The Yankee That Scared Connie Chastain: Multiculturalism and Racism Unleashed

 

Recent events demonstrate that yes; Connie Chastain is afraid of Yankees. In particular this Yankee, Joey Andrews. Beneath that bloodcurdling exterior lies a war crime waiting to happen. I first came into contact with this Napoleon of strategic games while in undergrad. I learned soon that Joey was anyone's intellectual match. He was a true Yankee that came to Tennessee like Sherman's flames through Georgia. I also remember the fascination of history the two of us shared while rooming together at that deep south Tennessee Baptist College known as Carson-Newman. I can even recall our first reenactment together. We had to galvanize (every Southerners worst nightmare) and dress as Yankees. I remember the thrill I had carrying the gun, shooting above people's heads and generally enjoying that 19th century feel. Joey took it quite differently. Every shot fired seemed to be personal as he shot at those Confederate souls....I'm also pretty sure that he did not elevate a time or two.

Fast forward to after graduation; I returned to Georgia for graduate school and Joey looked to the North for his higher education. I pursued the arts of Education and History while Joey looked to destroy people's lives (law). This brings us to the present. I have been introduced to the world of blogging and comparative pages on Facebook. In these groups I have come into contact with one Connie Chastain, self proclaimed Heritage advocate/Romance Novel writer/ and Huguenot. I know she's not really a French protestant but someone that acts with that level of superiority and pomposity all the time deserves a title that means as much as her opinions.....nothing.

Recently Joey engaged Connie in a thrill ride of a debate over the aspect of multiculturalism.  For those than want to see the debate in full, simply check out the 180 Facebook page.  I am sorry that I cannot find a direct link to the debate as it is either lost in the mess that is that group's wall or simply deleted. In any case, I made sure to copy the debate thread a while back which is posted below. Back on the topic of multiculturalism, it appears that Connie and a considerable number of Confederate "heritage" advocates hold on to the idea that multiculturalism is the leveling out or downgrading of European culture in order for other cultures to be equal. This position is held while also holding that European culture is superior in all aspects. This can bee seen in the arguments here. If the link is ever removed, I have screen shots.

UPDATE: The page is now set to private. Drop me a comment and I can send you the screen shot of the conversation. 


Pay special attention to the rhetoric both Joey and Connie use in the back and forth. Joey makes a point to use terminology of white vs black. Connie at first, attempts to make this a moot point by suggesting what seems to be equality amongst absurdities. Connie states this:

You're a white person who goes back in time to subSaharan Africa, you might find yourself being cooked and served as smorgasboard. You're a white person who goes back in time to an Arab country, you might find yourself being eunuch-ized (if you're a male) or concubine-ized, if you're a female, even a very, very young female.

This is an absolute absurdity historically but we won't even get into that. The point I want to show here is that she redirects Joey's point of white Europeans treating other cultures badly by pointing out that these other cultures do the same thing. Remember this is all taking place as Connie is trying to prove that European culture is superior yet she redirects an absurdity by saying, "Africans and Arabs are just as bad,"......is Connie arguing for Multiculturalism?

My favorite part of this exchange comes when Joey demonstrates the history and prestige of ancient Egypt. It is at this juncture that Connie demonstrates the true meaning behind the anti-multiculturalism argument. And it is basically what most of us guessed anyway.

(1) Egyptian society was not black culture. It was Egyptian. (2) Mesoamerican cultures practiced a particularly brutal form of human sacrifice. That may be superior to you. It isn't to me.

 I have to say at this point I am a little confused. This whole time I thought the argument was for or against African culture. Connie seems to see it only as Black culture. Last time I checked, Egypt was in Africa. I guess they are not black enough for Connie to represent black culture....or perhaps they are too white to exhibit it. I'll let you research for yourselves the differences between European and African cultures throughout history.

From this debate it is apparent that multiculturalism acts as the thin veil of racism for many people. We all owe Connie a huge round of applause for demonstrating this to us. We also owe Joey Andrews a beer and a steak for keeping on topic and making sure to engage in this circular debate long enough to reveal the true intent of some these unscrupulous characters. I can tell you all, that it is Joey's last debate with them on that forum sadly.

Shortly after this debate took place, Connie took it upon herself to remove Joey's membership from 180 South. For a woman that complains constantly about censorship and writes excessively about her comments being "sent to the cornfield," she had no problem sending Joey there.

So long my friend.....you will be missed.

"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.

Black Confederate Naval Officer Blown Out of Proportion

Royal Diadem (Ann Dewitt) and the folks at the SHPG are at it again. In their never ending quest to unearth the great and elusive unicorn (Black Confederate);  they have brought up the story of Moses Dallas.

"Gary, we keep presenting facts," yes, but lets look at those facts. Upon making a deeper inquiry, Moses was a slave that was given the rank of Captain in order to drive the boat. This rank carried no authority with it as the rank of captain usually would. In this snippet of information that Royal presents, it appears as though Moses's salary is being increased. This is not the first instance that slaves would be paid for their work in Confederacy. In defense of Vicksburg Gen. Pemberton paid slaves to dig trenches. In most cases the pay was not given to the slave but to the slave's master. There were a few Confederate Naval Pilots that were slaves. This is mainly due to their previous work navigating rivers and coastlines. They were basically being used. In Moses's case, this seems to be exactly the issue. Using a research based narrative entitled  "Water Witch", which can be found on the Georgia Department of Transportation's website, we can see the entire quote: "I have also been compelled to increase the pay of Moses Dallas from $80 to $100 per month in order to retain him. He is a colored pilot and is considered the best inland pilot on the coast." This quote was taken from the Navy and Marine Living Historical  Society. From the quote we can tell that the pay increase was in order to "retain," Moses.  Pay special attention to that word, retain. Why was retention important in a time of war when conscription was already in place? That is because Moses lived as property of another. The Confederacy rose the pay in order to keep him. This means someone at that time moved to get Moses back and pay had to be increased. This makes me think that the pay was going to the master and not to Moses. I cannot assume that for certain as documentation is not provided.

A little more about Moses, he died in a raid in 1864. This was a raid performed by the Confederate Navy on a Union ship. Why Moses was there taking part is not known. He might have been brought by his master, forced to row one of the boats alongside the Union ship. The account given of  his death, doesn't even mention him actually fighting but rather just standing and watching. Until something else presents itself to further our knowledge of his death, it is stuck in limbo. There is an amazing story though about his death being faked and Moses becoming a Union Naval Pilot. This is a great Counterfactual but the story does not have enough proof to be valid in my opinion. Of course when dealing with the definition of proof the SHPG has, maybe there is enough after all. 

Leading the Black Confederate Narrative to the Promised Land

I sincerely hope this is not the best they can do in regards to proving the Black Confederate myth. Snippets from Primary Sources have been used by groups such as the SHPG for some time now to prove their position. It would seem that these 'amateur historians' need to read Marc Bloch or study some historiography. You cannot take random unique accounts and claim them as fact. Why? Because there is no validity in it. If  I wrote down that Russians attacked the United States today, and a hundred years from now someone uncovers that; does that mean it happened? Absolutely not! Find more sources proving the same thing. Cross reference and use cross examination to make sure your sources can stand on their own. I hope they make this effort. Of course, this is the same group that advocated the entire company of confederate cooks, so I won't hold my breath.

What Does the Battle Flag Mean?

For weeks I carried on with an intriguing task of observing, engaging and debating points of view with certain people belonging to the Facebook group Southern Heritage Preservation Group (SHPG). One thing I learned is that this group is in actuality a Confederate Heritage group as they overlook the other two hundred plus years of Southern History (only counting since independence). Then one day, much to my displeasure, I found that I could no longer access their fine group. I had been blocked. Blocked by the very group that expresses rage and claims censorship when their comments are removed from certain sites. In simple  terms, as Historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot would say, I had been silenced. Thankfully and mainly because of the internet's usage as a playground, I worked my way back to a point of observation once more. Keep in mind that I cannot engage or debate anymore, I only have the ability to observe. Tonight is my first look at SHPG since my hiatus and I found some statements and materials right off the bat.

I would agree with Connie's statement. Not wholeheartedly of course. The flag does have a Confederate and American South history behind it. What that history is interpreted as is another matter.  I have seen the flag in photos across the globe. It is heavily recognized as more than just "A symbol of the Confederacy and the American South" but also  one of secession and disunion. This can be observed in Italy even today.  There is however much more to the flag. Something that Connie ignores in her own context and explains that this other outlook is merely rednecks and bigots taking over the flag and using it for personal gain. Nonetheless, this other interpretation exists and deserves to be studied and recognized as having a history with the Confederate Battle Flag.

It needs to be realized that the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is also very much associated with the Ku Klux Klan. It can be, and has in the past been seen as a symbol of racism. I realize that might not have been the intent just as much as I realize the American flag can bee seen in that context. 

The Ku Klux Klan did use the American flag as their symbol for years until about 1940 when they began heavy use of the CBF.  Confederate Heritage advocates will also be the first to deflect the issue of slavery under the CBF by stating that slavery existed forever under the American flag. This is also true. No one denies or doubts this at all. So the real question is why does the American flag not carry the image of "racism" or the image of "slavery" in the manner that the CBF does.

Well, to take a shot as to why, my guess would be that the United States government under the American Flag at one point or another was proactive is doing away with these absurdities.

Emancipation Proclamation - Freed slaves in the South, allowed Blacks to fight for the Union

13th Amendment - Abolished Slavery

The Force Acts of 1870 - In this act, the government banned the use of terror, force or bribery to prevent people from voting because of their race 

Civil Rights Act 1964 - outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

That's not the Confederate Guard

Now I will say, because I am sure that I will hear the argument or statement, that the United States has had its fair share of bigotry. With that bigotry though, came the responsibility to do right and right it did on several occasions. I think we can put the United States Flag argument to rest but I would like to turn back to the CBF for a moment. Though advocates will outright deny slavery's HUGE involvement in starting the Civil War, it is a fair argument that the CBF is less associated with that institution. It was the soldier's flag, not the Confederate Nation's flag. It was also certain groups that used the CBF to promote racism and not the Confederacy (Though the large portion of those groups resided in the former Confederacy). It is important to remember that symbols carry with them multiple meanings and the addition of more people can mean even more interpretations. 

His interpretation costs 20k CLICK HERE

So the question is why should they be ashamed? Well, you shouldn't be. If you are a particular person that has ancestry which does not include slavery but merely fighting for your home, there is no reason to be ashamed. Keep in mind however, that some find your symbol offensive.

As the above shows, the Nazis totally ripped off the Hindus. The difference is, you don't see many Hindus flying their symbol as 60ft banners near the interstate or putting them on t-shirts. It might have something to do with 6 million people dying but that's just a guess. Perhaps the key is consideration. Several hundred thousand people were in bondage, and perhaps view that flag as a chain holding them down. So many were hurt, killed, and not allowed freedoms in the 20th century; and most of them recognize the flag as a reminder of that. Consideration is the key word of the day.

Soon to Come: Statue Unveiling

I am traveling up the road just a bit to Jefferson, Georgia to witness the unveiling of a Confederate Statue. Or rather a statue that has been repaired and is being unveiled again. I am not entirely sure of the particulars, but  I will figure them out and be able to report on them later in the day. Looking forward to this one.