I don’t post here very often anymore, but I feel compelled to comment on Tom’s equating of the Confederate flag with the swastika.

1) That’s offensive and crazy. It actually plays into the hands of the David Dukes of the world — and I know this, having been at the forefront of the fight against Duke for three years — because it allows neo-Nazis to claim for their own a symbol that has many other meanings, some of them defensible and many of them romantic. Robert E. Lee, a good man, did not fight on behalf of genocide. Period.

2) Nevertheless, I’ve always been a bit baffled by those who still proudly wave the Confederate flag. What are they trying to say? That it would have been a good thing, historically, if the union had broken up? That if the union had broken up, it would have been good to serve under a flag that, whatever else it ALSO symbolized that might have been worthy of celebrating, did indeed still countenance slavery? That secession without agreement from the rest of the union is a good, or constitutional, thing? As I read histories of the civil war, I find myself far more moved by the valor of the Confederate armies and generals than I do by those of the Yankees. I find their dedication, divorced from the precise nature of their cause, more ennobling. I find the successful union generals such as Sherman and Sheridan to be irredeemably brutal. I am in awe of much of what Stonewall Jackson accomplished militarily, and I admire greatly the utterly unappreciated James Longstreet. But I do not, in the end, pine for a different outcome in which the union was split, slavery continued in the South, and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence left unrealized. The fact remains that if the Confederacy had won, slavery would have continued there for many years. Slavery is indefensible and inhuman. Period.

3) Yes, the flag also stood for a belief in federalism — yes, in “states’ rights” — that, when not taken to the extremes that Calhoun advocated, is not just defensible but in almost all respects correct. One can believe in federalism without believing in seccession; one can resent the bullying both of industrial, moneyed interests and of centralized government without secretly pining for a diminution of human rights. And one absolutely, positively, proudly, can celebrate the culture of the old South COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM SLAVERY, and can see the flag as a symbol of that culture. A culture of courtesy. Of honor. Of chivalry. Of appreciation for the land. Of honoring and protecting ladies who live up to the name. Of individualism. Of decentralized authority. Of governance by tradition and cultural mores as much as by formal government that is enforced, as all government eventually is, at the point of a gun. (And of the idea that guns are there as much to protect against oppressive government — as a last resort — as for anything else.)

4) Nevertheless, one can also honor those good things without needing to wave a Confederate flag. And it is indisputable that the flag is inextricably linked with an armed effort that, whatever else its goals, also would have had the effect of (and in many cases was motivated by the desire to ensure) the continuance of the absolute evil of slavery. For those reasons, I myself never will raise aloft a Confederate flag. I think it appropriate to be unfurled only in certain, very very very limited circumstances (historical re-enactments of course among them). And I understand those who find it offensive even as I fully understand those who mean to give no offense by unfurling it.

5) In conclusion, I do not think the Confederate flag is something worth fighting over. It is not inherently evil, but by its very nature, even if unintentionally, it carries at least a little whiff of evil no matter how many other ennobling things it may also represent to the people who display it. If it is absolutely sick and unfair for people like Tom to equate it with Nazism, it also is at least a little bit intellectually dishonest to deny that its symbolism is somewhat troubling. If I thought that Southern Appeal was dedicated to the Confederate flag (in any of its forms) or to glorifying the entire cause of the Old Confederacy, I never would have joined it. I joined because it was a blog that mainly focused on appellate legal matters, with a particular emphasis on southern legal matters and a southern sensibility of the right sort (i.e., chivalry, etc.), and those are matters that are of great interest to me. The site now seems to spend as much or more time on matters Catholic (not, by the way, traditionally predominant in the South, old or new) and broadly cultural — matters definitely worthy of discussion and also of interest to me as a near-Catholic and as a deep admirer of John Paul II. But they are matters that have strayed from the “appeal” part of the blog’s name in its original sense. As long as those emphases, and the particularly southern character of the site in terms of chivalry, etc., continue, I am happy to be an occasional blogger here — and I am always happy to call its founder, Feddie, my friend. But if this site becomes an apologist for the Confederate cause in toto, I then will say goodbye. If I ever do so, I certainly will do it without a noxious, below-the-belt attack such as the one with which Tom bid adieu.

Hopefully this farewell will be less contentious.

I’m stepping away from blogging with the exception of my history blogging over at Almost Chosen People (check it out). The long and short of it is I simply don’t have the time to write about current events in the depth that I once did.  Also, truthfully, I’m a tad burned out.  Considering that I haven’t posted much here lately, I don’t think I will be all that missed.

Thanks to Feddie for inviting me to blog here – twice.  This was my first blog home, and thus it will always have a special place in my heart.  Hopefully at some point I’ll be able to re-dedicate myself to current affairs blogging, but for now I’ll just be another lurker and occasional commenter waiting to be placed out of moderation.

While Obama’s DOJ sues legal citizens in AZ so it can secure new voters via illegal aliens (they hope), it gives real law-breakers a pass when intimidating legal voters. One of those law-breakers was King Shabazz. His majesty doesn’t like white folks. As a matter of fact, he openly advocates murdering them . . . and their babies. Does anyone still want to make the case that Obama will be our first “post-racial” President?

This is the third post about my book Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation, published by Yale University Press on May 25, 2010. In this post, I briefly explain why desegregation would have led some black students to feel alienated from the “white” world of school.

After desegregation, many black children were taught by white teachers who disliked them, did not care about their success, underestimated their capabilities, or–at the opposite extreme–coddled them out of guilt. Even when the white teachers did everything right, the black schoolchildren still, for the first time, faced the possibility of seeing “school” as a place where success equaled seeking the approval of whites.

Black schoolchildren, now dispersed into formerly all-white schools, suddenly had to deal with unfriendly classmates on a day-to-day basis. School was no longer a place where black children could avoid interacting with racist people. As John McWhorter points out, the “demise of segregation” helped “pave the way for the ‘acting white’ charge. With the closing of black schools after desegregation orders, black students began going to school with white ones in larger numbers than ever before, which meant that whites were available for black students to model themselves against.”

Many desegregated schools also made greater use of academic “tracking,” which kept most of the better-prepared white students in a separate class from the black students. This too reinforced the message that academic achievement was reserved for whites. By contrast, as Beverly Daniel Tatum of Spelman explains, “in the context of a segregated school, it was a given that the high achieving students would all be Black. Academic achievement did not have to mean separation from one’s Black peers.”

Thus, as Harvard economist Roland Fryer points out, one’s attitude toward education can now function as a racial signal. A black student who is too eager in class may be seen as trying to curry favor with the mostly white teachers. And where the advanced classes or academic clubs are predominantly white, the black student who takes advanced classes or joins an academic club is seen as having preferred the company of whites over blacks. In other words, just by the fact that desegregation brought black and white students into contact with one another, it became possible for either blacks or whites to view the other race as outsiders in the school environment, and to start punishing children who spent too much time crossing the boundary lines between races.

There is nothing unusual in this: Humans are tribal creatures. It is a universal human trait for group members to expect loyalty to the group, whether the “group” involves employees of a particular corporation; Democrats or Republicans; literally thousands of religious sects and denominations; citizens of a particular country, state, or town; fans of the Yankees or any other sports team; or a nearly infinite range of groups based on all sorts of characteristics. It was an unfortunate side effect of desegregation that this universal human expectation–“be loyal to our group, or else”–showed up in schools.

This is the second post about my book Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation, published by Yale University Press on May 25, 2010.

As an initial matter, it might be useful to clarify the following.  Segregation was like a cancer. But a powerful anti-cancer drug may have side effects — such as crippling nausea. You have to try to address the side effects, not sweep them under the carpet simply on the ground that anything is worth it to fight cancer. Nor, in the case of medicine, would anyone suggest that trying to address a side effect means that one is in favor of cancer.

But in the case of public policy, people act as if the world is entirely black and white.  If you support a policy, it’s all benefit and no cost; while an opposed policy is all cost and no benefit. Few political writers take a nuanced view of their subject: “This policy would deliver substantial and meaningful benefits, but the cost is even higher,” or “the costs of this policy will be brutal, but the benefits are great enough to be worth it.”

As a result, whenever readers come across someone who claims that a particular policy (say, desegregation) came at a substantial cost, many will immediately assume that the writer is an opponent of the policy. Knowing this tendency to misread and misinterpret, I made sure throughout the book to point out that desegregation was an overall benefit, and that I’m merely describing one bad side effect that should be addressed.

Now on to the substance: When did “acting white” arise?  I found unanimous agreement among commentators and interviewees that it arose at the same time as desegregation, in the mid-1960s. The stage was set for this attitudinal shift once desegregation undermined one of the traditional centers of the black community: the school. In the segregated schools, black children had consistently seen other blacks succeeding in the academic world. The authority figures and role models–that is, the teachers and principals–were virtually always black.

A typical description of those days: “It was like a family. You knew all the children. You knew their parents, and they all had gone to the same school. We didn’t have the same resources that the white students had, but we had teachers who made sure you did the very best you could with what you had.” Another former student in a black school recalled, “They encouraged the fainthearted, and boosted the ego of the underachiever.” And the best students in black schools were black as well.

All of this ended with desegregation. Many black schools disappeared altogether: school boards all across the South closed or demolished black schools in pursuit of desegregation (or occasionally kept the school open while changing its name and status, so as to erase its historical connection to the black community). In North Carolina, for example, out of 226 all-black high schools in 1964, only 13 survived a mere 8 years later. Unsurprisingly, the number of black principals also dropped from 226 to 15.

Take Second Ward High School in Charlotte, NC. One resident told author David Shipler, “The principal was like our grandfather, an authoritative figure. . . . We didn’t have the best materials, but we had the best nurturing.” Says another graduate: “I don’t advocate segregated schools today. But there are attributes of that time that need to be in place today. Our teachers, they’d look at you, almost as if they were wanting to will a good education into your head.”

But Second Ward was demolished under a desegregation plan in Charlotte, and the black students were dispersed to white schools. Students were devastated. Said one person: “An institution was being closed. And not necessarily for progress, but because of integration. . . . Well, it was heartbreaking. It really was. It really was.” Another person said, “We thought that it was the utmost in betrayal.” A former teacher from Second Ward later said, “I still kept contact with those kids from Second Ward, and they would call and sometimes cry.”

TO BE CONTINUED . . .

In this and a few subsequent posts, I will describe the thesis of my book Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation, published by Yale University Press on May 25, 2010.

“Go into any inner-city neighborhood,” Barack Obama said in his address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, “and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” A May 2009 report from Newsweek noted that Michelle Obama “described the ridicule she faced from neighborhood kids for ‘acting white’ when she got good grades” as a child.

The Obamas are far from alone in their observations. Many people in recent years–most famously, Bill Cosby–have pointed out that black children often seem to think of schoolwork as a “white” activity. Anecdotal evidence abounds in newspaper articles and on the Internet. One black valedictorian in Virginia, for example, told a newspaper that “as I’ve gone through my whole school career, people have called me white because I’ve made good grades and didn’t conform to the stereotype.”

As well, many academic studies have shown that some black children think of doing schoolwork as “acting white,” and a study by Roland Fryer–a black Harvard economist–shows that black children nationwide become less popular if their grade-point average rises above 3.5.

“Acting white” has been discussed so often in the popular press that it no longer comes as a surprise. But it should. If we look at the historical record, there is no evidence that black schoolchildren back in the days of slavery or Jim Crow accused a studious schoolmate of “acting white.” To the contrary, white people occasionally accused educated blacks of trying to be white. A Northerner who had moved to Georgia after the Civil War noted that “in the days of Slavery, the masters ridiculed the negroes’ efforts to use good language, and become like the whites.”

Yet today, the “acting white” criticism that was once occasionally used by racist whites has been adopted by some black schoolchildren. This is a mystery, is it not? What happened between the nineteenth century and today?

The answer, I believe, springs from the complex history of desegregation. Although desegregation arose from noble and necessary impulses, and although desegregation was to the overall benefit of the nation, it was often implemented in a way that was devastating to black communities. It destroyed black schools, reduced the numbers of black principals and teachers who could serve as role models, and brought many black schoolchildren into daily contact with whites who made school a strange and uncomfortable environment that was viewed as quintessentially “white.”

Numerous scholars and commentators have observed that the “acting white” criticism arose during the 1960s–precisely the time when desegregation actually happened. Indeed, many black people recall that they were first accused of “acting white” or “trying to be white” during the desegregation experience.

Among many examples in the book, author Kitty Oliver notes that “there was a time when black students wouldn’t dare tease a student, but rather would applaud them for their achievements.” But then, “desegregation created a clearer division of white and black. Once black and white students started attending school together, the association shifted and black students began to tease one another by pushing their smart peers into the ‘white’ category.” Similarly, Bernice McNair Barnett of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recalls that she was “isolated and cut off from the world of my former Black peers (who saw my school desegregation choice as ‘trying to be White’) as well as my new White peers (who were both hate filled bullies and otherwise good hearted but silent bystanders).”

TO BE CONTINUED . . .

Sorry for the hyper-posting on this topic, but I had to point this out.  If you watch the video (new link provided since the other one was taken down), you’ll notice if you look very carefully at about 25 seconds in, Etheridge swipes the video recorder from his victim’s left hand with his left hand. (He’s fast – looks like he’s had practice at this.) Then if you’ll watch at about 56 seconds into the video, right before Etheridge turns to walk away, you’ll see that he still holds the video device in his left hand. If he walked away with the device, I believe we have could have a robbery here.  Let’s see, assault and battery, possible robbery, and several potential angles from which to pursue a civil suit. I’d say the Congressman is having a REALLY bad day.  The video should make a great campaign ad for his opponent this fall.

How come if I do this, I explain after I’m arrested but if a Congressman does it, he explains via a press release?

I saw this band when they were touring with AC/DC durring the Black Ice Tour. If you like straight forward Rock & Roll in the Led Zepplin, Thin Lizzy, AC/DC tradition then you need to check out The Answer.

I have always thought this was the case but if anyone wants proof then they can look at Hollywood’s silence over the floods in Nashville and the Gulf oil spill as proof. Jeffery Jena makes the case here.

For me Memorial Day is bitter sweet. On one hand, I remember those that I have known that have died in service to this country. They were the best this country had and they paid the highest price. This fills me with a sense of melancholy. This realization also fills me with a desire to live life to its fullest. It makes me want to ride my Harley at mach 5, turn the stereo up to 11 and blare some brain shaking rock n’ roll.

Whatever Memorial Day means to you please take some time and remember those that have died in the service of our country.

Today, Bob Dylan turns 69.  Below is a video from a concert at Fort Collins, Colorado, performed the day before Dylan’s 35th birthday (May 23) in 1976.  The song, “Idiot Wind,” is harsh, but one that I listened to often during some difficult days at Baylor between March and September 2006.
http://www.dailymotion.com/videox1g6xd
(I apologize for the pop-up ads. Just click the “x” in the top left corner of the ad to stop the pop-ups).

(Originally posted on Return to Rome)

It is Friday. Time to let your hair down and have a good time. You can’t go wrong with some Supersuckers on a Friday. Check them out here.

Read the story here.

What is racial profiling called when it is practiced by the human resources department in your place of employment?

And the answer is…..

(more…)

There’s been a Beckwith sighting in the comments, so he’s evidently abroad after his forty days in the hermitage.  No word yet on whether he’s seen his shadow–if he does, it means the Dems maintain control of the House in November.

This is a day for stillness, silence, and prayer.  Our minds (for SA types) are normally consumed with arguments, facts, events, statistics; it can be difficult to quiet them.

We want to save, to act, to strike, but it is not ours to save.  On this day the sword must drop from our hand.  We can only witness and suffer what we cannot suffer.  The Messiah is other than we thought him.

When the earth trembles, our politics are stilled. Something immeasurably greater is afoot.

Here is a meditation for Good Friday.

With the size and scope of government metastasizing at a rate matched only by the increase in elitist arrogance towards the citizenry its time to blow off a little rebellious steam. What better way to do that than enjoying some fist pumping, high-octane, good ole hard rock & roll. I can think of no better new band to scratch that itch than Airbourne. Check out their inaugural CD Runnin’ Wild. Their upcoming CD (No Guts, No Glory) comes out in April. Turn it up!

History is filled with men who seem larger than life-men surrounded by an inflated myth of accomplishment, an aura that collapses as soon as one takes a closer look.

But a few men are truly just as remarkable as their billing.

Byron “Whizzer” White is such a man.

Worth the time to read the rest here at Art of Manliness.

One of America’s best presidents. EVER!

Yesterday, over at The Corner, John Miller listed the top ten conservative novels. Number four on that list was The Time It Never Rained, by Elmer Kelton. Regardless of the book’s philosophical orientation, The Time It Never Rained, simply put, is one of the best American novels ever written. It is a book every American should read, especially in these times.

The book tells the story of Charlie Flagg, a small West Texas rancher trying to save his ranch during the long drought of the 1950’s. As the drought takes its toll on his livestock and savings he comes under increasing pressure from neighbors, friends, and family to accept federal “assistance” in the form of subsidized feed. However, Charlie will have none of it. For him, self-sufficiency and paying one’s own way are the cornerstone of what it means to be a free man. He refuses to accept handouts while he still has the means to provide for himself. However, as the drought wears on he comes under intense pressure to compromise his beliefs and go along with the crowd.

At its core, The Time It Never Rained is a fight story. By that I don’t mean a combat or action story. It is the story of a man that struggles to maintain fidelity to his personal convictions in the face of withering criticism and personal misfortune.

The Time It Never Rained is a story that is both inspiring and entertaining. It contains some of the most colorful characters you will come across in literature. I cannot recommend this book enough.

Any ideas why Drudge has the inverted bin Laden pic today?  I suppose it’s just a way of tweaking his rather prominent beak or questioning the authenticity of the recording.  Other possibilities?

Just got back from three days in Las Vegas. My siblings and I put on a party for my parents in celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary (which is technically January 23, 2010). About 70 people were there. My brother, Jim, opened up the afternoon festivities by welcoming everyone. After lunch, my sister, Elizabeth, presented a video slide show she had produced for the event. It was amazing. I followed Jim with a toast, which I reproduce for you here:
(more…)

Pat Robertson has been accused of blaming the Haiti earthquake on” God’s wrath” and Haiti’s “pact with the Devil” – though if you actually listen to his comments, that isn’t’ exactly true – though I would agree that his words, and their timing, were poorly chosen at best. Nothing really new for Reverend Robertson. Now, Danny Glover is blaming the Haiti earthquake on Gaia. So, my question to all you theologians: Who’s running this world, Father God or mother nature? Will Glover suffer the same scorn? Of course, the questions are rhetorical ones.

And, in a very strange providence, I watched a PBS documentary last night about Haiti and her revolutionary military leader, François-Dominique Toussaint L’ouverture. It was a fascinating film. Part of the narrative went into some detail about Haiti’s voodooism and their so-called “pact with the devil.” At about 6:11 into the following clip–and until the end of the clip taken from the PBS special–the connection between voodoo and Haiti’s revolution against France is quite plainly made by the narrative–the same connection to which Robertson referred in his now infamous comments. Hmmm . . . did the producers of this documentary consult with Pat Robertson or are they simply saying the same thing without the charismatic, evangelical “flair”?

In 1784 the United States in Congress Assembled ratified the Treaty of Paris which ended the War for American Independence.

In light of tonight’s big game I think we need some appropriate music.

Going to try to post more here.

Via Washington Post: Athiests Challenge Irish Blasphemy Law

LONDON — Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an audacious online challenge to the country’s new blasphemy law.

Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if “he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

Heh. I find this amusing for some reason.

The Senate passed its health care bill last night and in doing so did not exactly cover itself in glory. The numerous high-profile payoffs and shameless sellouts used to secure the bill’s passage were enough to make one lose all faith in representative government. Rep. Cantor hit the nail on the head when he stated, “They’re allocating taxpayer dollars as if those dollars belonged to the senators. It borders on immoral. Just look at the way Senator Landrieu put her vote up for sale. Senator Nelson did the same.”

Michelle Malkin breaks down who got what in “Cash for Cloture.”

As my fellow Alabamian pointed out below:

“But when  you express moral opposition to a bill and that moral opposition suddenly evaporates when your state gets enough money – that is a whole different matter.  In Alabama, we have a word for a person who sells his self for money – a whore.”

Sen. Nelson, Sen. Landrieu, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but for extra Medicare funding?

Over at The Corner Robert VerBruggen and John Miller address this question.

My answer, ABSOLUTELY!

More to the point, they also play it. See Avenged Sevenfold, Megadeth, AC/DC.

Apparently the annual Army Navy game will be played 12 December (Saturday).
Yawwwwn. The last time any member of my family cared about a “contest” between the services my great, great grandaddy wore gray and rode with the 4th Miss. Cav.

Ever wonder why the Marines don’t have a football team like the Army, Navy, or Air Force? That is because we are more concerned with protecting a country than a quarterback.