Why is Southern History so Romanticized?

[BrentWil]

The south has many wonderful people and has a wonderful culture. This post is not meant to attack anyone in the south. However, it is meant to have an open and honest debate about history and the myths of history. Below I will write in general and regional terms, even though I know that some in the south were not with the general public sentiment during any of the periods I mention. This is meant to spark debate about how we understand history, not demean anyone.

With the said, the South has one of the most difficult and painful histories in the United States. From slavery, to reconstruction, to the civil rights fight, and today's racism, the South has a history that is ugly and has historically been on the wrong side of every cultural issue that this country has ever faced. Yet, America as a whole, not just southern America, has romanticized southern history and culture. From the Civil War movies today that minimize slavery in southern society, The Birth of a Nation in the 1920s, to school books that minimize difference in the Civil War and Reconstruction: America has a version of southern history and culture that is distorted. It is more like Gone with the Wind then the real ugly history. The myth of the south and its "lost cause" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy ) dominant the historical narrative.


This is compared to the history of the North. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other radical republicans stood for freedom and equality during the civil war period. Yet, they are almost totally forgotten. Even the few individuals that did fight for freedom and are somewhat remembered, such Frederick Douglass, are less known then someone like Robert E. Lee. We have forgotten that there were many people in the North that felt strong about slavery and wanted to end it. They were a driving factor in the creation of the Republican Party and the reason why that party was seen as such a threat by the South. They also fought hard for equality after the end of the civil war. Yet they are nearly forgotten.

My question is why? Why is the south so romanticized?

[TygrBright]

1. Well, the North is pretty romanticized, too.

Racism is very nasty in the North, it's just subtler and wears more of a veneer of socially acceptable excuses.

The north is where many of the most vicious capitalist robber barons exploited immigrants and the poor brutally in the big cities in the post-Civil War era. It's where factory owner set Pinkertons and goons on labor activists.

And don't get me started on what happened to the First Americans of the northern Plains.

helpfully,
Bright

[BrentWil]

4. A lot of that is simply forgotten history by everyone

However it is difficult to compare labour disputes to slavery in the scale of the brutality. Not that it wasn't absolutely awful. It just didn't match southern slavery.

However, in todays age, I would wish that people would remember those disputes and you would have a point if Southern history was forgotten. However, it wasn't forgotten. it was transformed by myth.

[TygrBright]

10. I think the genocide of first Americans is right up there with slavery. Lots of that up north. n/t

[BrentWil]

11. I agree with that NT

[Art_from_Ark]

23. After the North defeated the South, the Union Army focused on subduing Native Americans

Meanwhile, before the War, the South had promised autonomy to various tribes-- One reason why John Ross and his Cherokees decided to side with the Confederacy.

[BrentWil]

24. Military force both Southern and Northern was used against Native Americans before the war

And there is no reason to think that an independent CSA would have done any different.

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Before the war, the Southern military force was under Federal command

However, John Ross, whose Cherokees had been expelled from Georgia 3 decades earlier by Federal forces, felt that the South would keep its word.

[BrentWil]

27. Native Americans had a long history of thinking Europeans would keep their words..

Disappointed nearly every time.

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Admittedly, John Ross was hesitant to side with the Confederacy

and there were many in his tribe who wanted to remain neutral. And Southern forces did attack Indians who sided with the Union. So it was a very difficult situation for the various Okalahoma tribes.

[grasswire]

2. Do you have a theory?

It's an interesting question.

[BrentWil]

3. Yes...

People that loss really big wars generally create myths about them while the other side is generally ready to move on. I think a lot of this is why the South was able to write the history and enforce Jim Crow laws, eventually. Reconstruction was a failure because of terrible leadership (Johnson), but also because the North was ready to forget the war. On the other hand, the South HAD to reshape the war with myths.

[hifiguy]

38. I think you're on to something.

Reconstruction should have lasted until 1900 or so. The South never truly accepted that it was defeated in the Civil War.

Compare Southern intransigence, which exists to this day on many issues, to what happened in Japan and Germany after WW II. The Japanese and Germans were forced to confront the fact that they, and their ideologies, had been totally defeated. Nazism and militant Japanese imperialism were destroyed and cast on to the ash heap of history and Japan and Germany became responsible, democratic world citizens and dynamic economic miracles in the post WW II era. The South never went through that process and, as soon as the federal troops were gone, promptly reinstated the closest thing to slavery they could in the form of Jim Crow, which dominated the South for the next 100 years.

Lincoln was a great man, a great leader and a great President but his attitude towards the postwar fate of the South was far too charitable.

[antigone382]

53. Now hold on a second...

In my understanding, reconstruction is viewed to have been a failure precisely because after Lincoln's death, reconstruction became far *less* charitable. The fact is that the south was not educationally or financially prepared to adapt to industrialization in the way that the North had, and without addressing those issues, culture change was not going to succeed.

Another thing to take into account is that Jim Crow was not merely a product of the South. Racial tensions were very intentionally stoked by pro-big business interests (many of them located in the North) anxious to prevent a powerful populist political movement uniting the poor across racial and ethnic lines. You can read the history of how coal companies very intentionally mixed their workforce between local whites, blacks, immigrants, and convicts, and deliberately fed the hostilities between these groups to prevent their organizing into effective unions. Certainly, Jim Crow fed on attitudes that were prevalent in the south--but it was not merely the South thumbing their noses at the North and calls for a united human fellowship. The architects of the ideology which led to Jim Crow were powerful businessmen, and the politicians they owned.

[BrentWil]

56. The Radical Republicans in the Senate wanted policies that President Johnson did not enforce...

Rather the policies were more or less charitable was not the primary cause of failure. It failed because the federal government never had a clear goal or purpose and was never unified.

Plus the question is charitable to who? Most people who make your above argument are pointing to forcing the south to pass the reconstruction constitutional amendments. Those should have been at least the start of giving African Americans the vote, but failed because of the ineffectiveness of the federal government.

[brewens]

5. Interesting that desertion was such a huge problem for the south.

One might be careful about bragging they had a Confederate veteran ancestor. Not that you could blame them in many situations. If you don't have shoes, food or amunition, you might as well go home.

[BrentWil]

7. One of the most forgotten things is US Soldiers that were from the South..

Every Confederate State had Soldiers that remained loyal.

[The Straight Story]

6. Why is America so romanticized?

I am 46 years old. For much of my life my country has been involved in wars. We let the sick suffer, have no national health care, have no problem using our tax dollars to kill others but get up in arms when it comes to spending money on saving lives.

I can't complain about the south and how they see themselves, I am busy enough trying to explain to people that the America they are waving their little flags over is pretty bad. Slave labor? We gladly pay to have slaves make our iPhones and computers.

The south has nothing on the nation as a whole these days.

[BrentWil]

9. I think you have to see things in relation to the past

Are there problems in both China and India, for example? No question. However, they have both taken amazing steps towards poverty reduction. Here, the South is changing something that wasn't by myths.

The US does some really bad things in the world and could improve its domestic policies. With that said, the comparison of working conditions in China to Southern slavery is not accurate.

[antigone382]

54. I'm pretty confident at least as much brutality goes into our goods today as in the past.

Make no mistake, America and its consumers have bloody, bloody hands. Just one example, do a little research on the acknowledged prevalence of child slavery in chocolate production--in no way is that morally superior to Southern slavery. We have not ended exploitation and squalor, we have only outsourced it.

[JI7]

8. partly because the South lost, part of it is cultural, you might get the same romantiicism

from liberals in the same area.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. A couple books you might want to check out, if you have

a chance:

W.J. Cash's "The Mind of the South" (1941) - oldie but goodie that deconstructs the Cavalier myth

Alan Nolan's "Lee Considered" (1996) - totally destroys the myths that have grown up around Robert E. Lee.

**********************

I think you are asking two separate (but connected) questions:

Why is the South (Lee) remembered when Northerners of similar or superior stature have faded?

and

Why is the South romanticized (at the expense of reality)?

*********************

To the first question, I would say I'm not sure I agree. I think John Brown is as well remembered as Robert E. Lee, although Brown conquered far less territory and commanded far fewer men. Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant are both equal in memory to Lee, as is probably W.T. Sherman

To the second question, I blame historical ignorance and a lack of critical thinking skills. The ante-bellum South is certainly not romanticized by African Americans, nor by anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the history of the time.

[BrentWil]

22. THanks...

And figures from the North are remembered, but how are they remembered. Grant is mainly remembered as a General, and disconnected from the political causes of the war. Lincoln is remembered as a strong leader who mainly wanted to preserve the Union. Sherman as a war criminal. Brown as a crazy man. The figures that are remembered and how they are remembered tell a story.

Moreover, the figures that are totally forgotten also tell a story. Why are the radical republicans not praised in schools across this country?

[T S Justly]

13. Having lived in Savannah for twenty-five years, I can tell you ...

I don't know.

[Zorra]

14. "radical republicans stood for freedom and equality"

They were a driving factor in the creation of the Republican Party and the reason why that party was seen as such a threat by the South. They also fought hard for equality after the end of the civil war.

Too bad republicans haven't done anything decent since then, huh?

[provis99]

15. black Southerners don't romanticize its history; only white Southerners do.

too many people identify the South only with white Southerners, and forget about black Southerners entirely.
but I think that's yet another example of white Southern romanticism and racism; totally obliterating black Southern culture from acknowledgement.

The real problem is not "Southerners" being reactionary and ideological; the problem is WHITE southerners being reactionary and ideological.

[RZM]

17. Black southerners might not venerate the racist past of the south

But I think many blacks certainly venerate other aspects of the south. You see a lot of southern regional pride in the African American population. That goes back a long way too. W.E.B. Dubois famously asserted that black Americans should embrace the south and not run away from it. Recent history has also shown that the great migration may be slowly reversing, as some northern blacks are seeking their fortunes in the south. I've seen it argued that Atlanta is emerging as a the 21st century equivalent of Harlem, i.e. the city that most epitomizes contemporary black culture.

[BrentWil]

20. I know.. I just didn't think putting White in the title would be smart

I didn't want to add race to the mix. I want to talk about history and myths and if I added white, the OP would already be hidden.

[piedmont]

16. Considering the frequency that many non-southerners attempt to rub our noses in "our" history...

I find it hard to believe your premise. Southern history is deemed as entirely rotten and without merit by some folks and held in a golden glow by others. Your post is but the latest in a long line of "let me teach you southerners about how awful your history is" posts on DU and elsewhere but it's not news to anybody I know.

[BrentWil]

19. Well, I am southern...

And there are certainly people who are very negative on the south. History nor region represents me or who I am. I do not mean this to offend anyone. I meant this as a look at myths. I used the South for the reason of responses. However, the thread would be just as valid if I used Serbian populations and the Battle of Kosovo.

[piedmont]

25. For some reason there's always going to be a yearning for the "good old days" in any population...

For white southerners in the period between 1865 and WWII, let's face it: antebellum times really were the "good old days." I have somewhere around 60-80 ancestors who were living across the south before and just after the war. Only 2 ever owned slaves, but most suffered economic hardship that lasted until their descendants could enjoy better lives in the 1950s. It was like the Great Depression lasted 80 years here.

We do the same now with the 1950s. It was a time when America was on top of the world economically and every region of the country prospered. But we gloss over the low value that society placed on women and minorities, the Eugenics programs running amok, and the ramping up of environmental destruction on a scale never before seen. Especially for conservatives, it was the Golden Age of America.

[dogknob]

18. Gone With The Wind

Most people give a pass to Scarlett O'Hara's big "strong businesswoman" move that puts her company on top: her not-even-a-thought decision to use prison labor.

I guess shooting the Yankee that was robbing her house cancels it out.

[WillyT]

21. Considering They Got Their Asses Kicked... I Don't Know...

You tell me.

[just1voice]

28. Here's a great article on the topic

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153598/why_the_white_south_is_still_in_denial_about_slavery/

[EFerrari]

30. I can't figure out if this thread is really about storytelling or about idealization.

People generally idealize something because there's a locus of pain there, imo, the way you put extra frosting on a cracked cake top to hold the cake together and hide the fissure.

And repeating the idealization in story is comforting, that's what people do, tell stories to give our brains something to do besides worry about fighting or flying.

The Civil War will never be over because it was that painful, that traumatic. And so, neither will the stories we repeat about it ever fall out of use, again, imho.

[Aristus]

31. Attention all Southerners reading this thread:

I'm from a Southern family whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy.

Having said that, the romanticization of the South is how the former Confederates tried to wash the smell of loser off of themselves. "Dang, fellers! We fought a war to save slavery, an' we lost! Now, how are we gonna 'splain alla this to our kids?"

I've always been sickened by the white (pun very much intended)-washing of Southern racism, provincialism, backwardness, and sheer unadulterated evil as regards to slavery. It was wrong, it was a sin, and it was awful, but there are people out there still flying the Southern Cross and insisting that "The South will rise again!".

Just because I'm Southern-born and raised doesn't mean I have to buy in to that horseshit. And I don't...

[EFerrari]

32. We have a number of stories we tell about different parts of the country.

It's not only the South that gets idealized, there's the original 13 colonies or New England, the Bridges of Madison County / heartland, the hugeness of Texas, the West. We tell ourselves all kinds of stories to drown out different, regional original sins.

[Ishoutandscream2]

37. Have I told you lately how wonderful you are?

[Aristus]

46. I agree with you that every distinct region in the country

romanticizes its past, and carefully papers over the unpleasant facts. But slavery (after the early years of the 1800's) was institutionalized nowhere in the U.S. other than the South. The same for the subsequent Jim Crow laws. Racism is everywhere. Legal sanction of that same racism is not...

[EFerrari]

47. You are right about that to a degree. I don't want to minimize

slavery or the way it gets whitewashed, softened or even elided at times.

It's more that given human culture and its need to tell stories that soften painful history and that idealize itself, it's not surprising or unique that the South does it or that the whole country joins in on that particular revision in some way. The whole country contributed to that system, too, in some way.

On the other hand, there was de facto slavery in California at the missions. When the coastal peoples died of overwork, hunger and disease, the good fathers went inland to round up more forced labor. I'd have to look at a schoolbook but when I was in school, our unit on the "Mission system" didn't include any of that.

The other day I set out to look up something about "sundown towns". They weren't all in the south by a long shot. Jim Crow was officially only on the books in the South, but unofficially, tacitly, it was all over the country. Out here in California, Chicano children and Asian children had their own, lousy, schools. Juan Gonzales' new book shows how the American media itself (not only media in the South) organized and promoted instances of racial violence. And that great migration out of the South by black people after WW2 was followed by the migration of whites out of cities into the red-lined whites-only suburbs that so many of us grew up in.

It's important to insist on the real history of the South but it would be a mistake, imho, to pretend that history happened apart from the rest of the country, or that racial oppression largely ended after the South lost its war. It's not history, it's not even past, to misquote Faulkner.

[XemaSab]

49. I was going to chime in at your first post to say that California history was DEFINITELY whitewashed

Maybe it's because we learn about California history in 4th grade and never, ever discuss the topic again, but there isn't a chapter in the history of this state that didn't have a lot of ugliness.

The missions and the vaqueros? Check.

The gold rush? Check.

The late 1800 and early 1900s when we were exploiting the Chinese and killing the Indians, the big trees, and most of our wild critters? Check.

The great depression? Check.

For every person who came here and struck it rich, there's probably 50 more people who got bashed in the head for a week's wage like my great, great grandpa.

[REP]

58. I believe the unit now does discuss the enslavement of the native people

...at least I know the unit my buddy teaches damn well does. Not the "had their land, culture and language stolen from them in exchange for suffering, slavery and a white god" language I'd like, but the point is made.

I learned about the missions in my home town (Kansas City, MO whereright across the border in Kansas there are suburbs called Shawnee Mission, Mission, etc) and how those people were forced into slavery and taught to hate their own language and religion. When I moved to California, I was surprised at how pallid the Mission unit was here, in the 21st century, compared to what I learned in Missouri in the 70s.

[moriah]

33. Given that I utilize the fact I'm a "Southern belle" for work quite often....

... yeah, it is romanticized. There is something just awfully cute about a person being able to tell you how much of a jerk you are but in a tone and accent and word choice that it leaves you smiling.

Ever hear about the judge who tried Bundy? One of his favorite expressions was "Bless your heart" -- which usualy has an unspoken "God" before it and "because the rest of us want to throttle the shit out of you" at the end. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19790717&id=jh4qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CYgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1437,4527813 is an example of a quote from that judge.

There are a lot of good things about the South. "Southern hospitality", for one. But it cuts both ways -- it can be confusing for the poor Yankees who come here.... they invite me over and I'll confuse the hell out of them by not just flat-out asking if I can make myself something to drink... because I'm used to a host offering refreshment, and if they don't that there's a reason they're not (like, all they have is water and they're ashamed, or they really don't want me to stay that long but are too nice to say so). They're more used to people who are up-front and saying what they need. Or how I don't invite myself over to someone's house unless I *really* know them well -- it's just not polite! And then the poor Northerners think I'm stuck up or just don't want to see them... and that's not it at all. Their house might be a wreck and I don't want them to have to go to the effort of making it presentable just on my account, or they might just want to have a quiet night at home. The whole idea of "I don't want to impose...."

----------

In regards to romanticizing history, I think there's also a lot of people who always like to take the side of the underdog. I have a tendency to do it myself. Not about the history in my state, whether it's the Civil War and how many battles were fought here, or more recent history like the Little Rock desegregation crisis. Little Rock is still highly segregated when you look at the maps for residences.

[Taverner]

45. I did a lot of sales in the South...

And it changed me, in that 'Sir' and 'Maam/Miss' entered into my vocabulary, and stays there to this day.

I found those words open a lot of doors down there. So do keys, but for different reasons

[REP]

59. Those are the kind of manners I was brought up with in the North

At least on the "Northern" side of the Missouri Compromise. Unless you know someone very, very well (or are in dire medical need), asking for food or drink is rude; if it is to be given, it will be offered. Same for invitations.

[The Genealogist]

34. Americans tend to romanticize a lot of history

Look at how the 1950s are romanticized as some kind of pure, innocent time. There are variations on the romanticization, of course. Women stayed home and cleaned house in high-heeled pumps, pearls and full skirts. Dad went off to work every morning cheerful and chipper. There was a Bible on every table, and everyone went to church every Sunday. Nobody got abortions or talked about sex. Yadda yadda yadda. The 1950s, of course, were not all that, as most anyone who has knowledge of the period will tell you. There were racial tensions. Jim Crow was still in full force. Even in northern states like Iowa, Ohio, Indiana there were sundown towns, where one would see signs saying things like "Don't like the sun set on you in Mayberry, N****er." Many people lived in poverty and struggled to get by, and were prayed upon by easy credit scams. Tailgunner Joe and others like him were getting artists, actors and others blacklisted and jailed in an anti-communistic orgy. People were in constant fear of being bombed by the USSR. But so much of this gets swept under the rug or whitewashed by those who want to "return to simpler times."

The same is true of the romanticized South. There are ugly, ugly truths and traditions in the South (as there are in other places too; the US South hardly has a monopoly on ugly truths and traditions) that get whitewashed and downplayed. Perhaps the truth is ugly enough in certain historical cases that it must be sugarcoated to be endured. The danger comes when the sugar coating allows us to forget the bitter truths and traditions that it masks.

[hughee99]

43. It's not hard to find those who have romanticized the 60's either. n/t

[Raine]

35. 4 words ... GONE WITH THE WIND

[HopeHoops]

36. Outhouses?

I've got an outhouse calendar in the downstairs bathroom - second year now - and some of them are really cool!

[GoCubsGo]

40. Because they lost.

Romanticizing it is a way of saving face.

[BrendaBrick]

41. On a related topic about history in general

Comedian Robert Wulh had an interesting 2 part comedy/documentary which aired on HBO entitled: "Assume The Position With Mr. Wuhl":

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_the_Position_with_Mr._Wuhl

"Assume the Position with Mr. Wuhl is a 2 part comedy and documentary show on HBO. It stars actor Robert Wuhl. The show looks at the facts and myths of American history in a comedic view.

Assume the Position

The first part of the series debuted in 2006. In this edition Wuhl "Assumes the Position" that History is Pop Culture. He discusses topics such as the real story behind Paul Revere's Midnight Ride, first sentence of the U.S. Constitution being a "grammatical fuck-up", and how he believes that "star fucking," or the phenomenon of the U.S. public becoming infatuated with celebrity figures, and "gay battle cries" are "as American as apple pie."

In part two, which debuted in July 2007, Wuhl "Assumes the Position" that History is Based on a True Story. This time he talks about the lack of diversity among the U.S. Presidents, how lousy leaders are as American as apple pie, and his class plays "Real or No Real" determining whether various food icons, such as Chef Boyardee and Aunt Jemima, were real people or not."

Here is a YouTube video showing both parts (about an hour):

[BrentWil]

48. Very interesting....

I totally agree. Myths of history tell you just as much about us as history does.

[BrendaBrick]

57. yep. bottom line n/t

[MNBrewer]

42. American history is romanticized in general.

[XemaSab]

50. To such an extent

that one might be able to put forth an argument that no history should be taught before middle school, when kids are old enough to handle a little moral complexity.

[BrentWil]

55. History should never be "taught"

It should be discussed. History, the actual events are in the past. All we have is records of history and our ability to make meaning of them. It is a discussion and a debate. History, in my view, is at its weakest when it is "taught".

[BrentWil]

61. All history is, to a certain degree

For example Serbian history.

[XemaSab]

62. I was thinking about this earlier

I can't think of too much in American history that isn't romanticized.

The civil war and the great depression, the two worst things we've ever faced as a country, are romanticized.

Brave soldiers fighting for the freedom of a people versus other brave soldiers fighting for a way of life. Huge WPA projects and people setting out looking for a better life out west.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that isn't romanticized is World War I.

[Taverner]

44. Often people reinvent things they should be ashamed of...

Also, if you were rich and white during the Antebellum days, life WAS pretty good.

Anything else, however...

[1gobluedem]

51. Read Tony Horowitz' Confederates in the Attic

It explores this question very well.

[arely staircase]

60. aren't you really asking why do so many southerners romanticize the civil war?

and if so, i think the answer (for the non-racist romanticizers) is a general affinity and sympathy for old local lost causes. The Scots, 1745 and Bonnie Price Charlie come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Edward_Stuart

[Major Nikon]

63. A lot of Southern culture comes from the slave populations and subsequent freed slaves

So sure there was a lot of ugly, but there's also a lot of great cultural things that came out of that. We can't just pretend that it didn't happen and act shamefully at the mention of Southern history.

People also tend to romanticize a lot of Greek and Roman history, which was built to an even larger degree on the efforts of slavery.

[Tom Ripley]

65. It's all those Walter Scott wannabes

[aaaaaa5a]

66. Outstanding Post!

Remember this.

The south for most of its political history was a democratic stronghold. This was because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he helped end slavery and save the country. Lincoln and the Republicans were so hated, that during the 1860 Presidential election, Lincoln's name wasn't even placed on the ballot in Alabama. For most of our history, there is nothing on earth meaner or or more blood-thristy than an old traditional southern Democrat. Because of the Lincoln, from 1860 on, the Democrats controlled the south. In history, the south is even referred to as the "solid block" because it was so incredibly Democratic.

Then during the 1950s and 60s, a new breed of Democrats emerged. And YES THEY WERE PRIMARILY FROM THE NORTH. They supported civil rights, women's rights, the rights of workers etc. etc. etc.

And what happened?

From the 1960s to the 1980s the South went from a solid Democratic voting block to a southern Republican block! Old time dangerous southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond even changed parties in protest of equality for all! Today the south is solidly Republican. (What a coincidence!) Amazingly when I lived in South Carolina there were some very young people there who didn't even know that Thurmond spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. I had to explant to them that he only changed parties at the very end of his political career to try and stop people like his biracial daughter from having the opportunity for equal rights under the constitution. It is really amazing!

What ever side is in favor of education, science, equal rights, equality and social justice.... the south is on the other side.


Try this. Google a map of the 1860 Presidential election. And then google a map of the 2008 election. Look at the areas of the country where Lincoln and Obama did well (The North). Look where they did poorly (The South). It's almost scary how identical the two maps are for elections held 148 years apart.


Presidential Election 1860 (Lincoln in blue)



Presidential Election 2008 (Obama in red)


I often think I could get into a time machine and go off 500 years into the future. I would then look at a presidential political map of the last election. And with one look at the south, I would know which side is in the best interest of the country and all people. And which side is ignorant, racist, sexist, mean, etc. etc. etc.

Yes.. it is that simple. And for some reason, we are all suppose to dance around the giant pink elephant in the room and ignore how incredibly bad the south, its history, its culture and the political viewpoints of its people have been for America.


By definition, the confederate flag is the most anti-American symbol in the history of this country. To any historically accurate and objective American, (regardless of race) it should be far more offensive than even a Nazi war flag. But of course we can't correctly say that... because we have to protect THE HISTORIC TRUTH ABOUT THE SOUTH.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. .

[BrentWil]

68. In honor of a very good move.. bump. NT