Update: It appears that after publishing this post, Michael C. Lucas blocked me from his profile on Facebook. This came after he privately sent me another message. I never replied to his first message and did not intend on replying to this recent one. It’s interesting that a group so predisposed to a mythic concept of “honor” would engage in “hit and run” messaging.
Dr. Brooks Simpson, once again, did a remarkable job of provoking interesting responses from those true “southrons” and defenders of Southern Heritage. I’ll let Brooks’s post and the subsequent comments speak for themselves but I would like to focus on one particular exchange. At one point during the debate, Brooks calls out a Mr. Michael C. Lucas:
Shortly after, Michael rendered his response:
Yes you read that right; rather than actually answer the question Michael resorts to attacking the legacy of the United States flag (which no one denies.) Of course, I felt obliged to call him out on such things.
And wouldn’t you know it, ol’ Michael decided to send me a private message rather than answer me publicly.
Now I’m not going to criticize any types of writing style, grammar, or typos on here. After all, this is the internet and it is hardly a formal setting. I will however attack context. For starters, let’s address Michael’s view of tu quoque. According to Merriam-Webster, tu quoque is:
a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others
This applies where Brooks asks Michael directly about the recent racist remarks made by the SHPG. Brooks asks Michael to either renounce the comments of his associates or remain silent and whine on Brooks’s blog. Michael gives a blanket statement on his past dealings with racist comments, avoids addressing the situation Brooks is referring to, and then engages in attacks on the U.S. flag as being guilty of racism. It is essentially a textbook definition of tu quoque that Michael does not seem to understand. I fail to see what “perspective” I could have on his ad hominem attacks. Apparently, according to Michael, logic is dictated by perspective. Michael then goes so far as to suggest that I have a Marxist definition/outlook towards history. To those of you that actually study history, you might know it as “historical materialism.” This interpretation looks at history as an evolving struggle between social classes economically based rather than as a series of accidents. Most historians today that adhere to a Marxist Historical method consider themselves more of a marxist historian with a lower case “m.” This is primarily because those historians reject or conflict with the economic principles of Marxism.
The primary problem I have with this silly notion that I and others are “Marxist Historians” revolves around students of history being “indoctrinated.” This implies that the majority of historians in the field today that indoctrinate us are also Marxist Historians. This is simply not the case. Currently I am taking a class from a Social historian. I myself am more of a social military historian. The point is, there are numerous types of historiography in which to look back upon the past. For Michael C. Lucas to suggest, in such a colorful way, that I am indoctrinated to the methodology of historical Marxism, shows a crude understanding of the field of history.