That’s what I love about the South! I may be a Floridian, but I live in a university town. Technically, that makes me a Yankee. Okay, maybe not, but it was worth a shot. I was born in Pennsylvania, though. On with the site review…
On The Issue of Race, the authors have this to say.
“Each time the League leadership addresses itself to the issue of race, the policy we advance must be free of hatred and malice … our response to them must be grounded in Christian charity… “This does not mean, however, that we must subscribe to the flawed Jacobin notion of egalitarianism, nor does it mean that white Southerners should give control over their civilisation and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants. Nowhere, outside of liberal dogma, is any nation called upon to commit cultural and ethnic suicide…”
Jacobin egalitarianism? Outside the context of the French Revolution, Jacobin just means having liberal tendencies, which in turn means advocating individual liberty. Merriam-Webster defines egalitarianism as:
- a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges, or
- a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.
So then, we’ve established that the authors believe neither that the races are inherently equal nor that any social or legal inequalities that remain need to be remedied. They also have some paranoid delusion about non-white people taking over but I’ll ignore that for now. They go on to say in the very next paragraph:
“Let us in the League, then, confidently defend our ethnic, cultural, and religious heritage. After all, we have as much right to do this as anyone. Let us also not fall prey to the notion that any other group besides ourselves could (or would) defend and preserve the biblically-based rule of law that has undergirded our Southern society since its formation. Undoubtedly, the liberal and neo-conservative pundits will attempt to smear us as ‘racists’ because we stand up for ourselves and our posterity. This is, regrettably, unavoidable because we are confronted by fundamentally dishonourable and dishonest people who substitute the ad hominem attack for rational debate. Therefore, we are obliged to develop thick hides to fend off the attacks that will inevitably come.”
racistan ad hominem?
Merriam-Webster defines racism as,
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
How dare anyone say that they believe the races are unequal just because they said the races are unequal! They aren’t racists; they just think white people are superior and entitled to basic freedoms that black people are not. For instance, a board member of that organization co-authored a pamphlet defending slavery. But that’s not racist! They are no more racist than I am sarcastic; I am merely expressing a mode of irony that depends for its effect on bitter or caustic language directed against someone else. That’s not sarcasm. Never mind what the dictionary says.
But is calling someone a “racist’ an ad hominem? An ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby you reject someone’s argument by making an irrelevant attack upon his or her character. So if the authors had written that flag burning should be criminalized instead of writing about race relations, it would be an ad hominem for me to say that since they are racists, I can discount their views on flag burning. On the other hand, since the authors did write about race relations, whether or not they are racists is relevant to the discussion.
Likewise, if I start spouting Marxist rhetoric and tell you that Marx is my hero, it would be absurd for me to yell
ad hominem if you called me a Marxist. It was, however, an ad hominem when someone who shall remain nameless called me a “Communist” for being against the war in Iraq. (By the way, I am neither a Marxist nor a Communist.)
But Marxists and Communists usually do admit to being Marxists and Communists. Racists never do admit to being racist – even when they advocate slavery. It’s the most bizarre and cowardly thing. They want to advocate a socially unacceptable view, but they aren’t willing to risk the social consequences. So when someone points out that their views happen to match what’s in the dictionary under “racist” they’re insulted and full of righteous indignation. It’s as stupid as that Confederate flag they wave on their index page.
The following message is for all Confederate flag wavers. The Civil War is over. You LOST! Your side was guilty of treason against your own country, and you got your butt kicked. It’s a defeated enemy flag now; you look pathetic waving it.
However, I do agree with the League of the South about one issue: sucession. Let them secede (except for the cities and university towns). Good riddance.