The white suprematists found it more effective not to explicitly state their ideological goals.
There are plenty of academic legal societies very interested in “states’ rights”, “returning to the constitution”, “memorializing the Confederacy”, etc. I don’t see a important distinction between an explicit statement and dog-whistle so thinly veiled that everyone knows what it stands for.
> I don’t see a important distinction between an explicit statement and dog-whistle so thinly veiled that everyone knows what it stands for.
That’s an interesting statement.
I’ve personally attended a memorial ceremony hosted by the United Daughters of the Confederacy where a Black woman spoke for an hour about the conditions under which Blacks, both enslaved and free, existed in the Confederacy. She was a UDC member, which means that she was a thoroughly documented descendant of a Confederate soldier. In her case, that was a man who was offered his freedom in exchange for military service.
You say “everyone knows it stands for”, but my experience says that a more truthful statement would be “most people believe they know what it stands for”.
There are plenty of academic legal societies very interested in “states’ rights”, “returning to the constitution”, “memorializing the Confederacy”, etc. I don’t see a important distinction between an explicit statement and dog-whistle so thinly veiled that everyone knows what it stands for.