Please read the following carefully from a self-professed Rainbow Confederate:
I am getting tired of report to point out that race relations are and have always been good in the South becuse we deal on an individual basis with people rather than the “Group” as the Leftists do.the Marxist tactic of “racism” and simply point to the FBI Hate Crime Report to prove my points about the hateful Northern cities and their obsession with race and cultural segregation in their own world and the need to ignore their own problems and shortcomings.
It is this less than sure handling of history that opens the door to criticism of Rainbow Confederates as stuck in a fantasyland.
Now she’s fighting Pat Hines. Here’s an interesting quote from the Rainbow Confederate in denial
Not true, Pat. Link to where I have depicted the Confederacy of as a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant. Link to ANY statements of mine that argue that the Confederacy was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy.
You made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you. Prove it, or withdraw it.
I’m reading a book called The Great War In The Heart of Dixie: Alabama during World War I. I’ve always been more interested in the Jim Crow South than the Confederacy.
Does this person know that blacks were disenfranchised in Alabama under the 1901 constitution? Alabamians grudgingly conceded a level of civil equality to blacks during Reconstruction (they were free, could legally marry, own property, etc.) but continued to oppose racial equality, political equality, and social equality.
Segregation laws were passed after the 1901 constitution gutted the black vote. The Alabama National Guard in WW1 was lily White. Woodrow Wilson even started to resegregate the federal government.
The South was full of racially discriminatory legislation until the 1960s. White Southern racial attitudes were objectively “racist” into the 1970s and 1980s before they finally (officially) converged with White Northern racial attitudes in the 1990s.
But anyway, stuff like historical facts, legislation, polls of racial attitudes, our ancestor’s own words, and other types of hard evidence … it bounces off a Rainbow Confederate like a meteor off the atmosphere.
Rainbow Confederates are almost always Baby Boomers projecting their own post-1965 racial attitudes on the past. A Rainbow Confederate wants to “preserve our heritage” by substituting the Baby Boomer worldview for the actual substance of that heritage.
The cognitive dissonance between “heritage” (as they imagine it) and “history” (the reality of the matter) produces this strange worldview which makes sense only to this demographic.
It would have scandalized our ancestors. It will certainly provoke laughter among our descendants.
‘Rainbow Confederates are almost always Baby Boomers projecting their own post-1965 racial attitudes on the past. A Rainbow Confederate wants to “preserve our heritage” by substituting the Baby Boomer worldview for the actual substance of that heritage.
‘It is this less than sure handling of history that opens the door to criticism of Rainbow Confederates as stuck in a fantasyland.’
Strange that I would ever say in single comment that I agree with both Hunter Wallace and Brooks Simpson. lol But in our analysis of the Rainbows we do find ourselves in agreement that they are living in a fantasyland. And as HW noted, they pretty much all tend to be Baby Boomers. I don’t know anyone my age or younger who is a Rainbow. I think they are dying breed.
A total fantasyland: the Confederacy really was based on racialism, slavery, and white supremacy. It really was a “White Man’s Country” and Confederates really did fight to keep it that way.
BTW, it seems reasonable to assume that Confederates were fighting for an independent South, a South based on white citizenship and black servitude, and state sovereignty, so it is indisputably true that we are “more Confederate” than they are.
“Making war should have been even more of a moral discussion point. There wasn’t a need for it and Lincoln drove that cart not Davis. Let me clarify this post is directly in response to Dr. Michael Hill and his followers remarks that we are “Rainbow Confederates” Hill and his minions consider themselves to be purest of Confederate Ideology as Southern Nationalist. Basing their beliefs of building a White nation. As ennobling as that may be in their eyes it is unrealistic. They would be better to Colonize Greenland, which may yet prove to have great potential. The Confederacy however was not founded on creating a White Supremacist nation.”
Wow, I don’t like being bedfellows with Hunter Wallace. But alas, there is enough racial predjudice among my LIVING Southern ancestors to know what their parents and grandparents probably believed about race. My family is pretty closely connected to the Civil War. My grandfathers were born in 1900 and 1921 (the 1921 grandfather is still alive) and my father in 1938. All of them knew some old folks from the Civil War ….. and their take on the whole thing is more Simpson/Wallace than Chastain.
I really wish it was Chastain, but it’s not. Hell, in 2009 they raked me over the coals for having a mixed black chick as my best friend (worried that it might become THAT kind of relationship), and still heckle me about it. And that was in two-thousand-freakin’-NINE.
Oh, hell. To really spoil family secrets, according to oral legend, my Nicholson great-grandfather shot a black man dead for trying to shake hands in the post-war period. And just last week, my Aunt found a copy of an old will in the Ralliegh, NC archives from 1709 where my ancestor from 11 generations ago is dividing his estate between his heirs, and “negroes” are dolled out along with cows, “pistoles”, rifles, “cutlass and sabre” and land. None of that “freed his slaves in his will” stuff that Rainbow Confederates like to talk about.
I really wish I wasn’t being smaked in the face with such evidence, but it gets hard to deny. Just this year I decided to research a race riot in my hometown of Norfolk where blacks supposedly killed innocent whites — turns out, it was Confederate vets killing innocent blacks and USCTs in a city where all the police were themselves ex-rebs and only blacks were arrested.
The list just goes on and on …….
That April 1866 riot tends to be overshadowed by the riots in Memphis and New Orleans, although in many ways it resembles the Memphis riot.
Wait, wait. You KNOW about the April riots? Color me pretty damn impressed. Even locals were oblivious.
I had a time digging through microfilm for records. The Norfolk-Virginian Pilot newspaper completely ignored the riot, instead running an article about USCTs shooting girls, soiling property and calling some man’s wife a “dirty bitch” whom he ought to “spank” (real quotes from the newspaper, I swear). NOTHING about white violence was mentioned until a Federal inquest two months later (detailed in a report to Edwin Stanton), where even former Confederates acknowledged that the city was Reb-controlled, and that “Union men wouldn’t feel safe for a day” without the Army to keep the peace. Appearantly a black man calling someone “bitch” is more newsworthy than a white man killing blacks ….
(The day before the killings, the paper ran the text of the new Civil Rights bill and featured an op-ed about its potential effects … the next day, whites were shooting).
What’s really eerie is that a racial fight happened this year, on almost the same date in April 2012. Some white reporters from that same Virginian Pilot were beaten up by 6 black men (urban legend made it into a crowd of over 100), and even got attention from Bill O’Reily. O’Reily accused the Virginian Pilot of 2012 from covering up the story for political correctness …. the same paper which in 1866 covered up WHITE violence. We still don’t know the reason for the beatings (on formery segrogated Church St, the old “black” area of Norfolk), but whites assume it’s racism.
And thus the old fear of “race riots” (read: slave revolts) shows it’s ugly head in our present day …….