I have noticed, much to my chagrin, that very few of the white advocates, whom I have met, speak Southern English – at least not in public. A recent article, linked to at Amren, claims that the Southern dialect of English seems to be dying. Here’s a link to the original article. This should be a subject of concern for those at Amren, which boasts many supporters from that region. The subheading at Amren reads:
The best way to preserve it is to keep talking that way.
Indeed. But the Southern dialect is notably absent at Amren gatherings (with one or two exceptions). For a regional people, like Southerners, dialect is an important part of their identity. I think it should be consciously taught and maintained especially when it is under siege, as it has been for several decades. As long as radio and T.V. stations do not broadcast to Southerners in their own dialect, it is under siege.
On the other hand, the forces of evil have done a fairly good job, through their propaganda, of equating Southern English with “racism”. A white advocate stands little chance of being heard by the wider public even if he speaks in Northern English. Does he further hurt his chances of being heard if the first thing his audience notices is a Southern drawl? Does he risk even further ridicule? Of course I would never suggest that a Southerner modify his accent in order to please others. But the question remains, in an academic sense, if a white advocate presents his case in a Southern dialect, does this dialect constitute a distraction? The hostile elite has already succeeded in marginalizing Southern English. The ignorant masses, if they hear a pro-white case being made in Southern English, would probably see this as vindication of the message they’ve been fed their whole lives: Southern English represents backwardness and bigotry. In their minds, seeing the two together is all the “evidence” they need. This is a sad state of affairs but I do not believe that compromise is the answer.
Should gray-haired old men attend white advocacy conferences? The perception, spread by the hostile elite, is that white advocacy (I.E. “bigotry”) is a thing of the past and this is why it is mainly older men who flock to it. Is it preferable to have 200 people show up at an American Renaissance conference when 150 of them are wrinkled old men or perhaps it would be better if only 70 people showed up – with a majority being young or female? Perhaps it would be a good idea for organizations such as American Renaissance to provide discount face-lifts and hair dying prior to conferences. Or perhaps some of the older people might make a strategic decision to stay home rather than reinforcing the stereotype that white advocacy is just for old people who, just like the movement, are going to die soon anyway.
Is my above question silly? Perhaps, but I’m allowed to ask silly questions now and then. The reality is, of course, that many of the foolish young leftists (who poke fun at the rest of us for being a bunch of old people) will themselves grow older and wiser. Some day they will be the ones warming the chairs at pro-white conferences and wondering if it might have been better for their cause had they stayed home.