4. "The South" is sharply different from "America".
etc.
Now Michael Lind according to wikipedia is a fifth-generation
Texan. That makes him a possible "southerner" though he doesn't declare,
in this article.
In my inquiry on the South as Other, I'm paying more attention to David
Jansson's assertion that some southern liberals have been part of the
formulation of the South as Other idea. I'm a southerner and a liberal,
so I've had to overcome some internal skepticism about this.
>4. "The South" is sharply different from "America".
>etc.
>Now Michael Lind according to wikipedia is a fifth-generation
>Texan. That makes him a possible "southerner" though he doesn't declare,
>in this article.
>In my inquiry on the South as Other, I'm paying more attention to David
>Jansson's assertion that some southern liberals have been part of the
>formulation of the South as Other idea. I'm a southerner and a liberal,
>so I've had to overcome some internal skepticism about this.
>HL
Does it ever occur to you that maybe the South really is other?
It's certainly out of tune with the rest of the country, and it's been
trying for decades now to make the rest of the country march to its
regressive drumbeat.
> Does it ever occur to you that maybe the South really is other?
> It's certainly out of tune with the rest of the country, and it's been
> trying for decades now to make the rest of the country march to its
> regressive drumbeat.
> Just a thought . . .
What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
document the pattern.
After I began, I ran across the articles of the geographer David
Jansson, Penn State Ph.D. Here is a google page on him:
Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
I began to consider that there might be an idea-pattern that I
designated "the South as Other" before I knew that anybody was working
on it. Reading these writers greatly affected my thinking.
The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
rather than a research report.
Another helpful book is The South as an American Problem, by Larry
Griffin and Don Doyle.
> Does it ever occur to you that maybe the South really is other?
> It's certainly out of tune with the rest of the country, and it's been
> trying for decades now to make the rest of the country march to its
> regressive drumbeat.
> Just a thought . . .
This is an additional reply, more personal. No I don't think of the
actually-existing-South as alien to me, hence it is not an Other to me.
"The Other" one of those terms that designates somebody-else, like
foreigner, heretic, gentile, barbarians, flyover country.
> > Does it ever occur to you that maybe the South really is other?
> > It's certainly out of tune with the rest of the country, and it's been
> > trying for decades now to make the rest of the country march to its
> > regressive drumbeat.
> > Just a thought . . .
> This is an additional reply, more personal. No I don't think of the
> actually-existing-South as alien to me, hence it is not an Other to me.
> "The Other" one of those terms that designates somebody-else, like
> foreigner, heretic, gentile, barbarians, flyover country.
You're a White Southerner. Of course the South is not 'alien' to you.
You are steeped in Jim Crow and the 'Lost Cause'.
Face it, you are on the same team as Byron delaBeckwith. (Why do White
Southerners always have such dumb-ass names?)
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> You're a White Southerner. Of course the South is not 'alien' to you.
> You are steeped in Jim Crow and the 'Lost Cause'.
> Face it, you are on the same team as Byron delaBeckwith. (Why do White
> Southerners always have such dumb-ass names?)
On Oct 11, 8:15 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> > You're a White Southerner. Of course the South is not 'alien' to you.
> > You are steeped in Jim Crow and the 'Lost Cause'.
> > Face it, you are on the same team as Byron delaBeckwith. (Why do White
> > Southerners always have such dumb-ass names?)
> Piffle.
> HL
Piffle is a "genteel" word. Your co-segregationist buddies use harsher
language. You don't fool me though - Your Southern Whiteness is red in
tooth and claw - just like the KKK.
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> Piffle is a "genteel" word. Your co-segregationist buddies use harsher
> language. You don't fool me though - Your Southern Whiteness is red in
> tooth and claw - just like the KKK.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:24:56 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>document the pattern.
<snip>
>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
North.
>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>rather than a research report.
I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
>>What I believe: The idea that the South "really is an Other" is a way of
>>thinking about a part of the United States. I stumbled across this
>>thought pattern, about 2002, in this newsgroup, and started trying to
>>document the pattern.
><snip>
>>Susan-Mary Grant, Ph.D., University of London (UK),helped me to
>>understand that "the South as Other" idea is intertwined with American
>>nationalism. She focuses on the ACW period.
>She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
>too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
>own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
>North.
>>The most profound single piece on this is "What we talk about when
>>we talk about the South", by Edward Ayers. It's a personal essay,
>>rather than a research report.
>I have heard that title for years. But had never run across a book
>with it in it. I did find a good site this morning that allowed me
>to read it. Yes, Mr Ayers has some very interesting thoughts.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:21:40 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article <77c45431-cab7-4f4a-a400-9bf1f54ab...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 11, 8:15 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> You're a White Southerner. Of course the South is not 'alien' to you.
>>> You are steeped in Jim Crow and the 'Lost Cause'.
>>> Face it, you are on the same team as Byron delaBeckwith. (Why do White
>>> Southerners always have such dumb-ass names?)
>> Piffle.
>> HL
> Piffle is a "genteel" word. Your co-segregationist buddies use harsher
> language. You don't fool me though - Your Southern Whiteness is red in
> tooth and claw - just like the KKK.
Since Hugh seems to be kind hearted (and a bit too scholarly), I'll do it for him.
You're an idiot, Mito. You have no experience with any group but your own. You have an appalling belief in your own intelligence. Zero experience with anyone from the south (or, I suspect, any person other than your mother and her small yappy dog) which leads you to hate and fear anything you don't understand. Your repeated fabricated stories to blow up your importance have only confirmed that you've done nothing, have nothing, and will die and be buried in a paupers grave. Unloved and unregarded by anyone. Your courage doesn't extend past your own skin. You don't have the courage to post in your own name. You've never related any personal details about yourself. I suspect that's because there are none.
> She does sound interesting. The North is -- and always has been --
> too "diverse" -- (read "mongrelized") to have any nationalism of its
> own. So being "anti" South was easier for them than being "pro"
> North.
I suggest you read more about American nationalism.
A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> Too diverse?? Mongrelized!?? And Hugh wonders why people think of
> the South as other!! LOL
So, explain your point, A.Lurker. Why do you think "people" should
think of "the South" as other. Do you mean that "the South" is not
populated by "people"?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:28:44 -0400, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>> Too diverse?? Mongrelized!?? And Hugh wonders why people think of
>> the South as other!! LOL
>So, explain your point, A.Lurker. Why do you think "people" should
>think of "the South" as other. Do you mean that "the South" is not
>populated by "people"?
>Or what do you mean?
>HL
I didn't say "should," Hugh, and I'm quite sure you know what I mean.
>>> Too diverse?? Mongrelized!?? And Hugh wonders why people think of
>>> the South as other!! LOL
>>So, explain your point, A.Lurker. Why do you think "people" should
>>think of "the South" as other. Do you mean that "the South" is not
>>populated by "people"?
>>Or what do you mean?
>>HL
> I didn't say "should," Hugh
You are correct. you said "people think of the South as other."
Which people? I, for example, do not think of the South as an
Other. Are you saying that you do?
cigarmanw...@gmail.com writes:
> I do not have to answer to you.
You need to explain your background. For example, in what country were
you born. What was the ethnic group and religion
that you claim membership in. Where in Canada did you grow up?
Do you write your silly posts on a work computer? Does you boss know
that you have been impersonating a Japan government official?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:26:53 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
(in article <79cbf560-a2ae-448a-b0aa-9dac44e5b0b1@googlegroups.com>):
> You are a Southern White apologist. I do not have to answer to you. You must > answer to federal prosecutors. Your entire heritage is vilified by the modern > world. You are outcast and reviled by civilization. Your legacy is one of > murder, torture, rape and theft. The crimes committed by your kinfolk are > legion. Just crawl back into your White enclave. Go away. Shut up.
