I like many of the things the League of the South has to say about big government and American imperialism, among other issues. However, at the same time many positions are objectionable—the call for reparations in particular.
It does not seem to me that “Southerners” (whoever they might be) are especially oppressed, at least in the realm of politics. Over the past decade or a majority of the most powerful political figures in DC have been from the South: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott, just to name a few.
I’d like to follow up on Charles W. Nuckolls’ post about shape-shifting. The League’s masthead proclaims that “We Seek to Advance the Cultural, Social, Economic, and Political Well Being and Independence of the Southern People by all Honourable Means.” As others have indicated, this is pretty ambiguous. If one changes “Southern People” to “Southern States” it becomes a bit more concrete. But what is a Southern Person? Does a Southerner loose his status if he moves out of the South? Does a Northerner become a Southerner is he moves to the South? Must your ancestors be from the South? If so, how far back do they have to go? Where, exactly, is the South? Is Miami in the South? Does one have to be white? If so, what if you are, say, 1/16th black? 1/16th Jewish? Does one have to be Celtic? Do Celtic Catholics count? Is it a set of beliefs? If so, is, say, a Japanese person in Tokyo that subscribes to the set of beliefs a Southern Person?
I am genuinely interested and look forward to any serious or humorous replies.
comments powered by Disqus
Otto M. Kerner - 7/30/2004
I don't quite see the relevance of this. Japan and America are both part of a continuum of nations, Japan close to one extreme in of difficulty in joining, America close to the other. You can view the South as a sub-nation or a related nation to America in general (like Canada is), and it would probably be somewhere between these extremes on the continuum.
Jonathan Dresner - 7/29/2004
In that you are emphatically correct.
Common Sense - 7/29/2004
I will defer to Jonathan's area of expertise here. I'm sure there are nuances of which I am not aware. My main point is that a random third party will likey find it easier to become "American" than "Japanese."
Jonathan Dresner - 7/28/2004
Actually, one can become Japanese, and ethnic, fullblooded Japanese can become, well, not fully Japanese. I could explain more, if you'd like, but for now I'll just say that the simplistic racial category you posit hasn't been that simple in practice for over a century; the difficulty reassimilating Brazilian Japanese is a fine example of the categorical problem.
Common Sense - 7/28/2004
The Japanese, from my understanding, have a fairly clear conception of themselves. A Japanese person is one who is ethnically Japanese. He is Japanese at home and stays Japanese if he moves abroad. A non-Japanese cannot become Japanese by moving to Japan or accepting a particular Japanese creed. In contrast, being an American is not an ethnic concept. One can become American regardless of ethnicity.
Max Schwing - 7/28/2004
Yes, but aren't you the united station? This reperations for the southerners reminds me a bit of the middle east and medieval age European fights over land that belonged to this or that grandmother a hundred years ago...
So, what exactly is the reward of reperations and who would get it? In the end, I think this is a fight that has ended hundreds of years ago...
Otto M. Kerner - 7/28/2004
Once again, you could ask all the same questions about any nation, such as the English or the Japanese.