Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

The term "redneck" is not limited to southerners anymore.

I think of the term as I would a certain flavor of cracker, such as saltines. Not all saltines come form the same place or brand, and they can taste slightly different depending on the brand. But there is a general flavor similarity to saltines so that you know what you are getting when you pick up some saltines, regardless of the brand name.

Sure, the saltine originated somewhere and has a history to it's origination and an original brand (Frank L. Sommers' St. Joseph baking company) but that's all but forgotten now as the saltine is basically just a style of cracker.

So that's how we should look at the term "redneck". It may have a historical context, but now it just refers to a style of cracker.

:2razz:

FilmFestGuy said:

So, when someone referred to racist shouts at the mural in Arizona as "redneckitude", you're saying that they implied it toward the entire South. When, of course, they were referring to racist individuals in Arizona.

We can enter a rhetorical discussion here. I'm glad to. But rhetorical studies will tell you that intended message is only half of communication. How you are perceived by your audience is equally as important in communication.

You can claim your intent all you like, but if you're not convincing your audience that the Stars and Bars aren't racist, then you're failing in your attempts to communicate. If those who would like the flag to be inclusive of Southern culture in general, then there would be Southern blacks and Southern Indians flying it proudly, too.

It's about White regional pride. And that makes it racist.

Click to expand...

For something to be "racist" there has to be a clear message of a person thinking their race is superior to another or all other races.
Being proud of a specific cultural heritage is not inherently racist.

Goshin said:

It's a well-known fact that proportionally, far more military personnel enlist from the Southern states than any other region of the US. Look it up.

Your second sentence is completely fallacious. The causes of the Civil War were complex and slavery was only one of many.

Click to expand...

If its a well know fact show me numbers.

And the main cause of the Civil war was slavery. It was slavery that divided the country, and it was slavery that caused the Civil War. And please don't give me that states rights bullcrap, the only reason the southern states wanted states rights is so they could keep their slaves.

The_Patriot said:

Did the colonies commit treason against England? No, so by that same standard neither did the south. By using your own standard Old Glory is a symbol of racism, treason, and genocide. I hope you didn't forget about incidents like Wounded Knee and Trail of Tears, of which my Cherokee ancestors were forced march, all under the auspices of Old Glory.

Click to expand...

To the British, you damn well bet the colonies were treasonous.

Here's the difference: the Union won. They get to set the terms.

And yes, the flag has represented terrible things done by this nation to minorities on many levels. But, since the Union won, it also has represented all the things that were done to correct it. The Stars and Bars only represented the losing side of a war fought to maintain a racist institution.

1069 said:

Don't forget OxyContin, aka "Redneck Heroin". :lol:

Click to expand...

:lol: yes. Redneck grandmas have generous prescriptions for their chronic pain, from their multiple health problems resulting from their morbid obesity. The Redneck dietary habits are generally undisciplined and nutritionally unsound.

Goshin said:

Again, a very narrow perspective.

I've studied the civil war very carefully. The primary causes and issues were economics and political power. Northeastern states dominated Congress and wanted to enact tariffs and other restrictions on trade that would destroy the south economically. Southern states responded by challenging Fedgov power, declaring provisions they considered intolerable "null and void" within their borders.

Slavery was actually more of a side-issue, until Lincoln decided to make it a "causus belli", a propaganda tool to demonize the opposition and make the war seem like a glorious fight of good against evil, rather than its real causes: the greed of various Northern industrial and shipping concerns, and the desire of certain political figures to make the central government supreme over the states.

Learn a little history.

Click to expand...

I have learned that no matter what we say or do, we will always be labeled as racist, KKK hood wearing, Nazi sympathizers because of where we are from.

It's funny that the supposed "progressives" can't wrap their head around letting go of past mistakes that were committed by people that may or may not have been related to either one of us.
As far as I can tell, no one in my family owned a single slave.

The people I can trace, were furniture makes from NC and the other side immigrated in the 1920's.

Your Star said:

If its a well know fact show me numbers.

And the main cause of the Civil war was slavery. It was slavery that divided the country, and it was slavery that caused the Civil War. And please don't give me that states rights bullcrap, the only reason the southern states wanted states rights is so they could keep their slaves.

Click to expand...

Lincoln's own words from his first inaugural address disagrees with you.

I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

The_Patriot said:

Lincoln's own words from his first inaugural address disagrees with you.

I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Click to expand...

Times change. He also said this:

A House Divided
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

All Men are Created Equal
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

FilmFestGuy said:

To the British, you damn well bet the colonies were treasonous.

Here's the difference: the Union won. They get to set the terms.

And yes, the flag has represented terrible things done by this nation to minorities on many levels. But, since the Union won, it also has represented all the things that were done to correct it. The Stars and Bars only represented the losing side of a war fought to maintain a racist institution.

Click to expand...

I'll quote Jefferson Davis, "A question settled by violence shall forever remain unanswered." Are you saying that just because the United States won an illegal war strips all southerners of their rights to choose their political bands and alliances forever?

FilmFestGuy said:

To the British, you damn well bet the colonies were treasonous.

Here's the difference: the Union won. They get to set the terms.

And yes, the flag has represented terrible things done by this nation to minorities on many levels. But, since the Union won, it also has represented all the things that were done to correct it. The Stars and Bars only represented the losing side of a war fought to maintain a racist institution.

Click to expand...

Talk to some historians who have studied the civil war, and its causes, in detail. I have. Regardless of their political orientation or personal family background, they know the truth: the primary causes of the war were economic, and also a struggle over political power. Slavery was a relatively secondary issue.

I took an advanced, graduate-level history course on the Civil War in college. My professor was a left-leaning world-traveller who grew up in the Northeast. His position on CW causes was what I've just said: it was mainly about economics and politics, not slavery.

I can't compress a semester-long graduate-level course into a post or two for you, however.

If you're determined to remain ignorant, help yourself. Otherwise, you need to study the matter a bit more. Your viewpoint at present is very shallow and uninformed.

missypea said:

Times change. He also said this:

A House Divided
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

All Men are Created Equal
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Click to expand...

“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

“Such separation … must be effected by colonization … The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

You were saying?

Harry Guerrilla said:

For something to be "racist" there has to be a clear message of a person thinking their race is superior to another or all other races.
Being proud of a specific cultural heritage is not inherently racist.

Click to expand...

Have you convinced people of that? If you have not - and you haven't - then you fail in your communication.

Were you successful, blacks and other races would fly it.

You don't win.

The swastika is actually a symbol in many Eastern religions - most predominantly Hinduism. How many Hindu temples in the US or Europe use that symbol anymore? Why - when they obviously could claim completely peaceful motives - do they choose not to use that symbol? Answer - because they understand that it's a symbol that has become hurtful to people. So, out of respect, they choose not to use it.

It's about respect. No matter how hard you try, most people aside from Southern whites aren't going to see the Confederate as anything but a symbol of slavery and treason. It was also flown by whites in the South during the Civil Rights struggle specifically for the purposes of making sure Southern blacks knew their place. It's been adopted by many racist organizations.

So, why do you want to associate with it if you know that's what it makes people think? Because even if it's not racist, it's at least a f*** you.

The_Patriot said:

“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

“Such separation … must be effected by colonization … The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

You were saying?

Click to expand...

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.
--April 6, 1859 Letter


We could do this all day long. The point remains that times change, the world changed.
Lincoln sought freedom for slaves...........successfully.

missypea said:

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.
--April 6, 1859 Letter


We could do this all day long. The point remains that times change, the world changed.
Lincoln sought freedom for slaves...........successfully.

Click to expand...

Only to have them exported back to Africa. He ran on the Keep the West White platform in 1860.

Your Star said:

Got any proof to your hyperbole?

Click to expand...

It's a commonly known fact.

Oh, and in 1861 those states didn't want any American to have freedom.

Click to expand...

The South was fighting for it's freedom. BTW, the Confederate army was the first desgregated American army.

Goshin said:

Again, a very narrow perspective.

I've studied the civil war very carefully. The primary causes and issues were economics and political power. Northeastern states dominated Congress and wanted to enact tariffs and other restrictions on trade that would destroy the south economically. Southern states responded by challenging Fedgov power, declaring provisions they considered intolerable "null and void" within their borders.

Slavery was actually more of a side-issue, until Lincoln decided to make it a "causus belli", a propaganda tool to demonize the opposition and make the war seem like a glorious fight of good against evil, rather than its real causes: the greed of various Northern industrial and shipping concerns, and the desire of certain political figures to make the central government supreme over the states.

Learn a little history.

Click to expand...

Oh, so it was the North's fault, yeah that was in none of the history books I've read. Or have any of my AP history teachers ever said that either. You can't get around it, slaver was the cause of the civil war. It just was, I don't care how many southern apologetic versions of the history you read it's not going to change that fact.
And if you didn't know, there was a concentrated effort by southerners around the turn of the century to change history, and blame the civil war on anything but slavery, and to tear down the progress made by reconstruction. This started with the film "The Birth of A Nation" and was continued in the south with this so called "Gone with the wind history"

missypea said:

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.
--April 6, 1859 Letter


We could do this all day long. The point remains that times change, the world changed.
Lincoln sought freedom for slaves...........successfully.

Click to expand...

Lincoln sought to preserve the Union. Slavery had nothing to with it. not to mention that Lincoln was a racist and didn't wants whites and blacks living among each other. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war began; plus it only applied to Confederate held territory. Places like Kentucky, Maryland and New Orleans were exempt, because they weren't Confederate held territories.

FilmFestGuy said:

Have you convinced people of that? If you have not - and you haven't - then you fail in your communication.

Were you successful, blacks and other races would fly it.

You don't win.

Click to expand...

Lack of comprehension is not my problem.
If someone can't understand the message, even when it has been clarified time and again, it is not my duty to educate those who don't want to understand.

FilmFestGuy said:

The swastika is actually a symbol in many Eastern religions - most predominantly Hinduism. How many Hindu temples in the US or Europe use that symbol anymore? Why - when they obviously could claim completely peaceful motives - do they choose not to use that symbol? Answer - because they understand that it's a symbol that has become hurtful to people. So, out of respect, they choose not to use it.

It's about respect. No matter how hard you try, most people aside from Southern whites aren't going to see the Confederate as anything but a symbol of slavery and treason. It was also flown by whites in the South during the Civil Rights struggle specifically for the purposes of making sure Southern blacks knew their place. It's been adopted by many racist organizations.

So, why do you want to associate with it if you know that's what it makes people think? Because even if it's not racist, it's at least a f*** you.

Click to expand...

I don't respect people that blame me for things I did not do.
It's a two way street, you have to show it to get it and all my life I have operated as if race is of no importance to me, only character.

What do I get in return?
Constant implications that I am still a racist because of the place I was born.

It's not right to always apply guilt be association.

apdst said:

It's a commonly known fact.



The South was fighting for it's freedom. BTW, the Confederate army was the first desgregated American army.

Click to expand...

Anyone want to take a shot at which colony was the first to legalize slavery and the first to criminalize it?

Your Star said:

Oh, so it was the North's fault, yeah that was in none of the history books I've read. Or have any of my AP history teachers ever said that either. You can't get around it, slaver was the cause of the civil war. It just was, I don't care how many southern apologetic versions of the history you read it's not going to change that fact.
And if you didn't know, there was a concentrated effort by southerners around the turn of the century to change history, and blame the civil war on anything but slavery, and to tear down the progress made by reconstruction. This started with the film "The Birth of A Nation" and was continued in the south with this so called "Gone with the wind history"

Click to expand...

I've shown you, as have others, that you were taught wrong. Lincoln, himself, stated that he went to war for taxes not slavery. Those are his words in the historical record that said it. He was so happy to leave slavery alone that he mentions the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery legal for all time. He wrote it and had Corwin submit it to Congress, which is why it's called the Corwin Amendment.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Anyone want to take a shot at which colony was the first to legalize slavery and the first to criminalize it?

Click to expand...

Massachussets was the first to legalize it, for a British colony, and the first to criminalize it, but only after they sold all of their slaves in the south.

The_Patriot said:

Lincoln's own words from his first inaugural address disagrees with you.

I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Click to expand...

Politics existed back then too. Lincoln didn't want to go to war, so he had to try to appease the southern states with statements like these. He actually was one of the first politicians to debate about the issue of slavery in his earlier days. And once the war broke out we saw his true feelings on the subject.

Goshin said:

Talk to some historians who have studied the civil war, and its causes, in detail. I have. Regardless of their political orientation or personal family background, they know the truth: the primary causes of the war were economic, and also a struggle over political power. Slavery was a relatively secondary issue.

I took an advanced, graduate-level history course on the Civil War in college. My professor was a left-leaning world-traveller who grew up in the Northeast. His position on CW causes was what I've just said: it was mainly about economics and politics, not slavery.

I can't compress a semester-long graduate-level course into a post or two for you, however.

If you're determined to remain ignorant, help yourself. Otherwise, you need to study the matter a bit more. Your viewpoint at present is very shallow and uninformed.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when we're discussing rhetoric. This is about communication. I know my history and you're arrogant to assume so.

I can't really compress an entire collegiate career in studying communications (and film, but that's beside the point), but what I'm saying is that you fail to alter the symbol of the flag into what you claim it is. If you've been unable to remove the offense from the symbol - especially in its use by racists in the 1950s and 1960s - then you're failing in your communication.

To ignore the perception of the audience - 50% of the process of communication - mean that you fail in your effort to communicate. To then blame the audience is yet a further failure of communication.

Here's how the process has worked:

I choose to show the Confederate flag.

You say, I find that flag offensive.

I say, I don't mean it offensively. I mean it as a show of regional pride.

You say, why do only Southern whites show the flag, then?

I say, I still don't mean it offensively.

You say, well, it's offensive.

I continue to fly the flag.

I'm - AT BEST - saying f*** you with it. If I continue to do something that you find offensive, I'm disrespecting you.

If the Confederate flag is merely about regional pride, why isn't it flown by Southern blacks?

If "redneck" is a racist term because it's only directed at whites, then the Confederate flag is racist because it's only flown by whites.

Once more, this is a game of you getting to decide everything and everyone else having to accept your interpretation or they can f*** off.

This isn't about the complex history of the Civil War and things like the Kansas/Nebraska compromise (see, I know my history as well). This is about communication. There is a failure of Southern whites to communicate the need to maintain a symbol that is offensive to many. When told they find it offensive, the response is basically a big f*** you.

You just called me "shallow and uninformed" for expressing my opinion. So, who's more shallow? The one who says "f*** you" when someone says, I'm offended - or the person who initiates the offense?

Your Star said:

Oh, so it was the North's fault, yeah that was in none of the history books I've read.have any of my AP history teachers ever said that either. You can't get around it, slaver was the cause of the civil war. It just was, I don't care how many southern apologetic versions of the history you read it's not going to change that fact.
And if you didn't know, there was a concentrated effort by southerners around the turn of the century to change history, and blame the civil war on anything but slavery, and to tear down the progress made by reconstruction. This started with the film "The Birth of A Nation" and was continued in the south with this so called "Gone with the wind history"

Click to expand...

That's because you've probably never read anything other than revisionist history.

What's slavery?

Is it when a person is forced to work at a factory, getting paid less per week than it costs to live, so he has to take out credit at the company store and can't leave for a better job until he pays off the company store, but since he'l never make enough money, that will never happen and if he just up-n-quits, he can go to prison? Is it slavery when 12 y/o kids are forced to work 12+ hours per day?

What's next? You're going to tell us that the North went to war with the South to end slavery?

The Civil War was more about states rights than about freeing slaves.

Lincoln wasn't primarily concerned with slavery.

He wrote (in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862):

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

To some extent, I believe our history books and history teachers- at least at a primary school level- have taught us an erroneous, sanitized version.
History is written by the winners.
School history texts are written and published primarily in the North.
Why would they want to tell schoolchildren that both sides were equally unconcerned with the plight of the slave?
Lincoln the heroic crusader for black rights makes a much nicer fairy tale.