|
Why are people even arguing the morality of Shermans actions? Saying we should do any military action post revolutionary war on anyone would of course be met with moral apprehension because around the time of the civil war people started using the whole "total war" idea which included targeting civilians who were part of the enemy population. Shermans march was a bad thing that happened that helped us win a war against bad people. The bombing of Dresden and other places in Germany are similar to this, or if you want to get really controversial the nuking of Japan got us an unconditional surrender. Saying Sherman shouldn't have done what he did is missing the forest for the trees, what he did helped cripple the south and end a extremely bloody war faster.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Why are people even arguing the morality of Shermans actions? Saying we should do any military action post revolutionary war on anyone would of course be met with moral apprehension because around the time of the civil war people started using the whole "total war" idea which included targeting civilians who were part of the enemy population. Nobody is arguing the morality. Please pay attention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Nobody is arguing the morality. Please pay attention. 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! Explain how the term "white washing" is not about morality? Seriously why else have people spent half this thread arguing about Sherman instead of I don't know, discussing actual ways to help the southern leftist movement?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate Disco > Let's Play: Monday morning quarterbacking a war that ended 150 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Explain how the term "white washing" is not about morality? Seriously why else have people spent half this thread arguing about Sherman instead of I don't know, discussing actual ways to help the southern leftist movement? Naked Lincoln is literally whitewashing Sherman's history, incorrectly claiming that he didn't actually burn down Atlanta or indiscriminately destroy homes and towns, in order to argue that what Sherman did was moral and good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
I honestly just think the focus on Sherman is a derail meant to keep us from talking about modern, relevant events. Like, those few posts in the past page about southern progressives did help me reconsider my blanket hatred for the South (though, I'm a minority, so I feel as if it's justified, but then again the rest of America's pretty lovely towards blacks too so  I just really need to learn to expect the racism and let go of being angry at this country). Why not talk more about specific progressive moments going on in the South? I heard ATL's pretty good about those things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Naked Lincoln is literally whitewashing Sherman's history, incorrectly claiming that he didn't actually burn down Atlanta or indiscriminately destroy homes and towns, in order to argue that what Sherman did was moral and good. Yeah and it's stupid but engaging him in endless argument over it is pointless since the end result is him admitting Sherman did bad things, which however as I pointed out is dumb to get in a huff over because it was part of a greater strategy to end the war quicker and save more lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted: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. Someone like David Price or Jim Moran is about the furthest left you'll get in terms of actually elected to office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Yeah and it's stupid but engaging him in endless argument over it is pointless since the end result is him admitting Sherman did bad things, which however as I pointed out is dumb to get in a huff over because it was part of a greater strategy to end the war quicker and save more lives. It was necessary to starve the slaves in order to save them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It was necessary to starve the slaves in order to save them. Are you mentally deficient? What do you think the point of total war is? The whole idea is to simply collapse your enemies ability to fight on every level be it economic, recruitment, and production. The Civil War was literally the most causality high war in American history and Lincoln wanted it over as fast as possible so yeah I would say ending the war with a Union victory and thus ending slavery as well as the massive amount of bloodshed was a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Yes, in the Fall of 1864 the South was on the verge of a dramatic comeback. Then again you think the atomic bombs ended WW2 so, uh, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes, in the Fall of 1864 the South was on the verge of a dramatic comeback. Then again you think the atomic bombs ended WW2 so, uh, yeah. Again, you prove your ability to read words and just take out of it what ever the hell you want. I said that the dropping on the bomb forced the unconditional surrender of Japan, as formerly they would only surrender if they kept their conquered territory and an invasion of Japan was projected to have massive numbers of casualties. So yeah dropping the bomb was a BAD THING that helped prevent an EVEN WORSE THING from happening. On the subject on Shermans application of total war to the deep south, in 1864 many people were predicting unless someone was able to strike deeper into the main southern states the war would continue to drag on with the Union being forced to push the confederates all the way out of Virgina and then begin a fight in North Carolina due to the Confederacy still being able to be supplied from the southern plantations and farms as well as what ever industry the deeper southern states could manage. The point was ending the war quicker so as to avoid further loss of life and undue suffering. So much like the dropping of the atom bomb Shermans march to the sea was a BAD THING that helped prevent an EVEN WORSE THING from continuing to drag on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Total War is always a crime and arguing over the morality of Sherman's March, the bombing of Dresden, or the nuclear bombings of Japan is a waste of time. War crimes are war crimes, regardless of their strategic advantages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted: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. But that is what people are arguing when they write about "burning homes just because they were in the way or in the general proximity of slave owners." Popular Thug Drink posted:And the implications of this when applied to civilians? You honestly don't see the ramifications of your argument here? Yikes. I'm sorry that you don't want to explore the fact that white Southerners (even poor ones) were very much committed to chattel slavery. I'm not sure about the ramifications since Sherman didn't target anyone who supported slavery (that would have been a strange decision since Sherman didn't oppose slavery himself and was pretty contemptuous of African Americans). Sheng-ji Yang posted: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. Yeah, Mark Grimsley, Charles Royster, Mark Neely, and pretty much the entirety of modern Civil War historiography have no idea what they're talking about. Sherman ordered military, militarily useful, and government buildings burned. That hardly amounted to the destruction of 80 percent of the city. And Special Field Order 120 certainly doesn't say "burn everything that's not a church or hospital." James Reston, Jr.'s study of Sherman's March certainly brings up plenty of examples of Southerners insisting that Sherman burned homes and towns that are still standing. made of bees posted:Explain the existence of West Virginia. It's funny that you bring that up given that the poll posted at the beginning of this thread suggests that a lot of Southerners don't consider West Virginia the South. For a less glib response, what would become West Virginia was perfectly willing to ally with planters politically up until secession forced them to support a war for slavery. Wayne Durill, for example, traces this alliance throughout the antebellum period in North Carolina until 1861 when poorer Southerner's commitment to white supremacy and slavery wasn't enough to induce them to secede. Walter Johnson demonstrates how the "idea" of slavery served the same sort of aspirational hope as the idea of buying appliances in the 1950s. Poor Southerners saved money to buy slaves, took loans in order to buy slaves, and hoped and dreamed about one day joining the slave owning master class. You could also look at Stephanie McCurry's study of yeoman farmers in South Carolina, which demonstrates how planter politicians formed alliances with small slave owners across the state on the basis of the antebellum period's herrenvolk democracy. Virginians in what would become West Virginia benefited from the white supremacy that made them socially and politically better off than African Americans (free and slave). So, to answer your question, the alliance between planters and lower class whites had begun to fray in many Southern states by 1861, but it dictated the terms of Virginia politics throughout the antebellum period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes, in the Fall of 1864 the South was on the verge of a dramatic comeback. Then again you think the atomic bombs ended WW2 so, uh, yeah. You're looking stupid now. Let it go. That one guy is going to keep on praising Sherman as a heroic figure who did nothing wrong, or at least post that way in order to rile you up. The good posts were a few pages ago, and now they're lost in the poo poo. The main point of this thread should be, as the OP stated, how to help the South actually break free of the neocon stranglehold because, while idiots like Jastiger and SHERMAN DID NOTHING WRONG will continue to paint the entire south with a broad brush, people can, will, and are realizing that the South is a fuckton more cosmopolitan than the talking heads portray it. One of the main issues in the South is voter turnout. Getting the people who disagree with neocons out to vote in percentages similar to the frightened, ignorant, and elderly would see a sudden shift of several states into purple or even blue territory. Sadly, when every other progressive in the nation is constantly making GBS threads on you for having committed the sin of being born in the South, it's difficult to muster up the feeling that your vote matters. Jastiger and SHERMAN DID NOTHING WRONG are playing into the hands of the neocons at every turn, and should be marginalized or ignored, because they add literally nothing to the discourse except to cause further neocon victories. vv Don't pretend like you're actually willing to engage in conversation with that poo poo. You'll be gagging on Sherman's cock in the next page or two. vv Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Someone like David Price or Jim Moran is about the furthest left you'll get in terms of actually elected to office. I don't know much about their specific policy positions, but what about people like Julian Bond, Morris Dees, or Jim Lewis? edit: I suppose Dees hasn't held office, but haven't Bond and Lewis served in Southern statehouses and the U.S. House respectively? Naked Lincoln fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:Yeah, Mark Grimsley, Charles Royster, Mark Neely, and pretty much the entirety of modern Civil War historiography have no idea what they're talking about. Sherman ordered military, militarily useful, and government buildings burned. That hardly amounted to the destruction of 80 percent of the city. And Special Field Order 120 certainly doesn't say "burn everything that's not a church or hospital." James Reston, Jr.'s study of Sherman's March certainly brings up plenty of examples of Southerners insisting that Sherman burned homes and towns that are still standing. When you're on the wrong side of "the entirety of modern Civil War historiography" in a debate about Civil War history you should probably not push the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:You're looking stupid now. Let it go. That one guy is going to keep on praising Sherman as a heroic figure who did nothing wrong, or at least post that way in order to rile you up. Literally quoting what I said should happen. Told you we agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Total War is always a crime and arguing over the morality of Sherman's March, the bombing of Dresden, or the nuclear bombings of Japan is a waste of time. War crimes are war crimes, regardless of their strategic advantages. This train of logic really doesn't follow well into a bigger picture, America's strategic bombing of Germany crippled German production and the war crimes the Soviet Union committed to halt the German advance into the USSR helped the allies win the war and thus bring the holocaust to an end. Independently every callous military action can be seen as a war crime, but they are not prosecuted as such due the reasons they were committed and the said effects of the war crimes in question. Saying said things should have never happened is ignoring the repercussions of inaction. Of course I guess you could argue that war in a general sense should never happen, but that's a entire different can of worms. Look I'm not trying to white wash Shermans actions, I'm just saying that viewing them as something committed just to kill southerners for no reason is just being dense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
^^^Regardless of the intent, those whose region/families were affected by it are justified in disliking that it happened, I feel. And constantly bringing it up as 'a good idea we should do again!' the way some SA posters do just leads to shittiness on both sides. It is possible to disagree with slavery as a crime against humanity, and also see with Sherman's march as a rather brutal action taken against a civilian population. People tend to get mad when smug assholes who are supposed to be on their side start talking about slaughtering their friends and families because of some politicians.^^^Jastiger posted:Literally quoting what I said should happen. Told you we agree. Not really. You remain a jingoistic fuckhead with no idea what he's talking about when it comes to politics, and all the charisma of an openly syphilitic whore. I've been saying, from the start, that what the South needs is help, and reasonable voices. You've remained, throughout this thread and others, the complete antithesis of that. Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
I must admit I'm fascinated by this live demonstration of the huge blind spots willfully held by Southerners - even progressives - about their history. No wonder you guys can't get poo poo done if you still think of it as the War of Northern Aggression and that destroying the plantations was an act of total war. How can you even think of changing voting patterns and making progress if the people there are still proud of what they once were and still are?nucleicmaxid posted:I've been saying, from the start, that what the South needs is help, and reasonable voices. You've remained, throughout this thread and others, the complete antithesis of that. When you and others like you consistently betray open hostility towards people from the north then we start wondering whether or not it's actually worth our time helping out a region that's... oh, I don't know... a lost cause... or if we should just be focusing on our own localities instead which have shown to be much more responsive and much more reasonable towards good policy. We need a name for that. Maybe the War of Northern Indifference?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:^^^Regardless of the intent, those whose region/families were affected by it are justified in disliking that it happened, I feel. And constantly bringing it up as 'a good idea we should do again!' the way some SA posters do just leads to shittiness on both sides. It is possible to disagree with slavery as a crime against humanity, and also see with Sherman's march as a rather brutal action taken against a civilian population. People tend to get mad when smug assholes who are supposed to be on their side start talking about slaughtering their friends and families because of some politicians.^^^ Well of course, but nobody actually thinks the south should be burned the ground except people joke posting in GBS. On the actual subject of southern progressiveness, it's almost somewhat shocking to talk to members of the black community in the south and how resilient and motivated they are. Despite living in a climate of intense political discrimination they still push and campaign hard, which is far more than can be said for many of the white democrats Iv met in the south. Southern black priests are very interesting to talk to, you will be hard pressed to find men more informed and influential in the community than them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
I learned today that what a leader did over a century and a half ago is more important to modern political opinions and spite voting than the all very real suffering of people today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I learned today that what a leader did over a century and a half ago is more important to modern political opinions and spite voting than the all very real suffering of people today. Is this directed to southerners or to the people who unironically post that dumb Sherman cartoon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Is this directed to southerners or to the people who unironically post that dumb Sherman cartoon? Choose your own adventure!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:^^^Regardless of the intent, those whose region/families were affected by it are justified in disliking that it happened, I feel. And constantly bringing it up as 'a good idea we should do again!' the way some SA posters do just leads to shittiness on both sides. It is possible to disagree with slavery as a crime against humanity, and also see with Sherman's march as a rather brutal action taken against a civilian population. People tend to get mad when smug assholes who are supposed to be on their side start talking about slaughtering their friends and families because of some politicians.^^^ Guy, whatever points you may have, you are the last person to talk about reasonable voices. You are mad as gently caress all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I learned today that what a leader did over a century and a half ago is more important to modern political opinions and spite voting than the all very real suffering of people today. What I'm taking from this thread is that people would rather quibble over the dubious actions of some really dead white guy than talk about things going on right here and now. Why? Because it's easier to do and probably requires way less work than looking up contemporary information that's relevant to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:What I'm taking from this thread is that people would rather quibble over the dubious actions of some really dead white guy than talk about things going on right here and now. Why? Because it's easier to do and probably requires way less work than looking up contemporary information that's relevant to the discussion. That and it requires actually confronting that the society you live in (be it the North/not-South or just America in general) is actually horribly racist all over and it's not just the fault of that Other over there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I must admit I'm fascinated by this live demonstration of the huge blind spots willfully held by Southerners - even progressives - about their history. No wonder you guys can't get poo poo done if you still think of it as the War of Northern Aggression and that destroying the plantations was an act of total war. How can you even think of changing voting patterns and making progress if the people there are still proud of what they once were and still are? I don't think you read this thread very well. The hostility didn't start until after Jastiger's comment that Southerners should be killed with a Sherman 2.0 style march. I love the North, I have Northern friends, and I have no animosity at all toward the North as a region. I have animosity toward ignorant chucklefucks who paint an entire region/race/religion/etc. with a single brush, and expect to be praised for their ignorance. I have, quite explicitly, stated that I'd love for the Southern and Northern Progressives to work together to make the nation as a whole a better place. And, unfortunately for you, 100% ignoring the neoconservative stranglehold on the region isn't a very sound policy at the national level. The idea of the South as a Lost Cause is very much a boon to the neocons, so whatever you want to think, I guess I won't change your mind. Alexzandvar posted:Well of course, but nobody actually thinks the south should be burned the ground except people joke posting in GBS. On the actual subject of southern progressiveness, it's almost somewhat shocking to talk to members of the black community in the south and how resilient and motivated they are. Despite living in a climate of intense political discrimination they still push and campaign hard, which is far more than can be said for many of the white democrats Iv met in the south. Southern black priests are very interesting to talk to, you will be hard pressed to find men more informed and influential in the community than them. Absolutely. White progressives in the South occupy a unique position, where their ideological allies poo poo on them for being born/living in the South, and organizations that are predominantly black sometimes see them as encroaching if they work too closely due to the history of racial interaction in the area. That makes it somewhat difficult to be motivated to do anything, when you feel pressured from everyone around you to just sit down and be quiet. I'm not at all trying to place any blame on the black community, I've known, worked with, and respected many black progressives in the area, however they remain a fairly downtrodden minority and it is hard to match their fervor when you don't experience the same things that they do on a daily basis, but rather are insulated from it. There are, however, progressives who still try quite hard to do the right things like get out the vote, etc. It just really sucks to get told that, despite trying, your whole region is a lost cause. Brannock posted:Some stupid hyperbole If a Japanese poster had gotten offended that Jastiger told him maybe they should nuke Japan again, you'd have no issue with him getting annoyed and angry at Jastiger. I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, but think about that for a little while - why are you, and other non-Southern progressives so quick to leap in and attack Southerners for daring to have emotional ties to their place of birth? EDIT: Captain Oblivious posted:Guy, whatever points you may have, you are the last person to talk about reasonable voices. See my comment to Brannock. Some fairly offensive things have been said, and a couple of posters have been really aggressive with it. It's pretty aggravating when a cause you believe in and have worked for is dismissed out of hand by some dude saying 'lol nvm just kill them all.' vvv Exactly. It's the flippancy and the hypocrisy that drive Southern Progressives insane. vvv Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That and it requires actually confronting that the society you live in (be it the North/not-South or just America in general) is actually horribly racist all over and it's not just the fault of that Other over there. The thing that gets me about the North v South arguments is that it tends to be white people competing desperately for the "not-racist" award, while utterly (and, perhaps, willingly) ignorant of the fact that poo poo's not that great for a minority regardless of where they are in this country. I can really see why any prospective Southern Leftist just would get tired of all the dressing down that the South gets because it reeks of hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:I don't know much about their specific policy positions, but what about people like Julian Bond, Morris Dees, or Jim Lewis? Both are pretty doctrinaire liberal Democrats for the most part. Moran voiced support for UHC during the ACA mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:
Lol what, now its akin to nuking Japan again? What?! How about this, lets bring it back to present day and why I made the comparison. Sherman used force particularly directed at those most responsible for the fighting going on during the ACW. His orders were explicitly to leave the poor whites alone and direct his destruction against military infrastructure and wealthy white land owners. This had the effect of not only ending the war, but destroying the white persons ability to own slaves. Granted, a lot of this was undone through later politicking, but this is what happened whether you agree with it or not. Now, for present day, we see that this same power structure exists and HAS existed since the South was colonized by wealthy white men. I am saying that really at this point, and the last time its ever worked in history, would require federal powers to either militarily (Scary for reals, yo) or better yet, economically march through the South and disrupt this power structure for good. Every time other methods have been used in this region of the United States it has been met with violence, insulation, and a changing of the law in order to accommodate the latent racism and belligerence the South has for the Federal government. We saw it in Loving V Virginia. We saw it in Little Rock. We see it today in voter ID laws. We see it further still in gerrymandering. We see it in an absolute resistance to any form of overt federal assistance in the ACA and crumbling infrastructure (But all those tax dollars from Medicaid, SNAP, and other breaks are welcome!). It seems that every time the peaceful political process gets going its gutted, strangled, or subverted in the South. Folks like you, who I agree with, lose again and again, not because you're wrong. You lose because the deck has always been stacked against you until the Federal government comes in and helps out. I don't like this reality and I don't really think its flippant. I think its just what history has shown us-a Sherman 2.0 whether it be economic or military, and I seriously do not advocate a military one as you keep thinking, would be the most efficient and effective way to shatter the Wealthy White Culture that perpetuates in the South. The wealth and social capital is too entrenched and they are at the point now where they are literally taking majority opinions and outshouting them with tribalism and misinformation. Its terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, but think about that for a little while - why are you, and other non-Southern progressives so quick to leap in and attack Southerners for daring to have emotional ties to their place of birth? I made it bold so you could better understand. Hope that helps, you don't really contribute anything to the conversation that you haven't said before, and it remains just as wrongheaded and incorrect as it was the first time you said it, so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post. vvv lol vvv Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:I made it bold so you could better understand. Nucleicmaxid is literally Hitler. Well not REALLY a 1:1 comparison to Hitler, but mostly Hitler. What a dickhead, amirite guys? Better ignore the rest of his post addressing my rage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
I, too, like to use historically controversial topics as metaphors for how much I dislike the way I imagine people to be, in my head. Really what we need is a Trail of Tears 2.0 against the fugitive bourgeois neo planter aristocracy. Maybe a sort of anti-corporate chevauchee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
I'm reading the dead silence of the really-angry-at-Sherman southerners in regards to progressive vitality as a sign it has very little. Please prove me wrong. Edit: Or maybe it is getting drowned out by Sherman chat? Whatever the case it I am not sure how this is productive. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:I'm reading the dead silence of the really-angry-at-Sherman southerners in regards to progressive vitality as a sign it has very little. Please prove me wrong. Sure, what are you looking for? Links to progressive organizations in the south? Politicians like Wendy Davis and such? A few somewhat aggressive posters who are quick to leap to the defense of their home region, pointing out its flaws but also its potential? Polls and evidence that within the next 12-20 years, Texas just might turn purple or even blue due to increased pressure from Progressive groups and shifting demographics? (That seems like a long time, but it's really just 3-5 election cycles.) Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
I think when most people talk about the South being a horrible shithole they're not talking about Texas, as Texas is it's own thing that's kind of Southern in places but, really, Texas is on it's own just Texas. Using the political developments in Texas as a watershed for the South-at-large would be really disingenuous. Do you know anything about Georgia? Or Louisiana? Or any of the Carolinas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I think when most people talk about the South being a horrible shithole they're not talking about Texas, as Texas is it's own thing that's kind of Southern in places but, really, Texas is on it's own just Texas. Using the political developments in Texas as a watershed for the South-at-large would be really disingenuous. Eh, Texas gets lumped in there more than half the time, and I'm a native Texan. I don't really have as much information about Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, etc. because I don't live there, and I'm not active in their progressive movements. I see your point though, it is a different ballgame due to a ton of factors. Edit: Though, to be fair, if Texas turns, the Left wins the white house for the foreseeable future! Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:Sure, what are you looking for? Links to progressive organizations in the south? Politicians like Wendy Davis and such? A few somewhat aggressive posters who are quick to leap to the defense of their home region, pointing out its flaws but also its potential? Polls and evidence that within the next 12-20 years, Texas just might turn purple or even blue due to increased pressure from Progressive groups? (That seems like a long time, but it's really just 3-5 election cycles.) Well you mentioned earlier there is a (artificially induced?) cultural divide between northern and southern progressives and/or leftists? I'm curious as to what you meant by that because as a Northeasterner I never considered the south to be a region where leftism or progressivism is currently very strong, though I am aware it was historically a foundational contributor to left politics in the United States. Would some southerners care to elaborate on why this is the case, or alternatively, that this is not the case and leftism/progressivism still runs strong in these regions? I ask because if it is the case that left politics are still strong in the south then northern leftists like myself are making a serious error in their judgment regarding national allies. Edit: I'll add that I think Texas constitutes something of its own entity so I don't personally categorize them as southern, at least not in entirety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:32
|
|