There's no way that I'm reading all the posts in this thread, so if this has been noted already, sorry:

Couldn't you really debate "non-southern" areas of any southern state? Is the Research Triangle in NC southern? Is Alpharetta, Georgia? The DC suburbs in Northern Virginia?

Anyway, why limit this "is this part of the state really Southern" debate to just Texas?

The research triangle is not southern. Most of the northern Atlanta suburbs are also not southern. You make a valid point.

Florida south of Ocala shouldn't be considered Southern, either.

I also feel like Texas is just Texas...not North, not South, and not West. It has its own culture. I like Texas...I don't really dig the South that much (even though I grew up there).

I love everything about the South except the sins of our forefathers in regard to race and how addressing those sins keeps everyone living in the past racially without addressing the present.

Alphagamuga, the sins you speak of are the sins of all Americans. A little discussed fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the parts of the CSA not under Union control. Slavery continued to be legal in four states of the Union until the passage of the 14th Amendment. There were several Union generals who kept slaves until after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Many cities in the north passed laws making it illegal for newly-freed slaves to move into the city. Victors write the history books, so they have made the south a scrapegoat, but the fact of the matter is no area of the country is free from the scourge of racism.
Continue to love the south, and understand that racism unfortuantely knows no geographical or cultural boundaries. I remember well the busing riots in Boston in the 1970s. Accusing one region or another of being more racist may make someone feel superior, but I believe it prevents the kind of thoughtful reflection that will enable us all to rise above it.

You're my hero. I was going to say this if someone didnt... I taught that about two weeks ago to my good ol 4th graders, hooray for Virginia history!

The geographical south is not worth a damn. Parts of Arkansas are hardly Southern, especially the parts north and west of Little Rock. Geographically one would have to include south florida, which is obviously not southern in mannerisms and language at all.

edit: Sins of my ancestors. HAH!

Elephant Walk - you may not realize this, but many free blacks themselves owned slaves, and many Africans were captured by their fellow Africans (from different tribes, obviously) and sold into slavery. So, yes, it is possible for your ancestors to have contributed to the problem.

I was under the impression that Elephant Walk was very white.

Then I don't understand the -"sins of my ancestors - HA!" comment. But okay - my point remains that, for example, for yankees to feel superior to the south because of perceived racism is to ignore the fortunes made by New England families in the slave trade. No one's hands are clean - and that should simply make us humble. I'm just really tired of hearing that the south is racist because of the War Between the States, when 9 times out of 10 the people making that argument don't know what the hell they are talking about. They took one year of American History, and know everything. If it was in their text book, it must be true.
I made the assumption that the term "elephant" referred to Delta membership. I'm sorry if I was wrong. I did check Elephant Walk's profile first. Upon reflection, I realize that perhaps he/she is a U of AL alum. Whoops. Roll Tide, if that's the case! I won't even suggest the other possible meaning of Elephant Walk . . . .

This is the funniest misunderstanding on GreekChat. I understand that it was made with the best of intentions, SWTABelle, but it's an error not too far from David Chapelle's Blind White Supremacist. I certainly don't mean that Elephantwalk is a white supremacist, but his previous post are some of the least PC on race.

I used "our forefathers" pretty loosely. You think Lincoln meant it literally in the Gettysburg address?

It is a funny misunderstanding, and although I thought about deleting my posts, instead I think I'll leave 'em. Heck, if you can't laugh at yourself . . .

Alpharetta = Not Southern

Marietta = Definitely Southern

I agree that there is/was racial discrimination everywhere and that the issue of race and slavery is often oversimplified in people's understanding of the Civil War which often boils down to North=good; South=bad, when it could more accurately thought of as North=bad; South=worse.

But ultimately, the Jim Crow laws in the South and people's attitude about integration in the South, make the issue, I think, uniquely more intense for the South.

Open, legal, and actively practiced discrimination on the basis of race is a whole lot more likely to have happened in the south more recently than in most other places.

However, other areas have their own issues: I think it was probably easier, until recently, as far as discrimination goes to be Hispanic in Georgia than in Texas, New Mexico or California for example.

But you see, you are buying into the arguement that the South was bad - or worse. My earlier post I think makes it clear that to argue that the War was fought over slavery is to ignore the fact that slavery remained legal in the Union after it had been declared illegal in the South. How can you say you are fighting a war to abolish slavery, when you continue to practice it yourself? The issue of the growth of the Federal government - the fact that in 1861 the south was paying 87% of all tariffs to the USA government - the issue of state's rights - it's too much to go into here, but suffice it to say that my marriage to a history professor has given me lots of information regarding the reasons behind the War. (It's his specialty) England was able to abolish slavery without a war - every other nation in the Western Hemisphere was also. Am I to believe that we were the only nation who couldn't? I could, if you like, point you to quotes from Lincoln, Grant and Sherman about race that would make your hair curl. A professor once made the point that the issue of racism in the north and south could be described as this - in the south, blacks were an accepted part of society, the question was their role. In the north, they were not even accepted. Lincoln famously suggested that freed blacks be shipped back to Africa. The Draft Riots of 1863 were in New York City, not some southern city. And hey - the Dred Scott case was decided by the largely-northern Supreme Court, which overturned the earlier ruling of the southern court. (!!)
As to today, as I look at the news, I really think that racism in various forms is spread pretty evenly. If you are in the south, obviously you hear more about incidents here, but I remember when I lived up north hearing plenty.
My ulimate point is that I hate to see southerners carrying the burden of a guilt which has been unfairly laid on their shoulders. I think that rather than dwelling on the past, it is better to look at the progress that has been made, and continues to be made, and do all we can to further the idea that all men are equal before the law. That's it - I just want you to feel you can state you love the south without feeling obligated to make a qualifying statement.

And now for something completely different . . .

What consititutes the north, the mid-west and the west in your mind? I'd especially like to hear from those who consider themselves from those regions. And, what do you think distinguishes your region? (Not the geographical!)

Downtown old Marietta= southern

The vast majority of Marietta= extremely not-southern

Duh, shinerbock. Unless you live IN Marietta, you just have a Marietta mailing address.

Very, very, very white.

SWTXBelle, I don't give anyone a free pass in terms of slavery and the Civil War, and I agree that many things that the South is demonized for in some ways were accelerated because of Northern policy. (For example, would Andersonville been as bad if prisoner exchanges had continued? Would it have been as bad if the south had more food in general?) And yes, if most of heroes of the Union expressed their thoughts about race today, well, let's just say that the NAACP wouldn't be pleased.

But when I contrast the experience of my parents who are only four years apart in age, the one who went to school in the south didn't experience an integrated public school until law school and the other from the west went to an integrated school from first grade on. Both went to school pre and post Brown vs. the Board of Education. One state's school system thought the supreme court decision meant what it said, and the other decided to wait and see.

I don't especially feel the weight of guilt about slavery on my "southern" shoulders (at least in part because I don't think any of my relatives, especially the southern ones had immigrated yet), but we're talking 1961 before UGA allowed black students to enroll and in some cases 1970s before some high schools in Georgia were integrated. (They had the idea of "phasing" integration in as opposed to the whole system all at once.) The sins of my forefathers, in my opinion, are a whole lot closer than the Civil War.

And yet, instead of trying to ensure decent education for all the kids in Georgia despite their parents or grandparents not getting one, we had probably a ten year fight about the state flag.

On the totally different note:

Occasionally, I'm shocked at the difference in where I categorize states regionally in terms of culture versus where they are geographically. Ohio always freaks me out. I want to think of it as Midwestern culturally, which is probably in error, but it's pretty darn far east for that. (Well not Far East, as in Asian, but you know what I mean.)

Don't forget that Boston, MA public schools had neighborhood (thus segregated) schools until the early 70's at which time forced busing came into play.

Or that you know, the majority of race riots in the last 20 years have come in the North and the West (Philly and LA, namely)

What? You consider what happened in Haiti to be a peaceful exchange of power?

No doubt that other areas of the country stunk too: residential mortgage red-lining of minority neighborhoods, etc. Please don't think I'm trying to say that individual people in other regions were more progressive.

The difference to me is that segregation was official and practiced by the government and gov't agencies in the South long after other regions were trying to officially and legally address it, for example, with the busing you mentioned.

ETA: most areas have neighborhood schools today which end up being segregated, so I'm not sure that in itself points to an intention to discriminate the same way that actually barring enrollment of black students did.

So is it every other Western country except for Haiti? We could start a list: I'm not up on my emancipation law.

As a former Bostonian, I really believe that the greater Boston area (suburbs included) is one of the most self-segregated areas of our country. There is Mattapan and Roxbury (not to be confused with WEST Roxbury), Beacon Hill and the Back Bay, East Boston and the North End, Newton and Brookline, Weymouth and Quincy, Wellesley and Weston, just to name a few. Each are known for attracting a certain socioeconomic class AND ethnicity/religion.

Alum, you may be right, although a lot of Atlanta is really segregated in a similar way. I do still maintain that race looms over everything in the South in a way it doesn't seem to elsewhere, and it's one of the big negatives about the region.

I suspect that similarly divisive issues come up when officials decide how to treat the history of New Mexico and Texas. It would seem like it could be objective, but I think how much you emphasize the Spanish colonial presence gets to be pretty heated, as well as if you are going to regard both Spanish and Anglo as oppressing the indigenous peoples. And yet, when someone says they love Southwestern life, people from other regions don't assume what they are enjoying is based on a legacy of exploitation and inequality.

Bottom line on the past aspect: Each of us has as much control over who our ancestors were, or what our ancestors did or thought as we had control over our height or DNA. It's how you process it and how you decide to improve on their lot that's important.

I have ancestors on both sides on the War Between the States. I refuse to deny any of them, because I had nothing to do with their thought processes! People had different ideals 150 years ago, and there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that.

The important thing is to learn and move on - keeping what is noble and right, and disgarding the evils.

I grew up in Michigan and presently live in Ohio. I would generally label myself as being "from the Midwest." Not sure if that's technically correct (according to how the Midwest is supposed to be defined), but I certainly feel Midwestern.

Not sure what areas would constitute the North, now that I think about it. :confused: The northern states such as Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. I would actually consider as "eastern." Many of the other states along the US/Canada border I'd consider as "midwest" (Michigan, etc.).

Edit to add: Guess I wasn't too far off in thinking of myself as "Midwestern." According to Wiki (which is never wrong...lol), the Midwest is generally considered to be: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest

Is Atlanta really that segregated? I agree that may be true for where black/white folks live, but even relatively "white" places like Buckhead (east paces), dunwoody, peachtree city, etc, have a lot of minorities who come to hang out or shop there.

I think it sucks for the young black professional crowd in metro Atlanta really. I know they probably love Atlanta, but I've seen a lot of classy young black people feel resistance when moving into nice communities. I don't think they'd describe it as racism, more like cautious hesitation.

Yes, they stick Michigan in the midwest category. I've wondered why for a long time. We aren't West of much, except the Appalachians. Do they not want to have a Mid East region because of the geo-political issues in the Middle East of the world?

The Detroit metro area was the most segregated in the country per this Detroit News article: http://detnews.com/specialreports/20...b03-390169.htm Other major citites that were on the list were all around the Great Lakes.

I think that the terminology stems from the Northwest Territories - so perhaps at the time the "midwest" label started, we were more towards the "middle" of the west? (Before all of those more Western states became part of the US.)

Though I did see something referenced about the midwest starting as west of the Allegheny River. :confused:

Well, I feel better about how I was thinking about Ohio, but doesn't it seem weird that everything from Ohio to Nebraska would be Midwestern?

That is a really interesting story. Neither Atlanta or (Boston at least racially I guess) is as segregated as we thought.

The news story above confirms your theory that Atlanta isn't as segregated as I thought.

As far as the second point, I agree it probably really hard for well educated affluent young black people to find places that they want to live and feel completely welcome.

I think the "cautious hesitation" may be fear of white flight, not so much fear, distrust, or hatred of black people. As you probably know, the city and the surrounding area have experienced shifting demographics; think about Clayton County 10-15 years ago and Clayton County today. South/Mid Gwinnett, 10 years ago versus today. They're demographically different. I think people have concern that any racial change is approaching the "white flight" tipping point. Sure, it's a little racist, but it's more worrying about other people's racist actions that you have no control over.

How you do do multiple quotes in the same posts?

Well, it may be part-racism, but its also from experience in a lot of situations. Its very common in the metro area to see a nice affluent area where affluent and educated minorities move in. However, its also fairly common that they're followed by less affluent, less educated minorities, and suddenly property values are going down, violence goes up, etc. I think its rough for black people because they have the stigma that they're the ones starting the domino effect, but in reality they're trying to get away from the same things the affluent white folks are.

Ivy Spice - I don't consider the slave rebellion to be on the same par as the War Between the States - but I concede it was hardly peaceable!

Exactly.

Agreed. It is perplexing, then, that people express so much pride in their ancestors. You can't control who they are and what they did, so what do YOU have to be proud of? If your pride stems from your association with their noble accomplishments, why shouldn't you feel shame about their shameful acts? You have exactly the same degree of connection to their evil acts as to any others.