So I went to their website and started reading the FAQs, to get a better idea of what a nonviolent secessionist group would look like. As I read, it seemed that the organization’s objectives were based around a real – and I’d say to a considerable extent legitimate – skepticism towards the federal government.
They adhere to principles based on a very strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution, as well as Trinitarian Christianity, which put them at odds with the large federal government and an increasing secularism. They seemed equally critical of both Republicans and Democrats, and share in many Americans’ concerns over the government infringing upon citizens’ rights.
They are also committed to preserving what they regard as their “Southern heritage”, which on its own is quite legitimate, except where it is coupled with antagonism towards the multiculturalism taking place throughout the country. Where the League of the South aligns with white nationalist movements is in thinking that multiculturalism somehow translates into the marginalization or even destruction of “white” people or heritage.
As I continued to read, I wondered if it was possible for “southern nationalism” and “white nationalism” to be mutually exclusive. Naturally, I also wondered how they perceived the relationship between racial groups, given that those relationships tend to be particularly contentious in the south. They addressed this issue by stating their position on African-Americans in the south. They state:
The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.
They seemed to be stating their position in a way that was not only inclusive, but acknowledged the antagonism between ethnic groups, and would have succeeded if only it weren’t for that last line – “not just to government-sponsored victim groups”.
Wow! A mere seven words, yet powerful enough to completely undermine any pretext of Southern solidarity as distinct from white nationalism. Even were this phrase not contextualized within a paragraph talking specifically about African-Americans, there would be no question as to whom they were referring. In this one phrase, they tie the federal government directly to the interests of African-Americans – a thinly veiled criticism of Affirmative Action – and therefore imply a wish for racial separation as well. Just like white nationalism. Not only that, but with only two words – “victim groups” – they completely disavow any idea that African-Americans have a legitimate struggle for equal status within the United States.
It would be far-fetched to believe that any significant number of African-Americans (or even one person for that matter) – any common political ideology notwithstanding – would support a Southern secessionist movement. Still, in that the League of the South seemed to be making an attempt to be inclusive, they could’ve perhaps earned some respect. Unfortunately, in what has to be one of the most bizarre instances of self-contradiction I’ve ever seen, they manage to simultaneously suggest inclusion while implying exclusion.
It is my interpretation that this paragraph is not paradoxical by accident. By making a superficial attempt at inclusion, they appear to separate themselves from white nationalist movements, which may alienate white Southerners who except for some moral discomfort with racism may otherwise share the ideology of such groups. At the same time, they manage to phrase racialist views in a way that speaks to the underlying fear of many southern whites that they are being marginalized by the federal government on behalf of minority groups. In this way they not only invoke the racism sowed deeply into Southern culture, but legitimize it under a seemingly separate pretext. This places them firmly in step with every other white nationalist movement, and perhaps makes them even more dangerous than the overtly racist organizations, which due to a legitimate movement within the group consciousness of southern whites to move beyond racism, have been cast to the radical fringe.
«