h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK...Here is another "off the wall" concept I'm going to throw into the community.
1.) Is there a "brow-beaten "aspect of the southern culture, due to the south's loss in the American civil war?
2.) Do people from the south feel inferior to the rest of the nation as a result of "the mis-understanding".(I love that phrase in the original article...kudos).
3.) Will the south rise again...and should it?
And finally...
4.) After 100+ years...Is there a scab here that has been festering?

as is my own opinion (being from atlanta, georgia), although many older southerners feel very 'hostile' towards some 'yankees' there is absolutely whatsoever no inferiority. in fact, many genuine southerners still feel somewhat ferior to their northern counterparts. as for a rebellion of the south in the near future, i doubt it because florida would find itself in quite a rut and atlanta would probably turn its back on the south because it wants to start up another internet company.

I speak as a Welshman who has never been to North America (I intend to go soon!)

The impression I pick up from American sources - films, TV, books, etc. - and speaking with American people in the UK is that Southerners tend to be seen as backward by Northerners.
They are more likely to be stereotyped and it seems to be considered quite normal to refer to Southerners in a general way as less educated and more prejudiced. They seem to occupy the place of the 'minority' it is legitimate to be prejudiced against.

These stereotypes are sometimes so strong I am surprised that Southerners don't seceed again and tell the Northeners where to stick their opinions.

Any views on this?

(PS I am not basing my views purely on the Dukes of Hazzard!)

First you have to understand that there are two Souths. There is South of the Mason Dixon which includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina. These are also known as the Appalachian states. Then you have the Deep South which includes Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Florida pan handle. I exclude southern Florida as it is mostly comprised of Cubanos and displaced New Yorkers.

The North tends to see itself as more cosmopolitan and tries to look down on its Southern neighbors. What they often fail to understand are the many layers to Southern society and the subtleness of Southern Culture. Sure we have plenty of backwoods type individuals but we also have many of the best univeristies in this country. Interesting to note that most Presidents come from the south. Bill Clinton, George Bush (converted southern), Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower.

Most misconceptions about the South come from the way it has been portrayed by the media, both print and TV.

Note: The Civil War is also known as the War of Northern Aggression in the South.

The War Of Northern Aggression...Definately a thought provoker.
It is a strange way for most people to concieve of , probablly due to the fact that the "winners" of any war "change" history to reflect their views.
It is my feeling that any war, (reguardless of country of origin), is based on two prime principals...money and power.
Oh yes...in the American civil war we hear such phrases as "Free the slaves", and "Brothers fighting brothers", but the reality is less glamerous...
(pulls up a soapbox)
The Northern tier of states wanted a strong central government while the Southern tier of states wanted individual states to have supreme power.
Thus...(tripping and falling off the soapbox), power was the key word and money follows power.
The freeing of the slaves was an after-thought to rally a certain group of Northerners to the cause.
And "Brothers fighting brothers"...Sibling rivalry rarely leads to death.
I cannot think of any war, anywhere in the world, that does not boil down to these two key points...
Power and Money.
No matter how noble sounding the "history writers" have made various wars...I think it is all in your perspective.
(blood dribbles from my nose from the fall)

Isn't it recorded in a letter that Abraham Lincoln said that while he truly wished the slaves to be freed his priority was to reunite North and South - if this had to be achieved with continued slavery then so be it?

Hello Hub B.
Unfortunately I am not familiar with the Lincoln letter that you referred to. However, ( If I can get my neurons fireing...pesky memory), I seem to remember that the reason that "Ole Abe" was elected was precisely because anti slavery was his party's theme.
Perhaps some of you other researchers out there have more knowledge of this area than I?
Be well...Universal Mote

Well, the whole thing is a terribly muddled affair. In the end, it's difficult, if not impossible, to say that it all happened for this or that particular reason. But one thing can be said with conviction: initially, the war was not started to free the slaves, or even to end racism (preposterous idea).
One major reason was that two different cultures had developed in Northern and Southern "U"SA, cultures that happened to be bound together by a historical and political past which they both laid claim to.
During the first few decades of the 19th cen., an ideology had developed in the North which is termed "free soil", and which laid an emphasis on the freedom of the individual and his right to "pursue his happiness" by entering a fair competition. However, slavery posed an unfair competition to free labor. This was all well and good, as long as this system was enacted in the South and stayed there.
Southerners, on the other hand, laid equal claim on the Constitution. Their idea was that slaves were property, and therefore it was their own business how they used slaves, and where. And this is where the whole thing finally started.
The 1840's and 1850's saw a great surge in settlement of the West, and, apart from the few million Indians who were easy enought o murder, this posed a terrific opportunity for all Americans (as long as they were white). Unfortunately, it also plunged the country into the worst war ever.
The trouble was that Southerners wanted to bring their slaves, and Northern free soilers considered this unacceptable. Slaves simply posed a competition that could not be beaten, and thus posed a direct assault on American principles.
Finally, after muck bickering and compromising, the South finally seceded, and the Civil War started.
The reasons stated above are, of course, just a superficial overview, and there's a whole lot more that should be said about this subject. But I think they give an idea of what the whole thing was really about: a lot of complex considerations, much to do with money (though not exclusively, mind you!), but certainly not freeing the slaves.
Lincoln really did say that if he had been able to find a way, he would have kept by slavery. The reasons why slavery was abolished in the war are a bit sobering: for one thing, it quickly became clear that the war was fought in a country that was simply too big for this sort of thing, and the only way for the North to win would be to brake the South's back: its economy. This could only be done by freeing the slaves. Also, Lincoln had great trouble getting himself reelected during the war, and the only way to achieve this was to make concessions to those (few) who actually saw a moral problem in slavery and racism (yes, those actually existed, too).
The bottom line is that the war was not fought because people were morally outraged by one of mankind's most unspeakable crimes. There were many reasons, but one should keep in mind that Northerners displayed a very racist attitude, as well.
Interestingly, one very racist group were European immigrants, who either stayed in New England or went West, and who mostly fought on the Northern side.
However, there is another dimension to the Civil War, one that complicates the matter even more. This is the fact that the Civil War was the most terrible war Americans ever fought. In the end, 618000 Americans died. This is more than American causualties of all other wars combined, including WW I and WW II. The battle of Gettysburg lasted two days, and claimed almost any many American lives as the entire Vietnam war (nearly 60000). To top it all off, the Civil War represents the first modern war in the sense that it was directed against the civilian population. In 1863, Sherman marched from Georgia to South Carolina, leaving a sixty-mile wide gap of destruction. He burned down Atlanta, forced out the civilian population, and in the end destroyed private property worth one hundred million dollars.
Were does all this leave the soldiers who fought the war? I think it is well possible that many finally did fight to free the slaves, simply because this sort of atrocious war needs some sort of moral back-up. Maybe what Lincoln - who frankly was a racist himself, and nothing near the great icon of democracy as people like to think - didn't matter too much. I think the war finally produced such energies that no one - including Lincoln - could foresee, and one result was that black people suddenly found themselves free.
What interests me is how do black people remember the Civil War? Of course, it was the event that finally ended this whole awful mess, but racism continued, in the South as well as the North. It would be interesting to get some feedback on this question.

The Civil War also gave rise to the invention of the dogtag. Grant's troops pinned their name and family's adress to their backs so that they'd know where to send the body. Now THAT is morbid.

Offhand geography in the US is kind of tricky. When we say North, we mean Virginia through Maine, and when we say South we always exclude Texas and California.

What festering hatred there is stems not so much from the war, but from two things that followed it: The Reformation, and the continual lack of any admission of wrongdoing from the North. The Reformation was BAD. After knocking the South down, the North proceeded to kick it and stand on its neck. They destroyed the economy, ruined entire towns, and skewed the political system of the returning states heavily in favor of the reigning Northern political party. Worst of all, they committed unconstiutional acts. And then they forgot about it. Today, the Reformation isn't even taught in some classrooms. No one wants to admit it existed.

That's why some Southerners remain angry. Being ignored can really get to you.

As to modern stereotypes...

The North sees the South as a backwater home to inbred, gun toting, drunken rednecks.
The South sees the North as the home of drug-addled, gun-toting, violence-ridden, rude, obnoxious assholes.
Both sides view the other with a sort of smug superiority.

I have never heard of the land of Fruits, Nuts & Flakes (California) being refered to as part of the South. They hold no ties and no shared traditions with Southern Culture.

Also Texas is usualy just Texas although it is sometimes divided. East Texas down to Houston being part of the south and the rest being South Western, A distinctly different culture. Interesting point of fact, the Texas constitution still has a provision by which Texas can secede from the Union by popular vote.

I'm from NY (Rochester, not the City). Here, we consider anything south of the Southern Tier Expressway (roughly the PA state line) to be the South. We refer to that state as Pennsyltucky. It is just a different culture. As much as people from downstate & upstate bicker and poke at each other, we're more similar than anywhere down south. But I have a certain preternatural dislike of the south, so take what I say with a grain of salt...

Another question to pose...(perhaps expanding this forum beyond it's original intent)...is another thought provoker.
Do the people of Southern Europe feel that the Northern European countries are too aggressive?...(and can we define Southern Europe).
The Vikings...the "Germanic Barbarians" who facilitated the destruction of the Roman empire...Napolean's trek through the area...(What about Ghengis Khan from the East?)...Hannibal?
Perhaps there is no corallary between the civil war in the United States and the numerous "wars" of the European continent, but are there still "scabs" festering?
(I guess we could go from continent to continent posing the same question...But please post your country of origin in your reply so we could understand your perspective).
Universal Mote is a "backwards" temporal being from the American South...(i.e. Arkansas)

It's not so much about Northern and Southern Europe (I think), but here's a brief overview:
Starting out in Britain, one might mention Ireland first. The Irish are not too fond of the English, for obvious reasons. The Irish themselves seem a bit divided: People from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland seem to look down on each other a bit. No need to mention the feelings of brotherly love between Prostestants and Catholics in the North.
The Scots live in a wonderful country, if it only weren't for their Southern neighbours who tend to make life difficult from time to time.
The English have a way of returning those feelings, and extending them onto the continent, especially in regard to those that are still frequently referred to as "the Huns".
People on the latter regard England as a rather strange speck on the map. As far as the rest of Britain is concerned, it does not exist since they're all English, anyway.
But then, most European nations are busy with their neighbours anyway: starting out in the center, the French still have a problem with the Germans. No elaboration necessary.
Germans and Austrians may have, er, cooperated numerous times in the past, but this should not mislead to the conclusion that they actually like each other. Germans usually make fun of the Austrians. Austrians return this sentiment with naked hatred.
Of course, those little suspicious countries east of the border do not fill Austrians with feelings of love, either.
Italy is nice for a vacation, and Italians are well-liked. As long as they stay in Italy.
Germans are divided into East and West, and look upon each other with increasing suspicion.
The Belgians are still busy claiming that they actually are a sovereign nation and not French, which all the rest of Europe seems to forget.
The Spanish are still waiting to find out if they are one nation or two.
Norwegians and Swedes aren't really negative about each other. They hate each other's guts.
Recently, there has been quite some trouble between Monaco and France, which remains unresolved to date.

But all Europeans are united in one sentiment: their hatred of all things and beings American.

Any questions?

P.S.: Forgot to mention Greece and Turkey, whose inhabitants are fortunately separated by a fair lot of water. However, they do inhabit that same lovely island called Cyprus, and prefer to permanently have their respective military point guns at each other.

Whew... from your dissertation it seems obvious that you mortals of Earth still cling to primal fears about your neighbors...
We will have to monitor your space programs, (at least for the short term), and will have to withhold your invitation into the Galactic Union for an indeterminate time.

(Universal Mote sadly powers his bedragled space craft for the long journey home).

Just for the record:

The War of Northern Aggression (Yes, I am a Southerner) was fought for a few rather simple reasons. However, as time has passed, and hatred has festered, the real reasons seem to get forgotten.

This is why:
1. Abraham Lincoln was elected with virtually every state in the south voting against him. They voted against him because of his views on the controversal Missouri Compromise, which, if enacted, would deprive the South of more representation.
2. The South felt threatened, as they were losing representation in the government. This meant that northern lawmakers could pass basically any sanction they pleased on the South and get away with it.
3. Economics. The north was mostly cities and industrial centers. The south was rather rural. The north placed trade embargos on the South forcing them to sell crops and materials to the north at whatever price the north pleased.

Also Note:
1. A very very small percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves. Most were too poor, or felt it immoral.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the South, but the northern slaves were still bound by slave legislation.

3. General Sherman burned his way through the South, torching infrastucture and sending the South into financial ruin for the next 60 to 70 years.

4. Southern General, and commander of all Southern troops, Robert E. Lee, choose to surrender his troops. He said on the war, before it started: "

They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins."

Thanks!
Yossarian