Who “won” Reconstruction?

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
It's not really genocide unless it's deliberate.
Cultural genocide can be interpreted differently than straight physical genocide such has the Holocaust. If a people and culture are displaced by low fertility and immigration an argument can be made for cultural genocide and yes both elements are deliberate.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
I'll play along, & give one Southern man's opinion.....

There is a definite sense of perpetual victimization in the white South, with the victimizers being primarily evil white Yankees/Northerners. As the narrative goes:
I wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim.
1. Before the war the North abused the South with the tariff.
Debatable
2. In 1860-1861, the North denied the South their States Rights.
Again, debatable. Probably the most debated thing concerning the war period. The legality of secession.
3. During the war the North invaded and desolated the South with their military.
Absolutely true.
4. During Reconstruction the North invaded again in the form of carpetbaggers who ran corrupt governments and sought to exploit the South while disenfranchising white Southerners.
Another truism.
5. Civil Rights and integration in the 1950s-1960s was decried by white Southerners as communism introduced by Northerners
Can't speak to this one. Wasn't around, & haven't really studied it.
6. Northerners continue to move into the South where they seek to change everything in the South and make it into another North.
100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
That's before you factor in blacks, Hispanics, and other non-whites.

White Southerners essentially think they have been fighting a defensive war against exploitation and cultural genocide the last 200+ years. (Although I doubt many would use those words, and their perceived struggle predates "genocide" as a word.)
I'll concede that plenty of folks feel this way. What I'll disagree with is, the insinuation, that it's based on racism, or bigotry. I don't want higher taxes. I don't want congestion, traffic, & higher crime rates. I don't want to NOT be able to walk out my front door, & shoot a rifle, etc... When I think of lifestyle, or cultural changes, that's what I think of. I could care less what the skin tone, or politics of my neighbors are. I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life. Looking at how far in the boonies I am, & a projection of years left, I should be okay....
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I'll play along, & give one Southern man's opinion.....


I wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim.

Debatable

Again, debatable. Probably the most debated thing concerning the war period. The legality of secession.

Absolutely true.

Another truism.

Can't speak to this one. Wasn't around, & haven't really studied it.

100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.


I'll concede that plenty of folks feel this way. What I'll disagree with is, the insinuation, that it's based on racism, or bigotry. I don't want higher taxes. I don't want congestion, traffic, & higher crime rates. I don't want to NOT be able to walk out my front door, & shoot a rifle, etc... When I think of lifestyle, or cultural changes, that's what I think of. I could care less what the skin tone, or politics of my neighbors are. I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life. Looking at how far in the boonies I am, & a projection of years left, I should be okay....
Point number 5 would be well documented as the white Citizens Council made it very well known what they thought of the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 60s.
The white Southerners can only blame themselves for the influx of Northeners and immigrants as each Southern state competes with other states for outside investment most definitely including tax subsidies .
If Southern whites are truly concerned about urbanization then they need to stop giving incentives to private interests to invest in their state and strict zoning laws in rural areas.
The South can not have its cake and eat it to. If the South wants economic development and growth that absolutely means it's demographics must change and change indeed they have most notably Texas,Virginia, North Carolina,Georgia,Florida. NPR even had a radio article on a city in Alabama that was anti illegal immigrant and then turned pro illegal immigration maybe @jgoodguy remembers the name of that city.
Kirk's Raider's
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Point number 5 would be well documented as the white Citizens Council made it very well known what they thought of the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 60s.
The white Southerners can only blame themselves for the influx of Northeners and immigrants as each Southern state competes with other states for outside investment most definitely including tax subsidies .
If Southern whites are truly concerned about urbanization then they need to stop giving incentives to private interests to invest in their state and strict zoning laws in rural areas.
The South can not have its cake and eat it to. If the South wants economic development and growth that absolutely means it's demographics must change and change indeed they have most notably Texas,Virginia, North Carolina,Georgia,Florida. NPR even had a radio article on a city in Alabama that was anti illegal immigrant and then turned pro illegal immigration maybe @jgoodguy remembers the name of that city.
Kirk's Raider's
Beats me.
I do know that the Chinese Restaurants around here have Chi-Mex on the buffet.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Absolutely true.
This is another questionable notion... As I remember it was the southerners that burned Atlanta to the ground and Richmond as well so the two main industrial areas were destroyed by Confederates... They did it by choice,,, Think the rest the major cities in the south were intact so where is this desolation? You can argue the Shenandoah Valley, the Sherman's paths and that all rural areas that came back fast... The great lost of wealth in the South was not form Northern army work but the freeing of slaves all that capital gone... All the destitution comes from the end of slavery... go back a look slavery was something like a 4 billions dollar business before the war ... all gone... No slaves and no industrial base to work from all self inflected wounds...

Another truism.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/carpetbaggers-and-scalawags

The Tans that went south brought capital badly needed in the south and trained people to help get the new freedmen on their feet... The Tans and Freedom were the victim the white militias that roamed the south terrorizing them...

In general, the term “carpetbagger” refers to a traveler who arrives in a new region with only a satchel (or carpetbag) of possessions, and who attempts to profit from or gain control over his new surroundings, often against the will or consent of the original inhabitants. After 1865, a number of northerners moved to the South to purchase land, lease plantations or partner with down-and-out planters in the hopes of making money from cotton. At first they were welcomed, as southerners saw the need for northern capital and investment to get the devastated region back on its feet. They later became an object of much scorn, as many southerners saw them as low-class and opportunistic newcomers seeking to get rich on their misfortune.
In reality, most Reconstruction-era carpetbaggers were well-educated members of the middle class; they worked as teachers, merchants, journalists or other types of businessmen, or at the Freedman’s Bureau, an organization created by Congress to provide aid for newly liberated black Americans. Many were former Union soldiers. In addition to economic motives, a good number of carpetbaggers saw themselves as reformers and wanted to shape the postwar South in the image of the North, which they considered to be a more advanced society. Though some carpetbaggers undoubtedly lived up to their reputation as corrupt opportunists, many were motivated by a genuine desire for reform and concern for the civil and political rights of freed blacks.

100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
Yes, Northerners and larger cities are changing Our South into a modern place where all ideas, cultures, and peoples are welcome... The Old south is dying a slow death. Demographics is fate...

wouldn't use the word evil, or claim to be a victim
If you support the Lost Cause claims or Neo-confederate claims you understand it well...

Debatable
https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h974.html

Tariff of 1857 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857

No debate tariffs were lowered in 1857 to low levels since 1816... this tariff argument just does not hold water...

The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States that amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to between 15% and 24%.[1][2]

Morrill tariff was in 1861... after secession began...

When the Panic of 1857 struck later that year, protectionists, led by economist Henry C. Carey, blamed the downturn on the new tariff.[3] The Tariff of 1857's cuts lasted only a few years, as the highly protectionist Morrill Tariff was signed into law in March 1861.[4]

Note...

In 1857, the average rate was reduced to the neighborhood of 20 percent. The trend toward lower tariffs had begun most recently in the Walker Tariff of 1846, but would be abruptly halted by wartime tariff measures.

Notre...

Downward tariff revision to almost free trade status; North opposed; (Buchanan administration).

Note... it was the North not the South that was upset...

The Tariff of 1857 was warmly greeted in the South and roundly derided in the North. The tariff was one of a number of major issues that was dangerously increasing the tension between the two regions.

Note... because the southerns left the congress, this happened... but 1861

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage domestic industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2]
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
This is another questionable notion... As I remember it was the southerners that burned Atlanta to the ground and Richmond as well so the two main industrial areas were destroyed by Confederates... They did it by choice,,, Think the rest the major cities in the south were intact so where is this desolation? You can argue the Shenandoah Valley, the Sherman's paths and that all rural areas that came back fast... The great lost of wealth in the South was not form Northern army work but the freeing of slaves all that capital gone... All the destitution comes from the end of slavery... go back a look slavery was something like a 4 billions dollar business before the war ... all gone... No slaves and no industrial base to work from all self inflected wounds...



https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/carpetbaggers-and-scalawags

The Tans that went south brought capital badly needed in the south and trained people to help get the new freedmen on their feet... The Tans and Freedom were the victim the white militias that roamed the south terrorizing them...

In general, the term “carpetbagger” refers to a traveler who arrives in a new region with only a satchel (or carpetbag) of possessions, and who attempts to profit from or gain control over his new surroundings, often against the will or consent of the original inhabitants. After 1865, a number of northerners moved to the South to purchase land, lease plantations or partner with down-and-out planters in the hopes of making money from cotton. At first they were welcomed, as southerners saw the need for northern capital and investment to get the devastated region back on its feet. They later became an object of much scorn, as many southerners saw them as low-class and opportunistic newcomers seeking to get rich on their misfortune.
In reality, most Reconstruction-era carpetbaggers were well-educated members of the middle class; they worked as teachers, merchants, journalists or other types of businessmen, or at the Freedman’s Bureau, an organization created by Congress to provide aid for newly liberated black Americans. Many were former Union soldiers. In addition to economic motives, a good number of carpetbaggers saw themselves as reformers and wanted to shape the postwar South in the image of the North, which they considered to be a more advanced society. Though some carpetbaggers undoubtedly lived up to their reputation as corrupt opportunists, many were motivated by a genuine desire for reform and concern for the civil and political rights of freed blacks.



Yes, Northerners and larger cities are changing Our South into a modern place where all ideas, cultures, and peoples are welcome... The Old south is dying a slow death. Demographics is fate...



If you support the Lost Cause claims or Neo-confederate claims you understand it well...



https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h974.html

Tariff of 1857 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857

No debate tariffs were lowered in 1857 to low levels since 1816... this tariff argument just does not hold water...

The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States that amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to between 15% and 24%.[1][2]

Morrill tariff was in 1861... after secession began...

When the Panic of 1857 struck later that year, protectionists, led by economist Henry C. Carey, blamed the downturn on the new tariff.[3] The Tariff of 1857's cuts lasted only a few years, as the highly protectionist Morrill Tariff was signed into law in March 1861.[4]

Note...

In 1857, the average rate was reduced to the neighborhood of 20 percent. The trend toward lower tariffs had begun most recently in the Walker Tariff of 1846, but would be abruptly halted by wartime tariff measures.

Notre...

Downward tariff revision to almost free trade status; North opposed; (Buchanan administration).

Note... it was the North not the South that was upset...

The Tariff of 1857 was warmly greeted in the South and roundly derided in the North. The tariff was one of a number of major issues that was dangerously increasing the tension between the two regions.

Note... because the southerns left the congress, this happened... but 1861

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage domestic industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2]
Those who advocate that Northern tariffs were unfair always neglect to mention that Tobacco famers in Kentucky ,rice growers in South Carolina and sugar plantation owners in Louisiana had insisted and received protective tariffs.
Kirk's Raider's
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Those who advocate that Northern tariffs were unfair always neglect to mention that Tobacco famers in Kentucky ,rice growers in South Carolina and sugar plantation owners in Louisiana had insisted and received protective tariffs.
Kirk's Raider's
Iron and Wheat for Virginia.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
I just want my landscape to remain the same for the rest of my life.
I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.

Not all change is for the better. Change can happen to fast. But the desire, much less the demand, that nothing change isn't remotely realistic or feasible. And the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you.

You love your quiet little town? At some point it didn't exist. Nor did your house or farm or street.

Where I live in South Florida we have a tree called the Australian pine. It's unquestionably a non-native, intentionally and artificially introduced for various perceived benefits. It's now know to dominate areas and crowd out native plants while not holding up very well to hurricanes or erosion. Yet many locals - people who lived in the area their entire lives - are adamantly opposed to the removal lf the trees. They're considered pretty and "have always been there." No, they've merely been there longer than the locals have, but the locals don't want that to change.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.

Not all change is for the better. Change can happen to fast. But the desire, much less the demand, that nothing change isn't remotely realistic or feasible. And the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you.

You love your quiet little town? At some point it didn't exist. Nor did your house or farm or street.

Where I live in South Florida we have a tree called the Australian pine. It's unquestionably a non-native, intentionally and artificially introduced for various perceived benefits. It's now know to dominate areas and crowd out native plants while not holding up very well to hurricanes or erosion. Yet many locals - people who lived in the area their entire lives - are adamantly opposed to the removal lf the trees. They're considered pretty and "have always been there." No, they've merely been there longer than the locals have, but the locals don't want that to change.
There was a 'before' before the Confederacy, before the monuments, and before the current Southern heritage.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Last edited:

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
I think this is the core problem: the mentality that all change is bad simply because it is different. Not a uniquely Southern trait, although it's certainly prevalent there.

Not all change is for the better. Change can happen to fast. But the desire, much less the demand, that nothing change isn't remotely realistic or feasible. And the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you.

You love your quiet little town? At some point it didn't exist. Nor did your house or farm or street.

Where I live in South Florida we have a tree called the Australian pine. It's unquestionably a non-native, intentionally and artificially introduced for various perceived benefits. It's now know to dominate areas and crowd out native plants while not holding up very well to hurricanes or erosion. Yet many locals - people who lived in the area their entire lives - are adamantly opposed to the removal lf the trees. They're considered pretty and "have always been there." No, they've merely been there longer than the locals have, but the locals don't want that to change.
I understand the point you're making. However, I went to great effort in choosing my final spot. I'm willing to bet, literally (as I have with much sweat, blood, & cash), that my little piece of Virginia will remain MUCH the same, the rest of my life. Figure, 30 more years or so, if I'm lucky.

There ain't gonna be a Starbucks around the corner ever, in my lifetime. The county I live in, has a population less than 23,000. The current growth rate is 1%. WELL below the state, & national averages. I live in a rural part of the county, not within an city limits. The closet town has a population less than 400, & is shrinking, not growing. I have to drive 25-30 miles to see the closest traffic light :cool: It's perfect. I chose this spot intentionally because, I believed it wouldn't see urban sprawl, & congestion for the duration of my life. Honestly, I think the immediate area I live in, will remain the same, or very similar for many years, if not decades, after I'm gone.

By the way...... It's not a problem to not want urbanization or change. Some of us, don't want to live like that. We sacrifice much in services, & conveniences to live the way we want, & are just fine with it. As far as, "the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you". You'd have to expand on that. I'm not following you. Because, it's certainly good for me, & people like me, who prefer the rural lifestyle.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I understand the point you're making. However, I went to great effort in choosing my final spot. I'm willing to bet, literally (as I have with much sweat, blood, & cash), that my little piece of Virginia will remain MUCH the same, the rest of my life. Figure, 30 more years or so, if I'm lucky.

There ain't gonna be a Starbucks around the corner ever, in my lifetime. The county I live in, has a population less than 23,000. The current growth rate is 1%. WELL below the state, & national averages. I live in a rural part of the county, not within an city limits. The closet town has a population less than 400, & is shrinking, not growing. I have to drive 25-30 miles to see the closest traffic light :cool: It's perfect. I chose this spot intentionally because, I believed it wouldn't see urban sprawl, & congestion for the duration of my life. Honestly, I think the immediate area I live in, will remain the same, or very similar for many years, if not decades, after I'm gone.

By the way...... It's not a problem to not want urbanization or change. Some of us, don't want to live like that. We sacrifice much in services, & conveniences to live the way we want, & are just fine with it. As far as, "the present situation isn't necessarily good, even if you think it's good for you". You'd have to expand on that. I'm not following you. Because, it's certainly good for me, & people like me, who prefer the rural lifestyle.
Sounds like a very long and expensive logistics tail to me. Bad for anyone not in great health.
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
Sounds like a very long and expensive logistics tail to me. Bad for anyone not in great health.
Certainly pros & cons. Rural living ain't for everyone. Though, I love my neighbors. Most of em have 4 legs....

Very little traffic noise, very little crime, lots of great views, plenty of wildlife. Most modern conveniences within 30 minutes, though there are a couple hole in the wall places to kinda eat within 10 minutes.

Much easier to unwind at the end of the day, than when I lived in the concrete jungle. I realize the outdoors, & all involved, isn't for everyone. Which is just fine with me.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
There is a definite sense of perpetual victimization in the white South, with the victimizers being primarily evil white Yankees/Northerners. As the narrative goes:

1. Before the war the North abused the South with the tariff.

2. In 1860-1861, the North denied the South their States Rights.

3. During the war the North invaded and desolated the South with their military.

4. During Reconstruction the North invaded again in the form of carpetbaggers who ran corrupt governments and sought to exploit the South while disenfranchising white Southerners.

5. Civil Rights and integration in the 1950s-1960s was decried by white Southerners as communism introduced by Northerners

6. Northerners continue to move into the South where they seek to change everything in the South and make it into another North.

That's before you factor in blacks, Hispanics, and other non-whites.

White Southerners essentially think they have been fighting a defensive war against exploitation and cultural genocide the last 200+ years. (Although I doubt many would use those words, and their perceived struggle predates "genocide" as a word.)
I'm fairly sure I've heard the word "cultural genocide" has been used, though I agree that probably "many" wouldn't use that (though I guess it depends how you define many).

Arguably the white Southerners may not be entirely wrong in terms of cultural genocide.
If we can agree upon what a Southern white culture is then due to demographics white Southerners might be in the decline.
If we know what the fertility rate is for white Southern women and the rate of births of mixed race children then we would have data points to determine if Southern whites will become a future minority in their own states. We know this as already occurred in Texas due to immigration and a high non white birthrate.
Perhaps @MattL has some knowledge of recent demographic trend's.
Kirk's Raider's
My census spreadsheets end at about 1870 currently (most 1790-1870 data comparisons I've done. I've started imported the census tables for 1880-2010 (minus 1890 where most of the data was lost). I'm not currently looking at mixed race stats since each census sometimes categorizes that data differently (so will take a lot more work), though fairly easy getting White numbers and Black/Negro/Colored numbers to get an idea of the change in White/Black population in the South. It's definitely taking a good deal of time but am making progress and will post charts when I do.

Right now I've gotten some basic stat aggregation up to about 1990 (2000 and 2010 to finish, then organizing the specific data for charts etc) and on cursory glance The Black Population as a proportion in the South started to greatly fall 1870+, while the White proportion increased. That trend seemed to continue until about 1970, after the Civil Rights. Where the Black population numbers leveled off and the White proportion started to very slightly drop... again up until about 1990 where I've stopped so far and again just off a quick glance. I suspect the Black population started to gradually increase in proportion a bit after 1970.

I'll be interested in looking at the data cut into different ways and charts and often see some interesting things when that's done.

Personally the idea of White Southern Cultural genocide (via demographic replacement) I believe is mostly BS. The rough data suggests that Whites maintained a high proportion of Blacks in the South when it was forced slave Black culture. When that became free Black culture up until 1970 it dropped from about 40%-ish to 19%-ish. Where the numbers until 1990 don't move all that much really though might have started to reverse the slightest bit.

Basically I suspect those numbers will show the opposite. After Whites (Southern or Northern) did true cultural genocide (or attempted at least) through Black slavery, they then had effectively a better claim at attempting it based off the far reduced population proportion of Blacks in the South. This reflects the much higher rate of poverty Free Blacks faced (that never ended, it has never equalized with the poverty rate of Whites and Black people are still far more poor) which leaves to obvious issues with population expansion etc. This also matches what is called the "Great Migration" where millions of Blacks left the South between 1916 and 1970 due to discrimination (Jim Crow and segregation eras) and various changes making it easier to travel out and opportunities out west.

As to Texas and it's "White" population. It already went through an earlier forced cultural and racial shift considering it was originally part of Mexico before they proclaimed a revolution (I had White ancestors in Texas during this era, including one who was a delegate to the 1832/33 conventions while part of Mexico, that lead to the call for independence), pleaded for the US help (knowing they couldn't survive on their own, especially against Mexico next door), got annexed and went to war with the US (where we took even more from Mexico including my home state of Arizona). So in a very real way those populations in those States, including my home State, have simply started to shift a bit closer to their more traditional populations (keeping in mind some Mexican descendants never left, the border moved on them).

It's highly historically ironic. White US Settlers steal a bunch of Mexico from the Mexicans, then Mexicans are started to repopulate it. Note I'm stating no opinions on whether I like these things, related things etc, you can find it ironic whatever your views (and I'm not trying to start a tangential conversation on immigration so please no responses regarding that).

There's probably some looks at this data out there, though didn't find any quick ones and I like to process the data myself.

100% true. Though, I would say for plenty of us, it's more about urbanites, moving to rural areas, & wanting to change our rural areas into urban areas.
This makes a lot more sense than an invasion into the South by non-Southerners (more a moving around of Southerners within the South). In fact if you look at stats of States that have the most population born within its own State some of the South is pretty high on the list.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/youre-not-from-around-here-are-you/

This is from 2013 and percentage of native born people within a State. You'll see the South intermixed all throughout, some high, some low. Keeping in mind of course this is only whether a person was born in the same State and doesn't qualify for people born in the region.... so only if someone in North Carolina was born in North Carolina not in South Carolina for example. That obviously would expand the percentages, though unclear how it would pan out

I think there are in fact Southerners out there (not exclusively) that label many confrontations as this alleged South vs outsiders view when in fact it is in many cases Urban vs Rural within the South. I t don't know if you fit this concept, but it seems there are many rural Southerners who don't consider urban Southerners true Southerners.
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
I t don't know if you fit this concept, but it seems there are many rural Southerners who don't consider urban Southerners true Southerners.
Personally, I just refer to em as, city folk.

Keep in mind though, the more predominant stereotype is that, us rural folks, especially Southern rural folks, are just a bunch of poor, dumb, uneducated, racist rednecks. :rolleyes:

I've lived in multiple states in my life. Both in urban, & rural settings. My personal experience has been that, rural folks are more friendly, & have better manners.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Personally, I just refer to em as, city folk.
That seems to fit what I hear too.

Keep in mind though, the more predominant stereotype is that, us rural folks, especially Southern rural folks, are just a bunch of poor, dumb, uneducated, racist rednecks. :rolleyes:
I couldn't disagree more. My experience is limited to where I've lived but based on living in Phoenix AZ (growing up most of my first 21 years), the 6th largest City. Living in a city in Oregon called Eugene (only about 160k, with a 300k+ metro area), Las Vegas, NV, and now for most my years in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Honestly IMHO that's mostly a "rural" legend (pun intended ;). I've heard relations (both blood or in-laws) hurl that, such as "we're just dumb small town people" etc. I'm sure there are places where that's prevalent but I can tell you that in the wide array of people I've interacted that's just not true, including large numbers of San Francisco liberals (some super liberal, hipster, also Oregon hippies etc).

The reality is the big city folk don't think or care enough about "rural folk" enough to even come to a conclusion like that. On top of that many big city folk come from small rural towns. My wife for example comes from a small (very conservative) Utah town of about 2,000. A long time co-worker comes from a small Maine town. Another from a rural area of Florida.

For some reason a lot of rural people think city people think about them and have strong opinions, they don't. Many have no issue with rural life (again with plenty having been raised in such areas themselves) and you see plenty of poor uneducated people in big cities too. You have more opportunity for diversity in a big city of course, much more people so a much larger chance of being exposed to rich, poor, various ethnicities, races, believe systems, etc (varies depending on the city of course, obviously Phoenix isn't as diverse as the SF Bay Area for example). With that said many people live in their own little bubbles in the cities. Often times a big city is just a bunch of small towns next to each other (while some people do live the full city wide life as well).

From the places I've lived it just really isn't a thing despite people out their claiming it. Rural people seem obsessed with city people and what they think, for most it doesn't go the other way.

I've lived in multiple states in my life. Both in urban, & rural settings. My personal experience has been that, rural folks are more friendly, & have better manners.
I've lived in big cities. At the most I spent 3 months or so in summer at my mother's hometown (staying at my grandmother's and aunts) in New Mexico (on the border of Texas so almost more of a West Texas feel) that's about 2,000 people or so. Some nice people. The local Southern Baptist Preacher was the nicest. To my cousins and myself (they were doing this already so I just joined in) on 13 mile bike rides 2-3 times a week. Took us to the gun range etc. Preaching was definitely a bit stereotypically Southern Baptist small town fire and brimstone, but outside of that nice. Everyone else felt the same personally. Felt pretty much like the city to me, each person is different and you have big city jerks and small town jerks, and the same with nice people.

My wife (as mentioned grew up in a 2,000-ish Utah small town very "redneck" as she would say) would probably fight you tooth and nail on that lol. She had a lot of negative small town experiences. Following the stereotypes (I say that since I don't know them from personal experience, though she speaks from her own) of small town drama, gossip, in and out groups amongst families, etc. I've heard various different experiences from friends and co-workers from both small or big places.

I think a lot of it is that each place is different. Not every small town or big city is the same. Some places have different attitudes that might seem rude elsewhere no matter the size.

One of my favorite places with the nicest people was Eugene OR (again about 160k itself, combined with a city that is connected about 300k+). Super laid back, super friendly. A bit hippie-ish, but genuine hippie sort of super friendly tree hugger type. I always joked that if you are going to live with extreme idealists they are the least dangerous of them all since they'll try and kill you with kindness lol. It's somewhere in between being a large enough city but basically a dot compared to say the SF Bay Area (up to about 8 million people for the full area). Though I have lived in smaller little pockets in the surrounding areas of the Bay Area so where I live is right next to the bigger areas (and a train ride into SF, about 40 min or so) but it feels a lot smaller. I considered living in downtown SF but realistically couldn't afford it (or was unwilling to make the ridiculous rent costs work if I could). On the other hand maybe I'm odd since I prefer living suburban, but could live downtown and love it (did for a brief time in temporary work housing when relocating to SF and really enjoyed it), but also would love to buy some land and have a fairly rural home some day.

What ever floats your boat, though I think people are more adaptable than they often give themselves credit for. I think we can enjoy all sorts of things we don't think we would if we keep an open mind. Different isn't worse, just different. I may be odd that way too though.
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
I couldn't disagree more. My experience is limited to where I've lived but based on living in Phoenix AZ (growing up most of my first 21 years), the 6th largest City. Living in a city in Oregon called Eugene (only about 160k, with a 300k+ metro area), Las Vegas, NV, and now for most my years in the San Francisco Bay Area.
I've been to Phoenix, I've lived in Las Vegas, & I've been to Eugene multiple times. The mfg of my largest commercial product, used to be Headquartered in Eugene. In addition to their facilities (obviously), I've fished the Umpqua River, been to a Ducks football game, & been to a few of the clubs, & restaurants in Eugene :cool:

Honestly IMHO that's mostly a "rural" legend ....

The reality is the big city folk don't think or care enough about "rural folk" enough to even come to a conclusion like that.

For some reason a lot of rural people think city people think about them and have strong opinions, they don't.

From the places I've lived it just really isn't a thing despite people out their claiming it. Rural people seem obsessed with city people and what they think, for most it doesn't go the other way.
Not when it comes to politics, control of the landscape, & or dollars. You seem to be referencing casual interactions.

I've lived in big cities.
As have I.

each person is different and you have big city jerks and small town jerks, and the same with nice people.
I agree. Though, I just run into more jerks in the cities.

Get much more, service with a smile, in the country. A lot more attitude, & frowns in the city. I run into many more people in the city, that must work at, or have worked at the DMV at some point in their lives :D

I think a lot of it is that each place is different. Not every small town or big city is the same. Some places have different attitudes that might seem rude elsewhere no matter the size.

One of my favorite places with the nicest people was Eugene OR (again about 160k itself, combined with a city that is connected about 300k+). Super laid back, super friendly. A bit hippie-ish, but genuine hippie sort of super friendly tree hugger type. I always joked that if you are going to live with extreme idealists they are the least dangerous of them all since they'll try and kill you with kindness lol. It's somewhere in between being a large enough city but basically a dot compared to say the SF Bay Area (up to about 8 million people for the full area). Though I have lived in smaller little pockets in the surrounding areas of the Bay Area so where I live is right next to the bigger areas (and a train ride into SF, about 40 min or so) but it feels a lot smaller. I considered living in downtown SF but realistically couldn't afford it (or was unwilling to make the ridiculous rent costs work if I could). On the other hand maybe I'm odd since I prefer living suburban, but could live downtown and love it (did for a brief time in temporary work housing when relocating to SF and really enjoyed it), but also would love to buy some land and have a fairly rural home some day.

What ever floats your boat, though I think people are more adaptable than they often give themselves credit for. I think we can enjoy all sorts of things we don't think we would if we keep an open mind. Different isn't worse, just different. I may be odd that way too though.
Go for a stroll through super friendly Eugene, wearing a Trump 2020 T-shirt. Or just a Hat. I bet you wouldn't survive the day without being confronted by somebody who just couldn't help themselves from being nasty to you. I would bet, multiple folks. :ff:

Also, don't get me wrong, I don't hate the city. I dig the city, & all of it's conveniences. I just don't want to live in all that congestion, or with all of those people anymore. I don't want to have to lock my doors, or worry about my wife coming home late at night after work. The odds of my wife being a victim to a violent crime are much much higher in a big city, than where I live. That piece of mind is worth something too.....
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
I've been to Phoenix, I've lived in Las Vegas, & I've been to Eugene multiple times. The mfg of my largest commercial product, used to be Headquartered in Eugene. In addition to their facilities (obviously), I've fished the Umpqua River, been to a Ducks football game, & been to a few of the clubs, & restaurants in Eugene :cool:
A small world :) Eugene was a great place, still have a lot of friends/former co-workers there.

Not when it comes to politics, control of the landscape, & or dollars. You seem to be referencing casual interactions.
You might have misunderstood I was referring to

"Keep in mind though, the more predominant stereotype is that, us rural folks, especially Southern rural folks, are just a bunch of poor, dumb, uneducated, racist rednecks."

I'm calling that mostly a rural legend. Something I hear some small town people say though in my entire life of living in big cities I've almost never seen. The only person I know of that ever acts like that is my wife, she loves bashing her own small town she was raised in. She would happily share her negative experiences on how her small town was judgemental, disrespectful, and intolerant of any differences. I think it's just her personal experiences though, which I think can happen whether you live in a small town or big city.

I agree. Though, I just run into more jerks in the cities.
Well you know what they say, if you keep running into jerks maybe you're the jerk ;) Joking of course. Not my experience at all though. I rarely run into jerks (mostly these days the only jerks I deal with are customer support or something over the phone or web lol, have had some bad experiences lately, though one very good one too to be fair). I've spent time in small towns but again limited, though I know my wife has the opposite view you have. The last time we talked about this she shared quite a bit how much nicer, friendlier, and far open people in the cities we've lived in were than her experiences. I'd say in my limited time in my mom's home town I might be able to see it... Again the pastor was very nice, everyone else was pretty off-ish and not particularly friendly. though again I still am of the opinion that this still is likely.

1) Places are different, whether small or big and it's hard to generalize
2) Cultural differences can cause one to see differences as better or worse when they might not be so cut and dry
3) Everyone's experiences are their own and you could do the same thing twice and get diffrent results

Get much more, service with a smile, in the country. A lot more attitude, & frowns in the city. I run into many more people in the city, that must work at, or have worked at the DMV at some point in their lives :D
Haha... I feel like you had the short end of the stick when you were in big cities. I get plenty of service with a smile in the city. Right now I fortunately get to work from home (so no commute) but was commuting into San Francisco downtown for years. Going for lunch I'd always be met with smiles and made plenty of good conversation with the small food places I'd go to and get to know the people who run those places.

Sure if you go into a mega mart or something you might not get that, though going into the grocery store in my mom's home town (the bigger one, my aunt actually operated a smaller farmers market that was friendlier) I got the same too. That's the thing about big cities, they're big. You have options, you can always go to smaller places that are more personal if you want... or not too.

Go for a stroll through super friendly Eugene, wearing a Trump 2020 T-shirt. Or just a Hat. I bet you wouldn't survive the day without being confronted by somebody who just couldn't help themselves from being nasty to you. I would bet, multiple folks. :ff:
This cuts both ways though, I wouldn't trust my safety wearing a Hillary t-shirt through much fo the rural South lol.

With that said where I've lived, especially Eugene, you might get talked to, but I doubt most people would be outright nasty. In SF I saw people with Trump red hats for example (wasn't super common of course, but I saw them). I never saw anyone get talked to, most people just minded their own business, especially on commutes etc. I worked in downtown SF for years in the gaming tech industry of all places and I worked with conservatives. A good friend was a libertarian and we would have some interesting conversations at work (not in secret lol, no one had an issue with his liberal ideas). Honestly I don't even know what political views most of my co-workers had, even in the heart of the liberal world in an industry that you'd expect to have super liberals most people didn't talk politics often. During the last campaign was the last time I was working in downtown SF but didn't interact with as much people at that time so only talked politics with like 3 other people so I couldn't really say if anyone I worked with was or wasn't a Trump supporter, outside fo those 3 people that weren't.

In the SF Bay Area there are about 8 million people. That's more people than a lot of States have in it's entirety. The majority may be "liberal" but there are more conservatives here too than any small town has in it's entire population. I've been in public plenty of times and heard people talk pro-Conservative, pro-Liberal, etc.

That's the thing, though big cities are in fact more liberal than rural areas, they also have a lot of conservatives since they have a lot of everything. I grew up ultra religious conservative in a big city for example. Phoenix actually has quite a lot of conservatives in it (and has a reputation for that too with Arizona in general) despite being the 6th largest city.

When you grow up and embrace big city life you have to get used to being surrounded by people that are just different than you (especially in a place like the SF Bay Area where I live now). Their skin color, their ethnicity, their language, their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, and their cultural beliefs. It's impossible to enforce that many people being the same. Even when groups come together it's usually a coalition of people with a common interest, not people aligned with most of their beliefs.

There are pros and cons to that. Likewise experiences vary.

Also, don't get me wrong, I don't hate the city. I dig the city, & all of it's conveniences. I just don't want to live in all that congestion, or with all of those people anymore. I don't want to have to lock my doors, or worry about my wife coming home late at night after work. The odds of my wife being a victim to a violent crime are much much higher in a big city, than where I live. That piece of mind is worth something too.....
The congestion is I think a fully valid and fully objective point. That's simply an objective downside of living in a city. Though as you say it's a tradeoff for the conveniences. You trade driving hours to the closest stores in some rural scenarios for spending more time crossing a city on a regular basis.

As far as violence, true to some extent. Some rural areas have pretty horrible violent crime and crime stats too, often they're filtered out due to small sample sizes however (which doesn't mean they don't exist). With that said there are tradeoffs. Some of that will be safety in the scenarios you refer to. On the other hand if you need medical care that's usually a massive down side of being in a rural area. My grandmother traveled to stay with my mom in Phoenix 3 times now, each time she's needed any real medical care because of the poor small town health care she has. My wife's mother is unfortunately running into similar things, where she's having serious problems with the bad medical and dental care in her small town. My wife worked in her small town hospital doing clean up etc long ago and simply will not trust small town medical care now.

The big city offers you options. More neighborhood choices, more job choices, more commute choices, etc. Those can give you a different piece of mind as well. There are pros and cons to everything in life. Nothing is black and white. Likewise each big city or small town is unique in its own ways.
 
Top