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.
"culture of honor" = not political. period. stop. ...
From the link you posted upthread:
Quote:
Culture of honor (Southern United States)
The traditional culture of the Southern United States has been called a "culture of honor", that is, a culture where people avoid intentionally offending others, and maintain a reputation for not accepting improper conduct by others. A theory as to why the American South had or may have this culture is an assumed regional belief in retribution to enforce one's rights and deter predation against one’s family, home and possessions.
"A culture where people avoid intentionally offending others"?
By flying the Confederate flag which they know offends others?
Maintain a reputation for not accepting improper conduct by others?
By reinstating 'Black codes' immediately following the American Civil War?
By keeping the "improper conduct" in check by enforcing local & state Jim Crow laws?
From your link:
Quote:
Psychology
Laboratory research has demonstrated that men in honor cultures perceive interpersonal threats more readily than do men in other cultures, including increases in cortisol and testosterone levels following insults.[5] In culture-of-honor states, high school students were found to be more likely to bring a weapon to school in the past month and over a 20-year period, there were more than twice as many school shootings per capita.[6] According to Lindsey Osterman and Ryan Brown in Culture of Honor and Violence Against the Self, "[i]ndividuals (particularly Whites) living in honor states are at an especially high risk for committing suicide."[7]
Are you using the special assumed psychology associated with the 'culture of honor' to explain the historic "retribution to enforce one's rights and deter predation"?
Are the historic 'honor killings' justifiable by a. screwed up psychology? The lynchings & assassinations & dehumanizations? Are these just honor killings? From President Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Medger Evans, Malcolm X, President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Emmett Till & the list goes on & on ... .
Quote:
War
A 2016 study suggests that honor culture increases the risk of war. The study found that international conflicts under Southern presidents are "twice as likely to involve uses of force, last on average twice as long, and are three times more likely to end in victory for the United States than disputes under non-Southern presidents. Other characteristics of Southern presidencies do not seem able to account for this pattern of results."[12]
Are these ^ just more of the same manifestations of the Slave States' 'culture of honor'? That the rest of the Country is supposed to consider acceptable?
... My only defense of the south is this, I believe that the people themselves believed they were fighting for something far more noble than slavery. ...
Precisely what was this "far more noble" idea? White supremacy? A 'way of life' based on white supremacy? Their 'culture of honor'?
Likely even more significant question: how long are we supposed to 'protect, preserve, & expand' this delusion?
If you really think Black people are that stupid, then perhaps you shouldn't be on this thread. Last I checked, 90 percent of the nation's Black population was in the South. Now it's 55 percent of the nation's Black population in the South. Black people didn't need to the media to keep them in fear. Black people have personal experiences for that.
Now, what does any of this have to do with how Blacks perceive the Confederate flag? Blacks weren't representing southern heritage with the Confederate flag back in the 1900s or the 1950s. They aren't doing now. Do you really think it was the media telling them that, or is that something you keep telling yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
How soon you seem to forget all that that has been shown to you. Need me to do that again, so you can say stupid people?
I don't even know how to comment on this?
Is this more of same old, lame old 'culture of honor' bs?
On the blue - it would still exist in America if it were not for Frederick Douglass and his cohort. We are not speaking of England or Latin America....
LOL on the pink - that is exactly what he did - he popularized it as being in the nation's "best interest" and convinced a substantial amount of people in the northern US that it would win the war to make it about ending slavery. And note, I don't give him all the credit as he is only one man. There were MANY people who worked with him who pushed this same narrative some white as well as black activists.
On the green - again, we are speaking of America. We are not speaking of "the world." Each region is unique. You should stay focused on the subject at hand.
On the black, everyone doesn't want to control how people vote....I certainly do not. I think it is in the best interest to let people vote their own interest. I'm on this forum because I like to discuss politics on forums. It is less contentious in real life. Plus the forum is pretty entertaining to me.
I've also never said that racism is only a "white problem." Anyone and everyone can be a racist. But my post was not speaking on "racism." I was specific that I was speaking about the "ideology of white supremacy" and that is a whole other subject.
You are making this a black vs white think in regards to the orange above and getting off focus with mention of other countries/regions again.
Me speaking with you started with me stating that Lincoln was a white supremacist. You insinuated that black people amongst others saw him as a "savior" or some sort of 100% positive figure. I countered that assumption of yours to tell you that black people by and large, today, do not view Lincoln as a savior. That is all. Those of us who are learned, we know he was a white supremacist and was only out for the best interest of the country and didn't care really about slaves, until, as you noted, he was persuaded to do so (by Fred and friends) because it would give him a political advantage and military advantage in the war.
All the other stuff you are talking about is off task to what I initially stated. I don't have a positive view of Democrats either. Both Republicans and Democrats as parties IMO do not have the specific interest of black people in their platforms. Black American politics has never thought that any particular party is 100% better than another and never has thought that we can 100% trust white politicians especially because there is nothing historically that shows that this has ever been done for our demographic. A review of the political history of this nation shows that black people were pawns and thought of an inferior beings from the very beginnings. Our sub-culture as black Americans was founded upon the end of the Revolutionary War to combat the hypocrisy of the US's founding documents in relation to "freedom" and "liberty" while it enslaved millions of people and tried to claim they were not people. So my statements are from these historical facts. Not from emotion. I have no overt views of whites in America. I don't care how you vote and I don't care if you fly a confederate flag. Only thing I care about is you assuming or telling me that I or my people view Lincoln as a savior when I don't and we don't to any wide degree (that is paternalism) or that the "values" of the CSA states wasn't based on them owning "property" in the form of slaves. The highest vlaue they held was that whites were superior to blacks. That is a fact and that is what the flag represents of them as a value to me and many other black people. Doesn't mean we'll have a "reaction." If I was polled I'd say I don't have a reaction to it either. That's because I know what it means and what it's history is so it is not surprising to me.
Frederick Douglas could see the 'writing on the wall' just as you've expressed above. It was inevitable I suppose that the 'war of historical memory' would continue.
Quote:
...Frederick Douglass was, Blight says, “acutely aware that the postwar era might ultimately be controlled by those who could best shape interpretations of the war itself.”
Just a few years after the war, Douglass had already begun to see that the losers of the war were winning the peace because he felt that the American people were “destitute of political memory.” Douglass often referred to the war as a “rebellion” and was careful not to speak of the rebels in any honorific way, and pledged himself to never forgive the South and to never forget the meaning of the war. On Memorial Day in 1871 at the Civil War Unknown Monument at Arlington National Cemetery, Douglass’ speech was resolute:
Quote:
We are sometimes asked in the name of patriotism to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation’s life, and those who struck to save it—those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice. I am no minister of malice . . . I would not repel the repentant, but . . . may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I forget the difference between the parties to that . . . bloody conflict . . . I may say if this war is to be forgotten, I ask in the name of all things sacred what shall men remember?
As Douglass was already concerned that the victors were losing the war of historical memory to the supposedly vanquished, I am not sure that he would have been surprised that not far from where he stood at the national cemetery—often considered the nation’s most hallowed ground—a Confederate memorial would be built in the early 20th century to the insurgents he felt “struck at the nation’s life.”
On the black, everyone doesn't want to control how people vote....I certainly do not.
The people who post on this forum are trying to "influence" how other people think. The whole purpose of government-education is to condition people to think as the government wants them to. And that is what the media does as well. The entire world is just nonstop propaganda. Do you not see it? What is the purpose of propaganda?
I have long considered myself a kind of "natural-born teacher". But by teaching someone everything you know, shouldn't they come to think as you think? Am I just an objective educator? Or am I actually consciously or subconsciously, trying to create an Army of people who think like me? Isn't that what all teachers do whether they realize it or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I was specific that I was speaking about the "ideology of white supremacy" and that is a whole other subject.
Let us make sure we know what White-Supremacy is, because it seems like people love throwing around that term at everything.
White-Supremacy, in the context of the south after the Civil-War, was the intentional disenfranchisement of black voters. And why didn't "the elites" want black people to vote? Simple, because they weren't voting the "right way".
But let me ask you this question. What problems does democracy solve? Why has democracy taken over the world?
Paradoxically, the most-successful democracies are those democracies which are least-democratic.
What makes a democracy successful, is the ability of "the elites" to control the government by controlling public-opinion. When people believe that they are the government, they support their government, fight for their government, and never rebel.
When America was founded the only people allowed to vote were "White men with property". Because they would "vote the right way". And voting-rights weren't expanded to other groups until they were properly "educated".
This was a problem in the south after the Civil-War. The blacks hadn't yet been "educated"(although the government established schools across the south immediately after the war), so they weren't yet indoctrinated, as to be receptive to the propaganda.
So while Lincoln and his party cynically pushed for the 15th amendment in the hopes that blacks would help the Republican Party take control of the South, black southerners hadn't yet taken their mandatory government Civics class. And were voting for the 19th century equivalent of AOC or Karl Marx.
The same premise is why we don't allow felons to vote. And it is both why Republicans want voter-ID laws, and why democrats are opposed to them. Neither side cares about what is right, only what is useful. Which is why democrats would be perfectly willing to let illegal-immigrants vote, since they would vote for democrats. Although they would never admit that that was their reason, and would give a million other excuses.
As for the white southerners who supported "White-Supremacy". Let me repeat, the actual racists don't want to rule black people, they want to be rid of black people. But so long as white people and black people are forced together under a single government, and as long as white people and black people don't agree with each other, then one group will necessarily dominate the other in government.
If democracy is nothing more than a racial headcount(which is often the case), then democracy begins to look like "tyranny of the majority". And for that matter, why is tyranny of a majority better than tyranny of a minority? Is the majority more-wise? What are the characteristics that make the majority better than the minority?
It should be no surprise to anyone that people abandon democracy the moment it opposes their interests. And why shouldn't they?
IMO the bold is basically continuing the tradition of white supremacy ideology, which dictated that us black people don't know what's good for us, we are like perpetual children, and don't have the cognitive capacity to "think" and make valid decisions about our experiences and lives.
It goes further than that. That tradition also dictates that Black people AREN'T suppose to know what is best for themselves. It goes beyond being viewed as perpetual children. This kind of mindset was re-enforced with violence. It is about "the Blacks need to stay in their place". It is about being an adult and being called "boy" or "girl" by a teenager, but you have refer to that person as "Mister" or "Miss".
When I think of the Confederate flag, I see more than a flag. And I'm just talking about how I see it. I look at it and see an ideology behind it. Seeing that flag makes me think "this is still the Old South and the Old South mentality is still here, even if it can't be openly displayed". I think about the persons who claim Black Americans are "brainwashed" or "they want to be victims", that is not much different than the mentality that existed back in 1920. It's more about "you better like it or else".
Those of us who are learned, we know he was a white supremacist and was only out for the best interest of the country and didn't care really about slaves, until, as you noted, he was persuaded to do so (by Fred and friends) because it would give him a political advantage and military advantage in the war.
I just think you are giving Fred far too much credit. For instance, what was the actual purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation?
In 1862, Lincoln pushed for the Militia Act, which would allow blacks to be laborers and soldiers in the Union Army. Why? For justice for the black man? Or because they were in desperate need of soldiers and laborers?
At that same time he passed the "Confiscation Act", which said, "That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free."
What was the point of the Confiscation Act? Was that "Fred's" doing as well?
That was obviously the precursor of the Emancipation Proclamation. And all the Emancipation Proclamation really said was, "If the south doesn't stop its rebellion by the end of the year, I will confiscate and free all your slaves."
The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't to free the slaves, but to get the south to reenter the union. To end the war. Had the south reentered before January 1st, 1863, there would be no emancipation.
Even after the Militia Act of 1862, the north still was badly short soldiers. And the Confederacy merely ignored Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and the southern slaves didn't rebel as Lincoln had hoped. So in early 1863, Lincoln was right back where he was in 1862. So he passed the "Enrollment Act of 1863", which was what we would call a "military draft".
Lincoln's military draft led to a lot of resistance in the North. The most famous was the "New York City Draft Riots". Where they had the slogan, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
Is this more of same old, lame old 'culture of honor' bs?
You're jonesing for yet more appeasement?
It's cliche at this point, but said person was just trying to gaslight me. I've seen what said person had to show me. And I wasn't impressed. None of it refuted the information I put out there. I gave information included in the Articles of Secession and the Confederate Constitution. There is nothing said person can show me because it doesn't negate what I've been saying. It also has little to do with the subject matter. It is all about deflection.
"A culture where people avoid intentionally offending others"?
By flying the Confederate flag which they know offends others?
Maintain a reputation for not accepting improper conduct by others?
By reinstating 'Black codes' immediately following the American Civil War?
By keeping the "improper conduct" in check by enforcing local & state Jim Crow laws?
From your link:
Are you using the special assumed psychology associated with the 'culture of honor' to explain the historic "retribution to enforce one's rights and deter predation"?
Are the historic 'honor killings' justifiable by a. screwed up psychology? The lynchings & assassinations & dehumanizations? Are these just honor killings? From President Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Medger Evans, Malcolm X, President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Emmett Till & the list goes on & on ... .
Are these ^ just more of the same manifestations of the Slave States' 'culture of honor'? That the rest of the Country is supposed to consider acceptable?
Reading all of this, sometimes I think some people fly the Confederate flag as an "up yours" to alot of other people. Some of the individuals who love flying Confederate flags seem to be kind of angry or have a siege mentality. The mentality of "we don't care what's acceptable or right, we do things different here".
Precisely what was this "far more noble" idea? White supremacy? A 'way of life' based on white supremacy? Their 'culture of honor'?
Likely even more significant question: how long are we supposed to 'protect, preserve, & expand' this delusion?
How many more years? Roundabout number?
There are far more noble things than slavery. Sadly, I would not expect an answer to your question. The Confederate cause was not noble. Nothing noble about it. The way of life that the Confederacy was defending and fighting for was based on enslaving people. It was based on "freedom for me, not for thee".
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.
