How Northerners Think Of The Civil War

[SKL]

Who is being punished and how? Who is being hated? I don't hate my friends, former coworkers or family.

 

The topic is how Northerners view the Civil War, but it's expanded to how Southerners are viewed today, including slavery, Jim Crow etc.  It has been mentioned by some Southerners here that they are basically considered garbage by non-Southerners because of the regional legacy of shame.  When it's suggested that there are positive messages that could be spread to give them something to be proud of, it's declared that they don't deserve to be proud of anything that was good for the country.

 

I follow Condoleezza Rice, who was brought up in Birmingham Alabama IIRC.  She seems to be proud of the progress made, even though there is plenty of bad stuff to remember.  She's allowed to be proud because nobody will accuse her of being part of the problem.  But there were/are many whites who were/are also not part of the problem, many of whom were/are part of the solution.  According to some of the comments here, they are only allowed to experience shame.  Meanwhile folks brought up in the northern states, who did relatively little for civil rights, get to view themselves as superior.  This is how a community sparks rage in a minority group.  It's not sustainable.

[Sneezyone]

The topic is how Northerners view the Civil War, but it's expanded to how Southerners are viewed today, including slavery, Jim Crow etc. It has been mentioned by some Southerners here that they are basically considered garbage by non-Southerners because of the regional legacy of shame. When it's suggested that there are positive messages that could be spread to give them something to be proud of, it's declared that they don't deserve to be proud of anything that was good for the country.

 

I follow Condoleezza Rice, who was brought up in Birmingham Alabama IIRC. She seems to be proud of the progress made, even though there is plenty of bad stuff to remember. She's allowed to be proud because nobody will accuse her of being part of the problem. But there were/are many whites who were/are also not part of the problem, many of whom were/are part of the solution. According to some of the comments here, they are only allowed to experience shame. Meanwhile folks brought up in the northern states, who did relatively little for civil rights, get to view themselves as superior. This is how a community sparks rage in a minority group. It's not sustainable.

It's hard to respond to this because most of it is made up out of whole cloth. No one said what you just did.

 

No one said they consider southerners garbage. Some said there's a perception of stupidity that comes with the accent. People said the civil rights clashes weren't something to be proud of, not that there were no available sources of pride. Also, white southerners are not a minority group. Were there some who were part of the solution, sure. Were there many more who said/did nothing and benefitted from the system? Yes. You'll also never hear me suggest there are no issues up north. I remember Boston. I've experienced Portland. Many people commented on seeing Confederate memorabilia in non-southern states. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that ppl in the north did very little for civil rights. My great aunt integrated Boeing. My grandparents were among a handful of black families north of the ship canal in Seattle and in Mercer Island. Most big fights were in the south because that's where the most egregious violations of civil rights occurred. That doesn't mean things weren't happening elsewhere.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

It's hard to respond to this because most of it is made up out of whole cloth. No one said what you just did.

 

No one said they consider southerners garbage. Some said there's a perception of stupidity that comes with the accent. People said the civil rights clashes weren't something to be proud of, not that there were no available sources of pride. Also, white southerners are not a minority group. Were there some who were part of the solution, sure. Were there many more who said/did nothing and benefitted from the system? Yes. You'll also never hear me suggest there are no issues up north. I remember Boston. I've experienced Portland. Many people commented on seeing Confederate memorabilia in non-southern states. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that ppl in the north did very little for civil rights. My great aunt integrated Boeing. My grandparents were among a handful of black families north of the ship canal in Seattle and in Mercer Island. Most big fights were in the south because that's where the most egregious violations of civil rights occurred. That doesn't mean things weren't happening elsewhere.

 

Poor/middle class white southerners are the subject of marginalization in some contexts, yes, and some of the ugly we are seeing could stem from that, I don't know (I'm neither a member nor a sympathizer of those groups).

 

Interestingly, the feeling of being treated like a minority in terms of power in the US was a significant reason for the tensions that led to the civil war. 

 

Just because those people were [are] white does not mean they hold the same power or dignity as other whites.  You can say that's no problem since they are still not the bottom of the barrel.  But I feel we would see better outcomes if we didn't deny dignity to anyone based on the accident of their birth.

[Sneezyone]

Poor/middle class white southerners are the subject of marginalization in some contexts, yes, and some of the ugly we are seeing could stem from that, I don't know (I'm neither a member nor a sympathizer of those groups).

 

Interestingly, the feeling of being treated like a minority in terms of power in the US was a significant reason for the tensions that led to the civil war. 

 

Just because those people were [are] white does not mean they hold the same power or dignity as other whites.  You can say that's no problem since they are still not the bottom of the barrel.  But I feel we would see better outcomes if we didn't deny dignity to anyone based on the accident of their birth.

 

That's all well and good and I don't disagree with you that there are poor/marginlized white people in the south and elsewhere or any of the rest of it. I'm just not sure how that fact is especially relevant WRT our takes on Civil War unless you're suggesting that gives them license to perpetuate myths about its causes or monuments?

Edited August 20, 2017 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

And no one is saying racists are walking around been mean and awful all the time. It is so much more subtle than that. There is a polite racism, where a person can be sweet as pie to an individual person of color, and yet talk about "dark town" and how you don't want to drive in that area. And that same person will think protesting in KKK regalia is not okay, but not so much because they truly aren't racist as they don't want to be open about it. 

 

I just unfriended my daughter's former AHG leader for her quiet but obvious racism. This woman was nice as could be to the girls of color in our troop, but a pattern of Facebook posts made it clear that beneath the veneer of civility was a type of racism that is common in certain places, but not okay. More of a separate but equal type, that stays quiet until those blacks forget their place. 

[Katy]

Sneezyone, I'm curious if you see the rebel flag differently in the North vs in the South.

 

When I'm in the South, my assumption of seeing the flag is, "They have Southern heritage but are being insensitive." 

 

When I'm in the North, my assumption is, "Creepy white supremacist. Don't make eye contact, that guy's dangerous."

[bibiche]

I just unfriended my daughter's former AHG leader for her quiet but obvious racism. This woman was nice as could be to the girls of color in our troop, but a pattern of Facebook posts made it clear that beneath the veneer of civility was a type of racism that is common in certain places, but not okay. More of a separate but equal type, that stays quiet until those blacks forget their place. 

 

I had never heard of AHG so I looked it up. Upon reading their "inclusion" policy and its reference to "biological girls," I have to say that I am not surprised that the AHG leader is racist. It has been my experience that people who are bigoted in one area are usually bigoted in general, and most especially when they are using a belief in god to justify their bigotry.

[Dmmetler]

Didn't read all the replies yet, but I have a question:

 

Do you think that the requirement to teach state history (in 3rd and 7th here) influences how much emphasis is placed on understanding the Civil War?

 

Here in the north, lots of emphasis is placed on early colonies simply because that portion of history is accessible. Classes can take a tour of pre-revolutionary homes or tour the burial place of the Salem witches, but there are hardly any Civil War monuments, so teachers don't have the opportunity to fold them into their lessons. Teachers are able to share a deep connection with the men of Bunker Hill, because they allow them to hear the stories repeated with passion by docents standing on the very soil those soldiers died on. Intentional effort is focused on making sure that the knowledge of "our" state is deeper than the knowledge of all others.

 

In the south the local landmarks are focused on a different time period. Teachers are able to give their students a deep understanding of that period because they can stand on different battlefields listening to equally passionate docents discussing a different time period. Then they can go back to the classroom and write reports, draw pictures and otherwise expand on that knowledge, deepening their own knowledge of their "us."

 

All throughout our lives we are constantly driving past bits and pieces of history, be it old buildings, monuments, or battle fields. Familiarity feeds the part of our mind that is always sorting (be it for good or for ill) people and places into a general "us" and a general "them." Intentionally spending time learning about "us" cements those sorted piles ever more firmly.

 

I'm not sure whether I'm asking for anything to change - being ignorant of what happened in your own back yard seems just as dangerous. I guess I'm just saying that it seems natural that there are differing views, and we need to be gentle with one another.

I do think that's part of it. I grew up in VA, so there was a lot of US history prior to the Civil war within the state and lots of people to study. We didn't really go much beyond the Civil war. It felt like just another repeat of US history class.

 

I taught in Texas. Texas history was almost a parallel track to US history, somewhat contacting it, but mostly doing it's own thing. It's a fun state to do the 4th grade state history in-lots of neat, larger than life people and events.

 

I bought the TN state history booklets used in PS, as well as a workbook for DD, and TN history has a lot at the Civil war and after. The Civil Rights movement was a lot bigger part of TN history than VA history, for example. In general, you could have finished the VA history class, started the TN history class, and it would have almost flowed sequentially.

 

Three Southern states, three completely different approaches and emphasis.

 

 

 

How much more of a gap would there be between, say Mississippi and Massachusetts? Or California?

[regentrude]

I had never heard of AHG so I looked it up. Upon reading their "inclusion" policy and its reference to "biological girls," I have to say that I am not surprised that the AHG leader is racist. It has been my experience that people who are bigoted in one area are usually bigoted in general,

 

I tend to agree with the bolded, but would say "often" instead of "usually". 

Btw, not only do the refer to "biological girls"; they also exclude lesbians (see statement of faith; definition of purity). So, I can't say I am terribly surprised to see that go hand in hand with racism.

Edited August 20, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

My apologies but I am forced to declare shenanigans on this post.

 

It is incorrect to blame all "black poverty" today on slavery.  However, it is not incorrect to point out that slavery and institutional racism combined have caused blacks to have a higher rate of poverty and lower levels of household wealth than whites.  When the Civil War ended and the slaves were freed, they were freed with precisely nothing.  They had no money, no land, and no generational wealth.  And perhaps if they have been left alone and treated equally a large portion of the wealth gap would have been closed over time.

 

But they weren't.  Institutional racism in the south and in the north continued to openly provide less economic opportunity for blacks. 

Examples:

The National Recovery Act under FDR provided fewer jobs to the black community and had a lower pay scale for blacks.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3447

The GI Bill, which was instrumental in creating the middle class after WWII, provided fewer benefits to blacks than it did whites. Of the first 67,000 mortgages authorized by the GI Bill, only 100 went to non-whites.  There was similar discrimination within the educational programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill

Banks and other lending institutions engaged in redlining which affected the ability of blacks to build wealth via housing in the same way lower to middle income whites could.

https://www.thebalance.com/definition-of-redlining-1798618

Of course,  blacks could have just built up their own communities and built wealth that way. Except some white people didn't find that acceptable and would burn those communities down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

Just trying to organize as sharecroppers to get a fair rate for their crops was asking for trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_race_riot

 

Sadly I could go on and on and on and on...Here is another link that can give you a nice overall survey of what blacks have faced in this country and why their rate of poverty is higher: http://www.cpusa.org/article/the-economic-cost-of-discrimination-against-african-americans/.

 

And I can't end this post without giving yours yet another SHENANIGANS, as one will simply not suffice.

 

Don't leave out the prison industrial complex and it's lovely effects on black Americans, with a profile picture like yourns :laugh:  .... :glare:

 

[Sneezyone]

Sneezyone, I'm curious if you see the rebel flag differently in the North vs in the South.

 

When I'm in the South, my assumption of seeing the flag is, "They have Southern heritage but are being insensitive."

 

When I'm in the North, my assumption is, "Creepy white supremacist. Don't make eye contact, that guy's dangerous."

No, I don't see it differently. It always makes me uncomfortable.

[Guest]

This comment may seem out of the blue, but one thing Charlottesville has made me do is this: decide I am doing US History yet again with DS12 for this coming year. Civil War through Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement and arriving right here to now. Hopefully, I will not have further examples of modern hate rallies by the time we arrive at this time period. This is probably my last year teaching DS12 and I was dithering on what I really want to make sure he learns before going off to B&M school. But I'm no longer ambivalent on this point: THIS is what he needs to know. I'm not sure if a child can be made "racist-proof", but hell if I ain't gonna try!

[goldberry]

The topic is how Northerners view the Civil War, but it's expanded to how Southerners are viewed today, including slavery, Jim Crow etc.  It has been mentioned by some Southerners here that they are basically considered garbage by non-Southerners because of the regional legacy of shame.  When it's suggested that there are positive messages that could be spread to give them something to be proud of, it's declared that they don't deserve to be proud of anything that was good for the country.

 

 

Meanwhile folks brought up in the northern states, who did relatively little for civil rights, get to view themselves as superior.  This is how a community sparks rage in a minority group.  It's not sustainable.

 

I'm really not getting why southern stereotypes are amounting to them being "considered garbage because of the regional legacy of shame".  How is people thinking southerners are "dumb" or "racist" or just rednecks (whatever that means) different from other regional stereotypes, like northerners being rude, unfriendly and unhelpful?  or big-city people being intellectual and snooty?  

 

This is not a "punishment" for being on the wrong side of the civil war.  No one I know, even if they buy the southern stereotype, goes back to that thought.  Now maybe yes, the fact of people in this day and age still calling it the "War of Northern Aggression"?  Or the people still defending these statues in public places?  Yeah, that feeds the stereotype.  Because of what it is right now, in the present, not because "oh the civil war, so all in the south are stupid racists."  

 

There are a ton of positive messages to spread, and tons of reasons that people LOVE the south, and none of them have to do with the Civil War or its heroes.  There are people who buy into other stereotypes also, and usually they are converted when they meet people who don't support it.  It's not some evil plan by the northerners to be superior, the northerners are not the ones still going ON about the Civil War. It is typically southerners bringing up. Let it die!  Find other things to be proud of, there are plenty of them!  Because this:  it's declared that they don't deserve to be proud of anything that was good for the country.

... is not something I have EVER heard.  Ever.

 

Side note:  I actually got a job once in Nevada, because the employers thought my southern accent made me seem "friendly and helpful" to the customers.  The south is TOTALLY known for other things, not just dumb racism.

Edited August 20, 2017 by goldberry

[Guest]

...and sweet iced tea. And unbeatable Peach Pie.

[Guest]

We have friends out west here who are originally from the south. The dad is trying his hardest to drop his accent because he feels that people out here hear him speak and assume that he's stupid. He used to say "yes, sir" and "no, ma'am" but he has stopped doing that, too.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Fifiruth

[goldberry]

We have friends out west here who are originally from the south. The dad is trying his hardest to drop his accent because he feels that people out here hear him speak and assume that he's stupid. He used to say "yes, sir" and "no, ma'am" but he has stopped doing that, too.

 

I'm not saying there aren't some stereotypes.  I'm saying they aren't that much different from other stereotypes about other areas.  I don't think it's automatically related to the civil war.  Except possibly to the extent that the civil war is still being brought up *in the south*.

[Guest]

We have friends out west here who are originally from the south. The dad is trying his hardest to drop his accent because he feels that people out here hear him speak and assume that he's stupid. He used to say "yes, sir" and "no, ma'am" but he has stopped doing that, too.

Hey, I'm not even from "The South," but in my early 20s, I made a concerted effort to drop some of the regional dialect that is widely regarded as sounding uneducated. People from other parts of the county do still detect my regional accent, but I dropped specific tendencies which really don't sound good to me anymore; i.e., dropping a "th" and pronouncing it as a "D" - "Dat dere fancy boat." Also pronouncing "closet" as "CLAW-zit" and pronouncing "against" as "uh-GAYNST". There are other specific words, too: mirror, ocean, camera, pony...although I still get teased about pony. I say my long o's like someone who did grow up going "Downy Oooocean, hon," and got asked, "How 'bout dem Os?" (Orioles baseball team). 😜

[Bluegoat]

That's all well and good and I don't disagree with you that there are poor/marginlized white people in the south and elsewhere or any of the rest of it. I'm just not sure how that fact is especially relevant WRT our takes on Civil War unless you're suggesting that gives them license to perpetuate myths about its causes or monuments?

 

I think if you look at it in terms of class, what you had and still have in the south is a fairly strong class-based society where race was one marker of class, and wealth was another.  It wasn't a clear vertical hierarchy either.  There wasn't much movement between classes even if you were white.  If you are going to look at how people responded in the civil war, or were affected by it, and how they respond/are affected today, their class inheritance is going to play a significant role.

 

And I suspect that the different class hierarchy found in the North, along with the different political tradition, is also going to play a part.

[Sneezyone]

I think if you look at it in terms of class, what you had and still have in the south is a fairly strong class-based society where race was one marker of class, and wealth was another. It wasn't a clear vertical hierarchy either. There wasn't much movement between classes even if you were white. If you are going to look at how people responded in the civil war, or were affected by it, and how they respond/are affected today, their class inheritance is going to play a significant role. I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

And I suspect that the different class hierarchy found in the North, along with the different political tradition, is also going to play a part.

Are you suggesting that race was less a factor in how people experienced and viewed the civil war than class? Post-civil war, rich and poor southerners alike united in their desire to punish and terrorize newly freed slaves. Everything we know, statistically and otherwise, about economic mobility since then tells a very different story. Particularly when the benefits of great society legislation and post-war GI benefits are considered, race was/is a far more significant factor than income/class distinctions then and now with mobility being far more achievable for whites than blacks. I'm not sure I understand your point. Edited August 21, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Bluegoat]

Are you suggesting that race was less a factor in how people experienced and viewed the civil war than class? Post-civil war, rich and poor southerners alike united in their desire to punish and terrorize newly freed slaves. Everything we know, statistically and otherwise, about economic mobility since then tells a very different story. Particularly when the benefits of great society legislation and post-war GI benefits are considered, race was/is a far more significant factor than income/class distinctions then and now with mobility being far more achievable for whites than blacks. I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

No, I 'm not suggesting that..  It's not a competition, anyway - if you are missing an element in the dynamic, it is missing.

 

I don't think you can separate race and class.  Race, where the idea of it exists, is a particular type of class category. Class in general clings a lot more than people realize even when people have no visible class markers, in terms of inherited wealth, attitudes, culture, speech patters, and so on - these things cpersist for generations and still affect how others perceive you - so all the more so when you can't hide your membership because it's part of our body.

 

In the South you had poor blacks, poor whites, middle class whites, and the rich, also whites.  (And there is some layering within some of those groups as well.)  There are relationships between all of these groups individuals, they all have different access to things like wealth, education, political power, social respectability.

 

If you want to understand the power dynamics, who benefited and who didn't, I think you have to look at all these groups.  And I have a very strong suspicion that if you rounded up all the family histories of the radicalized, you'd see they came very much from the same class categories, which raises the question, why is that, and does it provide a way forward.  I don't think it's accidental or insignificant that it's some of the people at the bottom who have had the lest power, and the least ability to protect their interests, that are most likely to resort to violence or be radicalized, nor that the people that are the top of the heap seem to get away largely without consequence.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Bluegoat