Patrick, this is a very good description of the "Southern ideology" (except that you forgot to mention football!) and also the role of the Southern Baptist Church in maintaining that ideology. I know what you are talking about. My father was a Southern Baptist minister, a rare liberal one, who was almost fired by the First Baptist Church of Bogalusa, La. in 1956 for supporting school integration. But I grew up in that awful culture. I left the South when I was 15, and I have hardly been back since. Comradely, Fred On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Patrick L. Mason wrote: > Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:15:36 -0500 > From: Patrick L. Mason <pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> > Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > Subject: [OPE-L:6134] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: possible ways out of the > 'crisis'? > > Alejandro: > > The American South was the seat of slavery in the US. After the Civil War > (1861 - 1865), there was a brief period in some Southern states (1865 - > 1877) when it looked liked the former slave masters would not be allowed to > regain power. But, from 1877 - 1965 Jim Crow ruled in the South. Jim Crow > was the name for America's system of Apartheid. > > During slavery and Jim Crow, many white churches split. The Southern > Baptist Convention (which is today the largest Christian group in America) > came into existence to support slavery. After that, the SBC supported Jim > Crow. This is the Church of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham. > Each of these ministers were against every major piece of civil rights > legislation (including voting rights), all of the objectives of the civil > Rights movement. Robertson and Falwell vilified Martin Luther King. Each is > also staunchly anti-union. Falwell called Desmond Tutu a "phony." Each > is/was a staunch "anti-communist." > > The SBC, along with similar churches, taught that blacks should be > subjected to slavery and, later, denied voting rights because blacks are > being punished for the sins of Cain or the sins of Ham. Or, in direct > contradiction, blacks weren't being punished but were merely being properly > Christianized and civilized by whites. > > This same religious-political-economic formation strongly supported "states > rights" against the evil federal government. So, states rights and local > control became the code words for defending slavery and Jim Crow. When > Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980 his first speech was in Mississippi > where he openly supported "states rights." The phrase "states rights" is > about as popular in the black community as "crusade" is in the Muslim > community. > > This is basically the oligarchy that has controlled and continues to > control the South. Low property taxes and no state income tax, along with > poor public services or non-existent public services are standard fare in > their public policy. They are not libertarians. They are stateist and > corporatist. They want forced prayer in schools, even then what this group > means by prayer is a Christian protestant prayer. > > They are against "mulit-culturalism" and any form of "secular humanism." > Socialism is considered absolutely satanic. > > They are also against equality for women. The most conservative Southern > Christians do not believe that a woman should have authority over men (in > any capacity). Women should voluntarily submit to their husbands. Just as > many Muslim women wear a vail, many Southern Christian women (regardless of > race) where a hat over the head or have their head covered in some fashion > as a symbol of voluntary submission to the male authority. > > Sexism, racism, and the dominance of the white elite have always been > intimately (pun intended) and intricately linked in the South, combined > with a large dose of xenophobia. All justified by the belief that God made > America special, i.e., superior, and thus America has an obligation to > export its way of life around the world. Note also that there is a deeply > militaristic streak in Southern culture. > > peace, patrick > > At 09:50 AM 11/1/01 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi, Patrick and Fred! > > > >Could you please clarify more what you mean for "Southerner" in your recent > >posts? > > > >For example, Patrick refers to "the political economic ideology and > >theology of the South". > > > > > >Abrazos, > > > >Alejandro > > > > > > > > sotAt 09:42 1/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >Fred: > > > > > >Thanks for your postings with actual data. The numbers help clarify things. > > >I'll respond in a bit. > > > > > >As a fellow Southerner, I, too, do not think that it is a good thing that > > >America has been Southernized!!! > > > > > >I was merely point out that the political economic ideology and theology of > > >the South has now become over-arching framework for all American political > > >rhetoric and public policy. > > > > > >peace, patrick > > > > > > > > >At 01:19 AM 11/1/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Patrick L. Mason wrote: > > >> > > >> > Jerry: > > >> > > > >> > Conservatives really aren't interested in whether tax cuts generate > > jobs. > > >> > The supply-side language accompanying these cuts is just political > >filler, > > >> > spin control, unadulterated garbage. Rather, the real objective is the > > >> > libertarian desire to reduce the size of government, to reduce > > government > > >> > spending and transfer payments purely for the sake of reducing > > government > > >> > spending and transfer payments. Lowering tax revenues creates a budget > > >> > deficit that conservatives then argue can only be solved by lowering > > >> > spending. The net impact is to redistribute income toward the wealthy. > > >> > > > >> > America has been Southernized. > > >> > > >>Which is really too bad, and I speak as one from the South, but with a > > >>different point of view. > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EST