IMG_8225.jpg on Flickr.
totofliesagain said: When I lived in the south, it wasn’t really a racial symbol to them; it was southern pride and heritage. It wasn’t just whites that represented that flag. To me, when radical groups use that as their colors, it’s like the confusion with the swastika.
Southern pride and heritage is racist because southern pride and heritage rest on slavery.
There’s no “Northern pride” why do you think that is?
I know this is evidently about the stars and bars, but my reblog pertains to the last two statements. So having any Southern heritage at all- and taking pride in it- is inherently racist because one’s ancestors may have owned slaves? So if I take pride in my French and Dutch heritage, I should be ashamed because they may have at one point mistreated the Natives they encountered?
Not saying it makes it right, but lets break some stuff down- how many white Southerners were wealthy enough to own slaves? Very, very few. Movies, books, and many history classes have seen fit to focus on the slave labor-based culture of the American South, many of which perpetuate the view that every white person in the Southern states enslaved blacks. Were there large plantations with tons of enslaved folks? Of course, but they were few and far between. Many of the smaller farmers who owned a small number of slaves were barely scraping by, much less making a valuable contribution to the economy of the region through their unpaid laborers.
The vast majority of people held small, family-run farms. Usually, you would find either a.) family members working the land, or b.) day laborers who were paid a pittance- both black and white folks. Many who were Dixie born and bred interacted with their African American neighbors on a positive level and regarded them as friends and equals. Thus, the percentage of Southerners today who are actually descended from slaveowners is most likely far less than we assume it to be, and so they really have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to their heritage.
I’m not trying to defend slavery, and I’m the first person to tell you that racism is awful. But to attack Southern culture and pride for ONE negative facet of its history is a bit much. Not everyone who claims “Southern Pride” is claiming it on the basis of slavery and racism. Southern Pride can be related to the strong religious culture that exists, or the excellent food, or the resilience of the original settlers, or the beautiful landscapes, or the hospitality I’ve encountered every time I’ve traveled there, or the deep importance of kin.
To be fair, the Civil War and the “Lost Cause” holds a great importance to many and a huge place in their cultural landscape. Over time, however, many have come to remember the loss of their ancestors who died fighting for a cause as opposed to the cause they were fighting for- state’s rights, slavery, pure desire to go kill some Yanks- whatever you want to cite as the reason. For the most part, people aren’t really torn up about the loss of their enslaved workers. Many are upset about Reconstruction and it’s results, and how the imposed Northern presence during those post-war years placed the South into a deep economic slump that still hinders the region to this day. In fact, I think Southern pride has a lot to do with the fact that the region survived Reconstruction. In addition, many embrace the idea of Southern pride because of the connotations of rebellion, whether or not they’re actually from the South.
So in conclusion, to essentially tell people from the South that their heritage is shameful is to ignore the diverse meanings that their pride has. Tell me all you want about “white privilege,” but the facts stand that not every Southerner need be ashamed of their heritage because of the simple fact that so many have nothing to be ashamed of to begin with. Just like not every person of African descent living in the US today is the descendant of someone who was enslaved, so too not every person who feels an affinity with his or her Southern heritage is from a line of slave-owning whites.
Also, lets not forget the Northern history of discrimination and unfair labor. We had plenty. Try discrimination against every ethnic group that dared darken the nation’s shores (Irish Catholics and Italians, anyone?), chasing Native Americans out of their ancestral lands, dangerous child labor almost without restriction that finally trickled out in the 1930s, and the mistreatment of workers in the Lowell, MA textile mills, as well as factories across the Northeast.
Proof That Hitler Had an Illegetimate Son?
New evidence has emerged to support the controversial claim that Hitler had a son with a French teenager, the French magazine LePoint reported on Friday.
The man, Jean-Marie Loret, claimed to be the Fuhrer’s son in 1981, when he published an autobiography called “Your Father’s Name Was Hitler.” He died four years later aged 67, not being able to prove his family line.
But Loret’s Paris lawyer, François Gibault, told the French magazine that a number of photographs and documents can now support the claim.
He also revealed how Loret got to know about his parentage.
Image: Hitler with a daughter of Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, 1933 (killed by her parents the day they both committed suicide). Credit: Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive)/Wikimedia Commons.
A man tried to calm the crowd of protesters outside a burning building, Northern Ireland, August 1969.
[Credit : Gilles Caron]
Convention of former slaves: Annie Parram, age 104; Anna Angales, age 105; Elizabeth Berkeley, 125; Sadie Thompson, 110. Washington, D.C., 1916.
they look…in good health for being over 100. like seriously good health, and classy/beautiful as fuck.