7 Comments

• 1. Helen Losse replies at 31st May 2008, 10:46 am :

  Mine came out the same as yours, which pretty much describes me.

• 2. sherry replies at 31st May 2008, 1:26 pm :

  Hey, Helen and all, I just got an e-mail from Edward H. Sebesta with a link to this book: Neo-Confederacy. A Critical Introduction edited by Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, and Edward H. Sebesta from the University of Texas Press (forthcoming December 2008):

  James W. Loewen and others have demonstrated the perniciousness of monuments to white supremacy throughout the United States: such commemorative efforts, however nostalgic, aid in the construction and maintenance of what geographer Richard Schein identifies as “racialized landscapes—American cultural landscapes that are particularly implicated in racist practice and the perpetuation of (or challenge to) racist social relations.” …Exploring the close working relationships between advocates of neo-Confederacy, such as Southern Partisan owner Richard Quinn, and high-ranking members of the Republican Party, such as Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond, [Peter] Applebome [author of Dixie Rising] explains that “it’s hard to know these days where the Confederacy ends and the Republican party begins.”

  Thus neo-Confederacy may be more closely entangled in the corridors of power in the United States than it first appears.

  …In this volume, contributors draw on documents published by neo-Confederate activists to explore how neo-Confederate ideology constructs a worldview that we contend is patriarchal, ethnocentric, intolerant, and racist, but a worldview that operates utilizing a complex discourse, a language that at face value appears to laud cultural rights and freedoms, heritage preservation and celebration, local control over institutions, and Christianity.

  I was treating this as a joke but I can only assume this e-mail is in response to my joking post. Looks like it might be pretty serious. This book may be worth a look.

• 3. mike lovell replies at 31st May 2008, 2:09 pm :

  Okay, what I am about to say may come off as stupid, and obviously I realize the dynamism of how the parties have operated throughout our history, but to compare the Confederacy and the Republican party seems almost backwards. Afterall, Lincoln was the first ever Republican President, as teh party eventually replaced the Whig party. Democratic leaders threatened secession if Lincoln became elected (now we stupidly have celebrities who threaten to leave if someone is elected…but I digress). The southern slave states were primarily of democratic leadership….
  Fast forward 100 years give or take, and I know the roles seem to have changed, the Dems were the compassionates, the conservatives not so much.
  Fast forward again… policies put forth by democratic leadership in order to help out minorities and the poor (oftentimes synonymous), rather than being a tool used by most, its ability to be perpetual in its disbursment policy caused it to be a hindrance more than a help. While some used the program responsibly and left it alone as they progressed forward in societal ascension, the majority often treated the economic help as a drug addiction, and often times were encouraged to use it as much as possible regardless of need. OFtnetimes to teh detriment of the recipient and to the benfit of the government agencies who received the payments to administer. Less money to the public, less money for them…so why not create the addiction to paltry benefits amongst the poor in order to further the greater addiction by government workers to the bigger admin money?

  Why encourage someone to get up get out and do something, when we’re going to pay them the same to stay home and wallow in their own existence? I guess I see it as a form of calss warfare at the very least, if not at times outrage economic race warfare.

• 4. Tommy replies at 31st May 2008, 7:36 pm :

  I came out Social Justice Crusader, as well. I wonder if I can see what other results are possible?
  I’ve got to check out that book about the Neo-Confederacy. I bet there’s some overlap there between the Neo-Confederacy and the fascist impulses that we are seeing more and more frequently. In fact, I’d expect there to be, insofar as fascism promises a phoenix-from-the-ashes renewal of some Golden Age, and the South has always claimed that It Will Rise Again.
  And, Mr. Lovell, what do you think of grants for artists? If anyone stays home and wallows in their own existence, it’s painters and poets. Are they social parasites that don’t deserve government handouts, or are they contributing to our cultural growth and need to be subsidized because what they’re doing doesn’t pay regularly?

• 5. mike lovell replies at 31st May 2008, 8:43 pm :

  Tommy,
  I’ll be the first to admit I have yet to look at the angle of artists. I guess, on first glance, that at least they have something to contribute. Whom I speak of would be along the lines of those who pretty much refuse to do anything, but professionally collect their monthly government stipends from every category possible (food stamps, HUD checks, etc)
  I have no problem with those who use the programs as stepping stones, as they work themselves towards something greater. I myself have taken advantage of food stamps, WIC, and medicaid/Hawk-I (depending on technical wage for the year). It was not something I wanted to consider as part of my regular income. I used it to help out my children, as they should not be punished because I have yet to financially attain enough to take care of the most basic needs myself.
  But those who sit there and have more babaies to get a bigger check, in my mind, are part of the problem with how the system works. And the constant expansion of “entitlement programs” to pay for all these basic things for families with incomes of up to $83,000 (including childrens coverage that covers the adult now) in some states, seems backwards to me. I believe we were all created equal, and with our GOd given free will, we were set forth to make our way in the world, helping those around us less fortunate. I think those with mroe wealth should help the poor more, but I think constant taxation doesn’t always solve the problem as it is often teh middle class that gets squeezed into the lower class by supporting it through government mandates.

• 6. sherry replies at 2nd June 2008, 1:51 pm :

  Mike, I think I’d be more convinced by your original comment here, that the welfare state was bad for minorities, if I saw the Republicans working hard to create jobs for those who have had to go off welfare in the last decade or getting on board for raises in the minimum wage. Hard to say you must get a job and be self-respecting when there are no jobs to be had that pay enough for a working mother to afford the necessary day care. And it is still true that an African American with the same or better credentials is at a disadvantage competing for the same job with a caucasian.

  As for the connection between the Republican party and the neo-Confederates, I haven’t read the book so I can’t really know what the argument is but connections between Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott and the CCC is pretty much old news.

  http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/12/10/lott/

• 7. mike lovell replies at 2nd June 2008, 2:52 pm :

  On the racial hiring differences, I won’t argue. And I’m not saying Republicans are much better at all, especially given the seeming fact that most have abandon the original core principles. As for the creation of jobs, that really isn’t a political thing, that is a business owner issue. (one reason the republicans havent worked harder, just the same as the democrats…they can talk, but short of setting up jobs in the private sector, the politicians can’t do much.) The human element entered into the great theories always ruins what could’ve been a great reality… unfortunately.
  It’s just my belief that you can’t make people dependent on the programs, regardless of race, gender, whathaveyou. I think the benefits, such as WIC, medicaid, and all that would be better applied to those who actually are trying, as it was intended…to give them a hand up, instead of the handout that these programs continually devolve into.
  Those who literally choose to sit at home, smoke dope,drink, and professionally pop out babies need to be left to their families and their churches. Maybe it’s uncompassionate of me, but let me ask you…do you give substantial money directly to the homeless (which I do from time to time), even after seeing them hit the nearest convenience store to buy booze with your money(which I then refuse that individual)? It’s more that type of person that I have issues with helping continually…I call them leeches when they specifically live off of others and put forth no effort to make something for themselves.
  In short I’m not entirely against these programs, I just believe they need to be better targeted, but good luck with that when its government run. There has to be incentive to it, rather than a solution unto itself.

Leave a comment