https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...hern-heritage/

Theso-called Civil Rights movement began in the mid-1950s with goals ofending segregation and discrimination. Over the decades it hasevolved from “correcting” certain aspects of society, into avirtual restructure of society. What began as a movement became arevolution. Technological advances in communications madethis revolution possible – a revolution similar to the ProtestantReformation.It isdoubtful that Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation could have takenplace before the invention of the printing press. Most people lendmore credence to the written word than the spoken word. Also, printedpamphlets could be distributed en masse to the multitudes. This newform of communication not only made people more aware of the abusesof Church practices but also created passionate demands for reform. But the Reformation continued to grow and its accusations expandeduntil it eventually created a mob mentality that zealously vandalized priceless altarpieces and destroyed ancient religious artifacts andsacred works of art. Beforethe advent of television, the Civil Rights revolution would not havebeen possible. Television broadcasts created a more powerful and intimate interaction with people than radio or newspapers. Perusingnewspapers usually took an hour or so with morning coffee. Radiolistening normally involved only music with occasional news items.But, as the 1960s began, most families had TV sets and televisionviewing became America’s primary pastime, several hours of each daywas spent watching television.. Withthis new communication medium, news programs on the three New YorkCity television networks spawned the Civil Rights revolution. Theoriginal mission was assuring minorities equal treatment under thelaw. But “mission creep”gradually converted equal treatment for minorities into a denigrationof anything that could be tied to slavery. Asslavery had existed in America from early 17thcentury Colonial days until the late 19thcentury, expunging anything connected with it was an overlyoptimistic goal. Also, as slavery was legal during all that time,denigrating anyone involved in the institution meant judging previousgenerations by laws and standards that didn’t exist until later. Beforethe Civil Rights revolution, the South was typically portrayedfavorably, albeit somewhat caricatured. Hollywood was partial tofilms set in the deep South, and audiences enjoyed depictions of theregion’s leisurely lifestyle; shady verandas, Mint Juleps, and Southern Belles. Whenpresidential candidate John F. Kennedy visited South Carolina, he wasgreeted by Governor Fritz Hollings, who presented him with a replicaof a Confederate flag. At the time, this was viewed as simply agood-natured welcoming gesture reflecting Southern ambiance – Itwasn’t until later that a racist connotation was assigned to allthings Southern. Althoughthe 1960s Civil Rights legislation was described as “sweeping”,in reality, it had become “overreaching.” Still, it didn’t gofar enough for the Left. And the Left was reluctant to lose thesocietal sanitizing momentum of the time. Thus television and otherentertainment venues furtively perpetuated the legislation bydemanding “rectification” of situations that were perfectlylegal. Therationale was that, although legal, and esteemed by some , if eventscould be perceived as hurtful to others, they must be eliminated. The primary target was Southern heritage. Today, with the media’sbacking, monuments and memorials are being demolished; schools,buildings, and highways renamed, and books, films, and songs banned. In retrospect we can see how the excessive regulations of the 1960s Civil Rights Legislation created an environment for cultural cleansing. These legislative Acts included the concept of “disparate impact” ; i.e., although practices are not intentionally unfair and apply equally to everyone, they are “discriminatory” if statistical outcomes are not uniform. The fact that there may be reasons other than discrimination causing irregular statistical distributions is rejected. The “disparate impact” concept is a Washington bureaucrat’s dream come true. Statistics are interpreted in the way that justifies whatever the Left is pursuing.TheVoting Rights Act of 1965 could be considered a precursor to attackson Southern heritage. This act containednationwide protections for voting rights but it also had “specialprovisions” that only applied to certain jurisdictions;primarily in Southern states. Because their voting requirements weredeemed inequitable in 1965, these jurisdictions had to obtain Federal“preclearance” for any change in voting procedures. The law wasfor a specific period of time, but each time it was set to expire, itwas extended for additional years. Federal preclearance is stillrequired for some Southern jurisdictions decades after theinequitable 1965 voting disparities had been rectified.Asof 2011, Shelby County, Alabama, had been constrained by Federalpreclearance dictates for roughly 50 years even though its votingdisparities had been corrected long ago. The County filed suitagainst President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, demandingrelief from Federal control of its voting procedures. Shelby Countyv. Holder was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. As it wasobvious that the 1965 voting inequities no longer existed, SCOTUS, in2013, ruled in favor of Shelby County. Anindication of the polarization of our nation is the fact that fourjustices (appointees of Clinton and Obama) dissented: Ruth BaderGinsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer. Thesedissenting justices admitted that voting restrictions were no longera problem in the Alabama County, but they argued that without theconstraints of the law, they could reoccur. This is reminiscent ofthe vindictive Congressional Reconstruction justification formilitary control of the defeated South. To be readmitted to the Union, Presidents Lincoln and Johnson required only that Southern states reject secession, swear an oath of allegiance to the Union, and treat former slaves as freedmen. These lenient postwar Reconstruction conditions were rejected by the Radical Republicans who insisted that the defeated South must be occupied indefinitely by Union military forces. But, as there were no television networks in the late 1800s, Republicans couldn’t garner ongoing Northern support for a long-standing military occupation of the South. Television’sdepictions of past events are offensive to anyone who has engaged inat least a modicum of historical research, and especially persons whoresided in the South during the Civil Rights era. Televisionportrayals are like Hollywood movie versions of famous novels;stripped of complexities and reduced to stereotyped artifices. Themedia’s take on American slavery downplays the North’s financialinvolvement, and places slavery’s evils solely on the South. Asthe public has been too intimidated to object, the freneticeradication of Southern heritage has become almost ludicrous. Thinkingit was innocently informing potential customers when a business wouldbe opened or closed in certain Southern states, Google casuallylisted places that might be closed on Robert E. Lee’s birthday. Butmentioning Robert E. Lee’s birthday rather than Martin Luther KingDay, set off such a firestorm of complaints that Google had toapologize. ESPN was forced to offer a formal apology for using thesong “Dixie” in a tongue-in-cheek parody relating footballrivalries to the Civil War. Whenthe Mississippi Department of Revenue announced that it would beclosed on Martin Luther King Day, it tweeted that it would also beclosed on the anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s birthday. Theiracknowledgment of General Lee created a backlash and a petitiondemanding that Southern states discontinue honoring Robert E. Lee.PresidentTrump was excoriated for claiming “there is blame on both sides”for the riots in Charlottesville over the removal of a statue ofGeneral Robert E. Lee. But Trump’s opinion was also expressed by manyreporters and eyewitnesses and corroborated by videos andphotographs. By presenting only one side of the story, Leftist mediahas scripted Charlottesville into a hackneyed anti-Southern fable. In his critique of memorial removals, the president wondered ‘wherewill this end?’ The“feel-good” experience a mob gets when it demolishes a monumentdoesn’t last long so their vindictiveness must soon find anothermemorial to trash. Social justice warriors have stated thatConfederate monument removals is just the first step. Of course, weknow what those additional steps will be: removing monuments forWashington, Jefferson, and other early icons; eliminating holidayshonoring these men, changing designations of counties, towns, andstreets bearing their names, and deleting their images from coinsand currency.LikePresident Trump, we must all ask “Where will this end?”