Friday, September 19, 2014

Island of Great Britain will not have a boundary and will remain unbound

The island of Great Britain will not getting a boundary any time soon and will remain unbound. The world will avoid having an additional boundary.

The Scottish referendum for secession went down to defeat by about 55% to 45%, a substantial margin.

Those who love division and divisiveness, the neo-Confederates, were hoping to see Scottish secession succeed to give their own campaign for secession credibility.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) can't be considered entirely defeated. They are getting more devolved powers from the central government. Also, other regions of England have decided they would like some devolved powers also. However, this might strengthen the British union by providing some local flexibility allowing the ending of discontents.

It will be interesting to see what the impact on Scottish politics is. The "No" voters now see themselves as a majority and probably are a little tired of the whole Scottish independence movement. Alex Salmond said this in response to the results: 
Earlier, Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, struck a defiant note at a downbeat Scottish National party rally in Edinburgh, saying he accepted Scotland had not "at this stage" decided to vote for independence.
The "No" voters might not want to deal with any more "stages." They might want to have a majority in the Scottish parliament and push the SNP aside. People probably will realize that if you play with matches you might start a fire.

The neo-Confederates will have to go back to hoping for some catastrophe to discredit modern society and provide the disorder where they would hope to get power.

Prior blog on this:

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/09/scottish-secession.html#.VBwQmfldWSo


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Scottish Secession Update1: Update 2: Secession vote lost.

Update 2: Scottish secession lost in the polls. 55.3% No (Against) to 44.7% Yes (For). Wasn't close.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full

The neo-Confederates are deriving great hopes out of the increasing chances that Scotland will vote for secession in the Thursday Sept. 18, 2014 referendum that is coming up.

Also, I am getting a great many questions about it. Do I think Scotland will vote for secession, should Scotland secede, what will be the impact on the neo-Confederate movement?

I am not closely watching the Scottish secession campaign and the arguments. However, I have the following thoughts.

1. Will Scotland vote for secession?

I don't know. The polls show that the support for secession has been steadily increasing to the point it is now called a statistical tie between the pro- and anti-secession forces and there is some thought that this represents a continuing trend to a more pro-secession sentiment.

However, it isn't known if some people might say one thing to a pollster and vote differently in the voting booth.

The reporting that I have read says that the issues discussed have been around the economics of secession. These issues are important, but I think in the end you have a national identify beyond these issues. People die for their country and volunteer for military services for something more than economics or a discount at the mall.

The possibility has been steadily increasing. I don't think we will know until Sept. 18th.

2. Should Scotland secede?

I am surprised that the referendum is a simple majority. I would think that you wouldn't want to secede because at a specific time passions were running high over some issue and secession passed based on 50.0001%.  The American Constitution is amended by 2/3'rd vote of each congressional house and 3/4th ratification of the states.

However, it is their business how they do it.

Also, it is their business whether they want to do it or not.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a small country. I like taking road trips and driving thousands of miles and know that I will not be faced with any boundaries. I like a large job market and a vast nation with vast opportunities. But that is just me. I suppose those in the Vatican love the small size of their country.

3. What would Scottish Independence be?

However, it needs to be considered that Scottish independence is not going to be entirely independent. They are planning to join the European Union and then instead of being part of a government in London they will be part of an administration in Brussels.

The reason all these independence movements are thriving in Europe is that with the European Union (EU) you really don't need to be a part of larger European state. A EU citizen from Spain can easily get a job in Germany or move to England. You are part of a large continental economic system. You don't have to worry about being trapped in some small national economy.

In other ways the world's economy has become transnational. With the World Trade Organization and other economic groups regulations are defined by transnational bodies more and more and not by the specific state some region might find itself in.

In such a Europe and such a world the nation state becomes less relevant. If you want a free Ruritania I suppose you can.

The surge of secession sentiment in Europe is driven by transnational institutions as much as any local feeling. If you have a transnational defense force and a transnational state like the European Union the need for the current national government isn't that great if at all needed.

Of course as a small nation you don't have much of a prospect if you decide you want to leave a transnational state since you are no longer part of a state with a sufficient size to be independent of the transnational state.

4. Will Scottish secession lead to violence?

With independence people have to make a decision whether they are British citizens or Scottish citizens. With no national boundary existing in living memory there are probably a lot of people living in Scotland who will choose being British rather than Scottish.

I suppose that it will occur to someone to require Scottish citizenship for a lot of Scottish government jobs leading to people losing their jobs. Maybe there will be other discriminatory legislation.

What will be the condition of people living there who chose to remain British and can't vote and are suddenly foreigners?

How will the 45% that voted against secession feel suddenly being forced out of a nation they wanted to remain in?

How magnanimous will be the victors in a pro-secessionist vote?

What happens if the negotiations over the breakup are rancorous?

Given the nature of humanity to do the wrong thing and be obnoxious we can't dismiss the prospect that there will be some violence.

There might not be violence, but British residents might find a discriminatory atmosphere such as their children being taunted at school. There might be an large exodus from Scotland.

5. How will Scotland treat secession in Scotland?

When the issue of Quebec secession came up some Native Canadian groups said unequivocally that they weren't going to be a part of Quebec and would stay with Canada.

Some parts of Scotland might vote against secession, would they have to go along? Especially sections on the border with England would they have to go along with secession?

My feeling is that the leaders of Scottish independence aren't going to tolerate secession from Scotland.

6. Impact of Scottish secession in the United States of America:

A successful Scottish campaign will be a tremendous moral boost to the neo-Confederate movement, a radicalizing influence, and will greatly aid the neo-Confederate movement.

If someone had proposed that Scotland would be an independent nation in the 60s, 70s, 80s, it would have seemed laughable. The previous implausibility of Scottish secession will be a great encouragement for American secessionists to continue trying. The Scottish Nationalist Party got single digits in the polls when they started. Now it is a real possibility.

So the poor current prospects of any secessionist movement will suddenly be much much less of a discouragement. It might be that support is just a single digit, but so was the SNP's when it started. You just need to keep pushing and not give up.

It will be much easier to imagine being successful with the example of a successful independence movement whose initial prospects seemed ludicrously improbable.

The Union of Scotland and England happened 307 years ago. It predates the American republic. Just because a nation has existed for a long time will no longer mean it necessarily will persist in the future. What might have seemed eternal might prove to be transitory.  The American Civil War is about 150 years ago.

Czechoslovakia was independent nation between World War I and II and now is two nations. We don't think of Czechoslovakia much and Eastern Europe always seems to be being shuffled into new states with new boundaries. Scotland occupies a large place in the American imagination. It is an English speaking nation with a large number of descendants in the United States. It is not some distant third world nation. It occupies a large presence in English language literature. We imagine them as being similar to us. The American public will think about what happened in Scotland.

Samuel Francis, a strong supporter of honoring the Confederacy had a position that secession was "infantile" because he thought it was improbable. There are neo-Confederates like him who though they would have liked to see an independent Confederacy, thought it was romantic sentiment unrestrained by common sense. Now with Scottish secession I think neo-Confederates who thought secession as being a sentiment unrestrained by reason will re-think their position.

Also, for those who haven't considered the neo-Confederate movement  but identify with the Confederacy or are Lost Cause enthusiasts but reject secession as a widely improbable prospect, Scottish independence will result in them giving it some consideration for the same reasons it will encourage the people who currently are neo-Confederate secessionists.

Persons commenting on Scottish secession have noted that Scottish secession has gained support as a means to a political end, a liberal Scotland wishing to separate from a more conservative Britain. If you can't win the election, define a district where you can win the elections.

A lot of people living in the former Confederate states formerly without much interest in the Confederacy might get interested because of their discontent with national policies.

The example that this might happen is already shown by rural counties in Colorado and California who are advocating secession because they can't get their way. Their secession demand is based on no more than the idea that they don't like not getting their way and that somehow their votes ought to count more than the votes of others.

As I said before the secession movements in Scotland and Quebec started out in single digits. In the 1990s John Shelton Reed's opinion polls showed 15% support in the former Confederate states for secession, though it has to be remembered that he was one of the founders of the neo-Confederate movements so the poll is somewhat suspect to me.

However, recent polls have found surprisingly high identifications with the Confederacy. A recent Public Policy Poll survey found that 29% of Mississippians would back the Confederacy in another Civil War and 21% weren't sure. Those poll results are way better than the initial poll results of most independent movements.

With Scottish independence it can easily be imagined that what might have been merely wistful thinking will become a serious contemplation of possibility.

Also, with a referendum in Scotland on independence being held, the whole idea of having a referendum on secession will not be such a fringe idea. A state, possibly Mississippi could have a referendum on secession. They might not be able to implement the results if the vote is for secession passes, but that isn't so important. Once a secession referendum passes, the national government would lose legitimacy and that would start a series of causes and effects leading on to conflict.

As for the ability of our military and police to stop secessionists the recent events at the Clive Bundy ranch show how the government might not act against clearly illegal acts by secessionists. Clive Bunday was renting land and just decided it was his on the basis of some specious reasoning and decided not to pay his rent and got away having an armed insurrection against the authorities. The insurrectionists even set up road blocks on public roads resulting in complaints by people living in the area.

Follow up blog on this:

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/09/island-of-great-britain-will-not-have.html#.VBwQaPldWSo

Update:

Was interviewed for this article on Scottish secession.

http://www.annistonstar.com/news/article_8afe40f2-3bd1-11e4-b833-6f8c8335ebd3.html



Tuesday, September 09, 2014

"The Economist" says that the author of the pro-slavery review wasn't Alan Farmer. UPDATE:

The Economist contacted me and said Alan Farmer wasn't the author of the review.

I replied to the email asking them to tell me who the author was. If they wouldn't tell me I asked them  to forward a message from me asking the author to publicly admit to the review. We will see.

I also informed them about the neo-Confederate movement and their pro-slavery viewpoint.

I also mentioned three other possible authors.

UPDATE: I am still trying to identify the author. I would be interested in any suggestions. 

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Possible clue to who "The Economist" review was. UPDATE: "The Economist" says it isn't Alan Farmer.

UPDATE: The Economist contacted me and said Alan Farmer wasn't the author of the review.

If you go to this website you will find the following PDF.

https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/getattachment/Subjects/History/Series-pages/Access-to-History/Series-Boxes/Sample-Chapters/Sample-Chapters/United-States-Civil-War-causes,-course-and-effects.pdf.aspx
Floggings were rare, if only because slave owners had a vested interest in
the care and maintenance of their property. Just as most Rolls-Royce
owners today take good care of their cars, so slave owners looked after
their ‘property’. (A prime field hand was worth much the same as a
modern-day top-of-the-range car.)
The author of this chapter argues that the experience of slavery varied a lot and is in keeping with the reviewers opinion.

This "sample chapter" is from a history series they publish titled "
That is the link on the following pages.

 https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/accesstohistory/samplechapters

The author seems to be Alan Farmer according to this link.

http://www.amazon.com/History-American-Courses-Consequences-1803-1877/dp/0340965878/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410138940&sr=1-3

He quotes Fogel and Engerman as if they were competent historians. 

I don't know if it is Alan Farmer who wrote The Economist review but they seem to have the same views on slavery.. He could just be another slavery apologist. Perhaps the educational and historical establishment in Britain is full of them.

I was able to identify Farmer with key phrases from The Economist review using Google.

Farmer is retired and so I am trying to locate a contact email.



Update: Have copy of review. "The Economist" pulls pro-slavery review of book, trying to track down copy of review and track down who wrote review.

UPDATE: I have figured out that the link has the full review and it isn't just an excerpt.


DOES ANYONE HAVE A COPY OF THE PULLED PRO-SLAVERY REVIEW THAT APPEARED IN THE ECONOMIST?

http://www.economist.com/news/books/21615864-how-slaves-built-american-capitalism-blood-cotton

The Economist pulled the review before I could get a copy. However, if I had copy of the review I could do some forensic analysis of the text and see who might have written it.

Yes, I know that The Economist reviews have no byline. Let's move past that. It doesn't mean that with the text I can't identify who wrote it or find out by other means.

Also, does anyone know through other means who might have written it? 

I have emailed Dr. Baptist to see if he has a copy. At least one other writer for The Economist has been named as a possible author. 

Could someone at The Economist tell me by email? 

From what is available online I can start doing some investigation now. However, the full text would really be useful. 




Sunday, August 31, 2014

Asked Tim Donnelly to disavow his support for the Confederate flag.

I have finished with some other research business and I am starting to follow up with contacting people in California. I would like to see State Senator Stephen Knight be not re-elected if he doesn't disavow his vote for the Confederate flag. I am letting various people in California know about the neo-Confederate movement.

Tim Donnelly is a member of the California State Assembly. He was the lone vote in defense of the Confederate flag in a recent vote in the California State Assembly.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-confederate-flag-bill-20140820-story.html

He came in third in the recent Republican primary for governor.

I have asked Mr. Donnelly to reconsider his vote for the Confederate flag. I sent him the following email to his campaign website:

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

I learn with regret that you were the lone vote for the Confederate flag in the California Assembly. When I was young the Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln and not Jefferson Davis.

I am an investigative academic researcher into the neo-Confederate movement. I am published by peer reviewed academic journals and university presses. My resume is online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm.

People coming up with rationalizations for neo-Confederacy enable that movement.  At my online resume I think you will find material which will show why the neo-Confederate movement should not be enabled. Additionally there are free guest links to the my articles  and essays and reports at “Black Commentator” which I think you will find informative.

I ask you to disavow your vote in the Assembly regarding the ban on the Confederate flag.

A person who enables the neo-Confederate movement should not hold any office of public trust.

I hope that you will consider this.

Regards,

Edward H. Sebesta

Co-editor of “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction,” Univ. of Texas Press, 2008 (http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html), and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The ‘Great Truth’ About the ‘Lost Cause’” Univ. Press of Mississippi 2010. (http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1338).  Author of chapter about the Civil War and Reconstruction in the notorious Texas teaching standards in Politics and the History Curriculum: The Struggle over Standards in Texas and the Nation, published by Palgrave Macmillan.  http://www.keitherekson.com/books/politics-and-the-history-curriculum/

John McKee Barr starts tearing apart Abbeville Institute Donald W. Livingston's "Confederate Emancipation" essay in the "Confederate Veterans"

John McKee Barr is reading and reviewing Donald W. Livingston's essay "Confederate Emancipation" which was published in the July/August 2014 Confederate Veteran.

http://loathinglincoln.com/confederate-emancipation-part-i/

Barr seeks not just to refute the historical argument but show the tactics of neo-Confederate argumentation. How they have serious errors in logical thinking, obscure the historical record, and are self-deluding.

The reader of John McKee Barr's series will not just learn that Livingston's essay misrepresents history, the reader will learn that Livingston's ideology prevents him from doing historical scholarship.


Saturday, August 30, 2014

No posting on the Ice Bucket challenge with the Confederate flag and the head on fire.

Yes, I saw the ice bucket challenge that was done with a Confederate flag and in which the hair was set on fire. It was all over the internet. I saw it once, I don't want to see it again. I am not going to include a link to it. I am not going to have it on this blog.

I have some problems with it.

1. It sounds like the person who was doing the challenge was seriously hurt. I don't find that funny or entertaining.

2. I question whether this video was what it seemed. If it was a sincere ice bucket attempt, why would you put it on the internet when it was clearly a failure?  Why would you go to the effort to upload it?

I suspect, but I can't prove it, that perhaps the video was a staged to make fun of a stereotype.

It seems that the public has a certain stereotype of those who are supportive of the Confederacy and the Confederate flag that they are rural persons of low intelligence and lacking education and not able to pronounce many words.

The neo-Confederate movement is composed of educated people who are intelligent. These stereotypes of who supports the Confederate flag helps neo-Confederates by allowing them to represent themselves as not being racist.



Friday, August 29, 2014

Liberty University: American or Confederate?

The 12th Annual Scholars Conference is at Liberty University.

http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/event/twelfth-annual-abbeville-institute-scholars-conference/

One year the history department at Liberty University put Abraham Lincoln on trial and found him guilty.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

"Daily Caller" opinion editor J. Arthur Bloom justifies foul mouth.

Earlier this year I had a post about the comments of Jordan Arthur Bloom regarding myself.

Bloom's comments:  http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/06/22/secession-lagniappe-7/

Bloom's comment was in response to my campaign to ask churches no to host neo-Confederate groups. This campaign is documented online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/churchesoftheconfederacy.htm. In particular asking the Episcopalian church not to host neo-Confederate groups.

I did a blog on his comments on July 24, 2014 and the following is the link to the blog posting.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/06/daily-caller-jordan-bloom-opinion.html#.U_4PhPldWSo

Yesterday, August 27, 2014 I got this response from him.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s66dm2

J. Arthur Bloom is actually an Opinion Editor for the Daily Caller. It is a website that seems to specialize in hysteria.

What I pointed out in my original blog posting about Bloom's comments about myself is that Jordan Arthur Bloom couldn't resort to any argument but resorted to scatological name calling.

I said in the post:
What is interesting is that despite all the pretensions of intellect, being Opinion Editor, obscure blog name, etc., the person is just a foul mouth character that has no argument to be put forth and thus resorts to name calling. 
Always swearing, cursing, profanity, obscenity, etc. is a failure of intellect, the failure to express your objection in real terms and it is just ranting. Also, it is ineffective in stinging anyone. It is just noise that people tune out. It really shows the mental incapacity of Bloom.
The title of the post was:
"Daily Caller" Jordan Bloom Opinion Editor's scatological and negative opinion of my Churches of the Confederacy campaign.
In Bloom's response he states:
... and the pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish title of this blog post suggests to me that in your heart you know your actions -- asking denominations to intervene in congregational decisions about what groups have the right to meet on church property -- are wrong.
I am not sure how the title of my blog posting is "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish" or proves that I think that I am wrong, whether in my kidneys, heart or lungs.  Perhaps Bloom likes to assert that his opponent's opinions are like those of women. My posting simply is a blog posting pointing out that the Daily Caller employs a foul mouthed person as their opinion editor, an editor who uses foul language instead of a reasoned argument. However, if you read the Daily Caller, he probably is a perfect fit for an editorial position with them.

The conclusion of Bloom's essay is that since he really doesn't like my plan to get denominations to not host neo-Confederate groups it justifies him being foul mouthed in his writings.

Bloom denies that there is a neo-Confederate movement and makes other assertions about neo-Confederate groups.

Bloom's primary assertion is that it is "bullying" if I write denominational leaders a letter to consider that their denomination should not be hosting neo-Confederate groups because I don't think it is a good thing to do.

Denominational leaders are tasked with leading. They lead. So asking them to lead on an issue for their denomination by what authority or means granted to them by their denomination seems reasonable. None of my letters ask that thugs be employed. In situations like this you find that a writer has adopted a term with an elastic definition that encompasses the world so what ever you might do or say falls under the term.

Also, if you publicly complained about a denomination's practices without having written the leadership of a denomination about your complaint, people would think you were an idiot and rightly so.

Bloom's response is just over heated rhetoric using phrases like "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish," and just labeling something he doesn't like with loaded terminology.

Also, Bloom is avoiding the issue in my campaign to get churches to stop hosting neo-Confederates by making up a distraction about "bullying."  This distraction is used by him to avoid discussion of the issues I raise and on which there is no comment forthcoming by Bloom.

Bloom real complaint with my efforts writing the Episcopalians is revealed in the following section of his response.
Your letter comes on the heels of a largely successful campaign on behalf of the bishop, costing tens of millions of dollars, aimed at confiscating the property of congregations that have opted to leave the Episcopal Church rather than obey its slate of progressive priorities.
I don't think I am responsible for the quarreling in the Episcopal church or how they are dividing up the property.

It would be interesting to get Bloom's thoughts on the Confederacy but I doubt that will happen since I think the primary purpose of this claim of "bullying" is to avoid the issues.

Monday, August 25, 2014

California and the Jefferson Davis Highway

Recently the California legislature has made it very clear that they don't care for the Confederate flag.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-confederate-flag-bill-20140820-story.html

I wonder if the California legislature knows that the California state government is allowing the United Daughters of the Confederacy to claim a stretch of highway as the Jefferson Davis Highway even though the California legislature was against it when they attempted to get an official designation.

I think that asking the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) to move their monuments off state property is a logical thing to ask for next.  The UDC had their Jefferson Davis highway monuments given back to them in the State of Washington, California would be next. That would get a trend going and the highway could be rolled back to Texas. Jefferson Davis was very explicit and negative in his opinions about Latin Americans.

I will likely write the whole legislature after the Confederate flag banning bill is signed by the governor.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Valdosta State University Professor Suffers Retaliation

VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR SUFFERS RETALIATION

A Valdosta State University Professor who had opposed all state Confederate monuments has suffered retaliation by the university and. His email account was shut down.

I recently tried emailing Mark Patrick George who I had emailed before and the email bounced. I didn't know what had happened until I found these news stories.


http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2014/08/18/vsu-prof-behind-effort-to-end-state-sponsored-confederate-memorials-alleges-retaliation-by-university-state

And this article

http://vsuspectator.com/2014/08/22/vsu-cracks-down-on-former-proffessor-protesting-against-confederate-memorials-in-georgia/

In the articles you can see the role of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in this.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Judge James F. Lockemy gives presentation on the Confederacy to United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter Ann Fulmore Harilee Chapter 1740 in Dillon, SC

It seems that Dillon, South Carolina has a Confederate judge.

The program was given by Honorable James E. Lockemy of Dillon, who presented an excellent PowerPoint presentation of Confederate art and poetry, adding interesting facts and stories of Lee and Jackson. [page 34, June/July 2014 United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.]
It seems to me that Lockemy should recuse himself from all cases before his court where any party is a minority member.

Neo-Confederates should be neither judge or jurors as explained in this paper at Black Commentator.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/507/507_confederacy_jury_selection_sebesta_hague_guests_share.html



Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Neo-Confederate movement becoming more known by the general public

There are more stories where people are realizing that the "Heritage not hate" slogan really isn't true and that the neo-Confederate movement really is extremist.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/11/christian-talker-marxist-lincoln-enslaved-us-all-by-ending-southern-slavery/

For those following the neo-Confederate movement the neo-Confederate rantings about Lincoln are no surprise, but to groups that track right wing extremism this is new.

Additionally there is this article about a divorced woman who went into hiding with her child.

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/08/florida_kidnapping_megan_everett_robert_baumann.php

Again, the neo-Confederate movement is something new to them.


Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Sons of Confederate Veteran Georgia Division Commander Ray McBerry scandal

These are quotes from the Atlantic Journal Constitution.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/04/29/parents-church-and-judge-told-future-gop-candidate-for-governor-leave-the-girl-alone/

Rachel Gandee was a band nerd in high school.
She didn’t drink. She didn’t smoke. Her grades were solid. The 16-year-old had just finished 10th grade and was, by her mother’s judgment, a good girl.
Then she fell in with Ray McBerry, a married history teacher and member of her small storefront church in McDonough. When their relationship began, McBerry was still four years away from his first Republican run for governor in 2006. He’s trying again this year.
Last month, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission released a summary of its investigation into McBerry, who resigned his position at Patrick Henry High School in Stockbridge in January 2003, shortly after Rachel’s mother filed a complaint. 
Eventually, in 2004, the GPSC would suspend his teaching certificate for five days for abuse of a student, lying to administrators and violation of the commission’s standard of conduct for teachers. 
The only person identified in that state report was McBerry. The identities of Rachel Gandee — her married name — and her parents were protected. 
But at some point, anonymity becomes a form of paralysis. The facts belong to those willing to discuss them in the open. 
Over the past few weeks, Rachel Gandee has eased herself onto the public stage, starting with a detailed account of her relationship with McBerry on SWGAPolitics.com, a southwest Georgia political blog run by Jeff Sexton. “The truth getting told,” she wrote, “might help me get over all this.”
There is a lot more in the story and the above is just a small part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/ray-mcberry-sexual-partners-list_n_803889.html

The above article is about his suing people for libel.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Poll: 29 percent of Mississippians would back a new Confederacy. Regarding the poll results and Jury duty.

The Sun Herald had an article about a recent poll taken of attitudes towards secession.

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/07/17/5701899/poll-29-percent-of-mississippians.html

The question pollsters question was:
"If there were another Civil War today, would you side with the Confederate States of America or the United States of America?"
It was run by Public Policy Polling (PPP). It was asked of 691 Mississippians.

Of all Mississippians polled, 29% would back the Confederate States of America (CSA).

The article states that only 2% of African Americans would support the CSA. One can only imagine how the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) would be interested in locating these African Americans to parade them around with a Confederate flag.

The article doesn't tell the statistics regarding white people in the U.S.A.

The article does break it down by party affiliation though.

Democrats: 82% for the USA and 9% for the CSA.
Republicans: 41% for the USA and 37% for the CSA.

What is astounding is that less than half the Republicans in Mississippi would support the USA.

Perhaps the whole point of this poll was to show that Republicans aren't that patriotic. As I have stated in earlier blog postings one of the Republicans regular political activities was to assert that the Democrats were somehow unpatriotic and the Republicans were more patriotic. When you have less than half of your supporters choose the USA your assertion of being more patriotic becomes absurd.

The results were further broken down by who people supported in the Republican primary.

For Thad Cochran supporters 61% chose the USA which I think is very low, but not surprising for a candidate that interviewed in Southern Partisan, 22% chose the CSA.

For Tea Party challenger McDaniels, 38% chose the USA and 37% chose the CSA. What is rather amazing is that 62% would choose the CSA or aren't sure that they would chose the USA.

I was not able to find a link to the poll results at the PPP website.

I think that in Mississippi screening out pro-CSA supporters from jury pools is a very reasonable activity. People who would choose the CSA should not be be jurors.

The poll adds additional justification to my article on jury duty published in the Black Commentator. The following is the free guest link.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/507/507_confederacy_jury_selection_sebesta_hague_guests_share.html



Sunday, July 13, 2014

Article on Neo-Confederate who won a Republican party primary in Maryland and neo-Confederate attempts to get involved with mainstream politics.

This article was published in the Huffington Post recently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html

It turns out that Michael Peroutka, a theocrat and former League of the South board member, was able to win the Republican party primary for an Anne Arundel County Council race in Maryland. and won a seat on the Republican Party Central Committee there. He runs an organization called Institute on the Constitution which is fairly openly neo-Confederate in its views.

What I found somewhat ominous is that Joseph Delimater III, who is closely tied to Peroutka, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for sheriff and could be elected in the general election.

The article is worth reading. It shows that neo-Confederates are not confined to some remote rural area or a particular region of the nation, or marginal.


Thursday, July 10, 2014

Professor at Valdosta University in Georgia says that the State of Georgia should drop all Confederate commemorations

The article is online here:

http://clatl.com/atlanta/activists-state-should-end-all-confederate-memorials/Content?oid=11620447

From Confederate Memorial Day to streets named for Ku Klux Klan founders, the state of Georgia should pull the plug on its official support of Confederacy celebrations, say two Valdosta activists in a recent open letter to Gov. Nathan Deal and the entire General Assembly. 
Such "Southern heritage" memorials are simply taxpayer-funded pseudo-history that celebrates white supremacy, they say. And state leaders so far aren't biting.
The letter is the brainchild of Mark Patrick George, a Valdosta State University sociologist who runs a project studying a local lynching spree of the early 1900s, and the Rev. Floyd Rose of the Lowndes/Valdosta chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"We contact you today to respectfully call for an end to the state of Georgia's endorsement, promotion and support of all Confederate holidays, events, and its management of historic sites and monuments related to the Confederacy. We also call for an immediate change to all state roads and highways currently named for Confederate leaders," says the letter, sent on June 23. 
George says they are acting on their own, though they have started reaching out to civil rights groups. They want to spark discussion of racial issues and raise awareness that the "heritage, not hate" mythos is factually wrong. The idea came from a documentary film that George, who grew up in South Georgia, is making about Civil War re-enactors, many of whom, he says, falsely believe the Confederacy was not primarily motivated by slavery and racism. 
"What exactly are we celebrating?" George asks. The ultimate answer, he says, is leaders and soldiers "who said God declared white people should be in charge of black people ... Where are the thoughts and feelings of African-Americans who are citizens of this state? Black people are paying for, in many ways, their own degradation."
The whole Lost Cause nonsense needs to go into the garbage can. More people are seeing this.

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Washington and Lee decide to pull Confederate Battle flag. Excuses and rationalizations don't seem to work anymore.

It appears that Washington & Lee University has decided to pull Confederate Battle flags out of the Lee Chapel. Evidently excuses and rationalizations weren't accepted by minority students in The Committee who were fighting Washington and Lee University's long standing plan to be a Confederate shrine. The story is here:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/w-l-will-remove-confederate-battle-flags-from-lee-chapel/article_a13cae23-4367-56c5-9861-8ffd90e673e1.html

I don't know if Washington & Lee University tried the rationalization that since African Americans spoke at the Lee Chapel the Battle flags were okay. Perhaps if Kevin Levin had talked to The Committee the flags would still be up, I doubt it though.

This is a significant breakthrough. As each university gives up pandering to the Lost Cause, other universities that continue to pander to the Lost Cause will find their pandering increasingly obvious and unacceptable to the public.

As one institution, place or group gives up the Lost Cause the remaining groups and institutions that still pander to it will increasingly seem unacceptable.

Though this doesn't seem to be a great victory. Mostly the university is shuffling things around.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Starting to speak before the public about the neo-Confederate movement

In mid-August I will be speaking to the public about the neo-Confederate movement. I have been working on a Powerpoint presentation. Now I am working on what type of portable technology I want to use to do presentations with small groups.

With the time for the presentation I don't have time to cover all the various animosities that neo-Confederates have to one minority or another, so I am just treating on the topic of civil rights. The primary focus is going to be the neo-Confederates movement's hostility towards egalitarianism from their promotion of pro-slavery theology to their opposition to civil rights legislation to their hostility to democracy itself and the critical supports for a democracy such as public education.

The Southern Partisan hasn't been published for some time, so I am focusing more on the contemporary neo-Confederate movement. Some of the items from the Confederate Veteran, Southern Mercury, and other publications should get a lot of interest.

I believe that an informed public is a public which will critically examine what the neo-Confederates.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time