← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 6391 | Posts: 40 | Started: 2003-04-29
2003-04-29 05:33 | User Profile
Southerners and Nationalism - by Greg Kay
** Southerners and Nationalism - by Greg Kay
As the Southern Movement struggles along, stumbling over itself in the usual bumbling, squabbling manner that we have all come to know and shake our heads at, one is left to wonder "Why?" Not why we go on (Southerners are too stubborn to do anything else.), but why we fail? We have a demonstrably more liberty-minded philosophy in our States' Rights political creed than any other system on the face of the Earth. Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?
The answer is simple and in the form of a question: "Who and what are we?" We not only don't know, but most of us don't even have a clue that we have to answer that one, overriding, all-important question. Unless and until we do that, our Cause is as truly lost as our critics claim and the whole movement is dead in the water.
Who and what are we? What is a Southerner and what is Dixie?
First, what is a Southerner? Is it a generic term referring to solely to long-time residence in a geographic area? Does simply living here make you a Southerner or does it take something else - like blood perhaps?
I submit that it does, and that the appellation of 'Southerner' is not a geographic term - it is an ethnic term, and that Southerners are part of that ethnic group that was first recognized as such in writings dating back to the 1850's - the Southern Race.
The quintessential Southern author Michael Grissom, in his greatest work, "Can the South Survive?", defined the word "Southerner" by its traditional meaning as the European inhabitants of the Southern States. Until the 1950's, 'Southerner' was the only word necessary to refer to this particular group. Other peoples, such as Negroes, live in the South, and sometimes in large numbers; however, as Grissom pointed out, the idea of 'Black Southerners' is a comparatively recent media invention originating outside the South, and 'Southerner' is certainly a term that Dixie's colored population has never sought for itself, for they see the term as defining the people whom they consider their adversaries. Despite the fact that on very rare occasions the exceptional individual with origins outside either definition - geographic or ethnic - may possibly, through a sustained, willing effort over time, be adopted into the Southern 'family' so to speak, and be either accepted or at least tolerated by other Southerners in their ranks, tradition, nature, observation, and common sense all tell us that the old definition is still the overwhelmingly correct one, and the sad fact that so many of our people are now willing to accept as Southern anyone from a Uruguayan to an Uzbek to a Ubangi who merely has the good fortune to live here is more of an example of the success of long-term Northern egalitarian brain-washing than it is of actual ethnic change.
Not only is the Southerner ethnically different from the non- Europeans who live in his native land, he is also very different from those other Western descendents who appear superficially like him in the Northern States - every bit as different as he is to his cousins in the Old World. Their close proximity does not really matter - after all, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are quite close together, and France and Germany border each other, but only a fool would insist that they are all "one people." What makes them so very different is not their cultures, but the different ancestral peoples and combinations of peoples who settled in those respective places, and fathered the races that the countries are now called after, which in turn gave rise to those cultures. A people are not the product of a culture; cultures are the products of people.
Likewise the differences between North and South; a simple study will indicate that, while the founding populations of both were European, they were formed by different combinations of peoples and in very different proportions. Over the generations, the peculiar combinations in the areas below the Mason/Dixon Line blended to form an ethnicity unique to the South and the South alone (Of course it has its own variations, but they are minor ones, like those of different members of the same family, rather than of entirely separate peoples.). This is the Southern Race; it is what has given Dixie its traditions and lifeways, and it was blood, rather than differing political ideals, that truly separated us from the North: a separation that began long before 1861.
It's not a question of locality either; as long as we maintained the same Southern ethnicity, Southerners would still be what we are if we were in Siberia rather than Savannah. The land and climate of the South did not 'make' Southerners what they are; it was the Southerners who made the South a reflection of themselves.
Which brings us to the second question, and one which underlies much of the strife in the movement, and is nearly as important to the basis of what we are doing as was the first query:
What is Dixie - this Confederacy of ours? Is it primarily a country...or is it a nation? They are two very different things, which may go together but not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to be both, but one or the other must form the basis of that state's establishment, and which one that is will determine its ultimate success or failure, as history has shown time and time again.
Was the Confederacy primarily a country? One of the factions of the Southern movement strongly hold that it was. A country is a construct of geography and political philosophy which define its boundaries and form the basis of its existence, rather than the dominant ethnic and associated socio-religious heritage of its inhabitants and are bound with ideas (which history has proven to be rather transient things) rather than natural associations. Countries attempt to bind divergent nations together in an unnatural cohabitation, which is why they are closely related to empires, and why they seldom prosper.
Take the country of Israel for example: it has been trying for over 50 years to forcibly tie together two nations - Zion and Palestine - and it simply does not work. The country of Iraq, given the opportunity with the abrupt removal of its government, is now showing signs of splitting into at least three different nations, all based around the ethnicity of the peoples formerly bound together there. Other good examples of countries are Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, both of whom are now largely dissolved back into the various nations that made them up; and Great Britain (not to be confused with the nation of England) which had already lost most of Ireland long ago, is in the process of losing the Northern Six Counties, as well as seeing rising separatist movements in Scotland and Wales (All three of which are nations, and as such are bound by instinct to seek the establishment of their own countries.). The United States is also a country, rather than a nation, and only two generations had barely passed since its founding when its government found it expedient to pin the nations that made it up together with bayonets. It has yet to stand the test of realistic historical time, and if it were actually a nation rather than a country, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
A nation, on the other hand, may or may not exist as a country (In extreme cases a nation may even exist in various lands in scattered exile, like the proverbial 'wandering Jew'.), although its nature is such that it invariably strives to do so. The proper definition of a nation, from the Holy Bible to the Oxford dictionary, is not a political philosophy or a land mass, but a people, bound together with a common heritage, religion, language and, most importantly, ancestry: in short, bound in blood, which time has proven to be a much stronger and more enduring chain than politics, documents, or even seas and mountain ranges.
The Confederate States of America met the definition of a country certainly - it had a defined territory, a government, a flag, a military, a diplomatic corps, and a constitution - but did it meet that of a nation? Despite politically correct protests to the contrary, there is no question that the dominant race and dominant force behind the religious and cultural views and traditions that define the South and make it what it is, are those people previously defined as Southerners: that particular breed of European people, indigenous to Dixie, and of a common ancestry, religion, language, and heritage, which amply fulfill all of the qualifications for that latter designation.
There is also no question that many if not most of our heritage-born lifeways and traditions are unique only to us and to no other people. Similarly, despite the diligent and obsessive efforts of the 'modern' churches and the currently prevalent transcendentalism of the old radical Abolitionists that they practice, there still remains a solid core of flint-hard Biblical literalism that is the religion we still have in common, and the one that still manages to stretch across many of even our most divergent denominations. This un-hyphenated, unbending, unapologetic, and distinctly Southern Christian attitude is the spiritual glue that holds us together.
Finally, we have a common language that the occupying powers of the United States have stigmatized but still haven't managed to beat out of us: our own Southern English, spoken here in all its shades like nowhere else.
We had and still have, at least for now, all of the requirements of a nation, and I submit that a nation - the Southern Nation - is exactly what we were and are, and our wonderful political ideals are simply a natural outgrowth of our identity as a people. We are Southerners, what ever we do and where ever we go, we will still be part of the Southern Nation as long as we remember who we are and act accordingly. Once we realize that, not only will we finally be on our way toward realizing our aspirations of having a country of our own once again, but in the meantime and even more importantly, this renewed realization of our nationalism and its accompanying sense of group identity will protect and preserve us as a distinct people; it will strengthen us in our struggle to reclaim our rightful place in the world, and it will fill us with a new and much- needed resolve to better ourselves both as individuals and as Southerners while we not only reclaim what is ours but reach out and build a future that will make us proud, and a country that will not make God ashamed. A country and a future not bound simply by geography or by politics, but restrained only by the will of Almighty God, by the depth of our Christian faith, and by our own innate drive and abilities.
CSA Martian ColonyHow far can we go? Who today can say what our limits are? Perhaps, in the centuries to come, a young father with his wife and children much like our own, will say grace before a table of fried chicken and cornbread in a city called New Richmond, on a distant planet under the light of an alien star...and thank God that they're Southern!
Greg Kay's Homepage: The Militant South [url=http://www.geocities.com/gregmkay/]http://www.geocities.com/gregmkay/[/url]
url: [url=http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Guest-Column-29.html]http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Gues...-Column-29.html[/url] **
Related thread:
A Requiem for the South by Dwight D. Murphey Review:"Can the South Survive?"
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=7495]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=6&t=7495[/url]
2003-04-30 02:25 | User Profile
As a big city, northern ethnic I don't know what to make of this "southern nationalist" crap. Obviously, they consider me outside of their nation.
"Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?"
These self centered fools think that only fundamentalist protestants are real christians. Of course there are many societies in Europe where more traditional forms of christianity are very much alive, but they don't count because they are catholic or orthodox(something a lot of ignoramus bible belters probably don't know exists).
I just can't see much of a future in this stuff. I think all white Americans would be better servered by a pan-european type white nationalism which is what our founding fathers intended.
2003-04-30 03:19 | User Profile
As a big city, northern ethnic I don't know what to make of this "southern nationalist" crap. Obviously, they consider me outside of their nation.
The point of Southern Nationalism is that Southerners are distinct enough from other Americans to constitute a separate nation. This is something that is going to be less and less tenable as time progresses because the Uniculture promoted by the left will eventually replace anything that may be claimed as distinctively Southern. Neo-Confederatism is about forming of a nation-state for Southerners.
**These self centered fools think that only fundamentalist protestants are real christians. Of course there are many societies in Europe where more traditional forms of christianity are very much alive, but they don't count because they are catholic or orthodox(something a lot of ignoramus bible belters probably don't know exists). **
The hyper-legalism of fundamentalist theology is a problem in itself. It has none of the qualities that make Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism durable. It's also tied to fadish expressions of faith that reduces religion to the level of pop culture. Its time will not be long on this Earth.
2003-04-30 03:41 | User Profile
As a big city, northern ethnic I don't know what to make of this "southern nationalist" crap.
As a big city northern ethnic (well, if you consider Scots-English an 'ethnic,' and I DO!), I know what to make of the southern nationalist "crap." I recommend the book: The South Was Right!, which makes clear that the War of Northern Aggression (as they call it), WAS a war of northern aggression!
Southerners are CLEARLY a different 'ethnicity' from northerners (I've now lived 'down here' for 6 years -- there is a CLEAR difference between 'born and bred' southerners and northerners whether they are here AND up north! NeoNietzsche says he lives in "yankee-occupied Georgia" and so he does!)
And it's not that I have fallen in love with the south -- I HATE it! But the "sons and daughters of the south ARE a different 'breed' than northerners. They are no different from the Kurds, in their desperately wanting their OWN homeland!
2003-04-30 07:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Apr 29 2003, 22:19 **The hyper-legalism of fundamentalist theology is a problem in itself. **
I would ask for a definition of 'fundamentalist theology.' Belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures? The Holy Trinity? If so, many churches hold to 'fundamentalist' doctrine without legalism as I understand it.
It has none of the qualities that make Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism durable.
Durability and legalism aside, one begins a long journey even trying to pin-down what [url=http://www.equip.org/free/DE177.htm] Orthodox doctrine is[/url]. In short, the reality just isn't as cut and dried as you imply.
2003-04-30 11:30 | User Profile
And it's not that I have fallen in love with the south -- I HATE it! But the "sons and daughters of the south ARE a different 'breed' than northerners. They are no different from the Kurds, in their desperately wanting their OWN homeland!
My Virginia roots go deep, but I don't identify with this exclusionary attitude put forth by these boys. Southerners are a different "ethnicity" than Northerners (and far, far different than today's spiritual descendants of the holier-than-thou New England Yanks who ravaged our land), but a different race? Utter nonsense.
2003-04-30 13:02 | User Profile
I would ask for a definition of 'fundamentalist theology.' Belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures? The Holy Trinity? If so, many churches hold to 'fundamentalist' doctrine without legalism as I understand it.
Legalism would be stuff like proof texts and rather odd renderings of the Apocalypse that ignore wider context and genre. I should point out that Fundamentalism is not the same as conservative Protestant theology. They are different. Fundamentalism is very single issue oriented. They have a response to everything but those responses don't integrate into a whole systematic theology without a lot of contradictions. The prime example is Dispensentialism which can't reconcile the inherent conflict of proclaiming the Jews as God's chosen people with supreme idea of Christ as God, which Jews deny by definition.
Durability and legalism aside, one begins a long journey even trying to pin-down what Orthodox doctrine is. In short, the reality just isn't as cut and dried as you imply.
I was refering to cultural durability. But if you want to talk theology then one's journey would end with Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church or any number of works by Archpriest Georges Florovsky. Both authors give a quite systematic presentation of Eastern Orthodox theology. Lossky is more readable for laymen.
I would agree that Orthodox theology is harder for modern man to grasp because we view man's ability to know God through rationality alone very negatively. Something that hasn't been the case with Western theology, both Catholic and Protestant, since scholasticism arrived on the scene in the late middle ages.
Here is page that has comprehensive links explaining Orthodox theology in a modern American milieu:
[url=http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/index.html]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/index.html[/url]
And another page by a priest that used to be an associate pastor for the Church of the Nazarene denomination.
[url=http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/articles.htm]http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/articles.htm[/url]
2003-04-30 17:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Apr 30 2003, 08:02 **.. **
Let me first say that I posted my reply above very late last night. Reading it again today it strikes me as contentious in its tone and I did not mean it that way. My apologies for that.
Legalism would be stuff like proof texts and rather odd renderings of the Apocalypse that ignore wider context and genre.
My definition of legalism would be extra-biblical lifestyle rules and regulations imposed by the church or denominational body.
I should point out that Fundamentalism is not the same as conservative Protestant theology. They are different. Fundamentalism is very single issue oriented. They have a response to everything but those responses don't integrate into a whole systematic theology without a lot of contradictions. The prime example is Dispensentialism which can't reconcile the inherent conflict of proclaiming the Jews as God's chosen people with supreme idea of Christ as God, which Jews deny by definition.
Maybe it's me, but I'm still not grasping the concept here. 'Having a response to everything' could describe almost any religious body. Dispensationalism is an eschatological position as you know, but I don't understand how that relates to fundamentalism.
But if you want to talk theology then one's journey would end with Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church or any number of works by Archpriest Georges Florovsky. Both authors give a quite systematic presentation of Eastern Orthodox theology. Lossky is more readable for laymen. **
Thanks for the links.
2003-04-30 17:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Apr 30 2003, 13:02 > I would ask for a definition of 'fundamentalist theology.' Belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures? The Holy Trinity? If so, many churches hold to 'fundamentalist' doctrine without legalism as I understand it.**
Legalism would be stuff like proof texts and rather odd renderings of the Apocalypse that ignore wider context and genre. I should point out that Fundamentalism is not the same as conservative Protestant theology. They are different.(my emphasis) Fundamentalism is very single issue oriented. They have a response to everything but those responses don't integrate into a whole systematic theology without a lot of contradictions. The prime example is Dispensentialism which can't reconcile the inherent conflict of proclaiming the Jews as God's chosen people with supreme idea of Christ as God, which Jews deny by definition.
**
I think you are doing, in describing fundamentalism, is what people usually do, get off the definition of what the strict fundamentalist ideal is to descriptive, often colorful, sociological and anecdotal depictions of the social and organizational movements derived from it.
this Duke University link basically describes the origins of fundamentalism, and its theological interpretation
Historic Fundamentalism shared all of the assumptions of generic fundamentalism but also reflected several concerns particular to the religious setting of the United States at the turn of the century. Some of those concerns stemmed from broad changes in the culture such as growing awareness of world religions, the teaching of human evolution and, above all, the rise of biblical higher criticism. The last proved particularly troubling because it implied the absence of the supernatural and the purely human authorship of scripture. **
Social changes of the early twentieth century also fed the flames of protest. Drawn primarily from ranks of "old stock whites," Fundamentalists felt displaced by the waves of non- Protestant immigrants from southern and eastern Europe flooding America's cities. They believed they had been betrayed by American statesmen who led the nation into an irresolved war with Germany, the cradle of destructive biblical criticism. They deplored the teaching of evolution in public schools, which they paid for with their taxes, and resented the elitism of professional educators who seemed often to scorn the values of traditional Christian families.
Fundamentalists fought these changes on several fronts. Intellectually they mounted a strenuous defense of the fundamentals (as they defined them) of historic Christian teachings. Thus they insisted upon the necessity of a conversion experience through faith in Jesus Christ alone, the accuracy of the Bible in matters of science and history as well as theology, and the imminent physical return of Christ to the earth where he would establish a millennial reign of peace and righteousness. Fundamentalists conveyed their convictions in numerous ways, but most prominently through the wide dissemination of twelve booklets called The Fundamentals (1910-1915).
[url=http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm]The Rise of Fundamentalism[/url]
(I should mention that the best discussion of fundamentalism and the common problems in describing it is by Francis Schaeffer **
I understand your impulse to separate the term "fundamentalism", from what you understand is "conservative Protestant theology" but I would positively disagree. All fundamentalism was originally was simply a desire to reassert these "fundamentals" which up until that time and liberal influence had been universally understood to underlie any Protestant theology, conservative or otherwise, and for that matter, in general, any Christian theology period.
In a conservative sense, fundamentalism was a very ecumenical movement. Therefore tying it in to a specific detailed theology such as dispensationalism or making broad generalizations is simply inaccurate, although very common.
2003-04-30 18:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Apr 30 2003, 11:30 My Virginia roots go deep, but I don't identify with this exclusionary attitude put forth by these boys. Southerners are a different "ethnicity" than Northerners (and far, far different than today's spiritual descendants of the holier-than-thou New England Yanks who ravaged our land), but a different race? Utter nonsense.
Many of you aren't familiar with Greg Kay of the League of the South and the ideology of his brand of the Southern Independance movement. It is a concoction, of very dubious origin, foisted upon us in part by historians who should have known better, such as Forrest MacDonald, (who's formally fine work seems to has declined recently and who now has a Jewish wife.)
Kay and other Southern Leagers are advocates of the "neo-Celtic" view of the South and its struggles. This theory basically says that the South's ethnic and cultural identity are closely linked to that of "Celtic" areas in the british isles (Scotland, Wales, and Ireland), so closely linked in fact that the struggles of the South are completely described, practically identical, and in practice should be tightly linked with that of the Celtic nationalist movement in the British Isles.
It even describes the issues of the civil war as being basically identical to that of modern advocatic interpretations of the various struggles in the British Isles between the English and "Celtic" peoples. I.e. the North are the "bad English" and issues of southern independence can be described as yet another struggle of indiginous peoples fight for freedom from "anglo-saxon" hegonomy.
My opinion is that while a few of its advocates may be good-hearted men naively pursuing this theory, in general it is about as intellectually honest as modern "black revisionist" interpretations of African history, and is a transparent attempt to redefine a good movement to make it distantly plausible in the multicultural lexicon (which involves of course making it into a tool used against the white peoples and western civilization in general).
Many southern separatists are a sadly uninformed lot. Someone needs to enlighten them.
2003-04-30 18:55 | User Profile
I've always sympathized with the South as far back as I can recall, despite the fact that my entire family has always lived in New England. Once I had the chance I moved to the South and here I am.
I'd be pleased to see a revived CSA gain its independence. Not sure if it will happen seperately from a general White American resistance to the status quo in the future, but after such an event I wouldn't mind if the South broke away.
If the CSA did break away, I wonder if they'd throw me out, a kid from the North of Italian-Irish heritage. If they did, I'd understand--it is their country and they should call the shots in it. I don't think I'm "entitled" to live in an area where the people here do have very specific, deeper roots than me. I won't whine if it becomes clear that my presence doesn't mesh with the cultural fabric the native Southerners are trying to restore and build. I don't want to be a disruption. I'm physically indistinguishable from the White Southerners, probably due to my fair, easily-burned Irish skin I inherited from my mother. I obviously don't have a Southern accent, but nor do I have a New England one, either...my parents do, though...I suppose that generic, standardized, "nationalized" television is responsible for that outcome. People who hear me talk have no way to tell exactly where I'm from in this country, just that I'm an American who's a native speaker of English.
Anyway, while I'm here, I'd support them in their fight for independence. No hard feelings--I really do wish them well. I'd then choose to spend my exile in the Pacific Northwest, if the Southerners gave me my walking papers.
2003-04-30 19:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 14:17 ** It is a concoction, of very dubious origin, foisted upon us in part by historians who should have known better... **
I would have to say that Southerners, especially those from the Highland areas, surely are linked ethnically and culturally to the Celts. You would know that within five minutes of visiting my home town. The Celtic influence is fading but not nearly as quickly as the ethnic qualities of most other predominately white areas.
That said, I'm not familiar with Kay's arguments or how they may be intellectually dishonest- or not. Do you have any references for your side of this argument- I suppose I could google Kay's views in support.
2003-04-30 19:23 | User Profile
The Southern Nationalist-White Nationalist discussion is similar to the Francis-Linder discussion. Some are concerned that Southern Nationalism is an activity trap which diverts white activist Southerners from the main issues. A few years ago I was a member of a Southern Party mailing list. One of the ongoing and most contentious arguments was between the 'rainbow' Confederates and the white nationalist (small 'c') confederates. Probably the rudest and least coherent of the 'rainbow' confederates was someone claiming to be one of the authors of The South Was Right!. This fellow constantly proclaimed that he wasn't a 'racist', he had no problem with jews or blacks, etc., and anyone who did wasn't a 'true Southerner.'
However, I seem to notice the Southern Nationalist community shifting somewhat in the direction of white nationalism. Possibly nothing radicalizes like failure!!
In any event, a new Southern nation is only possible within the context of white nationalism. After all, next to the Nazis, Dixie is the favorite whipping boy of the Establishment.
2003-04-30 19:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Apr 30 2003, 19:08 **I would have to say that Southerners, especially those from the Highland areas, surely are linked ethnically and culturally to the Celts. You would know that within five minutes of visiting my home town. The Celtic influence is fading but not nearly as quickly as the ethnic qualities of most other predominately white areas.
That said, I'm not familiar with Kay's arguments or how they may be intellectually dishonest- or not. Do you have any references for your side of this argument- I suppose I could google Kay's views in support.**
The Southern-Celtic argument does have some intriguing things to say about Southern historical particularisms. But it is somewhat of a stretch to link this diverse area to the particular political situation and culture of the "Celtic" areas of the British Isles, as a coherent political movement.
Particularly when the movement it is based on, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Nationalism is rather ersatz fare IMO, particularly from a nationalistic standpoint. It is somewhat demode and artificial now anyway even in the British Isles. Some people describe the differences in crossing the English border into Wales, etc. for instance as being not a whole lot different than crossing from North Dakota into South Dakota.
From a political standpoint, even in these days of left-right "red-brown" convergence finding common cause with the likes of the Marxist terrorists of the IRA seems a stretch. Basically I just tend to view the whole movement of "Celtic nationalism" as contrived and artifical in its own land, let alone in the American South. And my feelings talking with Greg Kay is that he is one of those minority of Irish-Americans who still cling atavastically to these old ethnic hatreds and grudges and try to impose them artifically upon the much different situation in the American South.
2003-04-30 19:49 | User Profile
Tex,
No apologies needed. The nature of religious debate requires taking things less other than on a personal level. If I wanted to avoid my toes being stepped on, I certainly wouldn't be discussing religion.
Legalism is strict adherence to the literal letter of the law as opposed to obedience to the spirit of the law. A case of legalism in modern times is the non-establishment of religion clause in which the leftist argument rests on strict adherence to the clause regardless of any wider historical context.
In Re: Fundamentalism vs. Dispensitionalism vs. Conservative Protestant Theology.
I don't have the time at present to articulate a response, to my satisfaction, to these excellent critiques of my knowledge of American religious history and theology. I will address these issues tomorrow. It's very rare that OD has a substantive religious debate without bashing armegeddonism ad nauseum or people like NN butting in. I feel compelled to continue.
2003-04-30 19:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Uncle John@Apr 30 2003, 19:23 A few years ago I was a member of a Southern Party mailing list.ÃÂ One of the ongoing and most contentious arguments was between the 'rainbow' Confederates and the white nationalist (small 'c') confederates.ÃÂ Probably the rudest and least coherent of the 'rainbow' confederates was someone claiming to be one of the authors of The South Was Right!.ÃÂ This fellow constantly proclaimed that he wasn't a 'racist', he had no problem with jews or blacks, etc., and anyone who did wasn't a 'true Southerner.'
**
Ah yes, the rainbow confederates. Don't get me started on them. :rolleyes: Yes the south armies had black confederates :afro: , jewish confederates - in fact to hear them talk about it, the whole civil war was just one big civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery that was broken up by those "racist troopers in their blue-bellied uniforms" :hit: .
:lol:
2003-04-30 20:01 | User Profile
**As a big city, northern ethnic I don't know what to make of this "southern nationalist" crap. Obviously, they consider me outside of their nation.
"Even in this apostate age, we in the "Bible Belt" are the last, greatest bastion of Biblical Christianity left, not just in America but in the world. So why do we fail and keep failing?"
These self centered fools think that only fundamentalist protestants are real christians. Of course there are many societies in Europe where more traditional forms of christianity are very much alive, but they don't count because they are catholic or orthodox(something a lot of ignoramus bible belters probably don't know exists).
I just can't see much of a future in this stuff. I think all white Americans would be better servered by a pan-european type white nationalism which is what our founding fathers intended.**
The South, and West, were like "making home" for me, after 9/11. Even after almost 40 years away. What endures beneath what anybody, or any group, is called by others, is what they are, as persons. That is what keeps reproducing, like cultural DNA. As long as it remains true to iself. How could it not?
That is because it was set up under a particular kind of freedom -- at least for some. But they made a lot of it, and, contrary to Hollywood Reagan philosophy, the same tide can't raise all boats, when it doesn't come through all at the same time. Someone leads the way, and that's how America and the Wesrt was won. Not all the original Wild Ones were buffalo killers. Cornel Goodnight, rancher SE of Canyon, Texas in the early 1900's, would never have tolerated them. There is a magnificent bison mounted in the lobby of West Texas State college, plus other artefacts at Lubbock, near Texas Tech.
It is fine that traditional forms of Christianity has survived in Europe -- I suppose; depending on what "traditional" means (there were some pretty rough "traditions" put on film forever in Rossellini's **Salo: the thirty days of Sodom** one might check out. I used it as example of what "evil" is in philosophy of religion class once). But the equivalent here is Bible Belt Christians, dispensationalists and all, bless 'em (not:), because, like GWBush, like it or not, they are their own people, inside. The confederate flag is the way you spell "orthodoxy", down there. They get along good with each othr -- few rough spots -- even across the color-line, unless agitated. That was shown repeatedly in communities that developed according to their own ways, not imported from Europe except as models, where they applied, beginning with Charleston, but not having much of a chance, time-wise, to flourish in such a rapidly expanding nation, prior to l860's. But here was great, great promise, until that episode shut it down, just like it shut down the draft riots in New York City, and its wild freedoms taming themselves. Some there are who always want to rush, or destroy, the tenuous products of that process, which is precious on earth.
So Southerners paid for that sense of independence twice, with blood: once in the revolution, by founding fathers that were 98% Protestant (=signers of the Constitution, the only document binding the states under a single authority). At that time, neither Catholics nor Jews could own property or vote (exceptions allowed in Maryland, Rhode Island, I think). So they don't get to divine the intent of our foundng fathers, and the positioning of themselves as doing so is a presumption.
But the reason this crap all came up most recently, if that is what you want to call it, could be termed the "historical spotlight effect" post-9/11. What set up, and came to fruition with the destruction of the World Trade Towers was what dissidents, such as those on this board, had said "identity politics" would lead to. I was one whose identity was shocked back to these roots, by the dawning, and since increasing, realization that the US had been hustled, even by the same core of individuals going back to Vietnam War sell out, taking on an active Judaishkeit/Judasmite magnetic power-brick in the cockpit if you follow my drift.
This location of the psychological centre (I call it, presumptuously, the "Spirit", but that's just the diehard protestant in me) -- got a thing on the metaphysics of modernism -- and post-modernism -- also, which is beginning to look like NeoNietzsche, or at least like Avalanche. "Protestantism" may be called upon to bury itself, with Jeffersonian gracefulness, just like it is calling for old-world war-starting religions to bury themselves. Might have to turn their plowing shears into swords first, though, I believe they may be saying.
I do not write to antagonize anybody, only to preserve that umbilicus-spirit link to what America is. distributed as that is now over a bunch of idiots, and a few good men. The truth in the blood reproduces as Spirit in freedom, and in freedom only.
2003-05-01 11:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 It is somewhat demode and artificial now anyway even in the British Isles. Some people describe the differences in crossing the English border into Wales, etc. for instance as being not a whole lot different than crossing from North Dakota into South Dakota.
This is a non-sequitur regarding nationality. What changes should one expect?
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 Basically I just tend to view the whole movement of "Celtic nationalism" as contrived and artifical in its own land, let alone in the American South. And my feelings talking with Greg Kay is that he is one of those minority of Irish-Americans who still cling atavastically to these old ethnic hatreds and grudges and try to impose them artifically upon the much different situation in the American South.
Argued like a good liberal, nationality is 'contrived' and the obligatory 'haters' are introduced ;)
I believe you were correct in your earlier conclusion that the American south has no direct political correlation to the islands of Britain and Ireland but here you proceed to twist this around and correlate the British Isles with the American south!
There is no "Celtic nationalist" movement either in Britain or Ireland and I'm curious as to where you derived that impression. If there is any supra-nation it is the British nation and indeed there is a "British nationalist" movement. We are five separate nations, with two (and a half) separate juristicions. There is nothing 'contrived' about our nations be they English, Welsh, Scots, Ulster-Scots or Irish.
As for Greg (Mc)Kay being of the "minority of Irish-Americans who still cling atavastically to these old ethnic hatreds [of the English]"? I find that unlikely. His surname, location and religion designate him as either of Ulster-Scots or Scottish descent. IRA supporting (Marxist inter)nationalists are not big fans of the King James Bible. Then again he strikes me as a strange character...
2003-05-01 17:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@May 1 2003, 11:59 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 It is somewhat demode and artificial now anyway even in the British Isles. Some people describe the differences in crossing the English border into Wales, etc. for instance as being not a whole lot different than crossing from North Dakota into South Dakota.**
This is a non-sequitur regarding nationality. What changes should one expect?**
More than between North Dakota and South Dakota. That's for sure.
> Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 Basically I just tend to view the whole movement of "Celtic nationalism" as contrived and artifical in its own land, let alone in the American South. And my feelings talking with Greg Kay is that he is one of those minority of Irish-Americans who still cling atavastically to these old ethnic hatreds and grudges and try to impose them artifically upon the much different situation in the American South.**
Argued like a good liberal, nationality is 'contrived' and the obligatory 'haters' are introduced ;)**
Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Some nationality issues really are contrived, like black nationalism's revisionist history of Africa and their "Kwanza" holiday.
So yes, some nationality feuds really are phony, or are manipulated by Communists. Not that I'm saying yours necessarily is, but people debate it on both sides, and if you're unwilling to respond rationally it indicates some weakness in your position.
I believe you were correct in your earlier conclusion that the American south has no direct political correlation to the islands of Britain and Ireland but here you proceed to twist this around and correlate the British Isles with the American south!
The movement certainly does, at least certain areas of the British Isles (the Celtic areas)
There is no "Celtic nationalist" movement either in Britain or Ireland and I'm curious as to where you derived that impression. If there is any supra-nation it is the British nation and indeed there is a "British nationalist" movement. We are five separate nations, with two (and a half) separate juristicions. There is nothing 'contrived' about our nations be they English, Welsh, Scots, Ulster-Scots or Irish.
Excuse me? What do you call the Welsh Nationalist and Scottish Nationalist parties?
As for Greg (Mc)Kay being of the "minority of Irish-Americans who still cling atavastically to these old ethnic hatreds [of the English]"? I find that unlikely. His surname, location and religion designate him as either of Ulster-Scots or Scottish descent. IRA supporting (Marxist inter)nationalists are not big fans of the King James Bible. Then again he strikes me as a strange character...
Well I know the fellow. As to what constitutes a "strange character" in this climes I'll leave that up to others. ;)
2003-05-01 23:01 | User Profile
My understanding of modern American religious history is not complete. I think to some extent my construction of Fundamentalism betrays my childhood in various pentacostalist sects like the AoG. Mostly because I'm expected to defend my conversion to Russian Orthodoxy everytime I go home, I'm more familiar with pentacostalist type arguments. Granted, it's hard to have a productive discussion when definitions aren't agreed upon.
I knew about the original Fundamentalists but I thought that's no a longer distinct movement insofar as there is no group of people of substantial size talking about the "Five Fundamentals" any more. The Fundamentalists did, after all, lose almost all their battles for their respective denominations and were excommunicated. I was thinking its elements were absorbed or co-opted by other movements in Protestantism namely the Evangelicals, Baptists and Pentacostals. I've seen some religious historians place Evangelicals as the direct decendents of the orignal Fundamentalists.
I think that Fundamentalism even of the limited early sort was flawed because it tried to reduce Christianity to a limited number of intellectual precepts that go well beyond a litmus test against heretics in the way that the Nicene Creed was meant. As a narrowly taylored reaction against liberal Christianity, it didn't preserve enough of Christianity to defend against heresies from other quarters like Dispensationalism. It was bound to end badly.
Dispensationalism is not merely an eschatological heresy, although that component of the doctrine is easily the most identifiable. Their hermeneutics has an overreaching aim to recast the history of Divine Revelation into a series of modes in which the relationship between God and men changes in nature. Mostly it's a bad attempt at trying to reconcile Fundamentalism with supra-rationalism and Materialist science. For instance, they hold that although God used miracles in past dispensations as a means of revelation He no longer does so now. They can now acclaim the truth of miracles in the Scripture yet convieniently have an explaination as to why miracles can't be proven in iron clad logic and evidence of the type prefered by Materialist science.
I apologize for rambling.
2003-05-02 02:32 | User Profile
If southerners want to have their own country, I'm not going to try to stop them.
Southerners denying their saxoness in favor of a largely contrived celticism is a pathetic attempt to climb up a rung in the ladder of white evil. Germanic people, especially WASPs and Deutsche are the lowest on the totem pole of white wickedness. Southerness get made fun of more but they are not really feared by the inner party. In fact, they make the inner party's best dupes. Anyway, the fact that celts and saxons can't tell each other apart by looks tells you all you need to know really... The Yankees are the product of the highly distorted class profile of the early English Puritan settlers. They were overwhelmingly middle class at a time when probably not more than one in fifty Englishmen could be described as such. Think of Yankees as an inbred hyper bourgeoise.
2003-05-02 02:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@May 1 2003, 22:32 ** Southerness get made fun of more but they are not really feared by the inner party. In fact, they make the inner party's best dupes. **
This is true, and sad. The Southerners seem to make up the bulk of Whites who sign up for military service, and they happily march off to wage war in places like Iraq, a war in service of the Jews. They don't even stop to realize that they're not fighting for "America" the way they think they are. It really is too bad.
2003-05-02 03:25 | User Profile
**They don't even stop to realize that they're not fighting for "America" the way they think they are. **
Um, PaleoA? Is it okay if I point out that you, um, mis-spelled a word there...That third-to-the-last word? It should be spelled:
B E L I E V E
'cause there ain't much thinkin' going on!!! :D :rolleyes:
2003-05-02 03:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@May 1 2003, 23:25 ** > **They don't even stop to realize that they're not fighting for "America" the way they think they are. **
Um, PaleoA? Is it okay if I point out that you, um, mis-spelled a word there...That third-to-the-last word? It should be spelled:
B E L I E V E
'cause there ain't much thinkin' going on!!! :D :rolleyes: **
Good point, Avalanche.
I think it was Sam Francis who once referred to the South as the "Prussia" of the United States. The South does have a noble and honorable military tradition; I really do think they are the best at it. It's just too bad that this fine resource has been so blatantly hijacked and misdirected by the Wolfowitzim.
2003-05-02 03:44 | User Profile
** It's just too bad that this fine resource has been so blatantly hijacked and misdirected by the Wolfowitzim. **
{sigh} Too right. :crybaby:
2003-05-02 17:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 The movement certainly does, at least certain areas of the British Isles (the Celtic areas)
No it does not exist in those terms. The 'movement' you speak of is the "neo-Celtic" (really pan-Celtic) identity movement in the American South. There is simply no comparison between that movement and nationalist sentiment in the British Isles. Nationalism in Scotland, Wales and Ireland is not based on some fuzzy concept of pan-Celtic identity, nor do these nations seek to forge some sort of ersatz Celtic confederation.
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Apr 30 2003, 12:17 Not that I'm saying yours necessarily is, but people debate it on both sides, and if you're unwilling to respond rationally it indicates some weakness in your position.
Absolutely. I assume this means I can look forward to enjoying your rational analysis and robust debate on why movements based on Scottish and/or Welsh and/or Irish nationalism is ersatz?
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@May 1 2003, 20:32 Southerners denying their saxoness in favor of a largely contrived celticism is a pathetic attempt to climb up a rung in the ladder of white evil.
On the other hand a large proportion of Southerners have no Saxon roots to deny. For example Washington's Virginians were overwhelming Ulster-Scots not Anglo-Saxons.
2003-05-02 17:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@May 1 2003, 22:32 **
Southerners denying their saxoness in favor of a largely contrived celticism is a pathetic attempt to climb up a rung in the ladder of white evil. Germanic people, especially WASPs and Deutsche are the lowest on the totem pole of white wickedness. **
Large numbers of Southerners would be distressed to know they are gripping the rungs. While I've never noticed any major effort aimed at denigrating those of Anglo-Saxon background, folks in the overwhelmingly Scotch-Irish hills where I grew up are proud of their heritage. I'm not sure Kay's movement will reach many of them, but they're a fairly secure lot and are used to many generations of attempted abuse by the rest of the enlightened nation.
Come on up and find out for yourself sometime. Call ahead and they'll have a mess of ramps and poke sallet waiting for you.
2003-05-02 17:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Oklahomaman@May 1 2003, 23:01 My understanding of modern American religious history is not complete. I think to some extent my construction of Fundamentalism betrays my childhood in various pentacostalist sects like the AoG. Mostly because I'm expected to defend my conversion to Russian Orthodoxy everytime I go home, I'm more familiar with pentacostalist type arguments. Granted, it's hard to have a productive discussion when definitions aren't agreed upon.
Since we're getting into definitions here, not all of which I not being a trained theologian here I fully understand, some might think we're getting a little picky.
It is just worth noting however that the within the broad evangelical movement, fundamentalists and pentacostals are considered different species. Some, such as NR, say they (at least their ministers) don't get along with each other. Re: Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson. NR said fundy's accuse pentacostals of shortchanging scripture, while pentacostals think fundy's are phariseeical.
I knew about the original Fundamentalists but I thought that's no a longer distinct movement insofar as there is no group of people of substantial size talking about the "Five Fundamentals" any more. The Fundamentalists did, after all, lose almost all their battles for their respective denominations and were excommunicated. I was thinking its elements were absorbed or co-opted by other movements in Protestantism namely the Evangelicals, Baptists and Pentacostals. I've seen some religious historians place Evangelicals as the direct decendents of the orignal Fundamentalists.
You're condensing an awful lot of history into this short paragraph. I would just say fundamentalism realy is just the religious equivalent of conservatism. Like conservatism politically, it did not/does did not become self-conscious of itself as a movement until threatened. So in those denominations and venues where it first reached conscious articulation, (mainline denominations, particularly Presbyterianism) it was generally pretty much doomed to second class status.
I don't think they were "excommunicated" though - just marginalized and stripped of power.
You'll really get the theologians to argue when you ask them what "evangelical" means. That is a very lively topic within current Protestantism. Some fundamentalists feel that the category "evangelical" is starting to get diluted and basically is starting to accomodate and moving to the theologically "moderate", (i.e. neoorthodox, i.e. liberal) camp.
"Evangelical" unlike Fundamentalism, has no fixed loci or origin at all. It is just a tendency. It would appear to me to be a general understanding of what most nominally to moderate religious people would like to see in religion, a religion shorn of factious and irritating disputes, either from the destructiveness of liberalism or from the factious reputation fundamentalists have acquired in popular culture from the media, etc.
I don't know - maybe evangelicalism is evolving at its heart to become just Oprah Winfrey style fundamentalism.
I think that Fundamentalism even of the limited early sort was flawed because it tried to reduce Christianity to a limited number of intellectual precepts that go well beyond a litmus test against heretics in the way that the Nicene Creed was meant. As a narrowly taylored reaction against liberal Christianity, it didn't preserve enough of Christianity to defend against heresies from other quarters like Dispensationalism. It was bound to end badly.
I'm not sure exactly what your criticism of fundamentalism is as a movement. You seem to be saying simultaneously it is too narrow (limited number of intellectual precepts) and broad (go well beyond a heritical litmus test of the Nicene Creed).
Fallible men comprised the movement, (which varies dependeing on who you talk to, but who's origins are fairly well understood) and of course there were tactical errors on the way, but "fundamentally" what they were doing was integral not only to conservatism but all small o Christian orthodoxy.
It is worth noting that the actual theological groundwork of the core of the fundamentalism movement actualy seems quite small, but it became well known because its thoughts were recognized and adopted by so many groups that recognize similar theoogical/philosophical presuppositions, even though many of course deny organizational relationship or much debt at all to these people. American Protestantism tends to be quite amorphous by its nature.
**Dispensationalism is not merely an eschatological heresy, although that component of the doctrine is easily the most identifiable. Their hermeneutics has an overreaching aim to recast the history of Divine Revelation into a series of modes in which the relationship between God and men changes in nature. Mostly it's a bad attempt at trying to reconcile Fundamentalism with supra-rationalism and Materialist science. For instance, they hold that although God used miracles in past dispensations as a means of revelation He no longer does so now. They can now acclaim the truth of miracles in the Scripture yet convieniently have an explaination as to why miracles can't be proven in iron clad logic and evidence of the type prefered by Materialist science.
I apologize for rambling.**
The origins and structure of Dispensationalism seem similar to the origins and structure of Fundamentalism - arising from a small group of scholars, but growing into a wide socioreligious movement because of its resonances with the thought of its target audience.
It would seem to me that Fundamentalism represented the best tendencies within Protestantism, and Dispensationalism the worst tendencies within Fundamentalism. Not that there is necessarily any unity - obviously dispensationalists can argue until their blue in the face about the exact interpretation of biblical dates and current world politics, la la la.
Its transparent theological weakness though, its operational and temporal opportunism, also however in the temporal religious world is its greatest advantage organizationally.
2003-05-02 17:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 30 2003, 13:55 **If the CSA did break away, I wonder if they'd throw me out, a kid from the North of Italian-Irish heritage. **
There's a saying down here in Texas and probably throughout the South that goes like this:
"I'm not a native born Texan, but I got here as fast as I could."
I would hope that the revived Confederacy of our dreams would find a place for those fellow-travelers and lovers of freedom, even if they weren't blessed by God to have been born in the Southland.
2003-05-02 18:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 17:20 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 30 2003, 13:55 If the CSA did break away, I wonder if they'd throw me out, a kid from the North of Italian-Irish heritage. **
There's a saying down here in Texas and probably throughout the South that goes like this:
"I'm not a native born Texan, but I got here as fast as I could."
I would hope that the revived Confederacy of our dreams would find a place for those fellow-travelers and lovers of freedom, even if they weren't blessed by God to have been born in the Southland.**
I don't know if we're talking about a real problem. The South actually never was and particularly homogenuous place, even in the beginning. That's why they called themselves "confederates" and fought against the "Union". That's also according to some historians one of the reasons why they lost - the difficulty of getting all these diverse factions together. Virginians and South Carolinians and Tennesseans and Texans and Indians from the Oklahoma Territory, Cajuns from the Bayous, and Irish Catholics from New Orleans and Charleston.
In fact, some say the whole idea of "southern nationalism" is inevitably flawed, because of the centralism inherent in the concept. Like the League of the Soputh founder Michael Hill. Southerners have always lived in different states in a diverse confederacy. If you don't like the state where you are, move on and start your own. (which is where Faulkner said all the Texans originated). I sometimes will ever stop fighting and bickering with each other long enoughto ever get around to fighting someone else anyway.
In any event, I don't think you have much to worry about Paleo. ;)
2003-05-02 19:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 2 2003, 14:26 ** > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 17:20 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Apr 30 2003, 13:55 If the CSA did break away, I wonder if they'd throw me out, a kid from the North of Italian-Irish heritage. **
There's a saying down here in Texas and probably throughout the South that goes like this:
"I'm not a native born Texan, but I got here as fast as I could."
I would hope that the revived Confederacy of our dreams would find a place for those fellow-travelers and lovers of freedom, even if they weren't blessed by God to have been born in the Southland.**
I don't know if we're talking about a real problem. The South actually never was and particularly homogenuous place, even in the beginning. That's why they called themselves "confederates" and fought against the "Union". That's also according to some historians one of the reasons why they lost - the difficulty of getting all these diverse factions together. Virginians and South Carolinians and Tennesseans and Texans and Indians from the Oklahoma Territory, Cajuns from the Bayous, and Irish Catholics from New Orleans and Charleston.
In fact, some say the whole idea of "southern nationalism" is inevitably flawed, because of the centralism inherent in the concept. Like the League of the Soputh founder Michael Hill. Southerners have always lived in different states in a diverse confederacy. If you don't like the state where you are, move on and start your own. (which is where Faulkner said all the Texans originated). I sometimes will ever stop fighting and bickering with each other long enoughto ever get around to fighting someone else anyway.
In any event, I don't think you have much to worry about Paleo. ;) **
In the spirit of Southern unity, I'll note here that not a single one of all the Tennessee, Virginia, or Georgia Southerners I have lived among in my life would ever recognize an Okie as being from the South.
Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much.
2003-05-02 19:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@May 2 2003, 14:37 ** Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much. **
:) That's true, amigo. But realize in my case that I'm first generation removed from Winnsboro, Louisiana and Carbon Hill, Alabama. Those roots run deep.
2003-05-02 19:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 11:20 ** [QUOTE ]
"I'm not a native born Texan, but I got here as fast as I could."
**
I'm a hoping that doesn't include our beloved Mehicanos.
2003-05-02 19:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@May 2 2003, 15:51 ** > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 11:20 ** [QUOTE ]
"I'm not a native born Texan, but I got here as fast as I could."
**
I'm a hoping that doesn't include our beloved Mehicanos. **
In their case, they'd say they swam here as fast as they could. Or gave birth here as fast as they could. And they'd say it in Spanish.
2003-05-02 20:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@May 2 2003, 14:51 ** I'm a hoping that doesn't include our beloved Mehicanos. **
Shame on you, CMB! It being so close to Cinco de Mayo and all.
:unsure:
2003-05-02 20:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@May 2 2003, 19:37 **In the spirit of Southern unity, I'll note here that not a single one of all the Tennessee, Virginia, or Georgia Southerners I have lived among in my life would ever recognize an Okie as being from the South.
Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much.**
Typical attitude toward the border staters. Find a Nawthenaw who will accept Okies then.
Fact of the matter is Indian Territory furnished the South thousands of troops and one of its better generals, Stand Watie, and many of its people come from the South, especially in its southern portions, although it of course did not fight the war as a state, being federal (Indian) territory.
The factionalistic attitude of Weisbrot toward the southwest i.e. Texas and Oklahoma, and in fact neglect in that regards is common of course of course among southeasterners. Faulkner in his books describes a phrase to describe what happened to a lot of vagrant types in the post war between the states years "He's done up an gone to Texas". That's why Texas and Oklahoma had so many outlaws after the war, Clay Allison, Jesse James and others.
Its rather ungrateful it seems to me, since Texas volunteers so unselfishly left to fight and mostly die in the eastern parts of a Confederacy, for a confederate government that basically neglected the western front of the War for the Eastern front, and basically ended up losing the war because of it. That's why Texas was so lawless after the war, because so many of its best men had gone east and died, to be replaced by men of lessor stock such as deserters and outlaws.
It always seemed to me that Southern aristocrats have always been a little inconsistent in this regard. They're perfectly willing to claim prima donna people from Northern Missouri like Mark Twain or the James and Younger brothers for the Confederacy, but turn up their noses at those poor Texas dirt farmers.
Typical southern factiousness. Ask the "Tennessee, Virginia, or Georgia Southerners I have lived among in my life" what they think of their respective neighbors from different states, and which properly represents true southern virtues, and they won't be terribly complimentary either. :D
2003-05-02 20:34 | User Profile
Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much.
Well, don't let the Dynasty-and-Dallas types sour you fellow unreconstructed Rebs on Texas too much, they irritate us as much as they do you.
Also, I'm thinking we should dig a moat, complete with gators, right around Austin.
That's true, amigo. But realize in my case that I'm first generation removed from Winnsboro, Louisiana and Carbon Hill, Alabama. Those roots run deep.
Many generations removed from Virginia myself, but two generations of family men did answer the call for Texas in the War of Northern Aggression.
2003-05-03 18:01 | User Profile
Also, I'm thinking we should dig a moat, complete with gators, right around Austin.
Just as long as you let Eric Johnson out to tour.
:punk:
2003-05-05 01:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 15:43 ** > Originally posted by weisbrot@May 2 2003, 14:37 ** Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much. **
:) That's true, amigo. But realize in my case that I'm first generation removed from Winnsboro, Louisiana and Carbon Hill, Alabama. Those roots run deep. **
Carbon Hill?!?
My kids are two generations removed from Phil Campbell, which by the way has recently been thinking of doubling its stop-light count to two.
We might well be fambly, Tex, by marriage at least...
2003-05-05 01:44 | User Profile
***In the spirit of Southern unity, I'll note here that not a single one of all the Tennessee, Virginia, or Georgia Southerners I have lived among in my life would ever recognize an Okie as being from the South.
Understand that Texans squeak by now and then, but not by much.*
Typical attitude toward the border staters. Find a Nawthenaw who will accept Okies then.
Fact of the matter is Indian Territory furnished the South thousands of troops and one of its better generals, Stand Watie...**
Another fact being, Georgia and North Carolina sent Stand Watie's folk out there in the first place. Hey, it was a land dispute. Misunderstanding of sorts.> **
Typical southern factiousness.ÃÂ Ask the "Tennessee, Virginia, or Georgia Southerners I have lived among in my life" what they think of their respective neighbors from different states, and which properly represents true southern virtues,ÃÂ and they won't be terribly complimentary either.ÃÂ :D**
We have learned to tolerate each other in these trying times, although the West Virginians who try to claim Southern state status against all historical fact receive a chilly welcome. And Florida- at least the Gold Coast and the entire southern third of the state- is making itself quite unwelcome of late.