The Dallas Morning News article is as follows:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/06/08/in-reversal-army-now-open-to-stripping-names-of-confederate-generals-off-fort-hood-and-other-posts/
I did a blog post on this topic back in 2013.
https://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-against-us.html#.Xt7LxDqeGiM
I reported on an article in the New York Times saying that U.S. military bases named after Confederates should be changed. This was the link to the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/misplaced-honor.html?_r=0
Of course Barack Obama did nothing as he did nothing in general about the built landscape named to honor Confederates and did nothing about Confederate monuments.
Kevin Levin condemned the New York Times editorial. Here is his blog on it.
http://cwmemory.com/2013/05/25/misplaced-memory-on-memorial-day-weekend/
Note to Mr. Levin. The Internet Archive has a copy of this page and I have a hard copy of this page printed out.
Notice Levin's condescending and olympian attitude towards the author of the New York Times essay and towards myself.
This is my page with the entire history of Levin's doings.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
Showing posts with label Kevin M. Levin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin M. Levin. Show all posts
Monday, June 08, 2020
Saturday, September 07, 2019
Kevin M. Levin resigns from the Editorial Board of the Civil War History journal
NOTE: Allen Guelzo didn't make the quote that savaged Kevin M. Levin in the article. . I need to do follow up. However, my posting about him and the Vol. 2 of "Christian Resistance" is valid.
Kevin M. Levin resigned from the Editorial Board of Civil War History.
I don't think this is a wise move on his part. It is a position of influence. As I have said, they may have hoped he would resign. Even if they hadn't hoped he would resign, Levin's resigning has some advantages for Civil War History. He won't be at meetings seething with anger or working on something driven by this article. The editors and person who decided to publish this article don't have to see him.
I think he lost his sense and just seething with anger and desiring retribution resigned. This is primarily an injury to himself.
Oddly Levin gives the author of the article which trashes him a free pass.
This is the tweet.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1169054763134128133
A couple things before I let this go. I don't blame Earl Hess for any ill will re: bloggers/historians who use social media. His own lack of experience and reliance on two surveys sent out to historians reflects this essay's analytical limitations.
Levin is resigning the Civil War History journal editorial board, but doesn't blame Hess. Hess surely knew what his article said and what the paragraph referring to Civil War Memory in it was saying. I think that Levin, even when the establishment kicks him, is still their faithful servant.
Levin didn't let it go, he has had more tweets.
This is his blog on it.
http://cwmemory.com/2019/09/07/why_i_resigned_from_the_editorial_board_at_civil_war_history/
He had done a tweet on resigning before the blog posting.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1169203660590669824
I was told there was a Facebook post, but both I and the person who originally posted it to me could not find it. I think it might have been posted and delted.
He is very angry about it also.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1170356531772219392
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1170092519260151808
I am sure Levin will not reflect on how he has done this to so many others.
There are good developments from this. I think the Civil War history profession has very visibly revealed themselves to be out of touch, a fossil left over from an earlier era in history. It shows how they haven't moved into the era of the Internet, and are a little cloistered club. This will undermine their credibility and lessen their hold on Civil War history.
Levin I expect will learn nothing from this. However, he scope of influence will be lessened. He isn't on the editorial board of Civil War History. He now has a group of Civil War historians who will be his antagonists. Some places will not be inviting him.
I can only speculate on motives for this attack, but Kevin Levin has after Charlottesville, become a big supporter of Confederate Monuments coming down. I think there are those in the Civil War history profession who really rage at monuments being taken down. But it could just be reactionary rejection of the Internet or some combination of both.
My prior posts on this.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2019/09/civil-war-history-is-entirely-in-wrong.html#.XXP-zyg2qiM
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2019/09/kevin-levin-finds-himself-very-publicly.html#.XXP_KSg2qiM
Kevin M. Levin resigned from the Editorial Board of Civil War History.
I don't think this is a wise move on his part. It is a position of influence. As I have said, they may have hoped he would resign. Even if they hadn't hoped he would resign, Levin's resigning has some advantages for Civil War History. He won't be at meetings seething with anger or working on something driven by this article. The editors and person who decided to publish this article don't have to see him.
I think he lost his sense and just seething with anger and desiring retribution resigned. This is primarily an injury to himself.
Oddly Levin gives the author of the article which trashes him a free pass.
This is the tweet.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1169054763134128133
A couple things before I let this go. I don't blame Earl Hess for any ill will re: bloggers/historians who use social media. His own lack of experience and reliance on two surveys sent out to historians reflects this essay's analytical limitations.
Levin is resigning the Civil War History journal editorial board, but doesn't blame Hess. Hess surely knew what his article said and what the paragraph referring to Civil War Memory in it was saying. I think that Levin, even when the establishment kicks him, is still their faithful servant.
Levin didn't let it go, he has had more tweets.
This is his blog on it.
http://cwmemory.com/2019/09/07/why_i_resigned_from_the_editorial_board_at_civil_war_history/
He had done a tweet on resigning before the blog posting.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1169203660590669824
I was told there was a Facebook post, but both I and the person who originally posted it to me could not find it. I think it might have been posted and delted.
He is very angry about it also.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1170356531772219392
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1170092519260151808
I am sure Levin will not reflect on how he has done this to so many others.
There are good developments from this. I think the Civil War history profession has very visibly revealed themselves to be out of touch, a fossil left over from an earlier era in history. It shows how they haven't moved into the era of the Internet, and are a little cloistered club. This will undermine their credibility and lessen their hold on Civil War history.
Levin I expect will learn nothing from this. However, he scope of influence will be lessened. He isn't on the editorial board of Civil War History. He now has a group of Civil War historians who will be his antagonists. Some places will not be inviting him.
I can only speculate on motives for this attack, but Kevin Levin has after Charlottesville, become a big supporter of Confederate Monuments coming down. I think there are those in the Civil War history profession who really rage at monuments being taken down. But it could just be reactionary rejection of the Internet or some combination of both.
My prior posts on this.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2019/09/civil-war-history-is-entirely-in-wrong.html#.XXP-zyg2qiM
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2019/09/kevin-levin-finds-himself-very-publicly.html#.XXP_KSg2qiM
Friday, September 06, 2019
Civil War History is entirely in the wrong for its treatment of Kevin Levin
Yes, I thought it was hilarious irony in what was done to Kevin Levin in the publication Civil War History. I don't think anyone is a more severe critic of Levin than me. He has also treated me atrociously over the years.
However, what was done to him was just wrong. It also very much represents very much what is wrong about the Civil War historical profession.
First the anonymous criticism. Let whoever makes this criticism be named. Let Levin know who his acccuser is.
Second, what exactly is wrong with Levin's blog isn't really made clear except some vague "self-promotion" criticism. What exactly does this refer to. Also, if Levin is self-promoting himself, so what? As an independent scholar he needs to make sure his readers know that he is considered credible by others in his field. Even if he wasn't an independent scholar why shouldn't he let us know his acccomplishments?
I have read his blog, it isn't that self-promoting. I mean he does let you know that he published a book, or he is speaking somewhere.
He does inform a lot of people about the Civil War.
The Civil War history profession has largely failed. They sit in their cloistered venues and fail to educate the public.
The Civil War is one of the central events in American history. It defines in many ways who we are. How it exists in the popular imagination has been an important factor in shaping racial politics in the USA. In contributing to public life the Civil War history profession is a failure looking inward to metallurgy of buttons of soldier uniforms or the equivalent thereof.
Though the Civil War has had a tremendous impact on the history of race the interest in the African American community in the Civil War is extremely low. That is because the Civil War history profession has catered to or pandered to people with a Lost Cause mentality, or have been careful not to offend it or criticize neo-Confederates. It has given people with obvious problems with race a free pass.
We now face a future where the Civil War will attract about as much interest as the War of 1812.
The editors of Civil War History need to apologize to Kevin Levin.
However, what was done to him was just wrong. It also very much represents very much what is wrong about the Civil War historical profession.
First the anonymous criticism. Let whoever makes this criticism be named. Let Levin know who his acccuser is.
Second, what exactly is wrong with Levin's blog isn't really made clear except some vague "self-promotion" criticism. What exactly does this refer to. Also, if Levin is self-promoting himself, so what? As an independent scholar he needs to make sure his readers know that he is considered credible by others in his field. Even if he wasn't an independent scholar why shouldn't he let us know his acccomplishments?
I have read his blog, it isn't that self-promoting. I mean he does let you know that he published a book, or he is speaking somewhere.
He does inform a lot of people about the Civil War.
The Civil War history profession has largely failed. They sit in their cloistered venues and fail to educate the public.
The Civil War is one of the central events in American history. It defines in many ways who we are. How it exists in the popular imagination has been an important factor in shaping racial politics in the USA. In contributing to public life the Civil War history profession is a failure looking inward to metallurgy of buttons of soldier uniforms or the equivalent thereof.
Though the Civil War has had a tremendous impact on the history of race the interest in the African American community in the Civil War is extremely low. That is because the Civil War history profession has catered to or pandered to people with a Lost Cause mentality, or have been careful not to offend it or criticize neo-Confederates. It has given people with obvious problems with race a free pass.
We now face a future where the Civil War will attract about as much interest as the War of 1812.
The editors of Civil War History need to apologize to Kevin Levin.
Wednesday, September 04, 2019
Kevin Levin finds himself very publicly rejected by the establishment
See Link to Kevin Levin paper at the end of this posting.
Kevin Levin has striven to be part of the establishment. He has castigated those who he thought were antagonistic to the establishment. He has denounced those who he thought were making the discussion of the Civil War too raucus.
And now he finds himself very publicly rejected by an establishment Civil War historian.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1168951516163661826
In an article in Civil War History, the journal for Civil War historians, in an article about the perniciousness of social media.
This is the quote about Civil War Memory, Levin's blog, in the Sept. 2019, Vol. 65 No. 3, issue in an article, "The Internet and Civil War Studies," in the "State of the Field Series." Page 228.
I don't want to be understood as defending Guelzo either. The Civil War historical profession is notorious in the larger history profession for its throwback aspects, for its archaic ideas about history. The Civil War history profession has managed to make interest in the Civil War a gerontological interest.
However, Levin has striven to be part of the establishment and in this paragraph he is held up to be the example of the bad social media outsider.
He is on the editorial board of Civil War History. He thought he was in the pantheon, but realizes that he is one of the great unwashed. THE AGONY.
Paper about Kevin Levin.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
Kevin Levin has striven to be part of the establishment. He has castigated those who he thought were antagonistic to the establishment. He has denounced those who he thought were making the discussion of the Civil War too raucus.
And now he finds himself very publicly rejected by an establishment Civil War historian.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1168951516163661826
In an article in Civil War History, the journal for Civil War historians, in an article about the perniciousness of social media.
This is the quote about Civil War Memory, Levin's blog, in the Sept. 2019, Vol. 65 No. 3, issue in an article, "The Internet and Civil War Studies," in the "State of the Field Series." Page 228.
"I used to read [a blog called] Civil War Memory occasionally, before it became all about self-promotion," commented a respondant who preferred to remain anonymous. "I found it odd how that blog became something of a what to read and in the know site. Social media has morpheed from talking to your friends to shouting at the abyss."It goes on to condemning social media and its effects on historical scholarship.
I don't want to be understood as defending Guelzo either. The Civil War historical profession is notorious in the larger history profession for its throwback aspects, for its archaic ideas about history. The Civil War history profession has managed to make interest in the Civil War a gerontological interest.
However, Levin has striven to be part of the establishment and in this paragraph he is held up to be the example of the bad social media outsider.
He is on the editorial board of Civil War History. He thought he was in the pantheon, but realizes that he is one of the great unwashed. THE AGONY.
Paper about Kevin Levin.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
Monday, August 26, 2019
BUY THIS BOOK! "Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth," by Kevin Levin is released.
My copy of "Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth," arrived this morning by UPS. I consider it an important addition to my library. I think this book is an important book to demolish neo-Confederate mythologies, specifically the stuff and nonsense about Black Confederate soldiers.
BUY THIS BOOK!
So when I give this book a critical review about it, I don't want people think I am saying you shouldn't buy this book. Even good books get analyzed and some gaps seen, some paths not pursued are commented on.
I don't know how Kevin M. Levin will take my blogging on his book. I heard him speak a while back and commented I thought it was a good speech with a good delivery. I suggested an item that I thought would have made it better and supported the speeches conclusions, and Levin saw it as an attack and was somewhat bent out of shape about it. This was in his days when he had one reason or another to keep a Confederate monument.
In this case he will find legitimate cause for being irate.
For example, he refers to the book, "Black Confederates," by Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segards and R.B. Rosenburg.
What I am not finding in the book was that this was originally "Forgotten Confederates," Vol. XIV of the Journal of Confederate History Series, published by Southern Heritage Press. It says it is in the frontpage of "Black Confederates" published by Pelican Publishing Co.
The development of the Black Confederate idea originates in the volumes of the Journal of Confederate History Series. Earlier there was "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Rollins which was Vol. XI. Rollins published a book titled "Black Southerners in Gray" by Rank an File Publishing. The covers of both books are copies of the copies when they were volumes in the Journal of Confederate History Series.
The Journal of Confederate History isn't mentioned in the book, at least as far as I can find. One reason maybe that if you look at Vol. X1V of the Journal you will find a lot of prominent Civil War historians listed as being members the Editorial Advisory Board. There is Dr. Gary Gallagher, Dr. James I. Robertson, Dr. Frank Vandiver, and other prominent individuals. Dr. Anne Bailey is there.
The credibility of the whole Black Confederate idea was given a boost and launched by the Journal of Confederate History Series which could claim prominent Civil War historians on its masthead. The complicity of the Civil War historical profession in getting this Black Confederate mythology going is avoided. Again, perhaps I will find something in some paragraph which isn't in the bibliography or index or I missed it.
We see now interest in the Civil War falling off a cliff. Some of this is that a significant part of the Civil War history profession is complicit promoting basically a Civil War history with a white nationalist base. Ever the establishmentarian, Levin avoids road and paths that lead to these challenging questions.
BUT DO BUY THE BOOK. It will be very useful to thwart neo-Confederates. (I don't find the word neo-Confederate in the index.)
BUY THIS BOOK!
So when I give this book a critical review about it, I don't want people think I am saying you shouldn't buy this book. Even good books get analyzed and some gaps seen, some paths not pursued are commented on.
I don't know how Kevin M. Levin will take my blogging on his book. I heard him speak a while back and commented I thought it was a good speech with a good delivery. I suggested an item that I thought would have made it better and supported the speeches conclusions, and Levin saw it as an attack and was somewhat bent out of shape about it. This was in his days when he had one reason or another to keep a Confederate monument.
In this case he will find legitimate cause for being irate.
For example, he refers to the book, "Black Confederates," by Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segards and R.B. Rosenburg.
What I am not finding in the book was that this was originally "Forgotten Confederates," Vol. XIV of the Journal of Confederate History Series, published by Southern Heritage Press. It says it is in the frontpage of "Black Confederates" published by Pelican Publishing Co.
The development of the Black Confederate idea originates in the volumes of the Journal of Confederate History Series. Earlier there was "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Rollins which was Vol. XI. Rollins published a book titled "Black Southerners in Gray" by Rank an File Publishing. The covers of both books are copies of the copies when they were volumes in the Journal of Confederate History Series.
The Journal of Confederate History isn't mentioned in the book, at least as far as I can find. One reason maybe that if you look at Vol. X1V of the Journal you will find a lot of prominent Civil War historians listed as being members the Editorial Advisory Board. There is Dr. Gary Gallagher, Dr. James I. Robertson, Dr. Frank Vandiver, and other prominent individuals. Dr. Anne Bailey is there.
The credibility of the whole Black Confederate idea was given a boost and launched by the Journal of Confederate History Series which could claim prominent Civil War historians on its masthead. The complicity of the Civil War historical profession in getting this Black Confederate mythology going is avoided. Again, perhaps I will find something in some paragraph which isn't in the bibliography or index or I missed it.
We see now interest in the Civil War falling off a cliff. Some of this is that a significant part of the Civil War history profession is complicit promoting basically a Civil War history with a white nationalist base. Ever the establishmentarian, Levin avoids road and paths that lead to these challenging questions.
BUT DO BUY THE BOOK. It will be very useful to thwart neo-Confederates. (I don't find the word neo-Confederate in the index.)
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Dallas moves to remove another Confederate statue. Richmond however still stuck in the Confederacy
The Smithsonian article about the vote to remove the Confederate War Memorial in Pioneer Park. It is online here.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-history-archaeology/dallas-city-council-votes-remove-massive-confederate-war-memorial-180971503/
This is the 2nd statue it is going to remove.
This Smithsonian has changed a lot since it was publishing stuff criticizing suggesting that Richmond, Virginia, which still hasn't gotten rid of any Confederate monuments, was somehow wiser than New Orleans which got rid of them all.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-richmond-has-gotten-right-about-interpreting-its-confederate-history-180963354/
When you are behind Dallas that must really hurt.
This is the town of M.E. Bradford and William Murchison. All their little dreams of neo-Confederacy Gone With the Wind!
As I have stated before, each time a statue is removed, the ones that remain seem more anomalous. With Austin, San Antonio having gotten rid of Confederate stuff, and Dallas moving forward, it won't be long until someone in Houston will decided it is time to move forward.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-history-archaeology/dallas-city-council-votes-remove-massive-confederate-war-memorial-180971503/
This is the 2nd statue it is going to remove.
This Smithsonian has changed a lot since it was publishing stuff criticizing suggesting that Richmond, Virginia, which still hasn't gotten rid of any Confederate monuments, was somehow wiser than New Orleans which got rid of them all.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-richmond-has-gotten-right-about-interpreting-its-confederate-history-180963354/
When you are behind Dallas that must really hurt.
This is the town of M.E. Bradford and William Murchison. All their little dreams of neo-Confederacy Gone With the Wind!
As I have stated before, each time a statue is removed, the ones that remain seem more anomalous. With Austin, San Antonio having gotten rid of Confederate stuff, and Dallas moving forward, it won't be long until someone in Houston will decided it is time to move forward.
No major metropolis wants to feel their are more retrograde than Dallas. Houston will start moving to re-examine its memorials.
As time goes on smaller metropolises will want to look at getting rid of their Confederate statues also, since Confederate statues will stand as a mark of backwardness.
Neo-Confederacy is crumbling a statue at a time.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Kevin Levin paper published
I wrote it in 2017 when Kevin Levin was attacking David A. Love so Love could have it as a refernece and I thought that it was time to write up all of Levin's actions into one paper.
All the CWMemory web pages referenced in this article are printed out as well as others that might be needed to defend the paper or for a future rewrite.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
The next time he snipes at a journalist they will have this essay available for their perusal.
All the CWMemory web pages referenced in this article are printed out as well as others that might be needed to defend the paper or for a future rewrite.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
The next time he snipes at a journalist they will have this essay available for their perusal.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Kevin Levin is afraid that the narrative will escape the League of Distinguished Civil War Historians UPDATE Kevin Levin paper published
Kevin Levin is back at it again.
Paul Duggan dis an indepth article, Nov. 28, 2018, in the Washington Post about Frank Earnest who heads up "heritage defense" for the Virginia Sons of Confederate Veterans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/28/feature/the-confederacy-was-built-on-slavery-how-can-so-many-southern-whites-still-believe-otherwise/
It is a good indepth article about neo-Confederate view polnts and how neo-Confederate think.
Well Kevin Levin was not happy over this.
http://cwmemory.com/2018/12/07/relegating-frank-earnest-and-the-lost-cause-to-the-trash-bin-of-history/
Levin wants to shut down discussion of neo-Confederates.
The issue though is that Earnest and others like him have influence with legislators and there are states in which State law forbids the local governments. There is a neo-Confederate movement whose members write some of the books with the very popular conservative Politically Incorrect Guide series. There are neo-Confederates in positions of influence in the conservative movement in the United States. Thomas Wood's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" is a New York Times bestseller.
People like Earnest get high positions in the Federal government. This article in CNN is about one of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/va-secretary-confederate-president/index.html
If more people knew about the existence of the neo-Confederate movement, people like Robert Wilkie would not get appointed to important government positions, in this case Wilkie was appointed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by Donald Trump.
Levin uses some false opposites. Reporting on Earnest doesn't mean we can't report on other things regarding the Civil War and historical memory. I don't think the Washington Post has a quota of profiles either.
What Levin wants is the whole issue of neo-Confederates swept under the rug and the narrative of the Civil War and its remembrance to remain in the cloistered confines of the self-appointed League of Distinguished Civil War Historians like himself, to remain within the establishment.
The problem is that the influence of neo-Confederates in shaping the built landscape has been obcured. It is now coming to light.
Paul Duggan called Levin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-civil-war-expert-objected-to-my-profile-of-a-neo-confederate-i-called-him-to-discuss-his-critique/2019/01/08/fb89917c-02d4-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.314df442ce88
This is Levin's reporting on this article.
http://cwmemory.com/2019/01/09/a-conversation-with-the-washington-post/
Kevin Levin's concerned to keep discussion of Civil War memory confined to establishment Civil War historians works to enable the neo-Confederate movement.
I have decided to publish my paper on Kevin Levin. I will be doing a separate posting of the link and will update this blog post also with a link to it.
I have the paper I wrote about Kevin Levin online at the following link.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
I took the time to printout and archive all of the pages relevant to this essay and others that might be needed to support this essay and file them.
Paul Duggan dis an indepth article, Nov. 28, 2018, in the Washington Post about Frank Earnest who heads up "heritage defense" for the Virginia Sons of Confederate Veterans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/28/feature/the-confederacy-was-built-on-slavery-how-can-so-many-southern-whites-still-believe-otherwise/
It is a good indepth article about neo-Confederate view polnts and how neo-Confederate think.
Well Kevin Levin was not happy over this.
http://cwmemory.com/2018/12/07/relegating-frank-earnest-and-the-lost-cause-to-the-trash-bin-of-history/
Levin wants to shut down discussion of neo-Confederates.
We need to stop taking these people seriously. Their views have been discredited and whether they acknowledge it or not, their attachment to this particular memory of the war is wrapped in nostalgia and racial animus. But what troubles me the most is that the attention granted given to individuals like Earnest and the SCV obscures a much richer landscape of cultural identification with the past. In short, what other profiles could be written that tell us something about where we are in 2018 re: Civil War memory and where we might be headed?
In the end, Earnest is part of a rear guard action that is growing weaker and weaker owing to age. It’s time to move on.
The issue though is that Earnest and others like him have influence with legislators and there are states in which State law forbids the local governments. There is a neo-Confederate movement whose members write some of the books with the very popular conservative Politically Incorrect Guide series. There are neo-Confederates in positions of influence in the conservative movement in the United States. Thomas Wood's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" is a New York Times bestseller.
People like Earnest get high positions in the Federal government. This article in CNN is about one of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/va-secretary-confederate-president/index.html
If more people knew about the existence of the neo-Confederate movement, people like Robert Wilkie would not get appointed to important government positions, in this case Wilkie was appointed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by Donald Trump.
Levin uses some false opposites. Reporting on Earnest doesn't mean we can't report on other things regarding the Civil War and historical memory. I don't think the Washington Post has a quota of profiles either.
What Levin wants is the whole issue of neo-Confederates swept under the rug and the narrative of the Civil War and its remembrance to remain in the cloistered confines of the self-appointed League of Distinguished Civil War Historians like himself, to remain within the establishment.
The problem is that the influence of neo-Confederates in shaping the built landscape has been obcured. It is now coming to light.
Paul Duggan called Levin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/a-civil-war-expert-objected-to-my-profile-of-a-neo-confederate-i-called-him-to-discuss-his-critique/2019/01/08/fb89917c-02d4-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.314df442ce88
This is Levin's reporting on this article.
http://cwmemory.com/2019/01/09/a-conversation-with-the-washington-post/
Kevin Levin's concerned to keep discussion of Civil War memory confined to establishment Civil War historians works to enable the neo-Confederate movement.
I have decided to publish my paper on Kevin Levin. I will be doing a separate posting of the link and will update this blog post also with a link to it.
I have the paper I wrote about Kevin Levin online at the following link.
http://templeofdemocracy.com/kevin-levin.html
I took the time to printout and archive all of the pages relevant to this essay and others that might be needed to support this essay and file them.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Dallas' Black Confederate Monument
There has been a lot of attention and ridicule paid to an effort by two Republican South Carolina legislators to have a monument to Black Confederates.
https://www.theroot.com/sc-republicans-want-to-build-stupidest-confederate-monu-1821710469
https://thegrio.com/2017/12/29/black-confederate-soliders-south-carolina-republicans/
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/republican-lawmakers-surprised-learn-no-black-soldiers-served-under-confederacy
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/sc-republicans-try-to-sneak-confederate-propaganda-into-classrooms-with-memorial-to-black-civil-war-vets/
Of course the real point of this effort is to legitimize the Confederacy.
This effort for a monument didn't come out of no where. There has been an effort to promote this mythology in 2017 in South Carolina.
https://www.aikenstandard.com/news/family-of-african-american-confederate-veteran-of-salley-accepts-statehouse/article_56060e74-fa11-11e6-8923-0ba00a5347b5.html
Kevin Levin refused to acknowledge that there was a neo-Confederate agenda in this. Levin chose to portray this as just mistaken individuals.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/02/the-first-female-black-confederate/
I called him out on this.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/03/levins-apologetics-for-neo-confederate.html#.WkzdBN_BqiM
What isn't generally known is that Dallas already has a monument dedicated to Black Confederates in Oak Lawn Park, formerly Robert E. Lee Park.
The Dallas Mayor's Task Force on Confederate Monuments was informed about it but chose to ignore it.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/two-overlooked-confederate-monuments-in-oak-lawn-park.html
Wrote Dallas Mayor Rawlings about it and copied it to all the city council members but they didn't care either.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/10/letter-to-mike-rawlings-about-two.html#.WkzVUd_BqiM
So when you are laughing at South Carolina remember Dallas actually has a plaque to Black Confederate soldiers. Dallas knows about it and has chosen to keep it.
https://www.theroot.com/sc-republicans-want-to-build-stupidest-confederate-monu-1821710469
https://thegrio.com/2017/12/29/black-confederate-soliders-south-carolina-republicans/
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/republican-lawmakers-surprised-learn-no-black-soldiers-served-under-confederacy
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/sc-republicans-try-to-sneak-confederate-propaganda-into-classrooms-with-memorial-to-black-civil-war-vets/
Of course the real point of this effort is to legitimize the Confederacy.
This effort for a monument didn't come out of no where. There has been an effort to promote this mythology in 2017 in South Carolina.
https://www.aikenstandard.com/news/family-of-african-american-confederate-veteran-of-salley-accepts-statehouse/article_56060e74-fa11-11e6-8923-0ba00a5347b5.html
Kevin Levin refused to acknowledge that there was a neo-Confederate agenda in this. Levin chose to portray this as just mistaken individuals.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/02/the-first-female-black-confederate/
I called him out on this.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/03/levins-apologetics-for-neo-confederate.html#.WkzdBN_BqiM
What isn't generally known is that Dallas already has a monument dedicated to Black Confederates in Oak Lawn Park, formerly Robert E. Lee Park.
The Dallas Mayor's Task Force on Confederate Monuments was informed about it but chose to ignore it.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/two-overlooked-confederate-monuments-in-oak-lawn-park.html
Wrote Dallas Mayor Rawlings about it and copied it to all the city council members but they didn't care either.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/10/letter-to-mike-rawlings-about-two.html#.WkzVUd_BqiM
So when you are laughing at South Carolina remember Dallas actually has a plaque to Black Confederate soldiers. Dallas knows about it and has chosen to keep it.
Thursday, November 09, 2017
Kevin Levin really upset with Henry Louis Gates
Henry Louis Gates is a fool and Kevin Levin is right to go after him with tongs.
These are two recent blogs by Kevin Levin.
However, I raised the issue about Henry Louis Gates in 2011 and was denounced by Kevin Levin.
I attributed this attack to Kevin Levin's reflexive establishmentarianism. That is, if they are people in positions in the historical establishment they are to be accepted and not criticized.
It should be remembered that Gates had a beer with a police officer who abused him.
Gates isn't the first Harvard African American with a friendly attitude towards the Confederacy. Rev. Peter J. Gomes also was friendly towards the Confederacy and tried to get Confederate soldiers inscribed at the Harvard Memorial Church sometime ago. It was going to be done during the summer but I wrote a great many African Americans there and in the end it was thwarted. After that the African American students were wised up to the effort, which was seen as a sneak effort during the summer, there was no chance for it to happen, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an effort.
By the way, PBS televised Ken Burns Civil War series, so they will broadcast any sort of rubbish.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Kevin M. Levin weather vane UPDATE: UPDATE 2:
Kevin M. Levin had this extraordinary posting. The title of which is, "In Favor of Confederate Monuments."
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/29/in-favor-of-confederate-monuments/
The author we are told is, "a experience instructor in professional military education, who wishes to remain anonymous." Levin also has a disclaimer "Publication of this piece should not be interpreted as constituting agreement with its content."
Since it is anonymous the question has to be asked whether Levin himself wrote it. I don't think he did since I don't think he is a dishonest person. However, without a name of an acknowledged author, we can't entirely exclude Levin. Perhaps the author will step forward, but until he does, we can't exclude Levin.
There was a lot of negative feedback by the people who read his blog. However, Levin doesn't really make a clear statement. Levin in an update writes, "I hear you and will re-consider my policy. I fully admit that I may have dropped the ball one this one." So Levin "fully admits" a "may"? A self-cancelling statement. Also, he will "re-consider," which means he may not do anything in regards to any "policy" he has.
Normally postings that are anonymous aren't taken seriously, but Levin has adopted a policy to give anonymous postings credibility.
The essay is delusional, a historical and really rubbish. It is a rant.
Even if you wanted to have a policy where you published counter-pieces to your opinions, I think that you would want the opposing opinions to be credible. You could be accused of picking opposing essays that were bad to support your position.
I speculate what might be happening is this. A lot of civil war enthusiasts, Civil War Round Tables, Lost Cause people, Romance of Reunion and Civil War Centennial types are enraged. A lot of the local historical society types are enraged. The Confederate statues are tumbling down everywhere. They probably aren't happy with Kevin M. Levin's new position. He is probably getting some fairly strong feedback on his recent shift in opinion on Confederate monuments. Enthusiasts for the Confederacy can be fairly vitriolic and faces turn red when you are not buying into their rationalizations.
So it seems to me that Levin has come up with a plan to have his blog push two two opposing opinions on monuments to placate these people and yet still keep his position as being opposed to Confederate monuments. Suddenly the blog with a point of view is becoming a forum.
Levin justifies the post saying it is "getting people engaged with the argument of whether you or I agree with it." I suppose it does. A holocaust denial piece would likely do the same thing.
A posting advocating a flat earth would engage people but would be of little value.
The essay by the anonymous author is so bad does it really engage anyone? As a piece to argue for Confederate monuments is is just ranting and can't be considered an effective argument for Confederate statues. Levin abandons any pretense of editorial quality in publishing it.
As for the anonymity of the posting, it seems to me a little cowardly.
UPDATE:
Levin has this post by himself in which he explains how much he disagrees with the anonymous posting. I think we see Levin's strategy in operation. He can placate Lost Causers and then reject them and position himself as anti-Lost Cause while still providing the Lost Cause people a platform.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/31/a-response-to-anonymous/
UPDATE2:
Perhaps the anonymous essay is a soft ball pitched so Levin can hit it with a bat.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/29/in-favor-of-confederate-monuments/
The author we are told is, "a experience instructor in professional military education, who wishes to remain anonymous." Levin also has a disclaimer "Publication of this piece should not be interpreted as constituting agreement with its content."
Since it is anonymous the question has to be asked whether Levin himself wrote it. I don't think he did since I don't think he is a dishonest person. However, without a name of an acknowledged author, we can't entirely exclude Levin. Perhaps the author will step forward, but until he does, we can't exclude Levin.
There was a lot of negative feedback by the people who read his blog. However, Levin doesn't really make a clear statement. Levin in an update writes, "I hear you and will re-consider my policy. I fully admit that I may have dropped the ball one this one." So Levin "fully admits" a "may"? A self-cancelling statement. Also, he will "re-consider," which means he may not do anything in regards to any "policy" he has.
Normally postings that are anonymous aren't taken seriously, but Levin has adopted a policy to give anonymous postings credibility.
The essay is delusional, a historical and really rubbish. It is a rant.
Even if you wanted to have a policy where you published counter-pieces to your opinions, I think that you would want the opposing opinions to be credible. You could be accused of picking opposing essays that were bad to support your position.
I speculate what might be happening is this. A lot of civil war enthusiasts, Civil War Round Tables, Lost Cause people, Romance of Reunion and Civil War Centennial types are enraged. A lot of the local historical society types are enraged. The Confederate statues are tumbling down everywhere. They probably aren't happy with Kevin M. Levin's new position. He is probably getting some fairly strong feedback on his recent shift in opinion on Confederate monuments. Enthusiasts for the Confederacy can be fairly vitriolic and faces turn red when you are not buying into their rationalizations.
So it seems to me that Levin has come up with a plan to have his blog push two two opposing opinions on monuments to placate these people and yet still keep his position as being opposed to Confederate monuments. Suddenly the blog with a point of view is becoming a forum.
Levin justifies the post saying it is "getting people engaged with the argument of whether you or I agree with it." I suppose it does. A holocaust denial piece would likely do the same thing.
A posting advocating a flat earth would engage people but would be of little value.
The essay by the anonymous author is so bad does it really engage anyone? As a piece to argue for Confederate monuments is is just ranting and can't be considered an effective argument for Confederate statues. Levin abandons any pretense of editorial quality in publishing it.
As for the anonymity of the posting, it seems to me a little cowardly.
UPDATE:
Levin has this post by himself in which he explains how much he disagrees with the anonymous posting. I think we see Levin's strategy in operation. He can placate Lost Causers and then reject them and position himself as anti-Lost Cause while still providing the Lost Cause people a platform.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/31/a-response-to-anonymous/
UPDATE2:
Perhaps the anonymous essay is a soft ball pitched so Levin can hit it with a bat.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Sure glad that the "Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader" didn't win the Museum of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis medal
I am working with activists here and there working to get rid of Confederate monuments.
I have been handing out free some of my books including the "Reader."
With Jefferson Davis statues being taken down I am certainly glad that I don't have a Jefferson Davis medal printed on the 2nd edition, or some nonsense about it getting a Jefferson Davis award. Or something like this on the web page for the book or in book advertisements. I had to work on making sure this didn't happen. I had to put up with a lot of stuff and nonsense trying to persuade me to submit the book for the award.
This is the first part of the series I wrote on the Museum of the Confederacy which discusses why I wrote it so my book would not get the award.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/441/441_museum_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html
I am glad that I don't have to try to explain this away, with explanations that wouldn't be believed.
Of course this made me rather unpopular in the Civil War History profession. Many denunciations on Kevin Levin's blog.
http://cwmemory.com/2012/03/04/has-edward-sebesta-ever-visited-the-museum-of-the-confederacy/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/12/06/a-response-to-edward-sebesta/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/15/calling-out-edward-sebesta-and-calling-on-james-loewen/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/14/a-quick-response-to-edward-sebesta/
http://cwmemory.com/2010/12/09/the-edward-sebesta-circus-continues/
The "circus continues" is reference to an earlier activity in which I got a group of scholars to co-sign a letter to Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate memorial. That Levin is implying is a circus also, thus it is continuing.
Brook D. Simpson was critical of this as well.
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/ed-sebestas-dilemma/
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/edward-sebestas-publicity-stunt/
Simpson was on the masthead of Civil War History.
Neither of them would read even the first installment of the history.
Outside the Civil War history profession scholars thought my position was both sensible and obvious. One even wondered whether Loewen had gone "Genovese."
However, now in retrospect these denunciations just document how increasingly out of touch the Civil War history profession was and how they live in a Civil War Round Table reality, a world which is fading away.
What might be considered is how these Confederate monuments served to normalize the Civil War Round Table world and a historical profession that pandered to them and now as the monuments leave how abnormal the Civil War Round Table world will be perceived.
Of course there will always be a place for the Civil War Round Table where they can ruminate on brass alloys used in Civil War uniform buttons or perhaps the topic of mosquitoes and other biting insects at Gettysburg battlefield and resolutely ignore the issues of neo-Confederacy and race. This would likely be at the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College.
Interest in the Civil War is dying because of a Civil War history profession and Civil War Round Tables which have a focus which isn't of interest to the modern world.
I have been handing out free some of my books including the "Reader."
With Jefferson Davis statues being taken down I am certainly glad that I don't have a Jefferson Davis medal printed on the 2nd edition, or some nonsense about it getting a Jefferson Davis award. Or something like this on the web page for the book or in book advertisements. I had to work on making sure this didn't happen. I had to put up with a lot of stuff and nonsense trying to persuade me to submit the book for the award.
This is the first part of the series I wrote on the Museum of the Confederacy which discusses why I wrote it so my book would not get the award.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/441/441_museum_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html
I am glad that I don't have to try to explain this away, with explanations that wouldn't be believed.
Of course this made me rather unpopular in the Civil War History profession. Many denunciations on Kevin Levin's blog.
http://cwmemory.com/2012/03/04/has-edward-sebesta-ever-visited-the-museum-of-the-confederacy/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/12/06/a-response-to-edward-sebesta/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/15/calling-out-edward-sebesta-and-calling-on-james-loewen/
http://cwmemory.com/2011/09/14/a-quick-response-to-edward-sebesta/
http://cwmemory.com/2010/12/09/the-edward-sebesta-circus-continues/
The "circus continues" is reference to an earlier activity in which I got a group of scholars to co-sign a letter to Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate memorial. That Levin is implying is a circus also, thus it is continuing.
Brook D. Simpson was critical of this as well.
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/ed-sebestas-dilemma/
https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/edward-sebestas-publicity-stunt/
Simpson was on the masthead of Civil War History.
Neither of them would read even the first installment of the history.
Outside the Civil War history profession scholars thought my position was both sensible and obvious. One even wondered whether Loewen had gone "Genovese."
However, now in retrospect these denunciations just document how increasingly out of touch the Civil War history profession was and how they live in a Civil War Round Table reality, a world which is fading away.
What might be considered is how these Confederate monuments served to normalize the Civil War Round Table world and a historical profession that pandered to them and now as the monuments leave how abnormal the Civil War Round Table world will be perceived.
Of course there will always be a place for the Civil War Round Table where they can ruminate on brass alloys used in Civil War uniform buttons or perhaps the topic of mosquitoes and other biting insects at Gettysburg battlefield and resolutely ignore the issues of neo-Confederacy and race. This would likely be at the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College.
Interest in the Civil War is dying because of a Civil War history profession and Civil War Round Tables which have a focus which isn't of interest to the modern world.
Kevin Levin's continues to push "Confederate fabulous" image. A direct assault on the LGBT community.
The rainbow flag has been recently redesigned with a black and brown strip added to represent non-white LGBT or as the news articles report, "people of color."
These are some articles.
CNN reports that the city of Philadelphia released the new flag.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/health/new-pride-flag-colors-trnd/index.html
https://baltimoreoutloud.com/lgbtq-news/item/4910-a-new-pride-flag?
Now the rainbow flag in itself was to represent the idea that LGBT are in every group or come from every group. It is a flag adopted globally, on every continent, by any organization of LGBT on this planet. It supplanted the pink triangle and the stupid lambda symbol.
So on the surface of things it should not be necessary to add additional strips. The new flag still has the basic colors in the eight crayon box. This opens up the idea that other groups will add other strips to localize a flag. The global rainbow flag will become splintered.
However, I can full well understand why this happened. Discriminatory practices at bars over decades, attitudes by some in the LGBT community, and exclusionary practices have made it so that racial minorities in the LGBT community felt it necessary to add the strips to make a point.
In Dallas there are two LGBT pride events. There is a separate event for the African American LGBT community.
So we don't need "Confederate fabulous" as Kevin M. Levin posts here in Sept. 28, 2016 in his blog as part of his efforts to rationalize the retention of Confederate monuments.
http://cwmemory.com/2016/09/28/charlottesvilles-lee-park-could-be-confederate-fabulous/
He is still using this image.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/19/my-position-on-confederate-monuments/
"fabulous" is a popular word used in LGBT forms of English. The picture shows part of a rainbow balloon structure at a LGBT celebration in Charlottesville, Virginia.
I pointed out Dec. 16, 2016 that this was harmful to the LGBT community.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/12/no-kevin-levin-lgbt-community.html#.WaQDWCiGOiM
This has come up as a topic with Levin before.
http://cwmemory.com/rainbow/ This image that was in the blog posting discussed below.
You can see in the comments in the following blog posting it has been discussed before. Levin and I had a dialog on this.
http://cwmemory.com/2011/03/19/swiss-confederates-meet-green-day/
I don't think there was intentional harm then, but rather a posting that was unaware of the implications. However, it was rather extensively explained to Levin in the comments. He pulled the image.
However, I did alert some contacts in Boston who I had helped with a story sometime in 2006.
Yet now Levin is pushing "Confederate fabulous."
These are some articles.
CNN reports that the city of Philadelphia released the new flag.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/health/new-pride-flag-colors-trnd/index.html
https://baltimoreoutloud.com/lgbtq-news/item/4910-a-new-pride-flag?
Now the rainbow flag in itself was to represent the idea that LGBT are in every group or come from every group. It is a flag adopted globally, on every continent, by any organization of LGBT on this planet. It supplanted the pink triangle and the stupid lambda symbol.
So on the surface of things it should not be necessary to add additional strips. The new flag still has the basic colors in the eight crayon box. This opens up the idea that other groups will add other strips to localize a flag. The global rainbow flag will become splintered.
However, I can full well understand why this happened. Discriminatory practices at bars over decades, attitudes by some in the LGBT community, and exclusionary practices have made it so that racial minorities in the LGBT community felt it necessary to add the strips to make a point.
In Dallas there are two LGBT pride events. There is a separate event for the African American LGBT community.
So we don't need "Confederate fabulous" as Kevin M. Levin posts here in Sept. 28, 2016 in his blog as part of his efforts to rationalize the retention of Confederate monuments.
http://cwmemory.com/2016/09/28/charlottesvilles-lee-park-could-be-confederate-fabulous/
He is still using this image.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/08/19/my-position-on-confederate-monuments/
"fabulous" is a popular word used in LGBT forms of English. The picture shows part of a rainbow balloon structure at a LGBT celebration in Charlottesville, Virginia.
I pointed out Dec. 16, 2016 that this was harmful to the LGBT community.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/12/no-kevin-levin-lgbt-community.html#.WaQDWCiGOiM
This has come up as a topic with Levin before.
http://cwmemory.com/rainbow/ This image that was in the blog posting discussed below.
You can see in the comments in the following blog posting it has been discussed before. Levin and I had a dialog on this.
http://cwmemory.com/2011/03/19/swiss-confederates-meet-green-day/
I don't think there was intentional harm then, but rather a posting that was unaware of the implications. However, it was rather extensively explained to Levin in the comments. He pulled the image.
However, I did alert some contacts in Boston who I had helped with a story sometime in 2006.
Yet now Levin is pushing "Confederate fabulous."
Monday, August 21, 2017
Three Critical Cities and the neo-Confederacy's ultimate redoubt. UPDATE:
There are three cities that are critical as ultimate hold outs for Confederacy monuments and the Lost Cause mentality in general. These are: Richmond, Lexington, and Dallas.
Dallas is on the list since not only does it have a in-depth neo-Confederate and Lost Cause past, it is known as a reactionary city. People say that it is the city that the civil rights movement passed by. It is the city which Martin Luther King said the African American community slammed the door in his face. It has the replica Arlington plantation house. Dallas is notorious for far right groups.
Richmond is on the list since it is the former capital of the Confederacy. It has Monument Avenue full of Confederate monuments. It has the Museum of the Confederacy now part of the American Civil War Museum. It has an elite which identifies with the Confederacy.
Lexington, Virginia is like the holy city of the Confederacy. I visited in July 2017 and did extensive photo documentation and bought a lot, a lot of artifacts. There is Washington & Lee University, named after George Washington and Robert E. Lee. There is the Virginia Military Institute which is self-identified with the Confederacy. It has a church with a picture of Confederate soldiers fighting behind the stage. There is the Robert E. Lee Episcopal Church. VMI manages the Virginia Civil War Museum by Market Place.
I would like to say that when I visited the Lee Chapel and the Washington & Lee Campus, I thought of Kevin Levin's condescending comments to some African American law students who were trying to get the university to lose the Lost Cause. I was disgusted.
The whole town is living in a time warp in the Confederacy. There shouldn't be a university like Washington & Lee or a military institute like the Virginia Military Institute in America.
Lexington, Virginia will be the last redoubt of the Lost Cause, a little white Valhalla of the Confederacy.
It seems to be a small upscale town with the two universities and some tourism as the local industry. It is fairly white as far as I can tell.
I think the pressure points are that a Confederate university or institute may not seem very desirable for an academic career and the university and institute might not be well thought of.
When I was there I visited Stonewall House and they told me that the numbers visiting having been declining each year. I think the tourism component of this Lost Cause city of the Confederacy will be declining. I don't think that Confederate identified institutions of higher education make a local climate for start ups.
I think that students will come to see the university as some antique hold over in a back water and not the place to get an education for the future. The students the university and institute get will be those who don't care or aren't put off by going to a Confederate university or institute, in a such a city. The student body will thus acquire a reputation which will further put off many students and intensify the process of self-selection of students who would want to live in such a Confederate bubble like Lexington. The process will feed upon itself.
UPDATE:
Stone Mountain is an important point also in the Lost Cause built environment. This article is very interesting both for what it says about the topic, and also that it comes from the Smithsonian, the publisher of Kevin Levin
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-will-happen-stone-mountain-americas-largest-confederate-memorial-180964588/
Dallas is on the list since not only does it have a in-depth neo-Confederate and Lost Cause past, it is known as a reactionary city. People say that it is the city that the civil rights movement passed by. It is the city which Martin Luther King said the African American community slammed the door in his face. It has the replica Arlington plantation house. Dallas is notorious for far right groups.
Richmond is on the list since it is the former capital of the Confederacy. It has Monument Avenue full of Confederate monuments. It has the Museum of the Confederacy now part of the American Civil War Museum. It has an elite which identifies with the Confederacy.
Lexington, Virginia is like the holy city of the Confederacy. I visited in July 2017 and did extensive photo documentation and bought a lot, a lot of artifacts. There is Washington & Lee University, named after George Washington and Robert E. Lee. There is the Virginia Military Institute which is self-identified with the Confederacy. It has a church with a picture of Confederate soldiers fighting behind the stage. There is the Robert E. Lee Episcopal Church. VMI manages the Virginia Civil War Museum by Market Place.
I would like to say that when I visited the Lee Chapel and the Washington & Lee Campus, I thought of Kevin Levin's condescending comments to some African American law students who were trying to get the university to lose the Lost Cause. I was disgusted.
The whole town is living in a time warp in the Confederacy. There shouldn't be a university like Washington & Lee or a military institute like the Virginia Military Institute in America.
Lexington, Virginia will be the last redoubt of the Lost Cause, a little white Valhalla of the Confederacy.
It seems to be a small upscale town with the two universities and some tourism as the local industry. It is fairly white as far as I can tell.
I think the pressure points are that a Confederate university or institute may not seem very desirable for an academic career and the university and institute might not be well thought of.
When I was there I visited Stonewall House and they told me that the numbers visiting having been declining each year. I think the tourism component of this Lost Cause city of the Confederacy will be declining. I don't think that Confederate identified institutions of higher education make a local climate for start ups.
I think that students will come to see the university as some antique hold over in a back water and not the place to get an education for the future. The students the university and institute get will be those who don't care or aren't put off by going to a Confederate university or institute, in a such a city. The student body will thus acquire a reputation which will further put off many students and intensify the process of self-selection of students who would want to live in such a Confederate bubble like Lexington. The process will feed upon itself.
UPDATE:
Stone Mountain is an important point also in the Lost Cause built environment. This article is very interesting both for what it says about the topic, and also that it comes from the Smithsonian, the publisher of Kevin Levin
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-will-happen-stone-mountain-americas-largest-confederate-memorial-180964588/
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Hell has frozen over! Kevin Levin changes his mind about Confederate monuments
Hell has frozen over! Beelzebub is ice skating. Lucifer is throwing snowballs. Satan is wearing mittens and a heavy overcoat.
I present this article by Kevin M. Levin in The Atlantic titled, "Why I Changed My Mind About Confederate Monuments."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-confederate-monuments/537396/
If Levin has changed his mind, what was his opinion before?
Levin gives some very good reasons for seeing that empty pedestals offer an opportunity for learning about history. I think it offers good reasons for others clinging to Confederate monuments to give them up.
I think it also signals to the Civil War history profession and public historians that they too should give up on retaining Confederate monuments.
So there are a lot of good things about this article.
However, I think Levin saw the freight train of history and decided to not get run over by it.
It is nice that Levin has changed his opinion. However, his historical role against Confederate monument removal can't be denied.
I am very busy doing historical research to support the local Dallas effort for monument removal.
I think that later this year it needs to be reviewed what was the role of the Civil War history profession in this revolution regarding Confederate memorialization. Blue & Gray has folded, perhaps the community of Civil War historians should consider that some Civil War Round Table attitudes need to be folded also.
Incidentally with Jefferson Davis statues being taken down I am so glad that I rejected strenuously the effort to get "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader" a Jefferson Davis medal.
It will be interesting also to see if the Museum of the Confederacy stops its trade in Confederate nostalgia.
I present this article by Kevin M. Levin in The Atlantic titled, "Why I Changed My Mind About Confederate Monuments."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-confederate-monuments/537396/
If Levin has changed his mind, what was his opinion before?
Levin gives some very good reasons for seeing that empty pedestals offer an opportunity for learning about history. I think it offers good reasons for others clinging to Confederate monuments to give them up.
I think it also signals to the Civil War history profession and public historians that they too should give up on retaining Confederate monuments.
So there are a lot of good things about this article.
However, I think Levin saw the freight train of history and decided to not get run over by it.
It is nice that Levin has changed his opinion. However, his historical role against Confederate monument removal can't be denied.
I am very busy doing historical research to support the local Dallas effort for monument removal.
I think that later this year it needs to be reviewed what was the role of the Civil War history profession in this revolution regarding Confederate memorialization. Blue & Gray has folded, perhaps the community of Civil War historians should consider that some Civil War Round Table attitudes need to be folded also.
Incidentally with Jefferson Davis statues being taken down I am so glad that I rejected strenuously the effort to get "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader" a Jefferson Davis medal.
It will be interesting also to see if the Museum of the Confederacy stops its trade in Confederate nostalgia.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Now, Now Memphians, Kevin Levin wouldn't approve of this
Activists in Memphis state, "If you don't take those statues down then we will."
Oh my goodness, loud voices, what would Kevin Levin think! This blog posting gives a good idea of what he would think.
http://cwmemory.com/2015/12/14/new-orleans-should-look-to-richmond/
In this blog posting Levin lectures New Orleans:
"The city of New Orleans is offering the rest of the country a lesson on how not to deal with Confederate iconography in public spaces."The blog posting link is to an article where there was "name calling, shouts, and acrimony." Oh heavens, bring me my smelling salts!
Levin thinks New Orleans should follow the example of Richmond in the above post. I might point out that New Orleans is Confederate monument free whereas Richmond is infested with them.
Now in Memphis they are being loud and there might be, dare I say it, name calling and shouts. Oh my!
I am kidding, I think shouting really helps get the leadership focused on doing something, otherwise you end up being another Baltimore.
I have completed a 10,000 word essay on Kevin Levin. He really has quite a track record. I have first started sharing it with all the people to whom he has directed personal attacks. That is keeping me somewhat busy.
I recommend this article. It is in the Grio and is by David A. Love.
http://thegrio.com/2017/05/26/hundreds-of-confederate-statues-still-standing/
Another article on the Memphis effort. I have contacted the group on Facebook.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/local/the-901/2017/06/21/9-01-memphians-gather-launch-movement-against-confederate-monuments/415369001/
Friday, June 09, 2017
Maybe Richmond won't follow the Richmond example
This was published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch today or yesterday.
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/your-opinion/letters-to-the-editor/cod-june-monuments-whitewash-history/article_c5249b40-45f3-5be8-982d-433395236b29.html
The title is "Monuments whitewash history," by John Winn III.
The letter to the editor is given the award "Correspondent of the Day," with a fountain pen drawing. He is listed as a resident of Richmond by the Times-Dispatch. So Levin can't ask Winn his question, "Have you ever been to Richmond?" which he asked Sarah Jones when she proposed taking down the Confederate statues. https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/864241228333940737
A single letter, even given the Correspondent of the Day designation, won't by itself bring down the monuments. It will be a voice to bring the Confederate monuments down and that is important.
However, the letter being given the designation Correspondent of the Day may signify that the Richmond Times-Dispatch is shifting on the monuments. They could have just published the letter, but instead decided to give it a special designation. Perhaps they want to be able to position themselves as neutrals going into what they see as an upcoming intensified struggle over the Confederate monuments.
I am sure that those involved in Richmond politics, civic affairs, cultural institutions will note that this letter was given a special designation by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
I doubt that the elites of Richmond wanted Richmond singled out as Confederate monument city before the nation. To be set up as the opposite of New Orleans. To be seen as a new capitol of Confederate monuments as they tumble elsewhere across the nation.Yet, Levin made Richmond the capitol of Confederate monument retention in this article.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-richmond-has-gotten-right-about-interpreting-its-confederate-history-180963354/
I doubt African American Mayor Dwight C. Jones wanted to be set up as the opposite of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.
The Virginia Defenders are quite aware of Levin's Smithsonian article. They took pains to explain to me that they wanted the monuments down. I am sure that Jones political opponents in the African American community have taken note of this article.
I have always said that pressing on the issue of Confederate symbols, place names, and monuments would be a lens to see who people really are.
The Smithsonian magazine article really pulled away the curtain and exposed Richmond's soul.
This maybe the first visible fracture in the defenses of the capitol of the Confederate monuments.
For those in Richmond who want to get their Confederate monuments taken down I recommend this article.
http://thegrio.com/2017/05/26/hundreds-of-confederate-statues-still-standing/#oQWeYWxF2IXyGtRl.01
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/your-opinion/letters-to-the-editor/cod-june-monuments-whitewash-history/article_c5249b40-45f3-5be8-982d-433395236b29.html
The title is "Monuments whitewash history," by John Winn III.
The letter to the editor is given the award "Correspondent of the Day," with a fountain pen drawing. He is listed as a resident of Richmond by the Times-Dispatch. So Levin can't ask Winn his question, "Have you ever been to Richmond?" which he asked Sarah Jones when she proposed taking down the Confederate statues. https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/864241228333940737
A single letter, even given the Correspondent of the Day designation, won't by itself bring down the monuments. It will be a voice to bring the Confederate monuments down and that is important.
However, the letter being given the designation Correspondent of the Day may signify that the Richmond Times-Dispatch is shifting on the monuments. They could have just published the letter, but instead decided to give it a special designation. Perhaps they want to be able to position themselves as neutrals going into what they see as an upcoming intensified struggle over the Confederate monuments.
I am sure that those involved in Richmond politics, civic affairs, cultural institutions will note that this letter was given a special designation by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
I doubt that the elites of Richmond wanted Richmond singled out as Confederate monument city before the nation. To be set up as the opposite of New Orleans. To be seen as a new capitol of Confederate monuments as they tumble elsewhere across the nation.Yet, Levin made Richmond the capitol of Confederate monument retention in this article.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-richmond-has-gotten-right-about-interpreting-its-confederate-history-180963354/
I doubt African American Mayor Dwight C. Jones wanted to be set up as the opposite of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.
The Virginia Defenders are quite aware of Levin's Smithsonian article. They took pains to explain to me that they wanted the monuments down. I am sure that Jones political opponents in the African American community have taken note of this article.
I have always said that pressing on the issue of Confederate symbols, place names, and monuments would be a lens to see who people really are.
The Smithsonian magazine article really pulled away the curtain and exposed Richmond's soul.
This maybe the first visible fracture in the defenses of the capitol of the Confederate monuments.
For those in Richmond who want to get their Confederate monuments taken down I recommend this article.
http://thegrio.com/2017/05/26/hundreds-of-confederate-statues-still-standing/#oQWeYWxF2IXyGtRl.01
Friday, May 26, 2017
"Why are hundreds of Confederate statues still standing?" Quoted twice in this article. I describe the emerging set of arguments set forth by academics as rationalizations for these monuments.
http://thegrio.com/2017/05/26/hundreds-of-confederate-statues-still-standing/#oQWeYWxF2IXyGtRl.01
The link to the article is above.
I will have to elaborate for this posting later. I am currently tied up with a project.
I did supply many links to the writings of different scholars, blog postings, news articles.
The link to the article is above.
I will have to elaborate for this posting later. I am currently tied up with a project.
I did supply many links to the writings of different scholars, blog postings, news articles.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Kevin M. Levin attempts to talk down to Sarah Jones of the "New Republic" magazine
Kevin M. Levin attempts to patronize Sarah Jones of the "New Republic." You can read the exchange here on Twitter if you are a member. I printed it out for my records.
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/864241228333940737
In this conversation he is the expert talking down to Sarah Jones. He also uses his usual tactic avoiding debate on the issues by either questioning the competency of the individual or their right to debate the issue.
You really have to read the entire series this is one example. Not the capitalization of "WHY" and the expression "you would do well to consider."
Levin pulls out what he thinks will flatten Jones by asking whether she has been to Richmond. If Jones hasn't then she is some type of outside agitator. This is the theme of "Sweet Home Alabama" that Jones is an outsider.
Turns out that Sarah Jones is from Virginia and has been to Richmond many times.
Then it is more patronizing stuff.
Levin's patronizing of Sarah Jones is this article by Jones in New Republic.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142710/yes-tear-confederate-monuments
Sarah Jones in the article is basically calling Gary Shapiro of the University of Richmond a fool. She doesn't use the term, just calls his arguments "deeply confused."
Though Shapiro does not deny the horrors of slavery or hold up the Confederacy as an entity worthy of praise, his argument is deeply confused. If these monuments are “memorials,” whom do they memorialize? Certainly not the victims of slavery.
Levin blogs on this encounter.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/15/is-richmond-next/
From his blog:
I do not mean to suggest that all parties in Richmond are satisfied or that mistakes have not been made. What I do think is important to acknowledge is that the city has made a concerted effort to think carefully about how history is interpreted and how it is commemorated in public spaces. None of this is acknowledged in the New Republic piece.
Turns out that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of what the little cliques in Richmond have done.
And Levin is bent out of shape that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of the efforts of the local historical societies and what cliques they make up and of which he is in good standing.
He can't comprehend that some figures in the larger national establishment are just coming out and saying these statues need to go and really don't care what rationalizations or excuses or clever strategems the local historical cliques have come up with.
I wonder how long it is going to be before The Atlantic decides that Levin is retrograde.
Convoluted stuff and nonsense arguments aren't going to convince people other than those who love the Confederacy or fear loss of white control over the landscape. That is white nationalists and banal white nationalists. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/864241228333940737
In this conversation he is the expert talking down to Sarah Jones. He also uses his usual tactic avoiding debate on the issues by either questioning the competency of the individual or their right to debate the issue.
You really have to read the entire series this is one example. Not the capitalization of "WHY" and the expression "you would do well to consider."
Levin pulls out what he thinks will flatten Jones by asking whether she has been to Richmond. If Jones hasn't then she is some type of outside agitator. This is the theme of "Sweet Home Alabama" that Jones is an outsider.
Turns out that Sarah Jones is from Virginia and has been to Richmond many times.
Then it is more patronizing stuff.
Levin's patronizing of Sarah Jones is this article by Jones in New Republic.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142710/yes-tear-confederate-monuments
Sarah Jones in the article is basically calling Gary Shapiro of the University of Richmond a fool. She doesn't use the term, just calls his arguments "deeply confused."
Though Shapiro does not deny the horrors of slavery or hold up the Confederacy as an entity worthy of praise, his argument is deeply confused. If these monuments are “memorials,” whom do they memorialize? Certainly not the victims of slavery.
Levin blogs on this encounter.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/15/is-richmond-next/
From his blog:
I do not mean to suggest that all parties in Richmond are satisfied or that mistakes have not been made. What I do think is important to acknowledge is that the city has made a concerted effort to think carefully about how history is interpreted and how it is commemorated in public spaces. None of this is acknowledged in the New Republic piece.
Turns out that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of what the little cliques in Richmond have done.
And Levin is bent out of shape that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of the efforts of the local historical societies and what cliques they make up and of which he is in good standing.
He can't comprehend that some figures in the larger national establishment are just coming out and saying these statues need to go and really don't care what rationalizations or excuses or clever strategems the local historical cliques have come up with.
I wonder how long it is going to be before The Atlantic decides that Levin is retrograde.
Convoluted stuff and nonsense arguments aren't going to convince people other than those who love the Confederacy or fear loss of white control over the landscape. That is white nationalists and banal white nationalists. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Thursday, May 11, 2017
The revolution against Confederate monuments has started in New Orleans
A second Confederate statue in New Orleans, one of Jefferson Davis, has come down last night.
I was reading this article on ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orleans-school-warns-parents-confederate-statue-removal/story?id=47339045
In particular I noticed the picture of members of the African American fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha shown holding hands and praying. I could see in their faces that the statues coming down was a revolutionary experience, deeply felt.
I doubt they are interested in chattering about contextualizing these monuments or putting interpretive plaques or some "fearless girl" contextualization or redoing a monument of a Confederate leader for one of their non-Confederate actions in life. I rather doubt that they are interested in the silliness express in these blog postings.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/28/does-the-robert-e-lee-monument-need-a-fearless-girl/
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/08/the-redeemable-confederate/
These people praying aren't interested in a "redeemable" Confederate.
I don't think the chattering about erasing history or "teachable moments" will be taken seriously.
The other statues are going down and staying down. I don't think that the state of Louisiana has the power to keep them up. If they try the state of Louisiana will be in an uproar.
But this wasn't the most important thing I realized in reading the article and thinking about what is happening.
When the 4th statue goes down it will show that it can be done when the people of a city decide that the Confederate statues need to go. It shows that it can be done and only needs determination that it shall be done against all obstacles. City of Baltimore, are you paying attention?
It has also made clear to the public who really is behind these statues, it isn't just some small white nationalist groups, or the United Daughters of the Confederacy or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
It has been revealed that the real supporters of the Confederate monuments are the historical societies and sections of the white establishment. The mask has fallen and years afterwards people in New Orleans will remember who came out to support the Confederate monuments.
And then the question will be raised in every major city with a significant African American community why does that city still have Confederate monuments? I think it could happen that the African American leadership in a city will find that they are judged by both residents of the city and nationally on whether they have gotten rid of the Confederate monuments in their city.
I don't think excuses will be accepted. I think also how leaders in a community act in regards to Confederate monuments will be it really clear to the public what type of individuals they are.
So monuments elsewhere will come down. Even where state legislators have passed laws preventing their removal, because legislatures can be picketed, denounced, and be in an uproar of controversy when it is determined by the residents of a city that the monuments need to go.
When the monuments in New Orleans go down, what will the reaction in Baltimore where their Confederate monuments are still standing not going anywhere?
When monuments stay I think it will reveal which African Americans are really owned by white elites.
The victory over Confederate monuments in New Orleans will inspire activists in every city to try to get their Confederate monuments taken down and to persevere. Often the effort is a 3 month thing and then activists give up. Another lesson of New Orleans is that perseverance pays off.
As one city gets rid of Confederate monuments the pressure and drive to get rid of Confederate monuments in other cities will increase.
When most of the major cities have their Confederate monuments removed, the major cities which still have them will look bad, racist, backward, stupid and their chamber of commerce group and other groups interested in attracting employers will decide that the Confederate monuments need to go.
For small towns which still have Confederate monuments, they will find that observers will point to the Confederate monuments, as a sign of the town being retrograde, and a quick short hand to summarize the town as being retrograde. People will stay, "It is the type of town that still has a Confederate monument."
Groups having economic interests in that town will want the Confederate monuments to go.
It all depends on the 3rd and 4th monument going. If the process is halted successfully the movement to get rid of Confederate monuments could stall out or halt. But when the 4th monument goes down, the whole revolutionary process will open up across the nation.
I hope mayor Landrieu hurries, because the Sons of Confederate Veterans are working to stop the process. I think they know very well what is at stake and will undertake any effort necessary to stop. They know as well as anyone that when the 4th monument goes down, neo-Confederacy will start going down with it.
I personally hope to help these efforts. I retire shortly and I will be glad to drive to cities and introduce myself.
This article shows Jefferson Davis being taken away. All strapped up and being carried away.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monument_jefferson.html
I was reading this article on ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orleans-school-warns-parents-confederate-statue-removal/story?id=47339045
In particular I noticed the picture of members of the African American fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha shown holding hands and praying. I could see in their faces that the statues coming down was a revolutionary experience, deeply felt.
I doubt they are interested in chattering about contextualizing these monuments or putting interpretive plaques or some "fearless girl" contextualization or redoing a monument of a Confederate leader for one of their non-Confederate actions in life. I rather doubt that they are interested in the silliness express in these blog postings.
http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/28/does-the-robert-e-lee-monument-need-a-fearless-girl/
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/08/the-redeemable-confederate/
These people praying aren't interested in a "redeemable" Confederate.
I don't think the chattering about erasing history or "teachable moments" will be taken seriously.
The other statues are going down and staying down. I don't think that the state of Louisiana has the power to keep them up. If they try the state of Louisiana will be in an uproar.
But this wasn't the most important thing I realized in reading the article and thinking about what is happening.
When the 4th statue goes down it will show that it can be done when the people of a city decide that the Confederate statues need to go. It shows that it can be done and only needs determination that it shall be done against all obstacles. City of Baltimore, are you paying attention?
It has also made clear to the public who really is behind these statues, it isn't just some small white nationalist groups, or the United Daughters of the Confederacy or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
It has been revealed that the real supporters of the Confederate monuments are the historical societies and sections of the white establishment. The mask has fallen and years afterwards people in New Orleans will remember who came out to support the Confederate monuments.
And then the question will be raised in every major city with a significant African American community why does that city still have Confederate monuments? I think it could happen that the African American leadership in a city will find that they are judged by both residents of the city and nationally on whether they have gotten rid of the Confederate monuments in their city.
I don't think excuses will be accepted. I think also how leaders in a community act in regards to Confederate monuments will be it really clear to the public what type of individuals they are.
So monuments elsewhere will come down. Even where state legislators have passed laws preventing their removal, because legislatures can be picketed, denounced, and be in an uproar of controversy when it is determined by the residents of a city that the monuments need to go.
When the monuments in New Orleans go down, what will the reaction in Baltimore where their Confederate monuments are still standing not going anywhere?
When monuments stay I think it will reveal which African Americans are really owned by white elites.
The victory over Confederate monuments in New Orleans will inspire activists in every city to try to get their Confederate monuments taken down and to persevere. Often the effort is a 3 month thing and then activists give up. Another lesson of New Orleans is that perseverance pays off.
As one city gets rid of Confederate monuments the pressure and drive to get rid of Confederate monuments in other cities will increase.
When most of the major cities have their Confederate monuments removed, the major cities which still have them will look bad, racist, backward, stupid and their chamber of commerce group and other groups interested in attracting employers will decide that the Confederate monuments need to go.
For small towns which still have Confederate monuments, they will find that observers will point to the Confederate monuments, as a sign of the town being retrograde, and a quick short hand to summarize the town as being retrograde. People will stay, "It is the type of town that still has a Confederate monument."
Groups having economic interests in that town will want the Confederate monuments to go.
It all depends on the 3rd and 4th monument going. If the process is halted successfully the movement to get rid of Confederate monuments could stall out or halt. But when the 4th monument goes down, the whole revolutionary process will open up across the nation.
I hope mayor Landrieu hurries, because the Sons of Confederate Veterans are working to stop the process. I think they know very well what is at stake and will undertake any effort necessary to stop. They know as well as anyone that when the 4th monument goes down, neo-Confederacy will start going down with it.
I personally hope to help these efforts. I retire shortly and I will be glad to drive to cities and introduce myself.
This article shows Jefferson Davis being taken away. All strapped up and being carried away.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monument_jefferson.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
