P.R. Vanfleet wrote:
> Certainly both internal and external definitions must be taken into
> account.. part of what makes up an identity is how one feels to be
> perceived. Today i would think that American perceptions of the South
> away from either the North or the South would be valuable, as this
> point of view was miniscule or seriously under developed at the time of
> the civil war. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the
> views of the perceives the south versus what someone from Phoenix
> thinks..
The so-called "Southern" identity has blurred over the years as the
focus of internal affairs, along with the rest of the country, has
become turned upon how the country views itself from personal, not
strictly locational, viewpoints. While I doubt a Southerner would see
his/her needs as the same as that of someone from say, New York, he/she
may be more attuned to the needs of say, Midwesterner folks, in certain
areas (such as rural issues). So, it's not so much location which
defines us these days, IMO, but the political and cultural attributes
of an area (rural vs. urban, argicultural versus industrial employment,
traditional lifestyle vis upwardly mobile lfestyles, etc.), and of
course, modern economic stresses.
The South is a particular knockaround for anthropologists and
historians, IMO, since they are the only "conquered" section of the US,
and many of these reviews believe that this formed much of the
Southerner psyche. But, quite honestly, I doubt many people since the
1960's have felt the burn of being the "Civil War Rebel" versus a land
of "Yankees," except for the odd Dixiecrat or two which still survived
through the mid-1980's. For them, everything was "states' rights" vs.
the big bad national government,who "interfered" with states (mainly
the integration issues, such as affirmative action, busing, etc., but
also in areas of education, infrastructure, etc). But I think the
majority of Southerners find such thinking repulsive today.
Since the mid-late 1970's, the South moved on into what was left of the
20th century, IMO. They welcomed change (no Southerner would actually
do that under the old mindset, we're told), they embraced
industrialisation and urbanisation (ditto) with amazing grace, such
that they actually believed they could hold their own with the more
industrialised north, the west and so on. The South's primary success
story was Atlanta, of course, but the subtle and quiet economic and
cultural updates and changes which took place inthe 1980's and beyond
in areas such as New Orleans, Biloxi, the "gold triangle" of the North
and South Carolinas, the upsurge of scientific "business" in Tennessee
and Northern Alabama, and even the change of leading industry in
Birmingham, Alabama (from industrial to medical services) showed a new
face of the South which was miles away from this old view of the South,
whcih ended in the 1970's, which antthropolgists and historians seem to
think still exists.
This is not to say that there are no pockets where the change is
resistant in the Deep South. But the impetus for this resistance is
still not quite the same as it was from the early 1900's until the late
1970's. While the Deep South of the US is still some of the poorest
areas of the country, much of this has to do with the way the South's
political structures distribute its overall meagre wealth - whether too
little is distributed widely to meet only part of needs, or too focused
to meet the needs of only the areas where the most votes for a
politician can be found. This is not to say that southern politics is
different from politics elsewhere in the US, but only that the Deep
South has usually the _smallest resources_ of funds, due to inadequate
taxation, too many exemptions given to companies as political gifts,
graft, and so on, that it can't find the finances to raise _everyone_
out of poverty - just a few. So it becomes inured to simply being poor
because if this.
> Even within the South its self I am quite sure a myriad of self
> definitions exist. A solipsistic definition of someone who was born in
> New Orleans would be very different from that of someone born in
> Nashville.
Yes and no, from my observation: people in the South tend to spend more
time identifying with one another as the overall story of their lives
are the same wherever they live - politicians are corrupt in specific
ways, infrastructure is wearing down in almost all Southern cities -
usually due to politics and lack of monies - but the needs of each
individual is the same: is there enough work to make a passable living?
Will that employment remain for long-term? What can be done to assure
that each person stays in the job in which they are employed, and how
can they assure their children have some chance of getting educated
enough to do the same rat-race as they do?
While each Southerner may have "bragging rights" as to how their town
differs from every other (culture, economic growth, etc.), but these
are merely shallow provincial views that appear and disappear within
each person with great speed, when the hard questions of making a life
for oneself arises. In short, Southerners have more in common that in
differences.
> Southern self identity is also im****tant.. but what is that? It must be
> hard to reconcile all that honor and virtuous heritage Southerns are
> always going on about with the fact that their society is built upon
> the bulwark of a conquered culture. The loss of the Civil War still
> plays a hefty role in forging Southern identity.
I disagree.
> I feel it is time the South moves on and carves a new self definition
> apart from either the Civil War or antebellum heritage.
> To isolate the 'current' definition would be vital then in the process
> of making a new one. And its really about time.
But the South HAS moved on, it's just that no one wants to believe it,
IMO. It appears that only anthropologists and historians seem to think
Southerners are still mired in that Civil War mindset, and continue to
interpret new modern social and economic pressures ONLY from that
viewpoint.
If there are elements of "Old South" thinking (and the anthropologists
and historians like to bring up attitudes toward race as the main
example), I think these types of reviews fail to understand that these
are strictly _*economic expressions of the moment rather than long-held
hatreds*_. Southerners (like those from the north, west and east,
IMO), tend to be affrighted of _anyone_ who threatens what little they
have. If today it's Mexicans, tomorrow it will be (group de jour): one
merely has to look at the _national_ debate about immigration to see
such viewpoints are not wholy relegated to the South, for example.
Of course, this is merely my opinion, but comes from over 40 years of
living throughout the Deep South, in just about every state at one time
or another. I always tend to think such publications about the
"Southern Indentity" tends to be a tad one-sided, and usually from
someone who merely studies the Deep South looking for justification for
conclusions they've already arrived at long before they actually
physically came to the South.
My two cents.
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
(Formerly lived in and/or employed within Texas, Georgia, South
Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee over the
past 40 years. Somehow didn't make it to Mississippi, and well,
Florida has its own set of issues not necessarily Southern related)
|
