Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

computer parts posted:

Which again is really funny in light of his "I want more Huey Long and less Mitch McConnell" statement.

I don't know what you mean, remember when he said 'no you're right my Share the Wealth plan comes straight from Marx, in no way drawing seeds from the bible and spitting directly in God's face I dare say'? Pretty sick burn on those religious progressive fakers if you ask me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ice Phisherman
Apr 12, 2007

Swimming upstream
into the sunset



Tatum Girlparts posted:

I don't know what you mean, remember when he said 'no you're right my Share the Wealth plan comes straight from Marx, in no way drawing seeds from the bible and spitting directly in God's face I dare say'? Pretty sick burn on those religious progressive fakers if you ask me.

Do you have a link for that?

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Naked Lincoln posted:

This right here is why it's so generally insufferable to listen to Southerners talk about their past. It's not the fault of generations of racism that papered over class divisions, crippled and destroyed any attempt at organized labor movements, and led poor Southerners into the arms of wealthy planters that was the cause of generational poverty, it was William T. Sherman. I'm curious how Sherman's March, rather than the existence of the plantation economy, was the real culprit behind generational poverty in the South, especially when Sherman was the mastermind of early Union attempts at land redistribution to African Americans along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (land redistribution that would have gone a long way to breaking the entrenched power of the Southern planter elite).

You're getting a little histrionic here. I'm just trying to correct some of your historical errors, not resurrect the Lost Cause. If you can't discuss this topic with some restraint then I don't see the point.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Sherman's March did in fact cause a tremendous amount of damage to real civilian property in an otherwise lightly contested theater of the war and it's not neo-Confederate to point out that you're minimizing the historical record to buttress an otherwise silly argument.

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007

Popular Thug Drink posted:

You're getting a little histrionic here. I'm just trying to correct some of your historical errors, not resurrect the Lost Cause. If you can't discuss this topic with some restraint then I don't see the point.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Sherman's March did in fact cause a tremendous amount of damage to real civilian property in an otherwise lightly contested theater of the war and it's not neo-Confederate to point out that you're minimizing the historical record to buttress an otherwise silly argument.

Look you slack jawed, syrup-guzzling yokel, William Tecumseh Sherman's only flaw was that he left some of your cousin-loving ancestors alive. Now let me tell you how stupid you are for not having been born in the North. I'm actually completely surprised you can read my brilliant and scathing replies, and I am, in fact, going to be so dismissive of your replies because they're coming from some backwards idiot that I'm barely going to even touch upon the points you brought up.

I really only hate you for your bigotry, though, so calm down you slow-witted sheep fucker, and try to be exactly like me in every way, because everything about your culture is entirely 100% flawed and nothing the South has ever done, nor anything that has been done in the South has ever contributed to our society in any way.

-Jastiger and Naked Lincoln, trying to spread the good word of acceptance of others.

Grondoth
Feb 18, 2011

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Nah it's more like how when I go to things back home in Louisiana I don't get a bunch of 'oh poo poo man you're from texas and pro gay rights/workers rights/whatever the gently caress rights' as if I'm so wacky, but when I go to things up north I get to hear from a bunch of shitbags that never left their state how backwards and stupid my home is like I'm loving fleeing Darfur.

Legitimately the biggest hurdle we have to deal with is people like you who stereotype the people we're trying to win over as a bunch of braindead hicks who wave confederate flags around yelling about secession. Like, you realize you make our job harder, right? You realize you actively make it worse to be progressive and try to fight for improvements?

I'm really trying to understand this post.

I'm from Rural NY. Or, I was. The small town I grew up in had its poo poo together, kept wal-mart out and is growing into a small hipster enclave. But when I was growing up there, it was full of rural sensibilities. Conservative, full of pervasive racism that existed largely because there weren't any minorities that lived there, that sort of thing. I've been to a lot of real rural towns too, the kind that have maybe one store or restaurant and everyone knows that there's no place left for the town to go but down. I've passed by huge confederate flags, I've gotten in arguments with the dudes who hung them in dorm rooms, I've laughed at confederate belt buckles and then got really sad, because I know they're just believing the lie that the confederate flag stands for pride instead of bigotry.

If someone were to make fun of those towns, or express confusion over my political involvement in them because they're so obviously conservative, old and desperate, I can't say it'd make me upset. I know they're conservative, old and desperate. I've been there, I know these people. Of course not everyone is that way, and there's a powerful populist anger I've found that is a little shocking to uncover. What makes you so upset that people point out how bad the south's got it? Cause it's got it pretty bad.

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007

Grondoth posted:

What makes you so upset that people point out how bad the south's got it? Cause it's got it pretty bad.

It's mostly the calls to exterminate all Southerners, and the childish way that it is presented. Southern progressives have to deal with childish idiots all the time, and rather than non-Southern progressives commiserating, offering solutions, or trying to help, we just get poo poo on too. Especially when added to the fact that, although Southern Progressives point out that there are bad aspects of our culture, we get painted as a part of it for enjoying things like fried chicken, sweet tea, or (insert generic Southern stereotype here) while places like Detroit, Chicago, and rural NY cities just get ignored as symptoms of the exact same problem.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Grondoth posted:

What makes you so upset that people point out how bad the south's got it? Cause it's got it pretty bad.

Nobody's disputing that. The problem is when people assert that these problems are inherently southern, and start tossing around phrases like southern culture without defining what they mean. Which is hypocritical when someone claims to oppose bigotry.

Jastiger has to be prodded into saying that progressive white southerners even exist, while dragging his heels all along because it throws off the balance of his "let's bitch about how awful the south is" honeypot argument.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Grondoth posted:

I'm really trying to understand this post.

I'm from Rural NY. Or, I was. The small town I grew up in had its poo poo together, kept wal-mart out and is growing into a small hipster enclave. But when I was growing up there, it was full of rural sensibilities. Conservative, full of pervasive racism that existed largely because there weren't any minorities that lived there, that sort of thing. I've been to a lot of real rural towns too, the kind that have maybe one store or restaurant and everyone knows that there's no place left for the town to go but down. I've passed by huge confederate flags, I've gotten in arguments with the dudes who hung them in dorm rooms, I've laughed at confederate belt buckles and then got really sad, because I know they're just believing the lie that the confederate flag stands for pride instead of bigotry.

If someone were to make fun of those towns, or express confusion over my political involvement in them because they're so obviously conservative, old and desperate, I can't say it'd make me upset. I know they're conservative, old and desperate. I've been there, I know these people. Of course not everyone is that way, and there's a powerful populist anger I've found that is a little shocking to uncover. What makes you so upset that people point out how bad the south's got it? Cause it's got it pretty bad.

Do people often talk about how your rural NY town is basically why the country is hosed? Do they laugh about how we should probably just kill everyone in there and constantly talked about them like they're literal cartoon characters, and then been upset at you when you say 'hey man you know it's hard to win people over when their image of progressives is people who think they're trash right'? Like, is there a loving thread about how Rural NY is basically why everything is bad on these forums?

Like, it gets kinda loving tiring man, especially when right after saying that poo poo people demand we work harder and faster to win people over if we want to be taken seriously.

Ice Phisherman posted:

Do you have a link for that?

I was making a joke, he got Share the Wealth from the bible and when people said it was communist he said 'nah man it's from Jesus', he was super religious and super progressive.

Grondoth
Feb 18, 2011

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Do people often talk about how your rural NY town is basically why the country is hosed? Do they laugh about how we should probably just kill everyone in there and constantly talked about them like they're literal cartoon characters, and then been upset at you when you say 'hey man you know it's hard to win people over when their image of progressives is people who think they're trash right'? Like, is there a loving thread about how Rural NY is basically why everything is bad on these forums?

Like, it gets kinda loving tiring man, especially when right after saying that poo poo people demand we work harder and faster to win people over if we want to be taken seriously.

You ever meet anyone from NYC?

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007

Grondoth posted:

You ever meet anyone from NYC?

You ever watched any national media featuring a character from the South?

Grand Theft Autobot
Feb 28, 2008

I'm something of a fucking idiot myself
So can we discuss some of the Southern Progressive groups and movements? I'm displeased with the number of Suicide Caucus members that come from the South (and the Midwest), but I'd like to do something constructive about it. At the turn of the 20th century the South proved itself very capable of leftist radicalism. Say what you will about the faults of the Populists, but much of their agenda would be supported by DD today.

Populist Platform 1892 posted:

We believe that the powers of government-in other words, of the people- should be expended... to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land.

They supported farm price supports, a graduated income tax, the secret ballot, direct election of senators, the initiative and referendum, and government ownership of railroads, telegraph, and telephone lines. Woodrow Wilson talked a big Jeffersonian game, but the Southern radicals forced a very Rooseveltian program through his administration.

The New Deal Coalition would never have worked without Southern leftists, and much of the progressive policy that we cherish here is a direct result of the efforts of Southern leftists.

So what exactly can we do, and who can ally with in the South today to bring the Southern Left back to prominence?

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

So can we discuss some of the Southern Progressive groups and movements? I'm displeased with the number of Suicide Caucus members that come from the South (and the Midwest), but I'd like to do something constructive about it. At the turn of the 20th century the South proved itself very capable of leftist radicalism. Say what you will about the faults of the Populists, but much of their agenda would be supported by DD today.


They supported farm price supports, a graduated income tax, the secret ballot, direct election of senators, the initiative and referendum, and government ownership of railroads, telegraph, and telephone lines. Woodrow Wilson talked a big Jeffersonian game, but the Southern radicals forced a very Rooseveltian program through his administration.

The New Deal Coalition would never have worked without Southern leftists, and much of the progressive policy that we cherish here is a direct result of the efforts of Southern leftists.

So what exactly can we do, and who can ally with in the South today to bring the Southern Left back to prominence?

A good post.



Tatum Girlparts posted:


I was making a joke, he got Share the Wealth from the bible and when people said it was communist he said 'nah man it's from Jesus', he was super religious and super progressive.

A true post. The difference is that Long wasn't preaching anti-progressive policies while throwing the Bible in the face of poor folks, he was deriving his progressive policies from the Bible. Even if he was quite the religious person, a Long-like South looks a lot different than a Tea Party South and would be far more amenable to amendment, legislation, and infrastructure investment. This is a lot different than the theocracy we see promoted today from the Conservative South.

And wow, I think in my very first post I mentioned that Southern Progressive exist, they are simply smothered, outshouted, and disenfranchised by the political powers that be in the South. That is part of the problem, the Southern political culture seems to make it nigh impossible to question "Traditional Values", so any kind of dissent is seen as downright unAmerican. Hell, I brought up Long, he was assassinated. Any attempt at progressive policies that gained momentum was generally met with outright violence. This happened in the North, totally without a doubt, but in the South the effects were much more pointed since there wasn't the wealth, employment, and infrastructure to fall back on and we see the results today: a massively anti-labor, anti-minority, and anti-democratic culture.

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007
^^^ edit: Holy poo poo just shut the gently caress up you bigoted sack of poo poo ^^^


Grand Theft Autobot posted:


So what exactly can we do, and who can ally with in the South today to bring the Southern Left back to prominence?

That's where it becomes a much more difficult question. The easy, lazy answer would be to fund obvious, big Progressive causes and campaigns in the South, but that would take away money from campaigns and causes in the North. I think one of the most important, but potentially hardest to implement would involve changing the way that Southerners are viewed. Southern Progressives, as you pointed out, were instrumental in a lot of good things in the past. Heroes from the South in literature were (and still somewhat are) people like Huckleberry Finn, who bucked racism, and Atticus Finch, who did the right thing no matter what. But the hard right has done what it does best - divided people into groups that fight and pick and squabble rather than work together so those sorts of things get overlooked or ignored. Especially by non-Southern Progressives.. which leads to further splintering and division within the ranks of people who, overall, want the exact same things for the nation as a whole.

I'm hesitant to link specific causes, as I'm most familiar with Texas politics, and things on a state or local level are somewhat prone to rapid shifts as things change, but just dropping the bigotry would go a long way toward making the job of Progressives, who actually live here, and want to make a change, easier. As has been stated time and time again in this thread and others - when you demonize an entire people and casually talk about exterminating them and their way of life, you are going to find it difficult to actually convince them that you have their best interests at heart.

Grondoth
Feb 18, 2011
That was flippant. I apologize. I mean to say I get it, I know all about being ignored and thought of as insignificant and living in a lovely place that no one cares about. The problem is that part of the reaction the south gets from this forum and other left-leaning places is that it, as a bloc, is significant and powerful. The like 13 people who vote in Franklinville(proud host to Family Dollar #5623) can't gently caress anything up by themselves, and they sure don't have a presence in national politics that forces the conversation to go the way they want it. They sure can help vote in a dude who says people don't die from cancer anymore, though, and people have every right to be annoyed by that.

It's also important to remember that while it may not feel like it now, there was a time not that long ago when there was a loud and persistent voice from the south(and northern republicans pretending to be from the south) that it was really what america was. The Bush years made quite a few people quite a bit mad at that idea, and I think part of the reaction discussion of the south gets is residual annoyance at the dismissal that people felt then. No one wants to feel ignored and marginalized, you know?

I donno. Compared to the small towns I see slowly dying both to economic stagnation and meth, the growing south is in a much more powerful position that makes getting upset over what people are saying about it seem a bit persecution-complexy.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP
Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is union (or at least proto-union) sympathy in the southern states, the main issue seems to be the fact that they feel that their interests won't be rightly represented because the unions are interested in big picture interests.

And to be fair, that has been an issue - a common problem with unions as of late is that they're intrenched interests (think AFL-CIO types) and that more localized unions would be able to respond to members much more easily.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth
"The south" as a bloc isn't some evil hivemind, even within the states you can't make broad statements, so yea to claim we inherently 'gently caress things up' or whatever is pretty lovely man!

And actually we don't have a ton of power to 'gently caress things up' as a big bloc, Texas does, and that's pretty arguable if it's 'the south' or not.

Also literally every region claims it's 'real America' do you not see all the bullshit on the east coast about how it's the 'soul of American history' or whatever or in the midwest about how it's the heartland and poo poo?

edit:

As for what we can do, workers rights tenda to get decent support here, a decent bit of people don't like the big unions because of other issues, and there's issues with teachers' unions due to bitterness at our terrible education problems, but the general concept of 'hey should we pay workers a fair wage, keep them safe, and generally treat them with respect, even if it costs a little?' is usually met with 'eh yea, I suppose'.

Minority rights are slowly growing. There's a lot of 'good old boy' bullshit to fight to get women's rights but the racial breakdowns of the areas are making it harder and harder to be straight up racist anymore, and gay rights is slowly gaining support.

The fact of the matter is we, when push comes to shove, have a lot of support in areas. We need actual active people getting that support, and you know what hurts it? The dudes talking about how 'the south' is just hosed.

sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 8, 2014

crabcakes66
May 24, 2012

by exmarx

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Also literally every region claims it's 'real America' do you not see all the bullshit on the east coast about how it's the 'soul of American history' or whatever or in the midwest about how it's the heartland and poo poo?



Growing up in the NE and currently living in the south. No it's not the same thing. Pretty much no one in the NE outside of academic circles would identify themselves in such a manner.


A lot of the independent identity from southerners is probably directly traceable to the confederacy. And you just don't see that sort of thing in other parts of the country outside of marketing BS or very localized identities like major cities or colleges.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

crabcakes66 posted:

Growing up in the NE and currently living in the south. No it's not the same thing. Pretty much no one in the NE outside of academic circles would identify themselves in such a manner.

Well not since the NE Patriots' dynasty ended anyway.

Venom Snake
Feb 19, 2014

by Nyc_Tattoo

Amazing post, often while visiting my family Iv encountered similar issues such as casual racism and culture of ignorance but what probably is the greatest example to me of southern decay would be southern Virginia.

For a long part of the 20th century Southern Virgina thrived on 3 things: Furniture building, tobacco, and rail. All of which has gone out of state or overseas, extremely poor investment in education and infrastructure has killed large amounts of small towns and resulted in schools with sub 50% graduation rates. It's extraordinarily sad to watch so many people utterly trapped in crippling poverty but more than happy to vote against their interests. While working on campaign our down their our biggest supporters were all minorities, I met a large amount of black people who knew how awful their situation had become and were extremely active in trying to rise out of the cycle of poverty but could not due to simply there being no resources for them to.

The amount of segregation in the south is shocking really, we couldn't find a single mixed church and when we were on the road looking for democrat offices we were given directions to "black part of town".

Sheng-Ji Yang
Mar 5, 2014


Alexzandvar posted:

Amazing post, often while visiting my family Iv encountered similar issues such as casual racism and culture of ignorance but what probably is the greatest example to me of southern decay would be southern Virginia.

For a long part of the 20th century Southern Virgina thrived on 3 things: Furniture building, tobacco, and rail. All of which has gone out of state or overseas, extremely poor investment in education and infrastructure has killed large amounts of small towns and resulted in schools with sub 50% graduation rates. It's extraordinarily sad to watch so many people utterly trapped in crippling poverty but more than happy to vote against their interests. While working on campaign our down their our biggest supporters were all minorities, I met a large amount of black people who knew how awful their situation had become are were extremely active in trying to rise out of the cycle of poverty but could not due to simply there being no resources for them to.

The amount of segregation in the south is shocking really, we couldn't find a single mixed church and when we were on the road looking for democrat offices we were given directions to "black part of town".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO0UQc8YKV8

Fallow fields are all around, empty barns just fallin’ down
Iron weeds comin’ up through the floor

Once we growed it by the pound
Now the kids all move to town
And all that’s left are elderly and poor

Now I sure and sad to say
That I’ve lived to see the day
When we don’t grow tobacco
‘Round here no more

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Tatum Girlparts posted:

"The south" as a bloc isn't some evil hivemind, even within the states you can't make broad statements, so yea to claim we inherently 'gently caress things up' or whatever is pretty lovely man!

And actually we don't have a ton of power to 'gently caress things up' as a big bloc, Texas does, and that's pretty arguable if it's 'the south' or not.

Also literally every region claims it's 'real America' do you not see all the bullshit on the east coast about how it's the 'soul of American history' or whatever or in the midwest about how it's the heartland and poo poo?

I don't think the South is an evil hive mind. I think the political choices it makes lends itself to that though. Consistently people vote in folks that are intent on deconstructing anything long term useful. They sell their populations short on tax cuts and cheap labor then blow up at D.C. when they still have lovely working conditions. I wasn't exaggerating when I was pointing out a lot of the bad policies the US has because of the South. Southern Senators and Representatives consistently make religious views a cornerstone of their candidacy which pulls other candidates in other states further to the Right to differentiate themselves from the other party. Its a positive feedback loop that perpetuates itself every time a white dude with money (or a white dude that wittingly/unwittingly represents that money) is elected and sent to Washington. The Southern Strategy is a success not because Nixon sent racist and anti government sentiment throughout the South, but because it was already there and people were willing to vote for it there.

Anyone who says this kind of "Real America" thing is a dumb rear end though. I live in the Best State in the Union and it happens here too. They lose instant credibility with that "Real America" poo poo.

quote:


edit:

As for what we can do, workers rights tenda to get decent support here, a decent bit of people don't like the big unions because of other issues, and there's issues with teachers' unions due to bitterness at our terrible education problems, but the general concept of 'hey should we pay workers a fair wage, keep them safe, and generally treat them with respect, even if it costs a little?' is usually met with 'eh yea, I suppose'.

Minority rights are slowly growing. There's a lot of 'good old boy' bullshit to fight to get women's rights but the racial breakdowns of the areas are making it harder and harder to be straight up racist anymore, and gay rights is slowly gaining support.

The fact of the matter is we, when push comes to shove, have a lot of support in areas. We need actual active people getting that support, and you know what hurts it? The dudes talking about how 'the south' is just hosed.

I don't think the South is hosed forever, its just there has to be a massive change on the level of massive social upheaval or a massive dying off of the wealthy elite that control the power structure. Its why I alluded to socialism earlier. Redistributing the wealth from the generational siphoning that has gone on since forever in the region would go a long way towards making it "not hosed".

Naked Lincoln
Jan 19, 2010

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Totally agreed, Naked Lincoln, that's why I supported the napalming of Vietnam, lots of those guys were in favor of the war and ya know, it DID gently caress with the NVA a lot so, ya know, what's the real focus here?

Slavery, schmavery, eh? Sure, the Confederate States began the war by seceding in defense of chattel slavery and sure their secession threatened the integrity and continued existence of the United States. Sure they literally started the war by firing on a federal fort. But whateves, that just like Vietnam.

But hey, nice job countering claims that "lots of Southerners trivialize the history of the South, particularly with regard to slavery" by doing exactly that.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

You're getting a little histrionic here. I'm just trying to correct some of your historical errors, not resurrect the Lost Cause. If you can't discuss this topic with some restraint then I don't see the point.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Sherman's March did in fact cause a tremendous amount of damage to real civilian property in an otherwise lightly contested theater of the war and it's not neo-Confederate to point out that you're minimizing the historical record to buttress an otherwise silly argument.

I don't think it's histrionic to claim that your argument that the March to the Sea was the cause of generation poverty is silly and overblown and completely unsupported by any modern scholarship (particularly since that reading would require ignoring the entire history of Southern politics and economics).

You're right that the March to the Sea did lots of damage. I don't believe I ever claimed that it didn't or that it was inconsequential. What I've claimed is that the damage it did was targeted rather than indiscriminate and random and that it served a legitimate military end.

Naked Lincoln fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jul 8, 2014

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth
"But slavery" doesn't excuse burning people's homes and fields for the crime of 'being kinda near where we're going' and basically condemning entire towns to go hungry because 'eh gently caress it'. You can be in a just side of the war and do terrible things, those two things don't cancel out or whatever.

Naked Lincoln
Jan 19, 2010

Tatum Girlparts posted:

"But slavery" doesn't excuse burning people's homes and fields for the crime of 'being kinda near where we're going' and basically condemning entire towns to go hungry because 'eh gently caress it'. You can be in a just side of the war and do terrible things, those two things don't cancel out or whatever.

Except that the actual March wasn't just indiscriminate "let's burn cities and fields because we can" and the narrative of Sherman's ruffians burning everything, salting the earth, and leaving all the Southerners starving is largely a postwar, Lost Cause creation.

Also, my point about slavery was largely in response to your pretty ridiculous comparison of the Civil War with the Vietnam War. It's also pretty important to understand that the mass-liberation of Southern slaves was irreparably connected to Sherman's attack on Southern property and was, in fact, the most universal attack on property during the Civil War.

Cythereal
Nov 8, 2009

I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.
Florida would probably turn into a blue state without much effort if we had an actual Democratic party in the state. I've been to supposed conventions for it in this state, and it's a bunch of suspicious old men who have no interest in genuine progressive ideas or putting in any actual effort. The GOP dominates Florida by default, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation in other Southern states.

Sheng-Ji Yang
Mar 5, 2014


Naked Lincoln posted:

Except that the actual March wasn't just indiscriminate "let's burn cities and fields because we can" and the narrative of Sherman's ruffians burning everything, salting the earth, and leaving all the Southerners starving is largely a postwar, Lost Cause creation.

Also, my point about slavery was largely in response to your pretty ridiculous comparison of the Civil War with the Vietnam War. It's also pretty important to understand that the mass-liberation of Southern slaves was irreparably connected to Sherman's attack on Southern property and was, in fact, the most universal attack on property during the Civil War.

So I guess Sherman didn't burn the entirety of Atlanta to the ground?

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Naked Lincoln posted:

Except that the actual March wasn't just indiscriminate "let's burn cities and fields because we can" and the narrative of Sherman's ruffians burning everything, salting the earth, and leaving all the Southerners starving is largely a postwar, Lost Cause creation.

Also, my point about slavery was largely in response to your pretty ridiculous comparison of the Civil War with the Vietnam War. It's also pretty important to understand that the mass-liberation of Southern slaves was irreparably connected to Sherman's attack on Southern property and was, in fact, the most universal attack on property during the Civil War.

You realize there's points between 'they literally salted the ground Carthage style' and 'they mainly focused on military targets and it's ok' right? They burned places to the loving ground dude, they took out a lot of farms and poo poo on the way because of suspected bushwackers, they were extremely overzealous. No, they didn't salt the land cackling madly like super villains and popping children in the head but the point is they hosed a lot of people who's only sin was 'being in Sherman's way'.

As for the rest, do the ends justify the means? I know a lot of neocons who'd agree that as long as the end result is something intended to be noble doing whatever it takes is justified.

edit: Also don't be super proud of those freed slaves, lots died of hunger and exposure because, ya know, the path he carved was pretty much wasteland, maybe if he wasn't so overzealous the liberated:survived ratio would be a little better.

sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jul 8, 2014

Naked Lincoln
Jan 19, 2010

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

They supported farm price supports, a graduated income tax, the secret ballot, direct election of senators, the initiative and referendum, and government ownership of railroads, telegraph, and telephone lines. Woodrow Wilson talked a big Jeffersonian game, but the Southern radicals forced a very Rooseveltian program through his administration.

The New Deal Coalition would never have worked without Southern leftists, and much of the progressive policy that we cherish here is a direct result of the efforts of Southern leftists.

So what exactly can we do, and who can ally with in the South today to bring the Southern Left back to prominence?

Isn't part of the problem with the rise and fall of the Southern left linked to how race has historically operated in the South? The South's racial caste system hindered labor movements, for example, with white workers refusing to enter unions with black workers. The Populist Party certainly had its own problems with race (certainly Populists like Tom Watson subscribed to white supremacist ideals) and the New Deal Coalition in the South was often held together by the understanding that many New Deal benefits would be restricted to whites (the Democratic Party's insistence on civil rights legislation was one of the key factors in the GOP prying apart the New Deal Coalition).

It ultimately seems like the same political and economic issues plaguing most of the country (poor whites voting against their self-interest to keep the Other from "mooching" off of Welfare) seem particularly highlighted in Southern states because of their particular history with regards to race, politics, and class.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Cythereal posted:

Florida would probably turn into a blue state without much effort if we had an actual Democratic party in the state. I've been to supposed conventions for it in this state, and it's a bunch of suspicious old men who have no interest in genuine progressive ideas or putting in any actual effort. The GOP dominates Florida by default, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation in other Southern states.

There's a massive brain drain in any red state's Democratic Party because you can get an easier job quickly if you have talent and are willing to move.

It's slightly surprising for Florida because it's a swing state but it's also been through the last stages of realignment.

Cythereal
Nov 8, 2009

I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

computer parts posted:

There's a massive brain drain in any red state's Democratic Party because you can get an easier job quickly if you have talent and are willing to move.

It's slightly surprising for Florida because it's a swing state but it's also been through the last stages of realignment.

Florida is a major swing state, in my experience as a Floridian, because while the state government is on GOP lockdown the actual Florida population stops being overwhelmingly conservative from Orlando on down.

Naked Lincoln
Jan 19, 2010

Tatum Girlparts posted:

You realize there's points between 'they literally salted the ground Carthage style' and 'they mainly focused on military targets and it's ok' right? They burned places to the loving ground dude, they took out a lot of farms and poo poo on the way because of suspected bushwackers, they were extremely overzealous. No, they didn't salt the land cackling madly like super villains and popping children in the head but the point is they hosed a lot of people who's only sin was 'being in Sherman's way'.

As for the rest, do the ends justify the means? I know a lot of neocons who'd agree that as long as the end result is something intended to be noble doing whatever it takes is justified.

edit: Also don't be super proud of those freed slaves, lots died of hunger and exposure because, ya know, the path he carved was pretty much wasteland, maybe if he wasn't so overzealous the liberated:survived ratio would be a little better.

But they didn't. Sherman and his corps commanders had orders to leave civilians alone who didn't interfere with the March. Places where Union troops didn't experience resistance and bushwacking weren't burned down. Hell, there are plenty of Southern narratives pointing out how Union troops explicitly prevented looting and burning. Sherman's policy wasn't just burn houses that are in my way. The March differentiated between secessionists, loyalists, and neutral Southerners and, even then, wasn't as violent or universal as you seem to be portraying it. Yes, barns were burned, outlying buildings were burned, but the mas burning of towns and houses is an exaggerated, postwar invention that is part and parcel with the Lost Cause.


I also love that you start your post by saying that there's a grey area between Sherman's troops salting the earth/only targeting military infrastructure and end with "the path he carved was a wasteland." Let's just forget the fact that a major cause of death in the war (both among the soldiers and among contraband camps) was illness (largely the result of rural residents coming into contact with urban residents and their disease. Let's also ignore the fact that slaves, despite the hardships, overwhelmingly opted to follow the Union army. And, of course, let's not mention the fact that one can argue that the March to the Sea was a devastating blow to chattel slavery in the South without saying that Sherman was a literal saint.

But by all means, keep dismissing the end of chattel slavery as not really justifying an attack on wealth planters.

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

So I guess Sherman didn't burn the entirety of Atlanta to the ground?


I mean, maybe if you're watching Gone with the Wind. He ordered the destruction of military and government buildings, not the razing of the entire city.

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
Jastiger chiming in to say thay my support of Sherman isn't some salting of the earth bullshit, it's the direct and targeted action at the people responsible for Bad Things. Nucleicxacid or whatever poo poo ' my comparison with an Economic Sherman March. I think it's quite apt. A targeted and direct redistribution and power stripping of the white establishment would do a lot of good, perhaps more good than rallies and pamphlet handing out.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Naked Lincoln posted:

But they didn't. Sherman and his corps commanders had orders to leave civilians alone who didn't interfere with the March. Places where Union troops didn't experience resistance and bushwacking weren't burned down. Hell, there are plenty of Southern narratives pointing out how Union troops explicitly prevented looting and burning. Sherman's policy wasn't just burn houses that are in my way. The March differentiated between secessionists, loyalists, and neutral Southerners and, even then, wasn't as violent or universal as you seem to be portraying it. Yes, barns were burned, outlying buildings were burned, but the mas burning of towns and houses is an exaggerated, postwar invention that is part and parcel with the Lost Cause.


I also love that you start your post by saying that there's a grey area between Sherman's troops salting the earth/only targeting military infrastructure and end with "the path he carved was a wasteland." Let's just forget the fact that a major cause of death in the war (both among the soldiers and among contraband camps) was illness (largely the result of rural residents coming into contact with urban residents and their disease. Let's also ignore the fact that slaves, despite the hardships, overwhelmingly opted to follow the Union army. And, of course, let's not mention the fact that one can argue that the March to the Sea was a devastating blow to chattel slavery in the South without saying that Sherman was a literal saint.

But by all means, keep dismissing the end of chattel slavery as not really justifying an attack on wealth planters.



I mean, maybe if you're watching Gone with the Wind. He ordered the destruction of military and government buildings, not the razing of the entire city.

It's funny that in your zeal to assert that you oppose Lost Cause mythology you end up whitewashing Sherman. Collective punishment against American civilians doesn't mean anything as long as they're in general proximity to slave owners!

It's fun to watch uptight liberals trip over their own shoes.

e: Is there any evidence you wouldn't label as Lost Cause, out of curiosity?

Jastiger posted:

Jastiger chiming in to say thay my support of Sherman isn't some salting of the earth bullshit, it's the direct and targeted action at the people responsible for Bad Things. Nucleicxacid or whatever poo poo ' my comparison with an Economic Sherman March. I think it's quite apt. A targeted and direct redistribution and power stripping of the white establishment would do a lot of good, perhaps more good than rallies and pamphlet handing out.

Do you have any more unworkable power-revenge fantasies against moustache twirling figments of your imagination, as long as you're posting ITT?

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 8, 2014

Alec Bald Snatch
Sep 12, 2012

by exmarx

Cythereal posted:

Florida would probably turn into a blue state without much effort if we had an actual Democratic party in the state. I've been to supposed conventions for it in this state, and it's a bunch of suspicious old men who have no interest in genuine progressive ideas or putting in any actual effort. The GOP dominates Florida by default, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar situation in other Southern states.

A similar thing happened in NC. Democrats kept essentially one-party control nearly 40 years after the Civil Rights Act and the ensuing realignment, but a series of ethics violations and mass retirements among the remaining senior elected officials and leaders in 2010 caused the rest of the party to fold up like a cheap tent. And now they're looking at least a decade of rebuilding against an obscenely well-funded machine, their only saving grace the incompetence of a Republican leadership that's never been in the position of actually running things in anyone's lifetime, and who are mostly just trying to bilk as much public money as they can and give their church and golf buddies as much business as possible before demographics inevitably put them out of office again if Democrats actually bothered to field candidates.

sit on my Facebook
Jun 20, 2007

ASS GAS OR GRASS
No One Rides for FREE
In the Trumplord Holy Land

Jastiger posted:

Jastiger chiming in to say thay my support of Sherman isn't some salting of the earth bullshit, it's the direct and targeted action at the people responsible for Bad Things. Nucleicxacid or whatever poo poo ' my comparison with an Economic Sherman March. I think it's quite apt. A targeted and direct redistribution and power stripping of the white establishment would do a lot of good, perhaps more good than rallies and pamphlet handing out.

That's great and all but it is still misdirected petty regionalism. I think a vast majority of posters on these forum would agree that the entire political establishment in the nation as a whole on pretty much every level falls far short of being truly representative of the populations that they are supposedly representing. Why is it so hard to imagine that the same thing is true in so-called southern politics? Yes many of the state governments are regressive as all hell, and the federal delegations aren't better, but that has precisely nothing to do with their 'southernness.'

If you think regressive, anti-democratic politics and an entrenched rich, white establishment are problems exclusive to the south, I just don't know what to tell you.

Grand Theft Autobot
Feb 28, 2008

I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Naked Lincoln posted:

Isn't part of the problem with the rise and fall of the Southern left linked to how race has historically operated in the South? The South's racial caste system hindered labor movements, for example, with white workers refusing to enter unions with black workers. The Populist Party certainly had its own problems with race (certainly Populists like Tom Watson subscribed to white supremacist ideals) and the New Deal Coalition in the South was often held together by the understanding that many New Deal benefits would be restricted to whites (the Democratic Party's insistence on civil rights legislation was one of the key factors in the GOP prying apart the New Deal Coalition).

It ultimately seems like the same political and economic issues plaguing most of the country (poor whites voting against their self-interest to keep the Other from "mooching" off of Welfare) seem particularly highlighted in Southern states because of their particular history with regards to race, politics, and class.

This is generally accurate, yes, but there is more to the story of the Southern Left's collapse.

If we can move past race, can we revive the Southern Left? Who are some actual good leftist Southern politicians? They don't have to be currently holding office, but at least seeking office or acting positively to bring the left into power.

Naked Lincoln
Jan 19, 2010

Popular Thug Drink posted:

It's funny that in your zeal to assert that you oppose Lost Cause mythology you end up whitewashing Sherman. Collective punishment against American civilians doesn't mean anything as long as they're in general proximity to slave owners!

It's fun to watch uptight liberals trip over their own shoes.

e: Is there any evidence you wouldn't label as Lost Cause, out of curiosity?


Do you have any more unworkable power-revenge fantasies against moustache twirling figments of your imagination, as long as you're posting ITT?

Saying that the March to the Sea wasn't the indiscriminate burning and pillaging of Southern homes doesn't whitewash Sherman but corrects 150 years of racist propaganda. But hey, maybe all those scholars are just also whitewashing Sherman!

Also, white Southerners weren't just in the general proximity to slave owners, but were deeply politically, economically, and ideologically invested in the institution. The entire history of Southern race and class relations is linked to poor whites, yeoman farmers, and wealthy planters forming a political alliance throughout the antebellum period on the basis of their whiteness.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Naked Lincoln posted:

Saying that the March to the Sea wasn't the indiscriminate burning and pillaging of Southern homes doesn't whitewash Sherman but corrects 150 years of racist propaganda. But hey, maybe all those scholars are just also whitewashing Sherman!

Nobody is saying it is indiscriminate burning, you're just insisting that the only two possibilities were an orderly march and sheer neo-Confederate propaganda. It's just funny how hard you're trying to posture yourself here, especially when you lead off with a really limp tone argument.

Naked Lincoln posted:

Also, white Southerners weren't just in the general proximity to slave owners, but were deeply politically, economically, and ideologically invested in the institution. The entire history of Southern race and class relations is linked to poor whites, yeoman farmers, and wealthy planters forming a political alliance throughout the antebellum period on the basis of their whiteness.

And the implications of this when applied to civilians? You honestly don't see the ramifications of your argument here? Yikes.

You're excusing collective punishment against civilians because you are personally offended by the Lost Cause. Just a slightly more academic way of being a dense shithead like Jastiger.

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 8, 2014

Sheng-Ji Yang
Mar 5, 2014


Naked Lincoln posted:

I mean, maybe if you're watching Gone with the Wind. He ordered the destruction of military and government buildings, not the razing of the entire city.

Sherman ordered the burning of every building in Atlanta except the hospitals and churches. Of the ~3,000-5,000 buildings in Atlanta when he captured the city, 400 remained when the smoke cleared. The March to the Sea continued this practice until reaching Savannah. Maybe you should stop posting about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

Sheng-Ji Yang fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 8, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

made of bees
May 21, 2013

Naked Lincoln posted:

The entire history of Southern race and class relations is linked to poor whites, yeoman farmers, and wealthy planters forming a political alliance throughout the antebellum period on the basis of their whiteness.

Explain the existence of West Virginia.

  • Locked thread