01 April 2012 by Published in: Neo-Confederate hooey 31 comments

I’ve watched the whole “Virginia flaggers” thing play out for some time with great amusement. For those unaware of this idiotic phenomenon, I refer you to Kevin Levin’s coverage of this stupid practice. The idea is that “defenders” of “Southern heritage” protest decisions not to exhibit the Confederate battle flag by “flagging” in public places. I’ve watched this whole moronic scenario play out for a number of months now, but haven’t said anything about it in public before today. The reason is that I find the whole thing to be so galactically stupid that I haven’t wanted to dignify it by giving it coverage here.

This all fits into the idea expounded by some of the leaders of the so-called “Southern heritage” movement that Confederate heritage has nothing to do with historical accuracy, which, of course fits squarely into the context neo-Confederate doctrine. In other words, the truth is irrelevant so long as you romanticize it and make it your own. You will find an excellent example of this neo-Confederate nonsense here. Corey Meyer, Brooks Simpson, and Kevin Levin have done such a superb job of covering this ridiculousness that there’s been no reason for me to get involved.

However, today’s events at the dedication of the new Appomattox branch of Museum of the Confederacy have finally made me say that it’s time to address this stupidity. The SCV and the “flaggers” are all up in arms over the fact that the MOC, believing the Confederate battle flag to be a divisive symbol, has decided not to fly the battle flag outside the new museum. As a result, and as Kevin Levin reports, the response of the “flaggers” and the SCV has been to call visitors and executives of the MOC such mature names as “scalawags” and, even better, “stink faces.” How are we supposed to take seriously any adult who actually calls someone a “stink face”? The only words that I can some up with to describe these people and their idiotic “flagging” are “galactically stupid.”

The terribly classy approach of these knuckle-draggers is amply demonstrated by the photo posted above, which was taken today at the Appomattox museum. Click on the photo to see a larger version of the image in which you can read the warm and loving message behind the airplane. Very classy and elegant, isn’t it?

I’ve had extensive dealings with the management of the Museum of the Confederacy over the years, and I know them to be serious professionals dedicated to preserving the real history of the Confederacy (as opposed to making things up, as these neo-Confederates are so fond of doing). They most assuredly do not deserve the abuse heaped upon them by the SCV and the “flaggers”, and I commend them for sticking to their guns on this moronic issue.

And congratulations on your excellent new facility. I hope it thrives in spite of the efforts of these morons, whom I hereby declare the winners of the coveted title of worst proponents of neo-Confederate hooey of the year for 2012.

Scridb filter

Comments

  1. Sun 01st Apr 2012 at 2:38 pm

    At the dedication of the Lincoln and son Tad statue at the Tredegar Ironworks in 2003, an airplane flew around during the ceremonies towing a flag reading Sic Semper Tyrannis. An attractive newscaster from a local channel asked her cameraman what it meant. He looked at her with disgust and said “don’t you know the Marine Corps motto?!?” True story.

  2. Sun 01st Apr 2012 at 3:09 pm

    If you want some grade A candidates for this award you should head over to the facebook page for the Southern Heritage Society, Eric.

    This is the same place where I was told be a certain female neo confederate that John Wilkes Booth was a hero. When I mentioned that shooting an unarmed man in the back of the head was cowardly enough alone, she proclaimed that she found pretty courageous and that Booth killed the lion in the lions den.

    Needless to say I was booted from the group when I asked since they thought Booth was a hero, do they also feel men who give women black eyes and kick dogs are heros as well.

  3. Billy Markland
    Sun 01st Apr 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Eric, nice rant!

    Billy

  4. Ulric Dahlgren
    Sun 01st Apr 2012 at 11:30 pm

    This article refers to a type of adolescent play in which living chimera pretending to be adults don rancid uniforms borrowed from the crypts of honest soldiers, attempt to resuscitate long-dead horses, and ride pell mell forth, popping out intact, still lathered in a froth of righteous blather, from the anus of time to rouse misguided myrmidons intent on righting wrongs that never existed.

  5. Dennis
    Mon 02nd Apr 2012 at 6:28 am

    And these troglodytes are indoctrinating their children with their drivel too! Sad, very sad.

  6. Mon 02nd Apr 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Eric,
    Right on. Good job on this article.

  7. John Foskett
    Tue 03rd Apr 2012 at 10:22 am

    Well, Brooks finally got Connie Chastain to admit that her version of “Confederate Heritage” is fiction. I wonder when the rest of these comedians will ‘fess up.

  8. Tue 03rd Apr 2012 at 10:27 am

    So, “stink face” is objectionable, but galactically stupid, knuckle draggers and troglodytes is warm, loving, classy and elegant.

    Sometimes the stench of hypocrisy from critics of Southern heritage will burn the rhinal cavaties raw.

  9. John Foskett
    Tue 03rd Apr 2012 at 1:24 pm

    So now it’s “Southern Heritage” (fact or fiction?). Which apparently is different from “Confederate Heritage” (fiction). Both of which are different from “Confederate History”(fact), as Mr. Wallace so effectively has pointed out. , Stay tuned….

  10. Tue 03rd Apr 2012 at 2:30 pm

    If the shoe fits, Connie, you get to wear it.

    You’re the one who extolls the fact that commemorating heritage is more important than historical accuracy, not me. That is the definition of galactically stupid.

  11. Tue 03rd Apr 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Mr. Foskett’s claim that, Brooks Simpson “got” met to “finally admit” that “my version” of Confederate Heritage is fiction. is a total fabrication. Anyone can read my blog post he references and see there is no such admission. A quick examination of my blog will also establish that Simpson has a history of deliberately misconstruing me.

    If something is a fact, it can’t be galactically stupid, can it? Facts are neither smart nor stupid; they just are.

    The claim that I extoll commemorating heritage as more important than historical accuracy is also a misstatement. You’re welcome to try to find said extolling on my blog or in my Facebook posts or comments at the Simpson or Levin blog. But I’ll go ahead and tell you, you won’t find it. It ain’t there. I’ve never made such a statement.

  12. John Foskett
    Wed 04th Apr 2012 at 8:25 am

    Connie: You’re living in a fantasy world. Go back and read the exchange in which you turtled after Mr. Wallace schooled you on the reality of Confederate “diversity”.

  13. Wed 04th Apr 2012 at 9:22 am

    Mr. Foskett, that’s your interpretation. Did you read the exchange between Mr. Wallace and myself on Facebook before it was taken down? My views are clearly explained on my blog, if you’re interested in truth. If you’re not, continue to swallow Mr. Wallace’s and Mr. Simpson’s wild distortions.

  14. John Foskett
    Wed 04th Apr 2012 at 7:37 pm

    There’s a simple way to get to the bottom of this. Did Mr. Wallace accurately state the role of white supremacist views as the driving force behind secession and the Confederate States of America? If not, you should have confronted him where and when he challenged you on the point – not at another blogsite in a thread which he is not involved in. You didn’t do that because he got it correct – historical fact. As opposed to the feel good fantasy which you propagate to make the Confederacy palatable to the population of the 21st centuiry South. That’s why you’re now playing around with “Southern Heritage”.

  15. Terry Walbert
    Wed 04th Apr 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Eric,

    After reading your posting, I find myself in the position of , “a pox on both your houses.” The sanitized neo-Confederate verison of history is as foolish as the decision of the MOC to not display the Confederate battle flag outside on the grounds that is is “divisive.” It’s perfectly appropriate to fly the Confederate battle flag at a museum dedicated to Confederate history.

    Those sensitive souls who would be offended by the battle flag are simply looking to be offended and probably wouldn’t go to the MOC in the first place.

  16. Thu 05th Apr 2012 at 8:31 am

    Mr. Foskett, there is nothing to get to the bottom of. I should have confronted Mr. Wallace? Sez who? You? It’s not for you to decide who *I* should and should not confront, in what venue, on what subjects, at what time. It’s not for you to decide *any*thing for me, capisce?

    You say, “That’s why you…” You know my motives … how? Are you clairvoyant? Do you consult a crystal ball? Throw chicken bones? Call to Miss Clio?

    Listen, I don’t “play around” with Southern heritage. I sometimes use humor and satire in my responses, but I’m intensely serious about defending my region and its people — when and where and how I choose — from the likes of people who do not have the moral authority to judge or attack us.

  17. D1J1
    Fri 06th Apr 2012 at 5:47 am

    I don’t think stink face is objectionable. Perhaps juvenile, childish or grossly immature but not objectionable.

  18. John Foskett
    Fri 06th Apr 2012 at 11:13 am

    Or perhaps it’s just succinct.

  19. Wayne M. Sarf
    Mon 09th Apr 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Reunification by bayonet? Nonsense! Everybody and his dawg knows that Civil War soldiers preferred to use clubbed muskets when it came to the hand to hand stuff. (The infantrymen, that is.)

    This here Yankee has an inexpensive Britains toy Confederate color bearer (plastic, metal base, molded/ painted in China) fending off unseen bluecoats with his pistol while perched atop my old computer monitor here at home. The Battle Flag is a two sided decal thing with battle honors.

    Britains also makes Civil War figures with less “controversial” flags including a Fighting 69th color-bearer , a Federal with regimental-style Stars and Stripes, and a reb with the flag of Virginia — complete with “Marine Corps motto,” of course.

    Why does it seem neither implausible nor surprising that a “local newscaster” in Richmond be not at all familiar with the state motto of Virginia? No wonder Sherman didn’t care for reporters!

  20. Sat 14th Apr 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Ms. Chastain,

    I rescued your most recent comment from the spam filter and allowed it to be posted here. However, if you wish to continue to have the privilege of commenting here, you would be well advised to change your tone and to do so immediately.

    Otherwise, I can give you an ironclad guarantee that you will find your IP address banned and you will no longer even be able to access this site.

    I trust that I have made myself abundantly clear.

  21. Mon 16th Apr 2012 at 12:14 am

    Mr. Wittenberg,

    You can send my comment back to the spam filter — or to internet oblivion — and ban my IP address ten ways to Sunday, for all I care.

    You get huffy because I exhibit a lack of patience with Mr. Foskett’s lies? Yet there’s absolutely nothing in my words or tone that even begins to sink to the cesspool-level where one finds the terms you and your commenters spewed at the Virginia flaggers –morons, troglodytes, knuckle-draggers and so forth. And for what reason? Because their opinion about the Museum of the Confederacy differs from yours, and they staged a public protest?

    Ah, the righteous indignation of hypocrites. There’s no other spectacle like it.

    Ban me. I only visited your tedious, insipid blog because YOU first linked to mine, somebody followed the link, and it showed up in my visitor log. Go ahead, make my day; ban me.

  22. Dennis
    Mon 16th Apr 2012 at 6:22 am

    I went back and reread the comments. No jibes were directed at the MOC as you state. Nice try.

    Dennis

  23. Dennis
    Mon 16th Apr 2012 at 6:24 am

    My previous comment was incorrect. My apologies for misreading.

    Dennis

  24. Mon 16th Apr 2012 at 8:03 am

    Very well, Ms. Chastain. Your wish is my command. Your IP address has been banned. Good riddance to you.

    The beauty of this website is that I pay for it. That means that I get the privilege of making the rules. There aren’t many rules, but I expect their adherence. This is not a democracy. I am the sole arbiter of those rules, and there is no right of appeal.

    We have only a few rules here:

    1. Be cordial at all times.

    2. No anonymous comments, and no comments left under stupid made-up names.

    3. No insulting me on my own web site.

    That’s it. Those are the rules. Ms. Chastain violated two of the three, so I accepted her invitation to ban her IP address. She’s history. We won’t see her here again. And good riddance, I might add….

  25. Chris
    Mon 16th Apr 2012 at 2:52 pm

    I recently spoke to a group called “Descendants of Confederate Veterans of _____ County.” They broke off from the local SCV group because of its growing political nature – I guess the heritage movement you mention. I have lived here in NC for all my adult life but my ancestors were Union soldiers, for which I made full disclosure. I was cordially received. We pledged allegiance to the flag (US) at the beginning and closed with singing Dixie. My topic was a review of “This Republic of Suffering.” My point? There are serious students of the Civil War in some of these groups.

  26. Tue 17th Apr 2012 at 9:48 am

    Chris, my experience has been much the same. I spoke recently to an area SCV group, and they couldn’t have been a nicer or more engaged audience. Between setting up, their business meeting, my talk and packing up again, I must have been with them for three hours or more, and there wasn’t a single whinge about “cultural genocide,” or “political correctness,” or what an awful person Waite Rawls must be.

    The fact is that the Flaggers, the strifent leadership of the SCV, and the online cadre of Confederate heritage supporters are a small group that is not really representative of the rank-and-file membership as a whole. They’re loud, but increasingly shrill, and are mostly playing to each other as an audience, looking to establish their unreconstructed bonafides to each other, rather than making a sincere effort to reach out to the general public. It’s a closed loop they’re operating in, and every stunt like that isolates them a little farther outside the mainstream of public discussion.

  27. Fri 20th Apr 2012 at 6:16 am

    In my humble opinion, studying the modern neo-Confederacy — in both its cultural and its political aspects — is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in the Civil War. We have running around with us modern examples of the kind of people who are just like Rhett, Yancey, Wigfall, Cobb, Brown, Harris and the rest of those guys, as well as the people who blindly supported them and the people who trumpeted their propaganda.

    Seriously… do you really want to know why the Confederate government was entirely dysfunctional except for Jefferson Davis? Just go look at the modern neo-Confederacy. Want to know how anyone could believe secession was a good, necessary idea for poor dirt farmers who didn’t own even a single slave? Go look at the modern neo-Confederacy. Etc, etc, etc.

  28. G. E. Colpitts
    Mon 07th May 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Gee, I always love it when people call the pointing out of historical facts “interpretation.”

    I also love this (with apologies to Eric):

    It’s not for you to decide who *I* should and should not confront, in what venue, on what subjects, at what time. It’s not for you to decide *any*thing for me, capisce?

    How remarkable it is that Ms. Chastain can assert the very freedom that US Senator James Hammond of SC, in his speech of 1858, denied black men and women on the basis of their race, their “menial and inferior status,” and on the basis that they could not choose for themselves what was best for themselves due to both circumstances. In the same speech, he claimed that slaves were “hired” for life and therefore had better lives than the working poor in the North. Hired? They were bred, bought and sold as chattel property. They had no choice in the matter. They had none of the rights northern working men had: to be educated, to better themselves and their children, to travel, to live and work when and where one liked, to choose one’s associates, to marry as one chose, to live as one pleased, and most importantly, to exercise one’s franchise.

    For so many of us, the Confederate flag, as much as it represents a phase in US history, also represents the insidious nature of Hammond’s viewpoint, a viewpoint common to any oppressive regime past or present in this world: “I know what is best for you and I will make the choices for you.” Those “choices” are typically made in the interest of the oppressor.

    Frederick Douglass, anyone?

  29. Betty Giragosian
    Wed 30th May 2012 at 9:08 am

    I have enjoyed reading your site immensely. The comments are a delight

  30. Phil Leigh
    Sun 10th Jun 2012 at 3:15 pm

    1. It seems to me that the Museum of the Confederacy should fly the Confederate flag. It also seems appropriate that anyone wishing to protest the Museum’s failure to fly it, should have that right. The fly over seems an innocuous, but publicly noticeable way to exhibit such a protest. If it is inappropriate, then what ways *are* appropriate? Surely nobody around here is saying that those objecting to the Museum’s decision have no right to object in a public arena?

    2. While I only “found” this website today (June 10, 2012) I was surprised to see that one commenter was blocked. Certainly the website owner has the right to do so, but it is important to acknowledge that such blocking is nothing less than censorship. From what I can see among the uniformity of opinion by commenters around here, my reflex reaction is that there is little tolerance for diversity of opinion, whereas I believe that censorship should only be used in extreme situations.

  31. Sun 10th Jun 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Mr. Leigh,

    That poster was blocked because she refused to obey the rules. It had nothing to do with censorship.

    I have exactly three rules for commenting on this blog:

    1. No made-up names and no anonymous comments.

    2. Be respectful and polite.

    3. I don’t permit people–and especially people I don’t know–to insult me on my own website that I pay for.

    This particular individual–whom I do not know–gleefully violated two of the three rules and told me that she would continue to disregard the rules. Further, she said that I should feel free to ban her. Having read enough of her posts on other forums, I knew that she would, indeed, continue to disregard the rules. That’s why her comment was deleted and why she was banned.

    And, while I respect your view, this is not a democracy. It’s a benevolent dictatorship. I am the benevolent despot. And, because I pay for this site, I get to make the rules. There are only three rules, and they are simple enough. My decisions regarding who and what violates the rules are final, not subject to discussion, and there certainly is no right of appeal. If you don’t like that, I regret that, but it is most assuredly not going to change just because you don’t like it.

    Eric

Add comment

*

Copyright © Eric Wittenberg 2011, All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress