The Secesh category archive

Theft of labor, still a thing.

Meanwhile, in other news of labor thieves . . . .

Church burnings.

Brings back memories of being young and Southern.

One more time, when you hear persons romanticize “the Lost Cause,” be sure to ask them to explain clearly just exactly what cause was lost.

I’m not surprised, just disgusted.

In the South (and St. Louis is “South,” make no mistake), being white has long been all the reason you need to kill a Not White person.

Afterthought:

As much as I deride Twitter for debasing discourse (“Twitter discussion” is an oxymoron, with the emphasis on “moron”), John Cole’s tweet pretty much sums it up.

Steven M. notices that they aren’t even trying to hide the racism any more. He refers to the talk that Loretta Lynch might be nominated for Attorney-General:

But she’s a black woman, and the right-wing base isn’t even trying to hide its naked racial anger anymore — as far as conservatives are concerned, replacing Holder with another black person is, in and of itself, an act of racism (although I suppose it would be just fine if Obama somehow chose a black wingnut).

Do read the rest, then check out George Smith’s essay (be patient–his hosting service seems to have some issues).

CSA and CEOs.

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog, from which I stole the delightful title.

Halford Ryan, writing at the Roanoke Times, examines the myth of “Southern Honor” and finds it a utilitarian thing, a myth to rationalize a society based on bondage and exploitation. A nugget:

The common thread in these examples of historical Southern honor was slavery. Excepting Palmer, Raphall and Einhorn, all of the defenders of Southern honor were slavers. To preserve their slave-based Southern honor, plus the profits it promised, they threatened secession and attained it in 1860-61.

The leading lights of the Confederacy rebelled to preserve their communal honor by championing slavery.

Follow the link for the examples he provides.

The next time you hear someone say “states’ rights,” ask, “States’ rights to do just what, exactly?”

Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter discuss those who would exacerbate racial divides, rather than heal them.

In a longer post about Teabaggery’s record of failure in this year’s Republican Primaries, Dick Polman buries this nugget:

Tea-partying Chris McDaniel is still refusing to concede his June defeat, claiming anew on Monday that Cochran won unfairly by mobilizing too many black people. I kid you not. McDaniel’s formal complaint says that “a comparative analysis of county by county increases indicates that Cochran’s vote increases correlated to the percentage of blacks in each county.” Oh the injustice! Republican primaries should be for whites!

Meet the ammosexuals.

Read more »

Werner Herzog’s Bear muses on the similarities between American politics today and in the 1850s. A nugget:

They (the 1850s Southern Democratic Party–ed.) were a crazy lot who intentionally broke the Democratic party apart in order to hasten secession. This reckless strategy was based in the belief that seceding would be the only long-term way to preserve the South’s slavery-based economic structure. While most white Southerners weren’t as radical, once Abraham Lincoln won the presidency, secession began. Politicians in the Deep South simply refused to accept the legitimacy of the Lincoln administration to the point of leaving the country. . . .

Obviously, if a large number of elected officials refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the president, the country either falls apart or becomes ungovernable. Although we aren’t in any real danger of civil war today, we are back in a place where the legitimacy of the president has been rejected, leading to strife and a dysfunctional government. As I’ve said before, the Republican Party has ceased to be a party in the traditional sense. It is merely the vehicle for an extremist conservative movement that values its ideology above all else.

The state of “becoming ungovernable” seems to have been attained.

Gene Nichol, on viewing Republican antics in North Carolina, wonders what truth-in-labeling might mean for the Republican Party. A nugget:

So when they (North Carolina Republicans–ed.) retire to craft our policies – repealing the Racial Justice Act, passing voting restrictions largely aimed at African-Americans, packing black voters into gerrymandered legislative districts, rejecting the paid-for Medicaid expansion, crushing unemployment compensation, limiting welfare benefits – no black member rises to address the issues. A white Republican governor and an all white cabinet round out the sweep. Some here say this is impolite to mention. Accurate, but impolite. The Carolina racial lineup frequently triggers an appalling aesthetic. Dismissive white legislative and executive officials call Moral Monday protesters “morons” and “outside” agitators – evoking images of the desegregation era. State representatives treat “NAACP” as a tacitly assumed epithet, rather than the historic champion of American promise it is.

(snip)

Imagine that, under a strange, somehow enforceable, truth-in-labeling demand, our Republican Party was forced to re-name itself as the White People’s Party. Would a young, tech-driven, libertarian explain: “I don’t like capital gains taxes, so I joined the White People’s Party?” Would an accomplished and respected investment banker declare: “I’m committed to the carried interest exception, so I vote for the White People’s Party?” Would a devout, patriotic, evangelical forthrightly proclaim: “We need prayer in our classrooms, so I’m with the White Party?”

Via Juanita Jean. Follow the link for the context.