Irish Turtle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
I watched old tv shows from the 60s and 50s and the southerners were always potrayed as gentlemen even in civil war movies. Nowadays every southernor is an evil racist who eats black babies.
How did the south go from being a beloved symbol of american culture and kindhearted gentleman to evil racists who kill blacks daily?
- Thread starter Irish Turtle
- Start date
IliterateNerd77
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2024
Leftoids man. Leftoids.
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
In a nutshell, liberals attempting to destroy any part of america that isn't homosexual and overrun by subhuman pajeets.
- Joined
- May 5, 2019
You misspelled "Jews"
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
The South is usually characterized as generally more conservative then other parts of the USA, add that with the redneck/hillbilly stereotype and the common political stances of your average Hollywood writer then the answer becomes clear.
Last edited:
Bonesjones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
Modern culture and media is created in either New York, California, or the Pacific Northwest. They all look down on the south as being backwards, then they find out how much better it is and get jealous.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
It's because liking Gone With The Wind means you are an evil racist who hates da blac fok. Never mind the fact that said black characters to even have the prominence that they did at the time was a rarity in itself. (Scarlet is also a huge bitch but she is definitely....and I hate to say it 'strong female character' because of it)
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
There's a saying: history is written by the victors. Academia has allowed Southern heritage to be outright condemned because of their past sins of tolerating slavery as a means to an end. Never mind that there are countries now that STILL practice slavery to this day.
Irish Turtle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
I mean even fairly recently the south was beloved it was only after wokeness it started to lose respect
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2023
Both portrayals of the South are complete fantasy, it just depends on your race and political beliefs which one sounds better.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Like @Breadbassket said, the South is more conservative, not necessarily in the sense of any coherent political ideology (it was actually a driving force behind the New Deal, look at who sat on those committees rubber-stamping FDR's shit) but in more of a psychological and cultural sense. There is a long-standing tradition in the Northeast (not so much the rest of the country) of hating Southerners as ancestral enemies (even from the earliest days of the colonies New England Yankees were in love with themselves and demonized others as backwards, regardless of it had any reality to it) and in the present day the South is the embodiment of everything Libshits hate. Mind that New England (which would go on to settle the Great Lakes coasts, the West Coast, Hawaii) was founded by Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, Virginia and the Carolinas by Cavalier Norman stock, the Mountains by Presbyterian Scottish stock.
That's all it comes down to, in the end. Sectarian rivalry and ideological warfare. If the South was filled with atheists and Leftists Hollywood would love it.
A big chunk of New England/Leftism's resentment is focused especially on that the South has tended to (again, conservative) uphold the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy and Madisonian constitutionalism in contrast to Hamiltonianism. This isn't always strictly true but it is generally true. The South has tended to stand for local autonomy (states rights, which contrary to modern dogma included far more than just slavery, though slavery was the driving force behind the War, and which never went away) an opposition to large centralized institutions.
Remember, Adams played the dictator (jailing his opponents and wanting to be called His Excellency). Hamilton wanted a King and essentially British institutions in the US. It was Jefferson and Madison, Virginians, who stood against that. They would also dominate the early Republic and the Hamiltonian Yankees never forgave them for it.
If you are a Progressive, for whom the State is God, then that makes these people your number one enemy. The South could contentedly share a country with the North as long as it did not feel threatened. The reverse is not true because it's in a Yankee's nature to want to seek dominance over others. All that changes is what shitty ideology they push.
The South also serves a useful role as scapegoat. It can both serve as this sort of embodiment of everything wrong with America for self-flagellating Cultural Revolution bullshit, insincere displays of contrition, while at the same time being a way for the Yankee to distance himself from his own guilt. It's like a Schrodingers cat thing. The South is simultaneously the cause of all evil and is no different from the rest of the country depending on the rhetorical purposes of the person speaking. In reality racism was a severe problem in the North both before and after the War, and race relations are considerably worse there today.
In the South people made law that subjugated Blacks, but the law was law. In the North there was no law, but people discriminated voluntarily. I find it hard to say which is morally worse. In the North they bled to free slaves and voted to give rights to Blacks only to exclude and riot when the Blacks naively expected the same treatment up there. Not in my backyard. Northerners loved Blacks as a theoretical concept and hated them as people. Southerners loved Blacks as possessions and hated them as equals.
The people who I find friendliest to genuine Southern culture actually tend to be old school labor movement Communists and other radical socialists, because they've put in the effort to understand Appalachia, the Deep Southern yeomanry and they tend to value folk culture which the South (rural, conservative) had more of.
Lastly, Jews (specifically, the third wave, the Eastern European ones that settled the big Northern cities during the Gilded Age) in particular seem to have a rabid hatred of the South. It's absolutely bizarre, but the way I've interpreted it is that when their shitty Polack/Russian ancestors stepped off the boat in New York City they just mentally equated the rural, fervently Evangelical Southern people as the closest equivalent to serfs and Cossacks and set about actively undermining them as a defense. This against a people who had historically been their greatest friends in the country and still idolize them (disgustingly) to this day.
I have generally believed that one of the crucial flaws of the United States is that it paired together two cultures (Deep South and New England) that were so diametrically opposed, virulent and vicious that they could never live under one roof in harmony. The other root stock of the country - independent and wild Appalachia, statesmanlike Chesapeake Bay/Tidewater and the cosmopolitan/pluralistic and individualistic Delaware Bay and NYC areas - were capable of living under a union lead by either, though at extremes one would chafe (the Quaker's society under the Deep South, the Appalachians under New England). To have those two together, though, was toxic.
The Deep South was eventually smote enough times that its spirit and ideal was broken and it more or less adopted the ethos (even, to a large extent, the accent) of Appalachia. New England was never smote and it just got nastier and nastier as it moved from victory to victory. If you want to fix the country you need to burn down Boston and San Francisco and kill half the population of Massachusetts.
A good introduction to my worldview would be something like Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Made America. Near the end of that book (I don't seem to have saved a particular passage) it gets to the heart of it.
As far as media goes, I'd say it got more toxic and unhinged as Leftism itself got more toxic and unhinged. The country had achieved a sort of regional detente around 1910 at the expense of greater racial strife. That was the bargain, the South and the North adopted each other's ugliness, for a time, so they could get along, and it was the Blacks that paid the price. It was during that time that much of that old media was made, though there was also a big trend of a sort of Southern chic in the 1970s were the hippie types actually really liked Southern culture (I guess because Civil Rights had passed, so it was now quaint and folksy instead of mean and sinister). This changed.
The Andy Griffith Show is a really good authentic portrayal of Appalachian Southern life in the 1950s. The accents are all correct and the tempo and tone of life is correct. Being set in a fictionalized version of Griffith's hometown (Mount Airy) race isn't relevant to it.
My dream, and I think it will come very soon, is that Blacks and White Southerners will realize that they were the same culture all along. There's a famous quote about race relations being more fraught but intimate in the South. Segregation has been over for 60 years (practically a lifetime) and rural Blacks strike me as largely comfortable and contented. I see Blacks eating with local yokels in the diners, going to the same Pentecostal churches, fishing and riding ATVs like rednecks, breeding mulatto kids.
To me the most constructive way forward is to recognize that we were both manipulated by evil aristocracies, from both sections of the country, against our shared interests. One can hate the Confederacy and love the South because the Confederacy and the system it represented was a mass psychosis that brought the South nothing but suffering. It was, like the Soviet experience in Russia, the Nazi experience in Germany, or many other such tragedies, the symptom of a people who had strayed from their spiritual foundations, and I believe it, as it exists today, is more aligned with what the Founding Fathers would have wanted than it was in the world of plantations and hoop skirts.
In the end I also expect the Mexicans will be at home here, too. There are genuinely troubling problems with this mass immigration. I think most of it comes from a lack of discipline on them, some of it may come from specific kinds of immigrants (like deranged Venezuelan and El Salvadoran gangbangers). But Mexicans and Guatemalans, who were the bulk until recently, are quickly becoming an Evangelical/Pentecostal people. It is hard to explain without just listing random junk, but my gut feeling is that a Mexican-Southern synthesis will get the same results in the rest of the South that it did in Texas. Which is to say Texans, which would please me greatly.
I would like for Southern nationalists to move beyond the Confederacy, although I know it will never happen. The CSA killed Southern nationalism as it forever saddled it with its baggage. I've come to recognize a flag that I can love as an alternative. It's the Gadsden flag. It was used in Revolutionary South Carolina. Is very relevant to modern issues and represents the South at its finest, that moment when Virginia had the world by its heartstrings. I want this to be the flag of any modern secessionist movement. I say the South, but there is really no reason to want to exclude any Western or Ohio River state that would like to join.
I've thought a lot about names, too. Names depend a lot on the exact borders. In the end, I see an American secessionist movement as either being Southland or Heartland. Dixie is too antiquated, people in the Upper South have no affection for it, it has too much baggage. Southland is earthy, fitting to the spirit. Heartland especially I like for a more inclusive interpretation. From the Oregon backcountry to Pittsburgh, we're all Heartlanders. Wouldn't this be a fine flag for it?
That's all it comes down to, in the end. Sectarian rivalry and ideological warfare. If the South was filled with atheists and Leftists Hollywood would love it.
A big chunk of New England/Leftism's resentment is focused especially on that the South has tended to (again, conservative) uphold the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy and Madisonian constitutionalism in contrast to Hamiltonianism. This isn't always strictly true but it is generally true. The South has tended to stand for local autonomy (states rights, which contrary to modern dogma included far more than just slavery, though slavery was the driving force behind the War, and which never went away) an opposition to large centralized institutions.
Remember, Adams played the dictator (jailing his opponents and wanting to be called His Excellency). Hamilton wanted a King and essentially British institutions in the US. It was Jefferson and Madison, Virginians, who stood against that. They would also dominate the early Republic and the Hamiltonian Yankees never forgave them for it.
If you are a Progressive, for whom the State is God, then that makes these people your number one enemy. The South could contentedly share a country with the North as long as it did not feel threatened. The reverse is not true because it's in a Yankee's nature to want to seek dominance over others. All that changes is what shitty ideology they push.
The South also serves a useful role as scapegoat. It can both serve as this sort of embodiment of everything wrong with America for self-flagellating Cultural Revolution bullshit, insincere displays of contrition, while at the same time being a way for the Yankee to distance himself from his own guilt. It's like a Schrodingers cat thing. The South is simultaneously the cause of all evil and is no different from the rest of the country depending on the rhetorical purposes of the person speaking. In reality racism was a severe problem in the North both before and after the War, and race relations are considerably worse there today.
In the South people made law that subjugated Blacks, but the law was law. In the North there was no law, but people discriminated voluntarily. I find it hard to say which is morally worse. In the North they bled to free slaves and voted to give rights to Blacks only to exclude and riot when the Blacks naively expected the same treatment up there. Not in my backyard. Northerners loved Blacks as a theoretical concept and hated them as people. Southerners loved Blacks as possessions and hated them as equals.
The people who I find friendliest to genuine Southern culture actually tend to be old school labor movement Communists and other radical socialists, because they've put in the effort to understand Appalachia, the Deep Southern yeomanry and they tend to value folk culture which the South (rural, conservative) had more of.
Lastly, Jews (specifically, the third wave, the Eastern European ones that settled the big Northern cities during the Gilded Age) in particular seem to have a rabid hatred of the South. It's absolutely bizarre, but the way I've interpreted it is that when their shitty Polack/Russian ancestors stepped off the boat in New York City they just mentally equated the rural, fervently Evangelical Southern people as the closest equivalent to serfs and Cossacks and set about actively undermining them as a defense. This against a people who had historically been their greatest friends in the country and still idolize them (disgustingly) to this day.
I have generally believed that one of the crucial flaws of the United States is that it paired together two cultures (Deep South and New England) that were so diametrically opposed, virulent and vicious that they could never live under one roof in harmony. The other root stock of the country - independent and wild Appalachia, statesmanlike Chesapeake Bay/Tidewater and the cosmopolitan/pluralistic and individualistic Delaware Bay and NYC areas - were capable of living under a union lead by either, though at extremes one would chafe (the Quaker's society under the Deep South, the Appalachians under New England). To have those two together, though, was toxic.
The Deep South was eventually smote enough times that its spirit and ideal was broken and it more or less adopted the ethos (even, to a large extent, the accent) of Appalachia. New England was never smote and it just got nastier and nastier as it moved from victory to victory. If you want to fix the country you need to burn down Boston and San Francisco and kill half the population of Massachusetts.
A good introduction to my worldview would be something like Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Made America. Near the end of that book (I don't seem to have saved a particular passage) it gets to the heart of it.
As far as media goes, I'd say it got more toxic and unhinged as Leftism itself got more toxic and unhinged. The country had achieved a sort of regional detente around 1910 at the expense of greater racial strife. That was the bargain, the South and the North adopted each other's ugliness, for a time, so they could get along, and it was the Blacks that paid the price. It was during that time that much of that old media was made, though there was also a big trend of a sort of Southern chic in the 1970s were the hippie types actually really liked Southern culture (I guess because Civil Rights had passed, so it was now quaint and folksy instead of mean and sinister). This changed.
The Andy Griffith Show is a really good authentic portrayal of Appalachian Southern life in the 1950s. The accents are all correct and the tempo and tone of life is correct. Being set in a fictionalized version of Griffith's hometown (Mount Airy) race isn't relevant to it.
My dream, and I think it will come very soon, is that Blacks and White Southerners will realize that they were the same culture all along. There's a famous quote about race relations being more fraught but intimate in the South. Segregation has been over for 60 years (practically a lifetime) and rural Blacks strike me as largely comfortable and contented. I see Blacks eating with local yokels in the diners, going to the same Pentecostal churches, fishing and riding ATVs like rednecks, breeding mulatto kids.
To me the most constructive way forward is to recognize that we were both manipulated by evil aristocracies, from both sections of the country, against our shared interests. One can hate the Confederacy and love the South because the Confederacy and the system it represented was a mass psychosis that brought the South nothing but suffering. It was, like the Soviet experience in Russia, the Nazi experience in Germany, or many other such tragedies, the symptom of a people who had strayed from their spiritual foundations, and I believe it, as it exists today, is more aligned with what the Founding Fathers would have wanted than it was in the world of plantations and hoop skirts.
In the end I also expect the Mexicans will be at home here, too. There are genuinely troubling problems with this mass immigration. I think most of it comes from a lack of discipline on them, some of it may come from specific kinds of immigrants (like deranged Venezuelan and El Salvadoran gangbangers). But Mexicans and Guatemalans, who were the bulk until recently, are quickly becoming an Evangelical/Pentecostal people. It is hard to explain without just listing random junk, but my gut feeling is that a Mexican-Southern synthesis will get the same results in the rest of the South that it did in Texas. Which is to say Texans, which would please me greatly.
I would like for Southern nationalists to move beyond the Confederacy, although I know it will never happen. The CSA killed Southern nationalism as it forever saddled it with its baggage. I've come to recognize a flag that I can love as an alternative. It's the Gadsden flag. It was used in Revolutionary South Carolina. Is very relevant to modern issues and represents the South at its finest, that moment when Virginia had the world by its heartstrings. I want this to be the flag of any modern secessionist movement. I say the South, but there is really no reason to want to exclude any Western or Ohio River state that would like to join.
I've thought a lot about names, too. Names depend a lot on the exact borders. In the end, I see an American secessionist movement as either being Southland or Heartland. Dixie is too antiquated, people in the Upper South have no affection for it, it has too much baggage. Southland is earthy, fitting to the spirit. Heartland especially I like for a more inclusive interpretation. From the Oregon backcountry to Pittsburgh, we're all Heartlanders. Wouldn't this be a fine flag for it?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
Because killing niggers daily suddenly became a problem
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Scarlett O'Hara (and it's the whole point of her) is a fascinating study of a narcissist ruining her life through spite. Went through traumatic events, became a bitter and greedy person. Her ugliness shines through and alienates her more and she gets uglier still until she has driven the whole world away. It might sound odd, but I read Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar around the same time and I felt like the two (fictional character, real person) were very similar. Lonely, spiteful people with a drive to ruin every social relationship they ever had.
And Gone With the Wind is White supremacist, but it's anti-Confederate.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Why? Because it was made by Hollywood? Remember that racism was tolerated around that time.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I am talking about the book. Don't care about the movie, not interested in it. in the book it seems like it has an accurate portrayal of the Blacks up to a point. It's sanitized in the sense that it doesn't depict any of the ugliness of slavery, but there is no particular reason that it should either. The novel isn't about slavery, it's about the planters.
But once it gets to Reconstruction it flips to total niggerdeath. You can start to hear a lot more of Margaret Mitchell's voice (instead of it feeling like a portrait of a real world) and it's a voice that is extremely indignant at the idea of the servants being uppity. The Ku Klux Klan are the heroes.
It's anti-Confederate because the main characters don't give a fuck about the CSA and one of the main themes of it is how the South threw away its plantation system on a hopeless war. The Lost Cause isn't romantic. I don't know how that idea ever came to be, I'm not actually convinced "the Lost Cause" is even a thing outside of academics' fantasies, but in the book it is clear that the author feels a frustration and a sorrow that they blew it all. It's not that it's a shame that they lost the War, it's a shame that they fought the War.
Don't make the mistake a lot of people do of assuming that people in the past were some monolith. I mean, people hated the Klan even back when the Klan first existed, you know? It waned and waxed, but there have always been people that rejected this stuff. It's due to them that anything changed at all. It's not like Civil Rights miraculously passed one day and everyone flipped sides.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
Irish Turtle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
how has the south managed to assimilate the mountain west or places like idaho into its culture
Dagoth AMOGUS
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2023
notice that northern states like Kentucky try to say they are southern despite being above the mason dixon line
Even in rural parts of places in the Midwest or northeast they will try to capture that spirit proudly
It’s simple: the south IS America.
Even in rural parts of places in the Midwest or northeast they will try to capture that spirit proudly
It’s simple: the south IS America.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
Are you sure that the Southern gentlemen stereotype was so widely accepted? Even in the 60s, negative portrayals of Southern society were common. For example, A Confederacy of Dunces was written in the 60s (published in 1980) and its depiction of Southern stereotypes (New Orleans specifically) was well received despite being very scathing. I'd say that the dumb Southerner stereotype existed even then and now it's just the dominant stereotype. Mind you, that book also made fun of Jewish New Yorkers at the same time.
Last edited:
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
Especially when it's being killed by a cop, they don't give a rat about black on black crime.