Why do many people hate the South?

Attitude.

Spoiler

If you remove the racism, NASCAR, and Larry the Cable Guy, you're left with trailer parks, guns, and death swamps.

There are trailer contests, where they give trophies for who has the best trailer. There are entire trailer parks with wild colors and tacky ornaments.

We'll take pride in anything. Our largest problem is attitude though. This is not helped by our thinking of ourselves as the morality of America. We have God as the co-signer, y'all.

If you don't like it, we have lots of guns and have been practicing guerrilla warfare in the Everglades. You have not only armed rednecks now, but alligators, poisonous bugs, ticks, snakes, and maybe even Swamp Thing.

Good luck dealing with that, LOL. And it's humid as hell.

There has been a lot of really stupid moments in Southern history. Almost all of them involve some divine providence of superiority, be in for the children or the rich white male. Capitalism, y'all.

If it doesn't affect us directly, we are indifferent to it. Africans aren't people, they're pieces of property that is the literal backbone of my financial empire. They should be thankful for the dripping roofs and ragged blankets, and the opportunity to work for white man leftovers at best or pig parts at most, by God! I even gave him a proper-sounding name, unlike that jungle clicking!

Context, people. Calm down.

After the War of Yankee Aggression American Civil War, you had your holdouts, but you were also seeing a sort of social softening. Blacks weren't to be owned, just kept near the bottom of the American Dream totem pole.

Stupid, but progress.

During the White Man War World War I, blacks were able to soften the hearts of Americans, because, let's be honest, whatever color somebody is if they save you from a bomb or grenade, we're best friends, LOL.

Blacks shouldn't be beneath us, just kept in line.

Still stupid, but more progress.

"Thank you Professor Kaiser, but when is this verbal barrage going to end?"
*Throws chalk*​

The South doesn't like change. That is the core of our attitude. If it's good enough now, it shall always be good enough. But when we actually experience diversity or educate ourselves, most of us soften up and though we may be uncomfortable, we're friendly enough. You just have those who hate change, because it means leaving that sense of routine comfort, a loss of control.

But you can find supreme assholes everywhere, so this isn't exclusive to the South.

Poland is full of very angry people.

Spoiler

Not counting everything up until the 20th Century, where the Polish people were considered expendable if they did not assimilate, they have a good case to be.

German and Russian soldiers devastated Eastern Europe during, not one, but two World Wars. How the West declared war on Hitler to secure Poland's independence, yet despite all that destruction and bloodshed, leaving them behind the Iron Curtain. Germany had annihilated their population and homeland, and then the Russian counter offensives come. Now the Russians were telling them what to do and suffocating their liberties.

Poland was expendable in the event of a Third World War. It was acceptable to turn it into a nuclear wasteland.

Why is this important?

Poland does what it needs to, in order to remain stable. Scapegoats are very beneficial, so until an alternative can be found for blame, there will be stiff resistance.

If you replace "German" with "Polish", Nazism can be a very appealing tool. You do what you have to, for your own, and keep the rest of the world in line.

Hopeless or hateful people gravitate to that, so easily. It isn't too surprising that Poland has some Neo-Nazi influence.

It's Lil' Jon and the Eastside Boyz. But that aside, damn you for bringing that up! I was going to... LOL!

<3

 

States rights to own slaves isn't such a honorable thing worth fighting for. And in that, you even admitted that slavery was still the main cause of the Civil War.

 

This is a non-sequitur fallacy. Meaning, what you have written in the beginning of this paragraph does not follow with the conclusion that you came to. You have highlighted that the issue of states rights became more relevant in the South with the suggestion of the end of slavery. An end that would have set the South back economically. This would mean that the primarily motivation of the opposition of the South during this period was the subject of race and slavery. That was the motivation. That was the catalyst. Had the conflict arisen simply as a result of states rights then the South wouldn't have cared about what the subject of the federal legislation was. They would have opposed all legislation that was imposed on them prior. It had everything to do with race and slavery. You cannot claim that "philosophically it was about state rights in general" after describing very clearly why it was truly about the right to enslave and how much they benefited from it.

You can argue that the flag has evolved to mean otherwise in the eyes of many. You cannot argue that the South was not motivated by fear of losing their rights to enslave Africans and they would have done the same if the federal government sought to impose any form of legislation on them. That is simply historically inaccurate given the same actions were taken by the federal government for decades prior and continue to be taken to this day.

 

Owning other people to exploit their labour is the same across all ages. That's why there was a global campaign since the mid-18th century against it and movements long before that opposed to the practice.

So many of their own contemporaries found it a vile, evil practice. Don't pull the cultural relativity card on an issue so incontestably wrong.

 

Pure cultural relativism is not a way to look at any situation. The United States was actually one of the last countries in the Western world to outlaw slavery. Greece, Chile, England, Canada, France, Netherlands, Uruguay, Bolivia, Serbia, Colombia, Peru, and Cuba, just to name some, all ended the slave trade and/or slavery before the entirety of the US did. Many people in the western world had a negative view of slavery.

 

I live in the south, I don't really like it here, I mostly just hate the heat, and the "chivalry" (I do not need extra help with anything because I'm perceived as "female" and I usually don't ask for help I don't need). And I hate the heat. And in no other part of the country do I get as many people trying to convert me to Christianity than in the south. Also, I hate the heat.

 

no doubt slavery and maintaining the Southern economy were important factors in seceding from the north, however, i believe the catalyst was the election of 1860 which proved that the south was vastly under-represented in the union and was being largely taken advantage of by the north. (this is seen both before and after the war.) The south was agrarian, the north industrial. one side was more in demand of slave labor to keep their economy in line. Also the north had been passing ridiculous tariffs that cost the U.S a valuable consumer, the UK, who decided to take their business to Egypt for cotton. The states could not manage well under northern authority and were being micromanaged. We see that the South had formed a confederacy, not a union, and each state was to manage itself with very limited federal governance. SOOOOOOOO... i'd have to argue that the underlying, main principle for secession was indeed.... states rights.

had to get that out there. GO SOUTH!

 

I'm from the south, and I love it. Sure, it has it's problems, but so does every place in the world.

 

The underlying issue behind the bans on same-sex marriage and the negative sentiments towards gays is not so much homophobia or a disdain of gays as humans, but of freedom of conscience and religion... oh, wait...

 

I don't hate the South. I certainly don't hate them for anything they stood for in the Civil War.

However, there are some parts of this country that I personally wouldn't feel comfortable living in. I knew a gay guy from Alabama and his life was pure hell there. I know that he would not have experienced that here in CT. So it isn't like all parts of the U.S. are exactly the same--they're not.

 

To say it was ultimately about states rights is to try to put a noble reason on quite a horrific "institution". What they were underrepresented in was their ability to keep slavery legal and to spread that legality to new states. All the south wanted was to be able to perpetuate the enslavement of black people so that their economy could continue. The wrongness of slavery wasn't at issue, it was their slave-based economy that needed rescuing. That sounds an awful lot like this:

"But we NEED slaves in order to prosper. Yes we beat them, rape them, kill them, sell them, and work them to death but what about ME and MY RIGHTS to keep on doing that?"

The common claim is that, given enough time, slavery would have naturally gone away and treatment of black people would have improved in those slave holding states because it, I dunno, just magically would, but the war apparently upset the natural evolution of things. So much so that it only took another 100 years before the government had to make it a law that "legal" discrimination was in fact illegal. There's the federal government interfering with states rights again!

And with Friday's gay marriage ruling, that's another states rights hullabaloo.

Here's a story about pro-confederacy kids books. And these are recently published books, not old ones.

It's all about perspective I guess.

 

Actually, it was the Irish handlers who beat them, since they hated their jobs. Hey, I'm offending everybody today! Slave-owners aren't going to damage good real estate for no damn reason. It's bad HRM.

I cannot believe I got the name of that crunk group wrong. I show their work to everybody because it's like freaking classical, man. I love the Atlanta scene, and I love the Memphis scene. They produce the best crunk. Counter-culture, baby!

Besides "War of Northern/Yankee Agression," I have also heard "The Late Unpleasantness." That is my preferred term, actually.

And yeah, Kaiser, that seems to be the whole story of the South. The way I see it, it's just that we romanticize things way too much, and when you start romanticizing things, that does contribute to you being averse to change, which is part of the entire sick equation.

---------- Post added 30th Jun 2015 at 07:51 AM ----------

@Gen, you can argue the historical point either way, but you would actually have to teach this sophisticated subject matter to the piss-drunk rednecks who actually use the flag. You are giving them way too much credit for intellectual sophistication.

Again, that is the whole reason that some of us who live here get so annoyed with outsiders or even people who live in the region who simply misdiagnose the problem. Kaiser, I think, came fairly close to a correct diagnosis.

And "economically benefitted" how? Slavery is actually economically not even advantageous. You are apparently think that they were manumitting slaves in Maryland out of the graciousness and kindness of their freedom-loving hearts. In any economy that requires remotely skilled labor, slavery just doesn't work. It is inefficient.

 

You will never hear about scientists working as slaves. They might work for slave wages, but you cannot obtain anything besides repetitive motions using only chains and a whip.

 

Personally, I think it's high time the Battle Flag be removed from all government property, a flag of treason and slavery should not be flying in the same manner as the U.S. Flag.

 

What exactly is complicated about what I explained? Regardless of intelligence, southerners are aware of their history at least to the general awareness of slavery and racial conflict. The Confederate flag symbolizes the past for some. Therefore, those who wish to romanticize the past, even the crimes that were commit during it, would romanticize that flag. Significant intelligence is not necessary to make that decision. Even those who romanticize the swastika aren't doing so because they sat down and read the works of Hilter and closely identify with his political philosophies in most cases. They see something that they believe symbolizes their hate and feelings of superiority and they cling to it.

Despite all of this, this argument that "it is never about race for them. They are just stupid" is purely illogical. As though one cannot be both ignorant and racist. As though the "stupid reasons" that some people use this flag cannot possibly be about romanticizing supremacy and racial oppression. Certainly most southerners don't want to romanticizes these aspects of history, which is why I never suggested that; however, to claim that it is only ever about states rights or romanticizing only the socially acceptable parts of southern history is absolutely ridiculous. To claim that it is never about supremacy and racism is borderline delusional.

How was slavery economically advantageous to white southerners? Is that honestly the question?

 

I live in the south and a few things I hate are their views on differences and the fact that its so boring.

 

I moved to SC two years ago from what people here consider the north (Maryland, which is technically the south but they still call me a Yankee). I live in Charleston, which is more accepting and progressive than other areas in the south, so take that into account with my thoughts/opinions. I love it here. I wouldn't move back up north for many reasons (weather, family drama, cost of living, etc). However, the south is definitely "behind the times" compared to other parts of the US. Many southerners don't like change and even in my area, they aren't overly accepting of people who weren't born and raised there. There are definitely much nicer people here, but there are also quite a bit who will talk sweetly to your face and then tear you up behind your back, unlike Baltimore where people can be very (brutally) honest. The pace is slower down here for the most part and that is something that I enjoy. Overall, I love the south! No matter where you live, there are stereotypes of that region, whether accurate or not. And there are crappy people everywhere in the US. There is no perfect place. Change can be beneficial everywhere, not just the south. I have made some great friends here in the south and I don't see myself moving away any time soon!

 

States rights is one of the most incredibly stupid and abusive concepts we've ever come up with and keep sustaining.

Individual rights are protected by protecting individuals. Not groups against larger groups.

 

About the states rights thing: here's an article published today about this very topic, specifically about how the Civil War is dealt with in school textbooks and how certain things are carefully worded or left out to portray a slightly different picture of "history".