 |
Brooks Simpson has copy-pasted comments between myself and Dr. Hill from my blog to Crossroads and concluded that we are "squabbling" about whether we're friends or acquaintances.
I'm not makin' this up. Do you suppose he knows better and just can't help himself? Or can he really not tell when he's lying?
When Michael Cushman of the Southern Nationalist Network dropped by Crossroads to enlighten the professor about the guests on SNN podcasts in the past, Simpson pops out with this lie:
"... it is Ms. Chastain who suggests that by mentioning your support of the flagging of the VMFA that I am associating that protest with racism. You might want to take that up with her."
Ah, no. That's not true and Simpson knows it is not true because I told him exactly how he was attempting to tar people with the phony-racism brush; told him in a comment which he sent to the Crossroads Cornfield. What a surprise, huh?
Since he is determined not only to run from owning up to his attempted smears, but from his cover-up of them, I have no choice but to address the issue here.
Remember, after I commented about his attempted smear of the flaggers with the phony racism brush, he posted, "Now, how did I tar the SNN with the 'racist brush'? By mentioning that the flaggers were endorsed by SNN? By quoting Ms. Chastain’s good friend Dr. Hill? By mentioning that Ms. Chastain’s own blog heads the link list at SNN? By pointing to a flagger podcast with SNN? How is any of that racist? "
Here's how you attempted to smear the flaggers, perfesser. You wrote:
The ''flaggers," ...have support … from the Southern Nationalist Network. ... The ones who claim that southerners "are a people. Our ancestors came from Europe but we long ago ceased to be Europeans." In short, no blacks allowed.
"In short, no blacks allowed."
YOU said that, perfesser, not the SNN. You -- Y. O. U -- said it. Nowhere does the SNN say "no blacks allowed" simply because Southern culture was created by white Europeans. That's your spin, for the sole purpose of creating a phony racism brush and then attempting to smear good, decent people with it.
You continued,
Interesting that for all this talk about black Confederates supporting the CSA that these southern nationalists explicitly exclude African Americans from their definition of "southerner." Wonder what went wrong?
What went wrong, Professor, is your ability to tell truth from falsehood. Southern nationalists don't explicitly exclude blacks from their definition of Southerners. Oh, you may run into the occasional nutcase who does, but that doesn't mean all of them do. Nutcases are everywhere -- including state university faculty, staff, and administration -- so there's bound to be one or two who wander into Southern nationalism.
However, if you do a little surfing at the Dixienet, website of the best-known Southern nationalist organization, you'll find the following:
Frequently Asked Questions About The LS
Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?
A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South.
...and...
From League of the South Statement on "Racism."
We believe that all Southerners - black and white - want and need the same things: a safe country for their families, liberty, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We believe that the last thing the South's enemies want is to see black and white Southerners sitting down together to determine their common destiny and work for authentic harmony, a just social and economic order, and an independent South.
Folks, that doesn't sound like excluding blacks from the definition of Southerner to me. If it sounds that way to Simpson, he's got bigger problems than a little part-time proSouthern blogger can do anything about.
Simpson reminds me of a fellow -- let's call him Benton -- I had the misfortune of meeting online a number of years ago. This was back when the League had an article on Dixienet titled, "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach".
The statement said the League championed "...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."
Somehow, Benton had construed this to mean that the League was "...presenting a monolithic view of the South's settlers as Anglo-Celtic," and thus wanting to keep Southern culture "monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white)". Sound familiar? Sounds suspiciously like the "No blacks allowed" spin, doesn't it? The problem is, that was not what the League was saying. That was the view of a Fudd-like, self-styled anti-racist hunting "wacists." ("Be vehwy, vehwy quiet.")
I tried to explain to him what Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance meant... it meant things like not having to pay an extra bribe to a county official to get a permit to add a room to your house, as is the case in many countries in Central and South America. It meant not getting your hand cut off if you were caught stealing (let the punishment fit the crime). It meant -- but you get the idea.
Benton didn't get the idea. My explanation fell on deaf ears. Of course. He didn't have an Anthony Freemont-style cornfield where he sent information he didn't want to know but he exhibited the same attitude as Brooks Simpson -- his mind was made up, and facts to the contrary were fodder for the memory hole.
I even posted the difference between the operative words -- dominant: Exercising the most influence or control; monolithic: characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity -- and added this note: "As an aside, I would like to point out something before you fall down and have a seizure over the subject of Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance.... Exercising the MOST influence or control does not mean exercising TOTAL influence or control."
For good measure, I quoted the entire paragraph that was giving Benton trouble, with some clarifying remarks from me:
"The League of the South champions without apology the traditional core (NOT "monolithic" --cw) Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant (NOT "monolithic") culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community. Over the centuries, our culture has been enriched in subtle ways by the influences of other non-dominant, cultural groups, particularly by black Southerners and the French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana, but at its essence, the South has always remained a predominantly (NOT "monolithically") Anglo-Celtic civilisation."
From: "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach"
"Just in case you missed it," I told Benton, "the League says that the South's traditional (not monolithic) culture, handed down by Anglo-Celtic people who settled the south, has been enriched by the influences of non-dominant Southern groups, particularly (though not only ) blacks and Cajuns."
Did no good, of course. Wasted cyber-breath....
Benton exhibited the same kind of self-imposed blindness, this same deliberate distortion, you see over and over in Professor Simpson's blog posts and comments, on his own blog and elsewhere. What does truth matter, when it can't be used to demonize people? Lies are lots, lots better for that....
That's activities... You know, like what he did.
In the twelve years I've been online, I've run into countless claims on news-report comment threads, in listserves, chat rooms, discussion groups and so forth, that "Forrest was a terrorist! He founded the freaking Klan! He was the first Grand Wizard! He terrorized and murdered innocent freedmen!" and so on and so forth.
There are also claims that he was a slave trader (no question that he was) and that he and the Confederate troops under his command "massacred" surrendering black Union soldiers at Ft. Pillow (not true).
On December 4, I posted at the SHPG:
True or not? There is as much primary historical source evidence that Silas Chandler was a Confederate soldier as there is that Nathan Bedford Forrest organized, founded, operated, ran, directed, rode with, or was involved with the KKK, except to issue orders to disband it.
I was not attempting to make a case that Silas Chandler was a Confederate soldier. I don't know whether he was or not. What's more, I don't care whether he was or not. I was simply making a comparison that the primary historical source documentation of Forrest's KKK activities was as paltry as primary historical source documentation for Silas Chandler's soldierhood.
Perfesser Simpson, who monitors the SHPG like the KGB monitored Soviet dissidents, saw my comment and admonished his readers to help me out and provide the info I was asking about.
This is Simpson's first offering of primary historical source documentation: "Was Forrest involved with the KKK? Sure was."
Keep in mind that this man is a Professor of History, CSRD Associate Director, SHPRS, at Arizona State University. In addition to "Sure was," he provided me a link to this website (presumably he thinks this is PHSD, as well, or else he knows it's not but offered the link, anyway, for whatever reason....)
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/
"Confederate Truths" claims to be affiliated with the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi (headed up by Susan Glisson, who I mentioned in Stupidizing Southerners, here) -- but I suspect this site is some concoction of Ed 'The Crawfish" Sebesta, since it's touting the book about "neo-Confederates" he "co-edited" with James W. Loewen.
I looked around the site a little, discovered that the "Reconstruction and Fusion" links are filled with Lorem Ipsum. Hmmmm... Keep in mind that the man who provided the link to "Confederate Truths" is a Professor of Histo-- but I've already said that, haven't I? I pointed out the Lorem Ipsum and asked him if he'd accept that site as a proper source from one of his students... I don't know if he answered cuz I haven't visited that comment thread in a while, but I doubt it.
So anyway, then he tells me to read Brian Steel Wills's biography about Forrest. This, of course, is not PHSD, as Wills is my contemporary. He may reference some PHSD, though, so I'll take a look at the book some day. (Santa Claus brought me an e-reader for Christmas, and I checked to see if Wills's book is available as an e-book. It is not, alas....)
So on the same comment thread, Andy Hall posted a paragraph from and a link to information about Forrest's being sworn in as a member of the KKK. I followed the link and it turned out to be an issue of The Confederate Veteran. The article was written by a Mrs. S.E.F. Rose of West Point, Mississippi and published in January 1916 -- some 50 years after Forrest's alleged KKK "involvement" began.
Andy noted, "Real Confederates certainly thought Forrest was a klansman..."
Apparently, Andy thinks that means we're supposed to think so, too.
Besides, my question wasn't whether Forrest was a klansman -- my question was, what did he do as a klansman? Was he a night-rider in a robe and a pointy hat -- a terrorist and murderer, as all those comment threads I've been reading for eleven years claim?
Perfesser Simpson then pulled his trump card, "...You still have to explain how Forrest could issue orders to an organization he did not supervise. Why do you find it so difficult to answer that question?"
(When he's not being as snide and bitchy as an old lady, he exhibits all the patience and understanding of a three-year-old).
Next time I visited the thread, I replied, "From what I can tell thus far, he was a figurehead, elected in absentia, had little or no interest in the organization, took little part in it, known to have issued two orders that (1) weakened and (2) ended it. That’s my tentative answer based on what’s been posted here, and some other things I’ve read."
Last time I visited that comment thread, nobody had offered to refute my my observation.
Evidently, I didn't show enough respect for Andy's waving and dangling "real Confederates" around on the comment thread because shortly afterward, he made a long post at his Dead Confederate blog, apparently designed to provide ironclad proof that Forrest was "involved" with the KKK.
So did Andy's lengthy blog post answer my question? Does it tell us what Forrest's KKK "involvement" involved? Basically, did it tell us what he did, what his activities were?
I'll take a look at Andy's information in the next installment of The Involvement Chronicles, which I plan to get around to, oh, whenever....
(Photo of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Library of Congress)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I cannot help but wonder how somebody with such
questionable ethics could land such a responsible
position at a major state university. ~Connie Chastain
He quotes part of a post I made at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group thusly:
Crossroads has a very recent post titled “Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?” and in which Professor Simpson engages in one of his favorite pasttimes — tarring people with the racist brush, in this case, the VMFA flaggers. I cannot convey to you how much I despise phony racism smears, particularly of good people like CC Lesters, Susan Frise Hathaway and others….
The professor replies with this:
Now, how did I tar the SNN with the “racist brush”? By mentioning that the flaggers were endorsed by SNN? By quoting Ms. Chastain’s good friend Dr. Hill? By mentioning that Ms. Chastain’s own blog heads the link list at SNN? By pointing to a flagger podcast with SNN? How is any of that racist?
Ah, no, perfesser, that's not how you wielded the fake-racism tar brush, but dealing with your questions will have to wait. Right now, I want to call my readers' attention to your claim that Dr. Hill is my "good friend."
I
t's a baldfaced lie.
And it is by no means the perfesser's first lie about moi. It's just the first one I've decided to devote an entire blog post to.
Not that I would object to calling Dr. Hill a good friend, if it were true. In fact, I'd be glad to acknowledge him as such, if he were. It just so happens that he isn't. He's an acquaintance of mine.
I've met Dr. Hill in person quite a number of times at public events, and "swapped howdies," as my Daddy used to say. I've heard him make speeches perhaps half a dozen times at some of those events.
I used to be a member of the League of the South, of which Dr. Hill is president, and I received quite a few emails from him during that time. They were virtually all mass mailings. Only a handful were to me personally, and even those were about League business.
From 2000 to 2004, I published a personal e-zine, 180 Degrees True South, a pop culture look at the proSouthern movement that featured its successes and failures, its movers and shakers, its critics and defenders -- which sometimes included articles about the League of the South or League events. Occasionally, Dr. Hill himself was the subject. A few times, I received emails or comments in my guest book from him, always about the content of 180 DTS articles.
Since Dr. Hill joined Facebook and friended me several weeks ago, he has made a few comments to and/or about me, some of them quite complimentary, which I appreciated very much.
I dunno. Maybe in the perfesser's world, those things are what constitutes good friendship. Maybe it's drafty and cold and lonely way up there in the Ivory Tower, and nearly anything can look like "good friendship" from that distance. Pathetic, huh? But my concept of good friend is more than minimal contact, mostly via the Internet, with an acquaintance, however personable and admirable I think he or she may be....
I suspect Dr. Hill would also be very surprised to find out that he and I are good friends.... Perhaps he will let me know if/when he reads this.
Now, I'll admit this is not a huge lie. It's not a lie of much consequence, for me, anyway. It's no skin off my nose to be called Dr. Hill's good friend. Presumably, it's no skin of his nose, either.
It just simply isn't true. Which makes Brooks Simpson a liar.
Which leads to the question ... why? What makes somebody lie the way Brooks Simpson does? (And he does, frequently.) Yes, this particular lie isn't of any consequence for me, but any lie is of consequence to the liar, whether they may realize it or not.
So, what do you suppose it is? Could it be as I've already alluded to, that the professor is so inexperienced in human relations that he doesn't know the difference between good friendship and acquaintanceship? Or does he know and he's "confusing" them on purpose to make a point? And if so, what point? Does he imagine that because he holds (or feigns) a bad impression of Dr. Hill, that everyone does? And thus, Dr. Hill is somebody he can use to smear others, by association?
And why this obsession with tarring and smearing people, anyway -- to the point of telling baldfaced lies, even when they turn out to be of no consequence? The obsession to smear others -- particularly with society's witch-hunt issues, of which "racism" is a major one these days -- is sometimes an indicator of a person's feelings of uncertainty about their own morality. Could that explain it, at least partly?
Whatever may be his motivating factor, I cannot help but wonder how somebody with such questionable ethics could land such a responsible position at a major state university.
It's a little creepy, when you think about it. Are all faculty at our nation's institutes of higher learning held to such a low ethical standard? Or are liars like Professor Brooks Simpson the exception rather than the rule?
(Photos: Dreamstime and Public Domain Pictures)
Lyin' SOBs (Sages of Book-learnin')
As a Southern heritage advocate, I admit to being astounded by the level of dishonesty exhibited by some who promote the primacy of formal education regarding the War Between the States and related history. Certainly not all of them, but the dishonesty of some I've encountered online is conspicuous -- and when you add to that their snideness -- their unvarnished and odious hatefulness, actually -- the result is truly breathtaking.
They use a variety of methods of lying -- by innuendo, by implication, by omission, by assumption, and others. From time to time on 180, we'll look at the Lies of the Academics (and their snideness), but for now, how about a musical tribute to the Lyin' SOBs? Of course, most popular music about lies and lying confine it to romantic relationships, but even so, some of the lyrics fit our Sages of Book-learnin' to a T! Enjoy!
| Liar -- Three Dog Night | Liar Liar -- Castaways |
| Lies -- Knickerbockers | Lyin' Eyes -- The Eagles |
Some time ago, I promised to disclose my position on various topics related to Southern history and heritage. I had in mind a single post that briefly hit all the topics, but some of them are just too lengthy. Thus, I will be making these disclosures in separate posts over time. Stay tuned.
I'm shooting for a Spring release for the second novel in my Georgia Series, Sweet Southern Boys. For those who are new to my novels, they are contemporary stories that portray white Southerners as (gasp!) ordinary, decent human beings who face adversity in their lives with courage and faith. Because I self-publish, mostly, I've never felt the need to trash the good people of my region in order to tickle the fancy of New York editors (like THIS Southern writer).
The novels are Southern Man ~ Sweet Southern Boys ~ Little Sister ~ Neo-Confederate. There is a possible novella brewing, titled Wesley's Women, that would fit in the timeline between Little Sister and Neo-Confederate. For excerpts on published and in-progress stories, click the covers below. Use your browser's BACK button to return here.
 A family man is targeted with a false sexual harassment accusation by an amoral young woman and her uber-feminist mentor. |  Best friends growing up in small-town Georgia discover their Southern heritage -- and the dark side of human nature. |
 It isn't always Big Brother who's watching. Sometimes, it's Little Sister. Ainsley Kincaid is watching out for her Bubba, Shelby ... |  Politics is dirty business. And dangerous. Ask Congressional candidate Randy Stevenson... |
"You are a denialist and public liar. Slavery caused the American Civil War. Feel free to ignore decades of scholarly research and books like Battlecry of Freedom. Pride in ignorance is proclaimed here at your own peril."She also mouthed off to me and others in that comment thread (but, predictably, Robert Baker chooses to refer only to SHPG folks as trolls.)
Then she zoomed over to Perfesser Simpson's blog to make snide remarks to me in a comment thread there.
For some reason, the fact that I have written and published fiction is fascinating to some of our critics. The perfesser has thrown off on my novel-writing abilities several times (without having read my novel, of course) and he's thrown off on self-publishing -- apparently because two of my three stories were self-published. Actually, I find myself in good company; I'm not a bit ashamed to be classified with them. I guess the perfesser looks down his nose at them, too, for self-publishing....
Famous Self-published Authors -- http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm
In any case, this is not my first encounter with Raven, who called Susan a "public liar." I first encountered her on Levin's blog several months ago and wrote about it here:
Time to Bring Back Backsass (scroll down to nearly the end of the entry, last few paragraphs, beginning "And that's how it stood...")Yesterday, over at Perfesser Simpson's Crossroads, she posted to me:
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-to-bring-back-backsass.htmlBacksass -- Quoth the Raven
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/backsass-quoth-raven.html
"Obsession over the Lost Cause has made you an Internet stalker. Why don’t you leave discussion of history with those who have requisite knowledge and intellect? Then you’ll have more time to write another “romance novel”, for people with grade-school literacy.?Izzat right? Of course, I submitted a reply, and of course, the censorin', prevaricatin' perfesser, the resident Anthony Fremont at Civil War Crossroads, sent it to the cornfield.
My, my. Such snippiness.Look, I can be as snippy as the next blogger, but I don't pretend to be part of the Tolerance-and-diversity Hypocrites Association. Besides, my namecalling is far more likely to deal with exhibited behavior, underlying motives and/or level of integrity than with intelligence or educational levels. Of course, some academics define people solely by their educational level, and they like to belittle people's intelligence, but that leaves out a whole lot of a human being's humanity.Very likely, my response will be sent to the Crossroads cornfield, but I'll submit it, anyway.
Openly posting on comment threads using my real name is stalking? No, stalking is what Professor Simpson does -- "Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War." https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/a-failure-to-communicate-the-case-of-helga-ross/
"Tiptoeing" and lurking and spying on groups he perceives as not doing Civil War "right-think" -- and then coming back here to make derogatory posts about the people he's spied on -- that's internet stalking. I don't tiptoe, and I don't lurk -- I willingly post with my own name. It's not my fault if my comments get censored by tolerance-and-diversity bloggers...
As for obsession...Between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, Brooks Simpson has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.
Heritage versus History -- Dec 8That's obsession.
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14Oh, by the way, regarding romance readers and "grade-school literacy".... Do bigotry much, do you? Statistics on the educational level of romance readers:
42% have a bachelor’s degree or higher …Stay in school and study hard, Raven, and you to might aspire to becoming a romance reader some day.
--27% have college degrees
--15% have post-graduate work or degrees
7% have associate degrees
17% have attended a trade school or have some college
23% have high school diplomas~Compiled from studies commissioned by the Romance Writers of America:
http://64.211.220.251/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?webcode=StatisticsReader
In any case, I found it very interesting that this chit (indicating childish behavior, folks), Raven, who called Susan Frise Hathaway a public liar, has a very public blog that starts with (as of Dec 14) a post from 11 months ago, titled Reloaded, that is a HUGE PUBLIC LIE -- blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabriel Giffords shooting.
I don't follow imperial politics and related news like I used to, but I observed enough to know that after the shooting, left-liberals and their enablers in the mainstream media went absolutely bonkers, blaming Palin's re-election map and screeching about "right-wing rhetoric" inciting violence, blah-blah-blah...
I also know that information that quickly began to emerge about the shooter, Jared Loughner, indicated he was not a right-wing-Republican controlled automaton helplessly carrying out rightwing-influenced violence against innocent Democrats, but a demented lunatic under no political influence at all. The 
Southern Poverty Law Center did its best to create a connection, fabricating imaginary straws even it was unable to grasp at... Fact is, even those who wanted to wrongly blame Palin and/or "rightwing vitriol" had to give it up in the face of the facts about Loughner....
But there it is, still on The Raven's blog, when she's had plenty of time to submit to the truth and remove it. So this "public liar" accusation far better fits The Raven herself. Perhaps she should change her name and symbol to ... The Vulture... or maybe, The Buzzard.
Photo Credits:
~ Billy Mumy as Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone Episode It's A Good Life is translinked from Wikipedia under Fair Use of U.S. Copyright law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:It%27s_A_Good_Life.JPG
~ Photo of California Condor As a work of the U.S. federal government, this image is in the public domain.
Mr. Bridgeman, just to humor you, I have the Southern Heritage Preservation Group's FB page open in another window. Here's a recap, as of 7:24 a.m. on Sunday, December 11, the first fifty (50) posts to show up, in the order they appear. Not a single hate-rant about yankees among them:Not a single instance of a hate-rant -- and these post are pretty much representative of what gets posted there all the time.
A post that says, "Surprised the camp tonight at the Christmas party with a new flag.......... "(there's a photo of the flag, a First National/Stars and Bars emblazoned with camp I.D.)
A post about the dangers of censorship (re: disputing claims that the right to display the Confederate flag is a defeat for racial tolerance).
A graphic of a battle flag with a poem superimposed over it.
A post reporting that the Southern Baptist Convention is considering removing "Southern" from their name.
Admonition to "Keep it flying!"
A post that says: "Officer on COPS just intoduced himself as a 5th Generation Floridian...is it bad if I couldn't help but wonder if his family were Confederates?"
A satirical post (by me) of a letter to General Forrest notifying him he had been elected, in absentia, as Grand Wizard of the KKK, with instructions to issue orders that will (a) weaken the organization and (2) disband it.
Welcome to a new member.
A post about how soldiers viewed possible disgrace in battle.
Link to a poll about whether there is still unrest between North and South.
Quote from Sam Watkins lamenting the sacrifices of Southern soldiers being for nothing.
Link to a story about the 150th anniversery of the battle of Chusto-Talash, Indian Territory. Confederate victory
Post about income tax imposed in the Confederacy
A member's personal remembrance of ancestors who served
Another member's photo of an ancestor's service record
Post of a photo of the 4th Texas Infantry in battle and the note, "Proud of these men"
A couple of quotes about the venality and arrogance of the British
A post by a new member with no message or image -- presumably a Facebook glitch
A post by a member correcting a wrong assertion about his Cherokee Confederate ancestors.
Two more posts by the same new member with no message or image -- presumably a Facebook glitch
Post by a member acknowledging that we the people of the states will never be free as long as the federal governement remains our master
Welcome to a new member
Link to the (Southern version) of the lyrics to "Root Hog, or Die"
Post about a book by Marx and Engles praising Lincoln
Prayer by the Group Chaplain
Link to story about guns of the CSS Pee Dee being recovered from river
Post announcing Flagging of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts scheduled for 12/10.
Link to a report about a judge censoring the U.S. Flag (Mr. Bridgman, the Southern heritage advocate who posted this line wrote, "Alot of good men, both Southern and northern fought and died under this flag," (Old Glory).
Link to a website about the flags of the Confederacy
Link to a blog post about a young man going hunting with his grandfather
Post of a quote by Jefferson Davis about limitations placed on the federal government by the constitution or organic law
Notice that the Texas SCV is filing suit over the denial of their license plate by the DMV
One member's photo of his Georgia SCV license plate
Photo of a First National flying in Bristol, Va
A post commemorating the anniversary of the Battle of Prairie Grove in Arkansas and Missouri
A post about the Mississippi state flag, hoping it doesn't go the way of the Georgia flag back in 2001
Post to a YouTube video about flagging the VMFA
Post of a vintage postcard showing municipal buildings and Confederate memorial in Portsmouth, VA
Post about saving battlefield land associated with the Battle of Shiloh
Link to a website about Little Big Horn
Post from a member wishing everyone a Merry Christmas
Welcome to a new member
Link to a story about Byron Thomas moving battle flag from dorm window
Link to CW Memory about the dustup between Levin and Sebesta
Post about the History Channel program "Decoded"
Photo and letter about Edmund Ruffin
Welcome to new member
Post with quote from "The South Was Right"
Post about the Cherokee nation siding with the Confederacy
Post reminding members to check the SHPG page itself as relying on News Feed lets some posts fall through the cracks
Can you say double standard?
==========No doubt, the Prevaricatin' Professor, the wielder of the censorship button at his own blog who disapproves of others who do the same thing.... this professor who is a master of the Double Standard, will no doubt chide me for posting so much about him on my blog, as he has done in the past.SIMPSON: So let’s see. A painting that’s historically inaccurate and of which you say, “The flag does look quite outsized, or else the guy’s a midget — oops, very unPC… a little person,” nevertheless strikes you as “a stunning portrayal.” Indeed. You would think that your own comments on proportion are denigrating. To each their own.
ME: Ah, no. Joking about it is not denigrating. Using it to insinuate other people are racists is denigrating it.
==========
ME: So, it’s historically inaccurate. Perhaps the artist should be arrested and fined? Lemme see if I can get this across — I don’t CARE if it’s historically accurate or not. I don’t even care if the flag is too big, something I noticed years ago when I first found the print online. It’s a stunning painting, and it reminds me of North Georgia…. Besides, the flag doesn’t appear to be any more out of proportion than at least two of the flags in the painting in your blog header. And my comments don’t begin to denigrate the painting in the manner that this blog entry of yours does.
SIMPSON: I find it interesting that someone who complains about a “thought police” immediately thinks of arrests and fines for an artist who offers a historically inaccurate image. That’s quite repressive of you, Connie. At least you admit that you’re denigrating a picture you also say is “stunning” … which we’ve heard several times now, suggesting that your vocabulary is somewhat limited. No wonder writing is so challenging for you. I’ve simply pointed out that it was historically inaccurate. As you agree with that, it would seem that we have found common ground.
ME: Intentionally mischaracterizing sarcasm, are you? Is that what they teach you in perfesser-school? No, repeating a word doesn't indicate limited vocabulary -- otherwise, one has to wonder about your limited vocabulary indicated by your overuse of "historically accurate" (3 times just in the blog entry, twice more in the comments) and "historically inaccurate" (3 times in the comments).
==========
SIMPSON: Well, given that the artist was known for his art work on various paperbacks, including fantasy and fiction, I can see why someone who dabbles in both likes it. It’s her taste, not ours. Besides, if you ever looked closely at her own efforts along this line, you would see why she likes that form of art. I look at the book cover art she designed and I see Ben Affleck surrounded by the cast for a dinner theater revival of Designing Women. That’s what happens when you do your own publishing … and she needs to learn how to spell nascent, too. So much for being your own PR person.
ME: "Ours" who? BTW, I know how to spell nascent; I just make typos sometimes: http://conniechastain.com/books_sm.html Ben Affleck, huh? I never thought of that. The microstock photo model is a Brit (or, at least, his photographer works in the UK), and he's light haired and blue-eyed, and I had to do a lot of processing to make him dark like Troy. This fellow has dark hair and eyes, and he's a dead ringer for Troy. I'll put him on the book when I have time to track down all the places where the old cover has gone and update them. http://conniechastain.com/SM_NewCover.jpg The two blond ladies in the background are reasonable facsimiles of the characters in the book. The dark-haired woman bears a remarkable resemblance to Patty Stevenson. I'm not an illustrator. I do page layout and I photoshop existing images. Here are covers I've done for others: http://wordslingerboutique.biz/commissionedcovers.html Where are the book covers you've done, Professor? I'd love to see them.
==========
KEVIN LEVIN: Is that Fabio holding the flag?
ME: Interesting you should bring up Fabio, the romance-cover icon from the 1990s, Mr. Levin... I speculated on whether Perfesser Simpson is a closet romance reader -- and perhaps a Fabio wanna-be -- when he acknowledged familiarity with "some of the passages" in my publications. Said he: "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)." http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/11/okay-back-to-perfesser-simpsons-recent.html
Actually, I believe I've found a cover-hunk Brooks could aspire to emulating:
http://www.pjjoneswrites.com/flabio/He's even got his own Facebook page...
http://www.facebook.com/FlabioRomanceGod==========
SIMPSON: It looks more like one of those fellows from Western pulp fiction. I think Connie should use it as cover art for a forthcoming book.
ME: Oops -- too late. I already have cover-art-with-flag....
http://www.conniechastain.com/Prologue.html
http://www.conniechastain.com/Cover.jpg==========
From November 14: See, since July, the content of Connie’s blog has been almost exclusively devoted to commenting on the blogs of people she defines as “anti-Confederate bloggers.” Now, while it’s someway bizarrely flattering to have all this attention thrown one’s way, I thought the public display of this continuing obsession was a bit disturbing (maybe I’ll become a character or even a subject in one of her self-published e-books. :) ). However, rarely do Ms. Chastain’s posts amount to anything more than that, and so, with the exception of a few moments which I have found too amusing to pass up, I don’t particularly care to draw attention to her rantings and ravings.Notice the lie that I have a "continuing obsession" with him? Well, it's not an obsession, and it's not so much him that interests me -- it's his dishonesty about Southern heritage advocates; it's his twisted view of the Civil War and Confederates, it's his obsession with slavery and white supremacy, and, frankly, it's his double standard.
I don't get to blog every day like he does. Some months I have several posts, some only two or three. The time period he speaks of -- from July to November 14, is five months. Between July and Nov 14, I made 25 posts -- which, if they had been evenly distributed in time, would average out to 5 per month.
But before chiding me, maybe he should look at his own blog first. Interesting that between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, he has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.
Heritage versus History -- Dec 8Petty and hypocritical attitude he exhibits, isn't it?
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14
I'm thinking next of posting all his announcements that he's finished with me and/or the SHPG. Swearing us off. Bidding us adieux. Quittin' us. Saying adios, au revoir, sayonara, hasta la vista, baby. I might even include the usually very short time period that follows before he starts posting about me/us again...
I can be pretty smartaleck in my comments to and about Simpson, Levin, Meyer, et.al, but I don't make comments designed to question Simpson's intelligence ... only his integrity. I endeavor to refrain from the kind of ad hominem attacks he employs, although one or two may have slipped past me. Having said that, I note that it is very sobering to think of young minds in learning mode coming under his influence....
Deceit by innuendo and implication
UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE
From "History vs Heritage," a subsequent entry posted to the Prevaricatin' Professor's blog, comes this falsehood:
"We’ve recently seen someone who is an avowed defender of Confederate heritage declare that she has no interest in historical accuracy (and that claim extends beyond the image that has prompted some discussion on this blog)."Ah, no. Professor, when I said I don't care if it's historically accurate, "it's" referred to the Confederate flag in the Duillo print. Clearly. Anybody who understands pronouns -- and a professor surely ought to -- understands that.
So your statement here is not true -- unless you mean it "extends beyond" in your own mind. In that case, I would agree that it is your claim that I have no interest in historical accuracy (not my declaration) that extends beyond the image -- and into untruth.
You have a history of making claims that extend beyond truth, far into into the murky regions of falsehood.
But hey -- it's your bloggy, you can lie if you want to.... (with apologies to Leslie Gore).
I will probably have to visit the subject of "historical accuracy"again some time. But that's it for this go-round.
