Dishonoring the South’s History

A decade ago the push to remove all vestiges of the South’s past was beginning.  It’s really picking up speed these days.

 

Prof. Paul Gottfried gave this speech at Confederate Flag Day, in Raleigh, N.C. on March 3, 2007: Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues once adorned monuments and boulevards are no longer deemed as fit for public mention.

The ostensible reason for this obliteration or dishonoring of Southern history, save for those civil rights victories that came in the second half of the twentieth century, has been the announced rejection of a racist society, a development we are persistently urged to welcome. During the past two generations or so, the South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. We are being told that we should therefore rejoice at the reconstructing of Southern society and culture in a way that excludes, and indeed extirpates from our minds, except as an incentive to further white atonement, the pre-civil rights past, also known as “the burden of Southern history.”

***

It underscores the fact that the Old South has been defeated twice—and the second time at the level of historical memory even more disastrously than in a shooting war that it lost in the 1860s.

The American white South has fallen victim to the “politics of guilt,” a dreary subject, albeit one on which I have written widely. The Yankee victors of the 1860s, who overwhelmed the Southerners by virtue of their numbers and superior industrial power, did considerable wartime damage. They also subsequently occupied the land of those whom they had vanquished militarily, but then did something that was equally important. They went home, and permitted their devastated opponents to rebuild without an occupying army. What I mean to say is that the first occupation was morally and psychologically less destructive than the ever deepening humiliation that is going on now.

The first victors were mostly Yankee Protestants, who in some ways were similar to those they had invaded and occupied. Once the passions of fratricidal war had cooled, these Yankees were able to view their former enemies as kindred spirits. Although they were establishing a bourgeois commercial regime, one that differed from the prevalent Southern way of life, the winning side had also recruited farmers and those whose culture did not diverge significantly from that of those who had fought on the Southern side. In a certain sense Socrates’ observation about Greeks once applied to Americans as well. While they could fight brutally with each other, they were still brothers, and so some form of “reconciliation” was eventually possible for the former enemies. And both North and South came up with a narrative about their past differences which bestowed honor to the heroes on both sides. This was possible with the Yankee Unionists, who wished to draw Southerners back into their community, even after a terrible war had been fought to keep the Southerners in a Union that they had tried to leave.

But the second civil war seeks the utter humiliation of those who are seen as opponents of a society that is still being imposed. The Southern traditionalists from this perspective are particularly obnoxious inasmuch as they are a full two-steps behind the project in question. Those who insist on these changes are no longer Victorian capitalists or Methodist and Congregationalist villagers from the North. They are post-bourgeois social engineers and despisers of Western civilization, a stage of development that these revolutionaries identify with discrimination and exclusion.

In Southern traditionalists they see those who are still celebrating a pre-bourgeois, agrarian, and communally structured world. That world appealed to hierarchy, place, and family, and its members displayed no special interest in reaching out to alien cultures. Such ideals and attitudes and the landed, manorial society out of which they came point back to a nineteenth-century conservative configuration. For our post-bourgeois leftist intelligentsia, this point of reference and model of behavior cannot be allowed to persist. It clashes with feminism and the current civil rights movement, and hinders the acceptance of a multicultural ambience.

The fact that people like your selves are still around and still honoring the national flag of nineteenth-century landed warriors from the American South might have the effect, or so it is thought, of making others equally insensitive. Even worse, those who engage in these celebratory rites do not express the now fashionable “guilt” about members of their race and tribe. Those being remembered had owned slaves, and they would have denied women, whom in any case they treated as inherently different from men, equal access to jobs. Needless to say, non-Westerners are not required to dwell on similar improprieties among their ancestors or contemporaries, and so they may celebrate their collective pasts without disclaimers or reservations. The hairshirt to be worn only fits Western bodies, and in particular impenitent Southern ones.

It is against this background that one might try to understand the loathing that the political, journalistic, and educational establishment reserves for the unreconstructed white inhabitants of the South. You seem to bother that establishment to a degree that Louis Farrakhan and those unmistakable anti-white racists, who are often found in our elite universities, could never hope to equal. You exemplify what the late Sam Francis called the “chief victimizers” in our victimologically revamped society, an experimental society that fits well with our increasingly rootless country. But your enemies are also the enemies of historic Western civilization, or of the West that existed in centuries past. You may take pride in those whom you honor as your linear ancestors but equally in the anger of those who would begrudge you the right to honor them. What your critics find inexcusable is that you are celebrating your people’s past, which was a profoundly conservative one based on family and community, and those who created and defended it. For your conspicuous indiscretions, I salute you; and I trust that generations to come will take note of your willingness to defy the spirit of what is both a cowardly and tyrannical age.

Amazingly Confederate Memorial Day is still observed in seven southern states in 2017:

Confederate Memorial Day is a state holiday in some states in the United States. It gives people a chance to honor and remember the Confederate soldiers who died or were wounded during the American Civil War (1861-1865).

Confederate Memorial Day 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017 (Texas)
Monday, April 24, 2017 (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi)
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 (Florida)
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 (North Carolina, South Carolina).

If you are a white southerner, honoring your dead ancestors will probably not be permitted for much longer and is considered shameful even now.  What the left’s revisionists fail to grasp (or more likely deliberately refuse to see or acknowledge) is that if one is required to disavow one’s ancestors based on whether they lived up to current politically correct standards of belief, speech, and conduct, no one’s ancestors are safe from disavowal and dishonoring.

 

Advertisements

John McCain, Hero

It’s an old post (from 2010) but this isn’t the sort of information that loses relevance: John McCain is a snake and doesn’t deserve the cred he gets as a “war hero” and POW.

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

The article’s kind of long but it’s worth reading the whole thing.  The fact that media won’t touch this when they usually will grab at anything bad about a Republican is very interesting.

 

Back Where Arkancide Began…

A rather interesting article in the LA Times from back in 1992 before Bill Clinton was even president:

Clinton’s Ties to Controversial Medical Examiner Questioned

Gov. Bill Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, refused for several years to dismiss a state medical examiner whose controversial decrees included a ruling that helped Clinton’s mother, a nurse-anesthetist, avoid scrutiny in the death of a patient, according to Arkansas officials and state records.

The medical examiner, Dr. Fahmy Malak, “was sort of protected by the governor and the (state crime laboratory) board,” state Rep. Bob Fairchild, a Democrat from Fayetteville, told The Times. Fairchild is the author of unsuccessful legislation to reform the laboratory board, which has authority over the state medical examiner. Clinton appoints the board members.

Clinton, Malak and Clinton’s mother, Virginia Dwire Kelley, 68, deny any connection between Malak’s longevity in his job and his ruling involving Kelley. Malak, through his attorney, says he did not know that one of his findings had benefited Kelley until years after he issued the ruling.

The governor and his board declined to fire Malak despite more than four years of public criticism of Malak’s work. The record shows that Malak testified erroneously in criminal cases, that his rulings were reversed by juries and that outside pathologists challenged his findings. In one instance, he misread a medical chart and wrongly accused a deputy county coroner of killing someone. In another, he based court testimony on tissue samples that DNA tests later indicated had been mixed up with other tissue samples.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.  Also there’s an organization called VOMIT involved.