"American by birth southern by the grace of God"

[wilt the stilt]

I've watched as our fellow DU'ers have discussed the south. I think you can best understand a region on what is permitted. I have lived in Atlanta for a very long time. My parents came here in 1973. I have lived here since "82. I also lived here for 1 year in 1976. I have also sold cash registers in every small town in N. Georgia from Rome, to Macon to Dalton and even Warner Robins and Gray. The next time you stop in DQ in Dalton those are my cash registers.

It is my observation that the south is loyal to the region more that the nation. That saying in the title says it all. I have lived in Denver, SF, upstate NY and NYC. I visit Chicago all the time as my in-laws are from there. There is nowhere in the country that is loyal to their region over the country. Only the south.

The great migration to the U.S. was all up north. People had to become Americans as they were all first generation. Their loyalty is with the country. Because there was no migration to the south they stayed loyal to the region. That is why robert E. Lee fought for the south. He was loyal to the region.

As far as what is permissible. My kids go the UGA. My son's frat is the most diverse at the school with "even" an African American. Their nickname is Delta nig.
Fraternity row displays confederate flags. These are not rural people. They are the best students in GA and many are from the suburbs of Atlanta. My son will not take his best friend(African American) back to school with him to visit.

This behavior is permitted. I can not imagine any other region in this country that would allow this type of behavior.

Because of this loyalty to region the south in my opinion should never be allowed to control our economic destiny. They always think in terms of their region first and the country second. That is why their model has always been to steal businesses from other places in the country.

[haikugal]

1. Thank you Wilt for this post...

you've expressed this reality very well. I have experienced the south in many ways...my family fought for the South and my father was a bigot RWA...I can second your view that they should never be allowed to control ANYTHING in our United States as they are not loyal to our country as a whole, just their portion of it.

[bermudat]

2. Loyal to their region than their country

Hmmm. I never considered that was the southerners way of thinking. Explains a lot.

[Dawson Leery]

3. Those who profess their loyalty to the south (region over nation) are the least American.

[brer cat]

4. I guess "they" should just get off DU. nt

[Tigress DEM]

9. NO Brer, our Souther DUers have to DEAL with that climate. They don't condone it.

AND if YOU are so intellectually challanged that you can not see that there are hard working DUers in the South who deserve our respect, then you can take yourself up on your own offer and take a hike.

The OP is explaining what it is like down South, not how DUers from the South behave.

[brer cat]

15. I was born and raised in GA and live there still.

I was referring to the fact that the OP like most threads of this sort use a broad brush. They...they...they. Not some, not most, just "they", or "the south" like that is all of us. I do think most DUers would consider this a better place if we were gone since they haven't bothered to figure out we are not all cut from the same cloth.

[pnwmom]

16. Our objection is NOT to individual progressives in the South. Far from it.

It's to the Southern radical right power structure that is working to spread its tentacles over the rest of the country.

[brer cat]

17. Some people need to learn some modifiers.

To write an entire post bashing the south using only "they" or "the south" includes every one of us. No one on DU would allow a post to stand that attacked any racial or ethnic group based on the actions of some members of that group, but it is ok when it comes to southerners.

It is also not some southern radical right power structure that is working to spread its tentacles...it is and has been northern/western politicians using the southern right wing voters to enhance their power. Jimmy Carter was not elected playing to the bigots in the south. That would be Nixon, Regan and Bushes.

[IrishAyes]

24. " northern/western politicians using the southern right wing voters to enhance their power."

Oh noesss, brer cat. That sounds soooo region-bashing. Tell me my eyes deceive me and you didn't really write that in the same breath as falsely accusing the OP and other Union lovers of region bashing. Say it ain't so!

Well, too late for that. There it is in b&w, just like the flood of Southern Apologetics we've been treated to recently by so many who share your - dare I say it? - hypocritical defense of the indefensible. It's very unbecoming in a southern gentleman of any degree. Morris Dees would NEVER say such things or even think them. In fact, bless his pea-pickin' heart, he sent me a nice certificate for my contributions to the SPLC, an organization that figures prominently in my will. Once they've stamped my card, it's sort of like the ACLU's approval. Nobody can take that away from me/us/them. I don't need your approval.

Now don't repeat those worn out accusations that I'm attacking Southern progressives. I'd send them lots of $ too if I had any left, which I don't. But you could always sell your house and fund REAL Southern progressives yourself. I wouldn't mind.

[brer cat]

27. I'm not a southern gentleman...in fact I'm not a man

but making assumptions can lead one to believe that I guess.

[IrishAyes]

30. sigh...

"unbecoming in a southern gentleman" does not equate to calling you one, especially when the quote was immediately followed by my customary compliments to an actual one, Morris Dees. No, you just leap-frogged to your erroneous supposition, ignoring what I actually said but gleefully accusing me anyway of what you yourself just did.

I don't care if you're a man, a woman, or a real cat. I would never call you a southern gentleman even if you were male. I reserve the honorific 'southern gentleman' for the real McCoy. Jimmy Carter comes to mind as an excellent example.

[wilt the stilt]

26. Brer, of course there are nice southerners and liberals ones too.

I was just generalizing and taking the region as a whole.

[brer cat]

28. My point exactly, Wilt.

Generalizing puts a mixed bag of people into that whole you speak of.

Whatever, I am through with these threads.

[wilt the stilt]

33. there are always exceptions to the rule

but by and large I think my observations are correct.

[Uncle Joe]

38. That's what I've heard racists say when using the N word in front of an African American; that

was supposedly not the target of the slur.

Paraphrasing We're just calling some less enlightened black person (s) the N word, it doesn't apply to you.'

There is no difference between regionalism and racism both are generalities, the former based on skin color and the latter due to where someone was born and/or live.

If the South as a whole has a stronger identity to region more so than other regions, it doesn't mean it isn't equally committed to the nation, but more this being a result of psychological baggage from the Civil War.

Hatred breeds hatred and regionalism only breeds more regionalism.

Numerous threads by some here at D.U. actually calling for the South to secede combined with yours taking a minority phrase which to a large degree is more a joke than anything else only serves to magnify the regionalism you claim to despise.

Watch David Letterman, what's the nightly introduction?

"From New York the greatest city in the world!"

Do you believe that's not ego?

[wilt the stilt]

40. We are first generation people.

You said it right there. We in the south have a "stronger" identity than other regions. All I said is nowhere in the rest of the country does the populous identify more with the region than the nation. You did exactly what I said. As far as David Letterman he is not even a New Yorker. He's from Indiana.

I grew up in the fifties and our first thing all us Italians, Chinese, Jewish, Irish was first to be Americans. Right in your diatribe you are a southerner first. You, my sir proved my point.

[Uncle Joe]

41. I meant Letterman's Program which is based in New York, personally I have no problem with it, only

as an example to how every region uses hyperbole in promoting itself in one form or another.

I know David Letterman is from Indiana, he is always promoting the University there.

Your last paragraph is totally wrong, where in my post did I say I was a Southerner first?

Good luck finding it.

[wilt the stilt]

43. Really Uncle Joe

No region is like the south in proclaiming that they are "southern". "Northerners, westerners or midwesterners move all around the country. How many times have we heard the south is the most beautiful part of the country. Honestly, it's joke compared to the Rocky mountains and I have camped in the smoky's , N. Georgia and many places in the south. I have also been to Glacier, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain and Grand Canyon. It's not even in the same league.

My original title
"American by birth southern by the grace of God" is absolutely putting your region ahead of being an American. This was a common bumper sticker in the south. You will not find a comparable slogan like that anywhere else in the country.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Really wilt the stilt, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The United States has a treasure trove of beautiful sites to choose from, I believe it depends on what your sense of beauty is looking for.

The Rocky Mountains are definitely stunning but the Smoky Mountains autumn time brilliant colors exude a sort of spiritual warmth.

I've not only moved around the country but seen a relatively good piece of the world as well, I consider the Philippines to be a most beautiful tropical nation, although there was much poverty as well. I almost got married there.

Landing in Hawaii was lovely, the Pacific Ocean, mountains and a rainbow virtually all at once, sunny down low and raining in the mountains.

I made some beautiful pictures while up on Mt. Fuji in Japan but when the snow melted it turned to mud and then volcanic dust, not a good place to be at the time.

Some of what the eye of the beholder considers to be beautiful makes an emotional connection which may not having anything to do with standard definitions of beauty, I feel that way about old barns.

[wilt the stilt]

49. The NE is better for the changing leaves

The Taconic parkway in NY has over 20 different types of deciduous trees. The south doesn't even have natural lakes. The south is OK but it pales in comparison with many other areas in the country. Go to the Rocky Mountain(Montana) to see mountains, The Atlantic ocean is hardly breath taking compared to the Pacific and I grew up with the Atlantic.. The Pacific NW is spectacular. The south is ok but one of the things you hear in the south all the time is "this is the most beautiful area in the country but it isn't.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Like I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's all subjective.

I've seen the Pacific and the Atlantic floated to Turkey and Barcelona Spain but I thought the prettiest body of water was in the Carribean, a most beautiful turquoise.

[Art_from_Ark]

122. The South doesn't have (a lot of) natural lakes,

but that is through no fault of its own-- glaciation just didn't extend that far south during the last Ice Age. But there are natural lakes nonetheless, such as Lake Okeechobee in Florida and Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana. There are also lots of natural oxbow lakes along the Mississippi River, including Lake Chicot in Arkansas, Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, and Lake Providence in Louisiana.

And one of the most amazing wildlife scenes I ever saw was on a cold December morning at Lake Chicot, Arkansas, when I stood awestruck for an hour or more watching a seemingly endless stream of ducks gliding low over the waters of the lake.

[madinmaryland]

47. What the FUCK??? I grew up in northwest butt-fuck OHIO and New York City IS

the GREATEST city in the world.

[Uncle Joe]

48. No doubt.

[JDPriestly]

81. Better than Paris or Athens?

That's a big claim. Are you sure?

Paris is number one in my book, but there are a lot of cities I have not seen.

[JDPriestly]

80. The South pretty solidly fought to keep slavery.

The North readily abolished it in most cases.

The South fought integration and equality like nobody's business. I remember that fight.

Did you ever see a Jim Crow sign? It was a pretty awful sight.

Southern culture is obsessive. The people are all caught in it. It's so hard to say to someone who is all sugary and sweet on the outside that you are offended by their hatred and intolerance. So that makes it hard to be a liberal in the South. You are just silenced. I saw it happen to people, real liberals who, when they had to live in the South were intimidated by the rigid culture around them. And yes, part of that is the southern death grip on pride in the region.

I'm proud of California. Proud of the Midwest, but not like so many Southerners are about the South. It's really strange.

Texas governor Rick Perry has called out California as if he were seriously competing with our state to attract our industry. It's like he is a separate sovereign country that wants to steal our jobs. It's ridiculous. California wants to be healthy and solvent and have good jobs. We aren't trying to take the jobs from other states. What is that about?

Yet a lot of southern states are into that kind of economic cannibalism of their fellow countrymen. It's kind of sick. We are all Americans. We should be trying to improve the economies of our neighboring states, of our fellow Americans. Texans talk about seceding. That is unamerican by definition.

[Uncle Joe]

90. The South as a whole fought for a multitude of reasons, "regionalsim" being the prime reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confederate_States_of_America

Many southern whites had considered themselves more Southern than American and would fight for their state and their region to be independent of the larger nation. That regionalism became a Southern nationalism, or the "Cause". For the duration of its existence, the Confederacy underwent trial by war.[7] The "Southern Cause" transcended the ideology of "states' rights", tariff policy or internal improvements. It was based on lifestyle, values and belief system. Its "way of life" became sacred to its adherents. Everything of the South became a moral question, commingling love of things Southern and hatred of things Yankee (the North). Not only did national political parties split, but national churches and interstate families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached.[8]

In no states were the whites unanimous. There were minority views everywhere and the upland plateau regions in every state had strongholds of Unionist support, especially western Virginia and eastern Tennessee. South of the Mason–Dixon Line voter support for the three pro-Union candidates in 1860 ranged from 37% in Florida to 71% in Missouri.[9] It was an American tragedy, the Brothers' War according to some scholars, "brother against brother, father against son, kith against kin of every degree".[10]

Slavery was the major issue of the day, but regionalism fanned the flames and intensified the fighthing, that's why the promotion of regionalism here at D.U. is so dangerous.

The regionalism in the South was fed by its' isolation, being far more rural and less industrialized than the North and the primary means of information, newspapers.

Much of the South "Bubba" not the rich plantation owners believed they were fighting to defend their homes against invasion. Even to this day the U.S. isn't immune to propaganda in stirring up or brainwashing the people to wage war, ie; Spain blew up the Maine and Iraq has WMDs.

[JDPriestly]

92. Excuses. I learned history in the South. I know the lies they tell.

[Uncle Joe]

93. I just presented a neutral source supporting my contention and you have no rebuttal other

than "they."

[JDPriestly]

94. I heard all of that before.

The South isolates itself. Yes. I believe people thought they were fighting to protect their homes. So did the Germans in WWII.

At this point, that it is not the issue. Now, the issue is that they just don't want to admit they were wrong. They hold on to a culture that justifies a history of horrible hatred and wrongdoing. It is time that they change, that they give that up. The Tea-Baggers' willingness to shut down the government for some crazy obsession they have nurtured and to be unwilling to admit they lost the election and have to cede to the will of others in the country just brought it all back to me.

They still insisted on segregation, they still believed that race made some better, more deserving than others, after the Civil War was 100 years in the past. That was not about some strange isolation. That was ignorance and hatred. At some point the delusion in the South that their culture and hatred are somehow blessed by providence while the culture and progress of others are not, has to stop. At some point they have to become a part of the USA and stop identifying with the Rebels of the Confederacy. It's fine to know your history, but there are extremes. I really hope it will change.

[Uncle Joe]

95. The problem is even when the South changes and it is, "regionalists" don't want to take yes

for an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

Following the assassination attempt, Wallace was visited at the hospital by Democratic Congresswoman and presidential primary rival Shirley Chisholm,[51] a representative from Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn who at the time was the nation's only African-American female member of Congress. Despite their ideological differences and the opposition of Chisholm's constituents, Chisholm felt that to visit Wallace was the humane thing to do.

(snip)

In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.[note 3] In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over."[5]

In the 1982 Alabama gubernatorial Democratic primary, Wallace's main opponents were Lieutenant Governor George McMillan and Alabama House Speaker Joe McCorquodale. In the primary, McCorquodale was eliminated, and the vote went to a runoff, with Wallace holding a slight edge over McMillan. Wallace won the Democratic nomination by a margin of 51 to 49 percent. In the general election, his opponent was Montgomery Republican Mayor Emory Folmar. Polling experts at first thought the 1982 election was the best chance since Reconstruction for a Republican to be elected as governor of Alabama.[citation needed] Ultimately, though, it was Wallace, not Folmar, who made the victory speech on election night.

Wallace's final term as governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to state positions.[54] In his fourth term, Wallace became the first governor to appoint two black members in the same cabinet, a number that has been equaled but never surpassed.

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd

WASHINGTON, DC - The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

It's always "they" as if they; weren't human subject to the same human frailties as yourself.

There is nothing "strange" about isolation, it was indeed factual and can be a universal dynamic it happened to the U.S. when the corporate media towed the Bush/Cheney line hook and sinker convincing a great majority of the American People that Iraq had WMDs and posed an imminent threat.

The Teabaggers are a fringe of the Republican Party and that party is in the throes of self-destruction.

The only thing that can save them, is the promotion of regionalsim stoked by Democrats such a few members here at D.U. continually advocate.

[cordelia]

50. Which is a totally unfair thing to do.

[JDPriestly]

79. Having lived in the South, I see Southerners as victims of their own narrow culture.

It's been a long time since I lived or visited there, but when I see the southern Tea-Baggers, it all comes back as it did when I read The Help. The memories of the backwardness, of the rigid social order. It's all there.

It isn't a matter of individuals. It is a matter of a culture that suffocates its local critics. They all have to leave or lose their friends. Jimmy Carter, I believe, left the Baptist Church, of which he was a loyal leader for many years. I have another southern friend who was a Baptist pastor and left that church. Yet the Baptist Church is the gold standard for Southern morality and religiosity.

It's very sad, but it is the culture. And the people who have to live in that culture but have good hearts have difficulty overcoming the evil of what is around them. It isn't about the individuals. It is about the culture that sculpts the niches into which the people have to fit the ideas they express. There are just certain thoughts that are unacceptable in the South except in private.

And yet the people are oh so sweet. It is a poisonous sweetness. It is not honest. And it isn't the way the people are inside. It is the culture that permits no straightforward expression and forces most people, nearly everyone into conformity.

Physical lynchings are a thing of the past, but I'm not so sure about spiritual and psychological ones.

[In_The_Wind]

5. I was born down south 65 years ago.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Tigress DEM]

10. Have you seen a lot of progress in that time?

And has it come to a halt and gone into reverse since Obama got elected?

[In_The_Wind]

13. I haven't been home in a long time.

It looked pretty much the same last time I was driving through southern states.

[Fastcars]

6. Doesn't it reflect poorly on your son

That he would be a part of a such a terrible frat system at a horribly racist institution?

[Tigress DEM]

11. Of those available, it IS the most progressive.

That there is ANY tiny bit of room for a progressive attitude on that campus speaks to the inroads made and that more are possible.

That kid is doing harder work just living day to day as a liberal under fire than those of us up North who can do more, be more and advocate more. HE shows them that tolerance CAN NOT be erradicated even after years and years of constant effort, after lynchings and cross burnings. He irritates the Hell out of them just by being there. I say, "Rock on kid!"

[JDPriestly]

82. You should be very proud of your son. It's really tough being a liberal in the South.

You don't get social points for it. Really hard.

[wilt the stilt]

25. not at all

his is the most diverse. African Americans, Asians(he is one), Indians.this is generally a good bunch of kids and frats and sororities are pretty big in college.

[Mariana]

74. When a minority student attends such an institution

it does not "reflect poorly" on him in any way.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. Its that type of loyalty to the region

That drives all the Republic of Texas loons down here.

But, in all fairness, loyalty to the region is not just limited to the south. Almost everyone agrees that pork barrel politics is not in the nations best interest, yet people will often put their region first when it comes to something that will benefit their themselves personally.

Its far more endemic and taken to far greater extreme in southern culture, but there are people all over the country that will put the good of their region above their country in some fashion.

[p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;]

[div style='color: #B20000;font-size: 2.000em'] [center] Not all those who wander are LOST!!! [/center]

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Good observation.

Your post made me realize that I've become more loyal to my region (the Pacific Northwest) than I am to the nation as a whole, too. As I've said in other threads, I think the days of the currently-constituted nation as a continent-spanning mega-country are numbered.

[curlyred]

12. Southern by birth, American by the grace of God

[theaocp]

14. It's an interesting thought

that I've had about the country for a while now. I've always thought the country is too big to be truly homogenous. We should really be four, if not more, countries. Sorry for the lack of patriotism in advance. Cheers.

[Lex]

18. People's families have been in the south so many generations, not migrating

all over the country, and not pulling up stakes and moving to points north and west, thus you get generation after generation with a strong identification with place.

[pintobean]

34. Like "native" Californians.

Many people are proud of their region, heritage and culture.

[Lex]

39. Exactly. nt

[pstokely]

131. Lots of Yankees moving to the South

NT

[Tigress DEM]

19. I think it's deeper than that. They pine for Southern Glory Days.

More and more I think there are liberals and liberal mentality gaining a foot hold or two down South, so it isn't those persons I think about when I think about the general political climate. I think of those who dig their heels in and try to STOP that progress. THE VERY PEOPLE OUR FELLOW DUers are up AGAINST every day for any progress to be made at all.

I come from the West Coast originally, been midwest 30 years now. In some ways I can not fathom the South at all. Intellectually it makes no sense to me, but I have grandkids so I'm used to dealing with non-logic.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html They have all kinds of specific issues with tarrifs and Jefferson expanding powers and Supreme Court, but beneath all of that is the fact that they are looking for someone to blame for their loss of fine civilization.

They see the destruction of their region and believe that being forced to give up slavery was the beginning and then the more rights up to including one of those people becoming President has ripped a hole in their collective minds. The rich in the South were civilized and the rest repressed to provide that civilization. It was working for them. We Northerners forced our solution for "everyone" on them and they may have lost but they just don't forget the beauty of those times for those at the top. How simple it was for them.

Real equality is a bitch. Seriously. Not just for the South but for everyone. Northerners who deal with 30 below understand some things just ARE and not a damm thing you can do about it. IF you believe in human rights, you don't get to allow some humans more rights than others. And the South is not the only area of the country to fall short in that category.

[IrishAyes]

20. You said it, pal.

But oh how the Southern Apologists have gnashed their teeth on DU of late. They seem especially pissed when I say that's tantamount to defending White Supremacy. Then they accuse me of slamming the entire South no matter how much I say that NO region has the right to declare itself a Sacred Cow above all reproach. They generally follow up with a pretzel-twisting contest about my actual words.

So as far as I'm concerned, they can go fly a kite. Doesn't matter how sincerely I declare my love and respect for such Southern stalwarts as Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, etc. No, IA is a region basher to beat all region bashers.

For some reason I wonder how many of them have made the SPLC - which does REAL work instead of spewing empty hot air - the major beneficiary in their will as I have. But no, the biggest and loudest talkers think they can purge the Democratic Party of anyone they don't endorse. "Move along," I'm told by my imaginary betters. Of course until they get called on it enough, and then they start preaching unity and inclusion so they can better paint people who call them out with the divisionist tar brush.

Frankly, it makes my head spin. Such whiplash tactics convince me that they're just as prejudiced and nutty as any TP in the world.

[Ezlivin]

21. Son of the Confederacy checking in

As a Southerner raised by a Florida "Cracker" and from a family with strong Southern roots (Jamestown -> Carolinas -> Georgia -> Florida) and a great-grandfather who was a slaveholder let me add something.

Southern families can also "train up" their children to remain loyal to Southern values. My father tried very hard to make me into a racist (making me get up to change the channel when a "ni**er" came on). There is a lot of pressure to "fit in" and be a "good Southern boy" which basically means accepting the values taught to you.

I joined the Navy to get the hell out of there; the best man at my wedding (to a Yankee) was Nate. He was black. As was the bridesmaid. So fucking what. When I returned home after a few years I saw the wedding photo sitting on an end table; it had been cut so that only my wife and I were in the frame. "It didn't fit the frame," my mother helpfully explained.

There are things I love about the South, but there is a lot of willful ignorance. Racism is still widespread, but it's "closeted" and people are careful how they speak in public. They know it's wrong, but it's hard for them to change a belief system in which they've been raised.

But don't give up on the South and those of us who still live here. I'm an liberal atheist vegetarian who supports LGBT and minority rights, for instance. We're down here.

Ya'll just don't hear a lot about us.

[Tigress DEM]

128. Y'all are the quiet group.

Just read a book about one of the survivors of the Birmingham bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, Carolyn Maull McKinstry. She talks a lot about how if you didn't have the majority viewpoint you just shut yourself up and how so many whites who did stand up for them got killed.

It was a deep down sad book because she described so well how pervasive the racism is even after years of legal victories.

I'm sure your family loves you even though they have this area of willful ignorance. Hopefully they will learn from you and at least your children will be better buds from the south, not raised in the steep of hatred. I'm sure they will have to deal with it but not be forced to carry on that tradition.

The violence that's been on the rise by police on blacks really is what scares me the most. Authority abused and people without recourse against it. Texas is the biggest offender. Florida the most noticed.

[A Little Weird]

22. That has not been my experience at all

I can't think of anyone who would identify with the south more than with the country. I think most would put state above region. Even the racist, teabagger assholes I know would identify as American before southern. But maybe it's more of a thing in the deep south.

[cordelia]

53. It's not a thing in the deep South. It's just one more swipe at the region with a

bigot's broad brush.

[pintobean]

56. Yup

I can't help but wonder why he has stayed there for so many years.

[wilt the stilt]

88. if it wasn't for my kids I would be out of here

we went to Denver a couple of years ago to check it out. I tried to move the entire family out there but my wife has too many friends here(she doesn't like to uproot). If it was up to me I would be backing up the moving truck today.

[Art_from_Ark]

117. Denver has its own problems

Smog, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, highest environmental radiation levels of a major American city, relatively high crime rate (43 crimes per 1000 population). And their airport has one of the weirdest set of murals you'll ever see at an airport.

[wilt the stilt]

118. smog you say smog

actually Denver is bidding to be a clean air city. They have done 2 things to improve that. They went to street sweeping and oxygenated gasoline and turned around their air issue. As far as traffic have you ever been in Atlanta. Right up there with Houston.
There was study out and the south has the worst air regionally in the nation. I believe it is due to the humidity. Even small cities like Chattanooga has bad air.

[Art_from_Ark]

121. I think the West actually has the worst air quality

especially California.

This site lists the 11 cities in the US with the dirtiest air. California has the lion's share. Three are Ohio River cities, and only 1 city is in the Deep South (Birmingham, Alabama).

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20490855,00.html

And today's air quality map also shows the West to have the dirtiest air (for today at least). The yellow area straddling Arkansas and Louisiana is most likely due to the paper mills that dot the area.

http://airnow.gov/

[wilt the stilt]

129. check this out

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0309-04.htm

Southeast Cities Lead the Nation in Air Pollution from Cars and Trucks: Nashville, Atlanta, Greensboro, and Raleigh Top the List

WASHINGTON - March 9 - Cities in the Southeast are first in the nation for air pollution from vehicles, according to a report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. With the U.S. House of Representatives poised to consider what likely will be a more than $300 billion transportation bill, Nashville, Atlanta, Greensboro, and Raleigh lead the nation for the most air pollution from cars and trucks, per capita, among large cities.

More Highways, More Pollution finds that building new roads will do little to alleviate traffic congestion in the long run and likely will exacerbate already severe air pollution problems in cities across the country. Cities with the most highways tend to have the worst air pollution from cars and trucks, according to the report. Nashville, which is first in the nation for air pollution from vehicles, ranks second for the most highway capacity and third for the most miles driven, per capita, among large cities. In 2003, Nashville received an "F" grade from the American Lung Association for its air quality.

"Roads and air pollution go hand-in-hand," said U.S. PIRG Clean Air Advocate Emily Figdor, "and air pollution is linked to asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease, and early deaths."

Half of all Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone smog. Air pollution contributes to asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease, and tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. While vehicles coming off today's assembly lines are 80 to 99 percent cleaner per mile than those of the 1960s, cars and trucks remain a leading source of air pollution because of the dramatic increase in driving. From 1970 to 2002, the number of vehicle-miles traveled in urban areas tripled from 570 billion to 1.73 trillion miles. In Nashville, people drive a total of 23,300 miles every day, or 35 miles per resident per day.

More Highways, More Pollution analyzes Federal Highwa

[Art_from_Ark]

130. There's no way that Nashville has worse air than Los Angeles

"Los Angeles may boast some of the best weather among U.S. cities while scoring high in celebrity sightings, but the Southern California metropolis remains unable to shake off its more notorious No. 1 rankings for worst smog and heaviest traffic."

And in the same article:

"Nearly 90 percent of Californians, or 33.5 million people, live in areas plagued by unhealthy air, especially in Los Angeles, the so-called Inland Empire region east of the city, the state capital of Sacramento, and the agricultural heartland of the San Joaquin Valley, the group's study found."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-24/news/sns-rt-us-usa-losangeles-lifebre93o00s-20130424_1_ozone-pollution-inrix-air-quality

[wilt the stilt]

133. I live in the SE

and the air is really bad in the summer. Atlanta is horrible. Now I agree LA may top the cake but the humidity down here just holds it in. in your original article Birmingham was worse than Atlanta. There are some mountains next to Birmingham that might hold in the air but the traffic in Atlanta is mind boggling. When it is hot and humid it is god awful.

[Art_from_Ark]

135. The worst air I ever experienced was in Los Angeles

I was walking near the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the air was so bad, my eyes hurt.

The air in the so-called Inland Empire (San Bernardino area) can be so bad in summer that you can't see the San Bernardino Mountains from I-10, even though they're only 7 or 8 miles away.

The third-worst air was in Boulder, Colorado in the winter when smog rolled in from Denver and was trapped by a temperature inversion.

[wilt the stilt]

136. all that is true

and usually in CO the air goes west to east. That being said the south is bad everywhere from Birmingham to Atlanta to even small cities like Chattanooga. I do not believe anywhere is the south is trying for the designation of a "clean air city". Denver has worked hard at it by going to street sweeping(particulate matter) and oxygenated gasoline that has done wonders.

[Hoyt]

59. Not since Obama was elected.

[Fastcars]

23. Not sure about the site itself but these numbers agree with what I have read over the years.

"In the 20th century, while comprising only about 25% of the general population, the South provided more than her fair share of troops for wars that truly served no interests of the South. Southerners made up 26% of the armed forces during WWI, 34% during WWII, 35% of the troops in Korea, 36% of the men in Vietnam, and an astounding 41% in the Persian Gulf War. In WWII, Texas A&M alone provided more officers to America's military branches than West Point and Annapolis combined (or any other university for that matter). Ironically, as the U.S. in general, and the government in particular, become increasingly hostile toward the South, Southerners have increasingly served the American Empire's military needs."

http://csapartisan.tripod.com/essays/SHSP.htm

[JustAnotherGen]

85. Note - In Vietnam

There were many black Southerners serving. By force . . . My dad joined during the end of Korea and served to become not only one of the first Green Berets - but the first black one. As an officer he saw the same thing from say - poor Italian and Irish draftees from North East cities as he did rural blacks from Jimmy Crow - had never owned their very own toothbrush until Uncle Sam said, "this is what you are good for". Point blank - those groups couldn't buy their way out of the draft and specifically down South - the local draft boards deliberately sent poor, young black men to the slaughter.

[sulphurdunn]

29. Approximately 100,000

Southerners enlisted in the Union Army during the Civil War. Tens of thousand more joined as their homes were liberated. Forty percent of military officers from Virginia remained in the Union Army. An underground railroad ran along the Blue Ridge to move Southern Unionists from NE Tennessee, SW Virginia and Western North Carolina to Kentucky and West Virginia to enlist. Every Southern state except So. Carolina contributed at least one Union battalion or regiment to the "War of Northern Aggression." West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy. General Longstreet attributed the final defeat of the Confederacy partly to his failure to capture Knoxville because he was unable to halt resupply to the city by rural Unionists.

The revisionist history of the Lost Cause and its companion, the Plantation Myth, portraying the last stand of a noble and chivalrous gentry and their loyal slaves was invented postbellum by the reemergent aristocracy that had launched the war. Most southerners rejected such nonsense long ago. They are American patriots. Far more of them have served in the armed forces of the United States than ever served in the Confederacy. For every Stars and Bars flying down here there are a hundred Stars and Stripes.

[IrishAyes]

31. That's all very well and good,

and I hope you realize/remember we're not necessarily bashing the entire South when we say that 1% (or whatever percentage it may be) can raise enough hell all on their own. And my personal experience and observations, with reports on the ground from friends there, all convince me that your estimate is far too low. The danger of secessionist insanity needs to be stopped wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.

[sulphurdunn]

32. The elite of no red state

north or south, east or west but especially in the South have any secessionist plans. It's not 1860. It isn't even 1960. Using secessionist and state's right rhetoric to loot the public coffer is the real goal of the faux secessionist movement. They wouldn't dream of killing the federal goose that lays their golden eggs.

[IrishAyes]

35. You've got a good point there. But I guarantee you the yoemen are dead serious. & deadly.

They had to quit spouting off about assassination plans around here in my presence because I told the ones crazy enough to buttonhole me that I'd report them to the FBI. Which I did, incidentally. At least it got the kooks off my back awhile. If there's a plant in their ranks, he/she might've cooled the hotter jets. I've noticed of late that they very seldom bother me directly any more. That's a big improvement over outspoken death threats toward 'race traitors'. But they still play soldier in the woods on weekends, so who knows what devilry they're planning. Do I object to possible federal infiltration of paramilitary gangs? Not any more than I object to their infiltrating the klan.

OWS is over the top, though. Those people were harming no one and trying to right a grave wrong.

[sulphurdunn]

36. In any rampaging horde

there exists the danger that the spear carriers will mutiny and the horde's intended victims will begin to mount a serious defense. That I hope is the current threat to the Republican Party and will lead to its demise.

[IrishAyes]

37. So the fox chases the hounds...

[sulphurdunn]

42. My father was an ILWU member

for 40 years. He always referred to Harry Bridges as "my favorite commie."

[IrishAyes]

55. A lot of the men did, from what I hear - and it made Harry laugh.

That was one thing about him - he loved his men and hung out in the hiring halls even when retired.

Did you know that his father had quite a real estate rental empire going and that when Harry was old enough he got sent around to collect rents and evict people who were behind. But he couldn't stand to do it and shipped out on a boat for America, or so the story goes. True or not, it fit him. I've got 2 pictures of him sitting shoeless on the wooden deck of the old steamer, and another of him standing barefooted at the wheel. Love those pictures.

My uncle left his 50-yr pin to me; I've always wanted to leave it to the Harry Bridges Institute, and they're interested. But lately it's occurred to me that I should do that now, because who knows if my wishes will all be followed after I'm gone? That pin is an important part of labor history.

[Logical]

44. What is your point? This changes what? n-t

[sulphurdunn]

87. It was to make clear

that civil strife is far more about psychology than geography and that the root and branch of political evil is watered by ruling elites, not common people.

[Logical]

45. Good honest post. Good information. Many here will dismiss it. n-t

[cordelia]

51. I dismiss it because it's horseshit. More broadbrushing.

[Logical]

60. Lol, thanks for making my point! Classic! nt

[pintobean]

63. You didn't have a point.

[Logical]

65. Born and raised in Kansas, but not too clueless to defend this GOP...

shithole! Idiots are running this state.
I am not going to try to say how many dems live here because we are a minority.
I am not going to use silly examples of past great dems. It means nothing.
I would be embarrassed to defend Kansas!
I am working to change it but refuse to defend this state like it is!
Get it now Einstein?

[pintobean]

69. You basically posted a +1

Great point.

[Hoyt]

61. It's some more truth you don't want to admit. No one is criticizing you,

or other Southern liberals, but those fuckers with confederate flags at UGA need some educating. As do the the majority of yahoos who elect the Brouns, Deals, Chamblisss, etc.

[Logical]

66. +1000! nt

[pintobean]

70. Great point.

[closeupready]

54. Kind of a slap at atheists, IMO.

Oh well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. People just do NOT want to believe this shit....They have no idea how often that Confederate Battle

flag is seen...

People just don't want to believe their is more racism than what they have been exposed to...that people in the South will declare themselves not a racist...and use the "N" word in the exact same breath...without batting an eye....

I also know people who will flat out tell you that "women are equal now" too...so..

[Uncle Joe]

67. How often is it seen and how many people fly it considering there are nearly 115 million people

living in the South as of 2010?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

Apart from its climate, the living experience in the South increasingly resembles the rest of the nation. The arrival of millions of Northerners (especially in major metropolitan areas and coastal areas)[14] and millions of Hispanics[15] means the introduction of cultural values and social norms not rooted in Southern traditions.[16][17] Observers conclude that collective identity and Southern distinctiveness are thus declining, particularly when defined against "an earlier South that was somehow more authentic, real, more unified and distinct".[18] The process has worked both ways, however, with aspects of Southern culture spreading throughout a greater portion of the rest of the United States in a process termed "Southernization".[19]

(snip)

As defined by the United States Census Bureau,[1] the Southern region of the United States includes sixteen states. As of 2010, an estimated 114,555,744 people, or thirty-seven percent of all U.S. residents, lived in the South, the nation's most populous region.[22] The Census Bureau defined three smaller units, or divisions:

One lunatic flies it Washingtion D.C. and posters here are ready to write off or cede to the Republicans over a third of the nation.

[RainDog]

58. The confederate flag is no different than the swastika

I'm from the south, white, and, to me, flying that flag is as evil and abhorrent as someone flying a swastika. White people I know think of it in the same way.

So, tell your son that, while he may not want to make waves among his peers, by associating himself with those people, he is guilty of aligning himself with those who were the equivalent of Nazis putting Jewish children into gas chambers.

If you or anyone else here thinks he or she can claim these two are not equivalent - maybe you're right.

Slavery was worse than the holocaust because it lasted longer and killed and dehumanized more people.

So, see, the problem is that people will allow this sort of display and mindset that it's all about "region" to continue, when the reality is that it's a mindset that is void of humanity.

The problem, too, is that white people continue to participate, for their individual benefit, in racism by using their access to institutions, etc. that engage in outright and symbolic racism to further their careers, their success, etc. Until white people recognize they perpetuate the legacy of slavery by their silence about its continued expressions, the south will continue to be the object of scorn.

No other part of the nation flies a flag equivalent to the swastika for frat parties and thinks it's all just fun or somewhat embarrassing. It's a blight.

[Hoyt]

62. Exactly, and that yellow "Gadsden" flag has been usurped as a symbol of hatred.

[Uncle Joe]

68. Both are most definitely evil but they're not equivalent by a long shot. If the U.S. or South had

been practiciing genocide all those years, there wouldn't be any African Americans alive in the U.S.

Unless they just recently migrated long after the fact.

I like you RainDog, but I disagree on this.

[RainDog]

71. Yes. Slavery was worse

I like you, too, Uncle Joe, but on this, you are wrong. Sorry, but that's reality.

You discount the numbers of Africans who died BEFORE THEY LEFT AFRICA or those who died enroute to the U.S. You do not know how many Africans were worked to death. You don't know how many women were raped by their white slave holders - but I can be fairly certain that those numbers were greater than the numbers of those killed or raped by the Nazis because slavery existed for hundreds of years. Hundreds. Records exist. Those that do indicate a total disregard for human life among the slavers. Total.

It's astonishing to me that you can pretend that the only measure of the Nazis was the final solution - that's the most extreme measure, but Jews were also kept in work camps and worked to death, women were raped by men holding them captive...The real measure, however, is inhumanity.

Southerners didn't want to exterminate Africans - they wanted to treat them like animals, stolen from their homes and later bred for the slave holder's personal profit. This system was just as abhorrent as the decision to treat Jews as animals - the goal for the two was different - reflected in urban vs. rural and industrial vs. agricultural economies.

The hatred and dehumanization are the same - and THIS is something that needs to be accepted as reality - because the two systems were equally evil.

http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/from-africa-to-america/atlantic-crossing/people-taken-from-africa/

How many Africans were taken from Africa through enslavement? There are no complete records and estimates vary from a few millions to 100,000,000 people. Most historians today think that, according to the shipping records available, between 9 and 11 million people were taken out of Africa by European slave traders and landed alive on the other side of the Atlantic. One researcher gives the higher, very detailed figure of 11,863,000...Careful records were kept of all trade voyages, and from these records people can today work out fairly accurate figures for all types of trade.

Many numbers were not recorded. Untold numbers of enslaved people died without ever reaching the Americas. They died at the hands of the African traders who took them from their homes in ‘slave raids’ in Africa. They also died on the forced march from their homes to the coast. People died awaiting sale in buildings, called slave forts, on the coast. Many died on board the ships that took them across the Atlantic Ocean, from Africa to the Americas. There are virtually no records for these aspects of the slave trade. It is possible that as many people died in Africa as were taken out of the country (estimated at between 9 and 11 million).

Bristol traders were probably responsible for shipping over half a million enslaved Africans, about one-fifth of the total. This number seems comparatively small compared to Liverpool’s later record of 1.5 million. Between 1698 and 1807, the slave trade was open to all traders and merchants who wanted to take part. Before that it was restricted to one group of merchants in London, the Royal African Company. Bristol’s role in the early years of the trade, after 1698, established important trading connections which stimulated the growth of Britain’s trade in slaves.

There are few records for slave deaths at the West African coast. One record does refer to these deaths. The business papers of James Rogers, one of the biggest slave traders in the city, are preserved in the Public Record Office. These papers show that out of 939 slaves bought for Rogers during 1790, 203 died before they were put on board ship.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery

Approximately 11,863,000 Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, with a death rate during the Middle Passage reducing this number by 10-20 percent. As a result between 9.6 and 10.8 million Africans arrived in the Americas.

Slaves suffered a variety of maladies--such as blindness, abdominal swelling, bowed legs, skin lesions, and convulsions--that may have been caused by beriberi (caused by a deficiency of thiamine), pellagra (caused by a niacin deficiency), tetany (caused by deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and Vitamin D), rickets (also caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D), and kwashiorkor (caused by severe protein deficiency).

Diarrhea, dysentery, whooping cough, and respiratory diseases as well as worms pushed the infant and early childhood death rate of slaves to twice that experienced by white infants and children.

I could go on, with more stats that indicate the genocide that was part of the slave trade, but the reality is that the slave trade is this nation's equivalent to the holocaust. But worse.

[Gravitycollapse]

72. Dumbest argument ever. This isn't a genocide pissing contest.

Jesus. Some of the shit I see on this site boggles the mind.

[Uncle Joe]

73. As my first sentence stated, they were both most definitely evil but the people weren't taken away

from Africa just for the sake of killing them.

I'm not by any stretch discounting the deaths of Africans which occurred due to horrendous conditiions and brutal slave traders or owners but there was no deliberate policy to eradicate the African People as a race.

As cold as it may sound the idea of slavery was all about profit so keeping them alive was of importance.

The Nazis never had any intention of allowing the Jews to live, the Final Solution which came about in 1942 was the culmination of what they had intended all along.

The German Guards were having nervous breakdowns from initially executing so many Jews every single day just by shooting them. The Nazis couldn't kill them fast enough, that's why they built the gas chambers.

PBS had a documentary titled "The Holocaust" last year which covered this in depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

Massacres of about one million Jews occurred before the plans of the Final Solution were fully implemented in 1942, but it was only with the decision to eradicate the entire Jewish population that the extermination camps were built and industrialized mass slaughter of Jews began in earnest. This decision to systematically kill the Jews of political Europe (inclusive of the Jews in Vichy North Africa) was made either by the time of or at the Wannsee Conference, which took place in Berlin, in the Wannsee Villa on January 20, 1942. It occurred very shortly after the Babi Yar massacre was carried out and the conference was chaired by Reinhard Heydrich. He was acting under the authority given to him by Reichsmarschall Göring in a letter dated July 31, 1941. Göring instructed Heydrich to devise "...the solution of the Jewish problem..." During the conference, there was a discussion by the group of Nazi officials as how best to handle the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question". A surviving copy of the minutes of this meeting[2] was found by the Allies in 1947, too late to serve as evidence during the first Nuremberg Trials.

By the summer of 1942, Operation Reinhard began the systematic extermination of the Jews, although hundreds of thousands had already been killed by death squads and in mass pogroms. Heinrich Himmler's speech at the Posen Conference of October 6, 1943, for the first time, clearly elucidated to all assembled leaders of the Reich that the "Final Solution" meant that "all Jews would be killed".[3]

[RainDog]

75. The point in fact was that genocide was part of the slave trade

The point was that the slavers didn't care if people died until they could be put to work. The records of actual deaths aren't complete, but from those that do exist, we know the slave trade was genocidal.

The point is that this was a systemic abuse of one group of people by another people for the purpose of economic and political power.

The holocaust didn't come out of nowhere. The legacy of the holocaust is the legacy of religious hatred among Christians for those of other religions - a legacy that, btw, was disproportionate to Christians in Europe from the time of the beginning of the rise of global economies in western Europe.

During the middle ages, when Spain was under muslim rule, they had more religious tolerance for others, including Jews, than Christians did.

The two systems, therefore, evolved in the same place, within the same culture.

One targeted Jews (and Muslims, but when so many of them were expelled from Europe during the same time as Jews, they went south, while many Jews migrated north and west.) The other targeted Africans.

Both were systems that dehumanized "the other" for their own gain. Both gained political power by this dehumanization.

One has a far more long-lasting legacy simply because it was allowed to exist for so long. That legacy includes genocide.

I think there's a lot of denial in the south among white people about just how horrific the legacy of slavery was. I think it's important for whites to talk to whites about the real horror of that legacy.

genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation. the slave trade engaged in genocide.

[Uncle Joe]

76. Slavery has been a human curse long before the Moors ruled Spain

the ancient Egyptians enslaved the Jews, this wasn''t just a province of Christian intolerance.

Of course Ancient Greece and Rome had slavery as well, during Roman times Christians were the slaves.

Having said that, there is a significant difference between slavery and genocide, while both dehumanize are evil and repugnant, the latter is specifically aimed at extermination, no quarter, no surrender, you simply aren't allowed to live period.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide?s=t&path=/

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

This is one of milder pictures of genocide, there are pics of bulldozers pushing piles upon piles of dead bodies in to mass graves.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blprisoner16.htm

Auschwitz Picture: Corpses of Women Piled Up on the Floor of Block 11

I want say to this one more time, I am in no way diminishing the cruelty, barbarity and inhumanity of slavery but it's not the same as deliberate extermination of an entire race of peoples.

I'm going to bed for the night.

Peace to you, RainDog.

[RainDog]

77. Yes. Slavery existed for a long time

But the way that slavery existed was different in different places and the slavery that existed in the U.S. was, by far, the MOST BRUTAL of any known system. If you think that the middle passage didn't participate in the deliberate extermination of Africans, you have to discount that the slavers made economic decisions to create subhuman conditions, knowing that a percentage of those slaves would not make it through the journey alive.

But they made these exact calculations.

Not that they wanted to lose the slaves, but the economics of the trade itself accounted for loss compared to what it would cost to transport human cargo. How much it cost to feed someone versus how much it cost to transport x number of humans. How much someone could be mistreated before they would be a potential loss.

In the Greek system, and even in the colonies, early on, people could assimilate into the society in which they were enslaved, more often than not.

The American system (because, truth be told, although slaves were held in the south, such practices were often financed by the north) denied the humanity of the slaves and, therefore, denied their capacity for freedom.

As I said before, the inhumanity of the slave trade lasted longer, killed more people, and treated more people as subhuman - that, again, is the basis for my statement that the slave trade was, systemically, worse than the holocaust.

The holocaust existed at a time when mass execution was possible, technologically and economically. If whites had had the capacity to exterminate blacks in this nation, rather than lynch them, in the twentieth century, I have no doubt this nation could've had the very same history.

As it is, we have centuries of slavery followed by another century of genocide - with the willful targeting of one group for extermination through lynching. No, not technologically as sophisticated, but the ideology - the hate - behind it is the same.

This is, in many ways, an apples and oranges issue.

The point, from the beginning, to me, is that the swastika and the confederate flag are equivalent in their repulsiveness and in the ideology that they stand for - which is, as I said before, inhumanity.

If you want to pretend there's some argument to be made by saying slavery wasn't as horrific as the holocaust, I can't understand this.

[RainDog]

83. When you kill 10 million Africans, you aren't called Hitler

http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/when-you-kill-ten-million-africans-you-arent-called-hitler/

You're called King Leopold II of Belgium, who ruled during the late 1800s.

He “owned” the Congo during his reign as the constitutional monarch of Belgium. After several failed colonial attempts in Asia and Africa, he settled on the Congo. He “bought” it and enslaved its people, turning the entire country into his own personal slave plantation. He disguised his business transactions as “philanthropic” and “scientific” efforts under the banner of the International African Society. He used their enslaved labor to extract Congolese resources and services. His reign was enforced through work camps, body mutilations, executions, torture, and his private army.

Most of us aren’t taught about him in school. We don’t hear about him in the media. He’s not part of the widely repeated narrative of oppression (which includes things like the Holocaust during World War II). He’s part of a long history of colonialism, imperialism, slavery and genocide in Africa that would clash with the social construction of the white supremacist narrative in our schools. It doesn’t fit neatly into a capitalist curriculum. Making overtly racist remarks is (sometimes) frowned upon in polite society, but it’s quite fine not to talk about genocides in Africa perpetrated by European capitalist monarchs.

...You see, when you kill ten million Africans, you aren’t called ‘Hitler’. That is, your name doesn’t come to symbolize the living incarnation of evil. Your name and your picture don’t produce fear, hatred, and sorrow. Your victims aren’t talked about and your name isn’t remembered.

Leopold was just one part of thousands of things that helped construct white supremacy as both an ideological narrative and material reality. Of course I don’t want to pretend that in the Congo he was the source of all evil. He had generals, and foot soldiers, and managers who did his bidding and enforced his laws. It was a system. But that doesn’t negate the need to talk about the individuals who are symbolic of the system. But we don’t even get that. And since it isn’t talked about, what capitalism did to Africa, all the privileges that rich white people gained from the Congolese genocide are hidden. The victims of imperialism are made, like they usually are, invisible.

Leopold also intended to exploit the labor of Africans. That so many died as the result, and that these deaths remain largely "unremarked" simply means that those who tell about history in the west decide to leave out many acts of genocide that were part of one nation or another's policies.

It doesn't mean they weren't genocide.

Leopold's image, however, should invoke as much horror as Hiter's. And the confederate flag should invoke as much horror as the swastika, because the confederate flag is the symbol of the African holocaust in the U.S.

[Uncle Joe]

89. Yes, Leopold II committed genocide and slavery of that I don't disagree and he came to power

after the Confederacy ended in December of 1865.

Furthermore white supremacy was the basis of both slavery and genocide, but it's not the only basis.

The Hutus also committed genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda but they didn't commit slavery, the two can be exclusive.

However even Mark Twain never believed the Confederacy committed genocide, for a brief period of time, Mark Twain actually joined the Confederacy before he deserted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium

Estimates of the death toll range from two million to fifteen million.[4][5][6] Determining precisely how many people died is next to impossible as accurate records were not kept. Louis and Stengers state that population figures at the start of Leopold's control are only "wild guesses", while E. D. Morel's attempt and others at coming to a figure for population losses were "but figments of the imagination".[7]

Adam Hochschild devotes a chapter of his book, King Leopold's Ghost, to the problem of estimating the death toll. He cites several recent lines of investigation, by anthropologist Jan Vansina and others, examining local sources from police records, religious records, oral traditions, genealogies, personal diaries, and "many others", which generally agree with the assessment of the 1919 Belgian government commission: roughly half the population perished during the Free State period. Since the first official census by the Belgian authorities in 1924 put the population at about 10 million, that implies a rough estimate of 10 million dead.[8]

(snip)

Reports of outrageous exploitation and widespread human rights abuses led to international outcry in the early 1900s leading to a widespread war of words. The campaign to examine Leopold's regime, led by British diplomat Roger Casement and former shipping clerk E. D. Morel under the auspices of the Congo Reform Association, became the first mass human rights movement.[3] Supporters included American writer Mark Twain, who wrote a stinging political satire entitled King Leopold's Soliloquy, in which the King supposedly argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation using many of his own quotes against him. Rubber gatherers were tortured, maimed and slaughtered until the start of the 20th century, when the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.[11]

Leopold's rule was subject to severe criticism, especially from British sources. Arthur Conan Doyle also criticised the 'rubber regime' in his 1908 work The Crime of the Congo, written to aid the work of the Congo Reform Association. Doyle contrasted Leopold's rule to the British rule of Nigeria, arguing decency required that those who ruled primitive peoples to be concerned first with their uplift, not how much could be extracted from them. It should be noted that, as Hochschild describes in King Leopold's Ghost, many of Leopold's policies were adopted from Dutch practices in the East Indies, and similar methods were employed to some degree by Germany, France and Portugal where natural rubber occurred in their colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

At the start of the Civil War, Twain enlisted briefly in a Confederate local unit. He then left for Nevada to work for his brother, a senior official in the Federal government.[21] Twain later wrote a sketch, "The Private History of a Campaign That Failed," which told how he and his friends had been Confederate volunteers for two weeks before disbanding their company.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_History_of_a_Campaign_That_Failed

"The Private History of a Campaign that Failed" is one of Mark Twain's sketches (1885), a short, highly fictionalized memoir of his two-week stint in the pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard. It takes place in Marion County, Missouri, and is about a group of inexperienced militiamen, the Marion Rangers. The group's jumpiness is expressed when they kill an innocent horseman mistaking him for a Yankee scout.

It takes the same dead heart to discount the loss of human life whether from transport attrition or genocide but those two crimes aren't the same in their purpose.

Slavery is to subject by brutal power but genocide is to eliminate from the face of the earth.

[RainDog]

99. Kurtz, in Heart of Darkness is modeled on one of King Leopold's men

fwiw.

The conditions that Leopold created were only different in situ, for the most part, from the conditions American slavery created. It doesn't matter that colonialism immediately followed slavery - it's part of the same tradition of oppression - and we're still dealing with its after effects today in various parts of the world.

If you can grant that Leopold was a genocidal slave owner - I don't see why you cannot assign the same to U.S. slavery.

The "conditions" for genocide in western Europe changed as the forms of racism changed in regard to economic systems, for both Jews and Africans, fwiw. The move was from religion to race, as western society moved from state religion to the scientific revolution to industrialism.

Whatever form power took, explanations to justify that power became part of western society.

That also happened in the U.S. Initially slaves kept their religious customs, but as religion became increasingly viewed as a form of "civilizing" - without any constraint to actually treat people based upon Christian principles - slaves were converted - just as Jews were earlier. The reason, tho, was the same as the reason for religious training in western Europe at the time, esp. Great Britain - to create a more productive worker.

Christianity has always been the "handmaiden" of abuse in western society, systemically.

To deny someone his or her religious cultural heritage is also part of the long history of western European oppression of "others" within their societies.

Mark Twain isn't a defense of whether or not something is genocide. He would not have had access to private company records to see the numbers of people who were murdered on forced marches to forts in Africa where they were starved or beaten, or seen the ship manifests to know the numbers of captives who were thrown overboard or starved or died from the spread of disease facilitated by the conditions in which they were held.

Would it mean anything if I were to note that I'm not the one who coined the phrase "African Holocaust" to describe the Transatlantic Slave Trade? Because I'm not. It's also called Maafa - a Swahili word for "Great Disaster." Holocaust is a Greek word. If you want to refer specifically to the Nazi "final solution, the Hebrew phrase is "Shoah."

But slavery, in and of itself, as practiced by the Transatlantic Slave Trade, intended to and did kill people as part of its function in the passage to the Americas. Millions of people. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is. Denying someone's humanity is genocide - it's killing their soul, their identity, as a form of state power.

Slavery, as practiced in the U.S., separated family members from one another, denied them the right to exist as humans with equal rights within the society in which the slaves existed, and allowed slave owners to beat another human to death, legally.

Here are definitions of genocide.

1982 Jack Nusan Porter: Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.

1987 Tony Barta: My conception of a genocidal society – as distinct from a genocidal state – is one in which the bureaucratic apparatus might officially be directed to protect innocent people but in which a whole race is nevertheless subject to remorseless pressures of destruction inherent in the very nature of the society.

1987 Isidor Wallimann and Michael N. Dobkowski: Genocide is the deliberate, organized destruction, in whole or in large part, of racial or ethnic groups by a government or its agents. It can involve not only mass murder, but also forced deportation (ethnic cleansing), systematic rape, and economic and biological subjugation. (Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Reissue of an early work.)

1988 Henry Huttenbach: Genocide is any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy. (Locating the Holocaust on the genocide spectrum: towards a methodology of definition and categorization...)

So my argument comes down to the reality that millions were killed as a result of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. That not all were killed is inconsequential compared to the conditions that meet definitions of genocide as the willful destruction of a "race" - tho Africans were not of one race - they were seen as such - and, for the purpose of viewing this in the time in which it occurred, slavery included the systematic destruction of a race through deportation, systematic rape, and economic and biological subjugation, as Wallimann and Dobkowski define genocide.

...you know I'm stubborn... or at least you do now...

So, I ask you, based upon the admission that Leopold engaged in genocide, and knowing the slave trade killed millions, and seeing the sociological, etc. definitions of genocide - how is Leopold's example genocide, but not the slave trade?

[Uncle Joe]

104. Leopold II wiped out roughly half the population of the Congo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium

Adam Hochschild devotes a chapter of his book, King Leopold's Ghost, to the problem of estimating the death toll. He cites several recent lines of investigation, by anthropologist Jan Vansina and others, examining local sources from police records, religious records, oral traditions, genealogies, personal diaries, and "many others", which generally agree with the assessment of the 1919 Belgian government commission: roughly half the population perished during the Free State period. Since the first official census by the Belgian authorities in 1924 put the population at about 10 million, that implies a rough estimate of 10 million dead.[8]

Slavery existed in Africa long before the Europeans or colonialsim arrived.

Slave trade with Muslim Nations had existed for aproximately 800 years before the Christian Europeans came on the scene, it was a world wide trade including all the major continents.

The way slaves were treated in Africa was different in many respects from the American method, in Africa hundreds or thousands were executed in religious ceremonies but they were also sometimes treated as family.

Now it's given that the vast majority of slaves died and were torn from their culture during the TransAtlantic voyage.

Virgina under slave owner Thomas Jefferson's leadership was the first state to outlaw the importation of slaves in 1778.

The U.S. outlawed the importation of slaves while Jefferson was President in 1808.

The Confederacy only existed from 1861-1865, they practiced slavery, they didn't commit genocide.

They didn't exterminate their slaves, the slave owners were in it for profit.

Is slavery evil and dehumanizing? Absolutely but it's not genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_slave_trade

African slavery [edit]

Main article: Slavery in Africa

Slavery was practiced in some parts of Africa,[16] Europe,[16] Asia[16] and the Americas before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. There is evidence that enslaved people from some African states were exported to other states in Africa, Europe and Asia prior to the European colonization of the Americas.[17] The African slave trade provided a large number of slaves to Europeans.[18][19]

The Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, although it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M’bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique: "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth).... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million[20] through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean."[21]

According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[22] There were also Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[23] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets (matchlock between 1540–1606 but flintlock from then on) and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[24] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[25] Further, while those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa.

(snip)

The treatment of slaves in Africa was more variable than in the Americas. At one extreme, the kings of Dahomey routinely slaughtered slaves in hundreds or thousands in sacrificial rituals, and the use of slaves as human sacrifices was also known in Cameroon.[60] On the other hand, slaves in other places were often treated as part of the family, "adopted children," with significant rights including the right to marry without their masters' permission.[61] Scottish explorer Mungo Park wrote: "The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters.... The slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes - first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, but who afterwards, by whatever means, became slaves. Those of the first description are by far the most numerous ...."[62] In the Americas, slaves were denied the right to marry freely and even humane masters did not accept them as equal members of the family; however, while grisly executions of slaves convicted of revolt or other offenses were commonplace in the Americas, New World slaves were not subject to arbitrary ritual sacrifice.[63] New World slaves were very useful and expensive enough to maintain and care for, but still the property of their owners.

(snip)

In Britain, America, Portugal and in parts of Europe, opposition developed against the slave trade. Davis says that abolitionists assumed "that an end to slave imports would lead automatically to the amelioration and gradual abolition of slavery.".[115] Opposition to the trade was led by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and establishment Evangelicals such as William Wilberforce. The movement was joined by many and began to protest against the trade, but they were opposed by the owners of the colonial holdings.[116] Following Lord Mansfield's decision in 1772, slaves became free upon entering the British isles.[117] Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the new state of Virginia in 1778 became the first state and one of the first jurisdictions anywhere to stop the importation of slaves for sale; it made it a crime for traders to bring in slaves from out of state or from overseas for sale; migrants from other states were allowed to bring their own slaves. The new law freed all slaves brought in illegally after its passage and imposed heavy fines on violators.[118][119] Denmark, which had been active in the slave trade, was the first country to ban the trade through legislation in 1792, which took effect in 1803. Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, imposing stiff fines for any slave found aboard a British ship (see Slave Trade Act 1807). The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world's seas, moved to stop other nations from continuing the slave trade and declared that slaving was equal to piracy and was punishable by death. The United States Congress passed the Slave Trade Act of 1794, which prohibited the building or outfitting of ships in the U.S. for use in the slave trade. In 1807 Congress outlawed the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution for such a ban.

[RainDog]

123. Here's what we agree on

which was the original point of my initial post about this anyway, but it's also been an interesting discussion for me. so, thanks. I had to step away from this for a while, tho.

We both agree that the swastika and the confederate flag are evil - they both represent evil political/economic/racist entities.

Now - to a few issues in your post (you're highlighted)

Slave trade with Muslim Nations had existed for approximately 800 years before the Christian Europeans came on the scene, it was a world wide trade including all the major continents.

But not on the scale of the transatlantic slave trade. Ten centuries AND the largest increase in the numbers of slaves in the Arab trade occurred after the U.S. had created a market that then ended. So the west African (mostly) kingdoms transferred their "human resources" capacity to Arab traders. Before the TransAtSlTrade, the scale was much, much, much smaller - in the low thousands over hundreds of years.

The U.S. outlawed the importation of slaves while Jefferson was President in 1808.

"The international slave trade was prohibited from 1808, but internal slave-trading continued apace..."

"By 1815, the internal slave trade had become a major economic activity in the United States; it lasted until the 1860s. Between 1830 and 1840 nearly 250,000 slaves were taken across state lines. In the 1850s over 193,000 were transported, and historians estimate nearly one million in total took part in the forced migration of this new Middle Passage. By 1860 the slave population in the United States had reached 4 million.

The slave trade was NOT ended by the prohibition on importation and the brutality, whipping with no recourse through law, etc., well, I guess that's not technically genocide, or the many other murders of slaves that occurred were technically not genocide because the point was that those humans lives were not valued in human terms...

The Confederacy only existed from 1861-1865, they practiced slavery, they didn't commit genocide.

"A total of about 600,000 slaves were imported into the Thirteen Colonies and the U.S, constituting 5% of the twelve million slaves brought from Africa to the Americas." From 1619 until the early 1800s, millions of slaves were brought here. Millions. Not just here, but to the Caribbean and S. America, as well... but Americans and Brits owned plantations in the Carib - so it's kind of hard to make a distinction - while the Spanish first imported slave to the SAm "new world" in the 1500s.

In the U.S., it only took 30 years to move from indentured servitude to slavery for Africans, in the mid 1600s. That's two hundred years of slavery in the U.S. So many slaves. So many deaths.

The U.S. history of slavery began long before the confederacy and, as I noted, before, approx. ten thousand, splitting the outside figures, are estimated to have been killed BEFORE they ever reached the U.S. So, it's not really honest, to me, to say the United States (not just the Confederate ones) did not engage in genocide through the mass deportation, murder and dehumanization of Africans. But I'll leave it there. We agree to disagree on definitions.

Maybe we can agree that slavery was the most barbaric and repulsive legacy of the U.S. that operated just up to the point of genocide because profit was more important than hate.

However, the mistreatment and "slavery by another name" did not end after slavery was officially abolished, or even after the 19th c. ended. Chain gangs, forced labor, trumped up false charges, collusion between law enforcement and white business owners, refusal to convict a white man for a crime against a black man, lynching parties... the history of the U.S. is simply repulsive in regard to treatment of African-Americans - and, for me, that treatment is symbolized by that vulgar confederate flag.

So, if you can walk right up to the edge of genocide but not murder thousands on your own soil... I guess that disqualifies a nation as a genocidal nation.

And it is this entire legacy that makes me wonder how anyone can be such a stupid dipshit that this person would fly a confederate flag, and that other people, that person's friends, would not kick his teeth in if he didn't remove it. Or simply shun him, in the non-violent way that I actually live, while my temper on the page does not.

In 1807 Congress outlawed the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution for such a ban.

"The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1st, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue.

During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation. This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation. The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.

And why did it take so long? Because southerners controlled the federal govt. for 50 years. This is the part of American political history that makes me want to vomit - because it gets replayed ELECTION AFTER ELECTION by reactionaries and I cannot understand how they can continue to hold power. I really cannot. I cannot understand why this nation has failed to learn from its past and, instead, chooses to reincarnate the devil every decade or so in a different disguise.

(And, fwiw, this is what the tea party reminds me of... not an exact, but a similar political power play - not just toward African-Americans, but toward all Americans who make up the majority in this nation in this time.)

And this is why the broad brush goes to the south. The reality is that all states were part of the slave trade, initially. But, after a hundred and fifty or so years, people realized they participated in an evil institution.

But the south was willing to defend this evil institution. And that's the source of the "wtf is wrong with the south" questions - which, if assholes were still not flying the confederate flag would be rhetorical or a regional jab - but, you know, that happened in front of the home of the President of the United States. And Republican political and media figures allowed it, didn't condemn it, blamed it on others - and that is why people conflate the south with Republicans, too.

This is also why so many people get disgusted with U.S. politics in general because the PUTRID CAPITALIST CLASS, for want of a better term, ALWAYS FUCKS OVER HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT.

And people are sick of this. (I am not screaming at you... that is a primal scream directed at this nation.) I honestly think they are fortunate that so many people in this nation are so decent. Otherwise their heads would've been on pikes long ago.

The way slaves were treated in Africa was different in many respects from the American method, in Africa hundreds or thousands were executed in religious ceremonies but they were also sometimes treated as family.

Yes. Slavery in all parts of the European, African, Arabic and East Asian world was, most often, about the spoils of war or small scale trade that grew to its largest as an economic activity with the western slave trade. Yes, in history, over thousands of years, many have been killed, enslaved or taken as concubines, etc. in wars across Europe (Slavs=slaves), the Middle East, Africa and India... to mention the nations within geographic proximity to what we're discussing.

But the slave trade to the Americas was the worst. Based upon documentation of the treatment and lack of options they had, in addition to the numbers and the deaths before Africans arrived in the states.

The treatment of slaves in Africa was more variable than in the Americas. At one extreme, the kings of Dahomey routinely slaughtered slaves in hundreds or thousands in sacrificial rituals, and the use of slaves as human sacrifices was also known in Cameroon.

But this human sacrifice did not start until the 1700s, after Dahomey was already heavily invested in the slave trade with the west. Not to say it didn't happen otherwise, but one thing that's interesting about the western slave trade is that it made Benin (Dahomey) and other western Kingdoms very rich empires. The surfeit of "product" after the U.S. withdrew its standing order for slavery, rather than a comparison of the two systems, is the issue at hand.

The money that was made from the western slave trade created those empires and, once the U.S. no longer permitted slave importation, these kingdoms turned, again, to the Arab trade - which is when and why a big increase in Arab slave trading occurred - iow, the transatlantic slave trade created an economy in African kingdoms that became so abusive and pervasive that... wait, get this...

...The Europeans who had spurred the trade saw the need to colonize African nations to "save" those kingdoms from their inhumanity! really...which is how Leopold was able to kill half the population of the Congo. (If this sounds like standard U.S. foreign policy, interference, and blowback... yeah. sad.)

Maybe you need to walk back on that Dahomey claim as evidence and include the timeline of events to see economic cause and effect.

Not to say that mass murder was not part of some customs in different parts of Africa and other places at various times - customs such as suttee have also existed in history - but the widespread ritual sacrifice, as far as we know, came after the western kingdoms in Africa were made rich by the slave trade, in the 1700s.

But here's something else to consider. I take what the Scottish guy reported with a grain of salt. The Romans accused the Celts of engaging in human sacrifice - but this was propaganda or misunderstanding because now, no one believes this was a reality. It is, however, a standard practice to delegitimize others... at a time when colonialism was on the rise. So... not that convinced. Jesuits in the U.S. and Canada during the 1600s reported ritual cannibalism among Native Americans, too, and those claims are also considered wildly distorted.

The one factor through history that supports claims for human sacrifice is economic stress. Crop failure. Overpopulation. Taking too many captives to sell to Europeans that don't show up and, therefore, these slaves are eliminated as "overstock." Killing a king's family with him to avoid a power struggle.

We know Incas engaged in human sacrifice, so I'm not saying this never happened - but I think the scale, after the 1700s, in Benin had to do with the economics of trading in other humans.

At the same time, charges of "blood libel" were part of the Christian persecution of Jews, so, again, while I do not doubt that human sacrifice is part of our human cultural past, the claims should be checked against the bias of the claimant.

One person taken into slavery during the TAS trade, on the other hand, reported thinking the slavers planned to kill and eat him on the ship. This is what I mean about cultural misinterpretation - though someone or some group may well have intended harm.

peace.

[Uncle Joe]

124. We agree on this.

Both genocide and slavery are evil.

We also agree on the scale having increased during the TransAtlantic Slave Trade era, as a singular source of travel, although slavery via other other routes to Asia accounted for at least as much if not more slave trading but stretched over a longer period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_slave_trade

The Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, although it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M’bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique: "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth).... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million[20] through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean."[21]

Internal slave trading did continue but not with anywhere near the attrition rate of the TransAtlantic voyage, and I'm not trying to mitigate the barbarity of the practice, but dead slaves brought no profit.

Whipping, rape and the breaking up of families was evil, there is no dispute there.

We agree on this as well.

Maybe we can agree that slavery was the most barbaric and repulsive legacy of the U.S. that operated just up to the point of genocide because profit was more important than hate.

Here is where we have some disagreement, I do agree with the bolded parts.

However, the mistreatment and "slavery by another name" did not end after slavery was officially abolished, or even after the 19th c. ended. Chain gangs, forced labor, trumped up false charges, collusion between law enforcement and white business owners, refusal to convict a white man for a crime against a black man, lynching parties... the history of the U.S. is simply repulsive in regard to treatment of African-Americans - and, for me, that treatment is symbolized by that vulgar confederate flag.

So, if you can walk right up to the edge of genocide but not murder thousands on your own soil... I guess that disqualifies a nation as a genocidal nation.

And it is this entire legacy that makes me wonder how anyone can be such a stupid dipshit that this person would fly a confederate flag, and that other people, that person's friends, would not kick his teeth in if he didn't remove it. Or simply shun him, in the non-violent way that I actually live, while my temper on the page does not.

Slavery for all practical purposes and racial abuse didn't end after the Civil War but the North dominated the nation politically for the next fifty years after the war.

Every President other than Andrew Johnson's one term until Woodrow Wilson in 1913 came from the North. The Presidents; of that era some of them were even civil war veterans nominated the Supreme Court Justices and the Northern Republican dominated Congress approved those justices.

These justices would make up the courts that started us down the path of corporate supremacy and Plessy vs Ferguson which enshrined "seperate but equal" Jim Crow Laws.

Symbols mean different things to different people and not just people opposed to your ideals but to people that believe in all other respects the same as you.

300,000+ thousand Condeferates died and countless numbers were gravely wounded during our nation's greatest conflict, the vast majority of them were not slave owners, believing they were defending their home, family, friends and neighbors from invasion.

In regards to the Confederate Flag it has multiple meanings, depending on the person flying it.

As for that man flying it in front of the White House, I have no doubt he is a racist.

For whatever its' worth the only flag I own is the U.S. Flag which had draped over my father's coffin.

Slavery was the primary issue of the day, but regionalism fanned the flames and intensified the fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederacy_(American_Civil_War)

Many southern whites had considered themselves more Southern than American and would fight for their state and their region to be independent of the larger nation. That regionalism became a Southern nationalism, or the "Cause". For the duration of its existence, the Confederacy underwent trial by war.[7] The "Southern Cause" transcended the ideology of "states' rights", tariff policy or internal improvements. It was based on lifestyle, values and belief system. Its "way of life" became sacred to its adherents. Everything of the South became a moral question, commingling love of things Southern and hatred of things Yankee (the North). Not only did national political parties split, but national churches and interstate families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached.[8]

In no states were the whites unanimous. There were minority views everywhere and the upland plateau regions in every state had strongholds of Unionist support, especially western Virginia and eastern Tennessee. South of the Mason–Dixon Line voter support for the three pro-Union candidates in 1860 ranged from 37% in Florida to 71% in Missouri.[9] It was an American tragedy, the Brothers' War according to some scholars, "brother against brother, father against son, kith against kin of every degree".[10]

(snip)

Motivations of soldiers [edit]

The great majority of young white men voluntarily joined Confederate national or state military units. Perman (2010) says historians are of two minds on why millions of men seemed so eager to fight, suffer and die over four years:

”Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.”[90]

The total population of the Confederacy was only aproximately 9 million people of which only 5-6 million were white.

No other war in U.S. History comes close to this casualty rate.

This war and Reconstruction left an emotional and physical scar across the South for well over half a century.

Going back to your comparison of the Confederate Flag to the Swastika and leaving aside the issue of genocide vs slavery, there are two other major distinctions between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany.

The Confederacy was a democracy at least for its day every bit as much as the Union, of course African Americans and women weren't allowed to vote, but the same held true in the North.

Hitler burned the Bundestag or German Parliament, making himself dictator.

Also the Confederacy never had desires on invading other nations in an attempt to conquer the world for the sake of the white race.

I have learned much from our discussion and I know this hasn't been easy for either of us.

Peace to you, RainDog.

[RainDog]

125. Thanks for sharing

The whole thing got really off track, by me, for making an assertion that was, in some ways, a provocation to indicate my outrage about the continued use of the confederate flag.

but, yeah, I appreciate being able to talk about things with someone else without something devolving into insults or accusations, even when statements (ones that I made) may be contradictory in some ways.

...but thinking something out for yourself can create that, and also the opportunity to just consider issues.

hugs.

[Uncle Joe]

127. ...

Hugs in big way.

[RainDog]

64. capital moves

The right-to-work laws in the south have attracted businesses - but this trend, for capital to go in search of cheaper and cheaper labor - is a national (and, thus, worldwide) trend, as well.

There's a good book that talks about this called.. Capital Moves, that traces RCA's move from New Jersey, iirc, to the midwest to the south to just over the border of the U.S., with Mexican workers in Mexico and management living just over the border in the U.S. This is the expression of unregulated capitalism.

Free trade with a lack of protection/regulation for people who work for wages is, ultimately, self-defeating for democracy, because greater economic equality is the best indicator for a strong democracy.

This reality has long been a part of the problem for southern economics, combined with the legacy of a system of "capitalism" that enslaved people and controlled every part of their lives for the sake of industry.

That situation is where a lot of the problems in the south come from. With the legacy of slavery, poorer whites have chosen to identify with those who don't hold their economic interests at heart, simply because it makes them think they're better than those who have been treated the worst in the region. This is the religious right tea party at this time.

But the situation isn't unique to the south, or the past.

We all enjoy tech products that are often made by rural people in China (many of them women), who are locked into work ghettos at night to keep them out of the city and available as cheap labor.

When money and status drive decisions, rather than human rights, we get dysfunctional systems. They've always existed. We are at a time and place where we can see these for what they are and work to create more just systems.

[JDPriestly]

78. Thanks.

[BellaKos]

84. 'nuther southerner here

I wrote this on another thread:
"But this gentile and hospitable manner is a facade. And beneath that facade is a strain of bigotry and prejudice that is as deeply embedded in the white southerner's identity as reverence for grandmother's recipe for pecan pie. It's a mentality that comes from ancestral roots, going back generations; from the historical, agrarian environment where strangers might be a threat; from the sense of "superiority" that is the prerequisite for a society based on slavery; and from the resentment passed on from the great-great grandmother who experienced Reconstruction. In short, bigotry, prejudice, and resentment are facets of the tribal instinct into which a Southerner is born. And it is an all-encompassing sense of Tribal Identity that whites in other parts of the country have never experienced."

In order to understand the all-encompassing sense of Tribal Identity that I wrote about, one must first acknowledge that whites in other parts of the country have never experienced it. Key words: "never experienced."

Get it? And yes, the South is changing over time, but the basic social construct is still there -- usually expressed in private gatherings among trusted allies. And yes, a whole region should not be assessed -- much less judged -- by people who have *never experienced* the true southern culture. (By the way, if you "talk funny," you're regarded as a stranger and would never hear what people say when they're off guard.)

In the ol' days -- say the 1960s -- if a woman were seen walking down Broad Street in Augusta, Georgia, for instance, with a black, she would be glared at and shunned immediately. How do I know this? Because that happened to me. And if that black were male, he risked being beat up. Just sayin'.

So, no one has the right to judge individuals who happen to live in the South -- especially those of us who have worked to combat its limitations.. And it would be judgmental and narrow-minded if one were to dismiss the region as a whole. But by all means, judge the antiquated ideas that some southerners rigidly cling to, honor, and preach -- even today.

But if a few decades of multi-cultural exposure and diversity education -- not to mention Reconstruction itself -- haven't changed the hearts and minds of some who live in the South, whining from liberal idealists isn't going to either.
(I have to add, by the way, that, at least, southerners don't whine -- like Yankee Puritans do. Incessantly, it seems.)

[JustAnotherGen]

86. Now The Great Migration reverses

The great migration to the U.S. was all up north. People had to become Americans as they were all first generation. Their loyalty is with the country. Because there was no migration to the south they stayed loyal to the region. That is why robert E. Lee fought for the south. He was loyal to the region.

Overwhelmingly the Great Migration consisted of black Americans who said, "enough". I'm from the very end of it - or as my dad used to say: First Generation Yankee.

The irony of SOME of the changing dynamic in the South? Well I went to a private prep school in Rochester, NY. Of my black classmates in 1991 - only two of us live in the North East. There were only 16 of us and I'm in contact with all . . . The children whose parents bolted from Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina etc etc - because our parents degrees were worthless in the South in the 60's and 70's - have all regrouped in Atlanta, Raleigh, and VA.

Me? I went as far South as New Jersey! Trust me - from Raaah-chest- uurrr to the land of Cah-feh and You'se was enough of a culture shock for me. . . With the bene of not having to pump my own gas.

At the end of the day - 14 40 year olds have returned to the place where their ancestors we retreated so horrifically - literally just 40 years ago. And the "South is Gonna Do It Again" is well - not going to happen. This is a last gasp at idiocy from the Right in this country (playing into that mentality) and Southern Progressives and Liberal are not only going to get help in their cause from Hispanics/Latinos - but blacks returning and moving to urban areas and shifting the dynamic. As long as they can vote - our Southern DU'ers are going to get a little help in their cause.

[RainDog]

102. I originally thought that was the reference, too

The Great Migration is the move of African-Americans out of the south to the north, midwest and, more so later, to California in search of industrial rather than agricultural jobs - and simply to get away from the south.

As I read, I understood he meant the immigration of mostly Irish and German Europeans to the U.S. in the 1800s. They created the cheap labor for the industrial north.

I know that African-Americans have returned to the south for jobs - the problem, really, across the U.S. is the rural, isolated voter, not the ones in cities, for the most part, in the south or elsewhere.

[Aristus]

91. I was born and raised in the South.

Never thought of it as a sign of divine grace.

I live in the Pacific Northwest now. I don't think that's a sign of divine grace, either. It's just a thing.

[dawg]

96. Athens and UGA are far more progressive places than the OP would indicate.

Not perfect, of course. Athens isn't Berkeley. But it is an oasis of blue in an otherwise red state. The Republican state legislature had to gerrymander Athens in order to dilute the liberal influence.

President Obama carried Athens-Clarke, County in 2012 with 63.2% of the vote.

It's a college town, and it is brimming with progressive-minded people. There is still a pretty good scene there for live music. There are lots of artsy people (as well as hipster wanna-be's) hanging around downtown. You can get vegan food (and some of it is really good).

The bottom line is that there are lots of progressives in Athens and UGA. The fraternities and sororities just aren't the best places to go looking for them.

[wilt the stilt]

97. percentage of vote is skewed

How many of the students do you think are registered in Athens. I don't know but I am willing to bet a very small percentage. My kids are registered in Gwinnett county. I believe the student body of UGA is very conservative. My daughter was a political science major and she said that discipline was very conservative. Why would UGA student body be liberal. Most of the students are from the suburbs of Atlanta and honestly most reflect their parents political views. There are always some that change but as a whole most people in general are similar to their parents. If you look at Georgia in general it is a conservative state with only Atlanta being democratic. Gwinnett, upper fulton county(Roswell, Johns Creek, Dunwoody all left fulton county.
So yes Athens could be more liberal however the student body I believe is conservative.

Think back to student uprisings in the sixties and the March on Washington which I participated in 1969. Were any of the SEC schools engaged in student protest? I don't think so it was Football, football and more football.
Things haven't changed much and if anything everyone all over the nation is more conservative.

[dawg]

98. My point is that Athens is a progressive place and there are plenty of progressive ...

people living there. There are plenty of progressive students there, too. But, just like any place, it all boils down to who you choose to associate with.

The fraternities and sororities are not the places to look for progressive people at UGA. The rest of the student body is more diverse. There are students there from all over the world. I remember sharing lunch with Palestinian kids at the dining hall; informally learning a different, and first-hand, perspective on the Middle East situation. I met people from Jamaica, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, France, the U.K., and Paraguay.

Lots of Northerners, too. And kids from Florida who would totally freak-out whenever it would snow.

And .... I also met a lot of right-wing assholes from suburban Atlanta.

But you make UGA sound like it's the 1960's University of Alabama, with George Wallace blocking the door. It isn't like that. It wasn't even like that 25 years ago.

The Greek situation might still be pretty bad. I can't speak to that. But that's only part of the university community.

[RainDog]

101. Greek systems, imo, are asshole generators all over the U.S.

I agree with you about places like Athens, or Knoxville, or any place in a red state with a large university. There are liberals to be found, and students who are not white and southern.

But the "power" for business, networking, etc., if that's what you want to be part of, is often within the Greek system.

It's all about what you decide you want to align with. really.

[wilt the stilt]

103. what is the percentage of African Americans in the student population?

very low 7% and how many are athletes. It is not a diverse culture. The South is not progressive and it's universities reflects their states. Why would it be different? There is no liberal tradition in Georgia. There may be a sporadic liberal every once in a while but honestly there really is no debate of ideas in Georgia. Name a true liberal who won a state wide office. We have right wing senators we have really right wing congressman.

How about Jonathan Krohn(kid who wrote the conservative book at CPAC) who turned left. He comes from Duluth(his mom's friend goes to my hair stylist). he left and went to NY.

you were a progressive in college and you hung out with similar people. Just like a frat

The university body reflects the state. Explain to me why it wouldn't reflect the state.

[dawg]

106. "there is no liberal tradition in Georgia"

[wilt the stilt]

107. Carter is hardly a traditional liberal compared to the great northern liberals.

He wouldn't even be in consideration. Compare him to FDR, Theodore Sorenson or JFK. Carter was never a great liberal when he was governor or as a President. Where was he in the civil rights movement? Did he walk with the great leaders of the sixties? Did he speak out for equal rights in 1969? Hardly. When he ran in '76 he was the moderate and was the anti-nixon( I will never lie). Teddy was the great liberal along with Mario Cuomo. He ran against Carter in 1980. Remember "The dream will never die" speech. shoot you probably wasn't even born yet.

The "the dream will never die" speech was a direct shot at Carter for not being a liberal.

Your lack of knowledge is astounding or revisionist history. son I grew up then and Carter has never been a great liberal.
Where was he in the antiwar movement( I marched on Washington in '69) and the civil rights movement?

Do me a favor find me a speech or news reel of Carter doing or saying anything liberal before 1976 or his entire presidency.
secondly, go take a look at his campaign in '76 and you tell me what he said.

King was not an elected leader and he certainly did not speak for the state of Georgia.

How about the segregationists like Maddox, Talmedge and Richard Russell.

If we had a liberal tradition in Georgia I challenge you to name a single statewide elected leader that ran on a liberal platform.

Surely, we would have one person who is similar to Kennedy,Cuomo, Monyihan, any just name one.

[Uncle Joe]

109. Which states didn't vote for Northern Liberal FDR in 1932?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1932

Which states didn't vote for Northern Liberal FDR in 1936?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936

Which states didn't vote for Northern Liberal FDR in 1940?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1940

Which states didn't vote for Northern Liberal FDR in 1944?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1944

[wilt the stilt]

110. LOL-1932 and Georgia is liberal

Georgia was liberal in 1932. LOL You really need to take a history course on the evolution of the south and the conversion from the solid south to today's republican party. The breaking point was 1948 with the dixiecrats. The solid south was democratic as a reaction to Lincoln being a republican. Then Brown vs board of education and then finally the civil rights bill.

You need to take a history course. I was a history minor and your lack of knowledge is astounding for a UGA grad.

secondly, I'm still waiting for a statewide liberal candidate. In other words someone who was not a national figure like FDR. you answered my challenge by providing a national figure and I asked for a statewide legislator. That would earn you an F in class.

[Uncle Joe]

115. Do you mean this election in 1948 when 7 of the 11 former Confederate States voted for Democratic

Candidate Harry Truman and 16 Northern, Midwestern and Western States voted for the Republican?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948

Or did you mean the 1952 Presidential Election when the only states voting for the Northern Liberal Democratic Candidate were Southern and Border States?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952

Or possibly you could have meant the 1956 Presidential Election when the only states voting for the Northern Liberal Democratic Candidate were Southern and Border States?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956

[wilt the stilt]

116. are you saying the south was liberal in 1948 and 1956

LOL

[Uncle Joe]

120. All I did was post how the nation voted in the Presidential Elections from 1932-1956

It must have just been a cosmic coincidence that the South overwhelmingly voted for or was the only support of the Democratic Liberal Candidate in all six elections.

You claimed the Dixiecrats of 1948 changed everything, apparently it didn't.

If there was any breakage from voting for the liberal Northern Democratic Candidates during those elections it was in the North, was it not?

[dawg]

112. I apologize for the fences and the barricades.

You know, the ones that keep you here.

I also apologize for forcing you to send your children to UGA, and then forcing your son to join a fraternity where he's ashamed to take his black friend.

I posted the President's victory percentage for Athens/Clarke County. You responded by saying the results were "skewed".

Here is the result for the state as a whole. President Obama lost Georgia, but still garnered 45.4% of the vote. That is not good enough, but it is hardly indicative of a conservative paradise. Of course, you probably think those numbers are "skewed" as well.

Your attacks on President Carter, IMHO, show what type of person you are. Not only did he do many progressive things as governor and President, he has continued to work tirelessly to make the world a better place ever since.

I'm not going to respond to you any further. You are not worthy of response.

[wilt the stilt]

114. okay with me

but you never answered even one of my challenges and you slink out. if you could answer one you would. You never gave an example of Carter being a liberal. you weren't able to name a single statewide officeholder who was liberal. you couldn't rebuff my point about the "The dream would never die" speech. I don't hate cater as a matter of fact I rather like him and voted for him twice. I just don't think he was a liberal.

[pstokely]

132. aren't there a lot of Northeastern and Midwestern transplants in Atlanta?

What about out of state students?

[William769]

100. American by birth, Gay by the Grace of God, Southern Gentleman by loving parents. NT

[pintobean]

105. I really like this post.

[William769]

108. Thanks. Just keeping it real.

[wilt the stilt]

111. eat your heart out

I have a signed baseball from Stan Musial to me and my brother. My Dad knew many Cardinals and we were in the clubhouse on Stan Musial night at the Polo grounds in NYC in 1963.

a small know fact about Musial. He made August Busch buy a motel i FL. in 11963 so all the players(black and white) would stay at the same place. Before that all the Black players had to live in the segregated section of towns in FL. during spring training.

[pintobean]

113. Cardinal Nation.

[wilt the stilt]

119. They really have a great tradition

I'm sure you saw Gibson and Brock at the playoffs. go read "October 1964". It is the story of the Cardinals against the Yankees authored by David Halberstam. a truly great writer.

[Warpy]

126. Southern by birth, American by extensive travel and education

Cuts both ways, folks.

[scheming daemons]

134. I live in SC for 2 months of every year

The OP is 100% correct.

Many homes down here fly the confederate flag above the American flag.

The majority down here definitely put region above country.

I am the son of Italian immigrants in PA. We have deep Italian pride, and many of my relatives fly the red white and green... but they fly it below the American flag.

Country comes first, heritage second.

It is definitely NOT that way in the south.

And yes... nothing is ever 100%. There are millions of good liberals living in the south. But the majority of the population, and more importantly the dominant culture, is antithetical to liberalism.

I love the weather and the ocean and the food and the golf in my southern home. But the attitudes of the majority of the people down here make me love my PA home even more.