The generally negative image of the South in today’s US media is nothing new. Neither is the economic exploitation of Southerners and the South’s resources. As author Frank Conner explains in the following excerpt taken from pages 15-16 of his book The South Under Siege 1830-2000, anti-Southern elements in the Northeast have been doing essentially the same thing for two hundred years:
Because of geography-based economic differences, and racially-based ideological differences that were reinforced by geography, the North and the South grew steadily apart from the time their respective colonies were first established.
The New Englanders harbored a special grudge for the South, which had welcomed the despised Celts. Northerners travelling in the South on business resented deeply the easygoing-yet-aristocratic mien of the planters, who often made them feel inferior; but they could not openly express that resentment without appearing ridiculous. Thus they focused their resentments upon the transplanted Celts, whom they considered to be what today would called “trailer trash.” They believed the entire South to be unforgivably lazy and unbusinesslike. It was unthinkable to those Northerners to have to share the North American continent with the languid, superior planters and the hated transplanted Celts, without conquering and ruling them. And so the Northerners did the next-best thing.
Slowly, generations of New England/New York business men made the Southern planters economically dependent upon them, by providing the perennially-cash-short planters with the crop factoring they needed; by carrying the planters’ agricultural products to New York via New England coasters for transshipment to England; and later by buying some of the Southern cotton for processing in New England textile mills.
After 1795, the Southern planters – shortsightedly ignoring the dangers of allowing themselves to become dependent upon the services of firms from another region which did not wish them well – concentrated almost exclusively upon cultivating cotton and left their other business in the hands of Northerners. When the Northern capitalists had the Southern planters where they wanted them, they squeezed hard.
Meanwhile, starting in the 1830s, other New Englanders mounted an ideological war against the South. Both the overtones and undertones of that viciously-fought propaganda war were irrational. But the economic and ideological wars had the same purpose: to break the South and bring it under the control of the Northerners.
Author and linguist MacDonald King Aston reaches the same conclusion about the North’s hostility towards the South in his book Yankee Babylon: American Dream, American Nightmare. On page 8 he writes about the competing world-views and mentalities which sparked this hostility between the two great civilisations in the early Union:
The divide between the New England states and those at the South, regarded in hindsight to be sure, was never a mere political disunity, but an impossible union of opposites.
…Traditional Southerners, those who are Southern by kinship and culture, and not merely by geography, quite easily recognise the divarication between themselves and the Yankee. To Southerners, the Yankee is marked by a singular ruthlessness with regard to all things, whether social or individual. The Yankee must be forever “up and doing,” as Richard Weaver put it, ceaselessly mired in a chimeric progress, unable simply to live, to meet life on its own terms, and ploddingly insisted on imposing the seemingly obvious good of social and political conformity upon the South, by violence if need be. To the Yankee, on the other hand, the Southerner retains all the attributes claimed by the New Englanders hundreds of years ago: lack of ambition, over-religiosity, ignorance and lack of education in general, backwards, and uninterested in reform or progress. Richard Weaver’s portrait of the South as a social civilisation and the North as a business civilisation seems more true than ever.
Also see: Southern planters, farmers & culture and MacDonald King Aston on the Yankee & the Southerner
As usual, some of this seems like recent white man-hasbara falsely trying create a (very recent) attempt to create the new “Northern” enemy (here seen sub-textually as English, who are endlessly played out as villains in these new narratives), versus the “celt loving” southerns.
BACK IN REALITY, a lot has happened demographically in the North since the Puritans (lol). Imo, Southern Nationalism can look very SILLY when it NEVER accommodates for the fact that the “New North” (EVEN MORE HATEFUL TO THE SOUTH) has absolutely NOTHING in common with the demographics of 1830-65.
In this way— all this sort of narrative is calculated TO CREATE a rationale for the “New South”— the VERY SAME “New South” that the southern nationalists profess to be at odds with.
Back in Reality— the “industrial revolution” beat down the south. The newly energized populations (the “ethnic whites” meaning catholics and jews) BECAME the “New North.” Wasps and ulster-scots (of which most real southerners with longevity are) are only 4% of nyc, and nonexistent and have been non-existent for years in all the “industrialized” cities (that are now being “de-industrialized”— ny, pittsburgh steel, buffalo, chicago, etc.
These turn of the century ethnics are now displaced (“de-industrialization”)—- but they remain a very different population (with a different internal life) than the old rural south, which did not run on “time is money,” Valuing punching time clocks in the northern factories, following orders, and generally the “Ant Colony” existence of the factory worker lives.
When will Southern Nationalists get with Reality on this— on the real demographics of the real North, lol, and quit trying to pretend that “New England” is what it was in 1800. Um… DEMOGRAPHICS CHANGED in that 200 years. Your enemy in the North is not the same now as them. The old New Englanders ARE NOT THE ONES making movies about you, lol.
IN FACT, if you’ve lived in big northern cities, you know that many of the Old Puritans actually bond WITH THE SOUTHERNERS. They meet often over being white protestant (will give each other jobs, etc.), and they are not Puritans anymore. They are usually a southerners best bet when stuck in a northern city, for whatever reason. They may be Puritan stock, but they recognize the English in you, or the Ulster Scot.
Alliances are made on that. They will treat the “Old Southerner” better than the “turn of the century white ethnic factory worker” folks. Just saying.
Oh—
Don’t get me wrong. This is an interesting book, and sorry for the typos, as I was typing fast.
But the main point is very important here: If the Southern People wish to survive (as such), then must quit going on about demographics as if “The North” was some static place from 1865 until now. It’s very embarrassing!
“The North” has had EVEN MORE demographic turnover (especially the central Northeast with DC/ nyc as the epicenter), than even the “new south” (like atlanta, central nc, south florida, etc.)
The people coming to the “New South” AIN’T Puritans or anything vaguely resembling what “New Englander” conjures up.
“New Englander” is English.
As on some podcast, Michael was saying: a problem for southern nationalism is that we still define ourselves with words that reference regions.
Same is true for “New Englander.” NO ENGLISH live in “New England” for a century now, lol. The “new englanders” moving into the “new south” are most likely Mexicans. (Look at the demographic for New Haven where Yale is, lol— like 60% hispanic— as are places such as Tarrytown, ny… sleepy hollow, etc.
So—- These words OBSCURE the reality of the situation.
There have not been New Englanders in New England for a long time. NYC is 4% wasp. They do not exist, and the few protestants trying to exist there are not puritan stock, but more often, baptists or whatever from the depressed south, looking for jobs.
Again—- the “Old Northerners” and “Old Southerners” often —IN REALITY— are the ones helping each other out. They are both OF COLONIAL STOCK (and “de-colonization” BONDED THEM in the past). It became “the old colonists” helping each other while the “new ethnics” helped each other.
This reality has never been written about. It is silenced.
But no less real. The Old North and Old South—- share being colonists, share colonial identity (as they do with many in Australia and South Africa, which has resonance for them). They share being colonists, they share the Oral Tradition of all that came after (seeing the changes in the country and being able to discuss them).
In addition, they frequently share Religion, share a history of religious persecution, share blood relatives, share English and Scots identity, and so on.
So—– For traveling southerners, looking for jobs—- sometimes it’s actually the Old North (folk) who will help you (Puritan or not) for those recognitions (religion, trajectory to the country, religious persecution, frontier experience, colonial identifications, etc, etc.)
The New North does not share any of this…
The OLD NORTH and the OLD SOUTH have much more in common — just as the “New North” and the “New South” are the same people, too.
You speak of the “New South”—- and acknowledge it is immigrants from the North, BUT THEN DON’T WANT TO NOTICE that they were also a “New North.” There was a “New North” that corresponded with the now “New South” (like South Florida/ atlanta, central nc, dc. etc)
The real breakdown now is in the Old North and Old South— (sharing religion, colonial identity, rural roots, persecutions, historical narrative about america (a people not a melting pot) etc.) And the New North and New South. (the “ethnic whites,” the factory workers, “industrialization” people, the “melting pot” narrative, etc. etc.
Southern Nationalists will not be helped by glossing over these truths, and trying to forge alliances that are false, and where the LIVED REALITY of so many southern people is silenced.
—- In other words, a traveling Southern will find SAME FAMILY NAMES among the Old North people, not the others, and this does mark real blood-kinship ties.
Old North
Old South = often protestant, religious persecution trajectory to country, ethnic ties, blood family ties, colonist identification, rural experience, farm-life ways of seeing such as cyclical sense of time (versus factory worker linear idea of time, and “production”), valuing jack of all trades (as we had to do as pioneers) and much more.
New North
New South = often non-protestant, catholics and jews, brought to country by famine, or wars, often on the communist-fascist question (not how the Old North and Old South came), factory ways of seeing life (valuing producing, time is money, linear reality, “cog in a wheel” punching time clocks, valuing hyper-specialization, like on the factory lines, not being able to do many things (like on the frontier), brought after the Civil War for “industrial revolution,” (not for farming, settling land), and now dispossessed, (“de-industrialization).
Southerners are only undergoing “de-industrialization” in a secondary way. They were already “de-colonized” (that was getting rid of their kind of white folks). De-industry affects the “New North” population (not the “new england protestants).
—- “The North” is an historical word, about the “North” in 1865.
There is no “The North” anymore. There is the “New North>” the Industrialized North (now being ‘de-industrialized). Which is why “Northeast Establishment” is a better word. If you look at t.v., you will see that relatively FEW people of colonial stock are involved, and that the “New North” comprises most of governance.
Demographically—- MANY are on the move. Later, it will be seen as a time of “mass migration.” Literally, millions of people are moving.
It is said this is “Because of the Economy.” TRUE— but why? And this reflects, really, the Central Planning problems of Federalization, doesn’t it?
The Fed moves “developtment” here or there—- and the people must try to move there, to feed themselves. The local governments much “ATTRACT JOBS.”
This is very different from the Old Southern (and Old Northern) way of organic communities where needs arise and people fill them. This is locals trying to BEG from the Central Planners— “bring the money here.”
It’s not that the “economy is bad,” but that the TYPE of economy is forcing mass migration.
And of course the South and Appalachian Bible Belt—- are often “under development” (slated for dispersion of their people).
A lot of truth here.
Where I live (In the North), you’d find a lot of people who’d agree with much of what is said on this sight (Especially those of English/Scotch Irish/German stock).
Black folks, Mexicans, Indians (From India), etc. would not agree with what was said (However, many Indians from India are hard working and industrious and I’d venture to say that even a few of those people might agree with some of the anti-Washington stuff).
Much of my family migrated north during the depression for economic reasons. During the 1980′s, 1990′s, 2000′s, many northern whites (And others) have come south for economic reasons, or retirement. Again, Dixie Girl is right. You’re more likely to find a lot of friends in the folks who are white, especially if they are from the midwest or of English/Scotch Irish/German background. These people don’t give a “rats behind” about the Civil War/War Of Northern Aggression, whatever you want to call it. They are very likely to agree with you on a Washington that is too aggressive and intrusive, and fear the social/racial agenda of big Washington as well.
Things have changed, and I really believe that Southern Nationalists need to reevaluate who are on their new/current “friends and enemies” list.
Just my opinion.
Dixie Girl and Michael,
Most folks where I live are more concerned with gettin’ up, workin’ hard for their famiies, and just doing the right thing.
We all know that history is important, but most of the white folks I know up here just don’t dwell on that stuff.
Just an observation.