Don't Kid Yourself -- "Southern Heritage" Is All About Race

[SpencerH]

I've lived here in the south for 7 years (so far). I love it here and unlike most of you who've never left home, I've choosen to live where I am. From my perspective southern heritage has nothing to do with race. I bet that I encounter and work with more african americans everyday that most northerners. IMO 'southern heritage' is very akin to Welsh or Scots heritage ie beaten by a stronger foe but unbowed.

[DanS]

"unlike most of you who've never left home"

Who's that?

That stronger foe was right to do what it did. It was a just cause on the North's part. There is no value (except valor) in fighting for something that is evil, such as slavery. Why be nostalgic about it? I come from Sheridan's small home town, but nobody celebrates the time in his life when he was a merciless Indian-killer.

Further, no matter how much some Southerners say that's it's not about race, most others perceive that it is. When somebody raises a Confederate battle flag, he is perceived to be making a statement about race. After a while, the "it's not about race" mantra really rings flat.

Why would some Southerners even want to push the issue of these symbols, when if they were really concerned about race, they would do everything reasonably in their power to make blacks feel at home? And why do some others not speak up about this bull**** and call a spade a spade?

[DanS]

there is a reason why there is a Republican "Southern Strategy."

che: I don't agree. The "Southern Strategy" would stand just as well without a race component, inasmuch as this component even exists.

[SlowwHand]

Actually, something like 85% of Americans live within 50 miles of where they were born.

Thank you. Carry on with your debate.

[chequita guevara]

The Southern Strategy is pandering to the racists, using code words (or not) for keeping the n*gg*rs down (like Reagan talking about strapping bucks pulling up to the store in their cadilacs and buying t-bone steaks with their food stamps). It also includes disenfranching Blacks, either by anti-felon voting laws, removing polls from Black areas, giving Black districts faulty voting machines, placing police outside polls, challenging Black voters right to vote, etc.

Obviously, there'd be a Southern Strategy no matter what, as there is a strategy for every part of the country. But what we know of today as the Southern Strategy is pandering to white supremacy.

[Berzerker]

DanS -

That stronger foe was right to do what it did. It was a just cause on the North's part.

Murdering 600,000 people to end slavery was justified? Would you make that claim if a million Americans had to die today to end slavery in the Sudan?

[SlowwHand]

You just get in deeper and deeper tar pits don't you ?
I mean, here you were, a discontent. You move to Florida, and are able to come up with fresh allegations.
WTG. Don't let yourself go stale.

[DanS]

Berzerker: Yes, killing 250,000 southern soldiers (or whatever the number) was justified and the 350,000 on the North's side was an acceptable price.

"Would you make that claim if a million Americans had to die today to end slavery in the Sudan?"

Your reaper's calculus is a little off. Slavery in Sudan is widespread, but I don't think it's anywhere near the magnitude of 1/3rd or more of the inhabitants, like it was in much of the South.

That said, I'm probably not the most objective person to ask. My best friend is a christian Sudanese refugee.

[SlowwHand]

That's bullsh1t, Dan. Not going to argue your numbers again, but they're wrong, period.

[DanS]

Which numbers? The ratio of slaves to total inhabitants by state? I don't have exact figures, so would be happy to look at alternative numbers, if you can point me to them. Mine were more WAGs, considering current racial profiles and black outmigration...

Either way, it doesn't change the argument.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You just get in deeper and deeper tar pits don't you ?
I mean, here you were, a discontent. You move to Florida, and are able to come up with fresh allegations.
WTG. Don't let yourself go stale.

I assume you mean me. Hey, don't get me wrong. I love livin' in the South. I'm pretty darn happy here, even with the lack of decent pizza (which was one of my staples in Chicago). That doesn't mean I'm not blind to what goes on here.

[Berzerker]

Snowfire -

Knowing your political slant... which would you prefer?

If you knew my political slant, you'd know I prefer neither.

That SCOTUS hand down a decision that you agreed with the results of, but used statist principles to defend it (and as a precedent for further application by lower courts)?

Huh?

Or a decision that you disagree with based firmly on Libertarian principles?

Which decision by the SCOTUS?

Hopefully, you'd answer the second. But why bring this up?

I would answer if I knew what you were talking about, I never mentioned a specific court decision and neither did you.

America was never founded on oppressing Indians.

Tell that to all the Indians who lived in what would become America in 1776.

It ended up being a bloody side note where we didn't live up to our ideals.

So, would you equate American heritage with racism as some are trying to do with Southern heritage? Southernors who believe in whatever heritage they consider theirs could argue slavery was a bloody sidenote where some of their southern brethren didn't live up to their ideals.

However, the CSA was founded on slavery- ignore the question for a moment of whether it was the main thing, blah, blah, blah, but it's right in the CSA constitution and multiple statesmen announced that as a main reason for secession, to stop that crazy Lincoln who wants to free the slaves.

Slavery was part of the US Constitution too, and there wouldn't have been a Constitution without slavery.

every time Southern heritage comes up, out come the stars & bars, so the two seem to have merged into one.

Would that be the flag Confederates waved as they entered battle. There were several reasons why a southernor might have fought against the north, to classify their heritage based on the desire of some people to maintain slavery is illogical and unfair. There is a black man right now walking across the south carrying that flag because he considers it his heritage as well. Is he a racist?

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Yes, killing 250,000 southern soldiers (or whatever the number) was justified and the 350,000 on the North's side was an acceptable price.

There's the difference between you and me, I don't have the moral authority to force other people to die for what I want unless they deserve death for actions they took against others. Even if we accepted that a slaveowner deserved death (whoa, there goes Washington, Jefferson and quite a few of the Founders), relatively few Civil War deaths were slaveowners.

Your reaper's calculus is a little off. Slavery in Sudan is widespread, but I don't think it's anywhere near the magnitude of 1/3rd or more of the inhabitants, like it was in much of the South.

You didn't answer my question. If a million Americans had to die to end slavery in the Sudan, would you force your fellow Americans to make that sacrifice? It's a hypothetical to challenge your stated principle, not a prediction of how many people would have to die to end slavery in the Sudan.

[chequita guevara]

Is freedom so unimportant that people shouldn't die for it?

[DanS]

Berzerker: Well Sudan isn't the USA, so your test doesn't hold. That said, and assuming that the amount of blood is unimportant in this test, yes it would be worth some blood.