Considering that Robert E Lee's birthday was this week, I thought I'd delve into something somewhat related and part of the culture in which I grew up in.
That is, the southern perspective on race.
It is commonly believed by most who live outside of the South that the south is the place where people are most vocally outraged against niggers, that the south is where people are the most racist, etc.
This is not really true, well. It is and it is not.
I would say that yes, southerners are the most exclusionary towards both blacks and immigrants. However, we are very far from the most vocal about them.
Southern culture is entirely based on politeness and niceties. We will very often wear an entirely different face in the public than we do in private. "Tatemae", we are experts at this. Social standing is entirely fostered by your relations with other people and avoiding bluntness. I, too, am an expert at creating a façade. Most traditionally southern people are. I would not call it fakeness, but rather seeking to avoid drama with strangers (for us, fakeness would be betrayal of someone close to you, not really wearing a mask around strangers. Although for those outside of the culture, this might be considered being disingenuous and i get it). Hostility is usually expressed by many of us as passive aggressiveness, pettiness, and being catty, but most societies built on politeness and hierarchy are the same way.
My mother is from the northeast, my father is southern. I take after my father, but I grew up with the cultural difference every single day. My dad is the epitome of southern hospitality and extreme politeness, but he is also very passive aggressive, relying entirely on others to read the room and pick up on social cues when he is displeased with something. My mother is extremely blunt, I grew up thinking she was extremely rude actually, and she is outright aggressive.
Passive aggressiveness is engrained into the culture because, in the past, being outwardly offensive and abrasive would probably get you killed because of a slight (perceived or real) against someone else or their family (as recently as post-ww2, my great uncle beat a guy to death or near death for being hostile towards his father). So the niceties are maintained even against people you do not like. To be outright aggressive, there generally has to genuine hatred between the 2 parties involved, or one of the parties has to pose an interpersonal threat to the other. Being vocally angry towards someone because of something that isn't a matter of deep concern is considered extremely rude and hostile, so you act passive aggressive instead to hopefully make the other fuck off.
Where this becomes a problem is the immigration and negro issue. Southerners, by far, actually *do* have the most opposition towards these elements. However, the façade and cultural desire to avoid bluntness is still there. The most the average southerner will do to do anything at all about it is to be, well, again, passive aggressive and catty. The most common way to deal with a controversial topic is to just ignore it, and race has been a heated subject since the 1960s.
Which has caused our part of the US to be one of the most overrun. The people that show up in the south genuinely believe that southerners like them. Southerners do not directly do anything, because being vaguely mean-spirited and relying on people to read the room was enough in the past, now it isn't, but we don't realize this.
This is also echoed in Japan's recent immigration woes as well. Another culture built on niceties and politeness and avoiding direct confrontation because it leaves people in bad social standing. It works well in insular and hierarchal communities, not so well when the third world is invading. Japanese people also tend to be quite unwilling to do much about the immigrant question because they have the same problem that we southerners do, the necessity to save face and avoid issues that are controversial. If you look at street interviews about this topic, they always dodge the question and say nothing or give a politican answer, which is really the same thing we do.
In short: I don't think that the honor/face culture is a bad thing at all, and if such topics *are not* controversial, it actually serves as a wall that protects the community (such as China, where everyone is openly racist and being racist is the general groupthink. Or the south prior to civil rights), but whenever race/faggotry/whatever becomes a contentious problem, people completely avoid it and don't do much about it in either which way, because *saving face* is the most important thing you can do.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
That is, the southern perspective on race.
It is commonly believed by most who live outside of the South that the south is the place where people are most vocally outraged against niggers, that the south is where people are the most racist, etc.
This is not really true, well. It is and it is not.
I would say that yes, southerners are the most exclusionary towards both blacks and immigrants. However, we are very far from the most vocal about them.
Southern culture is entirely based on politeness and niceties. We will very often wear an entirely different face in the public than we do in private. "Tatemae", we are experts at this. Social standing is entirely fostered by your relations with other people and avoiding bluntness. I, too, am an expert at creating a façade. Most traditionally southern people are. I would not call it fakeness, but rather seeking to avoid drama with strangers (for us, fakeness would be betrayal of someone close to you, not really wearing a mask around strangers. Although for those outside of the culture, this might be considered being disingenuous and i get it). Hostility is usually expressed by many of us as passive aggressiveness, pettiness, and being catty, but most societies built on politeness and hierarchy are the same way.
My mother is from the northeast, my father is southern. I take after my father, but I grew up with the cultural difference every single day. My dad is the epitome of southern hospitality and extreme politeness, but he is also very passive aggressive, relying entirely on others to read the room and pick up on social cues when he is displeased with something. My mother is extremely blunt, I grew up thinking she was extremely rude actually, and she is outright aggressive.
Passive aggressiveness is engrained into the culture because, in the past, being outwardly offensive and abrasive would probably get you killed because of a slight (perceived or real) against someone else or their family (as recently as post-ww2, my great uncle beat a guy to death or near death for being hostile towards his father). So the niceties are maintained even against people you do not like. To be outright aggressive, there generally has to genuine hatred between the 2 parties involved, or one of the parties has to pose an interpersonal threat to the other. Being vocally angry towards someone because of something that isn't a matter of deep concern is considered extremely rude and hostile, so you act passive aggressive instead to hopefully make the other fuck off.
Where this becomes a problem is the immigration and negro issue. Southerners, by far, actually *do* have the most opposition towards these elements. However, the façade and cultural desire to avoid bluntness is still there. The most the average southerner will do to do anything at all about it is to be, well, again, passive aggressive and catty. The most common way to deal with a controversial topic is to just ignore it, and race has been a heated subject since the 1960s.
Which has caused our part of the US to be one of the most overrun. The people that show up in the south genuinely believe that southerners like them. Southerners do not directly do anything, because being vaguely mean-spirited and relying on people to read the room was enough in the past, now it isn't, but we don't realize this.
This is also echoed in Japan's recent immigration woes as well. Another culture built on niceties and politeness and avoiding direct confrontation because it leaves people in bad social standing. It works well in insular and hierarchal communities, not so well when the third world is invading. Japanese people also tend to be quite unwilling to do much about the immigrant question because they have the same problem that we southerners do, the necessity to save face and avoid issues that are controversial. If you look at street interviews about this topic, they always dodge the question and say nothing or give a politican answer, which is really the same thing we do.
In short: I don't think that the honor/face culture is a bad thing at all, and if such topics *are not* controversial, it actually serves as a wall that protects the community (such as China, where everyone is openly racist and being racist is the general groupthink. Or the south prior to civil rights), but whenever race/faggotry/whatever becomes a contentious problem, people completely avoid it and don't do much about it in either which way, because *saving face* is the most important thing you can do.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
But that is obviously not the case.
The "anti-semitic" south is a myth as well.
Judah P. Benjamin, a jewish dude, was treasurer in the confederacy.
Southern newspapers called Leo Frank, a jewish dude, a White male.
Bankers were probably not outright hated in the deep south, although I would imagine that they were viewed as weirdos due to not being Christians or something like that.
However, dislike for other races is indeed widespread. But it's a taboo since the civil rights era, and might be considered rude, and might make you lose face. Its a charged topic, that will definitely spark debates and arguments, the answer to such things is typically to ignore them entirely. So nobody ever talks about it anymore except with their friends and family, because social standing in your community and avoiding offending/slighting people are indeed some of the most important things for the average southerner. Again, this works in a homogenous society, where it's generally a good thing to avoid conflict. Not when the third world is invading, which is my primary criticism of this honor system.
Why does this system exist then? In a small social community your reputation is your lifeline. In the south, historically, the government doesn't give a shit about you. If you're broke, that's on you. Police are there to keep order, not to exact justice, if there even are police. Laws are more like guidelines regularly bent for people of high repute. If you lose your reputation nobody will want to go into business with you, invite you events where lucrative deals are wrangled, or give you loans or resources needed to prosper. Hell, women may not even want to be courted by you. It's a social death sentence.
So don't lose your face. Don't make other people lose face. Give others face as much as you can and they will likely give some back, thus together, the clan/town/community prospers in the face of a hostile and unpredictable world.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed