I like many of the things the League of the South has to say about big government and American imperialism, among other issues. However, at the same time many positions are objectionable—the call for reparations in particular.

It does not seem to me that “Southerners” (whoever they might be) are especially oppressed, at least in the realm of politics. Over the past decade or a majority of the most powerful political figures in DC have been from the South: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott, just to name a few.

I’d like to follow up on Charles W. Nuckolls’ post about shape-shifting. The League’s masthead proclaims that “We Seek to Advance the Cultural, Social, Economic, and Political Well Being and Independence of the Southern People by all Honourable Means.” As others have indicated, this is pretty ambiguous. If one changes “Southern People” to “Southern States” it becomes a bit more concrete. But what is a Southern Person? Does a Southerner loose his status if he moves out of the South? Does a Northerner become a Southerner is he moves to the South? Must your ancestors be from the South? If so, how far back do they have to go? Where, exactly, is the South? Is Miami in the South? Does one have to be white? If so, what if you are, say, 1/16th black? 1/16th Jewish? Does one have to be Celtic? Do Celtic Catholics count? Is it a set of beliefs? If so, is, say, a Japanese person in Tokyo that subscribes to the set of beliefs a Southern Person?

I am genuinely interested and look forward to any serious or humorous replies.