Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
example of TSAO
293 views
Skip to first unread message
Hugh Lawson
Oct 10, 2012, 3:58:19 PM10/10/12
to
Hugh Lawson
Oct 10, 2012, 8:29:53 PM10/10/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/slave_states_vs_free_states_2012/
Some of the TSAO characteristics:
1. "The South" never changes.
2. Lots of mention of "slave states".
3. "The South" is dominated by an "oligarchy".
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
> http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/slave_states_vs_free_states_2012/
Some of the TSAO characteristics:
1. "The South" never changes.
2. Lots of mention of "slave states".
3. "The South" is dominated by an "oligarchy".
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
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 10, 2012, 11:26:32 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:29:53 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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 . . .
wrote:
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 . . .
Hugh Lawson
Oct 11, 2012, 6:24:56 AM10/11/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
[ snip ]
> 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:
http://tinyurl.com/9vdkh6l
Jennifer Rae Greeson, Yale Ph. D., has tremendously influenced my thinking.
http://news.clas.virginia.edu/english/x15871.xml
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.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/granor.html
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.
[ snip ]
> 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 . . .
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:
http://tinyurl.com/9vdkh6l
Jennifer Rae Greeson, Yale Ph. D., has tremendously influenced my thinking.
http://news.clas.virginia.edu/english/x15871.xml
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.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/granor.html
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.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 11, 2012, 6:42:18 AM10/11/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
[ snip ]
> 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.
[ snip ]
> 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 . . .
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.
MITO MINISTER
Oct 11, 2012, 6:47:06 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 7:42 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
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?)
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?)
Hugh Lawson
Oct 11, 2012, 7:15:27 AM10/11/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@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.
> 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?)
HL
MITO MINISTER
Oct 11, 2012, 9:21:40 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 8:15 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
language. You don't fool me though - Your Southern Whiteness is red in
tooth and claw - just like the KKK.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 11, 2012, 10:03:09 PM10/11/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@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.
Piffle.
> 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.
hl
Hugh Lawson
Oct 12, 2012, 7:39:33 AM10/12/12
to
You're in over your head, MM. I feel sorry for you.
hl
hl
Wiregrass Willie
Oct 13, 2012, 10:11:07 AM10/13/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:24:56 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@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.
>
>http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/granor.html
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.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/ayers3.html
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.
>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.
>
>http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/granor.html
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.
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.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/ayers3.html
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 14, 2012, 10:54:39 PM10/14/12
to
the South as other!!?? LOL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 14, 2012, 10:59:48 PM10/14/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 14, 2012, 11:14:54 PM10/14/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 14, 2012, 11:16:36 PM10/14/12
to
Too diverse?? Mongrelized!?? And Hugh wonders why people think of
the South as other!! LOL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 15, 2012, 12:29:14 AM10/15/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 15, 2012, 12:30:12 AM10/15/12
to
Joel Edge
Oct 15, 2012, 7:49:05 AM10/15/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:21:40 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<77c45431-cab7-4f4a...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
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.
(in article
<77c45431-cab7-4f4a...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
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.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 16, 2012, 5:50:51 PM10/16/12
to
Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
[ snip ]
> 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.
[ snip ]
> 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.
hla...@triad.rr.com
Oct 16, 2012, 9:28:44 PM10/16/12
to
A.Lu...@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
> Too diverse?? Mongrelized!?? And Hugh wonders why people think of
> the South as other!! LOL
think of "the South" as other. Do you mean that "the South" is not
populated by "people"?
Or what do you mean?
HL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 17, 2012, 12:37:39 AM10/17/12
to
Hugh Lawson
Oct 17, 2012, 7:08:21 AM10/17/12
to
Which people? I, for example, do not think of the South as an
Other. Are you saying that you do?
HL
Hugh Lawson
Oct 17, 2012, 7:59:33 PM10/17/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
[ snip ]
> I didn't say "should," Hugh, and I'm quite sure you know what I mean.
Prove how sure you are.
HL
[ snip ]
> I didn't say "should," Hugh, and I'm quite sure you know what I mean.
HL
Message has been deleted
Hugh Lawson
Oct 19, 2012, 7:30:38 AM10/19/12
to
cigarm...@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?
Many more questions require answers from you.
hl
> 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?
Many more questions require answers from you.
hl
Joel Edge
Oct 20, 2012, 8:23:04 AM10/20/12
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:26:53 -0400, cigarm...@gmail.com wrote
(in article <79cbf560-a2ae-448a...@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.
Blah, blah, blah, etc.
(in article <79cbf560-a2ae-448a...@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.
Blah, blah, blah, etc.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 20, 2012, 12:35:46 PM10/20/12
to
south only to draw up or repeat an indictment of "the south".
He is curious enough to make out the accusation, and perhaps to search
for more faults. This done to suit himself, curiosity halts.
HL
MITO MINISTER
Oct 21, 2012, 5:11:27 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 1:35 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:26:53 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
Read Catullus, chicken shit.
> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:26:53 -0400, cigarmanw...@gmail.com wrote
Hugh Lawson
Oct 21, 2012, 7:02:41 AM10/21/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
> Read Catullus, chicken shit.
Bless your heart MM.
Here you are a middle-aged man, still rehearsing the graffiti on your
school restroom walls. And cursing a stranger on the internet, the very
stranger who taught you to curb your habit of using genocidal language.
Now about those Latin dictionaries. Where do you keep your collection?
HL
> Read Catullus, chicken shit.
Bless your heart MM.
Here you are a middle-aged man, still rehearsing the graffiti on your
school restroom walls. And cursing a stranger on the internet, the very
stranger who taught you to curb your habit of using genocidal language.
Now about those Latin dictionaries. Where do you keep your collection?
HL
Joel Edge
Oct 21, 2012, 8:21:21 AM10/21/12
to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:35:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <8762659...@gmail.com>):
It's funny. He is what he condemns the south for, a bigot.
(in article <8762659...@gmail.com>):
Hugh Lawson
Oct 21, 2012, 9:17:33 AM10/21/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:35:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <8762659...@gmail.com>):
[ snip ]
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:35:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <8762659...@gmail.com>):
> It's funny. He is what he condemns the south for, a bigot.
somewhere else.
HL
MITO MINISTER
Oct 22, 2012, 6:49:26 AM10/22/12
to
On Oct 21, 8:02 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some dictionaries are (now) at arm's length. Some are in the attic,
with my wooden tennis rackets, lacrosse sticks (wood and leather) and
old golf clubs (wood!). Some are 7,000 miles away.
Some graffito were found in pedestrian tunnels, on school walls, on
library shelves, on support beams and in books themselves. I have
never written graffiti anywhere or vandalized library books. I also
have the complete Oxford English Dictionary, the real one, not some
abridgement, in many volumes, 13 or so, purchased for 13 dollars from
a university library.
I am happy to be able to remember graffitti from my youth. I chuckled
at the sometimes incorrect declensions. Here's another one I remember:
"Mercedes amat omnes". That one had the whole school roaring with
laughter!
with my wooden tennis rackets, lacrosse sticks (wood and leather) and
old golf clubs (wood!). Some are 7,000 miles away.
Some graffito were found in pedestrian tunnels, on school walls, on
library shelves, on support beams and in books themselves. I have
never written graffiti anywhere or vandalized library books. I also
have the complete Oxford English Dictionary, the real one, not some
abridgement, in many volumes, 13 or so, purchased for 13 dollars from
a university library.
I am happy to be able to remember graffitti from my youth. I chuckled
at the sometimes incorrect declensions. Here's another one I remember:
"Mercedes amat omnes". That one had the whole school roaring with
laughter!
Joel Edge
Oct 22, 2012, 8:11:59 AM10/22/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:17:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87r4os7...@gmail.com>):
And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
(in article <87r4os7...@gmail.com>):
Hugh Lawson
Oct 22, 2012, 8:49:31 AM10/22/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
[ snip ]
> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
When I put "the South" in quotes, I mean to refer to an idea that people
have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
in A.Lurker's.
There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
about the American south.
I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
region.
When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
population. When I speak of southerners, or Southerners, I mean all the
persons who would answer "yes" if asked, "Are you a southerner?" That
is, in a United States context. In my own usage I try to remember not
to cap southerner, but I don't always remember.
On the army of the CSA in the civil war, I try to remember to call it
the Confederate army, and not the southern army.
[ snip ]
> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
in A.Lurker's.
There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
about the American south.
I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
region.
When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
population. When I speak of southerners, or Southerners, I mean all the
persons who would answer "yes" if asked, "Are you a southerner?" That
is, in a United States context. In my own usage I try to remember not
to cap southerner, but I don't always remember.
On the army of the CSA in the civil war, I try to remember to call it
the Confederate army, and not the southern army.
MITO MINISTER
Oct 23, 2012, 4:56:59 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 9:12 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:17:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <87r4os7ymq....@gmail.com>):
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:17:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>
> > Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:35:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >> (in article <8762659k4d....@gmail.com>):
> > Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:35:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>
> > [ snip ]
>
> >> It's funny. He is what he condemns the south for, a bigot.
>
> > If the spotlight points at "the South", then it's not pointing
> > somewhere else.
>
> > HL
>
> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
Yes. It is a distinct socio-cultural area. I grant you that.
> > [ snip ]
>
> >> It's funny. He is what he condemns the south for, a bigot.
>
> > If the spotlight points at "the South", then it's not pointing
> > somewhere else.
>
> > HL
>
> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
Joel Edge
Oct 23, 2012, 9:42:19 AM10/23/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <876262p...@gmail.com>):
OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
Mito hates the 'South' the 'south' and everything in it. He doesn't
differentiate between the 'old South' and the 'South' or the 'south'. He
lumps current and past Souths (?) or souths together. He assumes all persons
in the 'South' are like persons of the 'old South', eager to enslave and kill
blacks. Of course; even then, that wasn't necessarily true. Where he gets
this idea I don't know and don't care. I've met enough like him to fill a
small town. It usually works to my advantage.
What asking "are you a Southerner" gets you I'm not sure. At one point being
a Southerner was not vilified in the current media. It got no more response
than affirming that you're a 'Texan' or a 'New Englander'. All of these
little regions that, at one time, was the make-up of this country. The habit
of disparaging 'Southerners' (people born in or being proud of being born in
the south) began soon after the Democrats lost the white vote in the south.
The 'Confederate Army' is correct.
We're quantifying things that were already quantified years ago. The only
thing that has changed is the attitude of certain people seeking gain from
division.
(in article <876262p...@gmail.com>):
current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
Mito hates the 'South' the 'south' and everything in it. He doesn't
differentiate between the 'old South' and the 'South' or the 'south'. He
lumps current and past Souths (?) or souths together. He assumes all persons
in the 'South' are like persons of the 'old South', eager to enslave and kill
blacks. Of course; even then, that wasn't necessarily true. Where he gets
this idea I don't know and don't care. I've met enough like him to fill a
small town. It usually works to my advantage.
What asking "are you a Southerner" gets you I'm not sure. At one point being
a Southerner was not vilified in the current media. It got no more response
than affirming that you're a 'Texan' or a 'New Englander'. All of these
little regions that, at one time, was the make-up of this country. The habit
of disparaging 'Southerners' (people born in or being proud of being born in
the south) began soon after the Democrats lost the white vote in the south.
The 'Confederate Army' is correct.
We're quantifying things that were already quantified years ago. The only
thing that has changed is the attitude of certain people seeking gain from
division.
MITO MINISTER
Oct 23, 2012, 9:46:18 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 23, 10:42 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <876262pt7o....@gmail.com>):
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
with your own history and the disaster of the Civil War. Get over it.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 23, 2012, 2:26:45 PM10/23/12
to
> OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
I designate that "the South" to that it is an idea at some distance from
> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
empirical reality.
> Mito hates the 'South' the 'south' and everything in it. He doesn't
> differentiate between the 'old South' and the 'South' or the 'south'. He
> lumps current and past Souths (?) or souths together. He assumes all persons
> in the 'South' are like persons of the 'old South', eager to enslave and kill
> blacks. Of course; even then, that wasn't necessarily true. Where he gets
> this idea I don't know and don't care. I've met enough like him to fill a
> small town.
about where he gets his ideas about "the South". Not that he seems to
consider the blacks to be not southern.
> What asking "are you a Southerner" gets you I'm not sure.
study of them. I borrowed it from John Shelton Reed. If you want to
say what southerners' believe, are like, and so on, then there is a need
to identify who is southern.
> At one point being
> a Southerner was not vilified in the current media. It got no more response
> than affirming that you're a 'Texan' or a 'New Englander'.
H.L. Mencken's essay, "The Sahara of the Bozart"? Published about 1915
or so, it's the best piece of south-bashing I've ever read.
> All of these
> little regions that, at one time, was the make-up of this country. The habit
> of disparaging 'Southerners' (people born in or being proud of being born in
> the south) began soon after the Democrats lost the white vote in the
> south.
of distinguishing "the South" from themselves, of regarding themselves
as 'more American", and of regarding "the South" as exotic, foreign,
goes back to the foundation of the United States.
> The 'Confederate Army' is correct. We're quantifying things that were
> already quantified years ago. The only thing that has changed is the
> attitude of certain people seeking gain from division.
about US nationalism during the Civil War era, in the North of course.
hl
Hugh Lawson
Oct 23, 2012, 3:30:17 PM10/23/12
to
HL
That should have read "Note that he seems...."
HL
> I think you've described his opinions fairly objectively. I do care
> about where he gets his ideas about "the South". Not that he seems to
> consider the blacks to be not southern.
small correction:
> about where he gets his ideas about "the South". Not that he seems to
> consider the blacks to be not southern.
That should have read "Note that he seems...."
HL
Joel Edge
Oct 25, 2012, 8:13:47 AM10/25/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:46:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<acbaa7c7-d45d-4755...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 23, 10:42ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>> (in article <876262pt7o....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
>>
>>> When I put "the South" in quotes, I mean to refer to an idea that people
>>> have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
>>> sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
>>> in A.Lurker's.
>>
>>> There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
>>> there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
>>> about the American south.
>>
>>> I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
>>> region.
>>
>>> When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
>>> population. ï¿œWhen I speak of southerners, or Southerners, I mean all the
>>> persons who would answer "yes" if asked, "Are you a southerner?" ï¿œThat
>>> is, in a United States context. ï¿œIn my own usage I try to remember not
Let's look a little closer at that. Are you saying I'm defending my slave
owning days and fighting in the Confederate Army? Let's see, that would make
me 165 years old. I better check my birth certificate.
You moron.
(in article
<acbaa7c7-d45d-4755...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 23, 10:42ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>> (in article <876262pt7o....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
>>
>>> When I put "the South" in quotes, I mean to refer to an idea that people
>>> have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
>>> sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
>>> in A.Lurker's.
>>
>>> There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
>>> there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
>>> about the American south.
>>
>>> I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
>>> region.
>>
>>> When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
>>> persons who would answer "yes" if asked, "Are you a southerner?" ï¿œThat
>>> is, in a United States context. ï¿œIn my own usage I try to remember not
owning days and fighting in the Confederate Army? Let's see, that would make
me 165 years old. I better check my birth certificate.
You moron.
Joel Edge
Oct 25, 2012, 8:41:04 AM10/25/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:26:45 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87boftu...@gmail.com>):
> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
>> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
>> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
>
> I designate that "the South" to that it is an idea at some distance from
> empirical reality.
You want to clear that up a little?
>
>
>> Mito hates the 'South' the 'south' and everything in it. He doesn't
>> differentiate between the 'old South' and the 'South' or the 'south'. He
>> lumps current and past Souths (?) or souths together. He assumes all
>> persons
>> in the 'South' are like persons of the 'old South', eager to enslave and
>> kill
>> blacks. Of course; even then, that wasn't necessarily true. Where he gets
>> this idea I don't know and don't care. I've met enough like him to fill a
>> small town.
>
> I think you've described his opinions fairly objectively. I do care
> about where he gets his ideas about "the South". Not that he seems to
> consider the blacks to be not southern.
Mito doesn't consider blacks at all. Except as some abstract group that are
enslaved with no hope of ever being other than slaves and needing someone to
blame. He's pretty much swallowed that narrative whole from liberal and
Democrat sources. Low expectations are a hallmark of liberal thought. There
always has to be someone to blame for a person's failing. They've been
singing that song for years.
>
>> What asking "are you a Southerner" gets you I'm not sure.
>
> It's a method of identifying who is southern, in case you want to make a
> study of them. I borrowed it from John Shelton Reed. If you want to
> say what southerners' believe, are like, and so on, then there is a need
> to identify who is southern.
The only thing that gets you is geographic. Southern 'culture' isn't limited
to the south. Are Texans southern? Or are they Texans? They're some blending.
Southern is a mindset these days. Unfortunately southern gets diluted into
'white trash' in some cases.
>
>
>> At one point being
>> a Southerner was not vilified in the current media. It got no more response
>> than affirming that you're a 'Texan' or a 'New Englander'.
>
> I suggest Jennifer Rae Greeson's book, _Our South_. Have you ever read
> H.L. Mencken's essay, "The Sahara of the Bozart"? Published about 1915
> or so, it's the best piece of south-bashing I've ever read.
No thanks, I see enough south-bashing in the current culture. Actually; it's
a good thing. It makes Southerners more aware of their culture.
More than one support group has popped up in social media in the last few
years. So people like Mito are actually doing us a favor.
>
>> All of these
>> little regions that, at one time, was the make-up of this country. The
>> habit
>> of disparaging 'Southerners' (people born in or being proud of being born
>> in
>> the south) began soon after the Democrats lost the white vote in the
>> south.
>
> see Greeson. She proves to my satisfaction that the northerners' habit
> of distinguishing "the South" from themselves, of regarding themselves
> as 'more American", and of regarding "the South" as exotic, foreign,
> goes back to the foundation of the United States.
If Northerners wish to separate themselves from the South ideologically,
works for me. Considering the condition of some the northern states.
(in article <87boftu...@gmail.com>):
> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
>> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
>> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
>
> I designate that "the South" to that it is an idea at some distance from
> empirical reality.
>
>
>> Mito hates the 'South' the 'south' and everything in it. He doesn't
>> differentiate between the 'old South' and the 'South' or the 'south'. He
>> lumps current and past Souths (?) or souths together. He assumes all
>> persons
>> in the 'South' are like persons of the 'old South', eager to enslave and
>> kill
>> blacks. Of course; even then, that wasn't necessarily true. Where he gets
>> this idea I don't know and don't care. I've met enough like him to fill a
>> small town.
>
> I think you've described his opinions fairly objectively. I do care
> about where he gets his ideas about "the South". Not that he seems to
> consider the blacks to be not southern.
enslaved with no hope of ever being other than slaves and needing someone to
blame. He's pretty much swallowed that narrative whole from liberal and
Democrat sources. Low expectations are a hallmark of liberal thought. There
always has to be someone to blame for a person's failing. They've been
singing that song for years.
>
>> What asking "are you a Southerner" gets you I'm not sure.
>
> It's a method of identifying who is southern, in case you want to make a
> study of them. I borrowed it from John Shelton Reed. If you want to
> say what southerners' believe, are like, and so on, then there is a need
> to identify who is southern.
to the south. Are Texans southern? Or are they Texans? They're some blending.
Southern is a mindset these days. Unfortunately southern gets diluted into
'white trash' in some cases.
>
>
>> At one point being
>> a Southerner was not vilified in the current media. It got no more response
>> than affirming that you're a 'Texan' or a 'New Englander'.
>
> I suggest Jennifer Rae Greeson's book, _Our South_. Have you ever read
> H.L. Mencken's essay, "The Sahara of the Bozart"? Published about 1915
> or so, it's the best piece of south-bashing I've ever read.
a good thing. It makes Southerners more aware of their culture.
More than one support group has popped up in social media in the last few
years. So people like Mito are actually doing us a favor.
>
>> All of these
>> little regions that, at one time, was the make-up of this country. The
>> habit
>> of disparaging 'Southerners' (people born in or being proud of being born
>> in
>> the south) began soon after the Democrats lost the white vote in the
>> south.
>
> see Greeson. She proves to my satisfaction that the northerners' habit
> of distinguishing "the South" from themselves, of regarding themselves
> as 'more American", and of regarding "the South" as exotic, foreign,
> goes back to the foundation of the United States.
works for me. Considering the condition of some the northern states.
hla...@triad.rr.com
Oct 25, 2012, 9:51:16 AM10/25/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:26:45 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <87boftu...@gmail.com>):
>
>> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
>>> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
>>> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
>>
>> I designate that "the South" to that it is an idea at some distance from
>> empirical reality.
>
> You want to clear that up a little?
Sure. Let me make an analogy. Several of Shakespeare's plays are set in
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:26:45 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <87boftu...@gmail.com>):
>
>> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> OK. At this point we're going to have to begin breaking things down by the
>>> current 'South' and the 'old South' and the south (geographic-little s). So
>>> we'll just agree that the word with a large S is the idea of a culture.
>>
>> I designate that "the South" to that it is an idea at some distance from
>> empirical reality.
>
> You want to clear that up a little?
Italy, or at least in Italian cities. By reading these plays very
carefully we could draw up a little essay on "Shakespeare's Idea of
Italy,". But if we wanted to know what Italy was like in that era, we'd
go to Italian records, to travel accounts by actual tourists, and so
on. So we could make a contrast between "Shakespeare's Italy", and the
Italy described by actual observers of the place.
Once we did that, we might become interested in the question, how did
Shakespeare form his impressions of Italy, and how did he use these
impressions in his imagined Italy. We might call those impressions
"Shakespeare-Italy", to distinguish it from the actually existing Italy.
What I am interested in is a special view of "the South". That is a
description of "the South" that presents it as an Alien-UnAmerican
Other. I don't hold that view myself. But I study it, speculate on how
it came to be formed, what purposes it serves for those who use it.
You can see that A.Lurker and MM are different to some extent, but there
is an underlying similarity in their view of "the South". It is a place
that is alien (they think) to the rest of America. I have mentioned
Jennifer Rae Greeson, Susan-Mary Grant, and David Jansson, as authors
from whom I've learned much about this matter.
> No thanks, I see enough south-bashing in the current culture. Actually; it's
> a good thing. It makes Southerners more aware of their culture.
> More than one support group has popped up in social media in the last few
> years. So people like Mito are actually doing us a favor.
20. It was such a south-bashing job that for a bit I was dismayed. So
I read it ten times, one time after another, until I could see how the
essay worked.
Mencken was a fabulous south-basher, but southerners on the whole are
more willing to encouter criticism than most other Americans. Quite a
few southerners wrote Mencken, saying "You got us". Mencken suddenly
realized that in the region he dismissed there were lots of smart people
that respected him. There is an interesting book on this phenomenon,
_Serpent in Eden: H.L. Mencken and the South_, by Fred Hobson.
After reading Mencken, south-bashing didn't bother me. Nowadays I read
south-bashers because I am interested in what they use the south-bashing
for. The thing you will always notice about them is this: south-bashing
is not about critical thinking; it is not about how to make things
better; for those who do it is a form of self-praise.
A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
with the South left out. He does this to make himself feel good, and
because he enjoys taunting southerners. And that's all. But he doesn't
consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
spread from "sea to shining sea".
Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
themselves. They constantly daydream about this (non-existing) innocent
pure America, and they see the South as an obstacle to this. It has
become a habit with them to think this way, such a habit that many of
them have difficulty seeing actually existing America. If they can just
denounce "the South" savagely enough, in chorus, they can work up the
feeling that they are this innocent, pure America.
Mito Minister overheard this chorus while growing up in Canada, and
confused it with a picture of actual circumstances. It's like confusing
a college alma mater with what really happens with college students.
HL
Joel Edge
Oct 26, 2012, 8:17:52 AM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
(in article <87625y6...@triad.rr.com>):
It's only alien to them. I suspect being confronted by any culture other than
their own would cause them problems. I've moved in different cultures with
little problem.
If you're trying to come up with an explanation for hatred of southerners,
good luck.
There was always some regional friction but it never escalated to the point
it has today. I've come to accept it's part of the ongoing 'culture war'.
Up until southern whites told the Democrat party to go to hell there hasn't
been a group to spurn the promises of the faction party. It was a shock to
the system that still reverberates today. With the oft posted articles
examining how many faction votes does X need to get to win. Along with
companion articles of 'why can't the Republicans win minority voters'. The
question would be better 'how did the Democrat party lose the south?' Soon
after Nixon actively courted the south and soon after Reagan ended Dem party
hopes for southern white votes, the acrimony started. The south has pretty
much done it's own thing and some people don't care for that trait. If the
Democrat party was still the party of the working man and not the party of
grievance, division, and low expectations, they would have had a lock on the
elections since Kennedy.
(in article <87625y6...@triad.rr.com>):
their own would cause them problems. I've moved in different cultures with
little problem.
good luck.
There was always some regional friction but it never escalated to the point
it has today. I've come to accept it's part of the ongoing 'culture war'.
Up until southern whites told the Democrat party to go to hell there hasn't
been a group to spurn the promises of the faction party. It was a shock to
the system that still reverberates today. With the oft posted articles
examining how many faction votes does X need to get to win. Along with
companion articles of 'why can't the Republicans win minority voters'. The
question would be better 'how did the Democrat party lose the south?' Soon
after Nixon actively courted the south and soon after Reagan ended Dem party
hopes for southern white votes, the acrimony started. The south has pretty
much done it's own thing and some people don't care for that trait. If the
Democrat party was still the party of the working man and not the party of
grievance, division, and low expectations, they would have had a lock on the
elections since Kennedy.
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 26, 2012, 8:02:07 PM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>with the South left out.
What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>with the South left out.
> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
> And that's all. But he doesn't
>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
>themselves.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 26, 2012, 8:19:51 PM10/26/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
Names? Evidence? You are always a day late, a doller short, but full
of innuendo. LOL>
>
> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
Names? Evidence? You are always a day late, a doller short, but full
of innuendo. LOL>
Hugh Lawson
Oct 26, 2012, 8:29:30 PM10/26/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>
>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>with the South left out.
>
> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>
>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>
> Untrue.
If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it.
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>
>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>with the South left out.
>
> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>
>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>
> Untrue.
>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>
> How do you know I don't consider that?
to do is explain how you considered it before you launched your taunting
about how nice America would be without the south.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 26, 2012, 8:37:17 PM10/26/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
A.Lurker bluffs:
>>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>> How do you know I don't consider that?
HL calls:
> Oh come on, A.Lurker. Don't play coy; if you considered it, all you have
> to do is explain *how* you considered it before you launched your taunting
> about how nice America would be without the south.
And while you are at it, "A.Lurker", I notice that your nym ( A.Lurker)
incorporates a lie, for you are not " a lurker". That's one of the clues
that you don't take much into consideration. LOL.
HL
Joel Edge
Oct 27, 2012, 7:20:32 AM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:02:07 -0400, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <5n8m885d87pn05fth...@4ax.com>):
>> Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
>> themselves.
>
> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
No. We pretty much get our flaws waved in our faces on a daily basis.
(in article <5n8m885d87pn05fth...@4ax.com>):
>> Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
>> themselves.
>
> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 27, 2012, 7:47:51 PM10/27/12
to
*intellectual* and national mass-media discussion deals almost entirely
with finding fault with the South and assigning blame to it.
hl
MITO MINISTER
Oct 27, 2012, 9:20:03 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 28, 8:47 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:02:07 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
> > (in article <5n8m885d87pn05fth0tlprgsm7gssu0...@4ax.com>):
Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:02:07 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
> > (in article <5n8m885d87pn05fth0tlprgsm7gssu0...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
> >>> themselves.
>
> >> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
>
> > No. We pretty much get our flaws waved in our faces on a daily basis.
>
> I agree with JE on this. The topic of "the South" in non-southern
> *intellectual* and national mass-media discussion deals almost entirely
> with finding fault with the South and assigning blame to it.
>
> hl
Selma, Little Rock, Birmingham, U. of Mississippi, Virginia vs.
> >>> Some yankees are always trying to find an innocent, pure America, in
> >>> themselves.
>
> >> Some Southerners, too, apparently.
>
> > No. We pretty much get our flaws waved in our faces on a daily basis.
>
> I agree with JE on this. The topic of "the South" in non-southern
> *intellectual* and national mass-media discussion deals almost entirely
> with finding fault with the South and assigning blame to it.
>
> hl
Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 27, 2012, 10:03:06 PM10/27/12
to
HL
Hugh Lawson
Oct 27, 2012, 10:56:54 PM10/27/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
> Selma, Little Rock, Birmingham, U. of Mississippi, Virginia vs.
> Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
You've listed these places, MM. Now explain what this listing proves.
> Selma, Little Rock, Birmingham, U. of Mississippi, Virginia vs.
> Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
What does the listing prove? Write it out. "By listing these places, I
the Mighty Mouse have proven...." what exactly?
Hugh Lawson
Oct 27, 2012, 11:39:52 PM10/27/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Selma, Little Rock, Birmingham, U. of Mississippi, Virginia vs.
> Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
Is there a Canadian province with say 40% African American population in
>
> Selma, Little Rock, Birmingham, U. of Mississippi, Virginia vs.
> Loving, Montgomery, etc. and forever.
1950 that provided a moral example for southern whites?
MITO MINISTER
Oct 28, 2012, 12:32:18 AM10/28/12
to
MITO MINISTER
Oct 28, 2012, 12:33:28 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 12:39 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Defending Jim Crow, are we? "You're just as bad as we are, so we're
better than you!" is all you ever say.
better than you!" is all you ever say.
MITO MINISTER
Oct 28, 2012, 12:42:25 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 25, 9:13 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:46:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article
> <acbaa7c7-d45d-4755-8e71-184842fbb...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:46:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 10:42 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >> (in article <876262pt7o....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
>
> >>> When I put "the South" in quotes, I mean to refer to an idea that people
> >>> have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
> >>> sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
> >>> in A.Lurker's.
>
> >>> There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
> >>> there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
> >>> about the American south.
>
> >>> I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
> >>> region.
>
> >>> When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
> >>> population. When I speak of southerners, or Southerners, I mean all the
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 10:42 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:49:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >> (in article <876262pt7o....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>> And for some reason you keep capitalizing south.
>
> >>> When I put "the South" in quotes, I mean to refer to an idea that people
> >>> have of the southern United States, especially its white population--the
> >>> sort of idea that is present openly in MM's talk, and somewhat tacitly
> >>> in A.Lurker's.
>
> >>> There is tha actually-existing south, a subject for observation, and
> >>> there is "the South", a cluster of images and notions purporting to be
> >>> about the American south.
>
> >>> I follow no rule whether to capitalize the name of actually-existing
> >>> region.
>
> >>> When I speak of the south, I mean the geographical region and all its
> >>> persons who would answer "yes" if asked, "Are you a southerner?" That
> >>> is, in a United States context. In my own usage I try to remember not
MITO MINISTER
Oct 28, 2012, 12:43:17 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 11:03 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
And you know exactly what the list refers to.
hla...@triad.rr.com
Oct 28, 2012, 1:26:27 AM10/28/12
to
What does it prove?
hla...@triad.rr.com
Oct 28, 2012, 1:30:19 AM10/28/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Let's look a little closer at that. Are you saying I'm defending my slave
>> owning days and fighting in the Confederate Army? Let's see, that would make
>> me 165 years old. I better check my birth certificate.
>> You moron.
>
> Figure of speech, Boy!
Explain how your figure of speech works.
>> Let's look a little closer at that. Are you saying I'm defending my slave
>> owning days and fighting in the Confederate Army? Let's see, that would make
>> me 165 years old. I better check my birth certificate.
>> You moron.
>
> Figure of speech, Boy!
hl
hla...@triad.rr.com
Oct 28, 2012, 2:10:07 AM10/28/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> You are just listing places.
>>
>> HL
>
> And you know exactly what the list refers to.
But you put yourself under examination. The question is what you think
>>
>> You are just listing places.
>>
>> HL
>
> And you know exactly what the list refers to.
you know. So, what do you think your list proves?
HL
MITO MINISTER
Oct 28, 2012, 8:18:59 AM10/28/12
to
Hugh Lawson
Oct 28, 2012, 9:55:25 AM10/28/12
to
posted it.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 28, 2012, 9:57:39 AM10/28/12
to
African American population, that might prove that Canada (or part of
it) set the example?
Do you?
Hugh Lawson
Oct 28, 2012, 10:01:54 AM10/28/12
to
Lady Anonymity, and flings out a lame sarcasm.
So, what do you think your list proves MM?
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 28, 2012, 12:45:28 PM10/28/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:29:30 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>>with the South left out.
>>
>> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>>
>>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it.
Have you stopped beating your wife, Hugh?
>>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>>
>> How do you know I don't consider that?
>
>Oh come on, A.Lurker. Don't play coy; if you considered it, all you have
>to do is explain how you considered it before you launched your taunting
>about how nice America would be without the south.
America would be nice without the redneck South, which is indeed not
only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
Now, you've answered me twice yet have still not explained what a
"cloud-cuckoo-America" is supposed to mean.
wrote:
>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>>with the South left out.
>>
>> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>>
>>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it.
>>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>>
>> How do you know I don't consider that?
>
>Oh come on, A.Lurker. Don't play coy; if you considered it, all you have
>to do is explain how you considered it before you launched your taunting
>about how nice America would be without the south.
only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
Now, you've answered me twice yet have still not explained what a
"cloud-cuckoo-America" is supposed to mean.
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 28, 2012, 12:43:55 PM10/28/12
to
>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>>with the South left out.
>>
>> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>>
>>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it.
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:51:16 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>>A.Lurker uses his south-bashing to day-dream about cloud-cuckoo-America
>>>with the South left out.
>>
>> What, pray tell, a "cloud-cuckoo-America"??????
>>
>>> He does this to make himself feel good, and
>>>because he enjoys taunting southerners.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>If you don't enjoy it then stop doing it.
Have you stopped beating your wife, Hugh?
>>>consider that had not the southern colonies joined the independence
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>>
>> How do you know I don't consider that?
>
>Oh come on, A.Lurker. Don't play coy; if you considered it, all you have
>to do is explain how you considered it before you launched your taunting
>about how nice America would be without the south.
>>>movement, there might not have been a United States at all. Had not the
>>>slave-owning southern Presidents pushed expansion, it might not have
>>>spread from "sea to shining sea".
>>
>> How do you know I don't consider that?
>
>Oh come on, A.Lurker. Don't play coy; if you considered it, all you have
>to do is explain how you considered it before you launched your taunting
>about how nice America would be without the south.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 28, 2012, 2:36:36 PM10/28/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> America would be nice without the redneck South, which is indeed not
> only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
> into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
> than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
You seem to be trying to frighten me with the thought that you will
> America would be nice without the redneck South, which is indeed not
> only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
> into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
> than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
disapprove of me. I do disagree with you. I'm very happy in North
Carolina. If you don't like a big fraction of your fellow Americans,
that is your problem, not mine.
> Now, you've answered me twice yet have still not explained what a
> "cloud-cuckoo-America" is supposed to mean.
everything is perfect. ("You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, mate.") It
hints that the person referred to is naïve, unaware of reality or
deranged in holding such an optimistic belief."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land
Cloud-cuckoo-America is a riff on cloud-cuckoo-land.
The wikipedia article gives enough citations of those who have used the
phrase (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Henry Wallace, Margaret Thatcher, Newt
Gingrich, and Paul Krugman) to make me wonder why you haven't heard of
it.
HL
Hugh Lawson
Oct 28, 2012, 2:38:11 PM10/28/12
to
Don't be silly. You've been telling me to my face that "your country"
would be better of if my state were expelled from in, along with several
others.
That's taunting.
HL
would be better of if my state were expelled from in, along with several
others.
That's taunting.
HL
MITO MINISTER
Oct 29, 2012, 1:05:59 AM10/29/12
to
On Oct 28, 11:01 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Oct 28, 3:10 pm, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:
> >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >> You are just listing places.
>
> >> >> HL
>
> >> > And you know exactly what the list refers to.
>
> >> But you put yourself under examination. The question is what you think
> >> you know. So, what do you think your list proves?
>
> >> HL
>
> > Everything!
>
> The bold MM wilts under the spotlight, scuttles behind the skirts of the
> Lady Anonymity, and flings out a lame sarcasm.
>
> So, what do you think your list proves MM?
It proves that you are an unrepentent neo-Confederate.
> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Oct 28, 3:10 pm, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:
> >> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> >> You are just listing places.
>
> >> >> HL
>
> >> > And you know exactly what the list refers to.
>
> >> But you put yourself under examination. The question is what you think
> >> you know. So, what do you think your list proves?
>
> >> HL
>
> > Everything!
>
> The bold MM wilts under the spotlight, scuttles behind the skirts of the
> Lady Anonymity, and flings out a lame sarcasm.
>
> So, what do you think your list proves MM?
MITO MINISTER
Oct 29, 2012, 1:07:30 AM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 3:38 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's a realistic view of the facts. You are no American. You are a
traitor who belongs in jail.
traitor who belongs in jail.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 29, 2012, 8:23:03 AM10/29/12
to
Hugh Lawson
Oct 29, 2012, 8:23:35 AM10/29/12
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:
> That's a realistic view of the facts. You are no American. You are a
> traitor who belongs in jail.
How silly.
> That's a realistic view of the facts. You are no American. You are a
> traitor who belongs in jail.
Joel Edge
Oct 29, 2012, 8:39:50 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 01:30:19 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
(in article <87txtfp...@triad.rr.com>):
It works in another dimension.
(in article <87txtfp...@triad.rr.com>):
Joel Edge
Oct 29, 2012, 8:43:20 AM10/29/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:47:51 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87hapfv...@gmail.com>):
On a constant basis. Pointing out the hypocrisy in the media and current
culture seems to enrage these people.
(in article <87hapfv...@gmail.com>):
culture seems to enrage these people.
Joel Edge
Oct 29, 2012, 8:44:55 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:43:17 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<e1788ed8-b85f-46f8...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>):
No South Boston on the list? No room for the race riots in New York city,
Mito?
(in article
<e1788ed8-b85f-46f8...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>):
Mito?
Hugh Lawson
Oct 29, 2012, 12:44:17 PM10/29/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
> On a constant basis. Pointing out the hypocrisy in the media and current
> culture seems to enrage these people.
There has to be a reason for the emotionalism of the response. Here is a
> On a constant basis. Pointing out the hypocrisy in the media and current
> culture seems to enrage these people.
suggestion, for those who display the emotion. By education and
rearing, they have been trained to believe themselves to belong to Core
America. The fault-finding and blaming is the normal means they have of
expressing their core-american identity. For them to talk about the
South simply IS to find fault with it, and at the same time, to
reinforce their sense of Core American identity.
Perhaps it is the identity part that causes the emotionalism.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 29, 2012, 12:49:49 PM10/29/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
> No South Boston on the list? No room for the race riots in New York city,
> Mito?
The Doctrine: Those are accidental anomalies, while similar events in
> No South Boston on the list? No room for the race riots in New York city,
> Mito?
"the South" reflect the true eternal character of the South.
Joel Edge
Oct 30, 2012, 9:04:14 AM10/30/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:44:17 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87pq41n...@gmail.com>):
Has there ever been a "Core America"? At one time the diversity of the
various regions was a laudable part of the America experience. I would have
to assume by the response that this very regionalism is now an impediment to
the Dem agenda. Seeing how the Dem party has absolutely zero chance of
reclaiming the south, that would explain general hostility to the south. And
to a lesser extent the "bitter clingers" remark out west.
The only core identity I see is people like Mito. So spoon-fed hate that they
can't think clearly. The only up-side; they're unified in their disdain for
people who disagree with them. Black, white, hispanic, union, etc. They hate
anyone who disagrees.
Of course; I see the Dem party as the biggest evil this country had
generated.
(in article <87pq41n...@gmail.com>):
various regions was a laudable part of the America experience. I would have
to assume by the response that this very regionalism is now an impediment to
the Dem agenda. Seeing how the Dem party has absolutely zero chance of
reclaiming the south, that would explain general hostility to the south. And
to a lesser extent the "bitter clingers" remark out west.
The only core identity I see is people like Mito. So spoon-fed hate that they
can't think clearly. The only up-side; they're unified in their disdain for
people who disagree with them. Black, white, hispanic, union, etc. They hate
anyone who disagrees.
Of course; I see the Dem party as the biggest evil this country had
generated.
Joel Edge
Oct 30, 2012, 9:04:50 AM10/30/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:49:49 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87liepn...@gmail.com>):
Ahhh. Thanks for explaining that.
(in article <87liepn...@gmail.com>):
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 30, 2012, 10:56:08 AM10/30/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:36:36 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>
>> America would be nice without the redneck South, which is indeed not
>> only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
>> into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
>> than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
>
>You seem to be trying to frighten me with the thought that you will
>disapprove of me. I do disagree with you. I'm very happy in North
>Carolina. If you don't like a big fraction of your fellow Americans,
>that is your problem, not mine.
>
>> Now, you've answered me twice yet have still not explained what a
>> "cloud-cuckoo-America" is supposed to mean.
>
>
>
>Cloud-cuckoo-land "refers to an unrealistically idealistic state where
>everything is perfect. ("You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, mate.") It
>hints that the person referred to is naďve, unaware of reality or
of backward rednecks, North and South but most heavily concentrated in
the South, you're the one living Cloud-cuckoo-land, Hugh.
wrote:
>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>
>> America would be nice without the redneck South, which is indeed not
>> only holding the whole country back but threatening to plunge it back
>> into darkness. If you disagree, then the MM is more right about you
>> than I've hitherto given him credit for being.
>
>You seem to be trying to frighten me with the thought that you will
>disapprove of me. I do disagree with you. I'm very happy in North
>Carolina. If you don't like a big fraction of your fellow Americans,
>that is your problem, not mine.
>
>> Now, you've answered me twice yet have still not explained what a
>> "cloud-cuckoo-America" is supposed to mean.
>
>
>
>Cloud-cuckoo-land "refers to an unrealistically idealistic state where
>everything is perfect. ("You're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, mate.") It
>deranged in holding such an optimistic belief."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land
>
>Cloud-cuckoo-America is a riff on cloud-cuckoo-land.
>
>The wikipedia article gives enough citations of those who have used the
>phrase (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Henry Wallace, Margaret Thatcher, Newt
>Gingrich, and Paul Krugman) to make me wonder why you haven't heard of
>it.
>
>HL
If you think America couldn't be better were it not for the opposition
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land
>
>Cloud-cuckoo-America is a riff on cloud-cuckoo-land.
>
>The wikipedia article gives enough citations of those who have used the
>phrase (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Henry Wallace, Margaret Thatcher, Newt
>Gingrich, and Paul Krugman) to make me wonder why you haven't heard of
>it.
>
>HL
of backward rednecks, North and South but most heavily concentrated in
the South, you're the one living Cloud-cuckoo-land, Hugh.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 30, 2012, 11:39:28 AM10/30/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> If you think America couldn't be better were it not for the opposition
> of backward rednecks, North and South but most heavily concentrated in
> the South, you're the one living Cloud-cuckoo-land, Hugh.
I'm satisfied to live in actually existing America, including the south and
> If you think America couldn't be better were it not for the opposition
> of backward rednecks, North and South but most heavily concentrated in
> the South, you're the one living Cloud-cuckoo-land, Hugh.
its population.
I hope you will give up your hatred.
HL
Hugh Lawson
Oct 30, 2012, 11:51:06 AM10/30/12
to
There have probably always been Americans who thought of themselves as
being "More American", and members of an invisible Core America. When
people adopt this premise, Core America seems real to them.
[ snip ]
HL
being "More American", and members of an invisible Core America. When
people adopt this premise, Core America seems real to them.
[ snip ]
HL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 30, 2012, 2:13:46 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:39:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't hate anyone but I do hate what the Republicans are doing to my
country, and what they will do to it in the future if they ever get
complete control. They are simply un-American for all that they try
to wrap themselves in the flag, truly the last refuge of scoundrels.
And you'd hate it too, Hugh, if you're big liberal you claim to be.
wrote:
country, and what they will do to it in the future if they ever get
complete control. They are simply un-American for all that they try
to wrap themselves in the flag, truly the last refuge of scoundrels.
And you'd hate it too, Hugh, if you're big liberal you claim to be.
slotrot
Oct 30, 2012, 3:07:35 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 2:13 pm, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:39:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
Well said. Best not to hate anyone. "If you can wait and not be
tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating", Kipling. Great poetry.
I can't quite understand why anyone would vote for someone who will
take something away from them. Too bad people get caught-up in
ideology and forget about reality.
But, you get what you vote for. Same thing here in Canada. However,
our Conservative government has seen the light as far as defence
spending is concerned. No current wars we're involved in therefore
spending has been cut.
Reality is setting in, I hope.
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:39:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating", Kipling. Great poetry.
I can't quite understand why anyone would vote for someone who will
take something away from them. Too bad people get caught-up in
ideology and forget about reality.
But, you get what you vote for. Same thing here in Canada. However,
our Conservative government has seen the light as far as defence
spending is concerned. No current wars we're involved in therefore
spending has been cut.
Reality is setting in, I hope.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 30, 2012, 4:17:49 PM10/30/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
HL wrote:
>>I hope you will give up your hatred.
You want millions to disappear so that the country will be more pleasant
for you. Isn't that a correct statement of your desire?
HL
HL wrote:
>>I hope you will give up your hatred.
A.L wrote:
> I don't hate anyone but I do hate what the Republicans are doing to my
> country, and what they will do to it in the future if they ever get
> complete control. They are simply un-American for all that they try
> to wrap themselves in the flag, truly the last refuge of scoundrels.
>
> And you'd hate it too, Hugh, if you're big liberal you claim to be.
HL replies::
> I don't hate anyone but I do hate what the Republicans are doing to my
> country, and what they will do to it in the future if they ever get
> complete control. They are simply un-American for all that they try
> to wrap themselves in the flag, truly the last refuge of scoundrels.
>
> And you'd hate it too, Hugh, if you're big liberal you claim to be.
You want millions to disappear so that the country will be more pleasant
for you. Isn't that a correct statement of your desire?
HL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 30, 2012, 11:23:05 PM10/30/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Oct 30, 2012, 11:30:20 PM10/30/12
to
more rational but very greedy people, like Romney, the Republicans
routinely con millions upon millions of their fellow citizens into
voting against their own best interest and in the interest of a
relative handful of billionaires and multi-millionaires. At the rate
they're going, the US is going to devolve into a virtual oligarchy.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 31, 2012, 6:57:46 AM10/31/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>You want millions to disappear so that the country will be more pleasant
>>for you. Isn't that a correct statement of your desire?
>
> No.
You statement that America would be a better country if they were not
>>You want millions to disappear so that the country will be more pleasant
>>for you. Isn't that a correct statement of your desire?
>
> No.
present made me think that you wanted them to be gone.
If you were not expressing a desire of yours, then what were you
expressing in that statement?
HL
Joel Edge
Oct 31, 2012, 6:59:58 AM10/31/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:13:46 -0400, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <hs509850eifrjmm4m...@4ax.com>):
> I do hate what the Republicans are doing to my
> country
Maybe you're right, Hugh. Maybe there is a core of people who believe they're
'more American' than their countrymen.
(in article <hs509850eifrjmm4m...@4ax.com>):
> I do hate what the Republicans are doing to my
> country
'more American' than their countrymen.
Hugh Lawson
Oct 31, 2012, 7:10:58 AM10/31/12
to
hl
Hugh Lawson
Oct 31, 2012, 5:09:25 PM10/31/12
to
Jansson on "internal orientalism".
This "We're-more-American" claim seems implicit in the phrase "taking
back our country". For that reason, "taking back our country" seems aggressive.
Joel Edge
Nov 1, 2012, 9:18:47 AM11/1/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:09:25 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87pq3yu...@gmail.com>):
I don't have a problem with the phrase "taking back our country". I consider
it as taking back the country from the lazy, greedy and ignorant. That covers
a rather large swath unfortunately.
(in article <87pq3yu...@gmail.com>):
it as taking back the country from the lazy, greedy and ignorant. That covers
a rather large swath unfortunately.
Hugh Lawson
Nov 1, 2012, 11:22:28 AM11/1/12
to
Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
> I don't have a problem with the phrase "taking back our country". I consider
> it as taking back the country from the lazy, greedy and ignorant. That covers
> a rather large swath unfortunately.
Noted.
> I don't have a problem with the phrase "taking back our country". I consider
> it as taking back the country from the lazy, greedy and ignorant. That covers
> a rather large swath unfortunately.
HL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Nov 1, 2012, 12:07:35 PM11/1/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:09:25 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hugh, you're just joking when you claim to be a New Deal liberal,
right??
wrote:
right??
Hugh Lawson
Nov 1, 2012, 4:04:02 PM11/1/12
to
What caused you to ask that question?
HL
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Nov 1, 2012, 11:58:56 PM11/1/12
to
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:04:02 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
Your spirited defense of people who would turn the social
enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
Hugh Lawson
Nov 2, 2012, 11:15:13 AM11/2/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
AL
hl
AL
>>> Hugh, you're just joking when you claim to be a New Deal liberal,
>>> right??
>
HL:
>>> right??
>
>>No, I'm not joking.
>>
>>What caused you to ask that question?
AL:
>>
>>What caused you to ask that question?
> Your spirited defense of people who would turn the social
> enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
HL: How old are you AL? You seem immature.
> enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
hl
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Nov 2, 2012, 12:25:44 PM11/2/12
to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:15:13 -0700, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That's a non sequitur designed to evade my reply. But for the record
I'm plenty old, old enough to remember George Wallace standing in the
schoolhouse door in defense of white supremacy.
Do you really think the Republicans won't turn the clock back at least
five or six decades if we let them? Do you really think there would
any chance of it happening if it weren't for the backwardness of the
South? Again, Hugh, I doubt your liberal bona fides.
wrote:
I'm plenty old, old enough to remember George Wallace standing in the
schoolhouse door in defense of white supremacy.
Do you really think the Republicans won't turn the clock back at least
five or six decades if we let them? Do you really think there would
any chance of it happening if it weren't for the backwardness of the
South? Again, Hugh, I doubt your liberal bona fides.
Hugh Lawson
Nov 2, 2012, 4:58:04 PM11/2/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>AL:
>>> Your spirited defense of people who would turn the social
>>> enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
>>
>>HL: How old are you AL? You seem immature.
>
> That's a non sequitur designed to evade my reply.
[ snip ]
>>AL:
>>> Your spirited defense of people who would turn the social
>>> enlightenment clock backward at least five or six decades.
>>
>>HL: How old are you AL? You seem immature.
>
> That's a non sequitur designed to evade my reply.
HL:
OK, my answer is that you incorrectly asserted this "spirited defense",
etc. There is no "defense" of somebody.
Instead, I criticized you, for expressing wishes that these people disappear, so
that you could be happier with the condition of America. That's not a
defense of somebody else; it's a criticism of what I understood to be
your expressed wish.
AL:
> Do you really think the Republicans won't turn the clock back at least
> five or six decades if we let them? Do you really think there would
> any chance of it happening if it weren't for the backwardness of the
> South?
HL:
> five or six decades if we let them? Do you really think there would
> any chance of it happening if it weren't for the backwardness of the
> South?
I can't answer that question. I don't know what the United States would
be like many millions disappeared. You don't either. America is what
it is. I take it that way. There are propositions I don't consider,
and yours is one of them.
AL:
> Again, Hugh, I doubt your liberal bona fides.
HL: The thoughts you turn over in your mind are entirely your affair.
They have nothing to do with me.
But I do think something about northern culture encourages
well-intentioned northerners to speculate on a utopian America with "the
South" block deleted, as it were.
hl
Hugh Lawson
Nov 2, 2012, 5:21:40 PM11/2/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
> HL:
> I can't answer that question. I don't know what the United States would
> be like many millions disappeared. You don't either. America is what
> it is. I take it that way. There are propositions I don't consider,
> and yours is one of them.
I'll add a note on this issue. In the US there were once people who
> HL:
> I can't answer that question. I don't know what the United States would
> be like many millions disappeared. You don't either. America is what
> it is. I take it that way. There are propositions I don't consider,
> and yours is one of them.
speculated that the country would be better off without the African
Americans; or the Catholics; or the Jews. Studying these nativist and
racist movements made such speculation abhorrent to me.
HL
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages