I'm curious

[knitwit45]

Alison, are Catholics called red-necks in England, and if so, why???
This is such a great thread, sure glad you started it.

The Ozark mountains, in Southern Missouri and Northern Arkansas, were originally called Aux-Arcs (towards Arkansas)by the French trappers and traders.

[charliechaplinfan]

Ah, same word different meaning.

Long before the North West of England had an influx of Irish catholics we were the stronghold of the remaining Catholics during the reign of Henry VIII, once the reformation happened people who refused to convert had their heads removed from their bodies. Hence the Redneck.

Once Henry's daughter Mary who retained her mother's religion inherited the throne she took the country back the other way to Catholicism and burned the heretics.

[Hollis]

Hi Judith (I still prefer it to Judy!)

If you'll go back over the earlier of the exchanges, you'll find that I never denied anyone the right to voice their opinion, on any subject, at any time. As a veteran, I understand the pure and utter hypocrisy of serving my nation and the democratic principles it strives to guarantee it's citizens, and then taking it upon myself to deny them to someone at a later date or when their opinions conflict with my own. By the same token, I have the very real right to voice my own opinion whether or not it conflicts with theirs. I'm entitled to that right by virtue of the fact that I was born upon these shores, and as guaranteed in, and by, our Constitution. Further, I feel that I've earned that right by virtue of my military service. I took a solemn oath upon my enlistment to do all I could to uphold and protect that right. I didn't take that oath lightly. If you'll read carefully my response to Klondike, you'll see that not only did I not attempt to deny anyone their right to voice their opinion, I put into print that it was in fact their right. I think that as the rational person I know you to be, you'll agree that neither of us (the two disagreeing parties,) ever tried to prevent the other from expressing their opinions. I believe it was Patrick Henry that said (and I stand to be corrected) "I may not agree with what he has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not taking you to task for what you wrote, I'm merely defending myself. I will now, once again, step down from my soapbox.

As always,

Hollis

p.s. Judith, it wasn't in response to Klondike that I stated that it was the other party's right to his opinion, it was in response to srowley75's entry (Friday, May 8th.) Thanks.

[jdb1]

Yes, Hollis, of course you have that right, just as I had the right to respond. And we both have the right to have both similar and differing opinions. If everyone agreed completely about everything, all the time, this would be North Korea.

You are right about Patrick Henry, too (who took his words in this instance from Voltaire, a man who had a few opinions of his own on the subjects of patriotism and free speech).

[Hollis]

Thanks Judith,

You are absolutely right and there's no denying it! Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun. I'm not all that knowledgeable with regard to Monsieur Voltaire (except to know that he was French and predated Mr Henry,) but it goes to prove the adage that "everything old is new again."

As always, Hollis

By the way... It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there's a current of unrest flowing just under the surface in North Korea. Kim Jong Il (if I've spelled it correctly, and he can kiss my a.. if I haven't !) and his progeny won't live forever. Besides, isn't it said that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely ?" Herr Hitler promised a thousand year reich in 1933 and twelve years later was shown how truly shortsighted he had been. Call me the eternal optimist but I guess I'll always believe that good outweighs evil and is the more potent force. People of their ilk somehow always seem to be able to sow the seeds of their own downfall.

[jdb1]

Well, North Korea is a subject we could go on about for weeks, isn't it?

From what I've read and seen in the American media, the poor unfortunates there may very well all starve to death before the current regime is gone. It's like a very bad, very barbaric, dream. The psychology of the situation could probably take up a decade or two in discussions here.

[Hollis]

Hey there Bryce,

Below your emoticon (now there's something that was just waiting to be born that could have stayed in the womb, but that's just one man's opinion) on page 4, there's a phrase without any credit being given to the author. I don't know if it belongs to you or someone else, but I couldn't agree with it more. Especially the second part about modern art being what it is. But it sounds suspiciously like what Winston Churchill said about the RAF in their heroic encounter with the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and I quote: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." (August 20, 1940) There's nothing at all wrong with that, (and you couldn't have asked for better inspiration) but when you paraphrase someone, it should be noted, don't you think ? (Feel free to disagree, we've both been through that already !) If the thought was an original one, more power to you. I'll have to agree with whoever said "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," and when it comes to modern art, much of it (paintings, sculpture, what have you) isn't worth looking at, not with my eyes at least. As Mr Horse (of the now defunct Ren & Stimpy show) said so elegantly, "I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it." Let me know if I'm way off base or not (as I'm sure you will, just kidding !)

As always, Hollis

[bryce]

Banksy

[ChiO]

CCF wrote:

Ahh, it doesn't explain why the South changed their votes from Democrat to Republican. Where they traditionally Democrat because of the Civil War and that changed with the Civil Rights movement.

One person's over-generalized impressionistic explanation: Pre- and post-Civil War, the South was predominantly in the Democrat Party. The Republican Party didn't exist until very shortly before the Civil War, and Lincoln was the first to be elected President as a Republican. So, yes, there was the identification of Republicans as being anti-slavery, Northern, monied, urban, etc., while Democrats (at least in the South) identified with Andrew Jackson, rural, and State's rights (suspicious of federal power and, at least for a time, not opposed to secession).

Then the Depression hits and that "Traitor to His Class", Franklin Roosevelt, is elected President and Party alignment really gets confusing. With FDR's election, Democrats (and not just those in the traditional South) could then crudely be put into two philosophical categories: Pre-Civil War Democrats and Post-Civil War Democrats. And philosophically they were opposed (again, over-generalizing) on a lot of major issues such as civil rights, and State's rights vs. federal power, but they both voted for Roosevelt, whether for economic or WWII or other reasons.

1964 became another watershed for party realignment. LBJ blew Goldwater out of the water that year, but four years later with disputes over Vietnam, civil rights, etc. at a height, Richard Nixon saw that it might be possible to exploit the growing difference between Southern conservatism and Northern liberalism (whatever those words mean) and get the South to vote Republican. Since 1968, the South steadily moved to the Republican Party, first at the national level and then at the local level.

Although one can have a long argument over whether it is a good thing or horrible, both Parties tend toward the middle, with both having their respective wing-nuts. To cast either Party as liberal or conservative is pretty futile because, at least in the USA, there is no agreement as to what "liberal" or "conservative" mean in any real philosophical sense (though the use of those terms can be politically advantageous - or disadvantageous - depending on the context). Edmund Burke and William Gladstone are probably spinning in their graves. But like all fine political parties, each does what it can to stay in power (ergo, core principles are pretty malleable).

[charliechaplinfan]

Thanks for putting it into context for me Chio. The problem comes when I read about a period in history say the sixties and see what impact the civil rights legislation has on voters but I'm not knowledgeable enough to put it into a historical context to understand it's context better.

I've had a week to think up another question. This is another one that's interested me from researching my tree. My family are predominately Catholic but as I go back through my ancestors I meet with Church of England and Methodists and at every turn the Catholic faith has been the dominant one but it's also been the female one. It's almost like the woman gives up her name but she will not give up her religion, on this the man has to concede. Is this just unusual to my family. I have to add it continues to this day, although my husband hasn't converted he's never objected to his children being Catholic.

[Hollis]

Good morning ChiO,

Tell me a little about the elected officials who became known as the "Dixiecrats" during (I believe) JFK's tragically shortened term as President. If memory serves (and I was still a number of years away from the age of majority) it was a number of factors, not the least of which were civil rights and certain economic issues.

As always, Hollis

[jdb1]

My memory of history class is saying that the label "Dixiecrat" came into usage in the 1940s, but I may be remembering it wrong. We were also taught that Southern politicians preferred to be called Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican, but there's got to be more to it than that. When I think of Dixiecrats, I somehow also always associate Harry Truman.

Needs some reseaching. An interesting phenomenon.

[jdb1]

Yes, it's true: NYC public schools did have good teachers once upon a time. It seems that what I remembered about the Dixiecrats is correct.

I did some cursory online research, and here's what georgiaencyplopedia.org has to say:

The Dixiecrats were members of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which splintered from the Democratic Party in 1948. The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman's advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman's 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. With that backdrop many southern delegates were already concerned as they headed to the 1948 Democratic convention.

This group left the 1948 Democratic presidential convention and held one of their own, whereat they nominated Strom Thurmond, who was then governor of South Carolina, as their candidate.

These days, we don't think of the term "states' rights" and "Democrats" as going together, but it was a different world then. Interestingly, it was not a Democrat, but Truman's Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower, under whose administration the Supreme Court decision in the landmark integration case Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education was made (in favor of integration). And it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the first group of black high school students who attended an all-white school on court order.

[charliechaplinfan]

Now this is something I knew nothing about apart from the bit about Eisenhower. I'm getting an education, thank you.

[Hollis]

Thank you Judith,

I guess my decision to forego college level American history was ill conceived ! Thanks for the refresher course. The unfortunate thing is that no matter how distasteful you may find their political and social beliefs, and there are more than a few of us that do, decorum calls for us to capitalize the "S" in Southerner(s.) What's even more unfortunate is that try as hard as they may to argue the point, that kind of political and social thinking is still very much alive in the 21st century. All you need do is look for the "Stars and Bars" of the Confederate flag. It's everywhere. And no one tries to hide it, no matter how insensitive it might be to display it. Some things die a much slower death than others.

From "The Heart of Dixie" but born and raised in Philadelphia, (Pennsylvania, not Mississippi !) I remain,

Hollis