A curiosity about the South, for people who live here

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Actually, the United States had a long history of not accepting other powers in its considered sphere of influence and using military force to drive them out or force them into an overall weaker strategic position.  In the decade before the Civil War, the American military saw action in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Argentina, Nicaragua, China, Fiji, Uruguay, Panama, Paraguay and Mexico.  Almost all of these actions were either to defend American commerical interests or punitive expeditions.

And yes, the South were stupid in thinking their defensive posture was enough to deter the North.  Clearly and obviously.  Even beyond the historical record, it was not a reasonable proposition to make at the time because of the aforementioned advantages held by the Union and the noted patterns of behaviour by the American military in the decade before.  A military power that sent ships to punish Fijians and broke open Japan is not going to be deterred by an agrarian society with a much lower military potential because of a few successful raids.

The facts are, they were the weaker party from the start, and they were inviting the kind of conflict which played to the strengths of the Union.  If that isn't stupid, I might as well leave this thread now, because I can't think of a better way to define the word.

It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actually, the United States had a long history of not accepting other powers in its considered sphere of influence and using military force to drive them out or force them into an overall weaker strategic position.  In the decade before the Civil War, the American military saw action in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Argentina, Nicaragua, China, Fiji, Uruguay, Panama, Paraguay and Mexico.  Almost all of these actions were either to defend American commerical interests or punitive expeditions.

And yes, the South were stupid in thinking their defensive posture was enough to deter the North.  Clearly and obviously.  Even beyond the historical record, it was not a reasonable proposition to make at the time because of the aforementioned advantages held by the Union and the noted patterns of behaviour by the American military in the decade before.  A military power that sent ships to punish Fijians and broke open Japan is not going to be deterred by an agrarian society with a much lower military potential because of a few successful raids.

The facts are, they were the weaker party from the start, and they were inviting the kind of conflict which played to the strengths of the Union.  If that isn't stupid, I might as well leave this thread now, because I can't think of a better way to define the word.

Well, you know military history better than I do, so I'll concede that point. I find the social and cultural aspect of the discussion more interesting and I don't want to argue military strategy.

Like Vex, I find the categorization of all Southerners as "idiots" to be a kind of disturbing, yet very interesting trend that's pretty pervasive, especially in the US but evidently overseas as well. It has interesting parallels with typical attitudes toward other conquered societies.

[Cain]

It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."

"The South" is short hand for "the military and political leaders of the South".  I would have thought this was obvious.

Leaving this thread now.  I'm not going argue with people putting words in my mouth.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

BUT WHAT WILL WE DO with all these words? SOMEbody's got to eat them. As an alternative, I will put them in someone else's mouth:

"The South is full if idiots."
"Southerners are all rednecks and racists."

                                  -- Everybody

When you phrase a statement verbatim like a commonly held generalization, it's easy to think you are parroting that generalization.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."

"The South" is short hand for "the military and political leaders of the South".  I would have thought this was obvious.

Leaving this thread now.  I'm not going argue with people putting words in my mouth.

I would have assumed that you meant "military and political leadership", but you said "People in The South", which has a different connotation, and one which mirrors popular perception. I am completely willing to accept that it was a misspeak. That is not in any way me putting words in your mouth; it's what you typed. Clarifying that it was not what you meant is good enough for me, and a damn sight better than accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting you.

People in The South were idiots.  Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.

Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either.  Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules.  Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc

[E.O.T.]

OOWWW!!

          that was an uncharacteristic post for you, it reads more opinion than having any real substance.

Unlike your reply to me, which was just full of substance and not at all a random ad hominem backed up by a gaping void of silence.

UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE

          i don't have 24/7 access to the internet, an immediate response is not always possible. it's like the high middle ages, scotus says something and if you weren't there to hear it, it'd have to wait til the next meeting. and then often times, one might take a bit to consider what was said.

AND CAIN

          there was no hominem in my statement. that's actually what i was addressing in your initial post, calling an entire group of people idiots. i asked if you were drunk and pointed out that it was actually an odd occurrence for you to make such a low comment. which is a compliment actually, cain.

I HAVE

          no real interest in addressing the details of arm chair military strategics, and i don't think that actually has much to do with the focus of this thread. if at all.

[AFK]

Everyone everywhere are idiots.


THE END.

[East Coast Hustle]

I gotta say, in alot of ways I like "people" in the south better than "people" in the northeast or the west coast. Speaking very generally, people tend to be more open and direct, with a premium placed on politeness and, in many cases, actual friendliness. Clearly the culture is not without some serious flaws and I'm aware that I'd be treated very differently in many places if not for the privilege of my skin color. I've also noticed, however, that racism and prejudice are equally prevalent everywhere in America, they just take different forms. Were I in a position to be subjected to racial discrimination, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have the direct and blunt type shown in the south instead of the "snake in the grass" racism of the north and west. The end result is the same shit end of the stick, but at least the southerners let you know it's coming and rarely leave you wondering where you stand.

[Bruno]

I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.

Uh

dude.

I don't know what to say to this, except that it's good that at least you know that you don't know.

There is racism everywhere. The racism in the South is more open, as ECH stated, and the evidence is that it's also more widespread and more virulent. In the South you have shit like white high school kids lynching a black kid for sitting under the "white" tree, and racists firebombing black churches and Sunday schools. Any claims (typically from people whose skin color does not subject them to a direct view of racial prejudice) that racism is not a greater issue in the South need to be examined with a highly skeptical eye, because they directly contradict the experiences of black people from the South who have moved north, and of black people from the north who have traveled to the South.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wonder, is anyone else getting a bit of a tickle out of the fact that people are getting pissed off in this thread because it can't be a black and white argument? 

[Bruno]

I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.

Uh

dude.

I don't know what to say to this, except that it's good that at least you know that you don't know.

There is racism everywhere. The racism in the South is more open, as ECH stated, and the evidence is that it's also more widespread and more virulent. In the South you have shit like white high school kids lynching a black kid for sitting under the "white" tree, and racists firebombing black churches and Sunday schools. Any claims (typically from people whose skin color does not subject them to a direct view of racial prejudice) that racism is not a greater issue in the South need to be examined with a highly skeptical eye, because they directly contradict the experiences of black people from the South who have moved north, and of black people from the north who have traveled to the South.

I live in Tennessee, which is probably not as bad as, say, Alabama...





Where I work, we have showers so that Muslims can shower before they pray, and a prayer cubicle. I remember when I was a kid in a smaller town than the one I'm in now, a white woman with a black baby was something worth talking about. These days, not so much.

I remember somebody doing a study in the mid-90's on the Tennessee justice system that showed that blacks were being punished more severely in Tennessee courts than were whites for the same crimes. Not sure if anybody did anything about it.

But I can tell you, that I don't see any open racism here by whites against blacks. I'm sure it exists, but people don't walk around saying "Somebody should really do something about all these black people". They walk around saying "Somebody should really do something about all these Muslims". Which they will point out to you isn't racist... technically. There for a little while it was Mexicans, but then the 2000's happened. Basically Tennesseans seem to only be able fear/hate one group at a time, when a new threat is perceived, we team up with our former adversaries to defend the land against the latest "bad guy".  It's kind of like professional wrestling, now that I think about it.

I have heard that there is an Aryan Nation compound somewhere out in the country, nearby here, but I have no confirmation on that. Unlike the local mosque, Aryan Nation compounds don't advertise in the yellow pages.


But yeah.. no. I really don't feel that I have enough points of reference to feel confident in my perception of the distribution of racism in my own community, much less the country as a whole.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Not to be a broken record, but it's usually the people who are being discriminated against who are in a position to see it. It is certainly better than it was in 1965, but racism is still pretty rampant, and the South is worse, overall, than most places in the North, for a number of historical reasons. There is no dearth of books and articles on this if you feel like researching it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.

Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.

For the same reasons the guys who did this to Emmet Till weren't convicted.



I had no idea you were like that. Pardon me while I go puke my lungs out. 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.

Raw and stinking bullshit.  They were fighting for a static aristocracy.

They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to  its own ends.

It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.

I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.

Yeah. I didn't need this shit today either.