Talk:Southern United States

This is part of a WikiProject.

For optional guidelines on contributing see WikiProject U.S. regions

Muslims

How do most Southerners treat Muslims that live in the South?

I'm a Muslim living in the South, and I'm treated just fine. Stereotypical interpretations would be that Muslim Southerners aren't treated right, but that's the farthest thing from the truth. Stallions2010 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore

I'm adding Baltimore to the list of important southern cities. It is bigger than many of the cities listed there and has a great deal of historical significance. goaway110

NPOV Rewrite

The stuff that you are looking at is old. The current article is very different. Would anyone object to this section being removed? This discussion sections needs a little cleaning. Mauvila 01:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed much of the discussion and quotation of the disputed NPOV section since most of the material under discussion has been replaced or rewritten (and the cleaning/removal request was made 3 months ago without any subsequent challenge or disagreement). Poroubalous 26 March 2005

Southern Religion Question

"for its Calvinist religion called 'fundamentalism'" -- aren't most Southerners (stereotypically speaking) Baptist? jengod 22:42, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Baptists may be the largest single demonination, but I don't know that they're the majority. (I have no figures at hand, just my impression.) "Calvinist" may not be the best term here. -- Infrogmation 23:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that they're the largest in number, but I would not say that they're the majority. Just like anywhere in the country, I'm sure they get competition from rival Protestant sects as well as Catholicism. Mike H 03:22, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Baptists are anywhere a "majority" in the South, athough there might be a few counties where this is the case, especially if one were to lump all of the various Baptist sects together (something that they themselves are either unwilling or unable to do). They are certainly a "plurality" in much of the South, though, and quite often bigger than the next two or three religious groupings put together. That having been said, while the South certainly has more than its share, the idea that a majority of Southerners, or even a majority of Southern religionists, are a bunch of Bible-totin', Scripture quotin' "fundamentalists" is an oversimiplification at best and an unfair stereotype at worst. Such do exist, and in abudance, but are far from all that there is to the Southern culture. They probably exert influence beyond their numbers because of the willingness of so many of them to be "in your face" and hence loud in both the literal and the political/social sense (although many others express a quiet humility). As to Calvinism, there is a certain amount of Calvinist influence in many Baptists, particularly conservative ones, and in fact Calvinism in the 21st century probably has more influence among Baptists today than it does among modern Presbyterians. Many fundamentalists also believe in free will, so that is probably another unfair stereotype. The number of Catholics in the South is now rising rapidly due to immigration from Latin America, which is making another huge religious change and in someplaces is overwhelming the Catholic infastructure, which for many years primarily catered to small communitites of Irish, Italians, and Germans.

Rlquall 14:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Might take a look at the Southern Baptist Convention article for a bit more insight. Quinobi 18:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Gulf Coast (including parts of Alabama and Mississippi) was originally settled by the French and the Spanish. Moreover, the port cities on the Gulf Coast have received a large number of Irish and Italian immigrants during the last two hundred years. Catholicism was once the predominant religion of these areas and still has a very strong presence.

I think it might be interesting to note that traditionally it was the North, not the South that was associated with Calvinism. The Puritans were in Massachussetts, not Virginia, after all. My understanding was that the North used to be the more stridently Calvinist region in colonial times while the South was more Anglican, contrary to the current religious demography.

24.164.57.139rhesusman 12/21/2004 23:38 (UTC)

Concur -- The Virginians were Episcopals, and maybe Methodists, but were biased against the Baptists, arguably motivating the the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in order to allow the Baptists to worship freely. MPS 21:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Politics

A previous writer seems to say that the average southerner identifies with only Republicans, but this is true only in federal elections. States like AL, MS, TN, LA, and AR have both houses controlled by Democrats. In many of these, the Democrat:Republican ratio is 2:1. Other southern states are likely to have at least one house of the legislature controlled by Democrats. To say these voters are simply voting based on evangelical beliefs is inaccurate. Many southerners are motivated by their opposition to a large federal government, preferring local/state authority. The dislike of "bureaucracy" is strong in the South.

Native America

Again, as with many US-centric articles, there is no mention of Native Americans at all. How can the History of an American region be represented without some reference to its original inhabitants? Shame shame. Quinobi 18:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Just playing devils advocate here: Maybe because all the Natives who lived here are covered by other articles about the Native Americans of America. The South as a cultural region never really coexisted with Natives, so there wouldn't need to be any mention of them. Anyways, a sentence or two and some links might be nice.-

LtNOWIS 02:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To futher advocate the aformentioned devil: Georgia Cherokees were so assimilative of the Southern culture that at the time of the Trail of Tears, many of the wealthier ones (such as Chief Vann) owned numerous black slaves which worked their plantations. Some Mississippi Choctaws also owned slaves. This assimilation attempt might merit mention, even though the attempt at coexistence (represented in part by the above, which was partially a move for assimilation and white acceptance) was a failure due to Jackson's insistance on Removal.

Rlquall 03:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Quinobi. A cultural history of any region of the world should first address the indigenous peoples. In the History section of the article, there is a very casual and misleading reference to the Creeks and Cherokees. If there is intended to be a serious discussion of racial injustice, then there must also be an acknowledgement of the very deliberate efforts made by the U.S. Government to wipe out and/or remove from their traditional lands the native North American peoples. In addition, of course, entire tribal groups were extinguished early on by exposure to European diseases, against which they had no immunity.

In Florida there were two 19th century Wars against the Seminole Tribe. The only reason that a small group survived in the state is that the country turned its resources to fighting the Civil War and gave up hunting down the last of the Seminoles, who had taken refuge in the Everglades. (They remain the only "undefeated" indigenous group.) And what about the violation, on the part of the U.S., of virtually every agreement or treaty that was ever made with the native tribes --- even agreements with the most peaceful and "civilized" ones such as the Georgia Cherokees, who adopted a constitution modeled on the U.S. Constitution, if my memory serves me correctly. Their reward was a "death march" to Oklahoma.

When I was in the 3rd grade in New Orleans, circa 1960, we had a unit on the Choctaw Indians. As far as I knew, they were all in the past. As a young adult, I got an administrative job in the Southeast Regional Office of a Federal Govt. agency in Atlanta and learned that there is a Choctaw Tribal Organization in Mississippi! It is really shameful how invisible these people and their cultures have been to the typical American and to many Southerners! Floridasand 10:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The War Between the States; Atlanta vs. The South

That term was still in very wide use forty years ago during the centennial of the event, but is dying out raidly even among Southerners; I edited the article slightly in an attempt to reflect this. Almost none outside of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and fringe groups like the League of the South still speak of "The War for Southern Independence" or "The War of Northern Agression", most call it, like the rest of the country, The Civil War, even though there was very little civility involved for the most part. That having been said, the South has tens of thousands of Civil War buffs, ranging from intellectuals who want every detail throughly researched and authenticated, through a vast mainstream group which is interested in the history of the period, to those whose only interest in it whatever is the fact that it was a period of unquestioned white supremacy.

It is true in the main that, "In the South, the past is ever present. In fact, it's never even passed." The resentment that many rural Georgians and other Southerners as well feel toward Atlanta goes so far beyond the traditional rural/urban rivalry, or even racism, that it is surprising to outsiders (and probably most Atlantans, especially white ones, are largely unaware of it or knowingly ingnore it) and is in part caused by the fact that modern Atlanta has so little connection to its own past in particular, the Southern past in general, or to its region. Those who go to Atlanta to experience "the South" are apt to be disappointed, as in many ways they find a modern large city that fits anywhere in North America, only governed by blacks and with a black majority. Rlquall 14:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the South, I have never heard it called anything but the Civil War. This reminds me of an entry in the American Heritage Dictionary, saying that in the South, people call soft drinks dope (probably from the original recipe of Coca-Cola). Maybe in Atlanta, but I have never heard that in Alabama. News to me.

I've got a feeling the term "dope" in reference to soft drinks may have have been a product of the original formula, but I've never heard it said in Atlanta, but in the mountains of East Tennessee and hills of Middle Tennessee and only by older people, never anyone even middle-aged.

"For what it's worth, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the South, I have never heard it called anything but the Civil War."

I've lived in NC for 10 years and have rarely heard the term "Civil War." 66.57.225.195 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

The size of this page was about 32KB so I decided to remove the discussion of title. I think there is an agreement that Southern, etc. is capitalized because it refers to a distinct region. Both NYT and Chicago say South is capitalized. I don't think there is agreement on whether is proper to include initials (U.S.) in title. It was noted, however, that U.S. is technically not an acronym, because it does not form a word that is pronounced (like scuba, etc.) However, the meaning of acronym can be debated elsewhere.

About MD and DE being "blue states" and therefore different from the South

[I've snipped the long discussion by me about red and blue states, which was hogging up a lot of space here; see History file. I basically explained that a sentence about red states and blue states needed deleting from the article. I also questioned a comment in the article about MD and DE having legal slavery till the end of the war.] -Bebop

I agree. In addition, the "red" and "blue" are NOT universally accepted. They are also counterintuitive. Unless "red" somehow connotes "rednecked", then it is usually reserved for the left-most party. I also wonder if magnolias are that fragrant. I've been around them all of my life, but I don't think I've ever associated them with a smell. Are dogwoods "beautiful"? The tree language is a little flowery (no pun intended, really), and it leaves out the live-oak, which is (objectively speaking) the best tree in the whole wide world. Mauvila 01:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only problem I had was with calling the South all Republican when it isn't. Check the online election return results by county for the cities I mentioned in the South. Also there are online election returns for past elections. The South didn't vote Republican in many of those, while many northern states did. Anyway I only put all that on this page because I didn't want to remove a sentence without explaining myself. I have not added or removed anything else, just one sentence about red and blue states. Live Oaks are cool, by the way. Especially the ones with moss on them seen in the deep South, although you don't see much of that except in MS, LA and FL. I'll probably remove my long comments in here after a while so as not to clutter up this page. -Bebop

The comment about states in "the North" where slavery was "legal before, during, and after the Civil War" was / is patently ridiculous, unless one means well before the war, as in decades before, not during and after, or unless one means that Delaware and Maryland (and perhaps also Missouri and Kentucky, which were counted by both sides as being both "Union" and "Confederate") as northern, it is untrue. And slavery was legal in no state after the Civil War for very long at all, as it ended in April, 1865 and the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted prior to the end of that year. While not one to say that the Civil War was all about slavery, it was a very important issue, in fact the most important issue, since the main "states' right" to be defended was the right of a state to have legal slavery. Rlquall 03:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right about the article's sentence on slavery, since the "free states" v. "slave states" issues caused the Civil War, and therefore there wasn't slavery except in the Confederacy during the Civil War, so the sentence needs changing, unless there's something I don't understand about the history of slavery. (There were racism, segregation, and lynchings in the North, but there was not slavery in the North after the mid 1800s, right?) Why don't you or someone else change it to get the errant comment about slavery removed? -Bebop

[I've snipped a very long reply comment here by me that took up a lot of space, in which I went into a lot of discussion about the presidential election voting history of the South since 1952, which has often been Democratic whereas the northern states were sometimes voting Republican. See History file. Also a discussion of national history of racism and segregation outside the South including the armed forces was snipped here.] -Bebop

Don't forget about state governments. Mauvila

I thought about that briefly but couldn't remember what party affiliations dominate most state governments in the South and North these days. Oh, yes, and I removed the flowery language you mentioned (adding "live oak" too), as well as removed the ridiculous reference someone had in the article to northern slavery "during and after the civil war" per the suggestions in the discussion above. I'm sure there are more types of regional landscaping we haven't mentioned, particularly in Texas. I never intended to do anything to this article but couldn't sit there quietly and allow "fragrant magnolias" and references to non-existent slavery in the North during the Civil War to stay in the article any longer. -Bebop

Gosh, I just read the first part of the article and see why people complained. I wonder what the supposed "unique historical perspective" is that is mentioned in the first paragraph? Doesn't that depend on who you talk to in the South? I don't think there is one "historical perspective" and I have misgivings about the first paragraph talking about that and "customs" -- what customs does this person mean? I already removed the part about it being "the most distinctive" region in the country. That's bull. I'd say New England is just as if not more distinctive, and I am from the South, not the North. The South is a melting pot of many things comparatively. Early architecture in New England is quite distinctive too. -Bebop

Missing History

We go from Civil war 1865 to The South Today(2004). Are there distinctly 'Southern' events occuring in the post Civil War (1864 - 1990s) that deserve mention? MPS 23:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be some stuff about reconstruction, and a few sentences on the early 20th century wouldn't hurt either.-LtNOWIS 04:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Civil Rights was largely in the South, Reconstruction, Red Summer (i think), that flood along the Mississippi in 1927, Great Migration, basic stuff on the development of the South economically through this period. The South is a region not a time period. -Eurytus

I recently undertook a pretty major reorganization of the History section, sorry I forgot to sign in--either way, much of the information needs expansion and fleshing out, but it flows better now (IMHO). Poroubalous 10 March 2005

Poroubalous, you did a great job, but Atlanta and Charlotte didn't really make it big until the 1970s/1980s. That's outside the time bracket of pre-1954. So what happened in "Southern Culture" in the Early 20th Century? MPS 24.125.42.74 01:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ended up copying much of the old material and resorting it, especially toward the end. Currently I'm working on the antebellum Southern history, but eventually I'll make it down to Southern culture. Definitely any input/help would be appreciated. Poroubalous 01:04, 24 March 2005

Bias in the Southern Culture in the 21st Century

This article is all subjective and doesn't belong in this article. Eurytus

Your article doesn't make any sense and doesn't deserve response in this article. 24.125.42.74 01:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move history into new page?

I noticed that the size of the entire page is approaching 80kb, but that the History of the American South section is only nearly half completed (basically lacking in post-1877 history). As much as I'd like to keep the history section focused on Southern affairs, I also think it might be beneficial to move the history section to a History of the U.S. Southern States page. I think it'd help focus the U.S. Southern states page more on the actual present situation of the South, while allowing readers to further delve into its history if desired. Any objections/thoughts?

Again I'd appreciate any contributions to the post-Civil War Southern history (esp. the 20th century South). Poroubalous March 25, 2005

That's fine wiht me, but it's important to have some history in the article. Why not leave an abriged history in the article and leave a link to History of the American South under the history section title. That was one of the original ideas of WikiProject: U.S. Regions. It has a precedent in the country, state, and city articles. -JCarriker 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I was looking over the United States main page and actually had that in mind for the U.S. Southern states article, but would the name of the page be better named History of the U.S. Southern states to coincide with the name of the main page? Just a thought, of course redirects could be used, as well.

Poroubalous Mar 26, 2005

Yes, that would be best. I was only copying the prosoective title you used in the first paragraph of your post. -JCarriker 05:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dixie

I don't like the opening sentence. It implies that the South was known as "Dixie" only during the American Civil War, which is hardly the case. Recommendations for improvement? Rlquall 01:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Important cities"

Isn't this list getting a little lengthy? It is almost by definition subjective, but still and all, it seems to be on the way to becoming a little too extensive. I hate to single people out, but I would like to see what makes Corpus an "important" city compared to other cities in the South its size (the Whataburger home office, perhaps?), or what makes Montgomery important aside from being the capital of Alabama -- other than that, it's barely more than a small town.

Rlquall 02:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about changing it to largest cities with a population qualification of at least 250,000 in the city proper and a metro population of at least a million. Only the four largest cities of a state that meet the criteria will be included. Under the proposed criteria and acording to the info at Largest metropolitan areas in the Americas the cities that would qualify are: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Tampa, San Antonio, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, and Washington. This criteria almost cuts the list in half. -JCarriker 06:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but want it to be pleasing to more than just me. Rlquall 00:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Richmond, Virginia belongs since it was the Capital of the Confederacy and the home of countless 'southerners' including R.E. Lee and E.A. Poe ... however, it is right on the cutoff line for both of your metrics. Another counter-example: Charleston, South Carolina only has 100,000 in the city and ~500,000 in the area. What is big now and what was big a hundred years ago may be different. Also, don't confuse BIG with IMPORTANT, especially when it comes to the historic south, where the economy was arguably based more in plantations than in the urban core. Where were the centers of power? That's what's important. State Capitals and Major shipping ports. MPS 16:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion was to eliminate the Important cities section and replace it with a Largest cities section. An imprtant citeis section is doomed to failure as it automatically implies that any city not on the list is unimportant.- JCarriker 11:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Missouri as Southern

Should Missouri be added on as a Southern state? Though it was a border state sticking with the Union during the Civil War, there's still a good deal of Southern culture in S. Missouri and I think it'd be remiss to exclude them. Haverton 00:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is being considered as part of the south in this article is simply what the U.S. Census beaurea considers to be part of the south. Culturally Delaware, Maryland, and Norther Virginia are much more closely related to the Mid-Atlantic than the South, however they are listed as Southern here due to their status with the beaurea. --68.77.160.105 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's partially true, but not enitirely so See: WikiProject U.S. regions. -JCarriker 16:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

As far as cultural ID goes, Missourians themselves are more likely to identify as Northerners if they're from St. Louis or Kansas City, but rather opposite elsewhere. I can only state this anecdotally, though eight years in Boone County counts for an awful lot of anecdotes. 24.124.123.100 20:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Missouri is generally recoginized as a Midwestern state by the rest of the country and by the people who live there. It certainly resembles the Midwest far more than the South, with the exception of the far southeat portion of the state. St.Louis and Kansas City are classic Midwestern Cities. I also have difficulty with Oklahoma being considered part of the South. To me Oklahoma is much more like Kansas than it is like Texas, Arkansas, or Louisiana but it has never been considered part of the Midwest and it certainly does not fit into the Southwestern region with Arizona and New Mexico. --142.161.188.92 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

According to new policy approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions this page should be moved to Southern United States, and likewise its related sub-articles as well. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming since there were no responses no one objects to the move. I'll be moving it momentarily. -JCarriker 05:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and delete this page as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States is more up to date now. Add a redirect from here to Southern_United_States . Thanks.

The move has already taken place. Thanks for your help anyway. -JCarriker 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

overall tone of this entry

I reccomend finding a replacement for the History article for the Southern United States. Instead of just reporting that facts about the history of the region, it uses euphamisms to hide the truth, and put a positive instead of neutral light on the regions' history. Talking about the white settlers' relations with Native Americans and Africans as 'cultural influences' sugarcoats the facts of genocide and racial enslavement.

 The article is constantly taking pains to point out facts like the high slave population in New York City, disregarding the fact that aside from major trading cities like New York, African slavery was already much more dominant and culturally engrained in the southern region. Furthermore, an entire paragraph is added to advance the position that many black people fought in the Confederate army, particularly in adding non-combat slaves, forced to serve their masters at the battle lines to the ranks. Without mentioning all the southern blacks who fought in brigades for the Union, the article is plainly trying to convince us that more blacks actually preferred slavery to freedom than what one would think (almost none).

We don't need an article condemning the South, but we don't need one trying to repaint it with a positive spin either. When other history articles on the site address controversial facts or ideas, they first announce that there is a controversy, then they present the differing views and any other pertinent facts that might hlep resolve the issue.

---

The overall tone of this entry is chauvinistic towards Southerners and is marked by an overwhelming emphasis on the negative aspects of the South. Particularly offensive is that the authors not only see the South first and foremost as a hotbed of racism, but apparently as the very well from which racism itself springs. ("Southern Indiana is strongly influenced by Kentucky. Indiana was also a center of the Copperhead movement during the Civil War. Racism in the mid-west has been blamed on Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois sharing a border with the South.") While it is true that there are many persons in the South who have racist beliefs and practices, the same is true of, say, Boston, MA or Los Angeles, CA.

An encyclopedia entry should do more than propogate a social hierarchy in which one group (non-Southerners) claims superiority over another (Southerners), and justifies it by dwelling on the faults of the latter while neglecting to subject themselves to a similar degree of scrutiny. Indeed the smug superiority underlying this Wikipedia entry mirrors the attitudes of avowed racists, who after all are reassured by their belief that they are superior to somebody no matter how low their own position in society.

While no entry on the South could be complete without exploring racism, the Civil War, slavery, or the civil rights movement, a scholarly entry -- one that might edify a reader from another country for example -- would maintain a neutral and fair tone, and make a serious effort to give a more comprehensive view of a region's culture. --12.203.233.125 01:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah and despite the fact that those topics have their own articles. Though I notice that huge emphasis is from the work of one person a few days ago so its definately not a concensus result yet. keith 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I added these sections because previously there was almost nothing on black people or race issues in the south. In fact, the absence of this info was glaring--and the few comments that did touch on racial issues were very POV in trying to downplay the past issues with race. The problem is that this article still needs a lot of work--for example, the section on the Civil War is only covered in one short paragraph. I believe we need to expand the other history and culture sections, along with adding an in-depth look at the current south's economy and growth. Doing so will give a better view of the south. I also disagree that mentioning the racial aspects of the south "propogate a social hierarchy in which one group (non-Southerners) claims superiority over another (Southerners), and justifies it by dwelling on the faults of the latter while neglecting to subject themselves to a similar degree of scrutiny." As the article states, the south has made more progress on racial issues than anywhere else in the country. That said, a NPOV article can not avoid mentioning both the negative and positive aspects of the south. Before, this article was all positive and as such read like propaganda. People around the world are familiar with the Civil Rights Movement in the south and not to mention it caused people to not believe the other parts of the article, such as the beforementioned fact about the south making the most progress on racial issues of anywhere in the U.S.--Alabamaboy 12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Your rebuttal itself seems to be coming from a point of view that the South is primarily a "bad" place, to put it into very simple terms. ("Before, this article was all positive and as such read like propaganda.") By focusing on racism, the article dwells on the negative aspects of a group of people, itself a widely-practiced form of propaganda. Other nations, for example, may frequently point out the negative aspects of the U.S. (crime, gun violence, waste of resources, pollution, materialism, etc) while making no mention of its positive aspects, in an ongoing effort to convince their citizens that the U.S. is a bad place full of bad people doing bad things.

The article on Southern United States contains about 3740 words, excluding external links and whatnot. Over 1020 words are devoted to issues of race relations, more than 25% of the content. Indeed, "Race Relations" is the first subheading under the heading "Culture," and there is a link to a separate article on Southern Race Relations. (There is no corresponding article on northern race relations, and the article here implies that African-Americans were received with open arms into a loving community of Northerners upon arrival. Racism existed and continues to exist in the North as well, and African Americans were marginialized in other ways in areas outside the South.) In contrast, the Wikipedia entry on Germany puts the Third Reich into a context of other aspects of Germany's history, and the section on culture in Germany ([[1]]) begins with a positive reference to Germany as "the land of poets and thinkers," rather than some Basil Fawlty-inspired tirade on Nazism.

My point is not to downplay the shameful history of slavery and racism in the South. My point is that there is a pervasive phenomenon in American culture that depicts Southerners as stupid, racist, uneducated savages. Selective reporting of facts is one aspect of this trend, and when Northerners are on the receiving end of it, such as they were when baseball player John Rocker made notoriously unfavorable comments about New York City, they take great offense. Were John Rocker to submit an entry on New York City, it would probably dwell on negative aspects of the city rather than carefully refuting misconceptions about the city as does this existing article. ("The prominence devoted to New York's crime is unusual, and is largely a reflection of the misconceptions of out-of-towners than of the current state of affairs in New York City, for, since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in America.")

Specifically on the topic of racism one has to suspect that those who are falsely reassured that racism is something that only happens "down South" are less likely to recognize unfair racial attitudes and practices in their own lives.

Perhaps rather than flogging this dead horse any further I should simply write an article on "anti-Southern bias" and submit it to Wikipedia.--128.163.110.72 14:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Alabama and love the south. It's my home. As I originally said in my post above, the other sections of the article need to be expanded. Once this is done, the article will be more ballanced. Since I haven't had the time to expand the entire article, I focused initially on expanding the racial section of this article (I also added the southern lit section a while back). Feel free to expand and edit the article as you see fit, along with writing your anti-southern bias article. --Alabamaboy 15:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As for your comment about me being against a propaganda article on the south, you are correct. I adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. While I love the south, this is not a tourism piece about the region. It is a factual, encylopedia article that still needs a lot of work. You are correct, though, that many people consider the south to be backward, racist, and so on. We should create a section of the article that covers these stereotypes about the south and why they are not true. There is amble research on this subject. --Alabamaboy 15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

An article trying to summarize everything about the south must necessarily be very brief on everything. But you are pushing an agenda by claiming certain things arent covered enough, and in typical wikipedia fashion making the article into a book in order to ram one aspect of a subject--criticisms, as usual--down the reader's throat. These issues have their own articles. State the fact that the issue existed, point to the article where its elaborated on, and you have a NPOV. Why would the reader need a paragraph of quatations from one guy's autobiography regarding a single issue? And by the way the entire population of Alabama is undoubtedly less than the metro populations of the major cities in the south. keith 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no agenda. The article was missing info on racial issues and this has now been addressed. I also liked how you edited the info I added to make it more NPOV. That said, I think the quotes from Richard Wright's bio help illuminate the issue at that time in the South (there is also far less than a whole paragraph of his quotes). The racial section of the article also shows the transition in the South over the years from the South's past racial discord to the present day situation with the South being ahead of the rest of the country in solving racial problems. Anyway, as I said, I merely expanded one section of the article and, as I also said, there are several other sections that also need serious expansion. (Such as the history section, which has only one sentence on the Civil War. We also need more in the Today's South section, which I just started this afternoon.) As for Alabama's population (which is 4.5 million), what does this have to do with anything? I'm afraid I miss your point.--Alabamaboy 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should all not assume that Alabamaboy has any more of an agenda than any of the rest of us. The article was lacking on race relations, and expanding that information does improve the article. I believe that articles should be thorough but brief, e.g. Marshall, Texas, and that sections should be expanded into their own more detailed articles, e.g. Politics of Marshall, Texas, rather than bog down the main article. That said I think a few quotes of Wright's work are acceptable; but over all we need to remeber that Black Boy is a bitter and negative piece that had few good things to say about anyone. Perhaps I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings could also be used? Whatever consensus is reached these insinuations about Alabamaboy's intentions must stop, he's a fellow Wikipedian and Southerner, in other words he's one of us— quit treating him like he's an enemy.-JCarriker 21:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm fine also using something from Caged Bird. I started editing this article b/c I felt it was lacking in a number of areas. Perhaps I should have started with expanding another section first instead of a contentious section like racial issues, but from my recent work on African American literature I had a lot of info that made it easier to expand this section first. My intention is to expand all of the sections over the coming weeks (see above for previous points on this). I'd love any help from anyone else who gives it.--Alabamaboy 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi JCarriker. we don't need an admin telling us when to start and stop arguing about things, unless there's some rule applicable here I don't know about. At any rate I'd suggest you look at the stuff that was removed before making those judgements. The discussion is being used for exactly what it is intended for. There is nothing insiduous being "insinuated" about anyone's motives. Nor is it an argument about whether the prior version was NPOV, it is an argument about what amount of additional information is sufficient. I could add another twelve paragraphs focussing on the Lewinsky sex scandal to Clinton's page, it would be undoubtedly illuminating. Would folks consider that neutral? keith 23:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this article as a peer, seeking good faith on a page I've had on my page for years, but since you brought up policy, please see: Wikipedia:Civility. The gudielines of Wikipedia:WikiquetteWikipedia:Assume good faith should also be helpful. I'd also like to point out that I did offer criticism in my post. Alabamaboy has said that he is expanding the article, and choose this topic first because he had already done some of the research on it—I have no reason not to believe him. Likewise, I have no reason to doubt your good intentions. Since you are relativley new, I'd strongly advise you to review the three policies I provided links to above. Debate and conflict are common at Wikipedia, you need to learn those policies so you don't violate them, most Wikipedians unintentionally violate the polcies eventually and acknowledge the mistake, repent, and move on. -JCarriker 08:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I for one am not accusing Alabamaboy of an agenda. It is more a matter of a stereotype so deeply ingrained and so often unaddressed in this country that it continues to be freely propagated long after other offensive stereotypes have become taboo. (And a Southerner is capable of propagating said stereotype.) I don't believe that pointing out the ratio of words devoted to race relations vs the overall number of words in the article, or the fact that "race relations" was the first thing under "Culture" was uncivil. If I came across as uncivil then I do apologize, but I stand by my original criticisms of the article, while at the same time appreciating the ongoing efforts and changes in the article. --12.203.233.125 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Eric Foner

Considering how this guy is a communist, all references to his work should be removed.

Didn't know that. While that isn't the only issue to consider about the reliability of a reference, after reading up on the guy he doesn't seem credible to me, so I removed the reference. Besides, his books was a reference to a minor point in the article that is now gone.--Alabamaboy 15:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Spurious statements

What on earth is this statement all about: "Where the hell is the agriculture of the south on this thing?". Surely a question for the discussion.

Colours and appearance

Would it be okay to change the colour of that map box to something more agreeable to the eye and more in line with wikipedia appearance? Something like #ccf, as seen to the right? And, if that change would be okay, are there other pages like this one with that table in it? (I just happened to stumble over here near-randomly, don't know much about this page). If there are, I'm happy to change the other articles too, if people are happy for me to change 'em. --Qirex 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Edited --Qirex 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. In fact, the box colors used to be different. Please change the color as you see fit.--Alabamaboy 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted this discussion to the WikiProject U.S. regions discussion page as I've found that this box, with these colours, is at approx 20 other pages similar to this one. I suggest new comments go there from now (and please do come and comment, I don't want to do this if it proves unpopular). I will leave quick notes at those other pages about this discussion. --Qirex 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Cross Burning

I recently read that the cross burning of the original KKK was a fictional glorification by the author of the book "The Klansman" meant to conjour a romanticism for the Klan. This was a tradition done in Scotland to summon various family clans together, though their crosses were X shaped for their nation's patron saint and was a benign ritual having nothing to do with war and bloodshed. This fiction found its way into the highly popular movie "Birth of a Nation" based on that novel, which the director used for dramatic effect performed to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkeries". This imagery entered into pop culture via the movie and caused the second KKK decades later (which was unrelated to the short-lived first KKK other than their name and mission) to immitate it. But the point is I believe it is not historically accurate to claim cross burning was used as a tool of the first KKK that existed shortly after the war; I believe that is only historically accurate to claim of the more well known second KKK that existed in the 20th centure. I am not changing the article because I am not enough of a subject expert to claim authority on that, but I figured I could post here to see if anyone else is able to verify the correctness of this claim.

Metro populations

Why were these added as MSAs only? Several of these cities have significantly different populations in the CSAs, which are better representations of what most people would view as the "metro area". Anyone object if I pull those #s instead? -Jcbarr 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

I notice that there is nothing about the abortion issue and the culture wars to explain the Southern defection from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Surely that needs to be included as well. Joey1898 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SPLC and League of the South

Of the text below, I'm moving the bolded text here, because as it stands now it seems POV to me:

Groups including the League of the South continue to promote secession from the United States, citing a desire to protect and defend the heritage of the South. On the other side of this issue are groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which believes that the League of the South is a hate group.

It is worth noting that most people in the South do not believe in either of these extremes. They instead value their heritage while also recognizing the need to continue improving race relations and embrace the changing nature of the South.

This second paragraph implies that the SPLC is extreme, and the word "instead" suggests that the SPLC is against valuing southern heritage. I don't think the SPLC would agree with either of those characterizations.

--Allen 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Provide references, get rid of POV edits

Rjensen, you need to provide references to your historical analysis edits and clean up some POV issues with your edits before we go with them. For example, where in the pre-Civil Rights south were there small cities with integrated neighborhoods? Even if there were a few, these were not the norm and to state it as is makes it sound like the norm. Second, your political history analysis is good but needs references (especially since it is more analysis than mere stating of historical fact). Your sentence "First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominated such Southerners" makes it sound like this was a deliberate choice by National Democrats when it was instead the outgrowth of the South's political power. In addition, the statement "Georgia was the last state to fall" is very POV, making the Democrat loss of the South sound like a dictatorship falling. I have left in your politics edits but made a few changes to blatent POV issues. The stuff like the comment about presidental elections above I hope you can clean up. You still need references, though, and I hope you will provide them. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Talking pre 1960, neighborhoods in towns and small cities were usually integrated. As for political history I was mostly following Black, Earl and Merle Black. The Rise of Southern Republicans (2002) Rjensen 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'd still want to see a good reference on that neighborhood thing. BTW, I didn't mean to initially delete your politics edits. I'd just noticed that some vandal a month or so back had deleted a number of stuff from the article and I was just trying to reinsert it. Got carried away when I hit your stuff. My bad.--Alabamaboy 15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

==GDP==link title I suggest if there's to be a section on the GDP of the South, there should be at least a paragraph talking about it or it should be deleted. I've chosen to write here instead of removing it in its current state, but a headline of "GDP" and then an uncited number outside of a sentence looks silly. Rufusgriffin 08:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, someone please clean up the section on Film. Gone with the Wind is about the South, but it was filmed in California. Either make it about films 'about' the South, or films made in the South. Or both, but its current state is confusing. Rufusgriffin 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I changed the wording of the sentence claiming that "all" (the two films & one TV series) were "filmed in Georgia" to say that they were "set in Georgia." Actually, it seems rather incongruous to lump "GWTW" and its 19th century subject matter with the more low-brow, contemporary Burt Reynolds movie & a similar(?) TV show. Floridasand 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

GENERAL COMMENT: I would recommend to anyone who is rewriting major sections of this article the book, 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South. I learned a lot reading the chapter on religion, for example. The author is a distinguished professor at the Univ. of North Carolina, where there is a Center for the Study of the American South.

The Univ. of Mississippi (Ole Miss) has a Center for the Study of Southern Culture which has published an Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (1989). This work is presently in the process of being updated and gradually reissued in multiple volumes as the New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Floridasand 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

TV

I suppose there are more important errors to fix, but I found it funny that someone suggested that the Dukes of Hazard was filmed in Georgia. Anyone who has ever driven through Georgia knows that it looks nothing like Hazard County, since the TV show was filmed in California. --Skeenbr0 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte

The article points out that North Carolina is moving away from it's southern heritage. As a native of North Carolina I do not believe this is accurate. It is true that there are certain leaders in Charlotte, most of them native N. Carolinians, who are attempting to erase the cities connections to the Confederacy, renaming streets for example, in the spirit of making Charlotte a "world class city". However, for every person who opposes southern culture in the Charlotte Meto Area there are probably three more who approve of it. Even those who seek to down-play Confederate sympathy have attempted to build on other aspects of southern culture, the NASCAR hall of fame is a good example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.19 (talk • contribs)

I think the biggest problem is that the paragraph contains opinions that aren't attributed to anyone. Rather than trying to figure out whether NC is really moving away from its heritage, we should figure out who thinks it is and who disagrees, and say so. --Allen 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Beach Music Mention...

Under the "Music" section I noticed that any mention of Southern (particuarly in carolinas) "Beach Music" was missing. Thus, noting its widespread cultural influence (especially in South Carolina) I added it to the list. Feel free to agree/disagree.

Much love - haere e hoki, Jack Jenkins --Jack 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Music FYI

• It has been noted in many music documentaries that the strong drum beat in rock/blues comes from the Native Americans and African Americans. Both used drums in their tribal ceremonies and rites. --Bookofsecrets 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The Celtic descent peoples (Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and some English) used the Bodhrán and other drums. However, many of them got away from the Bodhrán and drums after coming to the Colonies and future United States of America. Bluegrass is a strongly based Scotch/Irish music. Traditional bluegrass does not use drums of any kind. --Bookofsecrets 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• If we consider Electronica to be "major" American, then no rap music is not the only of non-Southern orgin. That form of music (Electronic) is Disco by the 80s/90s. I'm a proud Louisianian Southerner myself and hip-hopper, but I don't think that's true, man.--J. Daily 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Florida

I would like to add into the discussion the possibility of Florida being a striped state. While it is undeniably geographically southern, there is often much debate on to what degree Florida is "The South".

Celtic?

Just because someone comes from the British Isles doesn't mean they are 'Celtic', ever heard of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions (just to name a few)? --Cameron Nedland 23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Celtic" is much overused these days. I've added David Hackett Fischer's viewpoint to Scotch-Irish American#Scotch-Irish as a general term in response to the "Celtic" assertion there. --JWB 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)