I think we’re getting a bit off topic.
The racial underpinning of the south was matched by the same underpinning in the north. Southerners are trying to deny their racist pasts but so are Northerners. IMO this linkage was ideological and crossed party but not necessarily religious line. Blacks were forbidden to live in white northern neighborhoods just as they were in the south. If things were so much better in the north why did it take the vast labor shortages of WWII for blacks to migrate in mass north?
Who?
None of us did anything (with regards to slavery). These are all dead people. Any “outrage” is about denial of actual history with regards to the treatment of black people.
What you seem to be saying is that we mustn’t focus in on any specific problem areas, that it would just be better if we pretended that all sides were/are equally guilty so why point fingers? That might work except for two small problems:
- It just ain’t the truth.
- The south is the side that keeps raggin’ on about “Southern Pride” and flying their flag, to the point of actually rigging it in one state so that their loser flag flew high while others were at half mast during a tragedy, because only the legislature could authorize it’s lowering!
In my lifetime, IIRC.
I’ll bite. Before the end of slavery in the South, exactly how many employers in the North were legally permitted to go after, kidnap, and return to employment Black workers? How many employers in the North were legally permitted to whip Black employees?
When Blacks were being denied enlistment in the federal military (and still being prohibited from commissioning), were the Irish also being treated that way?
100% agree that black lives in the slave-owning south were far worse than anything happeninbg in the north. But I wonder how much better they were after the war. Why were northern blacks forced to live in ghettos? Why didnt Robert Moses build parks in black neighborhoods and why was he allowed to get away with it? My real only point in this discussion is that this is an american issue and focusing solely on the south does little to shed light on the larger problem of racism.
Except there were black troops in the Union (and Southern) army. Ironically, during the Irish draft riots in NYC several blacks were lynched. The Irish were both perpetrators and victims of racism.
Nah, it’s not necessarily weird to put a foreign flag in your truck window. There’s an SUV parked near my apartment with a тризуб stuck on the back.
Lie.
Only a tiny handful, and only at the bitter end. The claim is highly misleading at best.
Are you seriously equating not building parks in northern cities with things like the borderline slavery sharecropper system, the voting supression, the lynchings, etc. That’s all equalled by a lack of parks in black neighborhoods up North?!
Seriously, what the everloving fuck?
Robert Moses was more fuck-the-poor than racist. F’rinstance, he made all the overpasses on the Long Island parkways too low for buses to clear, so only people with cars could go to his favorite beaches.
But yeah, horrible comparison.
What’s your point? All that shows is that the drastically higher proportion of black people in the postbellum South were a legitimate political threat to the established white powers-that-were.
That doesn’t at all prove that Northern whites were less racist; it just shows that the black populations in those areas weren’t considered politically or socially threatening.
Those black people in the South were coming right at us!!!
I’m not all that interested in attitudes – I’m interested in actions… and by their actions, white people in the Southern states generally behaved in a more racist way than white people in the Northern states.
You’re wrong, and twice. First, anti-Irish bigotry is not racism, as the Irish were of the same race as their Anglo oppressors. It’s ethnic bigotry, not racial bigotry.
And second, it’s very widely recognized and discussed. No one tries to hide it, sweep it under the rug, or deny it happened. You’re completely wrong in your claim that it’s “rarely ever acknowledged.” It’s a very commonly mentioned example of bigotry here on the SDMB.
If the Confederacy hsd conquered the US army that was matching on the South, they would have declared independence. That would have created a hugely different scenario for all of the states, US and Confederate. It is difficult to sensibly speculate, but that never stopped anyone before. 
In the US, any and all Confederate flags would be viewed as representing a foreign country as the most benign to being viewed as tragic, traitorous, to racist and evil.
Within the Confederate states, those flags would likely be seen as symbols of righteous defenders against oppression fighting for their own liberty, a new “Declaration of Independence” kind of thing.
What you are overlooking is not just the symbology of the flag with regards to the Civil War, but it’s role as a symbol of racism and oppression post war and through the Civil Rights movement, and the visible representation by Klan groups and other racists. It is difficult to conceive of how history would have been different.
Would the South’s economy have tabled anyway? Could that have forced an economy shift that broke slavery?
Would there been a southern slave uprising, funded and supported by foreign powers?
Would the South have held slavery until the twentieth century, and WWI had an element in North America? Would the United Nations have been required to force them to change?
What would civil rights look like in the rest of the US?
Lots of unanswerable "what if"s.
Why does this discussion have to be about the larger problem of racism as a whole? Why not be able to look at one small element for this discussion?
Oh look, you failed to bring up the oppression of Chinese immigrants and their elite building the railroads.
And don’t forget the Native Americans.
And you can’t discount the bigotry many Vietnamese immigrants faced.
And what about apartheid in South Africa? How can you leave that out?
Yeah, but in this case, you can’t really point at it and screech “Racism!”, because it doesn’t necessarily show a unique instance of racism, instead, merely the point where the pervasive racism of the times intersected with political power. The point I was trying to make is that in say… Indiana, there may have been 3% black people, and even if all of them voted the same way, and lived in the same place, it might have affected a local election. But in the South, the black population was a huge percentage- ISTR that postbellum the percentage may have been over 50% in many areas, so that posed a huge threat to the powers- that-were. It didn’t even have to be racist - take any entrenched elite, and then with a stroke of a pen, increase their opposition by 50%, and you’ll see policies enacted to mitigate that impact. IMO, that’s a consequence of having the reins of power and being significantly challenged, not necessarily of racism.
It’s like saying that a city like say… San Antonio was notably more friendly to the Occupy movement versus a city like Seattle, because the Seattle cops used pepper spray on the protesters, and San Antonio didn’t. In point of fact, the Occupy SA protest was extremely small. So the lack of a forceful police response doesn’t prove anything except San Antonio’s movement was too small to provoke such a response, and certainly doesn’t say anything about the relative friendliness of the two cities to the goals and objectives of the movement.