A curiosity about the South, for people who live here

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

There are also alot of poor southerners who aren't racist, which is an important point.

*raises hand*
Though Texas isn't 100% "the south".
I think a lot of our pols think it's still a "sovereign republic". 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.

And that's one of the reasons for this discussion. We're interested in the historical and cultural context that lead to racism being so culturally and legally entrenched in the Confederate South, and whether or not things would have been different (or even better) if the south hadn't been subjected to both military conquest and the subsequent cultural and financial domination at the hands of the conquerors.

True. The south was forced.

And when you force things on people, the usual response is "Hey, fuck you!"

The thing is, the aristocracy owned slaves. A lot of people didn't want to fight for that, any more than they want to fight oil wars now. I've read stories about people in Appalachia who ran off to fight for the Union because they didn't want to be conscripted into fighting for rich peoples' right to own slaves. And not everybody in the north was an abolitionist. Boston had draft riots.

I'm not sure how it went from that to what it became later, but I think you're right that cultural and financial domination had a lot to do with it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

This is interesting, if Lincoln hadn't been shot, things might have taken a different track.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/reconstruction/section1.html

But I've seen a lot of conflicting information about what the "ten percent plan" actually WAS. Some sources say it would have allowed slavery again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".

The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.

OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. 

At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.

The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.

Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people. That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger", that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.

It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.

[Verbal Mike]

I don't think you are understanding the dynamic in the South. It goes way beyond simple "everyone is racist to some degree" (which is nauseatingly facile when describing situations as complex as, say, the South or the dynamic between the Isrealis and Palestinians), to "we resent the shit out of these people in a way that is now ingrained into our culture".

I should clarify: most people seem to me cognitively racist, i.e. thinking in racist categories and assigning attributes to groups the way racists do. Obviously the specific categories and attributes are very different from one culture to another; it's the basic pattern of thinking that I see everywhere, and different patterns of its expression.
I might still be missing something major here but it sounds to me like that situation isn't all that different from the dynamics I'm more familiar with (latent taboo racism in Germany and the more overt socially-acceptable racism in Israel). Please elaborate if I'm still not getting you.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".

The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.

OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. 

At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.

The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.

Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people. That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger", that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.

It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.

Yes, but how did it start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".

The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.

OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. 

At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.

The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.

Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people. That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger", that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.

It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.

Yes, but how did it start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???

People have been enslaving each other since prehistory... the fact that we now live in an era relatively free from open slavery (underground slavery still exists) is pretty unique, as far as human civilizations go. Linking slavery to race is a relatively new practice, but in a land made up primarily of immigrants it probably seemed like a pretty surefire way to identify people who were "other" and therefore acceptable to enslave. In the early United States, white slavery was very common.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Yes, but how did it start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???

It was, at the time, a commonly held Christian doctrine that Blacks and Arabs were all the descendents of Ham, Noah's dishonored son who received a "curse" from God and sentenced to forever be a servant. This is the "Hamitic Myth," which was used as justification for race-based slavery. Prior to the Transatlantic African slave trade, slavery was usually not based on skin color, and it's debatable if the concept of "race" even existed, at least as concretely as it does today.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Thanks, Nigel.

I had some vague memory of white people agreeing to be owned for a few years in exchange for passage, but I wanted to verify and found this http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/

Don't know how reputable the info is, but it's got a longish list, including:

- The kidnapped people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children); It was a Royal policy : POOR RELIEF

With that kind of thing going on, it's not hard to picture people saying "STFU, it's not us anymore" when a lot of planters started switching over to Africans. Wrong as fuck, but I can see it.

[E.O.T.]

But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.

I BELIEVE

          there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.

I BELIEVE

          there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.

Uhhh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."

Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"

Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?

Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."

[E.O.T.]

But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.

I BELIEVE

          there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.

Uhhh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."

Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"

Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?

Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."

LISTEN TEXAS FAIRy

          although wiki is the undisputed authority of all information, i'm not seeking to create a splinter thread here. however, please have patience and give me a bit of time to respond to this. The very first kkk i know to have actually had "black"/ african "american" chapters and the creation of which, had a markedly different purpose and function than the two later incarnations.

PLEASE,

          understand that i'm making this point purely because i believe this issue actually is that complex and more than worth our attention. i am not from the south nor am i a christian, i do not identify with the viewpoints of the kkk.

MOST PROBABLY,

          if i were to be instantly transported to your location in texas or anywhere in the south, my life expectancy would be about five minutes before a bunch of guys in a truck showed up to eliminate my ass.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My understanding is that the original KKK did indeed start as a social club, but the masks and costumes provided an anonymity that quickly attracted angry and disaffected people seeking an opportunity to intimidate and vandalize people they did not care for, which included Freedmen, Republicans, and carpetbaggers.

The Klan's first incarnation began in late 1865 or early 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was founded as a local social club, but quickly its main purpose became to resist Reconstruction after the American Civil War. It focused on intimidating Freedmen using terror and violence, and was involved in a wave of killings of Republican voters in 1868. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning the violence, and Southern elites blaming the Klan as an excuse for Federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act). The first Klan was never well organized. As a secret or "invisible" group, it had no membership rosters, no dues, no newspapers, no spokesmen, no chapters, no local officers, no state or national officials. Its popularity came from its reputation, and that was greatly enhanced by its outlandish costumes and its theatricality. As historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered [Parsons p 816]:

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."

http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/files/page.php?p=21

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.

I BELIEVE

          there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.

Uhhh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."

Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"

Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?

Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."

LISTEN TEXAS FAIRy

          although wiki is the undisputed authority of all information,

Hey, they're a lot better vetted than they were a few years ago when we were calling them "wackypedia".

i'm not seeking to create a splinter thread here. however, please have patience and give me a bit of time to respond to this. The very first kkk i know to have actually had "black"/ african "american" chapters and the creation of which, had a markedly different purpose and function than the two later incarnations.

I'd be interested in seeing something about that.

I think Nigel has a point, though. That couldn't have lasted long. 

PLEASE,

          understand that i'm making this point purely because i believe this issue actually is that complex and more than worth our attention. i am not from the south nor am i a christian, i do not identify with the viewpoints of the kkk.

Dude, I know. I've been reading you here for awhile, you're ok. 

MOST PROBABLY,

          if i were to be instantly transported to your location in texas or anywhere in the south, my life expectancy would be about five minutes before a bunch of guys in a truck showed up to eliminate my ass.

You have to tell them you're FBI like TGRR did. 

[E.O.T.]

DEAR TEXAS FAIRy

          in regards to the original klan (kkk) having not lasted long, you are correct. it was officially/ voluntarily disbanded just a few years after it's creation. There are absolutely books on the black klan chapters available.

SIMILAR

          to the worthlessness of the contemporary or "king james' bible, being a text altered over time to reflect contemporary viewpoints or even, political objectives, it's not a mistake that accurate historical perspectives are difficult to dig up. For instance, I'm not at home to dig through my personal library, but following just a few links that were not either wiki, the southern poverty law center or the adl, the two "kkk" sites i visited looking for a history of the klan, in my opinion were totally not, not, not real klan sites because the wording was just too trigger happy and not believable.

THAT SAID,

          something what may help move things along could be perhaps vex and golden applesauce helping us out with some sources for what early southern reactions were in this period & also accounts of black n white relations prior to the civil war. ?

SO FAR AS

          slavery is concerned. since the many individuals who chose indentured servitude as their ticket to america is concerned (due to the cost of simply getting to the "new world") were accounted for as actual passangers on a ship, not as cargo, we have no real numbers to represent, what is believed to be a great amount, of white slaves in the u.s. africans were actually purchased as part of an existing slave trade in africa. quite unlike the made for t.v. version. thusly, there are records of how many purchased from where and where they went to.

IN REGARDS TO

          your earlier inquiry as to "how can it happen?!" that seemingly/ assumedly rational people can view others as livestock, that's a great fucking question. but apparently we humans are big fans of it. similarly, i voiced to nigel the other day that i can't wrap my head around the fact that a bunch of extremely xenophobic people would even want something as alien to them as black africans, anywhere in their culture, even as slaves. but then we, as soldiers, can burn a barn full of women and children. why? how?

I FEEL

          that what vex and ga are getting at, is that over time, where european americans and african slaves had coexisted, the nature of their relationships began to change, to become something more approaching a real understanding of one another, with slavery already on its way out the (side) door, but the politics of the civil war borked all that, and twisted it. i hope i'm not digressing or derailing this too much.