coined (Dixie-bashing Bloggers). It is full of lies. You can look at it and call ME obsessed? Only people with little sense and less scruples can take it seriously. Nearly every post over there is an attack on me.

This is just an example: He said I lied about Tyler Ratke's profile disappearing, but I didn't lie. By my experience, Tyler DID disappear, because I didn't know Facebook says "page not found" when you've been blocked (nobody has ever blocked me, so how would I know?).

He has posted a mountain of lies about me at Crossroads, too -- has claimed two or three times that I've "admitted" stalking him on my blog -- I've made no such admission. You couldn't find it on my blog if your life depended on it. Like you, he lies flat out, and he lies by implication and innuendo. You can't prove ANYTHING about ME by what Brooks Simpson says. He's as big a liar as you are.

I have lots of author services jobs in progress. When I get a little caught up I'm going to rip "Dixie Bashin'" to shreds, just like I ripped your phony porno blog to shreds.

Yes, you gave me the link to the porno blog to try to get a rise out of me. You created it to insult the flag and create anger in Southern heritage advocates, but how would that happen if nobody knew about it? So you started sending the URL around. It's your site. You built it. It wouldn't surprise me if you even took some of the photos.

========

Kindred Blood
2 hours ago

Connie, call me a liar all you want ...it still will not change the fact that I am not responsible for the blog you claim I am. I have read what is on Dixie Bashin and I believe what that person says. The quotes are taking directly from your blog and Facebook...the proof is in the puddin.

========

Kindred Blood
2 hours ago

One quick note...at one time in the past when I was using Billy Yank as my handle I got into a heated blasting of Michael Cushman or Palmetto Patriot. Someone then started using that name to post on a porno discussion board and posted comments...about 900 of them under my name...Billyank1864 and when you did a google search for that those post came up first. I never found out who actually did it but I believed at the time it was Michael...so I began posting stuff on that site under the name Palmetto Patriot and used a big confederate flag as my avatar and even posted a link to his site. He found out about it and blamed me...I denied it and eventually deleted the account.

The point is that I felt bad about doing that to Michael and vowed I would not do it again...and I have not.

========

Connie Chastain
2 hours ago

If the quotes substantiated anything, Corey, he wouldn't have to embellish them with his lying commentary, now would he? That's just like you and your ilk. You believe it because you share his hatred.

I call you a liar, Corey, not because somebody else says you are, BUT BECAUSE YOU LIED TO ME. Directly to me. Your "Robert Billy" message thread established you as a liar and totally destroy your credibility. As far as I'm concerned, at least, you're beyond rehabilitating.

========

Connie Chastain
2 hours ago

Nice little story -- told by a liar.

Corey, you do know that re-creating the porno blog and making it look like I did it is a violation of Blogger policy, don't you? Be careful...

Even more proof you're the porno-blogger... Messaging me as soon as you put it online... LOL! You're a depraved person, you know it? What are you addicted to more, porno, lying or your hatred of Southern heritage folks?

========

Kindred Blood
2 hours ago

Ask Michael...

What are you talking about...

========

Connie Chastain
about an hour ago

What am I talking about? LOL!!! So is this a collaborative effort between you and Simpson? You know, Corey, for somebody who lies so much, you're not real good at it, ya know?

========

Kindred Blood
about an hour ago

Wow...now that is funnnnnnnny! They must not have liked what you said about that blog or who they are. You know you are right and wrong. It is neither Prof. Simpson nor I, but I do know who it is. Maybe we should strike a deal?

Oh and you can ask Michael about the story I told you. It is true.

========

Connie Chastain
about an hour ago

Yup, YOU didn't like what I said about that blog or you. You're giving yourself away again... Messaging me JUST when it goes online. What a coincidence, huh! So, who's the blogger. Victor "Vic" Hatcher???? LOL! You've established yourself as a liar. You are not credible. Get that through your skill. You are a proven liar, and that makes anything you say suspicious. Once you've ruined your own credibility, you can't get it back.

========

Connie Chastain
about an hour ago

Skull, not skill. You have a skull, real thick one. You don't have a lot of skill, not even at lying.

BTW, Your "Be Careful" warning above is also a dead giveaway.

Corey, why did you put a picture of a family with children on your new porno site?

S'matter? Where'd you go 23 minutes ago? You can't post porno pics on a blog and message on Facebook at the same time? LOL!

========

Kindred Blood
about an hour ago

Actually I am installing a Train simulator for my kids...that is where I went. Plus I have said over and over that blog is not mine. It appears now that it is yours. LOL...enjoy!

========

Connie Chastain
about an hour ago

LOL. You're a proven liar, Corey. Installing a train simulator for your kids? LOL. Posting pics of kids on your porno site and now using a reference to your own kids in your lie?

Why did you just HAPPEN to message me today, within minutes of the new porno blog going live? You can't even see how you give yourself away, can you?

========

Connie Chastain
about an hour ago

Yepper. Not even a good liar, nor good at trying to frame somebody, either. If that was my blog, all my other Blogger blogs would be listed on the profile... Proof I'm being framed by somebody who is really, really inept at it. LOL!

There now. All documented...up to the current minute.

NEWS FLASH! Vic Hatcher Ain't Vic Hatcher!

Well, well, WELL ... what have we here? It seems that "Victor 'Vic' Hatcher" -- student at the University of Virginia who was so stupid he let his friends upload pornographic photos to his philosophy project blog -- is, in reality race car diver and Hollywood hunk Arie Luyendyk, Jr.


What's that smell coming from your computer? Didn't you notice it, folks? Didn't you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity from your computer?... There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity... You can smell it. It smells like hypocrisy -- to paraphrase Tennessee Williams.

This cinches it. There is absolutely no reason to believe a thing Corey Meyer says. He is morally and ethically deficient. A proven liar. Slimy. Smelly.

More info on Arie here: bit.ly/LviaSp More pics here: bit.ly/LTaLN4

Many thanks to Border Ruffian who brought Arie to my attention two days after the pic went up at the 'Confederate Flagging' blog.. I hardly ever watch TV and I'm not a race fan, so I might not have found him for months, if ever.

It'll be interesting to see what Corey does with the Confederate Flagging blog now. Will he keep digging himself deeper into the hole and fabricate yet another lie to cover up all the ones that have gone before? Or will man up and admit that he's the porno-blogger and acknowledge all the other lies he's told from his motivation of animosity for the Confederate flag and Southern heritage/

"VICTOR 'VIC' HATCHER" APOLOGIZES...

... FOR CONFEDERATE FLAGGING BLOG PICS

The following went up on the Confederate Flagging blog Friday, June 15. Time stamp sez 6:10 p.m.

Friday, June 15, 2012

I want to take this moment to put forth my most sincere apology to anyone, especially my instructor and the University of Virginia staff and/or students who, may have seen this site before I actually launched the site. It came to my attention through my instructor as he checked and verified our class blogs that someone had posted inappropriate pictures on my blog. This blog is going to be used as a sounding board for discussion in a class that I am taking this summer in Philosophy dealing with the effect symbols. I chose to do my discussion on the Confederate Flag. To my dismay, some of my friends uploaded an number of saucy images to this page and for that I am truly sorry.

Check back soon for updates on my discussion about the Confederate flag and its symbolism in modern America.

Thanks for your understanding.

Victor "Vic" Hatcher

Aw, the contrition brings a tear to your eye, don't it? I got a lump in my throat....


I do have a few questions and observations, howsomever.

But first, I note the "coincidence" that "Victor" makes his apologetic first post on the very self-same day that Corey Meyer crawls out from wherever he's been to post at The Blood of My Kindred. Ya know, he's been AWOL over there since June 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm when he posted, "Good, let her….she can also take a flying leap off a bridge while she is at it." He was talking about moi... And he hasn't posted on his Facebook wall since June 10...

Interesting how "they" "both" found time to post on the Internet on exactly the same day...

The first thing I notice about University of Virginia student "Victor 'Vic' Hatcher," is that he has the punctuation skills of a elementary schooler, kinda like the grammar skills of college graduate Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur.... In yer first sentence, Vic, the comma should go before "who" -- not after it. And this phrase -- through my instructor as he checked and verified our class blogs-- should be set off by commas. And didja mean "effect of symbols"? But that's a bit petty, so let's move on.

If the blog is to be about the effect of symbols, and the symbol "Vic" chose is the Confederate flag, why is the blog named Confederate Flagging? Is he gonna discuss the effect of the Confederate flag, which is an object, or of flagging, which is an activity?

If the blog is to be for a summer project, why was it was created in March -- March 12th, according to Blogger. It made the Google index March 27. Our boy "Vic" must've been a Boy Scout, and the motto "Be Prepared" really "took" with him.... He signed up for his blog more than a month before summer enrollment began....
http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/calendar.html#1126

If the pornographic (not saucy, Vic, not "inappropriate" but pornographic) pictures were uploaded, to his dismay, by some of his friends instead of himself -- why did "Vic" create a blog using the name "Rebel Flag" instead of "Victor 'Vic' Hatcher", particularly since it was for a class assignment?

And how did his "friends" happen to have access to the controls for his blog? Was it a team blog? If it was his blog only, did they come up to him one day and say, "We'd like access to post on your blog, not just comment," and did he just up and give it to them?

Fishy. Very, very fishy.

The porno pics -- at least, some of them -- have been up there since Google indexed the blog on March 27, because blog author "Rebel Flag" wrote a description that showed up in the Google index that so indicated... "A Blog About The Confederate Flag & Its Uses. Tuesday, March 27, 2012. Nice & Naughty Confederate Flags. Posted by Rebel Flag at 7:13 p.m."


How come neither "Vic" nor his philosophy instructor, discovered the porno pics until last Thursday, June 9?????

I wonder who his philosophy instructor is.... Here's the faculty and staff of the Philosophy Department at the University of Virginia...
http://www.virginia.edu/philosophy/FacStaff.htm

Obviously, Vic isn't a graduate student in the philosophy department, cuz here's a list of their names:
http://www.virginia.edu/philosophy/GradStuds.htm

Of course, you don't have to be a graduate student in philosophy to take a course in it over the summer.... but you do have to be a student.... and, when you do a search of all University students with the last name of Hatcher.... guess what! Victor ain't listed!
http://www.virginia.edu/cgi-local/ldapweb

Here are the folks at the University of Virginia named "Hatcher" (I've marked the students with a big, red asterisk):

Look, I know a cock-and-bull story when I see one. The blog was created by Corey Meyer in March 2012, because that was a very active month for the Virginia Flaggers, and he hates the Virginia Flaggers. In fact, it's a toss up who/what Corey hates more -- the Confederate flag, the
SCV, the Virginia Flaggers, or any Confederate descendant and/or heritage advocate who respects the flag. But he has given special attention to the Virginia flaggers on his blog.

Corey likes pictures of babes in tiny little clothes with Confederate flag motifs. He may like pictures of chicks in tiny little clothes without Confederate flag motifs (or without clothes at all), but of course, he can't use those to besmirch Southern heritage, so we don't see such on his blog. With his "Confederate Flagger" blog, he could kill two birds with one stone...indulge his obsession with near-naked (and in some cases, totally naked) wimmin, and fan his obsession with trashing the Confederate flag.

But...he slipped up. He was too insistent on pushing the porno blog and getting a rise out of heritage folks.

On March 17, he promoted it to me in a Facebook messaging thread using his profile Kindred Blood.

On May 9, he promoted it to me in a Facebook messaging thread using his fake profile Robert Billy -- which he admitted was a fake profile.

And on June 8, he promoted it using his fake profile Tyler Ratke, first on his wall and then in a thread on Backsass, pretending to disapprove of it. He also posted it in another Southern heritage group, pretending disapproval, but it was taken down in that group fairly quickly. It was possibly Southern Heritage, Fight For It or Lose It, because a few days before, "Tyler" had posted on Backsass seeking help to access that group. There's no telling how many others he sent the link to.

Yes, this is not proof. There is a very, very slender chance that the anti-Confederate porno blogger is not Corey Meyer. But given his extremely questionable ethics and his long, smelly, and proven track record for lying, why should anyone believe his denials? Until there is proof that the blogger is somebody else -- not some made-up student with an idiotic "explanation" nobody with sense can believe -- the charge stands.

From a Facebook message thread:

Kindred Blood
March 27
And you thought Ru Paul was bad....
Confederate Flagging
http://confederateflagging.blogspot.com
Share

Connie Chastain
March 27
Get off on that site, do you, Corey? You know it's sickening, don't you? So is Rawls putting these pics in the Appomattox Museum?

Kindred Blood
March 27
I made no judgment of the site only noting that if you did not approve of the Paul picture than this should set you on fire...but it is all subjective to you and your ilk. Did it turn you on?

Connie Chastain
March 27
It made me sick. I see it's brand new, dates from this month, it's anonymous, and named to insult the Flaggers. Is it your site? Did you make it? Is this site going into the Museum of the Confederacy at Appomattox, like the Ru Paul display?

Kindred Blood
March 27
I did not make it...I stubbled on it looking for other stuff...I think it is pretty funny though...so many different views of the rebel rag in all its glory! LOL...someone has a sense of humor!

Connie Chastain
March 27
You stumbled on it? LOL!! Somebody's attempting to purposely denigrate the flag, and you're lapping it up like a kitten. It's not funny, and if you think sexual degradation like that is funny, you need to not be teaching children.

_____________________________
Image Credits:
Bull -- Malene Thyssen on Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
Rooster -- Žiga on Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.