Racism in the South

[monsoon]

America is also in no position to lecture other on human rights, for instance abu ghraib, guantanamo bay or just U.S. privat prisons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think any Southerner has lectured the world over human rights in this sub-Forum. We already know where we stand on that issue.

I brought up the television documentary on the poor people being shot by the Serbians only after you came here with some silly story about Mexicans being shot (which has not happened) and the lynchings in the South. Those lynchings ended 40-50 years which just 10 years prior to that, the Germans were executing millions of Jews. (and probably would still be doing so if the USA had not come in and stopped it) If you are going to judge The South, which the ignorant, who like to think they are superior, are want to do, make sure you have your facts straight before you do so.

So don't come here looking for a fight because you don't have any moral ground to stand on. Many many Southerner's ancestors lost their lives fighting in Wars to protect civilized Europe against fascism, communism, the stupid royal leadership, etc. and you most likely would not be here today if it wasn't for that fact. You are welcome to come here to learn about us but if you try to start another fight you are not going to like the results.

[053e'de]

I don't think any Southerner has lectured the world over human rights in this sub-Forum.  We already know where we stand on that issue. 

I brought up the television documentary on the poor people being shot by the Serbians only after you came here with some silly story about Mexicans being shot (which has not happened) and the lynchings in the South.  Those lynchings  ended 40-50 years which just 10 years prior to that, the Germans were executing millions of Jews.  (and probably would still be doing so if the USA had not come in and stopped it)    If you are going to judge The South, which the ignorant, who like to think they are superior,  are want to do, make sure you have your facts straight before you do so. 

So don't come here looking for a fight because you don't have any moral ground to stand on.  Many many Southerner's ancestors lost their lives fighting in Wars to protect civilized Europe against fascism, communism, the stupid royal leadership, etc. and you most likely would not be here today if it wasn't for that fact.  You are welcome to come here to learn about us but if you try to start another fight you are not going to like the results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don

[monsoon]

053e'de thanks for the reply. You are more than welcome here and we would like to learn more about where you are from too.

[053e'de]

Thanks, no hard feelings.

[satalac]

i think we all need to hug.

[Dale]

i think we all need to hug. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, okay *said grumpily*.

[krazeeboi]

Now HERE'S an article that makes you think...

[Showtime24]

Raciscm In California Is Rare Now maybe in the 1990's it was high but not anymore because california is SO DIVERSE all the races are based in California

But maybe a month ago i was so SHOCKED that i saw in the news that kids burned swatiskas in neiborhood well maybe there emotional unstable kids

LA is kind of racist people in there like some werido killed 10 people and had a swatiska carved in his forehead glad he had the death sentence

"raciscm Is Still Alive We Are Just Hiding It"

Annoymous Person

[RiversideGator]

maybe in the 1990's it was high but not anymore

Yes, the 1990s were so long ago. That is pretty much the ancient past.

[Tiger Beer]

I read a few pages here and there of this thread.

Regarding racism is everywhere - true. I grew up in Michigan.. definetely can feel the 'segregation' of the two races. Very strong feel to it.

When I lived in New York City.. felt much less so.. people seemed to get along much better.. less suspicions of each other, etc. I'm a white guy, and if I felt lost or needed something, I'd almost always go up to a black guy first.. usually they just knew things and secondly they were always extremely helpful and cool at the same time.

Also.. driving through the south.. some areas feel real sketchy.. but other areas quite laid-back and cool. I had a flat tire and there was an older white christian lady and a younger teenager black kid together who gave me a ride into town.. I just thought that was cool. Up in Michigan, I doubt if I'd see that combination just hanging out or whatever it is they were doing - they talked about God a lot - so I'm guessing it was church related.. but still.

Anyhow the more I got around the States.. the more ugly Detroit and Michigan really felt with its non-handling of white/black issues. Feels like the more 'progressive' a place thinks it is.. the more it really isn't. Europe is classic in this example. The burning of France by its extremely disenfranchised minorities being an excellent case in point.

[NcSc74]

I have to say that in my 20 plus years(I am 31) growing up in NC I can only remember a few times feeling uncomfortable or being called the N-bomb or anything like that. Sometimes I get so upset when I hear anyone from another part of the counrty or world start with the whole south is racist thing. Mind you I grew up in a diverse setting in Fayetteville but still I have done my share of traveling. Anyone who says their part of the world is not just as racist or whatever is on something because ignorance has no boundaries. I am not blind nor I am ignorant to the fact that there are people in the south who want too keep things as they were. Also I know there are places that still hold on to those old feelings but as a whole the south has came along better with race relations than any other place in the country IMO because of the past. Look at the south now and how it is attracting so many people and it is because of what we have to offer all together...so all of the negative stuff with racism will not be easily forgiven but as for me it is forgotten.

[mandrws1]

For those of you that believe the north is more racist than the south, GET REAL. I love living in the south, but I have experienced racism from every direction down here, from the police to teachers etc. Yes I'm a young black man, I wear urban clothes (except on my job), but there shouldn't be a reason why I shouldn't be able to go to a mall without being watched, followed, etc. And yes, I have been called a ###### more times than I can count. I went to school for a couple of years in Chicago and never was called that, but as soon as I got back down south, I started to hear that word more and more. I posted this back on August 15 on the "Why I like/dislike Memphis/Nashville thread............

Cdarr, you have a lot of good points, but I have an interesting story to tell.

One of my good friends, who happens to be White, and I were getting close to our college graduation date so we decided to apply to a very respectable Memphis based company. I have a "Black name," and my friend has a "White name." Our resumes and GPAs were pretty much the same. Our phone calls went completely different. I was told that the company was staffed up and that I was inexperienced and to re-apply once I graduated. My buddy was told to come in and meet the staff because more youth was desired in their organization. He didn't accept the position that was offered to him and he sort of resents Memphis because of that situation. The racism IS still there. Now I know that could have happened in any city in America, but the huge wealth gap in Memphis obviously shows that it is a big problem here.

[mandrws1]

Another example....

I went to a local mall and my wallet was stolen. When I went to the security room, they had video tape of me from when I walked in the mall up to the point when my wallet was stolen. They were able to catch the guy that stole my wallet because of this, but why were they watching me all that time in the first place? I have a good job and two small children and I value family, honesty, etc. just as much as anyone else does. No one can say that Black people aren't discriminated against on a daily basis. But with hard work and an honest lifestyle, we can overcome racist obstacles, but reality is reality! From my experiences both up north and down south, reading history books, and living in reality, its easy for me to say that racism is more prevalent in the south than in the north.

[krazeeboi]

I'm sorry that you had to experience situations like that. I, too, am a young Black man, born and raised in the rural South (SC), and while I've had my share of uncomfortable racial moments, I've never experienced anything to the extent that you have described. I believe that the basis for saying that the North is potentially more racist than the South has more to do with statistics (levels of segregation, for instance) than individual occurrences. But as you've stated, this could have happened anywhere.

[Newnan]

Right now in Clayton County, outside of Atlanta, Tara boulevard, named after Scarlett's plantation is now being considered to be renamed Rosa Parks boulevard. Now that Clayton county is mainly black does it make sense to rename this street after a civil rights hero, or is it wrong to try to disregard an important aspect of the south like gone with then wind to make way for another one? This is a tough question for all Atlantans and southerners.

[krazeeboi]

I'm sure there's some other non-controversial way to honor her legacy. And why must we always do it with street names? Can we think outside of the box sometimes? Rename a park with some generic name, or a square, or a monument, or something other than a street name after her; there are several ways to do this and please everyone (or at least everyone who actually cares).

[TennBear]

I'm sure there's some other non-controversial way to honor her legacy. And why must we always do it with street names? Can we think outside of the box sometimes? Rename a park with some generic name, or a square, or a monument, or something other than a street name after her; there are several ways to do this and please everyone (or at least everyone who actually cares).

Krazeeboi, I agree in principle with what you are saying. Problem is that whenever anything is named after someone, it is always controversial to someone. I would say that names of things that have graphic images, such as Tara are in the same vein. I am really in favor of stopping the naming of anything after people. When there was a previous name that holds no political or emotional response, they should be turned back to the original name. I do not see the naming of streets, parks, etc after Civil Rights Leaders to be any different than in the Early 20th Century when the were naming them after Civil War Leaders. I am certain that many of the places that where named after Civil War Leaders had previous names that are not racially charged. Same thing, whenever you name something after a person you alienate someone. I am certain that the imagery of Tara and it's tie-in with the imagery of slavery is objectionable to the residents. I can understand why they want to change the name to honer someone that has set a positive example, but then you have the people that say you are trying to change history or you are trying to place something else up in its place. I could bring up another person that there is a push to name everything after and that is Reagan. This is not racial, but political. It still has the same effect. Same for things named for Clinton, or whomever. I just wish that cities would pass ordinances ending the naming of any public spaces after people. I think that it just serves to charge up those on one side or another on whatever issue.

[mandrws1]

We are currently going through the same thing in Memphis over Confederate Park (and its statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis) and Nathan Forrest Park (the first leader of the KKK). Memphis is a mostly Black city now, with the exception of the sububs, and some political leaders want the names changed. Personally, I could care less, even though these people murdered my people on daily basis. I would never have a picnic at either of these parks (just as suspect a Jew would never visit a "Hitler Park"), but they will serve as a learning tool as my two small boys get older.

[TennBear]

We are currently going through the same thing in Memphis over Confederate Park (and its statue of Confederate president James Davis) and Nathan Forrest Park (the first leader of the KKK). Memphis is a mostly Black city now, with the exception of the sububs, and some political leaders want the names changed. Personally, I could care less, even though these people murdered my people on daily basis. I would never have a picnic at either of these parks (just as suspect a Jew would never visit a "Hitler Park"), but they will serve as a learning tool as my two small boys get older.

Mandrws1, I know what you mean. I had to laugh, James-Davis = clothing store, you meant to say Jefferson Davis. I think that we all knew what you meant. Memphis and Richmond both fit into exactly what I was saying. Confederate Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Forest Park in Memphis were all named as such in the early 20th Century as a counter to the end of Reconstruction. The white populace at the time had the power back and the desire to honor its heros of the Civil War. Nathan Bedford Forest and his wife were dug up from Elmwood Cemetary and moved to the park site. There is no doubt that they have historical importance, but they were at time meant to express a desire to show that whites were back in control. Interestly, Conferate Park had Civil War Era Cannons until WWI when they were melted down for the War and replaced by the WWI vintage ones there now. Richmond has its Monument Avenue where it has statues of many of its Confederate Generals. It also has a statue of Arthur Ashe. I think that both of these cases, as you mentioned can serve as a learning tool.

In Memphis, Riverside Park was also renamed Martin Luther King Riverside Park and countless streets have been named for famous local blacks, as well. Many of these have the same effect creating animosity within large groups of the populace. Some because of the loss of traditional names and others due to a dislike of the person honored or what it represents. Flows back to my comment that naming any street or public space is creating alienation in some group. I would be in favor of returning all of the parks and streets to their original names, as long as those names do not engender hatred or strong emotional response. I do not know the original name of Forest Park, but Confederate and and Jefferson Davis Parks could fall back to the Promenade.

[RiversideGator]

We are currently going through the same thing in Memphis over Confederate Park (and its statue of Confederate president James Davis) and Nathan Forrest Park (the first leader of the KKK). Memphis is a mostly Black city now, with the exception of the sububs, and some political leaders want the names changed. Personally, I could care less, even though these people murdered my people on daily basis. I would never have a picnic at either of these parks (just as suspect a Jew would never visit a "Hitler Park"), but they will serve as a learning tool as my two small boys get older.

Whoa mandrws. Please dont compare Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest to Hitler, who killed 8 million Jews and plunged the world into war. Jefferson Davis never killed anyone (unless it occured in his service for the US in the Mexican War). He simply was the leader of the Southern states in seceding from the Union. Lincoln started the war by denying the South that right. Was he a supporter of slavery? Yes. But, slavery was a system which had been in place for thousands of years. I dont think we should judge him too harshly for going along with this and defending his region. Dont forget that Lincoln would have preserved slavery to preserve the Union too, so the War was not exclusively about slavery.

As for Forrest, he was a Confederate General from the Memphis area and he did personally kill 33 Yankees in battle, but they were all white as far as I know. As to slavery, slaves were extremely expensive and owners didnt go around killing them for that reason if nothing else (not to mention the fact that it was illegal). Slaves in America also had a natural increase in numbers, unlike in Brazil and some other places so this indicates that they were generally cared for. Of course, slavery was not right and should never have been started, but the Civil War generation wasnt the one which started this unjust system. So, let's not have this heated rhetoric.

[TennBear]

As for Forrest, he was a Confederate General from the Memphis area and he did personally kill 33 Yankees in battle, but they were all white as far as I know. As to slavery, slaves were extremely expensive and owners didnt go around killing them for that reason if nothing else (not to mention the fact that it was illegal). Slaves in America also had a natural increase in numbers, unlike in Brazil and some other places so this indicates that they were generally cared for. Of course, slavery was not right and should never have been started, but the Civil War generation wasnt the one which started this unjust system. So, let's not have this heated rhetoric.

Riverside, We are going down a slippery slope. I did not go into the Hitler mention for good reason and still won't. I would agree with your assessment of Jefferson Davis, but Nathan Bedford Forest has some questionable points.

1) Yes, he did as mentioned help found the KKK, but he left early because he did not like where it was going.

2) He certainly was involved in the killing of blacks during the War. He led a force of Confederate soldiers that captured Fort Pillow. The fort was protected by a largely all black garrison and the garrison waas virtually massacred to the man.

3) He was a slave dealer prior to the war.

I would rather stay off the Civil War. It is a slippery slope that could become very bad, very quickly.

[mandrws1]

Mandrws1, I know what you mean. I had to laugh, James-Davis = clothing store, you meant to say Jefferson Davis.

I'm glad you caught that. I must need to go shopping!

[RiversideGator]

Fort Pillow was defended by black soldiers (and some whites), not civilians. They were involved in the battle and were killed as were the white combatants. As for the alleged massacre, (1) both sides dont agree on the details of what happened and ( 2 ) there is no evidence that Forrest ordered the killing of prisoners. In battle, Forrest was as tough as they come, but no one has evidence that he ordered the killing of people who had surrendered. This is simply not true. In fact, an examination of the battle by Sherman found no fault with Forrest's conduct.

Forrest did work as a slave trader (among other jobs) before the War, but this was a LEGAL profession. Anyway, no one was honoring his service as a slave owner, they were honoring his service as a Confederate General. In fact, most military historians place him in the top ranks of all Generals in the War and he was completely untrained in warfare. He was an America military genius regardless of his pre-war profession. After the War, he did help found the KKK but left the KKK when it became too violent for him. The original KKK, by the way, was largely designed to get rid of the carpetbagger Yankees, who were robbing the South, and was not the same group as the early 20th century KKK.

I responded to your post because, despite the fact that you said you wanted to stay off the Civil War, you took some parting shots at Forrest which needed to be answered. Forrest is, in many ways, a figure worthy of study and of admiration. He was completely self-made and rose to the highest ranks of society. He suffered from the failings of many of his day, but he was not the demon some try to make him out to be. For more on him, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

[mandrws1]

Whoa mandrws. Please dont compare Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest to Hitler, who killed 8 million Jews and plunged the world into war. Jefferson Davis never killed anyone (unless it occured in his service for the US in the Mexican War). He simply was the leader of the Southern states in seceding from the Union. Lincoln started the war by denying the South that right. Was he a supporter of slavery? Yes. But, slavery was a system which had been in place for thousands of years. I dont think we should judge him too harshly for going along with this and defending his region. Dont forget that Lincoln would have preserved slavery to preserve the Union too, so the War was not exclusively about slavery.

As for Forrest, he was a Confederate General from the Memphis area and he did personally kill 33 Yankees in battle, but they were all white as far as I know. As to slavery, slaves were extremely expensive and owners didnt go around killing them for that reason if nothing else (not to mention the fact that it was illegal). Slaves in America also had a natural increase in numbers, unlike in Brazil and some other places so this indicates that they were generally cared for. Of course, slavery was not right and should never have been started, but the Civil War generation wasnt the one which started this unjust system. So, let's not have this heated rhetoric.

I'm gonna stay off the Civil War subject too because we all can interpret history in a number of different ways. Back to the point..... from my experiences, racism still exists in the south. It has just changed with the times just as everything else has changed with time.

[RiversideGator]

Fair enough. That has little to do with the present state of race relations anyway. I personally think things are much better now than say even 20-30 years ago.