Remember what I said about the changing meaning of historical symbols?
You tell me … and, please … do not invoke Godwin’s Law, for in this case the issue is the use of symbols, not an argument that the Confederates were Nazis or vice-versa. That’s not an argument I would make.
Could I be any clearer?
Leave it to Connie Chastain to claim that the argument I stated I was not making was of course the argument I was making:
If you compare symbols, you compare what they stand for. Don’t say you don’t. If you compare a Nazi swastika to a Confederate battle flag, you are comparing Nazis and Confederates. You are comparing what Nazis did with what Confederates did, and likely to attempt to draw similarities between the two.
If I was making any comparison among historical entities, I was comparing the Nazis with the KKK in their taking a symbol to use for their own purposes. Confederate heritage groups are akin to this new pro-swastika movement in that they want to reinstate what they claim are original meanings.
More remarkable is this statement:
Obviously, it is ludicrous to imply that the Third Reich and the KKK both “hate groups” to further the implication being that there’s little to no difference between them
Setting aside Chastain’s flawed prose, if the Nazis and the KKK are not both “hate groups” (Nazis continue to use the swastika, Connie), then it behooves her to tell us which one is not a hate group. Or is Connie Chastain implying that neither the Nazis or the KKK are hate groups?
I’m not implying that the Nazis or the KKK are hate groups. They are hate groups. I disagree with Connie on that score.
Connie then reminds us of how well white southerners treated their slaves by feeding them, caring for the aged, and helping out pregnant enslaved women. Really. We recall her previous celebration of the benefits of slavery for the enslaved. Next she’ll tell us that selling off family members was a means of preserving domestic harmony and that coerced interracial relations were okay, so long as it was white males on enslaved black females (heck … she’ll say it wasn’t a violent crime at all … even Billy Bearden’s more honest about that). After all, those were just sweet southern boys, right, Connie?
Let’s remind Connie (again) that the whole idea of slavery was to create a coerced work force that reproduced itself (a major feature of southern slavery, thus permitting the end of the transAtlantic slave trade). You want to keep your laborers healthy so that they can do the work you need them to do so that you can prosper off the toils of their labor. You want your enslaved population to increase so that you can own more slaves and so more people can own slaves.
Connie needs to teach at this school.
Finally, Connie returns to her fantasies of violence (perhaps as a way to pump up interest for her forthcoming book):
The only reason anybody would portray the VaFlaggers, even by implication, as on a part with Nazi apologists is the hope that their smears would incite somebody to harm or injure the VaFlaggers.
Of course, the only person who compared the Virginia Flaggers to Nazi apologists was Connie Chastain … although that brings up once more the association of Matthew Heimbach with the Virginia Flaggers (and other Confederate heritage groups, including the SCV).
Thanks for the reminder, Connie.
So, there you have it, folks: the person who posts materials on the Virginia Flaggers’ blog claims that (a) either the KKK or the Nazis are not a hate group (2) that perhaps neither is a hate group (3) slavery was not so bad for the enslaved. She says so herself.
Again, folks, it’s a heritage of hate, and Connie Chastain is a fitting representative of that perspective.