How Northerners Think Of The Civil War

[Amy Elizabeth]

And I am bowing out. All I have tried to say is: 1) I love my region...just like I expect most of you do...and even though we have a lot of ashes, there is beauty in those ashes 2) I am a strong believer in law and order, and if you know much about Martin Luther King, then you know he was too. That's why the demonstrations were so peaceful on the part of the Southern black men and women and all of those who supported them. Rosa Parks and MLK were both Southerns, and I am proud of them! I am also proud of the man who apologized to my grandfather years later for threatening to bomb his house with his family in it for standing up for Civil Rights in Birmingham. That was a hard learned lesson for him. He didn't need to broadcast an apology to the world. Him learning a lesson of the heart was all that was necessary. My grandfather didn't even need an apology from him. It's about learning to love each other.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[Sneezyone]

Law and order. The ultimate dog whistle and perpetrator of the status quo. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/from-wallace-to-trump-the-evolution-of-law-and-order/amp/

[8circles]

BTDT. My family lives in Arkansas and my husband was born/raised there. Heritage, not hate is still a load of BS to us. Have you driven by the massive (private) Nathan Bedford Forest statue outside Memphis festooned with confederate flags? We have. Try explaining that crap to your little black kids. Stupid is the mildest word we used.

 

I imagine that feeling like people think you (or "your people") are stupid would make me mad. Living in "fly over country" doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. And midwesterners aren't exactly known for our brilliant minds, so it's not like I can't relate.

 

How on earth that belongs in this kind of discussion is not clear to me.

 

The Civil War was about slavery. Not about people being called stupid.

[Sneezyone]

I imagine that feeling like people think you (or "your people") are stupid would make me mad. Living in "fly over country" doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. And midwesterners aren't exactly known for our brilliant minds, so it's not like I can't relate.

 

How on earth that belongs in this kind of discussion is not clear to me.

 

The Civil War was about slavery. Not about people being called stupid.

I certainly don't think the people, en masse, are stupid. We have tons of friends and family in AR and TN and worked with MS reps many times on policy issues. None are stupid. Are there some changes (not just on this issue) that they refuse to make for no good reason or out of spite/animus? Yes. My mother moved us there almost 30 years ago when I was 16. I have a love/hate relationship with the place. That has nothing to do with the continued defense of Civil War mythology.

[8circles]

I certainly don't think the people, en masse, are stupid. We have tons of friends and family in AR and TN and worked with MS reps many times on policy issues. None are stupid. Are there some changes (not just on this issue) that they refuse to make for no good reason or out of spite/animus? Yes. My mother moved us there almost 30 years ago when I was 16. I have a love/hate relationship with the place. That has nothing to do with the continued defense of Civil War mythology.

 

I agree. Southerners are not stupid. Neither are midwesterners. Nor are we all fat - I am, but most of my friends/people I see are not. And we don't tip cows and we have more than cornfields - although there are *a lot* of corn fields.

[Sneezyone]

Those claiming to understand MLK really need to read, re-read, and read AGAIN this text in its entirety. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[Bluegoat]

That may be more true now, but have you read about the German people right after WW2?  There were towns that were forced to march past piles of bodies from the camps as atonement, or punishment, whatever. There has been lots of debate about how the German population didn't stand up to Hitler, about how could they possibly NOT have known, and how they were all complicit.

 

The attitude has changed IN PART because the German people as a whole DID NOT try to defend or make heros out of themselves or their war leaders. (note "as a whole" qualifier.) Did you ever think that maybe that has something to do with why people look at the south a certain way, because so many continue to make excuses for racism and for honoring the confederacy?

 

And this statement: Children need to learn hero stories from their own local/personal history.  You can be compassionate toward someone and their circumstances without making a hero of someone who is not really a very good role model.  I'm not sure who you're referring to, and maybe your personal heros are different.  But Confederate leaders were mostly not good role models.

 

I alluded to this in the discussion in the politics forum, but what happened after WWII was in many ways quite unusual, in terms of how the German's responded.  You might say something similar happened to the Japanese, though from a different perspective.

 

One thing that was common to both, I think was that they seemed to experience a kind of shock  - very suddenly they saw something new and graphic and horrible. 

 

I also wonder - did Germany and Japan also had a sense of themselves that they could draw on, apart from what went on in that particular war?  Japan I think did, and perhaps the Germans did as well.  I wonder if that was so true in the US - it was a very young country, without a clear sense yet of how it would be a country.

 

It almost seems like the Civil War was the primary event that bound them together as a group, and began to define how they would relate to the nation.  

 

If that's true, the problem would be - how to reject the event that stands as the main historical event that created you as a people, or how to remain a people when you repudiate your own creation myth.

[Caroline]

Maybe Northerners understand the nuances. Maybe they just don't agree with Southerners' conclusions. (As if either group is a monolith.)

[Matryoshka]

I alluded to this in the discussion in the politics forum, but what happened after WWII was in many ways quite unusual, in terms of how the German's responded.  You might say something similar happened to the Japanese, though from a different perspective.

 

One thing that was common to both, I think was that they seemed to experience a kind of shock  - very suddenly they saw something new and graphic and horrible. 

 

I also wonder - did Germany and Japan also had a sense of themselves that they could draw on, apart from what went on in that particular war?  Japan I think did, and perhaps the Germans did as well.  I wonder if that was so true in the US - it was a very young country, without a clear sense yet of how it would be a country.

 

It almost seems like the Civil War was the primary event that bound them together as a group, and began to define how they would relate to the nation.  

 

If that's true, the problem would be - how to reject the event that stands as the main historical event that created you as a people, or how to remain a people when you repudiate your own creation myth.

 

You know, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were also southerners, and even slave-owners, but their ideals - all men are created equal - while perhaps not carried out to the extent we see them now at the time they were written by the men themselves - were powerful enough that they were interpreted as they were written later and still inspire today.  Same thing with the ideals in the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, assembly, separation of church and state.

 

Maybe they could look up to them as southern heroes.  

[Carol in Cal.]

I suspect the difference is (and I don't know for certain as I am not German) that people don't look at the Germans and think "Man, those people are a bunch of stupid morons descended from a bunch of stupid morons!" Most people I have heard talking about Germans during World War 2 talk about how they were exploited. That is a very different attitude.

 

Children need to learn hero stories from their own local/personal history. It is when we know these stories and then begin to also recognize the mistakes that were made as well that we can truly learn to be compassionate towards the mistakes of other cultures different from our own without an angst. (I have read this in a couple different books on classical educational philosophy, but I can't put my finger on the quotes yet)

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

On the contrary.  There was great bitterness against Germans in Europe after WWII.  My grandparents, who were born and always lived in the US, visited Germany to see relatives in the 1970s (30 years later) and then went on to visit friends in Denmark, and the friends warned them not to let anyone know that they had visited Germany or had relatives there or else they would be ostracized (the friends, for hosting my grandparents).

 

And in some parts of the US Germans are assumed to be Nazis, automatically, or kind of dumb, beer swizzling, stupid dance/costume using brutes.  

 

Ironically, people of German ancestry are the largest ethnic group in the US.  But you'd never know it by the attitudes.  During WWI, German street names were changed, and most of the German heritage in this country was erased.  I honestly think that that is a big factor in the rise of Nazi identification here--there are no positive German role models in popular society, and so if you identify as German you're left with the uglies.

 

Thankfully, I have a positive German identity that is rooted in my faith, which is German heritage Confessional Lutheran.  But among German heritage folks in this country, I am in the minority.  And our heroes are people of this faith, who remained faithful in challenging times, including my great-grandmother who is the best example I have.  I am so grateful for this.

 

But if my knowledge of German roots was mostly about the Nazis, I would have to reject it.  I would not look for Nazi heros.  I would have American heroes (well, actually I do) who are not necessarily German, that I would look up to and admire and hold up to my children to emulate and be inspired by.  I would not have a Nazi flag in my possession under any circumstances.

 

I would take that position not just because I think that the Nazi cause is both failed and repugnant, but also because espousing it would very badly hurt and threaten other good people who are my fellow citizens.  I'm not talking about 'speshul snowflakes'.  I'm talking about serious PTSD level stuff.  Also, it would associate me very strongly with seriously physically threatening people who do horrible things, which I don't want to have anything to do with.

 

I think that that stance should be considered by those who glorify the other lost cause.

 

There are a lot of things other than the Confederacy and Nazis to love about the South or Germany.  We just have to dig a little harder to find them.  I believe that that is worth doing.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Wheres Toto]

I never said southerners weren't punished or suffered....?  I have expressed more than once that in any war there is suffering and injustice on both sides.  I was responding to your idea that Germans don't feel the need to honor or justify their past because society doesn't continue to consider them wrong or evil.  In fact, yes, they were considered both wrong and evil and deserving of punishment.  Part of the reason that changed is because they didn't continue trying to honor or justify.  

 

And this... What are the southern states allowed to be proud of? Nothing because everything people know of our history is just how dumb and stupid we all are!!!! 

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to here?  I lived in Texas, and Texans are about as proud of their state as it gets.  I've never heard anything about southern states just being dumb and stupid.  Sure there are some stereotypes.  About the same as all New Yorkers being rude and selfish and unfriendly. (Or lately, all Coloradans being high...like...duudde... ;)  Do you think the south is the only place that gets stereotyped? 

 

I was just addressing a point you brought up.  You're using lots of exclamation points here.  I'm not trying to attack you or the south.  I was just addressing the point.

 

Seriously, try being from New Jersey and going to college in Texas in the late 80's.  Lots and lots of stereotypes.  Still are since we're all ditzy Eye-talians with fake nails and big hair living at the shore.  :001_rolleyes:

 

Dh spent decades living in North Carolina.  I have family in Tennessee, Virginia and Maryland, and close friends in Mississippi and Louisiana.   We travel to the South quite a bit.  I've noticed a lot more of the "damn Yankee" than the "dumb Southerner" stereotypes.

[Audrey]

Yes. The Germans, as a people, have collectively owned up to the guilt and shed any pride in their heritage. Not just right after the war, but for decades, the collective soul of the country had to be immersed in guilt and remorse and shame. It was beaten into every child that being German was not something to be proud of, and that we had to atonefor the sins of our grandfathers. The effect is quite extreme and not entirely healthy. You won't see people flying the German flag (unless it is soccer worldcup). There is no healthy patriotism because generations have been drilled to be ashamed for starting two world wars.

 

My grandfather died in the war. He was not a Nazi. He had no choice and was forced to be a soldier. That makes it very tragic, but it does not make him a hero. It makes him one of the millions of poor souls who payed for Hitler's bizarre ideology. 

 

(as a side note and slightly OT: the US complains about Germany not taking a larger military role - but it was the allies who insisted that Germany be demilitarized and kept from achieving any military power. This, together with the history, is the reason for the deep seated reluctance of Germany to become involved in any kind of armed conflict.)

 

ETA: And Germany banned the display of any Nazi symbols and the distribution of Nazi books and the denial of the holocaust- because their society believes that some ideas should not be given the privilege of free speech.

 

The US complaint about Germany not taking on larger military roles is a very recent complaint -- as in only the last few months.  The complaint is based in an egregious ignorance of history and lack of respect for other nations and their people. 

[regentrude]

The US complaint about Germany not taking on larger military roles is a very recent complaint -- as in only the last few months.  The complaint is based in an egregious ignorance of history and lack of respect for other nations and their people. 

 

not quite. Calls for a greater German military participation date back many years; I seem to remember debates and a call for a greater role during the Balkan war and the Gulf war, where Germany had minimal participation. But the Germans are extremely reluctant to participate in military actions outside of NATO territory - for reasons anybody with a smidgen of historical understanding should find obvious.

Edited August 19, 2017 by regentrude

[Audrey]

I imagine that feeling like people think you (or "your people") are stupid would make me mad. Living in "fly over country" doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. And midwesterners aren't exactly known for our brilliant minds, so it's not like I can't relate.

 

How on earth that belongs in this kind of discussion is not clear to me.

 

The Civil War was about slavery. Not about people being called stupid.

 

 

I think the point belongs in this discussion because we are talking about the Northern view of the Civil War and that needs the juxtaposition of the Southern view.  There are many Southern views of the war, but I think what we're all most interested in is why some Southerners take a prideful view of it.  I think I get part of what she is saying, but it needs more context.  

 

I think her point about some Southerners being angry about being belittled as "stupid" and other denigrating stereotypes is a big part of why some of them turn to or are easily lured into the white supremacist side of that prideful view of the civil war.  Some Southerners don't want to feel less-than, and they are very bothered by the stereotypes, and then the WS groups are all around them looking so "powerful" and "strong" to them.  It's tempting to join those groups when you're already angry.  WS gives them the scapegoats for their anger.  WS gives them a sense of belonging to something "big" and "important."  WS gives them a lot of rhetoric to toss around which makes them think they now sound more intelligent or more "superior."  

 

This is not how all Southerners are, of course.  But, it's appropriate to some, and I think that it's that group -- the angry powerless Southerner -- who are prime pickings for the Nazis, KKK and other WS.  

 

The same holds true in other parts of the country, not just the South.  Where there are angry white people looking for a convenient scapegoat, there are going to be some of them who are prime pickings for WS recruitment.  Most angry white people, IMO and IME, have enough sense to say WTF and 'no thanks!' to WS, but the ones who are feeling desperate enough for belonging and a sense of power are the ones to watch out for.  

 

FWIW, I grew up in the South, too.  I've seen a lot of people like I've described above.  I've also experienced the stereotype that she's talking about in her posts.  I was rather shocked that those stereotypes of Southerners are even here (I live in Canada now).  Shortly after I moved here, I gave an older lady a ride home from an event and at one point she started talking about a multi-racial family and referred to the children using a term I had not heard in well over a decade.  I was so shocked I could not speak.  And, if you know me, you know that is really saying something!  I just gaped at her.  And she said, "well, you're from the Southern states. You know what I mean."  Essentially, she was saying she believed that, as a Southerner, I was surely sympatico with her racism.  It made me feel very slimey and awful.  I never forgot that.  I thought I'd moved away from that kind of thinking.  I was so naïve. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Audrey

[ktgrok]

I suspect the difference is (and I don't know for certain as I am not German) that people don't look at the Germans and think "Man, those people are a bunch of stupid morons descended from a bunch of stupid morons!" Most people I have heard talking about Germans during World War 2 talk about how they were exploited. That is a very different attitude.

 

Children need to learn hero stories from their own local/personal history. It is when we know these stories and then begin to also recognize the mistakes that were made as well that we can truly learn to be compassionate towards the mistakes of other cultures different from our own without an angst. (I have read this in a couple different books on classical educational philosophy, but I can't put my finger on the quotes yet)

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

 

But why on earth does pride in being Southern translate into pride in the Confederacy? The Confederacy didn't last long compared to most of Southern history. There are a thousand better things to take pride in, from shrimp and grits to William Faulkner. Why Lee? Why a battle flag? If it was about being southern, it wouldn't have to be about the Civil War. 

[Carol in Cal.]

not quite. Calls for a greater German military participation date back many years; I seem to remember debates and a call for a greater role during the Balkan war and the Gulf war, where Germany had minimal participation. But the Germans are extremely reluctant to participate in military actions outside of NATO territory - for reasons anybody with a smidgen of historical understanding should find obvious.

Yes, I specifically recall Patricia Schoeder (D of Colorado, prospective earlier woman presidential candidate in 1987) calling for more European funding and participating in NATO, particularly West Germany, which was economically very strong at the time.  

Edited August 19, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[QueenCat]

Maybe Northerners understand the nuances. Maybe they just don't agree with Southerners' conclusions. (As if either group is a monolith.)

 

Yes, 1000x over.

[kbutton]

I would take that position not just because I think that the Nazi cause is both failed and repugnant, but also because espousing it would very badly hurt and threaten other good people who are my fellow citizens.  I'm not talking about 'speshul snowflakes'.  I'm talking about serious PTSD level stuff.  Also, it would associate me very strongly with seriously physically threatening people who do horrible things, which I don't want to have anything to do with.

 

I think that that stance should be considered by those who glorify the other lost cause.

 

There are a lot of things other than the Confederacy and Nazis to love about the South or Germany.  We just have to dig a little harder to find them.  I believe that that is worth doing.

 

Thank you for saying this. I come from an area of the country with a less than 1% African American or Black population (the term used on the US Census I looked up). Numbers for other minorities are even smaller, and they are present partly through adoption. I grew up with the idea that we should treat people the way we wanted to be treated, and we'd be fine wherever we went (even though we were "hicks" and not exposed to the "real" world).  

 

I moved to the area I currently live in (semi-urban but also rural, along one of the fastest growing corridors in my region of the US, northern state in the midwest) thinking I would meet people who were not white, and I was excited about it. I thought we were "past all that race stuff." It hasn't happened (well, when I worked, I met a few varieties of non-white individuals, but almost no one who is African American or black and almost all non-white co-workers had a green card or were very newly minted citizens). The few people I know who are non-white are more passing acquaintances, and definitely not people I see enough or know enough to bring these things up with.

 

It's very segregated here in spite of some really awesome local history with the underground railroad and a fairly good percentage of minorities. That has made me seek information (though not the only thing that's been a red flag).

 

I live in quite the isolated echo chamber, so I think it's particularly important to remind myself that almost any opinion someone like me has about how various groups (except when I'm referring to my own view of my northern and rural roots) react to the Civil War, the Confederate flag, or any other symbol, is a THEORY. But what you are saying, that it's about not hurting other people, particularly people who have trauma about this, is REAL. 

 

Thank you for helping add to the list of things I can say when people try to tell me we're past needing to discuss these things. 

[Bluegoat]

You know, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were also southerners, and even slave-owners, but their ideals - all men are created equal - while perhaps not carried out to the extent we see them now at the time they were written by the men themselves - were powerful enough that they were interpreted as they were written later and still inspire today.  Same thing with the ideals in the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, assembly, separation of church and state.

 

Maybe they could look up to them as southern heroes.  

 

Why do you think they don't?

 

I wonder if it's really a matter of having heroes.  Maybe it's more about experiences, or shared events?

 

If I try and think about my sense of belonging to a place or culture, there are other people who are part of it - but it's not so much about a kind of heroism.  I think that's almost secondary - the people I think of as being heroes are thought of because of sharing something more ephemeral.

 

One thing I wonder is, when we live in a sort of hierarchy of memberships, how do we navigate that, decide where those different loyalties fit in?  So - how does my sense of being Canadian relate to my sense of being part of a region?  How do I manage to be both when they are in tension?  For some people, one really dominates the other - what causes that?  

 

I think some kind of sense of being left out or opressed often is what makes that happen.

[Scarlett]

I grew up in an all white county in AR. I was very intentionally taught ( by my mother) NOT to be racist. I endured a lot of racist crap while in school and while working.....I don't find it in my circle of friends because hey guess what I don't want racists for friends. I am still always blown away by the out right racist venom that comes out of the nicest looking people. One I still can't get out if my mind was the little old white couple, our neighbors. Who stopped by to welcome us to the neighborhood and praise us for fixing up our place. She was recounting the time they restored a Victorian home in a nearby town. Then she said with a sad shake of her head, ' but the blacks bought it'.

 

I was so stunned I could not get a word out. I am still bothered by my inability to speak up to her.

 

I am sort of meh about being from the south. I am not bothered by anyone's opinion of me really...especially people who don't know me. I think some things are sweet about the south.....it isnt all bad of course...but I feel no need to defend racists who are hanging on to the glorious past.

 

I have mixed feelings about the statues and monuments. On the one hand it is a real head scratcher to me that anyone want to honor that part of southern history. But on the other hand I don't get people being so uoset by a statue. But maybe if I was black I would. I don't know.

[Bluegoat]

I think the point belongs in this discussion because we are talking about the Northern view of the Civil War and that needs the juxtaposition of the Southern view.  There are many Southern views of the war, but I think what we're all most interested in is why some Southerners take a prideful view of it.  I think I get part of what she is saying, but it needs more context.  

 

I think her point about some Southerners being angry about being belittled as "stupid" and other denigrating stereotypes is a big part of why some of them turn to or are easily lured into the white supremacist side of that prideful view of the civil war.  Some Southerners don't want to feel less-than, and they are very bothered by the stereotypes, and then the WS groups are all around them looking so "powerful" and "strong" to them.  It's tempting to join those groups when you're already angry.  WS gives them the scapegoats for their anger.  WS gives them a sense of belonging to something "big" and "important."  WS gives them a lot of rhetoric to toss around which makes them think they now sound more intelligent or more "superior."  

 

This is not how all Southerners are, of course.  But, it's appropriate to some, and I think that it's that group -- the angry powerless Southerner -- who are prime pickings for the Nazis, KKK and other WS.  

 

The same holds true in other parts of the country, not just the South.  Where there are angry white people looking for a convenient scapegoat, there are going to be some of them who are prime pickings for WS recruitment.  Most angry white people, IMO and IME, have enough sense to say WTF and 'no thanks!' to WS, but the ones who are feeling desperate enough for belonging and a sense of power are the ones to watch out for.  

 

FWIW, I grew up in the South, too.  I've seen a lot of people like I've described above.  I've also experienced the stereotype that she's talking about in her posts.  I was rather shocked that those stereotypes of Southerners are even here (I live in Canada now).  Shortly after I moved here, I gave an older lady a ride home from an event and at one point she started talking about a multi-racial family and referred to the children using a term I had not heard in well over a decade.  I was so shocked I could not speak.  And, if you know me, you know that is really saying something!  I just gaped at her.  And she said, "well, you're from the Southern states. You know what I mean."  Essentially, she was saying she believed that, as a Southerner, I was surely sympatico with her racism.  It made me feel very slimey and awful.  I never forgot that.  I thought I'd moved away from that kind of thinking.  I was so naïve. 

 

What you've described here - I think that's pretty much how we see people being radicalized wherever it happens.

 

I'd suggest it's not just feeling like people despise you, but also, feeling helpless politically or economically.

 

You have these people who are told - all Americans are equal, we can all achieve the American dream.  Or they are fed this vision of their culture as superior to western culture.  Except - that's not what they see or experience, and they can't make sense of it.  

 

Those people are at risk to be brought into radical ideologies that seem to offer an explanation, hope, and self-esteem, and in some cases more direct benefits too.  And they don't feel like they have much to lose.

 

It makes a lot of sense to me that this is happening when you have such a gap between rich and poor, poor social mobility, and people have become so cynical about their democratic institutions.

[Plink]

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.

[Katy]

I see this thread veered off in a different direction today.  I had this thing to add this morning before getting interrupted by children... 

 

I find it somewhat condescending to interpret a cultural norm you don't understand as idolatry. It's one thing to ask how it differs from idolatry, it's another thing entirely to judge it before asking.  Almost every person who liked those comments about Southern Ancestry veneration = idolatry have previously been offended by similar comments on these boards about religious topics regarding Islam and Catholicism.  Offended because you considered such judgments to be sweepingly unfair over generalizations. Even if you didn't understand the answers well enough to refute offensive statements, you certainly knew it was offensive regardless.

 

From a Southern perspective:  Being concerned with ancestry is simply cultural, it is not religious.  It gives a guiding sense of who you are, and the difficulties people overcame.  If your grandparents overcame that, you can overcome challenges in your life. In the South people are judged less on what they have materially, and more on who they are, who their families are, and what their character is.  Teaching that character is the "class" of the South, and even families with no money admonish children with "That is not how young ladies/gentlemen behave."  The families are old. Most people who can trace their ancestry back to the Civil War can also trace at least a few lines back to prior to the Revolution. Jim Webb's How the Scots-Irish Shaped America explores the ancestry, culture, and values.  Material things were stolen in the war, but the values remain.  Part of that is understanding where your family came from. It is really no different than the long genealogical records in the Bible. Especially given that most of it was recorded inside family Bibles.

 

From a sociological perspective:  No matter what culture you're in, it's common for the poor to treat people as possessions.  Generations of poverty after the war (compounded by the Depression) probably did mean that some of the cultural norms of poverty worldwide are integral to Southern culture. That doesn't make it idolatry, it simply means all people value what's important in their own lives. If you don't have much materially but you do have family, you value family.  If for generations people have been (relatively) poor, your culture will mirror those values regardless of having high incomes and graduate degrees.

 

The South isn't the only place in the world where cultural status indicators shifted away from material ostentation and towards a set of behaviors (manners) and identifying with family - many places in the world have had fairly recent upheavals when ostentation made people a target and as a result status indicators changed. A friend whose family moved out of Iran just before the revolution and I discussed how strange some of the cultural norms in the North (to me) and England (to them) were, and the common denominator was that unlike many areas of the West, the rich in those areas have never had any off-with-their-heads moments of wealth redistribution.  And that means that acceptable behaviors outside the South are far different.  It doesn't mean that those in the South aren't taking their religion and pursuit of God just as seriously - or MORE seriously - than those outside "the Bible belt."  No matter how sure you are that you and your neighbors serve God better.

 

As an aside, as a Christian, you might want to be careful when you're thanking God that you're not sinning like those people over there who are far worse than you. I'm not saying the South hasn't had it's share of sins - we certainly have.  I am saying that Jesus didn't seem to look kindly on that form of prayer.

[meganrussell]

Yep. Do you think the attitude toward Germans today might be different if 50 years after the war they started erecting statues of Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler in public places and were still prominently hanging Nazi flags from their windows and cars? That's the correct parallel. I think we'd all think they were still racist. And not without reason.

You really cannot compare WWII with the civil war. Hitler tried to exterminate an entire race of people, killing millions purposefully. The Civil War was the south trying to win it's freedom. The south didn't try to exterminate all the black people. Slavery was wrong, yes! But you're comparing apples to oranges here.

[Carrie12345]

Seriously, try being from New Jersey and going to college in Texas in the late 80's.  Lots and lots of stereotypes.  Still are since we're all ditzy Eye-talians with fake nails and big hair living at the shore.  :001_rolleyes:

 

 

:lol:

 

I love my home state and will always be Jersey Proud!

But I don't pretend the very real ugly parts don't exist.  NJ and New Jerseans have problems, just like anywhere/anyone else. Ignoring them doesn't solve them.

 

Call out the issues and work on fixing them, in the South or elsewhere. Pretending that racism isn't a local/regional problem because it's embarrassing to admit that there's racism is rather pathetic. (Just as one example that exists everywhere, even in the North.)

[QueenCat]

I have lived in five different southern states, in small and large towns. People most certainly do judge people based on their economic class and materially. It is rare to see a poorer family treated equal to a wealthier family based on character, even in the south.

 

 

Quote from Katy:

In the South people are judged less on what they have materially, and more on who they are, who their families are, and what their character is.  Teaching that character is the "class" of the South, and even families with no money admonish children with "That is not how young ladies/gentlemen behave." 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by QueenCat

[SamanthaCarter]

We are in the south. I see confederate flags here and there on rural homes or pickup trucks. There are about equal number of revolutionary war and civil war reenactments locally, I would guess.

 

As far as I know, civil war history is not emphasized in the local public schools, but more oral tradition passed down in families that are civil war buffs. I think most kids absorb enough to know the gist of it.

 

We've not really dealt with this in our homeschool yet. Our kids know that it is a very sad period in our nations history where many people wanted to split the country into two over the "right" to own slaves. But they do know that there were good people on both sides. Dh and I sympathize with the anti-federalist bent of many Confederate leaders, but we don't for a minute think that was the real issue over which the war was fought.

 

We are military brats, northern heritage, but have spent our entire adult lives in the South.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 20, 2017 by SamanthaCarter

[Sneezyone]

I see this thread veered off in a different direction today.  I had this thing to add this morning before getting interrupted by children... 

 

I find it somewhat condescending to interpret a cultural norm you don't understand as idolatry. It's one thing to ask how it differs from idolatry, it's another thing entirely to judge it before asking.  Almost every person who liked those comments about Southern Ancestry veneration = idolatry have previously been offended by similar comments on these boards about religious topics regarding Islam and Catholicism.  Offended because you considered such judgments to be sweepingly unfair over generalizations. Even if you didn't understand the answers well enough to refute offensive statements, you certainly knew it was offensive regardless.

 

From a Southern perspective:  Being concerned with ancestry is simply cultural, it is not religious.  It gives a guiding sense of who you are, and the difficulties people overcame.  If your grandparents overcame that, you can overcome challenges in your life. In the South people are judged less on what they have materially, and more on who they are, who their families are, and what their character is.  Teaching that character is the "class" of the South, and even families with no money admonish children with "That is not how young ladies/gentlemen behave."  The families are old. Most people who can trace their ancestry back to the Civil War can also trace at least a few lines back to prior to the Revolution. Jim Webb's How the Scots-Irish Shaped America explores the ancestry, culture, and values.  Material things were stolen in the war, but the values remain.  Part of that is understanding where your family came from. It is really no different than the long genealogical records in the Bible. Especially given that most of it was recorded inside family Bibles.

 

From a sociological perspective:  No matter what culture you're in, it's common for the poor to treat people as possessions.  Generations of poverty after the war (compounded by the Depression) probably did mean that some of the cultural norms of poverty worldwide are integral to Southern culture. That doesn't make it idolatry, it simply means all people value what's important in their own lives. If you don't have much materially but you do have family, you value family.  If for generations people have been (relatively) poor, your culture will mirror those values regardless of having high incomes and graduate degrees.

 

The South isn't the only place in the world where cultural status indicators shifted away from material ostentation and towards a set of behaviors (manners) and identifying with family - many places in the world have had fairly recent upheavals when ostentation made people a target and as a result status indicators changed. A friend whose family moved out of Iran just before the revolution and I discussed how strange some of the cultural norms in the North (to me) and England (to them) were, and the common denominator was that unlike many areas of the West, the rich in those areas have never had any off-with-their-heads moments of wealth redistribution.  And that means that acceptable behaviors outside the South are far different.  It doesn't mean that those in the South aren't taking their religion and pursuit of God just as seriously - or MORE seriously - than those outside "the Bible belt."  No matter how sure you are that you and your neighbors serve God better.

 

As an aside, as a Christian, you might want to be careful when you're thanking God that you're not sinning like those people over there who are far worse than you. I'm not saying the South hasn't had it's share of sins - we certainly have.  I am saying that Jesus didn't seem to look kindly on that form of prayer.

 

 

This is so over the top. It's common for the poor to treat people as possessions? Whataaa? Both my husband and I can trace our families back to the Civil War and Southern states. The difference is that's where our families essentially began. They didn't have recorded identities prior to emancipation. I know a whole lot of southerners who use 'manners' to cover up and hide all kinds of ills and wrongs and I can assure you that people of means are treated a heck of a lot better than those without wherever they are in America. What does that have to do with masses of people treating statues of people who ARE NOT part of their lineage as sacred? This is not a cultural norm that I recognise among any of our southern friends and family. I wish you would just come right out and state that your opinions and perspectives reflect a certain segment of *white* southerners. When my friends and family speak of their southern pride, they are speaking about food, community, church, nature/the environment and family. They aren't speaking of confederate monuments.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Caroline]

Your argument is the South wasn't quite as bad as Hitler?

 

I did some work with the Louisiana Board of Education a few years ago. They weee building a model to see what demographic parameters in a child's life were most detrimental and most beneficial to their education. Also, there ere trying to figure out which factors were neutral. Everyone thought race would be neutral when things like poverty, family structure, living situation, where they were during Hurricane Katrina were controlled. It wasn't. But why? Because above and below the poverty line is not a fine enough scale. Free and reduced lunch was not a fine enough scale. Black people living in poverty in Louisiana as a whole are much poorer than white people living in poverty in Louisiana as a whole. And that is true throughout the South. We found the same thing when we tried modeling this in Georgia. This is the result of slavery. This is the result of Jim Crow. This is the result of racism. (And it is probably true up North, too, but I haven't worked there, so I don't know. But I did know it was to a lesser extent in Georgia than Louisiana.)

 

The reprocussions of slavery are still felt today. So the South wasn't Hitler, but what the South was fighting for was to enslave and repress an entire race of people that they went and stole from their homelands. And to a large extent, they succeeded.

 

You really cannot compare WWII with the civil war. Hitler tried to exterminate an entire race of people, killing millions purposefully. The Civil War was the south trying to win it's freedom. The south didn't try to exterminate all the black people. Slavery was wrong, yes! But you're comparing apples to oranges here.

[meganrussell]

Your argument is the South wasn't quite as bad as Hitler?

 

I did some work with the Louisiana Board of Education a few years ago. They weee building a model to see what demographic parameters in a child's life were most detrimental and most beneficial to their education. Also, there ere trying to figure out which factors were neutral. Everyone thought race would be neutral when things like poverty, family structure, living situation, where they were during Hurricane Katrina were controlled. It wasn't. But why? Because above and below the poverty line is not a fine enough scale. Free and reduced lunch was not a fine enough scale. Black people living in poverty in Louisiana as a whole are much poorer than white people living in poverty in Louisiana as a whole. And that is true throughout the South. We found the same thing when we tried modeling this in Georgia. This is the result of slavery. This is the result of Jim Crow. This is the result of racism. (And it is probably true up North, too, but I haven't worked there, so I don't know. But I did know it was to a lesser extent in Georgia than Louisiana.)

 

The reprocussions of slavery are still felt today. So the South wasn't Hitler, but what the South was fighting for was to enslave and repress an entire race of people that they went and stole from their homelands. And to a large extent, they succeeded.

 

 

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism. Edited August 20, 2017 by meganrussell

[Caroline]

You're right. Black people have been treated fairly and equally in Louisiana since the Civil War. At the end of the war, Louisianans made sure that all former slaves were given everything they needed to start life. They were given equal education. They were offered back pay. They were reunited with their families. They were given safe places to live and food and land. Institutional racism doesn't exist. Jim Crow had no effect. Black people just need a better attitude. That's it.

 

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism.

[Wheres Toto]

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism.

 

The attitudes that led to enslavement also led to Jim Crow.  You don't think it would make a difference if as recently as the 60's (which seems pretty recent to me considering that's when I was born), you were less likely to be able to get a decent job that you were fully qualified for, less likely to be able to find a house in a decent neighborhood, less likely for your kids to get a decent education?  We aren't even talking generations ago, we're talking people who are middle age NOW, people who may have children and teens NOW.

 

One thing that really made me realize this isn't a long ago history thing is that Ruby Bridges is only 63 years old.  She's only 2 years older than my husband.  

[Guest]

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism.

 

I think your grasp of history is a little shaky.  Black people weren't officially seen as equally human until after the 1960s. (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  So you think that slavery, which started in the 1600s - 400 years of being told as a population that you are not human - and is still going on, has had absolutely no effect on that population in the last 50 years??  Try this article: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-american-tragedy-the-legacy-of-slavery-lingers-in-our-cities-ghettos/

A social scientist of any sophistication recognizes that societies are not amalgams of unrelated individuals creating themselves anew–out of whole cloth, as it were–in each generation. A complex web of social connections and a long train of historical influences interact to form the opportunities and shape the outlooks of individuals. Of course, individual effort is important, as is native talent and sheer luck, for determining how well or poorly a person does in life. But social background, cultural affinities, and communal influence are also of great significance. This is the grain of truth in the conservatives’ insistence that cultural differences lie at the root of racial inequality in America. But the deeper truth is that, for some three centuries now, the communal experience of the slaves and their descendants has been shaped by political, social, and economic institutions that, by any measure, must be seen as oppressive.

 

 

I've been trying to think of what I can add to this conversation; not much I think.  When I was 6, my family moved to Uganda as part of an organization that was very much "White benefactors here to help".  Throughout my childhood, I lived with my paternal grandparents who were Nazi sympathizers back in the day (from Chicago to Los Angeles, never the south).  They didn't even want a non-white person walking the sidewalk in front of their house.  The gardeners were a compromise: white, but they were Asian and still not allowed in the house and weren't talked to.  We didn't hear the end of it when my cousin married a Hispanic guy.  And my aunts and uncles were thankful that my grandparents died before selling their house because a black family bought it.

I now live in the North (coming from Los Angeles) and in 5 years, I can count on one hand the number of black people I've seen out and about in that time.  Other Hispanic/Mexican/Latin Americans are common because we're an agricultural state and they're amazing at what they do.

The house next to me flies the confederate flag and has other "white" paraphernalia, as do several other houses around here.  I can somewhat appreciate wanting to preserve a piece of your history and having a different connection to various symbols and whatnot than most people based on your personal experience.  But given the wider context of that history and those symbols, it still grieves and sickens me.

[Katy]

Sneezyone -  The concept wasn't my idea, but from a textbook: Ruby Payne's A Framework For Understanding Poverty, page 26:

 

 

In poverty, people are possessions, and people rely on each other in order to survive. After all, that is all you have--people.

 

She makes similar comments on page 67 & 79.  Basically, relationships are the most important thing and in generational poverty that is even more true.  She doesn't extrapolate to entire cultures (which would probably be outside her expertise as her experience is in education and changing social classes), but I don't think it's much of a leap to do so.

[Guest]

Sneezyone -  The concept wasn't my idea, but from a textbook: Ruby Payne's A Framework For Understanding Poverty, page 26:

 

 

She makes similar comments on page 67 & 79.  Basically, relationships are the most important thing and in generational poverty that is even more true.  She doesn't extrapolate to entire cultures (which would probably be outside her expertise as her experience is in education and changing social classes), but I don't think it's much of a leap to do so.

 

Could have chosen better words to convey that meaning.  After all, in slavery people were possessions too.

[regentrude]

Could have chosen better words to convey that meaning.  After all, in slavery people were possessions too.

 

I was thinking the same. I got what she meant, but the phrasing is really questionable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism.

 

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.

Edited August 20, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Taz007]

I don't believe you can blame slavery in all of the problems black people have today. Slavery was wrong, don't get me wrong. I do not think in any way it was right or good. It was horrible. But black poverty today is not a result of slavery. I was born and raised in rural Louisiana. I see black poverty right along with white poverty. I see successful black people right along with successful white people. It's a mindset, a lifestyle, not a reprecussion from slavery. And reverse discrimination bothers me just as much as racism.

 

ETA: I see the ChocolateReign beat me to it and was much more eloquent. 

 

Are you for real?!

 

A previous poster who wrote that one cannot compare what Hitler did to slavery and that person is correct.  Although both were atrocious, slavery was MUCH worse.

 

The Holocost lasted 4 years and most Jews received reparations.  Some Jewish people received reparations from us, Americans!

 

https://rollingout.com/2015/10/07/obama-administration-earmarks-12-million-reparations-holocaust-survivors/

 

Slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, lynching, et al last over 400 years!  And where are the reparations?  The Japanese received reparations, Native Americans, Jews; just about all but black people.

 

Slavery was genocide.  10-15%+ of the slaves died during the middle passage.  I am sure that many of those who survived the passage wished they had died.

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=446

 

After slavery, when blacks tried to better themselves over 800 THRIVING black neighborhoods were destroyed, Black Wall Street (Kansas), CHARLOTTESVILLE, just to name a few.

 

https://timeline.com/charlottesville-vinegar-hill-demolished-ba27b6ea69e1

 

It was mentioned that the Civil War was not about slavery but about freedom.  FREEDOM TO DO WHAT? 

 

Well, let's look at a few articles of cessation shall we?

 

Mississippi:

 

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sunn

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

 

 

Alabama:  One section reads:

 

SLAVERY

Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.

 

 

NO, slavery was not waning in the South before the Civil War.

 

The greatest producer of our white-black wealth gap, in modern times, was/is (and things snowballed from there):

 

1) The New Deal where 85-90% of blacks were barred from receiving benefits

2) GI Bill (after WWII) - The greatest white affirmative action legislated in modern times.

 

Yes, slavery and its aftermath is the primary reason for black poverty.

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Taz007

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

A previous poster who wrote that one cannot compare what Hitler did to slavery and that person is correct.  Although both were atrocious, slavery was MUCH worse.

 

This is the only part of your post I disagree with.  Trying to measure degrees of awful is a losing situation for all.

[SKL]

A few pages back - I didn't see it until today - a few people mentioned that the people of the South can be proud of the fact that so many of the key developments in the Civil Rights movement happened there.  It would be great if that was the message that got air time.  It is true that it was both harder and more valuable to have gone through that transition in the south, than to cluck and feel superior in the north because the racism up here was (and is) more subtle.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A few pages back - I didn't see it until today - a few people mentioned that the people of the South can be proud of the fact that so many of the key developments in the Civil Rights movement happened there.  It would be great if that was the message that got air time.  It is true that it was both harder and more valuable to have gone through that transition in the south, than to cluck and feel superior in the north because the racism up here was (and is) more subtle.

 

The key developments of the CR movement happened in the south because of decades of vicious racism.  I am not sure that is something to hold your head up high over.

[Guest]

A few pages back - I didn't see it until today - a few people mentioned that the people of the South can be proud of the fact that so many of the key developments in the Civil Rights movement happened there.  It would be great if that was the message that got air time.  It is true that it was both harder and more valuable to have gone through that transition in the south, than to cluck and feel superior in the north because the racism up here was (and is) more subtle.

 

I don't really think it's something to proud of - living in a region that necessitated those movements.  I mean, if they were going to be key, where else would they have happened?

 

I do agree with you that racism is definitely more subtle up here and easier to miss.

[SKL]

The key developments of the CR movement happened in the south because of decades of vicious racism.  I am not sure that is something to hold your head up high over.

 

But that is also not something for the people today to be ashamed of.  They did not do those things.  How long should they be ashamed of what dead people did?

 

[SKL]

And this apparent attitude that a person is not allowed to ever be proud of anything because of where they were born - that sounds like the same unspoken logic that supported / supports racism.  And deciding that a group of people is never allowed to be proud of anything is not ever going to end well.

[Sneezyone]

But that is also not something for the people today to be ashamed of. They did not do those things. How long should they be ashamed of what dead people did?

 

The people who did them are literally my parents and grandparents age. They're not dead.

[Sneezyone]

And this apparent attitude that a person is not allowed to ever be proud of anything because of where they were born - that sounds like the same unspoken logic that supported / supports racism. And deciding that a group of people is never allowed to be proud of anything is not ever going to end well.

Upthread, I gave several examples of things my southern family members are proud of--food, faith, family, natural resources, etc.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Caroline]

And this apparent attitude that a person is not allowed to ever be proud of anything because of where they were born - that sounds like the same unspoken logic that supported / supports racism. And deciding that a group of people is never allowed to be proud of anything is not ever going to end well.

Nobody said that.

[SKL]

OK well if the intention is to punish the entire region until every last person involved was dead, I guess that's easy to understand.  Much good may it do anyone.

 

If you're going to be hated regardless, you might as well decide what you want to be hated for.  At least that is how immature people are going to view it.

[Sneezyone]

OK well if the intention is to punish the entire region until every last person involved was dead, I guess that's easy to understand. Much good may it do anyone.

 

If you're going to be hated regardless, you might as well decide what you want to be hated for. At least that is how immature people are going to view it.

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

[Taz007]

This is the only part of your post I disagree with.  Trying to measure degrees of awful is a losing situation for all.

 

In total agreement; this isn't the Oppression Olympics.