Insha'Tebow

Football is a major draw for most Americans. This year's season has led to an all too familiar SEC athlete emerge as a contending Quarterback. I am talking of course about the Denver Broncos' own Tim Tebow. Tebow is no stranger to religious controversy with his pro-life superbowl commercial and what some deem as an overzealous approach to Christianity. This outlook on Tebow's persona has sparked some rather snarky and humorous satire as created by Saturday Night Live. As these perceptions trickle down and new catchphrases emerge such as "Tebowing," Tim is constantly scrutinized. For some this scrutiny is merely because of his stance as a Christian and for others it is merely the perception of Tebow being a crybaby. In connection with the belief that Tebow's observance of Christianity is what draws scrutiny, certain pictures have begun to emerge across the web such as this one on Facebook.

Another meme floating around. Credit goes to the internet.

I find this picture truly fascinating. What is it trying to say, demonstrate, comment on, etc.? I guess to answer the question, according to the U.S. Constitution there is nothing wrong with either of them. I don't think a rational person can actually argue against that. What I am curious about is the meaning behind the picture. Why choose Muslims over Jews or Zoroasters? Some questions to ponder and I've love to see your feedback.

"Imagine For A Moment" - An Outlook on Foreign Policy

Joey Andrews, a cohort of mine and contributor to the Historic Struggle, brought this video to my attention. I have watched it several times and I find it truly fascinating. I am a non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy and that seems to be what this video promotes. The rhetoric of this video is all too familiar though. I heard the same speech given before by congressman Ron Paul at an earlier date here.  But what I find even more interesting is the tone of this video. It reminds me of the same war-hawk messaging that drug American into the Iraq War but that is merely my take. I am looking for your interpretations of the video overall. What emotions it brings to light, what interpretations you draw both from its message and its presentation. This is basic interpretation and analysis. Enjoy.

The Historic Struggle Hits the Classroom

Next month I will be giving a lecture at North Georgia College and State University on the concepts of American Exceptionalism vs The World Context. This will be a co-lead lecture between myself and Brad Campbell. In the next couple of weeks I will be presenting pieces on here for review in order to fine tune the lecture. More soon to come.  

"True or Not?" - Connie Chastain

UPDATE: Andy Hall at Dead Confederates has written a wonderful post on Forrest's Klan involvement. 

Connie Chastain over at SHPG, or as Brooks Simpson calls it, "The gift that keeps on giving," has posed a new question. Take a look.

This new uproar about Silas Chandler can only be in response to Kevin Levin's new co-authored article in the Civil War Times, which is available now. This new article by the way, has already seen some scrutiny by certain SHPG advocates to which Kevin has issued a challenge.  But back to Connie's question.

Primary Source evidence? I don't know of any that says Nathan Bedford Forrest organized and founded the Ku Klux Klan. So that means....none?  How about Nathan Beford Forrest's overall involvement with the klan? Well, we can use Google and our good friend wikipedia to run a small search that might have some results.

Wikipedia - Ku Klux Klan

Scroll down to the notes section and look at  "38." 

An oral account from an eye witness does count as a primary source.  So.....one?

This is not an attempt at history from Connie Chastain, nor has she ever made such attempt. She simply does not care about history. It does not fit her agenda. This is just another step in pushing "Confederate Heritage." Kevin Levin and Myra Chandler Simpson have put in the man hours to present a piece of scholarship. What we should do is peer review it. What this is above is just another attempt to be argumentative and to bash others. Connie's attempt at critique this time, is an irrelevant gesture to the understanding Silas Chandler. What she is advocating is that if we accept one, we must accept the other. I'm not buying it. If there is one primary source account that says Forrest was in the Klan, I'm not buying that either. There is nothing there to cross reference and so I say not determinable. If someone would like to drop a comment below referencing more material on that matter, I would be more than grateful. However, in regards to Silas; it has been shown on numerous occasions that the information saying he is a Confederate soldier is misinterpreted by many. Most information about him exists on the internet in the "Black Confederate" pages of SCV websites.

So to answer your question Connie; not. Forrest is in the lead 1-0 with my preliminary search. My question is, have you actually read the article yet?

A True Confederate's Genealogy

I am not sure how I missed this before  but David Tatum, an officer of the SHPG runs his own blog, A True Confederate.   Recently David has posted snippets of his family record for the world to see. Let me start by saying I think this is a fabulous idea. Bringing genealogy to the mass public to help in research is always a good idea and I encourage it. I can remember the countless hours my Grandfather and I spent combing through libraries in the hopes of finding the name of the ship Maurice Baker traveled to Virginia on in 1640. How wonderful it would have been to have some outside influence and thoughts come in to that search. Even if they were dead wrong the new addition can reveal a truth and spur a new direction. Why just look at the inquisitive nature of David, Kindred Blood and myself as we try to figure out what random words mean in David's snippet of genealogy in order to reveal the larger picture.

(Please go to David's blog as I do not have his permission to post his snippet of information.)

If anyone knows what "Sound Bacon" is, please let me know. What I want to address however, is David's original comments when making this post.

"This post shows the weekly food allowance for the slaves owned by an ancestor."

As it does. The document indicates this very well. What some of the items are on that list, is obviously still in the works.

"I can see it now - a Yankee blogger crying / " But what did the owners eat"?[sic]"

I'm not a Yankee....and I try not to cry so I guess I will have a go at this. I do not consider that a relevant thought. It is probably a safe bet that masters ate better than the slaves, so I will just move on from that pointless question.

(The "Yankee Bloggers" follow up) ""What type of home did the owners have as compaired to the slaves"?[sic]"

Pretty much the same premise as above. 

"Yea I guess that's fair / but what do the CEOs of major companys [sic] have for dinner as opposed to the guy in the mail room? And what about living conditions ?"

This is where I take a different path than David. I don't think either questions are really the interest here. I am much more interested in solving the issue of what exactly the slave rations were for W.H. Tatum's slaves in 1840. After that chestnut is cracked, then I can move on to broader questions. But making the comparison of CEOs of major companies to their workers is not the same comparison as master to slave. Though I agree this modern corporate feudalism is a seemingly justified comparison, it still is improper. We have to keep schema in mind. The 21st century mindset cannot co-exist with the 19th century mindset. In order to have a better understanding, historians have to attempt to simulate the mindset of that time. We do this by using resource material such as primary source documents. After all, the worker of that major company can leave. Yes he will probably starve and be unemployed, but he still has that freedom.A slave cannot.

This is not however, a slam on David or his attempt at researching genealogy. It is just an example of why proper methodology is important when researching history and sometimes even genealogy.