Interesting.
I have a lot of family in the Deep South and I would maintain that the
Civil War has left a more noticeable mark on them then any other group
of people I have met located in any other geographic region. For
instance, every time I have brought up William Sherman around a
'proud Southerner' I get a similar reaction.. the mention of his name
gets most riled up and red in the face.. This is for the most part a
Southern issue, as it brings up issues with their own identity. I would
seriously doubt that an individual from Wyoming, or New Mexico, or
Maine, or Minnesota would have as much emotional attachment to
Sherman's march to the sea..
> The South is a particular knockaround for anthropologists and
historians, IMO, since they are the only "conquered" section of the
US, <
So i take it you have never been to a Rez?
All of both North and South America are "conquered"..
Its just the Southern CSA are the only large organized white social
entity to be forced to capitulate to white opponents.
While individuals of European decent fought each other in the French
Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812, the
Confederates were the only 'socially autochthonous whites' to be
defeated and fall under the yoke of the victors.
It is just my experience that this incident has left an indelible mark
on a considerable amount of Americans born in the South.
Katherine Griffis wrote:
> 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)
|
