Leonard Pitts pitches a hissy fit.
‘L, ole Leonard Pitts has wrote ‘nother piece assaultin’ Confed’rate heritage. Fir those-a ye who don’t know, Pitts is a nashnally-sindercated columnist who writes 'bout "race, politics, and culture" ‘n wut-not. Won-im a Putzer Prize once. He don’t cotton t’ Confed’rate crackers like old Snaggle-Tooth, to put it mildly. His latest screed kin be found here. Some exurps:
Last week, a fellow journalist wrote to ask me for help.
His name is David Tintner, and he's a senior at Cooper City (Fla.) High South, where he's the editor of the school paper. Recently, he wrote a column criticizing those who wear what he regards as "an extremely offensive symbol": the Confederate battle flag. David says a group of students known on campus as "the Redneck Nation" took exception. A gang of them cornered him at lunch to yell at him. They've made threats and tried to stare him down. . . .
Dear David: My first word of wisdom would be, watch your back. It sounds as if some of the folks you're dealing with aren't screwed on too tight. That said, let me offer you some answers to the arguments typically advanced by defenders of this American swastika.
They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the Confederate States of America both said it was.
They will tell you that great-great-grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders -- not grunts -- who decide whether and why a war is waged.
They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too. . . .
I wish I could say any of that will do you any good. Problem is, it's logic and we live in a time where people are less able to accept, understand or respond to logic.
By way of example: I guarantee you the three lines of argument I gave you above will earn me loud rebuke from Confederate flag fetishists. They will insult my ancestry and intelligence, throw hissy fits of indignation. The one thing they will not be able to do -- this matters to me, though it will not matter to them -- is refute a single word of what I said.
Ho-hum.
League of the South’s Mike Tuggle commints here: , ‘n I’m timted t’ say ‘nuff sed, as he usually sez all needs-ta be sed, but I thank I’ll add jus’ a little bit mo'.
Ole Leonard thanks he’s wieldin’ “logic”. Seems he’s confused logic with factuality. Them “three lines of argument” he mentions ain’t got nuthin’ to do with syllogisms ‘n informal fallacies ‘n suchlike. Rather, all they is is a (quite sloppy ‘n simplistic) presentation of factual matters. But whin it comes to th' facts-a That War, th' devils 'r in th’ details, as indercated in no small part by th' fact that tens of thousands of books have been writtin ‘bout it. Much-a th' focus of these thousands-a books is on why th' war wuz fought, and anyone who knows anythin’ ‘bout this matter’ll see Pitts’ factual “argument” for th' speeshus, emoshunal and way oversimplified thang it is. Bottom line of it all is that, yes, on one level th' war was ‘bout slavery, ‘n on ‘nother ‘twas not. In fact, ole Honest Abe wuz, at th' beginnin’ of th' war, prepared to make deep concessions to th' South on slavery, if’n only it’d stay in th' Union. Naw: th' war ultimately was about th’ right of a state to secede from th' Union.
Since Pitts dru an analogy 'tween th' Confed'racy ' n th' Nazis, we cud also invoke Godwin’s Law here ‘n say that ole Leonard’s “argument” ‘corrdin’ly ain’t as “logical” as he thanks it to be. One poplar interpretashun of Godwin's Law is, "He who first invokes the Nazis loses the argument."
And we’ll quote Virginia Senator James Webb (no white supremacist he) ‘long these here lines:
No other war started so many controversies.... Recent years, however, have seen a new kind of nastiness emerge in these disputes. Even the venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday's America into fantasy that might better serve the political issues of today. The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politics and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the **Nazification of the Confederacy.** Often cloaked in the argument over the public display of the Confederate battle flag, the syllogism goes something like this:
Slavery was evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery.
This blatant use of the race card in order to inflame their political and academic constituencies is a tired, seemingly endless game that is itself perhaps the greatest legacy of the Civil War’s aftermath. But in this case it dishonors hundreds of thousands of men who can defend themselves only through the voices of their descendents. (Born Fighting , How the Scots-Irish Shaped America , Broadway Publishing 2004, p. 207-208. Emphasees mine.)
Yep, it shore duz dishonor them: includin’ all them black folks who remained loyal to th' Southern Confed'racy even as they remained in th' bonds of slavery. As historian Jeffrey Hummell argues in his book Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War , slavery was in its last days anyhow, and no war such as wuz waged by Honest Abe should-a been fought. Even if'n Lincoln waged th' war to end slavery, which he didn't, th' price was way too high: 600,000 + dead, a trashed fed’rul constitution, and th' worsenin' of racial relations, whose ill effects are observed t’ this day. Had there been no war, there’s ever’ reason to believe that slaves would have eventually, probably relatively soon after 1861, been emancipated in an orderly way and with a lot more good will and cordiality between th' races left intact.
But no, we gotta have us our Nashnul Myth: North (and its flag) – good; South (and its flags) – bad. That there’s damn fool librul and no-account neocon “logic” fir ye.
So that thar’s my refutation, Mr. Pitts. Ain’t got nuthin’ to do with yir ancestry, but it probably do have much to do with yir intelligence. Don’t git me wrong; I ain’t sayin’ yir stupid, necessarily, but probably jus’ angry. As St. John Cassian once sed, howevah, “anger dulls the intellect.”
S. Jones
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
in Damn Fool Liberals and No-Account Neocons, Free the South - and Colorado too!, The Federals
|
Post a Comment
Reader Comments