Why is ante bellum racist?

[Anonymous]

How much did those poor farmers reject slavery? Were they eligible to vote? Did they vote for abolitionists?

Were they abolitionists? Or were they just too poor to buy slaves themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of poor white mountain trash subsistence farmers from southwestern Virginia who were forced to fight and die on behalf of rich southern plantation owners, I see absolutely nothing romantic or whimsical about dressing up like Scarlet O’Hara and sipping mint juleps under a magnolia tree.

My great great grandfathers and uncles bled and died because wealthy 1% southern elites wanted to continue to own other human beings. And my kin were drafted and marched off to die for them in places like Chancellorsville, Bull Run and Antietam.

So as a southerner, nah, I have no fondness for Antebellum culture LARPing.

Honestly, this is super dramatic considering that you DID NOT KNOW these people... honestly, do you really shed tears over your ancestors who died 100 years before you were born? If so, then I think you need to get some perspective. Truly.

(Also, kudos on painting your Confederate ancestors as the true victims 🙄)

You might want to re-read PP’s post a little slower.

Done. Not sure your what your implication is? Maybe you can try to explain your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dresses and parties were paid for by money earned via free human labor which happened because of white supremacy.
It’s not about “pretty dresses.” You know that. You can find other pretty dresses not from that era. It’s about celebrating a historical moment that embraced slavery.

I hope none of you have ever been to a TOGA party...

I haven’t. But your whataboutism proves the bankruptcy of your argument. Roman slavery was nothing whatsoever like the cruel monster that was invented in the Americas, (Why, because some of the slaves were white? That whole gladiator thing was super not-cruel though, you have a point there) and, as it ended roughly 2000 years ago (So what is the time limit for people caring about the history of human cruelty?), not a lot of people are around who are still experiencing the fallout from it.

Not sure what exactly you mean by “fallout”, but you should educate yourself as to the influence of the Roman Empire on the Western World.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dresses and parties were paid for by money earned via free human labor which happened because of white supremacy.
It’s not about “pretty dresses.” You know that. You can find other pretty dresses not from that era. It’s about celebrating a historical moment that embraced slavery.

I hope none of you have ever been to a TOGA party...

I haven’t. But your whataboutism proves the bankruptcy of your argument. Roman slavery was nothing whatsoever like the cruel monster that was invented in the Americas, (Why, because some of the slaves were white? That whole gladiator thing was super not-cruel though, you have a point there) and, as it ended roughly 2000 years ago (So what is the time limit for people caring about the history of human cruelty?), not a lot of people are around who are still experiencing the fallout from it.

Not sure what exactly you mean by “fallout”, but you should educate yourself as to the influence of the Roman Empire on the Western World.

Roads, worcestershire sauce, milutary uniforms, wine and the concept of citizenry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The South has so many great virtues that deserve to be celebrated. Lots of jealous people here.

Find something better to celebrate than how great life was when you could own other people to do all the work. No one is jealous of this.

For instance, Derby Days. The same dresses and the same mint juleps but without the treason and slavery.

.You mean it's actually okay to make a drink associated with slavery? Thank you for kindness and understanding.

Mint juleps aren't really associated with slavery or the deep south. They are associated with the Kentucky Derby and Virginia though. That's kind of my point. There is no reason to hold an antebellum party other than to thumb your nose at people. Fancy clothes and mint juleps are a Kentucky Derby/Virginia Squire thing not an antebellum Gone With the Wind thing.

This is really funny considering that you noted yourself they are drunk at antebellum parties, Virginia and Kentucky are in the South, they originated in Virginia when it was the largest slave holding state, and predate the Kentucky Derby by about 100 years. Also, have you not heard of the trope of black slave bartenders making mint juleps? If people don't realize how mint juleps were intertwined with slavery, they really need to study more history.

No, you need to study more hostory. The trope is of a black person serving iced drinks, including leonade and iced tea. Juleps were invented as a medicinal concoction in the 17th century.p

Juleps too.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-lost-african-american-bartenders-who-created-the-cocktail

If there was any drink-mixing going on at those stately Virginia homes, it was black hands doing it. As the English traveler John Davis, who in 1800 spent some months teaching school on a Virginia plantation, put it, where others might set their hands to the plow, “the Virginian only inspects the work of his farm.” And in fact, “Old Dick,” one of the enslaved people on that plantation, told Davis that in the years before the Revolution one of his responsibilities had been “mixing and tasting” his young enslaver’s Juleps when he called for them first thing in the morning (“he was for a short life and a merry one,” as Dick put it).

Every drink and food item was made that way. Barbecue was created by slaves that were given the worst cuts of meat at the time. The Virginia squire silliness was a replication of the english country lord lifestyle, complete with serfs/slaves. That then evolved into the antebellum era tropes, which took things even further. History, around the world, is pretty much horrible to everyone except the 0.0001% if you keep going back. Therefore in practical terms a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I'm going with the Missouri Compromise. What are you going with?

Read the debate on this or any other similar issue, including this thread. The line is always shifting, subjective, retroactively applied and people get incredibly angry and insulting if you disagree with their assessments. This is not a practical way to combat way to racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dresses and parties were paid for by money earned via free human labor which happened because of white supremacy.
It’s not about “pretty dresses.” You know that. You can find other pretty dresses not from that era. It’s about celebrating a historical moment that embraced slavery.

I hope none of you have ever been to a TOGA party...

I haven’t. But your whataboutism proves the bankruptcy of your argument. Roman slavery was nothing whatsoever like the cruel monster that was invented in the Americas, (Why, because some of the slaves were white? That whole gladiator thing was super not-cruel though, you have a point there) and, as it ended roughly 2000 years ago (So what is the time limit for people caring about the history of human cruelty?), not a lot of people are around who are still experiencing the fallout from it.

Not sure what exactly you mean by “fallout”, but you should educate yourself as to the influence of the Roman Empire on the Western World.

Nothing better than smug ignorance.

By “fallout” I mean people who still personally experience the ripple effects of slavery. And if you’re going to be cute and pretend that something that existed 2000-ish years ago in a completely different form in a different places with different expectations is culturally the same thing as something that happened closer to 150 years ago (and de facto occurred much more recently via sharecropping), then you’re the one who needs to educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of poor white mountain trash subsistence farmers from southwestern Virginia who were forced to fight and die on behalf of rich southern plantation owners, I see absolutely nothing romantic or whimsical about dressing up like Scarlet O’Hara and sipping mint juleps under a magnolia tree.

My great great grandfathers and uncles bled and died because wealthy 1% southern elites wanted to continue to own other human beings. And my kin were drafted and marched off to die for them in places like Chancellorsville, Bull Run and Antietam.

So as a southerner, nah, I have no fondness for Antebellum culture LARPing.

Honestly, this is super dramatic considering that you DID NOT KNOW these people... honestly, do you really shed tears over your ancestors who died 100 years before you were born? If so, then I think you need to get some perspective. Truly.

(Also, kudos on painting your Confederate ancestors as the true victims 🙄)

You might want to re-read PP’s post a little slower.

Done. Not sure your what your implication is? Maybe you can try to explain your point?

PP wasn’t painting her Confederate ancestors as “the true victims.” And I think her other point, that 155 years ago wasn’t that long ago, stands too. That’s the whole point people are making about having parties glorifying the era and place of enslavement; it’s a thumb in the eye to people for whom it wasn’t the distant past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dresses and parties were paid for by money earned via free human labor which happened because of white supremacy.
It’s not about “pretty dresses.” You know that. You can find other pretty dresses not from that era. It’s about celebrating a historical moment that embraced slavery.

I hope none of you have ever been to a TOGA party...

I haven’t. But your whataboutism proves the bankruptcy of your argument. Roman slavery was nothing whatsoever like the cruel monster that was invented in the Americas, (Why, because some of the slaves were white? That whole gladiator thing was super not-cruel though, you have a point there) and, as it ended roughly 2000 years ago (So what is the time limit for people caring about the history of human cruelty?), not a lot of people are around who are still experiencing the fallout from it.

Not sure what exactly you mean by “fallout”, but you should educate yourself as to the influence of the Roman Empire on the Western World.

Nothing better than smug ignorance.

By “fallout” I mean people who still personally experience the ripple effects of slavery. And if you’re going to be cute and pretend that something that existed 2000-ish years ago in a completely different form in a different places with different expectations is culturally the same thing as something that happened closer to 150 years ago (and de facto occurred much more recently via sharecropping), then you’re the one who needs to educate yourself.

You really need to educate yourself about the Jews, the people who still mourn daily about a temple destroyed 2000 years ago by the Romans, and also still get blamed daily for the Romans crucifying a Jew. You don't think this is "fallout?" Ask them.

[Anonymous]

Ahh... I’m truly sorry, PP(s), I just don’t know what the inflection point is between “the distant past” (that apparently no one gives a shit about and which we pretend had no influence whatsoever on people living today), and “the past” (which even though no one alive today was alive at that time, we do still give a shit about and we must at all times acknowledge its influence on the lives of people today). What’s the magic number? Or is it more of a phase-out situation, like taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that asking this question invites all kinds of criticism. I am asking sincerely. Help me understand why wearing pretty dresses to a party is racist?

Thank you.

Antebellum means the period before war; Antebellum South means the American south pre-Civil War that was dominated by slavery, socially and economically. It's embarrassing to 'party' in this way. It's like having a Holocaust party with Nazi or Hitler Youth uniforms and asking why it's racist or anti-semitic.

Not the same thing at all. There was much in the antebellum South that was not dominated by slavery. And, FWIW, hoop skirts were also worn in the North.

The slave south was worse than Nazi Germany. And, even though Nazi Germany was horrific, it's not even that close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that asking this question invites all kinds of criticism. I am asking sincerely. Help me understand why wearing pretty dresses to a party is racist?

Thank you.

Antebellum means the period before war; Antebellum South means the American south pre-Civil War that was dominated by slavery, socially and economically. It's embarrassing to 'party' in this way. It's like having a Holocaust party with Nazi or Hitler Youth uniforms and asking why it's racist or anti-semitic.

Not the same thing at all. There was much in the antebellum South that was not dominated by slavery. And, FWIW, hoop skirts were also worn in the North.

The slave south was worse than Nazi Germany. And, even though Nazi Germany was horrific, it's not even that close.

Stop trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that asking this question invites all kinds of criticism. I am asking sincerely. Help me understand why wearing pretty dresses to a party is racist?

Thank you.

Antebellum means the period before war; Antebellum South means the American south pre-Civil War that was dominated by slavery, socially and economically. It's embarrassing to 'party' in this way. It's like having a Holocaust party with Nazi or Hitler Youth uniforms and asking why it's racist or anti-semitic.

Not the same thing at all. There was much in the antebellum South that was not dominated by slavery. And, FWIW, hoop skirts were also worn in the North.

The slave south was worse than Nazi Germany. And, even though Nazi Germany was horrific, it's not even that close.

Stop trolling.

Do you disagree? In the south, a much larger segment of the population was subjected to torture, forced labor, rape, murder, kidnapping, and forcible separation from their children for century after century. This is not at all to defend the decade plus of full on murder experienced by the Jewish people in areas controlled by the Nazis. But people who celebrate the antebellum South are celebrating something much worse than the people who celebrate Nazi Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in the 8th grade (early 2000s) my school had an "old south cotillion" right before graduation. It was a school tradition and we never thought about it racial terms. My class was about 90% white and 10% BIPOC. I kind of cringe when I look back at it, yet I admit I loved it as a kid and thought it was so cool to get dressed up in old-fashioned garb, do the old fashioned dances, sip punch, etc. Racism was not anywhere on our radar and yet I can now see how that theme glorifies a really bad part of history.

I still think, however, there's a difference between an old-southern-glory themed party and having an event at a plantation where the venue has nothing to do with the event.

I don’t. I get that they’re historical houses, but when they’re put in their proper perspective - they’re basically forced labor prison camps for people whose torture and toil and forced labor - it makes it kind of a weird place to have a wedding.

Someday in the after times I want to visit Whitney Plantation. https://www.whitneyplantation.org/

I sorta get that but where do you draw the line? Lots of pre-1865 buildings that had nothing to do with agriculture were built on the backs of enslaved people. What about venues where BIPOC people were excluded by segregation laws? Are all those unacceptable wedding venues now?

The way I see it is an antebellum themed party celebrates a way of life and glorifies how white people had it good back then. Having a modern day "regular wedding" at a plantation - then it's just a pretty venue. I think context and intent of the event matters.

Funny enough I have been to only one wedding at a plantation venue and the bride was AA (10 years ago or so).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that asking this question invites all kinds of criticism. I am asking sincerely. Help me understand why wearing pretty dresses to a party is racist?

Thank you.

Antebellum means the period before war; Antebellum South means the American south pre-Civil War that was dominated by slavery, socially and economically. It's embarrassing to 'party' in this way. It's like having a Holocaust party with Nazi or Hitler Youth uniforms and asking why it's racist or anti-semitic.

Not the same thing at all. There was much in the antebellum South that was not dominated by slavery. And, FWIW, hoop skirts were also worn in the North.

The slave south was worse than Nazi Germany. And, even though Nazi Germany was horrific, it's not even that close.

OMFG. SMH. I can't even. Wow that's just umm, well, you know. No you surely don't know and are proud of purity too. You are blinded by your own smugness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that asking this question invites all kinds of criticism. I am asking sincerely. Help me understand why wearing pretty dresses to a party is racist?

Thank you.

Antebellum means the period before war; Antebellum South means the American south pre-Civil War that was dominated by slavery, socially and economically. It's embarrassing to 'party' in this way. It's like having a Holocaust party with Nazi or Hitler Youth uniforms and asking why it's racist or anti-semitic.

Not the same thing at all. There was much in the antebellum South that was not dominated by slavery. And, FWIW, hoop skirts were also worn in the North.

The slave south was worse than Nazi Germany. And, even though Nazi Germany was horrific, it's not even that close.

Stop trolling.

Do you disagree? In the south, a much larger segment of the population was subjected to torture, forced labor, rape, murder, kidnapping, and forcible separation from their children for century after century. This is not at all to defend the decade plus of full on murder experienced by the Jewish people in areas controlled by the Nazis. But people who celebrate the antebellum South are celebrating something much worse than the people who celebrate Nazi Germany.

You really need to ask this question on a Jewish forum. The resulting discussion, should be umm, interesting.