American Civil War, yet again

[Shryke]

The South might be unique in the phenomenon in the US, but certainly not in the world.

Utterly irrelevant. Those not trying to white-wash a truly abominable things done in history have every right to look down on those who do. The uniqueness or lack there of of this kind of white-washing doesn't matter a wit.

If the South doesn't like smugness about this topic, maybe they should stop trying to justify the Confederacy.

[MerenthaClone]

Utterly irrelevant. Those not trying to white-wash a truly abominable things done in history have every right to look down on those who do. The uniqueness or lack there of of this kind of white-washing doesn't matter a wit.

If the South doesn't like smugness about this topic, maybe they should stop trying to justify the Confederacy.

See how most people don't tend to be super smug towards Germans about that whole Nazi thing, because (as a general society) they kind of all decided that shit was fucked up.

[DanteGabriel]

See how most people don't tend to be super smug towards Germans about that whole Nazi thing, because (as a general society) they kind of all decided that shit was fucked up.

And why people in Asia continue to be pissed at Japan, especially with the current nationalistic government, because they have not owned their World War 2 crimes the way Germany has.

[The Marquis de Leech]

See how most people don't tend to be super smug towards Germans about that whole Nazi thing, because (as a general society) they kind of all decided that shit was fucked up.

Let's suppose that at the end of WWII, the Allies occupy Germany, like in real life. But suppose the Allies get a bit annoyed about needing to spend all this time and money on occupation - so they withdraw. Germany votes in a rabidly anti-semitic nationalist party that mourns the Lost Cause at every opportunity, but which doesn't attack anyone this time. For the next hundred years, this nationalist party rules an essentially one party state, with Jews, communists, and minority groups barred from voting and often lynched with Berlin's tacit approval. Children get named after Hitler and company. Then suppose a hundred years later, the EU forces Germany to stop treating these minorities like garbage. For the fifty further years, Germany is the hotbed of resistance to the evil EU, and groups pop up to defend their German heritage. One of them posts on a forum about how Hitler really didn't start WWII.

That would be an analogous situation. It didn't happen like that, so (outside inane tabloids and football), no-one is smug about the Nazi thing. If it had happened like that...

[DanteGabriel]

Let's suppose that at the end of WWII, the Allies occupy Germany, like in real life. But suppose the Allies get a bit annoyed about needing to spend all this time and money on occupation - so they withdraw. Germany votes in a rabidly anti-semitic nationalist party that mourns the Lost Cause at every opportunity, but which doesn't attack anyone this time. For the next hundred years, this nationalist party rules an essentially one party state, with Jews, communists, and minority groups barred from voting and often lynched with Berlin's tacit approval. Children get named after Hitler and company. Then suppose a hundred years later, the EU forces Germany to stop treating these minorities like garbage. For the fifty further years, Germany is the hotbed of resistance to the evil EU, and groups pop up to defend their German heritage. One of them posts on a forum about how Hitler really didn't start WWII.

Don't forget all the Germans co-opting Jewish food and music, dressing it up in lederhosen and blonde wigs, and getting rich off marketing it to other Germans.

[The Fallen]

` Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't conservatives (and the South) been on the wrong side of the most historic and important decisions, such as the abolition of slavery; the end of Jim Crow; abortion; Universal Healthcare, and now gay rights?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fallen,

I'm conservative and Southern and haven't. No this is not all about me. However, I get frustrated with over-generaization.

[Ormond]

` Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't conservatives (and the South) been on the wrong side of the most historic and important decisions, such as the abolition of slavery; the end of Jim Crow; abortion; Universal Healthcare, and now gay rights?

I think this idea is a bit unfair to conservatives, because at its most basic level "conservatism" is the dislike of and resistance to change. History and memory tend to focus on how things change, not how they stay the same. So it should be much easier to remember how things have changed for the better because of "progressive" policies rather than to notice the positives of other things which have NOT changed because of "conservative" policies. Whatever is positive about conservatism is just going to be less visible.

[DanteGabriel]

Fallen,

I'm conservative and Southern and haven't. No this is not all about me. However, I get frustrated with over-generaization.

Scot, do you think it's fair to say that Southern elites have pursued discriminatory and backward policies in the governments of various Southern states? And that in pursuit of ensuring popular support for these policies, they have inculcated racism and discrimination in the culture of those states? A poor white person in the South has a lot more in common with a poor black person than with a rich white person, but the old divisions continue...

I suggest you channel your frustration towards the people giving your home region a bad name instead of the people who are just describing well-established patterns and electoral strategies.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

I think that's accurate but unfair if it's implied that's all there is to Southerners. Every group of people is much more complex than sterotypes allow.

[The Fallen]

Ser Scot,

I don't believe in painting everyone with a broad brush. I'm pretty open-minded and can always see the other point of view even if I disagree with it. My statement wasn't aimed at any particular individual. I'm working under the premise that all the folks in this thread are smart and can see the bigger meaning in my statement.

And in reference to the changes I mentioned, I was asking the question because the South has pretty much fought movements that have made this country better. I'm also aware that there have always been people in the south who aren't racist or anti-gay.

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

I think that's accurate but unfair if it's implied that's all there is to Southerners. Every group of people is much more complex than sterotypes allow.

I think we've discussed this subject enough that you know I'm not trying to generalize about all Southerners, which is why I chose my words carefully and focused on "Southern elites."

And in reference to the changes I mentioned, I was asking the question because the South has pretty much fought movements that have made this country better. I'm also aware that there have always been people in the south who aren't racist or anti-gay.

There's a book Scot and I have both read and occasionally discussed here that traces the prevailing culture of each region of the US to its original settlers, and paints American history as essentially a struggle between two coalitions, one headed by New England Puritans and the other by the slave lords who settled the Deep South. The author has a detectable Yankee bias but it's still fascinating and enlightening, and has really influenced the way I think about American history and politics.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

And I think that is a valuable distinction. Unfortunatlely, there are others who want to use sterotypes to demonize. Take Chuck Thompson's book: Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.

[aceluby]

I think this idea is a bit unfair to conservatives, because at its most basic level "conservatism" is the dislike of and resistance to change. History and memory tend to focus on how things change, not how they stay the same. So it should be much easier to remember how things have changed for the better because of "progressive" policies rather than to notice the positives of other things which have NOT changed because of "conservative" policies. Whatever is positive about conservatism is just going to be less visible.

I'm having some difficulty coming up w/ some examples of positives that have happened due to resistance of change and conservative policies.

[The Fallen]

Dante,

` Sounds interesting. What's the title?

I'm just finishing up 'The Arms of Krupp' which is also very fascinating. It's about the Krupp family, how they came to prominence and their importance to Germany as their main arms supplier.

[DanteGabriel]

` Sounds interesting. What's the title?

It's called "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard (I also linked to it in my post, from the word "book"). There are a couple of similar books that were written earlier ("Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer and "The Nine Nations of North America" by Joel Garreau), but the Woodard book has a wider and deeper scope, I think.

Hrm, maybe I should just move this to the thread about the book from a few months back. ;)

DG,

And I think that is a valuable distinction. Unfortunatlely, there are others who want to use sterotypes to demonize. Take Chuck Thompson's book: Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.

Well, my attitude towards "The South" is something I struggle with too, and I've been an ass about over-generalizing and felt compelled to apologize about it even during my time on this board. So I'm no innocent on that front. But in my better moments I'm capable of recognizing such a book as low-brow red meat meant to suck money from an already-converted choir, not that different from the right wing writers who make their living writing mean books about "liberals."

At the very least, the New York Times, bastion of Yankee/New Netherland cultural mores, took a pretty dim view of the book.

[The Fallen]

I'm having some difficulty coming up w/ some examples of positives that have happened due to resistance of change and conservative policies.

I cwn respect conservative values. I just object to taking morality and making it law. I like to keep those seperate.

[Ormond]

I'm having some difficulty coming up w/ some examples of positives that have happened due to resistance of change and conservative policies.

And of course you do, because almost by definition big changes which are proposed but do NOT occur never get enough support in the general population for them to seem plausible.

I think marriage may be one example. There are quite a few left-wing intellectuals (and not a few Libertarians) who would like to see marriage completely abolished as a government-recognized institution and go to a system where the government makes absolutely no distinction at all between the married and unmarried, or where "marriage" is reduced to the enforcment of specific written contracts between two people (the more Libertarian view.) More than one Libertarian on this board had advocated for such a change rather than going to same sex marriage as a solution.

Allowing same sex marriage is actually a much more "conservative" solution than the radical proposals to do away with all government recognition of marriage. Personally I think maintaining marriage and simply expanding those allowed to get that sort of recognition is a much better solution than elimination of government recognition of marriage, and that the latter is certainly a more "progressive" or "leftist" idea where resistance is a good thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

For the record Albion's Seed is the most scholarly of the works you list. I'm still working on it.

I do appreciate that many in my region lend themselves to riducule and criticism, I've driven by the former home of "the Redneck Shop" any number of times.

That said I hope that till the day I die I keep bucking sterotypes and preconceptions, its fun.

;)

[Zorral]

A better book is that of American folkways, David Fischer Hatchett's Albion's Seed, that explains who settled when and where and why and the consequence for better and worse of that.

Personally, I find it impossible not to love "the South" in so many ways -- not to mention so many human beings, not only white, African American, but by now also Asian and Latino. But I recognize and feel -- and know -- in so many places palpably the terrible evil that went on in these places for centuries. For the record I also know in great detail the role and participation in the evil that particular places in mid-Atlantic, like New York City, and in New England, such as Boston and Rhode Island, had. Early abolition, yes, but they participated in the African slave trade by building and financing ships to do so. Now they didn't bring African captives to the U.S. after 1808, the date by which the federal government mandated the end to the international slave trade (which was terrific protectionism for the domestic slave trade by which the southern states basically lived). But they did take extraordinarily lucrative cargos of captives to the Caribbean and Brasil. And sometimes clandestinely to the U.S. in spite of the laws. In fact, by U.S. law even building ships for the slave trade was illegal, but that mattered not. They sailed under the ruses of many flags, just as so many traders do now.