Posted by
Jim Goad
• 12.03.12 03:15 pm

Burly-and-bearded country singer Trace Adkins ruffled all the usual feathers and bruised all the usual feelings when he dared to wear a Confederate battle flag earpiece in full view of gasping national TV viewers while singing “The Christmas Song” in the Yankee stronghold of Rockefeller Center on November 28. Adkins, who belches out such venerable neo-country chestnuts as “Honky Tonk Badonkadonk” and “Brown Chicken, Brown Cow,” was subjected to the predictably rage-stroking vilification that comes whenever anyone suggests that the American South has ever been anything beyond a rancid cultural cesspool of lynching, incest, bestiality, racism, toothlessness, retardation, and yes, racism, even though I said it twice.

But Adkins has survived numerous disfiguring accidents in his lifetime, including a near-fatal shooting at the hands of an ex-wife, so he weathered the controversy good-naturedly and with only the slightest wisp of an apology. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and has repeatedly referred to what is known as America’s “Civil War” as the “War of Northern Aggression,” although I’ve always preferred Granny Clampett’s explanation that the conflict resulted “when the North invaded America.”

Even though it’s estimated that every third Southern household lost a family member in that war, critics insisted that Adkins and his ilk should “get over” the Civil War and quit being all butt-hurt because they lost, though I doubt the same people ever dare encourage American blacks to “get over” slavery. They’d also likely never encourage Steven Spielberg to “get over” the Civil War, nor to cease peddling the Christlike mythology that has emerged around its chief perpetrator, Abraham Lincoln.

Instead, such obviously unbiased propaganda machines such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Washington Post insist that it is only the “Neo-Confederates” and those who pathetically cling to romantic notions of the South’s “Lost Cause” who “whitewash” history and peddle myths, distortions, falsehoods, half-truths, and rationalizations because they are secretly wracked with guilt due to the fact that they are disgustingly racist and racistly disgusting subhuman sore losers who are ready to explode with vile and smelly racism at any given moment. After all, it is only “racists” who are pushing an agenda, and never the victors in war. It’s not as if the winners write the history books, so kindly zap any such thoughts from your mind.

And it’s not as if white male Southerners have served as “America’s niggers” since at least the 1960s or that the American South has played the role of America’s Guilt Spittoon for longer than that. The American psyche has increasingly become driven by feminine emotion rather than masculine logic. Comforted snugly inside their fake moral cocoons, most Americans are therefore more likely to view history through the prism of guilt-projection and shaming rather than the pragmatic notion that history is essentially a power struggle over land and resources. Almost all individuals and societies appear able to function only when they can project their guilt onto others.

Well, two can play at that game… (READ THE REST HERE)

 

—JIM GOAD

 


Comments
  1. Lester says:

    The North’s whole economy was based on cotton.

    I haven’t read this article yet but I’m pretty sure I’ll probably agree with it. Also, the new Jersey Shore is going to be set in West Virginia. That ought to put an end to the white supremacy movement.

  2. Chris Livingston says:

    The facts listed in the article that history books “won’t” tell are told. Even my regular history class in HS pointed out those facts, and they really don’t do much to discredit the union. Of course Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, he was the president. and its generally a fair assumption to assume all white Americans back then were pretty prejudiced. None of that makes the Souths fight to preserve “state rights” any more noble. they just wanted their slaves to keep producing cheap labor, nothing else. The south brought it all on themselves when they left the union. They weren’t patriots, they were traitors and deserved to be treated as such.. You reap what you sow after all.

  3. Hornblower's Ghost says:

    Both northerners and southerners argue from a false premise when it comes to the war between the states. It had little to do with the illusion of ending slavery or the some noble preservation of states rights. It was a war over tariffs to determine the economic future of the Unites States and whether to impose them to protect northern industrialization which was the future, a future that allowed us to eclipse Britain, determine the outcome of two world wars, and dominate the next century, or to stay agro-pastoral and protect the free trade of a single staple crop that the south relied on exporting to Europe.

  4. Jim Goad says:

    @ Chris

    You placed the word “won’t” in quotes as if I used it. Can you please point to where I used it?

    That’s one of my many pet peeves—the straw-man false quotation.

    By the way, according to almost all estimates, at least 90% of Rebel soldiers never owned a slave, and most of them were squeezed out of the economy due to being “poor white trash.” So it doesn’t make sense to try and allege they were all fighting for slavery.

    I realize that many—but not all—of the Confederate states’ Articles of Secession mention slavery. They also mention many other things that don’t get nearly the amount of play that slavery does these days.

    I also didn’t say anything about the South being “noble”—see what I did there, putting in quotes a word you actually used?—so I’m not sure why you’d act as if you’re arguing against something that I didn’t actually say.

    How’d you like those Lincoln quotes in the article? You know, the ones where he says his primary goal is not to end slavery but to preserve the Union and that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he’d do it? Why not focus on what’s actually in the article?

    “You reap what you sow.” Wow, that’s a religious notion. Sorry, I’m not religious.

  5. your mom says:

    You had me at butt-hurt.

  6. Lester says:

    hornblower’s ghost = oh please

  7. Uncle Wah Wah says:

    Adkins, who belches out such venerable neo-country chestnuts as “Honky Tonk Badonkadonk” and “Brown Chicken, Brown Cow,”

    HAHAHA That is the best record review of this turd’s “music” that I have ever heard.

  8. Chapter After says:

    He said that thing about preserving the Union *before* he got elected. Everybody knows that shit doesn’t count.

  9. albert parsons says:

    Brilliant. The American psyche has increasingly become driven by feminine emotion rather than masculine logic. Comforted snugly inside their fake moral cocoons, most Americans are therefore more likely to view history through the prism of guilt-projection and shaming rather than the pragmatic notion that history is essentially a power struggle over land and resources. Almost all individuals and societies appear able to function only when they can project their guilt onto others. Perfect description of the LOOKAWAY….

  10. Jim Goad says:

    re: “He said that thing about preserving the Union *before* he got elected. Everybody knows that shit doesn’t count.”

    I suspect you might be joking, but if not, Lincoln wrote this to Horace Greeley in August 1862, long after being elected and while the Civil War was raging:

    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

    SOURCE

  11. Chapter After says:

    I *was* joking, but I also had the wrong speech. While campaigning, Lincoln gave a speech in the south promising to leave slavery alone and then a few weeks later gave a speech in the north saying how terrible it was. Source is buried somewhere deep within A People’s History of the United States.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Same source…

  13. Uncle Wah Wah says:

    Yeah, whatever Lincoln said, blah, blah, blah… but we do all agree that Trace Adkins sucks, right?

  14. Oprah says:

    Jim Goad you sure do have a artesian made endorsed by gawker stick up your ass. No One really was too keen on negros in 1862, but that didn’t have anything thing to do with abolition, and the atrocities of slavery. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an anti-slavery book but it sure does come off as a minstrel show. As a “Negro” I know this and I’m not pissed at Daniel Day Lewis. Abolition had more to do with the moral conscious of many abolitionists. The difference between the North and the South was that the Northerns might have not liked “negros”, but they understood every human being had the right to basic human rights. You know Lincoln made it possible for me not to be viewed as an ikea couch. I’m ok with that.

  15. Lester says:

    Oprah- So why not just let the south go then? If he was so disgusted by slavery why not kick them OUT of the union? or secede from them?

  16. Jim Goad says:

    @Oprah

    Can I hear a “thank you” to the 600,000+ peckerwoods who gave their lives if you’d like to pretend the war was completely about slavery, then?

    I think you missed the point of the article. Wars are never about good guys and bad guys. They’re about who has superior numbers and firepower. They’re also about economics, and the North received too much in revenues from the South to just let it go. As I see it, the moral bullshit is usually little more than window dressing to assuage guilt for blowing people’s heads off. And nearly every other slave society on earth was able to end slavery without a monstrously huge war.

    Those Northerners with a “moral conscious” permitted mistreatment of blacks all the way into the 1960s. A big difference is that they had far fewer blacks to mistreat. It’s always been that way. So whenever someone rags on “the South,” I always like to say, “Oh—you mean the part of America that has always had far more black people than any other part?”

  17. Oprah says:

    Of course the war was not completely about slavery, a dweeb ignoramus would know that.


Leave A Reply