(The Crossroads Carnival of Malice Series will continue later.)
Newly Discovered Eighth Grade Exam From 1912 Shows How Dumbed Down America Has Become
The country cannot survive if this decline continues.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Background Check on Brooks Simpson
https://www.google.com/search?q=brooks+simpson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta&channel=sb
According to Wikipedia, in the real world, a background check includes:
Criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records
Citizenship, immigration, or legal working status
Litigation records
Driving and vehicle records
Drug tests
Education records
Financial information
Licensing records
Medical, Mental, and Physiological evaluation and records
Military records
Polygraph testing
Social Security Number
Other interpersonal interviews
In Simpson's bizarro world, a background check is:
A Google search.
Note first, "A Google search" is not listed on the items included in a background check.
Note second, my Google search of Michael Confoy did not turn up any of the items identified by Wikipedia, not even criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records. It brought up a NEWS STORY about an arrest and that's what I put on my blog.
Note that Simpson is the one who did a partial background check by looking up Confoy's sex offender RECORD on an official state website.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Simpson.
According to Wikipedia, in the real world, a background check includes:
Criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records
Citizenship, immigration, or legal working status
Litigation records
Driving and vehicle records
Drug tests
Education records
Financial information
Licensing records
Medical, Mental, and Physiological evaluation and records
Military records
Polygraph testing
Social Security Number
Other interpersonal interviews
In Simpson's bizarro world, a background check is:
A Google search.
Note first, "A Google search" is not listed on the items included in a background check.
Note second, my Google search of Michael Confoy did not turn up any of the items identified by Wikipedia, not even criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records. It brought up a NEWS STORY about an arrest and that's what I put on my blog.
Note that Simpson is the one who did a partial background check by looking up Confoy's sex offender RECORD on an official state website.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Simpson.
Sad Simpson and Schadenfreude
Due to my post, The Crossroads Carnival of Malice, Part One. Simpson has posted about the two subjects of the news reports I linked to. He HAD to. He knows some of his floggerettes read my blog, so he had to acknowledge it some way -- to issue a denial, of sorts. Actually, it's an attack, a true lashing out, aimed mostly at me, but includes Carl Roden. He even gratuitously brings in Susan Hathaway, who probably doesn't even know about these posts.
It's a toss up, who he hates most -- me, for challenging his lies and talkin' back to him, or Susan, for ignoring him from indifference.
Let's subject his sad, sad post to a little truth detecting, shall we?
He then turned to frequenting other groups, including one managed by our good friend Connie Chastain.This refers to Ray O'Hara, who was a member of my Facebook Group, 180 Degrees True South (a companion to my blog of the same name) when it was an open group. O'Hara was invited there by a member, not me. His only contribution to the group was to lie about the Confederacy.
I received numerous complaints from other members that O'Hara's posts were troll-like, and he wasn't there to discuss, or even debate, just to harass. I removed his membership. Eventually, many proSouthern members requested that the group change its focus from debate to a discussion group for issues of interest to proSoutherners. I changed the name of the group to Due South and made it closed. (At the end of this post, see the image of a Facebook search index of Due South using the search term O'Hara, with a few lines of each post that give an idea what each was about.)
Not long after the news account of O'Hara's arrest was posted (April 2012), the person who invited him to the group sent me a link. (See a screenshot of the private message thread below.) Until my "Carnival of Malice" post, I had never posted the link or info from it publicly, anywhere -- not on my blogs, not in a Facebook post or comment, not in a comment anywhere -- except very recently, when I sent the URL of the news report, to someone by private message.
Both of these stories are upsetting and nauseating.. So is the news that Connie Chastain, who does Susan Hathaway’s “heavy hitting,” is now conducting background checks on commenters on this blog....Ah, the indignation of someone to "tiptoes" through the Internet looking for Southern heritage people to smear, who combs Facebook, who combs comment threads following news stories, who obsesses over Flagger videos and photo albums, who stares, mesmerized, at Google Earth looking for Flagger land, who emails and tweets the media in Richmond about the Flaggers, who contacts the Richmond police... All looking for SOMETHING to smear the Flaggers with. Oh, and note that the mention of Susan is gratuitous, as she has nothing to do with my post or the subject matter -- it just reflects Simpson's hatred of her.
...much as several Virginia Flaggers went after individuals this past summer.The Virginia Flaggers didn't go after any individuals this summer. The photo of the package showing Kristin Konate's address was put on Facebook by Kristin Konate.
I am not conducting background checks on Crossroads commenters. There are a few commenters whose names I have Googled, to see if they had credentials as educators or historians, simply because of the content of something they posted. (Some truncated names or obvious aliases would probably not turn up much information and I wouldn't have searched those.) If I don't find what I'm looking for in the first two or three pages of the Google search index, I give up the search. It's not important enough to me to do more than that.
One of the names I Googled was Michael Confoy. Here is the Google index that comes up with the search term "Michael Confoy."
https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Confoy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta&channel=sb
This is the second URL in the index:
http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/three-men-arrested-after-attempting-to-solicit-minors
So it's not like I had to do a lot of digging to find the info on his arrest. In fact, I had no idea of that circumstance when I Googled his name, and wasn't looking for it, or anything criminal or negative. I was looking for information that would confirm his association with an educational institution of some kind.
But it is the second link on the page. I mean, you can't miss it.
I have known about that news report for a year or so. Until my "Carnival of Malice" post, I had never posted this link publicly anywhere -- not on my blogs, not in a Facebook post or comment, not in a comment anywhere -- except very recently, when I sent the URL of the news report, to someone by private message.
If Googling is what Simpson conceptualizes as conducting a background check, I have to wonder how he got such a responsible position in education. Or maybe that's a good indication of how dumbed down education as become.
Chastain can’t get her facts straight, as usual, at least when it comes to me. She claims that someone I’ve despised for some time (and she knows this from a previous exchange on Al Mackey’s blog) is a friend of mine …Ah, Simpson, think of it as my doing the same thing YOU did when you wrote these:
...our good friend Connie Chastain....
...our favorite fiction writer...
...Tripp Lewis's good friend, Rob Walker...
If you're going to attempt this sort of velvet glove satire, don't complain when it's done back to you.
But we can expect these sort of lies from someone who claims to be an expert in false accusations … .I've never made such a claim (and this is the second time he's lied about this. The first time, he said I claimed to be an expert in false rape accusation.)
Connie adds that the commenters on this blog are not concerned about issues involving sex, pornography, and minors.Typical Simpson lie -- by omission. What I said was, "They don't care when somebody on THEIR side does it..." which a quick check of Crossroads comment threads has verified.
Carl Roden followed up with some of his typically crude comments.@$$-kissers? Yes, that's crude (but certainly symbolically or euphemistically accurate). There are, however, things more offensive than crudeness. For example, suggesting Confederate heritage folks self-immolate the "Buddhist monk way" -- with a flag and gasoline. (That suggestion, BTW, was made by a registered sex offender).
He just likes to write fiction about sex between minors.Actually, it was a romance. A fictional story "about sex between minors" would be erotica. I've read Carl's story. It would not be classified as erotica. It would not even be classified as erotic romance. Sex certainly occurs in YA fiction; some people think it's okay, some are opposed to it. But stuff far, far more explicit than Carl's story (and not as well written, I might add) gets published all the time.
I can't believe the outrage and prudishness at the floggerette peanut gallery is genuine. However, to forestall Simpson-claims that I approve of or support erotica or erotic romance, let me say I am opposed to both. The strongest criticism I would have of Carl's story is not the youth of the characters, but that they're unmarried. However, there is published stuff out there that's sooo much worse, and Carl's story is primarily about a love and it is well written.
(Disclosure: I have two short stories in which the female leads have a child out of wedlock; each story is the beginning of a series of short stories that deal with how to handle the consequences of premarital sex. However, in all my novels thus far, the protagonists practice abstinence until marriage.)
Of course, Connie claims she’s not responsible for the behavior of the commenters on her blog. But why should anyone be surprised by her brazen hypocrisy?I'm not responsible for the behavior of anybody, anywhere, but myself. I am responsible for letting comments through or not. Brazen hypocrisy? Nope. I don't pretend, Simpson.
This is the person who Susan Hathaway says does her heavy hitting...Ah, nope. Susan does not say that, has not said it. That's another Simpson lie. Susan's quote:
Quit reading his garbage! Every click gives him site visits and more "clout". I have not read ANY of these Floggers' troughs in over a year and it has been a very blissful year. I leave the heavy hitting to Ms. Connie!What that means, for people who have difficulty understanding, is that Susan knows I'm going to do the heavy hitting, anyway, so there's no need for her to participate. Thus, she leaves it to me. (She has other fish to fry and she's a very busy woman.)
...and as Flaggers and their supporters have rushed to comment on this issue, we understand the connection. I just thought you should know how this associate of the Virginia Flaggers operates.No, you didn't think that. You thought you should lie about me ... and that's what you did. As usual, you hoped to smear me and, by association, the VaFlaggers. A few people have suggested somebody is paying you to attack and smear the VaFlaggers. I blew that off at first, but the more I see of your gratuitous, malicious and illogical attacks, the more I wonder if they're onto something....
Again, a sad story … and an example of what an outspoken supporter of the Flaggers plans to do to commenters on this blog.LOL! Silly rabbit. I have no plans to do anything to your commenters, except counter their lies and hypocrisy on my blog.
* * *
The comments following the post above -- the few that there as of this writing, anyway -- are equally mendacious and offensive.
Al Mackey sez, "Our little Inspector Javert from Pensacola needs to do a better job in her background investigations."
I haven't done any background investigations, Al. I Googled some names. Have you ever Googled somebody's name? I seem to remember you doing that on CRR.
Simpson replies, "After all, this is Connie Chastain, who lies freely about me. That’s the sort of person Susan Hathaway uses to do her “heavy hitting.” Tells you a lot about the lack of integrity when it comes to the Virginia Flaggers. It will be quite a task to restore their honor."
I don't lie about you, Simpson. I DOCUMENT YOUR lies. Susan doesn't use me for HER heavy hitting. (Why'd you bring this up again? Do you think your peanut gallery floggerettes are too dumb to get it the first twenty times?) As explained, she knows I would do it anyway, and she doesn't join me in it because it would be redundant. But it is MY heavy hitting, not hers, not anybody else's. The integrity of the VaFlaggers leaves what passes for YOUR integrity in the desert dust.
But THIS is my absolute FAVORITE, from Jimmy Dick:
Connie is opening herself up to a lot of lawsuits. If she starts making false accusations about people in order to deliberately affect their jobs she will find herself in court and liable for monetary losses. I do not expect her to understand what she is doing, but she needs to wake up before she finds herself behind bars. People do go to jail for this type of stuff.Jimmy. Answer me this:
1. What have I done that's against the law?
2. What false accusations have I made?
3. Where did you get your law degree?
I dunno.... Maybe this is on a par with "violating copyright" by cutting pictures out of magazines and catalogs....
Lemme give you some advice, Jimmy. Don't look to Simpson for accurate information about me. He lies. He's been doing it for years, and I've been documenting it for years. He lies by ordinary false statements. He lies by omission, innuendo, implication. He's very glib with his lies, but they are still lies.
* * *
As noted above, I've known about these two news reports for a year or longer, and did not blab them on Backsass, Facebook or anywhere else, until now. And I wouldn't have done so now, but for the demented, hate-filled attacks on Carl by Simpson and his humanity-deficient and integrity-depleted commenters, all because Carl is a Confederate heritage supporter.
You will note, I used the same adjective -- "sad" -- when I learned about O'Hara's arrest that Simpson used when he learned of Confoy's. The difference is that I didn't use the information to attack somebody.
Since both of these men were vocal critics of Confederate heritage and the folks who defend it, I could have broadcast this information far and wide, on my blogs, my Facebook groups, email, the whole bit.
The reason I didn't is because I'm not eager to experience schadenfreude, the way Simpson is. All the floggers and their fellow travelers enjoy episodes of schadenfreude when they think heritage folks have suffered some kind of setback. But Simpson? He jumps into it with both feet, aquiver with eagerness, and wallows in it, head to toe, dives and rolls in it, drinks deeply of it. This is particularly true where the Virginia Flaggers are concerned.
And now, let us settle back and wait for the remaining episodes of the Carnival of Malice at Crossroads.
Monday, December 16, 2013
The Crossroads Carnival of Malice, Part One
From two of the most frenzied floggerettes in the comment peanut gallery at Crossroads...
"kid toucher" Rhodan? "...has all the warnings of a kid toucher"
So, writing fan fiction is ALL the warnings? There are no others?
"Ummmm…what is it about these losers and sexualizing children?"
What is it about leftist hysterians with a death-fetish that causes them to see children being sexualized where it isn't happening?
"...do you see something wrong with a grown 37 yr old man like Carl writing sexual stories about children’s cartoons?"
Do you see something wrong with your math? The stories were written 14 years ago. See if you can subtract 14 from 37, Lamprey, and still have 37. If you got that wrong, what else have you got wrong?
"These movements are magnets for pedophiles."
Izzaaaaat right? (Smirk.)
"I am sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Backass swamp tomorrow."
These photos are of anti-heritage folks. Both of them are, or have been, frequent commenters on anti-Confederate blogs and such, including Crossroads, where the frenzied Carnival of Malice is underway.
The oddest thing, B Parks ... Apparently neither of them exhibited ALL the warnings of a kid-toucher ... that is, writing fan-fiction. At least, I didn't notice that in the news reports.
More info here:
http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x1047088281/Dedham-man-arrested-in-statewide-child-pornography-crackdown
http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/three-men-arrested-after-attempting-to-solicit-minors
Unless they were falsely accused and that info has not made it out into cyberspace yet, I think we can take these news reports at face value.
Harpy Parks and Lamprey Eel, pay close attention to this. These guys are on YOUR side, chumps. Claim them. Own them.
Both BParks and LibertyLamprey (and several other participants in the Malice-fest) owe Carl an apology, but hell will likely freeze over first. Doing the right thing for a heritage advocate they have wronged is not high on the list of flogger and floggerette priorities. In fact, I don't think it even makes the list.
I'm sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Crossroads cesspool tomorrow.... NOT! They don't care when somebody on THEIR side does it...
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I have received an email from "Michael" asking me to remove his picture from this post. He pointed out that posting mugshots runs afoul of Google's guidelines (I don't think it does). He pointed out that an arrest is not a conviction. He pointed out, "Your arguments about your colleagues are with him [Simpson], not with me."
Well, he's right about that, insofar as he knows. Primarily, my arguments are with B. "Harpy" Parks and LibertyLamprey, in addition to Simpson.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with this request, and I have removed his image.
----B Parks----
"kid toucher" Rhodan? "...has all the warnings of a kid toucher"
So, writing fan fiction is ALL the warnings? There are no others?
----LibertyLamprey----
"Ummmm…what is it about these losers and sexualizing children?"
What is it about leftist hysterians with a death-fetish that causes them to see children being sexualized where it isn't happening?
"...do you see something wrong with a grown 37 yr old man like Carl writing sexual stories about children’s cartoons?"
Do you see something wrong with your math? The stories were written 14 years ago. See if you can subtract 14 from 37, Lamprey, and still have 37. If you got that wrong, what else have you got wrong?
"These movements are magnets for pedophiles."
Izzaaaaat right? (Smirk.)
"I am sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Backass swamp tomorrow."
_________________________
These photos are of anti-heritage folks. Both of them are, or have been, frequent commenters on anti-Confederate blogs and such, including Crossroads, where the frenzied Carnival of Malice is underway.
The oddest thing, B Parks ... Apparently neither of them exhibited ALL the warnings of a kid-toucher ... that is, writing fan-fiction. At least, I didn't notice that in the news reports.
http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x1047088281/Dedham-man-arrested-in-statewide-child-pornography-crackdown
http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/three-men-arrested-after-attempting-to-solicit-minors
Unless they were falsely accused and that info has not made it out into cyberspace yet, I think we can take these news reports at face value.
Harpy Parks and Lamprey Eel, pay close attention to this. These guys are on YOUR side, chumps. Claim them. Own them.
Both BParks and LibertyLamprey (and several other participants in the Malice-fest) owe Carl an apology, but hell will likely freeze over first. Doing the right thing for a heritage advocate they have wronged is not high on the list of flogger and floggerette priorities. In fact, I don't think it even makes the list.
I'm sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Crossroads cesspool tomorrow.... NOT! They don't care when somebody on THEIR side does it...
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I have received an email from "Michael" asking me to remove his picture from this post. He pointed out that posting mugshots runs afoul of Google's guidelines (I don't think it does). He pointed out that an arrest is not a conviction. He pointed out, "Your arguments about your colleagues are with him [Simpson], not with me."
Well, he's right about that, insofar as he knows. Primarily, my arguments are with B. "Harpy" Parks and LibertyLamprey, in addition to Simpson.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with this request, and I have removed his image.
Detonating the Desire to Denigrate
Now, before I go any further, let me be clear that these jerks haven't hurt me, and probably not any heritage folks. You have to care about somebody's opinion before that person's attacks can hurt you. Oh, sure, they can damage you. They can cause you all kind of trouble. Still, they can't emotionally hurt you unless you care about their opinions.
There may be folks who are somewhat angered by the ridicule and especially the lies. They occasionally post in the comments at Crossroads, but that only generates more mocking and hatred. But even these folks aren't particularly hurt; they're trying to correct and defend, but it soon becomes apparent that Simpson's peanut gallery floggerettes aren't interested in truth and civility. The floggerettes are out to hurt people, whether they're actually successful at it or not, and visitors soon learn that correcting them is a hopeless cause.
So I don't write about these bullies from a poor widdle us approach but to showcase the kind of brutish people some leftists are.
Right now, the desire to denigrate has exploded at Crossroads, detonated by Simpson's "Confederate Heritage Follies" -- a series of posts in which he targets for ridicule people who have never done a thing to hurt or damage him. Presumably, the posts are designed solely to hurt and deride the heritage folks he's targeted -- and to provide his humanity-deficient and integrity-depleted followers with some hideous laughter.
But it isn't so much Simpson's "Follies" I want to address. It's some of the comments. So stay tuned....
__________
Photo: U.S. Government
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Guest Post from a Facebook Friend and Fellow Southron
(After reading this post by Carl on Facebook, I messaged him and asked if I could make it a guest post here at Backsass. He graciously consented. I'm pleased to present it to my readers. ~Ed.)
Wow looks like I am famous. I made a troll's hate page because....(wait for it) I wrote and reposted fanfiction that is 14 years old and that I wrote when I was 23. LMFAO!
It seems instead of attacking my differing views on how best to remember the War Between the States, a tenured college professor actually took the time to google my name and find fanfiction I wrote for one of my all-time favorite cartoon series and attacked it, and by extension an entire fanfiction community.
Now anyone who knows me or is a Facebook friend already knows this about me. I am a huge animation fan, especially Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Pixar, Dreamworks and some Japanese anime shows and movies, particularly the work of Studio Gibli. I make no secret of it. I enjoy comics, but then again so does Kevin Smith and plenty of guys much older than me. I mean am I a huge nerd because I secretly want to build a scale model of the original Enterprise bridge in one of my guest rooms....okay, maybe, but still, compared to all of that writing fanfiction stories is a rather minor hobby, one shared by nearly a million people in America and others across the world.
Also add to the fact that this well known and allegedly highly respected historian did not bother to do proper research on either the fanfiction involved, nor on the Hey Arnold fanfiction community. Had he done so he would know that the show (which ran from 1996 to 2003 on Nickelodeon) has been the subject of a number of proposed spinoffs involving the main characters as teenagers that, although never put into production, are fodder for a number of fanfiction stories.
Laughing Off The Ignorance Of Professor Simpleton
Carl W. Roden
(the man the Deniers fear most)
Wow looks like I am famous. I made a troll's hate page because....(wait for it) I wrote and reposted fanfiction that is 14 years old and that I wrote when I was 23. LMFAO!
It seems instead of attacking my differing views on how best to remember the War Between the States, a tenured college professor actually took the time to google my name and find fanfiction I wrote for one of my all-time favorite cartoon series and attacked it, and by extension an entire fanfiction community.
Now anyone who knows me or is a Facebook friend already knows this about me. I am a huge animation fan, especially Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Pixar, Dreamworks and some Japanese anime shows and movies, particularly the work of Studio Gibli. I make no secret of it. I enjoy comics, but then again so does Kevin Smith and plenty of guys much older than me. I mean am I a huge nerd because I secretly want to build a scale model of the original Enterprise bridge in one of my guest rooms....okay, maybe, but still, compared to all of that writing fanfiction stories is a rather minor hobby, one shared by nearly a million people in America and others across the world.
Also add to the fact that this well known and allegedly highly respected historian did not bother to do proper research on either the fanfiction involved, nor on the Hey Arnold fanfiction community. Had he done so he would know that the show (which ran from 1996 to 2003 on Nickelodeon) has been the subject of a number of proposed spinoffs involving the main characters as teenagers that, although never put into production, are fodder for a number of fanfiction stories.
I threw my hat in the ring around 2000, or so, and wrote a pair of fanfiction stories set in that storyline that came under the scrutiny of this internet stalker because it contains content that is rated PG-13 for suggestive themes....nevermind the fact that its clearly stated the characters are both 17 in the introductions to the stories. The stories were both posted at fanfiction.net in 2003 three years AFTER then were written by a 23 year old guy who just wanted to write stories that other hardcore fans of a particular television series would appreciate.
However, in spite of all of this, or perhaps just in ignorance, and in an effort to attack me personally all because the man has failed on almost every occasion to win a debate on Civil War history with me, and to amuse his peanut gallery of like-minded anti-Southern bigots, this moron decided to post one-sided uninformed accounts of a couple of my oldest stories and now appears to be sitting back to watch his own loosely-wound collection of ass kissers imply that I write pornography. This despite the fact that any clear reading of the stories involved shows no descriptive accounts of sex, rather it simply jumps from point a to point b and glosses over the details, except for emotions that one or the other character felt (both stories were told from first person POV and one was a sequel from the opposite POV).
Indeed many of the people who likewise write fanfiction for the show have expressed many times over the years how my written fanfiction stories inspired them to write and one told me not long ago that she was so inspired that she intends to work on her own young adult novel series. Both of these stories, as well as other fanfiction I have written about the show. have received high praise from many people, including some of the writers for the show, cast members, and indeed the creator of the series himself. Those stories and messages mean more to me than the dry amusement of a mere college professor and a few high school teachers and Socialist marks who have to troll into the gutter for their entertainment.
In fact, my fanfiction has opened the door for me to the literary world as a couple of fans of the show reading my stories have offered to introduce me to a few literary agents when I complete the science fiction and young adult novels I am working on. Perhaps if one of my novels, once published, receives a literary award, I will forward an autograph copy of one of the first editions to the dear professor. The YA books are going to be for 14 and up, hopefully that isn't too advanced for him or his peanut gallery, LOL!
Sorry Professor Simpleton, but if mocking 14 year old fanfiction is the best you can come up with to either embarrass or to offend me personally, it was an Epic Fail....actually if he'd found my anime cosplay photos I'd really be red-faced - ever seen a 35 year old bald guy dressed like Aang from The Last Airbender complete with painted on arrow tattoos? God I'm such a nerd! Well in my defense I wasn't the only one at Comic Con doing so. (He he)
Nice try children, but I'm afraid you have to do a hell of a lot better. And next time you feel the need to troll come after me instead of dragging an entire writing community along for the ride. Of course, that would mean that this lowly college professor would have to have a pair of nuts....I won't hold my breath.
However, in spite of all of this, or perhaps just in ignorance, and in an effort to attack me personally all because the man has failed on almost every occasion to win a debate on Civil War history with me, and to amuse his peanut gallery of like-minded anti-Southern bigots, this moron decided to post one-sided uninformed accounts of a couple of my oldest stories and now appears to be sitting back to watch his own loosely-wound collection of ass kissers imply that I write pornography. This despite the fact that any clear reading of the stories involved shows no descriptive accounts of sex, rather it simply jumps from point a to point b and glosses over the details, except for emotions that one or the other character felt (both stories were told from first person POV and one was a sequel from the opposite POV).
Indeed many of the people who likewise write fanfiction for the show have expressed many times over the years how my written fanfiction stories inspired them to write and one told me not long ago that she was so inspired that she intends to work on her own young adult novel series. Both of these stories, as well as other fanfiction I have written about the show. have received high praise from many people, including some of the writers for the show, cast members, and indeed the creator of the series himself. Those stories and messages mean more to me than the dry amusement of a mere college professor and a few high school teachers and Socialist marks who have to troll into the gutter for their entertainment.
In fact, my fanfiction has opened the door for me to the literary world as a couple of fans of the show reading my stories have offered to introduce me to a few literary agents when I complete the science fiction and young adult novels I am working on. Perhaps if one of my novels, once published, receives a literary award, I will forward an autograph copy of one of the first editions to the dear professor. The YA books are going to be for 14 and up, hopefully that isn't too advanced for him or his peanut gallery, LOL!
Sorry Professor Simpleton, but if mocking 14 year old fanfiction is the best you can come up with to either embarrass or to offend me personally, it was an Epic Fail....actually if he'd found my anime cosplay photos I'd really be red-faced - ever seen a 35 year old bald guy dressed like Aang from The Last Airbender complete with painted on arrow tattoos? God I'm such a nerd! Well in my defense I wasn't the only one at Comic Con doing so. (He he)
Nice try children, but I'm afraid you have to do a hell of a lot better. And next time you feel the need to troll come after me instead of dragging an entire writing community along for the ride. Of course, that would mean that this lowly college professor would have to have a pair of nuts....I won't hold my breath.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Whiteness, Schmiteness
LibertyLamprey asks, "What exactly is white culture and white heritage?"
What I think it is really isn't germane to the conversation because the white culture and history mentioned in my memes refers to whatever it is about whiteness that leftists object to and put down. In other words, my memes take issue with what critics of white culture and history say it means. (Note, neither of my memes mention heritage, so one has to wonder why Lamprey brought it up.)
Thus, when I say it's okay for white people to like white people and associate together, I do it to counter a cultural meme in our country that implies, and sometimes says, that this is racist, and racism is evil, so white people who like each other and associate together are evil racists.
Baloney.
Here's another example of the concepts I'm talking about, and countering, that certainly aren't mine. Simpson sez, "Race often comes to mind when it comes to non-white people..." (comes to who's mind? His? Obviously. He just admitted it.) "... which, I’d suggest,** is part of what some scholars call whiteness studies: I don’t see whiteness as the norm (certainly not in the United States). But I don’t honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race: again, it’s content (behavior, character, action) that interests me."
What this ignores is that the political and cultural thought being pushed on Americans today is not so nobly colorblind as Simpson professes to be, and it does honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race.
Whiteness studies and critical race theory are "academic disciplines" that have been fabricated wholly or mostly in the 20th century to facilitate the transformation of the USA from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy and eventually to pure communism. The target is the dominant cultural group that made the country such a success -- at least, in the eyes of those who wish to tear it down -- so that group is especially targeted. (Note, those who see the dominant cultural group as a target do not view as a success the country created largely by that group.)
One of the most schizoid aspects of leftist "whiteness" concepts is the claim that there is no such thing as race -- thus, there can be no such thing as the white race, but the white race is responsible for most ot humanity's evils. This is like the atheist who says to God, "You don't exist, and I hate you!"
I don't believe in "whiteness" anymore than I believe in "blackness' or "redness" or "brownness" or "yellowness." I believe there are people; I believe they can be grouped and classified according to certain characteristics (many, many more than mere color), the way we group and classify nearly everything else, from book genres to living things, from stars and planets to dialects and accents, from cars to clouds. In fact, classifying and categorizing according to various characteristics is a huge part of what science is.
The color-ness concept is designed to reduce or remove people's peopleness -- all their other classifiable and categorizing traits -- and assign to them a positive or negative status depending on what color group they are assigned to, and whether their group need to be emasculated in order to bring about the socialist utopia.
This is a wholly leftist undertaking, and largely an academic one, because academic leftists are eaten up with race, race, race, race, race (Simpson's ludicrous denial and explanation notwithstanding) and because they can influence their students to go out to "change the world."
And they call us racists.
So, Lamprey, how do you define white culture and white heritage? However you define it, that's what I'm talking about.
Howling and baying at Crossroads floggerette peanut gallery comment thread to commence in three...two...one....
_________________
**He would suggest? He doesn't know? Isn't there somebody at ASU that teaches it he can call?
What I think it is really isn't germane to the conversation because the white culture and history mentioned in my memes refers to whatever it is about whiteness that leftists object to and put down. In other words, my memes take issue with what critics of white culture and history say it means. (Note, neither of my memes mention heritage, so one has to wonder why Lamprey brought it up.)
Thus, when I say it's okay for white people to like white people and associate together, I do it to counter a cultural meme in our country that implies, and sometimes says, that this is racist, and racism is evil, so white people who like each other and associate together are evil racists.
Baloney.
Here's another example of the concepts I'm talking about, and countering, that certainly aren't mine. Simpson sez, "Race often comes to mind when it comes to non-white people..." (comes to who's mind? His? Obviously. He just admitted it.) "... which, I’d suggest,** is part of what some scholars call whiteness studies: I don’t see whiteness as the norm (certainly not in the United States). But I don’t honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race: again, it’s content (behavior, character, action) that interests me."
What this ignores is that the political and cultural thought being pushed on Americans today is not so nobly colorblind as Simpson professes to be, and it does honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race.
Whiteness studies and critical race theory are "academic disciplines" that have been fabricated wholly or mostly in the 20th century to facilitate the transformation of the USA from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy and eventually to pure communism. The target is the dominant cultural group that made the country such a success -- at least, in the eyes of those who wish to tear it down -- so that group is especially targeted. (Note, those who see the dominant cultural group as a target do not view as a success the country created largely by that group.)
One of the most schizoid aspects of leftist "whiteness" concepts is the claim that there is no such thing as race -- thus, there can be no such thing as the white race, but the white race is responsible for most ot humanity's evils. This is like the atheist who says to God, "You don't exist, and I hate you!"
I don't believe in "whiteness" anymore than I believe in "blackness' or "redness" or "brownness" or "yellowness." I believe there are people; I believe they can be grouped and classified according to certain characteristics (many, many more than mere color), the way we group and classify nearly everything else, from book genres to living things, from stars and planets to dialects and accents, from cars to clouds. In fact, classifying and categorizing according to various characteristics is a huge part of what science is.
The color-ness concept is designed to reduce or remove people's peopleness -- all their other classifiable and categorizing traits -- and assign to them a positive or negative status depending on what color group they are assigned to, and whether their group need to be emasculated in order to bring about the socialist utopia.
This is a wholly leftist undertaking, and largely an academic one, because academic leftists are eaten up with race, race, race, race, race (Simpson's ludicrous denial and explanation notwithstanding) and because they can influence their students to go out to "change the world."
And they call us racists.
So, Lamprey, how do you define white culture and white heritage? However you define it, that's what I'm talking about.
Howling and baying at Crossroads floggerette peanut gallery comment thread to commence in three...two...one....
_________________
**He would suggest? He doesn't know? Isn't there somebody at ASU that teaches it he can call?
Friday, December 13, 2013
The Attack Connie Marathon Continues at Crossroads
So many ways to lie! Simpson seems to delight in demonstrating them for us!
Regarding the Backsass post that shows a special meme I created just for him, he sez, "...this person is upset that I highlighted the taupe/tan set of slogans in a post that showed she’s really interested in white people. Note that I offered no comment as to its contents: I simply said that this is what she believes. Does she deny that?"
He highlighted it? To what purpose? That was just one of my memes posted at Crossroads in a nice little post parade, shown along with several others. Why spend so much time (according to my visitor log) collecting the graphics to showcase on his blog? That very act of collecting and displaying is a comment.
He sez, "No one’s said that white people shouldn’t like white people." That implies I said white people SHOULD like white people, which is a lie, because I didn't say that. What the graphic clearly says is that it's OKAY for white people to like white people -- does he really think OKAY is the same as SHOULD? -- and the reason I added it to the meme is that the prevailing culture indeed implies and teaches that white people should not like white people -- or their own whiteness, for that matter. (See the Unfair Campaign or Noel Ignatiev.)
In his self-backpatting re: being proud of history and culture, what he fails to mention -- and I'm sure he knows it -- is that leftism is hostile to white European history and heritage, indeed, the entirety of western culture, and not just here, but around the world, blaming it for the world's ills. (Think of Jesse Jackson chanting, " Hey-hey, ho-ho,western civ has got to go." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/crosby112307.php3) The purpose of that is to make white people ashamed of their heritage and history in a way that others are not required to do. Simpson surely isn't so stupid or unobservant as to not know this but he pretends to not know it by changing the subject to individuals.
Again, he takes personally what my original meme intended collectively. Many, many of the advances of humanity were accomplished by white people, but according to prevailing leftist (politically correct) thought, the only thing we are supposed to see when we look back into history is white evil, which is a function of creating white guilt so we will meekly acquiesce when our culture is transformed and/or replaced. I disagree with and disapprove of the dismantling and I think it's okay to see and be proud of the positive accomplishments that everyone, not just whites, benefit from.
He sez, "No one here has said that white people are responsible for the world’s evils." My original meme didn't say anyone at Crossroads DID say it. I created it to post on Facebook, and then put it on my blog. He was the one who took it to Crossroads, an act that implies criticism of the meme's content, even if the criticism is unspoken. That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme. In fact, it is still logical, because his pretending that the content means personal feelings about individuals is a distortion.
In short, his whole post is an exercise in distorting meanings (mostly to create plausible deniability) including the zinger at the end -- defining my heritage as one statement by a kinsman several generations back. He's already lied about one of my collateral ancestors, Benjamin Chastain, discussed here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html Given his track record for lying, especially about me and my ancestry, I don't put much of an emotional investment in what he says about Elijah Chastain.
In the above where I say, "That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme."
He calls that my logic, and then uses it to claim that because I criticize anti-racism, that means I am for racism.
That is not my logic, it is his. In fact, I am on record establishing that I don't hold the idea that there are only two positions that are exact opposites. I know there is frequently a third alternative people often ignore -- and sometimes more than just three. I have blogged before about the false dichotomy exhibited by Simpson and his ilk -- and oftentimes, others. So the logic I refer to above is his, not mine.
Previous posts where I have showcased the false dichotomy illogic, and criticized it.
Regarding the Backsass post that shows a special meme I created just for him, he sez, "...this person is upset that I highlighted the taupe/tan set of slogans in a post that showed she’s really interested in white people. Note that I offered no comment as to its contents: I simply said that this is what she believes. Does she deny that?"
He highlighted it? To what purpose? That was just one of my memes posted at Crossroads in a nice little post parade, shown along with several others. Why spend so much time (according to my visitor log) collecting the graphics to showcase on his blog? That very act of collecting and displaying is a comment.
He sez, "No one’s said that white people shouldn’t like white people." That implies I said white people SHOULD like white people, which is a lie, because I didn't say that. What the graphic clearly says is that it's OKAY for white people to like white people -- does he really think OKAY is the same as SHOULD? -- and the reason I added it to the meme is that the prevailing culture indeed implies and teaches that white people should not like white people -- or their own whiteness, for that matter. (See the Unfair Campaign or Noel Ignatiev.)
In his self-backpatting re: being proud of history and culture, what he fails to mention -- and I'm sure he knows it -- is that leftism is hostile to white European history and heritage, indeed, the entirety of western culture, and not just here, but around the world, blaming it for the world's ills. (Think of Jesse Jackson chanting, " Hey-hey, ho-ho,western civ has got to go." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/crosby112307.php3) The purpose of that is to make white people ashamed of their heritage and history in a way that others are not required to do. Simpson surely isn't so stupid or unobservant as to not know this but he pretends to not know it by changing the subject to individuals.
Again, he takes personally what my original meme intended collectively. Many, many of the advances of humanity were accomplished by white people, but according to prevailing leftist (politically correct) thought, the only thing we are supposed to see when we look back into history is white evil, which is a function of creating white guilt so we will meekly acquiesce when our culture is transformed and/or replaced. I disagree with and disapprove of the dismantling and I think it's okay to see and be proud of the positive accomplishments that everyone, not just whites, benefit from.
He sez, "No one here has said that white people are responsible for the world’s evils." My original meme didn't say anyone at Crossroads DID say it. I created it to post on Facebook, and then put it on my blog. He was the one who took it to Crossroads, an act that implies criticism of the meme's content, even if the criticism is unspoken. That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme. In fact, it is still logical, because his pretending that the content means personal feelings about individuals is a distortion.
In short, his whole post is an exercise in distorting meanings (mostly to create plausible deniability) including the zinger at the end -- defining my heritage as one statement by a kinsman several generations back. He's already lied about one of my collateral ancestors, Benjamin Chastain, discussed here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html Given his track record for lying, especially about me and my ancestry, I don't put much of an emotional investment in what he says about Elijah Chastain.
CLARIFICATION
In the above where I say, "That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme."
He calls that my logic, and then uses it to claim that because I criticize anti-racism, that means I am for racism.
That is not my logic, it is his. In fact, I am on record establishing that I don't hold the idea that there are only two positions that are exact opposites. I know there is frequently a third alternative people often ignore -- and sometimes more than just three. I have blogged before about the false dichotomy exhibited by Simpson and his ilk -- and oftentimes, others. So the logic I refer to above is his, not mine.
Previous posts where I have showcased the false dichotomy illogic, and criticized it.
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 oppositeAnd
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-anti-racist-smear-mentality.html
The false dichotomy is one of their favorite methods for throwing off on somebody's beliefs.Thus, the "logic" he cites is his -- which is proven over and over at his blog -- not mine, which is proven over and over on my blog.
Thus, if you don't agree with A you believe wholeheartedly in its total opposite, Z. ... 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.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/07/simpson-wallace-masters-of-false.html
I Told You So
A few days ago, in my post about Corey's grand announcement that he's going to quit reading my blog, I said this:
He claims Griffith has been discredited, but does not offer a scintilla of evidence for the claim.
I'm just supposed to believe it because Simpson says it? Ah, no. The answer is no.
Simpson has discredited himself with his lies -- for example, his concealing** information about Benjamin Chastain for the sole purpose of trying to embarrass me (didn't work), his recent statement that I claim to be an expert on rape accusation -- just two of dozens, maybe hundreds, of examples of Simpson lies. You can't read my blog for long without encountering identification or documentation of his lies or other examples of questionable integrity -- including his desire to hurt and denigrate others. That has most often been seen regarding the Virginia Flaggers (who, so far as I know, have never done anything to him), but it's certainly not limited to them, as this article documents:
I've never admitted such a thing. Never claimed it, never said it, never hinted at it, never alluded to it. He's a liar. He's been repeatedly challenged to link to said "admission." He doesn't because he can't because said "admission" doesn't exist. Because he lied about it.
________________________
** Either he concealed it, or didn't find it in his "research" online. which doesn't say much about his status as a historian, if he misses something so easy to find; I mean, I found it with no trouble. No, I suspect he left out information because it didn't fit with the "embarrassing" info he was trying to get across. You can read about it here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html
Academic-type floggers try to limit or restrict information by recognizing only what they agree with and calling it legitimate, while attempting to de-legitimize sources or writings they disagree with.You can see a clear and perfect example of this in the comment thread following Simpson's attack on me titled, "A Confederate Heritage Apologist on Slavery". Scroll down to his comments about Michael T. Griffith.
He claims Griffith has been discredited, but does not offer a scintilla of evidence for the claim.
I'm just supposed to believe it because Simpson says it? Ah, no. The answer is no.
Simpson has discredited himself with his lies -- for example, his concealing** information about Benjamin Chastain for the sole purpose of trying to embarrass me (didn't work), his recent statement that I claim to be an expert on rape accusation -- just two of dozens, maybe hundreds, of examples of Simpson lies. You can't read my blog for long without encountering identification or documentation of his lies or other examples of questionable integrity -- including his desire to hurt and denigrate others. That has most often been seen regarding the Virginia Flaggers (who, so far as I know, have never done anything to him), but it's certainly not limited to them, as this article documents:
I don't doubt that Griffith could be mistaken about some things -- nobody's perfect -- but if Simpson is gonna call him discredited and "simple-minded" (there's the flogger desire to denigrate the intelligence of someone he disagrees with yet AGAIN) while Simpson himself lies like rug repeatedly about the Virginia Flaggers, and me, and others, he will have to find validation from one of his sycophantic peanut gallery floggerettes who themselves are willing to overlook hypocrisy and double standards.Cuz he won't get it from me.
Remember this one?
"Now continue your stalking (which
you admit doing on your blog)."
~Brooks Simpson, to Moi
Remember this one?
you admit doing on your blog)."
~Brooks Simpson, to Moi
I've never admitted such a thing. Never claimed it, never said it, never hinted at it, never alluded to it. He's a liar. He's been repeatedly challenged to link to said "admission." He doesn't because he can't because said "admission" doesn't exist. Because he lied about it.
________________________
** Either he concealed it, or didn't find it in his "research" online. which doesn't say much about his status as a historian, if he misses something so easy to find; I mean, I found it with no trouble. No, I suspect he left out information because it didn't fit with the "embarrassing" info he was trying to get across. You can read about it here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Rape Accusation "Expert" Speaks (Smirk)
Simpson sez, "As for rape, why, you would think that someone who claims to be an expert about rape accusations would know better."
Perfect example of the Simpson style of lying -- the insinuation that I claim to be an expert about rape accusations. I've never made such a claim, anywhere, ever.
Um... know better than what?
I said, regarding rape, that the huge, vast majority of the folks of the South did not rape as part of slavery or for any other reason, and most slaves were not raped. "Folks" in this case, would refer to white men.
Simpson gives this ludicrous, kneejerk reply. "Do you really believe that enslaved women were not raped by their masters and other whites? Seriously?"
Nothing I've said indicates I believe that. I simply don't believe it occurred as much as the evilizers of Southern whites believe, and want others to believe, and say it did. So this is a Simpson lie in the form of a question.
Then he sez, "Female slaves were raped. We don’t know how many."
Meaning the reverse is also true ... we don't know how few....
He also sez, "Were all those children of mixed race products of voluntary unions??"
All WHAT children of mixed race? How many were there? Hmmmm? We don't know how many women were raped, but we can get a reasonable count of how many mixed race people there were back then...and today.
But first, an introduction.
Back in the early 2000s or so, I met a man online who had just discovered he had Confederate soldier ancestors. This sparked a flame of curiosity in him, and like so many in that situation, he wanted to learn more. But he was willing to do the scholarship a lot of descendants don't have the time or expertise to do, and he wrote about his findings, quite extensively.
His short bio:
His writings are copyrighted, and I use these excerpts under the fair use doctrine. The emphasis is added by me.
~~~Excerpt One~~~
Antebellum critics of slavery . . . accused slaveowners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. They assumed that because the law permitted slaveowners to ravish black women, the practice must have been extremely common. They also assumed that black women were, if not more licentious, at least more promiscuous than white women, and hence less likely to resist sexual advances by men, whether black or white. Moreover, the ravishing of black women by white men was not the only aspect of sexual exploitation which devastated the slave family. There was also the policy of deliberate slave-breeding, under which planters encouraged promiscuous relationships among blacks. . . .
The evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions were based was extremely limited. While none of the various travelers through the South had seen deliberate slave-breeding practiced, they had all heard reports of it. Some travelers published conversations with men who admitted to fathering a large number of the slaves on their plantations. Others wrote of the special solicitude shown by one or another master to mulatto offspring, a solicitude which in their minds strongly implied parenthood. There were also the descriptions of the treatment of especially pretty slave women on the auction block and of the high prices at which such women sold, prices too high to be warranted by field labor and which could be explained only by their value as concubines or as prostitutes.
Even if all these reports were true, they constituted at most a few hundred cases. By themselves, such a small number of observations out of a population of millions, could just as easily be used as proof of the infrequency of the sexual exploitation of black women as of its frequency. . . . The prevalence of mulattoes convinced not only the northern public of the antebellum era, but historians of today, that for each case of exploitation identified, there were thousands which had escaped discovery. For travelers to the South reported that a large proportion of the slaves were not the deep black of Africans from the Guinea coast but tawny, golden, and white or nearly white. Here was proof beyond denial of either the ubiquity [widespread occurrence] of the exploitation of black women by white men, or of the promiscuity of black women, or both.
But this seemingly irrefutable evidence is far from conclusive. It is not the eyesight of these travelers to the South which is questionable, but their statistical sense. For mulattoes were not distributed evenly through the Negro population. They were concentrated in the cities and especially among freedmen. According to the 1860 census, 39 percent of freedmen in southern cities were mulattoes. Among urban slaves the proportion of mulattoes was 20 percent. In other words, one out of every four Negroes living in a southern city was a mulatto. But among rural slaves, who constituted 95 percent of the slave population, only 9.9 percent were mulatto in 1860. For the slave population as a whole, therefore, the proportion of mulattoes was just 10.4 percent in 1860 and 7.7 percent in 1850. Thus it appears that travelers to the South greatly exaggerated the extent of miscegenation because they came into contact with unrepresentative samples of the Negro population. . . . Far from proving that the exploitation of black women was ubiquitous [widespread], the available data on mulattoes strongly militate against that contention.
The fact that during the twenty-three decades of contact between slaves and whites which elapsed between 1620 and 1850 only 7.7 percent of the slaves were mulattoes suggests that on average only a very small percentage of the slaves were fathered by white men. This inference is not contradicted by the fact that the percentage of mulattoes increased by one third during the last decade of the antebellum era, rising from 7.7 to 10.4 percent. For it must be remembered that mulattoes were the progeny not just of unions between whites and pure blacks but also of unions between mulattoes and blacks. Under common definition, a person with one-eighth ancestry of another race was a mulatto. Consequently, the offspring of two slaves who were each one-eighth white was to be classified as a mulatto, as was the offspring of any slave, regardless of the ancestry of his or her mate, whose grandfather was a white.
~~~Excerpt Two~~~
A demographic model of the slave population . . . shows that the census data alone cannot be used to sustain the contention that a large proportion of slave children must have been fathered by white men. And other available bodies of evidence, such as the W.P.A. survey of former slaves, throw such claims into doubt. Of those in the survey who identified parentage, only 4.5 percent indicated that one of their parents had been white. But the work of geneticists on gene pools has revealed that even the last figure may be too high. Measurements of the admixture of “Caucasian” and “Negro” genes among southern rural blacks today indicate that the share of Negro children fathered by whites on slave plantations probably averaged between 1 and 2 percent.
That these findings seem startling is due in large measure to the widespread assumption that because the law permitted masters to ravage their slave women, they must have exercised that right. As one scholar recently put it, “Almost every white mother and wife connected with the institution [of slavery] either actually or potentially shared the males in her family with slave women.” The trouble with this view is that it recognizes no forces operating on human behavior other than the force of statute law. Yet many rights permitted by legal statues and judicial decisions are not widely exercised, because economic and social forces militate against them.
To put the issue somewhat differently, it has been presumed that masters and overseers must have ravished black women frequently because their demand for such sexual pleasures was high and because the cost of satisfying that demand was low. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters. The seduction of the daughter or wife of a slave could undermine the discipline that planters so assiduously strove to attain. Not only would it stir anger and discontent in the families affected, but it would undermine the air of mystery and distinction on which so much of the authority of large planters rested. Nor was it just a planter’s reputation in the slave quarter of his plantation that would be at stake. While he might be able to prevent news of his nocturnal adventure from being broadcast in his own house, it would be more difficult to prevent his slaves from gossiping to slaves on other plantations. . . .
For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarter, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack self-control on so vital an issue. “Never employ an overseer who will equalize himself with the negro women,” wrote Charles Tait to his children. “Besides the morality of it, there are evils too numerous to be now mentioned.”
Nor should one underestimate the effect of racism on the demand of white males for black sexual partners. While some white men might have been tempted by the myth of black sexuality, a myth that may be stronger today than it was in the antebellum South, it is likely that far larger numbers were put off by racist aversions. Data on prostitutes support this conjecture. . . . The substantial underrepresentation of Negroes, as well as the complete absence of dark-skinned Negroes, indicates that white men who desired illicit sex had a strong preference for white women. . . .
The contention that the slave family was undermined by the widespread promiscuity of blacks is as poorly founded as the thesis that masters were uninhibited in their sexual exploitation of slave women. Indeed, virtually no evidence, other than the allegations of white observers, has ever been presented which sustains the charge that promiscuity among slaves was greater than that found among whites. . . .
=======
Yep, Simpson is right. We don't know how many slave women were raped; but this data suggests it was very few, which is bound to distress and anger the evilizers of Southern whites....
Perfect example of the Simpson style of lying -- the insinuation that I claim to be an expert about rape accusations. I've never made such a claim, anywhere, ever.
Um... know better than what?
I said, regarding rape, that the huge, vast majority of the folks of the South did not rape as part of slavery or for any other reason, and most slaves were not raped. "Folks" in this case, would refer to white men.
Simpson gives this ludicrous, kneejerk reply. "Do you really believe that enslaved women were not raped by their masters and other whites? Seriously?"
Nothing I've said indicates I believe that. I simply don't believe it occurred as much as the evilizers of Southern whites believe, and want others to believe, and say it did. So this is a Simpson lie in the form of a question.
Then he sez, "Female slaves were raped. We don’t know how many."
Meaning the reverse is also true ... we don't know how few....
He also sez, "Were all those children of mixed race products of voluntary unions??"
All WHAT children of mixed race? How many were there? Hmmmm? We don't know how many women were raped, but we can get a reasonable count of how many mixed race people there were back then...and today.
But first, an introduction.
Back in the early 2000s or so, I met a man online who had just discovered he had Confederate soldier ancestors. This sparked a flame of curiosity in him, and like so many in that situation, he wanted to learn more. But he was willing to do the scholarship a lot of descendants don't have the time or expertise to do, and he wrote about his findings, quite extensively.
His short bio:
Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History, a Bachelor of Science degree in Liberal Arts, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees. He also holds an Advanced Certificate in Civil War Studies and a Certificate in Civil War Studies. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. He has completed advanced Hebrew programs at the University of Haifa in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He has written five books on Mormonism and ancient history and one book on the JFK assassination.Here's an index to his articles: http://www.mtgriffith.com/index.php?p=1_5_Civil-War
His writings are copyrighted, and I use these excerpts under the fair use doctrine. The emphasis is added by me.
~~~Excerpt One~~~
Antebellum critics of slavery . . . accused slaveowners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems. They assumed that because the law permitted slaveowners to ravish black women, the practice must have been extremely common. They also assumed that black women were, if not more licentious, at least more promiscuous than white women, and hence less likely to resist sexual advances by men, whether black or white. Moreover, the ravishing of black women by white men was not the only aspect of sexual exploitation which devastated the slave family. There was also the policy of deliberate slave-breeding, under which planters encouraged promiscuous relationships among blacks. . . .
The evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions were based was extremely limited. While none of the various travelers through the South had seen deliberate slave-breeding practiced, they had all heard reports of it. Some travelers published conversations with men who admitted to fathering a large number of the slaves on their plantations. Others wrote of the special solicitude shown by one or another master to mulatto offspring, a solicitude which in their minds strongly implied parenthood. There were also the descriptions of the treatment of especially pretty slave women on the auction block and of the high prices at which such women sold, prices too high to be warranted by field labor and which could be explained only by their value as concubines or as prostitutes.
Even if all these reports were true, they constituted at most a few hundred cases. By themselves, such a small number of observations out of a population of millions, could just as easily be used as proof of the infrequency of the sexual exploitation of black women as of its frequency. . . . The prevalence of mulattoes convinced not only the northern public of the antebellum era, but historians of today, that for each case of exploitation identified, there were thousands which had escaped discovery. For travelers to the South reported that a large proportion of the slaves were not the deep black of Africans from the Guinea coast but tawny, golden, and white or nearly white. Here was proof beyond denial of either the ubiquity [widespread occurrence] of the exploitation of black women by white men, or of the promiscuity of black women, or both.
But this seemingly irrefutable evidence is far from conclusive. It is not the eyesight of these travelers to the South which is questionable, but their statistical sense. For mulattoes were not distributed evenly through the Negro population. They were concentrated in the cities and especially among freedmen. According to the 1860 census, 39 percent of freedmen in southern cities were mulattoes. Among urban slaves the proportion of mulattoes was 20 percent. In other words, one out of every four Negroes living in a southern city was a mulatto. But among rural slaves, who constituted 95 percent of the slave population, only 9.9 percent were mulatto in 1860. For the slave population as a whole, therefore, the proportion of mulattoes was just 10.4 percent in 1860 and 7.7 percent in 1850. Thus it appears that travelers to the South greatly exaggerated the extent of miscegenation because they came into contact with unrepresentative samples of the Negro population. . . . Far from proving that the exploitation of black women was ubiquitous [widespread], the available data on mulattoes strongly militate against that contention.
The fact that during the twenty-three decades of contact between slaves and whites which elapsed between 1620 and 1850 only 7.7 percent of the slaves were mulattoes suggests that on average only a very small percentage of the slaves were fathered by white men. This inference is not contradicted by the fact that the percentage of mulattoes increased by one third during the last decade of the antebellum era, rising from 7.7 to 10.4 percent. For it must be remembered that mulattoes were the progeny not just of unions between whites and pure blacks but also of unions between mulattoes and blacks. Under common definition, a person with one-eighth ancestry of another race was a mulatto. Consequently, the offspring of two slaves who were each one-eighth white was to be classified as a mulatto, as was the offspring of any slave, regardless of the ancestry of his or her mate, whose grandfather was a white.
~~~Excerpt Two~~~
A demographic model of the slave population . . . shows that the census data alone cannot be used to sustain the contention that a large proportion of slave children must have been fathered by white men. And other available bodies of evidence, such as the W.P.A. survey of former slaves, throw such claims into doubt. Of those in the survey who identified parentage, only 4.5 percent indicated that one of their parents had been white. But the work of geneticists on gene pools has revealed that even the last figure may be too high. Measurements of the admixture of “Caucasian” and “Negro” genes among southern rural blacks today indicate that the share of Negro children fathered by whites on slave plantations probably averaged between 1 and 2 percent.
That these findings seem startling is due in large measure to the widespread assumption that because the law permitted masters to ravage their slave women, they must have exercised that right. As one scholar recently put it, “Almost every white mother and wife connected with the institution [of slavery] either actually or potentially shared the males in her family with slave women.” The trouble with this view is that it recognizes no forces operating on human behavior other than the force of statute law. Yet many rights permitted by legal statues and judicial decisions are not widely exercised, because economic and social forces militate against them.
To put the issue somewhat differently, it has been presumed that masters and overseers must have ravished black women frequently because their demand for such sexual pleasures was high and because the cost of satisfying that demand was low. Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters. The seduction of the daughter or wife of a slave could undermine the discipline that planters so assiduously strove to attain. Not only would it stir anger and discontent in the families affected, but it would undermine the air of mystery and distinction on which so much of the authority of large planters rested. Nor was it just a planter’s reputation in the slave quarter of his plantation that would be at stake. While he might be able to prevent news of his nocturnal adventure from being broadcast in his own house, it would be more difficult to prevent his slaves from gossiping to slaves on other plantations. . . .
For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarter, once discovered, was often his job. Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack self-control on so vital an issue. “Never employ an overseer who will equalize himself with the negro women,” wrote Charles Tait to his children. “Besides the morality of it, there are evils too numerous to be now mentioned.”
Nor should one underestimate the effect of racism on the demand of white males for black sexual partners. While some white men might have been tempted by the myth of black sexuality, a myth that may be stronger today than it was in the antebellum South, it is likely that far larger numbers were put off by racist aversions. Data on prostitutes support this conjecture. . . . The substantial underrepresentation of Negroes, as well as the complete absence of dark-skinned Negroes, indicates that white men who desired illicit sex had a strong preference for white women. . . .
The contention that the slave family was undermined by the widespread promiscuity of blacks is as poorly founded as the thesis that masters were uninhibited in their sexual exploitation of slave women. Indeed, virtually no evidence, other than the allegations of white observers, has ever been presented which sustains the charge that promiscuity among slaves was greater than that found among whites. . . .
=======
Yep, Simpson is right. We don't know how many slave women were raped; but this data suggests it was very few, which is bound to distress and anger the evilizers of Southern whites....
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)