Then those three pose as a lot of other people and make a disproportionate amount of noise (fortunately, not as much on the Dope as in former days). A quote from a letter to the editor of my local paper this week, evidently from a Southern transplant or individual expressing pride in his Confederate heritage:
“The states that formed the Confederacy did so by seceding from the United States and forming their own government, which emphasized states’ rights. Once the Union troops invaded Confederate soil, the citizens had no choice but to take up arms and defend themselves.”
You really think there’s only three people in the South who believe these distortions? I’m sure the majority know better, but this is the sort of thing that feeds continuing stereotypes and resentment.
I don’t think the writer’s heritage is at all evident, except that he seems to have had at least one ancestor in the Confederate army – and that is only an inference. YMMV.
“Three” was an exagerration, of course. It might be 20 or 30.
Seriously, though, I’d be interested to know more about the writer … especially his age and where exactly he grew up.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans have been the most vocal source of the “It was about states’ rights!” claim in recent years. Or, rather, a loud, activist subset of that organization. In fact, that activism has apparently caused a schism in the group between those who simply want to preserve history and those who want to promote a revisionist view of the War.
I think this is is a matter of perspective, and depends on how you’re defining “clinging” and “meme.” My experience, from living in the South for almost three years now, is that Southerners who are interested in Civil War era history do tend to embrace a romanticized narrative. (And, not incidentally, an almost exclusively white narrative, the African-American perspective being really hard to romanticize.) I’m not talking about university scholars – and I should say that there is very balanced scholarship on the issues from academics – I’m talking about the impression you get from visiting battlefields, plantations, museums, and monuments. There is more than a whiff of wistfulness for the lost glory of the antebellum South.
I guess that might be considered a “micro-focus” since I am talking solely about those who are interested in the era anyway, but I do struggle with it. I am aware of an obligation to be both open-minding and respectful but, as a Northerner, I really see a lot of it as whitewashing historical reality. For that group at least, in my experience the POV Jackmannii is talking about is far more than a meme.
Since the writer of that letter has an unusual surname, I took the liberty of Googling him. Of interest: Shonk family Civil War veterans, according to Ancestry.com. One Confederate veteran, seven Union veterans, FWIW (not much).
I’d have to go out of my way – here in the New Orleans area – to find someone my age who would throw that kind of stuff in my face at every turn. That is, someone who is ardent about it.
I know personally one octogenarian who thinks that way about the Civil War. But in my experience (and what else do we really have to go on?), from the Baby Boomer generation on down, romaticization of the Civil War just isn’t a part of the personal cultural makeup.
But how does it become part of your experience of the South, then? Do small things – or what Southerners may take as small things – become huge sore thumbs to folks like you and Jackmannii? The “matter of perspective” you mentioned earlier?
Here’s what may perhaps be an analogous – if over-the-top – example: someone on another board (a mid-20s Arizonan, FWIW) mentioned visiting New Orleans and being appalled that there was a statue of Robert E. Lee right smack dab on St. Charles Avenue (Lee Circle, for those familiar with the city). For him, that statue was the be-all and end-all for his impressions of the entire Southern U.S. – the default Southerner, to him, was a racist ass who venerated Confederate War heroes and pined for the return of slavery.
Yet native New Orleans – white and black – drive by that statue (and others of other Confederate generals) everyday and give it no notice at all. There’s been no protest over the statue that I’m aware of, and I’ve never seen a hint of umbrage from anyone in the community. At the same time, that statue was far and away the most notable thing about the city to that visitor.
Is that kind of thing happening often, just on smaller and less extreme scales?
Sort of. If you notice something over and over and over again, you begin to perceive it as part of the ethos of the place (which hardly makes it a “sore thumb” to me). Even if it’s just as simple as you not noticing because you grew up there and me noticing because I didn’t, that doesn’t make my perception any less valid than yours. The POV I’m talking about doesn’t disappear just because you as a native overlook it; it’s not like I’ve personally made it up.
As a counter-example: As you probably know, Richmond’s Monument Avenue is a beautiful boulevard lined on both sides with statues of Confederate leaders. Does it memorialize the heroism of valiant warriors and the ideal of the “old South,” or the wrongheadedness of oppressors who ultimately lost the conflict in question? Is it natural to find such an impressive monument in such a historic place, or is it bizarre to find it in an ostensibly modern, inclusive city? It’s all POV, and it’s not like one is valid and the other isn’t. It’s also not like the South collectively has made up its mind on the issue, as the controversy about adding Arthur Ashe’s statue shows. (Cite; Cite.) Even all y’all don’t always know what this stuff means.
Don’t get me wrong; I see your POV and I respect it. But there is a legitimate opposing POV and I don’t think it’s accurate to dismiss at as a “micro-focus” or a “meme.” That’s all.
And it’s not like I took a straw poll of black folks, but I’ve never met one who would raise their voice to object if every statue of Jeff Davis and REL was summarily tossed in the sea. I assume they don’t object to such things because (a) they’re used to them, as you are; and (b) they don’t consider it a battle worth the time,energy, or effort to pick.
Hey, as long as you’re not sitting there telling me I’m a racist ignorant god-bothering hookwormy Tobacco Road-living trucker hat wearing barefoot stereotype, and thinking it’s okay because surely those words are too big for me to read, we cool.
Born in New York, living in Virginia, and I say no, not generally. Dopers do tend to be really critical of the Confederacy, but complaining about the Confederacy and the actions of the south in the 1860s is different than criticizing the south now.
Shuckins, I’ve lived her 52 and sometimes use it as singular. I wish I could find a cite about the East Texas dialect that uses it that way, but I’ll hush up so we won’t fight in front of foreigners.
New Yorker, and no. Being highly critical of the CSA or displays of the Confederate flag are not the same as being highly critical of the modern day South or Southerners, though it often descends into hissy fits on both sides around those topics.
Not southern, and I don’t think the South gets any more criticism than other places - Texas is the exception, but it’s such an easy target given our current President is from there.
