A Theory About Atlanta (Savannah, Dallas: colleges, nightlife, beach)

[Scott Summers]

Originally Posted by blondandfun

-The symbol of Atlanta, the Phoenix, is descriptive of how the native Atlantans of the late 19th Century rebuilt the city after its destruction by the Federal government.
It's still being rebuilt you know?
-The Pro-growth ideology of Atlanta isn't a part of southern culture.
Atlanta's part of the new South, so yes it is.
-The house of the *Gone with the Wind* author was torched several times
Seriously, what's your point?
-the old traditions of Atlanta are so buried in the past that a lot of them are long gone, in fact, they are gone with the wind
If you want to get anywhere in life you have to adjust and move on?
-Southerners mostly believed that agriculture was the best way to support the economy, slavery or not. The industrialization of some southern cities was due to the destruction of the war, and Sherman's burning down Atlanta is the reason why Lincoln got re-elected. The burning of Atlanta set the stage for all other military conflicts of the Fed Gov. including nuking Japan, where civilians are sacrificed for the end cause.
A lot of slave labor was used to support agriculture/economy back then. I don't see what dropping a bomb on Japan has anything to do with ATL then and today.
-Like another poster said Southerners don't like having ANY industrial city as the capital. Our ideology is rooted in Jeffersonian ideals, centered around agriculture.

See my second comment. I don't know where this is going but just lay it all on the table; the floor is yours.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by blondandfun

Civilians died, both directly and indirectly from Sherman's destruction. This was the Fed's first targeting of civilians to promote its cause. Without Atlanta, the A-bomb in Japan would have been the first use of civilians as collateral damage by the Federal Government.

Civilians have died in wars for thousands of years. In Japan, had we invaded instead of dropping the bombs, both Americans and Japanese (military and civilians) would have suffered immense casualties, much larger than the bombs.

In both cases, you don't want a war...don't start one.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

I'm not aware of Atlanta "staking a claim" to capital of the south. I've only heard that title from people in other parts of the country, usually in the form of "The unofficial Capital of the South".

I know that Atlanta was once declared the capital of the "New South" but thats an entirely different meaning.

The notion of a regional capital in the United States is a real stretch as a concept, there having been no pre-existing empires or territories in which a capital might have existed to pass over into the current age (like Barcelona, Naples, Florence, etc., in Europe).

Maybe we could make an argument for Richmond as the actual 'capital' of the South, but, well we know how that turned out.

So the only purpose it serves is as a loose popular designation meaning that it is 'the principal city in' or maybe a kind of gateway or center of commerce for a certain region, the obvious example being Chicago for the Midwestern region. In this sense, it probably makes sense to refer to Atlanta as a 'capital of the South', but even there the designation runs into problems because of the difficulty in defining the South. Does it include Florida? Well, Miami is a pretty important city, too, in terms of commerce, etc. Does it include Texas? Then you've got two other rival metropolises vying with Atlanta for the title.

So, for all these reasons and probably more, it's a problematic idea.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

The notion of a regional capital in the United States is a real stretch as a concept, there having been no pre-existing empires or territories in which a capital might have existed to pass over into the current age (like Barcelona, Naples, Florence, etc., in Europe).

Maybe we could make an argument for Richmond as the actual 'capital' of the South, but, well we know how that turned out.

So the only purpose it serves is as a loose popular designation meaning that it is 'the principal city in' or maybe a kind of gateway or center of commerce for a certain region, the obvious example being Chicago for the Midwestern region. In this sense, it probably makes sense to refer to Atlanta as a 'capital of the South', but even there the designation runs into problems because of the difficulty in defining the South. Does it include Florida? Well, Miami is a pretty important city, too, in terms of commerce, etc. Does it include Texas? Then you've got two other rival metropolises vying with Atlanta for the title.

So, for all these reasons and probably more, it's a problematic idea.

And by the way, just to add to that, it's interesting to note that even New York City has no claim to any particular status as a capital of anything, it's region or otherwise, even though you would be hard pressed to find any American who does not look on it as having exactly the same significance that the city of London has for any citizen of England (though not necessarily the UK at large of course). The capital of this country is Washington, D.C., end of story.

So what we almost have to do is acknowledge a different category of capitals altogether, because we typically acknowledge culture as being at least as important as politics and the two are not always situated in the sames locales.

Incidentally, the German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin made an interesting disstinction among capitals in calling Paris the 'capital of the 19th century' because it had been there that all the major turbulent events of that period had played out, culturally and otherwise. So maybe it is in THIS sense that we could actually speak of Atlanta as a capital of the South, in the cultural sense. But in saying this, we're really stretching the concept of capital almost to the point of being unrecognizable.

[coolyfett]

Everything south of Virginia and Kentucky is the modern day south. Texan is also apart of the south. So Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina & Arkansas. Thats what I would could the south. Did I leave any state out? Atlanta is one of the souths powerhouse cities, same as Miami, Houston & maybe even Charlotte....then you got cities like Dallas, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Memphis, Jacksonville, Birmingham, Orlando, Louisville, San Antonio & Savannah....The south has some a lot of things going on but to call Atlanta the "armpit" of the south is comical. What is Little Rock? The pee hole?

[luckysnap]

Atlanta needs a General Sherman return.

[coolyfett]

Originally Posted by luckysnap

Atlanta needs a General Sherman return.

You mean it needs to be be burned down again?

[Ria Rhodes]

I've heard Atlanta referred to as the "LA of the south" many times, but that never made sense to me, they are nothing alike except for the traffic and air quality. Two things Atlanta is for sure - a red state and a sports obsessed state.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Ria Rhodes

Two things Atlanta is for sure - a red state and a sports obsessed state.

Well sorta....the City of Atlanta itself is blue while the state at large is red, and many people in the area are obsessed with college football, not necessarily sports in general.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by Ria Rhodes

I've heard Atlanta referred to as the "LA of the south" many times, but that never made sense to me, they are nothing alike except for the traffic and air quality. Two things Atlanta is for sure - a red state and a sports obsessed state.

Really? You don't?

I don't know. I can see your point to some extent. Despite the similarities, one problem with the comparison of the two cities is the fact of LA's massive size. It has been a major industrial center and city of 10 million plus for about 60-70 yrs., while Atlanta has never really been an industrial center at all and its size has only recently gotton over 5 million. So there's much more of a labor and class tension in LA which of course here has historically tended to be subsumed into racial categories (and thereby squelched). LA has also been a first tier immigrant gateway for a very long time, while Atlanta has only begun experiencing a large foreign-born presence in the last 20 yrs. (There are 3rd and 4th generation Hispanic families in LA area, while here you rarely see anything other than 1st, exc. of course those who've moved here from CA, Chicago, and NY). Then of course there's a whole slew of diffrences that come from LA being in the state of CA, essentially cosmopolitan in nature where Jews, Catholics and other groups have always played a large role, a radically different animal than GA which has traditionally been very agrarian and rustic and has always been more or less dominated by rural Protestants.

But these differences aside, Atlanta's phenomenal growth and affluence have sort of turned it into a kind of LA East overnight. So I don't know. Structure is important too, and when you look at all the sprawl and the cars (and then throw in the materialism and emphasis on appearances for good measure) the two cities often appear to have an awful lot in common too.