So It’s Heritage, Not History … A Candid Admission

This was too good to pass up.

Connie Chastain has announced that in her mind Confederate heritage has virtually nothing to do with Confederate history.  Rather, as she now freely admits, for her it’s a process of picking and choosing what one wants to “honor”; it’s also imposing her present-day values and preferences on the historical record, wrenching evidence out of context to satisfy her inclinations.

In other words, set aside historical correctness and political correctness, for now we have … Connie correctness.

It’s a wonderful essay in which Connie, who has complained about lumping people together, does that once more … although, in a way, she has a point.  All the people she lumps together are interested in historical accuracy.  Connie freely admits that she could care less about that.  She’ll just cherry-pick what she wants to remember and honor.  She wants to honor service, period.  She wants to honor sacrifice, period.  And to her it doesn’t matter what leaders say … it matters to her why men fought (although, if she’s to be consistent, only when she approves of their motives … otherwise she’ll turn a blind eye to them).

Think about applying that standard to certain other historical situations.

In short, Connie wants to honor her ancestors in terms those very ancestors would not recognize … and in some cases might reject.  She seeks in the past that which will support what she believes in today, a clear case of presentism.  She has no respect for history or for the past in context.  She has no interest in understanding her ancestors or history.

Understand Confederate for who they were?  Never, according to Connie correctness.

Nor do I think they are suitable for some sort of ancestor worship, as heritage folks are sometimes accused of. I once read a statement by the League of the South that explained it well. “Our ancestors weren’t perfect and not everything they did was honorable.” I don’t know of any heritage advocates who would disagree. That doesn’t, and shouldn’t keep us from honoring the honorable things about them and their culture.

Such as?  Somehow these heritage folks never get around to answering that question.

So what we have here is someone who freely admits to distorting the past in order to satisfy her beliefs and prejudices behind some ill-defined notion of “heritage” and “honor.”  Given how she also distorts the views of others in her never-ending struggle to try to score debating points (ever see Connie engage in a sustained argument about historical issues? Of course not), this should come as no surprise.  That must be why she finds fiction so attractive … she lives it.

I must admit that I’ve never seen anyone make a public proclamation of their intellectual bankruptcy before.  But the world continues to surprise me.   At least now we know why she refused to debate Hunter Wallace: she’s basically conceding that he’s right about the history of white supremacy in the South as expressed by prominent southern leaders.

If this is what passes for Confederate heritage, then we know why it’s in trouble … because it has nothing to do with the Confederacy and everything to do with one’s need to seek justification for their views and philosophy by misrepresenting history and selectively culling and twisting whatever can be used to validate one’s beliefs.

You can’t make this stuff up.

About these ads

16 thoughts on “So It’s Heritage, Not History … A Candid Admission

  1. If Chastain believes in social equality, civil rights, black citizenship and anti-racism (aka Black Republicanism), why doesn’t she “honor” her forebears like John Brown and Thaddeus Stevens who actually believed in those things?

    Why does she defend the “heritage” of the Confederate side whose whole reason for existence was the rejection of those things? Can someone who doesn’t believe in that heritage possibly defend it from criticism?

    Maybe that’s the real reason they keep losing. They claim to honor our heritage, but they don’t really believe in that heritage. Because they are Baby Boomers suffering from cognitive dissonance, they create these fictitious worlds which only bring our cause into further disrepute.

    That’s my whole argument against Connie Chastain and the Rainbow Confederates: they are the only generation in history that has failed to preserve our heritage – why?

    There have always been Northern critics. Why have they alone failed to preserve our heritage? It is because of the tension that exists between Southern heritage, by this I mean the real thing, and the values of the Civil Rights Movement which are ascendant in Black Run America (BRA), which they have adopted as their own.

    Is it a conspiracy by politically correct academics? No, it is their own disingenuous arguments, their own doublethink, and their own implausibility that explains their failure.

    They are declining for the same reason that the mainline Protestant churches are collapsing. Tellingly, we don’t have that problem. All the youth and energy is on our side. All the old people who listen to Glenn Beck and who believe that MLK was a conservative are on their side.

    If they are like Episcopalians, we are more like Mormons. Twenty years from now, they will have vanished into their graves, but there will be far more of us around.

    • Connie Chastain’s reply is to suggest that you and I share the same belief system. We are both aware that such is not the case, as anyone who reads this will remember. It’s just another example of Connie’s dishonesty … and lack of intelligence.

      However, Connie also thinks that to link to someone’s blog is to become “cozy” with that person … although she does so by linking to this blog. Muddleheaded indeed.

      That said, Connie’s also been posting about the superiority of white European culture and society. She understands how that might make her look, so she says …

      … Wallace’s reason for believe that European culture is superior is because “white people done it” while my reason for believing European culture was superior was because it came under the influence of Christianity.

      Of course, she also says …

      If black cultures had achieved what white European culture achieved, to the benefit of many other cultures around the world, as white culture has done, the reception of blacks would be the same.

      Yes, it’s often hard to follow her logic, but it’s not nearly so difficult to see what she really believes. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck …

      Note that she does not challenge a single statement of mine about her post.

      Connie Chastain’s confused. Surely such a badly confused person is in no condition to make a meaningful contribution to restore “southern pride,” whatever that is.

      People know where Hunter Wallace stands, and where I stand. They aren’t so sure that Connie Chastain can stand, period.

      • It took me a while to get Joey to actually engage her. He has a gift in logic and debate and I think he really exposed Connie as well as those other people. It is not cultural superiority of Europeans vs Mediterraneans vs Africans. Joey chose Africa for a reason. She continuously attacked. Any African nation brought up, such as Egypt was discredited as being Mediterranean, which is a different culture than the rest of Europe. It really bottled down to black vs white which is what she demonstrated. The arguments against the high lights of Egyptian culture is the testament to her deceit. The idea of Mediterranean influence was out the window, all that mattered is that they were not black. African, but not black. Her new presentation of multiculturalism as the devil is a thin veil to cover up what she really means. It is obvious from that exchange that racism is masquerading as a cultural supremacist.

        • Rob, please. Joey’s arguments were vacuous. He said the west African kingdoms of Songhai and Mali were in central Africa. Initially, he conveniently forgot to mention that those kingdoms were Muslim. He said the great palaces and temples of Africa rivaled the great cathedrals of Europe of the same era — but didn’t offer as single link to a single photo identifying a single palace or temple, while I demonstrated that an African mosque built in the freaking 20th century was primitive compared to European cathedrals built in the 9th century. Regardless of how advanced Egypt was, it had little to no influence on the creation of the western world. There were no great Egyptian voyages of exploration and discovery to the western hemisphere. Joey offered opinions, he didn’t even definitively identify much of what/who he was talking about. Offered no links, named no books to substantiate his claims.

          For example: On Tuesday at 11:07 pm, Joey posted, “on the kingdoms, the west african kingdoms existed for a long time and were very advanced despite what you seem to want to believe historical data says otherwise. The Muslim influence reached them after they had established great civilizations.”

          At 11:11, four minutes later, I replied, “Okay, provide links to info on these great African kingdoms BEFORE the Muslims reached them. Lemme see some of that historical data.”

          I’m still waiting for a reply, but it seems Joey quit posting after that.

          Whole exchange is still online. Anybody can read it and see that you’re description of it is bizarrely untrue. http://www.facebook.com/groups/345813525448421/401941306502309/

          • Joey’s arguments had a point and intention which immediately stirred the animosity of you and your sheep. It also exposed your true mindset. Arguing over Central or Western Africa is somewhat petty. Yes he was wrong about placement, but it does not take away from the fact that these empires were lush. You keep pointing out the influence of the Muslims, which comes later in the empires. Mali didn’t have a strong Muslim influence until the Laye lineage in about 1312. A long time after the empire’s created. The case is the opposite for the Songhai. By the time that empire emerged Islam’s spread and influence was immense. It is incredibly stupid to argue however, that Islam is the sole reason for these empire’s greatness. They were an entire continent away from the heart of that religion in a time when the human web was connected and traveled slowly. Here is a page on some early African architecture. http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/africa/architecture/architecture.htm. Some Mediterranean some not however. Also, Africa is the cradle of civilization and the early examples of architecture have been largely done away with. However, the same Mathematics that you stupidly keep citing helps to transform African architecture actually comes from the spread of Islamic influence. Why? Because the “fall of the Roman empire” caused Europe to loose a lot of those treasures like Concrete. Muslim/Islamic influence brings those things back into Europe. Without the Muslims, we wouldn’t have Aristotle. http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/islam/architecture/almohad.htm (Building during that spread of Influence.) Would the Europeans have had that same architectural design if not for Christianity? Of course that was your earlier argument….even know the technology and designs were based on Pagans.

            http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/islam/architecture/fatimid.htm – 9th century architecture Egypt. (Yes Egypt is African and within the context of this argument…even though you turn a blind eye to it which is sort of funny given that is what Brooks talks about on this thread)

            Something you continuously overlook Connie is that this is not an era where Home Depot has a ready supply of building materials. There was no good building stone hence the use of mud-bricks. Still they built amazing structures using limited resources. Architecture is based on art, science, necessity and resources. The aspect of art is entirely subjective as art is. The aspect of sciences is the math used to design such a building. Necessity is an easy ideal of “what the people need”. In the case of the Europeans, they needed to glorify something. Other architecture demonstrates a necessity fulfilled. Lastly resources, especially in the 9th century, limits the way in which buildings are made. This means that you bringing up architecture for cultural superiority is entirely subjective and moot point from the get go as it is based on geographic location.

            Oh, speaking of math,

            Regardless of how advanced Egypt was, it had little to no influence on the creation of the western world. There were no great Egyptian voyages of exploration and discovery to the western hemisphere

            Geometry is the guiding principle of architecture. The earliest records of Geometry are attributed to Egypt and Babylon for building. (J. Friberg, “Methods and traditions of Babylonian mathematics. Plimpton 322, Pythagorean triples, and the Babylonian triangle parameter equations”, Historia Mathematica, 8, 1981, pp. 277—318.) The earliest known texts on Geometry is the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus. The Greeks would later advance the use of math for study. What does this mean? The Egyptians and Babylonians are the first to use it for application and building and the Europeans would later.

            It is also sort of silly to apply later European acts of conquest. Namely, the Europeans developed gunpowder (or got it from the East), making bad soldiers effective.

            During the “Age of Discovery” that you bring up the Egyptians didn’t discover anything because they had been conquered by the Ottoman Empire….Hey Connie….what spurred the Age of Discovery? Nope, not Christianity. It was the fact that the Ottomans blocked the spice routes to China and the Europeans couldn’t get past them.

            I’ll let Joey talk about why he didn’t reply in his own time. Facebook is not a Douglas-Lincoln debate, time is everyone’s friend on there.

            In closing, he exposed you which will be addressed later. I must say it is funny watching you jump up and down bashing people claiming superiority when you obviously do not know a damn thing you are talking about. Self destruction is brutal to watch.

      • There’s only one conclusion I can reach after watching Connie frantically toss stuff against the wall here. It appears that she embarked on this sales mission assuming that nobody was going to ask her about the product, because she knows nothing about the product herself. .

  2. The truth will set you free. At least we now know that it not only is fiction – it’s intended to be fiction. So Hunter Wallace justly is granted the mantle of Real Defender of the Confederate Tradition. The only remaining question for Connie – why bother?

    • The Confederacy was based on racialism, white supremacy, and conservatism. It was based on the explicit rejection of Black Republicanism as a menacing threat to the Southern way of life.

      No one has ever disputed this but the Rainbow Confederates. Mainstream historians don’t dispute this. The Confederates themselves never disputed this. The Union side never disputed this.

      Insofar as there is a controversy, it is over the role that slavery played in secession. If you read the Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens memoirs, you will find that even they acknowledged that slavery was the “occasion” or “incident” that sparked secession.

      In their view, the debate over slavery in the territories sparked the crisis; the North and South had clashed over various other issues, and if John Brown had not made his famous raid on Harper’s Ferry, some other crisis over clashing interests and principles would have eventually split the Union.

      Rhett, for example, had been radicalized over the tariff and continued to advocate secession after the war. There had always been a class of men in the South, especially in South Carolina, who were suspicious or hostile toward to the Union.

      Most people can see that “anti-racists for the Confederacy” is on the same level of absurdity as “anti-communists for the Soviet Union.” People like that invite ridicule upon themselves.

      Why does Brooks D. Simpson clash with people like Connie Chastain? I would imagine he clashes with them for the same reason that the biologists clash with creationists.

      He clashes with them because their beliefs are ridiculous. What’s more, the very people whose “heritage” they claim to be preserving would have found them to be even more ridiculous and puzzling.

      Their reaction would be something to the effect of “did you bother to read anything I actually said?” Obviously, they either didn’t and suffer from ignorance, compartmentalize their own minds, or retreat into a fantasy world that has no correspondence to reality.

      We can argue about values. There is no reason to argue about facts. The fact is, the South was committed to racialism, white supremacy, and the defense of slavery, as well as states’ rights ideology, a code of honor, and conservatism, and those values and the worldview inspired by them brought about the secession crisis in the context of Lincoln’s election.

      Or course if you believe MLK was a conservative you shouldn’t have any problem believing in “Black Confederates.”

      • There’s a simpler explanation for clashing with them. They’re propagating a lie. People should be told the truth. For better or for worse, you’ve accurately stated why secession took place. But then there was no need for you to do it. The Secession Commissioners did a very competent job of conveying their reasons in the winter of ’60-’61.

      • “The Confederacy was based on …conservatism.” One might reasonably argue that the real conservatives were the southern unionists, of which there were many varieties. As Little Aleck Stephens and others pointed out at the time, early in the nineteenth century there was a broad consensus that slavery was a Bad Thing, and would eventually pass away. The Confederacy, on the other hand, was radical and revolutionary. Stephens acknowledged this. Based as it was on the new notion of slavery as a positive good, and the proposition that in order to preserve it the old union had to be dissolved, the CSA can be seen as a revolution that failed.

  3. Brooks I like her response:

    Idiocy 001: If this is what passes for Confederate heritage, then we know why it’s in trouble … because it has nothing to do with the Confederacy and everything to do with one’s need to seek justification for their views and philosophy by misrepresenting history and selectively culling and twisting whatever can be used to validate one’s beliefs.

    Confederate heritage is in trouble because it has been targeted for extinction by the left in this country. Out of the loop on that, are ya? It’s all over the Internet. I guess you overlook that when you go jackbooting — I mean, tiptoing — throught the Internet looking for heritage advocates to lie about on your blog. Huh.

    yea Brooks, it’s all over the internet. The left in this Country are to blame. What was it you said about a modern mindset while reflecting the on past?

  4. You don’t seem to understand history very well. I assume you are an apologist for the crimes committed by the United States against the Confederacy. I’d guess you don’t condemn white supremacy in the North, either.

    • You don’t seem to read very well (if at all), Mr. Moffatt. I’d guess you didn’t read this, for example. Are we to assume that you are an apologist for slavery and the Confederacy, or are you merely content with trying to conceal your own intellectual shortcomings?

      For example, here’s a sample of Mr. Moffatt’s thinking:

      The problem is that starting with Reconstruction, Northern liberals have tried to drive a wedge between white and black Southerners. Most people don’t realize that Jim Crow was introduced from the North. Most people don’t realize that the North tried to make slavery permanent, if the Southern states would simply rejoin the union. The South wasn’t interested in slavery as much as it was interested in getting relief from the excessive tariffs that benefited the North, and hurt the South….that’s black and white South.

      And here’s another one:

      Yes, the yankee traitors were buried in Arlington, but unfortunately their side won. And with that victory, they destroyed the republic won by our Founding Fathers. The dictator Lincoln was the real traitor, and his actions fulfill the Constitutional definition of treason. Your knowledge of history is incomplete, and I can recommend a course of reading that will help educate you. Anything by Thomas DiLorenzo, Clyde Wilson, and especially Charles Adams’ “When in the Course of Human Events”, though written by a yankee, tells the truth about the causes of the war. If you would like more information, I’d be happy to be of service.

      I’m sure Mr. Moffatt, even when posting under another name, would like to be of service.

      Thank you, Mr. Moffatt, for sharing with us your lack of historical understanding and reading comprehension. I’d guess you would have preferred to keep that to yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s