Another South is Possible
Many thanks to Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation (where, as she notes, I did my first gig out of college as a wide-eyed journalist aiming to change the world), as well as MaxSpeak, Pam's House Blend, South Knox Bubba, and other friends for their kind words about Facing South.
Since we launched this blog on February 10, the traffic keeps rising, which tells me that progressives are interested in a deeper discussion of how we can turn things around in the South.
If this is your first visit to Facing South -- welcome, make yourself at home. You can get a sense of where we're coming from here and here.
As you can see, we believe the South can't be ignored -- and besides, there's reason for hope. We have no illusions about the power of the South's conservative forces, and no naive faith in magic formulas for change. But we also know that in the South, we have much to draw on -- the South's enduring progressive values, a rich history of popular movements, and a growing energy for progressive renewal today.
With fresh ideas, good strategy, and a commitment to building the institutions and movements that make change happen, another South is possible.
Since we launched this blog on February 10, the traffic keeps rising, which tells me that progressives are interested in a deeper discussion of how we can turn things around in the South.
If this is your first visit to Facing South -- welcome, make yourself at home. You can get a sense of where we're coming from here and here.
As you can see, we believe the South can't be ignored -- and besides, there's reason for hope. We have no illusions about the power of the South's conservative forces, and no naive faith in magic formulas for change. But we also know that in the South, we have much to draw on -- the South's enduring progressive values, a rich history of popular movements, and a growing energy for progressive renewal today.
With fresh ideas, good strategy, and a commitment to building the institutions and movements that make change happen, another South is possible.
40 Comments:
You started your blog on my birthday. I found it through SKB. Congratulations and best of luck. I hope to be reading it on my next birthday.
Well, you just got another reader. Here's to hoping that the South really can change.
Chris posted: "With fresh ideas, good strategy, and a commitment to building the institutions and movements that make change happen, another South is possible."
Part of a progressive strategy should include embracing and celebrating such progressive values as social and economic justice, environmental protection, and foreign relations as core Christian moral values. In the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, the New Testament Jesus, and theologians like John Wesley, we as progressives should speak boldly and prophetically on those issues. We should not apologize for our faith, but rather we should embrace our faith as an important part of public policy, in the tradition of Jimmy Carter.
When we can convince evangelical Christians that the values Progressives hold dear are the same values about which Jesus spoke most often, we can break the right wing's stranglehold on churches, especially in the South and the heartland.
I'm yet another reader, too! Thanks for starting this up! I set ya'll up with a livejournal feed, in case there are any other livejournalers out here who are interested.
Your effort is very much needed. Thanks- the movement appreciates your witness-bearing, and will be reading eagerly.
Good points Kevin. The right's shameless and selective use of faith to justify dangerous and unjust policies is one of many developments, I believe, that have taken progressives off guard. Whatever happened to the social gospel? I for one think we can have a progressive politics that embraces progressive faith-based traditions, while at the same time respecting religious diversity and the seperation of church and state.
Hear, hear, Kevin and Chris.
That progressive religious thread is still alive and well in the South.
I have to confess I'm an agnostic, but I have nothing but respect for folks like People of Faith Against the Death Penalty here in NC.
Some of our state's liberal legislators are working well with them, too -- like Carrboro's Ellie Kinnaird.
I am finally glad to see a blogger site that isn’t a conservative based one. The south is in real trouble it has turned its back on its democratic roots. I my self am not a liberal, but I am a SOUTHERN Democrat. Here in Tennessee the Neoconservatives are taking over. They have infiltrated our churches and have turned them into recruiting centers for their closed minded teachings. Almost every visiting preacher spews his neo-venomous hate of democrats and anyone else who doesn’t think, do, or act like they think everyone should. It is sad to see good men at heart turned into tools of hate. What the democratic party needs is to get back to southern democratic values, and to get away from the liberal nut jobs. I believe that church and state should be separate or insanity like the Salem Witch Trials will undoubtedly happen again. This doesn’t mean that we are to banish all religious things from sight. Pray in school, the Ten Commandments, or anything else Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or any other religion should not be banned from sight. America is supposed to be the land of the FREE. Freedom is not the right to vote, freedom is being free, despite what those in power try to sell to the people of America. Look at where we are heading a nation that only shows favor to its richest citizens. Instead of doing away with tax cuts that only help rich people who have more than enough money our government is looking for ways to do away with programs that help the poor, education programs, research programs, and environmental programs. Programs for education and research help create jobs not giving a rich person who turns around and buys themselves another politician. The conservative preach that abortion is wrong and they are concerned about the well being of the child, yet as soon as that child is born into this world that concern turns to resentment. Children of poor families depend on programs that keep food in their bellies and a roof over their heads, and they depend on a clean environment to keep poisons out of their air and drinking water. From all of the children in the south, thank you Mr. President and all your republican followers for your concern, but show us don’t tell us.
Anonymous,
Maybe you can be a little more concrete. Exactly what beliefs that the Democratic Party embraces belong to "liberal nut jobs"?
Because the conservatives that I've, er, discussed these topics with seem to think that being pro-choice, in favor of social welfare programs, environmetalism and progressive taxation are all beliefs embraced by "liberal nut jobs".
Confession: I am a liberal and I get nervous when people talk about being a SOUTHERN Democrat without cleary explaining that term. The Dixiecrats were ALL Southern Democrats. The Civil War, Jim Crow, opposition to granting the franchise to African Americans, and opposition to Johnson's Great Society programs were all at one time mainstream SOUTHERN Democratic values, albeit white Southern Democrats.
I don't mean to smear you by association, just pointing out why some further detail is needed. Simple labels are dangerous, whether the label is "liberal nut job" or "SOUTHERN Democrat".
Dear Carpetbagger:
The term carpetbagger is one I would not want to associate myself with in the South. After the Civil War the Carpetbaggers came into the South stealing land and taking advantage of devastated southern people who unlike the north had a war fought in there back yard. Most of the battles took place in the South not only did the people of the South have to deal with Yankee raiders, but with Confederate ones as well. Their economic system collapsed after the war. The years of the northern blockade left many destitute. The rebuilding of the South was handed to the carpetbaggers after Lincoln was killed. Had Lincoln not been assassinated his ideas of rebuilding the South and embracing his southern brothers would have been, instead our people had to contend with lowlifes and thieves. As for being a SOUTHERN Democrat I have pride in my south, good or bad it is my home and my heritage. Here in East Tennessee my ancestors (the half that weren't Cherokee) were poor as was most everyone else for the most part we did not own slaves or approve of it. My ancestors fought both sides most of the time to keep from starving. Along with most uninformed people the Civil War was not just about slavery but States rights. I am not defending slavery or the nasty years that followed afterward. All people have the right to live free in America no mater their color, religious belief, or sexual orientation.
When I say I am a Southern Democrat I say that I am a democrat who believes in God, favors the right to bare arms, is opposed to the liberal stance of shunning religion from the eyes of everyone, and no longer using kid gloves with the neo-conservatives. I am in favor of pro-choice, programs that help the poor, keeping church and state separate, taxation that does not favor one side, and most certainly protecting the environment. The liberal nut jobs I talk about are the ones that the republican party uses against us the animal rights activist, the antigun lobbies, and the anti-religion aspects of our party. I believe in conservation of animals but to ban the eating of meat or wearing of fur because you don't like it is not freedom, to ban the right to bare arms because guns kill people is not freedom (the first recorded murder was performed with a rock will we ban rocks as well), to ban religion because you believe in nothing is not freedom. Maybe people of the old south were democrats, but all those like the ones you talk about left the party and turned republican when Kennedy was elected and worked to end segregation.
I do not mean that my Cherokee ancestors owned slaves or were not poor. They suffered greatly. The Native Americans were subjected to a genocide that almost wiped them off the face of the Earth. America owes them a great and long overdue apology.
Anonymous,
" The term carpetbagger is one I would not want to associate myself with in the South."
I'm quite aware of what a carpetbagger is, thanks. I knew what it was well before I moved here, as it is (believe it or not) taught to us Yankees.
I use it as my name because it was applied to me repeatedly after I moved here. It's self-deprecating humor. A much-told joke here (at least, much told to me by Southerners): there are three kinds of Northerners -- Yankees, damn Yankees and goddamn Yankees. Yankees stay up North. Damn Yankess vacation here. Goddamn Yankees come down here and never leave. And I've been called a carpetbagger often, usually as a joke with a bite to it, a few times as an ad hominem attack.
Just out of curiosity, what other states' right issue do you think was involved in Southern secession? Besides slavery, I mean.
You do a good job of summarize the right's caricatures of the left by the way. Although I have seen PETA's extremism over fur, I have never seen any animal rights activist in speech or in print argue that eating meat should be illegal. Similarly, I have never heard or read of any gun control advocate lobby to repeal the 2nd amendment, merely constrain excesses. You certainly have a right to bear arms, but what possible reasonable motive could there be in owning a fully automatic rifle?
Liberal nutjobs? If you say so.
Dear Carpetbegger:
You know what I'm tired of being on the defensive here lets talk about the Yankees and their treatment of the Native Americans. You all always want to through the slavery card or race card at the South. What about genocide committed by the northern lead Union Army which came down on the Native Americas without pity or remorse. Using germ warfare, killing off the buffalo to starve them out, killing men, women, and children alike. Yes, southerns joined in to, but it was the leadership of the North that drove the killing machine own. The Indians were not helpless, but they rarely broke any of the treaties they signed. Whereas the fine upstanding "Christians" leading the North broke them all.
PETA does in fact want to end the eating of meet maybe they are not trying to ban it yet but if they ever get fur band then the vegitization of America will be next. What is a reasonable constrainment of excess? Everyone should only be allowed to own one gun, every other person should be allowed to own one gun, only the police and the government should be allowed to own guns, what is a reasonable constrainment? No where in what I said did I mention automatic weapons, however if someone wants an automatic weapon the simplest of minor modifications to any semiautomatic weapon will make it fully automatic. No body can own a fully automatic weapon without the proper licensing, if you do then you break the law and if found in your possession you will face Federal Indictments. You or I cannot just walk into the Wally World and purchase our very own made to order fully automatic toy. If you do go as far as getting a license then the ATF stays up your butt about it and I've talked to gun dealers who "have" had the licensees and they say it to much trouble. As for assault weapons they serve no useful purpose they are a fun toy to shoot tin cans with maybe scare the hell out of some jackass breaking into your house, but besides that they are only good for killing people. They are junk for hunting any number of hunting rifles are better. I don't know why the NRA is hanging onto these kinds of weapons other than as citizens of the United States of America we have the right to bare arms no mater how useful of ridiculous they are. I was disappointed that the ban was lifted now mine isn't worth much, but all that you couldn't do with the ban was buy what you wanted. You had to collect up the different pieces and build it for you self, which was not illegal, it was only illegal to buy it with those pieces.
What we are doing right now arguing amongst our selves is not helping. I was simply stating that on our side we have a few Liberal nut jobs just like on the other side there are a few if not a whole bunch of right wing nut jobs. You and me are never going to agree on much and I can see that, but what separates us from them is we can talk about this stuff and not want to kill one another over it. You have your view and I got mine. I am from the South your not. A friend of mine form up North ask me when do I get to be a southerner? I had to tell him you're never going to be a southerner. It is a birth right. Your children can be if they are born here and don't have some kind of silly Yankee accent. It is just the way it is.
The truth is we don't want you down here. But you're here. You're not up north you're in the South and we could give a deep fried rats ass how you all did things up there. You're down here now and if you don't like it go back, stop trying to change it. If things were so great up there then why are you here? Because it sucks up there so stop trying to make it suck down here. Southern Hospitality is gone we tried to be nice and you all took it that we wanted you to stay around, we were just being nice. I know you all thought that meant we wanted yall around but we don't.
Anonymous,
I've made several attempts at responding to your latest comment, but threw each of them out.
The two things I mentioned -- assault weapons bans and PETA's extremism about fur but not meat -- are fact-based. Nobody has ever tried to repeal the second amendment. PETA has never called for banning the eating of meat.
You caricatured their positions.
And your defensiveness about the reason for Southern Secession? I didn't attack. You said that it wasn't "just about slavery, but States rights". I simply asked what other state's right was involved. You could have told me. You could still tell me.
Instead I got a discussion of the North American genocide. It was horrible. It is indefensible.
It also isn't really germaine to the subject at hand.
The thing is, I am a Southern Democrat. I wasn't born here, but I certainly live here now.
I suspect we have some differences of opinion regarding social issues. But you need to leave room in the Democratic Party for the rest of us without the caricatures.
Modern CB:
All due respect, you are a Democrat living in the South but you are not a Southern Democrat. There is a difference. Southern Democrats are democrats by tradition because Lincoln was a Republican. They are more conservative and usually practice much more restrictive religions than is common in Dems of other geographic origins.
They tend to be anti-environment and gun control but pro-labor because of the socio-economic situation in the South. Guns to us are merely tools. If I walk up the mountain to my family grave yard and encounter a bear or mountain lion, I'd better have a hand gun. If you make your living farming tobacco, you feel as if the world is against you. If you work in a mine, you don't want to hear about air pollution and a stirke means gunfire, not marches. If you're a logger, you aren't going to empathize with deforestation. The only growth industry down here is prisons.
Southern Dems are generally pro-military because that's often the only way out for them, if they can get out at all. They're often such patriots that it doesn't occur to them that the government would lie to them or abuse them.
Now I'm sort of a mix of you and anonymous. My Cherokee and Melungeon ancestors were here long before the white people arrived. My ancestors fought with Washington and Robert E. Lee and the land I live on has been in my family since the 1800's. Personally, I was educated in the North, and I lived on the East Coast for 15 years. I'm beyond progressive, and practice a non-Judeo-Christian religion. As far left as I am, I still identify with the argument that the War between the States was not about slavery. It was about economic dominance.
The North's interest in destroying the slave trade - which was horrible, and indefensible- was more about destroying the economic advantage of the South than about liberating anyone.
The war broke out because the South tried to secede and the North objected. The State's right to secede WAS the issue they fought over. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was a political posturing. Lincoln had no power to free slaves - that required an act of Congress. Your Pro-North view of moral superiority is a result of history being written by the winners.
People in the South right now still deal with the fall out from that war. From the snickers I hear from East Coasters when I say I'm from Kentucky, to the fact that our agrarian economy has been decimated to the fact that most of the wealthy in the South now are "carpetbaggers" from the North who exploited our economic weaknesses, it's still very relevant to our lives.
The U.S. Government has tried to erase the Cherokee and the Melungeon from the face of the earth. That touches most of us. Many of our best and brightest are dying right now in Iraq and don't know why. Lack of health care and drug policies are destroying the population. Religious extremists are infiltrating Southern Churches and destroying public educational systems that weren't that strong to begin with. We are under seige and all we get from our Yankee cousins is derision.
We don't need criticism, we need jobs, health care, education and a little respect. So let's not fight the War all over again here. Let's figure out how to create a progressive movement that will appeal to all of us.
"Your Pro-North view of moral superiority is a result of history being written by the winners."
I respectfully request that you re-read the exchange you are editorializing about and point out to me where I'm espousing a Pro-North view of moral superiority.
I would love to have the discussion you request, but even in your post you've basically told me I'm a second-class political entity in the South because I wasn't born here.
I did no such thing. I explained by anonymous hears something different when he says the words "Southern Democrat" than you do. The phrase has a specific meaning. I'm not a Southern Democrat either, and neither are my parents, though we live in the South. Many of our friends and neighbors are, though, because they fit the description I gave.
I am a Democrat (for now anyway - the Greens are looking awfully good these days) who lives in the South. So are you. That't not a put down, merely an interpretation.
You know, I've been listening to this same old tired arguement about who is a Southerner for the 25 years I have lived in the South. Can we not focus on our common ground as Progressives? We are concerned American citizens, who also have concerns that are unique to the South.If we can't develop a mindset of common interest, we are doomed to fail in our hope that another South is possible. Does it really matter where you were born, or whether you had ancestors wearing blue or gray? I think it is more important to consider the place your heart calls home. If that place is in the South, you are a Southerner. What else matters?
I hope we can make being a Democrat and a Southerner honorable again. After all, those very Southern Democrats whose racism brought shame and embarassment to the Party are now all Republicans.Thanks to Zell Miller, that is no longer their dirty little secret. The whole world now knows where the stereotypical red faced angry bigots are staking their future, and it's not with us. We have reason to be hopeful that the exodus of the old "Southern Democrats"is the very thing that helps make a different South possible. Progressives are now in control of the Democratic Party.Our moment has arrived. If we split ourselves according to geography, history, or on the finer points of gun control and animal rights, we doom ourselves to failure.
Jan -
No, it won't work that way. This is not about logic. It's about a visceral connection that native Southerners have to the issues.
The fact that you think it isn't honorable to be a Southerner and a Democrat shows that you don't get it. It has always been honorable to be Southern and a Democrat. The shame is in being a Republican.
That being the case, we have to ask why so many in the South have deviated from tradition to join the Republicans. The answer is religion. Progressives have a strong anti-religion bias. Southerners who are devout Christians felt that they had to choose between being Christians and being Democrats, and the Dems predictably lost.
Religous belief is pre-logical in most people. Logic can't touch it. You have to make them feel that they can be good Christians and still be Democrats, and you have to do it while the Republicans are demonizing us.
We have to reclaim the moral high ground and show the Conservative Elite for what they are : Selfish, greedy, warmongering, lying, cheating, and anti-American, and that they don't give a damn about working people, poor people, or minorities.
Their policies make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and less educated. They're destroying everything that made America great, and we haven't done our jobs in making the public see that.
So, yes, I'd like it if we could work from a common progressive base, but in order to do that, you have to acknowledge the reality of who we are and where we came from.
A big part of the problem is that someone came in here from day one using the tag "carpetbagger".
That's not a joke to us - the poverty all around me is a result of Northern Carpetbaggers getting rich off those in desperate need.
Morgaine,
You seriously think that my pseudonym is the problem?
As I commented, I took the handle as an act of self-deprecating humor. I've been called a carpetbagger by several folks since I moved here, many of them my friends.
Seriously, if that's what the problem is, I'll retire it after this comment.
For what it's worth, my ancestors were still essentially European serfs when the real carpetbaggers came through the South.
I have a great fondness for my adopted home, although I freely admit that I'm more attracted to the Regulators than the Confederation.
I grew up in western PA, where the Whiskey Rebellion was a similar, if post-Revolution piece of our common history.
Hey, CB-
I got the joke, but honestly, I do think it sets you up to look "troll-ish". There's a tendency to perceive your comments very negatively even when I'm sure no offense is intended.
That's one of the problems with written communication. If you said it to a person face to face, they'd see you were kidding and laugh along with you. On a board like this, that isn't apparent.
Remember, we're an occupied people. That war is ancient history in the North, but it's everywhere down here.
"I got the joke, but honestly, I do think it sets you up to look "troll-ish". There's a tendency to perceive your comments very negatively even when I'm sure no offense is intended."
Well, now I'm confused. I've been commenting here since this blog went up. I have had exactly 2 people respond to me as though I had attacked them. One of the two had made some pretty inflammatory comments that I was responding to.
You're the other one. If you get the joke, why would you see me as trollish?
By the way, since I have an admittedly tin ear for what folks find offensive, would "Damn Yankee" be any improvement?
I don't see what is inflammatory about wanting to get back to southern values like religion, support for the poor, support for the working folks, a better environment, and get away from those who are against all religion, want more rights for animals that humans, want to control who can have guns and how many. The only inflammatory remark I made was that you’re a carpetbagger and we didn’t like your type round here. No body said you were second class, just not wanted. I know it is hard for you're Yankee pride to swallow, but you're never going to be a southerner. The problem with yall is that you’re racist towards southerners. You Northern folks opinion of southerners is that we are the Beverly Hillbillies. We’re are all just a bunch of uneducated backwards hicks who run round bare foot toting a jug of moonshine, with a one toothed grin on our stupid dirty faces. Most are shocked when they find out we are not like that. I must admit our education system is lacking, mostly to do with politicians who support education to the people and support uneducated workers to industry. You keep on throwing slavery and racism around like everyone from the south, if they are white, is some kind of card carrying member of the KKK. And yes “Yankee” sounds just fine to me or what about "Liberal Nut Job" or Maybe "Yankee Nut Job".
Morgaine
If you think that Southern Democrats have always been honorable, perhaps you might open a history book.Remember the stuff about being condemned to re live the history you refuse to learn from? Maybe that explains your nasty atitude about New Southerners. Don't you think it's time to get over the Civil War? We want to move forward not backward, don't we?
Jesus and Progressives have the same set of priorities. So,I'm wondering why you are so willing to see religion as a Republican thing.And I'm also wondering how think you could possibly market progressive values to Southerners with a starting premise that says religion belongs to Republicans.People who think like that put George Bush in office.
For those of you to whom it is so important to make sure that new Southerners know they are not real Southerners, welcome to Looserville. The one thing the Civil War did settle, like it or not, is that we really are one big happy country.If you don't want to be regarded as pathetic and backwards, maybe it's time to stop thinking of yourself as an occupied country. Regardless of our differences, past and present, we're all in this together. You don't have to like it, but it might help if you learned to live with it.
Anonymouses,
I really wish you folks would click the "other" radio button and pick a pseudonym. That would make it easier to continue conversations.
Anonymous the Southerner from birth:
I already explained to you why I picked the nickname. I've also offered to change it, if you and Morgaine really find it that offensive.
As far as actually being a carpetbagger, could you please explain to me how you could possibly know if I qualify? What native Southerners have I come down here and ripped off?
Your original post, which I responded to made some pretty over-the-top claims and some pretty unclear statements. I pointed that out to you. I haven't been disrespectful to you at all.
I've asked you a couple of pointed questions. I never attacked you. The closest I came to that was to ask a question about what state right besides slavery led to Southern Secession. I'd still like to know. I'm not claiming you're wrong. I'm not being dismissive. I'm asking a question because I would be interested in the answer.
Look, I'm willing to try to understand this stuff. You have never and you will never read me making any moronic comments about how "backward" the South is, or how "we should have let them secede". Or throw around generic accusations of racism.
I asked for clarification from you and you took it as an attack. I apologize for my failure to communicate, but we really need to get past that if we want to improve things.
As far as leaving, that's not going to happen. I like my new home and I'm going to die here of a ripe old age.
As far as the other Anonymous goes, all I can say is I'm not him!
Friend, I've only been here a few years, but the kind of rhetoric you're spitting out pissed me off before I ever moved here.
I haven't seen anybody claim religion is a Republican thing. Just that they've managed to connect via religion much, much better than the Democrats have. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that. You're confusing somebody explaning the current situation with that person desiring it.
And get rid of the Looser baloney, OK? That's not constructive and it's not accurate.
OK, it will be easier to carry on the discussion if people stop reacting to things no one has actually said. I have spoken very little of my own beliefs. I have, for the most part, been trying to explain a particular point of view.
CB - I'm not offended by your name, but the reality is that some Southerners will be put off by it. It's up to you how you want to be perceived.
I don't believe religion belongs to Republicans. *I* think the Republican party as it exists now is fascist.
I also think the Dems had better get over the anti-religion bias quick, because it's costing us votes that by rights should be ours.
I said Southerners have always seen being a Democrat as honorable. I never said that Southern Democrats have always been honorable. There's plenty of shame to go around in the area of race relations.
Do please recall that I said I am Cherokee, and I do not consider myself "white".
We do all need to get along, but that's not going to happen when our history doesn't matter one minute, then makes us "losers" the next. Accord isn't built through dismissal or insults. It's built by attempting to empathize with the other's position.
If the administrator of this board is reading this, please consider not allowing anonymous posts. You'll get a lot less grief that way.
I like being anonymous.
I like being able to anonymously write in and say what I think and not have to worry that someone at work can trace it back to me and me get fired for what I believe in. Me and the old carpetbagger have been having some pretty heated discussions and I’ve enjoyed them. To answer his question about what other than slavery the war was about I think Morgan summed it up pretty well. MONEY the south had it and the north didn’t like it. Now as I have stated many tines I thought slavery and the racism that followed segregation, hangings, and what not were awful and extremely none Christian things for “good” Christian people to be a part of, but like I was trying to point out the “good” Christians from the North were hypocrites. They wanted to do away with slavery, yet they were the ones who were in charge of the genocide of Native Americans. We have gotten way off the subject of what can we do to take back the south from Republicans. Who I’ve tried to point out have taken over churches and the south as a matter of fact. When I talked about being a Southern Democrat I was not referring to the “Dixiecrates.” I meant the good southerners who are opposed to Republican values “if there is such a thing.” Like Morgan pointed out religious people have had to choose between being Christians and Democrats because the Republican Party has turned the pulpit into a political soap box where they preach you can’t be a Christian and a Democrat. I am rarely offended however I do not like the term carpetbagger or what it stands for. If it is a private joke then fine I just don’t find it funny.
Anonymous,
"Modern Carpetbagger" isn't a private joke. It was based on what a lot of born-here Southerners joked with me about.
It really wasn't intended to be offensive. I thought I was basically admitting up front to the point both you and Morgaine made -- that I might be in the South now, but I'm not from the South.
OK, so both of your statements went further than that, but I think that's the fundamental point -- I can no more call myself a Southerner, just because I moved here, than I could start calling myself African American, just because I moved into a predominantly black neighborhood.
I'd like to ask a small favor of you, if I might. Could you please break up your comments into smaller paragraphs? I don't know what it is about these comment pages, but I'd find them easier to read that way.
And, in case I wasn't being clear before, I agree with you about almost everything you've been saying about the GOP and Christian churches and the Democrat's failure in that regard.
As far as I can tell, you and I agree on most issues (at least so far), except for our opinion about PETA's ultimate goals and whether gun control is a good idea.
Well, and whether or not I can call myself a Southern Democrat. I'd respectfully suggest you consider it, if only because I'm as determined to remove the influence of the Republicans/Dixiecrats from the South as you are.
And seriously, I know I'm always going to be something of an outsider here. I didn't grow up in the culture. That doesn't mean I'm hostile.
It does mean I have a tin ear for some things. I would like my handle to reflect my status here in the South. If "Modern Carpetbagger" grates, I really would like to choose a different one that makes it clear I understand that. Does "Damn Yankee" work to do that, or is it just as bad? If it is, can you suggest anything better? (No four-letter words, though. Please.)
I was not wrong about PETA. Here is PETA about PETA. This is copied straight off of their web page:
“PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason.”
Now then was I right or was I right? And "YANK" will do
Anonymous,
What can I say? You were right about PETA. (For those who want to, PETA's home page is here and the statement is in a yellow box at the bottom of the page.
By the way, you can stay anonymous by using the "Other" link and picking a handle. You don't have to fill in any other info. And it makes it easier to have conversations without us confusing one Anonymous with another.
I didn't like Yank, because it misses the fact that I'm down here and setting my roots down here. Is this one OK?
Anonymous said:
They [the yankees] wanted to do away with slavery, yet they were the ones who were in charge of the genocide of Native Americans.
Clearly, abolitionism and anti-racism were not synonymous. Even aside from the issue of Native Americans, lots of Northern abolitionists were racist against blacks as well--whether they came out in blatant ways, like believing that emancipation should be followed by the wholesale deportation of freed blacks to Africa, or in somewhat more subtle ways, like adopting a patronizing "we're here to rescue you" attitude towards blacks.
But then again, Southern whites can't exactly be absolved of the genocide & dispossession of Native Americans, either. There's been lots of talk here of the Cherokees: so what about the Trail of Tears? What about the Seminole wars? To name just two of the most well-known instances of Southern aggression against Native Americans (and in the Seminole case: against insurgent blacks as well). There are also many, many documented cases of Native Americans begin enslaved along with people brought from Africa.
So if we're going to talk about the South as an occupied country, let's also confront the white South's own colonization of indigenous people.
The orders for the Trail of Tears came from Washington, as did the rewards paid for Native scalps, and the plans to wipe us out with Small Pox. When did the South control Washington? No one said the South was blameless in the first place.
Morgaine said:
The orders for the Trail of Tears came from Washington, as did the rewards paid for Native scalps, and the plans to wipe us out with Small Pox. When did the South control Washington?The orders for the Trail of Tears came from Andrew Jackson--famously pro-slavery AND Indian-killing, famously of log cabin birth in North Carolina, later Congressman & Senator from Tennessee. And the whole reason the Trail of Tear happened in the first place is because white settlers in Georgia wanted Cherokee land.
You say no one said the South is blameless in the first place. Yet the rhetoric you use in your response is all about blaming this supposedly non-Southern thing called "Washington."
"The South never controlled Washington": funny, wasn't Washington himself from Virginia?? Jefferson?? Madison?? How do you think the Compromise of 1850 got passed?
It's one thing to say that the majority of white Southerners did not benefit from slavery (at least economically--politically, culturally, and psychologically, it's another matter), and had little real political power to speak of. But to say that the Southern elites didn't have power is just... well, I don't even know what to say about that.
I don't know how progressive change is supposed to happen in the South if we can't even admit to basic facts of Southern history.
gazago
I am a mutt for the most part Irish, German, Dutch, and Cherokee. If you dispute the last part I have the skin color, bone structure, and a great grandmother to prove it. The Cherokee capital is right down the road from here it's under water now because of the dam, but it's here. The Trail of Tears starting point is here too. If you had bothered to read every coment on this page you would have read my first statement on this subject:
"You know what I'm tired of being on the defensive here lets talk about the Yankees and their treatment of the Native Americans. You all always want to through the slavery card or race card at the South. What about genocide committed by the northern lead Union Army which came down on the Native Americas without pity or remorse. Using germ warfare, killing off the buffalo to starve them out, killing men, women, and children alike. Yes, southerns joined in to, but it was the leadership of the North that drove the killing machine own. The Indians were not helpless, but they rarely broke any of the treaties they signed. Whereas the fine upstanding "Christians" leading the North broke them all."
Northern lead is what I've been saying and I said the South joined in. Guess what MONEY was the reason for that whole mess as well. Cherokees did very well for them selves and were very good at business. Unfortunately, for them they were to good at it. They lived in homes just like the whites and owned land. When the hammer fell on Native Americans, due to Northern politics it fell all across America.
The South was the bad guy in the mess with the Cherokees, but it was the rich slave owning southerners, and the northerners did little to stop it. The "Indian Removal Act was passed by congress in 1830. Although many Americans were against it, most notably Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett, and Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, President Jackson sighed it into law.
However, Northern leaders were in charge of the genocide after the Civil War that wiped out and almost completely crushed the Plain Indians. Although the Civil war took everyone's minds off of the Native Americans living on the plains as soon as it ended the North did not decide to uphold treaties signed with indigenous people but kicked into high gear the removal and extermination of those people. Northern leaders talked of ending slavery, but then turned around and ordered the removal of people from their way of life, and if they did not comply the execution of all.
All this history is facinating.While we debate the finer points of which region of the country committed the most atrocities, the well organized, united Republican machine can laugh all the way to the voting booths.
Anyone care to choose up sides so we can re fight the Civil War? We can call ourselves Former Yugoslavia 2, because like, them we can nurse every single wrong thing everybody did, since the beginning of time, into eternal hatred and animosity.
There were other cultures our countrymen didn't record. Tonya
MARQUETTE BOOKS
Editor/Publisher: Dr. Dave Demers
3107 East 62nd Street books@marquettebooks.org
Spokane, WA 99223 509-443-7057 (voice) / 509-448-2191 (fax)
www.MarquetteBooks.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DRIFTERS: A CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL NOVEL ABOUT THE MELUNGEON SHANTYBOAT PEOPLE
ISBN 092299319X
A fiction only when connecting factual dots of a researched, true account about a hidden American cultural-diversity
From the Historical Novel Review,
Bethany Skaggs
North American Editor, Adult Titles
Historical Novels Review Online
www.historicalnovelsociety.org
THE DRIFTERS: A CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL NOVEL OF THE MELUNGEON SHANTY BOAT PEOPLE
Tonya Holmes Shook, Marquette Books, 2005, $19.95, pb, 311pp, 092299319X
This novel takes place in America, beginning around the 1830s and ending after the Civil War. The characters, Melungeon shanty boat people, are a biracial mix of Cherokee and Caucasian bloodlines. Their story is told through the viewpoint of the main character, Harriet Holmes. Created by the author around known portions of the author’s family history, the novel is a fictionalized biography of Harriet’s life. Photographs of Holmes family members, including Harriet, appear throughout. The book opens with Harriet pregnant, fifteen-years-old, and newly married to shanty boat dweller Canady Holmes. Through Harriet’s experiences, the reader learns of societal wrongs suffered by the clannish Melungeon people, who must hide from Indian removal. The Holmes family barely scratches out a living as they travel along the rivers of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. The tension created by this family’s struggle for survival and the hardships they endure during and after the Civil War carries the story.
The author does not spare her characters from brutalities in this riveting tale. Indeed, if a flaw in this tale could be found, it may be that the reader must suspend belief to accept that so much tragedy could happen to one family and that the mother of that family could come through it all with self and sensibilities intact. Readers will be curious to learn how brushes with Christians along the way help Harriet to have hope for the future of her family.
This novel will elicit every emotion from a reader, as it is a love story as well as an account of suffering. The author’s fine storytelling, coupled with believable and endearing characters, presents an unforgettable tale. This fast-paced, dramatic narrative will draw those interested in Native American history, and will also most certainly provide enjoyable reading for a wider audience.
Judith Carroll
Aulena Scearce Gibson, columnist for the Lawton Constitution's "Tree Tracers", reviewed the novel with these words: "a wonderful novel- comparable to Alex Haley's, Roots."
Preface
Before the settlement of Jamestown there lived a people in America who built houses and had a complex social order, but history books have little record of them. They trace their ancestry to Portugal, Spain, North Africa, Turkey and Greece and to Native Americans, with whom they intermingled. According to old Mediterranean Library records, their countrymen were taken as slaves of the Vikings seeking to colonize the new world. But they eventually were abandoned, left to survive as best they could in a foreign land. As the generations passed, these people acquired certain physical and cultural characteristics that distinguished them from European ancestors. They were called Melungeons.
Dr. N. Brent Kennedy, author of The Melungeons, The Resurrection of a Proud People: An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America, has researched the genetic and cultural peculiarities known to this people. Like African American slaves and Native American peoples, the Melungeons were treated unfairly by the European settlers, who forced them off their land. They were tagged as “free people of color” and at one time were prohibited from owning land, attending school, and marrying outside of their “own kind” except in Kentucky.
The ill treatment of the Melungeon people helped create a distinctive and clannish folk that had low self-esteem and peculiar ways. A mixture of Mediterranean and Indian blood, they were a developing race who clung to their own tried and proven traditions, who trusted no one outside of family and married among themselves.
This novel tells the story of one Melungeon family. It is based on word of mouth stories from descendants of Harriett Riddle Holmes, my great-great grandmother who began her married life on a houseboat during the same year as the Trail of Tears. She survived through dire times of the Civil War, experienced heartaches relating to her sons William and Jasper, and relocated to Texas after the war where some of her sons participated in cattle drives.
This story begins in the southeastern Cumberland area of Kentucky in l837. Harriett Holmes was a real person, but one with no history, or none that is readily traced, a phenomenon common to the lineage of the Melungeon people. Many tried to assimilate into the dominant society, but the rejection caused them to be more clannish than ever. Harriett had few friends outside of the kinship clan. This social isolation contributed to a development of a unique culture, one that the reader will vicariously explore in this book.
This book is basically a fictionalized biography. Her name, children’s names, and story line are factual, but the glue cementing accounts together comes from my imagination. I hope the reader finds this book enjoyable and educational.
$19.95 at signing/programs or if mailed from author, $23.00 -check or money order.
Book may be purchased through Amazon, Marquette Books, or from the author @ shookum@pldi.net.
www.MarquetteBooks.org
Tonya Holmes Shook was born in Oklahoma and lived in New Mexico and Texas before returning to Oklahoma in l985. She is the author of Displaced Cherokee: Come Home, Come Home, a book documentary that took First Place in the l986 Open Class Category at the Oklahoma State Fair. The book was endorsed by the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. Shook’s other book, The Drifters: A Christian Historical Novel About The Melungeon Shantyboat People, is currently being reviewed by a screenwriter in Hollywood. Another book release, June 2005, is God’s Breakfast Nook: An Anthology of Nonfiction Short Stories. In addition to writing books, Tonya is an accomplished artist and poet. Many of her works have Christian themes
This blog is the first I've ever read. Interesting, a little depressing... but the thing it inspires most in me is the thought; "don't theses people have jobs? Families?" I guess it's better than zoning out in front of the TV or a video/computer game. But it's still sitting on your ass in front of a screen... I mean, seriously, this is an interesting discussion, I definately have opinions about much of what y'all have articulated here. ("Said" isn't really appropriate, is it...) and I am tempted to weigh in. But there's no way I could find the time. How do y'all do it?
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page