The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
Confederate Flag

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Having pulled the Confederate flag down from nearly every pole on which it fluttered, the anti-white lobby still isn’t quite finished. The most recent symbol of the Old South to be reconstructed is the University of Mississippi’s traditional mascot, a Confederate soldier called “Colonel Reb.”

The university is still run by whites, but the abolition of the mascot shows clearly how guilt, self-hate, and outright fear drive whites themselves into eradicating their own heritage.

“Col. Reb,” as the figure was known or “Colonel Rebel” as an Associated Press story recently called it, was adopted as the school mascot in 1936, when the student newspaper launched a contest to come up with a new nickname for the football team. The team had been called the “Flood,” and among the entries for the new name were “Rebels,” “Confederates,” “Stonewalls,” and “Raiders.”

The “Rebels” won with a landslide of 18 votes, and Col. Reb first appeared the following year in the university’s yearbook.

The figure therefore has absolutely nothing to do with “racism,” “white supremacy” or the rest of the bugaboos in the anti-white zoo.

I’m willing to bet that when the students voted for the Confederate names for the team, they really were not thinking about how the name and a mascot based on it would help them perpetuate white racial hegemony over blacks.

The reason the students suggested and voted for such names was that they suggest something drawn out of their state’s history that is sort of like a football team—soldiers who fought hard and bravely for their cause.

But of course in time the name and the mascot, like the flag itself, were invested with broader and deeper meanings.

They would never have acquired such meanings had the anti-white lobby had the sense to leave them alone. But logically, once you’ve launched a crusade to rip down the Confederate flag, you have to continue ripping down every vestige of the Confederacy, even if it’s only sports symbols. There are further logical implications as well, which we shall explore anon.

But at Ole Miss, the anti-white lobby generally knows better than to preach hatred of whites and their heritage and symbols openly, or at least it has the brains to know that such arguments won’t sway very many.

Hence, the rationale for changing the team name and abolishing Col. Reb reached for other, more plausible reasons.

The rest of the country will laugh at us. The NAACP might boycott the state. Talented black athletes won’t enroll. We need to put the past behind us.

In the course of persuading themselves and trying to persuade everyone else in the state of the cogency of these arguments, the leaders of the anti-white campaign managed to banish displaying the Confederate flag at football games, the playing and singing of “Dixie” as the unofficial anthem of the team, and calling the annual spring festival on campus “Dixie Week.”

Athletic Director Pete Boone [[email protected]] has learned his lines well. “The Confederacy is behind us,” he spouted to the AP. [Dixie fading at Ole Miss, By Allen G. Breed, AP, July 1, 2003]

He’s not the only one spouting. The AP reports that black Associate Dean Don Cole [[email protected]] “can still see the hate in the eyes of a female student as she drove by, waving a Confederate flag out the window.”

That was in 1969. Apparently Dean Cole has had nothing better to think about since then, and now he has his chance to get back at all those pretty white co-eds who “hated” him.

“I wanted to support the team,” he whined to the press, “but I couldn’t, quote, be a Rebel.”

Well that brings us to the other implications of getting rid of the Confederate flag.

Implication One is that when you admit racial and cultural aliens into institutions created by and for people of a different race and culture, you’re going to have problems.

The newcomers don’t feel comfortable, as Mr. Cole did not, and if they gain power, which eventually they will, they will do all they can to abolish and eradicate those symbols that make them feel like the outsiders they are.

And Implication Two is that it’s not just fairly trivial symbols like Col. Reb, the flags at the football game, the name of the team, and the songs the spectators can’t sing.

It’s everything—everything whites (not just Southerners) ever created and built, from their form of government, to their religion, to their art and entertainment, to what they teach in universities.

Non-whites of all races and cultures are increasingly aware that they just don’t fit in the institutions built by whites, and therefore they demand that these institutions bend to their will.

And the reason they succeed, of course, is that the white leadership of the institutions created by and for whites lacks the brains and the guts to resist.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

In the spirit of their profound commitment to democracy, the nation’s civil rights lobbies are pondering whether to launch a boycott if, as Georgia’s new governor has promised, the state holds a referendum on restoring a Confederate symbol to its state flag.

It used to be these lobbies would boycott a state if it dared defy their commands on what it should do with the Confederate flag itself. Now they seem to be considering boycotts merely for even voting on the issue.

The NAACP and similar progressive sorts have long tried to threaten and blackmail states and cities that display the Confederate flag even after they’ve been ordered to take it down.

Most local and state authorities, terrified of the slightest show of resistance to the anti-white brigade and even more terrified of losing a few dollars from a boycott, hastened to obey their new masters. Hence, the Confederate flag and most other symbols of the Southern white heritage have all but vanished from the South today, at least on public buildings and monuments.

But the boycott now being threatened by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Georgia is somewhat different. It would be directed at the referendum itself. As SCLC President Emeritus Joseph Lowery recently told the press, “If a referendum includes the option of the Confederate battle emblem, we have to consider seriously whether we want to participate in it. At some point it becomes a moral issue. If we participate, we’re part of the process.”

[Boycott proposed over state flag vote, Associated Press, Feb 4, 2002]

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks of Atlanta uttered much the same sentiment. “The Confederate flag would be so offensive that many people—black and white—rightfully could not participate in that referendum.”

The transparent truth about this sort of moralistic puffery is that the black leaders know very well they’d lose a referendum whether they participate or not.

If they don’t participate, the main body of votes against restoring the Confederate design would not even show up and the pro-flag forces would win. But even if they do take part, any popular vote on the issue would be likely to restore the old flag—as it did in Mississippi last year.

The grander strategy behind boycotting the referendum is, as Mr. Lowery acknowledged, “a successful boycott would make the results of the vote unclear and reduce pressure on the legislature to make a change.”

That strategy may in fact be so grand it flops on its face. If Mr. Lowery’s group calls a boycott and most black voters go along with it, there will be nothing “unclear” about the result. The anti-flag side would simply have lost.

Nevertheless, if the anti-flag forces in Georgia are about to adopt a strategy that will ensure their defeat, those in South Carolina may not be able even to decide on a strategy at all.

There the NAACP has been boycotting the state for the last three years—since January, 2000—when the legislature voted to remove the Confederate flag from over the Capitol dome and place it on a Confederate memorial on the Capitol grounds. That wasn’t demeaning enough for the anti-white gang, so they called a boycott.

But the boycott is pretty much a snore, even by its sponsors’ own estimates. The NAACP claims it has cost the state $100 million a year (closer to $20 million, state businesses say), but even if the larger figure is accurate, it represents less than 1 percent of the state’s tourism industry, valued at some $17.5 billion a year. Even Economic Men can manage to live with a loss like that.

But then, if the boycott doesn’t work, maybe the Democrats’ presidential candidates will. The big worry over in the Evil Party these days is whether the candidates will stay in hotels and eat in restaurants when they clamor for votes in the South Carolina primary next year. By patronizing local establishments, they’d be violating the boycott, which wouldn’t sit well with the 40-50 percent of the black vote they’ll need to win that day. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has already indicated that he and his staff will observe the boycott, and others may also.

But the only reason observing the boycott is controversial at all for the Democrats is that they need white votes too, and they know perfectly well that by observing the boycott and opposing the flag they risk losing them. In other words, the Confederate flag issue lives—it lives so strongly that even aspiring Democratic presidential candidates are frightened by being on the wrong side of it and the white Southerners who support it. In other words again, the Southern white heritage is far from being a lost cause. If its defenders keep fighting for it, they can make it a winning one.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just in time for Black History Month, Southern heritage activists in Georgia are resurrecting a little white history of their own, and predictably the anti-white lobby doesn’t much care for it.

But beyond the possibility that something out of the white past might actually be honored, what the white-haters also hate is the prospect of a little plain old democracy.

When the new, Republican governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, was running for the statehouse last year, he vowed to hold a state referendum on restoring a Confederate flag design to the state flag that his Democratic predecessor cut out. Now, after some hesitation, Gov. Perdue has committed himself to the promised vote, and some folks aren’t happy about it.

Among those unhappy is state Sen. Vincent D. Fort, whom the New York Times describes as “a leader of the black caucus” in the state legislature. “If there had been a referendum in Georgia in 1860 on slavery,” he told the Times, “I’d still be picking cotton.” [Georgia Gov. in a Pickle Over Flag Pledge, By Jeffrey Gettleman, NYT, Jan. 20, 2003]

What’s interesting about this statement is the fear and hatred of the state’s white majority it betrays. Mr. Fort assumes that

(a) restoring the Confederate flag to the state flag is analogous to slavery itself, and

(b) the voters of Georgia today are not very different from those of 1860.

Talk about somebody who can’t let go of the past!

But Mr. Fort also assumes that letting the whole people of Georgia decide what their own flag is going to look like is objectionable in itself. In 2000, when Gov. Roy Barnes contrived to remove the Confederate emblem in the old state flag, he did it in cahoots with the legislature, not the voters.

That’s why Mr. Barnes isn’t governor anymore. “You can’t imagine the anger,” one partisan of the flag told the Times, and when Mr. Perdue vowed to support a referendum on the issue, he won a massive turnout of the state’s white voters.

Race-baiters like the black caucus’ Mr. Fort are one side of the flag issue in Georgia, but the state also has a fair share of Economic Men who don’t want the state’s Southern and Confederate heritage to get in the way of business. They’re mainly afraid that such beacons of freedom as Mr. Fort and his allies will sponsor boycotts of the state to bludgeon it into dumping the flag.

“We can’t afford any more economic losses,” whines Rep. Denise Majette. “A referendum would be detrimental,” worries a spokesman for of the Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Threats of boycotts against South Carolina and Mississippi, which also bucked the anti-white lobby on the Confederate flag issue, turned out to be inconsequential or non-existent, so much of the economic argument is not only wrong but probably insincere anyway.

Nevertheless, it’s an argument that many whites will swallow, if only because the triumph of Economic Man has helped erase a good deal of allegiance to or knowledge of white Southern heritage.

Indeed, it’s fairly clear that Georgia, like other Southern states and indeed states not in the South as well, already possesses a split cultural personality.

On the one hand, there are the people who felt the anger when a central symbol of their identity as a people and a state was stripped out of their own flag without their consent. To them the Confederate flag may or may not have something to do with race, with the Late Unpleasantness of the American Civil War or with what Sen. Trent Lott coyly called “all these problems” we’ve had ever since desegregation took place. But what the flag certainly has to do with is who and what the people of Georgia are—and with what they want to be and who is going to decide.

On the other hand there is the peculiar alliance between professional anti-white activists like the ladies and gentlemen of the black caucus and the business elites who just want to make money and are terrified any display of cultural heritage will threaten that. Except for their shared distaste for that heritage, they have little in common, and it will be interesting to see how well they can work together in a campaign against the flag.

It’s entirely appropriate that the whole people of the state will get to vote on the flag issue and decide it one way or the other for good—or at least until the forces that hate the flag and the people it symbolizes can come up with some new excuse to take it down.

How the referendum comes out will tell us as well as the voters themselves what kind of people and what kind of identity they are.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

With Trent Lott booted downstairs for implying, however innocently, that forced racial egalitarianism might have caused certain problems, it is now open season on the entire white Southern heritage.

The New Year has kicked off with a Republican official in California being disciplined for pro-Confederate remarks he circulated four years ago, with official U.S. government re-writing of Civil War history at the nation’s battlefields and with further demands by the politically ambitious for the total extirpation of symbols of the Confederacy.

The California installment of racial right-think emerged when Bill Back, current vice chairman of the state GOP and a leading candidate for its chairmanship, was forced to apologize for sending around as part of his e-mail newsletter an article suggesting that the South should have won the Civil War. Mr. Back sent the article out in 1999. But only now has his sin been discovered.

The article, written by military historian and cultural critic Bill Lind of Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation, was a perfectly respectable and indeed ingenious analysis of the consequences of the Civil War as it actually happened.

“Given how bad things have gotten in the old USA,” Lind wrote,“it’s not hard to believe that history might have taken a better turn” if the South had won. “The real damage to race relations in the South came not from slavery, but from Reconstruction, which would not have occurred if the South had won.”

But intellectually stimulating articles about the meaning of history are not on the Republican menu anymore, if they ever were. Today, Mr. Back whines, “I should have been more sensitive regarding issues raised in this piece and not included it in the e-mail.” In an earlier period, Mr. Back might have had to sit in the pillory for several days with a scarlet letter branded on his forehead, but today the consequences for political deviation are more serious. “I would declare his candidacy [for state GOP chairman ] to be officially dead,” one state political observer told the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service under the Bush administration has initiated a campaign to change the presentation of Civil War history at battlefield parks under its care to remove any vestiges of pro-Southern attitudes and ideas and push the idea that the war was in fact a revolution.

“For the past 100 years, we’ve been presenting this battlefield as the high water mark of the Confederacy and focusing on the personal valor of the soldiers who fought here,” Gettysburg Park Superintendent John Latschar [send him mail] told the press recently. Now, “we want to change the perception so that Gettysburg becomes known internationally as the place of a ‘new rebirth of freedom.’” ["U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites,"Reuters, December 22, 2002]

What is being done is the ideological reconstruction of the battlefields and of the history they represent to fit the egalitarian orthodoxies of the New Order. The problem with the old battlefields is not so much that they suggest “racism” (eek!) but that they smack of any deviation from that orthodoxy at all—and indeed of armed resistance to the long march of egalitarianism through American history.

But not only Republicans are rewriting the history they don’t like. In Missouri, two Confederate flags have been removed from public sites where they were displayed not because they supposedly tried to perpetuate the Confederate heritage but because they were historically appropriate—the Confederate Historic Site and the Fort Davidson Historic Site. The flags were ordered removed by an aide to the governor after she read Democratic Rep. Dick Gephardt’s statement that “My own personal feeling is the Confederate flag no longer has a place flying any time, anywhere in our great nation.”

Mr. Gephardt, a presidential candidate who must gain his party’s black vote to win its nomination, has moved the debate on the Confederate flag, such as it is, up a notch or so. Black and anti-white groups have usually taken the position that flying the Confederate flag on private property is OK; it’s just using it as a public symbol they find offensive. That, like most of what such groups say, is a lie, but now Mr. Gephardt has helped make the lie unnecessary.

The totalitarian crusade to rewrite American history and pretend the Confederacy never existed or that it was the equivalent of Nazi Germany is not simply a war over public or even private symbols.

It is a war for the mind itself – a war that seeks to erase entirely from the American mind even the memory that once upon a time there was an America not dedicated to the proposition of “universal equality” and that if that America had prevailed, “history,” as Mr. Lind wrote , “might have taken a better turn.”

Once the New Order can make certain that no American harbors such thoughts, resistance to what it demands will be impossible.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

Not the least of the lessons in political reality that popped out of the ballot box earlier this month was taught in Georgia, where an old controversy over the Confederate flag design in the state’s official flag suddenly descended on a promising political career like a headsman’s ax.

But even as anti-flag politicians learned one lesson, those who taught it seemed on the verge of forgetting it themselves.

Last year, Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a rising star in the Democratic Party, decided he’d prove how progressive he was and propose that the state flag drop its Confederate flag design. That sold well with the state’s perpetual chip-on-the-shoulder crowd among black voters and impressed the bigwigs up north who really run the party. Despite a good deal of popular resistance, the legislature went along and changed the flag.

It’s always an amazement to certain kinds of people that white Southerners take their culture and heritage just as seriously as a good many other ethnic identities. It tells you a good deal about the mentality of those who changed the flag that they never even suspected it would cause them a problem.

But, as they say in the South, “Forget, Hell!” On Nov. 6, angry white voters grabbed Gov. Barnes by his ears and cut his political throat. The New York Times called the election “one of the most stunning upsets this year.” Mr. Barnes, it moaned, “had been considered one of the brightest lights in the Democratic Party, a gifted speaker, moderate, strong on education and a possible contender for vice president or even president.” Now his career is defunct, thanks to his blunder on the flag issue and the determination of the flag’s defenders to pay him back. ["An Old Battle Flag Helps Bring Down a Governor," By Jeffrey Gettleman NYT, Nov. 6]

The Times and other commentators make no secret of the importance of the flag issue in the state. “There was this huge undercurrent of resentment and anger about the flag,” Southern political expert Merle Black of Emory University told the Times. “The Confederate flag is still a very powerful symbol. A lot of white voters felt Barnes was not on their side when he pushed to change it.”

Well, who was on their side? The Republican candidate for governor, Sonny Perdue, for one, who campaigned on an explicit promise to hold a statewide referendum on the flag issue, as they did in Mississippi last year.

The Georgia white vote turned out like the Confederate army and went for the GOP. In one rural county where Gov. Barnes won 57 percent of the white vote in 1998 he received only 45 percent this year; in another, where he won 60 percent in 1998, he took a mere 39 percent. “The flag was definitely part of the equation,” Georgia’s Sen. Zell Miller, also a Democrat, told the Times. The equation just didn’t balance for the governor.

Well, now, the Republicans should have learned something, too — that when they support and campaign on issues that their natural voting base cares about, they can win and win big.

Did they learn it? Maybe not.

Less than a week after winning the governorship on the flag issue, Mr. Perdue started trying to weasel out of his campaign promise. Having committed himself to supporting a referendum on the flag issue during the campaign, he tried to back out of that commitment during his post-election “victory tour.”

“My goal is to have this state heal, to be reconciled from a standpoint of bitter partisanship and the issues that would divide us,” the Stupid Party’s candidate pronounced. The referendum idea “is something we will look at with the leadership once the leadership gets in place in the House and Senate and make a decision on how we will resolve the issue.”

No, the referendum idea is what you promised to support to gain the votes that put you in office. Now it’s time you followed through on what you promised to do.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Perdue will be dumb enough to violate his own explicit promise on the flag and actually block a referendum. Common sense would tell you he won’t, that doing so would destroy not only his own career but also hurt other Republicans in the state and the nation.

But you have to remember that this is the Stupid Party we’re dealing with, and one of the main reasons it is that it almost always succeeds in missing the point of its own success. Republicans have already done that with the immigration issue for the last decade or so, and they’ve managed to avoid the Confederate flag issue until this year.

If Mr. Perdue and his party flub this one, they may find that their own careers are no brighter than that of the twinkling Democratic star whose light they just extinguished.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag, Republicans 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just because Confederate flags and similar symbols have been ripped down from most public places, don’t imagine the crusade against them is over.

Now that the battle against Confederate symbols on public property has been largely won, the battle against the same symbols on private property is just starting.

For South Carolina restaurateur Maurice Bessinger, the war is already a couple of years old. Mr. Bessinger’s barbecue restaurant in Columbia, S.C. has long displayed a Confederate flag outside on a pole in the parking lot, and inside the owner distributed various tracts and pamphlets about the Confederacy, the War Between the States and related issues. Once the war against the Confederate flag on top of South Carolina’s capitol dome lurched into high gear a few years ago, Mr. Bessinger’s establishment — indeed his very business — was dragged into jeopardy.

Mr. Bessinger manufactures a mustard-based barbecue sauce that was sold at large chain stores like Wal-Mart and Winn-Dixie. All of a sudden, that stopped. The stores refused to carry his brand anymore, some of them (Wal-Mart, for example) claiming piously that they didn’t condone the slavery Mr. Bessinger supposedly defended. (He doesn’t.)

Of course, not condoning slavery didn’t stop Wal-Mart from selling products manufactured by slave labor in Communist China, as Business Week reported around the same time. Of course again, slave labor had nothing to do with it.

The real reason the stores dropped Mr. Bessinger’s sauce (as he disclosed in an open letter to the public) was that some people were mounting a concerted campaign of vandalism against his product on the shelves of the stores that carried it. Bottles were found opened or smashed in the aisles at stores across several Southern states.

With most products, the stores would have deployed security guards or video cameras and hauled the vandals into court.

But everyone knew who the vandals were and what race they belonged to, so no one dared take action.

The action they did dare take was to drop Mr. Bessinger’s sauce, costing him even today some $5 million a year, and wrap themselves in sonorities about “not condoning slavery.”

Now, yet another non-condoner of slavery has popped up, the mammoth corporation SCANA based in South Carolina itself. As the Washington Post reported this week, SCANA has suddenly decided that its employees can’t park company vehicles in Mr. Bessinger’s parking lot or display the Confederate flag on their own personal cars in the company’s parking lot. ["In S.C., Flag Dispute Enters Private Sector,"Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post, Sept 1, 2002]

But in South Carolina the Good Old Cause is not entirely lost, and the company’s actions sparked massive protests, with marches outside the company headquarters and one state legislator suggesting he’d look into repealing the company’s monopoly on gas and electricity sales.

The company’s attack on Mr. Bessinger “just hit me as a basic slap at free speech and freedom of statement,” state Sen. Glenn McConnell told the Post. “What they’re doing is discriminating against a man’s business because of his political beliefs…. You’re getting on a slippery slope.”

Actually, we’re quite a ways down the slippery slope, and we got there long before corporate behemoths like SCANA pushed us down it. When black radicals began whining about the Confederate flag some years ago, their claim was that they didn’t care if you displayed the flag on private property; they just objected to it on public sites like the state capitol.

Now we see the real agenda, which was to strip away the flag and similar symbols completely, including on private property like Mr. Bessinger’s restaurant and the SCANA parking lot.

Once the protests started, SCANA apparently got frightened, as corporate behemoths tend to do when you yell at them loudly enough. One spokesman said the bumper sticker ban was still in effect, while the chief executive officer said it wasn’t. He also told the threatening lawmaker that his own great-grandfather fought for the Confederacy.

That’s the kind of grease that a few squeaks of the wheel can win.

The Post says Mr. Bessinger is “obsessed with the past” because of his flag and the tracts and pamphlets he distributes, but of course the NAACP and the boys who push for reparations for slavery aren’t “obsessed with the past” because they want to abolish every visible vestige and symbol of a major part of the Southern heritage and identity.

As long as that kind of non-obsession with the past flourishes and as long as corporations spout the cant of “not condoning slavery” even as they peddle goods made by real slave labor today, you can expect the war against white, Southern and Confederate symbols to stay in business.

If the targets of the war want to stop it, they’ll have to fight it the way Mr. Bessinger and his friends are fighting it now.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ever on the alert for the persistence of “racism,” The Washington Postcouldn’t find space for a story about the attempted mass murder of whites by a New York black man who told police he “was bent on killing as many white people as he could,” but it devoted the center of its front page last week to what it called “Racial Discord in a Maryland Town.”

In the town of Damascus, Md., there are no blacks threatening to murder whites (or if there are, don’t wait for the Post to report it), but one black teenager did get into a fight with several white guys.

There actually was not much more to Damascus’ “racial discord” than that, but the Post was determined to ferret it out anyway. One instance of “discord,” if not race hatred, it sniffed up was the following, disclosed in the story’s opening paragraph:

“In the small town of Damascus at the northernmost edge of Montgomery County, a white youth drove through the streets last week waving a red-and-blue Confederate flag. When police officers confronted his mother, she said she saw nothing wrong with it.”

Well, there you have it, plain as day, proof that the most vicious bigotry thrives in Damascus because a white guy waved “what to many African Americans is an incendiary symbol of subjugation.”

The Post never asks

(a) why the police found it appropriate to “confront” the boy’s mother about her son’s perfectly legal and indeed customary act; let alone

(b) why forbidding the Confederate flag is any less “an incendiary symbol of subjugation” for whites proud of their Southern and Confederate heritage than waving it is for blacks.

The Post’s story about Damascus was of no significance whatever, except that it did help confirm suspicions about the mentality of the Post’s (and therefore the Establishment Media’s) reporters and editors and that it tells us, as well as the reporters and editors themselves, some hard truths about racial “diversity” of previously homogeneous societies.

According to the Post (and even a few of the locals it bothered to interview), Damascus is experiencing difficulties in race relations, especially among high school youth. The town of about 9,000 has a high school of about 1,900, of which 84 percent are white. In 1989, the school had only 37 black students; now it has 300. Blacks complain they can’t get onto athletic teams or into most school clubs and that racial slurs are commonly used. A survey found that 90 percent of white students and 70 percent of black students felt racial hostility at the school.

The story’s assumption is that the “hostility” is all the fault of the whites, but that doesn’t explain the student body president, a young lady named Kim McGuire, who calls herself a Hispanic and told the Post, with more than a whiff of white guilt, “When people think of Damascus, they think of cows, football and racism.”

In fact, people don’t think of Damascus at all, but Miss McGuire believes it’s revealing that “When we put on a Black History Month program, the reaction I heard was, ‘What about white history month?’”

In other words, it’s fine for blacks to have their own racial consciousness and identity, but it’s “troubling” when whites insist on theirs.

That’s what happens with “diversity.” Racial identity doesn’t vanish; it intensifies, and if intense racial identity is OK for one group, it’s just as good for another.

That’s Lesson One of Diversity 101 as taught at Damascus High.

Lesson Two is that intensified racial identities in racially diverse environments often lead to violence—to the “racial hostility” that most students now feel and to the fight at a local mall earlier this year in which three whites and one Asian from the school allegedly beat up a local black student. The Post is quite coy—indeed, totally silent—on the causes of the fight or the personalities involved, but presumably race was a factor.

“This is a community that was white for so long,” sighs the inevitable NAACP official quoted by the Post, “And they’re having to deal with diversity at a fast, fast rate.”

It never occurs to either the Post or the NAACP munchkin that non-whites have to deal with diversity as well. Perhaps that’s because neither the Post nor the NAACP has any intention of “dealing with” it at all, since for them the whole point of diversity is to eradicate white identity and the cultural architecture that goes with it.

The white people of Damascus need to learn the real lessons of diversity at an even faster rate—that if they accept diversity, they will also have to accept the racial-political dynamic that goes with it and understand that that dynamic promises to wipe their own identity, heritage and community off the map.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just over a year ago, in a column about the Confederate Flag controversy in South Carolina, I wrote the following sentences: “… the blunt truth is that racial slavery existed for a far longer time under the American flag than under the brief four years of the Confederacy. If the NAACP denounces the Confederate flag today for its symbolization of slavery, it can far more easily denounce Old Glory tomorrow for the same reason. Don’t bet your battle flag they won’t do it either, or that the political and business elites that cave in to them on the Confederate banner will stand firm on the American flag.”

A year afterward, I wish to inform you that if you did bet your battle flag against my prediction, you just lost it. Just in time for the first observance of Independence Day in the new century, a black legislator in Tennessee is refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag. Her reason: “This flag represents the former colonies that enslaved our ancestors.”

The legislator is Rep. Henri Brooks of Memphis, and while her position is so far rather unique, even among black radicals, she is the former chairman of the NAACP’s Political Action Committee. The NAACP itself, though it has not yet endorsed her position, “did not respond to requests for comments” on it, as The Washington Times reported last week. Let that digest a while: The major black “civil rights” organization in the country refuses to tell us whether it does or does not approve denouncing the American flag as a symbol of slavery.

One who does tell us is columnist Julianne Malveaux, well known for her outspoken black racial radicalism and anti-white sentiments. Miss Malveaux says that it’s “ridiculous” for blacks to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because its words are “nothing but a lie, just a lie.” Not quite on board with the anti-American crowd is District of Columbia “civil rights activist” Lawrence Guyot, who told the Times that Miss Brooks “could not have taken a better point to make that argument, even though I do not agree with her conclusion.” Mr. Guyot is of the view that “I am historically aware of how ingrained slavery was in America. There’s just no question about the nexus between the development of America and slavery.” If he doesn’t agree entirely with Miss Brooks, he’s well on the path to concurrence.

The Times assures us that “other black leaders are more emphatic in their disagreement with Miss Brooks,” though the only one they cite is the relatively obscure Niger Innis, the rightish-leaning son of rightish-leaning “civil rights activist” Roy Innis and currently the spokesman for the Congress on Racial Equality. Mr. Innis says Miss Brooks’ views are “terribly unpatriotic.”

And so they are, but they do substantiate one important point that I have tried to make time and time again: The attacks on the Confederate flag and similar Confederate symbols are not aimed at the Confederacy or even at slavery and its legacy but at America itself and even more broadly at the white race. Since the attacks on the Confederacy began, we have also seen similar attacks on the Declaration of Independence (it didn’t “include blacks”) and Abraham Lincoln (a “racist” whose efforts for emancipation were too little too late), as well as others. The view of America that incites such attacks is precisely that voiced by Mr. Guyot: that slavery is “ingrained” in American history, and since slavery is a dog that cannot be allowed to sleep undisturbed, any and every symbol of America must be stripped away.

Given the characteristic supineness of most whites and especially most white political, cultural, and business leadership today before the concerted racial onslaught against their race, nation, and heritage, it’s only a matter of time before we have business groups renouncing the American flag and demanding that it be removed as a national symbol. But before we get to that, there is yet one more point that the new war against Old Glory confirms.

Increasingly, black Americans or at least their leaders reject the symbols and icons of American national identity. As racial consciousness among blacks replaces national consciousness, that rejection is undoubtedly logical and probably inevitable. In short, more and more blacks are ceasing to think of themselves as Americans or as part of the American nation and beginning to think of themselves in purely racial terms. And if that trend continues, sooner or later, they, as well as an increasing number of American whites, will have to ask themselves: If blacks are not Americans and reject every symbol of American national identity, why do they remain in this country at all, and why should Americans who are not black want them to remain?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
🔊 Listen RSS

In a rare fit of courage, Virginia Gov. James Gilmore last week put his name to a proclamation declaring May to be “European-American Heritage Month,” but alas, the fit did not endure. [VDARE note: the Proclamation has now vanished from the gubernatorial website, although Virginia Beer Month and white canes – for the blind – are still honored.] By the following morning, the governor’s aides had discovered that the request for the proclamation came from what the press called a “white separatist group” led by former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke. The proclamation was quickly rescinded, and the aides insisted (Washington Post, May 11) that actually, the governor had never really signed it anyway, you see, because it was really signed by an electronic pen, so it was really all the fault of the pen, you know, and the governor had nothing to do with it.

What a relief. For a moment we were led to believe the governor might be in cahoots with the Klan and assorted extremists of one kind or another, but even the state leader of the NAACP has expressed forgiveness. “I think it was probably an honest mistake,” says leader, who calls himself King Salim Khalfani (no extremist he). Every now and then these dim-bulb European-American types step out of line, you know, and it’s lucky they have King Salim to set them back on the straight and narrow, where European-American Heritage can be kept in its proper place, which is nowhere.

I myself have mixed feelings about “European-American Heritage Month,” but the recent episode with the governor has helped sort them out a bit. Dedicating a month to “European-Americans,” also known as “white people,” may seem entirely proper these days, when whites or Euros or whatever you want to call them are routinely vilified as nothing more than a gang of pirates, bigots, and woman-beaters. Maybe letting the dwindling horde of Euros have their own month would be nice, affording them a chance for once to tell us something good about themselves and making them feel a little better about losing their country.

Then again, losing their country is exactly what European-American Heritage Month is about. Gov. Gilmore’s short-lived proclamation noted the “significant contributions” that “European-Americans” have made “in the fields of medicine, science, engineering, technology, business, law, and government.” That sounds swell—except it leaves out a few other significant contributions such as discovering North and South America, conquering and settling them, and creating a new civilization and new nations and governments on and in them.

European-Americans, that is, didn’t make “significant contributions” in various “fields.” They invented the fields themselves, and they created the country in which the fields flourished. The problem with European-American Heritage Month is that it demotes and distorts the paramount role of European-Americans in creating American civilization to a role as being merely one more color in the multi-ethnic and multicultural rainbow from which the new mythology purports that American civilization derived. Multiculturalists ought to welcome European-American Heritage Month precisely because it obliges European-Americans to deny the whole of their real heritage.

What, then, does it tell us when the governor of Virginia denies even the diminished role that European-American Heritage Month recognized? It tells us that virtually every other group—blacks, women,homosexuals, as well as an endless parade of ethnicities of one hue or another—can have its role in contributing to American history, civilization and government recognized by an official proclamation, but European-Americans can’t. It tells us that European-American heritage, so far from being duly commemorated as a legitimate part of the multicultural mosaic, will be eliminated completely—the cultural equivalent of genocide.

The governor (or his aides or maybe the electronic pen) will reply that it wasn’t the concept of European-American Heritage Month that they rejected but the group pushing for it. But what kind of group do they think is likely to push for European-American Heritage Month, and how do they think any group that does push for recognition of European-Americans and their heritage will be portrayed by the press? In the narrow vocabulary that prevails in public discourse today, any organization that champions the rights, identity, or heritage of “European-Americans” (let alone “whites”) will be denounced as “racist,” “white supremacist,” “white separatist,” or “extremist.” The permitted vocabulary contains no other terms to describe such groups or their beliefs.

In fact, European-Americans concerned about their future as well as their heritage ought to be grateful for Gov. Gilmore’s speedy act of cowardice in rescinding his own proclamation. What the governor’s action reveals is that all the cant about European-Americans having their own legitimate and acknowledged place in the multicultural spectrum of the future is so much fertilizer, that European-American heritage has no more place in a multicultural future than the shrinking number of European-Americans themselves.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag, Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Perhaps the most revealing comment about last week’s Mississippi referendum that overwhelmingly endorsed keeping the state’s 107-year-old flag with a Confederate flag design in it came from the editorial page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, which supported getting rid of the old flag, the day after Mississippians went to the polls. “The vote also exposed the limitations of a ballot referendum as a way of resolving difficult issues,” the editorial intoned. “Capitol politicians made the expensive special election necessary when they refused to deal with the flag issue directly, as their counterparts in other Southern states have done.”

In other words, if the results of the referendum are what we want, the people have spoken and it’s a triumph of democracy; but if the results are what we don’t want, it just exposes the “limitations” of letting the people have anything to say about it. Best if the people are kept muzzled all the time and only professional politicians are allowed to decide these “difficult issues.”

Yet for all the blatant snobbery apparent in such reflections as the Memphis newspaper emitted, that is precisely the reaction of most members of the American ruling class to the little whiff of rebellion that Mississippi spat out. In The Washington Post black columnist William Raspberry (April 23, 2001, Page A15) whined that he had “dared harbor the (faint) hope that white voters might welcome the chance to catapult the state into modernity” by rejecting the old flag, while a Mississippi history professor named Robert S. McElvaine sputtered in The New York Times (April 21, 2001, Op-Ed Page), “Can you imagine, in the year 2001, a state actually voting to have a Confederate symbol as part of its flag?” The Mississippi vote is comprehensible to Professor McElvaine at all only because it “is actually an indication that racism in this state is growing closer to the national white norm.”

This is the way all ruling classes think and feel. On the rare occasions when they deign to permit the unwashed masses to express their own views, the masses had just better regurgitate the views that the ruling class favors. It’s hard for the oligarchs even to imagine that the masses might actually subscribe to ideas the ruling class doesn’t favor, and if they really turn out to entertain such heresies, it can only be because of the bottomless darkness (in this case, rejection of “modernity” and “racism”) in which they are immersed. Sooner or later, no matter how much the ruling class likes to mouth off about its commitment to “democracy,” it will have to crack down hard on any genuine manifestation of popular will that defies its wishes and threatens its interests. So it is in Mississippi, where the local branch office of the national ruling class blundered by letting the people of the state vote at all on whether to retain a symbol of their Southern and Confederate heritage. The voters by an overwhelming majority of some 65 percent decided to keep it, contrary to what the state and national political, business, media, educational, and religious establishments demanded. It will be a cool day in June before the elites make that mistake again.

And even before all the results were in, the non-white branch of the ruling class was muttering about how it would respond to the sharp odor of democracy that wafted into its windows. “The NAACP will not give up its fight to remove from public property any and all symbols that celebrate the twisted philosophy of bigotry and hatred in this country,” pronounced the NAACP’s Kweisi Mfume the day after the vote. Eugene Bryant, president of the Mississippi chapter of the NAACP, said a decision on a boycott of the state in retaliation for defying the NAACP’s commands could be made by May (“Mississippi Faces Boycott Over Flag,” AP, Thursday, April 19, 2001).

Mississippi voters and indeed white Southerners in other states who imagine the battle is over need to imagine again. The battle ain’t even started. The significance of the Mississippi vote is that it proves that a battle is still possible, that some white Southerners at least are still willing to put up a fight and even that they can sometimes win against every lie, smear, slur, insult, bribe, and threat the ruling class can mount.

And what white Southerners in Mississippi can do white Southerners in other states can emulate. The time for explaining, defending, arguing, and debating about the merits of Southern and white symbols and their meaning is over. The time for taking back their heritage and their region is here. The same referendum on the flag that let the Southern people speak in Mississippi should now be exported to other Southern states, and we will find out once and for all whose voice and whose civilization will prevail.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Confederate Flag 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”