American North
OD has spent the last several months exhaustively researching the shared racial history of the South and the Caribbean.
While that research project will continue until it culminates next year in my book Shattering The Golden Circle, I want to open up a new line of inquiry into the North’s racial history which is a subject of much confusion on the internet.
In Federalist Propaganda #2, John Jay famously argued:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
These two paragraphs in The Federalist Papers were more wishful thinking than a reality. The only thing that the 13 victorious colonies really shared in the American Revolution was hostility to Britain and a commitment to the triumphant republican cause.
The Southern colonies shared a common language with England and the British West Indies. They shared a common religion – until after the Revolution, the established Anglican Church – with England and the British West Indies, but not with Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania.
By 1787, the “Deep South” had emerged as a distinct cultural region from its beachhead in Charleston. It dominated South Carolina, Georgia, and southeastern North Carolina. These new states were race-based slave societies with economies based on export-oriented plantation agriculture (rice, indigo, long staple cotton) like the sugar islands in the British West Indies.
The Deep South was “very similar in manners and customs,” racial demographics, settlement patterns, and economic interests to the British West Indies, not Congregationalist New England or Quaker Pennsylvania, but the long simmering feud between Britain and France (one theater of which was French retaliation in the American Revolution), British geopolitical priorities, and British naval superiority had succeeded in dividing the islands from the Southern mainland colonies.
With regards to race, the North has always had very different manners, customs, and ideas about this subject and should be analyzed as if it were a foreign country, so it is appropriate to begin our inquiry into the North’s racial traditions with the single most poignant illustration of the Mason-Dixon line as an unrecognized international border: the sectional nature of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.
If you look at the map of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, the first thing that jumps out at you is that the South is dominated by red and that the West is dominated by yellow. Every anti-miscegenation law in the Jim Crow South (with the exception of Maryland, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1967 in anticipation of the pending Supreme Court decision) was struck down by the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1967.
In the Jim Crow West (the West had a milder form of segregation, which is why Arizona is covered under the Voting Rights Act), all the anti-miscegenation laws (with the notable exceptions of Kansas, New Mexico, and Washington) were repealed in the aftermath of the Second World War from 1948 to 1967.
The Midwest and Northeast stick out like sore thumbs in this picture. For starters, there is the yellow deviation of Indiana, which had an anti-miscegenation law that outlawed intermarriage with blacks, which was only repealed in 1965. For some reason, Indiana was more like Kentucky or West Virginia in the demise of its anti-miscegenation law, and it still votes like Kentucky and West Virginia to this day.
The next thing that strikes you about the Northeast and Midwest is the gray states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in their entire history, these states never passed anti-miscegenation laws, so there were none to repeal.
The green states are the most interesting states on this map: Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1843), Washington (1868), New Mexico (1866), Kansas (1859), Illinois (1874), Iowa (1851), Michigan (1883), Maine (1883), Rhode Island (1881), and Ohio (1887), which are states that had anti-miscegenation laws, but which voluntarily repealed them between 1780 and 1887.
In OD’s Indictment, I asserted that the years 1750 to 1850 were crucial to understanding the racial and cultural demise of the West: there was a moral, religious, and ideological sea change in worldview during this period that in set in motion a series of catastrophes that would follow.
– During the French Revolution, slavery was abolished and all the blacks in the French Empire were made into French citizens with equal rights before reaction set in under Napoleon who restored the racial status quo of the ancien régime. This would change under the Second Republic in 1848 when slavery was abolished again and the blacks in the French Caribbean were again made into French citizens.
– In Great Britain, racialism was weakened during the early nineteenth century by the negative influence of evangelical Christianity to the point where during the debate over the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies not one MP expressed any doubt that the free negro lacked the capacity to maintain the economy and preserve civilization.
So how do we explain the gray states and the green states in the Northeast and Midwest? Why were the anti-miscegenation laws repealed so much earlier there? Why not in the South or the West? In the nineteenth century, not in the “1960s,” as many WNs commonly assume?
If you want to understand why the Northern states would repeal their anti-miscegenation laws in the nineteenth century, it helps to get a feel for racial and cultural attitudes in contemporary Great Britain, which was considered the ideal model by Yankees and was the fashionable trendsetter (in among other things, the nexus between abolitionism and evangelical Christianity) in the North.
In the early nineteenth century, the North was the Anglophile region of the United States, whereas the South was the Anglophobic region. In the South, Britain was looked upon as a menace that was trying to block America’s westward expansion into Texas and as the world headquarters of abolitionism which posed a mortal threat to the South’s social and economic system.
Interestingly enough, Southern Anglophobia and British anti-slavery did not prevent the two countries from engaging in the mutually profitable cotton trade. The British were committed to “free labor” and “free trade” and these two doctrines were also at odds with each other in the British West Indies where the success of the “free labor” project was sacrificed in 1846 for “free trade” with Spanish Cuba.
With this in mind, we can start to explain the green states in the North: in Pennsylvania (1780), the anti-miscegenation law was repealed early due to the Quaker influence, the most stalwart egalitarian sect/notorious group of heretics in the British Empire, which pioneered anti-slavery and anti-racism in Britain and America.
In Massachusetts (1843), the demise of the anti-miscegenation law was a direct consequence of the rise of abolitionism there, which was the American citadel of anti-slavery, evangelical Christianity, and the reform movement. If this strikes you as being eerily reminiscent of the Clapham Saints and the influence of Wilberforce, Clarkson, & Co. in Britain, it is hardly a coincidence.
In Kansas, we notice that an anti-miscegenation law was passed in 1855, but was repealed in 1859. This is strange until you realize that “Bleeding Kansas” was a battleground at the time between Southern expansionists and ideologically motivated New Englanders who moved to Kansas and rejected the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
In Iowa, an anti-miscegenation law that had been passed in 1839 was repealed in 1851. Like Kansas, the repeal of the anti-miscegenation law in Iowa is another example of New England Saints moving to sparsely populated Western territories and outvoting the Cracker Nation which was expanding out of the Upper South into the Lower Midwest states like Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.
If you have ever wondered why Iowa has a split personality, it is because Eastern Iowa is culturally part of Yankeedom whereas Western and Central Iowa is part of the Midlands, which is the heterogeneous Germanic borderland between Yankee and Cracker territory in the Heartland. In much the same way, Southern Missouri is part of Dixie.
The repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws in the rest of the North after the War Between the States in Illinois (1874), Michigan (1883), Maine (1883), Ohio (1887), and Rhode Island (1881) was part of a larger trend toward integration in the post-“Civil War” era and was intimately tied to the Union Cause and the deification of Abraham Lincoln who glorified equality in the Gettysburg Address.
During Radical Reconstruction (1867-1876), the anti-miscegenation laws in the South were temporarily repealed by the negro-carpetbagger-scalawag triumvirate in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, but were reimposed by native Southerners as each state went through the Redemption process and the White Man’s Revolution.
After 1877, Northern enthusiasm for Reconstruction waned and the last gasp of “civil rights” was the Federal Elections Bill of 1890 which Henry Cabot Lodge attempted to impose on the South to save the Southern Republican Party. A long period of sectional détente between the North and South followed, roughly from 1896 to 1945, in which the children and grandchildren of the “Civil War” generation rebuilt the country and wisely tried to forget the likes of Thaddeus Stevens and move past the blunders that had ripped the country apart in the 1860s.
Unfortunately, the legislative follies of that era were never completely expunged from either the U.S. Constitution or the statutes of the Northern states. In the North, the negro remained a voter and a citizen with equal “civil rights,” and after 47 percent of the negro population moved to the Northern and Western states in the “Great Migration” in the twentieth century, the growth of negro political power in the North along with America’s new role as the “leader of the free world” after the Second World War revived the long dormant issue of “civil rights.”
It is a much more complicated story than simply “the Jews repealed our anti-miscegenation laws.”
The Europeans were one upping the Americans on the liberty scale…
This Constitution goes to 11…
The decline of racialism in the Northern states at the hands of evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment liberal republicanism was part of the general trend in Britain and France.
In Europe, France rebounded from the follies of Jacobinism during the French Revolution after Napoleon, but then fatally succumbed to egalitarianism again in the 1848 Revolution. Arthur Comte de Gobineau wrote An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races in the 1850s. Generally speaking, France was the more racialist than Britain in the early nineteenth century.
In Britain, abolitionism peaked in the 1840s and became more racialist in the 1850s and 1860s. See Thomas Carlyle’s Occassional Discourse on the Nigger Question and his debate with John Stuart Mill. Britain became much more racialist after the Sepoy Rebellion and the rise of “scientific racism” in the late nineteenth century.
The Yankees, as always, followed trendsetting Britain and became more racialist after the failure of Reconstruction and the rise of Darwinism. They also followed Britain into the Second World War with Nazi Germany which undermined racialism worldwide.
Interestingly enough, this whole idea that “culture” instead of “race” explains behavioral differences between human populations came from Germany, where Franz Boas brought over the then dominant nineteenth century German School of Cultural Anthropology to the United States.
In the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, the Germans moved away from the Cultural School of Anthropology after Ernst Haeckel popularized Darwinism. Germany was also heavily influenced by American Nordicism which at that time was thriving in the American North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel#Darwin.2C_Naturphilosophie_and_Lamarck
The American South was unusual in that it stayed consistently racialist whereas the American North, Britain, France, and Germany seesawed between racialism and equalitarianism for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Now all the European countries parrot the American trendsetter like they used to do with Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
In the present, I should add that the Jew certainly has a stranglehold over race in the natural and social sciences, and that nothing above in anyway implies that their impact in America – particularly in an era of American world hegemony – has not been utterly destructive both at home and abroad.
But what enabled this? That’s the real question. The North was already receptive to these destructive ideas and the peculiar way that Northern free society was organized is what allowed the Jewish stranglehold to develop there and entrench itself.
“The Yankees, as always, followed trendsetting Britain and became more racialist after the failure of Reconstruction and the rise of Darwinism. They also followed Britain into the Second World War with Nazi Germany which undermined racialism worldwide.”
I’ve always said that watching the current trends in Britain allows one to predict the future in America fairly reliably over the next decade. But how long will that pattern of influence continue?
The relationship was somewhat reversed after 1945.
After the Second World War, American influence on Britain and Europe became greater than ever before. Previously, America had been more heavily influenced by Britain and Europe than the other way around. The U.S. had been dismissed in Europe for most of its history.
America’s influence on the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany was overwhelming.
An obvious example of the endurance of European influence on American progressives would be the spread of postmodernism and political correctness to the United States both of which came from Western Europe.
You are reading into it too much.
Cash rules everything. Miscegenation laws had their roots in slavery and fuedal modes of production. As soon as society became more capitalist, it became “convenient” to do away with older traditions, although conservatives will always resist but never succeed.
I really don’t care about race anymore. Views have completely switched into Marxism-Leninism, the best way to middle finger the people who most deserve it.
I mentioned your work at Kuntsler’s blog. He ranted ignorantly about American facism and attributes it to the South.
Link?
N/M … pretty funny, I even LOLed at that one, Willard as Millard. I hope it comes true, but Kunstler isn’t the most reliable forecaster.
http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/09/in-full-flight.html
“The Romney election fiasco will destroy the Republican Party, just as the Whig party fell apart in the last days of Millard Fillmore. The religious nuts and Dixieland ignoranti will demand the expulsion of all non-extremists and Karl Rove will be left at the Nascar track with Honey Boo Boo on his lap and a dwindling “base” of shrieking microcephalics awaiting the second coming of Adolf Hitler in a green satin Mountain Dew race-day jumpsuit. Respectable conservatives (they exist) will have to take their pleadings elsewhere, the venue or party yet-to-be determined, perhaps off-shore somewhere where the downtrodden sew blue jeans and counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags.
Meanwhile, genial Barack Obama glides to victory and then presides over four more years of implacable contraction that will make the Great Depression look like an episode of Cake Boss. The contraction is upon us because peak oil is for real and shale-gas / shale oil is what used to be known as “a bill o’goods” which one is sold by underhanded means and, boy, was this country sold. BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and the gang carpet-bombed the cable news networks all year with shale propaganda and now everybody and his mother thinks we’re going to run Walmart indefinitely on the rectified rock-farts of North Dakota. The sharpies over at Spin Central haven’t figured out yet that true “energy independence” means living without the oil you need to run your stuff….
In any case, the folks who elected Mr. Obama will be furious when they learn the truth of our predicament. The Democratic Party may not blow up quite like the Republicans, but it could become the front organization for the imperial return of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I’ve maintained for over decade that Bill Clinton will get back into power despite the 22nd amendment because the nostalgia for the 1990s will be so overwhelming and irresistible in a harsh age. The only thing I wonder about is whether Bill or Hillary will succeed in getting the other bumped off. Otherwise the regime could develop into something like the brief joint Roman emperorship of Pupienus and Balbinus (238 AD). Eventually, I expect bankruptcy, political paralysis, and social disorder to become so extreme that a Pentagon general will stride into the White House and put an end to the freak show. A Navy Seal team spirits away Bill and Hillary to a dumpster in the ruins of Opryland… and it’s on to the new dark age.”
Kunstler has been saying “The Big Collapse will happen this fall”, pretty much every fall for the past 3 years. *Yawn*
Kunstler is a meglomaniac.
It’s interesting that Kunstler thinks everyone else is mad.
I do think there will be a fascist party soon. Or a Dixie regional party. There are no more spoils to share out.
I would take Kunstler’s forecasts with a grain of salt. He is the boy who cried wolf on the internet. In the end, the wolf really does show up though.
The description accompanying your map is erroneous and even contradicts your text. In the interest of intellectual honesty I request that you change it.
You have a unique and undefined notion of what area of the country the “North” is. Sometimes it is defined as not “Dixie” (itself a term that you sometimes use to include states outside the Confederacy and at other times coincides with the Confederacy.) Sometimes it includes all the states that were part of the Union (and obviously in this case) only some of the states that were in the Union.
I believe you purposely use these conflations and emendations to serve intentionally tendentious arguments. Sort of like calling anyone you don’t like a “yankee.” This is really no different than the commenters on this site that label anyone they don’t agree with a “Jew” or “nigger-lover”. (The WN equivalent of the ad hominem attack term “Nazi.”)
The actual facts of the matter:
http://biraciality.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/anti-miscegenation-laws-map1.jpg
Please note that California which was part of the Union that fought the Confederacy didn’t get rid of it’s miscegenation laws until 1948 when it was overturned by the California Supreme Court and not the voters.
@ Hunter
The Boston-New York City-Philadelphia megaopolis has ruled the US since 1865. That’s a fact.
Since the early 1960’s you can add Baltimore & Washington DC to the ruling megaopolis.
In religion, as in politics the megaopolis is universalist.
@…. “It is a much more complicated story than simply “the Jews repealed our anti-miscegenation laws.”….
Just don’t try to tell the (supposed) “white nationalists.” It would be like explaining that the Talmud is Just a Book. In fact, if they cared more about white people, maybe they’d make up something just like it—encoding the oral traditions of the people, to try to ensure survival, in other words, take hints from it as a strategy or something.
But then, some people need that black-and-white Transcendental Signifier, understood, and the idea of anything more complex—more players, more ideologies, whatever— makes them have a mental meltdown.
Signifier… that one thing by which all other things can be understood… whoops, left out words…
The North = a contiguous band of states that stretches from Maine to Minnesota.
The South = the 11 Confederate states, the 15 slave states, plus Oklahoma.
The West = the rest of the country west of the Mississippi.
If you want to get technical about it, the precise border between the North and South has significantly changed since the 1960s, and most people would probably now include Missouri as a Midwestern state and Maryland and Delaware as part of the Northeast. We’ve already taken this apart multiple times at the county level in previous threads last year.
Your link to that graphic reproduces the Wikipedia map.
Any 2000AD fans?
The NYC to Washinton DC axis is like Judge Dredd’s Mega City 1.
“If you want to get technical about it, the precise border between the North and South has significantly changed since the 1960’s, and most people would now include Missouri as a Midwestern state and Maryland and Delaware as part of the Northeast.”
To be exact, Missouri and Maryland never were “Southern”. But that’s a fight for another thread…
The thing I thought I’d point out is that, how can “the South” even be worthy of consideration as legitimate nation, when your so-called “borders” are so undefined that they keep changing every couple decades?
313Chris,
(1) Missouri and Maryland were both slave states. “The South” is merely a synonym for the slave states. Both states also refused Lincoln’s compensated emancipation plan. Maryland would have also seceded if Lincoln hadn’t sent in troops and arrested state legislators.
(2) The South has only been pushed back at the edges: South and Central Florida, which were never really part of the South, which have been colonized by Yankees since the invention of the air conditioner, the millions of government workers that have flooded into Maryland and NOVA, which is a product of the post-FDR “New Deal” redistributive state, Missouri, where millions of European immigrants moved into Little Dixie in Northern Missouri, and finally Texas, where the federal government has allowed millions upon millions of illegal aliens to flood into much of the state since the 1960s.
(3) In what sense is the North “pro-White”? There hasn’t been an anti-miscegenation law in Michigan in over 130 years. The public school system in Michigan has been integrated since the 1860s, not the 1960s. Massachusetts has had comprehensive civil rights laws since the 1860s and no anti-miscegenation law since 1843!
Romney looks sunk. I have to agree with the commentators below who point out that operatives are grasping at straws.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/gops_october_surprise/
“Just say in debate that Obama is a guy who naturally identifies with our little brown tormentors because he too is a little brown tormentor. So is Susan Rice. You people are ceding power to a leader who deep down couldn’t care if you live, prosper or die–morons!”
Does anyone thinks this douchey Prez cares a fig for his soldiers? Does anyone think Rice cares? jeesus.
Missouri was flooded with Germans after the civil war. Quite aggressive New Americans. Above the west-east flowing Missouri river outside of the water catchment you begin to see Germans and something midwestern from the beginning.
They radically altered the place. Before that, everyone appears to have been French or Anglo or slave. The civil war here was a precursor to the internal “Yankee” colonization of Virginia or Carolina today. A test case of ethnic cleansing.
Hunter,
“While that research project will continue until it culminates next year in my book Shattering The Golden Circle…”
You have been mentioning this book, out of curiosity and as an aside here, how are you planning its publication? What I mean is, are you going to attempt to get it published by what they call a “traditional publisher,” and go that route? (If so, have you maybe already made queries and received interest?)
Or are you going to publish it yourself and in a limited edition?
As I said, I’m just curious. I have recently begun dealing with the publishing business. I wrote a novel this summer. I have completed it and will be beginning another that will be completed sometime around February or March. I’m also in the process of negotiating with an English professor who wants a biography of a prominent bail bondsman here in this region.
Parts of the North have been pro-White. The southern parts of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, as Hunter has pointed out, were settled by Southerners crossing the Ohio River. The ethnic (Irish, Slavic and Italian) areas of northern cities were vehemently pro-White. I don’t think any of these people ever thought of themselves as “Yankees”. However, it was the New England/New York diaspora that came to dominate these states. They dominate them still, in collaboration with the Jews.
By the way, do Southerners ever use the word “southron” to refer to themselves?
“In what sense is the North “pro-White”?
– In no greater or lesser sense than the South is. You make a lot of historical references to the South being “pro-white” or “the white man’s country”, while you ignore the much colder, harder, racism that Northern whites have always harbored toward blacks — instead, subjectively choosing to cite Northern-state voting statistics as some proof that “Dixie” (whatever the hell that even is) is righteous and innocent and worthy of vindication, and the rest of white America is sinister and self-destructive. Ridiculous.
“There hasn’t been an anti-miscegenation law in Michigan in over 130 years.”
– Huh. That must be why Michigan is so much blacker and browner than Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia. Oh wait…
“The public school system in Michigan has been integrated since the 1860’s, not the 1960’s.”
– So what? Have you ever heard of public school DISTRICTS? I don’t know how it works in Dixie, but in Michigan the whole damn state doesn’t communally share one single public school system. Districting of public schools was one of many ways we “negro-worshipping damnyankees” managed to hold the color-line for a hundred years.
“Massachusetts has had comprehensive civil-rights laws since the 1860’s and no anit-miscegination law since 1843!
– Holy smokes! So that’s why the entirety of Massachusetts today looks like a slice of Darkest Africa, while every single city and county in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia are as white as Russia, and there’s not a single mixed-race couple or half-breed south of the old Mason-Dixon!
– So what? Have you ever heard of public school DISTRICTS? I don’t know how it works in Dixie, but in Michigan the whole damn state doesn’t communally share one single public school system. Districting of public schools was one of many ways we “negro-worshipping damnyankees” managed to hold the color-line for a hundred years.
Give it time dear boy. Give it time and it will be share and share alike. “Regional equity” is the new nignog meme for robbing whites through property tax.
LOL! And John is right on schedule with some biased anti-Romney polling!
John, what is up with that? Why is it that every time I’m in a discussion with someone on a completely unrelated topic, you chime in with some sniveling about how Romney is going to lose, and post link about it from some liberal website with no credibility?
@John
“Give it time dear boy. Give it time and it will be share and share alike.”
– Oh? Well thank you so much for explaining to me how my own country works, Mr. Englishman. I was born at St. John’s Hospital in Detroit on February 26 1977. And exactly how long have you been here?
Haven’t you read what they intend to do with school districting?
Regional Equity.
I’ve read to policy papers.
313Chris,
clearly you have not been canvasing your own People.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html
they are on board the Obama bus. You should stop telling me how YOUR country works and pay attention to the evidence. My conclusion: Michiganders like mystery
meat. All polling predicts a heavy Michigan majority for Obama.
Another online poll, huh? Well, thanks for that one too, I guess. Since all hope is (apparently) lost, I’ll just have to vote for Obama and wait for this “partitioning” of America, right? I mean, I only LIVE here in Michigan, so I don’t know nearly as much about how people here are feeling about this election, as the Englishman currently residing in Missouri (after living in California for some years, you once said?). Keep those links coming!
It’s an average. Poll of polls.
Michigan is not in play. Big fail.
Re: 313Chris
(1) If the North is so pro-White, why did so many Northern states fail to pass anti-miscegenation laws? Why did they voluntarily repeal them before 1887? Why did they overwhelmingly vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Why did they vote as a solid phalanx for Obama?
(2) This is merely the thread for the anti-miscegenation laws. There hasn’t been an anti-miscegenation law in Michigan since 1883. Did you know there are more blacks in Michigan than Mississippi?
(3) If Michigan is so pro-White, why has it had integrated schools for almost 150 years? The Brown decision in 1954 ordered the integration of segregated public schools in the South. The public schools in Michigan had been integrated for generations at the time.
(4) Why did Massachusetts repeal its anti-miscegenation law? Why were blacks citizens in Massachusetts with voting rights even before 1861? Why did Massachusetts repeatedly pass comprehensive civil rights laws?
I suppose you are going to tell us that Massachusetts was as pro-White as Georgia … although the evidence strongly contradicts that conclusion.
I don’t want to bully chris with facts about his own neighbours. He’s probably a good man. But the collective evidence suggests that they are going down on Obama in an embarrassing way.
Given what Coleman et al did to Detroit I’m shocked they would expand this to voting for a nignog over and above a white, son of their soil. It’s frightening.
You have to be cautious about asserting how a particular state or entire country and its people think and are. You have to use BOTH your own observations AND statistics.
It appears that 313chris is going mostly on his observations here and denigrating the statistics–polling in this case. But it is in general the case that a person’s personal observations of THE PEOPLE are usually heavily taken of people who are just like him and share the same opinions. An example of what I mean would be a person who is law and order usually associates exclusively with others who are law and order and not drug dealers, low life’s and criminally inclined. The result of this is that person will start thinking that his entire region, or most of it, is just like his friends. He will then think his region will vote, advocate for the same issues, etc., just like he does. And such a person usually SEES only what he then wants to see and does not see the contrary evidence.
Further, and in the same vein, usually a person like this totally ignores or at least minimizes too much of OVERALL pictures. His region will NOT be exclusively made up of persons just like him and those he associates with.
This happens all the time.
Clearly, according to all that we can see, and even FOX News, if you watch it, Romney is behind considerable in Michigan, overall. Now it may well be that in the small area of 313chris’s life and environment, the people more or less are like him and are Romney supporters. No doubt even some union members are. BUT, it is clear that that is not the case for the entire state IN GENERAL.
That is the point that 313chris is missing and reacts so hostile to.
I see no controversy about the position Romney is in in Michigan, Chris. You are the only one who is demanding we avert our eyes to the situation and shout that Romney is really winning hard in Michigan.
I don’t like it. Michigan doesn’t trust a man who would probably repay them for loyalty to him.
It suggests that Hunter’s theory on the “evangelist” as a suicidal pussy is true.
Michigan would be showed with special funding if it delivered itself to Romney’s camp.
Showered…
The patronage he’d hand out would be spectacular. But alas no.
@Hunter
1.) Because unlike Southerners, white people in Michigan didn’t miscegentate with niggers. So there was never a need to pass some useless law for a non-issue. I can understand the need for such legislation down in Mulattoville, CSA though.
2.) Blacks constitute 14% of Michigan’s population, and dropping fast. Blacks constitute 37%(!) of Mississippi’s population, and rising fast.
3.) Because like I said, intra-city school districting kept the niggers in their own schools in their own parts of town. Also, unlike the South, we had so few niggers for so long, that there was never any fear that they would one day be forced into white schools.
4.) Again Hunter, you’re basing your entire belief system on text on paper. If you want to find out what your average white person from Boston or Brockton really thinks of niggers, then maybe you ought to get outside the South for once in your life.
Chris,
Michigan votes for a mulatto. They identify with a blackie more than they do with a favourite son. That’s sickening. what’s in it for them?
“You make a lot of historical references to the South being “pro-white” or “the white man’s country”, while you ignore the much colder, harder, racism that Northern whites have always harbored toward blacks”
Class. In the south (and south africa, rhodesia) it’s not just a working class thing. In the north (and europe) it’s mostly only a working class thing because they’re the only ones who’ve experienced the reality. The rest believe the TV version.
That’s my experience anyway.
Re: 313Chris
(1) Michigan was ground zero of Henry Ford’s “melting pot” – there were lots of ingredients in that melting pot, including niggers, because racial intermarriage was considered legitimate by White people there who believed in applying “freedom” and “equality” to the negro.
(2) I’ve already ran the numbers in previous threads. There are more niggers in Illinois than Louisiana, more in Michigan than Mississippi, more in Ohio than Alabama, more in New York than Georgia.
(4) There aren’t a small number of niggers in Michigan. There are more niggers in Michigan than anywhere in the Deep South but Florida or Texas. The schools were also racially integrated in Michigan, but we will get to that soon enough.
(5) We’re going to go through multiple lines of evidence from voting patterns to polls that directly measure racial consciousness to anti-miscegenation laws to the passage of civil rights laws, etc.
Test,
not sure of that. Northerners who are working class vote Democratic. They will elect a black president over a white candidate. I’m pretty sure income numbers will bear this out.
Yep, all my life I have heard from a SIGNIFICANT percentage of white workers that “the Democrats are for the working man.” I have witnessed several politically motivated fist fights over the years between friends over this matter. This is especially true concerning union members.
Any Northerner (except 313chris, of course!!) will confirm witnessing the same.
@Brutus
I’m not “demanding” anything, jackass. Media polls show one thing, but reality on the ground often tells another story. No, I don’t know exactly how everyone is going to vote, but the palpable feeling around here is that people are fed-up with, and worn-out by Obama, and that Romney is going to pull off an upset in this state. Is that scientific? Hell no. But the atmosphere and the attitudes the same as they were in 2010, when we elected a Republican governer in the wake of what was a disastrous Democratic administration. So we’ll just have to see.
John, however, needs to give it a rest. John, (and maybe you should be sitting down) here’s reality: The United States is not going to be “partitioned” if Obama is re-elected. It’s not going to “partitioned” ever. There is never going be an independent “Dixie”. There are never going to be goofy “white ethnostates” in America in yours or my lifetime, and you sure as hell are never going to see a return to aristocracy on American soil, period. I’m not saying this to be inflammatory or combative. It’s simply the truth. Nobody in the South (whatever “the South” even is anymore) gives a happy damn about this dead & buried secession nonsense. And nobody down there, outside the anti-social, retirement-age, malcontents who post here, considers themselves anything before being an American.
Now I’m sorry if Hunter has you mistaking his personal enthusiasm for Civil War era-history, as evidence of a real life “secession movement” among contempory whites in Alabama, but the simple fact is that none exists. This isn’t Europe. And unlike Hunter, who to my knowledge has never even been to Yankeeland to speak firsthand of what we’re actually like, I have travelled to and worked all over the South at different times and can speak from an perspective of objectivity. Give it up, John.
You mistake things. Partition, Secession are being advocated here. That is all. There’s evidence to back up why it ought to happen.
For example the GOP which is an amalgamation of white southerners and rich white northerners is uncompetitive because whites no longer form a demographically decisive share of the vote. Your versions of conservative philosophy have NO viable form of political expression inside BRA. Equally the Social Democracy that whites tend to construct in ethnically homogenous societies like Sweden (rapidly becoming other) is not viable in the US. It’s simply a system of ripping off whites. Something’s got to give in this situation.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a neo secession movement. Even if it’s just posturing as a bargaining position.
From what Chris says here I contend that he identifies with his President more than he does with other whites. Especially those in Europe and the South. For reasons that are almost inexplicable.
What year do you feel that Detroit will be cleaned up, 313chris?
I’m going to wade into the psychology of the birther nonsense on this as it is connected.
Obama is distinctly foreign in upbringing and in his patrimony. He’s also from Kansas family that no doubt happened to be jayhawker types who hated other whites enough to displace them. It doesn’t really matter where he was born. He’s reflexively foreign in outlook. In an argument between browns and whites he’s going to side with browns.
It’s not white southerners who put him in office. He was put there by northern blacks and northern whites.
When Ambassador Stevens was killed along with those white mercenaries, I detected no sympathy in his demeanor. He’s no better than Mugabe. But you can still be loyal to the system that put him there?