The Prevaricatin' Professer

Deceit by innuendo and implication

Professor Simpson has posed the following question to me in an entry on his blog. As I noted in the comment thread following that entry, it's a pack of lies disguised as a question. Why? Because the implication in addressing the question to me is that it has something to do with me -- as if I have made the claims he's asking about -- or it is otherwise relevant to me.

Here’s a question for Connie: if so many enslaved African Americans loved their masters and were loyal to the Confederacy, then why did a good number of white southerners after the war conduct a war of terror against African Americans, killing the very people they claimed were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA? And why didn’t former Confederate leaders try to stop that sort of terrorism against people who supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?

He'd have to do a few things before I'd consider answering. First, he would have to explain what the question has to do with me. Second, he'd have to answer a few of my questions first -- mainly to quantify claims made in the question -- and reframe imprecise sections of it into more precise terms. Keep in mind that this vague, diffuse question was posed by a man who made an entire blog post about the importance of using precise words....

My questions:

(1) IF so many....? Don't ask me an "if" hypothetical. First establish whether something was or wasn't -- then ask me about what you've estblished.

(2) How many is "so many'? Who has quantified it?

(3) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves loved their masters? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(4) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves were loyal to the Confederacy? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(5) How many is "a good number"?

(6) Demonstrate what percentage of white Southerners that number represented, and thus establish how many Southern whites conducted a "war of terror" against African Americans, and how many didn't. Distinguish between those white Southerners who were engaging in self defense and protection of their families in a time of lawlessness and those who were conducting a war of terror. And since it is accepted that it was wrong for the KKK to terrorize freedmen, please explain why it was all right for union leagues to terrorize white Southerners...

(7) Reliably document it that they claimed African Americans were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA. Remember, using your sentence structure, we're talking about the claims of "a good number of white Southerners after the war." After identifying them (see question 5) provide primary historical source documentation for "their claims."

(8) Nathan Bedford Forrest was a former Confederate leader who try to stop that sort of terrorism.

(9) Who claims that slaves and former slaves "....supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?" Where/with whom did the "tens of thousands" figure originate? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

Sometimes, the prevaricatin' professor lies outright -- for example, he has claimed twice that I've "admitted to stalking" on my blog. Anyone is welcome to use the search function in the righthand sidebar to search for said admissions. I'll tell you right now, though, you won't find anything, because I've made no such admissions. He lied.

Blatant outright lies, though, are less his style than implication and innuendo. He intentionally "misunderstands" sarcasm, parody, satire, etc., pretending to take them seriously in order to lob insults at those he disagrees with. He is a master of ad hominem attacks and employs them frequently.

For example, he has, on several occasions, brought up the fact that I have written and self-published a novel. Without ever having read the novel -- presumably -- he passed judgement on my fiction-writing ability, my motives for self-publishing -- down to the petty denigration of the book's cover. Why? Who knows. Perhaps practicing character assassination and engaging in the delicious denigration of others is the only way he can feel good about himself. That's just a guess, and my opinion, but I don't see anything inaccurate about it.

Petty, spiteful, venomous -- all perfectly describe the attitude he has revealed toward me and toward the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. Don't believe me? Too harsh, you say? Nope. It's all documentable just by skimming the entries and comment threads at his blog....

Sit back and relax...

If you don't like smooth jazz, come back later. Yankee-bashing will resume, but right now, I'm on jazz break...

And Now for Something Completely Different

They don't make music like this anymore....

None so blind as he who will not see...

"You know, I don’t know why folks such as these aren’t simply honest about themselves. Why not simply declare oneself a 'pro-Confederate blogger'? Why do these people lack the courage (unless you want to tell me they lack the intelligence) to say who they are and what they advocate? Are they ashamed of using the word 'Confederate'?" ~Brooks Simpson

_______________________

I have a question for the Professor...

Look over yonder, in the sidebar.

----------------------------------------------------->>>

Look under the masthead -- directly under it. See that graphic?

Aw, heck. Just so you can't pretend it's not there, let me post a larger version of it here:



See it NOW, Perfesser? See CONFEDERATE right there between the Proud and the Descendant?

Just didn't want you to miss it.

What's Wrong with This Icon?

It's not big enough! So...

Precise Language....

"Words matter. What words one uses carries implications once should consider carefully." ~Brooks Simpson

The professor has an interesting post up today:

Language, Interpretation, and Understanding

Among other things, he writes, "Precision in language is important. A majority of white northerners may have harbored serious racial prejudices, but a majority of Republicans fought for equality before the law for African Americans during Reconstruction."

Well, I guess precision is important, depending on who's doing the language. How precise is "a majority"? Fifty-one percent is a majority. So is 99 percent, but there's a very wide, potentially imprecise range between them.

So much for precision in language....

"Do as I say, not as I do," seems to be the blogging philosophy of these anti-Confederate bloggers.

I may come back to this post of his. I may not. But I may.

Bigotry 101 -- Part Deux

Okay, back to Perfesser Simpson's recent blog post about me and my pictorial essay of the trashing and trivialization of the U.S. flag. He writes,

Even more interesting (and perhaps a bit disturbing) was her eagerness to conduct extensive research into the misuse of the United States flag: in particular it appears that Ms. Chastain is not above showing us that she’s quite familiar with some sexually suggestive sites (which may explain some of the passages in her publications). At least now we know how she spent Veterans Day.

Perfesser! What passages in my publications are you speaking of? And exactly how familiar with them are you? Have you been reading my novels? You closet romance reader, you!

That reaction aside, I have been completely astounded by the attention given three or four of the photos I posted. There are eighteen of them in my essay exhibiting violations of the US Code's laws regarding the U.S. Flag -- and what do Corey Meyer, Robert Baker and Brooks Simpson point out the most, if not exclusively? The "sexually suggestive" ones. How do you say "minds in the gutter" in academese?

Simpson even implies that I'm familiar with sexually suggestive websites. You know, for an academic and a blogger, he sure doesn't seem to know much about the Internet Haven't ever heard of Google, Perfesser? Google is our friend. I don't know anything about sexually suggestive sites, but Google knows a lot about them -- and all kinds of other sites as well.

Hey, dear readers. Is there anybody out there who can pinpoint the factors that indicate research has been undertaken with "eagerness" from only the results that are posted on the 'net? Yes, that is correct -- you'd have to be a witness to the researcher as she's doing the research to determine that.. Since he was not a witness to my research efforts while underway, perhaps the Perfesser consulted his crystal ball to ascertain my frame of mind and emotional state when I Googled the net looking for instances of trashing the U.S. flag... which took maybe an hour. (I guess Googling is what passes for "extensive research" in what passes for the academic world these days, LOL!).

Don't look now, Perfesser, but your crystal ball is on the fritz. Or maybe you called Miss Clio... or threw some chicken bones.... Or maybe you got the info from the voices in your head?

In any case, that passage set off the Pinocchiometer and I haven't even officially started using it yet! Oh, my, there it goes again, in reference to this:

Indeed, she seems to know exactly where to look when it comes to collecting images that involve the desecration of the United States flag, which she sees as the flag of the “enemy.” It’s funny to see someone who sees the US flag as the flag of the “enemy” complain about other people as not being good Americans.

I don't see the U.S. flag as the flag of the enemy -- except in the historical context that the USA and the CSA were enemies during the Civil War. Do y'all reckon the Perfesser doesn't know the historical application of the term? Or is he ignoring it in order to, well, lie?

The perfesser goes on to say, "And apparently it’s bad form to show a baby wrapped in a US flag, but okay to do this." Actually, bad form or not, it's against U.S. law to carry things in the flag. Simpson says, "...Ms. Chastain highlights these images without being critical of them..." -- setting off the Pinocchiometer again, since I listed the laws, straight out of the U.S. Code, that were being violated in those photos.

Does it matter to me that Christina Aguilera violated US flag law? Not a bit. It was just fun to point out Corey Meyer's hypocrisy in expecting Confederate heritage advocates to turn into the Confederate flag police while he ignores the actual violations of federal law regarding the U.S. flag. That was the whole point of my photo essay -- a point easily discerned by reading it but one that the Perfesser somehow missed, leading me to suspect he either didn't read it, or he read it without comprehension...

---

NOTICE: Censored Replies will either go offline or be moved sometime over the next couple of weeks. I've been informed by my ISP that they're discontinuing free webspace per each email account, due to lack of use by customers. Too bad. Meanwhile, you can see what may or may not be the final entry by clicking here:
CENSORED REPLIES.

Announcement

Before I get back to Perfesser Simpson's hatchet job on the SHPG and myself, I would like to take time out to announce that 180 Degrees True South has acquired ... THE OFFICIAL 180DTS PINOCCHIOMETER!

I'll be putting the Pinocchiometer through its shakedown cruise, its maiden voyage, its test run, very soon. We'll submit statements by critics about me, this blog, the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook, the League of the South, the SCV, UDC, Southerners and Confederates in general, and whoever else they may choose to target with half-truths and outright lies. Come and watch Pinocchio's nose measure everything from the little white ones to the whoppers!

More coming soon, so stay tuned!

On Conversing with Fence Posts....

Before I get back to Perfesser Simpson, go read the comment thread following On respect for flags, because this post is a continuation of that. Robert Baker, for those who are just coming to this, is a follower of Kevin Levin, an anti-Confederate, an indoctrinee who emerged from higher education hermetically sealed off from the outside world and new ideas -- at least, judging by my interaction with him on the Southern Heritage Preservation Group and his blog. He appears to have drunk deeply of the Politically Correct Civil War Kool Aid....

Robert's comments are in blue. Mine are in gray.

Robert: Your ardent defense represents your feelings about the flag.

Me: NO! Really? Ya think?

And if I could access the Facebook page again, I could provide you examples of.

Of what? People holding the Confederate flag "sacred"? Maybe. Probably just holding it in great respect. But look, what if there are people out there who fall down and worship it, and pray to it three times a day? WHAT'S IT TO YOU? Why is it any of your business? If you don't care about the flag or Confederate heritage, that's just fine with me, I ain't gonna tell you they should. But where do you authoritarians -- who are completely antithetical to American freedom, by the way -- get off telling others what they should and should not think?

I also use sacred as a loose term but if you want to divide it into religious gestures to make you feel better. Go ahead.

You used it as a "loose term"? What does that mean -- a term with no meaning? Sacred has a meaning, Robert. Look, did you mean to imply that Confederate heritage people put the flag on a plane with God, Jesus and religion, or not? Because I don't, and I don't see much of that on SHPG, either. I see a lot of respect for the flag and for the soldiers who carried it... But again, it's none of your business how other people see it.

1.) Your first point is trying to justify your defense based on the assertion that it is okay.

NO! Really? Ya think? Defense based on the assertion that something is okay? Who would have EVER thought of that! Am I breaking new ground here in human reasoning, or what?

Again, I've never said that nor has anyone. Yet you promote some of the very things seen above in the misuse of the Confederate flag under the guise of 'heritage'.

You've never said what? That Confederate heritage advocates are responsible for policing the treatment of the flag? Corey has certainly implied it on his blog, more than once.

2.) Why are you responsible? For your inaction.
Well, Robert, you find out who made the plastic Confederate flag truck testicles, let me know, and I'll go ask 'em to stop.

Your fervent defense of the flag i the face of opposition that are offended knows no bounds...

You're absolutely right because I think the vast majority of "offendedness" over the flag is phony, made up, without depth. It is not the result of somebody feeling offended, but of somebody wanting to tell others what the can and cannot do, what they can and cannot think. It is the result of authoritarianism trying to end free thought and force everyone's brain into the same mold -- a mental, cultural, historical Procrustean bed.

...yet your defense of the banana hammock stainless banner is non-existent.

There's a banana hammock stainless banner? The one I found on the Internet sure looks like the StarznStripes to me.

3.) He is not demonizing anyone. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the defense you make (as I listed above) in contrast to the non-existent defense in cases such as that. Some of these examples have been pointed out in connection with that facebook group which I cannot see.

Pay attention, Robert. Corey is demonizing the Tampa SCV. He is implying that they did not put the big Confederate flag beside the Interstate as a symbol of Confederate heritage, but because of babes in Confederate flag bikinis (he sems to have a fixation on scantily clad babes, particularly if there's anything Confederate about their teeny, tiny apparel) and because of plastic truck testicles with Confederate flag on them. That is exactly what he implied.

Yes, there are proConfederate people who need to be educated in the proper display of the flag, but Corey's (and I daresay your) interest is not in educating them but in demonizing them.

If it is your business to tell Confederate heritage advocates that they must police, restrict, and stop the misuse of the flag (but then who would y'all have to demonize?), then it is my business to tell opponents how they must police, restrict and stop the misuse of the U.S. flag. Presumably, Corey considers himself to be a proud American, but I've never seen him defend Old Glory in situations like those I showcased on my blog.

The difference, Robert -- and do try to grasp this ... the difference is that I'm not holding him or you responsible for stopping the trashing of the Stars and Stripes. I don't have your gestapo mentality.

Also, don't use the war like it happened yesterday. You didn't fight in it. To pretend you have stake in it is to spit on everyone that did.

I haven't done that. What have you been smoking?

Finally, He did not set the standard. He commented on your lack of standard. You should know the difference.

Yes, he did. He's the one who started it, on his blog, implying that Confederate heritage advocate -- the SCV, the UDC, the Facebook group, whoever -- are responsible for anyone's misuse of the flag. Now, when the same standard is applied to him and the flag he presumably honors, both you and he are going through all kinds of nutty gyrations to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

Your last statement is sort of retarded. Sorry but it is. Union heritage advocates would include Southerners that fought in the Revolution, 1812, Mexican-American, Southern Unionists, Spanish American, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Boznia, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan and so on.

Sorry, that is not correct. "Union" in my usage clearly implies the North/feds in the War Between the States. Period. Besides, this country is not called "the Union" anymore. It is the United States.

So are you saying Southerners are responsible as well?

If they wanna be, why not?

Or maybe you should create the catch all that EVERYONE, including you with your ridiculous rants above, is responsible for the trashing of the flag. Got it now?

Sorry, no. I don't hold Confederate heritage advocates responsible for policing misuse of the Confederate flag (but I approve and applaud when they do) and I don't hold Union heritage advocates, or just run-of-the-mill Americans responsible for policing the misuse of the U.S. flag, but I would have no objection if anyone did. You authoritarians are the ones who assign responsibility to others based on YOUR beliefs (and misconceptions).

If you like I can put it in crayon using Grey with CBF stickers to make it pop

Nah, just try writing something that makes sense.

Bigotry 101

Dear Readers, don't you wonder sometimes how some people managed to get so highly educated and hold such lofty positions in the academic establishment of this country -- without basic reading comprehension skills? That's been the case repeatedly with Perfesser Brooks Simpson and, to a lesser extent, Corey "Billy Yank" Meyer, who is apparently employed in education but not in such an elevated position as the perfesser.

Today (Nov. 14) Brooks is holding forth about my pictorial essay on respect for flags. He managed to write almost 800 words while completely missing the point of the essay. In fact, he swerves more than once into irrelevancy without ever coming to an understanding of my blog post. Does it come as any surprise that I think his missing the point is intentional, simply a device for enabling the criticism of Confederate heritage advocates that he loves to wallow in?

As time and my schedule permit, I hope to answer his swerves AND remind him what the point of the essay really was (you know, the one that either went totally over his head, or that he intentionally ignored). But for now I want to address his claim that the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook "...contains members that embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..."

I didn't remember seeing any advocacy for desecration of Union hero monuments but I don't get to visit the group as much as I'd like. Between limited time, Facebook's cockmamie way of operating, frequent overhauls and changes, its bugs and glitches, fast-moving entries and abysmally inadequate search function, I don't see everything that gets posted in SHPG -- or any group I'm a member of -- so I had no idea what he was talking about. However, I can tell you I viewed his claim with titanic skepticism.

It so happened that he had a link to a post that supposedly proved or illustrated his claim that members of the SHPG "...embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..." so I followed it: http://www.facebook.com/groups/shpg1/323042707710946/

It took me to a screen that displayed this notice.

So the thread is gone, removed. However, I wasn't going to just drop the matter, so I messaged several officials of the group and conversed with them about it. With the permission of the group's leader, I post the material parts of that conversation here:

Connie Chastain: Brooks Simpson has a post up at Civil War Crossroads saying there are members of this group who "embrace" the desecration of monuments to Union heroes. He has a link presumably to a post advocating such desecration, but it takes you to a notice that the post has been removed or can't be loaded.

I know a lot of people think it's a waste of time engaging these yankee bloggers, and I'm not asking anybody to. I would just like to know if any one knows anything about the post/thread Simpson is referring to. I attempted to put the link in this message but Facebook won't allow it because it's an "invalid URL."

Generally speaking, I'm not enthusiastic about removing posts or threads, unless they are just over-the-top -- filthy language, sacreligious, etc. I'm especially disappointed when we censor threads such as the one Robert Baker figured prominently in several weeks ago, just because it got a little heated. But if that is the consensus of the leadership, I'll accept it. Just so you know, I am a strong advocate of freedom of expression whether I agree with it or not. I think ideas we disagree with should be met with counter ideas, not removed.

In any case, if anyone knows what that post/thread said and who made it, could you let me know? If you don't want to respond here, email me at conniechastain@gmail.com. Thanks.

JS: Gary posted here a couple of days ago, along with an apology, the picture of him joking around at Grant's monument in San Francisco. It created a firestorm. This group does not encourage the desecration of yankee monuments we have to be a cut above those that desecrate our monuments!

CR: I should say not, far from it! Only the Left and people like the Woodsboro Baptist Church advocate the destruction of soldiers monuments to American heroes.

KR: Connie, I do not know what he speaks of, but will be glad to take a closer look at it. I for one do not advocate desecration of any marker, monument, or gravesite, whether it be Confederate or Union. nor am i a believer in censorship. We can debate (even heatedly) as long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background.. stick to the subjects involved. First amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to me even if i deem it offensive or not, the individual has a right to say it. i have a choice to react or not react

BE: Connie, When there is an independent audience or neutral turf, then it's a joy putting them through the wringers, but if they are going to control the environment and even "Edit" your Posts, it's time to gather up your keyboard and go home.

CC: May I use these comments on my blog? ... I just want to put up an explanation for how abysmally stupid Simpson is being if he zeroes in on joking around as desecration while monuments and memorials to Confederates are removed or targeted day after day...

JS: You have my OK Connie!

Okay, so I vaguely remembered seeing that photo but I didn't read the thread. So, perfesser, was that the one? Gary pretending to take a leak on Grant's monument? ONE freaking member posting ONE freaking photo of himself JOKING AROUND at Grant's monument? THAT is how you define "embracing desecration of monuments to Union heroes?" One person out of 1,224 members, one photo out of 2,401 photos? A joke that creates a FIRESTORM of protest from other members?

Lemme ax you something. Why did you mention the offensive post of ONE MEMBER but not the FIRESTORM of protests from others? Why didn't you mention that the "guilty party" APOLOGIZED for and VOLUNTARILY REMOVED the post?

Does your dishonest approach to the SHPG in general and this post in particular begin to dawn on you?

BTW -- when was the last time you enountered anybody APOLOGIZING for advocating for the desecration/removal of Confederate monuments, memorials and symbols?

Gentle readers, this is not the first time Perfesser Simpson has attempted to smear the whole group of hundreds of members based on what a tiny handful post. Last time, he was disdainful of a few posts that showed disrespect for the U.S. flag -- but judging by his response to my recent pictorial essay on flag respect, presumably he's not REALLY offended by the disrespect Americans show their flag so long as they're not Confederate heritage advocates.

You know what it is when somebody smears a whole group by the negative words or actions of a few, don't you, dear readers? Yes, it's called bigotry,

As I said, when/if I have time, I'll address the other bits of idiocy he brought up in order to keep from seeing the point of my photo essay -- that SHPG members claim slavery "wasn't really all that bad" -- and then I'll address his completely pointless comments about the essay itself; and it's gonna be a doozy. So stay tuned.

Note: KR's sentiments that even heated debate is okay so long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background apply to the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook -- not my blog. Here, I will call bigotry what it is. I will call mendacity, hypocrisy, evasion, missing the point and poor reading comprehension skills what they are -- even when they're exhibited by a lofty academic.