MyDD :: Tolerance, tradition & transformation amidst intractable conflict

Tolerance, tradition & transformation amidst intractable conflict

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:05:44 PM EST

The SouthNow blog has an interview with political strategist David "Mudcat" Saunder:

SouthNow: What's the prescription for Democrats?

Mudcat: There's only one precription and that's tolerance. I'm a white, southern male who hunts. I'm a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has two black members, by the way. I don't know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, we don't say the wrong side won the [Civil] War. Everybody knows slavery was wrong. We say give us our culture.

Intolerance is becoming rampant. It's culturally and socially unacceptable to be a white, southern male and a Democrat. If we can get past that, we can kick ass.

SouthNow: What's your strategy for Southern progress?

Mudcat: We need to quit all this tap dancin' around the truth. The truth will set you free. We need to stop tap dancin' around the issues of guns, gays and God. We're the party of tolerance, let's tolerate all cultures....

Well, cultural imperialism, which runs rampant through the Bush administration, and many Democrats too (especially those in New England states), is an annoying leftover. Saunders is certainly correct in saying that the Democratic party should be the party of tolerance, but that's not really the problem that the Republicans are driving wedges through right now.

It's within the traditional value structure, taking cultural things like the Pledge, Ten Commandments, Prayer, Marriage, and wedging the issues of tolerance within that context, which creates their advantage. So in short, saying "tolerance" doesn't seem to be enough, unless tolerance is code for going along with tradition as well.

I've reached back many times, in understanding this area of conflict, to an inter-disciplinary 1994 publication, The Promise of Mediation, Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger. The book explicitly outlined a framework for understanding transformative mediation (practiced through the use of narratives that release empowerment and engage recognition), but it did so through an explanation of worldviews that people hold, as the nexus where the conflict is (instead of whatever issue that's being argued about currently).

Most of the book (here's an abstract)centers within the tension between the problem-solving and the transformative worldview, but the traditional (or "organic") worldview is also discussed. I'll say something about the latter two in a bit, but if you look at today's political parties, especially on the Democratic side, you have politicians engaged in problem-solving conflict resolution--that conflict is a problem that needs to be solved.

Conflicts are usually seen to be "real or apparent incompatibility of parties' needs or interests" (pg. 56). Problem solving allows parties to work together to find ways of satisfying all of the parties' needs or interests or coming sufficiently close to that goal that the solution is agreeable to all.

The abstract linked to above covers the weakness of this approach, the most reaching, that:

they tend to drop issues that cannot be easily handled within the problem solving approach. Relational or identity issues, for instance, are dropped because they are too intangible to deal with. Folger and Bush argue that "The type of influence embodied in those patterns shifts the focus away from mutual satisfaction of needs as the parties define them. The effect of the shift in focus is to undermine the problem-solving enterprise at its very core." (pg. 70). "The evidence suggests both that current practice generally follows the problem solving approach and that problem solving mediation does not do a good job of solving problems at all. . . . "The aggregate result," they go on to say, "is not more satisfaction and justice but less" (pg. 74).

Now, if you read Newt Gingrich's latest book, it's basically a playbook to exploit this area that problem-solving can't deal with, by wedging traditional-minded value areas (the Pledge, Ten Commandments, Prayer, Marriage) with the areas of conflict within society.

The answer out of this conflict then, is to move beyond problem-solving toward a transformative approach, and that's largely what was tried with the Dean campaign. Where Dean ran into a problem wasn't in terms of noting the failure of the problem-solving approach (there's a wonderful passage in Trippi's book that details how the You Have the Power slogan was eventually teased out (p. 122-125), moving the understanding from that of a transactional politics to a transformational politics. Instead, it was in the area of framing and reframing in the encouragement of perspective that has fallen short. That is, listening to the other side speak and repeating it with your own words and understanding (think about "Pickup trucks with confederate decals...") that reaches across the division is tough (and really deserves to be dived into later with analysis).

Back to the worldviews for a moment, here's the abstract of the Bush & Folger book's on it:

Chapter Nine contains a discussion of the underlying values of transformative and problem solving approaches and explains how these values are linked to different worldviews: the individualistic, the organic, and the relational. The individualistic world view sees the individual as being of primary importance. The primary goal, in this view, is the self-fulfillment of the individual's interests and needs. Autonomy, independence, individuality, and self-satisfaction are primary objectives. This world view contrasts with the organic world view, which sees the person as a part of a larger social entity. That larger entity is of primary importance, not the individual or the individual's needs. Thus the supreme value is the collective welfare, and service to others and to the whole is seen as more important than the pursuit of personal interests and needs. Both of these world views are then compared to the relational world view, which is, in essence a combination of the other two. In the relational view, people are recognized as separate, but with the potential for a connection to others and the larger social whole. Both autonomy and connection are seen as important goals. This, of course, is the world view that leads to (and from) the transformative approach, while the individualistic world view is connected with the problem-solving approach to mediation.

And that, in short, is the roadmap for the Democratic Party, in moving beyond transactional to transformation politics, needs to become relational, connectional, and reflective of the larger whole. This can't occur within the framework of blue, red, and battleground states. The framework isn't targeting just enough House seats to retake the majority. And within those strategies of problem-solving out of the minority, a market-segmentation that casts poll-tested messages certainly adopts the failure of the framework...

...that's a work in progress --transforming into the new majority-- so excuse me if it's not clear in presentation... hey, it's my birthday today, rocking into the 40's.

Tags: Blogosphere (all tags)

Permalink :: 57 Comments :: Post a Comment

Wow. (none / 0)

"I'm a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has two black members, by the way."

Two! Wow. That's, like, more than one!

I'm sure it's well intentioned, but it just seems ironic that he's complaining about people's intolerance toward his "kind" while bragging that he's part of a group that has two black members.

Anybody remember the "in Living Color" sketch about the Brothers Brothers in the country club?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:21:27 PM EST

In the context of Jerome's post (3.00 / 1)

I think the point we should take from that statement is that even The Sons of Confederate Veterans have a relational connection to blacks and the larger social whole. We don't counter Gingrich's wedge issues with our own wedge issues, but by reframing the issue in terms of the larger relational and and social issues that unify groups instead of dividing them.

We can beat wedge issues by reaching across the divisions. Mudcat's larger point was that the culture of The Sons of Confederate Vets is not itself racist. The fact you gloss over is that the civil war culture that Mudcat is asking us to repect and have tolerance for is shared by blacks and whites.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the context of Jerome's post (none / 0)

Bingo.

Our challenge is to show what makes our platform or ideology have something for everyone. The minute we start to think we are better than the next guy, we get the Republicans running roughshod over us again.

Secondly, Americans hate history and they hate being reminded that they are not perfect. This is a permanent struggle for the hearts and minds for our civil society. The minute we succumb to our hedonistic desires of the X Box and iPODs and the Sisphyean pursuit of material things is the day we ought to stop trying because our sense of self has overstepped that our sense of society.

by risenmessiah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The thing is, (none / 0)

I don't know about anybody who's trying to get the confederate flag banned, or trying to get the Sons of Confederate Vets labeled a terrorist organization, or telling Southern white males that they're not real Americans. Do you? I live in Los Angeles, so I might be missing something here.

If "Mudcat" isn't for racism or cultural intolerance (or economic imperialism, or fascism, or dismantling Social Security), then I'm not sure what "kind" of person we wretched, hateful liberals are supposedly looking down on him for being. All I come away from this with is somebody I've never met going on about how I despise him. Which I don't.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:12:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The thing is, (none / 0)

I am from Alabama. When I went to college in the north with my Southern accent, I was harassed, treated as an idiot, although I was at the top of my class. My purse was even dumped in a toilet. That was 1972. I know how strongly my classmates felt about civil rights and the Vietnam War. I see it from their point of view. But then I grew up a Quaker. My father was a consciencious objecter in WWII. I was very nearly socialist. My family helped register Blacks to vote in the 50's. I think of it now as a way to really understand how African Americans must have felt back home. As a member of an underclass. But if I had had a slightly different background, I might have come away with so much anger, that I would have participated in the culture war.
Then I went to France to study, came back with an unplaceable accent, and stopped saying where I was from. All of a sudden, people thought I was brilliant.
Just before I married a few years ago, I went on a date with a fellow from New Jersey who seemed to like me quite well, but within a few minutes, he told me that he had joked with a Black friend that my brother was probably in the KKK. What a thing to say! As a matter of fact, thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Alabama is the only state in the Union which cannot have a KKK. There is a standing lawsuit which will take away everything you own if you are a member.
The South frustrates me, but it's home. People there aren't idiots or evil. But most are pretty innocent of what's going on in the world.

by prince myshkin on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Upon reading the other comments here, (none / 0)

perhaps I am missing something. Obviously there are some who would berate and belittle others for their culture.

Even so, I don't know of any Dems on the national stage who I'd include in this number.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I will berate and belittle anybody... (none / 0)

...who supports the Confederacy and what it stood for, in any way, shape or form. They deserve to be belittled. That is no better than saying "I'm a Son of a Nazi verteran! Don't belittle my culture!" They need to go fuck themselves.

by Geotpf on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Many people have the same attitude (none / 0)

about modern America.

How likely are you to vote for them, or listen to anything they have to say?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You Know What This Smells Like (none / 0)

...the ol' carpetbagger syndrome.

To the normal Southern man now the Democrats (at least nationally) remind him more of the carpetbaggers than the Republicans.

They don't much like educated types from the Northern cities coming in and trying to talk to them like they are a bunch of defeated little Rebs.

Secondly, notice he says, "it gives us history". Whites in the blue states are all too eager to sweep over the horror of slavery and racism and not realize while slavery was a economic practice in the South...racism was a pan-European belief until fifty years ago.

The elitism has to stop. Luckily for us, all this talk of Social Security going to Wall Street is making a lot of Southerners real nervous about that GOP "Agenda for 'merica". Good thing Dean's already on the scene in Mississipp-ah.

by risenmessiah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:35:25 PM EST

This is a bunch of crap. (none / 0)

If the South developed a progressive populist like a latter day Huey Long there would be no problem with a Southern White Male. Also the triangulators like the DLC are holding the black members who are often more liberal back.

by noalternative on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:03:51 PM EST

Re: This is a bunch of crap. (none / 0)

Uh....you are right...but in the South blacks tend to be more conservative than in the North. The DLC are the carpetbaggers to guys like Mudcat and that's our problem. Dubya IS a carpetbagger but he don't sound like one and without the Dems actively trying to engender a populist movement he's going to win against a "safe DLC pick".

by risenmessiah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

3 Knee-Jerk Responses, From Cranky 2 Philosophical (none / 0)

I'm a bit harried and distracted right now, but I have three quick responses:

(1) I don't take well to be lectured by Southern White Males who say, "Give us our culture." Those guys are positively wallowing in their culture, and the more they wallow, the worse things get for the rest of us. Besides, it's not culture they're talking about, it's treason. They want to go around celebrating treason, fine. Just (a) don't turn around and tell me that I'm un-American ever again (and I lost track how many times I'd heard this before I turned 20); and (b) take your lumps for it, friggin girlie-man!

(2) That doesn't mean I think we can't talk. But there's a level of self-honesty missing there which seriously precludes meaningful discussion, unless there's a greater willingness for self-examination. Essentially, he's taken a pot shot and then said, "Let's talk." Same old Johnny Reb as always, so far as I can see. We can talk. But first he's got to have a serious sit-down with a mirror. And I'm not saying it's all on him. We each have to do that, periodically. But letting the guy with the biggest guilt trip and the biggest chip on his shoulder start things is not the best way to set the tone. Dig?

(3) I'm interested in anything having to do with conflict-resolution, and comprehending better ways to do it. And I'm definitely all for transformation. But I've already got some models in my head which make me ask some questions.

The models I have come from cognitive development theory, and related fields, and they posit a relationship between outlooks that is not a matter of cafeteria-style options or choices, but rather of capacity for understanding, which makes the better approaches impossible to understand for those who haven't developed the capacity to grasp them. And transformation comes only at the highest stages.

Now, this sounds mighty elitist. But consider that virtually everywhere across the earth there is a reverence for elders who are respected for having a certain wisdom that younger people--even leaders--lack. We don't have that very much in our culture, but we still have traces of it. And when you compare "Million Dollar Baby" to "Dirty Harry" you can understand why.

So, anyway, one map of this comes from Robert Kegan, author of In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. He has a model of the self structured in terms of subject/object. At each level, what was subject at the level below becomes object at the new level. It's like, we develop the capacity to step outside of our old selves and see and shape it consciously.

So in his model, the stage three (organic) subject is constructed out of social roles and relationships. Autonomy doesn't come until state four, where this becomes subject, and you can shape and remake the social roles that previously defined you. But this isn't the only form of individualism. Stage two is also individualist--but a sort of 12-13-year old, libertarian, "you're not the boss of me" sort of way. It's not individualist because it can stand outside of its social roles. It's individualist because it can't stand inside them.

So, this is where I have a problem wrestling with the model being presented here. My first instinct is to think it's under-specified. But I'll take a closer look.

BTW, Kegan's Stage Five is where transformation happens. It's where paradox and contradiction become sources of insight and challenges to explore, rather than dead-ends signifying the breakdown of cognition. Kegan identified stage 3 with traditional society, stage 4 with modernism and stage 5 with post-modernism. But he doesn't talk about post-modern philosophy at all, except to say that stage 5 has both a deconstructive phase (at the beginning) and a reconstructive phase (which follows) and that it's a mistake to identify post-modernism solely with deconstruction.

Kegan and several other frameworks are examined together in very cogent paper, Structures of geopolitical reasoning: Outline of a constructive-developmental approach by Thomas Jordan. PDF version. It's not specifically focused on conflict resolution, but the relationship between geopolitical cognition and possible modes of conflict resolution is pretty close, and lots of connections will jump out at you.

Happy Birthday, Jerome. More stuff to read when you're done partying.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:47:27 PM EST

nice to hear from you again Paul (none / 0)

I enjoyed your diaries on liberalism even though I didn't respond to all of them. I look forward to our extended thoughts on Keegan.

by KDMfromPhila on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PS (none / 0)

The link to the PDF file didn't work for me.

by KDMfromPhila on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PS (none / 0)

Sorry! Screwed it up. Here it is again, idiot-proofed, so that you can paste it in, if all else fails:

http://www.av.gu.se/hem/thomas/geopolreasoning.pdf

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 Knee-Jerk Responses, From Cranky 2 Philosoph (none / 0)

Thanks. I didn't particularly think that the abstract presented it in depth enough either.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How do Dems connect? (none / 0)

"It's culturally and socially unacceptable to be a white, southern male and a Democrat. If we can get past that, we can kick ass."

Exactly who made being a white southern male Democrat socially or culturally unacceptable?

The rise of the Dixiecrates may have ostensively been against Northern influence but was in fact born in the South itself in reaction to civil rights legislation. (Yes, many Southeners saw this as being imposed upon them.) New wedge issues are created to keep the divide alive even as Southern attitudes on race have evolved. So how in the world do we get "past that" as the other side knows fomenting division works to its political advantage? The word "tolerance" itself is already viewed with derision by the Republican right and its various mouthpieces. And a "me too" stance towards God and Guns and even Gays is pretty much what Dems tried to do in the last election. . .we all know how that turned out.

As unappealing as it may seem to idealists, Democrats have to find and use their own wedge issues in the South as well as in the rest of the country. SS may very well be their first break as it touches upon a growing class divide. If Democrats learn how to play it correctly, the very class war Republicans keep trying to squelch with pre-emptive rhetoric could help to bring the struggling middle back into the Democratic fold.

Class isn't the only issue. . . there are moral/social/religious issues which could and should be claimed as Democratic as well.

That being written: Happy Birthday, Jerome!!

by bellarose on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:11:12 PM EST

Liberals Need to be Strong in their Beliefs (none / 0)

We don't have to compromise or tolarate, we need to go up strong to the hoop. Liberals need to show the South that we are strong, firm, and ready to fight for our beliefs.

Martin King got respect everywhere because he was willing to take a rock to the head. He stood up to power. We don't stand up, we just kind of sit there and whine. Nobody respects that. I'll put it this way. You have opinion leaders who lead the fight. Then you have a whole bunch of people who sit around waiting for someone to follow. No one's going to stand behind a wimp. It really is as simple as that. There are strong Democrats out there in ideology, but there aren't a lot of tough Democrats out there physically.

Look at Ward Churchill. The right-wing villified him because they felt they could get away with it. But I urge you to watch his response. (it's on the C-Span website.) He doesn't give an inch. He basically called the Regents cowards for not standing up for their own professors. He brow beat dissentors and made them look weak. He had a 100 death threats and he said that his .357 is all the protection he needed. (there was a ton of Indian security there too, which made the scene all the more menacing.)

Many of you will think Ward Churchill is the last person you want representing liberals. But you need people like this, people who are ready to fight. Whatever you think about him, you can't think the guy's a wimp.

by TheChanMan on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:20:28 PM EST

Re: Liberals Need to be Strong in their Beliefs (none / 0)

Ward Churchill is an idiot wacko lefty anti-semit. The people that died in the world trade center where inocent people, the reason he used little eichman's is because alot of the people who died were jewish. Now Churchill has his first amendment right to saw this, but we shouldn't defend what he's saying in anyway.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberals Need to be Strong in their Beliefs (none / 0)

Do you have some evidence to support that claim?

He doesn't say that in his speech. He says that when when America plays with fire it should expect to be burned. I understand him to mean that bond traders tend to engage in behvior that affect the lives of people they never meet. Therefore, all actions should anticipate reactions. It is not the perception Americans have that is important to understanding 911. It is imparatinve that we understand the Middle Eastern perception, which is that America hates Islam.

His point about innocent is important. A person asked him about that and he replied that he himself is not innocent. His statement made me think. I've come to the conclusionI that I am not innocent, either. I understand the ramifications of our foreign policy and I have failed to stop them. I understand that my pursuit of capitalism can be used to sharpen the sword of my future beheading. Knowing this, I still make the choice to continue. Therefore I am not totally innocent.

by TheChanMan on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberals Need to be Strong in their Beliefs (none / 0)

I'm reading between the lines. Why would he use the metaphor to Adulf Eichman? Just infering from that he must be somehow talking about Jews. You can tell alot about a person by what comparison people use (for instance Rick Santorium with man on dog). And of course no person is all together innocent, but do they deserve to die, well hell no!

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberals Need to be Strong in their Beliefs (none / 0)

From what I gather, The Eichman comment is in reference to the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN. Churchill is alleging (I think) that the bond traders actively engaged in facilitating the sanctions, that they made money somehow from it (?).

The guy is kind of like Chromsky in that when he's not around, a lot of his positions seem pretty far out there. But when he's the one talking it looks like he's right on target. So he has a rationale for useing the symbolism, (though he refuses to apologize for anything he said, he does make several clarifications in the speech.)

C-Span (see it here) uses an interesting juxtaposition going from Churchill's emotionall charged speaking environment to showing David Horowitz speaking to a bunch of students about how the liberals have total control of the university system.

It's a lot like what's going on in the South. If you look at the two segments, you can see how different the audience looks. I think that the right-wing firestorm about his comments has calmed down a bit because of that speech. I don't think they were prepared for that kind of response. They thought he'd backpedal, but instead he shoved himself down their throats. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I enjoyed watching him call Republicans cowards and telling them to bring it on.

by TheChanMan on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Culture? Treason (none / 0)

Someone complaining about a mythical culture who revere's oath breaking traitors by naming everything in sight after dis honest, dis loyal traitors who were responsible for how many 100,000's deaths in the 1860's and based its culture on lynchings for the next 100 year until the north stopped them is ridiculous.
How can the south claim patriotism as a value then name places after scummy losers like lee and jackson?
You don't see California having the John Walker Lindth freeway, or New York with the Benedict Arnold School system. Maybe because the south only reveres traitors responsible for 100,000 deaths or more of honest americans at the hands of scum before they elevate thier scum to hero status.
I say fight and campaign in the south but no mush mouths on the ticket until the south aicheves the maturity to recgonize that they cannot hold the rest of the country hostage to thier narrow minded ignorant prejudices.

by Rational on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:23:55 PM EST

2 blacks, what's the percentage there? (none / 0)

Just what is the pecentage of black members then in the SCV? Let's see: 2 black members out of, overall, 31,400 members. I believe that would be .00006%. Not very convincing to me, that point.

But then that's not really the major point. One can look at the Southern Poverty Law Center reports on the SCV -- the link is one. Doesn't look too good on the tolerance front, although they apparently tried to make their organization more tolerant during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Didn't take.

Far from being apolitical, scores of SCV members have taken increasingly public and controversial stands on an array of racially charged issues, reflecting an unprecedented level of activism within the 106-year-old organization.

In what may be the clearest sign yet of this extremist drift, an analysis by the Intelligence Report finds that a significant number of SCV officials -- including at least 10 men who hold key national leadership positions -- are also active or recent members of hate groups, principally two neo-Confederate groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and the League of the South.

Mr. Saunder may, possibly, be the nicest sort of guy with the best and indeed purest of motives, but the organization he's saying is some model of tolerance simply is not -- either he's fooling himself or trying to fool others. It doesn't matter which (except to his mother) but the SCV is not what he claims it is.

by QrazyQat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:11:11 PM EST

btw, the SPLC (none / 0)

has a lot on the situation at the SCV. This search page has the links.

by QrazyQat on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:15:13 PM EST

The Confederate flag is a symbol of treason. (none / 0)

The only time where I can understand someone flying it is on Veteran's Day and that is only if you had a relation that died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Confederacy.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:36:11 PM EST

Yeah, that tolerance stuff really sucks! (none / 0)

It looks to me like this diary proves Mudcats point. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think Mudcat is the enemy. Did anybody read his interview? Jerome posted the relevant statements. Let's take a look.

Mudcat: There's only one prescription and that's tolerance. I'm a white, southern male who hunts. I'm a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has two black members, by the way. I don't know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind.

Mudcat could have been more specific, but I don't think he was talking about their entire membership when he said the SCV had two black members. Doesn't it seem more likely he was talking about his local chapter?

We have certainly proven his point that we don't have tolerance for "his kind".

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, we don't say the wrong side won the [Civil] War. Everybody knows slavery was wrong. We say give us our culture.

Intolerance is becoming rampant. It's culturally and socially unacceptable to be a white, southern male and a Democrat.

Bingo! I rest Mudcat's case. Maybe I am reading too much into the diary comments, but we seem to be saying that Mudcat is perfectly welcome in the Democratic party as long as he denounces his heritage, his culture and his way of life.

If we can get past that, we can kick ass.

Well, we obviously aren't interested in kicking ass in the South. Let's just demonize them the same way GOPers have demonized northern liberals.

To get back to the SVC. The links I read didn't say the SVC were synonymous with racism or skin heads or the KKK. The links I read said white supremacists were in the process attempting to take over the SVC. Do we need a lesson in Venn Diagrams? Southern culture and white supremacy are overlapping circles, they are not identical. The confederate flag and slavery represent overlapping circles, they are not identical.

We are falling into the Falwell trap. For many liberals, religion and Falwell are identical concepts. That is a mistake. Southern culture and the confederate flag are not synonymous with slavery and white supremacy. That is a mistake. We don't have to accept white supremacy to cut Mudcat and southern Democrats just a little slack.

SouthNow: What's your strategy for Southern progress?
Mudcat: We need to quit all this tap dancin' around the truth. The truth will set you free. We need to stop tap dancin' around the issues of guns, gays and God. We're the party of tolerance, let's tolerate all cultures. In rural America, we've lost our jobs and our health care. So what do we do? We let Republicans divide us.

Mudcat is saying that people have a common self-interest that is deeper than class and income. Instead of focusing on the GOPer frames of the confederate flag and Ten Commandment Monuments, we turn the political dialogue to health care and jobs.

I wouldn't mind a little clarification about what he meant about "stop tap-dancin' around the issues of God, guns and gays." I don't think he meant we have to accept the GOPers position on these issues. I took it that he was simply saying Democrats should state their position openly, frankly and honestly. If you think guns should be completely banned, then say so. If you think gays are real honest to god human beings with the exact same rights and privileges as hetro-sexuals, then say so. Don't beat around the bush and try to pander to bigots. Tell the bigots to take a long walk off a short pier.

We preach to the choir. We sit around...and tell each other how great we are. It don't work. We've lost the white male. We need to get `em back. We need to get through the cultural wall. It's a wall of straw. Inside every rural Republican is a Democrat trying to get out.

The cultural wall is a wall of straw. Apparently the cultural wall of straw has some very deep roots.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:48:56 PM EST

Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

I agree, JB. It's quite possible this guy is only a little bit treasonous.

Woopie!

Tell you what. There are a hell of a lot of white southern men who aren't members of SCV, and don't take pot shots at anonymous people they don't know. Let's start our dialogue with them.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

I missed the treason part. What did he do or say that was treasonous? Who was he taking pot shots at? We must be reading different things into his interview. I didn't see either one of those.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 11:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

The "culture," the "heritage" he is so defensive of is treason. You know, the Civil War. Killed more Americans than any other war in our history. SCV celebrates that.

As for pot shots, there's this: "Intolerance is becoming rampant. It's culturally and socially unacceptable to be a white, southern male and a Democrat."

And this: "I don't know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind."

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:33:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

Personally, I was surprised at how negative the reaction was to Mudcat's statements. I fail to see the difference between claiming that the confederate flag is in and of itself treasonous and Ann Coulter making the same accusation against all Democrats who oppose Bush.

"Intolerance is becoming rampant. It's culturally and socially unacceptable to be a white, southern male and a Democrat."

I thought this statement was a little over the top until I saw the reaction. Who was this potshot directed at? It looks like he was right to me. I just don't get it.

There are genuine Civil War buffs who analyze, study and celebrate a variety of southern tradtions who are not racists or traitors. Is this a racist site? I'm really missing something here.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 02:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anybody who is a member of... (none / 0)

...any organization which celebrates the Confenderacy is a racist asshole. Period. The south should be ashamed of thier treasonous and racist actions. The fact that they celebrate them makes them unamerican racist assholes.

by Geotpf on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:38:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

to begin with that sight has a blessing for the traitors who violated there oath and solemn word to betray thier country to defend slavery. lee, jackson stuart and others were serving members of the US military having been educated at public expense at West Point and having taken a solemn oath to preserve and protect the United States and then they casually discarded all that to leap to the defense of slavery even when there was no immediate threat to that foul institution only the election of someone the south didn't like.
Lets not forget they also praise and bless nathanial bedford forrest an ex slave trader before he butchered prisoners at Fort Pillow and then went on to found the KKK.

That enough racism for you that jumps out within a 10 second glance of the splash page.

Why aren't you supporting a page honoring and blessing Benedict Arnold, Tokyo Rose or the american Nazi's who fought for hitler as well. Same type of trash, same lack of principles, same lack of morality and same self glorification of narrow, destructive self interest wrapped within a patina of tripe about false honor and misguided principles.

by Rational on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Get a little bit rational or go away.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:21:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Typical southern apolagist action. First they challenge someone on facts i.e. show something treasonous or racist about a site that praises and bless's the head of the KKK.

Then when they get a response they don't like they respond with insults.

Sorry you asked " Is this a racist site? I'm really missing something here." I assumed you meant it as an honest question rather then a debating ploy based upon no one challengeing your limited interpatation of the site.
When I pointed out that those who violated thier sacred oaths to leap to the defense of slavery were, by definition, racists and to praise them is to endorse the issue they made thier stand on.
Not to mention that site specifically praises an individual who slaughtered black soldiers who were surrendering and went on to found the KKK smacks a bit of racism to any "rational" person.
Or do you feel that the KKK was only trying to protect "southern culture" and has unfairly been painted as a racist, xenophobic group? I don't
Then rather then admitting your error or trying to engage on the subject you resort to insults and baseless slurs.

No wonder the term southern culture is such an oxymoronic phrase as is the idea of southern honor, loyalty or patriotism.

by Rational on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Having been a frequent reader here, and one which has agreed with and disagreed with JollyBuddah, I've come to think of many terms that could be very descriptive ... but 'southern apologist' is not one of them.

What this entire debate has devolved into is one great big mess involving a lack of basic American history and an excuse to take unnecessary and ill-informed cheap shots at the South.

Now let's clear this up - I am no fan of the Confederacy, I am no fan of their causes, I am not sympathetic to groups like the League of the South which masquerade behind terms like 'heritage' and 'culture' in order to justify racist views. But to suggest that all Southern culture is devoid of any worth, and that all Southerners who fought in the Civil War were treasonous or racist or fighting for slavery shows a complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

Again, let's be clear, the ruling structure of the South - the Confederate government and the ruling elite of plantation owners and slave traders - had a vested interest in preserving slavery (for both racial and economic reasons). These interests were clearly wrong, and should be denounced.

But to condemn a poor, white farmer from Alabama who fought on the side of the Confederacy because Union troops were marching outside his house and threatening his family is completely wrong-headed. The overwhelming majority of the Confederate army was comprised of poor citizens from the South (hence the phrase 'a rich man's war fought by the poor man') who didn't own slaves, had little to no opinion on slavery (or knowledge on the matter) and had enlisted only because they feared a Union invasion would decimate their homeland and threaten their families. So you tell me what you would do if troops were marching across your property and threatening your loved ones? I know what I would do if my wife was threatened ... I'd defend her.

Again, this isn't making excuses for the rationale of the war from the Southern point of view, but it's illogical and irresponsible to suggest that every Southerner was fighting to preserve slavery. They fought because those people in power urged them too, telling them the Yankees were coming to burn their homes and rape their women.

Isn't this one of the main problems today in the South, and across our country? That we have well-to-do groups in power who frighten those well-meaning and honest citizens into backing them with fancifal stories of horror?

Furthermore, Rational what constructive solution are you offering by labeling an entire region of the country as xenophobic and racist? I had read elsewhere on this thread of someone saying that Democrats should paint the South as poorly as Republicans paint Northeastern liberals. I, for one, think it's appalling that we have idiots who speak poor about entire regions (as Zell Miller did about Massachusetts ... calling in 'Taxachusetts'). So why should we sink to that level? Why not be above that?

Yes, the South has a horrific past in matters of race. But so do other regions of our nation - Boston has long been regarded as a city hostile to African-Americans, while California has experienced numerous instances of racial strife in the past 30 years and has taken legal means to discriminate against Hispanics in the past. There are plenty of disgraces to go around our great country.

The South does have a checkered past, but it also has a wonderful culture that is worthy of embracing. It is the home of Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis and Rosa Parks and other figures who took a stand against racism. To discount our successes and only dwell on our failures is a rather dismal approach to life, and makes for quite a depressing worldview.

I am a lifelong Southerner, and I can't think of anywhere else I'd rather be. I love my state, I love my region and I love my country. The sooner we recognize that the entire nation is populated with positive, progressive people who are dedicated to bringing about change, than the sooner we'll be to restoring the Democratic Party back into a majority status.

by GaDem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

a country cannot invade itself. Those poor ignorant farmers you speak off were afraid that american Government representatives would come to thier American neighborhood to help arrest criminials, rioters and general bad elements. This is the reason they fought. Your presupposition that a country can invade itself thus the citizenry is justified in defending itself from its own representatives trying to enforce civil law is, on the face of it, absurd. This was the logic of the militias, the Texas Inderendent nut cases and other philosphical descendents of the treason of the south.
To justify treason based upon the overall stupidity and ignorance of a population ("...They fought because those people in power urged them too, telling them the Yankees were coming to burn their homes and rape their women.") is to justify every horror of mankind. By your standards the progroms of eastern europe would have been justified brecause the poor ignorant people were scared because they believed the lying myths of the evil Jews. But I don't see eastern europe naming its schools and civic structure in honor of those that lead those progroms because they led them. Unlike the south honoring lee, forrest and stuart, just to name a few, who committed treason in the name of bigotry and slavery.

My suggestion is education and not surrendering a single philosphical or rhetorical point to those that would try to obscure and distract from the horrors of treason in defense of the crime of slavery. There is no honor there be for the politicians, the generals or the grunts who murdered in the name of slavery. Whether they wanted to admit it or not that is what the organized terrorism that the south practiced in the 1860's was.

When the "political" south finally aicheves the maturity and humanity of the leaders you mentioned (MLK, Medgar Evers, the Southern Federal Marshalls who stared down Wallace and others) then the region will deserve respect. But you cannot present a position that even though we are represented by buffoons, bigots and crooks ( lott, helms and thurmond just to mention a few) and they are driving down the level of civil discourse, quality of life and common decency we deserve respect as a region because we can claim that we have martyed the few decent natives of the south that had the courage to speak out against present leadership of the south.

by Rational on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:50:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

That's quite an unusual stance you've taken at the end of your post - that every other region of the country is magically purged of its sins, except the South. And that, using your logic, we are not worthy of any respect or heritage because of the errors, albeit grave ones, of some of our ancestors. At what point has the South clawed its way out of the despair you allude to?

As for your other points, they are well-taken. For the first one, about a country being unable to invade itself, I think we're simply playing with language here. So while I will concede that it is impossible to invade oneself, the reality is that Union troops - fighting for a different cause - marched throughout the South (and, to be fair, did plenty of damage themselves which is just as inexcusable).

As for the second one, I think you answer your concerns in your own posting. The answer is education, and let's be honest, there wasn't a lot of that going around back then. The citizens of the South, a rural and agricultural society, were typically poor, ignorant and also without the means of communication the citizens of Eastern Europe possessed. So I think the analogy you've presented is one of apples and oranges.

The circumstances of ignorance are the same, but the scenarios and realities were much different. In World War II, German soldiers and citizens saw the concentration camps, while in the communist counties following that war the citizens lived under the harsh oppression of those regimes.

The South, however, saw its poor farmers live in isolation (and relative freedom being it was part of the United States) where there only means of communication was through pieces of propaganda and Confederate army recruiters riding by on horseback. Naturally those forms of communication were customized to bring out the fears and passions of those rural farmers, and it worked.

I can agree, to an extent, about the honoring of those past leaders like Stuart and Forrest (though I'm more conflicted on Lee, but that's for another day). The South should look past its unfortunate history and focus more on its many successes. But I just don't agree that we need to demonize the average soldier in the Confederate army, and that it's wrong for the later generations to honor their ancestors' service. I disagree with the Iraq War, but I am amazed and humbled by the dedication and sacrifice of our troops overseas.

by GaDem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Other areas are not "magically purged"but rather they don't revel in thier past sins by naming it's public institutions and building statues in honor of the criminial elements that besmirched there name. The south does.
In the 1800 the farmers of Eastern europe( which includes the Ukraine, part of Poland and Russia) had no better education or communication then the south. In fact it could be argued that they had it worse.

I do not believe that it is just playing with words to show the falacy of the arguement that the United SWtates invaded itself. It was only after the terrorist's of the criminial organization destroyed the legitimate institutions that the rest of the country was forced to help save the southern population from those terrorist's.

As for the "bravery" of the southern mercenaries engaged in an illegal war by illegal means ( = war criminials. The Nuremburg defense was denied in the late 1940's) all I can say is that it came as no surprise that the merc's in charge of Abu Ghabib (sic)prison were from the south.

Everyone has sinned but no other region revels in thier sins as the south does and demands that it be given respect even while it honors the symbols of treason and crimes against humanity that constituted its past sins.

by Rational on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Well, we're just going to have to disagree over some things because if you aren't surprised that the idiots who committed the heinous acts were Southern, thus implying it's because they were Southern, then we don't have much to talk about. Those individuals commited those crimes because they were weak, they were cowards and they were jackasses, not because they were Southern. To suggest that is irresponsible and foolish.

And, with all due respect, I don't know how you think you're coming off any better here. I don't see how what you believe - that the South is full of racist, treasonous individuals with an appalling culture and heritage - is any better than what those same individuals you criticize subscribe to. You have concocted a fictional stereotype and slapped it across the entire South, and that's very unfortunate.

I have not once in our brief discussion said I condone any of the actions or beliefs of those who subscribe to the neo-Confederate movement. All I have argued is that the South, as a whole, is not this primal, Darwinian society that fosters hatred and fear. We have our share of individuals who I'm ashmed of, and we have a past that is marred by mistakes and crimes, but it's wrong-headed to blame all Southerners for the actions of a few.

Likewise, I can't get my head around some of your latest arguments. For instance, you rightly say that in the 1800s the farmers of Eastern Europe had horrible circumstances, little education and poor communication. We agree on that, but I thought you were arguing about Eastern Europe under Soviet rule, or Eastern Europe under Nazi rule. Perhaps I had mistaken you. What instances are you referring to that occurred in the 1800s?

And I don't follow your second paragraph at all. Could you clarify?

by GaDem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

To clarify my second paragraph when I referred to the progroms I was referring to the anti-semitic actions during the 1800's and early 1900's in eastern europe and Czarist's Russia vs. the Holocaust of the 1940's. Though they are related and are part of the same historical current they are separate acts. In fact the term "progrom" is from eastern europe and is generally used to refer to the Tsarist crimes. I referred to these specifically so to compare apples and apples. The anti-semitism of eastern europe and the slavery of the south in approx. the same historical period with similiar limitations on education and control by thier fuedal masters as the south had during the same period.
This was to show how the people of eastern europe don't diefy thier historical crimes against humanity as the "modern" south diefy thier crimes against humanity.
As for the fact that the merc's at Abu Ghabrib who besmirched the reputation of the US being from the south the point I am making is that this was no surprise since a "culture" that diefy's war criminials produces war criminials.
Or do you subscribe to the bush& co's position that it was "just a few bad apples"? This coupled with your subscribing to the nuremburg defense to justify the crimes of the 1860's is disappointing. that seems to be your defense of the south.
If you are correct and south is full of "honorable decent people" why is that area represented by the likes of lott, helms, delay and thurmond? Seems like a minor inconsistency.
I am concerned when an area of the country is so blind that when an individual shows the courage to blow the whistle on the crimes committed at Abu Ghabrib that it is the honorable individual who is shunned by the community ( which is in the south) and the criminials honored. Well if they can honor historical traitors I guess it is consistent to honor contemporary war criminials.
Even Germany has the good sense not to have public groups of "Children of Concentration Gamp Guards" shoveling bilge of how thier poor ignorant parents served honorabley for a horrendous cause because they were stupid and ignorant. That is what any descendant of the terrorist's of the 1860's are saying when they proudly proclaim to be descended from the traitors of that period.
As for condemning all of the south I am not I am condemning the dominate cultural, political and social paradigm of the south.
As civilized people condemn Nazi Germany even while recognizing that thier were honorable and decent germans during that period ( i.e. White Rose group) so is it fair to condemn an area the glorifiy's its criminial past while recognizing that there are a few decent individuals who have not yet been murdered, thrown in jail or otherwise martyred in the south.
I also point to the fact that while I have maintained this discussion without personal invective it is the defenders of the terrorists that have choosen to use personal insults ("You're a kook and a wigbird") when thier myths of glorious traitors and war criminial past is challenged.

by Rational on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Thanks for clarifying your point. I was very confused, but the analogy you offered makes much more sense and it is not apples and oranges as I had suggested. I'd be curious, though, to see if what you say is really true ... that there is no mention (or honor) of those who committed such crimes in today's Eastern European memorials, etc. I find it hard to believe that there is no mention of such a large chunk if history anywhere, but I am by no means an expert on that particular time period or that region, so I can't accurately say.

And let me clarify some of my comments, since they have been misunderstood. When I alluded to the prisoner abuse, I didn't mean to imply that I was defending the abuse or that this was an isolated incident. There is considerable evidence to suggest this was an order from much higher levels, and not simply the actions of a few. My statements were meant to say they were weak and cowardly because they were unable to say no to those giving the orders, even though they would have faced ramifications.

I don't know of anyone honoring those who committed the abuses or denounced those who spoke out. You spoke of that, and I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're alluding to. If there was such an instance, than that is absolutely horrible. But simply because it happened it in one region of the country (if such an event even happened), then I still don't see how that condemns the entire region.

As far as your repeated allegations that I have used the 'Nuremburg Defense' to justify the crimes of the Confederate South, I don't think that's the case. I haven't once said the Confederacy was in the right, or that its ruling elite didn't work to keep in place an oppressive and racist system which needed to be abolished. My central point was that there was a difference between the average citizen of the South in the 1860s and the ruling classes of the time. Apparently, we have some disagreements over that.

You question how the South can have 'honorable, decent people' when they elect men like DeLay and Thurmond and Lott. But, again, you seem to be condemning an entire region because of a few individuals. You seem to forget that the South also is represented by individuals like Mark Warner in Virginia, John Lewis and John Barrow in Georgia, Martin O'Malley in Maryland, Michael Easley in North Carolina and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

You also seem to forget that Blue States like Massechusetts are represented by Mitt Romney and New York has George Pataki and Pennsylvania has Rick Santorum. So guilt by association seems to either fail, or make us all guilty. I tend to think it's the former.

by GaDem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

To clarify a couple of points.

1) pogroms is eastern europe and Tsarist Russia were common the play/movie "Fiddler and the Roof" is a placed in that milleu. After the defeat in the 1905 Russo- japanese war it was insinuated that it was the responsibility of the jews and a large pogrom was launched.
Though the immediate catalyst for Zionism may have been the Dreyfuss affiar in France it seeds were a result of the Eastern Pogroms. ( It has been suggested/proven that it was the Tsarist secret service that brought us the antisemitic trash "the Elders of Zion" that is still referred to today by such notable org. such as the KKK, the CCC and the Texas independence nutcases)

My reference to the Nuremberg defense is that you keep referring to the poor ignorant farmers who murdered because they didn't know any better and thier social "betters" lead them astray. I'm sorry I do not accept that ignorance and stupidity is a defense for genocide and slavery( or treason)
When the M.P. unit that was in the center of the Abu Ghabrib prison scandal came home they were welcomed with open arms by there community ( Suggested Town Motto "Mass murder ok as long as they aren't white or from around here") but the individual in that unit who blew the whistle and broke the scandal open was ostrasized and terrorized and I believe was forced to move because all those good southern's were outraged that he would besmirch the units name by telling the truth.
When i referred to the "few bad apples" arguement I was addressing your comment that it was just coincidental that such morally bankrupt individuals who were responsible for the Abu Ghabrib outrage came from the south. I feel that a morally and ethically bankrupt culture that the south has will consistently produce these types of individuals. I know not everyone follows in lockstep with the dominant paradigm of hate, bugitry, greed and fear that drives southern existence but it still is the dominant paradigm.
I hardly consider some of the names you mentioned to be hardly more then barely palitable but I do take your point. In specific the states in the High plains area are in direct competition with the south for elected scum. The difference is that those areas do not have the history of treason and genocide that the south has and they do not name there public institutions after traitors and criminials as the south does. ( exception being U. of Colorado Alfred E Packer memorial Cafateria)
I still haven't heard an apolagy for the personal insults throw at me when the southern contigent realized that I was not going to allow the lies and absurdity peddled by them with out a challenge.

by Rational on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're a kook and a wigbird (none / 0)

Your points are well-taken, and we should probably move on since we've danced around this for a while now (not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion). Let me first say off the bat that I never used personal insults toward you Rational, and please accept my apologies if you felt anything I said was personal as that wasn't my attempt.

We may not see eye-to-eye on some of these issues and assessments, but I do applaud for you for offering the challenge.

We will have to disagree over whether or not hatred is a dominant force in Southern culture. I have seen my share of prejudices during my life, but I have also seen my share of kindnesses. I have long said that a vocal few dominate the environment, and I still believe that.

My family has friends who were prejudiced back in the 1950s and 1960s, but have repented for their ignorance - and done so publically and privately - and I think that is slowly becoming the norm here. Surely, there is much work to be done, I won't make any claim there isn't, but the atmosphere of racial tolerance (and other tolerances) has much improved in the past 40 years. Hopefully all of us can continue to add to the dialogue and continue to foster those feelings of reconciliation.

One thing I do want to explore just a tad more is the notion of the Nuremburg Defense you keep alluding to. I can accept that as your belief, but I'm curious if you extend it to other wars. That is, the U.S. detained Japanese-Americans in World War II, does that make all U.S. soldiers who fought in the Pacific theater immoral. Does the awful persecution of Native Americans make all U.S. soldiers in the 1800s morally bankrupt? Does the dubious reasons for our current conflict in Iraq demean the sacrifices of our men and women serving over there now?

On a different note, being a history buff, I'm going to have to do some more research into Eastern Europe. I've been fascinated by it from reading what you've written.

by GaDem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 09:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only A Little Bit Treasonous!!! (none / 0)

This is an old racist trick. I wasn't responding to Mudcat's identity as a southern white male. I was responding to his actions--such as joining and defending the SCV, which celebrates treason and the defense of slavery.

I know they try and deny the later--and far too few people ever raise the former--but that's what the SCV does. Sorry, but it's true. Any other view is just more revisionist history of the same sort that justified the Civil War in the first place.

The fact that Mudcat conflates the two--his identity as a southern white male and his SCV membership--is indicative of his underlying bad faith. And that's what I was reacting to--as were most of the others who criticized him, I would wager, though they may not have put it like that.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0)

I remember when the Trent Lott/ CCC story broke. I hadn't discovered dkos or MyDD yet, but a ten minute google search made it clear that CCC was a racist organization and Lott knew or should have known it was racist.

I went back and checked the SPLC link upthread. It clearly stated that there was a battle to keep the CCC from seizing control of the SCV. It the two groups were identical, there wouldn't be a battle. Southern culture and southern heritage both have racial and racist roots, but not every southerner is racist and not every member of the SCV is racist.

Southern heritage can, has and will continue to be twisted by racists, the same way Christianity is twisted by Christian Identity. We have to allow for distinctions between and among groups.

The whole meme that Support for the Confederacy = Treason caught me off guard. That's a new one on me and I still think it is serioiusly off base. They apparently still have secessionist groups, but that doesn't become treason until they pick up arms.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 04:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0)

There is no way to have secession other than to take up arms and the secessionists did precisely that. I admit I am not interested in the Sons of the Confederacy, though I hazard most rebel flag boosters aren't part of it.

by noalternative on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0)

I know that lots of members of the SCV have no conscious racist intention. But racism involves much more than individual conscious intent, and that's where the fundamental problem lies. The Civil War was objectively racist and treasonous. Any "heritage" built around it necessarily memorializes acts of racist treason. This is undeniable, objective fact, however much SCV members may wish that it were not so.

Now, none of us is responsible for the heritage we are born into. Some are born into great wealth and privilege, some into poverty and deprivation, some into traditions of social justice, others into traditions of racial oppression. It's what we do with this heritage that is our measure as human beings. And when it comes to the SCV, well, to quote Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on moving train."

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, that FAKE tolerance stuff really sucks! (none / 0)

Perhaps he did mean his local chapter; the SCV gives no info on the numbers of blacks in its membership, although they do like to parade them. Like this guy.

But there are a few well-known black members throughout the SCV, like H.K. Edgerton whom was quoted in the Southern Poverty Law Center's quarterly magazine, "Intelligence Report," as saying "If every African-American would pick up the Confederate flag, I would say 'Free at last, free at last, God Almighty, I am free at last." link

Yep. Sounds like a fine example of a thoughtful black American. Oh yes indeed.

You see, Mr. Saunder trying to tell Democratic party people what they should be doing, and in doing so promotes -- rather prominently -- the SCV as an organization of good-hearted people who we should be sucking up to. But this organization is riddled with people at all levels, inclding the highest levels, who belong to blatantly racist groups -- they just aren't as advertised by Mr. Saunder. So is he ignorant, or is his lying? And why exactly should we jump to take the advice of people who are, demonstrably, either ignorant or liars (and of course there's the possibility that he's both, but I don't know that. We only know that he's at least one of those.) Why exactly should we, and why do so many, leap at the many suggestions we see from rightwingers, from racists, and from ignorant people, about how we should run for office? We've seen this repeatedly for years now. Do you really think they're trying to help our cause? It seems to me that such people are actually trying to subvert it, and every time they get some Democrat to say, "Yeah, that's the ticket." they succeed just a little bit more. Then we wind up with a Lieberman on the ticket. We look like GOP-lite, and why should anyone want to vote for that. If you want the GOP you vote for them, not GOP-lite. If you want an alternative to the GOP, you don't find it.

It disturbs me to see Democrats sitting raptly before people who claim to be on the side of tolerance, while promoting a group riddled with racists. How about sitting raptly before some non-voting black people and others who should be on the side we claim to be on, a side of real tolerance, and hearing why they didn't come out to vote for our guys. Why are we so interested in what these ignorant and or lying people have to say?

And I have to say that, yes, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism -- although many people over the years like it because it's a cool design. It is a cool design, but it's more than that. Many movements have cool designs, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what the design stands for, no matter how many people do.

by QrazyQat on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, YOU really suck! (none / 0)

It still looks like you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Before you accuse Mudcat of lying you might sharpen your critical reading skills. Mudcat wasn't promoting SCV or suggesting we should be sucking up to them. He mentioned that he was a hunter and a member of SCV as an example of traits that are unacceptable to northern liberals.

I don't think Mudcat is ignorant, a liar or a racist. My reading of his interview is that he is a fairly typical southern Democrat who isn't comfortable with either party.

In addition to projecting beliefs and character traits on Mudcat that he doesn't have, you have done the same to me.

If you want the GOP you vote for them, not GOP-lite. If you want an alternative to the GOP, you don't find it. It disturbs me to see Democrats sitting raptly before people who claim to be on the side of tolerance, while promoting a group riddled with racists.

Before you pigeon hole me pal, you just might want to click on my handle and check out some of my diaries. I didn't do a diary on it, but I have suggested in a couple of comments that we make Lieberman a political human sacrifice ala John & Ken. You can google that and find out what I mean.

I am perfectly capable of listening to diverse viewpoints without undergoing a borg like absorbtion. You're new here, so I'll cut you some slack. The next time you engage in a personal attack, I'll treat you like the troll that you are. Don't put words in my mouth or try to speak for me and I'll be glad to do likewise.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 05:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, YOU really suck! (none / 0)

Good parody of rightwing punditry/blogging, btw.

May I point out that I am not "new" and you may feel free to do whatever -- I guess you'll have to say I "doubledog suck" or something; I'm not familiar with schoolyard verbiage on that, so I'll leave it up to you.

My points stand: Mr. Saunder may, possibly, be the nicest sort of guy with the best and indeed purest of motives, but the organization he's saying is some model of tolerance simply is not -- either he's fooling himself or trying to fool others. It doesn't matter which (except to his mother) but the SCV is not what he claims it is.

If Mr. Saunder does indeed think that (virtually) no Northern liberals hunt or that they are against males who live in the south, he's both ignorant and has a very limited circle of acquaintances. And if he actually thinks that the SCV is not the abode of an awful lot of racists, even at the highest levels, then he is ignorant about even his own associations.

Mr. Saunder also has an odd idea of what "tolerance" means -- he seems to think it means "agreement" or something similar. It doesn't. I also think that since the Democratic Party during the Clinton era captured the Southern male vote, his notion that our missing that vote this past time around is due to some sort of sudden "intolerance" on our parts seems really rocky reasoning. That just doesn't make sense. So all those Northerners were perfectly "tolerant" in 1992 and 1996 but suddenly became "intolerant" in 2000 and 2004? Nonsense.

So his analysis is demonstrably wrong and he's holding up an organization that's riddled with racists even at the top levels as a model of tolerance (which I guess he simply wishes we could emulate). Not doesn't make sense either -- so my question is why are we continually listening with rapt attention to the advice of people who offer faulty analyses and who are ignorant of not only electoral history, but also the organizations they are part of?

by QrazyQat on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 06:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, YOU really suck! (none / 0)

I'm not really interested in defending the SCV, since I am not particularly sympathetic to their views, but you seem to be making a blanket assumption by saying that an 'awful lot' of their members are racist. Do you have any quantitative proof of this? Is it just a gut-feeling?

This is precisely the problem that JollyBuddah was pointing out - that we don't really know who is or who isn't racist in these groups. Granted, I think that the SCV is a rather odd way of celebrating Southern heritage, but to simply suggest most of them are racist isn't constructive at all.

All of that said, might I recommend 'Confederates in the Attic' as a possible book of the month selection. Very interesting read on Southern culture that is fair to all sides, and also brutally honest.

by GaDem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

culture? (none / 0)

what exactly is civil war hertiage (in a non racial sense?)?

BTW, I agree w/ Mr. Churchill. Ooops I guess i'm anti american

Tennesseans for Feingold

by ben114 on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 01:44:53 AM EST

Re: culture? (none / 0)

Google either Civil War History or Confederate History. Are all of those sites racist?

As for Churchill, this Nation article identifies the right wing hypocrisy (subscription only) and this one identifies the Free Speech Fights that are the real threat.

Accusing Churchill or anyone else of being anti-American for making a questionable statement is both silly and a sign of our times. Churchill's general thesis, "we shouldn't be surprised when chickens come home to roost", is more defensible than his "little Eichmans" comment. I think calling wall street brokers "little Eichmans" is a ridiculous stretch. That's my opinion. Disagreeing with me doesn't make you un-American. It just means we disagree.

(Excerpts from subscription only Nation article)

So much for the voice of sanity. Now for the dementia of the right. The New Republic's Tom Frank (not the Frank, please note, who just wrote a book about Kansas) describes in TNR how he recently sat in on an antiwar panel in Washington.

Frank listened to Stan Goff, a former Delta Force soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, who duly moved Frank to write that "what I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face." Then upon Frank's outraged ears fell the views of International Socialist Review editorial board member Sherry Wolf, who asserted that Iraqis had a "right" to rebel against occupation, prompting TNR's man to confide to his readers that "these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation." After Wolf quoted Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank mused, "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor in California and called on someone to punch the guv in the face, or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remain of Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his job in a minute.

Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and get invited on Fox or CNN talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley call on the Washington Times editorial page for Hersh to be imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers are allowed to play.

After savaging Churchill, the mad dogs of the right turned their sights on Shahid Alam, a professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston. Alam, author of the excellent Poverty From the Wealth of Nations, wrote a column for the CounterPunch website in December in which he argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the attackers believing that they were fighting--as the American revolutionaries did, in the 1770s--for their freedom and dignity against foreign occupation/control of their lands. Second, he argued that these attacks were the result of the political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally. It was a mistake, Alam said, to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Now he has been labeled "an un-American" professor by Fox News, and there's an Internet campaign to have him stripped of his faculty position. So write to all the appropriate names, defending Churchill and Alam; and if you feel like an outing to execrate Frank and The New Republic, there'll be a demonstration sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the DC chapter of the ISO and others at 5 pm on Friday, February 11, outside TNR's DC editorial offices at 1331 H Street NW.

If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

case in point (none / 0)

Looking over the back and forth, I can see an example of something that we can look at, where the issues at hand become the thing of discussion, ignoring why those issues are important.

We all have roots that go back to unsavory characteristics of the past. If you think you don't, you're just ignorant of what happened. So how can anyone argue from an absolutist viewpoint about anothers recognition of their own place?

The point is, people with a worldview that necessitates they reachback in order to connect with their past, placewise, to find their place within the wider society, can do so without it impacting their practice of tolerence within the world we live today. Isn't that obvious?

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:12:44 AM EST

Re: case in point (none / 0)

I thought so until I read the reactions to your diary. There's something going on that I still don't get.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 11:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Special Responsibilities (none / 0)

Jerome is right, there are unsavory aspects to everyone's heritage. But those who build their identities around their heritage invariably do so in a mythologizing manner, rather than critical one. And this is where all the problems turn up in spades.

Now, Jews, quite fortunately, have long ago integrated critical thinking into their heritage, so they have an internalized means for battling this. Secular Jews are even better prepared, as the ultimate external authority figure is removed for them. But still, I encounter other secular Jews who justify barbaric mistreatment of Palestinians, and do so consistently with their reading of their heritage. If do not stand against them, then I am guilty of all the sins before me by my own hand.

And that is the same standard that I judge the SCV members by. The best that can be said of them is "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."

But they should. They damn well should. Ignorance is no excuse. Mitigation, yes. But excuse, no.

If some white southerners don't get this, then the rest of us white Americans (including Jews like me, who weren't even "white" when the Civil War was fought) have a special responsibility to speak out against their ignorance. If we do not, then we, too, take on a portion of their unacknowledged guilt by our own hands.

And that is why I speak out. That is the reason for all this hullabaloo.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 08:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.