ADVERTISEMENT

The Stars and Bars

Your stoic agnosticism about the obvious meaning of the Confederate flag is unflattering to you.
In defense of Sope - what AM I DOING? - here's another use you might find interesting.

xclinton_gore_1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.bAjqKBAHjs.jpg
 
It's incumbent upon both the speaker (or wearer) and listener (better described as an "observer" perhaps) to use all information available to understand and adjust appropriately to the entirety of the communication rather than fixating on one presupposed motivation ascribed simply to the use of one symbol. Context plus intent are far more meaningful than the presumptions folks are bringing to this discussion about symbols alone . . . .
Exactly....that's what I've said in previous conversations but you say it so much more clearly than I did.
 
The question that seldom gets answered, why was the war fought? Sure, we hear state's rights from some, but which specific right caused the war to be fought? No one went to war to fight against building a transcontinental railroad, the homestead act, or land grant universities (all actions that southern political leaders opposed). The South was willing to fight for slavery. There were elected leaders of the South who plotted an invasion of Cuba before the war. They had designs on other South American areas as well. They wanted new markets for slaves, they were willing to fight to get those markets. Armies were raised, money spent, but the expeditions never seriously happened (I believe there was a small incursion somewhere in Central America that failed).

You can read about the prewar propaganda in McPherson's book Battle Cry of Freedom. Southern plantation owners were the driving force behind the war. They were masters of propaganda. The papers of the time were filled with stories of how northerners wants blacks and whites to live together, how they were going to FORCE white women to marry blacks. Truth be told, most whites who opposed slavery were anti-black, they just didn't like slavery. Lincoln himself would be considered far too racist to win any election today.

So that flag is a flag that was created to lead a war of insurrection to defend slavery. One can look at McPherson's book and see the references to slavery in the pre-war years. If you can find any people suggesting the need to arm and fight to defeat the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, or Land Grant Universities I'd love to see it. One issue, one issue alone, was mentioned.

So that is why the flag must come down. I have friends who I know disagree vehemently with me, they are in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I appreciate their right to be proud of great-great grandpappy. I'm not sure why they don't seem to take equal pride in ancestors who fought in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, WW!, and WWII; but they have the right to honor their confederate ancestor. They have a right to fly that flag. A government on the other hand should not except at historical sites. I have no problems with that flag flying over a civil war graveyard, or over the museum of the confederacy. But outside of those very specific instances, no where else.

One other note, if I recall correctly there are no statues in Virginia of George Thomas. Thomas was one of the best generals of the Civil War, played a critical role in Chickamauga. Thomas was a Virginian, and a slaveowner. He decided his loyalty had to lie with the Union, his soldier's oath required him to stay put. When he died, his own family refused to attend his funeral. To this date, no one in the South has ever erected a statue to a great general who fought bravely for his country. I think that shows the debate is more than just honoring people who fought for a cause they believed in. Thomas fought for the cause he believed in, and still isn't welcome in the South.
 
In defense of Sope - what AM I DOING? - here's another use you might find interesting.

xclinton_gore_1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.bAjqKBAHjs.jpg
Ha...what a surprise you hopped on this Fox News meme. Only thing is, anyone can make anything they want. No proof at all that this came from the official campaign. And if it did, which it doubt, things have changed a bit in over 20 years. Well to most people they have. There are those that prefer to hide their head in the sand of the world from 5o years ago.
 
I don't mean to shoot at you, Sope, because I don't include you in the problem, but this trope that Southern whites best know how to get along with Southern blacks has existed longer than the Confederate flag and has never been shared by the ostensibly beneficent subjects of white Southern affection. It is part of the white Southern delusion that the original Confederate states were something other than ground central for white supremacy.

Rock, speaking plainly as an Indiana friend would speak to another Indiana friend, your ignorance on this topic is exceeded only by your prejudices. It's time for you to get out of the house more.

I ain't saying there aren't problems; but I am saying that your wall-to-wall characterizations in this thread regarding all white southerners is as racist as it gets.

Here's an important element to understanding where you're wrong: just as all southern blacks are individuals, so are all southern whites. Each has an individual story to tell. Tune out the broad generalizations, and listen to the stories, over coffee, over beer or over some fried chicken and mustard greens (which by the way is a favorite meal of southerners from all sorts of backgrounds). You'll see there's no one statement that can apply nearly as generally as you're stating them here.

As for the confederate flag, I think both SC and MS should dump it, and have thought so for years . . . but if a 19 year old kid walks up to me with a confederate t-shirt on I'm not going ape-sh** over it, just as I really won't have any reaction over a kid walking up to me with a Malcolm X t-shirt . . . the fact of those symbols on a t-shirt has ZERO influence over the course of the conversation that would ensue . . . and in my experience that's true where the two kids have a conversation with each other. It's just not something that needs to be controlled . . . until the symbolic speech is the basis for someone taking action against another person or group.

I can't - and don't want - to dictate what someone can wear or fly from the bed of their pickup truck . . . I just want them to be happy with that benign expression and not take it to a level where violence occurs. Because, if the symbol is important enough to prohibit, it will become a symbol of oppression that will be resisted, just like the prohibition against wearing casual clothing with an American flag was resisted and then struck down.
 
Rock, speaking plainly as an Indiana friend would speak to another Indiana friend, your ignorance on this topic is exceeded only by your prejudices. It's time for you to get out of the house more.

I ain't saying there aren't problems; but I am saying that your wall-to-wall characterizations in this thread regarding all white southerners is as racist as it gets.

Here's an important element to understanding where you're wrong: just as all southern blacks are individuals, so are all southern whites. Each has an individual story to tell. Tune out the broad generalizations, and listen to the stories, over coffee, over beer or over some fried chicken and mustard greens (which by the way is a favorite meal of southerners from all sorts of backgrounds). You'll see there's no one statement that can apply nearly as generally as you're stating them here.

As for the confederate flag, I think both SC and MS should dump it, and have thought so for years . . . but if a 19 year old kid walks up to me with a confederate t-shirt on I'm not going ape-sh** over it, just as I really won't have any reaction over a kid walking up to me with a Malcolm X t-shirt . . . the fact of those symbols on a t-shirt has ZERO influence over the course of the conversation that would ensue . . . and in my experience that's true where the two kids have a conversation with each other. It's just not something that needs to be controlled . . . until the symbolic speech is the basis for someone taking action against another person or group.

I can't - and don't want - to dictate what someone can wear or fly from the bed of their pickup truck . . . I just want them to be happy with that benign expression and not take it to a level where violence occurs. Because, if the symbol is important enough to prohibit, it will become a symbol of oppression that will be resisted, just like the prohibition against wearing casual clothing with an American flag was resisted and then struck down.
 
very well written Sope. Some of your finest work.

BTW, Rock's ignorance and understanding and "one size fits all" is his problem with a whole range of topics. He often reads like a textbook.
 
Ha...what a surprise you hopped on this Fox News meme. Only thing is, anyone can make anything they want. No proof at all that this came from the official campaign. And if it did, which it doubt, things have changed a bit in over 20 years. Well to most people they have. There are those that prefer to hide their head in the sand of the world from 5o years ago.
It not from Fox News. Geesh. I found it on facebook. It was sold or given to supporters of the Democratic ticket in the 1992 election for them to show their support. Show me where either Clinton or Gore denounced its use and I'll delete this post.
 
You just compared me to Greenirontree Ladoga Street Road Works (the worst insult you could have extended me, and f#ck you very much) to support your defense of sympathy for the former Confederacy -- or at least sympathy for the deluded white Southerners who can't allow themselves to acknowledge what it was. I'd say that wasn't polite, which is the virtue to which you've now selectively ascribed, but it is instead uncharacteristically stupid, which is what an honest friend would tell you.

Why should the truth compromise with what you would presumably agree is fiction? Why am I the bad guy for speaking the truth, and you are the centristy centrist good guy for postulating a "polite" but false form of historical truthiness that would be more palatable to historical know-nothings who'd rather glorify a treasonous and racist history? Until you can show me that I am wrong, I'm not interested in your claim that I am impolite.

We've been way too polite to delusional white Southerners who've surrounded themselves for 150 years with glorious memorials to a disgraced cause. It's way past time for the white racist South to "get over it."

Well, OK. That said, I stand by my comments, every one of them . . . and if the truth hurts, well then it's time you felt the pain.

BTW, nobody here postulated anything like what you've characterized me to have postulated. I'm just in favor letting South Carolinians handle getting to the right answer in their own way. You on the other hand, have to have it your way . . .

. . . which proves precisely my comment about how you and Iron are peas on a pod. Smoke that . . .

As for my politeness, your tactic of trying to use my argument to your own advantage is thinly veiled, off the mark and waaaay lame. Pfffffffffffftttttttttttttt . . . . . . .
 
very well written Sope. Some of your finest work.

BTW, Rock's ignorance and understanding and "one size fits all" is his problem with a whole range of topics. He often reads like a textbook.

Butt out, Joe. Your broad generalizations about Rock are precisely the problem that I was writing about to begin with . . .

. . . so if you really liked that post for its content, rather than the personalities involved, you'd have known that this post is a pile of crap and would never have posted it . . . .
 
Butt out, Joe. Your broad generalizations about Rock are precisely the problem that I was writing about to begin with . . .

. . . so if you really liked that post for its content, rather than the personalities involved, you'd have known that this post is a pile of crap and would never have posted it . . . .
BS... Maybe you better think about you personalities comment, and check the mirror. I wasn't nearly as hard on Rock as you were.
 
BS... Maybe you better think about you personalities comment, and check the mirror. I wasn't nearly as hard on Rock as you were.

I dealt with Rock regarding an issue . . . all you did was pile on.

Thanks for nothing.
 
The question that seldom gets answered, why was the war fought? Sure, we hear state's rights from some, but which specific right caused the war to be fought? No one went to war to fight against building a transcontinental railroad, the homestead act, or land grant universities (all actions that southern political leaders opposed). The South was willing to fight for slavery. There were elected leaders of the South who plotted an invasion of Cuba before the war. They had designs on other South American areas as well. They wanted new markets for slaves, they were willing to fight to get those markets. Armies were raised, money spent, but the expeditions never seriously happened (I believe there was a small incursion somewhere in Central America that failed).

You can read about the prewar propaganda in McPherson's book Battle Cry of Freedom. Southern plantation owners were the driving force behind the war. They were masters of propaganda. The papers of the time were filled with stories of how northerners wants blacks and whites to live together, how they were going to FORCE white women to marry blacks. Truth be told, most whites who opposed slavery were anti-black, they just didn't like slavery. Lincoln himself would be considered far too racist to win any election today.

So that flag is a flag that was created to lead a war of insurrection to defend slavery. One can look at McPherson's book and see the references to slavery in the pre-war years. If you can find any people suggesting the need to arm and fight to defeat the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, or Land Grant Universities I'd love to see it. One issue, one issue alone, was mentioned.

So that is why the flag must come down. I have friends who I know disagree vehemently with me, they are in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I appreciate their right to be proud of great-great grandpappy. I'm not sure why they don't seem to take equal pride in ancestors who fought in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, WW!, and WWII; but they have the right to honor their confederate ancestor. They have a right to fly that flag. A government on the other hand should not except at historical sites. I have no problems with that flag flying over a civil war graveyard, or over the museum of the confederacy. But outside of those very specific instances, no where else.

One other note, if I recall correctly there are no statues in Virginia of George Thomas. Thomas was one of the best generals of the Civil War, played a critical role in Chickamauga. Thomas was a Virginian, and a slaveowner. He decided his loyalty had to lie with the Union, his soldier's oath required him to stay put. When he died, his own family refused to attend his funeral. To this date, no one in the South has ever erected a statue to a great general who fought bravely for his country. I think that shows the debate is more than just honoring people who fought for a cause they believed in. Thomas fought for the cause he believed in, and still isn't welcome in the South.

A "what if" question

If the skave states had freed the slaves before the war, do you think there would have been a secessionist movement anyway? If so, do you think the North would have started a war to stop it?

We don't really know if all the post war amendments were what Lincoln had in mind or not, but they did much more than end slavery. The 14th Amendment changed everything. Without it, state laws would not be subject to the federal constitution. This idea was debated when the constitution was written and those advocates lost the debate. But the idea never went away.
 
A "what if" question

If the skave states had freed the slaves before the war, do you think there would have been a secessionist movement anyway? If so, do you think the North would have started a war to stop it?

We don't really know if all the post war amendments were what Lincoln had in mind or not, but they did much more than end slavery. The 14th Amendment changed everything. Without it, state laws would not be subject to the federal constitution. This idea was debated when the constitution was written and those advocates lost the debate. But the idea never went away.
That is a good question, I suspect the raison d'etre would not exist for war, on either side. Abolitionists wanted slavery gone. With the slaves free, I am not sure they give a damn if the South leaves. Slaveholders wanted slaves, they had built their entire economic model on slavery. Without them, I don't believe they would have wanted to leave.

The south as a whole was screwed over by the slave holding caste. We have discussed this before, the feds did put some restrictions that hurt the south in growing a viable industrial base. But this happened also because the slave holders wanted it, it wasn't just Boston that had a vested interest in Charleston not becoming an industrial town. The slave holders had far too much wrapped up in slavery, it was their wealth. The last thing they wanted was industry making everyone else prosperous as, to a certain extent, that would come at their sacrifice. So people who wanted a new, industrial, south had no support.

Had the south freed the slaves, I'm not sure war excitement would have reached the fever pitch it did. Though it may have gained them Britain and/or France as an ally. But even those (and there were some) who fought for state's rights would wonder what state's right they were fighting for without slavery. And as you note, the America of today would much more resemble the Confederacy than the current US. The 14th Amendment was huge, and the change in culture was just as large. I've suggested before, I can't recall where I read it, that people from this country travelling abroad would say they were "Indianians" or "Michiganders" before the war, and they would say "Americans" after the war.
 
That is a good question, I suspect the raison d'etre would not exist for war, on either side. Abolitionists wanted slavery gone. With the slaves free, I am not sure they give a damn if the South leaves. Slaveholders wanted slaves, they had built their entire economic model on slavery. Without them, I don't believe they would have wanted to leave.

The south as a whole was screwed over by the slave holding caste. We have discussed this before, the feds did put some restrictions that hurt the south in growing a viable industrial base. But this happened also because the slave holders wanted it, it wasn't just Boston that had a vested interest in Charleston not becoming an industrial town. The slave holders had far too much wrapped up in slavery, it was their wealth. The last thing they wanted was industry making everyone else prosperous as, to a certain extent, that would come at their sacrifice. So people who wanted a new, industrial, south had no support.

Had the south freed the slaves, I'm not sure war excitement would have reached the fever pitch it did. Though it may have gained them Britain and/or France as an ally. But even those (and there were some) who fought for state's rights would wonder what state's right they were fighting for without slavery. And as you note, the America of today would much more resemble the Confederacy than the current US. The 14th Amendment was huge, and the change in culture was just as large. I've suggested before, I can't recall where I read it, that people from this country travelling abroad would say they were "Indianians" or "Michiganders" before the war, and they would say "Americans" after the war.

This effect of castes continues today. The county where my mother lives is controlled by agricultural corporations and large family farms, and the last thing they want in their area - poor as it is - is anything that might increase wages or their property taxes. So any activity towards industrial development or becoming a transportation hub (it's in a prime transportation center location) is just not talked about. The county's population has been stable to declining for the last 85 years. The county seat's population is a little more than half of what it was in 1940. The average per capita income is in the poverty range, and that includes in the per capita income calculations the very large incomes of the land-owning families.
 
One thing I don't get, maybe I should ask the person I am about to describe but haven't. I know someone who is very proud of his Confederate heritage. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, his truck is heavily decorated with stickers extolling that fact, he gives lectures on the Confederate view of the war. That's great, he's more than welcome to do that. But if it is about honoring people who fought for what they believed in, well, has his family had no one serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Spanish American, Mexican American, 1812, or the Revolution? If there were bumper stickers mentioning all those, I would get the explanation. But there aren't. What makes the Confederate ancestors so much more worthy of his devotion? I understand civil war history as a hobby, and I get following units based on where your ancestors served. But this goes beyond that. If one is into respecting their forefathers who fought, what makes this particular forefather stand out. Seriously, has anyone ever seen bumper stickers "proud grandson of Normandy vet" or "My great-grandfather was in Argonne-Meuse"? I have spent a lot of time around Civil War buffs, I have never understood this part of it. There are organizations for Union descendants too, and people belong, but I don't see near the bumper stickers or anything else referencing Union ancestors. It appears to be far more a southern thing. Why do people so intensely care about an ancestor they never possibly met, yet seemingly display no outward appreciation for ancestors they may have met?

For what it is worth, I haven't done a lot of genealogy except to know a direct ancestor served in the 7th Missouri Cavalry, CSA. On my mom's side I know very little except my direct lineage does not appear to have fought (but would have been Yankee geographically).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hootch1
It not from Fox News. Geesh. I found it on facebook. It was sold or given to supporters of the Democratic ticket in the 1992 election for them to show their support. Show me where either Clinton or Gore denounced its use and I'll delete this post.
Where do you think Facebook got it? The buttons do not have the union sticker on it, like the large majority of authorized buttons do. And as I said, even if it is authentic, the world has changed a bit in the last two decades. Take a look at gay marriage, for example. Your party might do well to remember it isn't 1950 anymore.
 
Snopes says there is no evidence that these buttons existed prior to this week. Someone from the Clinton campaign said if they don't have a union sticker, they weren't official, and he'd never heard of them before.

Similar fake pins for Hillary 08 and Obama 2012 are going around.

This is why you don't trust crap on Facebook.
 
Hey Sope, how long have you lived in the south? I grew up in the south but left when I was 20 so you probably know it a lot better than I ever did because when I was a kid I spent 99.999% of my time around home so I didn't have much of an idea how it really was out in the real world.
 
You and Rock have significant prejudices about the south and southerners that you really should reexamine and, hopefully modify or discard. They're as anachronistic as the damned confederate flag . . . .



As for your last comment about when white southerners will "get over it", believe me, the vast majority of the southern US is way ahead of much of the northern and midwestern US when it comes to diverse groups getting along day-to-day.

That's a pretty quick pivot from chiding folks about their regional prejudice to indulging your own.

I've had several recent casual conversations with young black men and women (started with a "Where you from?" icebreaker; most everybody in Atlanta is from somewhere else) in which my counterparts volunteered that they came south because folks up north were entirely unwelcoming; the last was a kid (from Louisville originally) who recently graduated from UToledo and turned down a full ride MBA scholly there to attend Emory here in the ATL - without any scholarship money - because Toledo wasn't a particularly good environment for young black guys. (His cousin is Edward Baker from IU football history . . . .)

Part of the reason the south is moving on with "getting over it" is that we generally recognize the trap of dealing in symbolic speech with too much seriousness. Because we don't focus primarily on symbols as the basis for our being able to get along, we can generally deal with each other on a personal, rather than a symbolic/group identity, basis at work, at schools, in neighborhoods (which I'd bet are far, far less segregated than where you live), and in a growing number of instances, in churches. We can let one guy wear a Malcolm X shirt and the next guy to wear his Redneck farm implements hat and rebel flag T-shirt and actually get along pretty well, because the focus is on each other instead of the effing symbols. That isn't to say things don't blow up . . . but doing an internal eye roll while putting on a smile is certainly a part of the ethos here for everybody, and a good part of the reason why the ATL can work well. It's just good grease for potentially difficult social interactions . . . and surprisingly enough it can facilitate real development of real relationships over time too.

A few thoughts on this from a minority who grew up in the northeast, has spent some time traveling in the south, and married another minority who happens to be from Atlanta:

(1) As a general proposition, lots of northerners harbor unfair prejudices about southerners. And lots of southerners harbor unfair prejudices about northerners.

(2) There are a fair number of northerners who have a reflexive and unexamined belief that their societies are much more racially progressive than the south. Dismissing racism as the province of southern rednecks helps them to ignore their own prejudices.

(3) Consistent with your comments, my sense is that on balance, white southerners have more day-to-day comfort/experience interacting with black people. My guess is that this is because (1) there are just more black people in the south, in percentage terms, and (2) relatedly, the patterns of segregation are a bit different. Northerners moved pretty quickly, with their feet and their housing/zoning laws, to keep black migrants from the south confined to urban neighborhoods where they were out of sight. My sense is that segregation in the south is at a more micro, neighborhood-by-neighborhood level. The flip side is more explicit attempts at segregation. The recent stories about segregated proms in the south illustrate this point. You're not as likely to have a segregated prom in the north because, I suspect, you're not as likely to have a town/school that is as heavily integrated in the first place.

(4) I'm not sure how representative of the South modern-day Atlanta is. First, as you note, many of the people there are transplants, so not sure why their ability to get along with each other is some kind of testament to southern society. Second, Atlanta is a city with singular appeal for black migrants not simply because white people in Atlanta love them so much more than any other whites do, but because there is a huge black middle/upper class in Atlanta.

(5) I'm not sure why eyerolling internally while putting on a happy face is a thing that deserves so much praise. I appreciate politeness, and I have experienced real kindness from white folks in the south that betrays the caricature of a society hostile to minorities. But I also wonder whether they are eyerolling internally, and I frequently feel like an outsider. By comparison, New York City is a place where people tend to do their eyerolling externally. And yet, because it is teeming with so many different people from so many different cultures, it is one place where I never feel like an outsider.

(6) Notwithstanding points 2 and 3 above, your suggestion about how the south is just so much more welcoming to minorities and successful at maintaining harmony among diverse peoples is pretty unpersuasive. In addition to suffering from the same tendency to overgeneralization that you've accused others of embracing, it doesn't jibe with my personal experiences. I have certainly had some awkward experiences in the South that I could not imagine having in the north. And my wife -- a born and raised Atlantan -- tells some stories from her youth that sound completely alien when compared to my upbringing in New Jersey.
 
Last edited:
That's a pretty quick pivot from chiding folks about their regional prejudice to indulging your own.



A few thoughts on this from a minority who grew up in the northeast, has spent some time traveling in the south, and married another minority who happens to be from Atlanta:

(1) As a general proposition, lots of northerners harbor unfair prejudices about southerners. And lots of southerners harbor unfair prejudices about northerners.

(2) There are a fair number of northerners who have a reflexive and unexamined belief that their societies are much more racially progressive than the south. Dismissing racism as the province of southern rednecks helps them to ignore their own prejudices.

(3) Consistent with your comments, my sense is that on balance, white southerners have more day-to-day comfort/experience interacting with black people. My guess is that this is because (1) there are just more black people in the south, in percentage terms, and (2) relatedly, the patterns of segregation ar a bit different. White northerners moved pretty quickly, with their feet and their housing/zoning laws, to keep black migrants from the south confined to urban neighborhoods where there

(4) I'm not sure how representative of the South modern-day Atlanta is. First, as you note, many of the people there are transplants, so not sure why their ability to get along with each other is some kind of testament to southern society. Second, Atlanta is a city with singular appeal for black migrants not simply because white people in Atlanta love them so much more than any other whites do, but because there is a huge black middle/upper class in Atlanta.

(5) I'm not sure why eyerolling internally while putting on a happy face is a thing that deserves so much praise. I appreciate politeness, and I have experienced real kindness from white folks in the south that betrays the caricature of a society hostile to minorities. But I also wonder whether they are eyerolling internally, and I frequently feel like an outsider. By comparison, New York City is a place where people tend to their eyerolling externally. And yet, because it is teeming with so many different people from so many different cultures, it is one place where I never feel like an outsider.

(6) Notwithstanding points 2 and 3 above, your suggestion about how the south is just so much more welcoming to minorities and successful at maintaining harmony among diverse peoples is pretty unpersuasive. In addition to suffering from the same tendency to overgeneralization that you've accused others of embracing, it doesn't jibe with my personal experiences. I have certainly had some awkward experiences in the South that I could not imagine having in the north. And my wife -- a born and raised Atlantan -- tells some stories from her youth that sound completely alien when compared to my upbringing in New Jersey.


Nice post ReRun. I could quibble here and there, but generally I think your perspective here is highly consistent with my own view on things, which is not necessarily as well-represented in my strong push-back against Rock's broad generalizations as it would be by providing nuance in response to your post. I don't have time to do that right now, and am happy to let your post stand in as a good general representative of what I would otherwise say . . .

. . . except to say that I've never had a "real" conversation about race any where but in the south, and the conversations I've had with both black individuals and white individuals were pretty direct . . . but neither set of folks let their most extreme opinions deter them from treating all others with a solid degree of respect, even decorum. Frankly, I prefer that to hostility, indifference or aloofness because at least the intention of being polite is sincere . . . .

Anyway, thank you for your post, it's a nicely done response.

PS - I have awkward moments pretty much everywhere I go, with virtually every kind of folk out there. Awkwardness is part of the human condition . . . and it's often tough to distinguish when it's internally driven or externally imposed.
 
Hey Sope, how long have you lived in the south? I grew up in the south but left when I was 20 so you probably know it a lot better than I ever did because when I was a kid I spent 99.999% of my time around home so I didn't have much of an idea how it really was out in the real world.

All my life . . . my family was southern. I'm the only child in my entire extended family, at least through my generation, born north of the Ohio River.

MrsSope and I moved to the ATL in 1987, and except for two years in little Rhodey, we've been here ever since. If you ever want to see prejudice, just go to Rhode Island and strike up a conversation about the south . . . .
 
If you ever want to see prejudice, just go to Rhode Island and strike up a conversation about the south . . . .
I have no doubt about that....I've seen it other places that I've visited. They painted all the south as dumb, racist, rednecks....at least that's been my experience.

The argument about the flag is interesting. When I see the confederate flag I just think of the south. However, I don't think any government entity should be flying it or using it in any way because it's easy to see where other people could have really negative feelings when they see it.
 
but neither set of folks let their most extreme opinions deter them from treating all others with a solid degree of respect, even decorum. Frankly, I prefer that to hostility, indifference or aloofness because at least the intention of being polite is sincere . . . .

Two experiences, one with a Southerner and one in the South, come to mind.

First, I was traveling through southern Georgia many years ago when my fan belt snapped. It was late at night, and I was able to pull off at an exit that had a 24-hour "health spa" with truckers parked in the back, so I knew I was in the middle of nowhere. Anyway, there was a small town with a hotel and repair shop nearby. Don't remember which town. But it was there that I first witnessed genuine segregation. At the grocery store, all of the cashiers were white; all of the stockers and janitors were black. At the Wendy's, all of the cashiers (both walk-up and drive-through) were white. All of the cooks were black. At the repair shop, all of the mechanics were black. The manager was a white man, and the person at the desk was a white woman. Every place I went was like this. And everyone was super polite, both to me and to each other.

A few years ago I was having a chat with a white man who was originally, IIRC, from North Carolina. His take on race was this: "I believe in treating everyone equal, but I also think everyone has a place." He was very polite. Never had a problem with his step-daughter's black boyfriend. Friendly, and fair, to coworkers and clients, black and white alike. A genuinely good guy.

But it makes me wonder if this "genuine politeness" you speak so highly of in the south is simply the cost of keeping certain people in their place. Or perhaps the effect of having people willing to stay in their place without complaint. If one of those black line cooks wanted to work a register, I wonder how politeness would fit in? I bet that Southern hospitality isn't extended so easily to the blacks who don't sheepishly stay "in their place."
 
All my life . . . my family was southern. I'm the only child in my entire extended family, at least through my generation, born north of the Ohio River.

MrsSope and I moved to the ATL in 1987, and except for two years in little Rhodey, we've been here ever since. If you ever want to see prejudice, just go to Rhode Island and strike up a conversation about the south . . . .
Is the difference really focused on culture instead of race?

My stoker and I have ridden our tandem bicycle in many corners of the country, including South Chicago, rural Mississippi, and Carmel by the Sea California. By far the most unwelcoming place was along the 17 Mile Drive near Carmel including our stop at the Pebble Beach Golf Club to look around and to get an iced tea. I assume when you ask any of the very wealthy people who live in the Carmel area, they would claim to be very socially liberal and in favor of civil rights for all. But talking is one thing and living it is another. They can be liberal in those places because they are in no danger of living among the people they claim to care about and their rare visits to the poor areas are likely of the highly controlled variety.

We have encountered many friendly people along our biking journeys. But one of the friendliest were some of the rural towns near Clarksdale Mississippi. Of course these small communities are almost all black. Also they are as far removed from white bike culture as you can get. Yet people sitting on their front porches were very curious about where we were from and where we were going, offered us cold drinks etc. Mississippi was light years from Carmel CA. in every way imaginable. I'd take Mississippi given the choice between those two.

I don't believe either of these two examples of interaction had anything to do with race. I think instead it was all about cultures.

 
Sope, you are around Atlanta. Do you think your experiences are valid for rural Georgia? I suspect, and can easily be wrong, big cities are more accommodating, north or south. When I was still relatively young, I recall going to see Pops Goes the Fourth in Boston. It is a wonderful experience, just you and a million of your closest friends huddled as tightly as you can pack together (ok, not quite a million). The people packed closest to me was a man who got off his luxury yacht on the Charles and a homeless guy. They struck up a conversation as if they were best friends. They had never met. Being from small town Indiana (either Columbus or Bloomington), that seemed strange to me. But people in big cities should be far more accustomed to meeting people of different status, race, religion, ethnicity. It makes sense there is much more comfort in big cities. So Atlanta should be more welcoming than Columbus, for an example. New York is different. New Yorkers are much more likely to tell you off one minute and be your best friend the next. How welcoming that is is up to the person being told off. I find the style abrasive, but I know people who love it for being honest and direct.
 
Two experiences, one with a Southerner and one in the South, come to mind.

First, I was traveling through southern Georgia many years ago when my fan belt snapped. It was late at night, and I was able to pull off at an exit that had a 24-hour "health spa" with truckers parked in the back, so I knew I was in the middle of nowhere. Anyway, there was a small town with a hotel and repair shop nearby. Don't remember which town. But it was there that I first witnessed genuine segregation. At the grocery store, all of the cashiers were white; all of the stockers and janitors were black. At the Wendy's, all of the cashiers (both walk-up and drive-through) were white. All of the cooks were black. At the repair shop, all of the mechanics were black. The manager was a white man, and the person at the desk was a white woman. Every place I went was like this. And everyone was super polite, both to me and to each other.

A few years ago I was having a chat with a white man who was originally, IIRC, from North Carolina. His take on race was this: "I believe in treating everyone equal, but I also think everyone has a place." He was very polite. Never had a problem with his step-daughter's black boyfriend. Friendly, and fair, to coworkers and clients, black and white alike. A genuinely good guy.

But it makes me wonder if this "genuine politeness" you speak so highly of in the south is simply the cost of keeping certain people in their place. Or perhaps the effect of having people willing to stay in their place without complaint. If one of those black line cooks wanted to work a register, I wonder how politeness would fit in? I bet that Southern hospitality isn't extended so easily to the blacks who don't sheepishly stay "in their place."

Good lord, Goat, you need to get out more; and perhaps adjust what you're looking for a bit.

I don't see any restrictions re: who's at the register and who isn't except in terms of who is/isn't responsible enough to handle the cash and perhaps seniority. And from here to Paducah and farther west, from here to Birmingham, and all around Dallas (GA), Chattanooga and Asheville and other towns and cities I frequent and travel to/through I see folks of all races managing the registers, managing the stores, and holding down all manner of responsible and entry-level positions. There are exceptions for sure, but I'd bet donuts to dollars that the percentage of folks like your genuinely good guy from NC are greater in the south than they are where you live.

The genuine politeness is a way for folks to be assured that they're being treated with a reasonable measure of respect, even where folks may hate each other. It's like oil in an engine at 3000 rpms; it prevents explosions. Do you know what the raised hand/handshake ritual when greeting someone was originally for? It's to show the other person that you're not armed, and therefore not a threat to their safety.

You're way too busy looking for ways that folks oppress each other, and as a consequence you aren't seeing the basic elements of common human interaction when they're right there in front of you. (Of course you've been virtually raised on the Cooler, so that's understandable, I guess . . . .)

You really DO need to get out more . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockport Zebra
Sope, you are around Atlanta. Do you think your experiences are valid for rural Georgia? I suspect, and can easily be wrong, big cities are more accommodating, north or south. When I was still relatively young, I recall going to see Pops Goes the Fourth in Boston. It is a wonderful experience, just you and a million of your closest friends huddled as tightly as you can pack together (ok, not quite a million). The people packed closest to me was a man who got off his luxury yacht on the Charles and a homeless guy. They struck up a conversation as if they were best friends. They had never met. Being from small town Indiana (either Columbus or Bloomington), that seemed strange to me. But people in big cities should be far more accustomed to meeting people of different status, race, religion, ethnicity. It makes sense there is much more comfort in big cities. So Atlanta should be more welcoming than Columbus, for an example. New York is different. New Yorkers are much more likely to tell you off one minute and be your best friend the next. How welcoming that is is up to the person being told off. I find the style abrasive, but I know people who love it for being honest and direct.

I'll just tell you this little anecdote. I called AT&T service to change my land line (!) status, and I asked the young woman taking my order where she was from, and she said she was in Missouri. So I asked her where, and she said Cape Girardeau. Well, I mentioned that I had relatives in a little town south of there*, and she asked me where . . . I said my mom's hometown name and she said "OH THAT'S WHERE I'M FROM, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M STAYING NOW." We exchanged names of folks the other might know, and when I mentioned my cousin's son's name, she said "OMG, we were in the same high school class, and I had the BIGGEST crush on him." And she told me who some of her relatives, some of whom I was remotely acquainted with. That's how we knew each other's race. I asked her where in town she lived, and she said across from a particular convenience store. And I said that there's a block house with red corner block trim over there, and she said "OMG, that's where we live!" And I told her that her home used to be my grandfather's old house . . . and that I used to play in that yard. I assure you that we both felt a good deal of joy having that conversation.

I think ReRun's comment (3) [Consistent with your comments, my sense is that on balance, white southerners have more day-to-day comfort/experience interacting with black people. My guess is that this is because (1) there are just more black people in the south, in percentage terms, and (2) relatedly, the patterns of segregation are a bit different.] is spot on. But the fact that those are why people of different races interact with each other more doesn't mean that the genuineness of the interaction, which in turn provides a positive entry into the potential for the development of genuine friendships, is false. And I ardently reject any characterization that because it's in the south it must be false . . . You really can't make any blanket statements at all here, other than to say, well, you just have to observe how two folks get along before you can say anything, and even then things could change pretty quickly anyway.

* My mom's hometown is in the bootheel, about as far north in the midwest as you can go and still see cotton growing. It is, believe me, culturally more like Mississippi than it is Omaha . . . .
 
Good lord, Goat, you need to get out more; and perhaps adjust what you're looking for a bit.

I don't see any restrictions re: who's at the register and who isn't except in terms of who is/isn't responsible enough to handle the cash and perhaps seniority. And from here to Paducah and farther west, from here to Birmingham, and all around Dallas (GA), Chattanooga and Asheville and other towns and cities I frequent and travel to/through I see folks of all races managing the registers, managing the stores, and holding down all manner of responsible and entry-level positions. There are exceptions for sure, but I'd bet donuts to dollars that the percentage of folks like your genuinely good guy from NC are greater in the south than they are where you live.

The genuine politeness is a way for folks to be assured that they're being treated with a reasonable measure of respect, even where folks may hate each other. It's like oil in an engine at 3000 rpms; it prevents explosions. Do you know what the raised hand/handshake ritual when greeting someone was originally for? It's to show the other person that you're not armed, and therefore not a threat to their safety.

You're way too busy looking for ways that folks oppress each other, and as a consequence you aren't seeing the basic elements of common human interaction when they're right there in front of you. (Of course you've been virtually raised on the Cooler, so that's understandable, I guess . . . .)

You really DO need to get out more . . . .
Adjust what I'm looking for? Good God, Sope, I wasn't a journalist looking for a story. My damn van broke down. I was looking for a newspaper and a bite to eat while it got fixed. I noticed the segregation because it was right in front of me and I couldn't miss it. I wasn't even very politically active at the time (this was over ten years ago), and I hadn't yet taken any courses on neomodern feminist deconstruction, so I hadn't learned how to see discrimination everywhere. It just was. It was out in the open, and there for all to see. I'm just recounting an experience I had.

As for thinking there are probably more guys like my NC guy in the south, are you referring to his good qualities or his latent racism? In both cases, I'd say you're probably wrong. I've met plenty of good people all over this country. I've also seen racism to some degree just about everywhere.
 
Adjust what I'm looking for? Good God, Sope, I wasn't a journalist looking for a story. My damn van broke down. I was looking for a newspaper and a bite to eat while it got fixed. I noticed the segregation because it was right in front of me and I couldn't miss it. I wasn't even very politically active at the time (this was over ten years ago), and I hadn't yet taken any courses on neomodern feminist deconstruction, so I hadn't learned how to see discrimination everywhere. It just was. It was out in the open, and there for all to see. I'm just recounting an experience I had.

As for thinking there are probably more guys like my NC guy in the south, are you referring to his good qualities or his latent racism? In both cases, I'd say you're probably wrong. I've met plenty of good people all over this country. I've also seen racism to some degree just about everywhere.

And you generalize that one experience to determine that it must be so everywhere in the south?

Sheesh . . . you're beyond myopic at times.
 
I didn't say it must be so everywhere in the south. I never said anything like that.

Really? Then what was this soliloquy all about:

But it makes me wonder if this "genuine politeness" you speak so highly of in the south is simply the cost of keeping certain people in their place. Or perhaps the effect of having people willing to stay in their place without complaint. If one of those black line cooks wanted to work a register, I wonder how politeness would fit in? I bet that Southern hospitality isn't extended so easily to the blacks who don't sheepishly stay "in their place."


I call hogwash and horsehockey, Goat. If that's not a generalization, or perhaps even a universalization, from a single experience, I don't know what else it could be.

One more thing: Are you sure that the comment about "every body has a place" was based on a racist world view? The reason I say this is that individuals typically do have their strengths and weaknesses, and their places (in a work force at least, but I would also proffer in other contexts too) are determined by how best to utilize the strengths and either hide, minimize or train/educate one out of his/her weaknesses. Are you sure that the comment was based on a racist world view . . . or perhaps more from a paternalistsic employer's world view?
 
Really? Then what was this soliloquy all about:

But it makes me wonder if this "genuine politeness" you speak so highly of in the south is simply the cost of keeping certain people in their place. Or perhaps the effect of having people willing to stay in their place without complaint. If one of those black line cooks wanted to work a register, I wonder how politeness would fit in? I bet that Southern hospitality isn't extended so easily to the blacks who don't sheepishly stay "in their place."


I call hogwash and horsehockey, Goat. If that's not a generalization, or perhaps even a universalization, from a single experience, I don't know what else it could be.

One more thing: Are you sure that the comment about "every body has a place" was based on a racist world view? The reason I say this is that individuals typically do have their strengths and weaknesses, and their places (in a work force at least, but I would also proffer in other contexts too) are determined by how best to utilize the strengths and either hide, minimize or train/educate one out of his/her weaknesses. Are you sure that the comment was based on a racist world view . . . or perhaps more from a paternalistsic employer's world view?
It might sound like a generalization, since I was offering it in response to your generalization that Southerners are JUST AWESOME. But I'm pretty sure qualifiers like "I wonder" and "perhaps" clearly illustrate that I was just musing on a possibility, and not making a firm claim.

His comment was based on race. Definitely.
 
It might sound like a generalization, since I was offering it in response to your generalization that Southerners are JUST AWESOME. But I'm pretty sure qualifiers like "I wonder" and "perhaps" clearly illustrate that I was just musing on a possibility, and not making a firm claim.

His comment was based on race. Definitely.

Lame, very lame . . . .

But I'll take your word re: the "place" comment. I wasn't there, so I can't have an opinion.
 
Lame, very lame . . . .

But I'll take your word re: the "place" comment. I wasn't there, so I can't have an opinion.
You're really out of line here, Sope. Your entire schtick in this thread has been to strangely bounce back and forth between making staggeringly positive generalizations about people from the south while castigating those who question your generalizations by accusing them of doing so themselves.

This is not your best work.
 
How atheists act versus why they act that way.....

Do we have any contemporary examples of atheist cultures that have been that way for several generations to serve as a baseline?
 
How atheists act versus why they act that way.....

Do we have any contemporary examples of atheist cultures that have been that way for several generations to serve as a baseline?
Most of Buddhist Asia, especially Buddhist cultures in India and the Himalayas (not so much in China, where Buddhism has always been mixed with local religion).

I'm just guessing why the atheists I know tend to be good people. There are other possibilities. For example, in this country, atheism is still generally kept to oneself by most people, so most of the people I know who are atheists are people I know fairly well. I'm fairly discriminating in who I associate with. Perhaps most of the asshole atheists I meet, I never find out they are atheists, because I don't get to know them very well.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT