Posted on 08/26/2007 3:00:04 PM PDT by hardback
Sunday, August 26, 2007 Underestimating Southern Demeanor
John Wayne wasn't a Southerner, but he had a firm grasp on the mindset of BEING from the south in some cases. "Talk low, talk slow, and don't talk too much."
From Wikipedia (I know it's generally not considered a refined source, but for general information, sometimes it's a great place to look for things):
The Culture of the Southern United States or Southern Culture is a subculture of the United States that has resulted from the blending of a heavy amount of rural Scot-Irish culture, the culture of African slaves, Native American culture, and to a lesser degree that of French and Spanish colonists. Southerners have a unique shared history, which includes remembrance of difficult times such as the institution of slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Great Depression, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement, and more recent events or tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.
The South also hosts a vibrant African American subculture, a sense of rural isolation, and a strong regional identity. It has also developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music, bluegrass, southern gospel, rock and roll, blues and jazz), and cuisine. This unique cultural and historical blend has caused many scholars such as sociologist John Shelton Reed to speculate that Southerners are a separate ethnic group.
The largest group of Southerners are primarily the descendants of the Celtic immigrants who moved to the South in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to an 1860 census, "three-quarters of white Southerners had surnames that were Scottish, Irish or Welsh in origin." 250,000 settled in the USA between 1717 and 1770 alone. They were often called "crackers" [2] by English neighbors. As one wrote, "I should explain… what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascals on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode." Most had previously lived in Scotland, usually in the Lowlands and Scottish Border Country. The "Celtic Thesis" of Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney holds that they were basically Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all Celtic groups (Scots Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. Author James Webb uses this thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits of the Scots-Irish, loyalty to kin, mistrust of governmental authority, and military readiness, "helped shape the American identity," and indeed, these features commonly seen in the South have long been woven into fabric of American society and policy.
The other primary population group in the South is made up of the African-American descendants of the slaves brought into the South. African-Americans comprise the United States' second-largest racial minority, accounting for 12.1 percent of the total population according to the 2000 census. Despite Jim Crow era outflow to the North (see Great Migration (African American)) the majority of the black population remains concentrated in the southern states, and have transmitted their foods, music (see "negro spirituals"), art, and charismatic brand of Christianity to white Southerners, and the rest of the nation.
There has been much criticism over the years by both Southerners and Northerners alike of the negative stereotypes of southerners (especially those of the Appalachian regions) depicted in the media and in the general attitudes of some people from other regions. Critics argue that in this age of "political correctness" and sensitivity (especially taught in American schools since the 1990's) that the people of the southern United States are today one of the few groups that can be openly and "safely" ridiculed and discriminated against[citation needed]. This is primarily due, critics point out, to other Americans' lack of knowledge of the region and because of hostile feelings and prejudices in response to the south's history of poor education (in some areas) and racial problems. Offensive terms such as "redneck" and "hillbilly" are often used to pervasively blanket the entire region.
It is this mindset that seems to have shrouded Fred Thompson during the first stages of what is likely to be his bid for the White House. Critics, especially Northern critics, have labeled him as "slow, unfocused, and gloomy." Is it gloomy to present the reality of things to the American people rather than doing the standard dance of rhetoric? I think not, and in Jonathan Martin's Fred: Sober and Serious, I find that I'm not alone in thinking so.
Fred: Sober and Serious
INDIANAPOLIS — Fred Thompson thinks the country faces a tough road ahead and he's not glossing over the problems we face. In fact, he's anxious to outline the daunting litany and appears to be basing his forthcoming campaign on the assumption that his party shares the same outlook.
In a 25-minute after-dinner speech to attendees of the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference here, Thompson offered a stark assessment of what he described as America's perilous condition.
"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."
There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better it's going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").
And Thompson's tonic for these thorny matters?
Well, befitting his still not yet being a formal candidate he didn't have specific solutions. Instead he returned to what he calls "first principles."
"I don't think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are outmoded documents," Thompson declared, finally giving the crowd something to clap about after the gloomy bill of particulars was laid out. Federalism or devolving power to the states would help, he said. Also, the rule of law, the market economy, respect for private property, free trade and competition came in for praise — hardly dangerous ground among conservative activists.
Perhaps recognizing that all his rhetoric was depressing a crowd that given him a loud and extended welcome, Thompson said it was very much possible for things to turn around. "We know how to do that, we've done it so many times before," he reminded.
We do know how, and yes, we have done it before.
In my mind, Fred Thompson's greatest opponent will not be Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. The greatest challenge will be in fighting Southern stereotyping. Fortunately, there seem to be enough educated people stepping up to the plate from other sections of the country to help fight this.
And I think we can surpass it, and Fred Thompson can win the Presidency.
I do not agree with your appraisal of Fred’s speech. Tell me in exactly what way he was incorrect in his assessment. He said what had to be said. Defend the country from a very grave external threat and return to our Constitutional principles or we will have the devil to pay.
In 1980, Reagan was plenty negative about the state of the country. The solutions he offered are in most ways the same as Fred offers. Fred does not need to give a bunch of Panglossian speeches about how great things are. Some things are good (e.g. the economy) right now, but there are ticking time bombs and a radical return to constitutionalism is the only thing that will save our country for the next generation. Reagan often quoted Churchill concerning the future to the effect: “What we do now will determine whether we remain the last best hope of man on earth or descend into a thousand years of darkness.” Reagan was above all a realist. Every great President is. And I think Fred Thompson is such a man.
Fred has a different race to run than Reagan. Reagan was running against a Democrat disaster. Fred must walk a fine line, embracing the good things Bush has done (tax cuts, judges)while distancing himself from the bad. Above all, he needs to chart his own course. I thought he made a great start at doing that in Indianapolis.
Thank you for supplying me with the article. I have been made aware of this incident before, however, as a lowly volunteer there is little I can do about the failings of the campaign. I do know they exist, as failings must exist in all campaigns, and they pain me, for I put in 10 to 12 hours a day on Rep Hunter’s behalf.
I don’t want the president money will buy. I firmly believe Duncan Hunter is the very best man for the job.
The people who are coming in droves to Duncan Hunter are those we are reaching here on Free Republic, as well as those we reach personally. It is astonishing how many people have signed on since the Iowa Straw Poll!
I have found that Rep. Hunter’s appeal transcends party when people become aware of all that he stands for. I’ve had Democrats as well as Republicans ask for bumper stickers and brochures, and this increases daily.
Incidentally, Republican Straw Polls are under the thumb of the RNC, and many poll votes can be and are purchased by candidates.
So, my efforts, and those of other FReepers dedicated to Duncan Hunter are not so absurd as Fred supporters are so happy to say on this thread.
I feel no rancor for Fredhead efforts on the behalf of their candidate, if Fredheads can remain halfway civil.
>I’m not even quite sure who Duncan Hooter is.<
Best left unsaid. :)
>I’m not even quite sure who Duncan Hooter is.<
Best left unsaid. :)
That's why I posted. The Presidential candidate I support gave a poor speech to a national audience. If he continues to give depressing, negative, "brutally honest" speeches without presenting any idea of how his leadership would improve things except, "returning to the Constitution", I fear my support may be in vain.
Is that brutally honest enough for you?
AMEN!!! If a candidate has to sugarcoat his message to win, than we have already lost. You can not enter office with a mandate if you do not face the challenges head on. The high school pep rally style campaigns with their rah - rah, are a real turn off for me. I yearn for a candidate that will talk to us like we were grown ups.
uh...we've had other tragedies beyond Katrina...Camille as one example
I am almost completely descended from antebellum white southerners from Rolfe-Pochahontas-and Virginia FFV and then of course the yeoman Scots-Irish bunch and Cromwell orphans we are all reknown for here. Likewise I have a lot of Huguenot blood as well...very big in South Carolina and Georgia early on.
The first big waves in the South were titled 2nds and 3rds who simply had no assets back home in England so they came here....the writer neglected to mention them.
I do confess to Hopkins blood from Rhode Island late 18th century....
one thing about the South that I noticed was very different up north was that we had all been here family wise forever since territorial and even Jamestown days. Up north most folks were much more recent...the majority being post-Civil War arrivals....at least in the the Northeast.
down here we had a few Italians, Greeks and Lebanese Christians but most but not all were post-bellum. We had plenty of antebellum Jews but they were supplanted post-bellum by Ashkhanzim Jews....the originals here being Sephradim.
The South is pretty homogenous percentage-wise in the white poipulation...the ethnic variation is rather tight.
Same for blacks...nearly all are west African....Louisiana was mainly Senegal origin. The rest from Ghana, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and a few from Cameroon- Angola...not many....but still a small geographic origin compared to the whole dark continent.
Politics is a rough and tumble endeavor and to be quite frank I don’t know how the candidates do it. I’m sure you are very dedicated in your support of Hunter and your dedication and labor are appreciated I’m sure.
We are rapidly approaching a come to Jesus moment for many campaigns as the Iowa Caucuses and the NH primary are less than five months away. And by Mid Feb will have a nominee in waiting most likely. At some point all campaigns except one will have to accept the fact they aren’t going to be the chosen one at the convention in Sept. 08. That’s a hard decision I’m sure and devasting for the workers. But if they put out a valiant effort then they can hold their heads high and be proud of their effort and their candidate.
My ultimate goal is to have a Republican candidate that the entire party can coalesce behind and that can attract independents and other cross over voters. The defeat of the Democratic party nominee is very important if we are to have any opportunity to move this country away from it’s liberalism.
Take care and maybe we can be united behind a single candidate come mid 08.
Well here it is again, the feigned victimization from the RomneyHunters. You come on the thread and post this....
Most of the Republican candidates are taking pages out of Duncan Hunter’s book. And Fred will be no exception.
...and then attempt a pre-emptive strike claiming that anybody who disagrees or challenges your position isn't being civil.
Boo-hoo.
A dyed in the wool southerner here, but I am not seeing a viable candidate to represent us in the upcoming election.
We have no one that has the “brand recognition” of obama, let alone hillary.
Newt could do it, but he won’t run.
Yes it is and your point is well taken.
“And they are turning to Duncan Hunter in droves.”
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
Bump for an excellent post.
Your post was good.
Think also about who Fred was talking to: Republican leadership. His speech was exactly right for that group. When he speaks he realizes who he is talking to and what he wants to accomplish. He wasn’t speaking to people who want a beauty pageant. [I borrowed that but don’t remember who from.]
We are all listening to the Andrea Shea-King Show right now.
Is he the guy who runs the restaurant??
I think closely tailoring your speech to an audience is a mistake. All speeches should be considered to be given to a national audience. In this case the speech was on CSPAN which means a national audience of probably tens of thousands. Even if not on national TV, every campaign is being followed by reporters whose goal is to get their coverage nationally exposed. The Internet has coverage of everything you say in almost real time. Their are no more "local" events.
Tailoring your message also gets you into trouble, like Romney's recent inconsistent abortion statements. A Presidential campaign is not designed to "educate" voters, as one poster has claimed. If it was, Newt Gingrich would probably be a great candidate. He wouldn't. Sure, a candidate can throw in some local flavor and toss a little red meat to a partisan live audience, but the message should be consistent in all forums. A campaign should be designed to convince voters the candidate will lead the Country to a place they want to go which I believe to be victory, success and prosperity for the United States.
If a candidate convinces voters that, with him as leader, we will defeat our enemies, not just fight the WOT, that we will secure our borders, not just "make progress" towards that goal, that we will enforce our laws equally, not just those laws that are easy to enforce, that we will stop wasting the voters money, not only if it doesn't effect a pet project, and that we will be proud of our Country and ourselves because we are good people that live in a good Country, very little else needs to be said.
Fred was right in that voters don't want to hear about a 30 point plan. They want to hear from a leader who has a positive vision of our future, despite our problems. Reagan understood this. I hope Fred does too.
If he was, nobody would ever get their food, because he doesn’t like to actually show up for work very often. On the other hand, there would be a lot of pork on the menu...
LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.