U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2012, 01:37 PM
 
3,347 posts, read 2,822,424 times
Reputation: 1719

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchNsniff View Post
Southern Values Revived
How a brutal strain of conservative American aristocrats have come to rule America

Southern values revived - Salon.com

This author says that since the beginning of America, we've been ruled by benevolent wealthy Yankee northerners and now we are being ruled by southern techno-phobic, brutal, violent plantation owners. It's a very interesting read and is a take on how things are going in the USA that I had never considered before.

Thoughts?

What a wackjob.... yeah.... I still have belt whip marks from the leather strap taken to me last night for not picking the cotton fast enough last week here in Houston...

What a tool.... people so far removed from reality that no medication could possibly bring them back to normal
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2012, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Arkansas
374 posts, read 731,119 times
Reputation: 549
Those are some cute ideas, I guess.
I'm glad there are some new "the South is the heart of all evil" articles now. And by this person's logic, Reagan and Goldwater were basically Southerners just because they were in the GOP. So...is Bill Clinton a Yankee? What about LBJ? Jimmy Carter?
The idea that the South controls national politics anymore is a joke. Last time I checked, Wall Street was in New York. Not Alabama.
I doubt a lot of billionaires are residing in Mississippi, plotting about how they are going to keep everyone their slaves.

Last edited by Ark90; 07-02-2012 at 02:02 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 01:49 PM
 
487 posts, read 348,479 times
Reputation: 160
This is the stupidest article Ive ever read. Perhaps, the author has never taken a sociology course or simply missed the lesson, which explained the American creed. Where to even begin?

For starters, Noblesse Oblige is a European construct stemming from the practices associated with a feudal society. Our American creed is largely comprised of principles related to meritocracy, equality of opportunity over equality of wealth, individualism and moral puritanism. It should also be noted, that there is a difference between individual/private benevolence vs. mandatory collective benevolence asserted through the vessel of socialism.

Finally, the author's North vs. South theory is a bit misguided. It might be worth noting that father of American progressivism was in fact a Virginian.

One final tangent... Would someone of the liberal persuasion please explain to me why the notion of states' rights is so abhorrent to them?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Rome, Georgia
2,743 posts, read 3,573,273 times
Reputation: 1980
What an incredible load of paranoid, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theory crap! I blame it all on the Masons! No, wait! Come to think of it, Jimmy Carter is pretty indicative of Deep South elite! What an evil, evil man with his.....building houses....for..the poor....and stuff! And his commitment to world peace? Outlandish!


No, this article is a divisive piece of rubbish written by exactly the sort of person who is the real reason for the rise of conservative thought in America. Self righteous assumption of the correctness of one's own views causes paranoid reasoning to try to explain why others disagree with you. I can no longer stomach this sort of irrational arrogance and want nothing to do with it.

My God, what a misunderstanding of history and culture!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 02:36 PM
 
Location: One of the 13 original colonies.
10,193 posts, read 7,083,742 times
Reputation: 8079
No, this article is a divisive piece of rubbish written by exactly the sort of person who is the real reason for the rise of conservative thought in America. Self righteous assumption of the correctness of one's own views causes paranoid reasoning to try to explain why others disagree with you. I can no longer stomach this sort of irrational arrogance and want nothing to do with it.

My God, what a misunderstanding of history and culture!






Exactly, and it did not take long to realize that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,657,554 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchNsniff View Post
Southern Values Revived
How a brutal strain of conservative American aristocrats have come to rule America

Southern values revived - Salon.com

This author says that since the beginning of America, we've been ruled by benevolent wealthy Yankee northerners and now we are being ruled by southern techno-phobic, brutal, violent plantation owners. It's a very interesting read and is a take on how things are going in the USA that I had never considered before.

Thoughts?
Sara Robinson's article is built chiefly from her reading of Michael Lind's book. Lind is a journalist-lawyer who has a BA in English and MA in International Relations. No doubt he's a smart guy, but if Robinson's treatment of his work is accurate, I think there's some tortured logic at play here in addition to both writers not fully reviewing the literature in the field of political realignment and North-South sectionalism.

First of all, the OP here insinuates that the country only recently became ruled by a southern aristocracy with a concept of liberty at variance with most Americans' concepts of liberty. In this section of the article it seems to me as though the authors have tortured this whole concept of liberty thing. Ideas of what liberty is has changed throughout American history. Initially, liberty meant different things to different colonizers. For example, indentured servants (who formed the bulk of the original colonists from the British Isles) found themselves in America because they had little other choice. The idea of liberty behind their emigration to the New World was to foment English "liberty" of the poor. By dumping their paupers in the New World to labor under harsh contracts virtually absolved Parliament with the problem of scores of impoverished laborers flooding the cities because of enclosure. For a solid overview of this historical interpretation on the indentured servants in American, I'd suggest Alan Taylor's overview American Colonies, which to my knowledge neither of the authors took into account.

Moreover, in a more recent synthesis by Daniel Richter called Before the Revolution, plantation had a different definition in the time of the colonizing by European powers. For the English, the plantation meant that they were planting English style religion and mercantile capitalism in the New World, which is why many of these first colonizers referred to Plymouth (Mass.) as Plymouth Plantation. In addition, these nascent Yankees considered colonization as a means by which they could spread the liberty of Protestant religion to the New World's native population. Only then could the "savages" learn to reap the rewards of liberty by participating in civilized government rather than running around in a state of nature (state of nature, btw, was the antithesis of liberty in the 16th and 17th century conception).

Another main contention by the authors is that only recently has the U.S. federal government been dominated by southern interests. Fehrenbacher points out in The Slaveholding Republic and McPherson reiterates in Battle Cry of Freedom that many believed in the 19th century that southerners had already taken control of the federal government based in part on the fugitive slave clause contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, in Eric Foner's textbooks that he edited, Give Me Liberty!, the idea of a changing definition of liberty dominates American culture, society, law, economics, and politics. Yet the authors of the article and book seem to insinuate that there are two diametrically opposed conceptions of liberty--a Northern one and a Southern one--and both are static or are seemingly unchanging. I think the history of the nation clearly shows how there are different ideas of liberty.

As for their poo-pooing on the South, most historians agree that the antebellum North, in its transition to wage labor during the first half of the 19th century, experienced a corresponding tension in how liberty had been defined. Before the industrial revolution, liberty meant independence--a personal independence in which people were freeholders. They owned their land and produced all that they needed and only produced surplus to exchange with other freeholders who lived in the nearby area. As the economy shifted to one based upon surplus enhancement, former freeholder master craftsmen were forced into wage labor, which many likened to slavery (hence the term "wage slavery") and in this respect, the authors should have at least cited the many works by Roedigger and Charles Sellers in which they fully examine how liberty became something much different as a result of the change to an industrial economy.

I believe I've delved a little too far into American history to fully treat the political realignment of the 20th century and to comment on the authors' ideas about how southerners only recently began to dominate the political process. For now I'll just state that it's a little to simplistic to blame it all on the South, whose population has steadily altered its conception(s) of liberty corresponding to extensive changes in American society and culture.

In short, I think Sara Robinson's treatment of Lind could have been a little more critical instead of hyping the most salacious and controversial aspect of his six-year old book. Other books have reiterated Lind's theme that are much better argued, like Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors, Dan Carter's The Politics of Rage, Joe Crespino's In Search of Another Country, and Matthew Lassiter's The Silent Majority.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:29 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,418 posts, read 9,171,456 times
Reputation: 6053
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen!! That was a good piece, but that sentence really resonated with me because i'd never really thought of the military that way.
Yup, it's become a product of the "volunteer" military, which is often the primary "career opportunity" now for many rural "red state" kids fresh out of high school. And it also kinda explains why we keep having so many bone-headed "incidents" overseas involving the Army and the muslim religion.

Harper's Magazine: Jesus killed Mohammed, The Crusade for a Christian military

BTW, judging by the popularity of things like "swiftboating" (and similar 'no-holds-barred' political fighting), "cagefighting", "tattoos", Fundamentalism, "redneck comedy", huge pickemups, and "hillbilly" cable tv shows (Swamp People, etc.).... then arguably the South is risin' agin', except now they're just spread out across the country more (but with the same 'ol suspicions towards "outsiders".... yee-hah)!!

Finally re: Obama's "willingness" to allow these new "southern aristocratic values" to persist, conservative writer Thomas Sowell makes an interesting case that much of American urban black culture and values have simply been "borrowed" from poor Southern whites (aka, "crackers"), who they once lived side-by-side with.

Black Rednecks & White Liberals, by Thomas Sowell

Last edited by mateo45; 07-02-2012 at 04:59 PM.. Reason: link..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top