Jim,

Yes, I am speaking from an academic perspective. The Lost Cause school of thought has been identified by historians for decades, so I am not simply making a personal assessment. It is not exactly a respected school of thought, since Lost Cause ideology focuses on defensive and romantic imagery rather serious historical study.

"If that categorization, is used to delegitimate every other position that historian holds, then I completely disagree."

Historiographical categorization is not used to dismiss historians outright. Such categorization does, however, help establish common themes and viewpoints in the historical profession.

"When you use a catch phrase, from you 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."

This depends on the usage. Simply because YOU choose to see the term "neo-Confederate" as completely repulsive does not mean that it is, or always has been, used to denote racist, uneducated, or other repugnant attributes.

"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."

The question then becomes whether this group of people was correct in their use of the term.

"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."

When I say "political" I do not mean Democrat or Republican, or really even involved in the national or state political process. The term "political" here refers to acting out of "partisan" and modern interests. Legitimate historians may hold certain preconceived notions, and may not be entirely objective; but they strive to let the information and evidence build a conclusion. A good historian would not try to "defend" any position except the what they believe is true (irrespective of heritage, ancestors, etc.).

The mere idea that one is defending a "side" demonstrates partisanship and activism beyond an objective investigation of history.

If you identify yourself as a "defender of Southern heritage," you have already placed yourself in a specific and "political" (or partisan) interest group.

"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."

Since when is a dictionary definition condescending? I'm trying to establish a basic definition of the term. I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you.

"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."

The use of such terms BY SOME PEOPLE may be condescending as you describe, but can you declare that is true with every use by ALL people? If you understand the basic definition of the term (which I suppose you do since you were insulted when I tried to explain it), then you MUST realize that it can be used in ways less demeaning.

"Are you stating that I must be anti-South to be socially or politically acceptable?"

No, I'm stating that people who place their modern sympathies and defense of "heritage" at the forefront of their historical study are acting more politically than academically or objectively.

"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 said they COULD all fit the 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."

I find it interesting that you are "insulted" in a discussion about various schools of thought. (Makes me wonder how "political correctness" may be coming into play here.) In any case, I did not intentionally take any condescending tone in my post. I believe similar terms (such as "neo-Unionist") could be used to describe people more interested in defending northern actions than sincerely analyzing history. Furthermore, I do not think that recognizing that people who are more interested in defending historical imagery over sincere historical study and who identify themselves as part of a particular "side" may fit the basic description of "neo-Confederate" is outlandish. Anyone is free and welcome to disagree, but hopefully with their emotions in check.