It’s been an interesting week in Confederate heritage fantasy land (hereafter CHFL), with the return of several of our favorite characters. It’s as if these folks ought to get together in a really bad reality TV show that could be picked up by the History Channel.
We’ve had the usual declarations by the usual suspects in CHFL that folks are “skeered” of them; multiple posts seeking to analyze what motivates those evil anti-Confederate heritage bloggers (according to one particularly shrill ranter, it all comes down to “a post-civil rights obsession with “racism” and an overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners, past and present [with a few exceptions] as humanity’s greatest manifestation of evil — violent, inbred, moronic, scum-sucking racists”); and that old (if tired) standby, the “demonizing” of white southerners. We have the usual commentary on “motives, agenda and character” by someone whose own motives are open to question (but who really cares?), whose agenda appears to be distracting a small readership from her own history of obsessive ranting at many, many people on many, many issues, and whose supposed concentration on character is ironic (although I admit that many of these folks are characters). We’ve had protests that comments are screened as well as the occasional fabricated comment designed to be rejected and in more than a few cases one that has never been actually submitted. How bizarre.
You’ll have to find out for yourself where such comments appear. We know these people are capable of outrage … just not when it comes to their fellow travelers making comments about violence against children. Then they are remarkably confused … and very silent.
I understand that what they claim I believe and what they think motivates me is essential to nourishing their outbursts and sense of victimhood. At some point, however, it’s cruel to enable their self-delusions. I find what I’ve read recently to be sad, even pitiful. Apparently they must believe what they need to believe, because it seems so important to their sense of self. Perhaps it makes them feel better about themselves. Perhaps it is an effort to compensate for something that’s missing in their lives. Whatever it is and what function it serves is best left unexamined. All I know is that they believe I’m “skeered.” That seems essential to their sense of self.
I’m not “skeered.” I’m bored. Just bored.
At first I found these people amusing as individuals and useful as examples of the mishandling of history by some so-called Confederate heritage advocates (I will now be accused of tainting everyone interested in Confederate heritage, and not just these select individuals, but then we’ve already seen that these particular critics have problems with basic reading comprehension). At some point, however, the jokes, the rants, and the whining become old and stale. These folks have nothing new or interesting to say: they’ve been reduced to complaining when I quote them, as if to repeat their words is unfair in itself. At that point I see their remarks as desperate cries for attention, especially when I’ve ignored them for some time. However, I don’t see anything new or valuable (or even worthwhile) in what they have been saying, and I’ve decided not to feed the monster when the only possible reason for approving certain comments is to fan a flame war that has no redeeming merit whatsoever … aside from the entertainment value some find in such pathetic attempts at retorts. Such comments have no value as either examples of lines of thought worth exploring or as providing unintended humor. Thus it is time (some would say long past time) to reassess the value of engagement with such folks.
No doubt these folks will find this frustrating, even upsetting: in one case it looks as if someone’s been itching for a fight for months. Too bad. It’s time for these folks to stew in their own juices. Oh, here and there something they may submit may prove rather useful and revealing (although rarely as they may intend), but I’m not interested in turning over the comments section to them. They can comment on their own blogs. For me, the whole business reminds me of a situation comedy that has gone on a little too long, become all too predictable, and has lost its entertainment value. It’s boring.
So you’re going to label their comments as spam from now on? What a wonderful holiday gift to your readers.
Basically, yes. They’ve been moderated before, with an increasingly high rate of rejection. It’s when I saw that certain people couldn’t even agree that threats against children were deplorable that I thought that such whiners no longer deserved to be taken seriously or that I should ponder over whether I should allow them to post comments. They have their own blogs (or they can easily construct them), so those interested in reading what they have to say may venture forth.
Trust me … you should see what I reject.
Good for you Brooks.Bummer has a long road in his student journey. Start the New Year off with in depth Civil War analysis. Looking forward to a new direction. Thanks for your time.
Bummer
I think you should only call attention to them when their nonsense becomes dangerous, gets media attention, is embraced by politicians (e.g., David Duke, George Allen, etc.). etc. In other words, basically when they have crawled further enough out of their holes that a light needs to be shined on them so they can be driven back down into their holes before they can spread like a virus.
I am relieved to hear this. I was getting disillusioned and depressed by the nastiness and craziness of these fanatics. They do not deserve any attention at all. I feel they debase honest discourse to treat them with consideration and attention they do not deserve. There are many subjects of great importance to be discussed, and I hope you will no longer give them a forum to air their hatred.
I am flattered that some of these folks seem to be obsessed with me, including one favorite who devotes much of her blog to ranting and whining and carping about me. I find reading it provides some comic relief, although I do have to wonder about someone so desperate for attention that she looks carefully at her reader stats to see when I visit–and posts about it (I see no need to recount her visits here).
Oh well.
I find your comments and sense of persecution amusing. As a lifelong student of the Civil War, I have found merit on both sides of the heritage line a a certain shrillness on the fringes of both sides. It reflects a refusal to want the whole story told, but to limit the narrative to prevent the wrongs committed on both sides discussed.
I wish you well, Professor, in your quest to eliminate your critics from having their say. It demonstrates the tolerance of which you speak. Nothing could be worse, I suppose, than having those who disagree with our views heard, could it?
It would appear that posting your comment demonstrates that your assertions are without merit. How’s that working for you?
Sense of persecution? My, but you folks sure have a rich fantasy life based on what you think others think. Hope that keeps you warm at night. Clearly you have nothing of substance to say. So much for you as a critic. And so much for you as a personal injury lawyer. The folks of Sumner County deserve better. Or do you want to explain this? Or this?
Speaking of a sense of persecution … are you still worried that someone’s going to take away your guns? Do you like creating bogeymen?
Mr. Lucas is a proud member of the SCV whose activities include this and who believes that an enslaved black serving as his master’s body servant must have been a black Confederate. As you can see here, he’s interested in minimizing the relationship between slavery, the war, and the Confederacy.
I thought that to air some of his views would be the best way to demonstrate that I have no problem highlighting all sorts of viewpoints. In fact, I wager it would have been wiser for Randy Lucas to have detailed his position rather than claiming that it was being suppressed. Maybe he feels persecuted.