Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the South, reviled again
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Hugh Lawson
Jul 1, 2012, 7:57:23 PM7/1/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Jul 2, 2012, 2:07:36 AM7/2/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:57:23 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That's a very insightful article!! Thank you for bringing it to my
attention, Hugh. It really is no accident that the Republican Party
acquired its current vileness as its base shifted to the South.
wrote:
That's a very insightful article!! Thank you for bringing it to my
attention, Hugh. It really is no accident that the Republican Party
acquired its current vileness as its base shifted to the South.
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Jul 2, 2012, 6:34:23 PM7/2/12
to
Hugh, I've read this article three times now and I get more out of it
each time. It makes perfect sense and explains so much. Again,
thank you for posting it!
each time. It makes perfect sense and explains so much. Again,
thank you for posting it!
Hugh Lawson
Jul 2, 2012, 10:13:13 PM7/2/12
to
HL
Hugh Lawson
Jul 3, 2012, 4:29:25 PM7/3/12
to
HL
Wiregrass Willie
Jul 3, 2012, 6:42:36 PM7/3/12
to
Thanks Hugh, I appreciate this. I didn't pay a lot of attention
to the article until I read this paragraph:
".....As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven
Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South
are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton
plantations from Barbados -- the younger sons of the British nobility
who’d farmed up the Caribbean islands, and then came ashore to the
southern coasts seeking more land. Woodward described the culture they
created in the crescent stretching from Charleston, SC around to New
Orleans this way:..."
I thought the guy was lying. So what did I do ? I picked up a
copy of the book yesterday. I'm glad I did. I never knew that
South Carolina (Charleston to be exact) had been settled by
Barbadians.
I suppose I thought it strange that SC and not VA had been the leader
in the secession movement, but I didn't give it a lot of thought. I
do now. No wonder the Charlestonians have always been different.
They are products of a totally different culture. They had no
more roots in the South than the Pilgrims did.
And I now understand why the firebrands of the Secession (from SC)
were so anxious to set up a slave empire -- headquartered in the
Caribbean.
Very interesting.
to the article until I read this paragraph:
".....As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven
Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South
are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton
plantations from Barbados -- the younger sons of the British nobility
who’d farmed up the Caribbean islands, and then came ashore to the
southern coasts seeking more land. Woodward described the culture they
created in the crescent stretching from Charleston, SC around to New
Orleans this way:..."
I thought the guy was lying. So what did I do ? I picked up a
copy of the book yesterday. I'm glad I did. I never knew that
South Carolina (Charleston to be exact) had been settled by
Barbadians.
I suppose I thought it strange that SC and not VA had been the leader
in the secession movement, but I didn't give it a lot of thought. I
do now. No wonder the Charlestonians have always been different.
They are products of a totally different culture. They had no
more roots in the South than the Pilgrims did.
And I now understand why the firebrands of the Secession (from SC)
were so anxious to set up a slave empire -- headquartered in the
Caribbean.
Very interesting.
Hugh Lawson
Jul 3, 2012, 8:52:36 PM7/3/12
to
Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
[ snip ]
> And I now understand why the firebrands of the Secession (from SC)
> were so anxious to set up a slave empire -- headquartered in the
> Caribbean.
>
> Very interesting.
I shot an arrow into the air . . . . ;-)
[ snip ]
> And I now understand why the firebrands of the Secession (from SC)
> were so anxious to set up a slave empire -- headquartered in the
> Caribbean.
>
> Very interesting.
MITO MINISTER
Jul 4, 2012, 9:04:18 AM7/4/12
to
On Jul 4, 9:52 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the 4th of July, celebrate an America free of slavery, Jim Crow,
and neo-Confederate cowards and Southern apologists such as Lawson.
and neo-Confederate cowards and Southern apologists such as Lawson.
Hugh Lawson
Jul 4, 2012, 1:05:48 PM7/4/12
to
Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:57:23 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Read this one:
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived
>>
>>LOL
>
> Thanks Hugh, I appreciate this. I didn't pay a lot of attention
> to the article until I read this paragraph:
>
> ".....As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven
> Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South
> are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton
> plantations from Barbados
Let's say this is correct, though I doubt it.
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:57:23 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Read this one:
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived
>>
>>LOL
>
> Thanks Hugh, I appreciate this. I didn't pay a lot of attention
> to the article until I read this paragraph:
>
> ".....As described by Colin Woodard in American Nations: The Eleven
> Rival Regional Cultures of North America, the elites of the Deep South
> are descended mainly from the owners of sugar, rum and cotton
> plantations from Barbados
The Deep South comprises South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Nowadays nobody includes Texas and Florida. Besides that,
the Deep South states are those populations include the largest
fractions of blacks.
So how does this tiny white bloc manage to control the vast United
States, especially when their black minorities are Democrats?
With the Civil Rights act of 1964, and the Voting Rights act of 1965,
which got hardly any votes from southern congressmen, LBJ proved that
not just the Deep South, but also the larger South could be overriden.
Analysis from a political standpoint, like the one referenced here,
ought to show, after describing the political problem, what do do about
it. Obviously if there is an evil minority controlling things, then the
problem is to isolate them, divide them, and overpower them.
But if this article had proceded in a practical way like that, its main
idea would have collapsed, and the article would have been given up as a
bad idea. Everybody already knows that the Deep South is not powerful
enough to veto the US majority.
So, why didn't the authors give up the article before finishing it? The
reason is that "talk about the South" in northern conversation, is not
meant to analyze problems and solve them. The purpose of this "talk
about the South" is to make northerners, and even some Canadians, feel
better about themselves. That's what I believe.
The Yanks have money, power, and all the geniuses holding down jobs at
top universities. Why can't they isolate and neutralize the political
power of the Deep South? They can, but that's not the problem: the
problem is that conservativism is strong in lots of places in the US.
Instead of facing this reality, analyzing it, and dealing with it,
northern liberals moan about "the South".
hl
Message has been deleted
Hugh Lawson
Jul 5, 2012, 7:58:41 AM7/5/12
to
Bad Jim <jc...@csa.gov> writes:
> One of the first principles of creating a cohesive organization is to
> identify a common enemy so that hostility can be directed outward rather than
> inward. "The South" serves as this Bête noire for Progressives. Being a
> Progressive yourself, you find yourself caught up in a cognitive dissonance
> which ultimately leads to heresy and thus MM and his ilk attempt to burn you
> at the virtual stake. I have no doubt that if they ever achieve the
> totalitarianism they seem to feel is their moral right, the stake will no
> longer be virtual.
Piffle.
> One of the first principles of creating a cohesive organization is to
> identify a common enemy so that hostility can be directed outward rather than
> inward. "The South" serves as this Bête noire for Progressives. Being a
> Progressive yourself, you find yourself caught up in a cognitive dissonance
> which ultimately leads to heresy and thus MM and his ilk attempt to burn you
> at the virtual stake. I have no doubt that if they ever achieve the
> totalitarianism they seem to feel is their moral right, the stake will no
> longer be virtual.
Piffle.
MITO MINISTER
Jul 5, 2012, 8:05:23 AM7/5/12
to
On Jul 5, 7:04 pm, Bad Jim <jc...@csa.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:05:48 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <87r4srpic3....@dell-desktop.xx.yy>):
> "Progressive" elite which resides in the North, the West, and unfortunately,
> even the South, and dominates academia, the media, and the government. Your
> average Billy Yank may have a negative opinion of the South but he gets it
> from them and doesn't think about it much or nurture it.
> --
> Bad Jim
Odd that you speak of 'stakes', when the burning pyre was a preferred
method of dealing with freedom-loving African-Americans in the South.
Hugh is NOT a Progressive. He talks the talk but don't walk the walk.
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:05:48 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> (in article <87r4srpic3....@dell-desktop.xx.yy>):
>
> > So, why didn't the authors give up the article before finishing it? The
> > reason is that "talk about the South" in northern conversation, is not
> > meant to analyze problems and solve them. The purpose of this "talk
> > about the South" is to make northerners, and even some Canadians, feel
> > better about themselves. That's what I believe.
>
> > The Yanks have money, power, and all the geniuses holding down jobs at
> > top universities. Why can't they isolate and neutralize the political
> > power of the Deep South? They can, but that's not the problem: the
> > problem is that conservativism is strong in lots of places in the US.
>
> > Instead of facing this reality, analyzing it, and dealing with it,
> > northern liberals moan about "the South".
>
> I agree with you except it is not "The Yanks". It is the so called
> > So, why didn't the authors give up the article before finishing it? The
> > reason is that "talk about the South" in northern conversation, is not
> > meant to analyze problems and solve them. The purpose of this "talk
> > about the South" is to make northerners, and even some Canadians, feel
> > better about themselves. That's what I believe.
>
> > The Yanks have money, power, and all the geniuses holding down jobs at
> > top universities. Why can't they isolate and neutralize the political
> > power of the Deep South? They can, but that's not the problem: the
> > problem is that conservativism is strong in lots of places in the US.
>
> > Instead of facing this reality, analyzing it, and dealing with it,
> > northern liberals moan about "the South".
>
> "Progressive" elite which resides in the North, the West, and unfortunately,
> even the South, and dominates academia, the media, and the government. Your
> average Billy Yank may have a negative opinion of the South but he gets it
> from them and doesn't think about it much or nurture it.
> Bad Jim
Odd that you speak of 'stakes', when the burning pyre was a preferred
method of dealing with freedom-loving African-Americans in the South.
Hugh is NOT a Progressive. He talks the talk but don't walk the walk.
Hugh Lawson
Jul 5, 2012, 10:31:26 AM7/5/12
to
The white part of the Deep South cannot possibly control the United
States; there just aren't enough white Deep Southerners.
Step 2:
Because of this, it cannot possibly be true that the non-South is ruled
by the Deep South.
Step 3:
If its authors had taken into account #1 and #2, they would have
dropped the article as a bad idea.
Step 4:
Hence, the preparation of the article must be controlled by some kind
of confusion. What causes the confusion?
I suggest this. Liberals think of themselves as the organized political
movement of good intentions. Why doesn't everybody accept the liberals'
self-estimate? If you spend all your time talking with other liberals,
and reading their writings, it must seem crazy. Some evil force must be
frustrating liberals.
Now what in American national "memory" is the A-1, all-time champion,
Evil Force? Umm, that would be the eternal spirit of the southern-white
slaveocracy, which has been bequeathed (like say the churches of
Christendom) by a process of spiritual transmission, right down to the
present. The Evil now pulsates and glows in its coals in the Deep South
[ for examples of this way of thinking, read the childish posts of the
Mito Minister ].
Now if the idea of this Evil Force has a strong grip on your mind, and
you don't like arithmetic, you might fail to see that the white
southerners, and especially those of the Deep South, cannot possibly
control the US. The arithmetic of power in the federal union makes this
impossible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to persuade anybody to think well of
the white south. I'm just pointing out that the Deep (white) South
can't control the US. To find out why Republicans do well,
liberals should look both north and south.
0 new messages