Ok
you don't agree with the idea of forget about the past and get on
with the future ... I get that, but why can't LL Kool J PERSONALLY
believing in it. As a "half cast" I 'll be damned if I'll
seek the permission of either side to express what I think. That
folks
BTW
the civil war was more than just over black emancipation per se.
especially given that the Nth in the early days made much of their
money slave trading and transporting. I'm led to believe that that is
the origin of the term Yankee (yank the slaves from their homes in
Africa and transport them to Where ever.) .
I
would put it to you that the major cause was a power battle between
the two the industrialists of the north and the Landed Gentry of the
South. Slaves were simply cheap labor to support CAPITALIST PROFIT.
Keep in mind that capitalism is built on the powerful exploiting the
less powerful.
Have
you read southern news papers of the day? The wealthy of any color or
gender see the privilege wealth creates as a right/entitlement.
The
point you are missing is that the landed Gentry " southern White
gentlemen" were the 1%ers of the time. The bulk of the white
population weren't rich nor necessarily slave owners.
What
you fail to take into consideration is that like the black slaves
most of the whites came from many different 'cultures' and were hand
to mouth poor. They , both black and white, had nothing in common
except their skin colors and shared experience (suffering).
Humans
black white or anywhere in between come from the same genetic stocks
(out of Africa 1,2 &3). They share the same genotype and
therefore the same generic motivations despite the differing
phenotypes. One of the most powerful is to protect what they have and
what they know or most comfortable with.
It
therefore should not be a surprise that the Sthn 1%ers stirred up the
the poor white (trash) most of whom were power naive under educated
by way of fear of loss of individual rights etc... (As LJoy indicated
negative is a better motivator of the rump than high minded complex
principal).
The
southern flag to a son of the South is more about their personal
rebellious spirit and pride in the only difference they have....their
white skin. Everyone want's to feel special or else we wouldn't have
invented religion
Of
course there are consequences even extremes (anybody want to argue ,
there isn't black extremists? or blacks that don't exploit their own
kind(sic)?) but as the song says they are still hurting over the
emotional defeat 150 years ago. Keep in mind these are the people
who gave rise to the 80yo+ feud between the Hatfieds and the McCoys.
Jesus
H Christ on a pogo stick the Irish are still warring over 1066 and
the "battle of the Boyne" and the riots of 1927.
The
converse is true of your view that the southern flag represents
suppression of the blacks ... i.e. to them it is celebrating them
being white.... as the Japanese flag means being Japanese... you want
institutionalised racism study their laws a bit I think you'll be
horrified?
Yes
the flag is abused as is being 'merican. I'd like a $ for every USA
tourist who has tried it on, being a bully or simply an ass hole in
other countries. " we're American we demand better service ...
why can't you(Asians)speak properly" (really?? how problematic
is that?) Fortunately I carried an Aussie passport too so I avoided
the oh so inscrutable push back.'solly I no speak ENGLISH'... when
they did, with a mid Atlantic ascent.
Consider
for a moment what the Stars and stripes means to say the semi or
uneducated natives of PNG or East Timor. It is offensive to them as
it represents to the latter US backing of the nation ( Indonesia )
that nearly exterminated their entire race and culture... they are of
different stock and religion (Christian and Melanesian ) to the
Indonesians (the world's most populous Muslim nation and essentially
east Asian)
So
who's perspective is right ? Isn't it smarter to do as the song
suggests ? The same as Sth Africa and yes East Timor.
Also
note I lived in SC for 18 years and I couldn't count the number of
whites I knew who despised the Tea party and/or the religious extreme
right (you parodied, not particularly well. The accent was all over
the place Their speech pattern and word choice would be far more
simple. They wouldn't use your favorite word "problematic"
and oh yes not all Tea baggers and their 125th st logic are from the
South ... if you check Wapo and Rolling stone you see they are
stronger in the mid west and central US. As Chomsky rightly points
out they have concerns and legitimate gripes... But circumstances
limit their deductive powers and their flawed rhetoric and
methodology are the inevitable consequences.
Think
of it like this in the 1930/40 there was a popular radio show where
two white men pretended to be two loveable (if very white
stereotyped)scoundrel poor blacks "Amos and Andy". If it
was played today there would be hell to pay.
Now
consider your ' Southern White Gentlemen hour' in the above context
why isn't that stereotyping and offensive too? Two wrongs might add
up to a republican but they never add up to a right or equity. It is
in fact a battle of stereotypes and the good get lumped in with the
bad.
BTW
Kentucky and other rural areas are suspicious of strangers regardless
of color. Imagine me not black or white with a southern accent
walking into a some bars in the hood at night. Our son was in East LA
and walked into a local bar and in his words was fearful of getting
out alive now he's white. His solution was to make sure they heard
his over emphasised Aussie accent “ g'day mate... what's good in
beer here in America”. In the aend he was drinking with some locals
as he worked through the beers and telling them about Australia's
fearful 'drop bears' and ' blue ringed possums'.
PS
he went to school in Charleston but went back to Aus to university
and stayed with his Grandma.
You
being lynched Hmmm me thinks you were projecting a bit.
PS
Tell
L Joy that Maori is pronounced M- our- re and as a Polynesian
(Hawaii) ancestry Blood (period) was important to them as was
cannibalism. The don't practice the period blood bit or cannibalism
any more.
They
arrived in NZ about 1000 AD and didn't form separate cultures
although they did separate as tribes. They differ from the Aussie
Aborigine in that they arrived in Aust about 40-50 thousand years
ago ( first out of Africa) and formed over 200 nations and cultures
and even started to change phenologically. They had regular regional
meetings for dispute or issue determination similar the the Native
Americans (see the book 1491) .
Unlike
the Maori they were way less savage and lived far more WITH the
land. The Maori simply ate and exterminated their mega fauna and
their enemies and each other. (see Maori wars and Moriori).
No comments:
Post a Comment