As you can see from the three tweets above, Southern Nationalists like “Dr.” Michael Hill of the League of the South and Michael Cushman of Southern Nationalist Network are not as concerned about Southern Heritage as they are Southern “White” Supremacy. Southern Heritage is purely a front for their disdain of everything American today and a wish to return to the days of the antebellum south. I personally find their views of history quite disturbing. What do you think?
If we had to have a black holiday,I just don’t understand MLK,other then it was the “times”. A EP day or 13th amendment day would have been better..
Racists under the guise of “Western Civ. Culture Supremacists.’ They are a disturbing lot both in their fanaticism and ignorance.
Are those quotation marks around “Dr.” scare-quotes or irony-quotes?
If they’re scare quotes, what’s scary about earning a Ph.D?
If they’re irony quotes, does that mean you think Dr. Hill didn’t earn his degree?
Neither…I don’t think he has done his degree or those who work had for those degrees any justice.
Plus, I have no respect for his ideology.
No problem, Corey. I’m sure Dr Hill has no respect for your ideology either.
And I think it says a lot about the baseness of your ideology if you are advocating that we admire and celebrate a man who was, by the admission of his closest associates, a marxist, a serial adulterer, a sado-masochist, and a plagiarizing, academic fraud. No such accusations can be made against Generals Lee and Jackson. They were men of sterling character and highly respected both in their own day and now – at least by those who know good from evil.
As for ‘supremacy’, if we are to make a value judgment about the ‘supremacy’ of one race or system over another, then let’s look at the facts.
It was white, western European people who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, carved a civilisation out of the north american wilderness, and established republican self-government and liberty on this continent. It was those same people who provided the inventions, innovations, advancements and incentives for prosperity, and who have primarily defended it. It was not sub-sahara africans, or asians, or mohammedans, or mesoamericans who did all that. Nor have any of them, absent the influence of western European peoples, ever approached anything near it on their own.
So, do I think that the white, western, Christian civilisation of the South, warts and all, is superior to those of pagan and barbaric peoples in other parts of the world? Do I think that it is worthy of perpetuation? You bet I do, and for all the obvious advantages it has produced for so many. Compared to others, well, there’s no comparison, only a descent into tribal anarchy and brutality (witness South Africa, Zimbabwe, most of central and south america, etc.).
None of this necessarily implies a hatred for those other folks, as you and your ilk always imply. It is a simple recognition of the basic differences between peoples and cultures, that one size does not fit all, and that, depending on your perspective, some things are better than others. You attempt to live in an unrealistic, utopian dreamworld, where everything and everyone is mechanically, politically, culturally, morally, and spiritually equal. That does not, nor will it ever, work. Try as you might, you can not stand God’s creation on its head.
@ Mark,
There is so many things wrong with this comment.
First, who is the marxist, serial adulterer, sado-masochist, plagiarizing academic fraud? Dr. Hill? Second; why are you putting Lee and Jackson on a pedestal. There are numerous things to cite about each man that people should not emulate today. For starters, they owned slaves. Granted that is a mindset of the time and not a commonality today, but that leaves us with the standard that we should not put historical figures on a pedestal. They are human beings. Just as complicated as you or I.
It was also Western Europeans who, after the fall of Rome, descended into a state of tribal conflicts surrounding land ownership while the Islamic cultures thrived, eventually bringing back the writings of the classical greeks. It was also those same European Christians who, after stabilizing their state political and economic situations, resulted to brutal wars over who was the “real” Christian. Vikings (Pagans) reached America first. After sailing across the Atlantic, those white Europeans did a terrific job of carrying out mass genocide against the Americas’ native population. Is that superiority? In essence yes. Technologically, tactically etc. However, there is nothing superior murder out of want and greed. Also, African kingdoms were so wealthy at points that it caused world inflation. The Turkish empire is one of the largest in history. Ghengis Khan ruled a large portion of the known world. In fact, out of the largest empires in history, non-Europeans have 5 slots in the top 10.
Sure, I guess you can claim that it never dwindled into anarchy, throwing off the rules. Of course so did the Knights of Mary Phagan (Leo Frank) and the 2nd KKK that followed. Also, those “sub-cultures” you mentioned are in extreme poverty now, thanks to the havoc reaped on them during the colonial and imperialist age by those Superior Western Christians.
I didn’t realize that God created part of the human populace as superior to others. Again, KKK.
When have we Southron Nationalists expressed a desire to return to the antebellum? I’m fairly certain we have been advocating for the survival, well-being, and independence of our people. It’s a concept called “self determination.” If you are unfamiliar with it, may I suggest the Declaration of Independence for a little light reading one night? What, specifically, about our ideology do you not respect?
I find it very interesting to here group/people like you talk about self-determination when it is groups/people like you that want to model the new south on the old confederacy which kept at its cornerstone 4 million people from their own self-determination.
Do not fret over my reading of the Dec. of Ind….I teach it to my students paragraph by paragraph.
Thanks for the comment.
Where do you get this off-the-wall notion? Link to or otherwise identify any League position papers or other documents that substantiates your claim that the League wants to model the new South on the old Confederacy.
I can predict right now, with great accuracy, that you will produce nothing because you can’t — it doesn’t exist. About all we can expect you to do is to make some excuse for weaseling out of substantiating your claim.
Funny thing here Connie is that I cannot access the LoS right now as the filter at work blocks it due to hate and intolerance.
Ironic eh?
However I will once I get home.
But here are a few links to chew on for now.
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/another-version-of-southern-heritage/
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/michael-hill
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/fall/40-to-watch?page=0,3
And while not Hill, it is based on his ideology and Woods is an arch-secessionist anyways…
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/guest-blogger-thomas-woods-southern-comfort
Enjoy…and remember just because you don’t agree does not mean these are wrong!
Didn’t I tell ya? Weaseling out… Can’t substantiate… Will produce nothing because you can’t.
1. Schools are notoriously post-civil-rights politically correct, anti-white and anti-Southern — particularly those outside Dixie. I suspect it would be more accurate to say, “… the filter at work blocks it due to bigotry and prejudice…” Unless you mean that the blocking is due to your school’s hate and intolerance. I’d buy that, no doubt.
2. Brooks Simpson and the SPLC have both more than abundantly demonstrated their bigotry, prejudice and intolerance for Southern white folks, particularly those who don’t walk the post-civil-rights-PC/Diversity tightrope. I learned a lot time ago that they are not objective and they are not to be taken seriously.
3. Tom Woods, while an admirable fellow, is neither Michael Hill nor Michael Cushman. Weasel, weasel, weasel….
4. All the weasel-links you’ve posted here are written by critics of these men and/or their politics, ideology, culture, etc. Do not expect me to swallow information about a person written by a critic, opponent or adversary who despises them. Would you seek out a Syrian or Egyptian Muslim jihadist for reliable, objective information about Israel and Israelis?
5. There may be some similarities between the League’s view of a new Southern republic and the Confederacy, but there’s also probably some similarities between their model and the original American republic — you know, the one Lincoln destroyed with his war. Now. Post something that **Dr. Hill** originated that substantiates your claim that the League wants to model the new South on the old Confederacy — something NOT filtered through some weaselly critic’s blog or the manipulative publications of a very rich professional fundraising and hate mongering outfit.
6. If anyone wants to know the League’s model for the new South, they’ve written it down clearly and specifically… Different aspects or components of the model have their own dedicated chapter. Of course, going to that source and seeing what it says is too honest and makes too much sense. Critics aren’t going to give up swallowing whole the prejudiced, bigoted claims of people who hate the League in order to find the truth.
Connie,
I really hesitated letting your post through, but I think it is important to show that you are in lockstep with what Mike Hill and Mike Cushman write, say and think. If there was every any doubt, this post proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Do you believe what the LoS says about racial diversity in their version of the south?
Quietly awaiting your response…
.
Mr.Meyer,
Three tweets and you have formed an opinion about two men that you, if I dare say, have not studied, read or listened to. Did you use this same lack of information when you voted in the last two Presidential elections?
Steven,
The tweets are just more evidence to their ideology. I have followed their comments and writings for many years now.
Connie,
The comments of the men are just flat-out wrong, even if one has the title “Dr.” in front of his name.
Neil
Neal, you may disagree with them, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
Connie,
I don’t merely diagree with these men, I find their sentiments as expressed as wrong and for me they are wrong. How much more wrong do they need to be for me? After all, isn’t it up to each and every one of us to determine what is right and wrong for us?
Hope you are well and listening to some good music.
Neil (NOT NeAL)
Hypothetically true but not in this case. They are wrong. Some of their prominent members left the League in the early 90′s due to the white supremacist overtones. Dr. Hill is noted as an embarrassment to the school he worked for.
Neil (sorry) — Okay, in your opinion, they’re wrong. In mine, they’re not. At least, not about everything. Or, rather, they are entitled to their opinions, much of which I agree with.
Dr. Hill’s tweet: “If you’re a real Southern conservative you wont be celebrating MLK Jr day on Monday. You’ll be celebration (sic) Lee-Jackson Day.”
Many conservatives, not just in the South, do not celebrate MLK Jr day., or they give it passing lip service, as evidence by the vast number of businesses that don’t close for the day. Alas, Hill is mistaken about Southern conservatives celebrating Lee-Jackson Day. Most of them don’t … but maybe the qualifier here is the word “real.”
Cushman’s first tweet: “I have a dream — of life free from the USA and its degenerate Leftist, anti-White & anti-Southern agenda.”
The USA’s Leftist agenda is indeed anti-White and anti-Southern, most recently seen in long-time New York Congressman Charlie Rangel’s comment, “… some of the Southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome.” See also “Southern Discomfort” by George Packer, in the New Yorker, and “Welcome to the new Civil War” by Andrew O’Hehir in Salon. This kind of crap gets strewn across the cultural landscape of the USA constantly, i.e., Lincoln, the movie; Django Unchained, and the so-called “civil war” blogs of Hall, Simpson, et.al.
Do you sincerely want to make the case that the USA is NOT degenerate? For some recent examples, see Lance Armstrong’s admission of drug-based cheating; see Penn State, see Fast and Furious and Benghazi. See the degenerate Hollywood glitterati who threw a big, staggeringly expensive costume bash in New York while Sandy victims were suffering without shelter, food, heat… See the thoroughly sick and sickening “Happy Anniversary, Abortion — You’re Still Looking Good” ad starring Mehcad Brooks http://youtu.be/YEMnyiDKUJI If you want to see how “good” abortion looks, Google “abortion photos.”
Cushman’s second tweet: “NPR is spending the weekend worshiping MLK Jr – most holy saint of this degenerate society.”
I don’t listen to NPR so I don’t know how accurate this is., but I don’t really have any reason to doubt it. NPR is extremely leftist (ask Juan Williams).
Re: music — check the playlist I made for “inspirational background music” for writing a couple of novels underway — https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1AvqemldN7WzhTPI_tvQULEvI3mMmWiW
Also, a playlist of instrumentals from back in the day that I’ve labeled “Swanky MidCentury”
Rob, you aren’t the universal declarer of what is right and wrong. It is your opinion that they’re wrong. Dare I state the obvious that your opinion is not everyone’s opinion?
What prominent members left the League in the early 90s due to white supremacist overtones (whatever that is)? Got a link to your source of this information? (If it’s the SPLC, don’t bother. They’re liars.) Link to the school’s embarrassment? (Ditto.)
No Connie, but I can comment on the majority opinion in this case. The LoS is recognized as a racist hate group by numerous organizations including some of its prominent former members that were also Dr. Hill’s associates.
Grady McWhiney is obviously the biggest and most influential defector. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/us/30mcwhiney.html New York Times article including interview with McWhiney Research Institution CEO, Dr. Donald S. Frazier,
In 1994, Dr. McWhiney helped found the league and was a director for a few years, but resigned, complaining that it had been taken over by “the dirty fingernail crowd,” Dr. Frazier said.
In article entitled Racial Bigotry Hidden in a Ph.D. published by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Summer, 1998) has an interview with the Vice President for academic affairs at Stillman College, Joseph Gore. Despite the obvious sentiment of this journal towards the “leauge,” Gore’s comments hold true. He stated:
There is quite a bit of concern about this situation He [Michael Hill] has made comments that he intends to establish his own school and that blacks probably won’t be admitted. I’m very concerned about that.
You its funny, one of my college profs. offered to get me into TCU to study under McWhiney, and at the time I thought that would be great for my historical future. Now, I am glad I decided to teach first and consider a Masters and Ph. D later. I would hate to have turned out like Mikey Hill.
*An article
*League
Sorry. Late night.
@Corey,
Well keep in mind, McWhiney was an intellectual giant. He represented a different faction of the LoS at a different time.
True. I was also offered to go to Auburn and I was thinking of doing that instead. But alas!
The majority isn’t always right. But you haven’t identified a majority. You’ve identifed two men. Without knowing which “numerous organizations” you are referring to, I assume most are left-leaning groups whose definition of racist/racism is fluid and elastic so it can be stretched to cover whatever beliefs/attitudes they wish to apply it to.
Dr. McWhiney was certainly entitled to his opinion, but since he is no longer with us to define his concept of racism, it will have to remain a question mark. In any case, he is one, not “some”.
Also, I note that “the dirty fingernail crowd” is not in widespread use to describe racists — at least, I haven’t encountered it before. Unless there was more to Dr. McWhiney’s statement that clarifies he means racists, by whatever concept/definition he uses, my impression is that he’s referring to working class people — i.e., non-academics. The League started as an academic group. I recall reading that at one time, there was a quite a debate among League members about whether to open the group to non-academics and make it a more grass-roots organization.
And Gore’s statement says *he* (an individual) is concerned, not that Stillman College is embarrassed.
Thanks for playing.
Rob, the League was started in about 1994 by a bunch of academics and some journalists who didn’t like the way the history of the South was being taught to college students. I became aware of it in 1999 when I first got online (wiff my Web-TV). I was not aware of what happened during its first five years except through things I read after the fact.
At that time, I encountered a couple of claims that the League was racist. Because of that, I observed the group — monitored it, actually — for eighteen months before I considered joining. I read Dixienet and writings by League members that appeared elsewhere, attended League events close enough to me, communicated (on and offline) with members, looking for objective evidence of racism and finding none.
I did encounter a few statements by individual members that I considered to be racist, or approaching it, but that was their individual beliefs, not League policy. I noted that in most instances, these people did not reveal their racial beliefs until *after* quitting the League, and more than one of them quit apparently because the League did not agree with their views on race.
The only factions I’m aware of were the two that developed over the League’s entry into politics, i.e., start of the Southern Party. It got quite ugly. I think it was largely the work of an agent provocateur, George Kalas, a “former” CIA agent and member of the League who was the “Rebmaster” of Dixienet at the time.
The League has radicalized somewhat in recent years, and I’ve had some rather public differences with some members (as well as private ones) on Facebook. Brooks Simpson screamed about some of it on Crossroads, as if was breathtaking news for the “civil war community.” Such an odd little man… Anyway, basically, I’ve agreed to disagree on the issues we disagree on, but I have no animosity for the League or Dr. Hill, or any of its members (with a couple of exceptions).
I find the League to be far more honest about critics like you floggers than you are about the League… Just look at the post that started this thread. Three tweets followed by:
=====
As you can see from the three tweets above, Southern Nationalists like “Dr.” Michael Hill of the League of the South and Michael Cushman of Southern Nationalist Network are not as concerned about Southern Heritage as they are Southern “White” Supremacy. Southern Heritage is purely a front for their disdain of everything American today and a wish to return to the days of the antebellum south. I personally find their views of history quite disturbing. What do you think?
=====
Will somebody kindly explain to Corey the difference between nationalism and heritage defense? I don’t have the patience to teach “academics” such obvious distinctions. Neither the League nor the Southern Nationalist Network are Southern heritage groups. They and their members certainly honor the heritage of the South, and do look to it for lessons and inspiration — but these are first and foremost *nationalist* groups whose raison d’etre is the political independence of the South.
I would also add that there is much to disdain about America today — in fact, I’d go so far as to say it isn’t America anymore. Not the America freed and founded by the colonial patriots … not even the America that existed in the couple of decades of my life. Efforts to transform America started earlier but began to show results in the late 1960s — and by now it is unrecognizable as the US of A.
Oh Connie Chastain everyone, master of the political tap dance. Rather than refute, she simply attempts deconstructionism or twists the meanings. I gave you two examples Connie. Do I really have to cite every single person ever that has “bashed” the league? THank you for reinforcing my argument that your stances on the past are modern political projections. You classify everything into the categories of “liberal” or the other (assuming conservative since it is the opposite) just like you have done here. Obviously (to you anyways) those that claim the LoS represent racist solidarity are liberal. I mean, who am I to change that in your opinion. Aside from the fact that I’m not a liberal, and I make such claims.
As stated above, McWhiney represent an example. And an important one at that. It’s interesting that you are now suggesting that he was referring to some sort of class struggle within the league. Of course it is also predictable given your disdain for academia. However, Frazier commented in interviews ascertained by the SPLC that the LoS used McWhiney, in addition to his disdain for racism. I am emailing Frazier personally for that statement, but it is unlikely the SPLC would make up an entire interview. Forrest McDonald also left the league due to the racist attitudes. I think you need to just accept that fact Connie rather than suggest a class struggle.
I’m sorry when did the Dean of Academic Affairs not represent “administration” when speaking as an official of the College? Interesting play on that one Connie, short in the long run.
You’re becoming too predictable Connie, but hey, you’ve been out for awhile. I’ll let it slide
Connie I’ll apply to your other comment about the LoS and you joining it when I have more time. Right now I have to run to a wrestling tournament.
So Connie,do you agree with Mark’s statement ? Is Mark’s position Dr.Hills as well ?
What a bizarre thing, asking me whether Mark’s position is Dr. Hill’s. It’s more logical to ask them..
As for whether I agree with Mark’s statement — is there anything untrue about it that I should disagree with? The only thing I might do is to clarify something….
He says, “It was white, western European people who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, carved a civilisation out of the north american wilderness, and established republican self-government and liberty on this continent. It was those same people who provided the inventions, innovations, advancements and incentives for prosperity, and who have primarily defended it.”
I would add that the white western European people who provided the inventions, innovations, advancements and incentives for prosperity were almost exclusively MEN.
If you can name any comparable civilizations created by the other groups he mentions, please do.
For clarification, I do not necessarily believe that cultures created by white Europeans are superior because those Europeans were/are white — I believe it is because they were heavily influenced by Christianity. Obviously, Christianity does not render people sinless and perfect. At the “bottom,” so to speak, they were still capable of war, brutality, etc. But it did remove barriers at the “top” and freed up higher levels of creativity (one way man is made in the image of God) — i.e., those inventions, innovations, advancements, etc.
You don’t have to be a Christian to benefit from its positive aspects, if you live in a culture shaped by Christianity. This country used to be shaped by it, and resulted in things like a high level of simple decency. I’m old enough to remember when the country was like that. Today, Christianity is under attack and suppression by the leftist establishment and its influence on the culture is greatly diminished — and so is decency, as well as many other positive aspects that cannot thrive under the influence of the pagan hedonism that increasingly characterizes American culture.
Why bizarre to ask your opinion ??
The first civilizations that became stationary after hunter-gatherers was in the Middle East many thousands of years before Christ. So thank those godless heathens for the wheel, walls, the Bronze Age, and many other things that got the ball rolling across the Globe.
The comments above are examples of what I’ve argued repeatedly about the Southern “Heritage” movement and the LoS. This is political ideology projected onto the past.
It’s bizarre to ask me if their position is the same because it’s immaterial to me, and my opinion about it is very likely immaterial to them.
But if you want me to hastily formulate an opinion about it, here ya go.
My opinion is they have the same position overall (that they both belong to the same organization indicates that), but because no two people ever see everything the same way (because we’re all individuals with different personalities, upbringing, perceptions, etc.) they perhaps differ on some smaller component issues.
However, I suspect Dr. Hill would agree with what Mark has written here. Satisfied?
Now, how about addressing the other things in my comment?
Just out of curiosity, Rob, do you also acknowledge the efforts to conflate the past with current political issues made by those who are not Southern heritage advocates? Like, say, Andrew O’Hehir at Salon? http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welcome_to_the_new_civil_war/ Or is it only worth mention when people you don’t like do it?
In reference to the Salon argument Connie,
“Ya damn right I do.”
As quoted by everyone I went to high school with. I commented on Brooks Simpson’s blog when he posted about the article:
Well said Brooks. That article is absurd.
I also commented on O’Hehir’s article on the Salon website as well as calling out some of the idiots that posted there. I’m not sure if I saw anyone else comment directly to me but I do remember seeing your name in the comments.
I agree Corey. I find the remarks, ideology, and view of American history by Dr. Michael Hill, and Michael Cushman quite disturbing. The “League of the South”, and “Southern Nationalist Network” (plus minions), are nothing but a cancer in our society.
“No such accusations can be made against Generals Lee and Jackson.” Well there is the accusation that Lee beat his slaves and was a bit randy with female relatives.I’m guessing you have read,Which Way Western Man?,Simpson was a interesting fellow.
THIS excerpt from Dr. Hill is your proof that the League wants to model the new south on the old Confederacy? Sorry, it doesn’t do that.
It simply says the the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English gave the South its primary culture — its institutions, civilization and religion, and the League wants to protect that culture. I’m quite certain your concept those institutions, etc., is really different than mine. Here, lemme guess:
Corey’s concept of what the League means by the Anglo-Celtic institutions, civilization, etc., in the South — (1) slavery. (2) There isn’t anything after (1).
Connie’s concept of what the League means by the Anglo-Celtic institutions, civilization, etc., in the South — (1) Concepts such as making punishment fit crimes (i.e., no cutting off the hands of thieves); (2) representative republican government and rejection of government by monarchs; (3) government officials subject to the same laws as the people. (Back in my arm-chair sailor days, I read about people who voyaged to foreign lands, and customs officials in places like Mexico always, always expected more than payment of specified fees; they expected a personal bribe). There’s more, but that should be enough to give you an idea what the League means by institutions and civilization in the South brought here by western Europeans.
I believe Dr. Hill wrote that before 9/11, the event that brought Arab Muslims to the attention of Americans. If he’d written it afterward, I believe hist statement would read, “Southerners should [not] give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic or Arab Muslim immigrants.”
There’s absolutely nothing in his statement that suggests the League wishes to exclude everyone but Anglo-Celtic descendants from the South; only that others not be given control of the culture to radically change it.
If you’re still confused about why Southerners shouldn’t give control of their civilization and its institutions to said groups, I suggest you look for comparison at the civilizations and institutions of Mexico (accepted widespread corruption) and other Hispanic countries in Central America. Then look at Haiti, which is the abysmal product of former African slaves. And last, look at Syria, Egypt, Pakistan or any number of other Arab Muslim states, where men cut off women’s noses and ears, throw acid in their face, or shoot them in the head for wanting to get an education.
You might enjoy seeing Southerners stripped of their culture and put under control of such barbarity, but we’ll pass, thanks.
Another thought about the flawed Jacobin notion of egalitarianism Dr. Hill mentions. First, anybody with any sense knows there’s no such thing as equality. Some people are tall, some short, some in between. Some are beautiful, some homely, some in between. Some smart, some dumb, some in between. Some artistically or athletically talented, some not. There is no such thing as equality. What equality should be about is the protection and application of the law to everyone in the same measure and manner — i.e., you don’t get to break the law with impunity just because you’re a Senator or a bureaucrat.
Well, institutions could mean a number of things…however during the Civil War era, Institutions did mean slavery. But I think you know better to say that the south’s primary culture is Anglo-Celtic. It has not been that since about 1619 when the English at Jamestown traded food for a number of blacks from a Dutch ship.
No, the league does not say it will exclude anyone, but those in the LoS’s south, you would have to adhere to the LoS’s ways…meaning…white ways, not any ethnic ways.
Who says we or anyone is trying to strip southerners of there culture or cut anyone’s nose off? You have a strange way of presenting your argument…which does not work.
The LoS and Southern Nationalists are simply another name for Whites Supremacists.
Let me ask you some things before I attempt to respond to this post.
(1) Do you sincerely believe that the European-derived culture of the developing South suddenly up and disappeared the moment a black foot hit the soil in Jamestown?
(2) If you reject the notion that the South’s primary, or core, culture is Anglo-Celtic (i.e., western European-derived) — then what do you think it is?
(3) What do you mean by “white ways” and “ethnic ways”? Can you define and give some examples? I know how I define them; I’ve seen various ways that others define them, but since this discussion is between me and you, I’d need to know your concept of them.
You have no Ida what you are talking about. I support SNN, am in the LoS and the SCV. I have connections with the leaders if all three of these groups and have talked to them on many occasions. I can promise, you they are not racist!
Corey, if there’s some reason you don’t to answer these questions, how about answering just the last two? What is the core culture of the South and what are :white and ethnic ways? Or just the last one? I would be very interested in hearing that.
Sorry, I have been very busy at night…my school hosted their conference basketball games this week.
March Madness already? It’s not even February yet.
Nope, just something we do every year since 1927…second oldest boys basketball tournament in Illinois. You can see it on my schools website…you must know what that is since you have my picture from the site…
Please, explain to me how these comments are racist. We as Southern Nationalists’ aren’t saying don’t celebrate MLK Jr. Day because he is black, but because we don’t support his same views. We would much rather celebrate Lee-Jackson day in support of heroes who do have our views.
Please elaborate on what those views are. MLK’s? Lee and Jackson’s?