As secessionists we need gradually to wean ourselves away from the use of the word secession and replace it with the more positive term, nonviolent liberation. We should refer to ourselves as a liberation movement rather than as a secession movement. The Civil War ended a long time ago and with it ended the possibility of ever having an intelligent conversation about the merits of secession. Among American political, media, academic, spiritual, and literary leaders secession remains strictly taboo.
He makes a highly valid point about the word secession, judging from my own experience with the word. Thanks to Lincoln, we can be sure that we will not turn the hearts of Ohioans with the word secession.
However, I also have problems with liberation. For me (and I think most right-of-Obama Ohioans) the word carries strong Communist connotations, as in the various Marxist "liberation" movements in the Third World during the Cold War, and even Patty Hearst's Symbionese Liberation Army. Liberation movements were ruthlessly violent. While Mr. Naylor himself is advocating nonviolent liberation, I suggest that the phrase is semantically self-contradictory.*
This blog advocates, and will continue to advocate, independence if all lesser efforts fail. Technically, it will meet the criteria for secession, and for liberation; but will be much more effective in capturing the hearts of patriotic Ohioans who seek to regain their freedom.
While I will not go back and change the words of every previous post (with nearly 900 posts, that would be a daunting task), I have removed references to secession from the labels. Secessionism is now Liberation from DC, and Ohio and secession is now Ohio Independence.
One more thing. Por favór, please keep Ché Guevara off our flags. He was a Communist murderer, not a freedom fighter.
* Or for readers who have enhanced vocabularies: oxymoronic.