Thank you for you insightful comments. I guess I will never understand why people can not sperate history from abuse of history as you, others here, and myself can. I have done some research into Klan philosophy and find they change depending on the agruement they need to present, which makes it hard to judge what they really stand for except hatred.
To me anything they use to further their racist agendas is a symbol of racism. Until we get more backbone and pass laws to stop their abuses we will always be having debates like this. I am glad to see you say that they are making it a symbol of racism instead of just because of the slavery issues. You are quite open minded and a clear thinker. I guess people like us that enjoy history will have to suffer with the abusers of history and just have lively debate.
You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post
Ulysses wrote: Savez...I appreciate your opinions on Eric Foner and a Link to Trelease, both authors whom I referenced in my post supporting my comments about the Reb Flag as a Racist symbol. It was another great illustration of my claims of "misdirected attention" you will see described in a few of my posts. ( Like the magician who wants you to look over "there" in hopes you won't catch his sleight of hand over "here".) The link you posted on Trelease was a Positive review of his book ("one of the most important works on the...[earlyKlan]") and although you tried to discredit Eric Foner while trying to expose some 'dangerous idealogy' he is following, I ask 'What the heck does that have to do with his work as an honored History professor from Columbia Univ. who has won every major History award that Academia Offers??? Now, may I direct you to http://www.ericfoner.com , and hopefully anyone else who wants an honest view of the author and FAMOUS historian? Let's focus on the message in this case, not the messenger. Best wishes....Ulysses
I was trying to show you that your references weren't solid. As far as the review on Trelease being "positive" I think you failed to read it all.
While this work is probably the most valuable resource available on Reconstruction-era Klan activity (due to the wealth of information it contains), it is also a major failure. Trelease had a golden opportunity to examine the real depths of the different motivations that went into Klan activity and violence (which, despite what Trelease implies, was not engaged in by every white man in the South), but he resorted to a myopic view of events and a decidedly shallow condemnation of a decidedly fluid, far from cohesive society, which he never really tried hard enough to understand.
The messenger has everything to do with the message. Any historian will lace his work with his own views especially political views. The thing with Foner reminds me of the class on the Old South I had at Alabama which was taught by a lady born and bred in Wisconsin. What does a Yankee know about the South besides what he or she has read and personal biased experiences? Being an educated person, and born and bred in a rural southern community I think would make me just as much of an expert on southern history without having spent hours studying it from biased historical texts. It runs in my veins. Just because Foner has won every award Yankeedom academia has to offer and has written for every liberal newspaper in the country doesn't make him "one of the country's most prominent historians" as his self promoted website explains.
By the way, I actually agree with you on most of your views on the Confederat flag. I probably revere it more than you, however.