On Dec 2 2006, 10:08 am, "Katherine Griffis"
<katherine.griffisgreenb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> P.R. Vanfleet wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, the same could be said about bringing up the term "Dresden" to a
> German, whether or not he lived through World War II. Obviously the
> inhabitants of Germany from the WWII era have a stronger emotion about
> it (even more if they lived IN Dresden or nearabouts), but even the
> German of today, in his 30's or younger, will have strong feelings
> about the bombing of Dresden, even if he doesn't have personal
> knowledge about WWII itself.
>
> One does not even have to _live_ in Germany to have this strong feeling
> about Dresden disaster: the strongest memory I have of my
> German-American mother and Southern father in argument was when he
> revealed he was part of the bombing group of the USAF which destroyed
> Dresden. The argument went on for hours, followed by days of silence.
> My mother never lived in Germany (in fact, never even visited the
> country), but the incident affected her psyche, but mainly due to its
> injustice, not due to some "locational/cultural" influence.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Erm, then what about the English Civil War? War of the Roses? That
> sort of thing?
What about them?
At the most Yorkist against Lancastrians will refer to a cricket match
these days... especially as the war was between nobles and their land
holdings did not coincide with county boundaries.
The English Civil War did not really involve areas of England fighting
each other, even though some places were more for one cause than the
other.
The war in America did involve such things, and hence the better name
'The War Between the States' makes it clearer.
> I think you should consider that _every_ civil war tends to be a
> situation where 'socially autochthonous groups' are defeated and fall
> under the yoke of the victors. The US is no different from other
> European and even non-European counterparts as to the result of a civil
> war. A civil war may not pass from the collective memory, but as a
> rule, a civil war, once completed and in the far past, doesn't affect
> the modern everyday life of its inhabitants some 100+ years after the
> fact.
It rather depends on what is defined as a 'civil war'... I believe the
American War of Independence does have a lot of influence in some
respects even today.
Axel
|
