|
In the continuing aftermath of Ferguson, and all it implies, I am asking myself a big question about racism in the United States. It is actually a question that I thought had a fairly obvious answer, but which there seems to be a lot of controversy about. It is also a question that is ripe for trolling, but in D&D, at least, I am asking it honestly. How much of racism in the United States is specifically about southern racism, including slavery, segregation, lynching, and semi-official terrorism against blacks? I know that there is racism in the north. I know that the abolitionists had views about African-Americans that would be considered deeply regressive today. I know that many northerners objected to the spread of slavery not out of moral principle, but because they didn't want the labor market undercut. I know that during the 1950s, when northern consciouses were being raised about Jim Crow, there was still terrible employment and housing discrimination in the north, and a lot of de facto segregation. But I still think that when we look at American history, the south is still the nexus of racism. While the rest of the country had racism present, my own perception is that the south is racist through and through: that the society is economically and socially based on the idea of white domination of blacks. I feel that what happened in Ferguson is not so much about socio-economic inequality or police brutality as it has to do with the south's continued (rather weirdly psycho-sexual) obsession with defending itself against the "demonic" character of black aggression. I get the feeling that a lot of this stuff is still going on down there: that many southerners are still glorifying the region's past, and painting things like slavery and Jim Crow as being positive things. I also get the feeling that is like the old joke: 20% of southerners are racists, and the other 80% lie. I think that many southerners who might seem progressive and reasonable on the surface are pretty quick to go back to "Well...actually the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's Rights" as soon as they get amongst themselves. Am I right in assuming that racism in the south is not only more prevalent, but qualitatively different, than it is in the rest of the US? Is the best way to look at racism across the United States to look at the history of slavery and segregation in the south, and that region's continued covert attitude of racism? Or is it, as some southern apologists would have it, that racism is spread across the country, and the south was just a helpless cog in the machine of racism, and they have moved on from that?
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Everywhere is racist and the south is worse
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Its an American problem, but the ex-Confederate states are a hot bed for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
George Wallace posted:They all hate black people, all of them. They're all afraid, all of them. Great God! That's it! They're all Southern. The Whole U.S. is Southern!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
It's more open (read: honest) in the South, but northern cities tend to be more segregated than southern cities. Overt racism is taboo in most of the North, although tacit racism is rampant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I know that many northerners objected to the spread of slavery not out of moral principle, but because they didn't want the labor market undercut. Joke's on them then since ending slavery and bringing industrialism to the south was far more effective in undercutting northern labor than using freed slaves as a cudgel to artificially depress wages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Racism in American history you might be discounting: 1) Treatment of native peoples. 2) Immigration policy. 3) The German American Bund.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:
I went and researched (a little where that quote came from). Apparently it comes from something that Wallace said after he got telegrams of support from the rest of the country, after denouncing integration. But the fact that he got telegrams from the rest of the country doesn't mean that the rest of the country supported him, just that the people who sent telegrams did. Because the other states didn't elect George Wallace governor, only Alabama did that. It seems like evidence in favor of my view: while there might be racists anywhere, only in places like Alabama did those people manage to openly lead their states, while spouting racism as their entire political position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's more open (read: honest) in the South, but northern cities tend to be more segregated than southern cities. Overt racism is taboo in most of the North, although tacit racism is rampant. While this distinction generally holds, I think it is important to note that there are areas outside of the South where southron/southronesque attitudes, ideals and aesthetics hold sway. I mean both that there are whole states/regions where this is common (Indiana and Missouri, for instance) and that there are lovely redneck trailer parks in every state where you can probably find the Stars and Bars and the beliefs that go along with it. The exporters of southron culture have sunk their teeth into the rest of america's white rural poor to the point that you cannot reliably escape The South just by moving north of the Mason-Dixon line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
The various African-American diaspora from the South could be seen as a function of Southern racism but I'm not sure what that nets beyond blaming people who aren't me. Racism is a deeply American problem, trying to geographically define it is just a means to absolve ourselves of responsibility to act against it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's more open (read: honest) in the South, but northern cities tend to be more segregated than southern cities. Overt racism is taboo in most of the North, although tacit racism is rampant. This is the type of innuendo that southern apologists like to throw around. By insinuating that racism is "more open" in the South, they are suggesting that Northerners are "just as racist", just quiet about it. What is your proof of this? Along with your accusation that "tacit racism is rampant"? And "northern cities tend to be more segregated"? It is like a criminal who is caught in the act whose only defense at trial is that "other people probably do these things too"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
The South seems more racist because Southerners are more open about racism than Northerners. Generally Northerners don't have as many opportunities to be racist, because if they don't live in a city they live in some of the most racially homogeneous parts of the country. The South is more racially diverse as a whole than the rest of America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:This is the type of innuendo that southern apologists like to throw around. By insinuating that racism is "more open" in the South, they are suggesting that Northerners are "just as racist", just quiet about it. What is your proof of this? Along with your accusation that "tacit racism is rampant"? And "northern cities tend to be more segregated"? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=redlining http://lmgtfy.com/?q=most+segregated+american+cities
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's more open (read: honest) in the South, but northern cities tend to be more segregated than southern cities. Overt racism is taboo in most of the North, although tacit racism is rampant. Popular Thug Drink posted:The South seems more racist because Southerners are more open about racism than Northerners. Generally Northerners don't have as many opportunities to be racist, because if they don't live in a city they live in some of the most racially homogeneous parts of the country. The South is more racially diverse as a whole than the rest of America. https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157626354149574/detail/ Color code: Red=White Orange=Hispanic Blue=Black Green=Asian Yellow=Other The leader of obvious segregation is usually considered  ): But there's at least one city even more segregated, and the real   One of the least segregated cities is a southern city (well, Texan; they're not exactly the same thing since Texas is a melding of Southern, Hispanic, and Western culture):  San Antonio, my own home city.  But basically yeah, southern racism is more obvious both because there's a lot of racial diversity in the south, and because the history of slavery makes the racism much more pronounced and visible, as well as daily interaction with people outside your own race. fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:
Counterpoint: Pete Wilson and Prop 187. Or Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:The leader of obvious segregation is usually considered Chicago, Illinois: thats detroit boo
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:thats detroit boo Here's  E: I can't get this right to save my life apparently. fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
The "most segregated cities" also seem to be some of the country's largest: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles. Is the list of most segregated cities just the largest cities? Because there aren't a lot of large cities in the South.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:The "most segregated cities" also seem to be some of the country's largest: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles. Is the list of most segregated cities just the largest cities? Uh aggregate population doesn't matter to a proportional index bro. fade5 posted:Ah poo poo, sorry. Uh Whole lot of whites living on houseboats in Lake Michigan What is that? Pittsburgh? e: No, Philly? Looks like Philly. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Uh aggregate population doesn't matter to a proportional index bro. Looks like Philadelphia maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Looks like Philadelphia maybe?   Here's Chicago. Still, the point is that there's definitely a hell of a lot of segregation in northern cities too, it is most definitely not just a southern problem. fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Several questions: is St Louis southern? Missouri? What about West Virginia?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
I've always seen it as rural vs city thing. The South is more rural, ergo it is more racist. Attitudes in most rural places, including the one I grew up in, just straight up suck, for the obvious reasons of isolation, etc. Also I'll take hidden racism over open any day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Several questions: is St Louis southern? Missouri? What about West Virginia? St. Louis is a border city, it has some southern cultural influence but I'd say it's more of a midwestern city now. West Virginia is southern but upland or appalachian southern, which is a different kind of southern from lowlanders. The difference mattered more a century ago. For decades now rural white Americans have identified more strongly with symbolic southern culture no matter where they live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:St. Louis is a border city, it has some southern cultural influence but I'd say it's more of a midwestern city now. Yep, the amount of Confederate flags and lawn jockeys I've seen in northern rural Illinois and Indiana is shocking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Several questions: is St Louis southern? Missouri? What about West Virginia? West Virginia can probably be considered Southern for a lot of purposes, but it is also mostly outside the demigraphic black belt and is less likely to be a hotbed of racial politics, if only due to statistical probability.  With those lower Midwestern states, it's really a matter of where you are. Chicago and Cleveland are obviously Northern, but there are parts of rural southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio that are distinguisable from rural Kentucky and Tennessee only insofar as they are flatter. Places like Cincinatti, Louisville, St Louis and Indianapolis are more mixed. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
The South also has more black people in it. You see an increase in racism when intranational migration occurs. A HUGE part of modern racism is the effect that racial integration had on housing prices during a time when the new economy was almost entirely based on homeownership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:A HUGE part of modern racism is the effect that racial integration had on housing prices during a time when the new economy was almost entirely based on homeownership. Yeah. Political racism happened mainly in the south. Economic racism happened in every American city. Regional political racism in the 60's is not the root cause of endemic black poverty across America today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
The north east's racism, ouside of really poor areas or genuine racists which exist everywhere, is more like an expectation of racial tension than it is hating a person/race for being a race. At least in MA that's what I have experienced, and it's usually diffused by one or both parties being friendly. When I spent time in arizona/florida/alabama, a bunch of people I met were just openly racist when not in public. Spouting ridiculous poo poo about how all of a certain race were this or that and should be this or that. It was ridiculous, and it's not something you hear up north at all even amongst people I'd consider racist up here. Khorne fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yeah. Political racism happened mainly in the south. Economic racism happened in every American city. Regional political racism in the 60's is not the root cause of endemic black poverty across America today. Economic racism is driven by political racism. Any attempts to change anything about wealth inequality in the United States are going to be shut down by the Republican Party, which is a regional party meant to address southern grievances. Although, I guess if people want to make the point that the rural Midwest and Appalachia are just as bad as the deep south, I am not going to argue the point too much. But I think we can say that a lot of socioeconomic inequality in the US right now has to do with the fact that we have a political party that is based around selling dog-whistle racism to the south.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Economic racism is driven by political racism. Any attempts to change anything about wealth inequality in the United States are going to be shut down by the Republican Party, which is a regional party meant to address southern grievances. It's really more of a terrible opinions ouroboros.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:It's really more of a terrible opinions ouroboros. Understanding is a triple edged sword.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Economic racism is driven by political racism. Any attempts to change anything about wealth inequality in the United States are going to be shut down by the Republican Party, which is a regional party meant to address southern grievances. lol if you think neoliberal Democrats really give a poo poo also lol that you think Republicans are a southern party glowing-fish posted:Although, I guess if people want to make the point that the rural Midwest and Appalachia are just as bad as the deep south, I am not going to argue the point too much. But I think we can say that a lot of socioeconomic inequality in the US right now has to do with the fact that we have a political party that is based around selling dog-whistle racism to the south. The point is that socially regressive people are all over the US, and you can call them republicans or white southerners if it makes you feel better but a lot of people are going to disgree with that statement for both totally dumb and totally valid reasons. Pretty sure this is just a regionalist grudge thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Economic racism is driven by political racism. Any attempts to change anything about wealth inequality in the United States are going to be shut down by the Republican Party, which is a regional party meant to address southern grievances. The GOP is not the regional party of the South. It is a party hijacked by reactionaries which solidified its power by catering to the racism of the North and the South.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Racism has been, from the beginning, an ideology created by the bourgeoisie to simultaneously justify the exploitation of foreign labor and divide the proletariat against itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGw_vAnqPI
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Economic racism is driven by political racism. Any attempts to change anything about wealth inequality in the United States are going to be shut down by the Republican Party, which is a regional party meant to address southern grievances. The GOP is a rural party, not a Southern party
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
I remember this quote from TNC's article about FHA and red-lining: quote:Clyde Ross was among them. He came to Chicago in 1947 and took a job as a taster at Campbell’s Soup. He made a stable wage. He married. He had children. His paycheck was his own. No Klansmen stripped him of the vote. When he walked down the street, he did not have to move because a white man was walking past. He did not have to take off his hat or avert his gaze. His journey from peonage to full citizenship seemed near-complete. Only one item was missing—a home, that final badge of entry into the sacred order of the American middle class of the Eisenhower years. Liberal Southerners on the internet like to chuckle about their homeland being more 'honest' but the difference is that there was just 'more' racism down south.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
I think the original question is malformed. Racism is a part of the human condition. It is remnant from the time when humans lived in and competed against small tribes. As with most things, an individual can overcome this through self recognition. Much like artwork depicting the penis, racism will always be with us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
I like all these references to the 50s. Very convincing. Nowadays, I don't really think the South is any more racist than the North. I just got back from my (white) family's Thanksgiving where about 20% of the people there were black. This is in a rural North Carolina town. My boss in a big Southern city is black. It's not a big deal. I feel like you guys are feeding into nasty stereotypes too much. We're very much a part of modern America. Perhaps it's more noticeable here, but only because the South is way more diverse than the North, without question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:16
|
|
