Re: Poor little Ashcroft

Your first comment is certainly a fascinating one.  You may find it hard to 
believe, but I like to call it when I see it.  Thanks for the benefit of the 
doubt.

If I am understanding your message, your argument boils down to YOUR 
SUSPICION that Ashcroft is a bigot, which you confirm with 2 general 
arguments, and perpetuate with lazy association:

1) He gave an interview to a magazine that espouses racist views.  Guilt by 
association.  Well, that argument seems to apply to anyone who chooses to 
associate themselves with public figures or groups for political gain.  I 
guess every person who has ever taken it upon themselves to meet with 
Farrakhan and Sharpton are anti-semitic, and that it is up to each of them 
to prove otherwise?

Southern Partisan apparently and not surprisingly frequently criticizes 
Lincoln, while Ashcroft considers him our finest president.  How can that 
be?  You just confirmed that his praise for the magazine and statement that 
*he* needed to do more was the basis for your conclusion that he supports 
the slavery and/or segregation.  It's loose logic to support your 
conclusion, just baseless insinuation.

2) Although you seem to agree that states rights and slavery are not one and 
the same, you deny that a leader from the south in pre-civil war times is 
capable of distinguishing it.  To paraphrase what I think you are saying: 
southern way of life and states rights in that context are all about 
slavery, therefore, there is no legitimate defense of any aspect of it, nor 
any legitimate reason to associate ones self with any of its causes.

"Say what you will about states rights..."  When I read Ashcroft's 
interview, the only fair reading I can detect of what he is saying is 
referring to states rights, not slavery.  You simply refuse to separate the 
two.  The confederate side was fighting for local control of affairs, 
despite the evil nature of the economic/social system during those times.

Although you seem to agree that states rights and slavery are not one and 
the same, you deny that a leader from the south in pre-civil war times is 
capable of distinguishing the two.  Lee and Davis were complex figures in 
their time, and their defense of the institution of slavery is despicable to 
modern souls, but their lives were simply not dedicated to holding down 
blacks.  They perceived states rights within the context of their time, and 
it was primarily an economic issue.  I am not attempting to defend the 
indefensible, but pointing out that that the confederate viewpoint has a 
significant and legitimate non-racial aspect.  That, in my mind, is the fair 
reading of Ashcroft's statements.  Maybe I am juxtaposing my own views on 
his statements, but I find it hard to believe that he supports prohibition 
of fundamental rights to blacks.


I hand it to you.  Civil rights movement of 50's - 60's is wrapped up in 
states rights arguments as well.  Certainly a key event in this century's 
history and our nation's history, but I don't agree that it is as pivotal as 
the Civil War to the nation's history.

I am not aware of his opposition to voluntary desegration in St. Louis.  Can 
you fill me in on what issue you are referring to?

It is certainly an interesting perspective that you feel it is your duty to 
insinuate: "racist, racist," but the onus falls on others to disprove your 
charge, for which you provide circumstantial evidence at best.  Real 
political debate is not possible until you get past unsubstantiated slander.

Although I can't claim specifics, I feel that I can reasonably assume your 
agenda is contrary to the objectives of Bush's administration.  You further 
your agenda by attempting to shamelessly discredit those who you 
ideologically disagree with by smearing them with insinuated falsehoods.  
You do this by associating them with straw dog positions, thereby attempting 
to further your own political objectives.

PS You certainly detect a bias in my "over-wielding" statement.  I will 
"never, never" deny that.


Kind regards


----Original Message Follows----
From: Kendall Clark <kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]>
Reply-To: kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
To: "Greg Konig" <[email protected]>
CC: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
Subject: Poor little Ashcroft
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:08:45 -0600 (CST)

 >>>>> "greg" == Greg Konig <[email protected]> writes:

   greg> Kendall, I agree that racism exists throughout the south as
   greg> well as every other corner of this country, and that the
   greg> neo-confederate movement is often no more than a mere excuse
   greg> for pro-slavery positions.  I also admire that you choose to
   greg> speak up against it when you see or hear it.

Hmm, it's hard to take the 'admire' part seriously given the rest of
what you've written here. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's pretty simple, Greg. *If* you really deplore the neoconfederacy
movement, you'll also its allies. Ashcroft is one such ally, even if
he's not personally a complete bigot -- something I suspect but won't
allege publicly.

Would you agree with me that Southern Partisan is a neoconfederate
publication? Ashcroft clearly praises the magazine; he says that *he*
has to do more to set the record straight. Which record? Well, he
doesn't have the guts (or he has the political sense not) to say it
straight, so he implies it: he claims that what Lee, Jackson, and
Davis did was *not* in the service of some 'perverted agenda'.

What did they do? Whatever you want to say about states's rights, what
they did was secede and fight a civil war to prevent a change in their
'way of life', which was completely founded on slavery and subjugation
(as it would continue to be until at least 1965).


If that isn't a perverted agenda, I don't know what is. Too bad
Ashcroft doesn't think it's a perverted agenda. That kind of moral
blindness scares me.

   greg> However, you have once again cried wolf:

   greg> "George W. Bush's Attorney General nominee, John Ashcroft --
   greg> who propagandize the antebellum South and advocate a return to
   greg> (at least) the legal segregation of the Jim Crow era.

   greg> (Ashcroft, among his other confused and debased views, claims
   greg> that secession and civil war in service of slavery's
   greg> perpetuation are honorable, not perverse ends:


   greg> Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a
   greg> heritage of doing that, of defending Southern Patriots like
   greg> Lee, Jackson, and Davis.  Traditionalists must do more. I've
   greg> got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this
   greg> respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving
   greg> their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor
   greg> to some perverted agenda (Southern Partisan; emphasis
   greg> added). "

   greg> Reading the entire article, with the quote in context, as you
   greg> admonish others to do, clearly shows that Ashcroft is not
   greg> defending slavery or legal segregation at all.  You are merely
   greg> twisting reality to further your own agenda.

You'll have to do better than this, Greg. First, precisely how have I
twisted his words? You'll have to show it, not just claim it.

Second, is there such a thing as defense by association? Can the rich
and powerful lend aid and comfort to extremists by being associated
with them? I think so. It's a routine fundraising tool after all.

Third, since you're so sure that I'm 'merely twisting reality' you
should be as sure about my 'own agenda'. What is my agenda, pray tell?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

   greg> You ought to try harder to understand the positions of others
   greg> whose philosophy you disagree with, like you strain to feel
   greg> the pain of the powerless.

But you don't need to apply this to me, Ashcroft doesn't need to apply
it to others? Besides, it's plainly wrong in this case; the 'other'
you obliquely refer to is a rich, powerful, privileged white male
who's had the advantage of every single break and perque society can
afford him. I must give him implausibly charitable interpretations of
his plain words on top of all his other privilege?

   greg> It IS true that the Civil War is THE defining instance of
   greg> states vs federal rights in US history.

Well, that's wrong on two counts. First, it's wrong because the sole
content of the Civil War-era fight over state's rights was
*slavery*. Recall a little thing called the Fugitive Slave Act?

Second, it's wrong because there's at least one other paradigmatic
states' rights fight in our history, the civil rights struggles of mid
50s to mid 60s. And again Ashcroft was on the wrong side in that
fight, during which white Southerners tried to perpetuate Jim Crow --
which was nothing but the best perpetuation of antebellum Southern
society a defeated group of secessionists could manage after
reconstruction ended -- as long as possible by denying to black
Americans, the fathers and grandmothers of whom they'd formerly
*owned* like so much property, the right to political
self-determination and to the vote.

Into this absurdly immoral human tragedy, Ashcroft decides that he'll
support those who yearn for Jim Crow and antebellum South by
*praising* them publicly in their publication. If he meant what you
said he means, why couldn't he say that more clearly? Surely a
minimally decent person would have turned down SP's interview, but had
they not, they might have said, 'your support of slavery and Jim Crow
sickens me, but there are some important principles here...' He didn't
say that.

As to this idea that he *didn't know* SP advocated Jim Crow,
separatism, etc., that's just to trade epistemic blindness for
moral. *Why* didn't he know? Is it reasonable not to know? The title
of the magazine alone would be a tipoff to anyone who cares in the
least about black Americans. Do we really want someone as AG who's
either epistemically or morally so blind? (You have to choose one,
there's no 3rd option.) Do we want someone who cares so little to whom
he gives aid and comfort he'd speak to *Southern* *Partisan* magazine?
I mean, what did he think it was, a barbecue rag?

He's *disgusting*. In truth, I've gone far, far too easy on him, as
have Democratic senators.

	Lincoln struggled
   greg> over this, as did all politicians of the time, and this issue
   greg> is the stage from which modern federal politics established
   greg> its over-wielding power.

Hmm, 'over-wielding' huh? But you're not biased about this at all,
right?

	Therefore, discussion of the various
   greg> positions is still relevant.  States rights and slavery are
   greg> not one and the same, despite their entanglement in the war.

No, you're right, but states's rights and the subjection of black
Americans are one and the same in the context of the Southern Partisan
magazine, and in the career of someone who repeatedly opposed
voluntary desegregation in St Louis.

   greg> Crying racist every time someone you disagree with defends an
   greg> aspect of the confederate viewpoint is a handy rhetorical
   greg> device, nothing more.

Tell me about the non-racist "aspects of the Confederate viewpoint"
please. I'd really like to have a list of them.

You have no idea whether I actually do what you accuse me of here, but
that doesn't seem to matter to you, even though it's precisely what
you've accused me of doing with Ashcroft. Your projection is showing!

	You ought to grow up and engage in real
   greg> debate instead of insinuating racism and views to those who
   greg> obviously don't espouse them.

Never! I'll never, never grow up! :>

Sounds to me, though, like you need a taste of your own medicine.

Kendall Clark
--
THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS		http://monkeyfist.com/

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com