# The US South through a Colonization Lens



## CryoRevival #SJ-112 (May 26, 2022)

Is there any reason that the arguments applied when analysing the state of post colonial Africa can not be reasonably applied in analysis of the American South?

Can you view it as in a post colonial life cycle after the conclusion of the civil war?

This thought cropped up when thinking about how white liberals consider the south the be a cultueral backwater who they must drag into the modern age, a mindset which they would readily condemn when considering European colonialism. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Drkinferno72 (May 26, 2022)

There is no duty to civilise others


----------



## Kendall Motor Oil (May 26, 2022)

Same with the British and Ireland and Russia and.... everything around it. "Whites" are always the oppressor. It was never about colonialism which should be obvious to anyone who's seen how affluent liberal charities operate.

Regarding the American South, specifically, the education system frames it as a good v. evil situation that pulled the real United States into a just war. There are also long standing biases at play. Many northerners still treat the South as backward and treat the cultural differences as a moral travesty. The terms redneck and hick are still considered acceptable in conversations and media. You are telling these people that Cleetus and his incest kids living on a dirt road are victims of liberal enlightenment. Them admitting it was colonialism-by-definition or a moral violation is an attack on the foundation of their belief system.


----------



## LeChampion1992 (May 26, 2022)

In a historical perspective the global south has since the mid twentieth century experienced something of an industrial revolution while the west post 1970 has been suffering a mass deindustrialization.

If one looks at Africa it's massively civilizing as a continent you're seeing the formation of trade routes, better more developed highway systems. The global south will be the global hedgemone not sure when it might be a few decades from now it could be a century or two from now. Europe, china and the pax Americana are on the decline at the moment. They're all facing substantial demographic crisis. either though long term migration we see ethnic cleansing or war.  because the demographic crisis facing the US, Europe, China and even the middle east will be concerning.


----------



## Caesare (May 26, 2022)

> how white liberals consider the south the be a cultueral backwater who they must drag into the modern age,


White liberals just hate black people, that's what their problem is. All the blacks in America live in the Southeast, and they think black people are just like children, no agency of their own or ability to take care of themselves. That's why they see themselves as the ones who have to swoop in and educate them, for their "own good" of course.


----------



## soy_king (May 26, 2022)

People think that the white man's burden died with the British Empire, but has never truly died, just metamorphosis into a different form. It's always been deeply patronizing, but at least 100 years ago it was actually aimed at improving people's quality of life and making them functioning members of an advanced society rather than at tearing down western civilization by making everyone equally miserable.


----------



## Wormy (May 28, 2022)

Whatever, there's a lot about this joint I wish WOULD get dragged into the modern age instead of being perpetually stuck in 1979...


----------



## Passing Through Town (May 29, 2022)

Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.

I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is _real_. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.

In fact, modern American society is essentially built upon the oppression of Southern Whites. The core of American social policy resides not in any document dating back to this country's founding, but rather in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which itself is the descendant of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board decision, which stripped Southern schools of their freedom of association. The notion that the Civil Rights Act made anyone the equal of anyone else is ludicrous, because it simply did the opposite. Whereas the law previously applied to everyone equally, the Civil Rights Act effectively made minorities into a protected class and gave them the freedom to go where they simply weren't wanted. And what did the federal government do when White Southerners stood up for their right to decide who went to the schools that _they _built and _they _paid for? Same things as always, they used force.






And to what end was this done? Black people are in an arguably worse position than before. They can now go and eat in White restaurants and ride in the front of the bus, sure. But has that fixed their communities? No, it didn't. Blacks are less safe than they were back then. All that unleashing them on the rest of us did was make us less safe, degrade our communities, cripple our schools, and destroy our cities. Are we supposed to believe that wasn't intentional? If the issue was that black schools were underfunded, why didn't the feds just give them funding? If the issue was that blacks weren't allowed in White businesses, why didn't the government do anything to help black businesses? If the problem was that blacks had terrible housing, why didn't the government try to improve their housing? Desegregation didn't solve any of these problems because it wasn't designed to. It, just like the emancipation of blacks in the Civil War, was no more than a strategy to disenfranchise the White Southern voter.

On a side note, the idea that segregation was unconstitutional is a total farce. The Founders never intended for blacks to be free, and Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated in his _Notes on the State of Virginia_ that emancipation of blacks would require that they "be removed beyond the reach of mixture". So anyone who wants to argue along the lines of American ideals need not apply.


----------



## Wormy (May 29, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.
> 
> I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is _real_. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.
> 
> ...


Couldn't help that in your "Southern Whites are oppressed!" you mostly focused on a bunch of people with an antebellum mindset having to put up with the atrocity of people with different skin colors that they shit on suddenly getting to eat in the same lunch counters. I notice you didn't say a peep about Appalachian mining communities getting treated like medieval peasants by mining companies and having the US Army unleashed on them when they finally took up their 2nd Amendment rights. They weren't having the army just let blacks near them, the army was fucking shooting at them. SHOOTING AT THEM. They didn't shoot at KKK members down in Biloxi or Tupelo, but you can bet your ass they shot at hillbillies marching to Charleston WV for their rights.

No, that doesn't count. Only the indignity of not treating black like shit triggers you.

Law was applied equally. Yea, tell that to the kid who got murdered because a white woman LIED about him whistling to her.


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (May 29, 2022)

Its the Anglo-English Americans oppressing the heirs to the blood of Scotland and Ulster in the south.


----------



## Passing Through Town (May 29, 2022)

So, MT Foxtrot, you decided to prove my point. Here you are implying that White Southerners don't have a right to our "Antebellum mindset", and claiming that we "shit on" blacks, all the while completely ignoring the erosion of our freedoms. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Southerners never chose to have blacks around in the first place. The slave owners which imported and bred Africans for labor were a small fraction of the Southern population.



> I notice you didn't say a peep about Appalachian mining communities getting treated like medieval peasants by mining companies and having the US Army unleashed on them when they finally took up their 2nd Amendment rights.


Because it's not particularly thread relevant. I'm well aware that the federal government regularly oppresses people all across America, and I'd gladly talk about them in a relevant setting.



> No, that doesn't count. Only the indignity of not treating black like shit triggers you.


I never said it didn't count. I wouldn't even discount the mistreatment of blacks under slavery. None of that negates my point, which is the erosion of the freedom of association, which is now being used to push trannies on the population as well. I don't want to treat black people like shit, I just don't want them overrunning my community and filling it with crime, or overrunning local schools and lowering their standards. I don't like minorities being given special treatment. Affirmative action, along with policies like it, are simply anti-White, and it started with the oppression of the South.



> Yea, tell that to the kid who got murdered because a white woman LIED about him whistling to her.


You say that the woman lied, but that's not true according to Till's friend. Besides, you only know and care about his killing because it's central to federal propaganda. What about Cannon Hinnant? What about Braxton Cottrill and his baby boy? What about the victims of the attack in Waukesha? Why are career criminal blacks allowed back on the streets where they simply go on to commit more crimes, including murder? What makes one injustice 67 years ago more important than the injustices of today? Well, it's more important because he was black. If he hadn't been, you never would have heard of him.


----------



## gang weeder (May 29, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> I never said it didn't count. I wouldn't even discount the mistreatment of blacks under slavery. None of that negates my point, which is the erosion of the freedom of association, which is now being used to push trannies on the population as well. I don't want to treat black people like shit, I just don't want them overrunning my community and filling it with crime, or overrunning local schools and lowering their standards. I don't like minorities being given special treatment. Affirmative action, along with policies like it, are simply anti-White, and it started with the oppression of the South.



This is the final point against any form of progressive nonsense on race relations. If white and black were not in contact with each other, neither one could "oppress" or otherwise harm the other. At the same time, suggesting that they not mix will get you labeled a Nazi. This is a completely incoherent state of affairs unless the goal were to force them to mix whether they want to or not.


----------



## BiggerChungus (May 30, 2022)

Being from the South, it definitely seems like it. We're constantly told we're obligated to become "progressive" and the powers that be are doing everything they can to get "racist" white people out and brings minorities in. Tennessee for example in recent decades has had a massive influx of black residents, and unfortunately its crime rate has skyrocketed. Yet this is held as the standard for every neighboring southern state. We all need to be as "diverse" as Tennessee, which is becoming a crime-ridden shithole. Even near a place like Gatlinburg, considered a pinnacle of Appalachian culture and/or Americana, if you go into a Walmart you'd think you were either in Mexico, Africa, or Saudi Arabia.

Not that there's something inherently wrong with nonwhites coming in, it's that the people in charge frame there as being something wrong if you don't want them coming in and becoming the majorities, regardless of the fact that stastically speaking crime and economic depression follow the demographic migration. Nonwhites *must *move to every single corner of the country and become the majority, or move to specific "meccas" of their race (Miami, El Paso, Atlanta, etc.) to be part of the majority there, and that's all fine and commendable. If a white person wants to be somewhere where white people are the majority, they're racist, and they must submit to the "cultural enrichment" of the "civilized" leftist world.

If you asked online where you could go to be with more black people as a black guy, you'd be helped and encouraged, something that's actually pretty common on moving sites. If you asked where you could go as a white guy to be with more white people, you'd be called a Nazi. I remember reading an article from (I think) the NYT talking about solutions to "solve the problem" of whites being the majority in certain New England states. Why was it a problem? Why did it need to be solved? Why did nonwhites need to be the majority, while whites specifically shouldn't have been?

You'd think the root of it is an anti-white agenda, and that's part of it, but that's just one of many tools being used in the overall collapse of Western civilization as we're watching it. Leftists hate every race equally, and it's all about making us also hate each other and stay divided, suspicious, and resentful. Even leftists who're ignorant of what they're doing and genuinely think they're correct still show a completely denigrating and dehumanizing view of nonwhites in the same way they claim colonizers did, seeing nonwhites as some kind of fragile and pathetic animal that needs constantly coddled to survive.

None of it's surprising though. Leftism's lifeblood is hypocrisy and denial or distortion of reality, and progressive leftism - despite ostensibly opposing violence, intolerance, racism, and hatred - is one of the most violent, intolerant, racist, and hateful ideologies in human history.


----------



## Wormy (May 30, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> The slave owners which imported and bred Africans for labor were a small fraction of the Southern population.


And did the larger portion of the southern population rise up and say "STOP THIS SHIT NOW!"? No. We didn't.


Passing Through Town said:


> Because it's not particularly thread relevant.


Well damn , I didn't know we ceased to be Southern. When did that happen?


Passing Through Town said:


> You say that the woman lied, but that's not true according to Till's friend.


Did he still deserve to die?


Passing Through Town said:


> Why are career criminal blacks allowed back on the streets where they simply go on to commit more crimes, including murder?


Same reason whites are. The system is broken.


Passing Through Town said:


> What makes one injustice 67 years ago more important than the injustices of today?


I wouldn't bring it up at all if you didn't consider the very presence of non whites is some example of oppression. Incidentally, you're the first fella I've seen actually try to live up to the idiotic talking point so many leftist radicals make that the very founding of the country is racist with your "The Founders never wanted blacks to be free".  Guess we really were all this time.



BiggerChungus said:


> Leftists hate every race equally, and it's all about making us also hate each other and stay divided, suspicious, and resentful.


So what's the solution?


----------



## Passing Through Town (May 30, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> And did the larger portion of the southern population rise up and say "STOP THIS SHIT NOW!"? No. We didn't.


It wasn't our responsibility to do so. If you feel so bad about your ancestors choosing to focus on their own communities rather than dedicate their lives to saving Africans, you can donate to BLM here. 



MT Foxtrot said:


> Well damn , I didn't know we ceased to be Southern. When did that happen?


West Virginia? It ceased to be Southern when it chose not to be during the Civil War.



MT Foxtrot said:


> Did he still deserve to die?


No, and neither did Cannon Hinnant and the Cottrills. Not that you care about them, since you clearly made the conscious decision to avoid discussing that point.



MT Foxtrot said:


> Same reason whites are. The system is broken.


Whites don't have organizations that are designed to seek them out and pay for their bail, or organizations designed specifically to get them off the hook. Such organizations would quickly be shut down. Not because the system is "broken", but because it's working as intended, which is to be anti-White. 



MT Foxtrot said:


> I wouldn't bring it up at all if you didn't consider the very presence of non whites is some example of oppression.


I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop deliberately misrepresenting my argument. They're not simply in our presence, they are actively forced upon us. Besides, I don't believe you. It seems to me that this is all you really care about, because it's the only place you're willing to actually argue from. You're not willing to address our grievances, you're only willing to tell us that we deserve it all because of past injustices. Yet you accuse me of using "leftist radical" talking points. Just answer this simple question: Why should any community be refused the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to participate in it?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Incidentally, you're the first fella I've seen actually try to live up to the idiotic talking point so many leftist radicals make that the very founding of the country is racist with your "The Founders never wanted blacks to be free".


It's not a "talking point", it's the truth, which is why you're incapable of refuting it along with every other point I've made. The Founders were racist. Even Lincoln was racist. You're just going to have to come to terms with those facts.


----------



## Wormy (May 30, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> It wasn't our responsibility to do so. If you feel so bad about your ancestors choosing to focus on their own communities rather than dedicate their lives to saving Africans, you can donate to BLM here.


I reject Christianity for it's notions of original sin. Why would I follow the same principle elsewhere. 



Passing Through Town said:


> West Virginia? It ceased to be Southern when it chose not to be during the Civil War.


Virginia. 


Passing Through Town said:


> You're not willing to address our grievances,


Because to do what you want means screwing over non white people I know and like.  Friends of mine mean more to me than the feelings of internet white nationalists. 



Passing Through Town said:


> No, and neither did Cannon Hinnant and the Cottrills. Not that you care about them, since you clearly made the conscious decision to avoid discussing that point.


Looks like we both are doing so. 



Passing Through Town said:


> The Founders were racist. Even Lincoln was racist. You're just going to have to come to terms with those facts.


*Shrug* Alright then. 



Passing Through Town said:


> Why should any community be refused the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to participate in it?


Who is "Your Community"? Let's start with that.


----------



## Passing Through Town (May 31, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> I reject Christianity for it's notions of original sin. Why would I follow the same principle elsewhere.


So what's your point then? Was all of the bitching and moaning about Emmet Till and slavery really nothing more than an emotional tirade? If Southerners shouldn't be held accountable for the sins of our ancestors, then why bring them up?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Virginia


I never said Virginia wasn't Southern. You're starting to become a tad incoherent. I assumed you meant West Virginia because that's the only state you specifically named. And if you brought up the Appalachian stuff as another example of Southerners being oppressed... Why? How does that help your argument?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Because to do what you want means screwing over non white people I know and like.


How? How does allowing people freedom of association screw anyone over? You're welcome to hang out with blacks if you want to. It's not as if Whites and blacks didn't communicate or fraternize when the South was segregated. It was perfectly legal for them to do so, just not at establishments that explicitly stated they didn't want blacks around. 



MT Foxtrot said:


> Friends of mine mean more to me than the feelings of internet white nationalists.


Okay? I'm not asking you to disregard the feelings of your friends. I'm sure they'd be happy to know you're out here defending their right to... be around White people?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Looks like we both are doing so.


I directly answered your question. Emmet Till didn't deserve to be murdered, and the men who murdered him should've been lynched after they admitted to what they did. Why can't you answer my question?



MT Foxtrot said:


> Who is "Your Community"? Let's start with that.


How about we start with you answering my question? Why should any community be refused the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to participate in it?


----------



## crows in guns (May 31, 2022)

I want southern independence. Yankees can stay On their side of the potomac.


----------



## Wormy (May 31, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> So what's your point then? Was all of the bitching and moaning about Emmet Till and slavery really nothing more than an emotional tirade? If Southerners shouldn't be held accountable for the sins of our ancestors, then why bring them up?
> 
> 
> I never said Virginia wasn't Southern. You're starting to become a tad incoherent. I assumed you meant West Virginia because that's the only state you specifically named. And if you brought up the Appalachian stuff as another example of Southerners being oppressed... Why? How does that help your argument?
> ...


Look, let me just give you a nice MATI sum up and we can end this discussion.

I'm done with "causes." White. Black. Liberal. Conservative. Any color in between. All can fuck off and die. All I care about and will fight for is my own circle, some blood related, some not. If something hurts them, and your proposal does, I'm fighting it as needed. If it doesn't, go on with your bad self, you can win the lottery or drop dead both will matter the same to me.

So my stance is simple; you're shitting on my lawn, so I'll fight anything you do in regards to that up to what is needed. You don't matter to me. Whites don't matter to me. Blacks don't either. My friends however do. You're fucking with my friends. I'm defending them as needed. 

Now sticker me and respond if you wish.


----------



## Passing Through Town (May 31, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> You're fucking with my friends. I'm defending them as needed.


I'm arguing on the internet. Your friends don't even know I exist, and I don't have any power to harm them.

The question is open for anyone else who feels like they have a good answer.


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (May 31, 2022)

Can we stop acting like America is the worst nation ever?

No, Americans moving in over natives was not 'genocide'. If you want a real genocide, read Ghengis Khan.
No, Americans did not own the largest, harshest slave empire in the world. Read about the Ottoman Empire.
No, America is not the most imperialistic country in the 20th century; read about China, Russia.

Fuck off Americans, read a fucking history book before you conclude 'AMUHRICUH WORSHT PLAIS EVUH'!


----------



## Wormy (May 31, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> I'm arguing on the internet. Your friends don't even know I exist, and I don't have any power to harm them.


Good. Let's keep it that way.



Gender: Xenomorph said:


> Fuck off Americans, read a fucking history book before you conclude 'AMUHRICUH WORSHT PLAIS EVUH'!


We're far from the worst ever. Not even the Top 10. 

But that doesn't mean we didn't fuck up in places.


----------



## Caesare (May 31, 2022)

crows in guns said:


> I want southern independence. Yankees can stay On their side of the potomac.


We'd have to build a wall to keep them out, because they sure as hell can't stay the fuck away on their own. They think by moving here, they'll automatically absorb some of our cool via osmosis. But it doesn't work like that. It comes natural when you have it but when you don't it can't be faked or acquired through imitation.


----------



## Wormy (May 31, 2022)

Caesare said:


> We'd have to build a wall to keep them out, because they sure as hell can't stay the fuck away on their own. They think by moving here, they'll automatically absorb some of our cool via osmosis. But it doesn't work like that. It comes natural when you have it but when you don't it can't be faked or acquired through imitation.


If only they'd take some of the degneracy back with them, we'd be set....


----------



## Haint (May 31, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.
> 
> I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is _real_. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.
> 
> ...


I don't have to say anything. Thank you.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 1, 2022)

You can and generations of Neo-Confederate types did. But Leftists would not accept that argument because they ascribe higher moral standards to Europeans (which, as is often noted, is patronizing to non-Europeans).

As for the accuracy of it, the Radical Republicans did more or less hate Southern culture - not just slavery, they hated the South in general - and that is a feeling that has been strong in New England from the day the colonists got off the boat until now. New Englanders and Deep Southerners have a cultural rivalry that runs back to England itself (Puritans vs Cavaliers), their ideologies while similar compared to other nations are still basically incompatible. New Englanders also have a messiah/superiority complex.

Anyways, the Radical Republicans did have a goal of rebuilding the South into a copy of New England, had these retarded ideas about teaching the Northern dialect/accent in schools, correcting the Southerner's incorrect farm techniques (lol), and proselytizing godless Southerners (Southern evangelicalism apparently not counting) and such, but it never had state backing, was only really done by missionaries and social worker types that failed miserably at it. Government wise, they used Blacks to establish puppet states, until those were overthrown, and they settled themselves, carpetbaggers being like colonists and in the modern day cities like Atlanta and Nashville and the entire South Florida and North Virginia/Maryland areas being carpetbagger colonies. Politically Southern politics went from being a sort of thuggish but functional one-party state to a corrupt shitshow under a different one-party state. Economically, railroads exploited the South and kept it underindustrialized and Yankees played some role in creating the company towns in the coalfields, but so did Deep South plantation masters too.

Overall I think it's kind of overdramatic to view it as colonization, the United States government was incredibly merciful to its defeated enemies (who else lets the defeated rebels just go home and beat their chests until the end of time about the rebellion?) and they quickly took power back, because normal Yankees got sick of occupying a country for nearly twenty years against reactionary ethnically sectarian terrorists (sound familiar?).


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 1, 2022)

I will say,

While there are lots of identities that are persecuted in the modern US, I think the Southerner/Appalachian is unique in being the only one that has no advocates of note and in being mainstreamed so much nobody even gives it much thought. Conservatives WILL whine about Whites, Christians, straights, etc. being discriminated against, and Middle Americans/rurals in general, but not much about Southerners as Southerners. It is considered very normal to stereotype as "lol stupids."

As for the stereotypes in question, much of it just strikes me as asinine - I have never seen an actual basis for the Yankee's self-fellating, there's nothing about the behavior of those people that strikes me as intelligent - but a lot of it comes down to that the South is used as a sort of scapegoat for everything wrong in the country (hating the South allows hating America without having to extend the criticism to your own towns) and is the only region demonized for how it used to be. Nobody goes to New England expecting to see witch burnings or California expecting to see Chinese lynchings, but they do project this 1970 South image onto the modern South. It's not the only region that is always imagined as its past state - the West is too - but the West is romanticized, not demonized. Yet, everybody I know who I've talked to about it who moved in from outside has expressed surprise at how peaceful race relations are (shocker: sucking up to Blacks makes them more feral). Southerners are also often imagined as being hostile to outsiders, despite being a very polite and friendly people compared to the HEY JACKASS Northern cities.

To rant more about that race point, the most racially diverse places I go in are Pentecostal churches and meat-and-three (traditional Southern cooking) diners, in contrast to places where the carpetbagger university faculty types go. The people speak the same and are essentially the same culture. Mixed-race marriages are common and the rural Southern Blacks do things like ride ATVs around and fish. Northern Blacks diverged into something completely different and way more belligerent. I have known Northerners who would never dare say nigger but hold way more hate in their hearts for Blacks than redneck crackers around here who say it constantly but have Black friends. Additionally, I maintain that Northern culture always had more genuine hate for Blacks than Southern culture did; the South was just more aggressive and honest in enforcing its caste system. This is a view that is based in part on the eyewitness accounts of people like Alexis de Tocqueville and Martin Luther King Junior.

Education wise, I don't know, they can go on about test scores or whatever but it all looks the same in outcome to me. It turns out that when you adjust for cost of living the Northern states and West Coast are about as poor as the South (California and Oregon are on the level of places like fucking Arkansas) but also live much less free lives. Artistically, the area is supposed to be backwards, yet pretty much all of America's early 1900s music comes out of the South: between country, jazz, and rock and roll, the roots of every one of the main branches of American music does. Northern food tastes like shit. Everywhere in the country has a literary tradition, but the South has its own things going on with things like Faulkner and O'Conner. In general, one reason why I prefer the South is because, except for the Mexican Southwest, its culture has way more flavor compared to the the lifelessness of Northern culture.

I forgot where I was going with this, in general I just think that most of the big accusations are completely baseless.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 2, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Artistically, the area is supposed to be backwards, yet pretty much all of America's early 1900s music comes out of the South: between country, jazz, and rock and roll, the roots of every one of the main branches of American music does


Though keep in mind we were also the ones that most decried those same art forms as "Jungle music" or "The devil's music". We're strange that way.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2022)

To elaborate on a point about the North and West not being THAT wealthy, I calculated my own cost of living adjusted GDP once off some cost of living index I found online, but the numbers came out pretty differently than the official government figures (which I didn't know at the time existed).

Well, looking at it again I was talking out my ass. The Northeast actually does still manage notably better, although the big thing is that the mayonnaise goblins of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains do WAY better after adjusting for cost of living, like, Wyoming is top 3 material.

But I feel obligated to present my average state per capita incomes anyways:

BEFORE ADJUSTMENT
Northeast                 $63,300
West Coast               $60,900
South                         $47,500

AFTER ADJUSTMENT
Northeast               $60,100
West Coast            $55,300
South                      $52,400

MULTIPLIERS
Northeast: 33% higher than South before adjustment, only 15% after
West: 28% higher than South before adjustment, only 6% after

See, the North goes from being rather significant to only a bit, and the West actually falls to near parity! So much for Californian riches. Admittedly, though, this was just an average of states, not weighted by population, and Hawaii is real fucky.

You're also not going to really find any Southern states beating Northeastern ones, but Tennessee and Louisiana beat Vermont (LOL) and a bunch of them beat Maine. Also, how about the West? Hawaii is a total shithole (third poorest state, ahead of New Mexico and Mississippi and just barely), Oregon is straight up poorer than Arkansas, Washington actually performs admirably because for some reason it has a lower cost of living than Oregon. California is less than 6% wealthier than the aforementioned Louisiana and Tennessee, not to even account for Texas that is closer.

If you start adjusting for things like inequality, the South is rather unequal, but so is the North and West, so the attractiveness of the great American interior gets even greater. So the South is poorer, yeah, but it's just exaggerated to an absurd degree compared to the reality.

I defined a Northeastern state as Maryland, Delaware, New England, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey
I defined West Coast as Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, California
I defined South as Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, West and East Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida

Now, take all that and add on the indignity of living in a fag state where if you buy a firearm online you ahve to select hte "California-compliant" or "Massachusetts-compliant" option. Yeah real great state there

Fuck Yankees


----------



## Shidoen (Jun 2, 2022)

I will say this, anyone who would like to ascribe the KKK to the old South must understand that like modern Neo-Nazis they're just useful idiots for politicians and men with a silver dollar to their name. What I'm getting at is, rich man bad because they fuck with people too much.


----------



## Happy Fish (Jun 2, 2022)

It was the South's duty to civilize the North. They failed and now we are paying through having a federal government capable of overreach, and weak state governments.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> I will say this, anyone who would like to ascribe the KKK to the old South must understand that like modern Neo-Nazis they're just useful idiots for politicians and men with a silver dollar to their name. What I'm getting at is, rich man bad because they fuck with people too much.


The KKK is mythologized in a very unhelpful way. Firstly, it is basically defunct in the modern day, even within White supremacist circles it's just a joke since it consists of methhead crackers and Feds. Talking about it is like whining about the Weather Underground bombing things, it's several decades too late, but because there are SOME people who OCCASIONALLY march - and do nothing else - it is still kept in people's imaginations as a real thing.

But aside from that, the KKK came in different waves and the image most people have of it is a composite of all three, and the most important Klan, the second, is the one that's least talked about.

First Klan: Basically just a Southern nationalist terrorist organization, wanted to suppress Blacks and Republicans; a terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. It waged a terror campaign for the purpose of overturning Reconstruction, which got it violently suppressed, but was ultimately a success. Sort of like a Pyrrhic victory in reverse (they lost but still got what they wanted in the end).

Second Klan: Essentially an American fascist movement, being based around American nationalism with Jewry, Catholics, non-Whites, ethnic Whites, Communists, labor organizations, and other such. Basically, around the same time Fascism was becoming appealing to the world in general, the socially progressive Civil War generations were starting to fade away. Generations that didn't give a shit about grandpa fighting to free the slaves, but having to deal with mass migrations of Blacks and foreigners into their Northern cities, and distant enough from the war to romanticize it, started seeing Southerners as the same victims that Southerners saw themselves. Nobody was interested in continuing regional animus so they reapproached each other. This tied in heavily with the Progressives (who had both a socialistic and a fascistic side, the two were very muddled back then) like Woodrow Wilson. America never had a prominent fascist political party or a coherent fascist ideology, but the Klan's intense White nativist Protestant identity - an echo of the Know-Nothings, really - was as close as it came. Faded away when progressivism came back but in its more recognizable form under FDR.

THE SECOND KLAN WAS A NATIONAL PHENOMENON. IT WAS NOT SOUTHERN NATIONALIST THOUGH IT USED SOUTHERN IMAGERY. IT EXISTED EVERYWHERE FROM NEW ENGLAND TO THE WEST COAST, THE ROCKIES TO THE SOUTH.

I do regard Woodrow Wilson as being the closest thing America ever had to a Hitler. (I absolutely despise him.)

The Second Klan introduced all the pageantry we recognize as Klan crap now.

Third Klan: Basically just an anti-segregation terrorist organization formed by Southerners, inspired more by the First Klan, but it also had its remnants from the Second Klan as well as people pissed off in places like Wisconsin (Milwaukee) where working class ethnic Whites (like Poles) hated dealing with Blacks. Died a horrible death when the Feds went in and crushed it. Discredited itself by doing disgusting shit like bombing little kids in church.


Some basic Klan myths:
*The Klan was just Southern.*
One of the biggest states for Klan recruitment was Illinois. California had tons of Klan activity. It was a national phenomenon.

*The Klan was just rural.*
Major cities had large Klans and Klans tended to form in the cities first.

*The Klan was uneducated poors.*
The Klan was a tool of the business class against labor organization, like the coal miners in Appalachia. The leadership of the Klan tended to be the same as the civic leaders in public, businessmen, police chiefs, mayors. Respectable people ran the Klan. _That's kind of how they were able to get away with stuff._


Bonus fun fact: The robes come out of Mardi Gras type celebrations, you see Spanish Catholic priests wear similar stuff. The cross burning comes from Scottish culture, carrying a burning cross from village to village was how a lord signaled to his people to prepare for war. It was like a symbolic declaration of war against the Blacks. This was some pageantry made up by _The Clanmsan _(Birth of a Nation), sort of astroturfed into being a real thing.



This is only barely related, but you know what people don't tend to talk about with Appalachia?

The time a huge fucking army 10,000 strong, Italian guido immigrants, Blacks, Appalachians, Hungarians, launched an insurrection, spurred on by Communists, against coal mining companies that were trying, unsuccessfully, to use race to turn them on each other. They were fucking bombed by biplanes. The coal miners lived in "company towns" where you were paid in Monopoly money only redeemable at stores (that could then act like a monopsonistic employer and monopolistic grocer, basically trapping you), forced to stay by debt with mine guards that would loom over them with machine guns, searches of houses for unapproved literature, evictions, spies in the mines, murders of union organizers. The National Guard was called out and their stupid, misguided patriotism lead the miners to stop. West Virginia was a dictatorship of the coal companies and across Appalachia people noted that miners did not give a shit about race. But who cares about jerking off the one time America had a little socialist proto-revolution, BIGGEST INTERNAL WAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, where White and Black Southerners fought alongside each other.

Battle of Blair Mountain


----------



## Shidoen (Jun 2, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> The KKK is mythologized in a very unhelpful way. Firstly, it is basically defunct in the modern day, even within White supremacist circles it's just a joke since it consists of methhead crackers and Feds. Talking about it is like whining about the Weather Underground bombing things, it's several decades too late, but because there are SOME people who OCCASIONALLY march - and do nothing else - it is still kept in people's imaginations as a real thing.
> 
> But aside from that, the KKK came in different waves and the image most people have of it is a composite of all three, and the most important Klan, the second, is the one that's least talked about.
> 
> ...


I know a lot about the Klan because I wanted to make more racism jokes but the Second Klan ultimately failed due to the usual sexual harassment and retarded buffoonery you'd expect a bunch of retards to do.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> I know a lot about the Klan because I wanted to make more racism jokes but the Second Klan ultimately failed due to the usual sexual harassment and retarded buffoonery you'd expect a bunch of retards to do.


What's the story there?

I'm in a kind of bad mood (was bickering with someone, a bit) so I'm kind of ranty tonight.


----------



## Shidoen (Jun 2, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> What's the story there?
> 
> I'm in a kind of bad mood (was bickering with someone, a bit) so I'm kind of ranty tonight.


Pretty much this in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madge_Oberholtzer.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> Pretty much this in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madge_Oberholtzer.


Remember this now


----------



## Shidoen (Jun 2, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Remember this now


They couldn't kill the Nigger because they became the Nigger.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 3, 2022)

>>The time a huge fucking army 10,000 strong, Italian guido immigrants, Blacks, Appalachians, Hungarians, launched an insurrection, spurred on by Communists, against coal mining companies that were trying, unsuccessfully, to use race to turn them on each other. They were fucking bombed by biplanes. The coal miners lived in "company towns" where you were paid in Monopoly money only redeemable at stores (that could then act like a monopsonistic employer and monopolistic grocer, basically trapping you), forced to stay by debt with mine guards that would loom over them with machine guns, searches of houses for unapproved literature, evictions, spies in the mines, murders of union organizers. The National Guard was called out and their stupid, misguided patriotism lead the miners to stop. West Virginia was a dictatorship of the coal companies and across Appalachia people noted that miners did not give a shit about race. But who cares about jerking off the one time America had a little socialist proto-revolution, BIGGEST INTERNAL WAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, where White and Black Southerners fought alongside each other.

Battle of Blair Mountain

But nah, that's not part of our Heritage. The only thing distinctive about the South is how we related to Niggers and how making sure we couldn't keep them as slaves or second class citizens destroyed us. /sneed


----------



## Lensherr (Jun 16, 2022)

I’ve always felt that the way the North treated the South post-Civil War was like how an invading nation treats a conquered one honestly. Thaddeus Russell (the host of the _Unregistered _podcast and author of _A Renegade History of the United States_) described it as the original Afghanistan, and I’m inclined to agree. As @Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> they [the South] quickly took power back [after Reconstruction], because normal Yankees got sick of occupying a country for nearly twenty years against reactionary ethnically sectarian terrorists (sound familiar?).



There’s a really good book by Colin Woodard called _American Nations _that describes how America is really 11 different individual confederations held together by a central government. Two of these nations are what he calls Yankeedom and the Deep South. The former was founded by Puritans who envisioned a collectivist religious utopia, and the latter by Anglo-American West Indies plantation owners who something more akin to an old Greco-Roman enlightened, civilized, idle slave society. Because these visions of society are so at odds with each other, the two nations have fought endlessly over the North American continent. For various reasons, Yankeedom has tended to dominate in the end, whether that conflict be the Civil War or the fight over civil rights in the 60s. This, of course, has led to a lot of resentment from white southerners who feel that their culture is being eroded.

And who can blame them? The North throughout its history has been a moralistic busybody that wishes to impose its vision of society on the rest of the continent. The South, meanwhile, has been mostly content to preserve what they already have. I personally think things would be better off today if the South was able to peacefully secede to form its own nation separate from the North and the Civil War didn’t happen. But that was always unlikely considering the North’s hatred for the South and its desire to bring “civilization” to the “backwards savages”.


----------



## Slap47 (Jun 16, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.
> 
> I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is _real_. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.
> 
> ...


Southern elites have regularly dominated the US government since the 1910s. Oddly enough, it was they who often lead the charge on "southern colonization". 

The south was integrated and allowed to keep much of the core of it's culture.  Before 1861 it was dominated by an aristocracy and that has not changed.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jun 16, 2022)

The liberal stance on colonization and imperialism is, "it's not imperialism when we do it."


----------



## Passing Through Town (Jun 17, 2022)

Slap47 said:


> Southern elites have regularly dominated the US government since the 1910s. Oddly enough, it was they who often lead the charge on "southern colonization".


How does that change anything that I said? Those people being from the South (many actually aren't, mind you) and supporting anti-Southern action isn't remotely shocking. This is typical of occupied nations. There is almost always a privileged elite that sell out their people. 



Slap47 said:


> The south was integrated and allowed to keep much of the core of it's culture.


Only temporarily. The focus in the early days of "reconstruction" was disenfranchising the Southern White voter by sending carpet baggers south to advocate on the behalf of blacks. Then it became about ruining Southern institutions by forcing them to integrate with the uneducated and unskilled black populace. You certainly can't make the argument that the South today is allowed to keep its culture, considering that many of our symbols are considered "hate symbols" by the federal government and our statues are permitted to be torn down by the black populations that have effectively usurped our sovereignty in many places. 



Slap47 said:


> Before 1861 it was dominated by an aristocracy and that has not changed.


This is the dumbest thing you said by far, and you should feel bad for saying it. The idea that a Southern aristocracy exists today is ludicrous. The whole of America is exploited by multinational corporations, not an aristocracy. Any Southerners - Hell, any Americans - that participate in that process are ultimately just traitors to the people who frankly ought to be done away with hypothetically in Minecraft with due process.


----------



## Slap47 (Jun 17, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> How does that change anything that I said? Those people being from the South (many actually aren't, mind you) and supporting anti-Southern action isn't remotely shocking. This is typical of occupied nations. There is almost always a privileged elite that sell out their people.
> 
> 
> Only temporarily. The focus in the early days of "reconstruction" was disenfranchising the Southern White voter by sending carpet baggers south to advocate on the behalf of blacks. Then it became about ruining Southern institutions by forcing them to integrate with the uneducated and unskilled black populace. You certainly can't make the argument that the South today is allowed to keep its culture, considering that many of our symbols are considered "hate symbols" by the federal government and our statues are permitted to be torn down by the black populations that have effectively usurped our sovereignty in many places.
> ...


The core of Southern culture is its aristocracy. They dominate it's politics and business. 

Everybody seems to think that the civil war was some kind of poor white proletarian uprising. No, it was very elitist and poor whites who could (West Virginia) resisted it.


----------



## soy_king (Jun 17, 2022)

Slap47 said:


> The core of Southern culture is its aristocracy. They dominate it's politics and business.
> 
> Everybody seems to think that the civil war was some kind of poor white proletarian uprising. No, it was very elitist and poor whites who could (West Virginia) resisted it.


Youre also foregtting Eastern Tennessee and Northern Alabama were pro union strongholds that had to have conscription forced on them. 

In my one alternate history thought where the South won the Civil War, I always imagined the CSA becoming a weird banana republic held back by its neofeudal aristocracy. Even so, it's ironic how much of an outsized influence the South has had on US culture, even if you're going to exclude black contributions. You gave us Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, had an oversized role in developing rock (which i insist is a fundamentally white invention), NASCAR, and the symbol of US global imperialism, Coca Cola, is a southern invention. 

The South is like Victorian Ireland in the American Empire: its an active participant and beneficiary but still treated as second class in status. In a way, it feels like this is subconscious retribution against the South for dominating over the North before the Civil War.


----------



## Dyn (Jun 17, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> Here you are implying that White Southerners don't have a right to our "Antebellum mindset"


Yes, you do not have the right to enslave other human beings. This is not a controversial take.


----------



## Mukhrani (Jun 17, 2022)

I grey up in the rural northeast, and had the typical view of southerners which is inculcated in children in the schools up until college. I remember there were two main things which kind of blew open for me how retarded the whole northern conception of the south is. The first was a Toni Morrison interview where she talked about the differences between black and white relations in the north in the south, and said that white people in the north are much more icy and disconnected from black people, while in the south the relationship is both more fraught and more intimate, and that black and white southerners understand one another much better than white and black northerners do, who largely exist in parallel worlds. This struck me as true; when I went to the south the black people there were completely different than the ones in the north, and were much more comfortable socializing with and working with white people. The 'chip on the shoulder' thing that you get in the north is much more rare down there. And people in the north, even the most progressive, definitely don't want to live around black people, they just couch it in euphemisms - 'good schools' or 'a nice neighborhood' means an affluent white neighborhood with maybe a few tokens who act functionally white.

The second was an interview between George Wallace and William F. Buckley. George Wallace is often cast as this demon who just hates black people with every ounce of his soul in the north. Buckley, who is seen as this cerebral, enlightened, non-racist conservative, absolutely berates Wallace. But he doesn't berate him over racism or segregation, he berates him for his pension program. After the collapse of sharecropping in the south, there were two huge waves of migration to the north, mostly of working aged black people. The first wave found okay jobs in the northern cities, but by the time the second wave arrived there was little work left and those people lived in abject poverty. They left their older relatives behind in the south, and most of them were barely surviving themselves and couldn't send anything back home. I learned that George Wallace was elected in part by large swathes of this elderly black population because he created a pension program to basically pay for these people to be able to live and afford food. Buckley absolutely lambasted him for this, saying it was collectivist/socialist, and Wallace just sort of exasperatedly says 'I couldn't just let these people starve to death'. It really kind of rocked my basic assumptions, because the story that northern conservatives tell themselves is that the evil southerners wanted to torture black people for no reason, and William F. Buckley and the National Review reformed the conservative movement and purged all these evil racists. But here was the architect of that political realignment trying to convince one of those 'evil racists' to let a bunch of elderly black people starve to death. Absolutely wild stuff.

From then on I just did more reading, and the story that the north tells itself is really just completely self-flattering revisionism. They went to war with the south to unify the country first and foremost, and didn't give a shit about slaves. They made this abundantly clear after emancipation, where zero effort was made to help the slaves and literally over 25% of them died of privation in these horribly squalid camps that sprung up. We're told that the war was based on the north caring about slavery so much that they fought a crusade to free them - this also lets us expunge slavery from our national conscience by saying that the north 'fought to end it'. While the south clearly seceding in a large part over slavery, the idea that the primary motivating factor behind the north going to war was altruism towards black people is just insane.

Then during reconstruction you had the 19th century version of shitlibs going down and acting like an occupation government. They used the black vote to politically back their projects, then once they got bored and fucked off back to New England they let the black people catch all the shit, because the white southerners treated them as any occupied people treats those who collaborate with an occupying regime. This was completely predictable, the messiah-complex Yankees just didn't care. Reminds me of a T. S. Eliot quote:  "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm—but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."


----------



## Wormy (Jun 17, 2022)

Passing Through Town said:


> Any Southerners - Hell, any Americans - that participate in that process are ultimately just traitors to the people who frankly ought to be done away with hypothetically in Minecraft with due process.


So you gonna come get me yourself, or are you waiting for your buddies in the White Hats to hang me at Gitmo, which is probably within the next couple of months?


----------



## Slap47 (Jun 17, 2022)

People seem to miss that reconstruction failed and those "black invaders" were successfully relegated to being a second class.


----------



## ShapelyMutton (Jun 17, 2022)

Slap47 said:


> People seem to miss that reconstruction failed and those "black invaders" were successfully relegated to being a second class.


"Reconstruction" in the U.S. has continued to fail for the past 150 years. If I'm being generous I'll say the past 50 years


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 17, 2022)

soy_king said:


> Youre also foregtting Eastern Tennessee and Northern Alabama were pro union strongholds that had to have conscription forced on them.
> 
> In my one alternate history thought where the South won the Civil War, I always imagined the CSA becoming a weird banana republic held back by its neofeudal aristocracy. Even so, it's ironic how much of an outsized influence the South has had on US culture, even if you're going to exclude black contributions. You gave us Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, had an oversized role in developing rock (which i insist is a fundamentally white invention), NASCAR, and the symbol of US global imperialism, Coca Cola, is a southern invention.
> 
> The South is like Victorian Ireland in the American Empire: its an active participant and beneficiary but still treated as second class in status. In a way, it feels like this is subconscious retribution against the South for dominating over the North before the Civil War.


Far more than just Coca-Cola, soda in general is.

Mountain Dew is from Knoxville, Pepsi from North Carolina, Dr. Pepper is from Texas. Between those three plus Coca-Cola from Atlanta (and a literal Confederate veteran) that's a huge chunk of soda, the only big flavor I can't think of as having a connection is orange soda since that's mostly Fanta which is a product of Nazi Germany. Viewed in that light, Southerners are sort of to soda what coffee is to Brazilians, say, or tea to Chinese. And there's a sensible reason for it, too, in the Old South lemonades and fruit juices and such were very common, large demand for cold beverages rather than hot beverages, so sweet cold beverages were dominant. Sweet tea - which in the South is more like a simple syrup that just hasn't been boiled/thickened - and mint juleps (which I've heard called a sort of Victorian Martini in prominence, and is itself simple syrup and bourbon) are both very sweet beverages. I don't know enough soda history to say this as anything other than conjecture, but since the British were playing with soda fountains long before the Americans, I think the habit of drinking very sweet cold beverages was what made the difference between soda as a DIY pharmaceutical drug and soda as a treat. (And it was, for Americans of the time, a treat in the same way ice cream was; I don't think anybody back then expected that people would be drinking soda every single day.)

This is also one reason I'll defend soda to the death against soda-haters, I consider it a very important cultural product.



More generally, the US South is I think the true cultural heartland of the United States because of it being diverse (I know, gay). It's foodways (which are the only foodways I really see as being particular unique in the US) are Indian food with African and European influences (not to mention America's native alcohol being bourbon), and its music is the result of African sensibilities interacting with European technology and organization. The religious pulse of America finds its truest expression in Southern Evangelicalism (whereas I feel other areas are beholden to un-American, European-based thinking, like Catholicism). It is also the closest thing left, outside of Utah and rural New England towns, to an ethnically American people largely descended from colonial stock, actual heirs to the Revolution.

I'm not sure where most literature and visual arts in the US came from, but in general the soul/spirit of the country has always flowed out of the South, the mechanical genius of it out of the Midwestern Amerikaner, and its dreams out of the West. I have not been able to find anything that comes out of New England (I know you didn't say anything about New England, but I can't help it) but academics and novelists. It's a place that exports nothing of real value and little but arrogance.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 18, 2022)

Mukhrani said:


> I grey up in the rural northeast, and had the typical view of southerners which is inculcated in children in the schools up until college. I remember there were two main things which kind of blew open for me how retarded the whole northern conception of the south is. The first was a Toni Morrison interview where she talked about the differences between black and white relations in the north in the south, and said that white people in the north are much more icy and disconnected from black people, while in the south the relationship is both more fraught and more intimate, and that black and white southerners understand one another much better than white and black northerners do, who largely exist in parallel worlds. This struck me as true; when I went to the south the black people there were completely different than the ones in the north, and were much more comfortable socializing with and working with white people. The 'chip on the shoulder' thing that you get in the north is much more rare down there. And people in the north, even the most progressive, definitely don't want to live around black people, they just couch it in euphemisms - 'good schools' or 'a nice neighborhood' means an affluent white neighborhood with maybe a few tokens who act functionally white.
> 
> The second was an interview between George Wallace and William F. Buckley. George Wallace is often cast as this demon who just hates black people with every ounce of his soul in the north. Buckley, who is seen as this cerebral, enlightened, non-racist conservative, absolutely berates Wallace. But he doesn't berate him over racism or segregation, he berates him for his pension program. After the collapse of sharecropping in the south, there were two huge waves of migration to the north, mostly of working aged black people. The first wave found okay jobs in the northern cities, but by the time the second wave arrived there was little work left and those people lived in abject poverty. They left their older relatives behind in the south, and most of them were barely surviving themselves and couldn't send anything back home. I learned that George Wallace was elected in part by large swathes of this elderly black population because he created a pension program to basically pay for these people to be able to live and afford food. Buckley absolutely lambasted him for this, saying it was collectivist/socialist, and Wallace just sort of exasperatedly says 'I couldn't just let these people starve to death'. It really kind of rocked my basic assumptions, because the story that northern conservatives tell themselves is that the evil southerners wanted to torture black people for no reason, and William F. Buckley and the National Review reformed the conservative movement and purged all these evil racists. But here was the architect of that political realignment trying to convince one of those 'evil racists' to let a bunch of elderly black people starve to death. Absolutely wild stuff.
> 
> ...


It seems you've worked out a lot of the same thoughts I have, from a different side of it.

A lot of what I have to say I've probably already ranted about and/or you've heard, but being a forum, always potentially relevant to other readers.

The first two spoilers are shit I sperg about constantly, probably in this thread, so probably not of interest.



Spoiler: Observations about modern race relations



I myself came from a very White part of Appalachia, so initially living in the Deep South felt like living in a different country. Around here the Blacks and locals eat the same country foods at the same restaurants, and often (though not always, of course) worship in the same congregations with similar styles of service. An AME church and a Southern Baptist church will be de facto segregated, of course, but anything not historically one race will likely be very mixed. Mulattos have become very common anymore, to the point of not even being notable. The Blacks fish and hunt and ride ATVs like crackers. Whites often speak Midwestern Faggot Reporter English instead of Southern, and where I live specifically many people speak a harsher gnattering English like Appalachians, but it is not uncommon to hear Whites and Blacks who both speak soft Deep Southern speech that sounds Black. Plantation English is basically dead in the South, if you did hear it it'd be from a Black (ironically) in the vicinity of Plains, GA, but it's otherwise dead, so Black and White speech are pretty much the same. I do not see the carpetbaggers eating in these restaurants or going to those churches.

Whites and Blacks pay little attention to each other, casual racism and sometimes perhaps sincere racism are common among the Whites - they'll say words like nigger frequently - but they interact easily with Blacks. Niggerhate seems to be more of a habit than an ideology, and online I feel like I've seen it expressed more viciously by Northern Alt-Righters (one reason I dislike Northern Rightists appropriating Confederate imagery). The White Heritage Not Hate shit is super common and they swallow it hook line and sinker, a lot of the Blacks do too. If talked to long enough the Whites I've known will often admit that the Confederacy was probably not that good, but it seems like more of a giant performance than anything else, a middle finger to the rest of the country. I think that's where a lot of the Black support for it comes from too. People care little about actual history except as an identity to wrap themselves in. Compared to outsiders I've known, they'll often be the kinds who would quail at the gamer word and speak softly but you can perceive, if you pay attention, more genuine hatred, or at least discomfort and dislike, in them. I have believed for a long time, which you mentioned in your post, that Blacks in the North had a worse experience due to being culturally distinct.

White Southerners get along well with Blacks because they do not allow them to pull shit, outside of places like cities, where (no coincidence) they act more barbaric. Blacks respect raw force more than anything else.





Spoiler: Life on plantations



Historically, I think one of the biggest lies ever foisted on Americans - in general - was that supremacism is equivalent to hatred. Most people consider themselves superior (intellectually, at least) to their pets, but don't "hate" them. Southerners were more racist in that particular sense, thinking they were better. But they also lived with these people. In fact, the planters, the owners of slaves, were less "hateful" than the non-owners. A plantation child would be wet-nursed by a mammy and then effectively raised by the mammy, depending on the time period they may spend more or less time with their biological mother, but that mammy is basically their real mother in terms of who takes care of them. Until their teenage years they would play with slave children.

Now, by teenage years, the White child is going to start to be socially distanced - probably forcedly, too - but is still in the company of Blacks frequently. They have their personal servants. For White girls, a pickaninny girl is like a living doll/servant. Anybody who's seen bigger girls play with children younger than them would know exactly what I mean, big kid girls love little kids. For the White boys, their male servant isn't quite as much of a plaything but he is still sort of a playmate. That said, at this point the relationship starts to turn more toxic, as the incredibly spoiled upbringing, the social distance, makes it impossible for the White child/preteen to have a true friendship in the absence of any sort of equality. The companion would often be devoted to the boy/girl for life, but it's not a good relationship like we would think of it.

Going into puberty, White boys may or may not be interested in Black girls. I suspect the interest would have been much higher since they would have grown up around Black folks, probably Black folks being more common to them than White folks are. In mainstream treatment of this, you only ever hear them rant about rape, or really sanitized depictions of things like Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. The truth would have been a lot more complicated, common sense says that there must have been times Black women would have been interested in their masters, and in a world where women use sex to advance themselves in the workplace, of course they would have done so in that setting too. But women would have also felt much more pressured to submit even if they didn't refuse. Either way, I would guess that a very high number of plantation-raised boys would have first kissed and, if not caring about fornicating, lost their virginities to slave girls. Like aristocrats with affairs in other cultures, everybody knew it went on and was fine with it as long as nobody publicly acknowledged it, or fucked somebody else's mistress.

Then, that White boy or girl would have become a White man or woman, probably been given their servant as their personal property as an adulthood or marriage gift, and continued the cycle, going through the rest of life surrounded by Blacks, Blacks who even sleep in little rooms adjacent to theirs or at the foot of their bed (sometimes on a special bed) so they can attend to them if they need at night.

How much would that person "hate" Black people?
Not in the slightest. The slaveowner would live their days always with a feeling of paranoia, a deep unhappiness dug down at the fakeness of the world they built and the suspicion that "their people" would slit their throats given the chance, but they built for themselves a fantasy world where they were kindly knights and ladies - gods, really - ruling over a grateful population that, like a pet owner thinks of their pets, needs them, would fall into chaos without them. The slaveowners knew in their hearts that what they did was evil, but they did it anyways, not because they "hated" these people so much that they imported them by millions against their will so they could live around them 24/7 and "take care of" them.

The poor Southern yeoman tended to hate Blacks (because he was jealous he didn't have one, and jealous that he had to fight for his subsistence), and the Northerner - the Free Soiler kind who just didn't want them anywhere around him - hated Blacks mindlessly because they were different.





Spoiler: The start of hatred



Now, Alexis de Tocqueville in particular said, of Antebellum America, that Southerners hated Blacks less, for pretty much the reasons I gave (Southerners were used to living around them, Northerners had a higher opinion of Blacks' abilities but less tolerance for them, NIMBY attitude). What changed, if anything?

Emancipation changed. The Blacks went from being the cash cows and playthings of the White elite to being a political threat, a people that now extorted them instead of being extorted by them, who served as a permanent humiliating reminder of their defeats and of the world they lost. They weren't good for anything anymore and they were like a hostile people plopped down, all of a sudden, in their midst. Of course they fucking hated them.

There's a comparison here to Brazil and Cuba, because while those places definitely have racism, they never had it the way the American South did. Those places had violent struggles for the end of slavery, but they didn't have the retarded binary view of race Anglos did or the conquest by outsiders imposing emancipation on them. So, in those places, race relations improved pretty easily. I suspect that if the US had managed gradual emancipation (and post cotton gin, that's pretty much impossible, but suppose they did), the Deep South would be a pardo nation like Brazil is.


Edit: I forgot to mention, MLK Jr said he ran into the toughest hate in Chicago, and George Wallace got his biggest applause in Polish Milwaukee. Civil Rights also basically ended when it shifted from political objectives in the South to social objectives in the North, Northerners suddenly stopped caring about sad little Black girls going to school and started shooting and rioting the Hell out of Blacks and integrationist politicians.





Spoiler: Suffering and emancipation



There's a book, "Sick from Freedom," I read about those camps you were talking about. It's kind of shitty and dry and academic, I didn't like it much, but yeah, the two common responses of Yankees to slaves were to either tell them to stay put and do what they'd been doing, or to drag them off - sometimes forcedly - and make them work for jackshit while dying of famine and plague in shantytowns.

I've read a lot of slave interviews, and one of the most common experiences slaves mention about emancipation was resentment at Yankees for stealing their food. Apparently most of these people truly were ignorant, a lot of them didn't know anything at all about world or events and their masters would lie to their faces telling them things like how the Yankees were going to take them away and sell them to Cuba. A lot of them also simply didn't want to be freed, because they genuinely didn't mind their lives (they'd be doing pretty much the same thing either way, especially if their master didn't whip/torture them much) or didn't know what they'd do with themselves or what freedom would even be like. But, consistently, Yankees would steal all the provisions. I don't blame them, that's really a rather fair exchange for freeing them, but many of the stories really linger resentfully on how they didn't have any hams to eat that year, and sometimes the Yankees would just brutalize them too, imagine pissed off resentful Irish conscripts stealing your meager belongings and raping your women because they don't want to be there. They don't put that in movies.

Then, the South gets hit with crop failures for a few years after that, so it's just fucked. Then they get the terrorism, and the Yankees are more worried about using them as political pawns than doing anything tangible to improve their lives, they do get schools but big whoop. Then the crackers take over again and start passing laws making it illegal to sit on your own front porch and they throw men in jail for these laws, and sell them off to big mining companies and lumbering companies that put them to work, like slaves, and unlike in the past where a slave was property and so had value - slaves had rather long lifespans and high fertilities - there's no reason to not just chew these people up as fast as possible, fed into the coal mines to die of accidents and overwork. You go from a world where planters actually pay Irish to do the dangerous jobs and take out life insurance policies on their slaves, because they don't want their precious negros getting hurt, and paying for expensive medicines and doctors for them, to using them recklessly. And the country just says that's fine because nobody cares. And if they go North, the Northerners race riot against them for stealing their jerbs, and harass them, and it's made confusing because they won't do it overtly, you don't know what the boundaries are.

The reason they were so healthy also had to do with them not being able to afford more than a small amount of alcohol under slavery. Bottle of liquor at Christmastime (gift from master) and whatever they could afford from their side hustle/stealing. (Fun fact: a lot of slaves blew every spare penny they earned on liquor instead of saving for freedom, which breaks my heart.) Compared to the White population (especially the master class) drinking insane amounts (like, drunk all day long), they had much longer lives. After emancipation, they get much easier access to liquor with no real cultural experience of handling it, so it turns out like a less extreme version of Indians with firewater.

They deserve to hate us.


----------



## Certified_Autist (Jun 18, 2022)

@Ughubughughughughughghlug Tagging you since I can't reply directly to your comment above my reply for some reason

I have nothing really to add but I appreciate this comment because it actually explores the issue and doesn't just default to generic drivel about the north or south being evil. You clearly put some time and thought into it, and it shows.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 18, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> @Ughubughughughughughghlug Tagging you since I can't reply directly to your comment above my reply for some reason
> 
> I have nothing really to add but I appreciate this comment because it actually explores the issue and doesn't just default to generic drivel about the north or south being evil. You clearly put some time and thought into it, and it shows.


Thank you. There's several topics I fixate autistically on, but Antebellum society is the big one.

The reply problem is just a glitch, I've had it happen to.


----------



## Mukhrani (Jun 18, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> And the country just says that's fine because nobody cares. And if they go North, the Northerners race riot against them for stealing their jerbs, and harass them, and it's made confusing because they won't do it overtly, you don't know what the boundaries are.
> 
> The reason they were so healthy also had to do with them not being able to afford more than a small amount of alcohol under slavery. Bottle of liquor at Christmastime (gift from master) and whatever they could afford from their side hustle/stealing. (Fun fact: a lot of slaves blew every spare penny they earned on liquor instead of saving for freedom, which breaks my heart.) Compared to the White population (especially the master class) drinking insane amounts, they had much longer lives. After emancipation, they get much easier access to liquor with no real cultural experience of handling it, so it turns out like a less extreme version of Indians with firewater.



Yeah, Jean Toomer wrote a book called Cane that really touched on this transition and the Great Migration. It has a lot of complex themes, but focuses on the fact that in the south black people had somewhat deep roots, a sense of cultural connection to the land and their own history, and even vestigial cultural elements from Africa. Moving north, they were just completely bereft of this.

I also think that northern race relations had their own complexities. Northern cities at the time of the Great Migration had distinct neighborhoods, where different sorts of people lived together and shared common areas together, and built up a sort of complex cultural understanding to preserve these different little ecosystems. The Great Migration didn't cause terrible race issues at first - the first wave of migrants more or less found an economic niche and formed their own neighborhood among the others. It's when the next wave came in that the shit hit the fan; there just weren't enough good jobs to go around, and resentment jumped sky high.

I think this is also where the lost history of busing in northern cities comes in. There's a really good explanation of it here that explains the hidden elements. Schools were little loci of these neighborhoods, and people more or less existed side by side with little issue in their ethnic enclaves. The people who lived in each one shared a similar culture, had an understanding about how public spaces would be used and a unique sense of decorum that was enforced socially. Busing basically tore that whole model up, and created huge amounts of racial animus between all people that just didn't exist before. It's been retconned as a great moral triumph, but was really one of the most colossal administrative failures in history. It really didn't help black kids at all (and the studies done before implementing it showed that it wouldn't help them). It just caused intense racial hatred, race riots, white flight, and the complete collapse of the inner cities as the boundaries between local communities just completely dissolved and civic institutions withered on the vine. Some choice bits:



Spoiler: Racial Conflict after Busing



We think of South Boston High as being full of dark-hearted racists. We see the videos of students throwing rocks and bananas at buses. But before forced busing, that kind of racism was not evident:



> South Bostonians often pointed to the fact that blacks before busing had come often into Southie without incident. Adrienne Weston, an independent, tough woman originally from the West Indies, was one of two black teachers at Southie High in 1973. As Phase 1 began, she feared for her life, but during 1973-74 she said “it was good to teach here. The students did their work and no one called me ‘nigger.’” Of the mobs outside the school, she commented, “Those people out there are crazy, because they don’t like this being shoved down their throats.” (Boston Against Busing, p.11



In Boston generally, before the forced busing, there was a voluntary program for integration that up to 600 black students participated in. A survey of parents reported:“their children have more white friends, that there is not a lot of prejudice or discrimination encountered at the new schools. With respect to this last distribution, only seven (or 10%) of the respondents felt that their children encountered a lot of prejudice, fifteen percent thought their children encountered some, while 70 percent thought their children encountered litttle or no prejudice or discrimination.”

Thus the entire liberal cure for racism, at least in Boston, was actually the _cause_ of the most virulent racism. By forcing these groups together, and putting people in conflict over girls, basketball courts, spots on varsity, etc, the busing created friction and animosity.





Spoiler: The Causes of Racial Hatred



People – and most viciously men – fight over resources, turf, status, and women. In a fight, the larger more organized group trounces a disorganized group. Thus, people form into tribes for both protection and predation.

Peace occurs when tribes exist in a stable equilibrium. Peace exists when boundaries are clear, ownership of turf is clear, and when violating boundaries will result in swift and sure tit-for-tat, thus making conflict unprofitable.

War exists when there is conflict over turf and resources. Vitriol and tribal hatred exist as part of the war-making process. It is not hatred that causes war, it is disputed boundaries that cause conflict, and conflict causes hatred.

When the white, Irish Southie tribe thought of their school, they thought of it as more than just a place to learn reading and writing. It was a cornerstone of their tribal community:

"As woeful as many Boston schools may have been by middle-class standards, the fact is that their localist, working-class clientele cherished them, especially the neighborhood high schools. These old, often dilapidated but beloved buildings served less as educational institutions providing upward mobility and more as community socializing agents. For the working-class kids of Southie, Charlestown, or East Boston, high school days were often the best times of their lives, after which many moved on to unexciting, dreary jobs or became mothers and fathers soon after bringing their youth to a close well before middle-class youths who attended college. One Southie young woman told me that while growing up she was “just dying to go to Southie High,” and “thought it would be the greatest thing in the world to go to the senior prom.” The sports teams of these schools commanded deep affection and passionate loyalty. Young men grew into middle age wearing their high school letter sweaters or team jackets."

Now imagine growing up and looking forward to playing on the same football team as your elders in front a cheering hometown crowd. And then that dream is taken away from you by some unelected judge. At his order, another tribe invades, takes your spot on the football team and dates the girl you were wooing. You are not going to like that very much. You might want to join with your tribal brothers and brawl with this opposing tribe in the lunch room. And of course the other tribe is going to fight back.

And thus we have the myth and reality of racism and segregation.

The myth, that we learn in school, is that “racism” is some malady of the heart, caused by ignorance of the other, and that it can be overcome by mixing and integrating people together, and showing people that we really have more in common on the inside.

The reality, is that tribes coexist peacefully when they have clear boundaries and don’t interfere with each other’s lives. The competition for resources comes first, the demonization of the other comes second, as part of mobilizing to fight a war.





Spoiler: Blacks and Whites were BOTH Opposed to Busing



There was one particular episode that put the lie to the notion that racially unbalanced neighborhood schools were inherently worse. In the case of Lee and Marshall schools, the black community received beautiful, brand new schools – but integrationists at the state board wanted the lines redrawn so that the black students would go to further away, white schools.

"But the committee’s key concessions involved the redistricting of four elementary schools in Dorchester. Two of them, the Joseph Lee and John Marshall schools, were spanking new schools built with 25 percent state aid on the promise that they would open balanced, and thus had been built in mixed neighborhoods. But the racial composition of the area had changed to virtually all black during construction, and the gleaming new Lee School would open imbalanced unless district lines were redrawn.

At first the school committee gave white parents at the nearby Fifield and O’Hearn schools the option of having their children attend the Lee, but under intense pressure from the state board, a shaky three to two majority of the committee agreed to redraw district lines. In May, at a committee meeting to discuss traffic and safety, parents packed the meeting and expressed fears that busing would be required and spoke out against it.

In July Deputy Superintendent Herbert Hambleton warned that any redrawing of district lines would fail because white and black parents “have told the school committee in unmistakable language on numerous occasions that they want to send their children to the local school.”"

The white parents protested:

"That same night nearly two hundred white parents met in Dorchester and vowed not to send their kids out of the Fifield and O’Hearn schools into the Lee School. Their state legislator, Paul Murphy, Democratic whip in the House, offered to be their legal adviser, while Mrs. Hicks lashed the crowd into a frenzy by exclaiming that “our children are the innocent victims” and that parents should not send them to the “far-distant Lee school where we know the hazards that are presented to them … . Should we be forced to send our children into an area where we know what harm can come to them?— I say no, a thousand times no.” And the audience agreed with stomping, thunderous, visceral applause. (Boston Against Busing, p. 50)"

And the black parents were equally irate:

"But many black parents had also defied the reassignments because they were bitterly opposed to sending their children to the Fifield and O’Hearn, where they were not welcome. Besides, the Lee contained a modern gym, a pool, a theater, carpeted classrooms, and a curriculum described as “one of the finest in any elementary school.”

The black protesters lived across from the school in the run-down Franklin Field housing project, so close to the Lee that, as one black mother said, “Your mouth waters when you look at it.” Thus many black parents showed up at the Lee and gave false addresses. One black group demonstrated and threatened to “hold a class” in the lobby of the Lee until their demands were met, and some black parents joined Father Burke and white parents meeting at St. Matthews the night of September 9 to plan strategy. (Boston Against Busing p. 51)"

At a meeting attended by hundreds of angry parents, the school committee caved to pressure, reversed ways, and redrew the school catchments to align with racial boundaries.





Spoiler: Busing Doesn't Work, and this was Known Before Mass Implementation



Armor also reported that the METCO program did not improve long-term college achievement. More METCO students did start college (84 percent to 56 percent, in a small sample size). But the drop out rate was higher. Altogether, by sophomore year, the average METCO student was no more likely to be enrolled in full-time college than a student in the control group.

Armor was even more surprised to find that the METCO program made race relations worse:

"One of the central sociological hypotheses in the integration policy model is that integration should reduce racial stereotypes, increase tolerance, and generally improve race relations. Needless to say, we were quite surprised when our data failed to verify this axiom. Our surprise was increased substantially when we discovered that, in fact, the converse appears to be true. The data suggest that, under the circumstances obtaining in these studies, integration heightens racial identity and consciousness, enhances ideologies that promote racial segregation, and reduces opportunities for actual contact between the races."

And keep in mind, that race relations worsened even though this was a voluntary program. According to surveys, students and families at the white suburban schools were initially very favorable toward the program. This was not a busing program that was forced upon them.

Overall, David Armor concludes:

"The available evidence on busing, then, seems to lead to two clear policy conclusions. One is that massive mandatory busing for purposes of improving student achievement and interracial harmony is not effective and should not be adopted at this time. The other is that voluntary integration programs such as METCO, ABC, or Project Concern should be continued and positively encouraged by substantial federal and state grants. Such voluntary programs should be encouraged so that those parents and communities who believe in the symbolic and potential (but so far unconfirmed) long-run benefits of induced integration will have ample opportunity to send their children to integrated schools. Equally important, these voluntary programs will permit social scientists and others to improve and broaden our understanding of the longer-run and other consequences of induced school integration. With a more complete knowledge than we now possess of this complicated matter, we shall hopefully be in a better position to design effective public education policies that are known in advance to work to the benefit of all Americans, both black and white."

Thus, by 1972, the idea that integration was _the fix_ for education had already been contradicted by the available evidence. If there was anything to the idea of integration, it would require more study to determine the circumstances where it might be a helpful policy.3

In a sane world, if you have a radical social policy idea, you try a small experiment first, and only enlarge it once you prove the experiment works.

In Boston, the experiment was tried and it did not work. Yet, two years later, a federal Judge would force the policy upon a half-million people.


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (Jun 18, 2022)

Mukhrani said:


> I grey up in the rural northeast, and had the typical view of southerners which is inculcated in children in the schools up until college. I remember there were two main things which kind of blew open for me how retarded the whole northern conception of the south is. The first was a Toni Morrison interview where she talked about the differences between black and white relations in the north in the south, and said that white people in the north are much more icy and disconnected from black people, while in the south the relationship is both more fraught and more intimate, and that black and white southerners understand one another much better than white and black northerners do, who largely exist in parallel worlds. This struck me as true; when I went to the south the black people there were completely different than the ones in the north, and were much more comfortable socializing with and working with white people. The 'chip on the shoulder' thing that you get in the north is much more rare down there. And people in the north, even the most progressive, definitely don't want to live around black people, they just couch it in euphemisms - 'good schools' or 'a nice neighborhood' means an affluent white neighborhood with maybe a few tokens who act functionally white.
> 
> The second was an interview between George Wallace and William F. Buckley. George Wallace is often cast as this demon who just hates black people with every ounce of his soul in the north. Buckley, who is seen as this cerebral, enlightened, non-racist conservative, absolutely berates Wallace. But he doesn't berate him over racism or segregation, he berates him for his pension program. After the collapse of sharecropping in the south, there were two huge waves of migration to the north, mostly of working aged black people. The first wave found okay jobs in the northern cities, but by the time the second wave arrived there was little work left and those people lived in abject poverty. They left their older relatives behind in the south, and most of them were barely surviving themselves and couldn't send anything back home. I learned that George Wallace was elected in part by large swathes of this elderly black population because he created a pension program to basically pay for these people to be able to live and afford food. Buckley absolutely lambasted him for this, saying it was collectivist/socialist, and Wallace just sort of exasperatedly says 'I couldn't just let these people starve to death'. It really kind of rocked my basic assumptions, because the story that northern conservatives tell themselves is that the evil southerners wanted to torture black people for no reason, and William F. Buckley and the National Review reformed the conservative movement and purged all these evil racists. But here was the architect of that political realignment trying to convince one of those 'evil racists' to let a bunch of elderly black people starve to death. Absolutely wild stuff.
> 
> ...


I’m in a similar position of where I grew up in the west, was told a lot about why the south sucked, but as I got to know more Southerners I realized that my hate was unfounded.

What I like about Southerners compared to Northerners or Californians is their honesty. A Southerner is easier to negotiate with because his feelings are worn in his sleeves. 


Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> There's a comparison here to Brazil and Cuba, because while those places definitely have racism, they never had it the way the American South did. Those places had violent struggles for the end of slavery, but they didn't have the retarded binary view of race Anglos did or the conquest by outsiders imposing emancipation on them. So, in those places, race relations improved pretty easily. I suspect that if the US had managed gradual emancipation (and post cotton gin, that's pretty much impossible, but suppose they did), the Deep South would be a pardo nation like Brazil is.


I agree. Brazil is basically what the South would be like if it weren’t for the Civil War and Reconstruction.


----------



## Colonel Gaddafi (Jun 20, 2022)

Arguably the reason the South is less ‘cultured’ than the North is because the North burned Southern culture to the ground and crippled the Southern people by Reconstruction.

Though I do find the idea of slow emancipation leading to a mixed people similar to Brazil unlikely. Anglos and Germanics in general have historically been pretty race conscious with strong in group preference, probably because of their religion. For the Spanish and Portuguese as long as your partner was Catholic it didn’t matter, the Anglos set themselves apart by having an ethnocentric church. This is why you still see groups of unmixed Anglos in Brazil, there will be some ‘bleed out’, but it’s largely not a part of their inherit nature.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 20, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Thank you. There's several topics I fixate autistically on, but Antebellum society is the big one.
> 
> The reply problem is just a glitch, I've had it happen to.


So what is the takeaway; we should re-institute slavery since everything you posted said people were better enslaved?


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 20, 2022)

MT Foxtrot said:


> So what is the takeaway; we should re-institute slavery since everything you posted said people were better enslaved?


I don't know how the fuck you got "were better enslaved" out of that. My huge post's main theses were:
1) Southerners have better race relations than Blacks nowadays
2) Slaveowners did not hate their slaves
3) Blacks suffered a lot after emancipation and often had very mixed or negative feelings about those events

In it I referred to it slavery as evil, slaves as playthings of the master class, and the relationship as extortion.

Blacks suffered more under slavery than they did after it, long term (after the initial wartime/postwar chaos was over). They were forced to put in extremely long hours (their workhours fell by something like a third after emancipation) under threat of torture/family separation for meager living standards, and also had no control over their family/social relationships or freedom to control their lives in general. It was a terrible existence.

I did say that a lot of Blacks were ambivalent about or preferred slavery, because their living standards weren't a ton lower than they would have had as free laborers, so if they had a reasonable master and didn't want anything out of life other than to farm where they were, then that wasn't a bad situation to be in. In a lot of ways it had more security since they were not responsible for finding work or earning enough to live (rations were provided, usually, but supplemented with food grown in their garden plots). But for the ones who did want other things out of life, or had bad masters, it was. That life was a gamble at all was a pain.

For the ones who were fed into the prison-industrial system, slavery was better (since slavery had incentives to maintain their health and normal family life), but those were only a portion of the Black population, most post-emancipation Blacks were sharecroppers. The alternative to that, and to Jim Crow in general, was treating them as equals, not reenslavement.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Jun 20, 2022)

Colonel Gaddafi said:


> Arguably the reason the South is less ‘cultured’ than the North is because the North burned Southern culture to the ground and crippled the Southern people by Reconstruction.
> 
> Though I do find the idea of slow emancipation leading to a mixed people similar to Brazil unlikely. Anglos and Germanics in general have historically been pretty race conscious with strong in group preference, probably because of their religion. For the Spanish and Portuguese as long as your partner was Catholic it didn’t matter, the Anglos set themselves apart by having an ethnocentric church. This is why you still see groups of unmixed Anglos in Brazil, there will be some ‘bleed out’, but it’s largely not a part of their inherit nature.


You see that in certain indoeuropean countries too. Persians tend to stick with other Persians and Armenians stick with other Armenians. The Caucus region doesn't mix much, even those in diaspora.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Oct 2, 2022)

LOL, I was reading my old wall of text, and Wormy's response to it, and noticed my very last sentence:
"They deserve to hate us."


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Oct 2, 2022)

@Mukhrani

I never did get around to answering your post - if it needed answering, posts don't always - but if I hadn't mentioned it before, my mother - Irish-German stock of the Ohio River Valley - was one of those that was going to be bussed, but her parents made sure she got put in a different school. It would have been HOURS of extra ride to go to a majority Black and much worse school.

In that area, they actually had some bigwig, I think the mayor, get shot over bussing by an outraged parent.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Oct 2, 2022)

I do think that the very existence of the Confederate States of America was absolutely catastrophic, maybe fatally so, to the causes both of states' rights and Southern nationalism. It forever linked those concepts in the public memory to the War and hence to slavery, this chain weighing them down ever since.


Passing Through Town said:


> This is the dumbest thing you said by far, and you should feel bad for saying it. The idea that a Southern aristocracy exists today is ludicrous.


Completely agree as far as an actually powerful agrarian elite (lol), but socially there does still exist some semblance of an old plantation aristocracy in the Lowcountry (coastal South Carolina and Georgia, which has always been more like the West Indies than anything in America, and which is centered on Charleston and Savannah) that thinks they're hot shit for being descended from some general a million years ago, even if the family fortune long disappeared. I was shocked when I found out its still a thing. I learned this from interacting with some.

Charleston is, always has been, and always will be this fucked up bizzaro-world compared to the rest of the country.


----------



## MvAgusta (Oct 13, 2022)

What happened to Southerners post 1865 reminds me of what happened to Germans post 1945.

Demonized, stereotyped, vilified as evil by the Jewish-Anglo establishment of the US. 

When you hear the German language spoken, what does your programmed mind think? “Nazi!”

When you hear the southern dialect being spoken what does your programmed mind think?
“Racist!”

I’m not a ethnic Southerner by any means (I do reside in the general southern US region), but I actually empathize with many southerners who have to suffer from propaganda demonizing them. Same with Germans as well. Always demonized and brow beaten by Jewish supremacists or Anglo-Amerimutt Masons


----------



## Slap47 (Oct 13, 2022)

MvAgusta said:


> What happened to Southerners post 1865 reminds me of what happened to Germans post 1945.
> 
> Demonized, stereotyped, vilified as evil by the Jewish-Anglo establishment of the US.
> 
> ...



But Southern culture was quickly rehabilitated. Reconstruction efforts were halted and the country united behind racism.


----------



## MvAgusta (Oct 13, 2022)

Slap47 said:


> But Southern culture was quickly rehabilitated. Reconstruction efforts were halted and the country united behind racism.


The South was left economically disadvantaged by the Yankee north for many decades. Sure there was a unity under a White American identity (a mix of European ethnicities), but alas that didn’t mend the divisions entirely especially after the 1940-1950s when the “tribe” financed civil rights and attacks Southern culture


----------



## Breadbassket (Oct 13, 2022)

MvAgusta said:


> The South was left economically disadvantaged by the Yankee north for many decades. Sure there was a unity under a White American identity (a mix of European ethnicities), but alas that didn’t mend the divisions entirely especially after the 1940-1950s when the “tribe” financed civil rights and attacks Southern culture


The American North has seemingly always viewed the inhabitants of the American South as "backwards" and "stupid". They make fun of the accent, they make fun of the culture, they make fun of its customs. This applies in both pre and post-Civil War USA. People just want always someone to look down on I guess. The Southern planters would hate the poor farmers, the poor farmers would look down on the slaves and vice versa, the Northerners would look down on all of them. Then the majority (as many people back in earlier days of the USA were Protestant) would look down on Catholics and especially the Irish.

For the Southerners that rage against their own heritage and submit to the whims of modern liberals there will be no reward. The Confederate States of America will always be punching bag because its something in the distant past, its soldiers are long since dead and since its been out of living memory long enough its difficult to respond to any mythologized aspects of its history easily.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Oct 13, 2022)

You all ever heard about hookworm?

It's interesting, because on one hand I've read the actual original analysis (Bleakley) that gave the statistical argument for it, and it sounds sensible, but I also don't particularly like that it does amount to saying "well yes, Southerners were retards." I guess it's possible they MAY have been, I definitely don't see it in the world around me now.

Basically, hookworms are parasites that really like the soil and climate specific to the Lowland South, and they burrow up kid's bare feet and then suck all the life out of them, making them sluggish and difficult to concentrate. A large chunk of the population was infected with hookworms and didn't know it (if everybody is sluggish and slow at thinking, you don't think they're sick, you think they're just normal and a non-infected person seems vigorous and a quick-thinker). Eventually they went through and started building proper toilets and deworming kids and all that. But now some people argue it was the root behind the stereotype of Southerners as stupid and lazy.

I mean, I've seen hte evidence for it, but I just don't quite believe it. And I think if you go back to the colonial roots you find a massive superiority complex unlike anything else in Yankees from the very get go, has actually gotten better since then.


----------



## Slap47 (Oct 14, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> You all ever heard about hookworm?
> 
> It's interesting, because on one hand I've read the actual original analysis (Bleakley) that gave the statistical argument for it, and it sounds sensible, but I also don't particularly like that it does amount to saying "well yes, Southerners were retards." I guess it's possible they MAY have been, I definitely don't see it in the world around me now.
> 
> ...


I was unaware of this, but I think its just another factor. 

The Appalachians and South just have a fundamentally different origin from the north.  New England and most of the north was founded by immigrants (Puritans, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc) who believed in small-scale democracy and education.  Their colonial master for nearly their entire history tried to make money from them via trade instead of just stealing their resources. It was a place founded by normal communities. These places had high literacy, people invested in their communities, and govts invested in their people. A good foundation for a good civilization. 

Appalachia (often considering itself the south) was founded by people who had nowhere to go and built by profiteering investors from somewhere else that abandoned them at the first sign of trouble. The south was dominated by a plantation economy and ruled by several different colonial empires that merely extracted wealth from them. People came to the south for money and stuck around because they had nowhere else to go or could not go. A system destined to create a population not incentivized to learn, not willing to invest in their communities, and unable to govern themselves. 

The Jamestown vs Plymouth discussion gets alot of hate, but its a good way to see the way each region had its own foundations. 

Thomas Sowell's assertion that you could take the black man out of the south, but not the south out of the black man is quite funny, but I believe it. I also believe it in regards to lolcows. The southern lolcow is a unique combination of machismo, racism, obesity, and hypocrisy. You can send them to Boston or LA, but they will remain the same.


----------



## soulgains (Oct 14, 2022)

The Confederacy was just a kike-anglo ploy to destroy America and further cement the power of private banks. You people hate niggers so much that you can't see the forest for the trees.


----------

