This discussion opened a can (no, make that a barrel) of worms. My purpose in bringing it up was to see for myself just how racist the Confederates were. I will not issue a summary judgment here, but invite you to judge for yourself in the comments to my posts on Martin Luther King Day and the preceding Friday; and on the Martin Luther King Day thread in the League of the South's Rebellion.
Ohio needs to secede, because independence will result in a more efficient, more accountable government. With some decentralization, it will also greatly enhance the personal freedom and quality of life for all of our people.
Martin Luther King, Jr., shared his dream. It is up to all of us to make it reality.
15 comments:
I can do little but come to the conclusion that there is still racism in the South. They may not think they are being racist, but they are. Especially since most of the claims of his flaws are overcooked.
This is a problem with many ideas or areas that I feel need to be given more attention. Emergency preparedness is often tied to end-of-days "survivialist" nutjobs. Katrina has shown the importance of having several days of food and water supplies, and a 'go bag' that you can grab at a moments notice to evacuate with, yet in order to learn about these things it is often necessary to mix with a very unsavory crowd. Ick.
Ditto for secessionists. The movement seems overrun with racists blowing the "state's rights" (ie, 'right to keep dem uppity Negroes down') dog-whistle. In fact, that's ironically the most attractive thing about secession to me - the ability to rid ourselves of the influence of all those racist, sexist "Southern Rednecks". Well, not "rid"; we've still got plenty of that type right here in Ohio. But maybe without the influence of millions of people who want to turn back the clock to 1955 - or earlier - we could concentrate on progressing towards solutions for the modern-day problems Ohio and Ohioans face.
At any rate, I'm not completely on board with the idea of secession, mostly because I think it's just about impossible. But it is intriguing, and I'm certainly interested in monitoring the discussion.
Anonymous:
Thank you for your link -- I suspected that the Confederate allegations were, as you say, "overcooked", but didn't think to check Snopes.com.
Very few Ohioans are on board with secession right now, and that's fine. It will take time for us (especially us) to warm up to the idea. I suspect that future events will make the idea more appealing. Anyway, stay tuned and thank you for your input.
Harold,
This post prompted me to come back to an earlier discovery of mine that, because of one thing or another, I've repeatedly failed to post about. You know, so much about SVR, so little time...
Underscoring, as it does, the point that race and secession is a matter that deserves more than the typical LoS dismissal or Naylor's "Who, me?" response or Sale's "Aww, there are racists in any group" dodge, I think your post also requires that secession proponents take head on the matter of racism's influence on today's secession movement. That's not to say that all secessionists harbor racist feelings or a secret racist agenda, but until this is addressed forthrightly this movement will be stuck in the mud.
A movement led and inspired by cranky old white guys is destined to go nowhere, and rightfully so, so long as this troubling, dominate influence remains unaddressed.
This statement by Václav Havel about the war in Bosnia fits this discussion well:
“What, then, is the conflict all about?
“To my mind, what appears to be a conflict between peoples is in its very essence a conflict between two different notions of society, of the state, and of the world in general. On the one side is the modern concept of an open civil society in which people of different nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, religions, traditions, and convictions can live together and cooperate creatively. On the other side is the archaic notion of a tribal state as a community of people of the same blood... On the one side, an emphasis on equality and equal dignity for all human beings; on the other side a commitment to the exclusive status of some group who belong to a certain tribe only through a chance of birth. On the one side an emphasis on bringing all people together, on respect for differences, and on solidarity with others; on the opposing sidean emphasis on what makes them different and divides them. On the one side a respect for the unique individual with his or her own sense of responsibility; on the other a cult of collectivism under which affiliation with the group is more important than a person’s own qualities. One side holds out hope for an auspicious future for the human race; the other side represents a relapse into its darkest past.”
-- Václav Havel, “Conclusion of the Month of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Czech Republic” (October 13, 1995), in The Art of the Impossible, Paul Wilson, trans. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997).
The problem for secession that I've seen is that most secessionists fail to appreciate and address honestly how they're perceived by the average person.
One great American philosopher summed that sort of tone deafness up best when he said about liberals, "The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
As I write in a long-delayed article and in one way or another in other things I'm slowly putting together about secession in general:
Bigotry is dislike of most or all members of any group. Sectarianism, like separatism, may range any where from a positive allegiance to ones group and culture to a bigoted dislike for other groups and cultures. Sectarians and separatists may or may not be political secessionists.
Fear of bigotry by organized sectarians (or separatists) is legitimate because throughout history such bigotry has erupted into violence, sometimes among ever growing numbers of factions. Recent examples are sectarian divisions in Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s, in Rwanda in 1994 and especially in Iraq after the 2003 United States invasion.
Sectarianism is always a threat. Even the smallest states in the United States will have a variety of political, economic, regional, religious, ethnic and other groups envisioning very different political, economic and social structures. The bigger the state, the more the sources of conflict. Current political structures dampen and contain such conflict; in “democracies” through a democratic facade that masks special interest rule and in autocracies through brutal military and police repression. At the same time, elites also may pursue deliberate divide and conquer strategies to keep different subgroups from uniting against them.
However, once the state structure is weakened or destroyed, the most ruthless sectarians can organize armed groups to grab territory and resources and drive out long time residents. And this may be one of the legitimate concerns of those who question the League of the South and its president Michael Hill - and the Second Vermont Republic’s relation to them. Is the League of the South a group that just wants to maintain a certain heritage among its members, without fomenting bigotry and hate against other groups? Or is it, like the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) claims, a “racist hate group.” Does it just want freedom from state interference in its family or community life? Or does it want to impose its culture on those who do not share it - or drive them out if they refuse to submit?...
. If this is not true, if they do not intend to impose their values on those who reject them, they should state so clearly. So should Cascadians who assume they will impose a radical ecological regime on the north west and the “North Star Republic” which believes it will lead Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan into seceding and creating Marxist republic.
------------
Of course, holding this rational position does not stop any anonymous ass from libelously with malice aforethought calling you a bigot, does it??
Carol in DC
http://secession.net
(still very much under construction)
Good luck with that, Carol.
Of course, speaking of rational positions, maybe you could blend into it some of your other ruminations, and those of your fellow bloggers, on such matters as sunspot activity, 9/11 conspiracism, creation beams and that Waco book you had published by a known anti-Semite (how many others turned you down before you found your way to the bottom of the publishing barrel and the Pratt outfit?).
Anonymity isn't a requisite for being an ass and you just happen to be the living, self-aggrandizing proof of that.
Some anonymous unknown person using the Alias of a dead hero wrote: "Anonymity isn't a requisite for being an ass and you just happen to be the living, self-aggrandizing proof of that."
The never anonymous Carol Moore of CarolMoore.Net replied: "Those with courage don't hide behind anonymous aliases of dead heros."
It doesn't take courage to be an ass, Carol, just persistence and a commitment to crudity that you've evidenced so often in the past.
Your "team" has theatened the livelihood of one blogger, the family of another (don't forget, I have the ISP's of that one) and its wider membership have a history of mayhem and murder.
Funny thing is, you don't dispute the facts, just the delivery method. Anonymity is a time honored method in this country and it's people such as yourself that prove its necessity.
BTW, how old is that picture, hon?
You use a lot of unsourced, unfootnoted SPLC allegations, plus your own misinterpretations or lies about others, to smear people - and anyone who may have associated with them at any point in their life. Why? Just because people don't agree with whatever it is you might believe or because they won't be bullied into silence by your malicious and libelous smears.
If someone who identified themselves and wasn't obviously out to destroy people made some of the same charges, with sourcing, they might be taken seriously and any questions they had answered.
You just make malicious libelous and untrue claims against me, not to mention guilt by association, without giving any sourced information showing that the attacked parties are the bigots you claim they are. We are supposed to take some anonymous person's word, as the word of God.
Who is going to take your libels seriously when you refuse to say who you are and give phony excuses about possible conspiracies and threats against you. Sounds like the Government when it passes the Patriot Act and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
In truth you are just afraid of being sued for your malicious libels and have to hide your identity. But a good lawyer can ferret you out should anyone decide to sue you.
No one sees you criticizing the obvious racism of Bill and Hillary vs. Obama or the War on Arabs and Muslims which is waged with threats of nuclear destruction. You merely choose to libel those who criticize your favorite nation state and threaten to secede from it. Once enough people are fed up, all the unsourced, unfootnoted malicious libels in the world from anonymous and not-serious sources can't stop them from seceding.
Oh, Carol. Take a breather there, girl.
First, the sourcing on my blog was of such a concern that one of the misleaders at SVR communicated his concerns to one blogger before they began their purge of members who checked my sources out and objected to SVR's cozying up tp racists, just as they did here just a few weeks ago. You may wish to believe that my blog has no impact but the reality in Vermont is that secession, particularly because of SVR, is dead meat. But they're not going away, so neither will my blog.
I could not care less whether you approve of my sourcing; you, who haven't developed a governmental conspiracy whose outcome isn't too wild and not personally directed to you, or a motive too perposterous not to be aired in that spittled style of yours.
Believe what you will about why my blog is anonymous; it's not as though you haven't been hugely wrong before or won't continue to be in the future. Your stunning lack of accomplishment up to this point should be of concern, even to you.
Given your comments about anonymity, one would think that you never have posted anonymously before... and we both know that isn't true, don't we.
There Carol. Your cause of action. I say that you're a big, fat fraud. Now sue me.
I give you the last word.
My my so mature! So rational! OI!
But seriously, my problem with the anonymous bloggers at vermontecession is they use bullying libel and defamation to try to force people to take one side or the other. They will not allow those who think maybe both sides have their untrustworthy and extremist elements to refuse to take sides.
They consider any attempt to deal with one human or one group at a time, based on their merits to be merely heresy to be rooted out. They have no concept of trying to change people's minds, only punish them for imagined or exaggerated or long ago misdeeds, since punishment, not enlightenment, is their goal. Ultimately, they are sadists.
However, I have found that Vermont Republic people understand my concerns and do not become irrationally hostile when I raise them. (As I've done repeatedly on my blog there and elsewhere.)
I can't speak about vague charges made above about their behavior. Though I think if one discovers someone is working on their bosses' time to defame others it is quite appropriate to complain about that to find out if their boss approves of such behavior. I'm sure if I had a boss s/he would agree.
I applaud Harold Thomas for also taking that middle ground. At this point, it has not made him an object of attack, luckily for him.
Harold,
Those in the Ohio secession movement must get over their fear of racism in others, and by looking deeply into their own past they can see that your State has some ghosts.
White mobs roamed through Cincinnati's black section in 1829 spreading death and destruction, and threatened black residents sufficiently to have nearly 2200 of them relocate to Canada.
In another case, Ohioans thwarted an attempt to settle 518 emancipated slaves of Virginia’s John Randolph by stating that "the banks of the Ohio (River) would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated slaves.”
Let's keep focused on the self-determination issue.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
NC League of the South
Mr. Thuersam:
I had gone on to other topics when I found your interesting comment about race relations in Ohio prior to the Civil War. I am grateful that you did not mention the fact that Ohio did not ratify the Fifteenth Amendment (giving Blacks the right to vote); however, I think we should note that the same city (Cincinnati) that experienced the "death and destruction" in 1829 also, in the 1970s and 1980s, elected several times on a citywide ballot a Black to City Council, who so distinguished himself in that position, that he rose to become the Treasurer of State for two terms, Secretary of State for two terms, and was nominated by the Republican Party for Governor of Ohio.
While Ken Blackwell deserved to lose for Governor on the basis of his performance during his last term as Secretary of State, his defeat certainly was not the result of racism.
I should also point out, again, that there is no secessionist movement in Ohio, unless you want to count the two writers to this blog as a "movement". The writers of the other comments on this page are "Thomas Rowley", a pseudonym for the writer of Vermont Secession; and Carol Moore, an activist in Washington D.C.
Like Mr. Tuggle at Rebellion, I strongly favor as much freedom of expression as possible in my comments; because diversity of opinion helps us make sounder decisions; and at the very least, allows those who make foolish statements to hang themselves with their own rope.
Post a Comment