"Whether the term is an insult or an accurate descriptor overall depends on its usage."

Okay, I'm with you there. That seems to be rather self-evident.

"It is similar to the term "Lost Cause," which has also been taken by some people as an insult, although it is really an accepted title of a particular school of thought."

Well, I guess that depends on your particular school and within that school your definition of "Lost Cause". For Southerners "The Lost Cause" is a dramatic or romanticized name for the American Civil War. You are shortening the original term, "The Lost Cause" for a later term, "The Lost Cause Myth". See, the problem is your perspective. For you, this statement has no association with your heritage or at the very least, your perspective. If I were to guess, I would say you are coming from an "academic" perspective, which has adapted this term for its own purposes. Basically, this purpose is to demean the view by Southerners that their ancestors were motivated by high ideals and honestly thought they were fighting for a "cause" of freedom and self-rule. You know that the term "Lost Cause", as you would use it is uttered with disgust and followed by a snicker. Please speak for yourself, rather than in such broad terms as "accepted title of a particular school of thought". By particular school, I presume you mean your own and the only reasonable one.

"This brings up the issue (or perhaps "problem") of various schools of thought. Historians are grouped into different historiographical schools according to their views and arguments, and such grouping is completely legitimate."

If that categorization, is used to delegitimate every other position that historian holds, then I completely disagree. When you use a catch phrase, from your particular school of thought, that defines the target as racist, uneducated, subversive or a number of other wholly unacceptable and repugnant attributes, the purpose is not to categorize for the sake of organizing different groups of people, it is designed to mute the voice of someone, with whose voice you disagree.

If you can get a group of people to view me as a "nazi", "white supremacist" or "fascist", my views on cleaning up the eco-system WILL NOT BE HEARD.

"Yet, what you describe above---"defenders of Southern heritage"---is not so much a historiographical school as a political interest group."

Craig, there you go again. I'm a defender of my Southern Heritage. If that demographic, is more conservative or Christian or anti-gay marriage or whatever other connection might be implied, it does not mean that I, individually am a part of a political interest group. What causes you to make these factual statements, which in reality are just yours or your groups opinions?

"As such, "political" terms like "neo-Confederate" might be appropriate in some cases when describing these self-described "defenders."

Since I find your earlier statement invalid, this statement is meaningless. You are using your previous, perspective based reasoning, to justify this "matter of fact" statement.

"The term "neo" means new or recent. Attached to the word "Confederate," and its basic meaning could be "a new or revised Confederate." (This has nothing to do with Nazis.)"

Thanks for the condescending remarks. Yes, I also am an alumnus of an American University. Are you trying to be cute or again, just trying to make a remark that lessens the person to whom your speaking, like a teacher and child relationship. I never said the definitions of the terms were the same. I said the use of such terms is meant to imply similar dark meanings and that these terms and other such catch phrases are designed to illegitimately categorize people and groups, so that one can eliminate or tarnish any further debate.

"Again, people who claim to be "pro-South" or who are self-proclaimed "defenders of Southern heritage" or are dedicated to promoting Confederate political (or social) ideas could all legitimately fit this description."

This is simply not true and it frightens me that you would hold such a view. I guess it all has to do with definitions from your "particular school". "Pro-South" is not an epithet to me. I live here, the South, I'm for it and the people in it. Are you stating that I must be anti-South to be socially or politically acceptable? Yes, there are those who hold outlandish, even un-American ideas, who identify themselves as "defenders of Southern heritage". I cannot be responsible for the use of these common phrases by groups you or I find unacceptable. I will defend my Southern heritage. I will defend my Northern heritage. Here again, you didn't say some people who claim to be "pro-South" or who are self-proclaimed "defenders of Southern heritage". You are saying ALL who are "pro-South" or use the term "defenders of Southern heritage" all legitimately fit this description

I don't usually post such aggressive responses, but felt insulted by the condescending tone and outlandish nature of some of your statements. Forgive my ire.

Jim