Kevin Levin writes:
“This is about the fact that it was a group of African-American students who successfully petitioned their school to acknowledge their interpretation of the Confederate flag. It is a reminder that African Americans will never subscribe to their preferred interpretation of this history and its iconography.
The Confederate heritage movement has gone to great lengths in recent years to shape their stories to appeal to African Americans and other minorities. This butchering of the Lost Cause narrative likely goes beyond what most Confederates themselves would acknowledge as a realistic depiction of their cause. The rise of the black Confederate narrative in the 1970s is the most obvious example of this revisionist agenda.
In the end groups like the Virginia Flaggers can highlight their black member and post all of the photographs of black passers-by on the Boulevard they want on their websites. The SCV can schedule an unlimited number of appearances with H.K. Edgerton. The racial profile of the students is a reminder that this project has largely been a failure….”
A few years ago, the League of the South itself was “Rainbow” and had an anti-racism statement posted on the Dixienet website. The Rainbows were later toppled within the League which has since committed itself to organic nationalism as its organizing principle.
Two years ago, I used to clash all the time with the Rainbows on Facebook and elsewhere, but we seem to hear less and less from them these days. It peaked around the time the Sons of Confederate Veterans joined forces with the NAACP to protest the Klan in Memphis. The Black Run Memphis city government renamed three Confederate parks in Memphis including the resting place of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the SCV earned nothing but contempt from the black community for that little PC stunt.
Heading into this Lexington protest, I half expected to see a lot of chest thumping online from the usual suspects denouncing the League in order to “prove” the SCV isn’t racist, along with a flurry of propaganda about the alleged existence of “black Confederates.” To my pleasant surprise, nothing of the sort occurred either online or offline in Lexington where League members protested the outrage at Washington and Lee University with the SCV and Virginia Flaggers. For once everyone involved seems to have focused their attention on the real enemies of the South.
Hopefully, the SCV is growing less interested in black eccentrics, who are outliers in the black community, and imaginary “black Confederates,” who never really existed anyway, and more aware of the true antagonistic attitude of black community and “civil rights activists” toward Southern heritage which has recently manifested itself in “the Committee” in Lexington, Rose Sanders and the battle over the Nathan Bedford Forrest bust in Selma, the Memphis City Council, the campaign against the Tom Watson statue and Confederate monuments in Georgia, and the thousands of blacks who rallied in Columbia earlier this year demanding the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the South Carolina state capitol.
How many SCV members have seen the light on Black Run America (BRA) as a result of the self-styled pompous brats of “the Committee” desecrating Marse Robert’s grave? Why wasn’t there any wailing this time about “links” and “associations” with “racists” and evil “white supremacists”?
Has unrequited negrophila finally run its course and begun to taper off in the pro-South movement?
I’d wager that most black people consider it paternalistic and therefore “racist” when rainbows insist that blacks are Southerners despite the fact that they do not self identify as such.
Very good observations, HW. I hope you’re take on the situation is correct. One cannot be friends with an enemy, no matter how you try to word it.
Very true Fr. John. Attempting to appease an enemy who hates you is impossible. Such appeasement would require one self destructive act of self abasement after another.
BX, I doubt that Russico’s Catholicism had anything to do with his decision. There were many Catholic’s who served in the Confederate Army and Navy during the WBTS. I’d assume it would be Northern liberalism that motivated his actions, not Catholicism.
If Lee had been a Roman Catholic or a Jew, or a Hindu or a Moslem, his memorial would not have been touched!
Agreed. My Irish-American Catholic great-grandfather (born in Mobile, Alabama) fought with an Alabama regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia and was wounded at Chancellorsville.. My great aunt (his daughter) was very active in the UDC. The family has always been true Southern. New Jersey,on the other hand, is a real armpit of a state. Taking down the flags is an outrage and insult.
There were also a respectable number of Jews who served in the Confederacy, but those Southern Catholics and Jews were from early immigrant or colonial stock. They were for all practical purposes completely different peoples from the second wave of Catholic or Jewish immigrants.
I don’t suppose you are familiar with Major General Patrick Cleburne, CSA; the one born in County Cork, Ireland?
Gen. Cleburne was Anglo-Irish. He was Anglican.
I was wondering about those boys in “Gods and Generals”. Why were they dressed like that?
They were probably an antebellum parade group who found themselves in a real war.
Gee, for being a “nation” in the grip of racism, I’m surprised that no MLK memorials have been vandalized or removed. Couldn’t have happened cause it would be all over the lame stream, cultural marxist propaganda media outlets.
Oh, of course, since we’re a “nation”, lol, Planet of the Apes nation, in the grip of ANTI-WHITE racism explains why no descretion of MLK memorials which are more prevalent that Washington memorials.
OK, I understand it now…..do you ?
I’m sure you’ve seen Greg Hood’s latest essay, while we’re on this general subject matter:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/the-antifa-avenger-rides-again/
Excerpt from Hood’s article:
Hispanic Luis Guiterrez brags to the National Council of La Raza that amnesty will “punish” Americans who oppose illegal immigration. Other Hispanic elected officials openly described immigration as an act of racial conquest. Groups like the National Council of La Raza or the franklyethnonationalist group MECHA receive funding from universities and governments and count elected officials as members. We will never see libertarians left a finger in opposition, nor question the “tone” of those who shriek “Go Back to Europe” with their faces contorted in race hatred.
The fact is Hunter de facto approves of it. There’s nothing that nonwhites can do or say which will convince him at this point to speak in defense of whites as a collective people, or even as individuals free to dissent from multiculturalism. Contemporary libertarianism is simply an ever more elaborate series of excuses why whites can be punished collectively but only mobilize in their own interests as individuals.
And this is why libertarianism goes beyond simple misdirection, like American conservatism. Jack Hunter is a race cuck because he derives his self-image and contemporary status from his own degradation as a white man.
He could have resisted, but he chose not just to surrender, but to hurt other people who supported him. He is impatient that other whites are hesitant to join him in subjugation. And he approves of government action – even fantastically expansive and expensive government action – as long as it means breaking down the remnants of white America. As with most libertarians, cultural leftism is far more important than limited government.
It should be noted in conclusion that Jack Hunter’s erstwhile boss Rand Paul, the “white renegade of the year” for whom he sacrificed himself, is currently trying to get more black felons the right to vote. For his trouble, blacks are calling him “racially suspect.”
White advocates need to understand that race cucks are not doing this for reward or even social acceptability. Race cucks have learned to love the lash, to glory in their own diminishment, to hate only those of their own kind who refuse join them. There are those who will sooner set themselves afire than let us live in peace. The thought of defiance is so unthinkable that they emotionally savage those who resist in even the slightest way. That is what is so “embarrassing,” so “ugly,” and so utterly “revolting” about Jack Hunter and those like him. They don’t just refuse to fight in defense of their own. They actively struggle to make sure none of us will be allowed to escape.
That article brings up how the former Southern Avenger has now become a sniveling Liberal after being “called out” for his past. This brings up a question; why is it, when someone is “called out” for past or present beliefs and actions, that he usually does a 180 and bows down to those who believe he has wronged?
I wish just once, someone in the public eye is “called out” for his beliefs, and instead of cowering he says something along the lines of “Yeah, I believe these things, so what? You think I care what your ilk say about of me?” I mean, I guess Buchanan has done that, but I wish more would.
I’m hopeing Mr. Peroutka in Maryland does exactly that.
Yes, Logan … and not only do ‘Yankees’ ignore that for which General Lee stood, so do some of our fellow Leaguers. Fantastic answer! I was wondering when you were going to draw, again, and, now, I have my answer! Somebody call the gravedigger’s unit, there’s a dang mess to be cleaned up!
Yes, Logan … and not only do ‘Yankees’ ignore that for which General Lee stood, so do some of our fellow Leaguers
It’s only natural to honour a general more for his battlefield accomplishments than for his opinions on social issues.
Dear LLDixie,
Yes, knowing you as I do, I can quite see how you would come to that conclusion. General Lee was, amongst other things, a ‘Rainbow-Confederate’.
Thank you for your remark. My best to you on this day.
Some of Lee’s ideas were liberal for his day, though he was not a Rainbow. He did not go out of his way to elevate blacks to a position of prominence or to rewrite the story of the Confederacy to make it appear to have been an experiment in racial equality.
At the end of the day, who cares what Lee’s thoughts on race were? Southerners love Lee because he was one of the greatest military minds the South has produced.
Ruscio’s attack on Lee was a cultural Marxist attack on a White Protestant leader of the old South. Ruscio denigrated Lee in his letter and speeches concerning the removal of the Confederate flags from the Lee Chapel. It’s a matter of public record.
Roman Catholics like Ruscio now expect us to not speak harshly of their Pope who is an infallible foreign dictator.
What I find disappointing is that only 2 W&L alumni came to Lee’s defense. W&L probably has 25,000 living alumni, or more, that’s a pathetic showing. Alumni like Ken(t) Brown who wrote “Retreat from Gettysburg”, which praises Lee’s masterful fighting retreat from Gettysburg. I’m sure Brown has profited from Lee, yet, I’ve seen nothing from this important high powered lawyer and historian.
The whole thing makes me ill.
Hunter,
You owe the LOS and Dr. Hill an apology. I am a longtime member of LOS. The
very first LOS conference I attended ended with a supremely organized protest
against SPLC. Leaders from the Carolinas came down well-prepared with signs
and flags. We have always had an activist core.
“Rainbow”, to me, means honoring the federal striped banner……and NOT
walking out of church when the Yankee “Battlehymn” is played……
LOS was criticized and shunned by SCV for being too radical…. from the
very beginning up to the present time.
I would not take a bullet for a “rainbow”; but I would take a bullet for Dr. Hill.
He has the passion and spirit of his Scottish ancestors……such as the ones
who charged up the hills carrying their battleaxes in the War of Yankee
Aggression.
Some have fallen away over the years. But some may return when they
realize the Yankees intend their complete destruction.
You owe Dr. Hill an apology!
Has unrequited negrophila finally run its course and begun to taper off in the pro-South movement?
Hunter, I’m not quite so optimistic after watching the video of the SCV people in Lexington and noting that they went out of their way to distance themselves from racialism. Maybe the Negrophilia has begun to taper off, but it’s far from having stopped entirely.
It might still be prevalent in the high brass, but from what I hear, the main body of the SCV doesn’t really care about pleasing non-Southrons. They men who still try to cater to Yanks and blacks will be retiring or elected out of their positions soon enough, and the up-incomers will be more inclined to agree with us on many issues.
There’s already a ton of SCV who are also in the LS, and according to the folks who went to the protest at W&L, most of the Heritage types were very sympathetic to the cause.
The best way to defend Southron Heritage is to end Northern rule and remove the North from the political equation.
That’s a good sign, however I still hesitate to associate with the SCV at all. We don’t want the League thought of as a heritage group or as a Victorian-era fashion club.
Actually, I believe the opposite is happening. The SCV are starting to realize they need to be more like us, and focus on our present and future.
Logan, if one were to want to build a fine small group of individuals, then LLDixie has got the absolute right recipe. If, on the other hand, one were to want any hope of moving secession and Southern Nationalism into the mainstream of Southern experience, there simply are not enough Confederates to be discarding them, for any reason. In fact, I have come to believe that, to have any chance of Southern nationalism, at all, it is going to take a great variety of Southern state & pan-national advocacy groups – starting with Dr. Hill’s league (for those who want to imagine a purely Anglo-Saxon, and or white South) but, many other groups whose platforms will, in varying ways, embrace Southerners, without consideration to race and religion.
In the end, though attempts at ‘Rainbow Confederatism’ were a failure for the League, and ought not be tried, again, that does not mean that someone else ought not try it ; for it MUST be tried, and, as well, the positions of that must be articulated. The Tea-party has millions of members, throughout the South, and yet – all in all, they have struggled to implement their agenda. Any secessionist move-
ment, to be anything more than a fondly cherished dream, will have to rise to that level, and beyond it. Otherwise, the endeavour shall be like (and is) much more akin to that of joining ‘The Orchid Society’ … a place where one can gather with a wee minority of highly specialized fellow enthusiasts, and commiserate on common passions, whilst remaining out of the greater public picture at large.
Personally, I think someone such as yourself – young, clean-cut, normal of lifestyle, committed, with a natural fighting spirit, a good heart, and a less rigidly specialized idea of what The South, is, has been, and could be …ought be contemplating the commencing of his own group – completely apart from the League. In my opinion, you ought be paying less attention to liberals, and various news commentary, and more on accumulating those political tactics & techniques that would bring fruition to your goals – including a complete analysis about what you think are the strengths & failings of this organization … from top to bottom.
You may, My Young Friend, not like the weight of this endeavour being thrown at you ; you may grow peevish at my uninvited suggestion, but, if someone such as yourself, does not take it upon himself to see things in this light, there is no future for Southern Nationalism.