Stand Up For Your Confederate Southern Heritage
If you are a Southerner with Confederate ancestors, you are subjected to persecution and intimidation just because of your ethnic and national origins. But not to worry, because Kirk D. Lyons, an attorney working for an organization called the Southern Legal Resource Center, has your back:
With roughly one week until census forms are due, a group of Confederate rights activists is urging southerners with Confederate ancestors to declare themselves “Confederate Southern Americans” on census forms in order to qualify for national origin protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate because of a person’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. The
SouthNorth Carolina-based Southern Legal Resource Center believes that people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.Question 9 of the census form asks respondents to identify their race and lists White, Black/African American/Negro, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Japanese and Korean as options, among others. But it also leaves a box with 19 blank spaces for anyone who wants to write in another race not listed.
“Fill in ‘Confed Southern Am.’ … This will put your Confederate nationality on the record. It’s just that simple,” SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk D. Lyons says in a video posted on YouTube (see above) and Facebook.
Lyons continues: “We can start the process to give the southern community here in America a voice again, so that our concerns will be heard, and so that we will stop being harassed and persecuted because we are proud of our southern and Confederate ancestry.” The group has defended teachers and other activists who have been fired or disciplined in other ways for refusing to remove the Confederate flag from classrooms and other public places.
36 Responses to “Stand Up For Your Confederate Southern Heritage”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: Stand Up For Your Confederate Southern Heritage: If you are a Southerner with Confederate ancestors, you are subje… http://bit.ly/cqHuCj [...]
“Question 9 of the census form asks respondents to identify their race and lists White, Black/African American/Negro, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Japanese and Korean as options, among others.”
That's why I simply put “AMERICAN” on my form.
This divisiveness has gone on long enough and I refuse to have a part in the categorization of the citizenry for political gain. My being black, aborigine, or any other lineage has NOTHING to do with how my government should serve me. That may be a pipedream, but we should all stop delineating ourselves into sub-groups and simply embrace our fellow Americans.
And now they want a different race than the rest of the country.
Does it really make a difference?
The problem with the “Confederate Southern American” line for ethnicity is that the people in question did not actually come from the Confederacy. Their ancestors came mostly from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Germany, etc. with a smattering of Cherokee, Creek and perhaps various West African nations. That their ancestors passed through Confederate nationhood on the way to now doesn't make them ethnically Confederate any more than if the residents of Upper East Tennessee were to say they were Franklinites because the region once declared itself the sovereign state of Franklin (separate from North Carolina). Or – for that matter – Texans to declare their ethnicity “Texan” because it was an independent nation for 9 years.
Isn't the root of the problem here that the Heritage movement is essentially a white supremacy movement?
I'm white, and my Heritage includes a disturbing number of racists. I am not proud of that, as these people seem to be.
This just seems like an attempt by white supremacists to undermine the civil rights of others (by minimizing and downplaying the historical need for the Civil Right movement in the south) and force their views into the public eye.
but elrod, that's the whole problem with “ethnicity” as a category of legal significance: it is unfeasibly malleable, much more so than, say, “race”, which has a(n) (arguably) biological foundation. what were the irish before they were “ethnic”? celtic. what were the celts before they were ethnic? central-asian/indo-european? and the cherokee– did they not actually descend from iroquoian peoples further north? and further back, from ancient asian siberian migrants? “ethnic” is whatever inherited social rituals, values and mores a group of people have decided is significant.
so, if we're treating a people based upon the content of their character (say), should we reinterpret what “character” means each time we deal with a new ethnicity?
i think the 'problem' here is that southern whites have decided to play the multiculturalists' game. victimhood-mining for everyone!
So what about “Northerners” who sided with the thoughts of the Southern Confederate people? Should their descendants put down their race as Confederate Northern Americans? I hope so… I'd like to know who they are.
The “race” question has been present in the census since the very first census in 1790. And the legal term IS “race”. It originally dated to the Constitutional provision granting states 3/5 representation in Congress for each black slave; remember that the Constitutional purpose of the census is to determine apportionment in Congress. It was expanded in the late 19th century to include “race” other than black, mulatto and white as part of the government's attempt to police immigration. In recent decades the “race” category has been used for Voting Rights cases and apportionment.
Race is every bit as culturally determined as ethnicity. In fact, people in the 19th century used the word “race” in the same way we use “ethnicity”. They spoke of the “Nordic races” or the Mediterranean “races” – which meant ethnicities.
Sucks when the other side uses your own weapons against you, huh?
well, africa's “native” human population is exceptionally diverse, but we can still group people into relatively large biogeographical categories sharing a broad genetic resemblance as regards pigmentation, disease resistance, blood types, facial phenotype, etc.
the way 'race' is popularly used confuses it with 'ethnicity' (and the latest census, at least, does ask about specific ethnic background, not just race) but i don't think that means race is “every bit as culturally determined”.
They can call themselves whatever they want, in this case I heartily approve, it's good to know who the enemy is…
BTW the non technical term for “Confederate Southern American” is “racist ignorant hillbilly redneck”.
Sorry to see such a flap about this.
My response to the race question is invariably, “Human.” I always thought that answer was too clever by half, but after seeing just how politically clever this question has become, the joke's not even worth it anymore.
I will say if answering this question with “Confed Southern Am” gets these people Federal funding for counseling to get over it, I'm all for it.
Another alternative would be to answer Homo Sapient, but I'd just catch grief from the anti-gay contingent.
What? They don't wanna be White no more?
This is why I check off JEDI on my Ethnic origin. …what? It's perfectly valid on Yavin!
Here's a new report on the rise of these white hate groups, in the age of Obama:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
Useful idiots unofficially sanctioned by The Reps, of course.
You can only claim JEDI if your midichlorian count is above a certain level, you know.
Be careful with that.
I wonder if the Census Bureau would buy “mongrel” or “mutt” (in the animal mixed breed sense, not in the derogatory sense) for an answer?
Your comment reminds me of the southern politician George Smathers when running against Rep.Claude Pepper supposedly included the following in a campaign speech:
Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York and his brother is a practicing homo sapien. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.
Not sure how that relates to the thread but it's funny as all get out. I do recall that Smathers defeated Pepper in the Congressional race but was re-elected later after Smathers went into the Senate.
They could have left 13 spaces blank and simply written “Moron”.
Waggle -
it is a funny political story, just unfortunately not a true one.
Question 9 on the census – which the Confederate group is referencing – specifically says “race.” What's odd is that it offers responses as white, black/african american/negro, some other traditional “race” categories and then random Asian nations like Vietnamese. Why is Vietnamese included as a “race” and not Yoruba, or Celtic? The answer: politics (and culture).
Thanks, I knew that Smathers had denied it while Claude Pepper had humorously discussed it as if it were true in an interview with 60 Minutes sometime prior to his death. I reported it as “supposedly” having been said.
It's interesting that major (1950) campaign issues which defeated Pepper were ” national health insurance, civil rights, liberal attitudes favoring labor, minimum wage, and adequate hospital and medical care.” Pepper was really roughed up as a traitor and communist sympathizer. He was referred to as “Red” Pepper. Sounds smiliar to the same church and pew we're attending today.
A) Celtic is usually subsumed under white.
B) Celtic is kind of meaningless in that the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, The Cornish, the Bretons and the Galicians are all celts…
C) I believe that there has been an influx of Vietnamese following some unpleasantness we may have been involved in in South East Asia, fairly recently…
D) I don't think that there are all that many Yoruba in the US, but even if there were they would obviously be black… It's very difficult to distinguish ethnic groups once their skin color gets slightly darker than a light bronze…
If all races were treated equally the question is not relevant anyhow, so who cares if some southerners chose to write that in? The best thing to type in is “Human” its shows you don't like racist questions.
i view race or ethnicity exactly the way I view nicknames. You are free to call yourself want you want but be prepared for me to call it silly
This is silly.
You get the gold medal for getting the point, Brian. Thank you.
My ancestors national origin was the Confederate States of America, an independent Nation for 4 years then forced back into the USA and militarily occupied for almost 13 years. As a distinct and unique people we have the right to declare the bounds of ethnicity – the government has no say in the matter – neither do non-members of our national origin group.
“heir ancestors came mostly from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Germany, etc. with a smattering of Cherokee, Creek and perhaps various West African nations.”
True. Don't forget the Ozarks, too, a distant pale echo of Appalachia.
“And the legal term IS 'race'.”
There is such a thing, too. It's not an arbitrary or oppressive “social construct” [sic; "construction."]
It's more complex than many may believe — it's a fascinating story in its own right.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08/10-questions-f…
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/199…
* * *
As far as anti-Southern bigotry and hatred, it's un-American PC-approved-hypocritical-hatred garbage.
Celtic?
Well, they couldn't get more precise, and ask for “haplotype” (haploid genotype) or have everyone tissue typed (part of solving the organ shortage problem along with going to “implied consent').
It was a funny relief from the discrimination that even enlightened Southerners can feel in the North until you guys took it so seriously!
Your ancestors lived in the CSA but did not originate there. That's the point. They moved to what became the CSA from someplace else in the not-very-distant past – likely from Scotland, Ireland, England, etc. I respect Confederate nationalism as a serious cultural phenomenon, but I don't see how it qualifies as “racial”.
Interesting links, though the author still limits the genetic notion of “race” quite a bit. That there are large groups of people who marry mostly among themselves and so possess certain genetic traits in common is not exactly revolutionary. Jews with Taysachs disease or African Americans with Sickle Cell Anemia can attest to these traits. The question is: how trivial are these differences? Historically we've used race to judge difference on the basis of facial features more than anything else. And that has led to some grave errors of judgment regarding human diversity. Alas, race as it has been traditionally defined IS a cultural construct.
They don't have to originate there. Most of Britons came from somewhere else, Normandy, Saxony, Denmark, but if discrimation is based on their coming from Britain – then it is National Origin discrimination. National Origin is a federal construct and a by product ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Confederate Southern Americans are only taking advantage of 40 years of regulatory EEOC precedent. and no we are not a race in the scientific sense, but 1. We do not believe we are constrained to any federal definition of race, ands listing ourselves as some other race is the only way to get our name on the census.
Certainly Britons originated elsewhere, which may be why the census simply uses the word “white” to include all Europeans. (How those whose ancestors intermingled with Asiatic Huns, Mongols and Turks and African Moors fit in is not really dealt with). Whether one's ancestors participated in and/or embraced the short-lived Confederation of the Rhine, Vichy France, Moravia, East Prussia, or some other no-longer-existent national entity is irrelevant. Confederate identity is interesting, and should be studied and respected, but including it on the census as a “race” won't help Southern Americans (white or black) or help us better appreciate the era of 1861-1865.
Question 9 does not ask for “Country of Origin”. It asks for “race.” Are you referring to a different question on the census?