|
American Reformation Ministries
American Rebel Militias COLONEL JOE JOHNSON P.O. BOX 1166 MALVERN, ARKANSAS 72104
|
The Great Southern League Race Debate
PART FOUR
#61.
From Robert Stacy McCain to all.
August 15, 1996
I have seen spring up here on the listserver a thread of arguments over the issue of race in the South, further devolving into whether the Southern League (and I'm not sure what lunatic advocated this) should have as its policy some sort of white separatist homeland or some such thing.
Having been through this whole trip in the Jared Taylor argument of the spring, and having read a good bit, old and new, dealing with questions of race, let me offer some observations and opinions which might be instructive to those who worry about such matters:
1. The South would not be Southern if it were even close to allwhite. That would be Montana or Minnesota. It is the presence within the South of large numbers of black people (2035 percent of the region's population, the 13 states represented on the battle flag containing 50 percent of the nation's black population) which makes the white person quite conscious of his whiteness. And there is also an amount of crosscultural influence between black and white within the South which is seldom acknowledged by either race which is why rock 'n' roll was invented in Memphis, not Kennebunkport.
2. The South has often been charged with being especially prone to "racism." I would suggest that anyone wondering why this might be true (supposing that it were true) take a look at Chapter XVIII of Alexis De Toqueville's "Democracy in America" and read it through VERY carefully. In the 1830s, De Toqueville supposed that the future of race relations in America would be either:
a. The peaceful continuation of slavery;
b. Abolition and "intermingling" between black and white; or
c. Open armed conflict between the races, either prior to or subsequent to the abolition of slavery. One reason that the South seceded was the widespread belief that, by limiting
the black population to the South (forbidding expansion into the territories) and fomenting insurrection among the slaves (a la John Brown), the Republicans would eventually succeed in bringing about result "c." After the war, the South resisted Reconstruction in the belief that the Republicans were attempting, among other things, to bring about result "b." or "c." and later enforced segregation to prevent such an end.
3. We are now nearing a solution that De Toqueville never imagined: None of the above. The South has, through a long and bitter struggle with the rest of the nation over this issue, come to a situation where:
a. Blacks enjoy equal civil rights, economic and educational opportunities;
b. "Intermingling" still remains remarkably uncommon; and
c. Harmony, rather than antagonism, remains the prevailing spirit in race relations.
4. Yet this is a precarious balance, and one reason sensible Southerners should oppose external political and cultural influence is because such influences might tend to upset the balance. The primary dangers to the balance are these:
a. Those of both races who insist that the natural relationship between the races is, and should be, antagonistic.
b. Those of both races who insist upon governmentimposed "solutions" to the "historic oppression" of which blacks.
c. The inflammation of racial sensitivities in regard to interracial sexual relationships.
5. In some quarters, opposition to or disapproval of interracial relationships (whether such views are private or public) is equated with "racism," even though this is a logical non sequitur. After all, a white man who may not object to a black man one day becoming president of the United States, yet still may object to his daughter becoming First Lady in such an administration. Is he racist? Or is he simply acting on the very natural impulse of wanting his posterity to resemble him? It has been noted that there is less social stigma attached to relationships between whites and Asians, and between whites and Latinos, than between whites and blacks. The obvious reason for this is because of the tremendous physical (and to a lesser degree, cultural) distinction between those of European and African origin.
6. It should not be overlooked that many blacks object to interracial relationships. For instance, last spring a group of black coeds at Brown University created a "wall of shame" bearing the names of black men on campus who were dating white women. As the usual nature of interracial relationship is black male/white female, one obvious cause of the objection among young people (as opposed to objections from their parents) is that the desired mating pool is depleted. To the extent that such relationships are prevalent, white men who wish to date white women and black women who wish to date black men are both deprived of their choice in partners.
7. Beyond the objections of parents and of rejected suitors within their own race, the interracial couple then faces the question: With which race will their children be identified? Although children typically identify with their maternal culture (the children of any interfaith marriage are fairly certain of attending their mother's church), the fact that the white woman in an interracial relationship faces a social stigma tends to compel her toward an affiliation with "black" culture. This is a result which (if you think through it carefully) any sensible Southerner would NOT desire.
8. In discussing all this during the Jared Taylor debate and thinking it through since, it is apparent to me that the person who wishes to discourage interracial relationships or more grandly to "preserve the white race" can take measures to do so that are entirely private. (Having lots of kids, I would suggest, is the best way a young white person can help achieve the latter goal.) But if you think preaching racial hatred to your children is the answer, you are sadly mistaken. Many children will rebel against such teachings, and even if they do adopt your views, an outright bigot is seldom a desirable mate.
9. An end to affirmative action and an end to "welfare as we know it" will have a disproportionately greater effect on blacks than on any other race, as anyone can see. But the effect, as all sensible people must see, will not be entirely negative and will, if understood rightly, be tremendously positive. However, as the nation heads toward these goals of more sensible policies, racial sensitivities might become greater. While the Southern League has no racial policy as such, I would suggest that as individuals, we might help avoid conflict by:
a. Continuing our defense of Confederate heritage, since most attacks on the flag, et cetera, are actually the work of activists who seek to foment antiwhite racism among blacks;
b. Resisting the impulse to hurl racial insults while defending Confederate heritage, since our enemies would like nothing better;
c. Identifying and denouncing as hatemongers those who support antiConfederate initiatives, as well as advocates of all other measures revisionist education, et cetera which tend to exacerbate reverse racism;
d. Making certain that our private conduct toward ordinary black people is unfailingly friendly, courteous and kind, so that we may contradict the hate propaganda of their selfanointed "leaders"; and
e. Most especially, by seeking genuine, honest friendship with those blacks of our acquaintance who share our values of morality and culture.
That last one is the trick, because I know many fairly "racist" individuals (including some of my own kin) but do not know a single one who believes that ALL blacks are bad people. So if you're one of those who knows 100 black people and only likes one of them, make sure you're really nice to that one! Maybe you'll make the other 99 wonder what they're doing wrong.
Stepping down of my soapbox, now,
Robert Stacy McCain
[Editor's note: Reduced to its essence, this was another manifestation of the Libertarian argument of "get the government out of the issue." He hits all around the issue without ever touching it once: Do the Southern people have an inalienable right to self-determination in their own land?
I say we do. Stacy has never thought that one out and advances spurious argument after spurious argument to somehow justify the South without bringing him into a serious conflict the her opponents who demand total political and social equality for all people living in the South. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#61.
From Harris Ford to all.
At 06:49 PM 8/16/96 0400
I have refrained from comment on "The Theology of the Confederacy" by Dennis Wheeler and Gregory F. West until I had a chance to read it in it's entirety. I have read it, and cannot find one thing that is not factual. In fact, I highly recommend it to anyone who agrees that the AngloCeltic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement. We are the dominant group that defines Southern culture and the Southern people. Others may join us, but we remain what we are with or without them.
Harris Ford Jr.
#62.
From Ron Courtney to George Kalas.
August 16, 1996
George,
I suspect there are more SL members and subscribers than you might think who agree with most or all of what Dennis says but who are reluctant to say it publicly. You and Gary and a few others more or less set the tone of the discussions on the listserver, which is fine, but it can be intimidating to other subscribers who don't have the courage or the intellect that Dennis has.
I think Dennis is to be commended for making a very controversial case.
Ron Courtney
#63.
From Tom Atkinson to all.
August 17, 1996
I admit that I have not read every post involving Mr. Wheeler. Nor have I read every post on every topic. I do think I get a generally picture. One that troubles me.
I am very much for Southern independence. At the same time I think, in some respects, many people on this list (including Mr. Wheeler) have attempted to create an idealized picture of the
past. The country of the "past", picture perfect, one woman for
one man, Christian culture, etc. happy slaves, everybody getting
along, "little house on the prairie," "a man's home was his castle" picture of the past. Unfortunately, such presentations of the past do not reflect "the way we were."
This is what Stephanie Coonitz, calls "the Nostalgia Trap." She has authored an excellent book entitled "The Way We Never Were" challenging some of the myths about our past. Everyone would do well to read her work and peruse her research.
While an idealistic picture of the past may sound good, it is not realistic. That is the "way we never were." As for me, if a move for Southern independence means moving back to the days of segregation and denial of rights to various ethnic groups (simply because of their education, color of their skin, religion, whatever) then I want no part of it and would fight to the death to see that such never happened again. All people, regardless of background, are given their rights by the creator, not by government or some idealized notion of the past.
If you want segregation and insist of denying others their rights, simply because they are not "white" then, as far as I am concerned, you can find another country. I don't want it and would work to prevent it. A free south? Yes!!! A south with slavery, back seats on busses for people of color, separate water fountains and forced segregation? NO, NO, NO!!!! A thousand times NO!!!
Oh, by the way, us good "white folk" never got along all that great, either. Total peace and harmony does not exist among any ethnic groups. That also is a myth. These are just my thoughts, which I hold very strongly.
Tom Atkinson
tomvason@usit.net
[Editor's note: Tom broke new ground when he stated he would fight to the death to oppose my positions. It's always good to see someone willing to take a stand.
If you read what he says, however, you'll notice that there's not much reason or rationale given, it's pretty much a lot of emotional rhetoric, the kind of prose you'd most likely see in a letter to the editor. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#64.
From Tim Wyatt to Dennis Wheeler.
August 16, 1996
Dennis Wheeler,
I have been following the recent posts by Dennis Wheeler with interest. While I have found a lot about which to agree in his posts (as well as in the responses from Glenn Ferrell and George Kalas), I have to confess that I still am not sure what he is advocating. Is it forced separation of the races, or simply repeal of forced integration and a return to freedom of association, or something else entirely?
Dennis, if it is possible, could you post a short outline of the policies that you would propose? I like the exchange of lengthier treatises, but sometimes they can obscure the actual point you're trying to make. Please don't take this as a testy "Get to the point!" message, because I really want to know what your position is.
Also, as someone else said, I am no match for you in a debate, so I'm not asking for an argument in defense of your position (yet).
Tim Wyatt
#65.
From Dennis Wheeler to Tim Wyatt.
August 17, 1996
Tim,
Thanks for the question. I don't think there will ever be civil peace in the South until the Southern people have their own homeland and the blacks have their own homeland. I don't preclude the possibility of there being a structure whereby there can be peaceful coexistence within the same geographical area, but I don't know what it is and I haven't seen anyone else postulate one.
Over the past 300 years or so, we have structured two different systems whereby we lived together in a relative peace. The slavery system was pretty good, but I doubt that could be returned to or that anyone would want to return to it although with the government in Washington, the linchpin of the world economic system, being over $5 trillion in debt, the entire global economic picture could take a drastic turn for the worse in a hurry.
(An economic need for slavery could return as I imagine that in a world without welfare, affirmative action, government housing, government medical care, government education, and government jobs programs, most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master. The compassion of the Southern people runs deep and in a Christian society structured on the Bible, no government would have the right to prohibit slavery.)
Once the slave system was gone, the Southerners erected the Separate-but-Equal policy. That too worked pretty well, but was legally irrational as the blacks were considered full citizens of the U.S., but were not really allowed to act like it.
The system we have now is a travesty of justice. And black voting in elections and on juries are two of the main culprits. Black judges who have no tradition of AngloSaxon justice are also a big problem.
I think separate countries is the best policy and, as I've said, Southern leaders should be prepared to negotiate with legitimate black and Hispanic leaders as to who gets what land. (Of course, all this is assuming the day comes when the Southern people are able to act on their own initiative without interference from foreign governments.)
In the interim, we should work for justice as we are able:
(1) Repeal of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act;
(2) Tighten immigration laws and deport the illegal aliens.
(3) The abolition of government schools and a reeducation of the populace.
You wanted something short. So here it is. If anyone can think of other workable ideas, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear them.
Dennis Wheeler
[Editor's note: I had made a controversial statement much too strongly in that post, and it would come back to haunt me. When I wrote that " most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master," those were poorly chosen words. I would acknowledge that later and state what I should have stated in the first place. But my opponents would let me hear about it. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#66.From Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Ron Colson.
At 09:39 AM 8/17/96 0400, you wrote:
Ron,
Excellent post. Though I may agree with many folks, I have been dismayed at the tone of some responses.
"Never be a judge between thy friends in any matter where both set their hearts upon the victory. If strangers or enemies be litigants, whatever side thou favorest, thou gettest a friend, but when friends are the parties thou losest one." - Jeremy Taylor
I believe that it is of importance to hammer out some thoughts on this server before our independence; independence is still, nonetheless, our ultimate goal. And while not being the Congress of the Confederate States and not able to make policy, we notice it appears that most folks responding to the issue at hand oppose a return to a division of the races. If, therefore, we are a sampling of future leadership of an independent Southland, it shouldn't necessarily cause us to cook our responses just because we oppose one side of an issue. We can trust to the good judgement of the people of the South and her states to do what we believe is right. Again, if we are a representative group of people of the South, then we need to fear no return to race-based laws.
Most humbly,
Philip
Philip UnderwoodSheppard
Occupied South Carolina
#67.
From Jim Lancuster to Ron Courtney.
August 18, 1996
Jim begins with a quote by Ron from a previous post:
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 DIXIEART@aol.com wrote: "Pat: You said in a message to Dennis Wheeler that the Southern breakaway from the Union had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery."
Jim's response:
I'm not entirely comfortable with this premise. Sure, Calhoun et al placed great emphasis on preserving slavery. But what preoccupied Calhoun and the Old Republicans who preceded him (i.e., John Randolph and John Taylor of Caroline) was that Northern mercantilist policies in the form of protective tariffs and internal improvements ultimately would reduce the South to a state of economic vassalage.
One very instructive text is Jefferson's famous fire bell in the night letter written after the passage of the Missouri Compromise. (A complete text and explanation of this letter is included in "Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy" of John C. Calhoun).
Of course, the politically enlightened classes now interpret this letter as reflecting Jefferson's true abolitionist colors i.e., his concerns that slavery ultimately would work to destroy the Union. But that's not entirely true. Jefferson favored the extension of slavery into the Western territories, believing that the diffusion of slavery through westward expansion eventually would contribute to its extinction.
In truth, the "fire bell in the night" was Jefferson's painful realization that slavery henceforth would be used as a battering ram against the South by Northern mercantilist interests who resented the South's uncompromising defense of open markets and states rights all of which threatened protective tariffs and internal improvements.
Jim Langcuster
[Editor's note: I don't know who Jim Lancuster is, nor what he does. But his words here sure put the lie to one of the main points you will read my opponents make in later pages; that of their unfaltering belief in Jeffersonian democracy. Obviously, if Jefferson believed in slavery, then his democratic beliefs had limits and qualifications that pertained to who exactly comprised the body politic. Keep this in mind as you go forward.
Once this post was finished, it was time for George Kalas to come into the arena and attempt to destroy me forever. The following several posts are his grandest attempts. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#68.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
George begins by quoting me quoting him and then answering:
Dennis Wheeler wrote: "You have also written: `By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners.'
"This is a point that strays from the central issue. Besides that, it is patently untrue and is just setting up another straw man and knocking it down, which I have charged you with before."
Nonsense. This is not straw man. It is a valid and legitimate objection to a foolish and stupid position that would destroy the Southern nationalist movement. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you are not an agent provocateur who persists in this nonsensical debate solely for the express purpose of trying to see if you can flush racists out of our ranks and thus prove that the SL is a despicable organisation.
I wonder.... But, in any event, I must observe that only an ostrich who hasn't been paying any attention whatsoever to what the news media says about the Southern League would pretend that they are not seeking to portray us as racist, bigoted, elitist, ignorant, backwoods, peckerhead Rednecks who can't wait to "put the blacks back into their place."
Now pray tell, sir, how your position would not feed that line of propaganda?
Dennis also wrote: "I haven't condemned the blacks and I only wish all the best for them."
Please, Dennis. Don't strain my credulity. You've called for their outright disenfranchisement and have insinuated that it would be best if they were not living here in the South.
Dennis also wrote: "IMO, the central issue is: `Are the blacks and the Southerners the same people?'"
That is not the central issue. The issue we are arguing over is whether or not the SL should admit blacks and jews. My announcement of the admission of blacks and jews to our membership last month is what originally set you off and started this debate. You have a short memory, my friend, and a conveniently selective one at that. This other issue of whether or not whites and blacks in the South are "one people" is an excercise in misdirection of the attention of the readers to a new issue that is not the one that we started this debate over. In any event, I've noticed that the vast majority of those SL members who have posted on this matter have roundly rejected your view that blacks and Jews "are not Southrons."
Dennis also wrote: "I have answered `no' to this and given evidence that the historical Southern position agrees with me. In fact, prior to 1865, the United States Supreme Court held this view. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 explicitly stated that according to the Constitution, the blacks did not comprise part of the body politic of the United States and were never intended to do so by the founding fathers."
The Southern historical position held that "slaves were not citizens" but it did not hold that "blacks were not Southerners." There is no proclamation that blacks are not Southerners in the Dred Scott decision. While virtually all white Americans in the 19th century were raised in a culture that taught them that blacks were inferior humans who were best suited to bondage under the wise and benevolent tutelage of benevolent whites, many observers of the time plainly commented on the cultural familiarity between Southern whites and blacks that characterized the antebellum era.
Alexis De Toqueville was one such commentator and many Northern and British travellers in antebellum Dixie made similar observations. That tends to indicate that, like it or not, Southern whites and blacks created what we call Southern "culture" in concert by the fact of their very coexistance with one another at a time when Southern culture was being formed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Sorry, Dennis but your theory just doesn't hold water.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
Dixienet
[Editor's note: George is just warming up. Notice that he doesn't want to debate the central issue of who comprises the Southern people, but again falls back on a spurious issue of: "Should the SL admit blacks and jews?" I had already answered that for him on two separate occasions. But obviously, he didn't want an answer.
Also, his denial that Southern policy, American policy, and even the Dred Scott decision that blacks were not citizens has any bearing on this discussion, shows he is missing the point. Our people, Southerners, all hold inalienable rights that every other Southerner is obliged to protect and acknowledge. Outsiders, who can expect justice and equity from us, don't enjoy all the rights and privileges of our people. The same is true for Americans.
The Dred Scott decision held that blacks weren't truly Americans and were not to be included among those who enjoyed the rights of citizens. The South overwhelmingly agreed with that premise. For George to delineate between citizen and Southerner is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#69.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
Dennis Wheeler wrote: "... You again win a gold medal in rhetoric.... George, you have stated the central issue is: `Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity?' But I have disagreed that this is the central issue. I believe the Southern League should become whatever it ought to become."
Dennis,
Sorry, but I can only claim a Bronze medal for rhetoric. I freely concede that your prose has been superior to my own in this exchange and that your rhetoric in the name of white separatism stands second to none here.
I still firmly contend that you took a stand for segregation and white separatism and urged SL members to lead this charge and anyone whose been closely following your posts knows that I have not misrepresented your position. You are, my friend, merely dodging the issue and seeking to retreat to a more defensible ground of preserving our Southern culture because you know that we'll all agree with you on *that.*
But, you may disagree with my concise and accurate definition of the main point of our disagreement all you want, Dennis, but the fact remains that you've stated as much in your posts and have argued vigorously for a white Southern nation citing Dabney and the Bible at great length to buttress your view that race is the defining attribute of any "nation."
If you are prepared to come out and plainly state that you have reconsidered that position and that you *positively* no longer advocate the establishment of laws by a new Southern nation that would reinstitute segregation and deprivation of the franchise from citizens solely on account of their race then I would have little arguement with you. But I haven't heard this from you yet though you most certainly have stated rather plainly your desire to disenfranchise and resegregate virtually all blacks.
If I am wrong on this point, please tell me this: If you had absolute power over the South for one year would you:
(1) Allow blacks to live in the CSA? (2) Allow blacks to vote in the CSA? (3) Allow Jews to live in the CSA? (4) Allow Jews to vote in the CSA? (5) Allow other minority ethinic groups to live and vote in the CSA?
If your answer is "no" to any of these questions please explain fully why you would expel nativeborn, nonwhite, or nonChristian Southrons from Dixie. Why are they less deserving of liberty and the right to live and vote here than you are? While I would not shed any tears over the Willie Horton clones of this world losing the franchise, (even thought the black underclass doesn't exercise it very vigorously anyway), I think they should only lose it through some act of grossly antisocial behaviour like committing felonies and being on terminal welfare. (Yes, I agree with William F. Buckley that being on the Federal dole should remove you from the voting rolls until you become a taxpayer again.) Now if, on the other hand, you have modified your view so that all you are saying is that if, when left to their own devices in a free society, blacks and whites will tend to voluntarily segregate themselves and that the government should not intervene to prevent this exercise of free will on the part of the citizenry, then I'd have no beef with you on that. I say live and let live. Personally, I do not think it is a crime for people of any race or culture to prefer their own kind and their own heritage over that of other people.
But where I strongly disagree with you is that any portion of the population has the right to disenfranchise another portion of the population from their right to have a say in their own government. Your position is an advocacy of tyranny in the modern age. Indeed, it was tyranny in the reconstruction era when vast numbers of Confederates were disenfranchised by the carpetbag governments because the Yanks, Scalawags, and freedmen didn't much care for the way exRebs wanted to run things. Whether one favours or disfavours restricting the franchise largely depends on the premise upon which the disenfranchisement is being justified and whose ox is being gored.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
Dixienet
[Editor's note: George was starting to lose it here. But he did say one thing that was quite instructive: "But where I strongly disagree with you is that any portion of the population has the right to disenfranchise another portion of the population from their right to have a say in their own government."
He was missing the point entirely. What I've been saying is that they are entitled to their own government and we are entitled to ours. That is the issue. George advanced his position in Libertarian terms -- "I say live and let live." The problem with this is, as I've said before, no one will let us just live and let live. Blacks and others will continue to use their vote to take away everything we have. A Libertarian arrangement is not sufficient because, for if no other reason, other peoples don't think or act in Libertarian terms. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#70.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
Dennis,
If I have to type much more to answer your interminable posts I'll develop carpel tunnel disease. Suffice it to say that most people on this listserver are very well aware of the fact that Lee and Cleburne advocated arming the slaves and enlisting blacks as Confederate soldiers in exchange for emancipation. The adoption of the black child, Jim Limber, by Mr. and Mrs. Jefferson Davis during the War for Southern Independence is a wellknown fact of history and is detailed at some length in "The South Was Right!" by the Kennedy brothers of Louisiana.
But, I highly suspect that you know this as well and I am convinced at this point that you are merely being hypocritical because you want to belabour the point and misdirect attention away from the fact that you are a racist and that you feel that history somehow justifies your racism.
My friend just because people thought it was O.K. to feed Christians to the lions in the Coliseum of ancient Rome doesn't mean that the Lega Nord of Italy should consider reinstituting this ancient form of Roman *sport.* Likewise, just because slavery and white convictions of racial superiority over blacks were the norm in the 19th century, does not mean that such a policy makes any sense at all for people today in the South and that the SL should lead the charge to kick all blacks out of Dixie or to disenfranchise them.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
[Editor's note: George was left with little to do except engage in name-calling at this point. Having taken his best shot and watched as I was still standing, he began to merely castigate me with high-volume rhetoric. It got much worse, as you'll see. But before I responded, George got a message he never expected. -- Dennis Wheeler.]
#71.
From Lynne Bailey to George Kalas.
August 19, 1996
Lynne begins with a quote by George written to Dennis Wheeler.
In a message dated 960818 14:37:14 EDT, you write: "If I have to type much more to answer your interminable posts I'll develop carpel tunnel disease."
Lynne's response:
"George, do youself and the rest of us a favor and save your wrist and this server. By attacking other SLer's, do you think it benefits the SL?
Mr. Ford's (I think she meant to say, Mr. Wheeler's) post was intelligent, well written and he has received multiLaurels for his opinions as well as his writings - but he would be the last to let you know this! There was no reason to insult to him. His research is impeccable! You may not agree, but when he states historical facts, he has documentation! Sarcasm and insults are foreign to the SL purpose. Debate is one thing, insults another.
Several members have stated that they "paid dearly" for the priviledge of e-mail due to their geographic location. I propose we consider them, also.
I speak for myself (and Mammy) only, but I ask, please, let's move forward with debate not "street fighting" and defamation of fellow Sler's."
Respectfully,
Lynne Bailey
#72.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
Dennis Wheeler writes: "I would say the negative stereotypes that exist about the South and Southerners are the result of people accepting the false premises of the North. One of the main tenents or that false premise is that all men are brothers, regardless of race, creed, or color, and should live together as one in a unified society. I reject that premise and hope you do too. And I would encourage you to use your masterful rhetorical talents and immense energy in fighting that error, not those who attempt to promote the historical `cause of the South.'"
And just what are those false premises, Dennis? Well let's see ... one of them is that Southern white culture is totally, and I mean totally, dominated by an overriding fixation on race and an irresistable desire to oppress blacks.
If your statements were typical of the thinking of the majority of Southrons the Yankees would be right. But your thinking is an anachronism a relic from the 19th century that was being called into question even by some of the founding fathers as far back as the late 18th century when the legitimacy of slavery was first disputed in the wake of the Revolutionary War.
As for the "brotherhood of man" that is not an invention of liberals, Dennis, but of God, who created us all in his own image. The concept of the "brotherhood of man" is largely a Christian ideal. Your argument is more properly with the Christian faith than with me on this point.
As for equalitarianism, while I do not believe that equalitarianism is a Christian or democratic virtue, I also do not believe in the opposite extreme which is the tyranny of an elite minority. Aristocracies, royalty, theocracies, dictators, communists, nazis I have no use for any of these groups that contend that *they* are uniquely better qualified to run my affairs than I am. Why should people of other races and faiths feel any differently?
While I would agree with you that peoples of vastly different cultures and faiths should be allowed to govern themselves independently if that is their expressed desire, (for obvious reasons one being that it helps keep the peace), I do not believe that it is presently feasible to attempt to separate Southern whites and blacks into their own nationstates by government fiat. I also do not think that you've built a sound enough case for such an action. Even Jared Taylor does not go to the extremes you do. While he rightly observes what is wrong with the black underclass, he does not call for their expulsion from the nation or for the reinstitution of Jim Crow. But then, I suppose you'll now tell us that Jared Taylor is a "squish like Kalas" on the race question.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
Dixienet
[Editor's note: Two statements in this post really stood out. First, "If your statements were typical of the thinking of the majority of Southrons the Yankees would be right." My statements may not be held by the majority of Southerners today, but they have been the historical position of my people. George is really saying that the Yankees are right, that the Northern perspective really was the most righteous of the two. I have realized he believed that all along. I was glad he came out and said it.
Second, "While I would agree with you that peoples of vastly different cultures and faiths should be allowed to govern themselves independently if that is their expressed desire...." His statement is patently untrue. He doesn't believe that. For this is what I've been advocating all along, that my people, who are vastly different from non-Southerners in the South be allowed to govern themselves. But George will have none of it and has denounced me repeatedly and blatantly for holding such a view.
He does go on to contradict himself if his principle is to be applied to the South. But he gives no evidence or support as to why it should be different in the South than anywhere else. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#73.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
George again begins by quoting me quoting him and then answering him:
Dennis Wheeler writes: "Your final point was: `I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace.'
"I can't agree with this and would again ask you to distinguish this position from that of Martin Luther King."
George's response:
So, what you are saying, Dennis, is that we should have government forcing people to segregate. How would you distinguish this position from that of Senator Bilbo of Mississippi?
George again quotes Dennis:
"I can see that there are some distinctions between your position and his in style and emphasis, and I doubt that he would say that people would voluntarily separate like oil and vinegar, but he was against the segregationists compelling the separation of the races by force of law the historical Southern tradition and I would like you to spell out what the laws should be on matters of employment, commercial trade, housing, government entitlements, voting, etc, that would distinguish your position from his."
George's response:
I disagree vehemently with King's idea that government
forced integration was a positive good. I also think that King was, in his personal life, a hypocrite, a philanderer, a socialist, and plagerist of questionable moral character. But he prevailed not because whites sympathised with these character traits, but because he did a masterful job of focusing attention on the injustice of denying citizens the right to vote and have a voice in their own government.
The only way one can deny this is to assert that blacks are not worthy of citizenship and the vote and that they should not have any sayso in the government that governs them. This cannot be asserted from anything other than a premise that holds that blacks are subhuman and undeserving of the same rights you and I have. If you endorse such a premise, you are, ipso facto, a bona fide racist. You have the right to be a racist and to argue for your beliefs but I don't have to agree with you.
George quotes Dennis again:
"Perhaps you can come up with something that is workable. I'd like to see it. If you'd do this, then we'll have some grounds for civil discussion and debate. As it stands now, your rhetoric, sound bites, and invective do little except close discussion."
George's response:
No, it's your avoidance of the topic, long misleading posts, and false and hypocritical stance of ignorance of historical facts that are regularly discussed on this listserver are the true barriers to discussion. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in having a long and extended discussion with you, Dennis. Your way of thinking is so far off the deep end as to be unworthy of serious consideration. If you want to terminate our exchange I will not be disappointed in the least.
George quotes Dennis again:
"What I've seen in history is that wherever Northern European peoples go in the world Australia, South Africa, North America they build great societies that other peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another."
George's response:
I have no disagreement with you there, but I it is also true that Europeans have built monstrosities like the Third Reich and Soviet Communism. When it comes to totalitarian regimes Europeans have excelled at building police states on a scale which other societies and peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another. My point is that having European blood is no guarantee that you are virtuous in your heart. Individual character is more important. Hitler and Stalin were no tributes to white civilisation unless you happen to admire police states.
George quotes Dennis a fifth time:
"So nonEuropeans in these places have made ceaseless attacks at sharing in the fruits of those civilizations, and the only way those civilizations could be protected has been by force of law."
George's response:
Again, you overgeneralise. As a percentage of their ethnic populations, I have no doubt that blacks and hispanics seek out the public dole in higher percentages than do whites. But it is still a fact that more sheer numbers of whites are on welfare than blacks and hispanics. This being the case, my gripe is with ALL the loafers and freeloaders and sorry, lazy noaccounts. It angers me just as much to see a white man draw welfare and sit on his lazy rear end drinking beer as it does to watch black teenage girls produces baby after baby so they can get AFDC and other federal welfare benefits. I would stand with you in oppossing the transfer of wealth from the producers in our society to the nonproductive class. But you see it only from a racial perspective. Again why?
George quotes Dennis a sixth time:
"Our forefathers in the South knew this, so they erected legal barriers to protect themselves and us."
George's response:
Segregation was a reaction to reconstruction and an understandable one. It should be noted, however, that Jim Crow was not restricted to the South. The system operated officially and unofficially in places like Los Angeles and Detroit as well. Jim Crow was not uniquely a Southern phenomenon. I would argue that racial prejudice 100 years ago was based more on habit than on a desire to prevent blacks from voting themselves welfare since there was no welfare state at the turn of the century.
George quotes Dennis a seventh time:
"Had they not done this we wouldn't be having this discussion because the Southern way of life would have been long dead and buried by now."
[Editor's note: Evidently, George didn't answer that last point. He stated two opposite items as true when he said segregation was a reaction to reconstruction and that it also operated in places like Los Angeles and Detroit. Those cities weren't under reconstruction. The Europeans of Australia, South Africa, and India were never under reconstruction, either. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#74.
From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.
August 18, 1996
George began this post by quoting one of my statements with which he took immense umbrage.
Dennis Wheeler wrote: "The slavery system was pretty good, but I doubt that could be returned to or that anyone would want to return to it although with the government in Washington, the linchpin of the world economic system, being over $5 trillion in debt, the entire global economic picture could take a drastic turn for the worse in a hurry. ( An economic need for slavery could return as I imagine that in a world without welfare, affirmative action, government housing, government medical care, government education, and government jobs programs, most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master."
Man, if something like this were to make the rounds in the public as being representative of the thinking of a typical Southern League member just how rapidly would our movement selfdestruct? How many others here would like to stand in front of T.V. cameras and defend such a position?
Dennis, you are one sick puppy....
George Kalas
Dixienet
#75.
From: George Kalas to Lynne Bailey.
August 18, 1996
LBailey777@aol.com wrote: "Yes, we know the `Devil in the Whitehouse' as Mr. Kalas stated, but to deliberatly condone the copresidents presidency is to cut your own throat and that of the yet unborn. Those that come after us will inherit a national debt, next to none."
Lynne,
That debt that you speak of was built up with the mutual consent of BOTH Democrats, (who never saw a welfare program they didn't want to fund), and Republicans, (who never saw a corporate tax bread or defense program they didn't want to fund.) Remember, even Ronald Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to the Congress.
There's no difference worth mentioning between the Republicrats. They are in cahoots to stay in power and live off of your money and mine. The media is anti-Republican.
Lynne also wrote: "The media is anti Southern League and ALL THAT WE HOLD DEAR. That in itself should give any self respecting SLer reason to vote pro Republican."
No, it does not. The SL must stand for it's own values which are clearly at odds with much of the Republican agenda. Of all of the candidates who ran for the Repblican presidential nomination this year, Pat Buchanan was the candidate whose views most closely mirrored those of the SL and look how he was manhandled and mauled by the Republicans and their willing accomplices in the news media!
If you ask but one question, ask this: Which of the "winable" candidates values are closest to the SL? ANSWER: Neither one. That's why I'm a Southern nationalist and not a Republican.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
Dixienet
[Editor's note: George's last statement to Lynne stating that he is a Southern nationalist and not a Republican, is hard for me to get a handle on. In all of his posts, I haven't seen any ideals that I recognize as Southern nationalist.
From what I can gather, he is basically asserting that we need for the Southern states to secede from Washington with the present integrated system in tact. Then we need a Libertarian view on race relations where each group "lives and lets live." And in his mind, that is Southern nationalism.
Again, the problem with that is the blacks would never let us secede if it were in their power to hold us to Washington. And if they retained the vote after seccession was somehow miraculously achieved, then how would we extricate ourselves from the policies that Washington now employs that Libertarians find so distasteful; quotas, affirmative action, welfare, etc. Neither George or anyone else ever addressed this question. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#76.
From George Kalas to all.
August 18, 1996
Dear SL Listserver Members,
Ron Colson has rightly reminded us all that the focus of this listserver is to discuss topics that assist the League in it's mission to advance the cause of Southern independence. I must agree that the debate between Mr. Wheeler and his adherents and those of us who disagree with them has reached the point where comity is breaking down and other threads of discussion are being shoved aside. This is not good.
It should be sufficient to say that Mr. Wheeler's stand is at odds with the SL official policy and let it go at that. Mr. Wheeler is entitled to his opinion but since it has nothing to do with the SL's official goals and policies it would be best to move on back to discussions related to advancing official SL policies.
With this said, I shall cease my own postings on this matter. I've had my say and I think I've articulated my position in a manner that is clear and comprehensible to all. Likewise, I'm sure most would feel that Mr. Wheeler has had his say as well. However, I will freely concede to Mr. Wheeler the priviledge of having the last word, if he wishes to respond to my most recent posts, but I will post no more on this subject regardless of provocation.
For the record: The official position of the SL is that we admit to our membership any who support our cause. There is no racial litmus test for membership. Those who disagree with this policy are free to take this up with Michael Hill and the national board of directors or to resign their memberships.
Deo Vindice,
George Kalas
Southern League Internet
Communications Committee Chairman
[Editor's note: George said he was bowing out of the discussion, which was a relief to a lot of people. But he wasn't laying all his cards on the table. He had an ace up his sleeve that he would play later. It didn't work out too well, as you'll see.
Between the time of George's posts to me and my reply, two posts came that showed vastly different perspectives and levels of understanding. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#77.
From Judy Landry to Dennis Wheeler.
August 19, 1996
Dennis,
I think I am correct in my understanding that Southern League's premier goal is secession. I certainly believe and defend any state's RIGHT to seceed. But secession may not always be wise, and to seceed just to prove you have the right to do it could certainly turn out to be foolish.
My husband and I have thought for a long time that those who want immediate secession are not realistically looking at the current state of affairs. In order to actually accomplish secession, the people of any given state must vote for it. In Louisiana (and I'm sure this is true of other Southern states) you would need a substantial amount of black support because a substantial number of whites hold multicultural views. They would not even consider secession. The only way you would get blacks in Louisiana to vote for secession would be to promise them that they would get more goodies (affirmative action, onemanonevote, welfare, medicaid, etc., etc.) from the State than they are presently getting from Washington.
Then if you achieve secession, what next? You can keep your promises to the blacks in which case we would have exactly what we have now on a smaller scale - hardly worth the trouble of seceeding. Or you break your promises to the blacks in which case you become dishonorable and unChristian and a wholesale race war commences.
No, secession only looks appealing to those wearing rosecolored glasses or to the dishonorable who would attempt to "trick" blacks into supporting it. Some say that "much of what you hope for is just not achievable today....". That may be true, but the idea that SLers can achieve what they want by secession is no more achievable.
Judy
[Editor's note: And then there was this trenchant little classic from a man I've never heard of either before or since. I don't even know his last name. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#78.
From Buck to Dennis Wheeler.
August 19, 1996
Hey Dennis, what on God's earth are you talking about? Are you a nut? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Why are you even in the SL?
Buck
[Editor's note: My response to him was simple. I wrote: "Buck, you're beautiful, baby. Don't ever change a thing."
After this it was my turn to answer George Kalas. I took a few days to compose my answers. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#79.
From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.
August 20, 1996
George,
Your near hysterical tirades demonstrate that you have a fear of what I am saying that does me an honor far beyond what I deserve. As to substance, I didn't see where you covered much that hadn't been covered before, but I would like to comment on two points.
You wrote: "That tends to indicate that, like it or not, Southern whites and blacks created what we call Southern "culture" in concert by the fact of their very coexistance with one another at a time when Southern culture was being formed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries."
I can't except this conclusion. On the one hand, the Southerners were descended from highly civilized and advanced cultures of Europe and the slaves were descended from base and backward cultures of Africa. The religion was different. The concepts of family and civic institutions were different. The intelligence quotient was different. The histories were different.
It is virtually a creed of anticulture to believe that such vastly different peoples could arrive at the same place through such very different circumstances and then form the same culture in concert, as though nothing in their respective pasts mattered. You said yourself that "virtually all white Americans in the 19th century were raised in a culture that taught them that blacks were inferior humans who were best suited to bondage under the wise and benevolent tutelage of benevolent whites." It seems implausible to me that these whites would then work to forge a common culture with people they considered "inferior humans."
You assert that De Toqueville and others made statements to this effect. I would like to examine some of those statements and see what they are. It is my perspective that we have no historical record of anyone ever declaring a program for the whites and the blacks of the South to develop a common Southern culture. And the actions of our people after TWBS demonstrates unmistakably that they rejected your view that the blacks and the whites shared a common culture. Defenders of the South since that time have to a man defended the existence of separate black and white cultures and peoples in the South.
Point number five in the 10point Southern League Manifesto states: "Maintain our link with the great civilisations of Europe from which the South has drawn its inspiration." It seems to me that the SL position is that Southern culture is a European culture. IMO, this contradicts what you have said.
Thomas Sowell has written: "Australians are Europeans, regardless of what geography may say. Not only their language and physical appearance, but also their fertility patterns, technology, philosophy, social customs, and institutions of government make them part of a culture that exists 10,000 miles away, and foreign to the culture of their neighbors in Papua New Guinea or Indonesia."
The reverse is also true. AfricanAmericans are Africans, regardless of what geography may say. At any rate, there are hardly two cultures that are more different today than the Southern culture and the culture of AfricanAmericans living in the South. And as recently as 1970, the Southerners did everything in their power to keep their distinctiveness from black culture. Your perspective, as I understand it, is unknown to the South in any historical sense and is indeed a novel idea not at all in keeping with the Southern tradition.
Another part of your argument is that my ideas would destoy the Southern movement because they would perpetuate the myths raised by the opponents of the South. The fact, however, that someone, even a great many people, disagree and hold disdain for a viewpoint, is no argument against that viewpoint. The Southern tradition is, as I have shown, consistent with my position and quite different from yours. When people make fun of the SL, it is because they understand that my position is the historic position of the South, not yours. They are attacking my position because it is the position that is the greatest threat to their system.
Evidently, once you explain to them that your position is not what they are attacking, the attacks subside. But this is only because they judge your position to be irrelevant and no threat to the status quo. Indeed, this is true. Some of your tirades sound little different from the nomination acceptance speech of Bob Dole. He said: "Let me be specific. A family from Mexico who arrived here this morning, legally, has as much right to the American dream as the direct descendants of the founding fathers. The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view. But if there is anyone who has mistakenly attached himself to the party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you: Tonight this hall belongs to the party of Lincoln, and the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand here and hold this ground without compromise.."
This seems to be your position as well concerning the SL. Anyone who doesn't view the South as a place where all peoples and religions are welcome regardless of race, creed, or national origin, has no place in the SL. But the official position of the SL calls for us to: "1. Defend the historic Christian faith of the South. 2. Advance the interests and independence of the Southern people.... 4. Protect the symbols and heritage of the traditional South."
It's the traditional South we are to be upholding and defending, not this "historically revised" South you advance, a South that is not the true South; a South that has no historical tie to the true South; a South that has no quarrel with the Party of Lincoln; a South that holds base hostility to the true Southern tradition.
I'll take my stand with the slaveholders of Virginia. I'll take my stand with the segregationists of Mississippi. I won't be ashamed of them and run for cover or try to distance myself from them just because there are those who oppose what they believed and did. You never have to wonder where I stand on the primary issues; it's with the Southern plantation owner defending his land and property against northern aggression, it's with Wade Hampton running on the Straight Out Ticket; it's with George Wallace "standing in the school house door"; it's with the millions of Southerners today leaving their cities and communities and moving to new locations where they can carry on their lives away from the physical threat of African aggression. The Southern people need their own land and their own country to carry on their culture without interference from outsiders. The fact that there are those who oppose this, even some in the SL, is no argument against it whatsoever. Dennis Wheeler.
[Editor's note: In between my two posts answering George, two notices came from Ron Colson. The first one warned that the listserver was soon to be shut down. The second one attempted to limit the debate by outlawing my perspective.
This was the ace up George's sleeve I mentioned. He had planned to give me the last word and then shut off the debate. But he didn't realize two things. First, I had answered him in two posts and had the second one ready to send 30 minutes after the first one. Second, the firestorm of protest that limiting the debate would cause. It was a thing of beauty. -- Dennis Wheeler]
#80.
Ron Colson to all.
August 21, 1996
Dear Friends,
Due to the recent heated debate, it appears the end is near for the official Southern League listserver. I have been advised that numerous complaints have resulted in the board considering asking me to shut it down. I will hear more shortly.
I understand their concern and I have stated that I will phase out the SouthernLeague Listserver within the next few weeks. Immediately, if necessary. However, I will replace it with an unsanctioned server. I have thoroughly enjoyed the ability to communicate with so many likeminded, wonderful people. Though it has hampered my business, I can't imagine my days without being able to run in and check my SL mail. It must continue!
I expect to call the new server something like SouthTalk, SLmail, CSAmail, or ProSouth. I'm open to suggestion. To prevent subscribing someone who would not want to participate, I ask that you please let me know (by email) if you wish to be subscribed to our successor listserver. If you want to receive in digest mode, let me know that also.
I believe that we should continue to remain restrictive to keep the likes of "crawfish" off the server. If y'all desire, I'll be happy to have a board of advisors (from existing participants) to help with policy and decisions. Otherwise I can continue to run it with the same Iron Fist you've come to know. (Obviously, you know I'm kidding.) Let me know.
An ever loyal League member, I remain
Ron Colson
Return to Dennis Wheeler's Home Page:
|
