Southerners must not be "insensitive"
I thought that Perez Hilton was exceedingly insensitive and terminally offensive in his comments about Miss California but that is OK, apparently. Only certain people have to be "sensitive"
"A white fraternity that traces its roots to the Civil War and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee is again facing complaints over its antebellum-themed events.
This time, University of Alabama alumnae are upset after Kappa Alpha Order members wearing Confederate uniforms and carrying battle flags paraded past a historically black sorority as the women celebrated the group's 35th anniversary.
The fraternity has been forced to halt its "Old South" festivities on some campuses because of claims of racial insensitivity, and Alabama members have apologized for pausing in front of Alpha Kappa Alpha's sorority house during this year's parade.
Alpha Kappa Alpha members said there was no confrontation or taunting, but they were shocked to see fraternity members in rebel uniforms and white women from another sorority in hoop skirts.
"I don't believe these young folks were in any way trying to be racist," said Joyce Stallworth, an Alpha Kappa Alpha alumna who saw the April 29 parade in Tuscaloosa and is an associate education dean at Alabama. "But they were being insensitive. I don't think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing."
Source
35 comments:
"But they were being insensitive. I don't think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing."
There are NO broader implications. It is a representation of part of U.S. history. As Americans, (and citizens of any other country for that matter) we can't pick and choose what happened in our past. We must accept ALL of history. There are many whose relatives served bravely for a cause in which they strongly believed. Denying that is no less than denying the glory due to "the greatest generation", Viet Nam soldiers, and any other group of people who fought for rights and against oppression.
And by all means, do some reading about why the Civil War was fought. Slavery was really a very small part of the issue.
Implications? There are implications, but they are misinterpreted. Did you know that in the South, there were MANY Black land owners who owned slaves? Did you know that many in the North owned slaves?
This is absolutely not a black-racist issue. It is about heritage, pride, and honor.
"This is absolutely not a black-racist issue. It is about heritage, pride, and honor."
Did you ever live in Alabama? I have. It IS about racism.
And by all means, do some reading about why the Civil War was fought. Slavery was really a very small part of the issue.Please educate us. Please tell us what other overwhelming issues caused the Civil War other than slavery.
Did you ever live in Alabama? I have. It IS about racism.You may be right. The fraternity has its founding in the south AFTER the Civil War and includes all races of members.
The sorority, on the other hand, is "historically black" and maintains that heritage to this day.
It is racism, but not the type you are thinking of.
Can you deal with the truth? If you can, you know that generally speaking, the most racist people in this country, are blacks. If you can't deal with the truth, just keep believing the crap that blacks and their White, liberal enablers have been feeding you.
The University of Alabama always gets a bad rap because their fraternities and sororities are completely segregated (by choice).
There are also accusations about a secret society of mostly white students that ran the campus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine
With that said, the Civil War is part of the heritage of every southern family, no different than mexicans celebrating Cesar Chavez or the Irish dressing in green for St. Patricks.
It is important for southerners to maintain their identity, keep their language, celebrate their traditions, and avoid the cultural contamination from the so-called "mainstream."
And if the blacks don't like it, there are plenty of black-only colleges and liberal institutions they can attend.
Anonymous said...
"And by all means, do some reading about why the Civil War was fought. Slavery was really a very small part of the issue." Please educate us. Please tell us what other overwhelming issues caused the Civil War other than slavery. My God, are you actually serious? Just how old are you? Did you ever take a history course?
The major cause of the Civil War was because Southerners were being taxed more for imported goods and that as more Northern states were getting more people, they also grew in political power. Because of that, the South was losing its political power.
Yes, slavery was an issue, but it was not the main issue that caused the war. In fact, slavery was on its way out.
And speaking of slavery, many do not realize that there were also white slaves and there were both black and white slave traders.
"Did you ever live in Alabama? I have. It IS about racism."
I live in Albama & have since 1969. You are full of shit. My daughter in law is black and of course my graddaughter is of mixed race. There is no more racism here than any other part of the US & I have lived or visted in just about every part of the country.
As I recall history classes from a few decades past did list economics and political power as a major cause of the Civil War.
A large part of both, though, was increasing efforts to limit and/or eliminate slavery. Cotton, and tobacco IIRC, were the major cash crops. Both are labor intensive to the point that profits took a major hit if slave labor was outlawed. Thus there was considerable (an understatement?) pro slavery sentiment in the south.
Taxation was an issue. Here things are a little fuzzy. But whatever the export / import taxes situation was, it put the South a disadvantage in competition with producers elsewhere in the world. Naturally that irritated the southern agriculture people no end.
Political power at the Federal level was necessary to maintain slavery and deal with tax issues. As more states joined the union, therefore, it was a continuing battle to see if entering states would be slave or free, would support the South or the North. The war was triggered when the South saw that balance of political power slip away.
So one can say that economics and political power were major causes of the Civil war. But underneath it all was the dependence of
Southern agriculture on slavery vs. Northern desire to rid the nation of the abomination of slavery, and tax policies that favored the industrial North over the agricultural South.
I'd say the fight over slavery was a major cause of the Civil War along with economics and political power.
Interestingly enough, it was the Republican party that led the fight against slavery. Somewhere in the intervening years it seems the Democrats have managed to take credit for that in the minds of most people.
You just knew someone would throw politics in, didn't you?
My God, are you actually serious? Just how old are you? Did you ever take a history course? Ever work at a National Historical Battlefield park where the park was commerating a Civil War battle?
The major cause of the Civil War was because Southerners were being taxed more for imported goodsThis is a long disputed claim. The fact of the matter is that the South was able to buy products abroad cheaper than the North could produce them. Consequently, the government passed a tarriff on goods coming into the country. The effect on the total price of the goods was neglible as the tarrif raised the prices of the goods to that being paid in the south.
as more Northern states were getting more people, they also grew in political power. Because of that, the South was losing its political power.This was not a cause of the Civil War. The manner in which the "political power" was being used was that the South was seeing more states turn away from a central issue and that the central issue was being decried by those gaining more power.
What was that central issue?
Slavery.
Yes, slavery was an issue, but it was not the main issue that caused the war. In fact, slavery was on its way out. Sorry, but you cannot substantiate that slavery was not a major cause of the Civil War. The South thought that the Federal goverment was being too restrictive on their states rights. Where was that restriction most evident? In slavery. The South hoped that Lincoln would not win the presidential election as he had already indicated his anti-slavery stances. Go back and actually read the letters and newspapers of the day and see how their comments decrying Lincoln were almost always based on him wanting to abolish slavery.
The arguments are complex in some cases, but at the core of 99% of the causes of the Civil War as far as the South was concerned sits the issue of slavery.
I almost forgot to comment on the original topic.
It's certainly understandable how those poor sorority girls feel. I know that when the wife and I attend our Sons of Norway meetings the British ancestry in me is highly offended because of the Viking presence in the British Isles some years back.
I just don't know what to do about it. Sue myself? Burn down the Norwegian part of my house? Sigh. It's soooo hard to be politically correct. Maybe I'll just issue an apology, pay reparations to myself and cancel my subscription to the Viking magazine. And promise to never tell Ole and Lena jokes. That should make it better.
Remember that those living in the south saw the war as the War of Northern Aggression. The biggest cause of the war was states rights. The people of the south felt that northerners were imposing their way of life upon the south. When the federal government decided to send troops & build forts in the south it became too much for the southerners to stand. Thus Ft. Sumter was fired upon.
"It's certainly understandable how those poor sorority girls feel. "
---I don't remember anyone caring how my ideological comrades felt during African-American History Month, or when liberal speakers where invited, or during anti-war protests, Israel Apartheid Week or the worst of all, Earth Day!
Umm, Bobby, did you not catch the sarcasm in my post? In case you didn't, it was intended as a sarcastic putdown of those poor sorority girls.
Yes Dean, I caught the sarcasm. But I wanted to add something more. :)
I wonder what would have happened if the fraternity members had invited the sorority members to join them in the parade as equals.
If it was a muslim parade with a muslim flags passing by a Christian church, no college administration would be the least bit concerned...colleges have victims dejure.
"mcnasty56 said...
I live in Albama & have since 1969. ...other part of the US & I have lived or visted in just about every part of the country."
Ok. No offence, but how old are you???? You've lived in Alabama for 40 years and also in other parts of the country? you must be pushing 120!!!
"...they were shocked to see fraternity members in rebel uniforms and white women from another sorority in hoop skirts."
I know just how confronting hoop skirts can be. I still have nightmares about the evil Little Bo Peep's outfit. Terrible!
Anonymous 5:26 AM, a high school, plus a university education and from what I've read about the topic on my own time has taught me that slavery was not a major cause for the Civil War, as I already said.
taught me that slavery was not a major cause for the Civil War, as I already said.
And as I said, the things you mentioned can generally be traced back to slavery. The South wanted to protect their "way of life" and couched that defense in "states rights" and defending their "pecular institution." The pecular institution" was slavery and the issue that the South feared was going to be outlawed was slavery. The Missouri Compromise was a compromise on slavery. Lincoln's election bothered the South because of his anti-slavery stance.
The things you mention are like layers on an onion. Peal the layers away, and you find that the central issue was slavery. If you fail to look beneath the layers, you get revisionist history.
That's funny. When you say that the South "couched that defense in states rights," that sounds like revisionist history to me.
As I said, the South was upset about the increase of prices for imported goods and they saw that their political power was slipping as the power shifted more to the North as there were more people there or going there.
Was slavery one of the many reasons for the war? I'll say yes to that, but it was a small issue compared to the other ones.
"Ok. No offence, but how old are you???? You've lived in Alabama for 40 years and also in other parts of the country? you must be pushing 120!!!"
Maybe I should have said I've lived here off & on since 1969.
If you must know I"m 55.
Born in Okinawa
moved to South Carolina
moved to Germany
Moved to florida
moved to alabama
moved to oklahoma
moved back to germany
moved back to alabama
moved to new york
moved to minnesota
moved to alabama
moved to kansas
moved to california
moved back to alabama
moved to oklahoma again.
moved back to alabama
did all the above before I was 25
visted oregon, texas
Sometimes though I do fell 120:)
What a big carbon-footprint!
I know just how confronting hoop skirts can be. I still have nightmares about the evil Little Bo Peep's outfit. Terrible!Ah. Flash way back to Jan 2009.
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/search?q=azaleaPeople were terrified that the hoop skirt brigade would harm the poor souls in DC.
"I wonder what would have happened if the fraternity members had invited the sorority members to join them in the parade as equals."
---That defeats the whole purpose of Old South. Blacks weren't equals unless they had been emancipated.
If however the university wanted to have a civil war re-enactment, blacks can play the role of Buffalo Soldiers.
That's funny. When you say that the South "couched that defense in states rights," that sounds like revisionist history to me.You still are missing what they were defending with the charge of "states rights."
They were defending slavery. The South did not feel that the Federal Government had the right to tell states whether or not citizens within the states could have slaves.
As I said, the South was upset about the increase of prices for imported goodsThe tarrifs were nothing more than protectionsim. As previously stated, the South could purchase goods abroad cheaper than from the North due to reciprical goods agreements with other countries. The tarrifs put that in a bind. However, the vast majority of tarrifs were being paid by the states in the NORTH as that is where the majority of goods were coming into the country.
political power was slipping as the power shifted more to the North as there were more people there or going there.I agree. But one has to remember that the shift in power bothered the South because they knew that the shift accompanied the ability to have new slave states or evn worse, a Congress that would make slavery illegal.
Once again, it all comes back to slavery.
"What a big carbon-footprint!"
Yeah well, back in the day, no one had ever heard of a carbon footprint. Carbon was that black piece of paper that went between the regular paper in the typewriter so copies could be made.
I got a big piece of carbon in my stocking at Christmas.
"I got a big piece of carbon in my stocking at Christmas."
You celibrate Christmas? (Gasp) That is so un-PC.
I suppose that with the major cause of the war being slavery, Mr. Lincoln surely would have freed ALL the slaves at the outset. Instead, it took quite some time and only affected those slaves in the Confederacy. Slaves held by Northerners were still slaves. Remember that history is written by the victor. I recommend "The South was Right" by the Kennedy Bros. as a very good eyeopener.
The South has a rich and glorious history, one that southerners should be very proud of. They should never allow anyone to belittle that history, or their flag, (as blacks and White northern liberals love doing) especially since tens-of-thousand of brave American men died fighting for both.
Here's a link about a book written by a black historian, he claims that Lincoln was a racist who wanted to deport all the blacks back to Africa.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm
Funny how the left loves romanticizing Lincoln, how even Obama took the oath on his bible.
"The South did not feel that the Federal Government had the right to tell states whether or not citizens within the states could have slaves."
===Exactly, it was a matter of principles, even southern whites who didn't support slavery didn't want the federal government deciding for them.
I feel the same way about gun control, our obscene federal income taxes, the Environmental Protection Agency and plenty of others forms of government oppression.
i'm black and I see nothing wrong with the Confederate flag. I'm one of my so called Afreak-kin amercian so called bretheren. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT FLAG. MORE BLACKS FOUGHT FOR THE SOUTH THAN THE NORTH...DUH! WHY...WERE THEY FIGHTING BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED....OR DID THEY KNOW SOMETHING THE ONE-SIDED LIBERAL MEDIA DOES NOT WANT US TO KNOW. I will be flying my Confederate flag and my American flag on Memorial Day. They can call me an uncle tom if they want. i don't give a damn. You know what's funny...when Colon Powerless (Colin Powell) was with Bush they called him an uncle tom and said that he was not really black...Now that he's with that fascist Obama now they call him a great black amercian....Bull$hit.
I remember a lecture about Lincoln on a CD made by The Teaching Company, and some of things the lecturer said about Lincoln. One of them was that Lincoln initially was not all that concerned about slavery because he felt that it was naturally on its way out and would be abolished in due time. However, the Missouri Compromise changed things with the addition of a new slave state. The lecturer said that to Lincoln, the addition of new territories with slavery violated an understanding that the free states believed they had with the slave states that the southern states that already had slaves could keep them, but that slavery would not expand in the U.S. Yet it was expanding with the addition of new states to the union. The lecturer also mentioned a fear among the industrialized northern states that if slavery was spreading to new territories, it might even spread into the free north and make slavery combined with industrialization the dominant economic model, and that possibility horrified northerners to no end.
I have seen the comments where the southern states wanted other slave states to maintain a balance of power to guard against slavery being summarily abolished on them. That turns out to be the flip side of the northern states believing that the expansion of slavery violated an understanding that slavery would not be spread any further than it already was.
Post a Comment