Allison Wicks, "D Magazine" and the opposition to removing Confederate monuments.

American Conservative has published another article defending Confederate monuments by Quentin B. Fairchild.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/confederate-history-is-american-history/

Intellectually it is just so much thrashing but represents the type of arguments we will face.

I think that what is important is to know which players are behind it.

American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute.  The masthead for the magazine and the board of directors for the American Ideas Institute are at this web page.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/about-us/

You will see that Allison Wicks is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the publisher of D Magazine.

This is the 2nd article American Conservative has published defending Confederate statues.

This is an earlier blog in the Robert E. Lee Park blog on a previous article in American Conservative defending Confederate monuments by Rod Dreher.

http://roberteleepark.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-local-dallas-opposition.html#.WT50ymjyuiM

I am not surprised that American Conservative is taking the lead to defend Confederate monuments. In their pages I have found many persons who contributed to Southern Partisan or Chronicles or otherwise are involved in neo-Confederate groups.

Reactionary Dallas appears to be mobilizing to defend Confederate monuments.

Rod Dreher deludes himself or Rod Dreher please!

The Sept./Oct. 2015 issue of The American Conservative has a cover article "My People, Black & White" by Rod Dreher. He collaborated on a book with actor Wendall Pierce, an African American from Louisiana. Rod Dreher is from Louisiana.

Rod Dreher asserts, as the title suggests, that since both he and Wendall Pierce like some of the same foods and have shared Louisiana experiences it gives them a commonality as people from Louisiana that supersedes racial divisions. He also feels that has made some type of an achievement regarding race.

The idea that shared cultural things over arches the division of race is an old idea of neo-Confederate John Shelton Reed, one of the founders of the modern neo-Confederate movement. In short it is an idea that some African Americans and some white southerners both like pecan pie and fried green tomatoes so the racial divide in the South can't be that bad.

The article notes that Rod Dreher is the Senior Editor of The American Conservative. Let's look at this one issue to see who are the contributors. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

First on page 11 is Patrick J. Buchanan's column. He was an editor for Southern Partisan the leading magazine for the neo-Confederate movement from 1979 to 2005 (roughly, it died out slowly.) I don't know if Buchanan is still a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

On page 40, in an article "South of the Right: The regional conservatism of John William Corrington," by Allen Mendenhall, they are praising Corrington. I know of Corrington because he was a favorite of Southern Partisan magazine, and I purchased a book of essays written in his memory. In one of the essays, by Melvin Eugene Adonis Bradford, I learned about the nasty little racist Corrington. Maybe I am judgment about Corrington's writing portraying Nathan Bedford Forrest as a hero.

On page 43 is Bill Kauffman, a contributor to Chronicles magazine over the years, another racist publication. He doesn't write about race. He writes mostly that America's involvement in World War II was some type of conspiracy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the British and other anti-war stuff.  https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/  Recently Thomas Fleming left the Rockford Institute which publishes Chronicles magazine. But it is a racist publication.

On page 49 Thomas E. Woods Jr. reviews a book. He is a leading neo-Confederate theorist. Contributor to Southern Partisan, Chronicles and even the Southern Patriot, which was the official publication of the League of the South. I have devoted a web page to his neo-Confederate writings since he has hoped that they fall into a memory hole. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/thomas-e-woods.html

On page 52 is Paul Gottfried, another long time contributor to Chronicles magazine.

But the very worst is on page 58, Taki Theodoracopulos, an arrogant racist if there ever was one. Another contributor to Chronicles magazine. Also, a name dropper extraordinaire. I have read every one of his columns in Chronicles magazine and he does name dropping going back decades to before World War II.

These are just the names I recognize from the publications I pursue in my studies of neo-Confederates. Who knows what the background of the rest of the contributors to this magazine is? Obviously racism isn't a bar to contributing or other involvement in The American Conservative.

The reason I have subscribed to this magazine and purchased what issues I have missed and have them organized in magazine files on my bookshelves is because I had recognized so many names from my research into neo-Confederates in the issues of The American Conservative.

Yes, Rod Dreher ate a meal with an African American and he is patting himself on the back on the issue of race. However, in the end he will be the senior editor of a magazine that publishes racists and neo-Confederates, a senior editor who himself very likely selected some of those neo-Confederates for publication.

He is unfortunately on the editorial staff of the Dallas Morning News, but then again, he does represent what is called the North Dallas mentality.

Regarding Louisiana, someone there voted for David Duke.

Jack Hunter fooling around at "American Conservative" website. UPDATE

American Conservative has this article by Jack Hunter at their website.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-rights-race-deafness/?mc_cid=6c9d76b70d&mc_eid=3e97b81a9f

He is concerned that the conservative movement is coming across as anti-African American.  The following is the subtitle for the article.

"Too many conservatives give the impression that refusing to listen to black perspectives is a point of pride."

The article itself is good. It points out what is obvious to most people outside the conservative movement. The conservative movement is becoming reflexively anti-African American. 

Hunter also admits that he was the Southern Avenger who was a character of inflammatory rhetoric. 

I should as part of disclosure mention that he also denounced me. I had claimed that the Charleston alternatively weekly ran his material for entertainment, that is as a sort of freak show, to which he took great umbrage and denounced me as an elitist. It turns out later the editor of the paper admitted that they ran Jack Hunter's material for that purpose to provide entertainment. Hunter hasn't apologized to me. I am not sure I want him to do so or care if he did. 

An earlier blog of mine reviews this history. 

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/search?q=hunter#.VKeHTyvF_UU

What I think is happening is that Jack Hunter is trying to live down his role as Southern Avenger and his prior career pandering to neo-Confederate sentiment. 

Also, for this article to appear in the American Conservative is somewhat humorous. 

This is the magazine that published Samuel Francis, a rabid racist. This is the magazine that publishes Patrick Buchanan, former Senior Advisor of Southern Partisan magazine  and contributor to Southern Partisan magazine, contributor to Chronicles magazine and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I could mention others. Note to American Conservative, I have every single issue, so don't say I know nothing of the magazine. I collected every issue because I recognized so many names from my researches into the neo-Confederate movement.

UPDATE: One of the three founders of American Conservative is Taki Theodoracopulos. In my reading of his columns I see an outspoken and gleeful bigotry. 

If one was against racism you wouldn't appear in American Conservative in the first place. Additionally all he is doing is providing cover for American Conservative magazine. For the American Conservative to be concerned that the conservative movement is pandering to racism is somewhat ludicrous. Who knows, perhaps Satan will denounce sin.

I wonder who Jack Hunter will be tomorrow? 

Neo-Confederate William Murchison leads attack on Texas universities for teaching about race, gender, and class.

In The American Conservative, a paleoconservative magazine, in their March/April 2013 issue there is an article on pages 24-27 by William Murchison titled, "What Texas Won't Teach: U.S. history takes a back seat to race, class, and gender." The article in summary complains that the Texas university professors are 60s radicals who are teaching too much about race, class and gender and neglecting U.S. history.

The article is part of a campaign by a reactionary group called the National Association of Scholars (NAS)  to change the teaching of history in the Texas universities and the article is about a report they issued titled, "Are Race, Class, and Gender Dominating American History?"

I won't go through all the failings of the Murchison article. One key point is that the article doesn't say whether the universities in question still offer the general survey classes on American history. I checked online the Texas A&M course catalog and they do offer a general U.S. history class. What appears to be happening is that additional courses are being offered on various topics that the NAS doesn't like.  There is a requirement in Texas that you have to take a certain amount of classes in American history and at the universities is can be satisfied by specialty classes. as well as general classes. Some of the classes that Murchison feels are not worthy of satisfying a general requirement in American history: "History of Mexican Americans in the U.S.," "Black Power Movement," "The United States and Africa."

To me this is a good thing. A lot of people's ideas of what a class in history is like is based on their unfortunate experiences in the teaching of history in high school, usually by a person who is also the coach of some sport. History is intertwined and to study any history is to lead to other historical topics. I think to require students to go to a class in which they feel before hand they aren't going to like could be a disincentive to learning. Though when I was in college many students commented that despite their expectations the American history classes was very interesting and not like their high school classes.

The topics of history are intertwined and teaching a specialty classes can be a door to other topics in history. Most importantly have students get into history and realize it can be interesting and that will hopefully lead to further study or just reading after they graduate.

Professors are classified into those who have high reading assignments in the topics of race, class, and gender with the acronym RCG. How much is high isn't defined. It seems to me this needs to be clarified. This is supposed to be a result because they are some type of 60s radicals.

The bio note for the article says that, "William Murchison is a nationally syndicated columnist and longtime commentator on politics, religion, and society."

What the bio note doesn't tell you is that William Murchison was a long time contributor to Southern Partisan, was once on the Texas board for the League of the South, and in the Southern Partisan was interviewed about the launch of a magazine titled Texas Republic, and is a contributor to Chronicles Magazine, another hot bed of paleoconservatives and neo-Confederates.

What Murchison's complaint is is that the Texas universities don't teach the history that was taught in Texas when he was in college in the "early '60s." This is of course  before the Modern Civil Rights Era and the subsequent re-examination of how history is taught.

Of course, Murchison, a person who supported Texas Republic magazine would not like any history classes on Mexican Americans. Of course, Murchison, a contributor to Chronicles Magazine and Southern Partisan magazine wouldn't like teaching on race, class and gender when you think the Confederacy was great and you are a neo-Confederate.

American Conservative knows who Murchison is and it is disingenuous of them not to mention his neo-Confederate origins. Then again American Conservative is full of individuals who are involved with the neo-Confederate movement or racist magazines like Chronicles Magazine.

The American Conservative is published by The American Ideas Institute, whose president is Wick Allison, who is the publisher of D Magazine for the city of Dallas. (How long will Dallas tolerate having reactionary crazies influence their city?)

The real agenda of many Texas conservatives is to attempt a roll back of civil rights in regards to race, women, and sexual orientation and this is their new attempt.

"American Conservative" magazine has secession article.

American Conservative magazine has a secession article written by Kirkpatrick Sales, one of the Vermont secessionists. It is about nullification.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-rise-of-nullification/

It is a book review of "Most Likely to Secede," about Vermont by the authors. They have a favorable opinion of their own book. It is their usual craziness.

What is interesting is that they have gotten a venue in the American Conservative. Though my standing joke about American Conservative is that it really would be more accurate to call it Confederate Conservative with all the neo-Confederates that write for it, it is another magazine with a national audience providing a venue for the discussion of secession. Though it is often the same people who write for Chronicles magazine (www.chroniclesmagazine.org) it is also other reactionaries. So it is an expansion of the legitimacy of the idea of secession though perhaps not to a great extent.