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.
A stat count on the amount of lynchings and other atrocities committed against blacks are inaccurate methods to determine the general attitude within any particular state. The number of atrocities reported are likely seriously under-counted/under-reported for all the states involved.
It's actually a fairly good measure. I can't think of a better barometer for the general attitude towards Blacks other than Whites going out and killing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncey
I think a better measure of the attitude towards blacks would be to look at the Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws enacted within each state after the emancipation. These laws come from a legislative level.
And in this respect, Georgia was different from Alabama how exactly?
I'm sorry, but the number of lynchings says a lot about the culture of the state. And the states with the highest number of lynchings were the same states with the weakest Obama support. There were only three states with weaker Obama support than Georgia: Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Why do you think that is?
I mean, doesn't Georgia have way more "Yankees" than South Carolina? If that is the case, then why did Obama receive a lower share of the non-Hispanic White vote than in a supposedly redneck state like South Carolina? What does that say about your electorate?
So here are the explanations/rationalisations/rebuttals to these two facts.
Fact: Georgia had more lynchings than any state other than Alabama.
Response: Georgia had more Black people and population than those other states.
Counterpoint: Georgia had more lynchings than three of the largest states in the South combined.
Fact: Obama received a lower share of the non-Hispanic White vote in Georgia than he did in South Carolina.
Response: That's only because Georgia has a lot of military bases. These military personnel all vote Republican and drove the white share way below it normally would be.
Counterpoint: Active duty and civilian military personnel make up 2.2% and 1.9% of the population in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively. Not a material difference. Georgia also has more transplants than South Carolina (and is also the more urbanized state), which theoretically means it should be more Democratic.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 04-01-2015 at 11:24 AM..
You, my friend are IMPOSSIBLE to have any kind of conversation with.
That's basically your logic. Maryland had lynchings (29 in MD vs 531 in GA). Maryland also had Jim Crow. In terms of race relations, would you put Maryland and Georgia in the same bucket?
It's like some of you people are incapable of the concept of degrees...as if pointing out the fact that Massachusetts had a single slave makes it no different than Mississippi.
70% of those Alabama votes were done by "created accounts" so don't pay too much attention to that.
Maybe people are using the same logic they use in other polls. For example, people said that Maryland has more in common with New York than New England because both are in the Mid-Atlantic. Perhaps people are voting for Alabama because both Alabama and Georgia are considered Deep South states in their entirety whereas North Carolina is not.
Some poster named Spicymeatball made me laugh out loud literally with their comment.
Anyway, my views have always been like post #14 in that thread: East Coast is made up of Northeast (New England, NY, NJ, and PA), Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast (Southern states on the Atlantic).
Well, I just think East Coast is too broad a term. I doubt when someone in Kansas City says East Coast they think Savannah or Charleston. Imo Charleston and Savannah have far more in common with a place like Mobile, AL than Boston or Philadelphia. The people that live in those cities make all the differnce rather than colonial history. The people of Mobile, Savannah and Charleston all share the deep south culture.
Well, I just think East Coast is too broad a term. I doubt when someone in Kansas City says East Coast they think Savannah or Charleston. Imo Charleston and Savannah have far more in common with a place like Mobile, AL than Boston or Philadelphia. The people that live in those cities make all the differnce rather than colonial history. The people of Mobile, Savannah and Charleston all share the deep south culture.
There's a colloquial reference and there's a strict geographic reference. As far as the latter goes, Savannah and Charleston are East Coast cities--they are located along the Atlantic Coast. Colloquially, the term seems to most often refers to cities along the Bos-Wash corridor.
They call Alabama and Mississippi the twin states, though that might be because they are a geographic mirror of each other and much of Alabama is light years ahead of Mississippi.
You can't just say, "Take away Atlanta and they're the same" because that can be used for a ton of states. Illinois entire identity is linked with Chicago, and more so New York state is linked to New York City, just as Atlanta is to Georgia.
Not to mention Georgia is much older than Alabama and has Savannah, something Alabama can't come close to. Georgia and South Carolina probably have more in common to be honest.
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.
