Wednesday, April 26, 2017

They have white nationalism in the bag.

This was one of the shopping bags from the store at the Gettysburg National Military Park center.

Notice the gray and blue and how it is made to be exactly equal and equivalent. The bag colors represent America and the Confederacy. Then there is the statement, "Our Common Ground."

I have a statement to make to the Gettysburg National Military Park, the National Park Service, and the Gettysburg Foundation. I don't have any common ground with the Confederacy or its principles.

I don't have a common ground with slave holders. Evidently the Park and the Foundation do think that they have a common ground.

If they think it means something about national unity, we have national unity among Americans. The South and the Confederacy is not equivalent. To even assert that it is or imply it is an erasure of African Americans in the South.

This is banal white nationalism, so every day that it hides in plain sight.

The National Park Service talks about a "high ground" but it clearly is just a lot of self-flattering rubbish.

When one prominent monument is removed it becomes not just an example for others, but a rebuke to political leadership that is unable to remove monuments

This is an excellent article about the removal of the Liberty Place monument.

Besides inspiring people in other cities to get rid of Confederate monuments and think of demanding that they be removed, there is another important effect of this monument removal and the removal of the next three monuments.

The success in New Orleans is a rebuke to African American leadership elsewhere that fails to get a Confederate monument removed. Such as Baltimore where the African American members on a committee voted to retain some Confederate monuments and a city leadership that has gone nowhere in getting any Confederate monuments removed.

Pressing on the issue of Confederate holidays, monuments, symbols reveals who is really who in American society. This includes African American leadership which pretends to be advocates of the concerns of the African American community, but are in fact the faithful servants of white interest groups, in particular white interest groups which favor the Confederacy.

After New Orleans gets rid of its Confederate monuments, every town which has Confederate monuments which aren't going anywhere, will have the pretenses of its African American leadership exposed as being just that, pretenses. Those African Americans who have accommodated themselves to the Confederacy will be reveals as having done so.

This will hopefully result in that leadership being replaced with a leadership which isn't accommodated to the Confederacy.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Pledge not to provide services for plantation weddings and not to use the services of those who do

I will be writing a pledge for business to not provide services for a plantation wedding.

Also, the pledge to not attend a plantation wedding will include also a pledge not to use the services of those businesses that do provide services for plantation weddings.

This campaign will be somewhat like the campaign against blood diamonds.

It just isn't plantation weddings that can be picketed. The businesses that support plantation weddings can be picketed and they can be picketed when they  provide services at other weddings.

New Orleans Confederate Monuments begin to come down, showing the way for other removals

Despite threats of violence the Confederate monuments are coming down.

The Liberty Place obelisk came down last night.  Only a concrete base remains.

They didn't think about putting some counter monument. They didn't install an African American fearless girl. They  didn't put up a contextualizing plaque. They didn't chatter that the monuments could offer a teachable moment. They removed them.

This sets an example for all the other cities. Anything less than removal and the leadership of their cities and towns will be judged as falling short.

Also, since it is happening, it can be imagined happening elsewhere, in Baltimore, in Dallas, anywhere where there is a Confederate monument.

Sarah Palin is wrong. Kid Rock and Ted Nugent are not "all American"

Sarah Palin brought Kid Rock and Ted Nugent to the White House .

Palin stated, "So, yes, I invited my buddies Kid Rock and Ted Nugent, some bold, courageous, all-American dudes who I knew would have good conversation with the president and get to express a lot of good, middle-class, work ethic-type issues and policy proposals that they could all relate to, and that's exactly what happened at the dinner."

Both Kid Rock and Ted Nugent are well known for Confederate flag flying. They are not "all-American" at all, unless your idea of American nationalism is white nationalism.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

National Civil War Museum, teach your child a neo-Confederate view of history

One of the books I purchased at the National Civil War Museum is, "Who Was Robert E. Lee?" It is by Bonnie Bader with a cover illustration by Nancy Harrison. The interior illustrations are by John O'Brian. The book is published by Grossett & Dunlap, an imprint of Penguin Books and it meant to children.

Slavery is mentioned. There is a section on Robert E. Lee's views on slavery. We learn that:

"Some historians say that Robert E. Lee was against slavery." And we are told that, "... other historians say that Robert E. Lee did not object to slavery."

The section concludes with, "Robert thought that the only one to decide to free the slaves should be god." An interesting spin on this letter by Lee.

Of course Lee made it abundantly clear that he thought slavery was best for African Americans. In an 1865 letter by Lee to Andrew Hunter Lee writes:
“Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would depreciate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both.”

There was a slave hunt where African Americans in Pennsylvania were rounded up and taken as slaves.

Finally the book discusses Lee being a university president after the Civil War but not his hostility to African Americans as documented by Robert E. Lee Jr., testimony to the congressional committee on Reconstruction, and Lee's infamous White Sulphur Manifesto.

This book is the equivalent of Holocaust denial.

For information about what Robert E. Lee said and believed you can go to this website and use the search term "Robert."

This museum in promoting this book commits an outrage against the humanity of African Americans. It is no wonder that it proves to be a challenge in America to have people recognize truly that Black lives matter.

Pledge not to perform a plantation wedding and not to attend a plantation wedding

I will be writing up a pledge not to perform a plantation wedding for clergy, and a pledge not to attend a plantation wedding for everyone else.

At this time I am soliciting ideas on writing the pledges. If you have ideas email them to

Jury selection and the Confederate flag.

In this article an African American juror was rejected with cause because he was opposed to the Confederate flag in this death penalty trial.

I think it is time we start rejecting Confederate flag supporters and persons sympathetic to the Confederacy from juries.

Professor Euan Hague and I had this article proposing that jurors sympathetic to the Confederacy be removed from juries.

Sheri Few running on the pro-Confederate flag platform for the 5th Congressional District in South Carolina

These are a few videos on Sheri Few's You Tube channel.

In this video Sheri Few isn't just criticizing the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds, but any removal of Confederate statues and flags anywhere.


Removal of the Confederate Flag is criticized in this video also, but with a gun. 

The Daily Beast says  that Sheri Few's message is falling on "Deaf Ears." I would think that with the election of Trump journalists would be less quick to reject out of hand the prospects of a candidate like this. You might have to click on the link twice.

I don't know if Few has any real chances or not. We will just have to wait until the Republican Primary is over. She has gotten national coverage out of a local race. Perhaps it is also a career building move. 

National Civil War Museum and Kevin Levin

I was down in Harrisburg, PA to visit and review the National Civil War Museum and listen to Kevin Levin's presentation. CLICK ON ALL PICTURES TO ENTIRELY SEE THEM.

I think this photo ably summarized the essential nature  of the museum. It was offered in the museum store. Didn't find videos about slavery and certainly not Django.

I am sure there will be those who will point to the various exhibits and things which acknowledge slavery and African American soldiers, but these are token gestures. To give narratives of the Civil War they had James Robertson Jr., a supporter and endorser of Southern Partisan magazine.  The exhibit on Reconstruction was telling with displays talking about how "harsh" policies of "radical Republicans" caused resentment in the South. It is like reading Hodding Carter's, "The Angry Scar." The museum management seems to have a curation of the Civil War out of the 1960s but with concessions and accommodations to local criticism which they are getting. But this statue in front of their museum really sums up their mentality.

It is a Confederate soldier giving a wounded Union soldier water on a battle field. This suggests that the museum is mentally living in the early 1900s.

Kevin Levin is an able speaker and had a fairly good presentation. A school teacher, his presentation involved asking his audience questions which is a good method. On the historical side he missed an opportunity or perhaps didn't realize that one Confederate monument's reference to "Anglo-Saxon civilization" wasn't just white supremacy, but represented prejudice against non-Anglo-Saxon white people. There has been in the South this whole self-identification of being un-corrupted by European immigrants. His presentation was informative in many ways.

He did make it clear that the monuments were about race. He was really big about local decisions be made about monuments, no outside agitators wanted. However, he didn't make it clear that these monuments were about racializing the landscape. He is a historian and not a cultural geographer. He really needs to read Billig's "Banal Nationalism."

He did refer to the statue in front of the museum as an erasure of the issues of the Civil War. There is another very similar statue at a park somewhere in the South and Levin explained that the Mercy story wasn't published until the 1880s and isn't verified historically and is about erasure of history. He didn't use the term "erasure" but that was his argument. He then referenced in the statue in front of the museum which was very similar. So credit to that. I doubt though it will change anything.

Regarding Monument Ave. in Richmond, he might well refer to British Gary Younge's writing on the avenue.

I turned around to walk back up Monument Avenue, feeling angry and confused... I had spent about an hour walking along a road in which four men who fought to enslave me... have been honoured and exalted. I resented the fact that on the way to work every day, black people have to look at that. Imagine how black children must feel when they learn that the people who have been raised and praised up the road are the same ones who tried to keep their great-great-grandparents in chains. [Gary Younge, "No Place Like Home: A Black Briton's Journey through the American South," Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2002, pg. 67] 

This would be better than what Levin did, which was to self-reference himself as a "white privileged" person looking at Monument Ave. as to establish that he was conscious of racial issues. Though in reading Younge's passage, I do see Levin as not seeing the avenue like Younge because of his "white privileged" self.

The lecture concluded with his proposed idea that Confederate monuments remain in place and additional counter monuments be added. He had photos of "Fearless girl" from Wall Street to demonstrate this idea.

He did discuss some proposals for additional contextualization. He also presented how Eastern Europe handled communist statues, which was to put them in a museum.

Putting the monuments in a museum as part of the history of racism in the locality is what should be done.

I didn't introduce myself to anyone. I was their to document the museum and assess Levin. He is exactly what his blog presents himself to be, that is Levin's blog is an honest representation of himself.

Levin needs to consider whether presenting at this museum legitimizes it, but it might be argued you need to reach out to people and talk to them. However, there has been protests against the museum in Harrisburg, at least one. Then, there has been no boycott called that I know of.

For Levin's audience I think the questions he raised probably got some people thinking and relative to Civil War Round Table thinking represents some type of step forward, but maybe into a cul de sac, that is self-satisfaction with the status quo.  It will likely be a shock to them to learn of the hostility to the monuments by African Americans who aren't situated inside the white establishment. It will be similar to the shock of slave owners in the South who discovered that their slaves were supporting the Union.

Friday, April 21, 2017

"Southern Partisan" defender Jeff Session gives Hawaiian secessionists a big boost UPDATE

Jeff Sessions defended neo-Confederate Southern Partisan magazine during the confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft who had interviewed in Southern Partisan.

I see Sessions's page with his defense is no longer online.

As most everyone has hear Sessions made this comment about a federal judge's decision regarding an executive order by Trump regarding immigration.

Sessions said, “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”
It is somewhat concerning that the Attorney General of the United States doesn't understand the concept of the division of powers in our federal system of government.

Sessions's statement in reference to Hawaii tends to confirm the criticisms of Sessions during the U.S. Senate confirmation process that he was a racist.

However, what has really amazed the public is Sessions's dismissive attitude towards Hawaii, as if it isn't a real US state. I can't imagine him making this type of remark about Arkansas or Vermont or Utah or Maryland or any of the other 48 contiguous states. This comment isn't coming from some fringe element but the Attorney General of the United States of America.

This of course is very harmful to the Republican Party in Hawaii, but I don't think they have much influence there. It is a statement which will alienate persons of Pacific Island ancestry on the United States mainland. However, a lot of those votes are in California and the Republican Party does poorly there. As for Asian Americans Sessions's comments send a clear message that they will always  be seen as the alien other. Again a lot of those votes are concentrated on the East and West coasts where the Republican Party isn't winning anyways.

Still Sessions's comments are adding another long term obstacle to presidential victories when the demographics for the 2016 Trump victory are fading away with time. The Republican Party can't always  depend of the Democrats selecting and trying to foist a candidate for president who just isn't that electable.  Also, in Hawaii and on the East and West coasts there are elected Republicans who are attempting to have some influence and elect candidates and Sessions's comments damage the Republican Party's prospects there.

Also, Asian Americans are distributed across the country and in a lot of states currently dominated by Republicans Sessions's comments will be an acceleration of the slow shift that is occurring of these states to a more progressive politics.


Sessions's comment is a tremendous boost for the Hawaiian secessionists. The Attorney General of the United States of America has made it very clear, loud and clear, that to him Hawaii isn't part of the United States of America. Sessions really couldn't have been more insulting if he tried. It is the casual way he said it as well as what he said that shows that he really doesn't consider Hawaii part of America.

Sessions's comments are an endorsement of the central core concept of  the Hawaiian secessionist movement, that Hawaii is really a foreign nation under American occupation.

The impact of this comment is still in play. What will Trump say? What will the national leadership of the Republican Party say? Will the conservative movement rebuke Sessions? It will be observed to what extent the Republican Party and the conservative movement respond to Sessions's comments and to what extent they reject them.

Then their has been the Boycott Hawaii movement by Trump supporters which is already an antagonizing factor.

The press is focusing on the outrage of Hawaiian leaders, but what will be really interesting is what Hawaiian secessionists do with it and I think they certainly will use Session's statements.

Of course there are all those other islands in the Pacific which the United States possesses as colonial possessions. Maybe they also will suddenly develop secession movements. I suggest Mr. Sessions not visit any Pacific Islands ever. It would energize any potential secession movements.

For the territorial integrity of the United States of America Jeff Sessions should resign.


Sessions denies that he made a disparaging remark about Hawaii.

It might be that Sessions thinks he is in Alabama where some people are predisposed to accept these type of excuses or that excuses that he made during his confirmation hearing will work now. And they might work now. I don't think they will work in Hawaii though.

Sessions didn't say, "a lone judge out of hundreds," or something similar. Sessions felt it was essential to mention it was "an island in the Pacific" to emphasize how reasonable it was. The only people who are buying Sessions's excuse are people with a racial attitude anyways.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Numerous links to our research at CNN article

I am going to just put up the link, to the article, but if you go to the links embedded in this article you will see some of my old web pages, and links to my video channel at YouTube and other material supplied by Euan Hague and I or just by myself.

Even the TPM Cafe material originally comes from me.

I will provide more information tonight. The nation seems to be realizing what is happening.

The claim of the following T-shirt which was sold by Southern Partisan seems to have become real.

If you want to prevent "Lincoln's worst nightmare" sign this petition.


Visited white nationalist Park in Pennsylvania

I visited a white nationalist park in a city dedicated to maintaining that interpretation. I spent three days there. Did plenty of pictures and did some video also. Purchased a lot,  I mean bags full of junk showing the mentality of the town and the park management.

What is the essence of the city of Gettysburg I think this picture will suffice to represent the spirit of the town. Lots of Confederate garbage for sale. I wonder how they explain to their families that they earn their living off of pandering to white nationalism. Notice the picture at the top. Unfortunately there is a reflection on it, but it is a print praising American veterans. These merchants who pander to racists have the effrontery to think they are patriotic. CLICK ON PICTURES TO SEE THE ENTIRE PICTURE.

The people who run Gettysburg Military Park are maintaining the white nationalist interpretation in the book store.  Here in the bookstore is a Southern nationalist understanding of geography. The South is made equivalent to the Confederacy. There isn't the use of Union versus Confederacy.

The pandering to neo-Confederates is non-stop. This mug tells us that Lee is "revered." Books on slavery are hidden away in a small section.

I am going to do a video of Gettysburg Park and city.  The park service wonders why there is declining attendance and why there is little minority interest in going to the parks.

Of course one factor is that when driving to a park in a rural setting a minority person would have to worry about cops stopping them. An audiologist here in rural Pennsylvania when visiting her fiances house was stopped a couple blocks before she got there by a police officer who decided to yell at her and tell her to stop lying about being legally in the country.

Even if a minority person decided to visit a park in a rural setting they would find themselves at a park and city with a white nationalist ethos. It should be no surprise why there isn't much interest in the Civil War by African Americans.

One good development is that business is declining. The generation with a white nationalist interpretation of the Civil War is getting old and becoming much less active.

I am going to do a video with the pictures and video I took there.

Perhaps the National Park Service could hire a competent historian that doesn't see history in a white nationalist framework and do its job competently.

What is really amazing is that Civil War historians haven't given the town and park a scathing criticism.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Violence is an integral part of neo-Confederacy

Threats of physical violence have been made against contractors and city employees associated with the effort to remove New Orleans monuments to high Confederate officials and a white supremacist militia, prompting renewed security measures, a senior city official said Thursday.
Those threats, as well as lower-level harassment of contractors and other organizations, have come throughout the lengthy process of trying to remove the four monuments, said the official in Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s administration, who couched them as extensions of tactics used against civil rights efforts for more than a century.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

"NC lawmaker calls Abraham Lincoln a 'tyrant' Like Hitler" NC Rep. Larry Pittman

Neo-Confederacy is boiling to the surface. 

This is the article in the Charlotte Observer.

This should not be surprising. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has promoted this view in their magazines, in the books they promote.

This is the article quoting North Carolina House Rep. Larry Pittman.

In his post, Pittman said North Carolina should uphold traditional marriage “in spite of the opinion of a federal court.”
“And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it?” he wrote. “Lincoln was the same sort if (sic) tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional.”
Click on it and you can see the Confederate Veteran has an article, "Lincoln's Band of Tyrants" where he is compared to Hitler and Marx. Magazine to the left side.

By the way Olustee was a massacre of African American troops, and note the article about Mandela.

Read more here:

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Neo-Confederate Ron Maxwell upset with Trump, warns Trump on "Breitbart" I think we are on schedule for the rival of right wing secessionism

There has been a lot of reporting about the Alt-Right and other reactionaries being upset with Trump for his military action in Syria. 

It is hard to know whether this is partisan propaganda or is really true so I have been doing some independent checking to see to what extent this is true. It seems to be true. The establishment press would like to see Trump's base alienated from Trump and would work to foster alienation of Trump's base from Trump. However, it does seem to be true, regardless of what the mainstream media's agenda might be.

Similarly about the reporting in the media about divisions in the Trump White House. I suspect that in any presidential administration there are divisions and infighting. I don't know if the infighting in the Trump White House is more than usual. Or it might be expected with a radically different presidential administration representing an entirely new coalition there would be a time of settling out of arrangements. When there is a radical change in government some people probably are disappointed that it isn't all that they imagined or hoped it would be. The mainstream media could have an agenda of fostering division or it could be true regardless of the agenda of the mainstream media. That is both could be true, I just don't know.

A person very influential with neo-Confederates has expressed dismay with Trump over Syria.

"Gods and Generals" movie director Ron Maxwell, who is also an interviewee for Southern Partisan magazine,  has this article at Breitbart. It is more than just criticism of Trump's military action in Syria.

After all the criticism of Trump getting involved in Syria and Maxwell the article concludes with what I think is the most critical part:

"But yesterday, we heard the president justifying a military attack with words that could have been spoken by Hillary Clinton. Did we have an election or didn’t we?
President Trump has a choice. He can stay the course he set in the campaign, in his inaugural speech and in the first days of his presidency, keeping America First. Or, he can succumb to the selective hysteria of the Corporate Media, to his most ardent critics, to the omnipresent chorus of NeverTrump Republicans and to the beltway’s permanent war party to choose the path of America Last."
Maxwell is wondering if Trump is really going to take America on a right wing path for which Maxwell has hoped he would. I don't know where Trump is headed, but I think it it likely not to be any particular ideological path.

You know Maxwell is really upset and serious, he used the H-word.

Of course with a presidential administration promising radical change there is bound to be some disappointment. It might be thought that Trump supporters would be reasonable and realize that overall they are getting the change they hoped for and that Trump has to keep a coalition together to do any change and that some objectives will be won and others lost but overall they are advancing their agenda. However, I don't think a lot of Trump supporters think that way, do those type of assessments, and a lot will become disillusioned and alienated.

The failure to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act of the Obama administration and the actions of the U.S. House Freedom Caucus I think gives some indication of how little compromise figures in the political calculations and actions of many conservatives.

However, what I think will drive reactionary media attacks on Trump is the fact that these websites live on rage. Right now they can rage against media and celebrity criticism of Trump, they can rage against Trump opponents, but I don't know if this really substitutes for raging against the establishment and the modern world.

Also, this reactionary faction, is focused on denouncing conservatives who they feel are compromised in principle or not sufficiently conservative. They use terms like "cuckservative," a portmanteau of "cuckhold" and "conservative." It is the classic politics of "ultraism" where someone is purer than others.

At some point the different media platforms of rage might see being critical of Trump as being a competitive advantage against other media platforms of rage or perhaps see a niche audience for their platform for rage.

So I think that you will see right-wing secessionist movements start reviving. As time goes on reactionaries will realize that Trump is not leading to the great counter-revolution or not enough of the counter-revolution for which they hoped.

M.E. Bradford became disillusioned with Ronald Reagan's administration carefully avoiding criticizing Reagan. Bradford and others hoped that Reagan was going to undo the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, but Reagan was content to stall it instead.

The revival of right wing secessionists might only be partial or weak. It could be that most Trump supporters will be satisfied enough or hope that Trump has some radical plan that will be forthcoming in the future.

If the Republicans lose the U.S. House and U.S. Senate then Trump would be the embattled president and his base will rally around him and right wing secessionists will find their fortunes bleak.

A sure thing for right wing secessionists would be Democratic party victories and take over of the U.S. House and Senate and the presidency and a sense that there is no hope in national politics. In comparison it will take awhile for disillusion in the Trump movement to become overwhelming with Trump's base, but it could happen. It seems to be progressing towards that end primarily because his base is reactionary and extremist and fully expecting a total counter revolution.

I think also they are quite aware of how the "Reagan Revolution" really failed to advance reactionary politics and they hope to avoid a historical repeat with Trump.

So I think we are still on track for right wing secessionism to revive fall 2017.

Incidentally, Ron Maxwell is another neo-Confederate writer for Breitbart. Not a lot of articles, but some.


Friday, April 07, 2017

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is a dues paying member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans

It is reported that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant is a dues paying member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in this article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

For those wanting to know what type of group the Sons of Confederate Veterans is should read this article:

As the title correctly indicates it is about the racism and extremism of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Eddie Bauer, Port Authority, Gildan, Ogio, and Nike Brands used to support the Confederacy. UPDATE1

These are the links to these brand name garments with the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). logos added.  I don't know if these brands know that their garments are being used by the SCV. I think that if the SCV ordered this material directly the brands should have asked questions. However, it might be that some supplier is ordering material and applying the SCV logo to it.  We will have to make inquiries to find out and also see if the brands actually care.







Again I don't know if these brands know anything at all that they are being used by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It will have to be something to be investigated. I am researching the corporate ownership of these companies.


I don't think it is likely that these brands actually put anything Confederate on these garments themselves. However, I think that if they sold these garments to the Sons of Confederate Veterans or to another party who they knew was going to be selling the garments or delivering the garments or otherwise transferring the garments to the Sons of Confederate Veterans  they should have expected that something Confederate was going to be done to the garments or done with the garments.

Additionally when these brands find out what are they going to do to prevent this from happening again?

Friday, March 31, 2017

White House has finally gotten the letter asking him to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument

The date on the return green postcard for the certified letter is March 27, 2017. So the White House just got the letter. It then would get looked at by staffers.

The letter was mailed some time ago, in first half of February, but I think it takes awhile to get through security.

You can read the letter and the supporting bibliography at this web page.

You can go to the petition either through a link on that page or directly by this link.

EU official threatens retaliation to support secession of U.S. states

Turns out that the EU official is being humorous.

However, I don't think this is good even in jest.

Desperately seeking rationalizations to keep Confederate monuments

In New York City financial district there is a statue of a small girl standing in defiance in front of the statue of a bull. The statue of the girl is called "fearless girl."  This is the link to a story giving the background.

The sculptor of the bull is upset and I think is making a fool of himself.

This blog posting recently showed up on Civil War Memory by Kevin Levin.

He has a friend who is proposing that some equivalent to "fearless girl" could be put up by Confederate statues instead of removing them.

Levin quotes the rationalization of this "very smart public historian."  You know, a person who is part of the established order of distinguished public historians and a Levin approved historian.

This "very smart public historian" is quoted as saying:

It satisfies those who say that taking them down destroys or covers up history; it preserves the monuments as part of the history of the built environment, thus satisfying the historic preservationists; and it gives the subjects of the monuments a 21st century sensibility.
It isn't considered that these justifications to keep the statues are just excuses and the "very smart public historian" is asserting that these "historic preservationists" should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as white banal nationalist fools. The blog posting is hilarious and you don't need parody  when you have postings like this.

I always thought that challenging these monuments and other forms of endorsing the Confederacy had the great value of revealing who was really who. This is a fight over who authors the landscape, and whether the landscape will be racialized as being a white landscape.

It also reveals that Levin and at least one "very smart public historian" are cultural geography illiterates.

Finally, when Levin doesn't mention who this "very smart public historian" is he is covering up who is advocating this agenda. Clearly this "very smart public historian" should not be considered credible in the discussion of any public history anywhere.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Nigel Farage should be denied entry to the U.S. Trump is derelict in allowing him to enter the nation

It turns out that two major Brexit movement politicians, Nigel Farage and  Aaron Banks, were allowed in the United States and raised funds for a new movement to break up California. This is the article:

They should be declared undesirable aliens and not allowed in the U.S. again.

Commitment to democracy is accepting the results of an election you lost.

The boundaries of American states are somewhat capricious and formed for one reason or another over history. I supposed they could be draw again in 30 different ways that would make some sense. However, we don't need 900 states with 1,800 senators. Every geographic region can find some pretext to being divided further.

This is destabilizing to the United States and is a hostile act.

Every place needs two parties in opposition to each other. It helps keep both parties somewhat more honest and better behaved. Having areas where one party is completely dominant without effective opposition is not good, whether it be Republican or Democrat.

I am not necessarily opposed to all plans for rationalization of state boundaries. If they wanted to keep the number of states fixed to 50 but re-apportion according to population and maybe have states with one senator that might be interesting, but even then I would want to carefully think through all possible ramifications and consequences both immediate and over generations.

And this is what should be considered when you start talking about creating states. It opens up many questions as to what purpose the existence of states serve and the current system of states. They are largely the happenstance of history. In the 21st century we expect equal representation, and don't live in the 18th century where states had property requirements for voting.

One time in the 1970s I got out an atlas and in looking up the population of the states realized that 10% of the population gets 40% of the U.S. Senate and 40% of the population gets 10% of the U.S. Senate. If this gets generally considered I think that 40% of the under represented might not be very happy about it.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano claims to have been on a list of possible Supreme Court nominees. He is a prolific writer for Lew Rockwell.

Andrew P. Napolitano's claim to have been on a list of possible Supreme Court nominees is in the news.

There is considerable skepticism regarding Napolitano's claim according to the article for which a link is supplied above.

Napolitano is a prolific contributor to

There are six webpages listing the articles.

As a supporter for secession Napolitano he is really not qualified.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Historian Eric Foner interviews historian Matthew Karp about his book, "This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy"

The interview is at this link:

I am reading Matthew Karp's book on the slavocracy in America and their control of American foreign policy and it is a fascinating book.

One thing Karp shows is that the slave owners were very optimistic and they saw their idea of bound labor taking over the world in one form or another, not slavery, but coolie labor, peons, and other bound labor.

Confederate flag as an anti-LGBT flag in Maine

In this article there is an account of Kennebunk High School flying a Gay pride flag and then taking it down.

Evidently it was taken down because according to the article:

The flag was lowered a few days later after a transgender student at the school expressed discomfort with the amount of media attention the flag was getting, according to a report by Kennebunk High School reportedly is the first high school in Maine to raise a gay pride flag.
I suggest the transgender student should stop being a whiner.

What is interesting is that some other students flew the Confederate flag in response to the Gay pride flag.

This isn't a misappropriation of the Confederate flag. The Chaplain's Corps Chronicles  of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has lots of anti-LGBT hostility as does the neo-Confederate group in general.

Incidents like this publicize what Confederate "heritage" is really all about. It also explains why there isn't going to be any "Confederate fabulous."

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Arkansas bill to drop Robert E. Lee holiday goes to governor for signature

The bill if signed, and Governor Asa Hutchison is planning on signing it Monday in a ceremony, will remove Robert E. Lee from the state's Jan. 19th holiday which will be for Martin Luther King.

As the article points out that leaves only Alabama, Mississippi having a Robert E. Lee/ Martin Luther King holiday combined.

As the article points out there used to be seven states with Lee/King combined holidays.

Some Republicans in the state legislature came up with various excuses to not change the holiday without endorsing the Confederacy. This has been a strategy of late to defend the glorification of the Confederacy by having rationalizations that don't specifically defend the Confederacy but find some reason or another for the Confederate monument to stay, the Confederate holiday to be retained, and the street or building named after a Confederate not to be renamed.

I am sort of surprised that this has happened. It could be that with the massacre in 2015 some state legislators wanted to do something to further de-Confederate their state.

It might be though that the Lee holiday  came up in trying to attract a factory, facility, or business headquarters to Arkansas. Some competing site just needs to point out that they have a Confederate holiday and it would give pause to families wondering what type of state to which they would be moving. Competing sites probably would like to bring a place's Confederate identity to attention as a means of blocking the other sites chances of locating a corporate facility.

I don't think a corporation's non-discrimination policy is worth much if they don't consider the issue of the Confederate self-identification of a place to which they wish to locate a facility.

I think at some point I should ask corporations to consider this and give it some weight.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Levin's apologetics for the neo-Confederate

Kevin Levin has this blog, "The First Female Black Confederate?"

It is in reference to this article in which the South Carolina decided to honor a "female African-American Confederate veteran."

Levin opens his blog posting with a statement, "I've said many times that the vast majority of people who believe or push the black Confederate narrative do not do so for nefarious reasons. They are not promoting history in support of a Lost Cause agenda."

Levin just thinks they are just poor historians for whom, he the great expert, will show them the way.

The article shows a picture and who is in the picture? Reginal Miller, South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; Ann Shugart, state president of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Judy McCardle, third vice-president of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy; and Mary M. Bailey, registrar of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Seems like promoting the Lost Cause is part of this award.

Also, a Confederate of African ancestry being honored for supporting the Confederacy, a nation created to preserve slavery and white supremacy would be a traitor to justice and honoring such a person would be nefarious.

This search for Confederates of African ancestry or to find African Americans to defend the Confederacy is part of a very long history of finding some African American to endorse some racist policy or practice. During the 1950s the White Citizen's Councils newspaper would mention African American groups that were against integration. Zora Neale Hurston's denunciations of the civil rights movement are also quoted by persons were opposed to the civil rights movement. Walter Williams had a column in the "Southern Partisan" after it was denounced in the media. Martin Luther King Jr. has a niece who as his niece voices opposition to various liberal policies. I don't know what King's 2nd and 3rd grand nieces and grand nephews are doing though.

This is a fairly good indication of what Levin's book is going to be about. A very narrow technical historical analysis isolated from a larger practice in American history.

I have been thinking about writing something on claims of African Confederates, but felt that it will be dealt with elsewhere and I will focus on something else. Obviously now I realize that it need to write the book on the topic.

Phillips Dillard's pro-Confederate dissertation finally published by Mercer Univ.

Phillip Dillard's 1999 dissertation is being published as "Jefferson Davis's Final Campaign." The dissertation was titled "Independence or Slavery: The Confederate Debate over arming slavery."

The point of the dissertation was that the purpose of the Confederacy wasn't slavery. I have a copy.

The fact that Mercer University press is publishing this isn't surprising. They published James Oscar Farmer, "Metaphysical Confederacy" praised by Eugene Genovese.

I suppose Mercer will publish most anything sympathetic to the Confederacy.

Kevin Levin reveals himself on plantation weddings

This is his blog posting on the issue of plantation weddings. It is titled "We Just Want to Get Married," which is a good clue to his attitude.

I came across it while I was researching plantation weddings.

It really shows who Levin is.

A quote:

"Apart from confronting the past I don't see what is necessarily wrong with holding weddings, concerts, and other events on plantation grounds. Why must slavery be front and center of every activity? No doubt some of these sites rely on the income to stay open."

He also has the snarky comment, "Guess what, many plantation homes do provide a beautiful setting for a wedding."

Levin also invents "selective outrage" because slavery was in other places besides big house plantations. This is a sort of grasping at straws.

The mind simply reels reading this posting of Levin's and further you realize that Levin has no clue about what he is writing.

This posting reveals Levin to be inherently an establishmentarian. If there is a historical institution or some operation he is ready to defend it.

As time marches on he will eventually be an aging reactionary ranting against the future.

I think as time goes on clergy of whatever faith should pledge not to do plantation weddings. I will be writing people about this issue.

I am also researching it. As an issue of race, place, slavery and gender it is largely unexplored.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Bill Clinton hypocrite

Bill Clinton wrote three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) when he was president, all after U.S. Senator Carol Mosley-Braun's historic victory against the UDC in the U.S. Senate. One of these letters was less than a year afterwards.

Further when I wrote a certified letter to Bill Clinton to revoke his letters or disown them there was no reply. This earlier blog posting has the story about Bill Clinton's letters to the UDC.

This is the link where I mention I had sent a certified letter to Bill Clinton in 2014. It has the green return postcard.

In the Clinton administration the UDC was giving Confederate awards at the U.S. Military service academies.

Article about New Orleans getting rid of its Confederate monuments

I guess the argument of "erasing history" or the argument that these statues can serve as a "teachable moment" isn't working.

Friday, March 03, 2017

St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Annapolis stops hosting Confederate ceremony

The following article is about St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Annapolis deciding they aren't going to host a Confederate ceremony.

The church stopped hosting the event when contacted by a group called Stand Up For Racial Justice, but I think the reporter made a mistake and the group is Showing Up for Racial Justice -- Annapolis & AA Co.

The national group, Showing Up For Racial Justice, has many local chapters and I certain will make them aware of churches that host neo-Confederate.

I have been campaigning against churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

This is my web page on asking churches to not host neo-Confederate groups.

Stephen Bannon's ideology

This Vanity Fair article is very useful in discussing Stephen Bannon's ideology.

The usefulness is that the article states that there isn't much real information about what Stephen Bannon believes. Bannon chief of staff in the Trump White House and formerly ran Breitbart.

I have been frustrated trying to find out what information there actually was. This article confirms what I suspected. There isn't much information. This isn't to say that reading Breitbart articles gives a good indicator what Brannon's view might be, we just don't have much in terms of what Bannon himself has said.

I am very happy the story of the Gracchi brothers is mentioned. I have always thought this was a very significant story in ancient history which doesn't get much attention.

I have decided to focus on how Breitbart handles the issues of secession, Confederacy, neo-Confederacy, slavery and some related issues regarding race. I think that the path to understanding is through reviewing the output. I would like to know what the ideology of Bannon is, but as the Vanity Fair article states, there isn't much evidence.

Some of the very partisan speculations about the thinking of Bannon have been worse than useless and not just because they have wasted my time in reading them and finding in the end no real information. When some real information comes to light it will be less likely that it will have credibility because of some of these speculations and will run the risk of being dismissed as another partisan speculation.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, my reading so far of Breitbart leads me to conclude that it is a publication that is very concerning.

This is an earlier blog posting discussing the challenges of finding out who Bannon is.

Thursday, March 02, 2017

Pat Buchanan, enemy of the United States

This article by Pat Buchanan is published here and there in the press.

The answer to Buchanan's essay is no. There will always be people that disagree with you and you with them and if that was a justification for division you would soon end up with the Republic of your House.

Pat Buchanan was a contributor and on the masthead of Southern Partisan as senior adviser. He contributed to Chronicles magazine.

In this article we see that ideology triumphs over patriotism and that there are those who would break up the nation in order to advance an ideological agenda.

UPDATE: I would say  that Buchanan doesn't advocate secession in this article, but normalizes it, and is using the threat of secession to advance his idea of the Federal Union.

Rasmussen pollsters play with fire. Unpatriotic Repulicans

Rasmussen Reports has released this poll.

In the poll only 60% feel that it would be bad if California became another country. It really should be 90% or more and those who disagree should be considered cranks. The percentage that think that it would be a good idea is 18%.

Unfortunately the numbers thinking that it would be good if California became another country is driven by partisanship by Republicans of whom 25% thought it would be a good idea.

The headlines used by Rasmussen Reports need to be read carefully. They say that 41% of Republicans don't think America would be hurt by California secession which is 25% who are for it and 16% who say it would have no impact.

It seems that a lot of Americans don't see the obvious advantages of being in a continental nation or they don't think that these questions have real consequences, but are really just hypothetical and in the realm of fantasy.

Given that we have hundreds of statues in American honoring secessionists we should not be surprised that secession is legitimized and people are open to this really stupid idea.

Please consider the following petition.

Monday, February 27, 2017

"La La Land" movie doesn't win best picture. I am glad of it.

Glad "La La Land" didn't win best picture award. See who the sponsors of lighting up Robert E. Lee Park were below. You will see "La La Land" listed on this poster with the same font, or very similar font, as the movie used for its name.  Click on image to see all of it.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Proposal to change North Carolina constitution to allow secession

This is what happens when you have Confederate monuments and places named after Confederate leaders.

North Carolina Republican House Representatives Michael Speciale, George Cleveland, and Larry Pittman want to amend the North Carolina constitution to remove the NC constitution's prohibition against secession.

This article as a little information about their reasons behind the proposal.

We can expect more of this craziness when the conservative movement publishes people like Brion McClanahan.


I think we can just ignore the claim by some conservative groups that they want to make America great again or claim to be patriotic when they publish persons that are sympathetic or pro-secessionist or are neo-Confederates.

This is a link to McClanahan's articles at the Abbeville Institute

Monday, February 20, 2017

Milo Yiannopoulos and Nathan Bedford Forrest and CPAC UPDATE1.2,3 & 4

UPDATE: Milo Yiannopoulos has been dis-invited as a CPAC speaker.

I just finished this article and the above article comes out. I wonder if any conservative will complain about "political correctness" or free speech in regards to Yiannopoulos. It seems that not everyone at CPAC was willing to go along with him being the keynote speaker.

I don't know if Yiannopoulos's career is over though. Politics has changed and what might have sunk a political career in the past may not now.


Book contract cancelled, though he has a $250,000 advance.

Breitbart employees are threatening to quit if Milo Yiannopoulos isn't fired.


Milo has resigned from Breitbart

His articles are still at the Breitbart website. Is his career over? Again I don't really know. Normally I would think it would definitely be over but then again politics and media are now all different and I have no idea what is "normal" now.

Rolling Stone has an article, "Milo Yiannopoulos Isn't Going Away."

However, I think conservative student groups likely won't invite him to speak at their universities and so there won't be counter protests and essentially Yiannopoulos as a phenomenon will fade away, at least I think it will.


There are reports that reactionary Regnery Publishing is going to publish Milo Yiannopoulos' book.  It will be interesting if true. Regnery Publishing has pretensions of being a serious publisher and that evaporates if they publish Yiannopoulos' book.


Bad language quoted in the following blog posting. Given that it is about MILO it is unavoidable since his language is a significant aspect of his writings.

I hadn't paid much attention to Milo Yiannopoulos and his writings. He goes by MILO, all capital letters, and so I will use his first name in this blog posting. He contributed a lot of articles to Breitbart. This is a link to them.

The listing of his articles at Breitbart now just lists him as MILO.

However, this article refers to MILO as a Breitbart senior editor.

Condemnation of him on the Internet is widespread. He seems to be a person who just throws out a series of inflammatory statements to generate a response and he does get a response.  There are protests, at least one violent, against his speaking on campuses. Also, universities try to prevent his speaking by demanding security deposits that student groups obviously can't afford. These rather transparent attempts are publicized by MILO. These attempts, some successful I think, have allowed him to focus on the issue of free speech to the obscuring of what he says such as the article in the link above.

His writing is mostly just frothing at the mouth. However, now it is announced that he is the keynote speaker at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which is a prominent conservative annual event. The publication for which he writes is Breitbart whose former head, Stephen Bannon, is now the chief of staff at the White House.

So as the star of the American conservative movement if and possibly  a hero to English speaking conservatives everywhere, what he says is important. I think also it indicates some significant changes in politics and needs some review.

MILO very freely, clearly, and loudly states that he is gay and attracted to men of sub-Saharan African ancestry and is very expressive about being gay. His current speaking tour he calls the, "Dangerous Faggott Tour

He points to his having sex with black men as proof that he isn't racist or white supremacist.

In the above article, MILO states, "Some kind of racist that just got railed for 18 hours in a hotel room by his black boyfriend. You fucking morons."

However, there are men with racist attitudes that are sexually attracted to African American men and sometimes that plays into to the attraction.

The thing about claiming someone is racist is that so far there is no technology to read minds. Even if a person stated they were a white supremacist they could claim 15 minutes later that they are no longer white supremacists and though you would likely think this claim as being dubious you can't disprove it. Neo-Confederates have claimed to have changed when it has suited them. In terms of racism you have to refer to actions, what a person does, what a person says, and these actions can be described as racist, that is actions in the service of racist goals.

American media is somewhat shallow about reporting on racism and to them a racist wears funny clothes and says they are a racist and MILO doesn't appear to be a member of any racist organization, doesn't make statements about racial inferiority and superiority or obvious white supremacist statements. American media doesn't seem to know how to engage him, or perhaps a critical analysis of MILO might lead to a critical analysis of other issues that would prove to be difficult for American media. Plus a critical review would take a lot of work and would be a long article.

He is self-derogatory about being gay and so I think his being gay is thus made acceptable to conservatives and my assessment is that he plays the role of being a gay person to be laughed at. It seems though it is entertainment that is very popular among conservatives as indicated by the fact that he is the keynote speaker at CPAC.

In this article MILO explains that that he would prefer to be straight.

His homosexuality is in your face in some of his articles. For example this article about him having sex with a "black drug dealer" in his bedroom when he was 15 years old,"on a school night."

In this article, link below, there is picture of a sign "Colored Served in Rear." In his article he explains his Grindr profile if "truthful" would say "blacks only" and so the meaning of the sign "Colored Served in Rear," becomes clear I think in any reasonable understanding of what MILO is trying to say with it. (Note: I looked up what "railed" means at the urban dictionary. It means to be vigorously and repeatedly penetrated by a penis. Warning, rather explicit language.) It isn't that this language would necessarily upset me, but I want to be considerate of the sensibilities of all my potential readers.

So the keynote speaker for CPAC is a person who a man whose article makes it clear that he wants sex with African American men and has a picture of a sign to imply to the readers that this sex is anal penetration by African American men.


First Ann Coulter must be feeling fairly down. She was a sensation in the media for her statements outraging opinion, now who is paying attention? She can't attack him since that would only help MILO. I don't think she could be anymore outrageous than MILO.

Gays and Lesbians:

I don't think that we can see it as a complete or nearly complete revolution in acceptance of gays in the conservative movement since MILO is basically playing his being gay on the old homophobic idea that being gay is inherently funny. However, it is a radical change in that he has become a conservative hero, a gay who is quite expressive about being gay and talks about his sexual desires openly. It should also be understood that part of the space created for this speech is that one of MILO's primary themes is that he is freely exercising his speech to say what needs to be said openly about race and religion and gender etc., and so critics of his being gay run the risk of being referred to as "politically correct" suppressing his speech.

Even so, even though MILO is self-derogatory as a gay person, his being the keynote speaker at CPAC as a very expressive gay man must really upset the religious right, though I don't know of any public expression by the religious right against MILO. The whole campaign against gays and Lesbians to evangelical youth is undermined by MILO being a conservative hero who has celebrity status and evidently financial success. I suppose the evangelicals can trot out their slogan, "hate the sin, but love the sinner," but I think the intention of this slogan was intended to look down on gays in a condescending way and not for a situation where a gay man, who who writes about his sex life, is cheered as the keynote speaker at CPAC.

MILO makes the religious right a sort of relic in many ways.

For the LGBT community it means a civil war of sorts. Trump is president and MILO is speaking at CPAC and the political fortunes of conservative gays will be benefited. It used to be conservative gays were closet cases and thus though they might express an opinion at a social function or bar, they weren't going to be talking to the public. Also, they were sort of worried about what the straight people might think and were sort of really negative about being gay and gay people. Other gays rejected them.

The neo-Confederate movement must be really be horrified by MILO. The neo-Confederate movement is both extremely anti-gay and against interracial sexual relations. Though it needs to be pointed out that Chronicles magazine publishes articles by Justin Raimondo who is openly gay.  But Raimondo doesn't discuss it in his writings, and I don't ever think he discussed his sex life. Chronicles is really, really anti-LGBT.

Chronicles magazine does see Trump as a great opportunity for their agenda, and hasn't criticizes MILO or as far as I know commented on him. When they do we will be understand what the significance of MILO's homosexuality is the paleoconservative movement. I suppose I need to catch up in reading my issues of Chronicles

The whole world of the Southern Partisan, the Abbeville Institute, M.E. Bradford and Southern Agrarians seems to have been left behind on the side of the road of the highway of history. John Shelton Reed must be as horrified as he was when he visited San Francisco and the presence of the gay male community there.

Conservative Movement:

With MILO's ascendancy in the conservative movement I think that we don't have to listen to the pretensions of conservatives to be some intellectual force. When they start talking about Edmund Burke or start quoting Eric Voegelin saying "immanetize the eschaton" we can just hold up a hand with palm facing outward, smile, and say  "MILO."

It seems the conservative movement really is, as Lionel Trilling said, "... irritable mental gestures," which would be a good description of MILO's articles and speeches. Intercollegiate Studies Institute, you can just give up your pretensions.

We have always known or at least suspected that all the involved arguments about states' rights, constitutional theory, and various philosophical rationals were often just pretexts for a racial and social order where some are subordinated. It would however take labored analysis to break it down and show that these rationals were pretexts in articles or essays often read by small audiences. MILO as a rising celebrity to a national audience in almost all the media has shown and will show as keynote speaker at CPAC what the agenda of conservatism really for most conservatives is in simple direct terms. The mask has fallen off the face of conservatism, and fallen to the ground and shattered.


MILO has an July 2015 article about "Why We must End 'Burial Privilege.'"

MILO is commenting on the effort to get remove and bury elsewhere the body of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis, Tennessee. This is a part of an effort of the city of Memphis to stop glorifying the Confederacy and not have a monument to Forrest.

MILO sarcastically informs his readers that he is obligated to inform his readers that there is a new way to "demonstrate their superiority in moral and political correctness ..."

MILO thus avoids discussing what the issues might be in monuments and historical memory and instead position it as a problem of some individuals being vainly self-righteous. MILO avoids the issue that monument monumentally endorse individuals and values. That is the whole purpose of monuments and MILO doesn't seem to understand what the purpose of a monument is.

MILO puts forth the irrelevant fact that Forrest as a commander was considered by many to be a "military genius" and Forrest's tactics are studied. However, the issue at hand isn't Forrest's ability as a military commander or whether his tactics should be studied. The issue is whether Forrest should be honored with a monument and a burial location that honors him. This is a common enough tactic to throw in items with the implication that they might justify something without explicitly saying what a specific item is supposed to prove.

Does MILO feel that there should be a monument to Forrest merely because he was a great military tactician? MILO doesn't actually say. It would seem that what Forrest fought for would be important, which is in this case was the break up of the United States to defend slavery and white supremacy. The issue of Forrest's objectives is avoided by MILO. Discuss one thing to avoid discussing another is a common enough neo-Confederate tactic.

MILO discusses Forrest's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan to exhonerate him. MILO states Forrest is "controversial" for his membership in the Ku Klux Klan and "possible leadership position in that heinous organization." MILO states that "towards the end of his life he distanced himself from the Klan." MILO uses minimizing language here. Forrest was thought to be the head of the Ku Klux Klan to give it credibility with ex-Confederates, not just any "possible leadership position."

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the United Confederate Veterans thought that the Ku Klux Klan were great ex-Confederate soldier heroes and believed that Forrest was the head of the KKK. S.E.F. (Laura Martin) Rose's book, "The Ku Klux Klan or The Invisible Empire," praised Forrest as the leader of the KKK and the book was endorsed by the UDC and SCV. S.E.F. Rose became the Historian General of the UDC. Rose didn't invent this understanding of the role of Forrest as the leader of the KKK. Forrest monuments in the South were put up in a time when it was popularly understood that he was the leader of the KKK.

Nathan Bedford Forrest II was the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan for Georgia during its 1920s revival. It does suggest but doesn't prove that Forrest II saw being a KKK leader as part of the family tradition. He probably got to be Grand Dragon based on his name and that his father was popularly understood to be the leader of the original KKK.

However, reviewing Forrest's role in the KKK, which will probably, barring some discovery of some documents, remain always unclear avoids the main issue. At the time when Confederate monuments were being erected the Ku Klux Klan was thought to be a great heroic organization of ex-Confederates by those who chose to honor the Confederacy and erect Confederate monuments.

Nathan Beford Forrest fought for the Confederacy a nation created to defend slavery and white supremacy and the fact that Forrest fought for the Confederacy and what the Confederacy's purpose was is very clear in the historical record. This isn't discussed by MILO. Neo-Confederates often like to shift the discussion to one issue to avoid discussion of another issue.

MILO then tries to distract from the issue of historical memory and race by asserting that the mayor of Memphis is expecting that the removal of Forrest from the park "will fix the lives of the citizens of predominately black Memphis." MILO brings up the rate of murder in Memphis and that it "is overwhelming a result of black-on-black crime." MILO states that Wharton "seems to value symbolism over substance."

Did Memphis Mayor Wharton say that the removal of Forrest from the park fix all or some of Memphis' problems?  MILO is refuting an argument that very likely wasn't made.  In debate this is know as knocking down Straw men. You assert an argument as being by the opposition and then refute the argument.

Also, this is a classic neo-Confederate tactic of making two issues as being competitive choices. The idea is that if there is any other problem in a city or county that removing a Confederate statue is denying resources to address the other problems. It sets up the situation that no statue can be removed unless all other social problems in society are gone which effectively means that the Confederate statues will be there forever.  There is no reason that the city of Memphis can't get rid of Forrest and also work on other urban problems.

But in all of this MILO is avoiding the whole point of monuments, is that they exist to monumentally endorse individuals and values. That is why they are put up because the expectations is that they will work to support a historical point of view and influence people.

The Forrest monument and burial site work to glorify Forrest and the Confederacy and to define Memphis as valuing the values of the Confederacy which were white supremacy and the support for slavery.

Every Confederate monument whispers, "Racial equality might be the slogan of the day, but white supremacy is for the ages." After all if racial equality was sincerely believed in the Confederate statues would be long gone.

MILO throws in some comments about "burial privilege" and "reap culture" so that opposition to Forrest memorialization sounds sort of like something at a college or believed by liberals that Breitbart readers would hate. The term "reap culture" sounds like feminist references to "rape culture," which is an anathema to conservatives.

MILO finishes by satirically listing individuals who he thinks should be disinterred. The singer Elvis Pressley for "appropriating black culture"; Betsy Ross, "reinforcing traditional gender roles as a seamstress"; Sir Francis Drake, who "by circumnavigating the globe .. inadvertently violated dozens of safe spaces."

One of MILO's messages here is that reconsidering who we memorialize and to whom we have monuments dedicated to is frivolous and and silly.

Confederate monuments inscribe the landscape and the land as being white and define values of white nationalism. The more important message MILO is communicating to his readers need to consider is that if one white person's role in American history is reconsidered, another white person's role in history might be reconsidered. This section of his article effectively is an appeal to white nationalist panic and loss of control of the landscape to non-whites or at the very minimum having to face lose of control of the white land which makes a white nation when the landscape is contested by non-whites.

The article is a defense against  non-whites this contesting the landscape. It doesn't directly make an appeal to white nationalism and even asserts that pursing the removal of Forrest body is a neglect of the interests of the the African American community in Memphis. So it wears disguises.

So is MILO a white nationalist or alt-right, I am not going to say. I don't have a mind reading machine. Is his writing in service of white nationalism and the neo-Confederate movement and the continued definition of the land as white nationlist, I think it clearly is.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Geraldo Rivera resigns from Yale University post in protest over Calhoun College being renamed Grace Hopper

The following are links to articles about Geraldo Rivera resigning as a Calhoun associate fellow because of the renaming of Calhoun College as Grace Hopper College.

Rivera tweeted:

"Been an honor but intolerant insistence on political correctness is lame."

In another tweet he said.

"To judge a 200 yr old early 19th century historic figure by standards of the 21st century as #Yale is doing is more Orwellian than inspired."

Let's unpack the meaning of these statements.

The first tweet means that an unreasonably narrow dogmatic view was applied in the renaming of Calhoun college.  Though the term "political correctness" is somewhat meaningless.

It isn't as if Calhoun was a famous scientist, reformer, technologist or a person who contributed to the betterment of humanity, but he wrote one or two minor essays defending slavery or owned a few slaves. He was one of the leading defenders of slavery in the 19th century, if not the leading defender of slavery in the 19th century, and Calhoun is notable in history almost entirely for his defense of slavery and white supremacy.

The first tweet implies that rejecting a figure whose role in history was primarily, if not nearly entirely, to defend slavery and white supremacist is a concern only for those with narrow dogmatic unreasonable views such that they are "intolerant" and this concern is labeled as "political correctness." This I think says something how much Rivera values African Americans as human beings that he would see such a concern as "intolerant."

The second tweet labels the change as "Orwellian" which refers to how history was erased in George Orwell's novel, "1984."

Renaming John C. Calhoun College will not erase Calhoun from the history books. The historical record will still be there. Monuments and the naming of places after persons is to endorse them, but again the historical record of John C. Calhoun will exist as ever.  The use of "Orwellian" would be consistent with a strategy to make a rejection of the name change sound like an educated high minded defense of history rather than panicked white nationalism. Rivera's criticism of the name change is bogus.

Rivera's comment about Calhoun being judged by 21st century standards fails in many ways.

It could be pointed out that Calhoun was negatively judged in the 19th and 20th century also, in particular by those who though African Americans had rights as human beings such as abolitionists and African Americans. Though these can be valid points they miss the primary point.

The primary point is that monuments are erected because a group of people have made a judgment about history or the present and want to communicate that judgment to the public to advance some set of ideas. When Yale University named the college in the 1930s it was judging Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century judging white supremacist Calhoun as a positive person in the history and worthy to be held up as an exemplar to persons. In short the college was named after Calhoun since this white supremacist figure of the early 19th century was judged by the early white supremacist 20th century to be a great person.

In the 21st century white supremacy has finally managed to be discredited enough at Yale University such that Yale no longer wants to judge Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century and instead judge him by standards of racial equality of whatever century.

The naming of buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. after pro-slavery or Confederate individuals is to racialize the landscape and define the American land as being the white territory of a white nation. With these names being challenged, it means that non-white people are having a say in authoring the landscape and deciding what buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. are named. It means that America is no longer guaranteed to be a white nation. This has resulted in a panic among many who wonder where will it all end, though not recognizing that they are having a white panic over the landscape.

As for racism or white nationalism we can't read minds. However, from a person's statements we can attempt to reason what might motivate these statements. In my opinion Rivera's statements are the logical result of white panic over a feared loss of an America understood to be a white nation. He very well might not have some reasoned through logic or really be conscious of what motivates his thinking, but his statements and resignation make sense as a manifestation of panicked white banal nationalism.

Of course Rivera I suppose can parade African Americans before the public as his friends and many African Americans probably can be found to declare he is not racist. I think some of this is possible because the public stereotype of racists are people wearing funny clothes and being belligerent and screaming white supremacist statements. The concept of banal white nationalism is largely unknown.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time