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.
How many white southerners alive in the 19th century do you personally know - and have discussed their views on white supremacy with?
Wait, you're kidding right? I guess the horrific oppression that Blacks and other minorities faced in the South, as well as in other parts of the country, during that time was just a figment of my imagination? To be so enduring and successful, such a system had to have the support of the White citizenry, not just political and business leaders. To argue that it was only a handful of Whites in power who held to such repugnant views, while the rest of the rank-and-file White folks disagreed but just went along with it, is one of the most asinine implications anyone could ever make. Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Smh...
Oh, and thanks for the history lesson but I already knew that. Actually just re-read about it earlier today in one of my favorite books.
Wait, you're kidding right? I guess the horrific oppression that Blacks and other minorities faced in the South, as well as in other parts of the country, during that time was just a figment of my imagination? To be so enduring and successful, such a system had to have the support of the White citizenry, not just political and business leaders. To argue that it was only a handful of Whites in power who held to such repugnant views, while the rest of the rank-and-file White folks disagreed but just went along with it, is one of the most asinine implications anyone could ever make. Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Smh...
Oh, and thanks for the history lesson but I already new that. Actually just re-read about it earlier today in one of my favorite books.
The quote YOU were responding to specified the LATE 19th century - post slavery and post Civil War. The Aryan supremacist movement was most prevalent during the late 19th century and early 20th century in Europe and to a lesser extent in the US.
Of course slavery (and the slave trade, which was not at all limited to the American south but was supported and participated in by Europeans and Americans from all over both Europe and the US) was justified by some by the idea that "white people were superior." My point is that this mindset didn't START in the American South and it wasn't LIMITED to the American South - in the 19th century or earlier or later for that matter.
And there's no need to put words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply ANY of your diatribe above.
And it's "knew" - not "new." Just so you no - err, know.
The quote YOU were responding to specified the LATE 19th century - post slavery and post Civil War. The Aryan supremacist movement was most prevalent during the late 19th century and early 20th century in Europe and to a lesser extent in the US.
The part of the quote that referenced the 19th century had to do with when the "New South" concept arose; it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of White supremacy as an ideology. The person only made the additional statement that Grady espoused such but those two statements had no chronological connection. And beliefs about the superiority of Whites certainly existed before the late 19th century. Check out some statements by the Scottish philosopher David Hume in the 18th century for starters.
Quote:
Of course slavery (and the slave trade, which was not at all limited to the American south but was supported and participated in by Europeans and Americans from all over both Europe and the US) was justified by some by the idea that "white people were superior." My point is that this mindset didn't START in the American South and it wasn't LIMITED to the American South - in the 19th century or earlier or later for that matter.
Your point is completely irrelevant to anything that was previously stated. You misinterpreted someone's statement and then proceeded to go off the rails. Sorry, but that's on you.
Quote:
And it's "knew" - not "new." Just so you no - err, know.
Oooooh, you got me on a typo. I can send you a cupcake as a reward if you want.
Why does every single thread with the words "South", "Southern", or "Southerner" always end up devolving into a race issue? No matter what the premise of the OP is. Every. Single. Time.
Oh yeah, that's right... because there's always the same two or three people who jump in and bring it up, steering the thread right off the edge of the cliff and into this same stupid argument that just goes around and around in unproductive circles.
The topic here is the "New South". And I don't care where the term originated or which old racist scumbag figured out how to put those two simple, single-syllable words together first. "New South" to me, simply means "new". As in modern. As in post-millennium. As in NOT the South of the late 19th century.
I don't live in the South, but I'm fairly certain that there's no slavery taking place there, and there hasn't been in well over a century. Also pretty sure that there's no enforced segregation. Perhaps certain small cities and small towns in the South have their white side of town and Black side of town, but that's hardly unique to the South. I can think of a few towns and cities in good old liberal California that have the exact same lines of division.
I haven't heard any news of any KKK lynchings taking place in the South in several decades. I'm not even sure the KKK still exists anymore, beyond a very loose, unorganized bunch of old bigots with one foot in the grave, who get together to play cards, get drunk, and rant to each other about "race traitors" and "mongrels". I have, however, heard plenty in the news in recent years about racist cops causing social unrest in West coast, East coast, and Midwestern cities (Ferguson, anybody?).
Does racism still exist in the South? Of course it does. Is it a uniquely Southern thing, or more prevalent in the South than elsewhere in the nation? NO. I personally do see a big difference between the South of 2014 and the South of the 1960's. I even see a difference since the 90's. I think the region has progressed on many levels. Still a ways to go for the entire region as a whole, but I think acknowledging certain areas of the South as being "progressive" would be accurate and well-deserved.
Bringing up slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation is pretty much irrelevant to discussing the topic at hand here, which is the "New" South... of 2014.
Last edited by Bobloblawslawblog; 08-24-2014 at 10:59 PM..
The part of the quote that referenced the 19th century had to do with when the "New South" concept arose; it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of White supremacy as an ideology. The person only made the additional statement that Grady espoused such but those two statements had no chronological connection.
Here's the quote you responded to originally - the entire quote:
Quote:
Henry Grady, as cited by a previous poster, created the term " New South " in the late 19th century. Yet no mention of the fact that Henry Grady also promoted white supremacy.
And here's your entire answer:
Quote:
Few White Southerners at that time didn't.
Here's my answer - in full - to that exchange:
Quote:
How many white southerners alive in the 19th century do you personally know - and have discussed their views on white supremacy with?
Quick history lesson here - the MYTH of Aryan superiority was born in EUROPE (not the American south, just to clarify) and really took hold in the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. You may recall a certain dictator in Europe and a certain world war fought that included a lot of racism at it's core.
Unfortunately, that myth wasn't popular only in Europe - it took hold in Russia and in the US (not just the south either) as well in some circles, including some academic circles. However, it never gained the foothold here that it did in Europe or Russia.
Aryan supremacy is a horrid, and misguided belief system - and I for one (the descendant of generations of southerners) am quite glad it's run it's course for the most part. I personally find the very idea abhorrent, as did my parents and grandparents, and great grandparents for that matter (and they were born in the American south in the 19th century and I was blessed to know two of them, neither of whom had a racist bone in their bodies).
Your pithy statement "Few White Southerner's at that time didn't" believe in white supremacy was obviously a stereotypical slam at, well, white southerners. The majority of white southerners in the American south didn't own slaves. And my point was that southerners in general weren't any more or less racist than their northern or European counterparts.
Quote:
And beliefs about the superiority of Whites certainly existed before the late 19th century.
Of course it did. And slavery existed in AFRICA and elsewhere well before the late 19th century. Racism and slavery have both been around pretty much since the beginning of human civilization.
Quote:
Your point is completely irrelevant to anything that was previously stated. You misinterpreted someone's statement and then proceeded to go off the rails. Sorry, but that's on you.
Your stereotypical views took this thread off the rails. Sorry, but that's on you.
Why does every single thread with the words "South", "Southern", or "Southerner" always end up devolving into a race issue? No matter what the premise of the OP is. Every. Single. Time.
Oh yeah, that's right... because there's always the same two or three people who jump in and bring it up, steering the thread right off the edge of the cliff and into this same stupid argument that just goes around and around in unproductive circles.
The topic here is the "New South". And I don't care where the term originated or which old racist scumbag figured out how to put those two simple, single-syllable words together first. "New South" to me, simply means "new". As in modern. As in post-millennium. As in NOT the South of the late 19th century.
I don't live in the South, but I'm fairly certain that there's no slavery taking place there, and there hasn't been in well over a century. Also pretty sure that there's no enforced segregation. Perhaps certain small cities and small towns in the South have their white side of town and Black side of town, but that's hardly unique to the South. I can think of a few towns and cities in good old liberal California that have the exact same lines of division.
I haven't heard any news of any KKK lynchings taking place in the South in several decades. I'm not even sure the KKK still exists anymore, beyond a very loose, unorganized bunch of old bigots with one foot in the grave, who get together to play cards, get drunk, and rant to each other about "race traitors" and "mongrels". I have, however, heard plenty in the news in recent years about racist cops causing social unrest in West coast, East coast, and Midwestern cities (Ferguson, anybody?).
Does racism still exist in the South? Of course it does. Is it a uniquely Southern thing, or more prevalent in the South than elsewhere in the nation? NO. I personally do see a big difference between the South of 2014 and the South of the 1960's. I even see a difference since the 90's. I think the region has progressed on many levels. Still a ways to go for the entire region as a whole, but I think acknowledging certain areas of the South as being "progressive" would be accurate and well-deserved.
Bringing up slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation is pretty much irrelevant to discussing the topic at hand here, which is the "New" South... of 2014.
Right on - excellent post. Personally, I get pretty sick of seeing the race card getting flipped across the table.
I'm a little conflicted on the whole concept of New South myself. Like other posters, I viewed it as places that had a lot of growth, development and gravitating toward high tech industries. I'm not familiar with Atlanta, but it has always been the poster-child for New South.
However, I also had associated New South with changing attitudes and a more progressive climate. When you look at the political map, and where the Tea Party is especially strong, it's hard for me to see this supposed New South. I mean, if a guy like Paul Broun can be elected congressman in Georgia, how can that be considered anything but a backwater?
Here's the quote you responded to originally - the entire quote:
And here's your entire answer:
Here's my answer - in full - to that exchange:
Your pithy statement "Few White Southerner's at that time didn't" believe in white supremacy was obviously a stereotypical slam at, well, white southerners. The majority of white southerners in the American south didn't own slaves. And my point was that southerners in general weren't any more or less racist than their northern or European counterparts.
Of course it did. And slavery existed in AFRICA and elsewhere well before the late 19th century. Racism and slavery have both been around pretty much since the beginning of human civilization.
Your stereotypical views took this thread off the rails. Sorry, but that's on you.
No, it's on YOU. The fact that you're throwing a tantrum over a simple statement, talking about slavery in Africa and a whole bunch of unrelated crap, shows that YOU'RE the one going off the rails.
As to your point, I never said or even remotely implied the opposite of what you're stating, so you can stop being so defensive. I only specifically mentioned White Southerners because Henry Grady was a White Southerner and the concept of "New South" deals with....well....the South.
The topic here is the "New South". And I don't care where the term originated or which old racist scumbag figured out how to put those two simple, single-syllable words together first. "New South" to me, simply means "new". As in modern. As in post-millennium. As in NOT the South of the late 19th century...
Bringing up slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation is pretty much irrelevant to discussing the topic at hand here, which is the "New" South... of 2014.
Actually I think the origins of the term and its historic significance do shed some light on this subject, but not in the sense that one poster took it when they flew off the rails over a simple statement. In this regard, I look at a city like Birmingham, which someone mentioned earlier. It was one of the poster children for the "New South" concept around the time it developed, having been a peer of Atlanta's early on and experiencing so much rapid growth and development that it was nicknamed "Magic City." However, Atlanta was able to continue its growth and development to not only have been a prime example of the "New South" in the late 19th/early 20th century, but also continuing into the late 20th century until today. One reason Birmingham wasn't able to do this is because of its image and reputation during the Civil Rights movement. Atlanta, while by no means perfect, decided to avoid much of that publicized conflict because it was deemed bad for business--hence the nickname "The City too Busy to Hate."
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.
