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.
Racism in the dating and marriage game is most certainly NOT limited to the South by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of surveys and research, especially of online and speed-daters will quickly dispel any notion of that. Liberal whites in so-called "blue" areas are often some of the worst offenders and hypocrites.
My family happens to look like the United Nations. There are family members who are white, black, native American Indians, India Indians, Jewish, and Chinese. But when we get together we just family. Race is never mentioned as concerning any of us and I'd bet you that none of us even think about it. If the subject of race ever even comes up in discussion it is in terms of something that has been in the news just as it might come up in a family that is made up entirely of people of the same race.
I guess the point that I want to make is that, no matter what your opinion of marriage between the races is, people of different races will continue to fall in love, get married, have children, and go on to live happy lives, raising a family and growing old together. And guess what, they will not give a thought as to what you think about it.
In order to sound credible when trying to discredit someone else, you should know that
1. St. Louis is not in the North; It is considered to be in the Midwest
2. St. Louis has a significant conservative population much moreso than the other cities in the Midwest like Chicago because Missouri is a swing state and has a signifcant conservative base. Many conservatives live in St. Louis but it is admittedly more liberal.
3. He currently lives in Virginia and is thus from a Southern state
Oooooh, Pierre SD has a significant conservative population, too. Are you going to lump Pierre residents with Southerners even though they are geographically not in the South?
Where he currently lives isn't the point. Where he formed his opinions is the point. If he formed his opinion when he lived somewhere elsewhere than the South, then you cannot blame the South for his opinions. See, logic prevails. Over South bashing.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,590 times
Reputation: 1411
Like I said upthread, and this is pretty much not arguable, Missouri was a slave state--it was admitted into the Union under the Missouri Compromise, a compromise which was specifically reached to appease the slave-holding and at the time socially respectable southerners who also happened to be legislators. Whether or not MO seceded during the Civil War may be another question regarding whether it is or is not southern, but I would argue, given the fact that people owned slaves there in the 19th century, it is more like the South than say, South Dakota is. I would maintain that bringing in SD is pretty ridiculous in this discussion, given the fact that SD wasn't even in contention for statehood until well after the Civil War.
I very intentionally don't mean to bash the South here, and, in fact, I think problems with racism are in some ways worse in the North than they are in the South because they haven't been so vividly demonstrated. No national audiences watched a Selma occurring in the North. As I said before, I am the white girl part of an interracial couple, and the love of my life is a man who most people would identify as Asian--the other as compared with me. I deal with other white people's stupid racist baggage a lot, and as far as I am concerned, such people deserve to live with the misery that their fear and paranoia creates.
The question I am left with now is why a thread about interracial dating has to devolve into a matter of a debate about South bashing, and, apparently, people's hurt feelings who have nothing to do or personal experience with the topic at hand? I'm saying, in what world does it rhetorically make sense to bring in Pierre, SD, as a possible foil for St. Louis, which was, in fact, a place where people owned slaves? I realize that a few people here expressed their distaste for interracial dating, but is this a regional thing, really? Let's be honest here and set our regional affiliations aside for a second and really, really talk about race in America and how the very concept of it has given rise to a deep pathology that borders on insanity and that it permeates our culture. If we can't do it here--a place where we can't even see each other and where we thus must take each others' self-identifications at face value--then I'm not sure we can do it anywhere.
So, please, let's talk to each other, without resorting to the tactics we say we deplore when other people use them. I have some specific ideas about how we might cross what DuBois called the "color line," and I'd like to hear yours. How might we do it outside of sleeping with each other, which, with sometimes horrible levels of coercion and violence, we've been doing for centuries?
Like I said upthread, and this is pretty much not arguable, Missouri was a slave state--it was admitted into the Union under the Missouri Compromise, a compromise which was specifically reached to appease the slave-holding and at the time socially respectable southerners who also happened to be legislators. Whether or not MO seceded during the Civil War may be another question regarding whether it is or is not southern, but I would argue, given the fact that people owned slaves there in the 19th century, it is more like the South than say, South Dakota is. I would maintain that bringing in SD is pretty ridiculous in this discussion, given the fact that SD wasn't even in contention for statehood until well after the Civil War.
I very intentionally don't mean to bash the South here, and, in fact, I think problems with racism are in some ways worse in the North than they are in the South because they haven't been so vividly demonstrated. No national audiences watched a Selma occurring in the North. As I said before, I am the white girl part of an interracial couple, and the love of my life is a man who most people would identify as Asian--the other as compared with me. I deal with other white people's stupid racist baggage a lot, and as far as I am concerned, such people deserve to live with the misery that their fear and paranoia creates.
The question I am left with now is why a thread about interracial dating has to devolve into a matter of a debate about South bashing, and, apparently, people's hurt feelings who have nothing to do or personal experience with the topic at hand? I'm saying, in what world does it rhetorically make sense to bring in Pierre, SD, as a possible foil for St. Louis, which was, in fact, a place where people owned slaves? I realize that a few people here expressed their distaste for interracial dating, but is this a regional thing, really? Let's be honest here and set our regional affiliations aside for a second and really, really talk about race in America and how the very concept of it has given rise to a deep pathology that borders on insanity and that it permeates our culture. If we can't do it here--a place where we can't even see each other and where we thus must take each others' self-identifications at face value--then I'm not sure we can do it anywhere.
So, please, let's talk to each other, without resorting to the tactics we say we deplore when other people use them. I have some specific ideas about how we might cross what DuBois called the "color line," and I'd like to hear yours. How might we do it outside of sleeping with each other, which, with sometimes horrible levels of coercion and violence, we've been doing for centuries?
That's very nice. But I am talking to a specific poster who repeatedly bashes the South. When you state that you live in a city that is free of racism, you should expect to get called on that kind of statement, because nowhere is racism-free. That's what happened here. I don't think it furthers the discussion for you to defend someone who is advocating his own prejudices. I wish I could say no one defended the actions of this justice-of-the-peace on this thread, because it was clearly an overstepping of authority. But I also think that several people immediately latched on to the fact that it occurred in Louisiana, as if, well, what else would you expect. And the perpetuation of the idea that racism is a singular problem in the South really doesn't address the problem at all. Perpetuation Southern stereotypes is a form of discrimination in and of itself. Cultural stereotypes as well as racial stereotypes merit challenge.
Racism is not a regional problem. Prejudice and the discrimination that is rooted in prejudice is a human problem. That prejudice and discrimination doesn't just appear because of differences in race. People are discriminated over race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, age, and over what region of the country they happen to live in. There have been several comments on this thread that show prejudice against the South on this thread. And I think it is appropriate to challenge prejudicial statements when they come up.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,590 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
That's very nice. But I am talking to a specific poster who repeatedly bashes the South. When you state that you live in a city that is free of racism, you should expect to get called on that kind of statement, because nowhere is racism-free. That's what happened here. I don't think it furthers the discussion for you to defend someone who is advocating his own prejudices. I wish I could say no one defended the actions of this justice-of-the-peace on this thread, because it was clearly an overstepping of authority. But I also think that several people immediately latched on to the fact that it occurred in Louisiana, as if, well, what else would you expect. And the perpetuation of the idea that racism is a singular problem in the South really doesn't address the problem at all. Perpetuation Southern stereotypes is a form of discrimination in and of itself. Cultural stereotypes as well as racial stereotypes merit challenge.
Racism is not a regional problem. Prejudice and the discrimination that is rooted in prejudice is a human problem. That prejudice and discrimination doesn't just appear because of differences in race. People are discriminated over race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, age, and over what region of the country they happen to live in. There have been several comments on this thread that show prejudice against the South on this thread. And I think it is appropriate to challenge prejudicial statements when they come up.
And that is exactly what I am saying. I want people to be honest, and that is what I was trying to convey when I said this: "I very intentionally don't mean to bash the South here, and, in fact, I think problems with racism are in some ways worse in the North than they are in the South because they haven't been so vividly demonstrated. No national audiences watched a Selma occurring in the North." I just don't think it's a good rhetorical strategy to try to compare Pierre, SD, to St. Louis because SD was never a slave-holding area, while St. Louis was. Never mind the fact that these two places are also incomparable in terms of population and character. To me, it would make more sense to compare St. Louis to say, Knoxville, TN, because both were urban areas close to the borders of free states. It might even make more sense, to me anyway, to compare St. Louis to Kansas City, KS, given the 19th century controversy over "Bleeding Kansas." A comparison of MO to SD makes no sense to me.
And that is exactly what I am saying. I want people to be honest, and that is what I was trying to convey when I said this: "I very intentionally don't mean to bash the South here, and, in fact, I think problems with racism are in some ways worse in the North than they are in the South because they haven't been so vividly demonstrated. No national audiences watched a Selma occurring in the North." I just don't think it's a good rhetorical strategy to try to compare Pierre, SD, to St. Louis because SD was never a slave-holding area, while St. Louis was. Never mind the fact that these two places are also incomparable in terms of population and character. To me, it would make more sense to compare St. Louis to say, Knoxville, TN, because both were urban areas close to the borders of free states. It might even make more sense, to me anyway, to compare St. Louis to Kansas City, KS, given the 19th century controversy over "Bleeding Kansas." A comparison of MO to SD makes no sense to me.
You make good point, but I don't think you get the gist of the discussion between myself and the poster bashing the South. Someone made a very racist comment. As an attack on the racist comment, the poster attributed it to the fact that the person lives in the South, though they originally did not. Because St Louis is not in the South. Yes, Missouri was a slave state, but Missouri was not a Southern state. Missouri's southern border is part of how we divided this country between North and South, and Missouri lies on the North of that border. Moreover, St Louis is considered a Midwestern city, not a Southern city, not a Southern city in anyway. So if someone hails from St Louis, would you call them a Southerner. No, you would not. That was the point. This person, who currently resides in Virginia, comes from St Louis. Then this person made a racist comment as a contribution to this thread. And a poster (who's bashed the South before), commented that the racism was attributable to the person being a Southerner.
I then pointed out that someone from St Louis is not a Southerner, and that if someone's racism was rooted in St Louis origins, it is not fair to characterize that racism as rooted in Southern origins. You seem to think that 140 years ago slavery was legal in Missouri, that it is fair. I might then point out to you that the last state to outlaw slavery in the United States was a New Jersey.
The poster thinks that because St Louis is politically conservative, that it's fair. My point about Pierre, SD was that political conservatism has nothing to do with it. I selected Pierre, SD not because of slave-holding, which was something you introduced into the discusssion AFTER I mentioned Pierre, but because of its political conservatism. In that sense, it is a fair comparison. Knoxville, TN would not be a fair comparison in this discussion because Knoxville, TN is a Southern city. So in a discussion about St Louis not being in the South, it really wouldn't advance the debate to then compare St Louis to a Southern city. I can't use Springfield, IL, because the political conservatism isn't comparable. Ditto the major cities in Ohio, and many other locations in the Upper Midwest that are strongly unionized.
You make good point, but I don't think you get the gist of the discussion between myself and the poster bashing the South. Someone made a very racist comment. As an attack on the racist comment, the poster attributed it to the fact that the person lives in the South, though they originally did not. Because St Louis is not in the South. Yes, Missouri was a slave state, but Missouri was not a Southern state. Missouri's southern border is part of how we divided this country between North and South, and Missouri lies on the North of that border. Moreover, St Louis is considered a Midwestern city, not a Southern city, not a Southern city in anyway. So if someone hails from St Louis, would you call them a Southerner. No, you would not. That was the point. This person, who currently resides in Virginia, comes from St Louis. Then this person made a racist comment as a contribution to this thread. And a poster (who's bashed the South before), commented that the racism was attributable to the person being a Southerner.
I then pointed out that someone from St Louis is not a Southerner, and that if someone's racism was rooted in St Louis origins, it is not fair to characterize that racism as rooted in Southern origins. You seem to think that 140 years ago slavery was legal in Missouri, that it is fair. I might then point out to you that the last state to outlaw slavery in the United States was a New Jersey.
The poster thinks that because St Louis is politically conservative, that it's fair. My point about Pierre, SD was that political conservatism has nothing to do with it. I selected Pierre, SD not because of slave-holding, which was something you introduced into the discusssion AFTER I mentioned Pierre, but because of its political conservatism. In that sense, it is a fair comparison. Knoxville, TN would not be a fair comparison in this discussion because Knoxville, TN is a Southern city. So in a discussion about St Louis not being in the South, it really wouldn't advance the debate to then compare St Louis to a Southern city. I can't use Springfield, IL, because the political conservatism isn't comparable. Ditto the major cities in Ohio, and many other locations in the Upper Midwest that are strongly unionized.
Missouri was a slave state, so it can be considered southern
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.
