Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes, we do, and I believe it is instinctive. Stereotypes are very useful in a survival sense, not so much in an interpersonal or social sense.
As our society has evolved, physical survival has begun to take a lower priority than social and interpersonal skills.
Well put and makes sense to me. I bet there have been dissertations written on this subject and social anthropologists have done all sorts of surveys. This would be an interesting topic to explore on its own.
Thank you, Anon. I bet you know a lot more about this than you have just shared.
i was told years ago that a redneck was a union supporter in the old coal towns back in the day. if you wore a red bandana around your neck you supported the union.silent code to be kept from the "company goons" and company supported police
While I agree the term "redneck" was used back in the 1920's during a coal mine strike in West Virginia for the reasons you mentioned, in the deep south I believe the origination of the term goes back even further to the 1800's. It came about in the days when most people in the south lived on farms and worked their land - when manual labor fed this nation - and people would get sunburned and red from working from sunup to sundown.
Regardless, the term seems to have shared the common element of pride in a job well done by hardworking people - until others took it and twisted the connotation to other degroatory meanings.
Anon certainly seems to summarize what history tells us. I have a hard time thinking of a society, ancient or modern, which does not have its "inferior" groups. The obvious ones come to mind easily - women throughout much of European and Asian history, Jews in modern Germany, the Irish in the British Isles, untouchables in India, Native Americans in US history and African Americans in most western cultures. These are only the most obvious - every time I read a book - fiction or non-fiction - I learn about another group who has been deemed second class: the burakumin of Japan, the hazara of Afghanistan and on and on. It does seem necessary for human beings to designate another group as inferior, in order, one assumes, to make themselves feel superior.
im not from there but came from around there,
but generally when i see that on CD it means somebody is making a racial post
white folks don't call each other that name very much do they?
im not from there but came from around there,
but generally when i see that on CD it means somebody is making a racial post
white folks don't call each other that name very much do they?
You mean - white folks don't call each other redneck very often? Heck, yeah.
We call each other crackers, white trash, rednecks, hillbillies, Bubbas . . . sure. Also, Social Climber, A$$ kisser, etc.
And Bunky, after reading all the posts on this thread . . . I still wonder . . . why we feel we have to separate ourselves into groups . . . why we feel we need to label. Anonymous had a nice post about that. But still - I wonder why, in the year of 2008, we still feel we have to divide people into groups.
Anon certainly seems to summarize what history tells us. I have a hard time thinking of a society, ancient or modern, which does not have its "inferior" groups. The obvious ones come to mind easily - women throughout much of European and Asian history, Jews in modern Germany, the Irish in the British Isles, untouchables in India, Native Americans in US history and African Americans in most western cultures. These are only the most obvious - every time I read a book - fiction or non-fiction - I learn about another group who has been deemed second class: the burakumin of Japan, the hazara of Afghanistan and on and on. It does seem necessary for human beings to designate another group as inferior, in order, one assumes, to make themselves feel superior.
Barb, you hit on it - "to make themselves feel superior." I guess that is why we do it.
How many times have I heard someone say "now they are our kind of people." I guess we all like to find other people who think somewhat like we do . . . have the same values . . . espouse the same political views (or are interesting in defending their different ideas!) . . . maybe part of it is - we make distinctions to find our "pack" or "tribe."
You mean - white folks don't call each other redneck very often? Heck, yeah.
We call each other crackers, white trash, rednecks, hillbillies, Bubbas . . . sure. Also, Social Climber, A$$ kisser, etc.
And Bunky, after reading all the posts on this thread . . . I still wonder . . . why we feel we have to separate ourselves into groups . . . why we feel we need to label. Anonymous had a nice post about that. But still - I wonder why, in the year of 2008, we still feel we have to divide people into groups.
But we do.
i dont know who "we" is but i dont know anybody that talks like that . anyway not for long and not standing up.
ever thought bout makin some new friends?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
