Some thoughts on Rep. Wilson, Barack Obama, and the South. I agree with Glen Wishard’s comment about the casual bigotry of “liberals.”
41 thoughts on “An Honor Culture”
Comments are closed.
Some thoughts on Rep. Wilson, Barack Obama, and the South. I agree with Glen Wishard’s comment about the casual bigotry of “liberals.”
Comments are closed.
There is nothing “casual” about said bigotry. It is cultural — an accepted way to vent the frustrations of life in a safe direction.
I wish I could recall the number of aspersions I have heard cast at “Texas” – both as a Platonic “Idea”, as a short hand for George W. Bush, and as a conglomeration of 22 million supposed rednecks. It angers me, with the slow burn of outrage at injustice and hypocrisy.
There is nothing “casual” about said bigotry. It is cultural — an accepted way to vent the frustrations of life in a safe direction.
I cringe at Northerner’s generalizations about Southerners. But what should be said about a region that seems exist in its own reality — where lies about the President’s birthplace, or the health reform bill’s supposed special treatment of illegal immigrants, are treated as accepted facts?
Pauline Kael is often (mis) quoted as saying that she couldn’t believe Nixon won, because she didn’t know anyone who voted for him. I can imagine there are plenty of Southern whites who are in a similar position where Obama is concerned. Obama won less than 15% of the white vote in Mississippi, Lousiana and Alabama — he did more than twice as well in Utah! It must be baffling to white voters in Southern states to have Obama running the country, with Democratic majorities in both houses, and positive approval ratings — just as it was baffling for voters in Vermont to have Bush in charge.
I cringe at Northerner’s generalizations about Southerners.
I cringe at your generalizations about Southerners, but alas you always do it. And no discussion of how wrong you are, or how much of an ass you are, has stopped you from making your idiotic and bigotted comments.
So you can assume, I take your opening sentence as an outright lie on your part.
I cringe at statism. The willingness to use State force–or other forms of coercion– to get your way bothers me a whole lot more than racial prejudice. (Granted, racial prejudice at times has often taken a coercive form; but if Jim is right, even the KKK is more libertarian now than in its old lynchin’ and cross-burnin’ days.)
I cringe at your generalizations about Southerners, but alas you always do it.
Show me one.
Hell-ooo!
Yes, it is a most unfortunate language mistake that “liberal minded” is used instead of “open minded.” My experience is that liberals are more close minded than conservatives.
Jim’s comment is an excellent example of exactly what he tries vainly to rebut.
Hell-ooo!
That was not a generalization about Southerners (as shown by the fact that I say the very same thing about Vermonters in the next part of the sentence). It’s a generalization about anyone in a community where the current President and majority party are extremely unpopular.
Please try again.
“It’s a generalization about anyone in a community where the current President and majority party are extremely unpopular.”
You mean communities where liberty is valued?
Bilwick: Yes. For example, Jim’s comment could have been about Minnesotans in 1984 after it was the only state in the union to have majorities favor Mondale. Fortunately, liberty is valued everywhere in the USA. As everyone here knows, despite the mock offense, the nature of Jim’s comment could only apply to voting majorities – I’m certain Jim is fully aware that many white southerners voted for Obama.
What I don’t understand is whether people believed that honor was restored by winning a duel, or merely participating in one. If Jim unjustly calls Leland a liar, and then, in a duel, Jim wounds Leland, how is the honor of Jim and/or Leland thus restored? I also don’t understand why duels were a preferred solution – is the injury supposed to be a deterrent? Other than a deterrent, I can’t see the benefit of injuring or killing someone, particularly when the offended party might be the one injured or killed.
“Fortunately, liberty is valued everywhere in the USA. . . . ” It is, Bob? Glad to hear it, although I wonder. If you’re talking geographically I suppose, literally, there is no state or region in the USA where there isn’t someone who values liberty–but significant numbers? I grew up and spent about half of my adult life in NYC, and while you could always find someone of the pro-freedom persuasion if you looked hard enough or hung around the Laissez-Faire Bookstore, Manhattan wasn’t exactly Galt’s Gulch. From what I understand, the intellectual climate of Los Angeles, Boston or San Francisco could be about the same. Currently I live in Atlanta, probably the Southeastern hub of ObamaNation.
So that “white people” was just a typo? You know, there’s something… impressive about a person who lies boldfaced with the evidence against him completely visible to everyone.
And by “a large number of white southerners”, of course I meant a large absolute number that is still less than 15% of the population in question.
But what did Jim do wrong? Was it wrong of Jim to bring up that population at all? Or was it wrong of Jim to make the assumption that a typical member of that population wouldn’t know any Obama voters?
So that “white people” was just a typo?
What “white people”? As far as I can tell you’re the only one to use that exact term in this thread.
Show me one.
It must be baffling to white voters in Southern states to have Obama running the country
As Andrea pointed out. But again, pointing this stuff out to you has never stopped you from continuing to do it and showing yourself a bigot. All I’m saying is, we figured that out about you, and with the exception of Bob (who also thinks the UK is a Republic); we are not fooled by your claims.
As Andrea pointed out.
And as I’ve already responded, that was a generalization about political minorities (I mentioned examples in the South and in Vermont), not about white Southerners in particular.
Try again. If I’m the bigot of your imagination, it shouldn’t be hard.
Jim, we read your response. Yes, you generalized whole populations based on a minority of representation, and we understand that you find that wholly acceptable. As long as you hold that belief, I can like to all the examples that come up when googling “southern Jim” in relation to this website. You will just continue to act like your comments are rationale statements based on generalized facts. You will still be offensive to the rest of us; and you will continue to feign like that is not your intention. We’ve all seen it, and that’s why I’m not the only to note it in this thread.
“white voters.” My typo was “people” for “voters.” Of course I realize voters are a subset of people — but are white people a subset of people or are they a subhuman mistake of evolution that can be blamed for all the world’s ills? We must ask Jim — he seems to be the expert.
Even Maureen Dowd would think Jim a bigot after reading that.
Yes, you generalized whole populations based on a minority of representation, and we understand that you find that wholly acceptable.
The generalization I made is one that I think applies to any human community — it says nothing in particular about white Southerners, Vermonters, or any other sub-group. Is this hard to understand?
White southerners voted overwhelmingly against Obama, and yet the country as a whole voted for him. Vermonters voted against Bush, and yet the country as a whole voted for him (in 2004). In both cases the members of those communities were out of step with the national vote, and could well feel baffled at how the president got elected when most of the people in the immediate social vicinity were so set against him. Do you really think this banal observation constitutes bigotry?
Do you really think this banal observation constitutes bigotry?
Yes, because you are making claims about the group that aren’t substantiated. Just because the South voted against Obama doesn’t mean they are collectively baffled that other people voted differently. Further, you say things like this:
I cringe at Northerner’s generalizations about Southerners. But what should be said about a region that seems exist in its own reality — where lies about the President’s birthplace, or the health reform bill’s supposed special treatment of illegal immigrants, are treated as accepted facts?
You are clearly implying the South exists in its own reality. While that may be true, what makes it more true than any other region, say the region you live in? I think this is a problem with your bias not a problem unusually associated with the South. And “special treatment” of illegal immigrants? There are several ways that the president can keep such a promise superficially. For example, yet another amnesty will do the trick.
Still it’s nothing like Chris Gerrib who has gone out of his way to rationalize greedy power and wealth seizures during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.
Karl, how is Jim’s so-called bigotry any different than similar “bigotry” by Rand in the original post when he says that liberals are bigoted against the south, and by Bilwick above when he suggests that urban Americans don’t value liberty? I don’t think any of them are really bigots — I think all three made generalizations that are unsubstantiated and surely all three knew they were not being especially precise. I think Jim’s generalization is the most harmless, because he made it quite clear that he was imagining a Pauline Kael-like situation, and if the story about Pauline Kael was accurate, surely Pauline Kael herself would have known that was she was saying was ridiculous if it was taken literally.
—
—
In fact, the story about the Pauline Kael is probably not accurate. There is no record that she said anything of the sort. In December 28, 1972 in the New York Times she was quoted as saying “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”
I think Jim’s generalization is the most harmless…
Imagine our shock.
Leland, if you want to discredit me by saying that I think the UK is a republic, please keep linking to the orignal thread:
“www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21670” (Readers can click on my name above to go to the link.)
I stand by everything I said in that thread, including my very first comment in which I opined that the UK is not a republic according to most defintions of the word. If you want to discredit me, I’m very happy for people to have an opportunity to look at the discussion and decide for themselves. If you want to brag about your inability to comprehend the concept of alternate definitions, that’s ok with me. If you believe I’m unfairly characterizing your cognitve abilities, by all means lets dispense with the insults, and instead, lets revive the conversation and discuss the definition of the word “republic”. In particular, since you’re interested in the status of the UK, lets discuss how different definitions of the word “republic” relate to the strength of reserve powers in Western constitutional monarchies in three interestingly different cases: Sweden, Canada, and the UK.
Rand, I saw a survey once that said that the three most stressful events in a typical American lifestyle were death of a loved one, divorce, and moving to a new home, and many respondents ranked “moving” as the most stressful! My wife was once stressing out during a move, and when I told her about the survey, she burst out laughing and said that it put things in perspective. In any case, I hope your move is going well and is less stressful than typical.
The meta-message: people’s support can be independent of their politics.
I cringe at Northerner’s generalizations about Southerners. But …
Jim, the instant you started your second sentance with “but,” you not only discredited your argument that you “cringe at Northerner’s generalizations,” you discredited your assertions that you’re not a regionalist bigot. Point-blank, bar none. Anything after that “but” is pointless.
You are clearly implying the South exists in its own reality.
I’m asking a question. I am genuinely curious about the implications of the Obama birthplace poll. If you took a poll on whether the moon landings were faked, you’d expect 5-10% yes responses, because you always get those. But if the numbers were 5-10% across the country, except in the upper Midwest where they were 50%, you’d wonder what was going on up there. You’d wonder if the people there were living in their own reality.
Still it’s nothing like Chris Gerrib who has gone out of his way to rationalize greedy power and wealth seizures during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.
Are you sure that wasn’t me? My recollections is that we were both pointing out that modern historical research does not support the Gone With The Wind view of Reconstruction. Is it bigotry to question popular myths?
Leland, if you want to discredit me by saying that I think the UK is a republic, please keep linking to the orignal thread:
Bob, you discredited yourself, and I’m not your bitch having to follow your orders. If you want to regain credibility, then have at it, but it is not my job to carry your water. Do it yourself.
Karl, how is Jim’s so-called bigotry any different than similar “bigotry” by Rand in the original post when he says that liberals are bigoted against the south, and by Bilwick above when he suggests that urban Americans don’t value liberty?
Bob, all three people are biased. I don’t know about Bilwick, but I consider a key symptom of bigotry to be an absence of an effort to seek truth. Thus I don’t consider Rand to be bigoted even though I consider him to be biased. For example, Jim attempts to claim he’s right in another thread by listing a few google search phrases. There’s no effort to make a sincere, rational argument.
I stand corrected, Jim.
How would you propose to fund the education of millions of former slaves, if not with taxes? And how would you propose to collect property taxes from property owners who can not pay, if not by confiscating their property and selling it to the highest bidder? There’s nothing special or craven about it — it’s what every town in the U.S. does to this day.
Bob, this is an example of how it works. Jim doesn’t expressly support unlawful seizure of former slaveholders’ property. Instead, he supports funding schools for former slaves. Who wouldn’t aside from the hopelessly racist, right? And perhaps the carpetbaggers of the time who were actually squandering said public funds on their fellow kronies? He ignores why property holders couldn’t pay or why the state gets to chose kronies as the only “highest bidders” in fixed auctions. In other words, he reduces an ugly period of US history to a simplistic, clean, theoretical scenario that never existed. That is bigotry in action.
Jim has another example:
I’m asking a question. I am genuinely curious about the implications of the Obama birthplace poll. If you took a poll on whether the moon landings were faked, you’d expect 5-10% yes responses, because you always get those. But if the numbers were 5-10% across the country, except in the upper Midwest where they were 50%, you’d wonder what was going on up there. You’d wonder if the people there were living in their own reality.
Now let’s look once again at the “question”.
I cringe at Northerner’s generalizations about Southerners. But what should be said about a region that seems exist in its own reality — where lies about the President’s birthplace, or the health reform bill’s supposed special treatment of illegal immigrants, are treated as accepted facts?
He’s merely “asking a question”. All sorts of loathsome groups are just “asking a question” until they get a taste of power. It’s a popular rhetorical dodge for introducing propaganda. The second excerpt is also a blatant leading question which as a premise for the “question” alleged “lies” about the president’s birthplace, the South “seems” to exist in its own reality (based on a dKos poll no less!), and white Southerns believe there will be “special treatment” for illegal immigrants. These tricks are not consistent with a truth-seeker.
He also ignores that each region and each culture has its quirks. You don’t expect everyone to answer the same. He also ignores that black southerners had out of line answers.
And perhaps the carpetbaggers of the time who were actually squandering said public funds on their fellow kronies?
Political corruption under Reconstruction was real, but it was no worse than political corruption elsewhere at that time (e.g. Tammany Hall).
In other words, he reduces an ugly period of US history to a simplistic, clean, theoretical scenario that never existed.
Yes, that period was “ugly” (to put it mildly!), but the behavior of carpetbaggers was the least of the “ugliness”! For just one example, read about the Colfax Massacre — there are two recent books on the subject (Nicholas Lemann’s Redemption, and Charles Lane’s The Day Freedom Died). Three whites died, along with at least 150 blacks. In its aftermath President Grant decided against using the U.S. Army to enforce democracy in the South, with the result that the “ugliness” lasted nearly a century. In 1921 the white citizens of Colfax erected a memorial to the three white victims; it reads:
In 1950 the state of Louisiana erected a highway marker:
“Carpetbag misrule,” real and imagined, was an excuse for terrorism, murder, and decades of American apartheid.
These tricks are not consistent with a truth-seeker.
Dismissing a poll based on who commissioned it is not consistent with being a truth-seeker.
He also ignores that each region and each culture has its quirks.
I don’t ignore it — that’s what I’m asking about! Do you have a theory as to why the South’s quirks include not believing that Obama was born in the U.S.?
Karl Hallowell – apparently you missed my presence in this debate. Allow me to rectify that.
1) The South fought a war for the right to hold human beings as slaves. Lincoln, as late as February 1865, offered a negotiated end to the war if only the South would free the slaves – and he even offered to pay compensation!
2) The South’s view of slavery by 1860 was entirely that of race – “one drop of black blood” and all that jazz.
3) Given points 1 and 2, why would any reasonable person think that the violent attempts to repress blacks in the Reconstruction south was anything but the most shameless racism?
Regarding the “property rights” of the southern whites – a reasonable moral argument could be made that all plantations should have been broken up and given to the former slaves. Communists would (and did) do that in a heartbeat. Instead, a surprising amount of respect for property was extended to the South.
Bottom line – the South lost the war, and by the standards of most wars before and since, they were treated very kindly.
Political corruption under Reconstruction was real, but it was no worse than political corruption elsewhere at that time (e.g. Tammany Hall).
I’m boggled by your incompetence, Jim.
Yes, that period was “ugly” (to put it mildly!), but the behavior of carpetbaggers was the least of the “ugliness”!
Jim, I see that 150 people died because of the presence of carpetbaggers. Remember Rand’s premise about the Reconstruction’s role in forming the Jim Crow era in the South? Namely, that the racism of the next century or so (and not just in the South as I see it) was aggravated by the carpetbaggers? You need a better rationalization than that to claim that it would have happened anyway to the same or worse degree in the absence of carpetbaggers.
Chris, you wrote:
The South fought a war for the right to hold human beings as slaves. Lincoln, as late as February 1865, offered a negotiated end to the war if only the South would free the slaves – and he even offered to pay compensation!
It’s extremely disingenuous on your part, Chris to ignore the second condition. Lincoln also required restoration of national authority. You also ignore that the negotiators on the Confederate side did not have the authority to grant either of the two conditions. This incidentally is a common problem in wars. Some faction on the losing side often attempts to negotiate collective peace, but lacks any authority to do so. Both Germany and Japan had this happen to them in the last stages of the Second World War.
Given points 1 and 2, why would any reasonable person think that the violent attempts to repress blacks in the Reconstruction south was anything but the most shameless racism?
Perhaps, I missed something somewhere. I thought we were talk about the causes of this shameless racism, not whether it was shameless or racism. It’s like we’re in completely different conversations.
Here’s my view. When one group is favored at the expense of another, that encourages racism. It’s obvious why prewar South was heavily racist. They needed a population of slaves to work and it was increasingly difficult to smuggle new slaves in (especially once the UK got in the act). Given the inherent unfairness (and unsustainability) of the Reconstruction (as well as the growing power of blacks in the South), it’s obvious why postwar South was also heavily racist.
What is not obvious to me is any benefits of the Reconstruction that didn’t make the situation worse. This is the key problem with racist social policy today. You can’t address a past racial injustice by committing current racial injustices. It didn’t work in the past and it doesn’t work now.
Bottom line – the South lost the war, and by the standards of most wars before and since, they were treated very kindly.
“By the standards of most wars” is almost as low a standard as Jim’s standard of Tammany Hall is for corruption. All I have to say is that by the standard of most ranting blowhards on the internet, you are very coherent and thoughtful.
I’m boggled by your incompetence, Jim.
You seem to think that racist violence was prompted by, if not justified by, political corruption. Yet that sort of corruption existed all over the country (and had existed in the pre-war South), and only in the post-war South was it used as an excuse for organized terrorism (waged not against the corrupt carpetbaggers, for the most part, but against former slaves). The problem wasn’t corruption, is was that the people accustomed to having all the political, social and economic power in the South were being forced to share it, and they decided to use violence to restore the pre-war order.
Jim, I see that 150 people died because of the presence of carpetbaggers.
That is an outrageous interpretation. They died because they asserted their rights as citizens to vote and hold public office. For that they were hunted down and massacred. At least the white citizens of Colfax were honest to say why they died: to preserve white supremacy.
Given the inherent unfairness (and unsustainability) of the Reconstruction
What was unfair about it? What was unsustainable (other than the fact that some whites refused to obey the law unless it was backed by the U.S. Army)?
What is not obvious to me is any benefits of the Reconstruction that didn’t make the situation worse.
The benefits were that blacks were treated like first class citizens: they could vote, go to school, hold public office, and seek justice if they were the victims of criminal behavior. All that ended with the end of Reconstruction.
Saying that we shouldn’t have tried to give blacks their rights because it was bound to make the whites take up terrorism is giving in to the worst sort of extortion.
You can’t address a past racial injustice by committing current racial injustices. It didn’t work in the past and it doesn’t work now.
Where do you get the idea that Reconstruction constituted a racial injustice against whites?
Jim, debate my words not your fantasies.
You seem to think that racist violence was prompted by, if not justified by, political corruption.
To start with, I do believe that political corruption prompts racism. And Tammany Hall is a great example of how to generate racism. It helped New York City become the incredible racist place it’s been for many generations. So was the Reconstruction and its corruption a similar brewing ground for the racism that followed.
A modern example is the events following the death of Tito in Yugoslavia. The subsequent leader heavily favored the Serbs and this lead to the destructive civil war and genocide that followed.
I’ve never implied that racial violence is justified by political corruption. You seem to keep missing that little thing I say in many variations: “Past injustice doesn’t justify future injustice.” I wonder why?
The problem wasn’t corruption, is was that the people accustomed to having all the political, social and economic power in the South were being forced to share it, and they decided to use violence to restore the pre-war order.
Who are these people? They aren’t most whites. This is an example of your blinding bias in this area. There were only a small group who really enjoyed considerable benefits from being on top, who truly had “all the political, social and economic power in the South”. These were also the people who just lead the Confederacy to a humiliating defeat. How did they get back into power?
They got back in through racist fear. Not just the basic fears like that black men hunger for white women (something that still gets black men jailed and killed today), but also that the Reconstruction was a ploy to transfer the wealth of the white South to the blacks. The problem was this was in a sense true. Blacks were voting in carpetbaggers and receiving (as I understand) modest rewards (acquired from whites) for that. And the injustices of the Reconstruction era were prompting some sort of action on the part of white Southerners as an ethnic group.
Only a fool doesn’t expect extreme, shameless racism and all the nasty consequences under those circumstances.
The US had an opportunity to nail racism after the Civil War and not just in the South. That they didn’t do this is one of the great failings of that time.
And Tammany Hall is a great example of how to generate racism. It helped New York City become the incredible racist place it’s been for many generations.
Huh? Are you just making this stuff up?
This is an example of your blinding bias in this area. There were only a small group who really enjoyed considerable benefits from being on top, who truly had “all the political, social and economic power in the South”.
Even the lowliest white man was socially, politically and economically superior to the most elevated black man in the pre-war South. And once Reconstruction was defeated, he regained that position.
Blacks were voting in carpetbaggers
Which was their right as citizens.
and receiving (as I understand) modest rewards (acquired from whites) for that
Which was totally routine in American politics of the time. What wasn’t routine was the out-of-power party resorting to terrorism.
The US had an opportunity to nail racism after the Civil War and not just in the South. That they didn’t do this is one of the great failings of that time.
Reconstruction — giving blacks legal and political rights — was an attempt to do just that. What would you suggest they have done?
My suggestion is that Southern Democrats should have come to the terms with the fact that the old order was lost forever, accepted their black neighbors as equals, and worked to win black votes (which were the majority in many localities, and two states) with peaceful means — the Democrats knew more about local issues than carpetbaggers, and could have made a good case for themselves. Instead they used the carpetbaggers as an excuse to refight the war and reinstate the old order. That being the case, the federal government should have kept the South under military occupation until it was safe for blacks to exercise their rights (instead of pulling out, and then having to send the troops back in the 1950s and 1960s).
Jim, debate my words not your fantasies.
Huh? Are you just making this stuff up?
I take it you don’t have a clue about Tammany Hall. My understanding is that it was an ethnicity-based caste system that lasted well over a century. You play along with the powers that be, and you got a piece of the niche assigned to your ethnicity.
Even the lowliest white man was socially, politically and economically superior to the most elevated black man in the pre-war South. And once Reconstruction was defeated, he regained that position.
And what was that “superior” status worth? Just because you resemble the elite, doesn’t mean you get a piece of the pie. For example, Appalachia remained a backwater. This is another example of your stilted thinking. And how does it explain racism outside of the South?
I just thought of another angle. Jim Crow was just a Tammany Hall for the South. Maybe it was a bit more racist, but just like Tammany Hall, every ethnicity had their place. Blacks just happened to be on the bottom, while the descendants of the pre-war elite just happened to be on top.
Which was totally routine in American politics of the time. What wasn’t routine was the out-of-power party resorting to terrorism.
Heh, I guess you really don’t have a clue about the whole era. There were a lot of parties both in power and out, resorting to terrorism. Here’s a few counterexamples: the labor unions versus management (both engaged in terrorism), cattlemen versus sheep herders and farmers, various socialist movements particularly the anarchists and later the communists (assassinations and riots were popular), the teetollers (busting up salons), and the American Indians versus the US military (both sides engaged in massacres of innocents in addition to serious clashes).
Reconstruction — giving blacks legal and political rights — was an attempt to do just that. What would you suggest they have done?
Reconstruction was not an attempt to give blacks legal and political rights. That might be the way it looks to you through your blinkers, but it ignores two key aspects of the Reconstruction: 1) it was to humiliate and punish the South, and 2) it was to insure that the South didn’t return to rebellion. Perhaps Reconstruction was intended also to give blacks similar rights to whites, but it didn’t work did it?
My suggestion is that Southern Democrats should have come to the terms with the fact that the old order was lost forever
Laughable since as we obviously see, it wasn’t “lost forever”.
Instead they used the carpetbaggers as an excuse to refight the war and reinstate the old order.
And they got a lot more than they could playing your little game. Perhaps you should learn about this era before you go on. You show astounding naivete about the conditions of the time, the people of the time, and why they made the choices they made. To be honest, I don’t understand the era as well as I’d like, but at least I made an attempt.
For example, Appalachia remained a backwater You will note that Appalachia had no stomach for going to war for slaves – the state of West Virginia (admited 1863) and the efforts by eastern Tennessee to leave their state.