Monday, September 5, 2011

"Unfurl the Flag Boys"



Confederate Battle Flag on the side of the Interstate
The alleged infamous words of General Robert E. Lee, “Furl the Flag Boys,” have long been forgotten by some groups promoting southern heritage. There are two incidents recently that have brought the issue of the display of the “stars and bars,” to light once more. Lexington, Virginia recently saw a rise in public awareness on the controversial issue of displaying the flag, and now the state of Georgia is seeing flag advocates moving to put the battle flag up along the interstate system. With this new awareness, also comes another look at the memory of the Civil War, and its connected symbols.

Kevin Levin over at Civil War Memory recently did a tremendous job of covering the events on the Lexington, VA issue. There is not anything to add to his commentary on the event but to take note of the irrational action and irrational reaction that seems to have taken place there. Read with objective eyes. 

Blog at Civil War Memory
The issue of the flag’s display in the “Peach State,” is a different matter. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution wrote on September 3rd, about a new effort to unfurl the Confederate flag, in gigantic proportions along Georgia’s interstates. So far, only three of these flags have gone up on display. Anyone living in the Tifton area can see one of these mammoth symbols measuring 30 by 50 feet waving in the southern breeze. There also appears to be two more in North Georgia that do not have listed locations in the article. I can vouch that there is a massive flag along the side of I-75 around the Ringgold, Georgia exit. This flag is not the battle flag, but the old Georgia state flag. The recent influx of flag raisings comes as the result of certain advocate groups political ambitions. 

Jack Bridwell, who is the division commander of the state chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans stated that, “We [the SCV] want to remind people of who they are and where they came from,” going on to say “being Southern is nothing to be ashamed of.” The SCV is the advocacy group paying for the flags in the recent unfurling. 

There is no doubt that these new flag raisings have revived the old debate in Georgia over the display of the flag. In this new debate is also the realization of what the flag is, and what it means. This of course is another insight to how Southerners remember the Civil War.  Jack Bridwell, who the AJC recognizes as a retired educator states that opposition to the flag is misguided. Bridwell believes that the Civil War, “or war of Northern aggression….was about economics and an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter.” Bridwell seems to be forgetting the reason that secession took place as far as economics is concerned, has to do with the back bone or work force of that agriculturally based economy.  Gordon Jones, the senior military historian at the Atlanta History Center had this to say; “The battle flag was aligned with a Confederacy that argued for states’ rights and economic freedom necessary to protect slaves as property.” The SCV has remained consistent in its attempts to deflect that type of insight that Jones provides as “Yankee Propaganda,” or revisionist history. Bridwell’s version aligns with the “Lost Cause” ideology. This is a concept that is constantly being battled, but who is winning the fight?

According to the recent The Georgia Confederate, along with the completion of a new Confederate Soldier Monument in Jefferson, GA, is the “Commander’s Report” from Division Commander Jack Bridwell. In his statement Bridwell mentions the needs for membership drives and for those already members to recruit their relatives into the SCV. This might be an indication of small numbers, but that seems unlikely given that the SCV’s narrative throughout the article is from the position of a victim, warding off revisionist history affecting the nation. Bridell also makes mention of new camps being established and a Division Headquarters Camp. These are referencing new SCV membership units and also physical camps, much like religious camps. They will host summer camps to bring children to. What can be deduced is that the efforts of the SCV in GA are highly motivated. 

In light to this recent display of the Confederate Flag is the response of the DeKalb NAACP president John Evans who had this to say; “We don’t like it, but they have every right to put it up if they can find someone who wants that mess on their property……as long as it’s just a symbol and not an action, it’s just a distraction from how much the world has changed from when that flag represented a real threat.” Though it can be assumed, the threat Evans is talking about is the Confederate ideology of slavery or perhaps the Ku Klux Klan of the early and mid-1900’s.  It is apparent that Evans position is very rational. 

The flag in itself is a symbol. What that symbol is seems to be very complex and diverse. Bridwell and other SCV members view it as a symbol of pride to use to glorify an ancestry. That at least appears to be the argument on the surface. People such as John Evans view it as a symbol with different meanings to different people, but hope that leads to inaction. Ultimately it remains a symbol as many things are.  In keeping with their version of the truth, it is apparent that the Georgia SCV will continue its mission to buy or lease land along the interstate system in order to display their symbol of Southern heritage.

125 comments:

  1. I have to say the whole flag debate is mind boggling to me. I understand the argument being made about ancestry and not forgetting the past or being ashamed of it but there have to be other images or displays available. While to some the flag might represent something their great great grandfathers fought for, it is abundantly obvious that this symbol to many others is a symbol of war and oppression. It's similar in some ways to what Hitler did with the Swastika, once a symbol of the sun and good luck to Hindu's, it is now inescapably associated with genocide and war.

    It's either willful ignorance or absurd defiance that causes these groups to want to continue displaying the symbols like this publicly. They're very aware what it is they are doing and that it will cause controversy. In a sense it reminds me of a child who does something they know will cause trouble just to get attention.

    Of course we should remember the civil war and we should have some respect for what it stood for, but to pretend that this symbol isn't exactly what it is to probably a majority of people is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting, I'd have to somewhat agree with the context of what you said. Though it could very well be their willful defiance, or perhaps the absurd ignorance of the display of the flag. Symbols are a rather interesting aspect all around, everything to somebody somewhere means something. There is positively no exception when it comes to the Confederate Battle flag. Another element we might want to consider is this ideology of the Neo-Confederate. Though I use the word leniently less it should become cop-out word one would say when their is a lack of understanding. Tony Horwitz in "Confederates in the Attic" comes into contact with this ideology. It would appear to be an association of anti-government political movements. This may very well be a new rallying symbol of something or someone that attempts to stand up to government. Though their actions are usually childish and rather inconsequential in this area. But it does give that historical ideology of secession and throwing off the Federal Government a nod.

    It is important to remember though, as you said, what the war was and what it stood for. Though the symbol itself may today be about heritage/small government, its origin was not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The flags were furled, as Lee recommended. They have been unfurled relatively recently not because Lee's words have been forgotten, but because the circumstances under which they were uttered have changed, big time. We're in a new war, and it is entirely appropriate that the flags be unfurled and hoisted high for the troops to rally 'round.

    Kevin Levin's analysis of the Lexington issue was juvenile, at best. How can Southerners discriminate against Southerners, he asks. There's a word for thinking that Southerners all think alike, or ought to. It's bigotry. Civil War Memory, btw, is full of bigotry.

    The big flags going up in Georgia are a direct result of attempted suppression. You don't want big flags flapping beside the interstate? Stop taking smaller ones down elsewhere. Stop the renaming of streets, bridges, schools and other things named for Confederates. Stop evilizing the Confederacy and Southerners, past and present. Or get ready for even more big wayside flags popping up like giant mushrooms....

    Also, "SCV members view it as a symbol of pride to use to glorify an ancestry," is not entirely correct. It isn't to glorify an ancestry but to acknowledge and honor the sacrifices of our ancestors -- not precisely the same thing. Next thing you know, you'll be accusing the SCV of "ancestor worship" like Corey "Kindred Blood" Meyer, although anyone who can Google "ancestor worship" will see immediately how wrong he is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for commenting Connie. Actually we are not in any war. As you like to throw out the deep meaning of words let me start by saying that there has been no congressional declaration of war, nor is their any resemblance of a Confederate congress that has declared one as well. What you are fighting, is a clash of identity. The problem with your statement, is that the 'troops that are rallying" are extremely low made apparent by the consistent efforts of SCV members to recruit.

    Kevin Levin at "Civil War Memory" actually provided little analysis until the event was over and only reiterated the topic at hand as well as those that commented. Your accusations are rather moot. There was not any bigotry over the issue of the Flag. The City council banned every flag from flying on public posts, meaning tax payer funded posts, save that of the U.S., Virginia, County and City flags. Everyone can still march, wave, string the flag up on their own poll all they want. Hardly Stalinist as your posts would suggest. Your third post is somewhat irrelevant as well. It is easy to evilize the ideology that created such a thing as the CSA over the common Confederate. One was just a soldier, the other, based on political power, derived from agriculture that was sustained through slavery. How much more evil can you get?

    To finalize this string of perverse rationalization you have, the definition of glory is as follows: : praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent. So ya, to differentiate is very moot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You've been making a big deal about satire, but you don't have a real good grasp of figurative language, do you? May I suggest you look up "war" at dictionary.com?

    My comment about bigotry was directed at Levin's blog, not the city council. What's Stalinist is the city council's desire to rewrite history, dishonor the city's past to have an excuse for "purging" it.

    How much more evil can you get than political power derived from agriculture that was sustained through slavery? Well, how about utilizing political power and financial resources based upon the exploitation of agriculture sustained through slavery to mount a brutal, savage military invasion against people who don't deserve it? How about laying their country waste, putting an unconstitutional military dictatorship over them, and installing puppet governments that put the states so deeply in debt it would take generations to get out, and meanwhile states had little or no money for infrastructure, schools and such. And then, how about instigating economic policies, private ones but supported by government, designed to keep the South in poverty for five generation? And then mocking Southerners for being poor and uneducated? How about that?

    Southerners must be evilized in order to make it appear that they deserved the incomprehensible brutality and savagery rained down upon them by the union army during the war. They didn't deserve it. They didn't do anything wrong -- at least, they didn't do anything any "wronger" than the deeds of those who came down here and made war on them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually Connie, according to your post on your blog, what was Stalinist is the "suppression" of the flag. Not the 'rewriting of history."

    Thank you for not actually trying to prove me wrong about political power based on slavery. Instead you redirect your attention to something else. I would disagree with your comments in the aftermath as the South became an economic and industrial power after the war. City histories to examine, Birmingham, AL and Atlanta, GA to name a couple. However I am going to remain on topic with the issue of slavery. Certain people seeing the flag as a symbol of suppression because ultimately, symbols are symbols and can be interpreted differently.

    Also, Southerners do not have to be evilized. No one teachers the Civil War from a South was evil North was not perspective. That is just insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a Northerner myself I can attest that we have never been taught that the South was "Evil". The south was never demonized up here in any way, we were taught the truth about the civil war, the ethical implications of slavery, and briefly discussed reconstruction (less important in the north since the north was largely untouched by the war in terms of actual damage). It was only when I came to the south that I started to encounter these perverse views of history that had the South as some kind of martyr for the cause.

    Honestly your mentality about the Civil War and flag waving is misguided. The flag might have at one time represented something different, but now it is not that anymore. As much as you and a small group of other individuals might want to spout off that it's a matter of pride and other nonsense, to the majority of American's, and others around the world, the confederate flag will always mean two things: slavery and war.

    Also as Rob stated, your notions about reconstruction are inaccurate. If you might review history you would find that there was actually a line of thought that wanted to do just what you suggested and punish the south for the war. The prevailing ideology thankfully was one of rebuilding the south and industrializing it, bringing it into the modern world and revitalizing it.

    Reconstruction brought the railroad to the south and industrial power. Rob's examples of Atlanta and Burmingham are excellent, especially if you consider that Atlanta was destroyed during the war. Had the north actually acted in the way you seem to think the south would not be anywhere close to how it is today, you'd probably still be rebuilding honestly if you consider other countries ravaged by civil war. Reconstruction after a civil war can take well over 100 years to complete because of bad blood and the want of victors to impose heavy handed rulings on the defeated. The United States took the reverse angle and decided reconciliation and forgiveness were the best routes.

    It is ironic that in probably the only Civil War in all of history to have the victor openly forgive and rebuild the defeated, the defeated still cries fowl and insults them. This battle over flags is more misdirected anger at nothing, it's childish ranting for old ways that aren't remotely relevant anymore. The old south is long dead, and good riddance to it, the new south, with it's progressive ideology, motivated work force and blossoming cities is a beautiful thing and is a life blood to this nation. Embrace it and stop being so absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Look out Joey, you might be bordering on Yankee Propaganda. ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah I have to watch myself, wouldn't want to start spreading too much truth.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Connie Chastain think I am censoring her. Though I am losing patience with her militancy, I will post her comments nonetheless. ]


    Robert, the rewriting of history was necessary to suppress the flag. And as I explained to you on the comment thread at my blog, the post about Lexington was HYPERBOLE. (Look it up.)

    Apparently, to you, political power based on slavery is bad if it's in the South, it's okay if it's in the North. And it was in the North. Some of the states in the North abolished slavery within their borders (to rid their states of blacks) but even after that, a huge chunk of the North's wealth and power still derived from slavery, were deeply embedded in it, in fact.

    Apparently, to you, because the slaves were physically located in the South, that makes the South solely and uniquely guilty. Not surprising; that is the fallacy perpetrated by academia and the popular culture. Most people have no inkling of how thoroughly dependent on slavery the north's economy was. People who do know -- educators, especially -- shrug it off, don't teach it, or minimize it if they do teach it.

    You call a bunch of yankees and carpetbaggers in Southern cities getting rich after the war by paying Southerners slave wages "economic and industrial power"? Well, I guess it was, for the rich yankees and carpetbaggers...

    From James Webb's "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege":

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cont'd from above:

    The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.

    In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once more from above:

    here: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cescott/freight.html

    The South as a region was poor, parts of it truly poverty-stricken, until WWII, when suddenly the freaking government needed Southern soldiers and Southern workers for their war machine. There are people still living who lived with the poverty and can tell you about it -- not that you seem particularly interested. There just a bunch of inbred hick scum-sucking racist Southerners, so who cares?

    BTW, ever heard of pellagra? From Wikipedia: "In the early 1900s, pellagra reached epidemic proportions in the American South." Not the northeast, not the midwest, not the west coast. Malnutrition/deficiency disease is mainly associated with *poverty* Robert.

    You're going to remain on topic with the issue of slavery? That's YOUR on-topic issue, not mine. Stay obsessed with it all you want, as your educational indoctrination requires. I will continue to look at the whole picture, not just slices.

    And yes, many teachers/institutions, not to mention the popular culture, teach the Civil War from a South-was-evil, North-was-righteous-and-saintly perspective. You can read the inevitable results in the hysterical postings of their students, current or former, on comment threads following news stories about the flag, the Confederacy, on websites, etc.

    Here's an example: "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." http://www.cherokeerose.com/

    You think that doesn't clearly imply South=evil, North=righteous? Where do you think website owner Darin Briskman got his education about slavery and the war? Crystal ball? Chicken bones? Doubtful. Very likely, he got it at school and from the popular culture (fiction like Alex Haley's "Roots," plagiarized and palmed off as truth/history).

    LOL! The north ROLLED in the money, wallowed in the money, they made servicing and financing slavery, insuring slaves, shipping slaves and slave-grown cotton, and processing it in their textile mills... You want to place guilt only on the part of the folks who actually had the slaves in their backyards; not on all the people who benefited from it.

    Well, you can continue to delude yourself by looking at only a slice, if you like. As I said, I will continue to look at the whole.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see you have met Connie Ward/Chastain. Best of luck arguing with here...she is stubborn and not likely to change her mind even in spite of the facts.

    Oh, Connie, if you cannot post it is because you need to hit the post comment button a couple of times until you get either a password or it posts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joey says, "...to the majority of American's, and others around the world, the confederate flag will always mean two things: slavery and war."

    Please advise how big a majority of Americans think the Confederate flag means slavery and war -- either the number of Americans making up this majority, or a percentage of the total population will do.

    And please advise me how you know this, and where documentation to back it up may be found.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Corey, why is it that I can't post a comment at your blog?

    Rob figured out what the problem was here; the post was too long, although there was nothing apprising me of that when I tried to post.

    So, what's the problem at your blog? I type in the little box and hit submit or whatever the little button sez -- but it won't post. Why is that, Corey?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The confederate flag is associated with the old south, the old south is closely associated with slavery, and since this flag was the battle flag and symbol of the confederacy that is the association. I'm not going to sit here and hit you with X% of people polled in 20XX believe Y, it's pointless. I don't have to advise you that most people associate the swastika with Nazism and Antisemitism do I?

    and to address some of your comments. No one here said the north didn't participate in slavery, nor has anyone here said the south was evil etc. Slavery was a global event for hundreds of years (African Slavery by Europeans that is slavery is of course much older). Almost all of the Western world had abolished Slavery by the civil war realizing what a human rights violation it was. As you said, the north began abolishing slavery before the war, you talk about the abolition of slavery as if it was bad.

    Also by the mid 1800's the north was not reliant on slaves as you say for its economy, the north had an industrial basis and relied mostly on under paid immigrant workers. The workers wages were atrocious, but that was a global issue as well until the 20th century when workers rights acts were passed, another issue altogether. The southern economy on the other hand was incredibly dependent upon slavery for it's economy being primarily agricultural. The southern economy was also not vibrant pre-civil war, the agricultural revolution of the 19th century had rendered plantation farming obsolete, and tariffs and import taxes in other countries had made southern exports much less valuable. If you'll note, during the war the southern economy came no where close to matching the industrial north.

    Additionally, the living conditions of everyone in the country wasn't fantastic during the early 20th century, many people lived in near poverty conditions, the disparity in wealth was enormous during the period before World War II. The end of World War II and the mass industrializing of America created a new middle class which had never been seen before.

    As for the education standards and health standards in the south, much of that was an issue of the southern states themselves, you act as if the rest of the country was purposely doing that to the south. What about the south west? what about the west? that isn't the "North" you speak specifically in a south-east centric mind set and to you all negative things are being inflicted and it's a sign of southern pride to persevere. Additionally your speech suggests that the south is a separate entity than the rest of the country. This is the United States and the southern portion is just as much a part of that as the northern portion, your manner of speech creates divisionist mindsets and is patently divisive.

    You aren't trying to find ways to settle the problems you have, you're holding grudges and being childishly angry. From the way you talk it's clear you want to feel this way, you want to hold a grudge and be angry at the north and be vindicated and make others feel the same way.

    Basically stop pointing fingers, Rob and I aren't pointing fingers, we didn't say "The south was responsible for slavery" we said slavery was probably the most driving issue of the civil war, but your mindset is one of extremism and the kind of overt southern pride and patriotism you profess is inherently damaging to the solidarity that we should be finding after something as tragic as a civil war. Again please show me a country that wasn't devastated when they had a civil war, our recovery was swift thanks to the prevailing reasoning of reconstruction. School's in the north aren't teaching children to hate the south, but unreasonable people like you make it easier too when you claim to represent the southern mentality. Thankfully I went to college in the south and know most southerners are more educated and reasonable

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you Joey. I waited on your reply to see if you would catch on to the fact that she uses the period up to World War II, the period of the Great Depression. And then passes that off by saying "the friggin' government needed southern soldiers...for {their} war." Never mind a World War, and a nation attacked at Pearl Harbor. It was the North's war judging by the implications of Connie. I will address some other issues she brought up later tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joey, I'm with you on having never been taught the North=sainted/South=damned dichotomy, even as a kid in 1950s-60s Kansas. For that kind of regional partisan rhetoric you have to reverse those positions and look to the south and our latter-day Confederate blowhards who believe that the north was and IS evil and the south a noble and tragic martyr to some "Cause" made up out of whole cloth. You made a point about the uniqueness of the American Civil War in regard to reconstruction. I'd say that it's also the only civil war in which the defeated was allowed to write the history, in contrast to the way that usually goes. It's the fact that that revisionist history is being subjected to the light of serious scholarship that has them in such a tizzy.

    Flaps over the Lexington ordinance have nothing to do with abrogation of rights and heritage. These people are less than honest about the issue, that issue being that NO flags (aside from the U.S. and official Virginia flags) are to be allowed to be flown from city-owned platforms. But to hear them tell it, it is solely an "attack" on their "heritage."

    The problem, I am seeing more and more, is that these people have a chip on their collective shoulder. They are a loud-mouthed vocal minority that would have the world believe that all people of the southern United States believe and think as they do. They conflate southern heritage with Confederate heritage and woe betide you should you disagree.

    I rarely, if ever, hear so-called northerners disparage the south. What I do hear lots of is this chip-on-the-shoulder, whining contingent who fancy themselves guardians of southern heritage, going on and on about the how the south is disrespected and demonized (all the while demonizing the north with fanciful little epithets straight out of Gone With the Wind).

    If you hit them with any kind of truth out comes the little bag of straw men and red herrings. They claim that slavery had nothing to do with the War. That thousands of black men fought for the right to remain enslaved. And that the Confederate battle flag has not been co-opted as a symbol of bigotry, oppression and white supremacist philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not only to write the history Mike, but we also live in the only country that allows the losers of a rebellion to display statues and memorials of the defeated Martyrs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Where is the infamous Robert E. Lee quote cited from?

    ReplyDelete
  22. There are numerous erroneous statements being made on this blog without documentation to corroborate them. The Anti-Confederate attacks are an absolute moronic attack on somthing you know nothing about because you were not in Lexington. The facts are that the ordinance was specifically made becuase a liberal communist refugee put a petition out against the flags being allowed mind by the city to be displayed on Lee-Jackson day. The ordinance is an absolute affront to the reasons the flags were displayed to pay tribute to Lee & Jackson. Anyone who compares Nazism with the Confederacy needs a lobotomy by Josef Mengele. The disrespect for legitimate sholarship needs to be addressed. I find no such command or order by Gen. Robert E. Lee to "Furl the flag boys" it does not even come close to any remark written by him that I am aware of. As far as Northern Anti-Confederatism that has been a growing disdain which people like Kevin Levin, James McPherson, Kenneth Stampp and countless other Politically correct historians have manipulated since the Civil Rights Era. Today their works and testimonies are directly assaulting American History filled with distortions and blatant holes in their interpretation of the historical record. If you really care about history shut up and research it! Before you go running off on some political tirade against something you have no scholarly support other than Politically correct revisionism!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Michael. For those who think there's some kind of similarity between the Confederacy and the Third Reich, could you please post it in this comment thread?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Michael,


    This is a blog. Not a work of scholarship. I do not have to post my references. Of course, I would like to see exactly what erroneous statements are being made, on this post or the blog as a whole. I did not have to be in Lexington. The city council's decision was handed down in writing. Plus I did not totally comment on that situation. I commented on the situation in Georgia.

    I also admire how you demonize people instead of opening the scene of debate. You degrade said person by calling them a "liberal communist refugee." Honestly, it doesn't matter who posts this petition, it was a right move. The city, and tax payers in turn, should not post any one's political or cultural identity. It should post simply what it stated, only the state and national flags. THe concept of "Furl the Flag, boys" is referenced time and again in Textbooks and other books. Also, the corruption of Historical Interpretation exists in pages like the Souther Heritage Preservation Group that commits itself to not studying Southern Heritage but Confederate Heritage. You basically summed up the entire sentiment. Anti-Confederalism? Good. We should be Pro-American.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The victim status you are both adhering to is absurd. Joey was comparing symbols, not country v Reich. And I am warning the both of you, if you start down this road, you will be deleted. If you want to debate, debate, but the victim status and garbage ideology does not exist here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The historical interpretation at the SHPG is no more corrupt than what appears here, or at Corey's site, or Levin's, or Simpson's. The study is Confederate heritage IS studying Southern heritage; the Confederacy wasn't located in the north, was it. Moreover, being pro-Confederate IS being pro-American. Confederates were Americans. After all, it wasn't the Confederate States of Antarctica, was it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Funny Connie, since you cover Southern Heritage as a whole, can you please tell us all about the numerous posts you have made about slaves overcoming hardships both in bondage and after emancipation, dealing with Jim Crow Laws, the Rise of the Klan using your symbol as they burned crosses in their yards, and were not allowed in the same bathrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Are you serious? Comparing flags is not a symbolic comparison of whatever they represent? Why did Joey choose the swastika instead of the flag or Argentina or Madagascar? He even MAKES the comparison you say he's not making:

    ~~ Confederate flag -- Old South, slavery.
    ~~ Swastika -- Nazism, antisemitism.

    You seriously can't tell the difference between "victim status" whatever that is, and "vigorous defense" of something unjustly under attack?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, it is Connie. This is your valid misunderstanding of the issue of that flag. Ultimately, it's a stupid piece of cloth, yet you put emotion in to it. The symbol means more to you. The American flag means more to others. He chose the Swastika to get you to realize the comparison. THe Hindu's and Native Americans cannot use their symbol of power anymore because of the hatred of the Nazis, yet I don't see many people protesting for that symbol to come back. And yes, you play the victim status. You are constantly posting about how the SHPG is under attack from "liberal, revisionist historians" so on and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Robert If you cannot validate what your talking about your just hot air! The lady is an immigrant from Russia and her politics is completely liberal. Understanding that any immigrant has to know that there was a civil war and it was caused by Slavery which is on the test! Without any absolute documentation regarding Lee's last words were to "Furl the flag boy's" is the same as saying their were 3000 armed Black Confederate as part of Jackson's Corps. I know this that the SHPG will more willingly accept documentation to accept their mistakes than Levin, Corey, Joey and it seems even you ever will.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is nothing UnAmerican about the Confederate Flag.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I "cover" Southern heritage? Where'd you come up with that terminology, and what is it supposed to mean? "Cover" has several definitions; which one are you talking about?

    As I've made clear in both SHPG and on my blog, I *defend* those parts of my heritage that are under concerted and sustained attack. If you don't like that, tough.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Constantly posting about it, huh? How many posts have I made about "liberal, revisionist historians" today? None. Well, how about yesterday? None. Day before, none. Day before that, none. You must be getting me mixed up with somebody else.... Understandable. That's a function of bigotry.

    The emotion connected with the flag, the piece of cloth, is History that Actually Happened, Rob. You've been indoctrinated in the all-emotion, no-cognition, all-slavery, only-slavery view of the South and the Confederacy, so I say it is YOUR misunderstanding of the flag that's the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Robert, Joey could have used the United States flag in regards to the same comparison. But he chose to associate with the Nazi flag to associate them both together. The facts are Confederate Americans are being victimized and the root of that is by the attacks from Politically Correct revisionism choosing to make propaganda war on the Confederacy and their descendants. Everything those man fought for during the civil war and after is being torn apart by the attack from P.C. historians and Anti- Confederate agendas. Nothing is more UnAmerican than what that is doing to divide our country.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Connie, I am using cover as in that is the area that you claim to observe, study and understand. Yet you do not do it. Your "defense" is full of loose claims that do not stand up to peer review or any type of academic test. They are horrible defenses. Your heritage is not under constant and sustained attack. It is evident that you do not know what your heritage is, so how would you know if it is currently being attacked?

    Also, Connie, you obsessively use catch phrases that are associate with your group's ideology. Liberal has been thrown around more than once as well as revisionist. To play the victim card and call me a bigot because I am intolerant of your revisionist lies, is further proof of your militancy and militant attack on anything that disagrees with you. The piece of Cloth is something that you have no direct history with COnnie. You were not alive, your did not fight and die under it. The non-emotion, cognition, not all slavery or only slavery view I have, comes from a deep understanding and consistent study of primary documents and scholarship done in the area. I defend the aspects of slavery because you wipe them under the rug.

    Lastly, if you come on here with the accusations of bigotry again, I will not approve the comments, it is absolutely childish and absurd. Plus, I noticed you never answered the question. It would seem that your group attacks the history of slavery by down playing it, and though your group is "Southern Heritage" I have yet to see many formal posts on the life of a slave and overcoming the obstacles in the aftermath of the Civil War.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It is all validated Michael. It was in the papers. It was archived by the City Council. And in regards to the Lee quote, I am looking for an original source. I have found it referenced by more than one journal/book. If you will notice, I have placed at the top of the blog, allegedly. Though I hardly think that a quote, and the statement that there were 3,000 armed black men in Jackson Corps. I do acknowledge your willingness to admit the Black Confederate is wrong until proven otherwise.

    In regards to your comment about flag...I am sorry to say it screams un-American. The flag, is the battle flag, of a rebellion, against the United States. Twist it however you want, "secession was legal," "It wasn't about slavery," I don't care. The fact remains, it is the battle flag, that was flown against the U.S. Therefore it is Un-American.

    Lastly, Michael, no he could not. The American flag is generally associate with freedom. Joey was speaking in broad terms, and in that outlook he is absolutely correct. The rebel flag is seen as division, a battle flag, wielded by the klan and other radicals. Like we have both said before, its too bad the Native Americans and Hindus cannot use the Swastika anymore for its original meaning. Thank you for the cry of revisionism though. It was actually a lie, "Reconciliation" that brought the country together after the war. The only thing dividing the country, is the insistent stance of those that refuse to see reason. Not everything those men fought for is being torn apart. There are different situations for different people. That is what you fail to understand. Historians says Slavery caused the war, you take that as your ancestors fought to preserve slavery. It is not the same. How about a modern context? American foreign policy in the Middle East is what got us into operation Iraqi freedom, and not there apparent attack/genocide. Most take that as an attack on the soldiers there relieving a people from conflict. Wherein actuality, the U.S. was lied to about WMDs, Taliban Regimes, and so on. Result? 50,000 American casualties, close to 500,000 Iraqi Civ. Casualties. Slavery starts the war. Result, over 600,000 casualties. Not all of them owned slaves. Understand? A rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Now that's a catchy title.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The problem you're having is in thinking I'm equating flags, I'm equating symbols. The confederate flag is a symbol that has separate meaning to you and separate meaning to the majority of people in the world. This is where the Swastika comes into play. To the Hindu's it is a sun symbol, a symbol of power and good luck, something to be displayed with pride. Hitler used it for essentially that reason. Now anyone else who looks at that symbol thinks of gas chambers and a world war. The fact is that the Hindu minority will never reclaim their symbol from the rest of the world. If you saw a man from India wearing a Swastika your first thought would be "neo-nazi" or "antisemite" not "sun symbol, Hindu". Like wise when the majority of people see a confederate flag they think "slavery, war, bigotry" not "southern heritage and pride" and to associate such a symbol with southern heritage and pride drapes that subject in slavery war and bigotry.

    Honestly though, southern heritage is a much broader topic than just the Civil War, we're talking a couple decades of political debate followed by a war. Why not concentrate on more southern history than just that? What about the colonial era of southerners? What about, as Rob said, the post Civil War freed slaves struggling to find a place in their country. Why not deal with the hate and segregation they faced in the south, from southerners. Funny that they were segregated so hard against when slavery wasn't even the real issue isn't it?

    As Rob said the fact that you're dividing the nation seems wrong, one minute you talk "southern pride" the next you say confederate americans were still americans. It's interesting because that was Lincoln's ideology, the Confederate's were still American's hence we were not divided, and hence he refused to acknowledge their country. So I'd say make up your mind, and you know as well as I do that America rarely refers to the continent since Canadians and Mexicans don't consider themselves "Americans" generally. The United States has pretty well taken that moniker.

    Why not stop the divisionist ideology? I'm not pro-north, I'm not pro-south, I'm pro America as far as the view point goes. I'm pro-historical accuracy. The Civil War is nothing either side should be proud of, war is never anything to have pride in. This country has seen it's fair share of blemishes, from slavery, to the way immigrants were treated, to the industrialization and lack of rights for workers. We've had some bad spots, but the point is we've corrected our mistakes as we've gone along, and that's the thing to take pride in.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thank you Joey. To play down certain damning aspects of history and overshadow with what one deems supreme is a black mark as bad as the event itself.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Joey, the post-war treatment of the former slaves is a prime example of giving the lie to the happy antebellum slave mythos. The War had "nothing to do with slavery" and yet when the slaves were slaves no more, the south did everything in its power to keep the newly-freed Africans subjugated and disenfranchised and continued to do so right up to and into the civil rights era.

    These were the actions of a people and culture bitter about the perceived threat to their supremacy and loss of their "property" (in the form of human chattel).

    That those who had never even owned slaves participated in this orgy of vengeance and hatred speaks to a cultural dynamic that never had a damned thing to do with "states' rights," and everything to do with a manipulative ruling class who convinced poor whites to act against their own best interests (as they had before and during the War) in order to maintain that supremacy.

    The truly noble man admits his errors and moves on. Infer from that what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks for commenting Mike.

    "The War had "nothing to do with slavery" and yet when the slaves were slaves no more, the south did everything in its power to keep the newly-freed Africans subjugated and disenfranchised and continued to do so right up to and into the civil rights era"

    I'd have to agree with that statement. There is a lot of work going on right now suggesting that very thing. The pre-war/post war relation in regards to the supremacy of race in the community. Chandra Manning wrote a book entitled "What This Cruel War Was Over."

    http://www.amazon.com/What-This-Cruel-War-Over/dp/0307277321/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316737796&sr=1-1

    The book uses good scholarship and a plethora or primary sources to back up the thesis. Basically soldiers perceived that the war was about the issue of slavery, and that reducing slavery, means reducing the social order.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Robert says, "Connie, I am using cover as in that is the area that you claim to observe, study and understand. Yet you do not do it."

    "...as in that is..."? What is that? Academic speak? What that sentence says, literally, is that I claim to observe, study and understand the area of coverage, which is absurd. I can only assume that this is some sort of pseudo-academic language for saying something that would read like this in plain English:

    "Connie, I'm using the word "cover" because it encompasses your claim of observing, studying and understanding Southern Heritage."

    Is that what that sentence is supposed to mean?

    Whatever. Both the plain English and the pseudo-academic versions are only marginally and indirectly accurate. Go back and read everything I've posted here up till now and you won't find any of these words/terms in my posts (except in reply to your use of them): cover, observe, study, understand. I did use the word "understandable" but not in the context you're using it.

    What I said was, "As I've made clear in both SHPG and on my blog, I *defend* those parts of my heritage that are under concerted and sustained attack."

    And while there is a certain amount of observation, study and understanding involved in defending that part of my heritage that's under attack, defense is the primary activity; much of the observation, study and understanding are done in support of that.

    Robert says, "Also, Connie, you obsessively use catch phrases that are associate with your group's ideology. Liberal has been thrown around more than once as well as revisionist."

    Robert, "two" is more than once, but "throwing around" the term "liberal" twice is not obsessive use. "Connie, you use..." is a direct claim I'm calling you on it. Identify the catchphrases I've used and advise where I've used them obsessively. Oh, and define "obsessively."

    Robert says, "To play the victim card and call me a bigot because I am intolerant of your revisionist lies, is further proof of your militancy and militant attack on anything that disagrees with you."

    I'm not playing the victim card. That's an untruthful pejorative used by folks who don't like being confronted with the truth that the people they've been taught are villains and bogeymen are really no worse than the people calling them that. Attack on *anything* that disagrees with me? Name, oh, five things I've so attacked....

    I call people "bigot" when they display bigoted behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Robert says, "Your 'defense' is full of loose claims that do not stand up to peer review or any type of academic test. They are horrible defenses. Your heritage is not under constant and sustained attack. It is evident that you do not know what your heritage is, so how would you know if it is currently being attacked?"

    My claims are not loose and they do stand up to the to the truth and fact test. Peer review and academic tests are artificial, made up, part of the artificial world of academia. I'm not an academic; therefore, I don't need people, mental clones who think exactly like me, atta-boying me and rubber stamping what I say. My defenses are not horrible -- they're just something you disagree with and/or disapprove of. Yes, Confederate heritage is under constant and sustained attack.

    Certainly I know what my heritage is. Don't tell me what I do and don't know, Robert; you don't know me; you don't know anything about me, and what you could learn about me from my posts online is distorted by your prejudice. My heritage has many elements: Christian, Southern, Confederate, American, Cherokee, working class, Appalachian... and others. And I know them all -- some better than others, but I know them all.

    Robert says, "I have yet to see many formal posts on the life of a slave and overcoming the obstacles in the aftermath of the Civil War."

    So? There are lots and lots of words written about slavery, if you're just dying to read about it.

    Yes, I do have a direct contact with that flag, through direct ancestors in my direct lineage who served, and some who died, fighting to protect the nation the flag originated in. Very likely, I have more and valid connections with the flag and the Confederacy than you do with slavery... unless your family were slaveholders on back yonder? That might explain the attempt to spread around the guilt... In any case, if you think your reading papers about slavery in some University library trumps my connection with the war through my direct (and several more indirect) ancestors, and my several decades of organic experience living in the South, I disagree.

    I don't wipe anything under the rug. If you want to defend "the aspects" of slavery (whatever you mean by that), go right ahead, that's fine with me. If that's what you wanna do, have at it. The fact that I defend those parts of my heritage that are under attack in no way prevents your indulging your interest in slavery. I don't care what you do -- unless you try to use slavery to join in the concerted and sustained attacks on parts of my heritage. Then, I will defend against your attacks -- which is NOT "wiping aspects of slavery" under the rug; it is defending against attack.

    So, you don't like being called a bigot, but you think it's all right to call us bigots for doing the same thing you do -- as long as the actual word isn't used? Okay, if it's the word that you object to, I'll call attention to you bigotry without using the word.

    Downplaying something is an attack? This has to be the most dumbfounding assertion in your comment to me. Do you sincerely believe what you just said here? So Suzie sits in the malt shop every afternoon; she has a crush on Johnny, who walks by every day and doesn't see her (construed by some to be "ignoring" her) and based on that, she makes a call to the police and says, "He attacked me!" Ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Connie,

    That was pseudo language, to address your pseudo commentary on history.

    You can always tell when someone is losing the academic arguments when they have to nitpick wording, grammar, phrases and so on that are posted on an impromptu blog with little proofreading attached.

    You are currently attacking the notion that slavery had no part in the outbreak of War in this country. Therefore, why aren't you in turn defending it? Because you are a hypocrite in the minority that is not out for scholarship or giving the true identity of history; but blurring history to fit your own ideological compass.

    Obsessively, such as your ongoing statement you are defending the part of your heritage that is under attack. And again, the nit picking of phrases because you have no academic grounds to stand on.

    Connie, you are playing the victim card. You indicated as much in the above comments, when you said you were defending that which is under attack. Therefore, a victim of attack. You are playing the victim card. I ask what truth? Because you present none. You spent hald of your rebuttal addressing grammatical errors instead of facts.

    Also, obsessive would be your relationship with the word bigot from its constant use here and on facebook. Though it is you, the name caller, who is bigoted from truth.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Robert says: In regards to your comment about flag...I am sorry to say it screams un-American. The flag, is the battle flag, of a rebellion, against the United States. Twist it however you want, "secession was legal," "It wasn't about slavery," I don't care. The fact remains, it is the battle flag, that was flown against the U.S. Therefore it is Un-American.

    You don't care...about truth. You're going to define the flag YOUR way, and truth be damned, huh. Fine. But facts are facts. The South did not rebel; the United States militarily invaded the Confederacy and the Confederacy defended itself. Secession was about slavery and other things; war was about defending against a military invasion. The battle flag was flown in the South, which is where the invading army waged war. It wouldn't have been "flown against the U.S." if they hadn't been down here killing people, burning towns, thieving and raping. What would have been unAmerican would've been to NOT defend hearth, home, family and community against that.

    Robert you can think whatever you want to about the flag. What you cannot do is force everyone else to see it as you do.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "...American flag is generally associate with freedom." Depends on who's doing the associating.

    "The rebel flag is seen as division, a battle flag, wielded by the klan and other radicals." Depends on who's doing the seeing.

    "'Reconciliation' that brought the country together after the war. " Actually, subjugation of the South, and exploitation of its people and natural resources for the econmic benefit of northern industrialists brought the country together after the war.

    "Historians says Slavery caused the war, you take that as your ancestors fought to preserve slavery." Because that is exactly what most historians mean, and that is what their myrmidons believe because they hold sway in academia and the popular culture. If you think that isn't what they mean, give us your interpretation of it....

    ReplyDelete
  47. Your responses really give perspective on your mindset regarding these issues.

    You're speaking to the relativity of the of the first two, I'm speaking to the majority view of American's, what your speaking to is the minority view. Even though you disagree with the majority view you aren't winning any battles by trying to say it's otherwise. The Confederate flag will always be majority associated with those concepts whether you and your fringe minority group like it or not, you can't claim you aren't aware of this and you have to know that stubbornly continuing to crusade for it being flown is blatantly insulting to many American's. African Americans find the symbol of the flag degrading and insulting, many others would find it insulting to the union of the United States to be flying a symbol of division and war.

    The third comment you made is in the same relative tone as your first two, it is you and your fringe minority group who claims the south was subjugated, history shows the north helped rebuild the south both economically and infrastructural wise. The resources were not exploited for northern industry, they were purchased and shipped using the railroad boosting both economies together while encouraging industry to move to the south. Realistically the southern way of life was going to collapse, industry was the future of the world, agricultural societies were on the way out, the southern way of life was failing rapidly before the war, post war industry was brought to the south rebuilding cities like Atlanta.

    That is not what historians mean, historians are saying slavery was the crux issue that caused the economic and states rights debates that occurred at the time. The claim isn't that southerners fought to protect slavery, the argument is that slavery is the issue that started the snowball rolling. You need to stop reading history through the lens of this grudge you're holding for literally no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Joey, perspective is in the eye of the beholder. I've already proved you wrong about how the majority views the Confederate flag -- with independent data verifiable by third parties.

    As for blatantly insulting -- calling Southerners who honor their Confederate ancestor and heritage "inbreeds" and "racists" and "traitors", which you see a lot on comment threads following news reports on the Confederate flag (or SCV license plates, or statues of Confederates that somebody wants removed, and on and on and on) is blatantly and deliberately insulting. Honoring that heritage, on the other hand, is not done to deliberately insult anyone. If someone wants to take it that way, that's them and theirs. It depends on intent. Don't confuse your perception for my intention.

    "...history shows the north helped rebuild the south both economically and infrastructural wise..."

    For cryin' out loud, YES, they did -- to make themselves rich exploiting Southern labor and Southern natural resources! Good lord, you don't know this? It's not relative, Joey. They bought up miles, not just acres, but MILES of virgin timberland in the South for pennies an acre, paid black and white workers slave wages to mill the timber and then rolled in the money they made off of it. Even the mills owned by Southerners were beholden to northern capital -- and their repayment made northerners rich. Northern industrialists also got rich exploiting Southern coal miners, paying them a pittance, putting them in wage slavery with their "company stores" (like timber mill owners), and sending them miles into the earth with no care whatsofreakingever for their health and safety.

    Joey, did you know these wonderful, benevolent northerners you're talking about who sooooo "helped" the South after the war charged rail freight rates purposely designed to keep the South basically unindustrialized? Did you know the rates for shipping finished goods -- say, clothing -- from Macon, Georgia to Atlanta, Georgia, cost more than shipping finished goods -- say, clothing -- from a northern factory to Georgia? Did you know it was cheaper for Southern mill owners to ship raw fabric north for making into finished goods in northern factories, than it was to ship finished clothing north? Can you figure out what this kind of policy might have on the textile industry in the South? If you can't figure it out, let me tell you; it insured that mills making more profitable finished goods could not survive in the South, only those making bolts of fabric, which was much less profitable than finished goods. Did you know this practice did not end until 1953?

    Industry was brought to the South, Joey, to enrich northern industrialists and exploit Southern laborers.

    Joey says, "The claim isn't that southerners fought to protect slavery..." Duh. It depends on who's making it and I've encountered that claim literally hundreds, and possibly thousands of times on the internet in the 12 years I've been online. Don't tell me I don't know what I know. It is not holding a grudge to point out the economic oppression of the South by the north after the war.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Connie you have provided not proof, or polls what so ever from any third party as I have pointed out before.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Interesting statement COnnie. I was not aware that Coca-Cola was a northern establishment that was created in 1899....

    ReplyDelete
  51. You are also wrong about the attempts to become "unindustrialized" Atlanta and Birmingham were seen as opportune investments for those mill companies. Mills began to flourish in the South. And also COnnie, if you are going to make statements that are based outside of general conceptions and argumentative facts, then you need to start providing sources. DO not state something as historical fact, and play it off like it is your internal knowledge.

    I will say it though. You don't know what you know. You copy and paste different sources. It's actually pretty sad. My regular CP students could find the inconsistencies in your 'documentation.'

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am going to tell you that you don't know what you know. Because you don't. Your views here essentially amount to conspiracy theory, post Civil War you make it sound like the northerners were sitting around conniving and thinking up ways to exploit the south, this isn't the case. Southern laborers were treated the same way northern ones were. Working conditions in the north during that time were deplorable, it's not as if there was a disparity in this. During this time a few wealthy industrialists made all the money, and the work force worked long, excruciating hours, in absolutely disgusting and dangerous conditions. This was not just a southern experience, this was a human experience in the Western world before human rights existed.

    You're taking what was a universal human rights violation in the north and south and making into a southern only thing, you need to start looking at the bigger picture. The city of Atlanta boomed post civil war during reconstruction, the way you talk about the factories and rails would imply cities like Atlanta should have shriveled and died. I won't deny most of the industrialists were northern, but the fact is that the south didn't have industrialists, it had agriculturalists, it would take a generation before southern industrialists would appear just by the fact that the south lacked almost any large scale industry pre war.

    In your fabricated version of reality everyone conspires against the south, let me tell you a true story. No one in the north gives a damn about the south, to us the south is just another part of the country. The south is like the west to us, it's another location in our country with unique locations and beautiful cities, and we in the north love to visit the south and partake in that experience. Your minority group of extremists in the south are the only ones who have this divisionist and victimized view of yourselves. Look at the south today, industry prefers the south because of its labor laws, the south is booming. This wouldn't be possible without the policies of reconstruction that allowed an infrastructure to exist. Southern industrialists were a part of the early booms in the 1900's, right when reconstruction is generally considered to have ended.

    What you are doing is taking a very very very narrow view of history, then you're distorting it and spinning it. You did not prove me wrong about how the majority views the Confederate flag, you could take a random sampling of people all around the world and anyone familiar with that symbol will equate it right away with war and slavery because those are the two closest connected issues.

    The issue is that whether or not you're "trying" to insult anyone, you are. A Hindu man wearing a Swastika is not trying to insult Jews, he's trying to honor the Sun. But guess what? Jews will be insulted. Just the same your flag is insulting to countless African Americans and others. It is one thing to honor heritage, it is another entirely to sit here and try to alter history.

    Additionally you might have encountered said claims on "the internet" but no one said you should take everything you read on the internet as fact. For instance, someone might come across this debate and actually take your view points as factual data, they would be mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Joey says, "...one minute you talk "southern pride" the next you say confederate americans were still americans. It's interesting because that was Lincoln's ideology, the Confederate's were still American's hence we were not divided, and hence he refused to acknowledge their country. So I'd say make up your mind, and you know as well as I do that America rarely refers to the continent since Canadians and Mexicans don't consider themselves "Americans" generally. The United States has pretty well taken that moniker."

    Right. We are Americans, not because we live on the North American continent, but because America is part of our national name. And as you rightly discern, it's not the Canadian States of America nor the Mexican States of America; that's why the residents of those countries are Canadians and Mexicans, not Americans.

    Now Joey. Fill in the blank. The Confederate States of __________. It starts with A and it ends with a, and it's not Antarctica. Confederates were Americans by virtue of the word "America" being part of their nation's name. Has nothing to do with them "still being Americans" -- as in U.S. Americans. The term Confederates is used to differentiate them and their nation from the other America.

    Joey says, "Why not stop the divisionist ideology?"

    What a divisionist ideology? I simply acknowledge that the Southern states were within their rights to secede, the US had no right or authority to invade, kill, burn, steal and lay waste, and the attacks on Confederate heritage today are based on the prevailing fallacy widely accepted in this country that the South/Confederacy=evil racist slaveholders and the North/Union = saintly egalitarian liberators.

    Joey says, "I'm not pro-north, I'm not pro-south, I'm pro America as far as the view point goes."

    I'm proSouth. Big time.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Robert. This is a blog. Not a work of scholarship. I do not have to post my references.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes, Joey, I know. Don't tell me I don't.

    "...you make it sound like the northerners were sitting around conniving and thinking up ways to exploit the south..."

    Ah, no. I didn't make it sound that way; that's the spin YOU'RE putting on it. Sitting around conniving? No. However, they DID think up ways to exploit the South -- and carried them out, and got rich off them -- because money motivated northeastern industrialists.

    Moreover, my pointing out the fact that they exploited Southern labor and resources in no way states or implies that they didn't exploit labor and resources elsewhere. Not just in the midwest, either. Discriminiatory freight rates that kept Southern industry hamstrung until the 1953 were also imposed on the Rocky Mountain states, at least part of the same time they were imposed on the South. And the reach of New England's greed mentality went as far west as Hawaii, as it was the descendants of New England missionaries (who got rich off sugar plantations) who were ring leaders of the illegal coup that overthrew the monarchy and eventually got the islands annexed to the USA.

    "You're taking what was a universal human rights violation in the north and south and making into a southern only thing."

    I am? Where did I say ONLY? Why, I didn't! YOU did.

    Your "true story" is breathtaking in its disengenuousness. NO ONE in the north gives a damn about the South? NO ONE? You've talked to them ALL and they told you that? YOU speak for EVERYONE in the north? You know what? I don't think you do, and it's these broad, blanket assertions of things you can't possibly know that renders your posts suspect.

    What you're doing is taking what I say and distorting it and spinning it. I submitted the poll verifying that the majority of Americans see the flag as a symbol of regional pride, but apparently the post it was in was too long and didn't make it through for approval (your esteemed blog host called me a liar and said I didn't submit it).

    Joey: "...you could take a random sampling of people all around the world and anyone familiar with that symbol will equate it right away with war and slavery because those are the two closest connected issues."

    You know this...how? When the Berlin wall came down, some people in the crowds waved the Confederate battle flag in celebration -- to them, it mean opposition to tyranny. And I think you're going to find the Confederados of Brazil see the flag as a symbol of their heritage...This claim of knowledge of the views of people around the world that you don't know, have never met, adds another dimension of unreliability to your posts

    I didn't say "trying" to insult someone. I said it is not my intention to insult someone with the flag. ("Trying" and "intending" are not synonyms.) If they choose to be insulted by it, that's their choice. I'm not altering history; but your comment that blacks would be insulted by the CBF the way Jews are about a swastika necessarily implies similarities between the Confederacy and the Third Reich, which I emphatically reject.

    I accept that the people posting on sometimes hysterical comment threads following news stories, meant what they said. You have some reason to suspect people get on those comment threads and lie? The ones I'm talking about, btw, are anecdotal evidence of the north=good, South=bad attitude that prevails in the country's institutes of learning, and the popular culture.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yes Connie, this is a blog. But it is my blog and my rules. You are posting things that you believe as historical fact and they are not current or practiced ideology.

    Also Connie, you don't know. Because arguing the fact of the flag's use around the world, does two things.
    One, it causes you to lose your argument by reinforcing ours. Two, that you have no concept of symbolism. You are not taken into account popular culture, which is plaid beautifully by the Slav in Euro Trip with the bright Orange pinto painted up as the Dukes of Hazzard. Basically, symbols mean different things to different people. In these cases, it would be the ideal of "American" not "Southern" commercialism. Joey is correct though. The majority of people are going to see it as Civil War and Slavery. Not saying that is what you represent, but its is about the labels. As he correctly described in the case of the Hindu and the Swastika, symbols will and can take on a broad sense form.

    Sitting around and conniving, would be thinking of ways to exploit the South. Do you always self defeat like this?

    Also, you are taking a human rights violation and limiting it to the south when you only talk about the South. This is something we have addressed before with you, you cannot claim a pure southern heritage identity out of something that is a universality.

    Point of order; you have no right to talk to people about broad blanket observations given your insistent once, you are stating the use of the Conf. flag world wide based on very few justified accounts when you think about the context of how many people there are in the world Connie. It would be like me assigning the title of racist to everyone that uses the Conf. flag, because of the pictures I have of klansmen.

    Also, you never posted the so called post. So now you are just blatantly stating that I am censoring you. I have done no such thing. I have told you, if the post does not go through, then it is too long and you must break it apart. I do not even get to see it for moderation. So yes, I am calling you a liar. You did not post it. I did not receive it, and you are saying that I did not approve it.

    Again, Joey said random sampling of those familiar. Do you know whether or not those with the flag are familiar with it, or simply buying into the commercialism aspect of it? It could very well be that they see the flag as a symbol of rebellion, and that is why they are using it. I think that is far more likely than Berliner believing that they have Confederate Heritage.

    I would point out similarities, in bigotry and forced labor Connie. It does not have to be across the he board to have similar aspects. Of course, you did equate the Lexington Flag controversy to Stalinist and Taliban suppression. Which really isn't a good comparison considering those groups regulate the life of, and not the public sector, meaning the government displays. This would conflict both of those regimes ideology as they would actively stamp out displays not just in public but in the home.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Connie, your last statement is probably because you go to the obscene posts that your goofy friends point out.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Connie says

    "Right. We are Americans, not because we live on the North American continent, but because America is part of our national name. And as you rightly discern, it's not the Canadian States of America nor the Mexican States of America; that's why the residents of those countries are Canadians and Mexicans, not Americans."

    Correct because America has a distinct identity.

    Connie says..."Now Joey. Fill in the blank. The Confederate States of __________. It starts with A and it ends with a, and it's not Antarctica. Confederates were Americans by virtue of the word "America" being part of their nation's name. Has nothing to do with them "still being Americans" -- as in U.S. Americans. The term Confederates is used to differentiate them and their nation from the other America."

    Wrong. Calling someone a Confederate, is a different identity, It is not an American identity. Confederates decided they did not want to be Americans, in the sense of the United States, they wanted to be 'free.' Americans did not want to leave, they wanted a strong America.

    The reason they say that COnnie is because no one in the North owned several hundred slaves.

    we know you are pro-south. That in itself is your divisionist ideology which you say you do not have.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Exactly rob, she says she doesn't have divisionist ideology and then instantly states she's pro south, which divides into regions and is thus dividing a union. Her ability to understand symbolism is also startling, I've had to explain the flag/swastika thing 3 or 4 times now and she still doesn't understand it's comparing symbols and not governments. If she's seeing a connection between the Reich and the Confederacy that's all in her mind, because I don't equate the governments at all considering fascism and confederations are very different things.

    Additionally, Connie, you're proving my point. The industrialists exploited everyone. EVERYONE. This is a fact, that's why they're called the robber barons. It's incidental that they mostly all lived in the northeast, this was not a totally northern experience. That would be like me pointing to rich plantation owners and saying "ALL SOUTHERNS OWNED SLAVES AND SUPPRESSED BLACK PEOPLE" when we all know that it's simply not the case considering how expensive it was to actually acquire and maintain slaves in any number. The actions of the few does not account for the many as a whole. So it would do you well to stop making generalizations (i.e. prejudiced bigotry) about northerners when the majority of northerners had nothing to do with the mass exploitation represented by literally a couple dozen wealthy industrialists, the people in the northeast, midwest, west, south, Caribbean, Pacific Islands, etc. were all exploited by them.

    Also, as Rob stated and implied, I would need to know the circumstances of the poll you talk about. Was it a true random sampling? or was it an internet poll? Was it made widely available? or was it skewed by demographics? For instance, the only people who generally would be able to find a poll like that searching the internet would be people like yourself who are keenly interested in the topic of the confederate flag, where someone like me doesn't even think about the flag from day to day (except recently thanks to this debate of course).

    If the poll was taken by a reputable agency such as Rassmusen or Gallup then by all means I'll apologize, but even then I'd be curious what all the options were and what the skew of the poll was. Granted the confederate flag is a regional symbol, because again, basically no one in the north cares about this pseudo plight you're minority group has invented for itself.

    Also, no I don't speak for "everyone in the north" but news flash: you don't speak for everyone in the south, in fact it seems that once again you speak for an overly vocal extremist minority faction. You end up giving the average southerner who is happy being a part of the United States and living their lives, the moniker of someone who just can't let the Civil War be history.

    Also It's fascinating that every time I post I respond to every point you make, yet you only respond to small selections of my posts to try and boost your position by ignoring the strongest points of my argument from facts that you can't refute. Instead we end up debating these tiny nit picks you make while the larger points are lost in previous posts. It's a wonderful tactic people in your position come up with in an attempt to misdirect debates in an attempt to give credibility to your argument, but seriously you skipped a swath of points and facts I laid out in favor of trying to make the mole hill points into mountains under the fallacy that it'll strengthen your position. I'm just making this point so anyone reading it realizes what is happening and goes back to re-read my posts after you comment to see just how much you skip. You do it to Rob too.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Noticed that, I also love how she is defending her heritage appreciation by pointing to the world wide use of the Confederate Flag. I very seriously doubt the people at the Berlin wall were screaming about State's Rights, and High Tariffs.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I saw some poll data regarding the battle flag that was posted on a confederate partisan site. This was from a 2000 Gallup poll. A more recent one (2011) from Pew Research exists and is more telling as it breaks down approval/disapproval/perception in relation to region, political affiliation, education and race.

    I know that the partisans like to point to the numbers in the 2000 poll as significant in regard to people who approve of the flag. What they don't point out, is that Gallup noted that the "approval" numbers had shifted downward since a 1992 poll on the same subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, gollllly. Every conversation HAS to be universal? That crazy.

    Rob: This is something we have addressed before with you, you cannot claim a pure southern heritage identity out of something that is a universality.

    Well, gollllly. If it happened in the South you can. Fried okra is a Southern dish. Okra grows around the world and is used in cuisine of other cultures; does that suddenly make fried okra not a Southern dish? That's what you're saying, and it's absurd.

    Point of order -- *Joey* is the one claiming knowledge of what millions and billions of individuals think; he claims to know those millions and billions *do not* see the flag in *any other way* than he claims. I wouldn't begin to make such a megalomanical claim -- that I know what millions and billions of people think about something; I'm just giving you a few *factual* examples to show that Joey's universal claim is not true.

    You say, "Also, you never posted the so called post. So now you are just blatantly stating that I am censoring you. I have done no such thing. I have told you, if the post does not go through, then it is too long and you must break it apart. I do not even get to see it for moderation. So yes, I am calling you a liar. You did not post it. I did not receive it, and you are saying that I did not approve it."

    Yes, I attempted to post it. It wouldn't go through here, so I posted it at Facebook. I was given no notice by your blog template of WHY it didn't go through. I didn't find that out until later, when you mentioned it on Facebook. I am not accusing you of censoring. Read it again, and then copy and paste for us the part where I say you did not approve it:

    "I submitted the poll verifying that the majority of Americans see the flag as a symbol of regional pride, but apparently the post it was in was too long and didn't make it through for approval."

    Pay close attention to the last five words. How can I be accusing you of censorship when I freaking acknowledged that the freaking post did not get through for your freaking approval? Hell will probably freeze over before you acknowledge and apologize for putting words in my mouth and then making an accusation based on your rewording. But I'll wait for it, anyway.

    You're asking me how I know how people around the world view the flag when they use it? I don't. I wouldn't begin to have the audacity and hubris Joey has by claiming to know how people around the world he's never met or talked to view the flag; but I can makes some assumptions based on how they used it. And here's another example of your putting words in my mouth and then arguing against me *and* the words as if I used them: "It could very well be that they see the flag as a symbol of rebellion, and that is why they are using it. I think that is far more likely than Berliner believing that they have Confederate Heritage." First, rebellion was over when the wall fell; that was reunification and the defeat of tyranny; and second, I didn't say Berliners believed they have Confederate heritage, so your argument is bootless.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I saw that too Mike and I definitely agree. The Gallop poll has questions that do not even tie into the actual question we are looking at. Nor do they ask whether the person is familiar with the Civil War/Civil War Memory.

    ReplyDelete
  64. No I'm not Connie but thank you for another opportunity to prove you wrong. Again, Okra being something that is universal like a symbol. How you interpret that symbol (cook it) is dependent on the perspective of where you live.

    Joey, is making a generalization. Although I typically do not approve, and neither does he for that matter, his generalization is one of good accuracy. I think if you'll notice, your group is a minority. That alone sets the precedent that the majority either has a differing opinion, or is unfamiliar with it.

    On the issue of the post, I have formerly notified of your problem when the post is too long. This is a blogger problem and not mine. That is a cop out and I am not accepting your answer.

    Because in other comments, you decided to complain that I was not posting your responses. So my assertion is justified. You are deserving of no apology.

    As far as the world view. Your implications are the opposite of the flag being used for different meanings to different people. Now you are back peddling instead of actually defending or retracting your previous statements. I would believe Joey's before yours because it is grounded in some sort of logic and not.
    "When the Berlin wall came down, some people in the crowds waved the Confederate battle flag in celebration -- to them, it mean opposition to tyranny. And I think you're going to find the Confederados of Brazil see the flag as a symbol of their heritage...This claim of knowledge of the views of people around the world that you don't know, have never met, adds another dimension of unreliability to your posts," Was an earlier post of yours. You are attacking his position by the few cases you can point our which a flag popped up. What is amazing, is that very thing you are arguing against, such as deciding how citizens of other countries remember and use the flag. You criticize Joey for his position, then state that Berlins saw the flag as opposition to tyranny, and Confederados of Brazil see it as a symbol of their heritage. Sort of hypocritical. But I expect nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Rob, fried okra is a Southern dish. Period.

    --------
    Okra forms part of several regional "signature" dishes. ... Gumbo, a hearty stew whose key ingredient is okra, is found throughout the Gulf Coast of the United States and in the South Carolina Lowcountry. Breaded, deep fried okra is eaten in the southern United States.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okra

    Also: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=okra+southern
    ----------

    I acknowledged that the post was too long and didn't get to you for approval -- that's the answer you're not accepting?

    It is not logical for someone to claim they know how 51+ million Americans see the Confederate flag or anything else, or how how 3+ BILLION people around the world see it. I haven't backpeddled from that position at all. It's ludicrous for anyone to assume they know something like that. If Joey could really know how that many people see something as specific as the Confederate flag, he could become a one-man test marketing tool. Companies would no longer have to do brand testing or take those tiresome (and expensive) surveys... they could just ask Joey....

    I mentioned the flag at celebrations of the fall of the Berlin wall and in the culture of Brazilian Confederados to point out that Joey is wrong. He made a universal statement based in nothing but his opinion and I gave two examples from the real world that refutes his claim. But if the two of you want to believe the idiocy that the people waving the flag at the fall of the Berlin wall were doing so to commemorate war and slavery... you go right ahead and continue deluding yourself.

    Just a quick question. Did either of you know the Confederate flag was displayed by crowds at the fall of the Berlin wall, or that there are descendants of Confederates in Brazil -- before I told you?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Book recommendation for Rob and Joey:

    How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively
    by
    Rudolph Flesch

    It's out of print now but you can still find used copies. It will be worth your while.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Rob: "The Gallop poll has questions that do not even tie into the actual question we are looking at. Nor do they ask whether the person is familiar with the Civil War/Civil War Memory."

    But-but-but you and Joey say that the flag means WAR and SLAVERY to the MAJORITY of AMERICANS. If that's so, why should the pollsters have asked whether the person is familiar with the Civil War? Isn't that a foregone conclusion? And why would the majority of the people polled have a positive view of the flag?

    The fact of the matter is that many people, in fact, the majority, see the flag as the poll data demonstrate -- a symbol of Southern regional pride.

    The poll was for positive and negative views of the flag. And yes, since the early 1990s, the number of people with a positive view of the flag has decreased -- precisely because the flag is the number one target (though not the only one) in the attacks on Confederate heritage I've been bringing up. Here's the major reason why:

    ----------
    ‎"As such, our principal objection and litigate efforts until now had been directed to the Confederate flag use as an official symbol. However, we feel we are at a crossroad and feel that a compromise would not be beneficial to anyone. In the near future, efforts will be aimed at the removal of racist names, mascots, monuments; and ending the glorification of Confederate soldiers through what is termed reenacting. We also feel there could be better use of State and Federal resources by the closing of museums and battlefields, which are dedicated to the preservation of slavery. These funds can be put to a more productive use for society as a whole". January 12, 1990 Kweisi Mfume, NAACP.
    ----------

    After 20+ years of attacks by the NAACP, the flag is seen by fewer people as a positive symbol -- at least, that's how they come across when polled. Even people who see the flag positively might not say so to a pollster who will do who-knows-what with the data. In an era when even the accusation of "racist" (even when not true) can get you fired or worse (and the implication that the flag IS racist is what's being pushed by the NAACP and their fellow travelers), many people aren't going to take the chance, regardless of what their personal views are.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Connie Okra is a southern dish, period. This does not mean that Okra is limited to the South, but it cooked (interpreted such as the flag) differently throughout the world. Which is the basis of your wrong arguments in earlier comments. You do not seem to acknowledge that just because you have one very narrow view point in the South, that there are other interpretations.

    I am glad you acknowledge that, but it is YOUR job to separate and supply and not to blame others. I suggest you learn some patience, and separate your responses into two posts in the face of such adversity.

    Actually Connie, you mentioned their limited use of the flah as differing interpretations, but then you stated what those interpretations were. Later in the comments of this blog, you recanted and stated how absurd it would be to assume what those interpretations of the symbol would be. I will also point out, that I have made this statement in the previous comments, and you ignore that to talk about what you want to. Anyone reading this can now scroll up to see for themselves.

    I can't speak for German, but yes I did Connie. I do not, however, look at the situation to reinforce me ideology but start without reason, or in some cases a hypothesis to test in order to reason out what the flag was being used. This comes from research in German history etc., that allows me to see the social movements of the time.

    "How to write, think more effectively"
    -------Okay, Rob - History Degree, Masters in Ed. Current work on Masters in History - someone must think I can write effectively.
    ------Joey. - History Degree, Current work in Law degree- someone thinks he can write
    -------Connie - Romance Novels - I Didn't know there was thinking involved in that, but apparently old women unhappy in their marriage think you can write.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Connie, I recommend that you take any Historiography class so that you can learn how to effectively study History. I would also suggest Mark Bloch's "A Historian's Craft" and John Lewis Gaddis's "The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past"

    "But-but-but you and Joey say that the flag means WAR and SLAVERY to the MAJORITY of AMERICANS. If that's so, why should the pollsters have asked whether the person is familiar with the Civil War? Isn't that a foregone conclusion? And why would the majority of the people polled have a positive view of the flag?"

    - - Connie, I've noticed you never comment on the questions asked in the specific poll. Pollsters do not call and ask, what do you think of the flag. They ask specific questions with limited responses. You also never comment on the fact that the poll is 10 years old, and that an even more recent poll by PEW reaffirms that even more.

    "
    The fact of the matter is that many people, in fact, the majority, see the flag as the poll data demonstrate -- a symbol of Southern regional pride."

    - - - You hold that Poll pretty high. But you have yet to point out that 11% of those polled actually follow the flag issue. Meaning they do not actually study it. You also do not point out that the flag issue follows political lines. Not something that should be left out as well. It is safe to say you are making a generalization again. Out of a poll of 1,000 people you are accounting for the entire U.S. and world for that matter.

    The PEW poll shows only 8% with a positive look on the flag. 22% of Southerners have this positive outlook. But my favorite is that the people with a high school degree or less are the bulk of those that view the flag as positive. So there ya go, take it for what its worth.

    Finally I see you've pointed out another minority group (meaning the NAACP and not the American black ethnic group) in your defense that the flag and "southern heritage" is being attacked. Allow me to do the same.

    - John Evans, President of Dekalb NAACP -

    "We don’t like it, but they have every right to put it up if they can find someone who wants that mess on their property,” said John Evans, president of the DeKalb NAACP. “As long as it’s just a symbol and not an action, it’s just a distraction from how much the world has changed from when that flag represented a real threat.”

    And my favorite, Zach Matthews Arkansas Native,

    “My main concern is that the rebel flag is inflammatory to a pretty significant swath of the Georgia public, while a relatively small population really cares about honoring the Confederate dead,” Matthews said."

    “Why bring more disrepute to Georgia?” he asked. “I’d much rather see them celebrate how far we have come than dredge up old issues.”

    ReplyDelete
  70. NAACP is code for "black" with these folks. I've got news for them. An American black person does not need to be supportive of, a member of, or even be aware of the stance of, the NAACP to see through the symbolism of that flag. Know why? Unlike many whites in this country who might see it as everything from an historical curiosity to a sacred shibboleth, most African Americans have an entirely different experience of its use.

    They and their ancestors LIVED the hatred symbolized by that flag, from the Civil War, through Reconstruction and the decades of terror after that, right on up to present-day Jackson, Mississippi.

    I'm not going to assume that anyone who uses that flag is a racist or has racist sentiment. By the same token I'm not going to subscribe to Confederate apologists' brand of political correctness when they pretend that no one has the right to view it as a symbol of racism and divisiveness. Or that they are "wrong," "liberal," "Yankees," or "PC" when doing so.

    History aside, we live in the here and now. Y'all can trot out that freak Edgerton all ya want to but the majority of black people in this country, TODAY, view that flag with everything from distaste to fear and loathing. And with damned good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Thank you Mike.

    I think that pretty much sums up the earlier arguments. Symbols have different meanings to different people. There are always going to be those of lesser character that will parade that symbol actively as a form of bigotry and racism. Then there will also be those that are blind to other people's views of that symbol as they carry out their view of 'heritage.' Of course, anyone that cries out in opposition is promptly demonized. I am hoping I run into H.K. in October. He usually shows up to this event I am going to.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rob, most -- probably all -- Southern cuisine is not exclusive to the South. It's still Southern. Are you sincerely saying that nothing can be identifed regionally if it also occurs outside the region? Does that include New England Clam Chowder? Because clam chowder is found, made, consumed outside of New England, there can be no such thing as New England Clam Chowder?

    I haven't blamed anybody for anything.

    Re: flags flown outside the USA, I said I can make some assumptions of how they view it based on how they used it. Joey implied he knew precisely how millions of Americans and billions of others around the world view the flag based on ... nothing at all. It's his opinion. He expressed an opinion, just as I did, but mine is based on observation of how it's used.

    Re: Effective Writing. You complained about my references to grammar, but when you're communicating by writing and reading, grammar is of utmost importance. You've inadvertently revealed the reason why you need the Flesch book; academic writing. You and Joey write for the artificial world of academia. You really need to read what Flesch says about that. Out here in the real world, where written language serves the same purpose as spoken language -- to *communicate* -- academic writing doesn't do so hot. I'd bet money that you and Joey talk very differently from how you write. Incidently, I've worked for people with masters degrees who couldn't spell or write a coherent sentence. Degrees are no gurantee of good writing skills.

    Get ready to delete me, Rob, because I'm fixing to the use the B word again.

    Rob says: "I didn't know there was thinking involved in that, but apparently old women unhappy in their marriage think you can write."

    Romance readers are old women in unhappy marriages? That's bigotry. If you don't want to be thought a bigot, stop writing like one.

    http://www.rwa.org/cs/readership_stats

    "...the heart of the U.S. romance novel readership being women aged 31–49 who are currently in a romantic relationship."

    Whoops! So much for old women in bad marriages! Thirty-one to 49 is not old (except maybe to callow fellows like you and Joey). Romance novels are the largest selling category of fiction in the USA; and in nonfiction, religious books outsell history books.

    No thinking involved in romance writing? Yep -- bigotry, bigtime, not only about romance readers but about romance writers, the majority of whom, in both cases, are women. Did they teach you in college to look down your nose at women? In any case, my publisher, Desert Breeze Publishing, has released romances this year about the London blitz, catching a serial arsonist, a man overcompensating for his deafness, an IRA terrorist preparing to blow up a cruise ship, an ex-baseball player who wants to start a baseball camp for boys, racial unrest, saving children from a drug lord, a religious cult plotting a power play in future Las Vegas, and a homeowner insurance office in Florida dealing with the destruction of a deadly hurricane. Oh, no -- there's no thought involved in writing any of that (yeah, right; I'd love to see you attempt to write popular fiction) just like there's no thought involved in throwing off on something you know nothing about in an ill-mannered but ultimately laughable attempt to make yourself look superior.

    ReplyDelete
  73. No I'm not saying nothing can be distinctly anything. I am saying interpretation exists differently in different places. So although your interpretation of the flag in the south exists, it is not the only interpretation.

    Joey actually never made a definitive use of numbers. You are basing your interpretation in the same manner as his, a generalization. But then attacking him for it. Which is rather silly.

    As far as the old women, that is not bigotry. That is a determination, nor an intolerance of Romance Novels. As much as your throw that word around, one would imagine you knew the meaning of it.

    Thanks for the site, it proves my point. As far as religious books, that would depend on your determination of what is fiction and non-fiction. Also that statistic is world renowned for years. Religious books are also sources of history. So horrible analysis. Basically you are stating, "look, more people are interested in lies, with the exception of religion."

    Don't really care. Notice you are getting riled up though. I thought you would know all about looking down at women Connie. You are anti-feminist. Shouldn't you be in home somewhere making sandwiches? Because without feminists such as Susan B. Anthony. As far as me writing pop-fiction, I don't want to. I would prefer my reality to be based in fact, though I commend you for your imagination; I just insist you keep that imagination and fiction out of history.

    Again, for all those watching. The didn't address any of the issues raised, but went on the defensive to everyone else on here's defense of her beginning accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Rob: "Connie, I recommend that you take any Historiography..."

    No, thanks. Historiography is for the purpose of telling people what to think -- I have no desire to do that.

    Rob: Connie, I've noticed you never comment on the questions asked in the specific poll.

    Most of them aren't relevant. The question is how people view the Confederate flag, good or bad, positive or negative. The question is not *why* they hold that view or *how* they developed it.

    Rob: "You hold that Poll pretty high. But you have yet to point out that 11% of those polled actually follow the flag issue. Meaning they do not actually study it. You also do not point out that the flag issue follows political lines. Not something that should be left out as well. It is safe to say you are making a generalization again."

    Again, the question is how people view the Confederate flag, good or bad, positive or negative. The question is not *why* they hold that view or *how* they developed it, whether they studied it or not. Politics doesn't matter, either. Just whether someone's view of the flag is positive or negative.

    Rob: "Out of a poll of 1,000 people you are accounting for the entire U.S. and world for that matter. "

    Well, at *least* I'm referencing a poll. Joey's told us what 51+ million of Americans and 3+billion others around the world think -- without reference to anything.

    " But my favorite is that the people with a high school degree or less are the bulk of those that view the flag as positive. So there ya go, take it for what its worth. "

    That just means they haven't fallen prey to the indoctrination found in our institutes of higher learning (see; thefire.org).

    Finally I see you've pointed out another minority group (meaning the NAACP and not the American black ethnic group) in your defense that the flag and "southern heritage" is being attacked. Allow me to do the same.

    - John Evans, President of Dekalb NAACP -

    "We don’t like it, but ..."

    None of which changes the fact that the national leadership of the NAACP declared war on Confederate Heritage in the early 1990s, which has been going on since, and is still underway today, having picked up support in academia, the press, and the popular culture.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Your description of Historiography is exactly why you should take it. Because you don't have a clue as to how to study history. You learn how to analyze, interpret etc. Not just make things up out of the blue.

    Okay, COnnie, if you think the questions are irrelevant, then please stop citing polls for your defense.

    I love that statement of indoctrination by the way. I read the recent SCV magazine that was talking about setting up Children's Camps to have them pledge to the Confederate Flag and learn mythology. Others reading can take that as they will.

    The Fire is an interesting choice to cite. Since on their board of directors they have there very own modern feminist (which we all know you hate). And a Professor started the group, which you also advocate against.

    Ummm, if the NAACP declared war on your flag...first off who cares. Secondly, as long as you are within your constitutional rights there isn't anything that can be done about it. You're basically playing the victim card, for no reason. I will refer to Mike's above comments as to why the NAACP might have negative feelings towards your symbol of "Heritage."

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rob, I studied history in elementary school, high school, and college. Now, go fly a kite.

    The poll questions you want discussed are irrelevant to the results I'm talking about. If you wanna talk about the questions, go ahead.

    FIRE is about free speech, and while most suppression of free speech is done by leftists, not *all* of it is. One of the admirable things about FIRE is their objectivity.

    I care that the NAACP declared war on my flag. I *don't* care that you don't care. I'm playing the right card. Mike's comments are based on looking at slices of fact and not seeing the whole picture.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Connie, so you had classes with standards that briefly went over but not in depth of any actual historical event. Basically in total your've had about two to two to three months of formal training of the entire Civil War - from cause through reconstruction. While I'm flying my kite, go enroll in classes.

    I talked about the questions Connie, you called them irrelevant yet claimed your poll as a strong indication of your points. Even though the poll I presented actually asked the direct questions in regards to the flag.

    FIRE is about Free Speech. But their methods are usually over exaggerate even from a Libertarian Point of view. Not so much in regards to objectivity. Sadly though COnnie, they are still academia and do not advocate your ideology. But lets stick to the issue at hand, instead of talking about different points of view of yet another fringe group.

    I also don't care that you care. You represent bigotry yet accuse others of such things. You're not playing the rite card. At all.

    "Mike's comments are based on looking at slices of fact and not seeing the whole picture"

    Connie, you picking up the crumbs of facts.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Robert, you don't know anything about the classes I had. See, this kind of arrogant, know-it-all assumption is what turns people off from you academic types. You also have no inkling of the study of history I've done on my own. I have learned more than enough history to logically reach the conclusions about it that I have.

    Re: the polls, in other words, you're admitting that poll questions have to be crafted a certain way to get the kind of answer you'll agree with.

    FIRE doesn't advocate any ideology. Its purpose is to keep universities from supressing the freedom of people, particularly students, to express *their* ideology.

    Yes; you and your fellow travelers here have shown a great deal of bigotry -- i.e., stereotyping whole groups of people -- for example, you stereotype most Americans and people around the world with regard to their view of the Confederate flag, lumping them all in the same mental box, while I acknowledge that they have individual views of the flag created by many individual experiences in their lives, and I maintain you can draw conclusions about their views by the way they use the flag; and the stereotyping of blacks by you folks is nearly unending.

    You exhibit the same attitude of insulting blacks while pretending to champion them, as revealed by Diane Roberts. Back in the 1990s when she was teaching at the University of Alabama, she wrote a what she probably intended to be a scathing article about the League of the South, in which she said this: "...I ask my (mostly white) classes what it must feel like to be a black student on this Tarafied campus (even the Business School parking garage has white columns) where the plantation house is reiterated over and over again."

    She, in all her white liberalness, she cannot concieve of a black person who can view white columns in any other way than "plantation house" -- which she believes, presumably, that they will be offended by. She can't imagine, evidently, that they can objectively consider columns in connection with the architecture where they originated, ancient Mediterranean cultures, or in any other connection. It MUST represent the "plantation house" and nothing else to them.

    My first thought upon reading her ridiculous assumption was, "Well, if the black person is an architecture student, he might look at the columns on a university building and say, "That's a pretty decent rendering of the Iconic order -- only a tiny bit out of proportion...."

    Roberts imagines the same student looking at the same building/columns and thinking, "I'll bet my enslaved ancestors who lived shacks, ate weeds and gophers, and were raped and beaten and separated from their families, belonged to a "massa" who lived in a house with columns like that...."

    Ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Connie, I am sticking with the generalization I made about your formal training in history. Notice, I never commented, at any time, that you never studied history on your own. However, if that time had been geared towards more fruitful research without an agenda (League of the South) you would have not come to the conclusions that you currently hold.


    Also, FIRE is not really any of my concern but yes, it does represent an ideology. I am still amazed you are siding with them though. After all, their board of directors is made up of Academics and self proclaimed Feminists. Plus Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my!


    "Yes; you and your fellow travelers here have shown a great deal of bigotry -- i.e., stereotyping whole groups of people -- for example, you stereotype most Americans and people around the world with regard to their view of the Confederate flag, lumping them all in the same mental box, while I acknowledge that they have individual views of the flag created by many individual experiences in their lives, and I maintain you can draw conclusions about their views by the way they use the flag; and the stereotyping of blacks by you folks is nearly unending. "

    big·ot·ry
       [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
    noun, plural -ries.
    1.
    stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
    2.
    the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

    I don't see stereotyping in there. But I digress. I have made no such accusations nor the lumping of others into one mental block. You are the one that has been doing that under the moniker of "Southern Heritage." Nor has Joey made those complete accusations(note comments above on Hindu and the Swastika). This is another self defeating point though, you were continuously laying out the platform of "Southern Heritage" without recognizing the multi-million member racist groups that waved the flag. Of course, you usually point out that those people are not true "Heritage" and therefore shouldn't count. Also you maintain that any harsh sentiment felt by the victims of those people (black people mainly) also should not count. Basically Connie, you are being a bigot in regards to the Black view of the Confederate Flag. I sincerely doubt this is any sort of stereotyping, but I will appeal to Mike for that answer.

    I would disagree with Dianne Roberts, because she took it too far in my opinion. I would, however, love to hear her arguments. Symbols, again, meaning different things to different people. What an interesting assignment though. I think I will use it one day. How would it feel to be a minority? I noticed you jumped on the latter argument of "let's make everything out to look like a plantation and slave quarters," but totally overlooked the core of the assignment which was to put yourself in the shoes of a minority class, that has felt the discrimination of bigots and racists in the South. Thanks for deepening your hole of intolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Mike's comments are based on looking at slices of fact and not seeing the whole picture."
    ______________________________________

    Indeed? The whole picture of exactly what? What is it that I'm missing?

    I'll tell you what my comments are based on:

    My comments are based on 58 years of having lived as a black man with ancestral roots in the south.

    My comments are based on stories passed down by my enslaved, Reconstruction-era and pre-civil rights era ancestors.

    My comments are based on the stories of my free black ancestors who escaped the bigoted filth of North Carolina and fought in the Civil War to free their enslaved brethren.

    My comments are based on the actions of men who rallied under that flag and its "cause" in 1889 Arkansas and assassinated my ancestor (a Republican politician) because he was an "uppity blue-eyed nigger" who didn't "know his place."

    My comments are based on the hypocrisy of my g-g-g grandfather, a Confederate veteran, who proudly displayed that flag while (I have a photo of him carrying it on horseback)while getting 6 children out of his adulterous relationship with a slave brought to the marriage by his wife.

    But most of all, given that I said "history aside, we live in the here and now," my comments are based on the fact that on any given day in the state in which I now live, you can find racist good ol boys proudly displaying your symbol of "heritage" as a tacit reminder of their bigotry in regard to race.

    And it's not just blacks who know this. Since moving here 17 years ago I have made many white friends who in no way, shape or form could be accused of being anything even close to the so-called liberal, academic elite that the "heritage" bunch so disdains (most of these folks have farming backgrounds and GEDs). On many an occasion I've been told words to the effect of, "Well, you don't wanna go there." ("There" being certain bars or restaurants) When questioned as to why, I get what I've come to realize is a euphemism, that being, "Well, they have that flag up in there. . .you know." Or I recall a friend who came to pick me up in his brother-in-law's truck and apologized because the flag image was emblazoned on the b-i-l's rear truck window. Then there's the co-worker who told me that she had admonished her son to not put the image on his new car because she feared he'd get a ticket from the one black police officer in the town they live in near here. She was quick to tell me that "Clay isn't 'that way' but, well. . .you know."

    These are people whom I doubt know any other black people well. I've certainly never discussed my views with them. And yet these people are aware of what that flag can mean to some.

    Note, I'm not saying that it *does* mean bigotry or *always* means bigotry. I'm saying that proponents of the flag who pretend that it has not been co-opted as a symbol of racial bigotry and intolerance are either clueless or lying through their teeth. I'm also saying that pretending otherwise shows the same disdain for the feelings of African-Americans that I've known since childhood is endemic to a certain segment of the population of the south.

    I'm accused of "missing" the whole picture. Not likely since, as I said before, I don't subscribe to the notion that reverence for the flag is necessarily of negative character. The ones missing the whole picture are those who choose to conflate Confederate heritage with southern heritage and damn anyone who disagrees with them as either malicious or inconsequential.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This blog is not letting me comment again; it's giving me no captcha verification screen. I don't think my posts are too long, nevertheless I will break them up to see if I can post smaller sections.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The reply I was writing to Joey's post timestamped September 23, 2011 11:45 AM was lost in a malware crash, so I'm submitting again.

    Joey says, "Exactly rob, she says she doesn't have divisionist ideology and then instantly states she's pro south, which divides into regions and is thus dividing a union."

    Good lord. The federal government divides the nation into regions. Numerous federal bureaucracies, notably the census bureau, divides the nation into regions. The courts divide the country into regions. Corporations divide the nation into regions. The Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts of America divide the nation into regions. The NFL and the NCAA divide the nation into regions... and many people are very "pro" their region. (For example, I'm a member of the Facebook group of SEC football fans, because I think the SEC has most of the finest teams in college football, including my #1 team, the Alabama Crimson Tide).

    You're making one of the biggest mistakes of the liberal mindset, Joey -- to think that being pro-OneThing is to be anti-EverythingElse -- that a preference for one thing is rejection of everything else. Not so. My favorite ice cream is butter pecan; that doesn't mean I hate chocolate, or vanilla, or rocky road. I do hate strawberry ice cream (or strawberry anything) and I'm not crazy about peach, but that has nothing to do with my preference for butter pecan.

    Joey further says, "Her ability to understand symbolism is also startling, I've had to explain the flag/swastika thing 3 or 4 times now and she still doesn't understand..."

    Oh, I understand what you're saying, or explaining, or attempting to say/explain, Joey. I just totally, thoroughly and emphatically reject it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "... it's comparing symbols and not governments. If she's seeing a connection between the Reich and the Confederacy that's all in her mind, because I don't equate the governments at all considering fascism and confederations are very different things."

    If you're comparing symbols, you are necessarily comparing what they symbolize. Otherwise, you'll just be comparing things like, "Well, the Confederate flag has more red on it, and the Nazi flag has black, which the Confederate flag doesn't have at all. The Confederate flag has stars, the Nazi flag has no stars..." blah, blah, blah. Ludicrous

    Joey: "Also, no I don't speak for "everyone in the north" but news flash: you don't speak for everyone in the south...",

    The difference is that I don't claim to speak for anyone but me. You DID imply you spoke for everyone in the north. "No one in the north gives a damn about the south, to us the south is just another part of the country," you said. I never implied, suggested, or hinted I spoke for everyone in the South. For the umpteeth time, I defend those parts of my heritage that are under attack.

    "... in fact it seems that once again you speak for an overly vocal extremist minority faction. You end up giving the average southerner who is happy being a part of the United States and living their lives, the moniker of someone who just can't let the Civil War be history."

    I speak for me, Joey. Nobody else. I don't give average Southerners or anybody else any monikers (a moniker is a nickname; "someone who just can't let the Civil War be history" is a nickname?)

    "Also It's fascinating that every time I post I respond to every point you make, yet you only respond to small selections of my posts to try and boost your position by ignoring the strongest points of my argument from facts that you can't refute."

    I respond to what I'm interested in. If you think the parts I ignore are "strong points" fine. I think they're not worth commenting on.

    "Instead we end up debating these tiny nit picks you make while the larger points are lost in previous posts. It's a wonderful tactic people in your position come up with in an attempt to misdirect debates in an attempt to give credibility to your argument, but seriously you skipped a swath of points and facts I laid out in favor of trying to make the mole hill points into mountains under the fallacy that it'll strengthen your position."

    You haven't done a modicum of damage to my position and you haven't done a whole lot to present and strengthen your own.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joey sez, "Also, as Rob stated and implied, I would need to know the circumstances of the poll you talk about. Was it a true random sampling? or was it an internet poll? Was it made widely available? or was it skewed by demographics? For instance, the only people who generally would be able to find a poll like that searching the internet would be people like yourself who are keenly interested in the topic of the confederate flag, where someone like me doesn't even think about the flag from day to day (except recently thanks to this debate of course). ... If the poll was taken by a reputable agency such as Rassmusen or Gallup then by all means I'll apologize, but even then I'd be curious what all the options were and what the skew of the poll was. Granted the confederate flag is a regional symbol, because again, basically no one in the north cares about this pseudo plight you're minority group has invented for itself ...

    Well, the one I was talking about was a Gallup poll from 2000, but there are quite a few others from the early 2000s when attacks were stepped up on the Confederate flag and Confederate heritage beginning with the NAACP boycott of South Carolina.

    Streets, bridges, schools, parks, etc., named for Confederate heroes, and monuments raised to their memory became the targets of removal, sometimes successfully. Example targets:

    Robert E. Lee's mural on Richmond's "Riverwalk" display of famous Virginians in history (City Councilman Sa'ab El Amin wanted it removed, and somebody firebombed it -- oh, but Confederate heritage is not under attack! http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-where-are-the-flood-wall-murals-20110725,0,7671239.story

    The Confederate plaques in the Texas Supreme Court building built with Confederate widows' pension funds. (This cost George W. Bush my vote.) I believe the court fight over this one is still going on. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=20000612&id=re8yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nAgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6258,3418970

    The Georgia state flag. There were numerous polls in Georgia newspapers, but none by national pollsters that I know of. Many were unscientific online polls. However, they consistently mirrored the two-thirds or greater of popular support for the Confederate flag (in this case, as part of the Georgia flag) of the earlier nationwide polls by Harris and Gallup, so I see no reason to doubt them.

    The Mississippi flag. This flag fight made an even bigger splash nationwide than the Georgia one (but not as big as the South Carolina boycott) and a couple of professional pollsters were hired to take the state's pulse on the issue.

    This was also about the time that Jesse Jackson, Jr., introduced into Congress a bill that deemed the National Park Service at civil war battlefields talked too much about ... civil war battles (go figure) and wanted slavery injected into park propaganda. Presumably this was the NAACP's plan B. They originally wanted civil war battlefields obliterated.

    There were smaller attacks that didn't much national news, like the NAACP's drive to have the flag removed from the city seal of Lake City Florida, near the Olustee Battlefield and site of a festival accompanying the yearl reenactment. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/123100/met_5010861.html

    They weren't successful in Lake City.
    http://www.lcfla.com/images/logosmall.gif

    There was even a boycott of a private businessman who flew a Confederate flag from his private property.

    The war against symbols of Confederate heritage in the South continued, but after 9/11, the press didn't showcase it as much. Now, eleven years after the NAACP boycott of South Carolina and all that followed, positive poll numbers for the flag have fallen; we can only wonder how much more the press would have manipulated public opinion against the flag if they had not been distracted with war and Islamic terrorism.

    (More)

    ReplyDelete
  85. -----THE POLLS-----

    Southern Focus Poll -- Conducted by the Odum Institute at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (where a couple of students have recently started agitating against a 100 year old monument to Confederate soldiers who were students there). Has questions about the Confederate Flag; polls posted online from 1992 to 2001. In 1992, almost three/quarters of those polled said the Confederate flag symbolized Southern pride, not racism.
    http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=242


    A 1994 Lou Harris poll of 1,253 Americans nationwide also says more than two-thirds of *black* (that's B-L-A-C-K, black) Americans see nothing personally offensive in states' use of the Confederate flag.
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-07-04/news/9407040312_1_confederate-flag-state-flags-battle-flag


    Gallup Poll (South Carolina flag flap) only 28% of Americans say that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, while 59% of Americans say the flag is more a symbol of Southern pride.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/2926/americans-divided-southern-states-flying-confederate-flag.aspx


    Scripps-Howard Texas Flag Poll (couldn't find the results online but I copied them when the poll ran; they're on my hard drive and pasted at the end of this post.)

    Mississippi Flag polls
    http://old.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=3605

    http://zogby.com/news/2011/04/20/ibope-zogby-interactive-73-agree-issues-relating-civil-war-still-divide-nation-/


    This Zogby poll shows that opinion that the flag is a symbol of Southern heritage has fallen; but it it almost twice the number of those who see it as a symbol of bigotry.

    Zogby civil war poll
    http://zogby.com/news/2011/04/20/ibope-zogby-interactive-73-agree-issues-relating-civil-war-still-divide-nation-/
    More adults say the Confederate Flag should be seen today as symbol of Southern heritage (40%), than a symbol of bigotry (23%).

    --------------------------------
    Texas Scripps Howard Poll results

    The Confederate flag symbolizes the South's history rather than racism or slavery:
    72% of whites agree
    21% of blacks agree

    The Confederate flag symbolizes racism and slavery:
    10% of whites agree
    40% of blacks agree

    The Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern history
    70% of those age 60 and older agree
    50% of those age 39 and younger agree

    Regarding the removal of the Confederate plaques from the Texas Supreme Court buildings:
    46% disapproved
    26% approved
    15% no opinion
    13% didn't know

    Regarding the removal of Confederate symbols from the state capitol:
    59% against removal
    24% for removal
    17% not sure

    Regarding the removal from Confederate symbols from all courthouses:
    56% against removal

    Regarding the removal of Confederate symbols from public schools:
    52% against removal.

    Scripps Howard surveyed 1,000 Texans by telephone statewide Oct. 9-31, 2000. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. The results were reported in the November 10 edition of the Houston Chronicle.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Rob: Connie, I am sticking with the generalization I made about your formal training in history. Notice, I never commented, at any time, that you never studied history on your own."

    It didn't even enter your mind that I'd have a bookshelf full of history books. You had your narrow little picture of my history education all mapped out in your mind....


    Rob: However, if that time had been geared towards more fruitful research without an agenda (League of the South) you would have not come to the conclusions that you currently hold.

    Since you know so much about it -- know that I pursued it "with a (League of the South) agenda" tell me -- that necessarily assumes that you know WHEN I did it. So. Tell me when I pursued this less fruitful research ... and how you know. Otherwise, admit you spouting off again about something you not only don't know, but can't know.

    ReplyDelete
  87. big·ot (bgt)
    n.
    One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    bigot [ˈbɪgət]
    n
    a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

    bigot
    n bigot [ˈbigət]
    a person who constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view etc a religious bigot.

    ------------------------------

    You're an academic bigot, Rob. At least, you demonstrate academic bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Let's start at the beginning. The federal government breaks those things into regions, to operate them with more efficiency. There is no militancy between those sects. What you are advocating is ideological division where literally one part of the country should dislike the other.

    Joey is not a liberal. He hates most liberals. Maybe hate is a strong word. I'll let him comment on that. I will also let him comment on the majority of what you said about the swastika. But whether you reject it or not you are still wrong, much like most of your historical analysis.

    I will also let Joey direct his attention at the polls as well since that seems to be your attack on him. Which I see you are still using polls that are 20 years old.

    Actually Connie, again, and pay attention this time. I never once stated your private attention, as I used the word "formal." However, I will agree about the narrow aspect. SInce you obviously do not cover any actual Southern History, only the segment that allows you to advance your agenda.

    I know, because your anaylsis and the things you project onto the SHPG are absolute garbage. If you submitted some of utter madness that you display on that page to a historical journal, you would be torn to shreds do you know why? Because actual historians get torn to shreds in those things, and they are actually trained and attempting to present new arguments. That is peer review. Not a pat on the back, a blood thirsty confrontation of academics. That's how I know. Because unless you had a complete incompetent hack as a teacher, you would not have these conclusions. Therefore it seems likely that this pseudo-history you practice came later in life as you attached yourself to revisionism for your 'cause.'

    I exhibit Academic bigotry. Good.

    ac·a·dem·ic (k-dmk)
    adj.
    1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.
    2.
    a. Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
    b. Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
    3. Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
    4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
    5. Based on formal education.
    6. Formalistic or conventional.

    Does that make you a bigot against academics, protecting idiots?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Wait a minute. Are you seriously saying that because I'm proSouth, I'm advocating for the sections of the country to dislike each other? Literally? Explain how being proSouth is being anti-midwest, or anti-Atlantic coast, or anti-New England, or anti-Pacific Northwest or... You get the point. Are you married, Robert? If you are, or if you plan to be, does picking one woman to marry mean you dislike all other women? That's nuts.

    Well, re: the swastika and symbols/governments, nobody's proved me wrong yet.

    Polls that are twenty years old? They cover from 1992 to 2011... and I show what was happening that explained the changes in them.

    How is posting a poll an attack?

    Rob, when I'm defending that part of my heritage that's under attack -- that segment is what I deal with in my defense, get it? I don't go into Southern music, or the religion of the South, or Southern accents, or Southern climate or the Southern economy, unless, at some point, they intersect with the attacks. Nevertheless, I have studied all (and more) of them separately, and with interest, at one time or another.

    The purpose of studying history is not to get published in a "peer reviewed" journal or to get ripped to shreds by other "historians." That may be the purpose (and methods) of ACADEMIA. It's not the purpose of studying history.

    I have a lot of respect for education; I have a lot less respect for academia. I absolutely detest the snobbery attached to academia, the propensity for academics to judge people's human worth by their formal education or lack thereof (exquisitely illustrated by your implication that those who aren't academics are idiots), and to see their own mere opinions as the be-all, end-all standards for judging everything.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Okay, where to start.

    As Rob said I am far from a liberal in the strictest sense. I am most certainly a fiscal conservative, I believe in balanced budgets, small government and minimal government intervention into the lives of people. I also believe in the freedoms of people to do whatever they please so long as it doesn't harm the freedom of another person.

    That said, you can wave your symbol of hate as much as you like, I just don't like it because it is something that as Mike put very eloquently brings a lot of pain and discomfort to a great number of people.

    Now as for your constant attack on my calling you a minority, and speaking for a majority. I did not ever claim to speak for every single human being who's ever lived ever bar none. What I said is very simple, the majority of people do not view the flag that way. Even a poll doesn't ask every single person ever, what they do is base it off of a sample. Now what you're seeing with this flag debate is that the majority are against you having the flag displayed, if it was the minority against it there wouldn't be a problem because people like you love to ignore minority groups and do whatever you please. Since you are a minority you group you're pitching a fit because the majority view would have it taken down, thus the majority views your symbol negatively.

    As for your polls, I love that you chose a Texas poll and not a national one. I won't bother to comment on Texas as a bias for this, but any rational person would see the bias present in displaying such a localized poll.

    On the topic of the swastika (once again ad nauseum) how can I make this any simpler? You are proving my point. Notice I mention Swastika you think Third Reich. I'm not comparing the third Reich to the Confederacy, but notice that the swastika evokes images in your mind of war and hate and something bad. Now notice that the Confederate flag does the same thing. To many black americans, especially those with ancestors who were slaves, that symbol is a very terrible thing. Why you continue to disregard the feelings and struggles of others is beyond me. I know it must be hard growing up a white person in the united states, and I'm sure you've faced so many unspeakable struggles being a white person in a 1st world western country, but try for a minute to put aside your massive burdens of being an expressed member of the gentry class and see things through other peoples eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Also I'm just going to be blunt. Rob was exactly correct about his assertions. You need to study history. History classes in high school and below just do not count, they have always been and continue to be generalizations at best. If you majored in history in college I'll apologize and recant my statements but if you did not then you can't rub that in our faces either. We both took the intro history everyone has to take, it doesn't count, they're overviews to make sure everyone's got general knowledge.

    Rob and I had to do extensive research on historical topics, we had to read books to write papers, extensive reading and research from databases etc. You would benefit greatly from this line of study because it would give you the perspective you so desperately need to understand issues from much more broad perspectives and a deeper understanding of the actual facts. Rob and I have spoken from the basis of logic and facts, thus far you've spoken from the angle of opinion and distortion. You've taken these distortions and claimed them as facts.

    Rob is also correct about academia, the master's programs he is involved in are writing intensive entirely, if he couldn't write he wouldn't be there. I'm in law school, if you haven't noticed lawyers do a lot of reading and writing and are educated in logic and lateral reasoning. Rob and I have done nothing but debate you on an equal playing field, you chose to call our writing and reasoning skills into question by suggesting that book which honestly doesn't have any effective use to us.

    Again I'm in law school, effective communication and presentation is what I have to be good at to even be here. Rob has a masters in education, guess what that requires? For you to sit here and try to make points like that is a clear attempt to debase us to outside readers to make yourself look better. Our backgrounds are in the study of real history, and real facts, and real data. Yours is in fact in writing romance novels, last I checked those were not primary or secondary sources worth citing historical facts from, unless I need a steamy love scene to accent my paper on Jeffersonian ideology. But again, we choose to debate you on this topic on an equal level, so act that way and keep it on the level we've prescribed.

    Oh and I do talk this way in every day speech thank you very much. Just because you might not be able to speak in eloquent and concise terms and communicate effectively in speech and rely on writing and revision as your sole means of sounding coherent does not mean the rest of us do. Thankfully being an academic has taught me to communicate in all mediums with equal and great effectiveness.

    And for what it's worth Rob does too.

    Mike - Your responses have been incredible, I hope you continue to post here with personal accounts like these. I live in the north these days and the dichotomy of the realities we exist in is sometimes startling. While there is racism and bigotry up here it does not manifest itself in such blunt and unabashed manners. I'm grateful for the experiences you share here.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Joey says, "As for your polls, I love that you chose a Texas poll and not a national one."

    But I did choose a national one. In fact, I chose FOUR national ones.

    ~The Southern Focus Poll I cited is a national poll.
    ~The Lou Harris poll I cited is a national poll.
    ~The Gallup poll I cited is a national poll.
    ~The Zogby poll I cited was a national poll.

    Joey says, " I won't bother to comment on Texas as a bias for this, but any rational person would see the bias present in displaying such a localized poll."

    No, where the bias shows is in your attitude toward Texas. It was a state poll because it was about a state issue. The Texas poll commissioned by the Houston Chronicle and conducted by Scripps Howard was taken in Texas because the Confederate plaques were removed from the Texas Supreme Court Building.

    The poll taken about the Mississippi flag was also a state poll taken in Mississippi only. It was commissioned by The Associated Press, The Commercial Dispatch of Columbus, Emmerich Newspapers, The Sun Herald of Gulfport-Biloxi and WTVA-TV of Tupelo. I guess they didn't care what people outside of Mississippi thought about the issue of removing the Confederate flag from the Mississippi state flag.

    I don't believe very many people look at a swastika and think "That makes me think of something bad, but I can't remember what!" Yes, it symbolizes the Third Reich, and you know it because in your first post, you said, "It's similar in some ways to what Hitler did with the Swastika..." And when you compare the Confederate flag to the Nazi swastiki, you are claiming similarities between the Confederacy and the Third Reich that they just don't have. Deny it all you will, but that's what you did.

    Your comment, "To many black americans, especially those with ancestors who were slaves, that symbol (the Confederate flag) is a very terrible thing." When I encounter that claim, fully 80% of the time, it's made by a white person. As recently as 18 years ago -- less than a generation -- most blacks did not see the Confederate flag as a very terrible thing. The crusade against the flag was manufactured to keep racial strife stirred up and keep the race-focused in business. (The eighty percent is my experience; the claim about most blacks and the flag was in a report about the Harris poll linked to earlier).

    Incidently, I'm not a member of the gentried class. My people are from Appalachia, where poverty still holds sway. The problem with you non-strict liberal lites is that you think privation and struggle are determined solely by race, and divide strictly along racial lines. Not so.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I'm not interested writing "peer reviewed" academic pedagogery, Joey. If that's your bag, have at it. You have the audacity and arrogance to tell me what to do. I have the tolerance to NOT tell what to do; I will tell you this, though. If you use your "historiography" to attack my heritage the way Kevin Levin does, I will defend it. Count on it.

    Academic degrees do not guarantee an ability to communicate. In fact, academic jargon is frequently a barrier to communication and that's what you and Rob both try to write. A lot of what you've posted here is pedantic, tedious, ponderous. It's not what people use to communicate with. Most of all, it's pretentious -- to make yourself sound "learned" and "lofty" with some condescension thrown in -- but you have to write really, really well to pull that off.

    On Thursday, September 15, Kevin Levin put an offensive video on his blog that denigrated the courage and death of Confederate soldiers. I posted about it on Facebook and some of his followers, including Rob here, joined our group to tell us what we must think about the video and about the war and Confederate soldiers and who knows what all else.

    I decided to return the favor and came here to comment on his flag post. I posted an opinion on September 19th, and Rob started with this "actually" this and "actually" that, which is not expressing his opinion, but an attempt to tell me what's what -- and therefore what I should think and believe.

    That's what draws people to academia -- a desire to dictate to others what they must think, how they must feel, what they must believe. It's the antithesis of education, which teaches people to think for themselves.

    I do think for myself and I have no more patience for yours and Rob's disengenuousness and pedantry.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Face it, even being from Appalachia you're still white and still have it better than most of the rest of the world, it shows in the things that you think are actual worth fighting over and think actually are the big issues. You show little regard for the impact symbols like this have on others. I did not make the comparison between the riech and the confederacy, that was strictly you doing that, I compared simply the fact that both symbols have negative connotation with most people. I don't know which black people you've been talking to or encountering but if you even bothered to read Mike's post you'd see that as a black person himself he finds the symbol of the flag negative and oppressive. It's honestly hubris on your own behalf and willful ignorance to think a people suppressed under that symbol would not find it offensive to them. I'll go back to the swastika bit and ask you to consider if jews are okay with swastikas even though they're hindu sun symbols.

    I love that you just call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal by the way, if you read my post you'd see I'm not a liberal. The problem with narrow minded people like yourself is that you refuse to see the broad perspective. The polls are taken in states that are renowned for narrow minded thinkers like yourself, and rob has addressed your poll habits already so I won't bother going into that again.

    Honestly I'll be blunt and say I think it's absurd that you take this stance on "southern heritage" and the confederate flag. You're honoring a government created by men who sought to divide the united states over issues and political lines that revolved around some of the most absurd topics. The fact that primary among these was their "right" to own slaves is the most pronounced of how ridiculous this is. A civil war is not something you "honor" it's a tragedy and terrible occurrence in any nations history. Civil Wars are always the result of ideological battles and when you have people massacring each other like this over ideology, it's the worst in humanity coming out. You constantly claim this as southern heritage, honestly if you want that to be your heritage that's pitiable and you can have it. There's good reason why people in the north don't claim it as heritage and view the war as they do, because it isn't something to be honored, it's something to regret happening, it's a blemish on our entire nation that we fought a war over slavery essentially. You are the only historical revisionist in this debate, seeking to change the perspective of history. It's something one finds a lot of in groups of people who fight over terrible things and lose. The losing side always seeks to rewrite the history so they don't look so bad, part of that is always trying to get their negative symbols positive associations. You cling to straw-men and phantom points, you avoid all of Rob's and my strongest points and then claim they aren't worth responding to. In reality your claims and ideology aren't actually worth responding to, it gives people the semblance of the idea that you actually have a valid point worth arguing. Rob and I are trying to help you understand why your narrow, radical, fringe, minority views are so dangerous to our culture and society. Instead you continue to try and spin and distort our points and label us incorrectly and try to find holes that aren't there.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I will again reiterate the point that you would do well to take some actual classes on American history instead of reading the propaganda put out by the SCV and related groups. Instead of buying into the good ol' boy mentality and lies that are perpetuated in areas of the south that attempt to make themselves a bastion for basically archaic concepts. Luckily the south is filled with many progressive and intelligent individuals with educations and facts who are against you. I will reiterate (since you refuse to acknowledge the point) the fact that you are fighting this fight implies you are a minority group fighting a majority group. If you were the majority there would be no fight because you'd have your way easily through votes alone on every state level. Thankfully people like you are a dying breed and the future hopefully will be filled with bright minds and tolerance as opposed to this kind of overtly racist propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "When I encounter that claim, fully 80% of the time, it's made by a white person. As recently as 18 years ago -- less than a generation -- most blacks did not see the Confederate flag as a very terrible thing. The crusade against the flag was manufactured to keep racial strife stirred up and keep the race-focused in business. "
    ____________________________

    And a good 90% of the time that I encounter the claim that most blacks have no issue with the display of that flag it's also made by a white person. Go figure.

    By the way, from the time of slavery on through to Reconstruction, the fight for voting rights and the King era it's been fashionable to claim that it's agitating troublemakers who stir up racial strife. We've all heard the time-honored charge of people "comin' down here stirrin' up trouble." It is no more true today than it was then. Shining the light of day on racism or addressing the concerns of minorities is called stirring up racial strife. Bull. That "strife" has simmered for generations in the south. It simmers in the north as well, but the south has had a special "relationship" with it that Confederate apologists have a vested interest in keeping the lid on.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "If you use your historiography to attack my heritage, I will defend it. Count on it." Like slavery being the reason for secession. But I do acknowledge you still turn down peer review. Thought it is funny. The only people you reveal research too is people within your own ideology, and you tell us it is about pats on the back.

    Then you attack the writing again, and not the substance.

    Oh Joey, remind me to show you those videos she is talking about. The satire in those is hilarious. One Confederate, and one Lincoln vid, where he is from the Broncs.

    Though it is sort of funny though Joey. She keeps attacking academia as the anti-education establishment. Psssst, Connie. Academia control education. lol

    ReplyDelete
  98. Wait, did anyone else notice the use of the word Pedantry? As in pedantic. A concern for book learning and rules. Wow, talk about an insult.

    ReplyDelete
  99. "Oh Joey, remind me to show you those videos she is talking about. The satire in those is hilarious. One Confederate, and one Lincoln vid, where he is from the Broncs."
    _________________________________________
    There was also one posted that pokes fun at a certain type of modern-day "pimp" and the film, "Roots." I thought they were all funny. I thought that they were all hilarious but realize the type of humor isn't for everyone. On the other hand, only folks with major chips on their shoulders would try to twist them into making fun of slavery or dead Confederates. It's called satire. I noted that none of the outcry was directed at the depictions of Lincoln, Grant or Mary Todd. Of course the Confederate apologists probably think that one was a documentary.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Joey, I think truth is worth fighting for.

    You clearly compared the Confederate flag and the Nazi swastika, implying similarity between the Confederacy and the Third Reich.

    Mike is one person, not "black people."

    I call people liberal who espouse liberal ideas.

    Saying that states are "renowned for narrow minded thinkers" is bigotry. The state-wide polls I posted were taken in states where the issue polled about was confined to that state.

    You can think whatever you like about my stance on Southern heritage -- just don't be surprised that I defend it when you attack it. Unlike you, I'm not interested in dictating to people what they can think and believe. You live in a country that glorifies its military and its wars, and you're all bent out of shape over a few Southerners who honor the ancestors who lost so much defending against a barbarous military attacker? Your claiming that this is racist propaganda is yet another example of your bigotry and a huge sign of your academic indoctrination.

    Mike, when I say troublemakers agitating to stir up racial strife, I'm talking about professional race hucksters in it for a buck. Years ago, the black community in Pensacola met resistance when they wanted to rename a street for MLK. I supported their getting a street named for MLK but I also understood the objections -- the name of Alcaniz Street dated back to the city's Spanish colonial days. The compromise was to rename part of Alcaniz; the part of it that existed during the colonial period remained Alcaniz; the rest changed to MLK Blvd. I think it was a good compromise.

    I also wrote in favor of restoring Chappie James' childhood home as a museum; for some reason, the city's black population didn't rally round this issue but the house was preserved and is now on the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I don't think my little article had much to do with that, but perhaps my calls to the city council urging preservation of the structure helped a little.

    One of the places where I encountered real live black folks exhibiting indifference to the Confederate flag (talking with them outside city council meetings) was when the city manager too it upon himself to remove the battle flag from the city's Five Flags displays and replace it with the Stars and Bars. This was a "project" of Pensacola's white leader ship in commerce. The black community here can make its influence felt over issues it cares about -- the MLK Street renaming being an example, where they worked tirelessly, marched and demonstrated en mass, etc.--. The few who showed up at city council meetings about the Confederate flag showed their indifference to that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Robert, slavery was *one* of the reasons for secession; the primary one, but not the only one. All the others are basically ignored by peer-reviewed anti-Confederate "scholars" such as yourself. Since I'm not a scholar doing research so I can dictate to others what to think, I don't need "peer review." I'm a 9th generation Southerner -- born in Ringgold, Georgia, Rob -- defending my region and its people from unwarranted attack from self-aggrandizing know-it-alls and/or history illiterates -- in academia, the popular culture, the corporate world, government bureaucracy -- wherever it shows up.

    When academia is in the right hands, it's not anti-education. But increasingly it draws those motivated by a desire to dictate to others what they must think. That's not education. That's indoctrination.

    ped·ant·ry   [ped-n-tree] Show IPA
    noun, plural -ries.

    1. the character, qualities, practices, etc., of a pedant, especially undue display of learning.
    2. slavish attention to rules, details, etc.
    ________

    ped·ant   [ped-nt] Show IPA
    noun

    1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'm not a fan of glorifying military or wars either, I'm very staunchly anti military and anti war in all ways. I think honoring wars and mass killing is absurd in all circumstances not just in regards to the civil war. War should be something we don't glorify, we should abhor war and everything it stands for. I refuse to glorify war or those who jump to aggression and war to solve problems.

    That aside, southern culture is not under attack, your brand of southern culture is because of the negative nature of it. Southern Culture is rich and vibrant and most everyone enjoys the addition of it to the United States. I loved living in the south and I love visiting the south because of this culture and tradition. That said, not all parts of any culture are worth honoring. I'll keep with the same analogy, as a 2nd generation German American, I love German culture and celebrate it. That said, I abhor Nazism and what it stood for and think it is a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise glorious culture. I would never sit here and honor the "Proud Nazi Dead" who fought in World War II. At this point you're probably going to stop reading and start ranting about my equating the confederacy with Nazi Germany. Again Confederacy is not equal to Nazism, the idea of honoring something many people find terrible is. I get that you had ancestors involved in the war, many northerners did too. That doesn't mean you have to propaganda for them. My grandfather fought for Germany in World War II, he migrated to the United States after the war. I would never sit here and claim that we need to respect and honor the German soldiers just because I'm related to one. I understand why he fought in the war, I don't think it was correct and I want sit here and tell you that you need to respect it. World War II was an atrocity. So was the Civil War. The amount of dead after that war, the devastation brought on by the war is not something you celebrate, it's something as a nation we should regret.

    We should regret that we couldn't find a peaceful solution to maintain the union, we should all feel guilt over the hundreds of thousands that died fighting an ideological war. The Civil War was not a just war, it was a war fought because stubborn politicians and people refused to compromise and refused to solve a problem (slavery) that the rest of the world had already resolved. We should be ashamed and so should your ancestors have been.

    As for your disdain for academics, I can't say I'm surprised. It seems in keeping with your willful ignorance to facts and data that you would be against the very institution that supports and maintains these facts and data and the people who are committed to up keeping them.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Webster says:


    ped·ant
    noun \ˈpe-dənt\
    Definition of PEDANT
    1
    obsolete : a male schoolteacher
    2
    a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
    See pedant defined for English-language learners »
    See pedant defined for kids »

    Basically, we don't fictionalize. Thanks for the compliment Connie

    ReplyDelete
  104. Opening a window on closed campus minds
    by Barbara Kay

    My youthful bliss was studying the great writers of Western civilization at the University of Toronto. I didn’t know then I was witnessing a “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”: the outgoing tide of a classically liberal education.

    I don’t suffer from the “in-my-day” syndrome, whereby the institutions of one’s formative years seem in retrospect superior to those of the next generations. I haven’t lost my objectivity; academia has. In my day, the university’s mission was to open minds; today it is to close them.

    http://timesofthesigns.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/indoctrinate-u/

    ReplyDelete
  105. Yes, school teachers, male or otherwise, are obsolete; today, the profession is "indoctrinator" and it's carried on by bombastic, self-aggrandizing folks who are themselves indoctrinees.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Connie, slavery was the MAIN reason of secession. The fact that you are from Ringgold basically makes me sad.

    It's funny you say indoctrination though Connie. We are not the ones running youth camps, having kids pledge to the Confederate flag and so on. Indoctrination? ha.

    ReplyDelete
  107. ha ha. You're using a Canadian columnist as your defense? Have you read up on her at all? There is your correlation between a social movement and automatically connecting it to racism.

    Oh Connie Connie. That means, that the use of the that word for the particular definition is no longer used. You invalidated your argument. (tip of the hat)

    ReplyDelete
  108. Robert, please. How many Confederate youth camps are there? How many kids attend? But the school system, particularly colleges and universities, indoctrinates millions of students. Did you watch the trailer for "Indoctrination U" or read about it?

    My reference to obsolete usage was word play. I guess that goes over your overeducated head.

    The documentary "Indoctrination U" is what's important, not the writer of the article I quotes. Still, her last observation is exactly right: "In my day, the university’s mission was to open minds; today it is to close them."

    You and Joey have set your minds in concrete, and had them hermetically sealed....

    ReplyDelete
  109. It's funny that you make these judgments about us as closed minded. The thing is we're sitting here entertaining your point and debating it, if we didn't have open minds this would've degraded into a shouting match and ad hominum attacks a long time ago. That video is barely worth watching, it amounts to basically conspiracy theory nonsense, the next thing you'll be doing is telling me 9/11 was an inside job and that vaccines cause retardation in children.

    It isn't that universities make people closed minded, it's that they teach us to be logical and objective. They teach us that opinions don't matter without logic, facts, and research. They teach us to disconnect our emotions from topics and concepts and to find the correct path and solution at all times. What universities are doing today is making people into more efficient reasoning and thinking machines.

    The system you speak of didn't "open minds" it created flights of fancy. The university system has become a wonderful mechanism for turning us into entities capable of separating our biases from a system, looking at facts from all angles, and seeing what is and isn't reasonable. This comes across as closed minded and indoctrinated to a person like you who isn't able to divorce themselves from their own opinions and to clearly reason through the issues at hand. You've married yourself so closely to this "southern heritage" nonsense that you can't see the forest for the trees. Rob and I see the trees in your argument, and they've all rotted and died.

    I embrace the university system in this country on an educational level, we need to be stamping out the ridiculousness and illogical behavior that has gripped this country for so long. The new generation of graduates are logical thinkers, they're more attuned to the global community, they're more capable of reasoning through problems and they've divorced themselves from ideological positions presented by their parents.

    I for one welcome our new academic overlords.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Love the reviews for that documentary. A Neoconservative magazine, and W.E. Williams. The negative review coming from James Taranto. I nearly want to throw that one out, but at least James is consistent at criticizing everything.

    Barabara Kay's work is reminiscent of the documentary. She cites it contantly. Probably as biased as that stupid Ben Stein documentary. But I digress.

    Connie, I do not know how many youth camps the SCV currently operates. I read a few weeks ago that Georgia was planning on two new ones, there is that monstracity out in Alabama as well. You comments on education in the public school reveals you know little to nothing about the matter. The subjects are usually middle of the road, do not push any buttons, and are usually just general summations without detail. Like the civil war, we talk about tarrifs, nullification, and state's rights as well.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Joey, if you and Rob are examples of logical thinkers, the future is in far greater peril than I thought. I like how you're ready for your "new generation" to throw out your parents' ideological positions. That's a hallmark of indoctrination.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I notice you were unable to respond to anything I actually said other than one sentence. That's the hallmark of someone with a defeated point who's out of gas.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I don't remember either of us saying that we were throwing out our parents' ideological positions. But saying that is a hallmark of indoctrination is probably one of the most idiotic things you have suggested. Your parents indoctrinate you.

    in·doc·tri·nate Listen to audio/ɪnˈdɑ:ktrəˌneɪt/ verb
    in·doc·tri·nates; in·doc·tri·nat·ed; in·doc·tri·nat·ing
    [+ obj] disapproving : to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

    If your parents are racists, or hold a belief/concept that is in contrast to reality, then the University is not 'indoctrinating' you; they are setting you free.

    You really need to stop arguing logic and philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Joey, I didn't answer because it's mostly just silly claims. For example, the notion that arguments with indoctrinated people deteriorate to shouting matches simply isn't true. People who are indoctrinated *can* get hysterical, particularly college students, but this is usually at staged events, like demonstrations and protests. In debating, the indoctrinated frequently exhibit calm, calculated inflexibility.

    The video, btw, was a movie trailer. You know what movie trailers are for, don't you? They simply show clips of the movie to give an idea what it's about. Your comments about conspiracy theories are unwarranted, and basically an attack on a view you've created and wrongly attributed to me (i.e.,"next thing you'll be doing..."). That's a logical fallacy called "straw man," btw.

    A "reasoning and thinking machine" disconnected from emotion is an automaton. Your emotions are what connect you with humanity.

    The system I speak of is one you're judging without knowledge of it. You're not old enough to have experienced it. So all the world's knowledge before you came along is just the accumulated products of flights of fancy... and you've been taught to reject it without thought.

    I'm not married to anything but my husband, Joey. I have explained several times that I defend those parts of my heritage that are under attack. It's not a difficult concept to understand; and I think you do understand it; you just have to pretend it's more than it is in order to denigrate and reject it.

    If you welcome academic overlords, that means you've accepted your place as a subservient which negates the entire defense you've made of academia, which means you're an indoctrinee.

    Rob, Joey said, "The new generation [have] divorced themselves from ideological positions presented by their parents." Divorced - rejected - throwing out.

    To compare parents raising their children (teaching them everything from potty training to driving a car to innumerably life skills) with the political indoctrination students receive in the schools (particularly the concentrated version found in four year institutions of "higher learning") is ludicrous.

    IF your parents are racists? IF? IF? You're embracing political indoctrination financed largely by taxpayers without their knowledge and consent, on the extremely shaky ground of IF?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm quite aware that I am one person and not "black people." Nor have I ever claimed to be. In the vernacular, "homie don't play that." I can assure you, though, that 99% of the American black people I know (and I know, and have known, a great many) view that flag with feelings ranging from mild distaste to outright fear and loathing. I've said before that I know that it doesn't mean that to many of its defenders; but I'll tell you something else. . .most black people don't KNOW why any given individual flies that flag and our experience in the south and elsewhere in this country tends to make us err on the side of caution if ya catch my drift. There are a hell of a lot of folks for whom hate DOES equal heritage. I may not assume you're a racist for displaying it, but I'm for damned sure not gonna assume you aren't.

    Now, I've been dismissed as knowing only "slices" of facts and not the "whole picture." It has been implied that I am a lone voice crying into the wind who has no idea what people with whom *I* have a common bond of history think. And that dismissal comes with the ultimate dismissal of not even bothering to address points I made or events I noted.

    And see, therein lies a very important part of this matter. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and admit that not everyone who reveres it is a racist. But unless I toe the politically correct line of the neo-Confederate apologists, I'm prone to be labeled "liberal," "elitist," "yankee," or even an "agitator," "troublemaker," or "race huckster." More dismissal when no logical or intellectually credible argument can be made.

    These people are unable to admit that someone might have a valid point. It's all or nothing. I see the rhetoric on their sites. They claim it's about "heritage" but they hang out heaping calumny and invective on their perceived enemies (dead and alive) while playing the victim card, referring to people who offend them as "scalawags" and "carpetbaggers" (really?!?), ranting about how "vile" Lincoln was and patting themselves on the backs about their alleged elegant manners and gentility. They need to grow up and become AMERICANS.

    They carry on with the little hissy fit that the planter aristocracy fooled the common man into believing was protecting his home, family and country, when it really WAS about defending the slaveocracy. But can they admit that it was wrong? Nope. When they're not saying it wasn't about slavery, they're busy being apologists for slavery. When they're not doing that, they're busy playing with clowns like Edgerton and making up thousands of black Confederate soldiers out of thin air.

    The American Civil War is the only war in history in which the defeated were allowed to write the history. And now the ideologues can't bear the fact that *real* historical research and scholarship has given the lie to their myths. And don't think that I'm defending the north in all this. For obvious reasons I'm pleased the north was able to preserve the Union (for what its worth), but the north threw black people under the bus as a condition of reconciliation with the former Confederacy and its desire to maintain white supremacy in the south. These were the original "race hucksters." These actions have been socially detrimental to our country ever since in regard to race relations.

    Joey put it best, I think: "We should regret that we couldn't find a peaceful solution to maintain the union, we should all feel guilt over the hundreds of thousands that died fighting an ideological war. The Civil War was not a just war, it was a war fought because stubborn politicians and people refused to compromise and refused to solve a problem (slavery) that the rest of the world had already resolved. We should be ashamed and so should your ancestors have been."

    ReplyDelete
  116. Elegantly stated Mike; thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Mike I think you've said more on this topic in that post than I could possibly respond with. Hats off to you on that one.

    In the mean time connie will continue to attack us, and go on in her self righteous feeling that somehow academics are inferior and that we're all poor brainwashed children. When I say Academic overlords I'm not implying I'm under them, I'm implying I'm with them, I welcome the day when academia is the highest regard.

    Also I find it cute that you bring up strawmen connie, considering all you've done to Rob and I is exactly what the strawman fallacy states. You've attached labels like "bigot" to us, you've distorted our views and stretched our words. I attached nothing to you, I stated that the video is conspiracy theory nonsense from a far right wing perspective. I go to college, I've attended more than one in my life and from small to large and that documentary is bunk, I researched it completely, the claims they make are alarmist and false and presented from a biased angle without presenting the opposing argument at all to allow rationalization to take over. In short, the documentary is much like yourself, it refuses to see facts, it clings to a view of the facts that is distorted and wrong, and then pats itself on the back as if it's saving the world.

    Luckily for us you're incredibly out numbered at this point and the country isn't being ruled by that kind of ignorance anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Thank you, gentlemen. You've provided valuable information about what we in the heritage defense community are up against.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Which would be....reality? So thank you for providing the active militant irrational voice to this conversation Connie. By the way, for the sake of those that actually care about history, stop calling it Heritage defense. You're not defending heritage, you are silencing the aspects you don't like and propagating a neo-confederate view point

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm not silencing anything, Rob. There's more than enough out there hashing and rehashing what you're interested in propagating. I'm emphasizing what gets ignored. There's no such thing as a neoConfederate; that term was fabricated as a pejorative designed to put a chill on those defending those parts of their heritage that are under attack. Pretty silly of the fabricators, though, to try to smear us with a name we honor....

    ReplyDelete
  121. You're not emphasizing what gets ignored. You are cherry picking articles to support an apologist narrative. By doing so you are essentially silencing history. If you want to concentrate on what gets ignored. How about an article on Jim Crow laws, Southerners fighting for the Union, or a simple slave narrative that does not end with your black Confederate soldier narrative.

    Smearing the name you honor is an interesting aspect. Which is ultimately why you represent only 5 years of Southern Heritage and History. You should try to call yourselves Confederate Heritage Preservation Group. Though you still do not appropriate the correct rhetoric or research involved. You actually disservice and dishonor them Connie. That is what you fail to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  122. The term neo-Confederate is nothing new. It's been around since at least the early '50s. Or is it only okay when apologists use it? It was even used in the "Southern Partisan" in its heyday. And yes there are neo-Confederates. Just because some of them don't care for the term doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Not all heritage types are neo-Confederates of course, but many are. And people *do* know the difference. There is a definition for neo-Confederate. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    It's like the term "liberal" that these types of folks like to use as an epithet for anyone who doesn't agree with their particular flavor of political correctness. I'm pretty much a political centrist. But if having compassion for my fellow sentients or being able to think critically or wanting to make sure that information I have is the most accurate possible makes me a liberal, then so be it. In fact, make it Liberal with a capital "l."

    I'm intrigued by the concept of emphasizing what gets ignored. Now, I'm "Liberal" enough to realize that there is more to history than what meets most of our eyes on any given issue. But I have to wonder why those so actively engaged in ostensibly righting the informational wrongs of the past are so hell-bent on suppressing and distorting the history of others.

    The Confederate apologists have been actively involved in marginalizing and suppressing the real history of their relations with people of African descent for over a century. From the lies about slavery to the lies about thousands of loyal, black Confederates.

    We jumped from the brutish institution of slavery (and yeah, I don't give a damn how legal it was; they knew it was wrong — and yes the north had slaves, but only Confederate apologists *continue* to bleat on about how it really was okay, given the times) to the barbarism of Jim Crow and now these folks want to embrace black folks? Can you say "transparent?"

    Neo-Confederates, like their kind before them, are quite willing to use American black people when doing so serves to bolster their 150-year old lies. I, for one, will not be silenced by the loud, whiny voices of historical revisionists like the apologists. And that's called protecting MY heritage as a black person AND as an American.

    ReplyDelete
  123. The Confederate battle flag was not the Stars and Bars flag. The Battle Flag was known as the Southern Cross. The Stars and Bars was the 1st flag of the Confederacy. It was not well like and was replaced by the "Stainless Banner" also known as the "White Man's Flag" in 1863. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10205762518736700.1073741908.1668230484&type=1&l=a16b831f4f

    ReplyDelete

Blog Archive

You May Also Like