• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

What does redneck refer to

  • Total voters
    75
I don't understand how in economic terms, slavery would have been unsustainable. I would think it would be cheaper to cheaply house and feed employees than to pay them a wage.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't understand how in economic terms, slavery would have been unsustainable. I would think it would be cheaper to cheaply house and feed employees than to pay them a wage.
Click to expand...

Mechanization makes manual labor unnecessary.

With housing and feeding, you also have to worry about the general health of your "employees" because slaves were freaking expensive, you don't want an expensive investment to die.

It's more efficient to let people manage their self then to manage it for them by a centralized controller.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't understand how in economic terms, slavery would have been unsustainable. I would think it would be cheaper to cheaply house and feed employees than to pay them a wage.
Click to expand...

An average slave cost $100 in 1850's gold currency. Accounting for inflation, the slave is worth roughly $6,125 when purchased then you have to add in housing, medical care, food, and clothing. All of which adds up and the slave owner has to pay for them since they were legally obligated to do so until the slave died. It was cradle to the grave welfare of the slave. All of it was unsustainable and slavery would have died naturally like it did in every Western country with the last one in the early 1900's.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I merely want fairness. If the intent of now is to move forward, we shouldn't be clinging to ideas that it is "ok" to insult one group because of the transgressions for their fore bearers.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was ok. It's inaccurate on one point because few "whites" actually have ancestors that were directly involved in transgressions. Irish children were literally enslaved and shipped to the West Indies by British traders, so they weren't in a possession to oppress people.

I just said that the underlying intuitions that are the motivating cause aren't those of supremacist dominance, as opposed to white racism, and anti-white racism doesn't have the potential to manifest itself in such a way, as opposed to white racism. White populism actually serves as somewhat of a proxy for white supremacism in that white populism is the ultimate foundation for bitterness about complaints of prejudice made by racial minorities, as the white populist perceives this as an unfair attempt to get a leg up without having earned it.

Here's an example from Stormfront:

The tea party crowd are comprised of ordinary White Americans, just as White Nationalists are. Culturally and traditionally, they're basically the same as White Nationalists - both rooted in the earlier paleo-conservative value system. The only difference might be that the neo-conservatives seem to think they can manipulate the tea partiers much more easily than they can manipulate White Nationalists. Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power. Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.
Click to expand...

You can see the same foundations of white populism in Caine's posts, for example.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Bleh, political correctness is for wienies. The majority of Black people, where I live, describe themselves as Black and me as White.
Click to expand...

I've experienced that too, as well as the fact that I've encountered very few Indians who call themselves "Native American" as a self-description. But the ornery and belligerent refusal to use those words because of their "political correctness" is usually correlated with angry white male syndrome.
 
Cochise said:
Didn't say it was ok. It's inaccurate on one point because few "whites" actually have ancestors that were directly involved in transgressions. Irish children were literally enslaved and shipped to the West Indies by British traders, so they weren't in a possession to oppress people.

I just said that the underlying intuitions that are the motivating cause aren't those of supremacist dominance, as opposed to white racism, and anti-white racism doesn't have the potential to manifest itself in such a way, as opposed to white racism. White populism actually serves as somewhat of a proxy for white supremacism in that white populism is the ultimate foundation for bitterness about complaints of prejudice made by racial minorities, as the white populist perceives this as an unfair attempt to get a leg up without having earned it.

Here's an example from Stormfront:
Click to expand...

I'm neither a fan of populism nor racial supremacy.
I prefer the path of acceptance as long as people act respectful to one another.

I think these terms mostly inhibit racial progress.

Cochise said:
I've experienced that too, as well as the fact that I've encountered very few Indians who call themselves "Native American" as a self-description. But the ornery and belligerent refusal to use those words because of their "political correctness" is usually correlated with angry white male syndrome.
Click to expand...

I'm just using the generally accepted versions of self description that most people use here.
 
The_Patriot said:
Here it is.
Click to expand...

Thanks. He helped write it. It wasn't all his though. From your source:

One resolution not included in Lincoln's proposals offered that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Click to expand...


I think this part is accurate:

The discovery of Lincoln's letter to the governor of Florida does not alter the historical perspective that Lincoln was willing to compromise to restore the Union before hostilities began. It also underscores Lincoln's evolution toward emancipation. This snapshot of March 1861 shows Lincoln's last attempt to restore the Union while maintaining his party's platform. While personally opposed to slavery, Lincoln believed the Constitution supported it.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Mechanization makes manual labor unnecessary.

With housing and feeding, you also have to worry about the general health of your "employees" because slaves were freaking expensive, you don't want an expensive investment to die.

It's more efficient to let people manage their self then to manage it for them by a centralized controller.
Click to expand...

How were they "freaking expensive"? They provided the bare minimum in many cases. If they wanted them to be healthy as employees, the cost would be the same.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm neither a fan of populism nor racial supremacy.
I prefer the path of acceptance as long as people act respectful to one another.

I think these terms mostly inhibit racial progress.
Click to expand...

White supremacists don't sit down one day and logically deduce that their philosophy is correct. They're first motivated by angry white [usually male] syndrome that stems from their belief that racial minorities have an entitlement mentality, and unfairly receive rewards without working from social welfare programs, as well as other kinds of unearned special treatment. This manifests itself in the form of white populism, motivated by the same bitter resentment. African-Americans laze about and abuse substances in inner cities, unmotivated to work because they receive welfare checks that they spend on vice. Illegal/undocumented immigrants criminally break into the country to brazenly steal those same welfare checks. U.S. Indians sit on reservations and consume alcohol, sustained by welfare checks and gambling revenue.

Anger at this motivates advocacy of white populist policies such as restrictions on welfare and affirmative action, which are promoted by many rightists. White supremacists have simply gone a step further than their white populist comrades in determining that this propensity for immorality on the part of racial minorities is linked to genetics or some other inherent characteristic.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm just using the generally accepted versions of self description that most people use here.
Click to expand...

That's fine. People who go out of their way to use words that are "edgy" and "politically incorrect" are usually motivated by resentment at their perception that racial minorities are unfairly protected by speech codes, which ties in with their association with laziness via welfare usage and unemployment, and moral weakness via substance abuse.
 
The_Patriot said:
An average slave cost $100 in 1850's gold currency. Accounting for inflation, the slave is worth roughly $6,125 when purchased then you have to add in housing, medical care, food, and clothing. All of which adds up and the slave owner has to pay for them since they were legally obligated to do so until the slave died. It was cradle to the grave welfare of the slave. All of it was unsustainable and slavery would have died naturally like it did in every Western country with the last one in the early 1900's.
Click to expand...

I still don't see where the savings is if the slave owner paid for the necessities or if they paid the slaves to take care of that themselves.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
How were they "freaking expensive"? They provided the bare minimum in many cases. If they wanted them to be healthy as employees, the cost would be the same.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, you'd be surprised how centralized management is more expensive than self management.
Slaves had to be protected from escaping, had to be made to work and other things that a wage earner would not normally be made to do, wage earners want to work(more or less).
Slave owners had to pay people to protect their investment, which is a loss in many cases.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't understand how in economic terms, slavery would have been unsustainable. I would think it would be cheaper to cheaply house and feed employees than to pay them a wage.
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre post to write. . .

Not even looking at the "slave costs" for housing and feeding, etc - there's also the fact that slavery is dealing with people who have free-will.

When confined and forced against their will they're more likely to run off, turn on their 'owners' and so on.

Take the issues surrounding the Berlin Wall, for example - they had to confine everyone and took away their rights and severed them from their family, basically turning them into slaves. Yet the free will of some challenged every technology they threw at the strength of the wall - made it more and more costly and challenging to keep people captive and confined.
It, slowly, began to fall apart.

Any form of slavery will eventually become cost-constraining as you'll have to continue to improve your surrounding and battlements, fences and means of confinement - as well as covering the cost of the dwindling numbers (escape, death, killed while being re-captured) and so on.

It's a self-destructing cycle that is unsustainable in the long run.
 
This is a bizarre post to write. . .

Not even looking at the "slave costs" for housing and feeding, etc - there's also the fact that slavery is dealing with people who have free-will.

When confined and forced against their will they're more likely to run off, turn on their 'owners' and so on.
Click to expand...


They also won't work without an overseer, and an intricate system of incentives and disincentives in place, all of which costs money.
They're prisoners, after all.
It's not like they joyfully picked cotton at top speed all day, every day- year in and year out, for their entire lives- out of love for and a sense of duty toward their masters.
Inducing them to actually work, rather than drag their feet and sabotage everything, could not have been a cheap proposition.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
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?
Click to expand...


Sir, I was referring to "Your Star" in my statements. I did not address you directly.

In answer to at least one of your questions, I have in fact known Southern blacks who flew the Confederate flag, because they understood the heritage meaning of it. One fellow I knew was a black farmer, who flew the Stars and Bars at his house and also had a confederate flag on his truck.

I suggest that that gentleman understood what I've been talking about far better than you. Communication is dependent not only on the speaker, but on the listener.

Back during the whole "flag flap" in SC, most of the black South Carolinians I knew were relatively indifferent about it. Those who did have a strong opinion were chiefly annoyed at an out-of-state organization sticking its nose into South Carolina's business, and trying to harm our tourist trade.... especially since more blacks work in tourist-service than whites...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not necessarily, you'd be surprised how centralized management is more expensive than self management.
Slaves had to be protected from escaping, had to be made to work and other things that a wage earner would not normally be made to do, wage earners want to work(more or less).
Slave owners had to pay people to protect their investment, which is a loss in many cases.
Click to expand...

Beatings and worse kept them in line. That wasn't expensive.
 
megaprogman said:
There seems to be some confusion about this word. I tend to use it to refer to a culture, where others seem to want to use it to refer to a race.
Click to expand...

I think it refers to a culture, with severe undertones focusing upon a particular race when used stereotypically.

I equate someone calling something "Redneck" to someone calling something "Ghetto".

One does not need to be black to live in a Ghetto, yet it is often referred to in such a way as to imply or correlate with black, must the same as redneck does with white.

So I believe its primarily a cultural reference, but unquestionably tied to the race most commonly associated with the stereotype.
 
1069 said:
They also won't work without an overseer, and an intricate system of incentives and disincentives in place, all of which costs money.
They're prisoners, after all.
It's not like they joyfully picked cotton at top speed all day, every day- year in and year out, for their entire lives- out of love for and a sense of duty toward their masters.
Inducing them to actually work, rather than drag their feet and sabotage everything, could not have been a cheap proposition.
Click to expand...

Too true.

So in the effort to avoid hiring some employees to *do* the actual work - they have to hire employees to ensure that the slaves *do* the actual work.

I fail to see a balance or a positive there.

Now, though, we have "volunteer" slavery - illegals - doing all this same work.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
Beatings and worse kept them in line. That wasn't expensive.
Click to expand...

Unbelievably, from what my research has been able to turn up, most owners did not actually beat their slaves much, if at all.
Most of the slaves owned by my family, for instance, and even their children, remained with my family after emancipation and worked as sharecroppers. They had their own cabins and everything. The cabins are still there, on our land.
If only the threat of torture had kept them there, they surely would've left as soon as the chance presented itself. They're human, after all.

I think most owners treated their slaves more like retarded family members or valuable pets, prone to wander off if one wasn't careful.
Not that this is more admirable than beating the crap out of them; it's heinous. It's appalling that intelligent adult human beings- generations of them- had to live this way, all of their human potential extinguished like that.
But I don't think that all slave owners were cruel to their slaves. Especially the ones who only owned a few.
They probably cared about their well-being, in a sick, twisted but genuine way.
Which is actually worse, to my way of thinking.

The past, blech. **** it. :2sick1:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
One fellow I knew was a black farmer, who flew the Stars and Bars at his house and also had a confederate flag on his truck.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I wonder at people who act like there are not blacks that don't use the Confederate Flag and makes me wonder if they've actually spent considerable amount of time in the south, or are just lying. I've known or seen a fair number of blacks in Southwest Virginia and Fredericksburg VA that have had it on a shirt/sticker/class ring/etc.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Seriously, I wonder at people who act like there are not blacks that don't use the Confederate Flag and makes me wonder if they've actually spent considerable amount of time in the south, or are just lying. I've known or seen a fair number of blacks in Southwest Virginia and Fredericksburg VA that have had it on a shirt/sticker/class ring/etc.
Click to expand...

Well, there was a high school here, Travis High, and their mascot was the Rebels, and their logo included the stars and bars.
Over time, due to white flight from the area, it became a largely black high school, and in the late 90s, somebody finally protested against all these black kids being forced to wear confederate flags on their football jerseys. It was sort of a hot-button issue here, for about a week.
Finally, i think, they ended up changing the mascot. To what, I don't remember.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think it refers to a culture, with severe undertones focusing upon a particular race when used stereotypically.

I equate someone calling something "Redneck" to someone calling something "Ghetto".

One does not need to be black to live in a Ghetto, yet it is often referred to in such a way as to imply or correlate with black, must the same as redneck does with white.

So I believe its primarily a cultural reference, but unquestionably tied to the race most commonly associated with the stereotype.
Click to expand...

A minority of rural whites are referred to as "rednecks." A majority of urban blacks could fall under the connotation "ghetto." The latter will therefore have a much stronger association with a general conception of African-Americans.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
You see no irony from your complaint and the fact that your avatar has a Confederate symbol in it, yet you call yourself The Patriot?

You have your interpretation of what the Confederate flag means and obviously don't care what others think. But you expect people to accept your definition of redneck as a racist term.

Why do YOU get to define everything for everyone? Why do we have to accept that your flag doesn't represent racism and treason and is anti-American and we also have to accept that "redneck" is a racist term. Where is it written that you get to define all social symbols for everyone?
Click to expand...

And yet, again, Why do YOU get to define everything for everyone?

Why do you get to define what the Confederate flag means, or that its totally acceptable to call someone a redneck but not call another person "ghetto" if they happen to be black.

Because, to be honest, we all know that the above two definitions are more crammed down our throat by the ignorant media than The Patriot's version of the story.
 
Zyphlin said:
Seriously, I wonder at people who act like there are not blacks that don't use the Confederate Flag and makes me wonder if they've actually spent considerable amount of time in the south, or are just lying. I've known or seen a fair number of blacks in Southwest Virginia and Fredericksburg VA that have had it on a shirt/sticker/class ring/etc.
Click to expand...

Most of them probably know nothing about the South, other than crap they've heard or seen on TV... which is the same as nothing.

"Your Star" claims to live around Atlanta... if so she has a very odd hatred for her own regional culture. Then again, many of the far-left seem to hate their own country, I suppose hating your own region/culture is likely also. :roll:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This is a bizarre post to write. . .

Not even looking at the "slave costs" for housing and feeding, etc - there's also the fact that slavery is dealing with people who have free-will.

When confined and forced against their will they're more likely to run off, turn on their 'owners' and so on.

Take the issues surrounding the Berlin Wall, for example - they had to confine everyone and took away their rights and severed them from their family, basically turning them into slaves. Yet the free will of some challenged every technology they threw at the strength of the wall - made it more and more costly and challenging to keep people captive and confined.
It, slowly, began to fall apart.

Any form of slavery will eventually become cost-constraining as you'll have to continue to improve your surrounding and battlements, fences and means of confinement - as well as covering the cost of the dwindling numbers (escape, death, killed while being re-captured) and so on.

It's a self-destructing cycle that is unsustainable in the long run.
Click to expand...

I was speaking strictly in economic terms. And unless they were close to a non-slave holding state, they weren't going to get very far if they ran off. On top of that, they knew that those they left behind would pay the price for their absence. If they turned on their owners, they would pay the price for that as well. Intimidation isn't as expensive as some would purport.

The Berlin Wall is a poor analogy. People didn't violently revolt and get it tore down. They didn't all escape. And if they did escape, it wouldn't be obvious by sight alone that they were East German. Communism failed for many reasons. Yes, economics was a big part of that, but it wasn't maintaining the Berlin Wall that did it. I would argue the Great Wall of China is more costly to maintain. (I understand that it was designed to keep invaders out, but that's not important as it's the cost of upkeep that is the issue.
 
1069 said:
I have no problem "being intolerant" of people who wave confederate flags around in my face.
The south has a recent history that it's hurtful to me to be reminded of. And I'm not even black.
Thank God, because if I were, I doubt I'd be able to contain my rage.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you would act like a savage, uncivilized, animal?

Great, just give racist idiots more ammunition... :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom