After I left the Mitch Landrieu book signing I ran into a person outside the museum who as critical of Take 'Em Down NOLA (TEDN). Being an older white guy often people will make assumptions about my opinions.
This person's argument against TEDN was that the members of TEDN were "transplants."
I pointed out that in our legal system there weren't hereditary castes nor privileged voters, and that everyone living there in New Orleans was a citizen with rights.
Of course the person didn't accept this, he said how would I like it if people came to my place to change my culture or some such thing. A little Xenophobia is the basis of his argument.
If I moved someplace and something there was really stupid I would speak out. If it was something like cottage cheese pie in West, Texas. (That is West, Texas not West Texas, on the way to Waco.) I am not going to be that critical. Local favorite, awful, but let it go, I don't have to eat it. But I think, and I have opinions, and I can choose to express them. I will be sensitive to feelings where possible, but I don't think locality enables stupidity.
What you learn is that people with banal white nationalist views don't want to recognize that they are white nationalists and come up with all sorts of inane arguments.
The tactic of discussing whether they are transplants or not is to avoid discussing the issues involved with Confederate monuments. The person discusses these other topics to avoid discussing the Confederacy or realizing his or her white nationalist views.
We need to confront these various rationalizations by the following
1. Point out that they are means to avoid discussing the issue.
2. Call it banal white nationalism.
Showing posts with label banal white nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banal white nationalism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 01, 2018
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Quoted in article about white liberal racism. This is one of the big road blocks to de-Confederating Dallas
This is the link to the article.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/01/09/no-educated-not-make-less-racist/
This is my primary obstacle to de-Confederating Dallas.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/01/09/no-educated-not-make-less-racist/
This is my primary obstacle to de-Confederating Dallas.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Frank Stewart is outed as defender of Confederate monuments in New Orleans and isn't happy about it.
If you are wondering why the Confederate monuments stay up in Baltimore you would do well to study New Orleans. Many there were surprised when local historical societies and preservationists defended the Confederate monuments there.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy provide the show of sentimental nostalgia, but there is another force keeping Confederate flags in place -- rich white people who donate money to organizations and political campaigns.
In fact the fight over Confederate monuments reveals how peoples' cities are really run.
Frank Stewart was a very rich individual who contributes money to philanthropies. He also was a strong supporter of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans.
New Orleans Mayor Landrieu named him publicly and Stewart was quite angry about it.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/frank_stewart_mitch_landrieu.html
Landrieu made an apology, but the damage to Stewart's reputation has been done both with Landrieu's statement and Stewart's own reaction to it.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monuments_bizarre.html
The above article notes that Frank Stewart is still defending the Confederate monuments.
So Landrieu can say that he apologized and the episode is over for him, but Stewart is revealed as who he really is, a person who defends Confederate monuments.
This is a warning to rich white banal nationalists and other Confederate monument supporters in other towns, you might have your face front and center before the public as a supporter of Confederate monuments. You might babble things, you might parade African Americans that support you, but it will be to no avail.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy provide the show of sentimental nostalgia, but there is another force keeping Confederate flags in place -- rich white people who donate money to organizations and political campaigns.
In fact the fight over Confederate monuments reveals how peoples' cities are really run.
Frank Stewart was a very rich individual who contributes money to philanthropies. He also was a strong supporter of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans.
New Orleans Mayor Landrieu named him publicly and Stewart was quite angry about it.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/frank_stewart_mitch_landrieu.html
Landrieu made an apology, but the damage to Stewart's reputation has been done both with Landrieu's statement and Stewart's own reaction to it.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monuments_bizarre.html
The above article notes that Frank Stewart is still defending the Confederate monuments.
So Landrieu can say that he apologized and the episode is over for him, but Stewart is revealed as who he really is, a person who defends Confederate monuments.
This is a warning to rich white banal nationalists and other Confederate monument supporters in other towns, you might have your face front and center before the public as a supporter of Confederate monuments. You might babble things, you might parade African Americans that support you, but it will be to no avail.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
They have white nationalism in the bag.
This was one of the shopping bags from the store at the Gettysburg National Military Park center.
Notice the gray and blue and how it is made to be exactly equal and equivalent. The bag colors represent America and the Confederacy. Then there is the statement, "Our Common Ground."
I have a statement to make to the Gettysburg National Military Park, the National Park Service, and the Gettysburg Foundation. I don't have any common ground with the Confederacy or its principles.
I don't have a common ground with slave holders. Evidently the Park and the Foundation do think that they have a common ground.
If they think it means something about national unity, we have national unity among Americans. The South and the Confederacy is not equivalent. To even assert that it is or imply it is an erasure of African Americans in the South.
This is banal white nationalism, so every day that it hides in plain sight.
The National Park Service talks about a "high ground" but it clearly is just a lot of self-flattering rubbish. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/rthg/intro.htm
Notice the gray and blue and how it is made to be exactly equal and equivalent. The bag colors represent America and the Confederacy. Then there is the statement, "Our Common Ground."
I have a statement to make to the Gettysburg National Military Park, the National Park Service, and the Gettysburg Foundation. I don't have any common ground with the Confederacy or its principles.
I don't have a common ground with slave holders. Evidently the Park and the Foundation do think that they have a common ground.
If they think it means something about national unity, we have national unity among Americans. The South and the Confederacy is not equivalent. To even assert that it is or imply it is an erasure of African Americans in the South.
This is banal white nationalism, so every day that it hides in plain sight.
The National Park Service talks about a "high ground" but it clearly is just a lot of self-flattering rubbish. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/rthg/intro.htm
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Visited white nationalist Park in Pennsylvania
I visited a white nationalist park in a city dedicated to maintaining that interpretation. I spent three days there. Did plenty of pictures and did some video also. Purchased a lot, I mean bags full of junk showing the mentality of the town and the park management.
What is the essence of the city of Gettysburg I think this picture will suffice to represent the spirit of the town. Lots of Confederate garbage for sale. I wonder how they explain to their families that they earn their living off of pandering to white nationalism. Notice the picture at the top. Unfortunately there is a reflection on it, but it is a print praising American veterans. These merchants who pander to racists have the effrontery to think they are patriotic. CLICK ON PICTURES TO SEE THE ENTIRE PICTURE.
The people who run Gettysburg Military Park are maintaining the white nationalist interpretation in the book store. Here in the bookstore is a Southern nationalist understanding of geography. The South is made equivalent to the Confederacy. There isn't the use of Union versus Confederacy.
The pandering to neo-Confederates is non-stop. This mug tells us that Lee is "revered." Books on slavery are hidden away in a small section.
I am going to do a video of Gettysburg Park and city. The park service wonders why there is declining attendance and why there is little minority interest in going to the parks.
Of course one factor is that when driving to a park in a rural setting a minority person would have to worry about cops stopping them. An audiologist here in rural Pennsylvania when visiting her fiances house was stopped a couple blocks before she got there by a police officer who decided to yell at her and tell her to stop lying about being legally in the country.
Even if a minority person decided to visit a park in a rural setting they would find themselves at a park and city with a white nationalist ethos. It should be no surprise why there isn't much interest in the Civil War by African Americans.
One good development is that business is declining. The generation with a white nationalist interpretation of the Civil War is getting old and becoming much less active.
I am going to do a video with the pictures and video I took there.
Perhaps the National Park Service could hire a competent historian that doesn't see history in a white nationalist framework and do its job competently.
What is really amazing is that Civil War historians haven't given the town and park a scathing criticism.
What is the essence of the city of Gettysburg I think this picture will suffice to represent the spirit of the town. Lots of Confederate garbage for sale. I wonder how they explain to their families that they earn their living off of pandering to white nationalism. Notice the picture at the top. Unfortunately there is a reflection on it, but it is a print praising American veterans. These merchants who pander to racists have the effrontery to think they are patriotic. CLICK ON PICTURES TO SEE THE ENTIRE PICTURE.
The people who run Gettysburg Military Park are maintaining the white nationalist interpretation in the book store. Here in the bookstore is a Southern nationalist understanding of geography. The South is made equivalent to the Confederacy. There isn't the use of Union versus Confederacy.
The pandering to neo-Confederates is non-stop. This mug tells us that Lee is "revered." Books on slavery are hidden away in a small section.
I am going to do a video of Gettysburg Park and city. The park service wonders why there is declining attendance and why there is little minority interest in going to the parks.
Of course one factor is that when driving to a park in a rural setting a minority person would have to worry about cops stopping them. An audiologist here in rural Pennsylvania when visiting her fiances house was stopped a couple blocks before she got there by a police officer who decided to yell at her and tell her to stop lying about being legally in the country.
Even if a minority person decided to visit a park in a rural setting they would find themselves at a park and city with a white nationalist ethos. It should be no surprise why there isn't much interest in the Civil War by African Americans.
One good development is that business is declining. The generation with a white nationalist interpretation of the Civil War is getting old and becoming much less active.
I am going to do a video with the pictures and video I took there.
Perhaps the National Park Service could hire a competent historian that doesn't see history in a white nationalist framework and do its job competently.
What is really amazing is that Civil War historians haven't given the town and park a scathing criticism.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Geraldo Rivera resigns from Yale University post in protest over Calhoun College being renamed Grace Hopper
The following are links to articles about Geraldo Rivera resigning as a Calhoun associate fellow because of the renaming of Calhoun College as Grace Hopper College.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/13/geraldo-rivera-resigns-as-calhoun-associate-fellow/
http://www.newsweek.com/yale-calhoun-college-grace-hopper-556285?rx=us
Rivera tweeted:
"Been an honor but intolerant insistence on political correctness is lame."
https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/830819342531100674
In another tweet he said.
"To judge a 200 yr old early 19th century historic figure by standards of the 21st century as #Yale is doing is more Orwellian than inspired."
https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/831141630455455744
Let's unpack the meaning of these statements.
The first tweet means that an unreasonably narrow dogmatic view was applied in the renaming of Calhoun college. Though the term "political correctness" is somewhat meaningless.
It isn't as if Calhoun was a famous scientist, reformer, technologist or a person who contributed to the betterment of humanity, but he wrote one or two minor essays defending slavery or owned a few slaves. He was one of the leading defenders of slavery in the 19th century, if not the leading defender of slavery in the 19th century, and Calhoun is notable in history almost entirely for his defense of slavery and white supremacy.
The first tweet implies that rejecting a figure whose role in history was primarily, if not nearly entirely, to defend slavery and white supremacist is a concern only for those with narrow dogmatic unreasonable views such that they are "intolerant" and this concern is labeled as "political correctness." This I think says something how much Rivera values African Americans as human beings that he would see such a concern as "intolerant."
The second tweet labels the change as "Orwellian" which refers to how history was erased in George Orwell's novel, "1984."
Renaming John C. Calhoun College will not erase Calhoun from the history books. The historical record will still be there. Monuments and the naming of places after persons is to endorse them, but again the historical record of John C. Calhoun will exist as ever. The use of "Orwellian" would be consistent with a strategy to make a rejection of the name change sound like an educated high minded defense of history rather than panicked white nationalism. Rivera's criticism of the name change is bogus.
Rivera's comment about Calhoun being judged by 21st century standards fails in many ways.
It could be pointed out that Calhoun was negatively judged in the 19th and 20th century also, in particular by those who though African Americans had rights as human beings such as abolitionists and African Americans. Though these can be valid points they miss the primary point.
The primary point is that monuments are erected because a group of people have made a judgment about history or the present and want to communicate that judgment to the public to advance some set of ideas. When Yale University named the college in the 1930s it was judging Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century judging white supremacist Calhoun as a positive person in the history and worthy to be held up as an exemplar to persons. In short the college was named after Calhoun since this white supremacist figure of the early 19th century was judged by the early white supremacist 20th century to be a great person.
In the 21st century white supremacy has finally managed to be discredited enough at Yale University such that Yale no longer wants to judge Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century and instead judge him by standards of racial equality of whatever century.
The naming of buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. after pro-slavery or Confederate individuals is to racialize the landscape and define the American land as being the white territory of a white nation. With these names being challenged, it means that non-white people are having a say in authoring the landscape and deciding what buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. are named. It means that America is no longer guaranteed to be a white nation. This has resulted in a panic among many who wonder where will it all end, though not recognizing that they are having a white panic over the landscape.
As for racism or white nationalism we can't read minds. However, from a person's statements we can attempt to reason what might motivate these statements. In my opinion Rivera's statements are the logical result of white panic over a feared loss of an America understood to be a white nation. He very well might not have some reasoned through logic or really be conscious of what motivates his thinking, but his statements and resignation make sense as a manifestation of panicked white banal nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Of course Rivera I suppose can parade African Americans before the public as his friends and many African Americans probably can be found to declare he is not racist. I think some of this is possible because the public stereotype of racists are people wearing funny clothes and being belligerent and screaming white supremacist statements. The concept of banal white nationalism is largely unknown.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/13/geraldo-rivera-resigns-as-calhoun-associate-fellow/
http://www.newsweek.com/yale-calhoun-college-grace-hopper-556285?rx=us
Rivera tweeted:
"Been an honor but intolerant insistence on political correctness is lame."
https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/830819342531100674
In another tweet he said.
"To judge a 200 yr old early 19th century historic figure by standards of the 21st century as #Yale is doing is more Orwellian than inspired."
https://twitter.com/GeraldoRivera/status/831141630455455744
Let's unpack the meaning of these statements.
The first tweet means that an unreasonably narrow dogmatic view was applied in the renaming of Calhoun college. Though the term "political correctness" is somewhat meaningless.
It isn't as if Calhoun was a famous scientist, reformer, technologist or a person who contributed to the betterment of humanity, but he wrote one or two minor essays defending slavery or owned a few slaves. He was one of the leading defenders of slavery in the 19th century, if not the leading defender of slavery in the 19th century, and Calhoun is notable in history almost entirely for his defense of slavery and white supremacy.
The first tweet implies that rejecting a figure whose role in history was primarily, if not nearly entirely, to defend slavery and white supremacist is a concern only for those with narrow dogmatic unreasonable views such that they are "intolerant" and this concern is labeled as "political correctness." This I think says something how much Rivera values African Americans as human beings that he would see such a concern as "intolerant."
The second tweet labels the change as "Orwellian" which refers to how history was erased in George Orwell's novel, "1984."
Renaming John C. Calhoun College will not erase Calhoun from the history books. The historical record will still be there. Monuments and the naming of places after persons is to endorse them, but again the historical record of John C. Calhoun will exist as ever. The use of "Orwellian" would be consistent with a strategy to make a rejection of the name change sound like an educated high minded defense of history rather than panicked white nationalism. Rivera's criticism of the name change is bogus.
Rivera's comment about Calhoun being judged by 21st century standards fails in many ways.
It could be pointed out that Calhoun was negatively judged in the 19th and 20th century also, in particular by those who though African Americans had rights as human beings such as abolitionists and African Americans. Though these can be valid points they miss the primary point.
The primary point is that monuments are erected because a group of people have made a judgment about history or the present and want to communicate that judgment to the public to advance some set of ideas. When Yale University named the college in the 1930s it was judging Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century judging white supremacist Calhoun as a positive person in the history and worthy to be held up as an exemplar to persons. In short the college was named after Calhoun since this white supremacist figure of the early 19th century was judged by the early white supremacist 20th century to be a great person.
In the 21st century white supremacy has finally managed to be discredited enough at Yale University such that Yale no longer wants to judge Calhoun by the white supremacist standards of the early 20th century and instead judge him by standards of racial equality of whatever century.
The naming of buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. after pro-slavery or Confederate individuals is to racialize the landscape and define the American land as being the white territory of a white nation. With these names being challenged, it means that non-white people are having a say in authoring the landscape and deciding what buildings, streets, cities, parks, counties, etc. are named. It means that America is no longer guaranteed to be a white nation. This has resulted in a panic among many who wonder where will it all end, though not recognizing that they are having a white panic over the landscape.
As for racism or white nationalism we can't read minds. However, from a person's statements we can attempt to reason what might motivate these statements. In my opinion Rivera's statements are the logical result of white panic over a feared loss of an America understood to be a white nation. He very well might not have some reasoned through logic or really be conscious of what motivates his thinking, but his statements and resignation make sense as a manifestation of panicked white banal nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Of course Rivera I suppose can parade African Americans before the public as his friends and many African Americans probably can be found to declare he is not racist. I think some of this is possible because the public stereotype of racists are people wearing funny clothes and being belligerent and screaming white supremacist statements. The concept of banal white nationalism is largely unknown.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Who supports Robert E. Lee Park
It seems that the condominium associations of the buildings around Robert E. Lee Park are the donors to light up Arlington. The governing boards of these condominium decide to donate money and so the residents have culpability in supporting the normalization of Robert E. Lee.
On the sign you see The Claridge, 21 Turtle Creek, 3525 Turtle Creek, The Mayfair, The Vendome'. There is a caterer, Food Glorious Food. Also it seems the movie La La Land is a sponsor, on the basis that the font matches the ads for the movie.
Note the names James Berry, Janet and Erich Brehm, Ty Burks, Tammy Jo Covert, Kelly and Ryan Kirkham, Barbara Lake, Sonia Maeda, Barb and Bert Maguire.
Elites of Dallas support glorification and normalization of the Confederacy.
My essay on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Facebook event for Reject Racist Robert E. Lee
https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/
On the sign you see The Claridge, 21 Turtle Creek, 3525 Turtle Creek, The Mayfair, The Vendome'. There is a caterer, Food Glorious Food. Also it seems the movie La La Land is a sponsor, on the basis that the font matches the ads for the movie.
Note the names James Berry, Janet and Erich Brehm, Ty Burks, Tammy Jo Covert, Kelly and Ryan Kirkham, Barbara Lake, Sonia Maeda, Barb and Bert Maguire.
Elites of Dallas support glorification and normalization of the Confederacy.
My essay on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Facebook event for Reject Racist Robert E. Lee
https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Kevin Levin's "innocent" Civil War Round Tables. How he enables banal white nationalism
Kevin Levin has this recent posting on his blog.
http://cwmemory.com/2016/12/03/the-decline-of-civil-war-round-tables/
In discussing how the Civil War Round Table avoided the issues of race and gender he states:
"An innocence about the past that was nurtured and even protected at Civil War Round Tables has been irretrievably lost.
I am not sure that this is necessarily something that should be lamented."
Was it is an "innocence?" Did the Civil War Round Tables not know? Many scholars at the time when these Round Tables started were aware that the Civil War was about race and slavery.
The Civil War Round Tables were created by people who chose a "romance of reunion" interpretation of the Civil War and rejected the idea of the Civil War being about race and slavery and did consciously avoid the issues of race and gender. There was nothing "innocent" about it.
Note the term "lost" instead of "rejected." Then his half-hearted rejection of lamenting for this lost. He couches it in terms of "not sure"
What is really regrettable, is that Levin is an editor of a book on understanding Confederate monuments. This really is an indictment of the history profession that he would be selected as an editor of a publication by an academic society.
http://cwmemory.com/2016/12/01/aaslh-reconsiders-confederate-memorials-and-monuments/
A couple of use are going to periscope the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Texas on Dec. 31st. We will have our own interpretation. There is a wider academic world outside the Civil War history profession.
https://www.facebook.com/events/241643326251832/
Kevin Levin might consider that he and his colleagues might come to be thought of as the Eugene Genovese's of the future.
"Breitbart" and the Confederacy. They aren't the "Southern Partisan." They are banal white nationalists with a policy destructive to American nationalism. "Breitbart" reporting could be an aid to Russia
I had said earlier that Breitbart was a modern day Southern Partisan, They are not. After printing out maybe about 100 articles and scanning them and reading for the last few weeks closely what they say I am beginning to see what their strategy is.
The Breitbart view of the Confederacy will please and displease neo-Confederates.
On one hand Breitbart will publish articles like this.
For example this series about the Houston Independent School District in Texas getting rid of Confederate names for schools.
In this article Breitbart claims they are erasing history.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/03/22/more-texas-school-district-seek-to-erase-confederate-past/
This article says that taxpayers are complaining that changing the name is a waste of money. How many taxpayers isn't mentioned.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/03/changing-name-of-texas-school-will-cost-500k/
Again another article about irate taxpayers, which means that there are at least 2.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/08/11/taxpayers-slam-multi-million-dollar-plans-rename-houston-schools/
On the other hand Breitbart invokes the Confederacy to condemn Democrats and liberals.
In this article Ian Hanchett quotes Charles Krauthhammer saying that the supporters of Sanctuary cities, cities where the police don't go after immigrants, are using "the language of the Confederates."
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/05/krauthammer-sanctuary-cities-speaking-the-language-of-the-southern-segregationists/
Then there is this article in which the California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is condemned as neo-Confederate. As I blog earlier on, I didn't see exactly how Rendon was neo-Confederate and I am fairly good on determining neo-Confederacy.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/rendon-speech-neo-confederate-editorial/
Condemning a speaker, writer, author, columnist, politician, celebrity by claiming that they have some element or feature or similarity to the Confederacy is also a condemnation of the Confederacy. Denouncing some statement, policy, position paper, or resolution claiming that it has elements of the Confederacy is necessarily a condemnation of the Confederacy.
Saying that something is bad because is like or similar or derives from something else, necessarily means that the something else is bad.
More interesting is that Breitbart reporting implies neo-Confederate ideology is bad, since it condemns certain thinking as having Confederate affinities or components or elements.
However, if anyone tries to get rid of a Confederate monument or holiday or place name Breitbart is entirely against it. It might seem contradictory and a person might think that it is just that Breitbart has no coherent ideology and is just a maniacal rage machine. Just because it is a rage machine doesn't mean they are stupid or don't have a strategy.
Breitbart supports a banal white nationalist America. So for issues in the present it supports a strong national government in pursuit of its agenda.
However, in the past, all fighting white Americans are held to be heroic and pulling down one statue to one white American might lead to another statue of a white American being pulled down. The Civil War of Breitbart seems to be the Civil War of the 1950s or earlier, a "romance of reunion" Civil War, a white solidarity maintained by the idea that the Civil War was an avoidable mistake or was only about preserving the union, but wasn't about slavery or race, and in any case the Civil War demonstrated white bravery.
Breitbart's concept of patriotism, a white nationalism, is dangerous to the United States, since white nationalism can't be the basis of a strong American national identity in a multiracial America, and instead will work to undermine America.
And there are foreign powers which will be glad to exploit the situation. It has already become clear that Russia is aiding both left wing and right wing nationalist groups, both California and Texas secessionists. They are aiding both left wing and right wing groups in Europe also. Their policy is a pragmatic realpolitik to attack Western democracy and to undermine their geopolitical opponents.
They will be very quick to seize on strategies of exploiting racial nationalist groups. With their support of neo-Confederates and Texas secessionists already supporting white nationalists. The Russians must be reviewing what other racial nationalists that they can support.
National sentiment is always provisional. With a change in a situation individuals will reevaluate their national identity. This is demonstrated by the current secession movements where both left wing and right wing groups feel that they have no prospects of their agenda in the current political unit being successful.
If the Trump administration is dragging hundreds of thousands or even millions of Hispanics out of their homes and dumping them in Mexico where these individuals end up in camps where they are starving there is bound to be a Hispanic nationalist movement. The United States did steal the Southwest United States as President Ulysses S. Grant as explain in his memoir:
As the Trump administration undermines civil rights and voting rights and shows an indifference to cases where police officers shoot African Americans and the Trump administration expresses a hostility towards the Black Lives Matter movement surely some Black Nationalists will seek to capitalize on the situation.
In 2016 the situation regarding reckless and wrongful shooting of African Americans came dangerously close to getting out of control as some individual African Americans sought to take revenge by shooting police officers and some neo-Confederate groups sought to have counter protest at Blasck Lives Matter protests.
I think with Trump being elected we are likely to see right wing white groups show up with guns at Black Lives Matter protests. At Black Lives Matter protests there are already African American groups parading with guns. A few days ago a young person with guns fired shots in a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. because of some lunatic right wing news story that the Clinton's were using its back rooms for child sex slavery. These protests with white nationalists, black nationalists, and the Black Lives Matter protesters, some carrying guns, will be combustible.
All we need to have is two groups at a Black Lives Matter protest shooting at each other and the situation could spiral out of control. It might not even be that the two protesting groups set it off, a third party, a lone individual, might decided to shot one of the protesters to set things off.
In any deteriorating situation Black Nationalism will seek to capitalize on the situation.
Then there is the situation of native Americans. How well has the American nation treated these groups historically? Not very well. We still have Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Surely the Russians will find some opportunities.
All racial nationalisms share the same reactionary understanding of nationality. They only differ in which group they see themselves as advocating for. So it won't be that difficult for a white reactionary nationalist Russia to support minority nationalisms in America. They will find that in many ways they think very similarly.
Also, it should be understood to have your movement backed by a major world power gives it credibility. Also, a major world power has ways of impressing a separatist movement.
When visiting nationalists are hosted by important officials in prestigious buildings the visiting nationalists are certainly impressed and given confidence and faith in their movement. When the nationalist group sees their leader hosted by important officials in an impressive historic building they can't but imagine what they are doing is important since important people with real power see it as important. The photos of these meetings certainly will give the movement credibility.
Our nationalist elites still see separatism as amusing and a novelty and don't take it seriously. This is because they are in many ways vacuous and an intellectually inbred set of people.
It is time for the government to wake up and start counter measures against separatism. As I stated earlier it needs to be NOT oppressive, but a strategy informed by a critical understanding of the theory of nationalism.
Also, government actions and policy needs to be reviewed such that nationalists are not encouraged. This is not to say avoid certain policies because you are afraid to aggravate some separatist nationalist direction, but to make sure that some policy doesn't needlessly enable separatist nationalism when it could easily have been avoided.
I suggest Michael Billig's "Banal Nationalism," and Donald Mitchell's "Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction." These books are available on the used market. They are not big books, and reading the both of them will give a fairly comprehensive view of the topic and provide most what a an anti-separatist program needs to know.
My paper on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
The Breitbart view of the Confederacy will please and displease neo-Confederates.
On one hand Breitbart will publish articles like this.
For example this series about the Houston Independent School District in Texas getting rid of Confederate names for schools.
In this article Breitbart claims they are erasing history.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/03/22/more-texas-school-district-seek-to-erase-confederate-past/
This article says that taxpayers are complaining that changing the name is a waste of money. How many taxpayers isn't mentioned.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/03/changing-name-of-texas-school-will-cost-500k/
Again another article about irate taxpayers, which means that there are at least 2.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/08/11/taxpayers-slam-multi-million-dollar-plans-rename-houston-schools/
On the other hand Breitbart invokes the Confederacy to condemn Democrats and liberals.
In this article Ian Hanchett quotes Charles Krauthhammer saying that the supporters of Sanctuary cities, cities where the police don't go after immigrants, are using "the language of the Confederates."
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/05/krauthammer-sanctuary-cities-speaking-the-language-of-the-southern-segregationists/
Then there is this article in which the California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is condemned as neo-Confederate. As I blog earlier on, I didn't see exactly how Rendon was neo-Confederate and I am fairly good on determining neo-Confederacy.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/rendon-speech-neo-confederate-editorial/
Condemning a speaker, writer, author, columnist, politician, celebrity by claiming that they have some element or feature or similarity to the Confederacy is also a condemnation of the Confederacy. Denouncing some statement, policy, position paper, or resolution claiming that it has elements of the Confederacy is necessarily a condemnation of the Confederacy.
Saying that something is bad because is like or similar or derives from something else, necessarily means that the something else is bad.
More interesting is that Breitbart reporting implies neo-Confederate ideology is bad, since it condemns certain thinking as having Confederate affinities or components or elements.
However, if anyone tries to get rid of a Confederate monument or holiday or place name Breitbart is entirely against it. It might seem contradictory and a person might think that it is just that Breitbart has no coherent ideology and is just a maniacal rage machine. Just because it is a rage machine doesn't mean they are stupid or don't have a strategy.
Breitbart supports a banal white nationalist America. So for issues in the present it supports a strong national government in pursuit of its agenda.
However, in the past, all fighting white Americans are held to be heroic and pulling down one statue to one white American might lead to another statue of a white American being pulled down. The Civil War of Breitbart seems to be the Civil War of the 1950s or earlier, a "romance of reunion" Civil War, a white solidarity maintained by the idea that the Civil War was an avoidable mistake or was only about preserving the union, but wasn't about slavery or race, and in any case the Civil War demonstrated white bravery.
Breitbart's concept of patriotism, a white nationalism, is dangerous to the United States, since white nationalism can't be the basis of a strong American national identity in a multiracial America, and instead will work to undermine America.
And there are foreign powers which will be glad to exploit the situation. It has already become clear that Russia is aiding both left wing and right wing nationalist groups, both California and Texas secessionists. They are aiding both left wing and right wing groups in Europe also. Their policy is a pragmatic realpolitik to attack Western democracy and to undermine their geopolitical opponents.
They will be very quick to seize on strategies of exploiting racial nationalist groups. With their support of neo-Confederates and Texas secessionists already supporting white nationalists. The Russians must be reviewing what other racial nationalists that they can support.
National sentiment is always provisional. With a change in a situation individuals will reevaluate their national identity. This is demonstrated by the current secession movements where both left wing and right wing groups feel that they have no prospects of their agenda in the current political unit being successful.
If the Trump administration is dragging hundreds of thousands or even millions of Hispanics out of their homes and dumping them in Mexico where these individuals end up in camps where they are starving there is bound to be a Hispanic nationalist movement. The United States did steal the Southwest United States as President Ulysses S. Grant as explain in his memoir:
"I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."Surely some Hispanic nationalist will want to quote this.
As the Trump administration undermines civil rights and voting rights and shows an indifference to cases where police officers shoot African Americans and the Trump administration expresses a hostility towards the Black Lives Matter movement surely some Black Nationalists will seek to capitalize on the situation.
In 2016 the situation regarding reckless and wrongful shooting of African Americans came dangerously close to getting out of control as some individual African Americans sought to take revenge by shooting police officers and some neo-Confederate groups sought to have counter protest at Blasck Lives Matter protests.
I think with Trump being elected we are likely to see right wing white groups show up with guns at Black Lives Matter protests. At Black Lives Matter protests there are already African American groups parading with guns. A few days ago a young person with guns fired shots in a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. because of some lunatic right wing news story that the Clinton's were using its back rooms for child sex slavery. These protests with white nationalists, black nationalists, and the Black Lives Matter protesters, some carrying guns, will be combustible.
All we need to have is two groups at a Black Lives Matter protest shooting at each other and the situation could spiral out of control. It might not even be that the two protesting groups set it off, a third party, a lone individual, might decided to shot one of the protesters to set things off.
In any deteriorating situation Black Nationalism will seek to capitalize on the situation.
Then there is the situation of native Americans. How well has the American nation treated these groups historically? Not very well. We still have Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Surely the Russians will find some opportunities.
All racial nationalisms share the same reactionary understanding of nationality. They only differ in which group they see themselves as advocating for. So it won't be that difficult for a white reactionary nationalist Russia to support minority nationalisms in America. They will find that in many ways they think very similarly.
Also, it should be understood to have your movement backed by a major world power gives it credibility. Also, a major world power has ways of impressing a separatist movement.
When visiting nationalists are hosted by important officials in prestigious buildings the visiting nationalists are certainly impressed and given confidence and faith in their movement. When the nationalist group sees their leader hosted by important officials in an impressive historic building they can't but imagine what they are doing is important since important people with real power see it as important. The photos of these meetings certainly will give the movement credibility.
Our nationalist elites still see separatism as amusing and a novelty and don't take it seriously. This is because they are in many ways vacuous and an intellectually inbred set of people.
It is time for the government to wake up and start counter measures against separatism. As I stated earlier it needs to be NOT oppressive, but a strategy informed by a critical understanding of the theory of nationalism.
Also, government actions and policy needs to be reviewed such that nationalists are not encouraged. This is not to say avoid certain policies because you are afraid to aggravate some separatist nationalist direction, but to make sure that some policy doesn't needlessly enable separatist nationalism when it could easily have been avoided.
I suggest Michael Billig's "Banal Nationalism," and Donald Mitchell's "Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction." These books are available on the used market. They are not big books, and reading the both of them will give a fairly comprehensive view of the topic and provide most what a an anti-separatist program needs to know.
My paper on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Quoted in article "In the Age of Trump White Millennials Shatter Idea That Young People Are Progressive," in the "Atlanta Black Star."
I learned a lot from the article. Things which I didn't know.
Also, there is a video about Matthew Heimbach and his White Student Union at Towson College in Maryland.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/10/15/the-age-of-trump-white-supremacist-millennials-shatter-the-idea-that-young-people-are-progressive/
Also, there is a video about Matthew Heimbach and his White Student Union at Towson College in Maryland.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/10/15/the-age-of-trump-white-supremacist-millennials-shatter-the-idea-that-young-people-are-progressive/
I am quoted extensively and able to introduce the concept of banal white nationalism.
Trump and Southern Nationalism
This is an article at "Vox" an online publication which focuses on current affairs.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety
What the article points out is that Donald Trump supporters aren't the economically "wretched of the earth," and journalists don't really listen to what Trump supporters are saying because they have stereotypes of who white nationalists are. They expect to find white people who are poor, often wretchedly so, who are racists or white nationalists. However, white Trump supporters make more money than white Hillary Clinton supporters.
The article points out that Trump is the leader of white nationalism.
Also, the article dismisses various liberal/left ideas that the rise of white nationalism is due to the failing of the modern state to care for people. The article points out that nationalism is thriving in places with quite supportive welfare systems such as Belgian, France, Sweden, etc.
The article points out that it needs to be recognized that what is propelling Trump is white nationalism.
I am glad to see that people are beginning to recognize that not all white nationalists fit the popular stereotype and that various simplistic ideas about white nationalism and its causes are being rejected.
These developments might mean the end of Southern nationalism though. Trump support is national and an arising white nationalist movement is likely to be national. It is likely to be a movement with a lot more resources, influence and opportunities and be chosen by white nationalists, including white nationalists in the South, over nationalism that seeks as its objectives an independent Wyoming or Arkansas.
A national white nationalist movement will likely incorporate Confederate symbols and venerate the Confederacy. They won't, however, work to break up the United States of America, they will work to transform it into the Confederate States of America but not necessarily recognizing that their objectives are essentially in pursuit of neo-Confederate values.
So neo-Confederacy will continue, it might be a big part of a national white nationalist movement.
My paper on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
I am working on the proofing copy of "Pernicious: The Neo-Confederate Campaign Against Social Justice in America," and hopefully this weekend I will have it corrected and available in hard copy. I will also update the Kindle copy.
Then back to working on the Texas secessionists movement for my next book.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety
What the article points out is that Donald Trump supporters aren't the economically "wretched of the earth," and journalists don't really listen to what Trump supporters are saying because they have stereotypes of who white nationalists are. They expect to find white people who are poor, often wretchedly so, who are racists or white nationalists. However, white Trump supporters make more money than white Hillary Clinton supporters.
The article points out that Trump is the leader of white nationalism.
Also, the article dismisses various liberal/left ideas that the rise of white nationalism is due to the failing of the modern state to care for people. The article points out that nationalism is thriving in places with quite supportive welfare systems such as Belgian, France, Sweden, etc.
The article points out that it needs to be recognized that what is propelling Trump is white nationalism.
I am glad to see that people are beginning to recognize that not all white nationalists fit the popular stereotype and that various simplistic ideas about white nationalism and its causes are being rejected.
These developments might mean the end of Southern nationalism though. Trump support is national and an arising white nationalist movement is likely to be national. It is likely to be a movement with a lot more resources, influence and opportunities and be chosen by white nationalists, including white nationalists in the South, over nationalism that seeks as its objectives an independent Wyoming or Arkansas.
A national white nationalist movement will likely incorporate Confederate symbols and venerate the Confederacy. They won't, however, work to break up the United States of America, they will work to transform it into the Confederate States of America but not necessarily recognizing that their objectives are essentially in pursuit of neo-Confederate values.
So neo-Confederacy will continue, it might be a big part of a national white nationalist movement.
My paper on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
I am working on the proofing copy of "Pernicious: The Neo-Confederate Campaign Against Social Justice in America," and hopefully this weekend I will have it corrected and available in hard copy. I will also update the Kindle copy.
Then back to working on the Texas secessionists movement for my next book.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Denied it was racially motivated
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-florida-confederate-flag-lying-guilty-20151223-story.html
A person working at the Army Corps of Engineers who had had loud confrontations with an African American co-worker decided after the massacre in Charleston to print out a Confederate flag from a computer and secretly place it on the co-worker's desk.
There was investigation and the person putting the flag on the desk lied to a federal officer and as a consequence was convicted of this lying and has been sent to jail. What is interesting about this story is:
This person might sincerely think that they are not racist because the person doesn't wear funny clothes or use racial slurs narrowly defining a racist to only those who are belligerent.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
The neo-Confederates are always denying being racist. Even when they are caught out, they have sort a strategy that could be summed up as "I was racist 15 minutes ago, but now I am not."
In this article the Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania is claiming that they are not a racist organization.
http://timesleader.com/news/489335/ku-klux-klan-recruiting-in-northeast-pennsylvania-for-a-new-era
Richard Quinn, editor for nearly two decades of the Southern Partisan, when he was running Lindsey Graham's campaign claimed that he had changed.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/longtime-lindsey-graham-advisor-ripped-mlk-as-editor-of-neo-confederate-magazine/
Neo-Confederates will continue to assert they aren't racist and I suppose that will provide an excuse for those who really don't care about the issue of racism to accept these groups as legitimate.
A person working at the Army Corps of Engineers who had had loud confrontations with an African American co-worker decided after the massacre in Charleston to print out a Confederate flag from a computer and secretly place it on the co-worker's desk.
There was investigation and the person putting the flag on the desk lied to a federal officer and as a consequence was convicted of this lying and has been sent to jail. What is interesting about this story is:
Thompson eventually confirmed she had been angry with the person but denied it was racially motivated.Since we don't have instruments to read people's minds we can't refute this with any concrete evidence. However, I think you would have to be an idiot to believe this person's claims that there wasn't racial motivation.
This person might sincerely think that they are not racist because the person doesn't wear funny clothes or use racial slurs narrowly defining a racist to only those who are belligerent.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
The neo-Confederates are always denying being racist. Even when they are caught out, they have sort a strategy that could be summed up as "I was racist 15 minutes ago, but now I am not."
In this article the Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania is claiming that they are not a racist organization.
http://timesleader.com/news/489335/ku-klux-klan-recruiting-in-northeast-pennsylvania-for-a-new-era
Richard Quinn, editor for nearly two decades of the Southern Partisan, when he was running Lindsey Graham's campaign claimed that he had changed.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/longtime-lindsey-graham-advisor-ripped-mlk-as-editor-of-neo-confederate-magazine/
Neo-Confederates will continue to assert they aren't racist and I suppose that will provide an excuse for those who really don't care about the issue of racism to accept these groups as legitimate.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Politico article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the neo-Confederate movement. SCV racial attitudes made very clear. UPDATE: League of the South blog loses its mind over article. UPDATE2: Free Republic response to article
An article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the neo-Confederate movement by Euan Hague with my assistance has been published at Politico. It is a two page article, don't miss the 2nd section.
The link is:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/civil-war-american-south-still-loves-confederacy-116771.html#.VSW0M_nF8Y0
Some extracts from the article:
The link is:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/civil-war-american-south-still-loves-confederacy-116771.html#.VSW0M_nF8Y0
People reading the article will realize what SCV "heritage" is really about.
Some extracts from the article:
Some of the SCV’s most troubling viewpoints are expressed in forums and publications intended for an internal audience, such as Southern Mercury magazine. In these venues, authors such as Frank Conner argue that 19th century African-Americans were a “childlike people” whose inferior IQs were deliberately hidden by liberal academics. In turn, Michael W. Masters, who in the 1990s contributed to the white supremacist American Renaissance and was a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, found a new audience for his assessments in SCV venues. In one piece from 2006 Masters argues that the very basis of Western civilization is under attack by proponents of “multiculturalism” and the “tolerance of diversity” who work to engineer “envy and hatred of white people, reverse racism through affirmative action and race-based entitlements…, [and] an uncontrolled flood of culturally alien Third World immigrants.”
And:
In more public venues, the SCV’s dog-whistle politics come into play. Casting an eye over recent events in Ferguson and elsewhere, although never explicitly stating this, SCV deputy commander-in-chief Thomas V. Strain Jr. recently decried the “young men with no guidance attacking law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers,” officers who, when they “remedy the situation and protect the innocent … are called murderers.” The lineage of today’s events, he lamented, goes back to Reconstruction (1865-1877), a period when “our ancestors … were stripped of their arms, their voting rights, their means of supporting themselves—and in many cases their very homes” as the “central government… create[d] a form of dependency–in return for votes.”What the neo-Confederate movement and the SCV is all about is made very clear in this article.
I plan on printing out copies to send to churches that might be considering hosting the SCV.
UPDATE:
The League of the South blog has been so upset that they did the following blog posting.
http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-confederacy-lives.html
The author of the blog posting is so upset that he can't see straight.
For starters Heidi Beirich was not involved in writing the article. Euan Hague wrote it and I helped with research for the article. Beirich is one of the three co-editors of a book about neo-Confederates. However, the article upsets the blog poster so much that he can't read by byline properly.
Regarding Ferguson, the posting at the Rebellion blog selectively quotes the article. What is missing is this from the article:
As the article states:
The Politico article is a good concise article about what neo-Confederacy is all about, that is why neo-Confederates, at least one, is so upset he can't read properly a byline.
UPDATE2:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3277992/posts
Some of the posters at the forum do say that the Civil War is about slavery and reject emphatically the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War. Others buy into one neo-Confederate idea or another.
What is interesting is that these conservatives who think they are so much more patriotic than others, aren't so patriotic when it comes to white supremacy, or the question might be raised to what are these Free Republic people patriotic to?
This is an essay on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
UPDATE:
The League of the South blog has been so upset that they did the following blog posting.
http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-confederacy-lives.html
The author of the blog posting is so upset that he can't see straight.
For starters Heidi Beirich was not involved in writing the article. Euan Hague wrote it and I helped with research for the article. Beirich is one of the three co-editors of a book about neo-Confederates. However, the article upsets the blog poster so much that he can't read by byline properly.
Regarding Ferguson, the posting at the Rebellion blog selectively quotes the article. What is missing is this from the article:
The lineage of today’s events, he lamented, goes back to Reconstruction (1865-1877), a period when “our ancestors … were stripped of their arms, their voting rights, their means of supporting themselves—and in many cases their very homes” as the “central government… create[d] a form of dependency–in return for votes.”There have been a lot of commentators regarding Ferguson, but probably only neo-Confederates relate Ferguson back to Reconstruction. The whole point of the article is how the SCV uses historical memory to support its world view and how the SCV isn't just a historical remembrance organization.
As the article states:
In this way, the Confederate “heritage” movement has gone way beyond tending graves and cutting grass at Confederate cemeteries or reenacting battles. Indeed, the idea that groups like the SCV represent Confederate “heritage” is a misnomer: They are political organizations that aggressively promote their versions of the Confederacy behind a veneer of benign ancestral reverence. In 2015, the Confederate flag comes with a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-federal politics, a politics that reverberates through social media, talk radio, and niche publishers.There are a log of political organizations with viewpoints regarding Ferguson, the SCV is one of them, not just a "heritage" group.
The Politico article is a good concise article about what neo-Confederacy is all about, that is why neo-Confederates, at least one, is so upset he can't read properly a byline.
UPDATE2:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3277992/posts
Some of the posters at the forum do say that the Civil War is about slavery and reject emphatically the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War. Others buy into one neo-Confederate idea or another.
What is interesting is that these conservatives who think they are so much more patriotic than others, aren't so patriotic when it comes to white supremacy, or the question might be raised to what are these Free Republic people patriotic to?
This is an essay on banal white nationalism.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Monday, April 06, 2015
New Republic article asks to celebrate Appomattox and reject the Lost Cause UPDATE: Brian Beutler has follow up article
The New Republic article by Brian Beutler is online and available at this link:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121406/civil-war-150th-anniversary-confederacy-defeat-should-be-holiday
It is a total rejection of the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War and the Confederacy and rejects totally accommodation with the Lost Cause.
Some quotes:
People of good faith can argue over whether these kinds of symbolic concessions (as opposed to the concrete ones, which consigned emancipated slaves to a century of sanctioned depredations) were wise or necessary means to the end of preserving the Union. Some of them weren't concessions at all, so much as insufficient commitment on the part of Northerners to the livelihood of blacks in the South. "[A]s Northern Republican Party became more conservative," historian Eric Foner wrote recently, "Reconstruction came to be seen as a misguided attempt to uplift the lower classes of society." But 150 years on, we know that subjugation is a moral obscenity, and that there's no valid modern argument for spitshining the Confederacy.And:
By contrast, the Union’s victory, and the abolition of slavery, both merit celebration as exemplars of American improvement and renewal, even if many Unionists weren’t moral heroes. These twin accomplishments are as worthy of a federal holiday as any holiday we already celebrate. So let's name April 9 New Birth of Freedom Day. And if that creates too much paid leave for government workers, we could swap out Columbus Day. We don't yet live in the America Obama described, but we should strive to.Brian Beutler is a Senior Editor of New Republic, it seems that the New Republic is taking a hardline against the Lost Cause.
In a better America, we’d all have Thursday off. And there would be fireworks.
UPDATE: This is a follow up article that Brian Beutler did in response to some of the res
ponse to his article.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121477/civil-war-150th-anniversary-southerners-should-celebrate-union
Kevin Levin has a blog complaining about Brian Beutler also. I think when push comes to shove we find out who Levin really is.
http://cwmemory.com/2015/04/07/why-confederate-defeat-does-need-to-be-a-national-holiday/
As usual Levin doesn't address the points raised the article he doesn't like, but instead disparages the author and Levin is his usual condescending self. Levin wants the reader to know that Beutler isn't likely to be a member of the League of Distinguished Civil War historians like himself.
I have always asserted that by pressing on this issue about celebrating the Confederacy you would be able to reveal who people really are as opposed to whom they think they are or might profess themselves to be.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
