HATRED: The fruit of Neo-Abolitionist educational bigotry
RStacy2229
Sometimes, as recently with Epperson, the question arises: "Why are
these Confederates so *angry* about the Yankee lies?" Or, as one person
recently put it to me: "Take a deep breath. The war was over 131 years
ago."
If you want to see the kind of *hatred* of Southerners which
anti-Confederate propaganda can breed, go to this URL:
http://www.dixienet.org/slhomepg/hatemail.html
This is the hate mail page maintained by The Southern League's Web site,
Dixie Net, and it should give you an idea of what manner of sentiments are
generated by the ironclad Neo-Abolitionist grip on the educational
bureaucracy and publishing industry.
I am angered by the vicious disinformation campaign of
anti-Confederates, who can be classified into five distinct categories:
1. YANKEES -- All those who reside outside the South and lack any
genuine knowledge of the South and its people, except for what they get
from the media and Yankeefied textbooks, deriving from their ignorance a
hatred of what they don't understand. All Northerners are not Yankees;
like being a Pharisee, Yankeeism is a state of mind.
2. CARPETBAGGERS -- These are the fools who move from Cleveland, Ohio,
to Cumming, Ga., or Mountain Brook, Ala., and proceed to tell everyone
within earshot, "Well, this isn't how we did it back home." To which the
only reasonable Southern response is: "Go back home." As the late Lewis
Grizzard used to say, I-75 goes both ways and Delta is ready when you are.
Actually, the post-air-conditioning invasion of the South has spawned
"Guccibaggers" -- prosperous corporate transfers (IBM, AT&T, et cetera)
who come to the land of cheap land and cheap labor, buy swanky homes in
lilly-white suburban enclaves, preach to the benighted natives about their
"ignorance" and "bigotry" and send their private-school educated children
on to our best erstwhile "Southern" schools, thus further depriving the
native children of educational opportunities. Not all Yankees who move
South are carpetbaggers; many of them have enough sense to keep their
mouths shut about our heritage and traditions.
3. COMMIES -- Let's not mince words. To call people as far left as the
average Clinton administration appointee or the average Harvard social
science graduate student "liberals" is a lie. These people are essentially
Marxists, who view the world through Exploitationvision and
Oppressionscopes. Quite naturally, these Total(egal)itarians are opposed
to the heritage of the Confederacy, as well as to any part of the Southern
traditon. How in the world Eugene Genovese managed to escape from this
mindtrap is the wonder of the age. Of course, the Left has repudiated
Genovese, whom we Confederates now call Bubba-Gene or Marse Eugene.
4. SCALAWAGS -- The most truly depraved of anti-Confederates, these are
the cowardly and immoral curs who, having lost all sense of pride or sense
of shame, have accepted the Neo-Abolitionist agitprop at face value, thus
repudiating their own heritage and almost literally defecating on the
graves of Confederate heroes. A native Southerner who does not revere
Robert E. Lee or who badmouths "Dixie" is a reprobate of the most vile
sort. Do not trust a scalawag near your family's silverware, children or
farm animals.
5. HATEMONGERS -- These are politicians, writers and activists who, upon
studying the modern socio-political landscape of the South, have
apparently decided that our problem down here is that black folks don't
hate white people as much as they should. Lacking any genuine contemporary
grounds for inter-ethnic animosity -- most folks are friendly and polite
down here -- racist hate groups such as the NAACP have resorted to
familiar abolitionist lies and distortions about the Old South in order to
foment discord and division. When you read the phrase "Confederate
swastika," you know what you're up against.
Together, these various camps of anti-Confederates -- masking their evil
intent behind hypocritical claims of "promoting tolerance, diversity and
racial harmony" -- have created a view of the South which might be called,
"Protocols of the Learned Elders of Dixie." The Neo-Abolitionists are
building, book by book and seminar by seminar, an ideology which is
apparently intended to justify the liquidation of the South, its people
and its culture.
And that's why I get so angry. You'd be angry, too.
Robert Stacy McCain
howard
I want to compliment you on your writing skills. The above is well done
and well said.
The thing that gets me is this: I was born in and grew up in the Deep
South, and the people I was exposed to were never the way these liberals
describe them. My family, my friends, my acquaintances ... sure, no
doubt I could find a couple of people like that, but what does that
prove? It is an insult of the first order to have these ignoramuses
defile myself, my family and all the people I grew up with.
The young Confederate soldier, having been captured in his home state,
was asked "Why are you fighting us?" and responded "Because you're
here". Well, they're still here. Different medium but, I would guess,
the same mentality. Boy, I bet the carpetbag era was a dilly.
To those of you out there who are in a frenzy thinking up clever
responses, I say this: Don't spend your time denegrating people you
don't know, didn't know and will never know. It is unbecoming, and
annoying.
Regards, Howard
Andy Ronemus
In article <52h35m$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) writes:
>Path: news3.cac.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229)
>Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
>Subject: HATRED: The fruit of Neo-Abolitionist educational bigotry
>Date: 27 Sep 1996 13:33:42 -0400
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Lines: 70
>Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
>Message-ID: <52h35m$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
>X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
> Sometimes, as recently with Epperson, the question arises: "Why are
>these Confederates so *angry* about the Yankee lies?" Or, as one person
>recently put it to me: "Take a deep breath. The war was over 131 years
>ago."
html
> This is the hate mail page maintained by The Southern League's Web site,
>Dixie Net, and it should give you an idea of what manner of sentiments are
>generated by the ironclad Neo-Abolitionist grip on the educational
>bureaucracy and publishing industry.
> I am angered by the vicious disinformation campaign of
>anti-Confederates, who can be classified into five distinct categories:
> 1. YANKEES -- All those who reside outside the South and lack any
>genuine knowledge of the South and its people, except for what they get
>from the media and Yankeefied textbooks, deriving from their ignorance a
>hatred of what they don't understand. All Northerners are not Yankees;
>like being a Pharisee, Yankeeism is a state of mind.
I'm so glad to finally know and learn what a "Yankee" is, other than
that extraordinary pinstriped champion of baseball.
AR
Axel Kleiboemer
Dear Friends,
I do not wish to incur the criticism that I may have inadvertently
snipped something regarded as important by previous posters. Hence, all
of this remains.
Personally, I disagree with others from time to time. But I have no
hatred. Why should I? All I have to do is to delete this NG.
I am an immigrant from Germany. I have lived in Springfield, Illinois,
then in Onslow County, North Carolina. Took an oath and served my
adoptive country at the risk of my life. Will do so again if my country
asks and needs me. What makes some Southrons so special? My suspicion is
that they want to live in never-never land,and regard all other
viewpoints as personal attacks.
I think Mr. McCain is beyond salvation. Howard, however, is just nibbling
at the edges of paranoia. When he says that only Southernors can
understand other Southernors, he must know that he is not being
reasonable. Else being a Southron means, here is a disease entity to be
submitted to the APA for classification.
Regards, Axel
Charles Ten Brink
In article <53235e$kdg$5...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
MARK ANDRUS <76433...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>What is usually not mentioned is that
>Northern attitudes before and during
>the War Between the States were pretty
>as bigoted as Southern attitudes.
>
On the contrary, it is mentioned here constantly, and I
do not recall anyone with any pretensions to credibility
denying the basic validity of this generalization. (There
were, of course, exceptional people throughout the country
who somehow rose above the endemic racism of the society
in which they lived.)
What many people find objectionable are equally constant
attempts to use this generalization to prove some other,
unrelated point. It does not eluctably follow from this
fact, for example, that Lincoln should have let the
Confederacy go, that slavery was not the primary issue
in the War, etc., etc.
Yours,
Chuck Ten Brinnk
--
Associate Law Librarian < He did not catch babies with a spearhead as
D'Angelo Law Library, UC * was the practice of other Vikings; for this
c-ten...@uchicago.edu > reason he was called "child-friend".
dens...@acsu.buffalo.edu
I think that the problem here is trying to place mid and late 20th century
concerns into a mid 19th century context.
The issues of the 1860s were not primarily individual attidudes
toward blacks but their legal status, specifically the right of people to
the fruits of their own labor. Lincoln felt that black people had as much
right as anyone to sell their own labor and to profit by it. The
pro-slavery position said that a certain class of people, slaves most of
whom happened to be black (though not all who were black were slaves) had
no right to sell their own labor, that right being the exclusive property
of someone else. Suffrage was a related issue. If a man (and most people
did mean male) owned himself, he was also automomous politically and
therefore should have the political franchise-- the right to vote. There
was a good deal of sentiment in the north to qualify black access to
suffrage by placing unequal property qualifications for voting on blacks
and whites. Essentially, black people were being asked to prove that they
were economically autonomous where white folks were assumed to be so.
In this context, ATTITUDES toward blacks isn't a major issue. A slave
owner can love his slaves, but he also owns their labor, their person, and
(by the 3/5 clause) is their political representative. Lincoln may have
had 19th century attitudes about black people (though there is a good case
that his attitudes changed significantly over time), but also came to the
conclusion that they were his equals in political, legal and economic
terms.
Sure, personally I would have liked everyone to take what was my idea of
the "high moral ground" and work for a fully integrated society, without
racial antagonisms or bigotry. As an aside, in some respects the "South"
would seem to have a better shot at achieving that short of society than
the "North" by building on cultural commonalities. However, if we are
talking about the Civil War, take a look at how blacks are portrayed in
the editorial cartoons in Harper's Weekly during the Civil War and
Reconstruction. I think that Harper's Weekly in some measure represents
popular opinion (they did sell a lot of newspapers) and blacks are shown
as brave, intellegent, loyal and in every respect worthy to be citizens of
the republic. Sure, you can find racist material in the North, but you can
also find much CW era material that is explicitly anti-racist.
Christopher Densmore
E-Mail: Dens...@acsu.buffalo.edu