180 Degrees True South

Slightly off-topic....

2012-01-19T11:59:00.000-08:00

Are men better musicians than women?

When it comes to vocals, I think they may run even. But when it comes to playing instruments, I think men win hands down -- at least, when the genre is smooth jazz. Granted, having a good arrangement, and good accompaniment, goes a long way toward having a knockout sound. But when you cut through all that, and just listen to the one instrument you're comparing -- well, the guys win, hands down.

First, guitarists. We have Joyce Cooling playing "Mildred's Attraction" (she starts playing about 23 seconds in). Now, I happen to like this tune. It's a good tune, and Cooling renders it well. I like other stuff Cooling has done -- "At the Modern" comes to mind. She obviously knows how to play guitar. But compared to Larry Carlton playing almost anything (here we're featuring "Fingerprints" and he starts about 45 second in) ... Cooling is making music; Carlton is living it. He makes a guitar come alive and sing! You would almost think his guitar is itself feeling the emotion with which he's playing it.

Joyce Cooling, "Mildred's Attraction"

Larry Carlton, "Fingerprints"
...

It's the same thing with these sax players. Candy Dulfer's "LA City Lights" is a good song -- I like it. But while she is making music, Nelson Rangell, in **"Turning Night Into Day," is making his saxophone sing, making it feel, making it a part of himself.

Candy Dulfer, "LA City Lights"
...

Nelson Rangell, "Turning Night Into Day"

Women play music -- men feel it, and I often wonder if that's because in our culture, men are taught to not show their emotions. Feeling them is fine -- you just can't show them; it's not manly. Letting their instruments come alive, infusing them with their own unshown emotion, letting guitar or sax become an outlet for the expression of emotion might explain the difference.

These are just small samples,but I find this happening over and over. Compare Mindi Abair's True Blue to Gary Barnacle's Northern Lights (the Jazz Masters). Compare Jessy J's Tequila Moon (who's probably the best female sax player) to Gerald Albright, Richard Elliot, David Sanborn, Dave Koz, or Najee... Compare Cooling to Chuck Loeb, Steve Laury, Pat Metheny, Brian Tarquin...

Even keyboardist Patrice Rushen, whose "Almost Home" is a favorite of mine, is on a par with -- not better than -- David Benoit, Bob James, Ramsey Lewis and Joe McBride.

I once made this case for the superiority of male smooth jazz instrumentalists in a discussion group that ran high to liberals and feminists, and was accused of "hating my gender." Not true. I just like good smooth jazz ... and the men who make it!

__________________________________________________

Wanna sound off on this? Click here.
__________________________________________________

**Really, really obscure factoid: Although you won't find it anywhere in the novel, Rangell's "Turning Night Into Day" is the "Our song" for Justin Adair and Briana Farrior in "Storm Surge".

By faith....

2012-01-18T13:18:00.000-08:00

Brook Simpson has expressed surprise that I persist in my Southern heritage efforts even though they have little effectiveness. He uses the term "unimportant," which I did not use. More of his lack of reading comprehension skills, or deliberate distortion? You decide.

I think it's very important to fight the efforts of those who war against Southern heritage. What I said was that the Southern Heritage Preservation Group does not have the power or influence of, say, the SCV, which has tens of thousands of members, a treasury, and a legal arm for use of the courts. The SHPG is a Facebook group. It has officers, but no legal status, no dues collected from members, no treasury... and it takes money to fight the powers and principalities arrayed against us, make no mistake about it. Individual members of the group may be very effective in fighting those who war against Southern heritage; they may be members of other organizations that are also effective. But the SHPG itself is for the dissemination of information and sharing of opinions.

I've also stated that that my own personal efforts -- this blog and my proSouthern novels -- also have little to no power or influence. I'm just one person. I also don't have a lot of money. My outside activism is restricted, as I cannot walk or stand except for very brief periods. I do what I can online, and with my writing. Thus far, my writing has had little effect.

So why do I perist? Because I have faith. I may never accomplish great things for Dixie -- but who knows but what something I write will inspire someone who can, and will, accomplish great things for the South?

Years ago, when I was more involved in Southern nationalism, I frequently wrote about it in my e-zine, 180 Degrees True South -- the forerunner of this blog. In 2002, I wrote an article about the importance of having faith in the cause, when independence for the South seemed relegated to some cloudy and indistinct future. I repeat it now, because faith is equally important in the battle to preserve our heritage.

I dunno --it may be a case where only people of faith can understand the importance of faith. In any case, here's the article.

__________________________________________________________

Seeing from a distance, by faith...

by Connie Chastain Ward

When I was growing up, I learned in Sunday School that a parable was "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning." As an adult, I have noticed that the reverse can also be true. A great many spiritual principles can, and frequently do, have purely earthly applications.

Take, for instance, Chapter 11 of the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament. It's about faith; specifically, it is about the faith of people who never lived to see the fulfillment of the promises they had been given. Of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah, verses 13 and 14 say:

"These all died in faith, without having received what was promised them, but they saw it from a distance and welcomed it, confessing that they were foreigners and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it plain that they are looking for a homeland..."

We know this is talking about a spiritual homeland, because the same passage goes on to say, "But now they are longing for a better, that is, a heavenly country; accordingly, God is not ashamed of being called their God. In fact, He has prepared a city for them."

This spiritual principle has an important earthly application for those of us in the Southern independence movement. Our quest for an independent homeland is just beginning. Nobody knows how long it will take; perhaps those of us working in the movement today will not live long enough to see the fulfillment of that quest. That is why we must have faith -- the kind of faith that lets us see our free homeland from a distance, and welcome it -- because we must believe it will happen or we will not put forth the effort required to bring it about. And without effort and work and dedication, an independent South is not a distant vision but a self-delusion.

Alas, it sometimes seems that in our movement, faith is in short supply. In a way, this is not surprising. Faith isn't something you come by easily, even in the spiritual realm, with divine assistance. It's bound to be hard when you're dealing with temporal and material issues, as well.

Yet it is imperative that we develop faith of both kinds, and that we help each other keep that faith strong and vibrant.

Back during the summer, news came that the Edgefield Journal was ceasing publication. A farewell editorial by Virgil Huston posted on the Aw, Shucks Southern Links page explained a little behind the cessation. The main cause for the demise seems to be that it didn't make any money.

It is most unfortunate. Dixie needs all the proSouthern publications it can muster.

But what was even more unfortunate to me was the further complaints Huston expressed, and the tone behind them. Perhaps some of the complaints had merit, I don't know. They deal specifically with South Carolina politics and may only be Huston's opinion. However, I believe some deserve further examination and discussion.

The Southern movement, Huston said, came into existence with Bill Clinton, and began a decline before he even left office. Huston said he didn't know where the movement will go from here but it needs changes in leadership if it is to survive.

Is this an accurate assessment? Perhaps to a point. I think Bill Clinton had a lot to do with the movement's birth. But is the movement really declining, now that he's no longer in office, or is it that those who joined merely in response to the Clinton regime are now leaving? If that were a significant number, it might be a death blow to the movement. However, I don't believe it is.

Besides, if negative motivation is what's necessary to keep our movement going, the regime of the Texas scalawag (or is he a carpetbagger?) who occupies the imperial palace on the Potomac is providing gracious plenty of it.

I believe, however, that an ever-growing number of Southerners coming to our movement aren't merely anti-Clintonians or anti-Bushites, but Southerners who long for their own free and independent homeland; not just reactionaries to the negative, but those who long for a Southern homeland they see afar, by faith...

As for changes in leadership, perhaps Huston is right about some quarters of the movement. In others, the leadership is just fine -- it is the followership that needs tweaking. But overall, considering the age of the movement (still in its infancy) and the circumstances (an abundance of powerful and ruthless opponents and critics), it is showing great liveliness and doing remarkably well. So I can't help but be optimistic about its future.

The events in South Carolina Huston alluded to, though, have revealed some areas where our movement could use a little work.

Hopefully we will never become a savvy but bloodless political machine, like those that hold sway in the Empire -- but the fact remains that we do need to learn about political realities. We must realize that things like the defeat of proflag candidates in South Carolina, a mere 2 1/2 years after the flag came down, are not some kind of death knell for the movement.

It took 20 years for Kay Patterson to get the flag off the dome. If our people work for 20 years and it's not back up, then I'll say we've failed. Maybe. But in only two years? No, that's not failure; that's just an excuse for giving up, for those who are so inclined.

There's a lot more we still have to learn -- how to pace ourselves; how to reframe the debate on our terms; how to take the wind out of the other guy's sails; how to protect our hot buttons and remain cool under fire; how to rise above temporary setbacks and build on our victories; how to reach the Southern sheeple.... And that's just for starters.

So let us learn what we must, and learn it well. But most of all, let us remember the example of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah who longed for a homeland and saw it from a distance. Let us have faith in God and belief in a free and independent Dixie. Make it a faith so strong that even if we do not achieve our goal in our lifetime, we will be able to see our Southern homeland in the distance, and welcome it.

And then let us work like the devil to make it happen.

__________________________________________________

Click here to leave a comment.
__________________________________________________

A continuation of more of the same....

2012-01-17T17:06:00.000-08:00

Update. Comments by Brooks Simpson following his latest attempted smear of yours truly:

... someone directed me to her Facebook page. It’s a continuation of more of the same of her rants against various folks.
Ms. Chastain declares: “Once again, Simpson is seeing, or purporting to see, similarities between people and the ideas they hold, for the purpose of guilt-by-association tar-smearing, while ignoring the differences, which are what’s truly important.”
I love how she attributes motives to me. In fact, I was giving her the opportunity to distance herself from Mr. Wallace. Her major effort along this line was to note that Mr. Wallace roots for Auburn while she roots for Alabama.
(I’d love to know whether Mr. Wallace ever expressed himself about Cam Newton.)
She does not go into detail on where she disagrees with Mr. Wallace about southern heritage. I wonder why she chose not to do that.
I found her case about the powerlessness of the SHPG to get anything done powerful. I also found her admission that her own work is insignificant to be revealing, especially since she persists in it.

A continuation of more of the same? Isn't that a little redundant, like saying tooth dentist or foot podiatrist? Isn't a continuation more of the same? And isn't more of the same a continuation? Keep in mind that this man is a professor at a major state university ... who puts down my writing, editing and self-publishing of books he's never read....

He sez, "I love how she attributes motives to me. In fact, I was giving her the opportunity to distance herself from Mr. Wallace."

Aw, isn't he a thoughtful man, to give me such an opportunity? The only problem is, that statement is complete and total bullcrap, and anyone who believes it needs their head examined. It's not only a blatant lie -- it's a hilarious one! Had me literally laughing out loud. This man hates my guts, and he loves to attempt smears of people with guilt-by-association, especially Southern heritage advocates. The very existence of that blog post is a attempt to smear me with a cooked up association with Hunter Wallace and Occidental Dissent.

But the lying doesn't stop there. What's amazing is Simpson's claim that my "major effort" to distance myself from Wallace is my tongue-in-cheek description of us as opposition college football fans (me, Alabama; Wallace, Auburn).

Simpson further compounds the lie by saying, "She does not go into detail on where she disagrees with Mr. Wallace about southern heritage."

I don't know the degree to which I disagree with Mr. Wallace about Southern heritage because I don't know all his views on it. I barely skimmed a couple of posts at this blog -- and that was enough for me to know I didn't agree with a lot of what he said, and didn't need to read further.

What Simpson ignores, though, in order to make his mendacious implications, are these comments from me, re: Mr. Wallace:

1. Having visited that site once or twice recently, I found that there's a lot I disagree with Mr. Wallace about. This most recent visit there confirmed that disagreement.
2. I suspect most of the disagreement is based on differences that result, ultimately, from my being a Christian and his being an atheist.
3. I don't agree with or approve of Mr. Wallace's views on race.

Do you suppose Simpson didn't see those statements in my blog post? (Kinda like he didn't see my PROUD CONFEDERATE DESCENDANT badge while claiming we Southern heritage advocates were afraid to use the word, Confederate?) Or do you suppose he saw them, and he's ignoring them in order to, um, continue more of the same of his attempted smears?

In other words, did Brooks Simpson lie ... again?

As we used to say back in my high school days, is grass green? Is the Pope Catholic?

____________________________________________________

Want to leave a comment? Click here!
____________________________________________________

Photos: Free Stock Photos.biz and the Public Domain

Guilt by Imaginary Association

2012-01-17T11:01:00.000-08:00

A recent entry at Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blog:

Occidental Dissent Answers Connie Chastain
Jan17
This makes for very interesting reading.
By the way, Mr. Wallace displays a Confederate Battle Flag on his blog. It is my understanding that the people such as those who populate the gift that keeps on giving is determined to protest the appropriation of that flag by white supremacist groups. So where’s the protest? Does the lack of protest support Ms. Chastain’s argument about the ineffectiveness of the group? Or does it document its lack of sincerity, especially in light of the willingness of members of the group to attack other people with whom they disagree?
Pass the popcorn, please.

Once again, Simpson is seeing, or purporting to see, similarities between people and the ideas they hold, for the purpose of guilt-by-association tar-smearing, while ignoring the differences, which are what's truly important. It's possible even Brooks and I agree on some things, but what's important, what distinguishes us, is what we disagree about.

(For example, Wallace is an Auburn fan, per his Facebook profile; and I'm an Alabama fan from way back -- back before Wallace was even born ... back when Keith Jackson used to call the games at Legion Field in Birmingham. I made my hero in Southern Man a halfback for Alabama Crimson Tide playing for Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. Oh, one other thing ... Twenty-one to Zereaux. Just sayin'.)

I didn't know about the blog post about me at Occidental Dissent until I saw a post about it at Crossroads. I would attempt to post a response at Crossroads, but Simpson would just send it to the cornfield, so I'll answer here.

After reading the latest attempted smear of me at Crossroads, I went over to OD and read the entry Simpson referenced. Having visited that site once or twice recently, I found that there's a lot I disagree with Mr. Wallace about. This most recent visit there confirmed that disagreement. I suspect most of the disgreement is based on differences that result, ultimately, from my being a Christian and his being an atheist.

While I don't agree with or approve of Mr. Wallace's views on race, I have to acknowledge a couple of things about his one blog post about me.

First, it really isn't about me. Text Tally tells me the post at OD comprises 2295 words. Seventy (70) of them, distributed in three short paragraphs, reference me, but only one of them is actually about me. It reads: "Connie Chastain is a nice Southern lady of some notoriety in what can best be described as the “Southern Heritage Preservation movement.”" The second paragraph includes a copy-paste of a question I asked in a blog post here at 180 DTS, and the third is Wallace's mis-naming my question the Chastain Challenge. And that's it. The remaining 2225 words comprise his viewpoints about the cause and solution to the problem -- not me or mine.
Second, however much I may disagree with Mr. Wallace, I have to acknowledge that he doesn't seem to be motivated by the same hatred and desire to smear that motivates Brooks Simpson when he post about me.

Beyond what I skimmed on these few recent visits, I haven't read Occidental Dissent, so I don't know whether Mr. Wallace shows the same contempt for truth that Simpson does in his efforts to smear people. For example, Simpson says: "It is my understanding that the people such as those who populate the gift that keeps on giving is determined to protest the appropriation of that flag by white supremacist groups. So where’s the protest?" (...people...is...? Subject-verb disagreement can be so ... jarring ... when it comes from a narcissistic academic.)

Actually, if you read the Southern Heritage Preservation Group, you will find disapproval of use of Confederate symbols by white supremacist groups, not a determination to protest as Simpson mischaracterizes it -- again with the motivation, I'm convinced, of hatred and a desire to smear. However, the group's prohibiting membership to people suspected of association with, or support for, racist groups, due to comments and symbols on their Facebook profiles is, indeed, a form of protest. Since I'm no longer in the group, I have no access to the private messages of the officers when they discuss and decide on denying or revoking membership, but I can't imagine that policy has changed much since I left the group.

And what of these activities by the group Simpson doesn't know about? He's like a little kid -- if he doesn't know it, it hasn't happened or doesn't exist. See, Simpson is a totalitarian dictator at Crossroads, as I am at 180 DTS blog. We are the sole authority at our blogs. But the SHPG is run by a group of administrators who share duties and must confer and reach consensus about decisions. And they're not all online 24-hours a day. As it was before I left the group, no one person can zap people and posts to the SHPG Cornfield, as Simpson so loves to do at his little fiefdom.

As for Southern heritage types in general, and SHPG folks in particular, attacking people -- the "attacks" are almost always defense. At most, they're counter-attacks. Surely a person with Simpson's intelligence and education can see that -- unless ego and agenda have created blinders nobody could see through....

____________________________________________________

Want to leave a comment? Click here!
____________________________________________________

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Transparent motives....

2012-01-13T15:17:00.000-08:00

Is there any doubt that hatred of our heritage underlies, and motivates, this blog post, and so many others like it on "Civil War Memory" and the blogs of Kevin Levin's fellow travelers? And does the hatred of our heritage encompass hatred of those who honor it?

http://cwmemory.com/2012/01/13/i-am-their-flag-the-extended-mix/

In that post, Levin writes:

Many of you are no doubt familiar with Michael Bradley’s poem, “I Am Their Flag” as well as H.K. Edgerton’s powerful interpretation that he will be happy to deliver if the price is right.

This isn't the first time he has mentioned H.K.'s compensation for his Southern heritage appearances. Do you suppose Kevin has never been compensated for work he does? Will he receive royalties for his Crater book? Was he paid for his work back when he was employed as a teacher in Virginia?

Wonder how many times he's complained about the compensation paid to Confederate flag critics such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, James McPherson, etc.....

Yep. Transparent as glass.

_________________________________________________________
Click here to leave a comment!
____________________________________________________

Clarification

2012-01-12T17:44:00.000-08:00

It appears that my blog post about the Facebook Southern Heritage Preservation Group earlier today has troubled some members of the group who view my description of it as disrespect. I intended no disrespect and I don't think any part of my description was untrue. But let's test it to be sure.

(1) It's not like the group has any sway in the greater scheme of things. -- If anyone wants to show me the sway/pull/influence this group has had I'll be happy to look. But I don't see how it has influenced the outcome of many events and issues discussed there, from the Lexington flag case to the Reidsville monument, to the Shreveport flag removal, to the Texas SCV license plate issue. Perhaps indirectly, by posting information about the issue, which spurred some offline group or individual to protest or fight locally. However, I do note that heritage flags are still banned from city poles in Lexington, the Reidsville monument will be relegated to obscurity, the Shreveport flag is gone. The Texas license plate issue is going to court not because of the SHPG but the SCV.

(2) True or False:

(A) The SHPG not a 501C3 nonprofit group with tens of thousands of members like the Civil War Trust. -- True.

(B) It's not the SCV, which has thousands of members, highly visible heritage defense efforts, and a legal department not afraid to use the courts when necessary. -- True.

(C) It's not even the Civil Warriors blog and forum. It's just a Facebook group, just one of 620 MILLION Facebook groups. -- True. (I acknowledge that the 620 million figure may be inaccurate, as it dates from almost a year ago. But that doesn't change the fact that the SHPG is a Facebook group.)

(D) In other words, it's an internet-based social media anyone can join -- anonymously. -- True.

(E) Most of the group's 1,300+ members are lurkers who never post. -- True.

(F) Some people use it to post or read about heritage issues around the country, but clearly, most activity on the group's page comprises the airing and sharing of personal opinions. -- True, but if anyone wishes to take exeption to this, I welcome their corrective comments.

(G) In other words, it's a discussion group/chat room -- i.e., Mark Zuckerberg's updated version of Usenet. -- True.

(H) It has little to no power or influence. Another statement I believe is true but that others may disagree with. I would be delighted to see evidence that proves me wrong. But the fact is, even the group's founder has admitted on several occasions that what we're doing isn't working. That was evidently the reason behind his creation of the Action Group. Granted, I don't see everything that gets posted there, but I have not seen posts announcing the successes of the Action Group. (The successes need to be posted. Posted? They need to be trumpeted! Why keep them secret?)

If you Google Southern Heritage Preservation Group, you don't see links to the group's heritage success stories reported in the media. What you see most is links to posts at the Hall, Levin, Simpson, Meyer blogs denigrating the group.

None of what I describe and acknowledge here is intended as disrespect of the group, or the efforts of its members. In fact, I was a member of that group until a few hours ago, glad to be a part of it, and hopeful that the efforts of the SHPG, and all other heritage preservation and defense efforts, would eventually see a rising tide of success. I have the highest respect for those who are in the trenches -- the Virginia flaggers, the SCV, etc. But I know what an uphill battle we are facing. I know that my own personal efforts -- this blog and my proSouthern novels -- also have little to no power or influence. Saying so doesn't mean I disrespect my own efforts, and it doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing them. You'll never get anywhere if you don't try.

I admit to being clueless about one thing, though, and any clarification from others would be welcome. How does acknowledging that the SHPG is primarily a discussion group largely unknown outside the online Southern heritage community (and a handful of critics) equate to "tarnishing our Southern History and Heritage with disrespect"?

And none of this changes the fact that Brooks Simpson's interest in the SHPG is mystifying; nor does it change my opinion that people like him need to create/fabricate somebody to feel morally superior to because liberalism's moral relativity has a way of leaving people feeling uncertain about their own integrity....

__________________________________________________

COMMENTS ENCOURAGED! Click the link below and let 'er rip!
__________________________________________________

Moral relativism at work

2012-01-12T08:07:00.000-08:00

Well it proves one thing ... It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have education enough to admit when you're wrong.

~ Sam Quint, Jaws

The more I observe Brooks Simpson, the more I wonder how someone of his pettiness and questionable integrity managed to obtain a position of such importance as a professor of history at a major state university.

Last month, there was the silliness of tacking a deadline onto Kevin Levin's "Chandler Challenge." Remember that? Mere days after the challenge appeared on "Civil War Memory" Simpson was chiding Southern heritage advocates for not replying to the challenge -- and declaring "victory" for Levin. I pointed out to him that Levin had issued no deadline, and likely the busy-ness of the holidays kept some people from taking the time to locate and buy the magazine. Some may have tried to buy it and found it wasn't available in their bookstores yet. A couple of people had mentioned that at Levin's own site.

So Simpson, apparently not realizing how petty and childish it made him look, tacked on an artificial deadline after the fact -- to a challenge that he didn't even originate.

Then, there was his chiding me for not reading Brian Steele Wills' biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest -- only minutes after his recommending it.

He demands instant results, instant compliance for the purpose of slinging accusations, employing the tar-brush, and/or publishing insinuation and innuendo if he doesn't get them.

Frequently, his demand-tantrums are combined with other smear tactics, such as guilt by association. Guilt of what? Why, racism, of course. It's one of the very few bad things left in an American transformed by liberalism's moral relativism.

Exactly why he has developed such an obsession with the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook is mystifying. Presumably, it does something for his ego to criticize the group's designation as Southern rather than Confederate, or to point out the imaginary "racism" of its members. But why? What's it to him? It's not like the group has any sway in the greater scheme of things.

The SHPG not a 501C3 nonprofit group with tens of thousands of members like the Civil War Trust. It's not the SCV, which has thousands of members, highly visible heritage defense efforts, and a legal department not afraid to use the courts when necessary. It's not even the Civil Warriors blog and forum. It's just a Facebook group, just one of 620 MILLION Facebook groups.

In other words, it's an internet-based social media anyone can join -- anonymously. Most of the group's 1,300+ members are lurkers who never post. Some people use it to post or read about heritage issues around the country, but clearly, most activity on the group's page comprises the airing and sharing of personal opinions. In other words, it's a discussion group/chat room -- i.e., Mark Zuckerberg's updated version of Usenet. It has little to no power or influence.

Thus, Simpson's interest in the group is mystifying. I can only chalk it up to the liberal obsession with rooting out divergent beliefs and eradicating them. Nobody, and I mean nobody, must be allowed to hold, let alone express, an opinion different from the status quo -- which, of course, is determined by Simpson and his fellow travelers.

His obsession with declaring guilt-by-association is more revealing of him than he realizes, perhaps. Most intelligent people realize that how people differ is at least as important as how they are similar. You'd think the champions of diversity would be the first to acknowledge this, because without differences, there'd BE no such thing as diversity.

But not in Simpson's mentality. If a racist is wearing a green plaid shirt, then everyone who wears a green plaid shirt is a racist. Thus, all who support, say, political independence for the South, are mental clones in all other areas -- so The League of the South = the Southern Nationalist Network = Occidental Dissent. Pay no attention to how these groups differ (two of them don't even appear to be groups, just websites); to Simpson, that doesn't matter, regardless of how true it is. When your purpose is to smear people with racism, can't let a little incidental like TRUTH get in the way.

Shortly after a Hunter Wallace, who runs the website titled Occidental Dissent, joined the SHPG, Simpson threw a typical tantrum at Crossroads, chiding members for tolerating racists in violation of the group's stated policy. Of course, Simpson has no access to private discussions of the group's officers, so he didn't know that said officers were already privately discussing Wallace's membership when Simpson posted his tantrum on Crossroads.

He's like a little kid, demanding instant gratification, and thinking everything that happens, happens because of him. And if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist...

Keep in mind that this petty childishness and moral relativism are exhibited by a professor of history at a major state university. It's scary to think of young minds in learning-mode coming under his influence.

_________________________________________________________
Find this topic interesting? Follow the link below to leave a comment!
____________________________________________________

Image of Robert Shaw as as Quint in the movie Jaws translinked from ScrapeTV under Fair Use of U.S. Copyright law.

And For Your Reading Pleasure....

2012-01-10T11:20:00.000-08:00

Tentative new cover design for Neo-Confederate. That's Randy Stevenson all grown up, whom we first met at age seven, in Southern Man. Neo-Confederate chronicles Randy's campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from (fictional) Florida District Four (Jacksonville, Duval County and environs). Read about the public announcement of his candidacy in the first-draft excerpt below. I'm writing Neo-Confederate and its two prequels, Little Sister and Sweet Southern Boys, simultaneously to make sure there are no continuity issues.

Excerpt

The Terrace Shopping Center had been built in the early 1960s to house busy retail shops, five of them in an L-shaped structure wrapped around a concrete parking lot. Almost fifty years later, the complex of flat-roofed, glass fronted units, renamed Terrace Plaza, served as offices for low-traffic tenants.

That would be a boon for the newest tenant, who would need more parking spaces than the other four combined.

Ramona Dorst, a freelance political dirt-digger, noticed things like that and her powers of observation were on high alert when she turned into the parking lot at Terrace Plaza. There were more vehicles parked here today than there had been in months, possibly years.

She purposely parked as far distant from the building as possible. The press pass on her dashboard, like the badge hanging from a lanyard around her neck, was as phony as a three dollar bill. Fortunately, nobody ever noticed that because she always parked far away from the action she was to observe, and her personal badge had been legitimate once.

A wide concrete sidewalk ran in front of the plate glass storefronts, separated from the curb by a strip of struggling grass. The metal canopy above it was a fortuitous element for the twenty five or thirty people gathered on the walkway, as the sky was overcast and intermittent drizzle had occurred throughout the day. Sporting jackets and sweaters against the 40-degree chill, they stood in front of the middle office on the long ell, between a transcription service and a mortgage broker. Along with purses and umbrellas, they carried candidate yard signs and American flags.

At the edge of the sidewalk, facing the parking lot, stood a boxy wooden podium draped with political bunting. Red and white mums in pots wrapped with blue foil sat at the base of the podium. Above, fastened to the edge of the sidewalk canopy, a ten-foot banner proclaimed the candidate's name and the the office he pursued.

The choice of a location for campaign headquarters could tell things about a candidate -- how much money he or she had and how well he gauged public perception. Randy Stevenson was a political newcomer and thus a totally unknown entity. What this very short, preliminary observation of his campaign headquarters told Ramona was that the had more style than money, perhaps even a touch of chichi. But in the end, style didn't win elections.

Stevenson had blanketed the 4th district with notices of his announcement. Every media outlet -- online, cable, broadcast and print -- as well as government officials at all levels and the Republican party machine had received them. Ramona learned this little tidbit of information from an acquaintance who worked at Republican party headquarters.

Apparently, the notices had generated little interest in the event. Representatives of the fourth estate were gathering under a canvas shelter set up in the parking lot, but they amounted to no more than a six, maybe eight, people.

The Fox affiliate, WAWS-TV, had sent a minimal crew. A couple of dudes from a low-power Christian radio station were on hand and several local print publications were represented by reporters with digital cameras and sound recorders. Surprisingly, Jacksonville's newspaper of record, the Post Herald, had sent a reporter, an ambitious female newbie Ramona had met briefly several weeks before.

There had been no rain since Ramona arrived, but she looped the strap of an umbrella around her wrist, hitched her purse over her shoulder, and took her video camera, already wrapped in its rain protector, in hand. She stepped between vehicles slick with mist to join the meager press corps setting up beneath the canvas shelter. She didn't have to set up. Her expensive digital camera with a highly sensitive directional microphone, required only that she look through the viewfinder and press the record button.

A young woman with a candidate pin on her lapel stood in a corner of the shelter and distributed pocket folders to media reps as they arrived. Press kits, no doubt. Ramona slid the one she was given into her oversized purse for later perusal. Right now, while she waited with an eye on the office door flanked with U.S. and Florida flags, she wanted to get some footage of the people gathered on the sidewalk. She raised the camera to her eye and pressed record.

There were several preschool children, bored and twitchy but reasonably well behaved. Perhaps half a dozen or so of the adults were of retirement age, the rest in their thirties and forties. They seemed evenly divided between men and women.

Ramona couldn't help but notice that it was a very white gathering. She spotted a couple of women who could possibly be Hispanic, and a lone black man in suit and tie who apparently knew these people personally and was comfortable with them, but that was it for diversity and inclusion among Stevenson supporters.

At three on the dot, the door opened. A couple of thirty-something men stepped out and she got excellent footage of their arrival on the scene. One of them, dark haired and uncommonly good-looking, was stylishly dressed in a brown tweed suit and a tan raincoat that reached the middle of his calves. The other, whose loosely curled blond hair seemed somewhat frizzled by the humidity, sported more casual attire -- bone-colored chinos and a russet corduroy blazer. Candidate buttons adorned their lapels.

Their identity was unknown to Ramona and she had little time to study them further because they were followed immediately by a man and woman who had to be Mr and Mrs. Candidate, judging by the cheers and clapping from the crowd.

Randy Stevenson was both courtly and foxy in a charcoal gray suit, maroon tie and white shirt. His black hair was a bit long, a bit touseled -- perhaps that's where the foxy element came from. That and his broad shoulders and taut, slender physique. Ramona resisted the urge to use the hackneyed description, charismatic, after seeing him only a few seconds. Nevertheless, he projected an indefinable magnetism that couldn't be denied.

Beside him, clad in a classic suit of midnight blue, his wife, while not beautiful, nevertheless projected a similar aura of visual appeal. Ramona looked forward to studying the footage she was shooting to deconstruct the Stevensons' powerful attractiveness.

Instead of stepping to the podium, Stevenson gradually made his way down the crowd, pausing to talk or shake hands, accept hugs and peck female cheeks. At one point, he shared a manly embrace with a handsome gentleman, dark haired but graying at the temples, and traded kisses with a woman standing beside him. Their behavior said parents and son, as their appearance did.

He bent slightly to heft into his arms a little girl with long black hair, her forehead covered with a thick fringe of bangs. She laughed as he spoke to her while walking to the podium, where he set her on her feet, and The Wife took her hand. They stood slightly behind the candidate to his right and when Mrs. Stevenson turned to the side, Ramona realized that she was pregnant and just beginning to show.

The two men who had come out with the candidate stood to his left, speaking to each other in tones too low to carry to anyone else. Somehow, they managed to convey both smugness and excitement, but there was a hint of attitude about their expressions and demeanor when they looked over the press corps, such as it was. Protection, Ramona guessed. Even political nobodies insisted on security these days. She wondered if they had firearms stashed beneath their coats. Probably.

At the podium, Stevenson cut his eyes to them and they returned his look. Not a word was spoken, but communication nevertheless took place, no doubt about it. Significant communication. More than security, then. More than hirelings or acquaintances or campaign volunteers. These two would bear looking into.

In the viewfinder, the candidate's eyes swept the press representatives before him but if he was disappointed by the paltry attendance, he didn't show it. Resting his hands on edges of the podium, he said, "Thank you for coming out. My name is Randy Stevenson, and I'm here to announce my candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives, Florida District Four."

Applause rose up from the gathering behind him.

"I have never held or run for office. I'm running now because our federal government is out of control...."

His spoke with a classic Southern accent -- the type Hollywood actors sought to emulate, usually with little success. That marked him as an outsider in Jacksonville, where speech patterns were highly influenced by Navy personnel and retirees from elsewhere, and northern transplants. His was the dialect of the coastal plain.

A low-end sound system comprising a microphone on a stand atop the lectern, a hidden amplifier and small speakers tucked among the mums, was sufficient to carry his voice to the press tent. The volume of his mid-range timbre suggested he was soft-spoken most of the time, but Ramona suspected he'd have no problem projecting without the amplification. He was not a novice at public speaking.

Even as she appreciated the way Stevenson spoke, behind her camera, Ramona rolled her eyes at what he was saying. Standard Republican stuff -- government too big, out of control, jeopardizing the people's liberty, too much taxing, too much spending, mortgaging our children's future...

Nope, there were no surprises in what he said, but Ramona was struck by one thing. The sincerity -- the conviction -- with which he said them. Maybe he was green enough to be a true believer. If so, he'd find out soon enough about the reality of politics.

More Excerpts

Southern Man -- At the Scoreboard Tavern ~ Playmates to Friends
Sweet Southern Boys -- Incident At a Riverside Party

Little Sister -- Ainsley Comes Home
Neo-Confederate -- Randy's Decision

______________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS INVITED! Let us know what you think of this excerpt, or any

other comments you may have about 180 DTS. Click the comment link below.

______________________________________________________________

For Your Listenin' Pleasure....

2012-01-03T20:54:00.000-08:00

Folks, it's been fun pointing out the perfesser's foibles and talking a little history about General Forrest, but now it's time for a pause. I'm going on break for a few days to work on some writing pursuits and author services projects (and possibly a companion website for this blog).

Meanwhile, here's another musical interlude for your enjoyment -- this one from the Golden Era of Rock and Roll...

On the Rebound -- Floyd Cramer, 1961
(Country rock, mid-century style.)

My Little Red Book -- Manfred Mann, 1965
(Had to have one group from across the pond.)

Kicks -- Paul Revere and the Raiders, 1966
(How I loved watching these boys pony!)

So Very Hard to Go -- Tower of Power, 1973
(Soul that hits you in the heart.)

His Lips Are Movin' Again....

2012-01-02T18:11:00.000-08:00

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....

What Does Involvement ... Involve ... Exactly?

2012-01-01T23:40:00.000-08:00

People at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook -- and other internet places -- know that I've recently been looking for primary historical source documentation (aka PHSD) for Nathan Bedford Forrest's activities as a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

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)

The Lies of Brooks Simpson

2011-12-31T11:22:00.000-08:00

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I cannot help but wonder how somebody with such
questionable ethics could land such a responsible
position at a major state university. ~Connie Chastain

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I hadn't really planned to start tracking the lies of the Lyin' SOBs this soon, but Brooks Simpson has made himself hard to ignore. In the comment thread of a blog entry dated Dec. 29 and titled "Stirring the Pot," his mendacity is on conspicuous display.

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."

It'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)

Happy New Year! Coming in 2012 from 180 DTS!

2011-12-30T12:27:00.000-08:00

Here's a little of what to expect the coming year from 180 Degrees True South.

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

Disclosure

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.

My Novels

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...

Cover Mockups (some images are copyrighted comp images)

More Music Like They Don't Make Anymore

2011-12-21T01:18:00.000-08:00

Nelson Riddle, "Route 66 Theme" -- Ah, Buzz and Todd...They don't make guys like you anymore, either....

"Alone" -- The Great Billy Vaughn -- Used to play Goofy Golf in Panama City, Florida to this kind of music... Even amusement parks and fun-stuff had class back then.

Acker Bilk and "Stranger on the Shore" -- what can you say? It's just beautiful.

The Raven Chronicles

2011-12-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

On the comment thread following Kevin Levin's article at The Atlantic, Susan Frise Hathaway posted a civil and thoughtful comment -- to which somebody named The Raven replied, starting with this ad hominem attack:

"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...")
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-to-bring-back-backsass.html
Backsass -- Quoth the Raven
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/backsass-quoth-raven.html

Yesterday, over at Perfesser Simpson's Crossroads, she posted to me:

"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.

But not to worry. I saved a copy. Here 'tis:

My, my. Such snippiness.
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 8
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
That's obsession.
Oh, 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 …
--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
Stay in school and study hard, Raven, and you to might aspire to becoming a romance reader some day.

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.

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.

Hate Rants at the SHPG?

2011-12-11T05:34:00.000-08:00

Somebody named Cornbread Bridgeman, who hangs around comment threads at Corey Meyer's "Blood of My Kindred Blog" writes, "Ms Chastain, apparently you are totally incapable of unbiased thought since you can visit the SHPG and not see several examples of hate-filled rhetoric so there is no sense in me communicating with you any longer."

Well, folks -- I cain't see what ain't there. I posted the following at Kindred... It remains to be seen whether it will be approved or censored:

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:

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

Not a single instance of a hate-rant -- and these post are pretty much representative of what gets posted there all the time.

Censored Replies ... and more...

2011-12-10T05:57:00.000-08:00

I used to upload my censored comments to my ISP's server, but they no longer provide webhosting for personal webspace for their customers, so I'll post these here. Most of these are comments from Perfesser Simpson's blog, specifically following the "Romancing the Flag" entry -- and replies submitted by moi that never made it to the comments section.... Keep in mind that this is the man who complains about "censorship" at the SHPG.

Can you say double standard?

==========
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
==========

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.

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 8
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

Petty and hypocritical attitude he exhibits, isn't it?

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....

The Prevaricatin' Professer, Part Deux

2011-12-10T03:24:00.000-08:00

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.

The Prevaricatin' Professer

2011-12-09T14:51:00.000-08:00

Deceit by innuendo and implication

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

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

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

My questions:

(1) IF so many....? Don't ask me an "if" hypothetical. First establish whether something was or wasn't -- then ask me about what you've estblished.
(2) How many is "so many'? Who has quantified it?
(3) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves loved their masters? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.
(4) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves were loyal to the Confederacy? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.
(5) How many is "a good number"?
(6) Demonstrate what percentage of white Southerners that number represented, and thus establish how many Southern whites conducted a "war of terror" against African Americans, and how many didn't. Distinguish between those white Southerners who were engaging in self defense and protection of their families in a time of lawlessness and those who were conducting a war of terror. And since it is accepted that it was wrong for the KKK to terrorize freedmen, please explain why it was all right for union leagues to terrorize white Southerners...
(7) Reliably document it that they claimed African Americans were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA. Remember, using your sentence structure, we're talking about the claims of "a good number of white Southerners after the war." After identifying them (see question 5) provide primary historical source documentation for "their claims."
(8) Nathan Bedford Forrest was a former Confederate leader who try to stop that sort of terrorism.
(9) Who claims that slaves and former slaves "....supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?" Where/with whom did the "tens of thousands" figure originate? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

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

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

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

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

Sit back and relax...

2011-11-22T02:51:00.000-08:00

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

And Now for Something Completely Different

2011-11-20T23:27:00.000-08:00

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

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

2011-11-18T18:08:00.000-08:00

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

_______________________

I have a question for the Professor...

Look over yonder, in the sidebar.

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

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

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

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

Just didn't want you to miss it.

What's Wrong with This Icon?

2011-11-18T15:44:00.001-08:00

It's not big enough! So...

Precise Language....

2011-11-18T14:52:00.000-08:00

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

The professor has an interesting post up today:

Language, Interpretation, and Understanding

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

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

So much for precision in language....

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

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

Bigotry 101 -- Part Deux

2011-11-16T23:55:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement

2011-11-15T15:41:00.000-08:00

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

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

More coming soon, so stay tuned!

On Conversing with Fence Posts....

2011-11-14T23:38:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

Me: NO! Really? Ya think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So are you saying Southerners are responsible as well?

If they wanna be, why not?

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

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

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

Nah, just try writing something that makes sense.

Bigotry 101

2011-11-14T20:10:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

It took me to a screen that displayed this notice.

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

Connie Chastain: Brooks Simpson has a post up at Civil War Crossroads saying there are members of this group who "embrace" the desecration of monuments to Union heroes. He has a link presumably to a post advocating such desecration, but it takes you to a notice that the post has been removed or can't be loaded.
I know a lot of people think it's a waste of time engaging these yankee bloggers, and I'm not asking anybody to. I would just like to know if any one knows anything about the post/thread Simpson is referring to. I attempted to put the link in this message but Facebook won't allow it because it's an "invalid URL."
Generally speaking, I'm not enthusiastic about removing posts or threads, unless they are just over-the-top -- filthy language, sacreligious, etc. I'm especially disappointed when we censor threads such as the one Robert Baker figured prominently in several weeks ago, just because it got a little heated. But if that is the consensus of the leadership, I'll accept it. Just so you know, I am a strong advocate of freedom of expression whether I agree with it or not. I think ideas we disagree with should be met with counter ideas, not removed.
In any case, if anyone knows what that post/thread said and who made it, could you let me know? If you don't want to respond here, email me at conniechastain@gmail.com. Thanks.
JS: Gary posted here a couple of days ago, along with an apology, the picture of him joking around at Grant's monument in San Francisco. It created a firestorm. This group does not encourage the desecration of yankee monuments we have to be a cut above those that desecrate our monuments!
CR: I should say not, far from it! Only the Left and people like the Woodsboro Baptist Church advocate the destruction of soldiers monuments to American heroes.
KR: Connie, I do not know what he speaks of, but will be glad to take a closer look at it. I for one do not advocate desecration of any marker, monument, or gravesite, whether it be Confederate or Union. nor am i a believer in censorship. We can debate (even heatedly) as long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background.. stick to the subjects involved. First amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to me even if i deem it offensive or not, the individual has a right to say it. i have a choice to react or not react
BE: Connie, When there is an independent audience or neutral turf, then it's a joy putting them through the wringers, but if they are going to control the environment and even "Edit" your Posts, it's time to gather up your keyboard and go home.
CC: May I use these comments on my blog? ... I just want to put up an explanation for how abysmally stupid Simpson is being if he zeroes in on joking around as desecration while monuments and memorials to Confederates are removed or targeted day after day...
JS: You have my OK Connie!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On respect for flags...

2011-11-11T16:33:00.000-08:00

The furor over the decision of the state of Texas to prohibit the issuing of license plates for the Sons of Confederate Veterans (the so-called "Confederate flag license plate"), combined with Veterans Day observance, has given me pause to think.

Not allowed for a Confederate flag. Okay for Old Glory.

Isn't it odd that people who mm-mm-mm over the trivialization of the Confederate flag (see HERE, HERE and HERE) virtually ignore the trivialization of the U.S. flag -- and it a flag of sovereignty -- like the examples at the end of this commentary?

Why do you suppose that is? Well, it's not hard to figure out. The purpose of criticizing trivialization of the Confederate flags is, quite simply, demonization -- and the people who do it absolutely LUST after demonizing Confederate heritage advocates in specific, and white Southerners in general. They have NO desire whatever to demonize U.S. Americans, who are no less guilty of the same things -- and sometimes worse things.

F'rinstance, Corey Meyer posts repeatedly about how the SCV doesn't properly honor the Confederate Flag but makes a LOT of illogical, off-the-wall ass-umptions in order to do so. HERE, he writes, "I see the SCV have place the world’s largest confederate rag along the interstate down in Florida, and I wonder if this was really about heritage or not? When the SCV placed this flag here do you think they had the following two images in mind as well? For the Neo-Confederates to hold the rebel rag so dear to their heart, I must say that, well no pun intended, to put the rebel rag symbol on a pair of testicles takes balls!!"

...

Pardon me for pointing it out, but it's a stupid question. Why would they have these two images in mind, just because you do? Yes, Corey YOU are the one who has these two images in mind -- that's obvious by your inclusion of them on your blog -- but because YOU do, don't imagine every one else does.

Now, a quick question for YOU. When you put that picture with the big-arse American flag front and center on your blog, did you have the following two images in mind?

...

Besides, what has putting a Confederate flag motif on a pair of plastic truck testicles got to do with "neo-Confederates"? Are you implying that neoConfederates did this? Where is your proof? Just tell us WHO did it, and how you know. Otherwise, you owe a lot of people an apology -- though I'm sure hell will freeze over first.

Look, when you and Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson and Andy Hall and all your myrmidons take on the responsibility for policing the trivialization and trashing of the U.S. Flag, THEN you might have a case for holding the SCV, or Southern Heritage advocates, responsible for policing the trivialization and trashing of the Confederate flag. Until you do, you are outting yourselves as hypocrites, liars and demonizers ... not to mention truly bad examples of -- and unfortunate excuses for -- Americans...

Dear Readers, when you scroll through the images below, keep in mind these words from the U.S. Code. (The "flag" referenced is, of course, the flag of the United States... Old Glory ... the Stars and Stripes....)

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Are we to assume, Corey, that the SUV or any other patriotic Americans have the stuff below in mind when they run a U.S. flag up a pole somewhere?

...

Reckon the patriotic pair above will need one of these before the night's over?

Such honor to Old Glory!

...

At least it's colorful!

Hey! A flag you can kick around, Corey...

Might wanna wear one of these while your doing it. Website sez, "Great for 4th of July parades and patriotic events." (Like presidential candidate debates, maybe?)

How about Flag paper plates, so you can smear Old Glory with food goo, and then toss it in the nearest dumpster?

Just what every red-blooded, pro-American, anti-Confederate blogger needs to be truly patriotic! An American flag doo rag!

Ooooh, gonna need a super gonzo Pledge Fabric Sweeper For Pet Hair to keep Fido's American Flag Pet Bed up to U.S. Code standards!

Oops, Corey! Call Christina quick -- tell her the U.S. Code sez No carrying things in flags!

Aw, how cute! American flag-motif diapers for little American Patriots behinds... Reckon Christina stocked up on these lofty symbols of American Flag respect?

Reckon our blogger friends have one of these in their blog offices?

Wanna WEAR the flag? U.S. Code is easy to ignore, when flag clothes are THIS goodlookin', huh, antiConfederate blogger fellers?
Love them "Patriotic polar fleece pants", don'chu?

More patriotic American flag junk that critics of the Confederate flag will surely dig, here: American Flag Wall of Shame

Gentlemen, methinks you need to get your own house in order before you start criticizing others'. Remember ... pots and kettles, motes and beams, and all that.

Interesting (Repeat) Visitors

2011-11-08T20:57:00.001-08:00

I don't pay a lot of attention to the hit counter/visitor log for 180 Degrees True South. I'm more interested in visits to ConnieChastain.com and Word Slinger Boutique. But I do check it every so often. I'm gratified by the occasional visit from a .mil domain, and I often wonder whether the Pentagon is keepin' and eye on me, or whether some Southern soldier, far away from home, visits to read a little about his heritage.

The hits from the State Department are a bit more intriguing. Why on earth...? I mean, I don't even own a passport....

But recently, doing a quick check of my visitor log, I noticed something really, really interesting. Here are the entries that caught my eye the past two days, from a screen grab of my visitor log. I've had to truncate some of the info and scrunch them up a little...

I wonder who's located in Gilbert, Arizona, and other locations in and around Phoenix... where the University of Arizona's various campuses are located... I've received visits from IP addresses in Scottsdale and Tempe, too... Hmmmm...

And who in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be interested in little ol' moi's blog enough to visit ... 107 times! (West Roxbury, huh? Seems like I've read about that place not too long ago... Oh, yeah, I remember: http://cwmemory.com/2011/07/09/civil-war-memory-in-my-backyard/

But the most mystifying are the visits from two IP addresses in Galveston, Texas.... 108 visits from 98.196.150.124 and 146 from 129.109.21.67 (apparently an IP address of the University of Texas)...

So, does this mean One-Eighty is developing a ... following? Or what? LOL!

Playin' the Victim Card

2011-11-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

High drammer, as my Daddy used to say. Pore widdle Keffin....

KEVIN'S VICTIM CARD POST

I don't mind linking to his blog, or Perfesser Simpson's or Corey's. I don't mind folks seeing for themselves what those people are up to.... I pretty much don't pay attention to Andy anymore, since he's the only one who's stuck by his statement to ignore us. (The only caution I'd have about his Dead Confederates blog is to knock back some No-Doz or Vivarin a half-hour or so before you visit.) As I recall, Levin didn't make such a statement, Perfesser Simpson did, and broke it in a matter of days -- or was it hours? Corey held out the longest before his obsession with us Lost Causers and Mechanized Cavalry babes broke through and made it onto his blog screen....

_________________________________________________

Well it proves one thing ... It proves that you wealthy college
boys don't have education enough to admit when you're wrong.

Sam Quint, Jaws

Unintended Humor (from the Humor Impaired)

2011-11-02T00:08:00.000-07:00

So I make up this little poll while I'm waiting for content to upload to another of my websites... I post it between 10 and 11 Tuesday morning. Blogspot always puts the wrong time on my blog entries -- not sure why, because the clock on my computer has the correct time.

At any rate, something like about three hours after I posted the poll, Perfesser Simpson is bloggin' about it (and he calls ME obsessed, LOL!)

Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!

For those of you who don’t like Kevin Levin, here’s the poll you’ve all been waiting to see, prepared by a blogger whose obsession with other bloggers is legendary, judging from the contents of her blog.

Maybe now that some folks have gotten that out of their system, we can move on.
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/vote-early-vote-often-but-vote/#comments

Why is humor soooo much funnier when it comes from the humor impaired? I mean, Perfesser, you could move on regardless of what I do or don't do. You realize that, don't you? Unless you're acknowledging that I have some ... power ... some hold ... over whether you, or your blog, or your comment thread satellites, can move on....?

Speaking of comment threads, there are only four following the Perfesser's post as of this writing, but they're even funnier than the original “Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!” post itself! Take a gander:

Charles Persinger
November 1, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

I see nobody has participated in the poll as of yet—i guess when her blog only has a handful of followers there isn’t much participation.

Wow! Nobody has participated in the first three hours of a poll that will be online until December 31? Oh, woe is me!

Brooks D. Simpson
November 1, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

When I visited to get the link, a grand total of thirteen people (one for each star on the CSA flag) had voted. You have to poke around the poll to discover that.

So, twenty-seven minutes after Charlie posts, Perfesser Simpson suddenly finds there have been thirteen respondants. Whoops. I guess being able to count is what separates the perfessers from the sycophant comment-posters... The perfesser continues:

I think it’s an “unfortunate circumstance” that the poll’s results are not readily visible without a bit of poking around. :) That said … Kevin gets his own poll! Rats! :)*

And Charlie responds:

Charles Persinger
November 1, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

I should have looked harder but I’m afraid i will lose brain cells if i stay to long.

Whew! Good thing he didn't hang around. Doesn't look like he has a whole lot of brain cells to lose!

James F. Epperson
November 1, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

This woman keeps finding ways to exceed herself …

Why thank you, sir.

*(More about the "unfortunate circumstance" reference here: http://members.cox.net/180dts/CensoredReplies.html)

Censored Replies Now Visible

2011-11-01T21:16:00.001-07:00

Click the graphic below to read 'em.

Use your browser's BACK button to return here.

Vote in the Poll!

2011-11-01T07:51:00.000-07:00

Poll------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Who does Kevin Levin love bashing the most? There are no right and wrong answers -- this is an opinion poll only. (More commentary to come later... I'm busy right now.)

Credit Where Credit is Due

2011-10-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday (October 14) I received the following private message through Facebook's message service:

Connie...

Someone passed this link onto me today....

http://xxxxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxx.html

Not quite sure what it all is, but the top seemed like it had some private information. Please advise me what to do with this, I honestly do not want to be recieving your personal information online and I will try to stop the person(s) from passing this around.

Corey

The URL was to my home page, an html page with a table of three rows and eight columns filled with live links (169 of them). These links are the quickest way for me to access websites I visit most frequently -- quicker, even, than using a browser's dropdown favorites/bookmarks menu.

Normally, the links page resides on my C: drive and loads automatically as the home page of whatever browser I'm using -- most often, IE or Firefox. (I also use Opera and Chrome to view the webpages I design for Word Slinger Boutique customers, but I rarely use them for my own browsing.)

Anyhoo, for the past several weeks, I've experienced much grief with my computers, as I've written about a couple of places. Because the disk drives on both machines were corrupted and/or unreliable, about three weeks ago I uploaded my home page/links page to private webspace provided by my ISP, so I would have access to it regardless of what computer I was using.

When our machines finally got stable enough to use fairly normally, I started using the home page on my C: drive again and used the one on my ISP's server only when my browsers were were being difficult ("Webpage cannot be displayed.") rather than precipitating a blue-screen crash. As the systems stabilized, the misbhaving occurred less frequently and, frankly, I forgot about the page being on my ISP's server.

When I got Corey's message, I hafta tell you, I flew into a bit of a tizzy. There was indeed private info (log-on info) to a couple of very important websites. I immediately deleted the page from my ISP's server and changed the log-ons at the websites.

Since Corey is a member of the loyal opposition, I assumed someone from his circle sent him the URL to my page. Right now, I am in the crosshairs at Crossroads, so I asked Professor Simpson if he was the one who sent the link to Corey. In reply, Andy Hall posted on the comment thread to explain to me that when I clicked one of those links, it would send the URL of my page to the site I was visiting, so likely my personal page had been sent to any number of sites and blogs. Anyone checking their hit log could see a live link, click it and go to my page. Of course, I knew this, but it didn't occur to me because I normally browse using my home page on my C: drive, which cannot be accessed that way.

Andy was right -- it's my doing, and my responsibility, that the URL went to people's visitor logs; but I was mainly curious about who would email the link around. Corey ain't sayin', which is certainly his prerogative, so I likely won't find out who it was.

In any case, through my own oversight, because of my almost total focus on these misbehaving machines, very sensitive personal, private information (mine and my husband's) is now floating around out in cyberspace. The log-ons are no longer functional, but they would be -- for no telling how long -- if Corey had not notified me.

So Corey, we may be on opposite sides of the Civil War, and we may irritate the hell out of each other, and frankly, I don't have a lot of patience with some folks in your cyber-circle, but I have to tell, I do appreciate what you've done. My gratitude is plentiful and sincere.

Thank you, sir.

Answering the Anti-Confederate Bloggers

2011-10-14T00:38:00.000-07:00

At one time, I was amazed by the interest two academic Civil War bloggers show in an anonymous social networking group and other discussion/chat groups on the internet.

You see, at some point in my life, I had acquired the notion that academics sat in their ivory towers thinking lofty thoughts, far above the rest of us common folk with our conventions and contentions...

Boy, was I wrong. I've learned they can be as petty and thin-skinned as any plebian down here on the sidewalk of life.

Before my recent computer crashes and resultant time lost online, I had planned to address some posts and comments made by these guys and their myrmidons, but ... time moves on, and there's a whole new crop of lies, half-truths, idiocy and egoism -- and an infrequent honest question -- to address...

Stay tuned. I may or may not post what I'm replying to. If you get curious, consult the Index below and follow the links to the blog posts in question. My comments, replies and observations are in no particular order -- just whatever I feel like addressing at any given time.

I'll start here with some comments to/for/from/about Crossroads:

Professor Simpson, Connie is my given name. Chastain is my maiden name (also my author name). Have you ever heard of the convention in western culture of women who marry taking their husband's surname? That's where Ward comes from. It is my married name. Connie Reb is a nickname.

You're trying awful hard to be condescending and you're only making yourself look foolish in the process.

More information for those to whom this subject is unclear:
Given name: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/given+name
Maiden name: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maiden+name
Married name: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/married%20name
Nickname: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nickname

The GROUP believes there was a Confederate regiment of black cooks? There are over a thousand people in the group, and they all believe that? They're all mental clones? They would all HAVE to believe it for the GROUP to believe it, wouldn't they? Maybe that's how you group-think people operate, all thinking alike, so you attribute it to others but I see a great deal more discussion, diverse ideas, and even disagreement in SHPG than I do from the sycophants who post at your blog and Kevin's.

I know about that mistake Ann made, you know I know it, because we discussed it on Andy Hall's blog. What you're doing by unnecessarily bringing this up over and over is known as piling on, "... a phrase used in American football, where defenders throw themselves onto a pile of other defenders, under which is the ball carrier. It's a needless activity, since the ball carrier is already down and the play is over." (Found in an online forum.) The whistle has blown, Professor. Show a little class, a little gentlemanliness. Let it go.

So, you doubt the WPA Slave Narratives? You think Prince Johnson ought to be "worked"? Did you actually mean "worked over"? That's slang, btw, which means to inflict severe physical damage on; beat up. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/work+over) Perhaps Prince needs a severe academic beating -- to show he's lying? Since he presents ideas you slavery-focused anti-Confederates disapprove of, he needs to be run through the academic wringer, beaten into submission and come out "proving" what you all believe -- or at least come out neutralized....

__________________________

Simpson told one of his commenters: "Connie’s had her say (and can continue to have it on her own blog). Among those who appreciate her message is Michael Hill of the League of the South, an organization Connie holds in high esteem. Connie waffled about her feelings about the League when I confronted her with this material, although she gladly links to it … but when Hill complimented her work, she did not object. I don’t think anyone’s fooled about how she feels about the League of the South, even if she lacks the courage to just come out and endorse Hill’s view of matters."

This is incredible! Truly astounding! Professor Simpson knows all this just from seeing a link on a blog. Isn't that amazing? He can just look a link on the Internet and know what the person who put it there thinks and feels... Doesn't have to consult a crystal ball, doesn't have to call Miss Clio, doesn't have to throw chicken bones -- He. Just. Knows.

This post from him illustrates the truth that you don't have to have common sense to be an academic. He apparently doesn't realize that I didn't waffle or lack courage when he "confronted" me (smirk) several weeks ago with this material -- "this material" being a link to the League, which you can see by scrolling down and looking on the righthand side bar for "Interesting Websites." There, you will also find links to Patriot Press Books, Black Confederate Soldiers, Discriminatory Freight Rates, Douglas Harper's Civil War Essays, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Author Nancy Brewer. (Wonder what THOSE links "tell" him.)

The fact that Simpson ignored them all to focus solely on the League tells you a whole lot more about him than it does about me. At any rate, my response, or non-response, was not from waffling or a lack of courage -- it was from my extreme contempt for his ludicrous demand.

However, since it really isn't an earth-shattering revelation, I don't mind providing information about my involvement with the League and my thoughts on its principles.

If memory serves, I have been a member of the League twice, possibly three times, in the past twelve years. I once served as the chairman and webmaster of a small, local chapter. I am not currently a member.

I originally joined the League after observing it for 18 months. Shortly after I discovered DixieNet on the web, I came across a claim that the League was a "racist hate group" and I wanted nothing to do with one of those. The claim came from a wholly unreliable source and I suspected it was dismissible, but I wanted to make sure, so I read League literature and observed League activities both online and in person, for a year and a half. I concluded that the claim was not true, so I joined for the following reasons:

1. I believe in the right of secession, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (the right of the people, endowed upon them by their Creator, to alter or abolish their government and to create another that suits them better). I believe it is the only way to keep a government from becoming tyrannical. (Well, revolution is another way, but I prefer peaceful secession to violent revolution.)

2. I believe the South would be better off as a nation on its own.

3. I believe the South has always been culturally distinct from the rest of the United States (which is why it has been known as "a nation within a nation") and I support the cultural strengthening required to keep it that way, particularly in the face of efforts, deliberate and inadvertent, to amalgamate and homogenize it into the rest of the country.

The League of the South supports the right of secession, and particularly the right of the Southern states to secede and form their own nation, and the renewal and strengthening of the South's unique culture.

And I certainly do not object to Dr. Hill's compliment about my writing.

~TO BE CONTINUED~

__________________________

INDEX

Civil War Memory, Kevin Levin
It’s Not a Good Day For the Black Confederate Myth Makers
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/12/its-not-a-good-day-for-the-black-confederate-myth-makers/
History Detectives Embrace Reconciliation at the Expense of History
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/12/history-detectives-embrace-reconciliation-at-the-expense-of-history/
History Detectives Tell Us What We Already Know
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/11/history-detectives-tell-us-what-we-already-know/
Portraying Silas and Andrew Chandler
http://cwmemory.com/2011/10/11/portraying-silas-and-andrew-chandler/

The Blood of My Kindred, Corey Meyer

Black Confederate Researcher Fails To Read Her Own Discoveries
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/black-confederate-researcher-fails-to-read-her-own-discoveries/
Connie Chastain Forces a Long Post…as Usual!
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/connie-chastain-forces-a-long-post-as-usual/

Crossroads, Brooks Simpson

Facts? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Facts!
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/facts-we-dont-need-no-stinking-facts/
Denial’s Not Just a River in Egypt
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/denials-not-just-a-river-in-egypt/
The Flag Question, Confederate Heritage, and Southern Heritage
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/the-flag-question-confederate-heritage-and-southern-heritage/

Satire and Video

2011-09-19T12:34:00.000-07:00

It's September -- School Days -- and our favorite Civil War bloggers, the Four Horsemen of the Apoplectic, have evidently gotten too busy to write blog entries, because they've fallen back on posting videos. Brooks is an academic, and Corey claims to be a school teacher, but I'm not sure what's going on with the other two. Levin doesn't teach anymore, since he relocated to Beantown, and I've never known Andy's occupation, so I don't know if he's in academia.

Aside from possibly a busy new school year, I don't know what has prompted Perfesser Simpson's string of outdated videos (the McPherson interview video displaying as I write this, is from 2009) , one-line blog entries and a rehash of Levin's Sebesta essay. Nevertheless, he manages to find time to post snide comments about me on other bloggers' comment threads.

Levin recently posted a video titled "How the South Was Lost" -- an amateur production ridiculing Confederate soldiers (the video has them killing each other and their lieutenant or whatever, making like a coward and running away). Sed Levin, "This has got to be my favorite Civil War video. I’ve posted it before, but many of you who are relatively new to the blog have probably not seen it. It’s a classic. Enjoy."

I posted a link to it on Southern Heritage Preservation Group's Facebook page, along with photos of battlefields strewn with the bodies of Confederate soldiers, to show what Levin and the video are ridiculing. In reply, he made another blog post, showing a screenshot of my SHPG entry along with a comment by a Lucas Bernard.

Levin's short blog post said, "The other day my friends at Facebook’s SHPG page got all worked up about a stupid video that I posted on Thursday. Apparently, the members of this group have completely lost their ability to laugh in their zeal to stamp out the enemy that they see all around them. Funny that they never speak out when I post videos about Abraham Lincoln that others have found problematic. Oh well. Lucas looks like he is right out of high school and I suspect he has little in common with the political and cultural baggage that the majority of these members carry around with them. I anticipate that he won’t last long in this group. Either Lucas will leave on his own or he will be forced out. Good luck, dude."

So, in a mere two days, the video has gone from his "favorite" video and "classic" to... "stupid." Looks kinda schizoid to me -- unless he really likes stupid videos (which shouldn't surprise any of us). Anyhoo, at the time, there were 55 comments, but he chose to display only this one by the aforementioned Lucas:

"It's just satire, my goodness. So he as anti-Southern opinions, many of you have anti-Northern opinions. Why can't we enjoy satire for satire's sake, why take it so serious when it doesn't even take itself seriously? I thought it was hilarious, but hey, I'm a Mark Twain type of Southern guy, and I love a good piece of satire. If you can make fun of yourself then you never learn to really laugh. Both sides did terrible things during the war, it's war, and war is terrible. No one comes out of it without transgression. To quote a great man, 'It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.'"

Where to start.... Does Levin no longer recognize lies when he tells them, I wonder? Or does he know it, and do it anyway, specifically: Apparently, the members of this group have completely lost their ability to laugh in their zeal to stamp out the enemy that they see all around them.

Why, no. We have lots of fun over there. Consider these comments made after Levin displayed his zeal to stamp out H.K. Edgerton's efforts on behalf of Southern heritage.

A little background. H.K. spoke to the Lexington City Council before their vote to prohibit Confederate flags flying from city flagstaffs and Levin posted this shrill screed he titled, "Entertainment for White People."
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/01/entertainment-for-white-people/

It included video of H.K. that had nothing to do with the Lexington issue and included this permissible racist observation about H.K. (leftist racism is acceptable, don'tcha know): He comes from a long line of mythical black symbols that include “Mammy”, Aunt Jemimah, Uncle Ben, and countless other black minstrels during the twentieth century that perpetuated the myth of the loyal slave.

In the SHPG comment thread about Levin's racist and disrespectful blog post, I noted, "You learn something new every day. I always just assumed that H.K. came from where all of us come from ... mamas and daddies. Wonder if Kevin has some scientific explanation, or at least a theory, about how a person can come from a line of symbols."

To which David Tatum replied, "So on HKs' birth certificate it should say, Father- Uncle Ben, Mother-Aunt Jemimah!"

Ba-dum ching!

Can't laugh? That absolutely Broke. Me. Up! Southerners have a marvelous sense of humor, and of course we laugh ... when something is truly humorous. Levin's problem is that he can't tell humor from ridicule and amusement from insult. At least, he pretends not to. Apparently.

The interesting thing about Bernard is that he'd never posted on SHPG before this thread, and very likely came to SHPG from Levin's site. It's a safe bet the other new commenter on that thread also was directed to the SHPG by Levin's blog post. They came over to set us hicks, rubes and scum-sucking racist Confederate flag flyers straight -- that the war was a laughing matter and the death of Confederate soldiers is a fit subject for parody, satire and ridicule. I don't think they were prepared for the vigorous defense with which we tore their arguments to shreds.

Anyhow, somebody at SHPG took the thread down -- not sure who or why. I wanted it to stay up, as I wasn't finished answering some of the comments. However, it does provide me with the material to illustrate some rich irony....

Back over on Civil War Memory, Perfesser Simpson posted: Actually, what I found amusing is that a thread which complained about censorship ultimately disappeared when the owners of the group found that a few folks were hitting too close to home. ... BTW, I find perfectly understandable Ann DeWitt’s decision not to post under her own name given the quality of her scholarship. After all, Connie Ward/Chastain/Reb/whatever has problems sticking to one name as well.

First, I started that thread and was involved in it throughout its existence, and I saw no complaints about censorship. Second, the attacks on Ann DeWitt from this "academic" crowd, who apparently actually believe they know everyone's motives, thoughts, feelings (but claim nobody can know what black Confederates thought and felt) grow more and more breathtaking. Finally, Brooks' comments about censorship at the SHPG is richly ironic, considering that he, like Levin, censors/blocks every comment I try to post at his blog and -- are you ready? -- he posted that to a thread at Levin's blog, from which my comment below had been blocked:

I know you won't let this comment through. It's too truthful and revealing. Nevertheless...

You and your commenters enjoy laughing about dead soldiers -- as long as they're Confederates? As for this blog entry, Mr. Levin, your motive is sooo clearly revealed -- in what you leave out. You put a link to YOUR blog entry with the video, and a screenshot of young Bernard's response -- but not mine. Not my point that this "favorite" video of yours ridicules Confederate soldiers who were killed defending their country. You like laughing about dead Southern soldiers?

Mr. O'Hara, I don't go looking for video ridiculing dead yanks -- or dead American soldiers. Try to find anything even barely equivalent on my blog. Sorry if that disillusions you about me and my motives. Oh, and Mr. Lyons is a "they"? I thought he was a "he."

Michael, please go through the Southern Heritage Preservation Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/shpg1/ -- or my blog -- and try to find where we parody and satirize union deaths, and laugh at them. We are justifiably critical of the union army's brutality and their lack of moral authority for invading and warring upon the South, but we don't make "cute" videos laughing at their deaths.

Mr. Simpson, we defend Confederate heritage because, as I've explained, and as you who monitor us ought to know, it is the part of Southern heritage that is under concerted and sustained attack -- which you, Levin, Meyer and others support and join in.

So I've been taken to task for my inability to laugh at satire. Maybe I should rethink my position...

Therefore, I'm considering seeking a bit of capital to finance the production of my own satirical video about union soldiers. But not about them dying, oh, no. About what living union soldiers did. I'll call it "How the North Won the War" with a subtitle, "Bummin' with Sherman, Annihilating with Sheridan, Preying with Butler, Molesting with Turchin."

We'll have video vignettes of bluecoats brutally raping Southern women, black and white. Hilarious, huh? Another quick scene of yanks burning a town, leaving the residents with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Hilarious! How about another town-destroying scene filmed from the Southern POV of shells striking homes and buildings wherein civilians are cut in half by exploding shells and their bodies riddled with shrapnel? Hilarous!

How about a series of flash scenes showing Sherman's bummers shooting family pets for fun? Hilarous! And another depicting yank soldiers burning homes -- after stealing the jewelry and silverware, taking what food they could carry and destroying the rest, leaving a family to starve! Hilarious!

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Now, who sez we got no sensahuma?

(Photos: Wikimedia Commons)

The Lexington Mentality

2011-09-03T00:13:00.000-07:00

Okay, folks. Don't get yourselves in a tizzy over the illustrations below. They are SYMBOLIC graphic representations of the mentality shown by the Lexington City Council in its vote to prohibit Confederate flags from flying on city-owned flagpoles.

It's obviously repressive -- but how? It is contemptuous of its own past, so that gives us a clue. There comes to mind two examples from the previous century of repressive regimes hostile to the past -- the USSR under Joseph Stalin and Afghanistan under the Taliban. (Text continues below graphic.)

Stalin was infamous for his purges not only of those who opposed him politically, but of their very memory constructed in the past, carefully cutting their images out of photos in books and slicing away written references to them.

Likely we all remember the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues almost 2,000 years old, to the dismay of most of the world.

The city council didn't vote to blow anything up yet, so at this point, Lexington looks more like Stalinton than Lexingstan.

Bloggers hostile to Southern heritage are having a field day, attempting to evilize (or, at least in this case, stupidize) Southerners who honor that heritage because they might have been misinformed about what the city's vote was intended to do. The shrill derision aimed at opponents of the ordinance inspired me to post the following at Civil War Memory.

This decision was reactionary -- it was instigated after, and because, the SCV flew flags from city owned staffs for their Lee-Jackson commemoration. It wasn't instigated after some Girl Scout flags were displayed, or GBLT Rainbow flags were displayed. The ordinance was designed specifically to prohibit Confederate flags from flying on those staffs -- everybody else's organizational flag-flying was collateral damage -- sacrificed for the sake of sticking it to the SCV and Confederate heritage. It was the city's (and some university faculty's) middle finger in the face of the SCV.

And this is my response to a gentlemen who explained things in terms a little less offensive than what is normally aimed at me over there:

Mr. S---, I have never claimed that it was unconstitutional. In fact, I have explained this to people on Facebook groups where I post -- that the ordinance is not a First Amendment, free-expression issue. It doesn't apply to personal displays of the flag. Yet.

For some of us, however, there is a problem with it, whether you see it or not. I clearly understand that the city did this purposely to prohibit Confederate flags displays on city property. (From the photos I've seen, these are small flagpoles mounted at an angle on larger poles, apparently lampposts.) It is the city -- officials elected to represent all the people of the town -- sitting in judgment of those who honor its history, at the behest of a few instigators, the primary one being an immigrant to this country motivated by a deliberate or inadvertent misunderstanding of Lexington's history and heritage.

This is an example of the ongoing official eradication of the South's Confederate heritage accomplished in tiny increments. There are people who say that's not happening but here's an instance of it going on before our very eyes. And if the city can do this, it can ban people carrying flags on city-owned sidewalks or displaying flags on vehicles that travel city-owned streets ("Oh, no, we're not encroaching on your First Amendment rights. You can still display your flags -- just not on our poles, or on our sidewalks or on our streets....")

So, do y'all like the graphic? I'd love to see photos of these things duct taped to "city property" (flag poles? lamp posts?) all over Lexington. I'd love to see them all over Dixie's corner of cyberspace, too. You can see a larger version by clicking the image; and you can download a .pdf version by clicking the link below. (Note: Download at your own risk. The image/pdf files and my personal webspace supplied by my ISP were virus- and malware-free at the time of uploading, but who knows what happens after that....)

STALINTON/LEXINGSTAN PDF IMAGE

Tiptoeing and stalking and monolithic Dixie

2011-08-26T20:44:00.000-07:00

"Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog)." ~Brooks Simpson, to Moi

I have a mission for my readers, complete with a reward. Find where I have admitted stalking on my blog, which Mr. Simpson charges. The stalking kitten post from August 23 does not count, because it was made 7 hours and 40 minutes after his claim.

If you can find where I "admit stalking" on 180DTS, you're a winner! You have your choice of reward: this nifty Lincoln-MLK T-shirt iron-on transfer, or a PDF copy of my novel, Southern Man.

Just email proof (a copy-paste from my blog and link to the page will be sufficient) to 180dts@cox.net. Yours truly will announce the winner if and when there is one. I am the sole decision-maker in that regard -- Hey! It's my blog and my idea. If you don't like it, don't play.

Since I've brought up one Brooks Simpson quote, how about another? And it's a doozy, folks:

"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."~Brooks Simpson.

This claim is yet another fascinating look into the academic mindset. When they troll our blogs, groups and sites looking for fodder to ridicule or mischaracterize on their blogs, it's "tiptoeing through the internet..." When we visit their blogs and post on their comment threads, we are fringe elements and cockroaches out stalking....

Perfesser Simpson is all het up about the link on my blog to the League of the South. He posted something, a speech or something, by Dr. Michael Hill and then made claims about it; I haven't read or listened to Dr. Hill's speech, so I don't know if or how badly Simpson is mischaracterizing it, but I do know, from observation roughly a decade old, that the League's writing sometimes gets mischaracterized and outright lied about.

I might assuage the perfesser's curiosity about myself and the League -- or I might not. But not until I'm good and ready to. Meanwhile, all this brings to my mind an anti-Southern liberal Mississippian I used to encounter on a discussion group way back in the very early 2000s -- I'll call him Mississippi Guy -- and how he breathtakingly mischaracterized a League quote. He so completely distorted it, even Brooks Simpson would be able to see the distortion. Here's the League quote:

"The League of the South champions without apology the traditional core Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community. Over the centuries, our culture has been enriched in subtle ways by the influences of other non-dominant, cultural groups, particularly by black Southerners and the French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana, but at its essence, the South has always remained a predominantly Anglo-Celtic civilisation." From: "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach"

Mississippi Guy said, among other things, that he appreciated the contributions our "venerable Scottish ancestors" made to the South, but he could not support the League's view that the immigrants who settled the South were monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) and he could not support the League's goal of a monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white) South.

You don't have to possess a degree of any kind to see what's wrong with this, do ya?

Here's my reply to Mississippi Guy from all those years ago.

Mississippi Guy's assignment for the evening -- go to Dictionary.com, look up "dominant" and "monolithic" and learn the difference. Heck, I'll even save you the trip to Dictionary.com:

dominant -- exercising the most influence or control.
monolithic --characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity.

(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 excercising total influence or control.)

Since you like putting words (in this case, "monolithic") in people's mouths (in this case, Dr. Hill's), I think you need another lesson. I have listed below ALL occurances of the word monolithic on DixieNet. As you will see, in no case does it refer to the Anglo-Celtic culture of the South. However, to make sure you really learn your lesson, I think you need to go to DixieNet and use the on-site search engine and search the word "monolithic" yourself. Here's what you'll find:

--------------------
From "To Alter and Abolish – Secession Movements on the Move"
Diane Alden
http://www.dixienet.org/dixie-dispatches/diane-alden.htm
"Thus, big government, mega-corporations, various cultural movements, the monolithic mainstream media, corrupted educational system, and feel-good, unprincipled quasi-religions have tossed the Western cultural tradition into the ash heap."

From a Book Review of "The South Was Right"
http://www.dixienet.org/books/tswr.html
"The Kennedys' description of the contributions of Southern black Confederates to the Confederate war effort punctures the 'conventional wisdom' which holds that the Southern cause revolved solely around a monolithic Southern effort to preserve slavery.'

From "The Snakey State: Enemy of the People"
Ambrose Gonzales Elliott
http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol6no4/members30.htm
"He had no trouble gauging the monolithic attitudes among American journalists and understanding their essential dishonesty."

From "A Green Mountain Independence Party"
Thomas Naylor
http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol6no2/members28.htm
"Vermont needs a new political party -- a local independence party -- to challenge the two monolithic national parties and encourage Vermonters to downsize, decentralise, demilitarise, localise, and humanise their lives."
--------------------

That's it. That's all of 'em.

Mississippi Guy, please note... Just in case you missed it, 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.

So I ask again. Who is presenting a "monolithic" view of the South's settlers as Anglo-Celtic? What the League is saying (and it's plain as the nose on your face for people who aren't willingly blind to it) is that the immigrant group with the greatest number of people determined the South's core culture, and other groups added their influence. Think of it this way -- the Anglo-Celts baked the cake; other groups added the icing.

I don't think Mississippi Guy was an academic -- I think he worked in a department store -- but he had clearly learned to mis-think like one.

Are You Being Stalked?

2011-08-23T21:25:00.000-07:00

Over at the Civil War Crossroads thread, where Perfesser Simpson is telling us extreme fringes all about slave labor building the U.S. capitol, I have discovered I'm not only a fringe element and a cockroach eating garbage, but a stalker, to boot.

It started with this entry:
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/slave-labor-and-the-building-of-the-us-capitol/

Since he seemed to be mistaken about my position on this subject, I posted this in the comment thread:

In 1861, when the Union Army was making war on the South, Philip Reid, a slave from Maryland, was heavily involved in the creation of the statue of Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace that was later located atop the capitol dome. He was not emancipated until 1862. Now, if there were no slaves working on the capitol during the war then (1) the war did not start until after 1861 or (2) Philip was freed before the war started, not in 1862, or (3) Freedom Triumphant Over War and Peace is not part of the capitol….

He replied: "He replied:

You seem confused, Connie. I mentioned the emancipation of 1862, and Reid was a part of that emancipation. I did not say there were no slaves working on the Capitol during the entire war; I pointed to the end of slavery in DC in 1862 as marking when that would have ended.
For Reid’s story, see this.
Could you show me the plaque marking the contribution of enslaved black labor to the buildings used by the Confederate government in Richmond? Thanks.

Naturally, I couldn't let that go unanswered, so I posted:

I’m not confused, Mr. Simpson.
Your essay implies that the “extreme fringes” of the Southern heritage movement make claims that are not true — i.e., that slave labor was used to build the U.S. capitol while U.S. troops were warring on Southerners. In fact, it is true.
What Richmond and the Confederacy did or did not do has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of claiming the north was fighting to free slaves when (among other factors) (1) there were five slave states in the union and (2) slave labor (specifically Phillip Reid’s) helped to build the U.S. capitol WHILE U.S. troops were making war on Southerners.
The plaques acknowledging that slave labor was used to build the capitol didn’t exist until 2010, so the U.S. government didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to recognize that contribution for 149 years.
Maybe some people think sticking up a plaque almost a century and a half after the fact absolves the U.S. of its hypocrisy. I disagree.

Well, he couldn't let that one go unanswered, so he posted....

You are confused … and now you are misleading people. As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (thus the plaques), and some people seem to have that confused with what was going on in 1861-62 (when slavery ceased in the District of Columbia). I haven’t said that slaves were not involved in the process in 1861-62: I’ve said that I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you. That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion.
Now you claim that people are saying that the North went to war to free the slaves. I haven’t, so what’s your point?
As for hypocrisy, my understanding is that southerners have been part of the United States government for some time, and in fact white southern slaveholders took the lead in locating the District of Columbia in slave territory (and using their own slaves in the process). I also understand that you’re a United States citizen. Care to tell me what role southerns played in overturning this omission in the historical record? Or are they just as guilty as everyone else? Wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite to overlook that fact as you point fingers? Why yes, it does. But I’m sure you don’t understand that, either, which suggests why it’s a waste of time discussing things with you. Thanks for the reminder.
Meanwhile, of course, you remain silent on your embrace of the League of the South, including its call for violence. So much for southern courage.
It’s been interesting. Now continue your stalking (which you admit doing on your blog). Without folks like me you would have nothing to blog about to your dozen devoted readers. But, as you have reminded me to ignore you, I agree that to continue this would be to wallow in your mud puddle. Just don’t complain when you see the result.

Interesting thing is, I replied to that, but my reply isn't showing, can you imagine!

Mr. Levin popped in for a quick comment, "I like the strategy, Brooks. You can make the historical point without directing readers to these silly little sites and still feel comfortable knowing that they will eventually get around to reading it," to which Mr. Simpson replied: "Oh, I think we already have evidence of that. Helga Ross and Connie Chastain … stalkers."

I don't know who Helga Ross is, but apparently she's somebody else who visits civil war blogs and posts on comment threads.

I know my readers are just dyin' to know what I posted that Mr. Simpson was too authoritarian to let through, so here 'tiz:

__________

"I’ve seen significant confusion among some people who have chosen to comment on the broader subject, and that includes you." ~Mr. Simpson
Cite my comment, please. Along with a link? Surely if you're prepared to mention it, you're prepared to link to it.
"That you continue to change your story suggests that you now know that your original claims were based on such confusion." ~Mr. Simpson
Could you also post a couple of links to my "changing story" re: slave labor used to build the capitol while the union army was making war on Southerners -- one showing it one way, and one showing it another?
People do say the north went to war to free the slaves. Lots of 'em do. If you haven't said that, I'm obviously not talking about you.
My reference to hypocrisy was very clear and specific. It was the hypocrisy of the union's making war on the South for its practice of slavery while there five slaves states in the union and the U.S. capitol was being built using slave labor.
Quick question. Do you "embrace" every organization you post links to on your blog? The links on the sidebar of my blog (LS, UDC, SCV, and others) are for convenient access to the information on these sites for my visitors. Your imagination appears to have run away with your ideology. Nevertheless, since you asked, I'll probably post about the League on 180DTS -- when I'm ready to.

__________

Somehow, I just knew this would be the reply that got my participation in the thread derailed. Gotta have something to do with my asking him to cite my comment and changing story, with links.

I know what you're thinking. This is boring. You're right. Stalkin's a boring job, but hey, somebody's gotta do it.

(Photos: StockX.chng, Dreamstime)

=================================================

ADDENDUM

Simpson sez, "As I’ve pointed out, the research into the use of slave labor concerns building the original Capitol building (sic) (thus the plaques)..."

Whose research? The only research he mentions is a couple of government papers. Is federal research the only research allowed on this subject? Who decides what research can be done and who can do it? Only the goverment in D.C.? Or is Professor Simpson himself the only one with the power and authority to declare what's legitimate research on it and what ain't?

Note that he also he mentions those who he says are mistaken about this issue without actually identifying anybody. There are the "extreme fringes of the Confederate heritage movement" (but no cockroaches, I note). He's slapped that fringe label on me, and he's also said I have written about this subject, and changed my story on it -- without identifying what I said and where I said it.

He also mentions "some corners" without identifying who they are or what they say.

See, unless he identifies specifically what he's talking about, we don't know whether he's accurately characterizing what these folks say or not. It may be that he's the one who's confused; maybe that's why he's so coy about specifically identifying what was actually said and who said it.... What he's describing might be his own misinterpretation. But since he's made these nonspecific criticisms that can't be verified, the only thing left to do is ... dismiss 'em.

Dispatches from the Fringe Element

2011-08-23T01:43:00.000-07:00

(With occasional cockroach input)

Over the next few, oh, I dunno, days, weeks, months, I'm going to have fun here examining blog postings and comment threads from: Civil War Memory, Dead Confederates, Civil War Crossroads and The Blood of My Kindred, mostly as they relate to me and things I've written, but also as they relate to Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook Group and its members, and general subjects related to the war, the South, Southerners, etc.

A related subject will be my insights and opinions about the academic mindset, based on my (admittedly limited) interaction with, and observation of, the two academic bloggers, Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson. So people will know, I'm not followers of these blogs. I've read more posts on Levin's than any others, but even there, no more than a dozen or so.

At the end of this entry, you'll find the timeline and blog entries/comment threads that will provide fodder for my remarks. (If more are added as time goes on, I'll update the list).

I'm going to start with Simpson's blog entry about Michelle Bachmann's comments on slavery. I'm not real interested in Bachmann or anybody else running for president of a crumbling empire. I mention it for two reasons.

First reason, Mr. Simpson has denied being a leftist, but I note that when referencing Bachmann's slavery quote, he doesn't link to raw video of Bachmann so we can see for ourselves what she said. He links to a post by Adam Serwer, a leftist journalist at the leftist The American Prospect, so he can interpret it for us and make sure we understand it and the significance of it. Isn't that thoughtful of him? Interesting thing about Serwer -- he was one of Ezra Klein's Journo Listas. Not surprising when you realize that The American Prospect was Klein's perch at the time.

What? You never heard of the Journo List? By all means, make yourself acquainted with this private, closed email group of leftist journalists that was running hot and heavy back during the run up to the Presidential election. http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Read Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller Journo List archive: http://dailycaller.com/buzz/journolist/

(Mr. Simpson can hardly criticize me for using a rightwing source if he's gonna use a leftwing one, can he?)

Second reason, the comment by Andy Hall referencing Serwer's post on Black Confederates. Wrote Serwer:

The attempt to minimize the suffering caused by slavery and segregation, to recast the Lost Cause as one motivated by “honor” and self-determination rather than racial supremacy and the preservation of chattel slavery, arises out of the same contemptible emotional impulse. The Lost Causer insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers isn’t any less mired in guilt than the liberal quietly mouthing the names of their black friends as they count them on their fingertips. In both cases, the individual trying to free themselves from history ends up drowning in a bottomless pit of self-pity and self-deception that, over time, can only ferment into rage over inability to find an absolution that will be forever beyond their reach.

Serwer seems to be substituting his perception for other people's intention. He also seems to be placing total responsibility for racial supremacy on the South when we know it was as prevalent in the north, and Aby-baby himself was a racial supremacist who wanted to rid the whole freakin' country of blacks.

We also know that abolitionist Julia Ward Howe's views on race were an exact match for those of Alexander Stephens (only stated in much more insulting terms, and stated earlier) right down to the notion that slavery was necessary for blacks (she called it "compulsory labor" but it means the same thing).

We know that the "preservation of chattel slavery" is far, far too narrow a motive for the war, particularly when other motives were recorded in the documents of the day and we can actually, you know, read them.

Wonder if Serwer can name some "Lost Causer" insisting that the Confederacy was not built on racism because of the presence of black soldiers. A single one. Well, I wonder if he can name ten. Or a hundred. A thousand. Ten thousand. Unless he can and does, I'll have to chalk this up to his very vivid leftist, Journo-Lista imagination, and likely his own tendency to see everything in terms of race, a very common liberal tendency.

Maybe, as a liberal, he needs absolution. If so, he needs to quit projecting.

Look at the evidence, look at the history, and what you see is a South no worse than the north. You see northern sins every bit as shameful and ugly as any you can name on the part of the South. Of course, you don't hear much about northern sins in classrooms or on leftist Journo-Lista mentality blogs or even academic "civil war" blogs.

The north must be forever shielded from its slaving past with the "fighting to free slaves" fable. The south must be forever condemned and evilized with the "fighting to keep slavery" fable. These two falsehoods (false in the sense that they're presented as the whole story when they certainly are not) are masks on the country's history that must never, never, never be allowed to slip. Careful and don't jostle 'em, you black Confederate researchers....

We cannot let the north's true motives show, and we certainly cannot acknowledge its bloodlust and savagery toward Southerners. They have to be recast in terms of the war of the righteous North against unspeakable Southern evil that deserved all the misery and brutality it got....

Serwer's doing his part in the recasting, sure 'nuff.

________________

Blog Posts and Comment Threads Timeline

August 8 -- Great gusts of ridicule from Southern gentleman Andy Hall and commentators on his Dead Confederates blog, directed toward Black Confederates researcher Ann DeWitt http://deadconfederates.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/famous-negro-cooks-regiment-found-in-my-own-backyard/
August 8 -- Brooks Simpson and his sycophants jump on the let's-bash-Ann bandwagon.
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/a-primer-in-basic-research/
August 9 -- Kevin Levin and his myrmidons continue the ridicule, accompanied by a breathtaking display of his bootheel in the teeth of the First Amendment, telling Ann to take down her website. http://cwmemory.com/2011/08/09/an-open-letter-to-ann-dewitt/
August 11 -- Brooks Simpson throws in the towel, ain't gonna study war (with fringy, cockroachy Southern heritage defenders) no more. http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/an-embarrassment-to-southerners-and-southern-heritage/
August 11 -- Andy Hall blockquotes Simpson, confesses to enabling "odious folks," (but no mention of friggin' Opies) and sez he's gonna throw in the towel, too.
http://deadconfederates.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/maybe-i-am-enabling-some-odious-folks-after-all/
August 11 -- Corey Meyer announces he's jumpin' on the Simpson bandwagon and ain't gonna engage us in urinatorial contests any more. http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/time-for-a-change/
August 12 -- Simpson, unable to remain true to his resolve, posts about the League of the South
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/another-version-of-southern-heritage/
August 14 -- Simpson, STILL unable to remain true to his revolve, posts about ME
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/too-funny-to-pass-up/
August 14 -- Simpson on Michelle Bachmann
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/michele-bachmann-on-slavery/#comments
August 20 -- Corey Meyer, unable to hold it any longer, cites the League of the South Rebellion Blog. http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/rebellion-blog-sad-over-changes-at-tbomk/
August 22 -- Simpson, once again forgetting his resolve, rants about the League of the South
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/reenacting-redemption/

Now, what I choose to discuss based on these blog entries and their comment threads will come in no particular order -- just what I feel like addressing at the time. Stay tuned!

(Photos: Penny Lane and Wikimedia Commons)

The Evilization of the White South

2011-08-22T01:17:00.000-07:00

(Note: The essay below was edited from a post that originally appeared on the Southern Heritage Preservation Group Facebook page on August 12, 2011. I wrote it shortly after this entry appeared at the Civil War Memory blog the same day: http://cwmemory.com/2011/08/12/what-will-you-put-up-in-its-place/)

ProYankee Blogger Defends Confederate Flag?

IMO, the purpose of this (blog entry okaying Confederate flags in cemeteries) is to have a post up he can point to when he's accused of anti-Southern bias and say, "No, I'm not biased. See?"

Frankly -- and this is MY OPINION, a conclusion I've drawn based on my (admittedly limited) lookarounds over there -- that blog is not about the Civil War, or how it's remembered, despite the title. It's about slavery. It's about how slavery is remembered. Even that is a sort of generalization. It's about Southern slavery; it's about Southern slaveholding and Southern slaveholders. We know that because of the inattention given to Northern slaveholding and Northern slaveholders, and slaveshipping, a basically Northern enterprise.

This is the sort of inattention that will argue with you that the Union was fighting to free the slaves while ignoring that there were five Union slave states and slaves were helping to build the U.S. capitol.

The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil. When they say "slave women were raped," using the passive voice like that, what they really mean is evil white Southern men raped slave women. When they say "slaves were beaten," what they mean is evil Southern white men beat slaves. When they say "slave families were separated," what they mean is evil Southern white men separated slave families.

We know it's not about how the Civil War is remembered because of the references to the "Jim Crow white South" -- which occurred long after the war, long after reconstruction. But it does fall within the realm of discussion of evil white Southerners.

The question is, why?

Why such an interest in so evilizing white Southerners? We're no worse than anyone else -- our ancestors were no worse than anyone else. The great majority of antebellum white Southerners owned no slaves. (They have to be evilized by saying, "Well, yeah, but they wanted to. They aspired to being a slaveowner some day," though I've never seen anyone offer the "scholarship" that proves it.)

So why? Because Southerners have to be made deserving of the horrific brutality done to them by the north in the war. It is that simple. There may be a few critics, but basically, the United States cannot admit to ever having done anything wrong. But what the north, doing the bidding of the feds, did to the South during the war and for five generations afterward... Is. Not. Justifiable.

So they came down here and killed us, stole everything that wasn't nailed down, burned towns and farms, and laid our region waste; installed a military dictatorship over us, and puppet governments that would put state treasures so deeply in debt it would take generations to get out, leaving us little or no capital for investments, jobs, schools, and kept us in widespread poverty until almost WWII -- and then ridiculed us for being poor and uneducated.

THAT is why the South -- why Southerners (white ones) -- must still be evilized -- in the classroom, on television, on Hollywood's silver screen, in the corporation, the government bureaucracy, even in freakin' video games. Throughout the popular culture. And especially in academia. That mission of keeping Southerners evil is the motive, perhaps buried so deep it isn't recognized, behind nearly all the "Civil War" "scholarship" and that's what almost all the Sesquicentennial commemorations intend to commemorate, in one way or another.

Don't let the occasional token Confederate flag post fool you. Don't let the occasional "fairminded" comments fool you. Look at the totality.

_______________________________

(Note: On August 21, over a week after that post appeared on Facebook, I discovered that it had been referenced, more or less, at the Civil War Crossroads blog, where Brooks Simpson posted but one sentence from it: "The Civil War, in other words, is a cover for the subject that truly interests proYankee bloggers: white Southern evil." He titled the post "Too Funny to Pass Up." Odd thing, though...he wasn't laughing.

Now, he put that on his blog on August 14 -- three days AFTER he posted (on August 11) an entry titled "An Embarrassment to Southerners and Southern Heritage" wherein he likened me, David Tatum and members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Facebook group, to cockroaches feeding on garbage [and Andy Hall calls my "Huffpoo" comment childish -- but he calls us "odious" and blockquotes Simpson's entire entry, including this churlish cockroach comment, on his blog).

In that same August 11 blog entry, Simpson says,

"But I wonder about giving these fringe elements too much attention, and, after having reviewed some of their blogs and a Facebook page over the past few weeks ... I have come to the conclusion that to feature these groups and blogs is in fact to grant them a sort of recognition and legitimacy that they do not deserve. They simply aren’t responsible participants: indeed, they are rather childish ... I think that to give these fringe ranters undue attention is a disservice to the South and all southerners. Other bloggers may continue to draw attention to these folks, but, aside from highlighting specific examples of research claims, I will let them languish and stew in their own scalding juices of hate and resentment."

And then, a mere three days later, he devotes an entire blog post to me -- albeit a short one, but it identifies me by name and links to my blog. What resolve! What determination! LOL! Either he changed his mind, or else he considers my post about academic interest in white Southern evil to be a specific example of a research claim he's highlighting. LOL! Which do YOU think it is? And who do you suppose endowed him with the authority to up decide who/what deserves legitimacy and recognition?

BTW, 180 readers, if you enjoyed my attention to Civil War Crossroads, stay tuned. There's more on the way.)

(Photo: C. Ward)

Stupidizing Southerners

2011-08-20T19:57:00.000-07:00

An anti-Southern blogger who shall remain nameless recently posted a link to this book on his blog: Dreaming of Dixie -- How the South Was Created in American Popular Culture by Karen L. Cox. (I'm not linking to the book on Amazon. Find it yourself.)

Now, I know the pitfalls of attempting to review a book I haven't read so I'm not going to attempt that. I simply note that one can draw reasonable conclusions based on a cursory examination -- not only about the book in question, but about larger issues.

Aside from the fact that the cover is truly awful, the theme of this book seems to be that an authentic South doesn't really exist -- it's a figment, created by the imaginations of nonSoutherners motivated to make money off their creation in the popular culture. Until the civil rights movement, the South in popular culture (music, movies, novels) was based on antebellum myth -- pastoral, peopled with happy slaves, cavaliers and belles, living in moonlight and magnolias ... The usual claptrap. Granted, she does give nonSoutherners "credit" (or blame) for this misleading, or at least incomplete, view -- but then she goes on to imply that Southerners themselves bought into this vision of their region.

In other words, those of us who are not inbred scumsucking racist hicks are ig-nernt morons who'll swallow anything that makes our region (and, by extension, us) "look good."

What this illustrates, folks, is a subset of the ongoing mission of evilizing Southerners -- that of stupidizing Southerners.

It's been going on for a while. From a newspaper article in 2000, when Richmond was in a dustup over General Robert E. Lee's inclusion on the Riverwalk flood wall -- just to show you an example of the mission from a decade ago, which illustrates that it hasn't changed much. AP writer Bob Lewis had the byline; his article, Richmond, Va., Struggles With Race, quoted (1) Richmond's mayor, (2) an unidentified "some," and (3) a Mississippi racial reconciliation activist. Maybe some others, but these are the best illustrators:

"Our particular legacy causes us some real problems -- additional difficulties that other communities do not have," said Mayor Timothy Kaine, who is white. "In a lot of ways, the Civil War has been an albatross around our neck."

The problem, some say, is the way many white Southerners romanticize the "Lost Cause," turning it into something out of "Gone With the Wind."

"A lot of people don't want to acknowledge the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause. One reason a lot of people are dishonest about their past is guilt," the mayor said. "Everyone knows slavery was evil, but nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people."

Susan Glisson, interim director of the Institution for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, said: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."

The Civil War has been an albatross around Richmond's neck? Gee, ya think? Let's overlook the obvious likelihood that Ex-mayor Wilder doesn't grasp the intended symbolism of Coleridge's albatross, and consider the words of Pennsylvania journalist Douglas Harper, "...the majority (in the CSA), in spite of internal divisions, put up a herculean effort, won spectacular victories, made shift with what little it had, and held out till the place was literally gutted and blood-drained by its foe."

Does the ex-mayor imagine there would be some reason why its capital would escape the gutted and blood-drained fate the rest of the Confederacy was subjected to?

Everyone knows slavery was evil and we don't acknowledge it out of guilt? I know that slavery must not have been as bad as we're told -- not total evil, as the ex-mayor implies, because, otherwise there would be no need for the campaign to evilize it that's underway today -- the effort to identify its worst components and abuses as the whole of it. This is like saying marriage is spouse abuse, and motherhood is child abuse...

Besides, many of the WPA slave narratives -- words out of the mouths of former slaves -- refute these words out of the former mayor's mouth. Yes, slavery was bad; no, it was not the total evil of the imaginary version being crammed down our throats today for the purpose of evilizing Southerners.

Nobody wants to think that their ancestors weren't noble people? Perhaps this is why yankees have developed such widespead amnesia about their ancestors' responsibility for slavery? For slave trading, slave shipping and for processing the products of slave grown agriculture? How much does the role of "guilt" play in their regional and cultural slavery-amnesia?

But of course, that was not what the ex-mayor had in mind, was it? Like so many others, in his eagerness to evilize Southerners past and present, he is completely oblivious to the complicity of the yanks who not only contributed to and benefitted from slavery, but in the world's most breathtaking act and display of hypocrisy, made war on the South ostensibly because of its evil, slave-holdin' ways.

Besides, slave ownership doesn't automatically confer ignobility -- and what about the 90% or so of Southerners who owned no slaves but who sent their sons to defend against the invading armies of the north? What about them, Ex-mayor Wilder?

As bad as that is, Glisson's comments take the trophy for stupidizing Southerners: "It is so much easier if you're white to imagine some grand plantation home in which you didn't have to work and, when it was attacked, you valiantly defend it on some battlefield far away."

Now, aside from the fact that there were some -- a relative few -- who actually matched that description among the men who fought for the South, how many white Southerners today have such imaginings? I sure don't. Long before I knew much about the war, I knew my ancestors were Cherokee Indians and "Scotch-Irish" Appalachian mountaineers. I didn't know the particulars (I know some of them now) but I did know that any of my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy likely did NOT leave a column mansion, hoop-skirted moms, sisters and sweethearts and happy slaves to go off and shoot yankees. People who have done the genealogy research likely have a far more realistic view of their Confederate ancestors.

Didn't have to work? Just an example from my own family. My gg-grandfather Tilmon P. Chastain is listed as a "miner" on the 1860 census for Fannin County, Georgia. For the uninitiated, what people in those parts mined was copper. That part of north Georgia (McCaysville) and southeastern Tennessee (Ducktown) is called the Copper Basin. Do a little research on it, and you discover that the mining process destroyed vegetation for fifty miles around the area. Not "did a little damage" but totally destroyed it. Photos of the region at the time show a Mars-like landscape. Not a tree, not a bush, not a blade of grass left alive.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0AxZHWIQBLI/SSNIk3A8xuI/AAAAAAAABmY/3waHwU3QiD4/s1600-h/copper+basin.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ducktown_train.jpg

Imagine what the same process did to the lungs and health of the residents.

Didn't have to work? LOL! What a joke, Ms. Glisson, you're funny, a real card, ha-ha.

So now we come to Karen L. Cox and Dreaming of Dixie. I suppose, since it was written by an academic, and published by an academic press, this book falls under the anti-Southern blogger's concept of "scholarship" and may even have something, in his imagination, to do with the war (or at least its "memory").

I admit my prejudice about the book and its author, because of her membership in the academic world. If anything comes to my attention to change my suspicions, I'll change them. But for now, I'm classifying this book as Stupidizing Southerners Lite. This is based on my reading of the cover blurb and product description at Amazon, and a bit of googling about the author. Beyond her membership in academia and her focus on the South, my surface search found nothing to indicate that she's part of the crusade to evilize Southerners; but I didn't find anything to indicate she isn't, either.

Academic leftism and the Civil War

2011-08-13T18:20:00.000-07:00

I recently visited an anti-Confederate blog's comment thread and made a few comments, among them the notion that American colleges and universities are not the zones of free thought and inquiry they once were, but now are centers that teach students what to think.

I posted a link to the website, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, The FIRE.org, which monitors restrictions of free speech on college campuses. One blogger is a professor at Arizona State University, and because ASU has a FIRE "green light" rating -- a good record on free speech -- he says I contradicted my own claim.

Not really. Some of you have encountered this idea from me: "If you want to understand ALL the reasons Mississippi seceded from the union, you have to NOT STOP reading after you encounter the word "slavery." The document goes on to list the ways Mississippi had been victimized, with slavery as the excuse, and since they are included in the secession declarations, they are reasons why the state seceded. If not, why were they included? If they were, that makes them as important in the decision to secede as slavery was."

It's the same situation now. You can't stop reading after the "green light" comment; you must read on to get the whole picture.

But first, you have to know what "green light" means. Here is FIRE's note about it:

"Green Light: If FIRE is unable to find a policy that seriously imperils speech, a college or university receives a 'green light.' A green light does not indicate that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that FIRE is not currently aware of any serious threats to students’ free speech rights in the policies on that campus."

Further, as FIRE notes, ASU's "green light" was recently earned. An Arizona State Press editorial from June 2011 (that's this year, folks) notes: "FIRE used to have ASU as one of the worst schools in terms of free speech, but a change in a university policy in January took away viewpoint restrictions in advertising and posting."

In January. As recently as seven months ago, this university, where the anti-Confederate blogger is employed, was one of the worst in terms of free speech.

Visit here and read more about it: http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/46

While you're there, read about ASU's recent history of segregated classrooms ("...Native Americans only...") and the university's denial of same, despite proof.

Everybody knows, and studies confirm, that educators are overwhelmingly leftist politically (two thirds to three quarters, depending on the study).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html

There are many reasons given for this, but the bottom line is that our college and university students, as well as elementary and high school students, are taught by those with a leftist political and cultural bias. And there is no doubt in my mind -- is there in yours? -- that the leftist bias influences what and how they teach to their students.

More about the ivory towers of academia in future posts.

For now, just suffice it to say that some anecdotal evidence can be found in comment threads that follow news articles about the "civil war" and related events of today. The mindless, all-emotion, no-cognition comments screeching that the war was over slavery, and Confederates were traitors made, presumably, by people educated in the USA, testify to the leftist bias they've been taught -- because history offers plenty of primary evidence to the contrary. Students, in my opinion, are just not allowed to be exposed to it.

More about that in future posts, too. So stay tuned.

The Civil War Thought Police

2011-08-10T08:29:00.000-07:00

We once knew that 1984 was a time span. A year, to be exact -- 365 days stretching between 1983 and 1985. We also knew it was the title of a distopian novel written by George Owell in the latter half of the 1940s. Many pop culture references grew from the novel -- War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength ... Big Brother, doublethink, Newspeak, memory hole -- and thought crime.

In the mid 1960s, when my class studied this novel, these concepts seemed foreign to us as Americans, and wholly unlikely to ever see the light of day in here in the USA.

How wrong we were. We've had thought crimes for several decades; they just have a different name: hate crimes -- selectively applied. And we have Thought Police. They work out of a network of police stations known as colleges and universities and, to a lesser extent, grammar and high schools, in the fourth estate and in government bureaucracy.

When I was coming up, the purpose of school was to teach one how to learn, so that education became a lifelong ability, self-achieved. Today, the purpose of school is to implant and cultivate in you what you must believe. Higher Education in the USA has become the (mostly) taxpayer supported, self-appointed Ministry of Truth. It is not at all surprising that the insidious manipulator of speech and thought that we call Political Correctness found its most welcome home in academia.

There used to be a saying in Old America -- "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."

How far we have strayed from that concept of rights, and live-and-let-live liberty. There are many illustrations of the distance we've traveled. I'm reminded of the news report several months ago of some government bureaucracy victimizing a woman who advertized for a roommate on her church bulletin board because her ad specified a Christian roommate...

But nothing illusrates the push toward totalitarian censorship -- in this case, in academia -- like the recent blog post by "civil war historian" Kevin Levin, urging a researcher into the black Confederates issue to take down her website.

Look at it again, folks. He's telling her to TAKE DOWN HER WEBSITE.

Can you believe the unAmerican audacity of this demand? It's truly breathtaking.

And why the demand? Because she's made a few mistakes in her research? (Who hasn't?) No. Because her work is "incredibly disturbing" and because her "commentary/analysis clearly points to a lack of understanding surrounding the larger issues related to African Americans and the Confederacy" and because she does "not understand how to conduct primary source analysis" and because her work as "been discredited."

All this, of course, is his "interpretation." It means "You didn't do it the way I did, therefore you're wrong. Anybody who doesn't do it the way I did is wrong."

Here's the post: http://cwmemory.com/2011/08/09/an-open-letter-to-ann-dewitt/

He just can't seem to pile on enough slimy ridicule, which seems to be an increasing element in academia today. (There's even more of it in the comments at his and his cohorts' blogs.) But when you hose it all away, what's left is the incredibly arrogant assumption that only people who believe what he believes about any aspect the war and who arrived at the belief by the same route he did (academia) are right. This is a theme that recurs with the monotony of a pile driver in his blog posts -- and I've only read a fraction of them dating from the past few months.

The dust-up over the Black Confederates research and website in the self-appointed Ministry of Civil War Truth -- the blogs of Kevin Levin, Andy Hall, Brooks Simpson and tagger-along Corey Meyer, and who knows how many others -- will be the subject of more blog posts here at 180 DTS. If you want to see truly incredibly disturbing, stay tuned.

Corey's back for more

2011-08-08T19:23:00.000-07:00

I guess he can't get enough of banging his head against a brick wall.

He's posted a challenge to me here:

http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/connie-chastain-ward-responds-again/

after I took him to task for his risible “think piece” about the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. You'd think he'd learn. Guess not.

He doesn't take me to task on every point. Just three. Therefore, I will address those three.

Corey writes, “Connie ranks as an amateur historian, whereas I and the other bloggers mentioned (minus Andy since I do not know what he does for a living) are Historians since we do history for a living. I mean really Connie, come on, Brooks D. Simpson is ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University and both Kevin and I are teachers…of history.

Connie responds:

Dictionary.com defines "historian" as:

his·to·ri·an [hi-stawr-ee-uhn, -stohr-] noun
1. an expert in history; authority on history.
2. a writer of history; chronicler.

Nothing there about "doing history for a living."

However, an interesting note about the suffix "an" follows the definition, and with regard to "historian," it says, "The suffix -an, and its variant -ian also occurs in a set of personal nouns, mainly loanwords from French, denoting one who engages in, practices, or works with the referent of the base noun ( comedian; grammarian; historian; theologian ); this usage is especially productive with nouns ending in -ic ( electrician; logician; technician ). See -ian for relative distribution with that suffix."

Still nothing that makes "doing" it "for a living" as part of the definition. So, I'm as much a historian as Corey, Levin, Hall and Simpson. I'm a writer of history; I work with history. No, I'm not employed to do that, but I nevertheless am a historian.

With the possible exception of Andy, as Corey notes, what these gentlemen do for a living is, um, work at educational institutions -- presumably teaching. What they do for a living is teach. That makes them teachers.

Being a historian, if you accept Corey's definition of "doing history for a living" is not the same thing as doing, say, plumbing for a living. As a plumber, you have to know what you're doing and do it well enough to please the people you're doing it for -- an employer and his customers -- if you're gonna get paid. (Getting paid is basically what "for a living' means.)

To be a historian at an institution of learning just means you have to show some papers that presumably verify that you've studied and learned.

Most people so credentialed get their papers from institutes of higher learning, which as we know, have changed over the last fifty or sixty years from places of free thought and inquiry -- a setting for acquiring knowledge -- to centers of indoctrination.

If you want to see just how the indoctrination works, read some cases from The Fire.org http://thefire.org/ While there, take a look at the page for Arizona State University, were Mr. Simpson teaches: http://thefire.org/spotlight/schools/46

Obviously, I'm not as impressed with Corey's concept of "historian" and what it takes to become one as he is.

Next he writes, “First of all I have never disparaged any veteran from any time period. I have no idea how the fact that some of the members of Facebook’s Southern Heritage Preservation group are Vietnam veterans plays a role in my assessment of their historical understanding of the War of the Rebellion. Furthermore, I do not understand how my military career or lack thereof plays a role in my ability to interpret the past. There really is only one answer…it does not…and Connie knows it. But in an attempt to pacify Connie’s sense of honor I will mention that my family has taken part in just about every war this country has been involved in and then some. I have had ancestors fight in wars from King Phillip’s War in the 1600?s to the French & Indian War, The American Revolution, War of the Rebellion, World War II and Vietnam. And No I have no military service, but that does not exclude me from being able to comment on things of history."

Connie responds:

My mention of the Vietnam vets is because they have experience with war -- the same as Confederate veterans, and Union ones, too. The technology may have advanced, but the horror, the dying, the loss of war -- those don't change. One doesn't get that because one has relatives who were in war. One gets it because one has experienced it personally.

Corey says, "Furthermore, I do not understand how my military career or lack thereof plays a role in my ability to interpret the past. There really is only one answer…it does not…and Connie knows it."

I completely disagree. Men who have experienced war first hand are truly war historians in a way that the inexperienced cannot be. They lived the history -- literally did it for a living. Corey's appeal to his military ancestors doesn't appease me. They don't give him the knowledge-by-experience that our SHPG Vietnam vets have.

Of course, Corey's lack of military experience doesn't exclude him from commenting on history. My lack of military experience doesn't exclude me from commenting on it, either. The difference is that I willingly acknowledge that their experience gives these vets the status of war historian in a way that Corey does not, cannot, have. I suspect Corey doesn't recognize their status as war historians-by-experience.

The last thing he complains about is my comment, “Some of the Deep South states seceded over slavery, among other things (the other things are listed in their Declarations of Causes but you have to not stop reading after you encounter the word “slavery.”) The states of the upper South seceded because D.C., in violation of the founding principles of the USA, was planning a military invasion of the South. The fighting was because an army invaded the Southern states — but that army did not invade to free slaves, so the South could not have been fighting to defend slavery.

Corey responds, "The last sentence defies logic. How can one even type such a blatantly false statement…It simply does not make any sense. Since Connie challenge me about my military service, I too challenge her to explain this last point. I seriously doubt she can."

(Loooooooooooong pause.)

Oh. My. Goodness. People, I must humbly apologize. Corey is right.

Levin, Andy Hall, Simpson, all the anti-Confederate bloggers and South-bashers ... ARE RIGHT! They've been right all along!

We Southerners, who have always maintained that the war was about more than just slavery - WE'VE BEEN WRONG!

How could we have been so wrong? How could we have been so duped?

It's all there, right there, in Abraham Lincoln's proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. He called them up to march South and free the slaves! He did! He did! Here's his proclamation, word for word!

Whereas slaves are being held in the United States, and have been for some time past, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by people too numerous to be compelled by ordinary judicial procedings or the powers vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in me by my ego and my big-government agenda, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to free said slaves and oppress their oppressors, despite there being no law that justifies said action, and doing so violates the Constitution of the United States of America. I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, have deemed that in this situation, my decision is just and right, and transcends the Constitution.
The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to free said slaves, despite there being no law to justify it, and despite there being little love for slaves in the free states and little concern for their wellbeing.
I deem it proper to order the freeing of said slaves for the purpose of divesting Southerners and their region of their wealth, and preventing their ability to generate more wealth, and transferring said wealth and accompanying power (but not the freed slaves) to the northern states of the union, and the northern people.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by my gargantuan ego in combination with my limitless ambition, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

Okay. Just kidding. I made that up. In Aby-baby's actual proclamation there ain't one word, not a freakin' syllable -- not even a tiny, freakin' syllable -- about freein' slaves. To say the federal army came South for the purpose of freeing slaves is like saying the USA got involved in WWII to liberate Jews from Nazi concentration camps. Yes, slaves and concentration camp inmates were freed, but that was not why the fighting started.

Lincoln called up troops to bully the seceded states back in the Union, not to liberate slaves. If that had been his purpose, he wouldn't have waited so long to issue the Emancipation Proclamation; and he would have done something that wasn't just for show, as the EP was. If the union army invaded the South to free slaves, Lincoln wouldn't have told Gen. Freemont to return to slavery the slaves he'd freed in Missouri. And on and on.

Lastly, studies of the letters of federal soldiers reveal that the reason for fighting they listed most was to preserve the union. One such study was done by James McPherson, a conventionally credentialed historian, so Corey ought to be impressed....

Like so many people, Corey-the-historian apparently can't distinguish between secession and war. This is sorta on the order of not being able to tell the difference between resigning from your club ... and getting into a brawl with the remaining members and burning down the club house.

As I stated, some of the Southern states seceded to protect slavery -- among other things. But they fought because an army was marching South to kill them and their familes and servants, and force them back into the union at the point of a bayonet.

Lincoln's actual proclamation:

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the a ggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consiste n
tly with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, and destruction of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

Corey attempts intellectual analysis

2011-08-06T23:54:00.000-07:00

Corey Meyer has just posted a pseudo-intellectual think-piece -- his idea, I guess, of analysis -- about the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. I really don't have a lot of time for his silliness, but I had to answer... (Grammar and spelling are as they appear on his blog; this is an exactly copy-paste.)

Corey sez: In the past few days there has been an intense exchange of comments between several Civil War Historian bloggers and the Southern Heritage Defense supporters. You can read the exchanges here, here and here. The latter site has been very active today (8-6-11).

What I want to do in this post is try and shed some light on what is going on in the minds of those Southern Heritage Defense supports

Connie replies: A prerequisite would be for you to figure out what's going on in yours first.

Corey: Any discussion on the minds of Southern Heritage Defenders (SHD) must begin with the current political climate of the United States.

Connie: Sez who? And why?

Corey: I think it is fair to say that anyone reading these words knows the current polarization of the country over the debt limit and government spending.

Connie: Possibly. On the other hand, a lot of people in America don't pay much attention to national politics, and may barely have a grasp of it.

Corey: Also, many would agree some changes are needed in Washington to help this country out of the economic troubles we are currently facing.

Connie: "Economic troubles" is quite an artful euphemism for being so deeply in debt that we'll never be able to pay it off and therefore face economic ruin/collapse as a country.

Corey: Sadly much of what SHD deal with is a combination of present troubles and the troubles facing the country in the 1860′s.

Connie: I'm afraid not. You're confabulating, here, Corey.

Corey: We historians call this presentism…the applying of today’s attitudes and experiences to the past. SHD are unknowing experts of this and I shall explain how and why they do this .

Connie: Actually, dictionary.com defines presentism as, "the doctrine that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) are presently in the course of being fulfilled." You appear to be mistaken about presentism, Corey.

Corey: The SHD is someone who has an unshakable love of the Southern Confederacy that existed for only four years between 1861 and 1865. However the Southern Confederacy has lived on in the minds of people since their devastating loss at the hands of the Federal Government in 1865. The story of the reason the South went to war in 1861 has been altered by the Lost Cause Myth that sprung forth in the later half of the 19th century. This myth removed the issue of slavery from the history and made the Confederate soldiers struggle for “independence” its central them. It is, therefore, no wonder the SHD clings so tightly to the memory of the Southern soldier. The Southern soldier represents all that was good in the South during the war.

Connie: We psychologists call this "projection," Corey. You believe what you've just written, so you project this belief onto others. (Yes, I'm as much a psychologist as you are a historian. I'm as much a historian as you are, too. As much as Levin and Hall and Simpson are, as well.)

Corey: Now that the Lost Cause Myth has been dispelled and slavery returned to its rightful place in the history of the war, SHD have come to the rescue of the Southern soldier and his reputation. To think that Southern soldiers would have fought for something other than hearth and home is unthinkable to these folks.

Connie: It's not unthinkable to me. I know there were many reasons why they fought. Ye of narrow minds are the ones who try to narrow it down to one cause, usually slavery.

Corey: What SHD fail to recognize is that those soldiers fought for what the Confederacy was fighting for and that was slavery.

Connie: See? Diddin I tell ya?

Corey: I could go on and on here about the causes of secession and the writings of the Secession Commissioners from the South, but that is for a different time and place.

Connie: Sorry, that is not correct. Some of the Deep South states seceded over slavery, among other things (the other things are listed in their Declarations of Causes but you have to not stop reading after you encounter the word "slavery.") The states of the upper South seceded because D.C. in violation of the founding principles of the USA, was planning a military invasion of the South. The fighting was because an army invaded the Southern states -- but that army did not invade to free slaves, so the South could not have been fighting to defend slavery.

Corey: SHD find themselves in a precarious position.

Connie: Not me. My position is just fine.

Corey: They on one hand want to honor their ancestor soldiers and keep their memory untarnished while at the same time deny the big overreaching reason these men went to war.

Connie: The overarching reason they went to war was to defend family and home from a barbaric invading army.

Corey: During this process today’s displeasure with how things are being run in Washington overlap.

Connie: What claptrap. They do not overlap. The USA, while violating its founding principles to invade the South, was not the global bullying empire it is today. If you think the two situations are similar, the only thing similar is that the American empire was in its infancy back then and today it is a huge, strapping monstrosity of a bully.

Corey: They see their Confederate ancestors struggle against the “evil empire” as their struggle against, ironically the first black President who happens to be a Democrat.

Connie: Struggling against the first black President? You get more delusional with every paragraph, Corey. What difference does it make what color he is? He's presiding over, and assisting, the economic collapse of the country. You're fine with that? I thought you were this big USA supporter and defender. What most people are doing is struggling to keep their heads above water, economically.

Corey: Therefore if secession was legal and the best remedy for what ailed the country in 1860, something similar is good today. This is what prompts them to claim anyone who disagrees with their view of the Civil War to be a revisionist or Communist/Marxist.

Connie: Ah, who claims that? I only claim someone is a communist/Marxist if they promote, espouse or seek to bring about communism or Marxism. Most of the ones I've encountered have little knowledge about the War -- they just have the propagandist view of it.

Corey: So, in my humble opinion, to save face not only for themselves but their ancestors as well they must root for the United States to fall apart. That way they and their ancestors will be vindicated for what happened 150 years ago. For them there is no other course to prove that what their ancestors did during the War of the Rebellion was correct…or as the Kennedy Brothers say..”The South Was Right”. The one thing I find ironic is that their worship of Bobby Lee and all things Confederate seems even more diehard than the admiration for Lincoln by those they refer to as the “cult” of Lincoln.

Connie: Your humble(?) opinion is wrong. The USA is falling apart; what we say or don't say won't change that. It is past the point of no return. We are rapidly falling to third-world economic status. And yes, it was a long-haul process that began with Lincoln's destruction of the founders federated republics. And if everything the Confederates did wasn't correct, the union was even more incorrect, Corey. Whatever criticism you want to level at the South, the same and worse can be said of the north.

Corey: Oh well…I really should not try to understand them, but try to empathize with them…after all they did lose the war.

Connie: Exactly, you should not try to understand because you are not equipped to. Your cognition is way too distorted by your prejudice and your rigid subjectivity to understand anyone who believes the slightest bit differently than you.

BTW, Corey. How do you get "SHD" out of Southern Heritage Preservation Group?

____________________

Folks, one of the things you need to realize when reading this claptrap hooey from Corey is that a number of members of the SHPG are Vietnam vets. Regardless of whether you agree with the U.S. policy of "containment" in Southeast Asia, the men of today who went over there as boys, teenagers -- the average age was 19 -- put their lives on the line for their country. Fifty-thousand of them lost their lives. Thousands of others faced a host of medical problems (and still do) thanks to their own government's disregard for their health and lives over there. And the civilian culture largely gave them the back of its hand across their jaws.

I challenge Corey to tell us what is his military service to this country he falls on his face and worships. Let's hear it, Corey. Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines? Name, rank and serial number. Years of service. Duty stations. Type of discharge....

Who, me? No way!

2011-08-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

The basketball game is going fast and furious. A player is dribbling while he lopes down the court toward the goal, a defender running along side him, slapping at the ball, bumping against him to knock him off balance, and suddenly the official's whistle blows. He points at the defender and raises his hand to stop the clock, then signals pushing/charging.

The defender's face registers complete and utter surprise -- shock, really -- and he throws his hands out at his sides in an exaggerated display of innocence. As he looks from the ref to his coach to the crowd in the stands, the exaggerated innocence takes on a touch of righteous indignation.

Now, he fouled the guy. He knows it. The ref knows it. The coach knows it. Everybody in the stands knows it. But he still plays innocent when caught.

This is exactly the scenario that comes to mind when Mr. Civil War Memory attempts to defend himself from charges of South-bashing. He does it -- everybody knows he does it, and sometimes he gets called on it. And he throws out his hands in a display of exaggerated innocence, and offers up truly ludicrous "proof" of his innocence.

In one recent thread on his blog, he wrote, "No one here has attempted to turn this into a South bashing crusade. We are all aware of the North’s long and violent history surrounding slavery and the slave trade."

Really? His entire blog is a South-bashing crusade, and while he may be aware of the north's long and violent history surrounding slavery and the slave trade, he manages to do a supreme job of ignoring and yeah-yeah-yeah-style downplaying it.

In the same thread, he wrote a post that included the phrase, "the darker side of slavery," which I repeated in a response. Now, when *I* used that phrase, I was jumped on by a couple of his sycophants ("And what exactly was the bright side of slavery?" and "Slavery had a bright side?").

Mr. Memory himself came back at me with, "You said: 'Perhaps it is because the darker side of the institution of slavery is often dishonestly portrayed as the totality of it.' It implies that there was a lighter side. Perhaps you should take more responsibility for your choice of words. Exactly what aspect of the 'institution of slavery' fell outside of this darker side?"

Well, of course I had to remind him with this post:

Mr. Levin, in your post tagged “Kevin Levin August 1, 2011at 3:55 pm” you said:

“…They were not responding to the specifics of the show, but the broadest themes surrounding the darker side of the institution of slavery….”

Seems to me YOU are the one implying a lighter side. Perhaps you are the one who should take more responsibility for your choice of words.

I was responding to what you posted, and I didn’t imply anything about a “lighter” side of slavery — I said flat out that advocating for a more **realistic** view of slavery is to be called a “slavery apologist.”

Since you originated the “darker side of slavery” phrase, why don’t you tell us what fell outside of it? In your opinion.

So three of them -- which includes him -- jump on ME for using a phrase HE originated. Hmmm... That looks a lot like bias, practicing a double standard, and just being all around hypocrites.

This man is so transparently anti-South, anti-Confederate -- not to mention anti-fairness and anti-objectivity -- that only an idiot could believe he truly sees himself as fair and objective.

No, he knows exactly what he's doing. He feels justified in being unfair and subjective because he is convinced the South was/is morally deficient and the north morally superior. They aren't -- but the north and its self-appointed spokespersons have to maintain their warm- fuzzy illusions of moral superiority, and if that requires self-delusion...

Call 'em on their fouls, and watch the exaggerated displays of fake, "Who, me?" innocence. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

(Photo: U.S. Navy, Public Domain)

Black Confederate Redux

2011-07-30T00:18:00.000-07:00

The black Confederates issue pops up again like breakfast toast out of a three-slice Cuisinart.

To recap the argument as I understand it -- the yes-they-did folks believe that evidence supports blacks -- slave and free -- serving the Confederacy in a military capacity, whether cooks, teamsters, foragers, or infantrymen, snipers, whatever -- regardless of the Confederate government's official stand on the issue.

The no-they-didn't folks cite the Confederate government's refusal to allow blacks to serve in the army as proof that they didn't serve.

As I may have noted before, I'm not deeply invested in this issue. Still, I've developed a mild interest, not in the issue itself, but in the mentality of those taking sides on it.

Personally, I don't think the Confederacy "needs" blacks among its military to justify its struggle for independence. I think it was justified first in seceding and second in protecting its people and territory from a particularly brutal military invasion. On the other hand, I think all who served, in whatever capacity, but especially those who served on the battlefield risking life and limb, should be acknowledged, and I believe this notion motivates many yes-they-did folks.

What I find most interesting is the no-they-didn't camp's almost mad scramble to neutralize any documentation discovered and presented by the yes-they-did people. If it says "servant" or "slave" anywhere on it, that is proof enough to these folks that the servant or slave was not a soldier -- or, did not engage in soldierly conduct (i.e., shooting at the enemy). As if the two statuses are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Slaves have served in armies throughout history and around the world.

One thing I find interesting about the debunkers is their virtually total reliance on what they accept as official documentation. If the Confederate government prohibited it -- or at least didn't authorize it -- it couldn't have happened. Of course, we know all sorts of unauthorized and even prohibited activity takes place all the time -- but they can't allow themselves to accept it in this case.

I went to school with a guy who became an officer of the U.S. Navy and commanded a boat that patrolled rivers during the Vietnam war. He flew a Confederate flag from his boat. Presumably, this was/is officially prohibited somewhere, because his superior officers repeatedly ordered him to remove it. He didn't.

To believe something didn't happen -- couldn't have happened -- because it was forbidden by law is to believe there were no abortions in the USA before 1973, or that nobody drank alcohol during Prohibition.

I believe the reason there is such resistance to the notion of black Confederates has nothing to do with documentation or historical accuracy or any of that. It is the belief, shaped by modern, politically correct (i.e., socialistic) indoctrination, that blacks simply would not, could not, have fought to keep themselves enslaved.

Of course, this thought process is totally dependent on believing that Confederates fought the war solely for the purpose of keeping black folks in chains. What that means is, South=fought to keep slavery=evil, North=fought to free slaves=saintly, the war was all, all, all about this and nothing, nothing, nothing else.

Anyone who scratches off the layer of victor-pablum coating the "history" of the war is likely to see in short order that it simply wasn't that cut and dried -- indeed, slavery itself wasn't that simplistic -- but people are loathe to go against what they've been spoonfed their entire lives. They simply cannot violate their programming, regardless of the enormous amounts of truth it leaves out.

But there's an even greater/deeper reason for this belief, I suspect. What the north did to the South in the Civil War was not justifiable by any standard of decency known to civilized man. There was no justification for responding to the peaceful and democratic act of secession with war -- particularly war on civilians and particularly not with such savagery and barbarism. And so, to justify the unjustifiable, the victors had to fabricate a people so evil and a culture so malevolent that destroying both justified the union's bloody brutality.

That was accomplished by focusing solely on slavery, and not the whole of it, but the small, worst component of it -- and then smearing all Southerners with it. This process actually started before the war, and helped to build up the bloodlust of the north that resulted in the horrors perpetrated upon the South during the war. To acknowledge that blacks could have fought for the Confederacy is to acknowledge that the evilization of white Southerners, to justify their destruction in war, was wrong.

But once it was done, there was no turning back possible. The victimization of the South, justified by it's "evil," had to continue, and the result was four or five generations of deliberately created regional poverty that did not begin to ease until World War II. The demonization of Southerners continues to this day in books, fiction and nonfiction, scholarship, movies, comics, video games -- the whole of the popular culture.

There are likely diehards, like the pro-yankee bloggers who can't seem to get through a week without "monitoring" Southern heritage advocates online, who will never change. But it is past time for the self-deluded north to come to terms with what it did -- to realize that the evilization of Southerners was and is a fabrication (we're no worse than anyone else), and admit that, slavery notwithstanding, the union's savage war on the South was wrong. Just plain wrong -- whether a single black fought for the Confederacy or not.

(Photo: Matthew Bowden, Stock.Xchng)

A Reply to a Responce [sic]...

2011-07-22T12:24:00.000-07:00

...to Corey Meyer, aka Kindred Blood, aka Billy Yank, who wrote about me on his blog. His comments in italics, mine normal text:

Connie,
I nor the other blogger* claim no more authority than you…you run a blog about the south…what authority do you have? You and yours have repeatedly shown that you do not have a grasp of the original source material that you present.

Nope. We haven't shown that. You're expressing an opinion, that's all. We show that we have a grasp of the original source material that's at least as strong as yours.

However, the other blogger* and I have history degrees which is the be-all-to-end-all on the situation, but it does help us when we are working with source materails…we have a background understanding of how to work with those items.

Your degree didn't help much with your spelling and grammar, though -- so why should I believe it gives you some kind of edge understanding history or anything else? Having a degree doesn't automatically give you a "background understanding" of anything. It depends on how well your were taught, how well you learned, and whether you were learning for the sake of knowledge, or to promote your pre-existing agenda.

Your problem is that you want to define any black person who supported the war effort of the south to be labeled a black confederate and even black confederate soldier.

That is not correct. http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/06/black-confederates-controversy.html Besides, it's not a matter of what I want, anyway, but a matter of what is/was. The people of the Confederacy were Confederates. If they were black, that made them black Confederates. YOU are the one trying to equate "black Confederate" with "soldier" -- not I, so don't try to palm your misconception off on me, buster.

Moreover, many heritage defenders who make claims of black Confederate soldiers, are using neither the dictionary definition of "soldier" nor the legal or political or military definition -- they're using the organic definition or the reality-based definition -- i.e., did the black Confederate pick up a gun in a battle and shoot at Yankees? Then that makes him a soldier to those folks -- in the sense that a soldier is as a soldier does.

The problem is … is there is no strong evidence that those who are claimed by you to be black confederates or black confederate soldiers are soldiers.

That may be a problem for you. It's not for me. Besides, where do you imagine I have made such a claim? I'd like chapter and verse, please. I've already 'splained it and 'splained it and posted a link to my position on this subject; so where are you getting this misinformation? Do tell. It might give some insight in how you traverse convolutions to arrive at the conclusions you arrive at.

Do I deny that tens of thousands of blacks were in a support role for the confederacy…no.

Now, why don't you tell me why I should care what you don't deny?

Do I deny that a very small number of blacks fought…no. However I will not and the historical data does not support the contention that tens of thousands of blacks fought as actual soldiers.

I don't contend that, either, so what are you bitching at me for? The ones who fought, however many there were, probably fought because they were at a place where circumstance -- i.e, marauding yankees shooting at them -- demanded it. I recognize that as soldierly conduct. Because this fellow wasn't on some muster roll somewhere, you refuse to see that as soldierly conduct. What? Certain conduct is what it is, only if something is written down on a piece of paper somewhere? You self-styled academics are so trussed up in paper that you're smothered by it, blinded by it, so you can't see the reality of the world and human nature and the human experience going on all around you.

You calling them black confederates denotes soldiers and loyalty.

No, you INFER that's what it denotes. That isn't necessarily what I'm implying, so don't put your words in other people's mouths and then condemn them with your own misunderstanding. If you could learn not to judge people, their beliefs, and what they say by your own misperceptions, you'd be waaaay ahead. I don't denote anything by it. I'm saying what was. They were residents of the Confederacy -- that made them Confederates, just like blacks, slave and free in the USA, were Americans. Voila -- black Americans, black Confederates.

Despite what you think, we just simply do not have the documentation to provide evidence of loyalty.

Well, you don't know what I think. You only prejudge what I think. However, if the documentation cannot provide evidence of loyalty, neither can it provide evidence of an absense of loyalty, can it? Thus, the documentation is neutral -- and irrelevant.

I too and saying that those who served should be acknowledged…but for what they were…and that was that the lions share of those you call black confederates were really slaves or free blacks that felt that any action in support of the south would lead to greater freedoms for themselves.

You know how they felt? You demand "written proof" from others, but you turn around and imply that you know how they felt? How? Do you hold seances? Do you put your hands on the "documentation" and the knowledge just ... sort of ... flows up your arms and into your head? I simply recognize what they did. You're telling me you know how thousands of people who lived a century and a half ago felt? This is one of the most ludicrous claims you've ever made.

Besides, being a slave, and being a black Confederate were not mutually exclusive, any more than being a slave and being a black American were mutually exclusive.

The only issue we have is how those men are acknowledged…and that needs to be done in a historically correct way. Calling a black slave who served his master during the war a black confederate will sound to a lay person on the War of the Rebellion as if blacks served as soldiers willingly and that the south openly enlisted blacks as soldiers and we….despite what you say…know that is not true.

You are once again doing the thinking for people you don't know, haven't met, never will know. You don't know that's what they'd think. Not everyone, lay person or not, has your mental limitations, Corey (limited to fit into your preexisting agenda). Frankly, I don't know how many "lay persons" would care one way or another. However, they are perfectly free to hear both sides of the issue and make up their minds about it. YOU would deny them that by shutting down the voices of those you disagree with, claiming that only YOUR way is the "historically correct" way.

Besides, when you show the same zeal for "historical correctness" regarding the Union's treachery, brutality and betrayal of the Founders, maybe we can revisit this.

As for the the example you refer to a couple of things. 1)If the writer is refering to new found information they need to tell the reader what that information is and where it comes from…Historical Honesty. 2)As for Kevin’s right to call anyone out I have this to say. Kevin is a published author, his first book is at the publishers and he has had numerous article published in journals and magazines about the War of the Rebellion. He is also currently under contract to write a book about black confederates and is in the research stage of the process. Therefore I would take his comments in higher esteem than say someone who writes southern romance novels!!

You expect me to be impressed? I'm not as gullible as you are. Levin is a published propagandist. I freely acknowledge my novels are fiction, and that they're written to an agenda. I say so right on my author website. http://conniechastain.com/bio.html You think Levin is candid enough to admit his writing is propaganda designed to push his pre-existing agenda? Ha!

Can't wait to see his book about "black confederates," which you and he say didn't exist. What's it gonna be, a back and front cover with nothing in between? LOL!

So are you saying that southern heritage is not synonymous with history.

Well, it's not me saying it, Corey. It's the very definition of the words themselves. Why don't you look and see? From dictionary.com:

==========

his·to·ry [his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient.
3. the aggregate of past events.
4. the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race.
5. a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history.
==========

her·it·age [her-i-tij] Show IPA
noun
1. something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion: a heritage of poverty and suffering; a national heritage of honor, pride, and courage.
2. something reserved for one: the heritage of the righteous.
3. Law.
a. something that has been or may be inherited by legal descent or succession.
b. any property, especially land, that devolves by right of inheritance.

==========

Is the distinction too subtle for you? Perhaps I need to spell it out. Our history is PART of our heritage in that it has been handed down to us. It is a part, a large part, of what we as Southerners have inherited. But it is not the WHOLE of our inheritance. Our region -- the very land itself, the mountains,, the plains, the rivers and bays, the flora and fauna -- our culture, our food, our kinfolk, our music, our language and much, much more. That's heritage. And while the SHPG concentrates mostly on Confederate history (primarily because it is under concerted attack, and has been for over a decade, and the attack will get worse now because of he sesquicentennial) that is not all we post about.

From what I have read on pages like Facebook’s Southern Heritage Preservation Group or Virginia War Between the States Sesquicentennial you are very correct…history and heritage are in no way connected or your’e not connecting them.

Sigh. Certainly they're connected. They're just not the same thing. How difficult a concept is that to comprehend? That two things which are not the same thing are nevertheless connected?

As for being drawn to your type…I suppose I am**…I won’t speak for others. You provide a comic relief!

Nope, that doesn't get it. If all I provided was comic relief, you wouldn't have responded here with such ernestness and gravity. LOL!

The difference between you and me, as bloggers, Corey, is that you're a censor. You would silence those you disagree with if you could, or make what they say conform to what you believe. I, on the other hand, don't seek to silence anybody. I just point out how wrong you are.

End

*The "other blogger" being Kevin Levin, owner of an anti-Southern, authoritarian, granite-minded blog called Civil War Memory (a virtually limitless subject matter that allows him to pontificate on anything and say it is "connected" to the Civil War because it's really about how the war is remembered, not about the war itself....) Anyhow, this fellow is a thin-skinned yankee teacher who came South to "educate" the poor, benighted chirren of scum-sucking, racist hick Southerners, and teach them about the evil reality of themselves and their kin, region, history, heritage, culture.... and who now -- praise be -- has relocated to Boston. I can't think of a better place for him. (Yes. This is my opinion, developed from reading Levin's blog and my personal experience with his childish whims and tantrums .)

**You can see how long Cory has been drawn to us by reading these columns from my original 180 DTS e-zine. They date from 2000 or so. About the only thing I got wrong was my caricature of Billy as a big, burly, Bluto-type of guy.... Talk about comic relief....
http://members.cox.net/180dts/Billy.html
http://members.cox.net/180dts/DigitalBilly.html

Getting OUR Message Out

2011-07-06T20:34:00.001-07:00

(Note: A slightly different version of the following appeared in a post by me at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group's Facebook page.)

Recently at the forum Southern War Room, there were two posts that illustrate part of the reason why our side of the story is seldom heard.

The first was a link to an excellent essay by Dr. Donald Livingston, *Why The War Was Not About Slavery, found here: http://www.carolannwilson.net/Livingston.pdf

The second was a link to a Power Point presentation titled *The Antebellum South by Ms. Susan Pojer of Horace Greeley High School, Chappaqua, NY, found here: http://www.pptpalooza.net/PPTs/AHAP/AntebellumSouth.ppt

(The Power Point Palooza page is here: http://www.pptpalooza.net/ While there, you might want to check out other of Ms. Pojer's Power Point Presentations -- Civil War Atrocities, which concentrates heavily on the Ft. Pillow lie and Andersonville, barely gives a nod to Point Lookout, and doesn't have a syllable about deliberate starvation and murder at Hellmira and torture at Camp Douglas, what a surprise, huh?.... Also check out Reconstruction and I'm A Good Ol' Rebel [that last one's great, although I'm sure Ms. Pojer doesn't think so!] )

My observations:

1. Dr. Livingston's essay is wonderful but it isn't likely to be read by anyone except we who are in the choir. It is nicely laid out, illustrated, etc., but it is thirteen pages of almost unrelieved text. THIRTEEN. PAGES. We do not live in a thirteen-pages-of-text world anymore. We live in a Power-Point, Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube, e-reader, SMS, sound-bite world.

2. If Ms. Pojer's entire lesson plan for her students follows what she has put in these Power Points, and if they're representative of what's taught in northern schools, is there any wonder why yanks continue to hate us?

3. ProSoutherners and Southern heritage advocates need to be making our own PPPs -- Power Point Presentations -- (and You-Tube videos, and other short-message venues) to get our message out. For example, a Power Point that distills the major points of Dr. Livingston's essay (with his permission, of course) that includes a link to it for those who can still read. A PPP refuting and/or "expanding" on Ms. Pojer's anti-South PPPs (i.e., showing what she leaves out). A PPP showcasing northern slavery, the truth about how/why it ended up there, and how the region continued to profit from "remote" slavery in the South. Think of all the subjects that can be presented this way. The truth about Forrest. Sherman's March. Black Confederates. Torture of Confederate captives in northern POW camps. And on and on and on.

4. Keep our presentations honest. In a section titled, "The South's Peculiar Institution," Pojer's The Antebellum South PPP includes a drawing of a slave wearing a metal muzzle, and a photo of three slave brands. If branding slaves had been routine in the plantation South, we would already have heard about it (and would never hear the end of it). I've done some rudimentary Google research on these images, and according to this site -- http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts/slavery_4446.jsp -- these items are relics of the Atlantic slave trade. To identify them as part of the South's peculiar institution as Ms. Pojer has done is either boneheaded ignorance, or willful lying. However, you see this all the time -- the conflatation of the Atlantic slave trade (which sent far more slaves to other parts of the western hemisphere than the South and was truly horrifically inhumane) with Southern plantation slavery, and it needs to be vigorously refuted -- with facts.

5. Thus, our presentations, whatever method is used to present them, must, must, must include source documentation. Pojer's doesn't. (Does anyone really believe she tells her students, "Now, that picture of slave muzzles and brands actually relates to the Atlantic slave trade, not the antebellum South, but I included them in this presentation about the South because _____ "(fill in the blank).

6. A note about execution. Don't use fancy transitions (checkerboard wipes, etc.) in PPPs and videos, as Pojer does, or use them sparingly. Especially don't use them on title pages. Don't make the fonts on your title pages too big, also as Pojer does. There's lots of instructions available for making high-quality video, much of which would apply to slide presentations like PPPs. There's no excuse for making stuff that looks amateur and thrown-together. (In the future, hope to write or link to articles with instructions on how to make professional-looking videos and presentations that have impact, so check back often.)

7. How do we get our view out there? We need to move beyond blogs and forums, and create our own proSouthern alternate media, including e-newspapers and e-magazines, books, both fiction and nonfiction (we already have many fine books, but more never hurts!), videos and PPPs, our own coloring books for our kids, comics for our teens, puppet shows, toys -- an entire proSouthern pop culture, including music, movies, radio and eventually television (featuring our own "stars") -- our own sports, our own schools (shadow schools with classes held after regular government indoctrination center classes, or on Saturdays and in summer), our own home-schooling curriculum and our own **awards for excellence in these endeavors. The digital revolution makes most of it accessible, relatively affordable, and easier than ever. We simply need to learn how to use it.

So read up on self-publishing, learn screenwriting. Educate yourself on independent filmmaking. Draw a coloring book or comic book (called "graphic novels" these days). Write songs, form a band or singing group, record the music, burn it on CDs and/or make your own digital recordings to sell as downloads. If you don't have the time or inclination to do all this, donate money to those who do and cheerlead for them. (Which leads to another though -- we need our own fundraisers and financial backers.)

In my wanderings through cyberspace, I've found lots of Southern sites. These aren't necessarily heritage or Confederate sites (though some to pay homage to Confederate heritage) but they are very, very culturally Southern. (See http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/index.html and http://www.propersouthernwoman.com/ What this says to me is, despite encroachment by the rest of the country, despite the homogenizing effects of TV and other pop-culture elements, and ridicule of the South by Hollywood and the big six publishers in New York, and despite anti-Southern indoctrination in schools, our people still tenaciously retain much of their regional identity. These are the people we need to be reaching.

I would add one other item to my list:

8. Don't confine your efforts for the South to Facebook, forums and such. As wonderful as it is to "meet" with likeminded folks in this manner, there is a possibility that it will become too cathartic and take the fire from our bellies.

How do we create our own media, movies, pop culture, etc. Start small, with Power Points or YouTube videos that will not only illustrate our views, but attract others (perhaps even indie filmmakers or financial backers we need). We start with what we can do, and then move up....

In the spirit of practicing what I preach, I have produced a short (under three minutes) video about secession that I will post at the end of this essay. If you agree, please repost far and wide, and leave comments here and/or at the video's YouTube page.

*(These were posted by Roy and RHC40AL; thanks to forum manager PoP for permission to repost.) http://www.southernwarroom.info/

**Kudos to the Military Order of the Stars and Bars for their Literary Awards: http://www.militaryorderofthestarsandbars.org/programs-services/service-programs/literary-awards/

If you know of other awards issued by proSouthern organizations, please let me know and I'll post links here.

Why I'm In This War of Words

2011-06-30T22:15:00.000-07:00

There are manifold reasons. To honor those who went before; to strengthen and protect what's left of my culture (it's worth saving, and it can't make a come-back if it's all gone); to correct age-old lies and slanders about my region and its people, to name a few...

As an example (we run into stuff like this. All. The. Time.) I recently ran across somebody's personal website, The Civil War in Georgia, created in 1996 and last updated in 2000. It's an amateur site -- both in design and writing (and the Internet has come a long way since then). It's just an illustration of the dismal ignorance rampant out there today.

The site deals with several subjects related to the war in Georgia --the cause, the blockade, Sherman's march, etc. It sez the war ...was America's defining moment, when the rural collection "These United States" transformed into the industrial powerhouse of "The United States." (If one is old enough to remember, one might call it the military-industrial powerhouse bully.... but I digress.)

What caught my attention, though, was in the "causes" section: "Slavery caused the war. It was the desire of the South to keep humans enslaved for profit and the inability of the North to stomach the evil of slavery that led so many thousands to their deaths."

The inability of the north to stomach slavery? Really? Actually, he's partly right. The north was unable to stomach those parts of the slavery enterprise that were no longer profitable for them -- the financial responsibilities of round-the-clock, cradle-to-grave support of slaves who did not, could not, produce round-the-clock, cradle-to-grave.

However, when they were relieved of that responsibility, and it rested solely with plantation-owners in the South to support their slaves, the north was all too happy to get rich off the products of the evils of slavery -- that is, weaving slave-grown cotton in their textile mills (i.e., the infant "industrial powerhouse" ran on "remote" slavery) and the shipping of slave-grown cotton in the cargo holds of their ships headed for England.

As long as they didn't have to come in close proximity to slaves, Northerners were fine with the "evil of slavery" -- particularly when they profited so handsomely off the work of slaves who were out of sight, out of mind.

I have said it before, and I will continue to say it. Whatever "sins" the Confederacy committed, the Union's were just as bad, and some of them worse -- and continue to be so to this day.

Another Walk Down Memory Lane

2011-06-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite 180DTS covers from back when. This was the cover for February 2001, shortly after King Roy Rat Barnes arbitrarily changed the Georgia flag (and was subsequently thrown out of office by the voters). Look closely and you can see Kerosene Billy's ghostly face above the city skyline. (Click image for a larger view.)

Test your history indoctrin-- I mean, knowledge

2011-06-09T15:39:00.000-07:00

(Warning. This post contains language that some might find offensive.)

Who said this?

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

Dingdingdingding! Right, we have a winner! Everyone! Because everyone knows it was Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy. It's repeated in website after website, and all over the blogosphere, and even in comment threads, as proof that the inbred, scum-sucking racist hick Confederates were fighting to keep an entire race in chains!

Okay, now, who wrote this?

The negro of the North is the ideal negro; it is the negro refined by white culture, elevated by white blood, instructed even by white iniquity; -- the
negro among negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature,
ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest of brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no
use to any in the world. View him as you will, his stock in trade is small; --
he has but the tangible of instincts of all creatures, -- love of life, of ease
and of offspring. For all else, he must go to school to the white race, and his
discipline must be long and laborious. Nassau, and all that we saw of it,
suggested to us the unwelcome question whether compulsory labor be not better
than none....

Why, that sounds like the writer is saying that that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition -- a mirroring of Stephens' comment, only couched in far, far more insulting terms. So, who wrote it? Jefferson Davis? Robert E. Lee? Some other inhuman Confederate slaveholder?

Why, no. That was written by the famous abolitionist Julia Ward Howe.

Yes, she who penned the Battle Hymn of the Republic, about grape stomping and vorpal blades going snicker-snack-- wait. I'm getting my nonsense verses mixed up. Grape stomping and terrible swift swords, it was.

What kind of abolitionist advocates slavery (i.e., compulsory labor)? Well, the kind of abolitionist Julia Ward Howe was. The kind that believed negroes were inferior to whites and had to be refined by white culture, elevated by white blood, instructed even by white iniquity.

With abolitionist/friends like this, what slave needed Confederate/enemies?

Frankly, I think, as abolitionists go, Julia Ward Howe was a fraud. Even worse -- she became a feminist after the war, and anyone who knows me for a while knows what I think of feminism. (It is man-hatred; its goal the destruction of the natural family.)

Look. Confederate descendants and heritage supporters have nothing to be ashamed of. Whatever sins the Confederacy may have committed, the sins of the Union and its pet abolitionists were as bad or worse. For example, the murder of a black man by the raiders of Slave-Savior/Terrorist John Brown. I guess this is an example of the makin' omelets school of abolitionism.

Oh, one other thing. You know how South-bashers are always claiming the "traitorous rebels" wanted to "tear the Union apart" with secession and war? Next time you encounter some mad, neo-yankee blogger screeching about that, send them to this link:

A Trip to Cuba by Julia Ward Howe
Tell them to use the drop-down CONTENTS menu and to go Chapter 2 - Nassau, where they'll find this:

Now we who write, and they for whom we write, are all orthodox upon this mighty question. We have all made our confession of faith in private and public; we all, on suitable occasions, walk up and apply the match to the keg of gunpowder which is to blow up the Union, but which, somehow, at the critical moment, fails to ignite.

She and her fellow travelers wanted to blow up the Union -- and had tried to, multiple times, with their writings.

I'll say it again. Hereditary Southerners whose ancestors served the Confederacy have nothing to be ashamed of. Whatever sins the CSA may have committed, the USA was, and is, no better

Be proud you're a rebel!

(Photos from the Library of Congress)

The Black Confederates Controversy

2011-06-08T21:59:00.000-07:00

Were there black Confederates? I dunno. I don't care, either. At least, not in the sense that those involved in the Big Controversy About Black Confederates care about it.

My personal view? I think that anyone who fought for the Confederacy -- red or yellow, black or white -- whether as duly signed-up soldiers or not, should be honored and their service acknowledged. So they weren't on some official muster roll and they weren't handed a uniform and soldierly accouterments. So? What interests me is... did they pick up a gun and shoot at yankees? Then they need to be commemorated.

And not just the ones who fought, but the wives and families, the servants, the farmers and merchants, the teachers, preachers, elected officials... all who supported the new nation and its fight for independence.

When the No-They-Didn't folks cite the Confederate government's barring blacks from service as PROOF that there were no blacks fighting for the Confederacy, I have to laugh.

Do you suppose these folks also seriously believe that nobody drank alcohol during Prohibition -- because the government barred drinking alcohol?

What gets me is that so many of these No-They-Didn't folks are -- or claim to be -- intellectuals and academics. You'd think they'd know better. Oh, wait. Intellectuals... and academics... Never mind.

But what's actually fueling this controversy is not the B word (black) or the C word (Confederate). It's the S word. Slavery.

In a historical context, at least, Confederacy-bashers think of "black" and "slave" as synonyms. Thus, all blacks in the South were slaves, and it is unthinkable to them that blacks/slaves would "fight to perpetuate their own enslavement," as one of them put it For you see, slavery was the ONLY THING the Confederates were fighting for, so any blacks fighting for the Confederacy would be fighting for their own enslavement.

That's how they see it. They can't see it any other way.

Well, they probably could. But they WON'T.

This is why, bloggers at websites like this (http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2009/06/civil-war-was-about-slavery.html and http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2011/06/pimp-slapping-black-confederate-soldier.html) truncate the secession documents to leave out all the OTHER reasons the states cited for seceding. It has to be all-slavery, only-slavery, or they blow a gasket.

For example, Transgriot posts 136 words of Mississippi's 708 word secession document. She posts 60 words of Georgia's 3300-word secession document. Why did she leave out so much? Because they were about things she wasn't interested in? If Mississippians and Georgians didn't care about what she left out, why did they include them? If what she cut out was important enough to Mississippians and Georgians that they LISTED THEM among their CAUSES FOR SECEDING, why did Transgriot leave them out?

Yes, dear reader, that IS a rhetorical question. We KNOW why she left them out.

Once Confederacy-bashers like this see what they're looking for -- the S word -- they QUIT READING. They don't want to know the rest of the story. They don't even want to acknowledge that there IS a rest-of-the-story.

Well, there is. I have already examined Mississippi's Secession Declaration to explain it to a "journalist" here: http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/03/backsassin-yet-another-journalist.html

The Yes-They-Did folks seem levelheaded and motivated mostly by (1) a desire to acknowledge these men and their contribution and (2) historical accuracy, while the No-They-Didn't folks get plumb apoplectic in their denial. For me, that says a lot about the quality of the substantiation each waves before the public.

The no-folks claim that yes-folks (frequently slandered as "Confederacy worshippers" and "historical revisionists" and "slavery apologists") are attempting to "legitimize" the Confederacy by taking away the idea that the South fought to perpetuate slavery, because, as we have noted, it is unthinkable that blacks/slaves would "fight to perpetuate their own enslavement." So, if blacks fought for the South, the South couldn't have been fighting to maintain slavery.

However, that this is an accurate description of the yes-folks' motive is a bunch of baloney, as far as I'm concerned..

Now, it's true that, over the years, I've run into a few people who claim, "The war had nothing to do with slavery! It was about..." states rights, or the tariff, or whatever. Well, it was "about" all those things, including slavery, and more. However, when someone makes the distinction (as I do) that the secession of the Deep South states was over slavery and other things, but the shooting started for another reason, that is frequently characterized as saying, "The war had nothing to do with slavery...." It's dishonest, of course, and the people doing it know it is.

The reason it is so important to the anti-Confederate folks to tie the Southern cause forever to slavery, and only slavery, is their faith that slavery delegitimizes the South's struggle for independence.

It doesn't.

The reason for demonizing the Confederacy this way is to take the focus off the sins of the United States.

Whatever claim of moral superiority the north/union/United States had/has over the South because some of its states abolished slavery when it became unprofitable, that moral authority was obliterated by northern industry's accumulation of wealth processing slave-grown cotton in its textile mills and its maritime interests' accumulation of wealth shipping slave-grown cotton to Europe.

The north's moral superiority vanishes when you realize that the Confederacy had legalized slavery for four years, and the United States for 80 years -- including eight months AFTER the Confederacy ceased to exist.

The north's moral superiority vanishes when you realize that while the union army making war on the South, slaves were helping to build the U .S. Capitol in Washington D.C.

The north's moral superiority was obliterated by the military invasion of the Southern states, the barbarity with which the Union Army made war and the economic enslavement of the Southern people, black and white, for generations after the war, with purposely created poverty.

The claim of U.S. moral superiority was obliterated by the U.S. government's official policy of genocide of the Plains Indians; by herding native Americans onto reservations in conditions worse than slavery; by the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII; by the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments; by the CIA's torture and murder in Central America; by the U.S. military's herbicidal warfare program against Vietnamese civilians, and on and on and on.

The South was fighting for its political independence motivated by more than preserving its slave-based economy, but even if that had been its only motivator -- and whether or not blacks fought for the South -- the Confederacy's struggle for independence from Washington, D.C. was as legitimate as the colonies' struggle for independence from the British crown.

Emotionalism trumps cognition -- again

2011-05-08T02:49:00.000-07:00

Checking the hits on my blog recently, I noticed 180 had been visited by somebody who followed a link from www.anti-semitism.net, so I went over there and looked around. They had posted two sentences from my 180 essay titled "More Sesquicentennial Slime" evidently as some sort of proof that my blog is anti-semitic.

CLICK HERE TO SEE SCREENSHOT
So, I sent them a reply using the contact form on their site. Here it is:

Cherrypicking a quote from my blog about Leo Frank -- evidently to "prove" anti-semitism on my blog -- is at best misleading because the quote is lifted from its context. The context demonstrates that my blog essay, "More Sesquicentennial Slime", is not anti-semitic in any way; it is anti-Jill Howard Church and anti-the manipulation and mendacity in her editorial.
In your rush to find (or create) anti-semitism, you had to leave out most of the paragraph in which that quote appears. How honest is that? Did you even read it? Of course, you couldn't paste the whole paragraph on your site because it clearly demonstrates that my comments were not an anti-semitic insult to Leo Frank and were not intended as such, but were made to show my contempt for Jill Howard Church's claims, and her dishonest presentation of them. Her cynical use of the Leo Frank case to smear the people of Peachtree City (by associating them with violence for their commemoration of Confederate history) is odious.
Here's the context, including the entire paragraph you intentionally truncated:
------------------
CHURCH: There were also thousands of Jewish soldiers, but their service was conveniently forgotten once the Klan showed up (just ask Leo Frank).
ME: Well, since Leo Frank has been dead since 1915, we can't exactly ask him, can we? However, perhaps you will kindly point me to any published work by Leo Frank that indicates he knew the service of Jews to the Confederacy was "conveniently forgotten" after the KKK showed. Oh, and which KKK are you talking about, by the way? There have been several "incarnations" of the Klan. If you are facetiously referring to Frank's lynching by the "Knights of Mary Phagan," that has nothing to do with Jewish service to the Confederacy, or the commemoration of it. Yes, Ms. Church, I'm being as deliberately obtuse as you are. Only I'm not being nearly as dishonest as you are.
------------------
So, do you folks at Exposing and Fighting, etc., truly believe that the Frank case somehow proves that the service of Jewish soldiers to the Confederacy was "conveniently forgotten" once the Klan showed up? (The Klan "showed up," BTW, in 1865, eighteen years before Leo Frank was born.) Or that Frank had knowledge that proves it? If you believe that, I'm sure you have a reliable source to document it -- unlike Ms. Church. You can post it in the comments section of my blog. However, if you know it's not true, you're being as dishonest about it as Church is.
How is it anti-semitic to tell my readers why Leo Frank cannot prove what Church is using him, unsuccessfully, to prove? It is Ms. Church's patronizing and gratuitous inclusion of Frank in an article that had nothing to do with him, solely to smear Georgians as violent haters indifferent to the law, that you should be upset about.
Yes, my reply to her was flippant and rude, because that's what her claims deserve. But flippant and rude are not synonymous with anti-semitic.
Connie Chastain

I think I made my case to the objective and thoughtful. Of course, those who are determined to see a racist and an anti-semite behind every blog won't be impressed.

One thing this experience does prove is that political correctness is not only pernicious to free speech rights -- it's also making succeeding generations of Americans dumber than boxes of rocks, unable to relate on any level except hyper-sensitive emotionalism.

Response to The Oxford American

2011-04-27T00:46:00.000-07:00

Colors That Bleed by Warwick Sabin
http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articles/2011/mar/07/colors-that-bleed/

The voluntary obtuseness in pieces like this one never ceases to amaze me. The city of Marshall's name is a disavowal of the Confederacy? Or the result of the influence of the military dictatorship set up by the federal government in the former Confederate states, as represented by the U.S. troops in Burrowsville? The forced imposition of northern/federal will upon the Southern states was practically the definition, and certainly the reality and practice, of Reconstruction.

And if you don't understand Kim Ragland's reference to the flag prohibition being a "slap in the face" of the men and women fighting for our country, let me give you a way of looking at it that obviously didn't occur to you. Our military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution -- the document that is supposed to charge the government with securing the rights of citizens, including the right to free speech and free expression. The troops may not feel about the Confederate flag the way the people of Marshall do, but they don't have to agree with the way Americans express their views in order to protect that expression. It is not the place of the city council to circumvent the will of the people. They are elected servants who are supposed to do the will of the people. The imposition of government on the people's rights and will are what the troops fighting against overseas -- but they're just supposed to accept it here, in their own country?

I suspect most of the troops remember what elitists back home have forgotten, or rejected: "I may not agree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it." Or, in the case of the mayor and people of Marshall, to display it.

There was no violent rebellion 150 years ago. There was a violent invasion of the Southern states by the federal government's military. There was absolutely no justification for responding to the peaceful and democratic secession of the Southern states with military invasion and war.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson established that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights. One right he specifically identifies is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and create another that suits them better. This right both pre-exists and transcends the Constitution. How grotesque, then, that the only time Americans have attempted to exercise this right, the government that was supposed to secure it for them made brutal war on them instead.

That the people of Southern towns likely do not share your elitist view of history (and of them) doesn't mean they are conflicted and confused. It's far more likely that you're seeking to create in yourself the warm fuzzies of moral and intellectual superiority by bad-mouthing people simply for seeing the issue differently than you do -- i.e., you're right, they're wrong.

The Confederate flag did not inspire treason. The charge of treason applies only to people who, owing allegiance to the US, make war on it, or assist those who do. Since the states had already seceded (as was their right, enunciated by the Declaration of Independence) the people of those states no longer owed allegiance to the US. Thus, no treason.

The South did not tear itself apart OR tear itself away. It peacefully and democratically seceded, state by state, and it was invaded, blockaded, and starved. The invaders burned entire towns as well as farms, homes, barns, stored food and crops in the field; shot family pets; killed livestock and threw the carcasses in wells and streams to contaminate drinking water, stabled horses in church sanctuaries just for spite, and dug up corpses looking for valuables to steal. Oh, but I'm sure it was done without malice and with charity, since Lincoln suggested it should.

What I find grotesquely hypocritical of your essay is your charge that admirers of the Confederate flag do not fully comprehend its "complicated heritage" -- but then you simplistically reduce that heritage to "a nation conceived to deny fundamental human rights for some of its citizens." No, you got it right the first time; the issues that went into the creation of the Confederate States of America were not as simple as the all-slavery, only-slavery school would have us believe.

It is even more complex when you realize that virtually everything the Confederacy is criticized for, the United States is also guilty of -- and worse. The Confederate government did not have as official policy the genocide of the Plains Indians. It did not herd native Americans into reservations where their condition was worse than that of slaves. It did not engage in domestic mind control experiments and torture in Central America, like the CIA after WWII. When you compare the sins of the two governments and cultures, the CSA actually comes out as morally superior.

You seem to have a grudging respect for the hillbillies of Searcy County since they evidently didn't think secession and war was worth their time and trouble. Of course, that's probably the only thing admirable about them, judging by the way white Southerners -- especially hardscrabble rural ones -- are perceived and portrayed by the USA, especially in popular culture. They are among the last few groups people can ridicule and mock without rousing the wrath, or at least the verbal condemnation, of the political correctness police. I wonder if your grudging respect for their uninvolvement in the Confederacy's denying fundamental human rights to some of its citizens would move you to defend them from such as this:
Arkansas Hillbillies Google Search

And this: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2206742081&v=info
And this: http://fuckthesouth.com/
And this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295700/

I'm a self-taught writer. I found the Oxford American website while searching the Internet for writing-related content. I'm also a Southerner, and a descendent of poor, hardscrabble Georgia mountaineers. I am pleased with and proud of my region and its people and I write to honor them by accurately portraying them. I do not feel it necessary to portray them as scum-sucking racist inbred hicks in order to please some New York editor, or some Southern carpetbagger-or-scalawag editor. I would rather never be published than to achieve publication by lying about the good people of my region and their culture.

Fortunately, there are alternatives now, thanks to the digital revolution. Self-publishing has become affordable with print-on-demand technology. Downloadable electronic books circumvent brick and mortar bookstores. This same technology has given Southerners access to information about the past unfiltered by self-appointed gatekeepers who wish our view of history and our beliefs about ourselves and our culture to conform to theirs.

Not only do I feel no compulsion to trash my region and its people with my writing; I feel no desire to read others who engage in such. For example, "After all, the South is often mercilessly derided by outsiders for the more shameful aspects of its history; for its standing in many socioeconomic categories; and for the political systems and attitudes that are largely responsible for both." Anyone who writes such without pointing out that the political systems and attitudes responsible for both are not Southern in origin, but imposed from without, loses me quickly. As for the South's "socioeconomic categories" -- i.e., its poverty -- don't blame that on the Southern people....Blame it on things like this: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cescott/freight.html

I'll happily leave the Oxford American website, go outside for some breaths of fresh air to clear my head and get the bad taste out of my mouth... and get back to the real South, a wonderful place regardless of 150 years of elitist efforts to sanctify the north of its sins by pretending only the South has them -- and that the sins are the crux, the definition, the sum-total of the South.

More Sesquicentennial Slime

2011-04-24T19:09:00.000-07:00

The Sesquicentennial of the War for Southern Independence will create a blizzard of claptrap like this, so Southerners who honor their culture, history, heritage and forebears -- brace yourselves... Oh, and if you're so moved, backsass the people attempting to palm off this claptrap. You may or may not teach them anything, but if my experience is anything to go by, it'll sure make you feel better.

Fayette: Peachtree City honors the wrong cause
By Jill Howard Church

Talking about the Civil War is a minefield of politics and emotion. As was the case with actual land mines during that war (as developed by Confederate Brigadier General Gabriel J. Rains), some Southern tempers tend to detonate under the slightest pressure, even after 150 years. But it’s not easy, or even appropriate, to tread lightly.

Folks, isn't it amazing how "opinion journalists" make baldfaced statements like this "detonate" accusation without offering a shred of explanation, let alone evidence. Frankly, Ms. Church, you're the one who seems to be detonating, here....

Peachtree City’s proclamation of Confederate History and Heritage Month was read aloud at a City Council meeting recently. Its wording took me aback, and I grew up in the same state as Robert E. Lee. My long-lost cousin Samuel’s Confederate sword is a family heirloom. I “get” the heritage, but only to a point.
This is 2011, generations removed from that most uncivil war. And I had hoped its lessons would be better reflected in modern mention. The proclamation begins, “April is the month in which the Confederate States of America began a four-year struggle for independence, state rights, individual freedom and local government control ...” I guess that depends on which individuals and whose freedom we’re talking about. The 4 million men, women and children held in bondage in 1861 struggled much differently.

Kind of like the slaves during the American Revolution, who didn't fall under the category "all men" as in the Declaration's "all men are created equal"? Kind of like American slaves who had no rights but three-fifths of them were counted for legislative apportioning, by Constitutional authority? Are the situations similar, Ms. Church, or not? And if not, why not?

The proclamation says April 26 is when “Georgians honor the brave men and women of all ethnic backgrounds who served the Confederate States of America.” Well, not exactly. True, there were Canadians, Europeans, Native Americans and Mexicans in the Confederate ranks. There were also thousands of Jewish soldiers, but their service was conveniently forgotten once the Klan showed up (just ask Leo Frank).>

Well, since Leo Frank has been dead since 1915, we can't exactly ask him, can we? However, perhaps you will kindly point me to any published work by Leo Frank that indicates he knew the service of Jews to the Confederacy was "conveniently forgotten" after the KKK showed. Oh, and which KKK are you talking about, by the way? There have been several "incarnations" of the Klan. If you are facetiously referring to Frank's lynching by the "Knights of Mary Phagan," that has nothing to do with Jewish service to the Confederacy, or the commemoration of it. Yes, Ms. Church, I'm being as deliberately obtuse as you are. Only I'm not being nearly as dishonest as you are.

From the accounts I’ve read, black Confederates served mostly as laborers, relatively few as soldiers. And many who fought did so believing (or having been promised) they’d be freed in return.

What accounts have you read? And whether they served as laborers or fighters, what's your problem with acknowledging their service? The same thing happened during the Revolution. Can we expect to see a similarly snide editorial penned by you denigrating the United States come the Fourth of July? What a silly question, of course we cannot. Critics of the Confederacy are virtually always blind to the sins of the Union.

“Georgia has long cherished its Confederate history and Georgia’s great leaders who made sacrifices on behalf of the Confederate cause,” the proclamation says. But that way of life was built on broken backs and lives, and it is disingenuous to either contend or pretend that the “Confederate cause” isn’t stained by atrocity. Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution specifically bans restricting “the right of property in Negro slaves.”

The Confederate Constitution also forbade the importation of slaves from any foreign country except the United States, which some say would eventually cause the demise of slavery. Why no mention of that? Only what's worthy of criticism is worthy to be mentioned? Oh, and the United States isn't stained by atrocity? For example, the official U.S. Policy of genocide against the Plains Indians. That's not an atrocity? The 3/5th clause in the U.S. Constitution is hunky-dory with you? The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments... CIA torture in Central America during the Cold War... Gitmo, Abu Ghraibe... Is slavery the only circumstance you recognize as atrocity?

Be careful how you criticize the Confederacy, Ms. Church; you're liable to find just as bad or worse done by the United States.

As I listened, I realized the only African-American person in the room was the police officer on security duty.

How ironic that the individual there to protect the lives of everyone else was the one person who, in the days of Dixie, wouldn’t have been considered a person at all. What did those words mean to her or her family?

I couldn’t bring myself to even look in her direction.

What do you mean by "in the days of Dixie"? Dixie means "the South". The South predates the United States. It still exists today, and will very likely exist after the United States ceases to. That entire timeline is the "days of Dixie." Are you clumsily attempting to imply that slaves were not considered persons in the era before slavery was abolished? Where did you get that information? Certainly not from the laws of the day.

I suggest you're going by your own personal concept/understanding, perhaps shaped by Hollywood and lurid paperback novels, or perhaps leftist race-baiters. I also suggest you look at the laws back then. Slaves were indeed considered persons. They had rights by law, very limited ones, to be sure, but non-persons do not have any rights (just ask an aborted fetus). Law mandated that slaveowners support slaves in sickness and old age. It gave slaves the right to give testimony in certain case. Slaves were also afforded more rights not by law but by custom -- for example, lighter work for women, especially during pregnancy, and the right to religious instruction. I suggest you attempt to rise above your anti-Confederate indoctrination and read real history, from source documentation dating from that era. You badly need it.

I understand that there are people for whom certain periods of history hold particular interest for one reason or another. Some Civil War aficionados re-enact the battles like a costumed chess game but not, thank God, the beatings, lynchings or other horrors of the time. I guess it’s easier to make believe than to make amends.

Civil war re-enactors re-enact the war; they don't re-enact plantation life or town merchant life or yeoman farmer life. Every time has its horrors, but the horrors of the time (and place) you're referring to are only a small portion of the total. I understand that indoctrinees such as yourself have been taught to focus solely on the small, negative portion and pretend it is the whole -- and to try to convince others of the same distortion -- but it isn't. I guess it's easier to engage in false demonization than to see things as they really were.

But with the war 150 years past, and with African-Americans now 20 percent of Fayette County’s population, it seems more honorable to mourn the dead — from both sides — without constantly picking at our nation’s deepest wound.

Then stop picking.

What Would They Do Without Us?

2011-04-13T22:41:00.000-07:00

bby Connie Chastain Ward

There's no better place to explore pseudointellectual arrogance and South-bashing than the neo-yankee Civil War (sic) blogs that monitor the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southerners who refuse to spit on the graves and memories of their ancestors.

You will find the most pompous, hubristic commentary from folks who apparently have no way to feel good about themselves except to evilize those who see things (e.g., the Civil war [sic]) differently than they do.

On my last tour of the most arrogant blogger's blog, I came across a comment identifying the "white South" as the "worst of the worst" example of white supremacist racism that the "rest of the nation" moved on from "long ago."

Ah, yes. The evil white South. The scum-sucking racist inbred hick South. Funny how it manages to be the region of the country with the fewest hate crimes. Funny how the people of Mississippi, the poorest (and most racist) people in the nation, manage to top the list in charitable giving -- more than rich, pure-bred Massachusetts or any other state. Funny how the nation's black folks overwhelmingly choose to live in the evil white South.

But when you have such an overwhelming need/desire/craving to feel superior to ... somebody, it is imperative that you find a group to label as "the worst of the worst." Then you can feel those warm fuzzies of moral and intellectual superiority wash over you like waves on a tropical beach.

Just don't examine too closely how you created them, or you may find yourself far away from shore with the sharks of hypocrisy circling....