Why are the bigots in many southern communities generally more open and vocal about their views than elsewhere? My experience suggests that this is because prejudice is often times accepted as normal and is even encouraged in the south more often than in other parts of this country. People in, say, suburban Connecticut are less likely to speak up with racist views because they know such things to be frowned upon by the population as a whole. As a result, it is more likely that southerners will rally behind a candidate and put him in a position of power based on his race and stance on issues of race than people in Connecticut. The pathetic fool who quietly discriminates against specific races in his hiring practices is pretty fucking harmless in comparison to the politician put in power as a result of his past advocacy of segregation and his declared intention of shifting funds away from black communities to assist his white allies. The quiet racist is likely to have a change of heart since he already knows better than to publicly express his views. The rural southern racist who spouts hateful speech and finds nothing but approval and support from his neighbors is less likely to question his beliefs. I’ll take a hundred quiet, shamed racists over one comfortable, unchallenged, open racist with power any day.
I realize that it is an untestable assertion. This is not GD. I’m not required to provide proof positive. It shouldn’t take a drastic stretch of the imagination, however, to see that if they are racists and homophobes now (and I believe that their legislative records bear this out), they more than likely would have been racists and homophobes then as well. Subjective extrapolation.
The only problem I have with your thesis, Tymp, is the focus on southern communities. If you take a quick look at the Southern Law Center’s Intelligence Project map of hate groups, you’ll see there are plenty outside of the south. I seem to recall hearing that my home state of Pennsylvania has one of the largest populations of hate groups.
I can certainly understand what you’re getting at, Jeff, but I still believe that history and tradition have made prejudiced ideas more commonly accepted in the south. In addition, I think the actions of the local governments that slight minorities have been made possible only by the long-standing tradition of racism that is certainly more obvious in southern communities than elsewhere.
You’re not required to provide proof positive in GD either. It may be expected of you by the regulars more so than it is here, but it isn’t required. To me, though, the issue isn’t what is required, but what are you trying to accomplish? Are you attemping to convice me of your position? If so, required or not, you’ll have to provide proof. Which is why I noted that your claim was untestable; in the absence of some method of verifing its accuracy, I think its irrelevant and not particulary worthy of consideration.
If, on the other hand, you are attempting to convince others, people who have been reading this thread and have posted, or just lurked, then your subjective extrapolation may be sufficient.
Amok, I am not trying to convince you of anything. In fact, since you have made no statements concerning the topic of discussion, other than that you feel the appellation “slave masters” is beyond the pale, I don’t see what I’m supposed to be convincing you of. I was exaggerating for effect, but for the record, I do not believe that any insult levelled at Helms or Thurmond so far in this thread has been unjustified or uncalled-for, including “slave master,” “fossil,” or “mummy.” If you have trouble seeing the literal application of any of the terms used to describe these men (as you certainly should, because Sen. Thurmond is neither literally a fossil, a mummy, nor a slave master,) I suggest you choose to look at them in a more “metaphorical” light.
No, I’m twelve feet tall, covered in coarse fur, and I have two giant tusks jutting from my lower jaw. I like to eat meat very rare, and I can make a tree lose its leaves just by growling at it.
For the record, I also stated that “slave masters” was not literally accurate, but then that has never been under dispute.
I don’t see what you’d be convincing me of, either. However, you did reply to my first post in this thread, so I assumed you were trying to convey some point to me, or if not that, to use my post to make a point to the general audience. After having read that post, I wasn’t sure what point you might have been trying to make, and I’m not sure now. Perhaps you didn’t have one, but then why the response?
You’re quite free to use the term “slave master” as a metaphor for politicians you feel are racist. However, I am also free to express my disapproval of using the term in that way, and my thoughts that such demonization can only result in poorer debate, in the hopes that that will discourage its use. Which was my purpose in my first post.
My point, in brevis, which, by the way, doesn’t seem at all unclear to me even upon rereading our exchange: I am free to use any descriptor I find appropriate to describe racist politicians. You freely admit this. You certainly have the right to lodge a protest, and have done so. Readers may take a look at both arguments (which are really modifiers of each other…the central point - that the two men are racists - is not under contention.) We are discussing the discussion here. Again, I do not think it’s too much of a stretch to envision these folks as supporters of slavery, had they been around 150 years ago.
Sorry about that bad link on the previous page; I was trying to link directly to the page and avoid the frames. Try this link instead. Click on “List of Hate Groups” to get the page with the maps.
OK, Ogre. I think we’ve probably presented our all arguments at this point, so in the absence of new disagreement, I’m inclined to say that this has been discussed enough and let it go.
