Race Relations in the South: Taboo Subject?

Well they say fools walk where angels fear to tread...

See, it started with lildreamer316's thread "I want to make a small point about the South" which brought to light an interesting and useful issue:

"See, most people I know here are very easy going and hard working.We don't mind working for a living,and we don't even mind finding out new more efficient ways of doing what we have always done. But, whatever you do, don't ever ASSUME that you KNOW what we want. Don't ever assume that you KNOW how customers from the area want to be treated. Whatever you do, DON'T treat us like we are just another number and stupid yokels. Do not dumb down to us, don't condescend, and don't be formulatic. If you do this, this is what people in the south will do: they will do the EXACT opposite of what you WANT them to do JUST TO PISS YOU OFF.

"Really.

"I know it SEEMS stupid, self defeating and immature, but the bottom line is the spirit of stubborn need for freedom that this country was founded on, however misguided you may think it is now (and it certainly sometimes is!). I will bet on this response every time someone comes into town with an attitude and alot of money. I have seen perfectly good business go completely broke because of this. We will tolerate them for awhile, let them make a little money,smile quietly to ourselves and then boom!...brokesville.

"I offer this to the many here who argue constantly about the mentality of the South. We are many things, we are red at the moment, but I believe the solution to the Dems is to make sure they are not commanding but friendly, not strenuous and overbearing but patient and PERSISTENT. You remember that old adage about the southern politeness? It still applies. Scarlett ain't got nothin' on some of us! We will slay you with a smile.Things may move as slow as molasses, but they DO move. Steel Magnolias indeed..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5336081&mesg_id=5336081

Now it seemed to me (and still seems to me) that this statement reflects but one view of Southerners, and so I raised the folllwing point:

"I can understand what you say from the point of view of the history of race relations in the South and how the North has intervened repeatedly to recognize the dignity and humanity of people of colour.

"For some reason I suspect your use of the word "South" is colour-coded, as Blacks have benefited in many ways from the North going South to both change it and Southerners.

"How about liberation from Slavery? That was bad for the South? Which South? The slave-owning South or the enslaved South?

"How about voter registrations? Bad for the White South or the Black South?

"I could go on but you get the point, I'm sure.

"The resentment the White South feels towards the North is that of the dispossed towards the conqueror, and it isn't going to change until the White South recognizes that people of colour should -never- have been enslaved.

"Till then it looks like the White South is going to go on expecting the North to repay a debt it doesn't owe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5336081&mesg_id=5347089

I've been told, politely, to "let it go" and not pursue this matter.

To complicate matters, I was reading welshTerrier2's thread on reconstruction in Iraq where I came across the following statement from wT2:

"it's tragic that those who are the loudest have nothing to say in threads like these ... they don't give a damn about policy ... they never, or rarely anyway, show up to participate unless they think they can make points for their "loved one" ...

"all they care about is winning; not making the country better ...

"until the Democrats put issues ahead of politics, we ain't going nowhere"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2247093&mesg_id=2247252

Now I happen to agree with that last statement about putting issues ahead of politics, and not just for Democrats or even politicians. I think we all need to do that all the time.

And for me the logical conclusion from that is to explore all aspects of each issue to ensure each issue is understood thoroughly and addressed appropriately.

So here I am doing a soft-shoe shuffle where angels fear to tread.

The issues:
1. Are Southern people of colour as eager to avoid interference from the North as lildreamer described?
2. If so, why (given the history of benefits that arose from previous interference)?
3. Given the differences in heritage between Southern people of colour and Southern whites, how do you respect the heritage of each when one says "Help!" (such as the case with disenfranchised people of colour) and the other says "Get Out!"?
4. Are Democrats addressing these issues in a manner that, somehow, respects both sides, or is the Democratic Party so intent on building and maintaining a "big tent" that these issues are to be glossed over to avoid stepping on any toes?

My apologies if this steps on any toes, but I've never been very good at leaving things like this alone.

Why are you assumming that your assessment of a "history of benefits that arose from previous interference" by the North is shared widely by Southerners?

to wT2's thread so you can get it straight from there.

My understanding was the need for dealing with the issues without concern for whether it makes a specific individual look good or bad. The emphasis is on the need to solve the problem, rather than the need to get a particular individual elected.

southerners but not white southerners.

;-)

Tell us more.

...but that is for another thread.

Thanks for the smile, tho' :-)

Many Americans have historically liked to pretend that racism is strictly or primarily a Southern phenomenon. Start talking about racism outside the South and you can quickly get a real flamewar on your hands.

However I don't want a flamewar.

A flamewar would answer my "taboo" question pretty decisively and I think would demonstrate welshTerrier2's point very clearly.

A flamewar does nothing to benefit Democrats or America. There is already a flamewar outside the net, a very real flamewar. I'm hoping this discussion will help put an end to that.

But it is an interesting result that thus far no one has actually addressed the topic...

I know you mean well, but there tends to be a common American reaction to such questions that amounts to "that's our problem, not yours". That's my initial reaction to your question (which is sort of my point in the Canadian south and north matter). IMO, what is sometimes interpreted as not caring about other countries is actually a general tendency to clean up our own yard before we criticize the neighbor's... that kind of thing.

As for the south, many US southern states are (compared with Idaho, for instance) liberal. North Carolina, for instance, has pro-choice government from the governor on down, and a fairly sophisticated view of racial injustice. There is always room to improve, however the problem is an old and understood one in much of the south -- it has become something of a cause celebre in areas in Idaho, for instance, which is not southern. Granted, there are plenty of very aware, progressive people in Idaho, too.

There are many aspects of Canadian history I can discuss, but my assumption has been that this board is devoted to American/Democratic issues and I respect that by remaining within topics relevant to those issues (someone else may start up Canadian topics, but not me, I'll contribute after they've begun).

This is -not- about a foreigner pointing fingers and going "nyah nyah". I appreciate you recognizing I "mean well".

I'd hoped that I'd laid out the circumstances that gave rise to this topic in my first article: that a monolithic attitude was ascribed to "people of the south" by an American from the South, how I questioned the idea of 'one-attitude' given the differences I'm aware of, and how I felt encouraged by statements about how the Democrats need to grasp the issues to make America a better place.

It seems easy for Americans to say "this is our problem, butt out". But America's problems are the world's problems. When America elects republicans the rest of us get wars, strong-arm foreign policy, and a general increase in right-wing attitudes the world over.

When you vote you're not just electing the American government but you are also electing a government that will pretty much rule the rest of us indirectly.

Given a choice, most of us (in the world) would prefer a Democratic government in Washington. It is more peaceful, more humane, more responsible for the way America uses the planet.

From reading the responses thus far it seems obvious there is no monolithic attitude in the South, which confirms my opinion on that point. But if people can't talk about race (in the South, in America), especially Democrats, without inflaming the passions, this is not a good thing.

There are only two ways to resolve a problem: talk and force. If we can't talk or refuse to talk, what's left?

I've seen DU pull togehter on some of these problems: voter registration and denial of the right to vote in Florida, the dispersion of poor, mainly people of colour in the wake of Katrina and how it will affect the ballot box in Louisiana, etc. There were accusations by democrats that the slow FEMA response was racially motivated, etc. Bush getting 2% support amongst black-Americans, etc.

Race comes up all the time, but to discuss relationships and to demystify monolithic statements about "the South" seems a very difficult matter.

I don't fit the North-South/Black-White matrix. I'm obviously not American, and my race is unknown to the rest of you. I had hoped that by explaining things to the 'town idiot' (namely me) Americans would better understand one another and begin (or continue) the process of healing through discussion and understanding one another. Naive? Most likely, but a sincere effort nonetheless to move the issue forward a notch.

The worst that can happen is that I learn this can't be done (by me, anyway). That would say something if even 80,000 Democrats can't discuss race relations (in the South or America). Bear in mind I said "discuss", not "solve".

If you can't peacefully discuss this matter amongst yourselves, how do you think you'll discuss this and other major problems when there are Republicans involved and there are no moderators to protect the discussion?

As painful as it must be for some, this isn't an issue to be ignored or glossed over if America is to be a better place for all.

Again, my apologies for stepping on toes, 'town idiots' are known to have two left feet.

It's not "painful" in the least. It's part of our history. However, all governments have their own problems to deal with. That is ours.

If you think Americans can do anything about the system now, you're sadly mistaken. We all are trying, but the reality is, we need outside help. Our government is now fascist controlled. The people who DO still have power are people in other governments. Not a one of our familial nations (UK, Australia, NZ, and of course Canada - to say nothing of all of Europe and Latin America) raised a complaint about the results of the 2000 elections.

Things like social justice are our own issues, though, and while it's good to discuss these things openly, I'm merely suggesting that will be one reaction you'll get to your post. Frankly, it was partly my reaction. Your best hope to sway our government is to complain to your government. We're fat out of luck over here in any real sense. All we can do is scream and go down screaming.

It's rather obvious none of us (outside America) have any control over your government. We can't get Bush to honour NAFTA over softwood lumber. I really doubt a complaint by Ottawa would reverse the 2000 election.

As for "All we can do is scream and go down screaming.", well yes, that is one reaction.

However, planning for success has led to more success than screaming.

I would think that debunking monolithic stereotypes (especially those that seem to cut out a significant chunk of the population) would be more profitable than screaming.

We can argue over whether the topic needs to be discussed at all, or we can discuss the topic, as Freestyle has chosen to do.

Personally, I prefer the latter. But I've spent far more time addressing the validity of the topic than the topic itself.

And that also provides an education, tho' not the one I'd hoped for.

Understand I'm being told America -cannot- "discuss" race relations. I'm being told -Democrats- cannot discuss this topic. We're this close to censorship on this issue, and the moderators hover in the wings to pull this topic anytime things get out of hand.

If this is typical of the way this issue has been "discussed a lot" then I submit no discussion has occurred at all.

We discuss it all the time here. What is problematic is that the issue of social justice always involves the south. There is a great deal of white nationalism in other states.

My comments are my opinion only. Your mileage will vary.

On that note, I'm off thread and back to work.

Why was this a common threat during slave times?

And it's not just about blacks either.

There was a lot of discrimination against Asians as well.

"People from the South ought to come to Chicago to learn how to hate."

He said that from the hospital in Chicago (where I live) after being hit in the head by a brick while protesting the segregation of chicago in the early 1960's.

For the record, Chicago, for the most part, is still a deeply segregated city. 'Scatta shots' or not, the city still has walls everywhere.

(edited for subject clarity)

Southern USA, that is.

In the meantime, let me look up a few random threads so I get a small enough smattering of data to ask leading questions about Quebec separatism. Or treatment of First Nations people. Or some other question about which I currently don't know much...

All Southern whites are not alike. All Southern African Americans are not alike. Here in Houston we've also got quite a few Hispanics/Latinos, Asians & people from every country on the Earth. Also quite a few Northerners & Westerners who've moved here. I'm sure some of the regressed, inbred backwaters of the South are lost in the past, but they are not the way of the future.

Currently, the South does not especially depend on the North to show us the way. There are plenty of Southerners who see the right thing to do. Yes, Northerners helped out during the Civil Rights struggle--but let's not forget that most of the work was done by Black Southerners. And most Civil Rights legislation was pushed through by Texan Lyndon Johnson.

As far as that "Spirit of the Confederacy crap"--I don't care. We often get threads here exclaiming that secession is the way to go. Either the groovy members of the groovy parts of the groovy states want to sever their links to the USA, or they want the evil parts of the USA cut away from them. These pro-secessionists forgot the men who died to keep the country together. Personally, I was born in New England & most of my people emigrated to the USA long after the That War.

The Democrats need to emphasize economic injustice--plus the educational & health care issues that affect everyone. And they need to stop/prevent idiotic wars--Southerners provide more than their share of soldiers. I'm not saying at all to abandon women's rights or gay rights. (We've got women & gays down here!) But the issues that might anger corporate donors (to either party) should not be ignored.

Northerners come down here and tell us what to do - mainly because they want all the amenities they had in the North without paying the high taxes for them.

Seriously, I covered enough county commission and city council meetings as a reporter in a tourist area that had a large influx of Northerners to know this is the case.

Southerners are accustomed to paying lower taxes and not expecting much and we don't like to be told what to do with our land or our roads or our schools.

Granted, we could use some help with our schools, but we don't like to be told about it.

:hi:

P.S. My fiance is a "Yankee," so I obviously hold no prejudices in this regard. I'm just explaining the Southern mindset, in general.

Some "Northerners come down here and tell us what to do - mainly because they want all the amenities they had in the North without paying the high taxes for them."

Another thing is SOME Northerners who moved to Southern states and talk about how good things were where they came from. If that's the case, the obvious question is...Why aren't you living there, then?

n/t

I am from Maryland, and my roots in this country go to Maryland and Virginia. A simple look at my family will show plenty of mixing even though we are black people. The horror is that much of this was the result of systematic rape during slavery. To say slavery was immoral is an obvious understatement. But, the south lost the civil war because the south was undeveloped and undeducated. To maintain the plantation economy and the status of the few very wealthy people, everyone else was deliberately undeveloped. Whiteness was the only thing poor whites had going for them. The rich whites kept the poor whites a step above black people and used major propaganda to foment the division.

It is important to remember that Malcolm X was not killed until he started talking about interracial allainces. Dr. King was not killed until he talked about an integrated poor peoples movement, uplifting workers and getting out of Vietnam. The rulers of this nation are terrified of what would happen if the poor and working class realized that the enemies are not poor and working class people of other races. The enemies are not people of different religions or sexual orientations. The enemies are not people who take jobs at illegally low wages. The enemies are the controllers of concentrated wealth who benefit from people focusing on the wrong targets. The same divisive strategy works today.

Talking about race in the U.S. is taboo, not just in the south. The most violent and hateful responses to busing to achieve integration occurred not in the south but in Boston. Native Americans can talk plenty about racism in the west. The truth is that American history is an ugly thing. We can't get to a better place without acknowledging the past.

The only thing I'd add is *every* country's history is an ugly thing. No one has manifest destiny. We're all mere humans trying to stay upright in a knuckle-walking world.

Otherwise, a beautiful post.

1st paragraph: Horace Greeley, in "The American Conflict", made a point of stressing how slavery removed the impetus for hard work, especially manual labour, amongst the white population. The existence of a slave class divided labour into that which was permitted to free-men and that assigned to slaves. Thus it was claimed that a good deal of the lack of development in the south was the result of only slaves doing the work while slave-owners sat back and did very little. It becomes a status symbol to do nothing while slaves do your work for you.

He also pointed out that by creating a class of slaves, the South also created its greatest nightmare: the fear of slave revolt. That only by continuing to break the will of slaves could the slave-owner maintain a superior position, yet by the very act of breaking their wills the slave-owner created the very circumstances whereby the slave -would- revolt. A vicious feedback loop where the guilt of the slave-owner created fears of retribution at the hands of his/her slaves. The more they clung to slavery the harder it was to let go.

2nd paragraph:
You are so right when you say "The same divisive strategy works today." I participate on a discussion board here where that is exactly the problem, and I seem to be the only one who sees it.

3rd paragraph: While I agree that "acknowledging the past" is an important step, I also think there is a need to recognize "we're here, now". Rehashing history can only get you so far. Recognizing the problems of today and addressing them is the logical step that follows acknowledging the past.

Thank you for contributing to this discussion. You've provided perhaps the most on-topic points I've seen in this thread.

2 years.

and perhaps hasn't been for maybe 30 years. The Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party in 1948, and were fully integrated into the GOP by 1968. The issue that decides a lot of states is abortion...a religious issue for many.

You see, in order for Democrats to win in the South, you basically need a lot of African Americans to vote Democratic, and just enough votes from committed white evangelicals to beat the Republicans and Dixiecrats mentioned above. I think abortion is often a deciding factor.

1976 election- Carter is pro-life, but will enforce the law:



1992 election- Legal, safe, and rare.



2000- Woman's Right to Choose



Kerry's position was similar to Gore's. Note the changes in the South over the years that the religious right has gained influence. Democrats with a moderate view on abortion win Southern states. Democrats who use socially liberal language to describe their views on abortion do not. I don't think that is a coincidence. Carter won every Southern state but Virginia, and even won some Southern territory in the electoral landslide of 1980. Clinton won a majority of the South, dropping Georgia and picking up Florida in 1996. But in the last 2 elections, when the abortion issue has been handled carelessly, Southern Democratic territory has been confined solely to Maryland and DC.

I appreciate the effort you put into posting this, but I'm wondering if we're not running into the problem of suggesting there are monolithic one-issue voting blocks, rather than smaller groups voting for a cluster of issues.

For example:
By '76 Ford had been appointed VP by Nixon, had pardoned Nixon, had pardoned the draft dodgers. This was the end of the term of Watergate, of chasing Nixon out, of having Nixon's dirty laundry hung out for all to see. I don't see how you can pin that election result to abortion. (btw, did the west coast -really- go Ford?? What were -they- smoking?)

'92 - "Read my lips" was the issue. That plus Clinton was so damned cute he caught up the women's vote compared to George the First. Wasn't this the "It's the Economy, Stupid" election?

'00 - uhm, you didn't lose the election. You had it stolen from you, remember? Nonetheless, the republicans made you pay for Clinton's indiscretion. You wouldn't have lost had you had a larger majority. Mistake #1: not using Clinton.

'04 - the war, not enough difference between dems and repubs on that issue (geez, folks, you were floundering throughout your primaries).

None of this takes away from your argument that the religious right are much better organized and more engaged in politics than they've ever been. Intolerance and anti-intellectualism plays well in that crowd.

mistake in the debates he would, in all probabily, have won.

Ford was doomed from the start. Nixon hung over him like a vulture.

And there were all those times Ford fell down stairs, or tripped on his feet, etc.

The only reason Ford was running was because all the other repubs knew they were gonna get smacked down for watergate.

I didn't mean to say that abortion is the only issue that matters in the South, just as some have said that race is the only issue that matters. But in many Southern states, abortion tips the delicate balance. Look at Louisiana, which has one of the healthiest Democratic parties in the South, and you'll find a lot of elected pro-life Democrats. They're pro-life in the Carter sense...ethically against abortion, but will enforce the law.

And you can argue that the 2000 election was stolen, but that doesn't change the results in the South. Florida may have been stolen, but Lousiana, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, and Tennessee were not. These were all Democratic states at the time.

In 2000, Georgia had 2 Democratic Senators and a Dem governor. Now there are 2 Republican senators and, for the first time in 130 years, a Republican governor. Race doesn't explain this. Black box voting doesn't explain it, either. I think the Religious Right does, though, and seemingly cold language like "woman's right to choose" allows the Religious right to wedge the issue and bring more evangelicals to their side.