What’s Behind The Gift That Keeps On Giving?

The Gift That Keeps On Giving calls itself the Southern Heritage Preservation Group.  Of course, they’re not interested in preserving southern heritage.  They’re solely concerned with glorifying the confederacy.

Why, you may ask?

Perhaps this post tells us why.

One member posted a news story from Fox News that told about sororities at the University of Alabama accepting African-Americans as members.

His words of protest were:


Notice the three “likes” from the group.

Racism has been documented on that group in several cases.  We see it hasn’t ended, and so we have a clue as to why they concentrate solely on confederate heritage.


  1. You would think he would know how to spell Dixie.

    1. Spelling is not a strong suit of this crowd.

      1. That’s how his ancestor (mis)spelled it. It’s filial piety. Seriously.

        1. That makes sense. There is a submovement among some neoconfederates to always spell things the “Southron” way.

        2. I have a CW ancestor, a teenager during the war, who couldn’t sign his own name at the time. But I don’t think it would be “honoring” him to go around signing things with an X.

  2. I don’t use Facebook, but I think I get the drift.

  3. jfepperson · · Reply

    Our good friend, John C. Hall …

    1. He’s a big fan of the Leo frank lynching, as I recall.

  4. Hard to find a more concise modern example showing why Reconstruction was necessary and demonstrating how badly it failed.

  5. So you all don’t believe in freedom of association. You believe in forced association. I get it….

    How-some-ever, I assume all of you gentlemen are white. Any of you married to a black woman? If not, why not?

    Al, years ago, the League of the South put forth the idea for Southerners (or Southrons, a term for Confederates used in the civil war) to use British orthography, as that was originally what most colonists and settlers in the South used. It was simply a way to draw yet another distinction between Southerners and New Englanders who are forever reconstructing everything, even the language. Few people took it up, and it wasn’t, and still isn’t, a big deal. But hey, finding something that gives you floggers the opportunity exhibit your animosity for white Southerners, particular heritage folks, via ridicule is one of the things you love best, huh? Even over something that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

    John Hall uses a quirky misspelling by his ancestor. How awful. There really ought to be some worse consequence for that, huh? I mean, besides flogger derision, huh? There is a black crime wave across the country in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, but, amazingly, to floggers, who are normally myopically focused on race, race, race, race, race, that’s ignorable; what’s really awful is white Southerners and their erroneous use of the language. But, of course, the most heinous sin of all humanity is Southern white girls associating with Southern white girls… Evil, evil, evil.

    (I would be interesting to see how many of your lives are whiter than an Alabama sorority…)

    Andy Hall (any relation to John, you reckon?) takes John’s use of his ancestor’s spelling and uses it as a yardstick of his own spelling and moral superiority, though what he compares to it is ridiculous on its face. Hey, Andy, don’t throw your shoulder out of join patting yourself on your back.

    Also, Andy, provide some sort of substantiation that John is a “big fan” of the Leo Frank lynching. “As I recall” isn’t documentation enough for me. It’s always good to go to the original comments, see what the person actually said, and perhaps the reasons behind their view — because when a heritage person’s comments get filtered through flogger animosity, flogger distortion and flogger ridicule, they usually bear little resemblance to the original content. Without substantiation, your comment is nothing more than a gratuitous smear attempt.

    The ridicule, mocking and derision in threads like this demonstrate that people who CLAIM they are “about history” are really aren’t, or else they’d offer correction for what they see as historical inaccuracy and be done with it. But one almost never sees that on flogger flogs. What one sees is people wallowing in pleasurable gratification created by their own denigration and evilization of others based on personal opinions about race.

    BTW, Andy, have you acknowledged on your blog that the discrimination case against Paula Deen has been thrown out? You made a big deal out of that, excoriating her odious racist behavior toward her employees — which, as it turns out, never happened….

    Parting shot — a question I’ve posed that never gets answered by your ilk. Is a preference for the dissimilar morally superior to a preference for the similar? Why or why not?

    1. Hi, Connie, it’s always a pleasure.

      Most of your–well, the best description is tirade–is directed at Andy [and he’s certainly free to answer or not as he sees fit, and he’s certainly free to determine how he will answer if he wants to answer], there are a couple things here that I suppose can be directed toward me. The crux, I suppose, is a good question to ask–why should sororities be integrated? In the Alabama case, my understanding is that it was sparked by white members who wanted a black applicant to join, but officers of the sorority and alumnae didn’t want that because the applicant was black, even though she had a 4.3 GPA, was the salutatorian of her graduating class, and her family had a direct link to the University of Alabama. You bring up the freedom of association. It was apparently the active members who would associate with the black applicant who wanted her to be admitted to the sorority, but alumnae who wouldn’t have to associate with her disapproved. This wasn’t led by liberals from New England. It was led by UA students. If I read the stories correctly, those southern white girls wanted to associate with southern black girls, and old southern crones from the first Wallace era told them they couldn’t.

      If you’re going to form a circle of friends, Connie, you are free to include or exclude whomever you wish. You can make it all-white, you can make it 50% white, 30% African-American, 10% Hispanic, and 10% Asian if you want. You can not be worried at all about the demographics if you want. No problem. Why should a sorority be different, you ask? Because a sorority is different. A woman in a sorority can gain access to campus leadership opportunities that lead to success outside the campus. A woman in a sorority gains important social, political, and economic contacts that translate to employment, promotion, and other opportunities outside the campus. Because of those opportunities, a sorority has to be a public accommodation, and so they need to offer an equal opportunity to become a member. Mr. Hall becomes the subject of the post because he’s against the integration. Now, why aren’t you taking him to task for sticking his nose into something that is none of his business? As has been pointed out before, you attack those who point out the problem instead of those with the problem. Perhaps you should ponder that. Mr. Hall made a racist remark and you are attacking the people who pointed it out instead of fixing the racist problem in the group. There is a problem with the SHPG in that on any given day it’s pretty easy to find someone making a racist comment such as Mr. Hall’s that is “liked” by other members of the group. That the group tolerates it means the group is tainted by it. There’s a problem with the group in that they embrace what amounts to historical fairy tales instead of accurate history. An anti-intellectual attitude reigns there which makes any genuine historical inquiry by the members a virtual impossibility. And the group is misnamed. They’re not a Southern Heritage group. They’re a Confederate Heritage group. Why don’t they claim Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of Southern Heritage? Why don’t they claim George H. Thomas as part of Southern Heritage? They claim to be interested in Southern Heritage, but they’re lying to everyone since all they’re interested in is a narrow four years out of the hundreds of years of actual Southern history. They should start by being honest and recognizing they’re about the confederacy, not the South.

      Who I’m married to is not your business, Connie, but I can tell you that I married the woman I fell in love with, and her race didn’t enter the equation. Your question is fallacious.

      Why do professional southerners hate New England so much?

      You ask how “white” my life is. I work in a company with a very diverse work force, and one of my jobs is to ensure we are recruiting a diverse pool of applicants and not rejecting anyone based on their race or ethnic background.

      As to where I live, you appear to make the assumption that the predominant demographics of the neighborhood reflects a person’s racial preferences. That’s a huge assumption to make, and in my case is not accurate. Another fallacy.

      I wanted to be approximately equidistant from Gettysburg and Carlisle Barracks due to my interest in military history. For going to Gettysburg, that meant being close to Route 15. I wanted to be close to I-81, which is the route to Blacksburg, VA. I wanted to be near the Turnpike, which is the fastest route for visiting family. Put that on a map and you have very few areas from which to choose.

      I’m close to my work sites. Yes, that’s a plural because there are more than one for my company in the area. In finding a house I had a certain price range in mind, and the house had to have gas heat, central air conditioning, and be connected to the municipal water supply. The most important criterion was there had to be room for all my books. In looking at houses, we never saw neighbors and never made a decision based on who the neighbors were. My preference for a place to live didn’t take race into account whatsoever.

      You ask, “Is a preference for the dissimilar morally superior to a preference for the similar?” Like most situations with the real world, it depends. Very few things are true 100% of the time in every possible situation. I prefer to live among human beings. I prefer to live among people who are honest as I am. I prefer to live among people who, like me, don’t go around murdering their neighbors. In those cases, there’s nothing wrong with preferring the similar.

      But this question is also a fallacious question for another reason. It’s the fallacy of the false choice.

      It doesn’t matter to me what race, religion, age, sex, color, creed, etc. my neighbors are, so it’s not a question of preferring similar or dissimilar. For those factors, it’s a question of similar vs. dissimilar not mattering.

      You talk about crime statistics. I will grant you that crime statistics show African-Americans committing more crimes. The important question is, why is that happening? Why do you believe it’s happening, Connie? That’s a straightforward question to you and deserves a straightforward anwer. I’ve answered your questions in a straightforward manner.

      Could it be the circumstances in which they find themselves? In my experience, African-Americans are no more criminal or violent than any other race. But anyone can turn to crime if they are in the right circumstances. What is your take, Connie? Do you believe African-Americans are inherently more criminal than other races? Why do you bring up race when talking about crime?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: