Joshism
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2019
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 587
It's not really genocide unless it's deliberate.Arguably the white Southerners may not be entirely wrong in terms of cultural genocide.
It's not really genocide unless it's deliberate.Arguably the white Southerners may not be entirely wrong in terms of cultural genocide.
Cultural genocide can be interpreted differently than straight physical genocide such has the Holocaust. If a people and culture are displaced by low fertility and immigration an argument can be made for cultural genocide and yes both elements are deliberate.It's not really genocide unless it's deliberate.
I wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim.There is a definite sense of perpetual victimization in the white South, with the victimizers being primarily evil white Yankees/Northerners. As the narrative goes:
Debatable1. Before the war the North abused the South with the tariff.
Again, debatable. Probably the most debated thing concerning the war period. The legality of secession.2. In 1860-1861, the North denied the South their States Rights.
Absolutely true.3. During the war the North invaded and desolated the South with their military.
Another truism.4. During Reconstruction the North invaded again in the form of carpetbaggers who ran corrupt governments and sought to exploit the South while disenfranchising white Southerners.
Can't speak to this one. Wasn't around, & haven't really studied it.5. Civil Rights and integration in the 1950s-1960s was decried by white Southerners as communism introduced by Northerners
100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.6. Northerners continue to move into the South where they seek to change everything in the South and make it into another North.
I'll concede that plenty of folks feel this way. What I'll disagree with is, the insinuation, that it's based on racism, or bigotry. I don't want higher taxes. I don't want congestion, traffic, & higher crime rates. I don't want to NOT be able to walk out my front door, & shoot a rifle, etc... When I think of lifestyle, or cultural changes, that's what I think of. I could care less what the skin tone, or politics of my neighbors are. I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life. Looking at how far in the boonies I am, & a projection of years left, I should be okay....That's before you factor in blacks, Hispanics, and other non-whites.
White Southerners essentially think they have been fighting a defensive war against exploitation and cultural genocide the last 200+ years. (Although I doubt many would use those words, and their perceived struggle predates "genocide" as a word.)
Point number 5 would be well documented as the white Citizens Council made it very well known what they thought of the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 60s.I'll play along, & give one Southern man's opinion.....
I wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim.
Debatable
Again, debatable. Probably the most debated thing concerning the war period. The legality of secession.
Absolutely true.
Another truism.
Can't speak to this one. Wasn't around, & haven't really studied it.
100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
I'll concede that plenty of folks feel this way. What I'll disagree with is, the insinuation, that it's based on racism, or bigotry. I don't want higher taxes. I don't want congestion, traffic, & higher crime rates. I don't want to NOT be able to walk out my front door, & shoot a rifle, etc... When I think of lifestyle, or cultural changes, that's what I think of. I could care less what the skin tone, or politics of my neighbors are. I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life. Looking at how far in the boonies I am, & a projection of years left, I should be okay....
Beats me.Point number 5 would be well documented as the white Citizens Council made it very well known what they thought of the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 60s.
The white Southerners can only blame themselves for the influx of Northeners and immigrants as each Southern state competes with other states for outside investment most definitely including tax subsidies .
If Southern whites are truly concerned about urbanization then they need to stop giving incentives to private interests to invest in their state and strict zoning laws in rural areas.
The South can not have its cake and eat it to. If the South wants economic development and growth that absolutely means it's demographics must change and change indeed they have most notably Texas,Virginia, North Carolina,Georgia,Florida. NPR even had a radio article on a city in Alabama that was anti illegal immigrant and then turned pro illegal immigration maybe @jgoodguy remembers the name of that city.
Kirk's Raider's
This is another questionable notion... As I remember it was the southerners that burned Atlanta to the ground and Richmond as well so the two main industrial areas were destroyed by Confederates... They did it by choice,,, Think the rest the major cities in the south were intact so where is this desolation? You can argue the Shenandoah Valley, the Sherman's paths and that all rural areas that came back fast... The great lost of wealth in the South was not form Northern army work but the freeing of slaves all that capital gone... All the destitution comes from the end of slavery... go back a look slavery was something like a 4 billions dollar business before the war ... all gone... No slaves and no industrial base to work from all self inflected wounds...Absolutely true.
Another truism.
Yes, Northerners and larger cities are changing Our South into a modern place where all ideas, cultures, and peoples are welcome... The Old south is dying a slow death. Demographics is fate...100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
If you support the Lost Cause claims or Neo-confederate claims you understand it well...wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h974.htmlDebatable
Demographics equals destiny. Whoever has the most babies wins. Texas is already majority non white with Florida,Georgia,North Carolina not to far behind.Beats me.
I do know that the Chinese Restaurants around here have Chi-Mex on the buffet.
Those who advocate that Northern tariffs were unfair always neglect to mention that Tobacco famers in Kentucky ,rice growers in South Carolina and sugar plantation owners in Louisiana had insisted and received protective tariffs.This is another questionable notion... As I remember it was the southerners that burned Atlanta to the ground and Richmond as well so the two main industrial areas were destroyed by Confederates... They did it by choice,,, Think the rest the major cities in the south were intact so where is this desolation? You can argue the Shenandoah Valley, the Sherman's paths and that all rural areas that came back fast... The great lost of wealth in the South was not form Northern army work but the freeing of slaves all that capital gone... All the destitution comes from the end of slavery... go back a look slavery was something like a 4 billions dollar business before the war ... all gone... No slaves and no industrial base to work from all self inflected wounds...
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/carpetbaggers-and-scalawags
The Tans that went south brought capital badly needed in the south and trained people to help get the new freedmen on their feet... The Tans and Freedom were the victim the white militias that roamed the south terrorizing them...
In general, the term “carpetbagger” refers to a traveler who arrives in a new region with only a satchel (or carpetbag) of possessions, and who attempts to profit from or gain control over his new surroundings, often against the will or consent of the original inhabitants. After 1865, a number of northerners moved to the South to purchase land, lease plantations or partner with down-and-out planters in the hopes of making money from cotton. At first they were welcomed, as southerners saw the need for northern capital and investment to get the devastated region back on its feet. They later became an object of much scorn, as many southerners saw them as low-class and opportunistic newcomers seeking to get rich on their misfortune.
In reality, most Reconstruction-era carpetbaggers were well-educated members of the middle class; they worked as teachers, merchants, journalists or other types of businessmen, or at the Freedman’s Bureau, an organization created by Congress to provide aid for newly liberated black Americans. Many were former Union soldiers. In addition to economic motives, a good number of carpetbaggers saw themselves as reformers and wanted to shape the postwar South in the image of the North, which they considered to be a more advanced society. Though some carpetbaggers undoubtedly lived up to their reputation as corrupt opportunists, many were motivated by a genuine desire for reform and concern for the civil and political rights of freed blacks.
Yes, Northerners and larger cities are changing Our South into a modern place where all ideas, cultures, and peoples are welcome... The Old south is dying a slow death. Demographics is fate...
If you support the Lost Cause claims or Neo-confederate claims you understand it well...
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h974.html
Tariff of 1857 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857
No debate tariffs were lowered in 1857 to low levels since 1816... this tariff argument just does not hold water...
The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States that amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to between 15% and 24%.[1][2]
Morrill tariff was in 1861... after secession began...
When the Panic of 1857 struck later that year, protectionists, led by economist Henry C. Carey, blamed the downturn on the new tariff.[3] The Tariff of 1857's cuts lasted only a few years, as the highly protectionist Morrill Tariff was signed into law in March 1861.[4]
Note...
In 1857, the average rate was reduced to the neighborhood of 20 percent. The trend toward lower tariffs had begun most recently in the Walker Tariff of 1846, but would be abruptly halted by wartime tariff measures.
Notre...
Downward tariff revision to almost free trade status; North opposed; (Buchanan administration).
Note... it was the North not the South that was upset...
The Tariff of 1857 was warmly greeted in the South and roundly derided in the North. The tariff was one of a number of major issues that was dangerously increasing the tension between the two regions.
Note... because the southerns left the congress, this happened... but 1861
The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]
It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage domestic industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2]
Iron and Wheat for Virginia.Those who advocate that Northern tariffs were unfair always neglect to mention that Tobacco famers in Kentucky ,rice growers in South Carolina and sugar plantation owners in Louisiana had insisted and received protective tariffs.
Kirk's Raider's
I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life.
There was a 'before' before the Confederacy, before the monuments, and before the current Southern heritage.I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.
Not all change is for the better. Change can happen to fast. But the desire, much less the demand, that nothing change isn't remotely realistic or feasible. And the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you.
You love your quiet little town? At some point it didn't exist. Nor did your house or farm or street.
Where I live in South Florida we have a tree called the Australian pine. It's unquestionably a non-native, intentionally and artificially introduced for various perceived benefits. It's now know to dominate areas and crowd out native plants while not holding up very well to hurricanes or erosion. Yet many locals - people who lived in the area their entire lives - are adamantly opposed to the removal lf the trees. They're considered pretty and "have always been there." No, they've merely been there longer than the locals have, but the locals don't want that to change.
I understand the point you're making. However, I went to great effort in choosing my final spot. I'm willing to bet, literally (as I have with much sweat, blood, & cash), that my little piece of Virginia will remain MUCH the same, the rest of my life. Figure, 30 more years or so, if I'm lucky.I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.
Not all change is for the better. Change can happen to fast. But the desire, much less the demand, that nothing change isn't remotely realistic or feasible. And the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you.
You love your quiet little town? At some point it didn't exist. Nor did your house or farm or street.
Where I live in South Florida we have a tree called the Australian pine. It's unquestionably a non-native, intentionally and artificially introduced for various perceived benefits. It's now know to dominate areas and crowd out native plants while not holding up very well to hurricanes or erosion. Yet many locals - people who lived in the area their entire lives - are adamantly opposed to the removal lf the trees. They're considered pretty and "have always been there." No, they've merely been there longer than the locals have, but the locals don't want that to change.
Sounds like a very long and expensive logistics tail to me. Bad for anyone not in great health.I understand the point you're making. However, I went to great effort in choosing my final spot. I'm willing to bet, literally (as I have with much sweat, blood, & cash), that my little piece of Virginia will remain MUCH the same, the rest of my life. Figure, 30 more years or so, if I'm lucky.
There ain't gonna be a Starbucks around the corner ever, in my lifetime. The county I live in, has a population less than 23,000. The current growth rate is 1%. WELL below the state, & national averages. I live in a rural part of the county, not within an city limits. The closet town has a population less than 400, & is shrinking, not growing. I have to drive 25-30 miles to see the closest traffic light It's perfect. I chose this spot intentionally because, I believed it wouldn't see urban sprawl, & congestion for the duration of my life. Honestly, I think the immediate area I live in, will remain the same, or very similar for many years, if not decades, after I'm gone.
By the way...... It's not a problem to not want urbanization or change. Some of us, don't want to live like that. We sacrifice much in services, & conveniences to live the way we want, & are just fine with it. As far as, "the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you". You'd have to expand on that. I'm not following you. Because, it's certainly good for me, & people like me, who prefer the rural lifestyle.
Certainly pros & cons. Rural living ain't for everyone. Though, I love my neighbors. Most of em have 4 legs....Sounds like a very long and expensive logistics tail to me. Bad for anyone not in great health.
I'm fairly sure I've heard the word "cultural genocide" has been used, though I agree that probably "many" wouldn't use that (though I guess it depends how you define many).There is a definite sense of perpetual victimization in the white South, with the victimizers being primarily evil white Yankees/Northerners. As the narrative goes:
1. Before the war the North abused the South with the tariff.
2. In 1860-1861, the North denied the South their States Rights.
3. During the war the North invaded and desolated the South with their military.
4. During Reconstruction the North invaded again in the form of carpetbaggers who ran corrupt governments and sought to exploit the South while disenfranchising white Southerners.
5. Civil Rights and integration in the 1950s-1960s was decried by white Southerners as communism introduced by Northerners
6. Northerners continue to move into the South where they seek to change everything in the South and make it into another North.
That's before you factor in blacks, Hispanics, and other non-whites.
White Southerners essentially think they have been fighting a defensive war against exploitation and cultural genocide the last 200+ years. (Although I doubt many would use those words, and their perceived struggle predates "genocide" as a word.)
My census spreadsheets end at about 1870 currently (most 1790-1870 data comparisons I've done. I've started imported the census tables for 1880-2010 (minus 1890 where most of the data was lost). I'm not currently looking at mixed race stats since each census sometimes categorizes that data differently (so will take a lot more work), though fairly easy getting White numbers and Black/Negro/Colored numbers to get an idea of the change in White/Black population in the South. It's definitely taking a good deal of time but am making progress and will post charts when I do.Arguably the white Southerners may not be entirely wrong in terms of cultural genocide.
If we can agree upon what a Southern white culture is then due to demographics white Southerners might be in the decline.
If we know what the fertility rate is for white Southern women and the rate of births of mixed race children then we would have data points to determine if Southern whites will become a future minority in their own states. We know this as already occurred in Texas due to immigration and a high non white birthrate.
Perhaps @MattL has some knowledge of recent demographic trend's.
Kirk's Raider's
This makes a lot more sense than an invasion into the South by non-Southerners (more a moving around of Southerners within the South). In fact if you look at stats of States that have the most population born within its own State some of the South is pretty high on the list.100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
Personally, I just refer to em as, city folk.I t don't know if you fit this concept, but it seems there are many rural Southerners who don't consider urban Southerners true Southerners.
That seems to fit what I hear too.Personally, I just refer to em as, city folk.
I couldn't disagree more. My experience is limited to where I've lived but based on living in Phoenix AZ (growing up most of my first 21 years), the 6th largest City. Living in a city in Oregon called Eugene (only about 160k, with a 300k+ metro area), Las Vegas, NV, and now for most my years in the San Francisco Bay Area.Keep in mind though, the more predominant stereotype is that, us rural folks, especially Southern rural folks, are just a bunch of poor, dumb, uneducated, racist rednecks.
I've lived in big cities. At the most I spent 3 months or so in summer at my mother's hometown (staying at my grandmother's and aunts) in New Mexico (on the border of Texas so almost more of a West Texas feel) that's about 2,000 people or so. Some nice people. The local Southern Baptist Preacher was the nicest. To my cousins and myself (they were doing this already so I just joined in) on 13 mile bike rides 2-3 times a week. Took us to the gun range etc. Preaching was definitely a bit stereotypically Southern Baptist small town fire and brimstone, but outside of that nice. Everyone else felt the same personally. Felt pretty much like the city to me, each person is different and you have big city jerks and small town jerks, and the same with nice people.I've lived in multiple states in my life. Both in urban, & rural settings. My personal experience has been that, rural folks are more friendly, & have better manners.
I've been to Phoenix, I've lived in Las Vegas, & I've been to Eugene multiple times. The mfg of my largest commercial product, used to be Headquartered in Eugene. In addition to their facilities (obviously), I've fished the Umpqua River, been to a Ducks football game, & been to a few of the clubs, & restaurants in EugeneI couldn't disagree more. My experience is limited to where I've lived but based on living in Phoenix AZ (growing up most of my first 21 years), the 6th largest City. Living in a city in Oregon called Eugene (only about 160k, with a 300k+ metro area), Las Vegas, NV, and now for most my years in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Not when it comes to politics, control of the landscape, & or dollars. You seem to be referencing casual interactions.Honestly IMHO that's mostly a "rural" legend ....
The reality is the big city folk don't think or care enough about "rural folk" enough to even come to a conclusion like that.
For some reason a lot of rural people think city people think about them and have strong opinions, they don't.
From the places I've lived it just really isn't a thing despite people out their claiming it. Rural people seem obsessed with city people and what they think, for most it doesn't go the other way.
As have I.I've lived in big cities.
I agree. Though, I just run into more jerks in the cities.each person is different and you have big city jerks and small town jerks, and the same with nice people.
Go for a stroll through super friendly Eugene, wearing a Trump 2020 T-shirt. Or just a Hat. I bet you wouldn't survive the day without being confronted by somebody who just couldn't help themselves from being nasty to you. I would bet, multiple folks.I think a lot of it is that each place is different. Not every small town or big city is the same. Some places have different attitudes that might seem rude elsewhere no matter the size.
One of my favorite places with the nicest people was Eugene OR (again about 160k itself, combined with a city that is connected about 300k+). Super laid back, super friendly. A bit hippie-ish, but genuine hippie sort of super friendly tree hugger type. I always joked that if you are going to live with extreme idealists they are the least dangerous of them all since they'll try and kill you with kindness lol. It's somewhere in between being a large enough city but basically a dot compared to say the SF Bay Area (up to about 8 million people for the full area). Though I have lived in smaller little pockets in the surrounding areas of the Bay Area so where I live is right next to the bigger areas (and a train ride into SF, about 40 min or so) but it feels a lot smaller. I considered living in downtown SF but realistically couldn't afford it (or was unwilling to make the ridiculous rent costs work if I could). On the other hand maybe I'm odd since I prefer living suburban, but could live downtown and love it (did for a brief time in temporary work housing when relocating to SF and really enjoyed it), but also would love to buy some land and have a fairly rural home some day.
What ever floats your boat, though I think people are more adaptable than they often give themselves credit for. I think we can enjoy all sorts of things we don't think we would if we keep an open mind. Different isn't worse, just different. I may be odd that way too though.
A small world Eugene was a great place, still have a lot of friends/former co-workers there.I've been to Phoenix, I've lived in Las Vegas, & I've been to Eugene multiple times. The mfg of my largest commercial product, used to be Headquartered in Eugene. In addition to their facilities (obviously), I've fished the Umpqua River, been to a Ducks football game, & been to a few of the clubs, & restaurants in Eugene
You might have misunderstood I was referring toNot when it comes to politics, control of the landscape, & or dollars. You seem to be referencing casual interactions.
Well you know what they say, if you keep running into jerks maybe you're the jerk Joking of course. Not my experience at all though. I rarely run into jerks (mostly these days the only jerks I deal with are customer support or something over the phone or web lol, have had some bad experiences lately, though one very good one too to be fair). I've spent time in small towns but again limited, though I know my wife has the opposite view you have. The last time we talked about this she shared quite a bit how much nicer, friendlier, and far open people in the cities we've lived in were than her experiences. I'd say in my limited time in my mom's home town I might be able to see it... Again the pastor was very nice, everyone else was pretty off-ish and not particularly friendly. though again I still am of the opinion that this still is likely.I agree. Though, I just run into more jerks in the cities.
Haha... I feel like you had the short end of the stick when you were in big cities. I get plenty of service with a smile in the city. Right now I fortunately get to work from home (so no commute) but was commuting into San Francisco downtown for years. Going for lunch I'd always be met with smiles and made plenty of good conversation with the small food places I'd go to and get to know the people who run those places.Get much more, service with a smile, in the country. A lot more attitude, & frowns in the city. I run into many more people in the city, that must work at, or have worked at the DMV at some point in their lives
This cuts both ways though, I wouldn't trust my safety wearing a Hillary t-shirt through much fo the rural South lol.Go for a stroll through super friendly Eugene, wearing a Trump 2020 T-shirt. Or just a Hat. I bet you wouldn't survive the day without being confronted by somebody who just couldn't help themselves from being nasty to you. I would bet, multiple folks.
The congestion is I think a fully valid and fully objective point. That's simply an objective downside of living in a city. Though as you say it's a tradeoff for the conveniences. You trade driving hours to the closest stores in some rural scenarios for spending more time crossing a city on a regular basis.Also, don't get me wrong, I don't hate the city. I dig the city, & all of it's conveniences. I just don't want to live in all that congestion, or with all of those people anymore. I don't want to have to lock my doors, or worry about my wife coming home late at night after work. The odds of my wife being a victim to a violent crime are much much higher in a big city, than where I live. That piece of mind is worth something too.....