I couldn’t make this stuff up folks. Writer and political activist Edward Sebesta, as I had noted in an earlier You Tube posted on this blog (Watch “Elitism is No Argument”) questioned the seriousness of both myself and the Charleston City Paper for publishing my column – by pointing out that I have an affection for pro wrestling. Why would this even be noteworthy when questioning my views on Abraham Lincoln? Elitism, plain and simple.
Sebesta responded with this. The non-italicized words are my responses:
“I didn’t actually say anything about my opinion about professional wrestling. I am discussing how Southern Avenger portrays it. Obviously saying “as if it is a serious topic” implies that others might write about professional wrestling differently. I want to make it clear how Southern Avenger writes on professional wrestling.
I posted articles and a short blog about the death of a Charleston wrestling legend, Johnny Weaver. Nothing silly, but rather mournful, if anything. Sebesta makes no sense here. However, for the Southern Avenger, this means I am elitist for an opinion which I didn’t express. This is a key tactic used by neo-Confederates.
Huh?
The other tactic here is to take one sentence and focus all attention on it to exclude attention from the major questions of the blog.
1. Why is the Charleston City Paper having him on the staff. Is it for amusement of its readers?
Perhaps someone out there enjoys reading my stuff?
2. If the Southern Avenger is on the staff of the Charleston City Paper for their readers amusement is Southern Avenger aware of this, and even playing to it?
Once, again, Jack Hunter must be a damned clown of sorts.
Inquiring minds want to know, however, I don’t think I will get an answer to this. Some other issue will be pulled out of thin air on some rational and SA will go on and on.”
All in all, Sebesta’s unabashed elitism comes shining through. It doesn’t occur to him that I might have something worth saying – an impossibility for a rasslin’ fan or a “Neo-Confederate,” I suppose. I am simply here for “amusement,” and even worse, Sebesta implies that the editorial staff of the CP must be dumb too – as they tolerate my work and dare to publish it.Worst of all, Sebesta assumes to know the mind of Charlestonians and the editors of the CP better than they do. Is such a mindset not the heart of elitism?
The only difference between Sebesta’s hunt for “Neo-Confederates” and those trying to link Barack Obama with the Nation of Islam is what side he spins for.
4 Comments
The grammar and lack of cohesion on that man’s site is enough to question whether he has the mental capacity for elitism–which is not to say that elitism requires much intellect. But I focus on one irony:
I see that Sebesta focuses his rebuttal on attacking one point of your “umbrage” towards him–specifically, what should be the proper characterization of his comments on professional wrestling. Interestingly, Sebasta notes that applying such an exclusive lens to analyzing another man’s claims is a “neo-Confederate tactic,” whatever that means. So, wouldn’t that make Sebasta a practicing neo-Confederate?
I agree that much of his blog in poorly written and unintelligable – but Sebesta is considered an “expert” of sorts by the Southern Poverty Law Center and even The New Republic, who cite him occasionally.
Point taken on the lack of correlation between writing skills and intelligence. I still believe, though, that it betrays a lack of intelligence to skirt a point of contention as a “tactic,” rather than to rebut it head-on. Either that, he’s got too much pride invested to admit that he has no response. Neither reason is acceptable.
I also question what exactly he is an “expert” in–given the institutions who give him that title, I would venture the guess that his expertise is in fascist vitriol.
Sebesta doesn’t have an a commenting feature on his blog.
I wonder why? Perhaps he doesn’t want to engage in too much open discussion.
His claim that he never tried to discredit you for writing blogs about professional wrestling is totally false. He also claims that he didn’t express an opinion on professional wrestling. This too, is false.
In his blog he clearly implies that you shouldn’t be taken seriously because you’ve posted on professional wrestling “as if it’s a serious topic”, indicating that he thinks wrestling is silly and not worth writing about.
At the same time he implies that you are disingenuous because you play up the image of a “colorful southerner” by writing posts about professional wrestling.
I guess he did this to support his claim that you are essentially a novelty act that the City Paper keeps around only to amuse people.
Too bad he can’t even offer a successful counterpoint to someone he considers a podunk novelty act.
Daniel