WWOT: Battle over the past rages on in an evolving South...

General conversations about BMW E28s and the people who own them.
RobbieR
Posts: 1608
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Woodstock, GA

Post by RobbieR »

We can all agree that US slavery during the Civil War was wrong it never should have happened.

But that is only part of the reason why the Civil War was fought. Southern heritage and culture should not be hidden, taken away or shunned. It is part of American History.
Battle over the past rages on in an evolving South

By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

RALEIGH, N.C. Bronzed Johnny Rebs, sprinting across a Capitol lawn, charging soundlessly for the ideals of the "lost cause," have long been seen as a quaint and largely harmless part of this region's heritage. Today, doubts rise alongside pride in regard to these sculpted heroes.
A school board declines to name a new high school in Cherokee County after Georgia's Civil War governor. Floridians question why Confederate soldiers adorn a water tower. Even the word "South," in some quarters, has become a slur - a convenient repository of national guilt over the exploitation of Africans in the Cotton Belt a century and a half ago.

Beyond Confederate flags coming down from statehouses, more-mundane symbols are increasingly being questioned on the local level: in town halls, college campuses, and even cemetery committees. It's part of a deepening homogenization of Southern culture that's causing anger and resentment among many in a proud region with perhaps 65 million people who consider themselves Southerners.

Some observers see a note of irony in the growing suppression of conservative Southern memorials at a time when old Confederate values like militarism, chivalry, gentility, and religiosity are gaining political prominence. It's a lesson, they say, in how a rebellious American region maintains its influence beneath pressure to rescind its mottoes and murals.

"The shooting war is over, but ... we're engaged in a cultural war for the heart and soul of the South and for America, too," says William Lathem, spokesman for the Southern Heritage PAC in Atlanta.

Indeed, beneath the ceaseless skirmishes over Southern symbols lurks a deeper debate over the potency and potential of a region shaped by Scots-Irish settlers who wanted a small, God-fearing government that stayed out of their lives.

Today's regional relations remind some historians of the War of 1812. New Englanders protested against the war, and it took Andrew Jackson to end it at New Orleans with a trouncing of the British by the Louisiana artillery. Witness the last presidential election, which revolved around the president's decision to invade Iraq and his muscular response to Islamist terrorism. The ideological "red-blue" borders almost perfectly traced the regional sentiments of the mid-19th century, with Ohio to this day in play.

"Why bother about this talk of separateness when you're arguably in a position - the South is - to dominate the Union as [Confederate unionist] Alexander Stephens envisioned it before the Civil War: the South in a political alliance with the West," says Jim Langcuster of Alabama, a moderate proponent of Southern heritage.

Still, even as Gambians and Swedes flock to cities like Raleigh and Birmingham, wizened black butlers still wait on gaggles of white golfers at certain exclusive clubs. And the disdain toward the South most often attributed (at least by Southerners) to "limousine liberals" is increasingly leading to action from the Florida interior to the hilltops of Georgia, most likely as a result of a massive in-migration of "those people," as Gen. Robert E. Lee called his foes.

Parents in Cherokee County, Ga., successfully urged their school board to refuse to name a new high school for Joseph E. Brown, the Confederate governor who, at the risk of his popularity, welcomed federal reform after the Civil War.

In Georgia, there's a tough fight brewing over bringing a bust of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from Jeff Davis County - where there are four Jeff Davis schools - to the Georgia Capitol.

And, in Charlotte, N.C., a decision was recently made to take down the battle flag - from a Confederate cemetery.

At old-line Southern colleges like the University of the South, regents are downplaying old Confederate-era rituals and even the word "South" so as not to scare away prospective students from up North.

"When people have a sense that things are unraveling, whether it's on the right or left, these questions come up again," says Ira Berlin, a Civil War historian at the University of Maryland.

But Southern heritage proponents are winning some skirmishes, too.

In Florida, the town of Brooksville decided not to change the image of Confederate soldiers on the water-tower logo after someone pointed out that an annual reenactment of the "Brooksville Raid" was a major tourist draw. In South Carolina, a bill is moving forward to allow the Sons of Confederate Veterans their own license plate. Seventy-two percent of Georgians want to see a referendum on bringing back the pre-2001 Cross of St. Andrew's flag across the Peach State. Stone Mountain with its 90-foot carved images of Lee, Davis, and Stonewall Jackson is still Georgia's biggest tourist draw. "Part of Southern culture is the recognition that there are things worth fighting for," says Jim Thompson, editorial page director of the Athens, Ga., Banner-Herald.

Southerners say the region's critics often take not only historical but biblical references and meanings out of context - the result, they say, of biased schooling.

It remains a highly charged debate, since perceptions of past are also a lens on the present. Most Southerners today agree that blacks are also original settlers and inheritors of the South, and deserve their equal place in civic affairs. But critics worry that some of the worst elements of the "old" South may be rising again - their suspicions fueled by a nationwide weakening of affirmative action and an ongoing resegregation of public schools, especially in the South.

The last time "Dixie" was whistled officially in the capital was probably during Ronald Reagan's first inauguration. But last year, Bush supporter Robert T. Hines shot a cannon at Arlington National Cemetery on Davis's birthday.

"The culture of the South is an expanding thing rather than a xenophobic and dwindling thing," says John Hurley, president of the Confederate Memorial Association in Washington.
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p01s05-ussc.html
C.R. Krieger
Posts: 14507
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Halfway up the left side of Lake Michigan
Contact:

Post by C.R. Krieger »

We can all agree that US slavery during the Civil War was wrong it never should have happened.
Well, it was actually the slavery that existed before the Civil War, but that's petty.

But that is only part of the reason why the Civil War was fought. Southern heritage and culture should not be hidden, taken away or shunned. It is part of American History.
You are correct. And this is one Damned Yankee Lawyer who agrees with you.
Battle over the past rages on in an evolving South

By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

A school board declines to name a new high school in Cherokee County after Georgia's Civil War governor.
No irony there - in a county named after the Native Americans we chased out a century or so ago, huh?
Today's regional relations remind some historians of the War of 1812. New Englanders protested against the war, and it took Andrew Jackson to end it at New Orleans with a trouncing of the British by the Louisiana artillery.
Well, that's just idiotic. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that Andrew Jackson's famous victory at New Orleans was fought after the war had already ended! However, it does share the same level of irrelevance as W's own "Bully Little War" (with a nod to Teddy Roosevelt).
In Georgia, there's a tough fight brewing over bringing a bust of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from Jeff Davis County - where there are four Jeff Davis schools - to the Georgia Capitol.
Well, I might pause, too, but that's mostly because Jeff Davis was captured after the war disguised as a woman ... ~0
And, in Charlotte, N.C., a decision was recently made to take down the battle flag - from a Confederate cemetery.
And that's just plain wrong ... for a lot of reasons.
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

Oh, Lordy, I could really get started on this subject, but will limit my discussion to a short commentary on the Georgia flags.

In Georgia, the SCV has had a specialty plate for a while:

Image

This is the pre-'56 Georgia flag:

Image

'56-'01:

Image

The '56 flag was a political retaliation against desegegation, and while I'm an ardent Southerner, I'm glad we're back to the old style.

The politically-correct '02-'03 flag was butt-ugly and derided by vexillologists across the country. It was shoved through by Democratic legislators in the middle of the night:

Image

I like the new version, which is faithful to the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy:

Image

Note to Yankees...

This is the Stars and Bars:

Image

This is the Navy Jack (often erroneously called the Stars and Bars):

Image


[Edit by Shawn D. on [TIME]1109264811[/TIME]]
C.R. Krieger
Posts: 14507
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Halfway up the left side of Lake Michigan
Contact:

Post by C.R. Krieger »

[QUOTE="Shawn D."]Oh, Lordy, I could really get started on this subject, but will limit my discussion to a short commentary on the Georgia flags.

The politically-correct '02-'03 flag was butt-ugly and derided by vexillologists across the country. It was shoved through by Democratic legislators in the middle of the night:

Image[/QUOTE]

Hey! That's just like the Wisconsin flag!

Image

Which is ... uhh ... butt ugly. (@)

Of course, I'm not from here ... :D

Image
fastpat
Posts: 1036
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Travelers Rest, South Carolina

Post by fastpat »

We can all agree that US slavery during the Civil War was wrong it never should have happened.
Well, it was actually the slavery that existed before the Civil War, but that's petty.[/quote]

Not true either, a Constitutional Amendment making slavery permanent passed both federal houses AFTER the first Southern states seceded (a lawful act still).

But that is only part of the reason why the Civil War was fought. Southern heritage and culture should not be hidden, taken away or shunned. It is part of American History.
You are correct. And this is one Damned Yankee Lawyer who agrees with you.
Good, since slavery continued in many Union states well after the invasion and conquest of the Confederacy, a sovereign nation, and in fact didn't end in those states until the 13th Amendment passed.
Battle over the past rages on in an evolving South

By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

A school board declines to name a new high school in Cherokee County after Georgia's Civil War governor.
No irony there - in a county named after the Native Americans we chased out a century or so ago, huh?
Also consider that the Union army generals who practiced "Total War" against civilians in the south turned their talents against the plains indians with even more gusto; Sherman and Sheridan had a "Wansee" Final Solution style conference and planned, and wrote down, how they were going to anniliate the indians of every western state.
Today's regional relations remind some historians of the War of 1812. New Englanders protested against the war, and it took Andrew Jackson to end it at New Orleans with a trouncing of the British by the Louisiana artillery.
Well, that's just idiotic. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that Andrew Jackson's famous victory at New Orleans was fought after the war had already ended! However, it does share the same level of irrelevance as W's own "Bully Little War" (with a nod to Teddy Roosevelt).
True chronologically, but it's well understood also that Jackson's decisive victory over the British at New Orleans, with mostly Militia, ended any thoughts by those that ran Britain of reconquest of North America, and from that perspective was the most important battle of the War of 1812.
In Georgia, there's a tough fight brewing over bringing a bust of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from Jeff Davis County - where there are four Jeff Davis schools - to the Georgia Capitol.
Well, I might pause, too, but that's mostly because Jeff Davis was captured after the war disguised as a woman ... ~0
No, that's mythology and nothing more. As usual, things are much more complicated and interesting than that. Good reading is "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" by Dr. Tom DiLorenzo.
And, in Charlotte, N.C., a decision was recently made to take down the battle flag - from a Confederate cemetery.
C.R. Krieger wrote:And that's just plain wrong ... for a lot of reasons.
Yes, and for this member of Sons of Confederate Veterans and The League of the South, its resisted continuously. :@
John In Valdosta
Posts: 135
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by John In Valdosta »

Well, I might pause, too, but that's mostly because Jeff Davis was captured after the war disguised as a woman ...


Now hold on a minute, he might have been blind in one eye from a STD he got from a black prostitute, but the whole dressed as a women thing is very controversial, mostly exaggeratted by the Yankee Press.

Image

Just wearing a woman's coat and shaw doesn't make you a drag queen, Does it? Read more here http://www.civilwarhistory.com/101899/D ... apture.htm

Too many people in the South want to repress the Southern Culture and try to erase that part of our history. This kind of thing has been going on for years, in 1956 my high school changed it's mascot to the Rockets (NASA-era) from the Generals (after civil war General John Coffee). The late 60's it changed again to the Trojans, for god knows what reason.

The Georgia Flag debate still rages on, I'm pretty sure it'll be changed again before I'm dead. I'm surprised nobody got impeached over that.
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

Do Y'all know who said "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." I'll give you one guess! Yep, Lincoln.

IMO, this commentary summarizes it quite well: "The letter was written on August 22, 1862, almost a year and a half after the Civil War broke out, when the South was gaining momentum and the outcome was far from certain. From the time of secession, Lincoln was desperately eager to prevent border states such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri from seceding. These states had slavery, and Lincoln knew that if the issue of the war was cast openly as the issue of slavery, his chances of keeping the border states in the Union were slim. And if all the border states seceded, Lincoln was convinced, and rightly so, that the cause of the Union was gravely imperiled.

Moreover, Lincoln was acutely aware that many people in the North were vehemently antiblack and saw themselves as fighting to save their country rather than to free slaves. Lincoln framed the case against the Confederacy in terms of saving the Union in order to maintain his coalition -- a coalition whose victory was essential to the antislavery cause. And ultimately it was because of Lincoln that slavery came to an end.
"

In fact, there were riots in NYC and other places because many folks up North didn't want to fight for blacks.

Do Y'all know who the Emancipation Proclamation freed? "The slaves"? Not really. The proclamation says "I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." The "designated States and parts of States" were the Confederate-held areas -- the Northern slaves were not freed. It's symbolically important, but not particularly practical: how do you free people in areas you don't control?

All that having been said, I believe that Lincoln was one of the best U.S. Presidents, not due to the Emancipation Proclamation or his purpose in reuniting The Union -- he was one of the most pragmatic and realistic politicians ever, and he was a fairly effective and earnest leader.

Folks should read his Second Inaugural address, which was widely scorned in the North. In it, he spoke for reconciliation and inclusion for the good of the whole country. The vengeful wrath of the Reconstruction and carpetbaggers, etc. are a result of his assassination by Booth (a Yankee, BTW, as he was from Maryland) -- Lincoln did not want that. Both the U.S. AND the South would have been better off had he lived.


[Edit by Shawn D. on [TIME]1109268700[/TIME]]
fastpat
Posts: 1036
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Travelers Rest, South Carolina

Post by fastpat »

Shawn D. wrote:All that having been said, I believe that Lincoln was one of the best U.S. Presidents, not due to the Emancipation Proclamation or his purpose in reuniting The Union -- he was one of the most pragmatic and realistic politicians ever, and he was a fairly effective and earnest leader.
Actually, Lincoln was the worst President in US history, Shawn. He ordered actions that killed almost one million Americans, including 25% of the adult males in the country he invaded, my country. He destroyed the compact of states forever and replaced it with the militaristic, leviathan, centralized state we have today. Only Franklin Roosevelt came close to being as bad as Lincoln. It's why I regard John Wilkes Booth as a hero, and that Lincoln got precisely what he deserved, just three years too late.
Folks should read his Second Inaugural address, which was widely scorned in the North. In it, he spoke for reconciliation and inclusion for the good of the whole country. The vengeful wrath of the Reconstruction and carpetbaggers, etc. are a result of his assassination by Booth (a Yankee, BTW, as he was from Maryland) -- Lincoln did not want that. Both the U.S. AND the South would have been better off had he lived.

[Edit by Shawn D. on [TIME]1109268700[/TIME]]
Lincoln was the candidate of yankee industrial interests. He had a 25 year political history of supporting government funded public works projects, giveaways to businesses, and practically invented federal corporate welfare with his giveaways to the railroads. Lincoln gave the eulogy at Henry Clay's funeral, not surprising since Lincoln considered himself to be Clay's protege'. Lincoln was a sinister, vile, bloodthirsty (read his letters to Sherman sometime) man. I look forward to the day that a wrecking ball is taken to the Lincoln Memorial.
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

Actually, Lincoln was the worst President in US history, Shawn. He ordered actions that killed almost one million Americans, including 25% of the adult males in the country he invaded, my country. He destroyed the compact of states forever and replaced it with the militaristic, leviathan, centralized state we have today. Only Franklin Roosevelt came close to being as bad as Lincoln. It's why I regard John Wilkes Booth as a hero, and that Lincoln got precisely what he deserved, just three years too late.

Lincoln was the candidate of yankee industrial interests. He had a 25 year political history of supporting government funded public works projects, giveaways to businesses, and practically invented federal corporate welfare with his giveaways to the railroads. Lincoln gave the eulogy at Henry Clay's funeral, not surprising since Lincoln considered himself to be Clay's protege'. Lincoln was a sinister, vile, bloodthirsty (read his letters to Sherman sometime) man. I look forward to the day that a wrecking ball is taken to the Lincoln Memorial.
Hmm... excellent points, Pat, particularly WRT the industrial-governmental complex. I hadn't considered those points well enough. While I consider myself well-read and fairly knowlegeable on the subject of the War Between the States, you've made me realize I need to do more study on the subject.

I do recognize the erosion (trampling, if you will), of State's Rights after the War Between The States, but IMO it's the post-WBS U.S. Congress that's to blame, not Lincoln.

I have to disagree about Booth, though. IMO, he did the South a disservice.


[Edit by Shawn D. on [TIME]1109275386[/TIME]]
fastpat
Posts: 1036
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Travelers Rest, South Carolina

Post by fastpat »

Actually, Lincoln was the worst President in US history, Shawn. He ordered actions that killed almost one million Americans, including 25% of the adult males in the country he invaded, my country. He destroyed the compact of states forever and replaced it with the militaristic, leviathan, centralized state we have today. Only Franklin Roosevelt came close to being as bad as Lincoln. It's why I regard John Wilkes Booth as a hero, and that Lincoln got precisely what he deserved, just three years too late.

Lincoln was the candidate of yankee industrial interests. He had a 25 year political history of supporting government funded public works projects, giveaways to businesses, and practically invented federal corporate welfare with his giveaways to the railroads. Lincoln gave the eulogy at Henry Clay's funeral, not surprising since Lincoln considered himself to be Clay's protege'. Lincoln was a sinister, vile, bloodthirsty (read his letters to Sherman sometime) man. I look forward to the day that a wrecking ball is taken to the Lincoln Memorial.
Shawn D. wrote:Hmm... excellent points, Pat, particularly WRT the industrial-governmental complex. I hadn't considered those points well enough.

I do recognize the erosion (trampling, if you will), of State's Rights after the War Between The States, but IMO tt's the post-WBS U.S. Congress that's to blame, not Lincoln.

I have to disagree about Booth, though. IMO, he did the South a disservice.
I'm not too surprised you think that, it's what I was taught in government schools too. I'll bring you a copy of DiLorenzo's book at 5er Fest, I think you'll like it. :)
Rich in WI
Posts: 1115
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Rich in WI »

I agree that the Wisconsin flag is pretty ugly. It's a lot like the Virginia flag, too.

I grew up in Virginia and lived there for 20 years. Had a pretty strong dose of Southern culture. I even start getting a mountain accent when drink. What I find interesting about most of the "cultural victims" of the South is that it tends to be in support of a treasonous action (the Civil War) and really only supports a segment of white southern culture. There's a "sweep the bad stuff under the rug" attitude that I think is unfortunate.

Like it or not, the Stars and Bars have become a symbol of slavery and racism. And whether or not it's the proper flag or not doesn't really matter. It's what most people who fly the flag call it. This isn't the fault of good upstanding citizens, but the white supremacy folks. Up here in Wisconsin I see a fair number of pickup trucks with the Stars and Bars displayed one way or another. Clearly it's not a symbol of Southern culture they are displaying.

I'd be much more impressed with the whole "southern culture revitilization" if the good white folks would come to grips with fact that their culture has been stolen by the racists and fight to take the cultural symbols back. Instead what I see is a white washing of Jim Crow, slavery, and very deep racist attitudes. When I got old enough to work, I can tell you I had several bosses who told me "I got nothing against black people, but I'd never hire one," or "he works pretty hard for a black boy." Naturally they took a deep interest in their southern history and disguised their own personal racism behind the cloak of "southern heritage." Oddly, the heritage of blacks didn't seem to be a part of it.

That said, I love the South. There's a lot of good things happening. I plan on moving back at some point. But I don't see a lot of the Civil War history as something to be proud of. It was treason plain and simple. And slavery was the driving force behind the war. Yes, there were strong economic reasons, too. But just look at the battles in the Kansas/Nebraska area - slavery was used as a weapon for settlement. The slavery and "cultural" issues are wrapped up in each other. I do like the whole reinactment movement. That's some cool stuff. I had a lot of friends into the reinactment scene - they even got to be extras in Glory.

Whether Lincoln was a hero, a villan, or something in-between I don't really care. He was just another politician with history thrust upon him.

OK, flamesuit is on.

Rich
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

[QUOTE="Rich in WI[/I]What I find interesting about most of the "cultural victims" of the South is that it tends to be in support of a treasonous action (the Civil War)...[/QUOTE]
Actually, secession was neither illegal nor Unconstitutional back then.

[QUOTE="Rich in WI"]This isn't the fault of good upstanding citizens, but the white supremacy folks. Up here in Wisconsin I see a fair number of pickup trucks with the Stars and Bars displayed one way or another. Clearly it's not a symbol of Southern culture they are displaying.

I'd be much more impressed with the whole "southern culture revitilization" if the good white folks would come to grips with fact that their culture has been stolen by the racists and fight to take the cultural symbols back.[/QUOTE]
Well, each time those of us who are "good white folks" try to do so, combatting the ignorant racists (which are dying off slowly, thankfully), the ignorant PC crowd and other ignorant folks go into their reactionary "you're just a racist" rhetoric. As an analogy (and just making a point about how symbolism can be co-opted by negative forces), the swastika had been in use for thousands of years by Hindus, Native Americans, Finns, and other cultures when Hitler appropriated a version of it (the Hakenkreuz) and irreparably damaged its previously positive symbolism. Similarly, the positive aspects of the South have been irreparably damaged by the existence of slavery and also by the continued fighting by ignorance on many sides -- if you dare mention anything positive, you are in for a load of vitriol, if not worse.

As an example of people simply being reactionary (IMO), here's more on the Cherokee County school naming flap:

ajc.com > Metro > Cherokee
School name doesn't sit well in Cherokee
> Confederate roots trip up efforts behind a new high school
>
> By CHRIS REINOLDS
>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Published on: 01/26/05

A Confederate-era Georgia governor is losing a popularity contest in Cherokee County.

The Cherokee County Board of Education voted 4-3 last week to name the county's newest high school after former Gov. Joseph E. Brown, rejecting the name of Creekland High recommended by a committee of faculty and students.

Brown was chosen, not only because of his political achievements that included serving as a four-term governor and U.S. senator, but also because of his strong ties to Cherokee. He was a teacher and headmaster in Canton and practiced law in the county.

But some parents and students who will attend Joseph E. Brown High School when it opens in 2006 say the name brings disgrace and controversy.

"I've been here since '65 and I studied the Civil War and know a little bit about Joseph Brown," said Scott Rowland, who has three children. Naming a school for a governor from the Confederacy carries "connotations and baggage of bigotry and racism and hatred, whether justified or not," he said. "There's fringe elements out there that will latch onto this."

Cole Spivia, a sixth-grader who eventually will attend the high school, shivered in freezing weather Tuesday morning in front of Creekland Middle School to get her point across. She and about 15 other students wore homemade T-shirts and held signs that said "No to Joe."

"I Googled that guy last night. And he was not that likable or good-looking," Cole said. {Yeah, lets have the students vote based on a persons looks thats a GREAT idea!}

Jake Andrusko, a seventh-grader, called Brown a racist. He wants the school to be named Creekland or Creekside, reflecting the area's Native American history. Three of the four county high schools have Native American names: Etowah, Sequoyah and Cherokee.
Sixth-grader Ashley Caylor agreed with Jake.

"I don't want my school to be named after some guy I haven't heard of," Ashley said. {Thats an erudite argument if ever I heard one! (sarcasm)}

Some parents complain, too, that the board ignored the recommendations of the school principal, teachers and superintendent to name the school Creekland High.

"This is the New South and not the message we want to send to our children," said Bruce Van Camp, whose son Christian was one of the protesters. "Wasn't the [state] flag just changed last year, but yet we want to go back in time?"

Not everyone agrees. Cherokee resident Dave Henson, a self-described "history geek" who considered running for the school board last year, suggested the name to the board. Henson described the former governor as "Cherokee County's most accomplished and respected public official."

The Cherokee County Historical Society also has backed the school board's action.

"This name is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated much of his life to promoting the value of education," wrote Stefanie Joyner, the society's executive director.

In addition to serving as governor and senator, Brown was chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. He also served as a state senator representing Cherokee and Cobb counties.

Besides teaching in Cherokee, Brown had a long-term interest in education. He was the first president of the Atlanta Public Schools, and he was a founding board member at historically black Atlanta University, according to Cathy Loving-Pye, historian/archivist for Atlanta schools.

"He was very much interested in education in all schools black and white," said Loving-Pye, who is black.


But Brown also is referred to in the history books as a "rabid secessionist." Ending slavery, he said, would lead to the South's utter ruin.

"He really wasn't for the secession of Georgia from the Union. The people who voted him in were," Loving-Pye said. Atlanta's public school system named a high school after the former governor in 1923. The all-white Brown High School was desegregated in 1961 and closed in 1992. In 1999, the district officials reopened the school as Brown Middle School.

Cherokee school board members who voted for the Brown name said they rejected using Creekland because Creekland Middle School is already open and they did not want to have two schools with the same name.

Cherokee school board President Mike Chapman, who voted to name the high school for Brown, seemed surprised at the uproar.

"Brown was big in Georgia and the community, but obviously there's contention in the public," Chapman said. "I feel very badly this thing came off this way and hopefully we can move forward."

Cherokee Superintendent Frank Petruzielo said board members were encouraged last week to decide on a name, colors and mascot so they could order floor tiles and other color-based materials.

"We could have lasted another meeting without a name or mascot, but we really did need to have [a] decision on the colors," he said. The colors are brown and hunter green and the mascot is a bear.

School board member Stephen Bentley said he voted against the name because it was not the community's choice. Bentley said as of Tuesday he had received more than 100 e-mails opposing the name and three in favor.

"It's very clear the community is not happy," he said. "I don't think it's right for us to set this name without their input. This issue is not dead."

Brown's great-grandson Charles M. Brown, of Marietta, said the opposition to naming the high school is "political correctness."

"It's just ridiculous to me," Brown said. "The fact is he was one of the great men in Georgia history, regardless of who else you look at. If they're too small to recognize that, then that's their problem."

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/c ... oname.html
T_C_D
Posts: 7733
Joined: May 27, 2009 11:42 AM
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by T_C_D »

Thankfully I left the south as soon as I became an adult so I could raise my kids elsewhere. The views of some southerners never cease to amaze me.

Todd
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

[QUOTE="Rich in WI"]I do like the whole reinactment movement. That's some cool stuff. I had a lot of friends into the reinactment scene - they even got to be extras in Glory.[/QUOTE]
I hope that you won't be too shocked to hear that black folks participate in reenactments both freedmen and as slaves (bodyservants, sutler's assistants, etc.). In fact, a historian for a Georgia Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans was black, and when he died, the reenactors were a big part of his funeral (which enraged many, bemused some, and pleased many others in his family).

Taken at the Pickett's Mill reenactment around 2000...

Image
(Hey, is that Icehaus?)
Rich in WI
Posts: 1115
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Rich in WI »

I don't disagree with any of your points. What I do disagree with is the "I'm a victim" crowd that seems to be cropping up any time anything other than honoring a whitewashed version of southern history is brought up.

I agree that secession wasn't illegal at the time of the Civil War. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't a treasonous act. Let's face it - it was the break-down of the Union, carried out by politicians and big agriculture. Did the small dirt farmer care much? No - he was going to get screwed either way. The best agricultural land was controlled by an aristocracy that traces its roots back to colonial and pre-colonial times.

The arguements put forth regarding the school naming are obviously poorly thought out and rather shallow. But I do think that the community has a right to fight for a name that they want. The issue at hand seems to be more one of parental and populist control over the naming than anything else. Then the lame "historical" arguements get brought out in favor or against whichever party one happens to be for or against.

It's the victimhood that I really hate to see. There's a lot of whining going on in regards to "my culture is under attack." If anything it's a reflection on how the South has really changed over the last 40 years. It's a sign of the economic success and natural influx of non-Southerners that have moved in. But that's life. Here in Wisconsin there's a growing population of Mexicans working on dairy farms. In the next generation they'll be owning the dairy farms. We'll probably see Mexican culture start to show up in rural Wisconsin in the naming of schools, roads, and other "cultural" features. Does this mean that white Wisconsin culture is under attack? No. It just means people want to name their cultural centers for people and themes that they can relate to. In the South that means that there will be some non-white and northern cultural influences. That's life. Things change. The cultural reference point shifts. It's not good or bad. It just is. There's no victim unless someone chooses to be a victim. Frankly, I'd like to see as much fuss over the quality of schools and teaching as is being displayed over the naming of the school.

Rich
RobbieR
Posts: 1608
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Woodstock, GA

Post by RobbieR »

[QUOTE="TCD"]Thankfully I left the south as soon as I became an adult so I could raise my kids elsewhere. The views of some southerners never cease to amaze me.

Todd[/QUOTE]
Soooo....how do you like shoveling snow? :D

But seriously, how can you judge an entire region of the country by the actions of a few? You do realize that the most prominent (and expensive) African American colleges are in the South? For example, Atlanta has both Morehouse and Spellman Colleges, the tomb of MLK, several African American Mayor's and a rich history of black culture in several areas of town. I'll dare to say that the South has more to offer for African Americans than say.....Ohio. :D
Rich in WI
Posts: 1115
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Rich in WI »

Not to speak for Todd, but I don't think he's condemning the whole South. Depending on where he was, there could be very good reasons for raising kids elsewhere. I probably wouldn't want my kids raised in the schools I had to go through. The level of willfull and prideful ignorance seems a bit higher in the South than elsewhere. And I'm talking about the general population, even in a college town.

I'm not condemning the South or ignoring the complex history that exists. It's the victimhood I'm seeing from some regarding "Southern Culture." There's a crowd that wants to ignore aspects of southern history in their pursuit if promoting their modern cultural agenda. Most of the "Southern heritage" groups I hear from only want to talk about white culture and then only in the most positive light. When anything comes up that might point out connections to something negative they get defensive start claiming "victimhood." That's what I hate to see. It's really a reduction of Southern culture which is in reality a changing and shifting force.

Rich

[Edit by Rich in WI on [TIME]1109277306[/TIME]]

[Edit by Rich in WI on [TIME]1109277944[/TIME]]


[Edit by Rich in WI on [TIME]1109278299[/TIME]]
Shawn D.
Beamter
Beamter
Posts: 22082
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Contact:

Post by Shawn D. »

[QUOTE="TCD"]Thankfully I left the south as soon as I became an adult so I could raise my kids elsewhere. The views of some southerners never cease to amaze me.[/QUOTE]
No kidding! One of my best friends in high school had a dad who was one of the worst racists I've ever known, and I always felt uneasy being around him. He was an HVAC salesman and lost a sale one time when he said to the homeowner "I see you have a maid" -- the guy was white and his wife was black; IMO, he deserved a punch in the nose in addition to losing the sale. When my buddy and I came back from seeing Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" and were describing the opening scene where Clint blew away some miscreants, he said "They was n___s, right?" It's been fifteen years since I've run into him and thankfully I'll probably never see him again, as my buddy and his family shunned him a long time ago. It must also kill him to know that two of his three kids are gay!

[Edit by Shawn D. on [TIME]1109277253[/TIME]]
RobbieR
Posts: 1608
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Woodstock, GA

Post by RobbieR »

[QUOTE="Rich in WI"]Read my previous note. I'm not condemning the South or ignoring the rich black history that exists. It's the victimhood I'm seeing from some regarding "Southern Culture."[/QUOTE]
I agree. I get sick of seeing the "I'm a victim" mentality from a variety of sources.

One thing I do dispise is the notion that if you have a Southern accent, than you must be an ignorant redneck that has married your cousin, has a 4x4 truck with a gun rack and lives in a trailer park. I'm assuming this sterotype has been reinforced by the entertainment industry.

FWIW, I'm an Iowa native, lived in Georgia for 20 years and I am temporarily in California. Talk about culture shocks!! ~0

[Edit by RobbieR on [TIME]1109278010[/TIME]]
T_C_D
Posts: 7733
Joined: May 27, 2009 11:42 AM
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by T_C_D »

[QUOTE="TCD"]Thankfully I left the south as soon as I became an adult so I could raise my kids elsewhere. The views of some southerners never cease to amaze me.

Todd[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="RobbieR"]Soooo....how do you like shoveling snow? :D

But seriously, how can you judge an entire region of the country by the actions of a few? You do realize that the most prominent (and expensive) African American colleges are in the South? For example, Atlanta has both Morehouse and Spellman Colleges, the tomb of MLK, several African American Mayor's and a rich history of black culture in several areas of town. I'll dare to say that the South has more to offer for African Americans than say.....Ohio. :D [/QUOTE]

Read my message again. I qualified my statement by saying "some". BTW, I grew up in Redneck Jacksonville, lived in New Orleans (sorry guys) and also Redneck Charlotte. I know a little something about the south. No place is perfect but other places better reflect my views. We'll see how OH pans out.
Todd
Rich in WI
Posts: 1115
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Rich in WI »

I'm from the South and sometimes fall into that bigotry of the Southern accent. I think Deliverance did more to hurt the Southern accent than anything. Heck, when I lived in VA I had a pretty good mountain accent. It's gone away since I moved to Wisconsin but sometimes comes out when I've had a few to many beers. My company's main office is in Marrietta,GA. So I get a pretty regular dose of intelligent Southern speakers.
Rich
5er Quest
Posts: 120
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by 5er Quest »

This thread is reason #462 why I'm a "member" of this forum. I have learned a great deal- both about history and the folks who share this privilaged hobby of "bimmering".

I can't tolerate racisim in ANY form. Several trips ago I was in BWI and the TSA agents (both of whom were non-caucasian) checking my ID were brazen enough to continue their racist tripe about their "white" supervisor. After which I sought the on-duty supervisor and made a civil rights complaint.

Racisim by anyone is equivilant to the worst ignorance available. It's a poverty of the mind, quite easily curable.

I hope I can claim this attitude with objectivity, even though I have no familiarity with being anything other than a "cracker"! (that was supposed to be a self-inflicted joke!)

Fastpat, I do disagree with you on Lincoln's status. I think he did his best with what he had at that time. Riding the man 150 years later thru the current lense of our culture is, I think, myopic. But I will admit that I have not the benefit of being a nineteenth century buff. My interests go back about 1900 - 2000 years... but that's another thread.

Thank you all for enlightening me on an interesting topic. I have enjoyed it all.

Tom
fastpat
Posts: 1036
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Travelers Rest, South Carolina

Post by fastpat »

Rich in WI wrote:I agree that the Wisconsin flag is pretty ugly. It's a lot like the Virginia flag, too.

I grew up in Virginia and lived there for 20 years. Had a pretty strong dose of Southern culture. I even start getting a mountain accent when drink. What I find interesting about most of the "cultural victims" of the South is that it tends to be in support of a treasonous action (the Civil War) and really only supports a segment of white southern culture. There's a "sweep the bad stuff under the rug" attitude that I think is unfortunate.
You are quite incorrect on the treasonous act, in order for that to be true, there would have to be a prohibition on secession in the Constitution to which the states agreed prior to joining the compact. Remember, the power in the Constitution is granted by the states to the government created by the Constitutuion. The secession from the union created by the Constitution was wholly lawful.
Like it or not, the Stars and Bars have become a symbol of slavery and racism. And whether or not it's the proper flag or not doesn't really matter. It's what most people who fly the flag call it. This isn't the fault of good upstanding citizens, but the white supremacy folks. Up here in Wisconsin I see a fair number of pickup trucks with the Stars and Bars displayed one way or another. Clearly it's not a symbol of Southern culture they are displaying.
The proper flag of slavery is the British, French, and US (Union) flag. Since no slaves were brought to America in ships flying any flag of the Confederacy. A genuine southern man doesn't let others define what the symbols of his country mean, he defines them. Further, if you check photos of flags flying at racist rallies, you'll find that most of them are "Stars and Stripes" union flags.
I'd be much more impressed with the whole "southern culture revitilization" if the good white folks would come to grips with fact that their culture has been stolen by the racists and fight to take the cultural symbols back. Instead what I see is a white washing of Jim Crow, slavery, and very deep racist attitudes.
I take it you don't know that most "Jim Crow" laws were enacted during the officially US government terrorism called Reconstruction, and not by southerners who were prohibited from voting during this time. Turning a discussion of the War of Agression against the Confederacy into a modern discussion of racism is a typical obfuscation ploy. It doesn't work.
When I got old enough to work, I can tell you I had several bosses who told me "I got nothing against black people, but I'd never hire one," or "he works pretty hard for a black boy." Naturally they took a deep interest in their southern history and disguised their own personal racism behind the cloak of "southern heritage." Oddly, the heritage of blacks didn't seem to be a part of it.
Slaves weren't citizens at the time of the northern invasion of the south, illegal Mexican immigrants aren't citizens either.
That said, I love the South. There's a lot of good things happening. I plan on moving back at some point. But I don't see a lot of the Civil War history as something to be proud of. It was treason plain and simple. And slavery was the driving force behind the war. Yes, there were strong economic reasons, too. But just look at the battles in the Kansas/Nebraska area - slavery was used as a weapon for settlement. The slavery and "cultural" issues are wrapped up in each other. I do like the whole reinactment movement. That's some cool stuff. I had a lot of friends into the reinactment scene - they even got to be extras in Glory.
There was no treason, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I won't hold my breath since not one single scholar has been able to do so in better 140 years and many have been able to prove that it was not. Please believe me that's you'd have to read for months to catch up on this issue. The Union staged an unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation, a fact for which amply proof does exist, and is the primary reason not one single officer in the Confederate Army nor the Confederate government was tried for treason.
Whether Lincoln was a hero, a villan, or something in-between I don't really care. He was just another politician with history thrust upon him.

OK, flamesuit is on.

Rich
Rich, I've read statements identical to yours for years, all are based on a history written by the victors. You should know how those histories turn out. The Confederacy was created by states seeking freedom from subjugation, they were invaded to prevent that from happening and the whole country lost when the Confederacy was conquered. Read the book I referenced above by Professor DiLorenzo, at Loyola University (Maryland), you you want to learn facts
5er Quest
Posts: 120
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by 5er Quest »

Rich in WI wrote:I agree that the Wisconsin flag is pretty ugly. It's a lot like the Virginia flag, too.

I grew up in Virginia and lived there for 20 years. Had a pretty strong dose of Southern culture. I even start getting a mountain accent when drink. What I find interesting about most of the "cultural victims" of the South is that it tends to be in support of a treasonous action (the Civil War) and really only supports a segment of white southern culture. There's a "sweep the bad stuff under the rug" attitude that I think is unfortunate.
You are quite incorrect on the treasonous act, in order for that to be true, there would have to be a prohibition on secession in the Constitution to which the states agreed prior to joining the compact. Remember, the power in the Constitution is granted by the states to the government created by the Constitutuion. The secession from the union created by the Constitution was wholly lawful.
Like it or not, the Stars and Bars have become a symbol of slavery and racism. And whether or not it's the proper flag or not doesn't really matter. It's what most people who fly the flag call it. This isn't the fault of good upstanding citizens, but the white supremacy folks. Up here in Wisconsin I see a fair number of pickup trucks with the Stars and Bars displayed one way or another. Clearly it's not a symbol of Southern culture they are displaying.
The proper flag of slavery is the British, French, and US (Union) flag. Since no slaves were brought to America in ships flying any flag of the Confederacy. A genuine southern man doesn't let others define what the symbols of his country mean, he defines them. Further, if you check photos of flags flying at racist rallies, you'll find that most of them are "Stars and Stripes" union flags.
I'd be much more impressed with the whole "southern culture revitilization" if the good white folks would come to grips with fact that their culture has been stolen by the racists and fight to take the cultural symbols back. Instead what I see is a white washing of Jim Crow, slavery, and very deep racist attitudes.
I take it you don't know that most "Jim Crow" laws were enacted during the officially US government terrorism called Reconstruction, and not by southerners who were prohibited from voting during this time. Turning a discussion of the War of Agression against the Confederacy into a modern discussion of racism is a typical obfuscation ploy. It doesn't work.
When I got old enough to work, I can tell you I had several bosses who told me "I got nothing against black people, but I'd never hire one," or "he works pretty hard for a black boy." Naturally they took a deep interest in their southern history and disguised their own personal racism behind the cloak of "southern heritage." Oddly, the heritage of blacks didn't seem to be a part of it.
Slaves weren't citizens at the time of the northern invasion of the south, illegal Mexican immigrants aren't citizens either.
That said, I love the South. There's a lot of good things happening. I plan on moving back at some point. But I don't see a lot of the Civil War history as something to be proud of. It was treason plain and simple. And slavery was the driving force behind the war. Yes, there were strong economic reasons, too. But just look at the battles in the Kansas/Nebraska area - slavery was used as a weapon for settlement. The slavery and "cultural" issues are wrapped up in each other. I do like the whole reinactment movement. That's some cool stuff. I had a lot of friends into the reinactment scene - they even got to be extras in Glory.
There was no treason, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I won't hold my breath since not one single scholar has been able to do so in better 140 years and many have been able to prove that it was not. Please believe me that's you'd have to read for months to catch up on this issue. The Union staged an unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation, a fact for which amply proof does exist, and is the primary reason not one single officer in the Confederate Army nor the Confederate government was tried for treason.
Whether Lincoln was a hero, a villan, or something in-between I don't really care. He was just another politician with history thrust upon him.

OK, flamesuit is on.

Rich
Rich, I've read statements identical to yours for years, all are based on a history written by the victors. You should know how those histories turn out. The Confederacy was created by states seeking freedom from subjugation, they were invaded to prevent that from happening and the whole country lost when the Confederacy was conquered. Read the book I referenced above by Professor DiLorenzo, at Loyola University (Maryland), you you want to learn facts
fastpat wrote:You are quite incorrect on the treasonous act, in order for that to be true, there would have to be a prohibition on secession in the Constitution to which the states agreed prior to joining the compact. Remember, the power in the Constitution is granted by the states to the government created by the Constitutuion. The secession from the union created by the Constitution was wholly lawful.

The proper flag of slavery is the British, French, and US (Union) flag. Since no slaves were brought to America in ships flying any flag of the Confederacy. A genuine southern man doesn't let others define what the symbols of his country mean, he defines them. Further, if you check photos of flags flying at racist rallies, you'll find that most of them are "Stars and Stripes" union flags.

I take it you don't know that most "Jim Crow" laws were enacted during the officially US government terrorism called Reconstruction, and not by southerners who were prohibited from voting during this time. Turning a discussion of the War of Agression against the Confederacy into a modern discussion of racism is a typical obfuscation ploy. It doesn't work.

Slaves weren't citizens at the time of the northern invasion of the south, illegal Mexican immigrants aren't citizens either.

Rich, I've read statements identical to yours for years, all are based on a history written by the victors. You should know how those histories turn out. The Confederacy was created by states seeking freedom from subjugation, they were invaded to prevent that from happening and the whole country lost when the Confederacy was conquered. Read the book I referenced above by Professor DiLorenzo, at Loyola University (Maryland), you you want to learn facts
Pat, are you angry?

If not, you're coming across as so.

I think it's poor to proclaim this one professor (all bow to the PROFESSOR!) has the corner on THE facts.

But you might just be angry, I dunno.

Tom
Rich in WI
Posts: 1115
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Rich in WI »

I'll check out the book you reference. Sounds intruiging. I've been on a history kick lately, so it's good timing.

But I really disagree with you regarding the issue of slavery. The good Southern states were willing to have a slave be considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining representation in Congress (they wanted a full 1:1 ratio), but they weren't willing to make them citizens. By using the same logic, illegal immigrants should be counted for purposes of legislative districting, but not given the right to vote. It's morally bankrupt when the foundation of the U.S. is based on representative gov't. The South wanted it both ways. Count the slaves, but don't let them be represented. But I don't think we're talking about slavery here. However - how much longer would slavery have existed in the South absent the Civil War? Some say it would have died out on its own. That doesn't speak too highly of

I see a strange need in much of the South to romanticize history. Obviously the books were written by the victors. But there seems to be a denial on the part of many Southerners to pretend that they weren't responsible for anything negative. No Confederate ships transported slaves? Of course not. But that's based on a technicality rather than on some greatness of southern history. It's simply that there was no Confederacy during most of the slave trading. But conveniently the South did benefit. Hmmm.

Whether the Civil War should be considered treason is an interesting point. From a legal perspective you are correct. However, from the perspective of undermining the Union, you are incorrect. There is no doubt that the actions of the South undermined the overall strength of the Union and opened up the possibility of British or other take-over. Heck, the Confederacy even tried to get the British to help out. Looks like the slave traders stuck together.

Rich
Post Reply