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.

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.

Perhaps the "Washington Post" needs a clean break with the Confederacy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/15/republicans-need-a-clean-break-with-the-confederacy/?utm_term=.7d30a0b266ad

The above is a link to an article titled, "Republicans need a clean break with the Confederacy," by Ed Rogers, who we are told is a "veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses."

Well I think it would be good if all political parties make a clean break with the Confederacy. Given that former Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott has in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and in Southern Partisan magazine has also explained that the Republican Party is the party of Jefferson Davis Roger's hopes of a clean break by the Republican Party with the Confederacy is not likely to happen.

However, before the Washington Post lectures others perhaps they can start advocating that the Democratic Party make a clean break with the Confederacy. For example they can decided that future Democratic presidents, unlike Obama, not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument, and apologize for being advocates that Obama should send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

They might also ask Bill Clinton to retract his three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I wrote Bill Clinton in 2015 and asked him to retract them and did not get a reply.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-clinton-betrays-carol-moseley.html#.WRpexmgrKiM


http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2015/06/black-commentator-reruns-article-on.html#.WRpfRmgrKiM


I don't think this will happen though. The Washington Post is looking for a way to twist the Republicans and I don't think they are really that serious about Republicans or Democrats or themselves giving up the Confederacy.

On the other hand the Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats so they are setting the new policy for the Democratic Party that they are not the party of the Confederacy, in as much as it is useful.

I don't think they will ask Donald Trump to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument which I think will show how serious the Washington Post is on this.

Certainly the Washington Post won't advocate the Arlington Confederate monument to be removed.

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER1 "Washington Post" column defending Confederate monument removal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protests-against-removing-confederate-monuments-are-not-really-about-history/2017/05/12/8d2905d8-3732-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.e2454bc7d130

The above is a link to a Washington Post column by Christine Emba explaining why Confederate monuments need to be taken down and debunking the arguments which attempt to justify keeping the Confederate monuments.

The Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats. Up until 2015 they have been somewhat nothing on opposing neo-Confederacy and not particularly vigorous about opposing neo-Confederacy since.

In 2009 they came to the defense of Obama sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052202999.html

This was written by Kirk Savage, a court historian, and it will be forever attached to his name.

I am somewhat puzzled by the Washington Post running this column. Did they not see the contradiction with Savage's column? Or do they think no one will remember?

Now with the neo-liberals arguing the Confederate monuments will have to go Democrats will start supporting their removal.

For all the public historians rationalizing keeping Confederate monuments, suddenly they find the establishment is no longer supporting these ideas. They are in an embarrassing position of having supported what they thought was the mainstream establishment view, but now have a record of having supported what is considered a reactionary view.

These historians might consider cutting their losses, not just by stop thinking of some rationalization of some plan to keep a Confederate monument, but  review what other institutions they support which shortly or in a few years might also lose establishment support. They run the risk of being referred to as the old guard or some other label which discredits them.

Wonders never cease, "Washington Post" Op-Ed argues that Democrats in the South should take a public stand against the Confederate flag

I was just astounded that the Washington Post ran this Op-Ed by Drew Westen at Emory University in Georgia arguing that the Democrats should take a public stand against the Confederate flag. Mudcat Sanders must be having a fit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-georgia-democrats-should-confront-a-confederate-flag-license-plate/2014/03/21/7b8da8ac-add7-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Writing about the Republican campaign strategy in the Georgia gubernatorial race:

This year, the strategy has taken the form of a debate about custom license plates — in particular, a Georgia license plate sporting a broad, bold display of the Confederate battle flag. Democrats have traditionally struggled to counter such race-baiting. And Republicans are wasting no time in running Southern pride and prejudice up the flagpole against the two most promising Democrats to run for statewide office in Georgia in a decade: Jason Carter, grandson of President Jimmy Carter and a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination; and Michelle Nunn, daughter of the popular Democratic senator Sam Nunn and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Westen argues to oppose this strategy the Democrats should:

Too often, Democrats have dealt with racial issues by avoiding them. Research shows that’s the wrong strategy, particularly in the South. Speaking directly about race allows our conscious values — which tend to be intolerant of racial intolerance, even in the heart of Dixie — to override our unconscious prejudices, which control our behavior when we’re not looking, or when other people aren’t, as in the voting booth. The best way to handle this kind of dog-whistle politics is to expose it for what it is.

Westen is right, the strategy of the Democrats had been to avoid the Confederate flag issue as much as possible in the hope of shaking loose a few extra white votes. Mudcat Sanders was a political consultant who argued for this position. In one article I read that his bed had a Confederate battle flag bed spread which is a sort of obvious and idiotic way of making a statement. (If some political operatives use dog whistles then Sanders was using a fog horn.) The Washington Post as a consequence of this policy and as a consequence of being the house publication of the Democratic party has avoided really critically examining the Lost Cause or arguing against the Lost Cause. I suppose also the Graham family that had owned the paper didn't want relatives or people at the club or acquaintances with Confederate ancestors and Lost Cause attitudes complaining either.

So I am so amazed to see this article. On the other hand I think that this change in attitude is confined to the Confederate battle flag and isn't intended to challenge the Lost Cause generally, but still it is a major shift for the Democrats in the South. Also, once you decide the Confederate flag isn't really desirable you are forced to engage the Lost Cause. The Democrats will be slow learners but I think they will learn.

For the Washington Post it certainly is a surprise. This is the third major article in the Post indicating a shift regarding the Lost Cause.

Not too long ago there was this Washington Post blog asking why Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are in the Washington National Cathedral. This was known by a lot of people previously, but it wasn't commented on.I refer to the Post blog in this posting.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/12/washington-post-columnist-john-kelly.html#.Uy21TfldWSo

Then there is this Washington Post column by Colbert King likening the Republicans to the Confederacy.I refer to it at this posting.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/10/washington-post-columnist-colbert-king.html#.Uy21jfldWSo

I think some Democrats have figured out that there really isn't a reason to vote for them unless they represent a choice for the voters.

Former president Jimmy Carter is somewhat fond of the Confederacy and so it would be interesting to what extent Jason Carter will give up the Lost Cause or how he will frame the argument against the Confederate battle flag.

"Washington Post" alarmed by possible Scottish secession. UPDATE:

The Washington Post is alarmed by possible Scottish secession.

They are running this Op Ed piece on possible Scottish secession by George Robertson of Britain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scotland-secession-could-lead-to-re-balkanization-of-europe/2014/01/05/df076e94-578e-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html


The Washington Post itself ran this editorial against Scottish secession titled, "Scottish independence is part of a worrying trend."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scottish-independence-vote-is-part-of-worrying-trend/2012/10/30/4c320fb2-1896-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html

The hypocrisy of this is somewhat hilarious.

In 1995 the Washington Post published this article by League of the South (LOS) Michael Hill and then LOS board member Thomas Fleming. The organization was then called the Southern League and was conceived by Thomas Fleming. UPDATE: I forgot to put this link in for the article.

http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/new_dixie_manifesto.php

This was a column about the Southern League by Washington Post columnist George Will.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-28/news/1995362074_1_lombard-league-league-meetings-southern-writers

Evidently indulging secessionists in the United States because you think at the time it was quixotic is okay, but finding out that what was for decades a seemingly quixotic secessionist movement in Scotland, that it is now on the verge of success is a horror.

The Scottish National Party for years polled single digits in elections.

That nations are imagined is an axiom of cultural geography. We are a particular nationality because we think we are. The neo-Confederates have figured this out. Thomas Fleming proposed the Southern League after observing in Italy the Lega Nord (Northern League) and the break up of the Soviet Union. The League of the South studied the nationalist movement that created Norway out of Sweden. The idea of Norway started out as a literature that created Norwegian distinctiveness. Once the Norwegians thought of themselves as Norwegians the nation was a foregone conclusion.

The Soviet Union is no more because at one point even its leaders no longer imagined themselves as Soviets.

The Washington Post is has been missing in action in reporting the neo-Confederates in the United States. The Post might consider that the United States is full of monuments honoring secessionists who made a violent attempt to break up the United States. The whole idea of secession isn't necessarily confined to Europe.

If Scotland secedes then secession will become a real possibility for many elsewhere. Great Britain has been a nation for quite some time. The Scotland and England have been one nation since 1707. That is over 300 years ago. There may be successful secessionist movements elsewhere, but if the Catalans do or don't secede it won't have too much impact on the American or the English speaking imagination. However, Scotland, England, and Great Britain occupy a special space in the American imagination.

If Scotland does secede what was unimaginable become imaginable.