The link is:
People reading the article will realize what SCV "heritage" is really about.
Some extracts from the article:
Some of the SCV’s most troubling viewpoints are expressed in forums and publications intended for an internal audience, such as Southern Mercury magazine. In these venues, authors such as Frank Conner argue that 19th century African-Americans were a “childlike people” whose inferior IQs were deliberately hidden by liberal academics. In turn, Michael W. Masters, who in the 1990s contributed to the white supremacist American Renaissance and was a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, found a new audience for his assessments in SCV venues. In one piece from 2006 Masters argues that the very basis of Western civilization is under attack by proponents of “multiculturalism” and the “tolerance of diversity” who work to engineer “envy and hatred of white people, reverse racism through affirmative action and race-based entitlements…, [and] an uncontrolled flood of culturally alien Third World immigrants.”
The League of the South blog has been so upset that they did the following blog posting.
The author of the blog posting is so upset that he can't see straight.
For starters Heidi Beirich was not involved in writing the article. Euan Hague wrote it and I helped with research for the article. Beirich is one of the three co-editors of a book about neo-Confederates. However, the article upsets the blog poster so much that he can't read by byline properly.
Regarding Ferguson, the posting at the Rebellion blog selectively quotes the article. What is missing is this from the article:
The lineage of today’s events, he lamented, goes back to Reconstruction (1865-1877), a period when “our ancestors … were stripped of their arms, their voting rights, their means of supporting themselves—and in many cases their very homes” as the “central government… create[d] a form of dependency–in return for votes.”There have been a lot of commentators regarding Ferguson, but probably only neo-Confederates relate Ferguson back to Reconstruction. The whole point of the article is how the SCV uses historical memory to support its world view and how the SCV isn't just a historical remembrance organization.
As the article states:
In this way, the Confederate “heritage” movement has gone way beyond tending graves and cutting grass at Confederate cemeteries or reenacting battles. Indeed, the idea that groups like the SCV represent Confederate “heritage” is a misnomer: They are political organizations that aggressively promote their versions of the Confederacy behind a veneer of benign ancestral reverence. In 2015, the Confederate flag comes with a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-federal politics, a politics that reverberates through social media, talk radio, and niche publishers.There are a log of political organizations with viewpoints regarding Ferguson, the SCV is one of them, not just a "heritage" group.
The Politico article is a good concise article about what neo-Confederacy is all about, that is why neo-Confederates, at least one, is so upset he can't read properly a byline.
Some of the posters at the forum do say that the Civil War is about slavery and reject emphatically the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War. Others buy into one neo-Confederate idea or another.
What is interesting is that these conservatives who think they are so much more patriotic than others, aren't so patriotic when it comes to white supremacy, or the question might be raised to what are these Free Republic people patriotic to?
This is an essay on banal white nationalism.