The words “galactically stupid” come to mind….

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.

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.

Eric,
Right on. Good job on this article.

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.

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.

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”.

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”.

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.

Or perhaps it’s just succinct.

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

Dennis

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.

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?

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.