21 July 2016

Political Correctness: Those Who Support It, Deny It

Kevin Levin dodges by demanding an explanation of something that is quite evident. PC historians like Levin obfuscate and deflect in their denials of PC because, in my opinion, they are too heavily invested in it.  Eric Wittenberg is exactly right. It's encouraging (and courageous) to have a historian of Wittenberg's stature make this statement. I'll have a lengthy post on Levin's post by this evening. Levin's position is absurd, even for him, but exposes his emotionally-based and hypocritical opposition to Confederate imagery, even in a historical setting. He has recently even suggested the NPS tread softly in allowing the CBF on battlefields. This is stunning:


And what about this logo?


I bring this logo to your attention because Levin just recently participated in a CWT event where he gave a talk about the Confederate battle flag.

In the post where Wittenberg and Levin had their exchange, Levin made this comment:

Even the Museum of the Confederacy/American Civil War Museum gets it. The Confederate battle flag is a toxic symbol that ought to be displayed exclusively in a setting where it can be properly interpreted [Read: denigrated]. You will not find battle flags welcoming visitors at its branches in Richmond or at Appomattox. And as far as I have seen, you will not find the battle flag on its logo and other advertisements.
So, I must ask, why hasn't Levin raised the "toxic" issue with the CWT? (More to come on that tonight.) With each post on the CBF and other Confederate images posted by Levin, we seem to learn more about his emotionally based biases and utter disdain for all things Confederate, than we do about anything in regards to serious historical analysis and discussion.

12 comments:

Phil said...

Have you considered challenging Levin to a face-to-face debate about the appropriate use of the Confederate Battle Flag?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

No interest, no time and not worth the effort. I've always viewed those kinds of debates as more heat than light. The facts are out there for anyone to look at both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusion.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Though there are a number of places I would disagree with John Coski's book, I still recommend it for a relatively balanced analysis.

Phil said...

Do you think a debate with Levin would not be worth the effort if you were permitted to do it face-to-face in place of his "lunch lecture" to the teachers at the Civil War Trust Teacher Institute you cite above?

Eddie said...

Levin lets his hatred and desire to control the narrative override any objectivity.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Levin's perspective (as a "historian") is no more valid than mine or yours, perhaps less so, since he's expressed his anti flag views for emotional reasons rather than an objective historical analysis. I find it odd that he recommends Coski's book since Coski's position is so out of step with Levin's. Maybe he never read the book. His "analysis" certainly isn't objective.

For true balance, the CWT should have had the Commander in Chief of the SCV also present a "lunch time talk." Then, at least, you could have heard both perspectives.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Phil - "worth the effort"?

No, not to me. Those types of things take a lot time to prepare for (which I do not have), energy (which I need for other more important things) and yield little.

Working my garden and working on my current book, as well as devoting energy to my wife, 6 children, 20 grandchildren are all far more important (and enjoyable) than debating someone like Levin. Again, I have zero interest. Thanks.

BorderRuffian said...

Levin's had some articles published in CW magazines. Of course, we all know those mags have ads with the Confederate battle flag about every other page...and now he does this talk for the CWT...

So, the CBF is "toxic"...but if the money is right...

Ralph Steel said...

You always get the best neo-confederate flagger types posting to your blog. Kind of like Trump getting David Duke to run for Senate....

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Ralph - I had no idea you were a neo-Confederate. Shame on you sir, shame on you. BTW, didn't Bill Clinton excuse Robert Byrd's affiliation with the KKK? Yes, he did. And then there's Rev. Wright . . .

jessie sanford said...

Who is Ralph Steel and why is he so angry? Surly he has never read any of the comments on Levin's blog, talk about hate ridicule. And for the record Mr. Steel I am not a neo-confederate or a klucker but I am a combat veteran of the US army and a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I have tried in the past to have a dialog on the anti history blogs but the stench was to much for me.
Thank my Mr. Williams for allowing folks like me to have a voice without being subject to name calling and ridicule.

Ralph Steel said...

Mr. Sanford, how do you infer anger in my comment?