As you might imagine, our Confederate heritage apologist offered lengthy replies to this week’s series of posts, claiming that she was misunderstood. I don’t think so. Moreover, there’s no need to follow her responses step-by-step, because her illogical rants don’t deserve that sort of scrutiny. Besides, a few highlights should suffice.
The primary ones warping reality are the progressive cultural elites, who do indeed embrace white inferiority by claiming it is falsely superior — exactly the same way feminists embrace male inferiority by claiming it is falsely superior.
There she goes again with the superior/inferior rant. Suffice it to say that it does not follow that to attack white supremacy is to embrace white inferiority. Then again, if one wanted to argue for white inferiority, one need only look at the people who assert white supremacy. One who wanted to argue white inferiority would simply point to the writings of our Confederate heritage apologist as Exhibit A.
Simply put, equality does not exist as a concept in our Confederate heritage apologist’s world. Rather, she sounds a bit like Alexander H. Stephens, who declared in 1861 that Jeffersonian notions of equality were in error:
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.
No wonder some people are Confederate heritage apologists. They agree with Stephens.
But it would be interesting to hear them explain why, if all cultures are equal, how any of them could be shoved out of the way. Weren’t they able enough to withstand, or shove back? If not, why not — I mean, if they’re equally strong, smart, knowledgeable, innovative, etc., etc., etc….
Of course, as Confederate culture was shoved out of the way and rendered subordinate to Yankee culture, it, too, must be inferior, if one follows this reasoning. Such are the traps our Confederate heritage apologist sets for herself.
She already sprung the trap about diversity. Having commenced this exchange by asking my fellow Long Islander to explain why he likes diversity, she was unable to meet him on the ground of her own choosing:
What I did was change subject from diversity to multiculturalism.
Not really. What she did was to abandon her own initial argument to commence a new strawman attack, this time by defining multiculturalism according to her prejudices.
Multiculturalism is a a political and social doctrine of the progressive left, held and promoted for a distinct political and cultural end.
And what might that be?
Those who accept and champion multiculturalism — at least, the elites and leaders — do indeed aim to eradicate white culture — or, again, their concept of it. This is the reason for fabricating “white privilege,” most starkly manifested in the Un-Fair Campaign; seen also in Noel Ignatiev’s call to abolish the white race. Sez Ignatiev: “When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category….whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.” (Wikipedia)
I don’t think our Confederate heritage apologist understands the concepts she outlines. Moreover, the fundamental flaw in what passes for her reasoning persists: the eradication of artificial privilege paves the road to equality, not inferiority; to tolerance, not prejudice; to leveling the playing field, not burying someone beneath it. She can’t comprehend that concept: to attempt to get her to understand it is akin to teaching a pig how to sing.
Even then, she’s still confused, and she tries to make a virtue over her confusion about what she’s discussing:
Remember, I’m using the word “diversity” as a synonym for the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism, a point I’ve made more than once in these posts and comments, because so many peole see it that way. Personally, I don’t see them as synonyms, but have used it that way for the purpose of this discussion.
Sure. First she says she’s asking about diversity; then she states she’s changing the subject; then she says she’s using the words as synonyms, but she doesn’t see them that way. Right.
I suspect the real reason why notions of multiculturalism and diversity outrage some white people is because they are afraid that they can’t compete on a level playing field. Unable to voice that fear, they prefer to claim that if you aren’t for superiority, then you must be for inferiority (which, after all, is how a white supremacist such as our Confederate heritage apologist thinks).
You would think that if you really believed in white superiority, you wouldn’t need artificial ways to preserve it. If some group’s naturally superior for whatever reason, they should be able to demonstrate that superiority on a level playing field. But that’s the irony: white supremacists claim they believe in white superiority and the superiority of “white culture,” but they are afraid to put that to the test, because in their world, if you’re not superior, you’re inferior. Equality and fairness? Tolerance and acceptance of difference? Please.
This is the very person who the Virginia Flaggers employ to construct websites and blogs, as well as to do what their leader calls the “heavy hitting.” Not a single Flagger has distanced themselves from this philosophy of white supremacy as voiced by this Confederate heritage apologist. Some actually cheer her on. Then again, these are the same people who welcomed, befriended, and defended Matthew Heimbach.
Just a reminder that our Confederate heritage apologist does not stand alone.