Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
So why is it, that saying so would still cost you any election in the South even 140 years after the war ended?

As a white Southerner myself, I always find it interesting to read an outsider's opinions of the U.S. South and the Civil War, etc., and I thank you for sharing yours.

I agree with most everything said in this thread, above and below, except for the one quote I have noted above.  In the state of Mississippi, where I live, we have many majority African-American electoral districts.  We have quite a number of African-Americans in our state legislature and many black Mayors of cities and towns throughout the state, including the mayor of our capital city, Jackson.  So, the above quote is definitely a false statement.

Now, I do agree that in certain districts within my state, the premise of your statement is true, that a white person would have some difficulty getting elected if they made such a statement as you have outlined in your comment.  This is also somewhat the case for our statewide and our Federal elected officials, as the white population of the state still outnumbers the minority population.

However, we Democrats and Independents here in Mississippi do occasionally elect a white person who runs on a platform that includes racial reconciliation and recognition of past wrongs.  We always need the African-American voters to help us do so, though.

My larger point is that the South is not as monolithic or rock-solid backwards as it may appear to be from afar.  I do not deny that we have serious problems that need to be resolved, but we have made SOME progress in the past 140 years.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 12:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series