Why is ante bellum racist?

[Anonymous]

I really thought that the Southern obsession with the “antebellum” South was a way to cover up societal insecurity about the fact that the 20th century South was pretty crappy—poorer, less educated, lower wages, less industry, few museums, etc.,—than the rest of the country. If they could keep pointing to and celebrating a mythic past in which they genteeling sipped mint juleps while wearing taffeta ruffles, and blame those nasty aggressive Northerners for taking it away from them, they didn’t need to feel so bad about why so many houses still didn’t have indoor plumbing in the 1960s.
But the South has really come back, economically speaking, their universities seem to be climbing up the rankings, quality of life is better than many places in the NE or rust belt, etc. Why are they still so obsessed with this dumb Gone With the Wind stuff? Embrace your future, South! And it’s one in which white folks and Black folks can come together to build a New South.
Plus, those taffeta dresses are hideous and are doing you no favors on your social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

Hey, humorless pp. That’s me you’re talking about, and I’m White.

Since being proved wrong is something you enjoy: “ prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.” (From Oxford Languages) Your “bad manners” is, in fact, racism. Again, people have told you this hurts and you’re like, “I wanna go to my fancy dress Confederacy ball and nothing, nothing, NOTHING else will do!” Do you even actively go to these, right now, presumably as an adult and probably a parent in our year 2021? Is there some sort of white hood cotillion that is the highlight of your social season?

The balls purposely antagonize Black people! That’s why people idiotic White people keep having them, to rub Black people’s noses in the fact that their ancestors raped, tortured and stole the liberty of their ancestors!! And you’re here caping for it.

Again, stuff I never said. Going to a ball in clothes that other people don't like is not antagonism directed against a person or people. If I am not thinking of you, just thinking of the ball, how could I have any purposeful antagonism? I get that it may be emotionally painful for you, but is this an actual harm? You keep assuming that white people are doing this for the purpose of rubbing black people's noses in slavery, and for no other reason. I doubt anyone who goes to one of those would say that. More likely they would say, "don't look at it and don't be so sensitive." Not a "nice" response , but rubbing your nose it? Purposely antagonizing? I wouldn't take it that way, and I don't think you should. And yes, people have said such things to me for stuff I found deeply offensive.


To be clear here, I am not saying you shouldn't be offended or shouldn't complain. I'm just saying, you should call it what it is, offensiveness, not racism. And if you don't agree, and you still think it's racism. That's okay with me too. Different people have different opinions. Simple disagreement isn't racism either.

DP. Other people feel harmed regardless of your intent. Once upon a time, you could have claimed ignorance or obliviousness. Now that multiple people have explained the visceral reactions that others have to ante bellum themed plantation parties, you cannot. Not taking others’ feelings about the racial oppression that is part and parcel of the lifestyle those parties celebrate due to ignorance is one thing, but now that you know better, do better. Now, if you choose to participate unapologetically in the glorification of the slave owner’s lifestyle, you are an antagonist.

That they "feel harmed" is perhaps the core idea I am getting at. I am not denying they have a gut visceral reaction against what they see. But I am denying that this is a type of harm. What is the actual harm here? It's just a feeling. We all have them. Then really they just feel offended, but claiming it's an actual harm.

People call me racist. That's antagonistic and offensive. But is it harmful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

PP isn’t calling out you because *you’re white*. PP is calling you out for *your behavior* which had nothing to do with your skin color.

PP’s comments towards you are not “racist”. You don’t seem to understand the definition (any definition).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

PP isn’t calling out you because *you’re white*. PP is calling you out for *your behavior* which had nothing to do with your skin color.

PP’s comments towards you are not “racist”. You don’t seem to understand the definition (any definition).

Well, you are right and I am wrong on this. I guess at what PP thought and I guessed wrong. I shouldn't have tried, it isn't nice and I didn't have enough information.

But PP does still hold an essentialist view that I am rejecting. PP holds that anyone who dresses in certain clothes is racist regardless of intent. The wearing action is inherently racist. I don't agree with that. It's essentially just clothes, the meaning we attach to the clothes varies from person to person.

[Anonymous]

Generally in human society we take people's feelings into account. That's kind of the whole point of society and if we don't then society itself doesn't work. The system as a whole is rational. One tries not to offend others and in exchange others don't try and offend one. By trying not to offend each other we are able to work together more efficiently thereby benefitting each of us.


Also, intent can be imputed by context. The context in this case are traditions started and honors given post-reconstruction and during the civil rights era. They were started to send a message. That message was received, it just took people awhile to feel safe complaining about it. If you think the message was misinterpreted, changed during the intervening years, or wish a do-over then one needs to acknowledge the original message first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

PP isn’t calling out you because *you’re white*. PP is calling you out for *your behavior* which had nothing to do with your skin color.

PP’s comments towards you are not “racist”. You don’t seem to understand the definition (any definition).

Well, you are right and I am wrong on this. I guess at what PP thought and I guessed wrong. I shouldn't have tried, it isn't nice and I didn't have enough information.

But PP does still hold an essentialist view that I am rejecting. PP holds that anyone who dresses in certain clothes is racist regardless of intent. The wearing action is inherently racist. I don't agree with that. It's essentially just clothes, the meaning we attach to the clothes varies from person to person.

Thank you for saying the first part - that took courage.

If you wear those clothes by yourself at home because you think they are pretty that’s one thing.

If you wear those clothes out then many people will see your choice as a celebration of a certain lifestyle that valued slavery. That’s just what those clothes mean to many people, even if they don’t to you. Not good if you knowingly do it.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

PP isn’t calling out you because *you’re white*. PP is calling you out for *your behavior* which had nothing to do with your skin color.

PP’s comments towards you are not “racist”. You don’t seem to understand the definition (any definition).

Well, you are right and I am wrong on this. I guess at what PP thought and I guessed wrong. I shouldn't have tried, it isn't nice and I didn't have enough information.

But PP does still hold an essentialist view that I am rejecting. PP holds that anyone who dresses in certain clothes is racist regardless of intent. The wearing action is inherently racist. I don't agree with that. It's essentially just clothes, the meaning we attach to the clothes varies from person to person.

It is your prerogative to dress in ante bellum costumes if you want, but you can’t control how other people react to that choice. People will think your racist. If it’s not important to you to wear the costume than to not give others the impression that you’re a racist, well, racist must not seem like such a bad thing to do.

[Anonymous]

It is a free country, you are free to wear whatever you want, and we are free to call you a racist.

The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally in human society we take people's feelings into account. That's kind of the whole point of society and if we don't then society itself doesn't work. The system as a whole is rational. One tries not to offend others and in exchange others don't try and offend one. By trying not to offend each other we are able to work together more efficiently thereby benefitting each of us.


Also, intent can be imputed by context. The context in this case are traditions started and honors given post-reconstruction and during the civil rights era. They were started to send a message. That message was received, it just took people awhile to feel safe complaining about it. If you think the message was misinterpreted, changed during the intervening years, or wish a do-over then one needs to acknowledge the original message first.

Are you sure about that??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no history without the history of exploitation of one group by another. None. It still happens today around the world.

So your answer is we should celebrate exploitation with fancy dress balls?

The answer is that cancelling the balls is not an answer.

I give up. But be aware that when people call you racist, it’s not without merit.

Be aware that many people think your definition of racism is itself racist.

You have no f-ing clue what "racist" even means, do you?

There is more than one definition. The definition is disputed these days. You can go out and verify that for yourself. I don't think I'm racist or ignorant. You can call me those names all you want, but don't be surprised if someone calls you those names right back.

So you call people racist because.....they called you racist? Not because you actually think they are racist? Is that the logic here?

No, I only call them racist when I think they are racist. PP should not be surprised that there may be a lot of people who think she is the racist.

OK - so then please explain WHY you think PP is a racist.

I do not believe that merely attending a fancy dress ball is racist. I don't believe that dressing in certain clothes "celebrates exploitation," or necessarily has any bad intent. Nor is it furthering any exploitation because it's just a party. Certain clothes may be offensive to others, but that is not racism, that is simply bad manners. PP believes that anyone who holds my beliefs is racist because she takes an essential view of white people who dress up in those clothes. That is, they are inherently bad because they are white and wear clothes that remind black people of slavery. That's racist by my definition because it is based on race and the performance of harmless (albeit possibly offensive) actions.

PP isn’t calling out you because *you’re white*. PP is calling you out for *your behavior* which had nothing to do with your skin color.

PP’s comments towards you are not “racist”. You don’t seem to understand the definition (any definition).

Well, you are right and I am wrong on this. I guess at what PP thought and I guessed wrong. I shouldn't have tried, it isn't nice and I didn't have enough information.

But PP does still hold an essentialist view that I am rejecting. PP holds that anyone who dresses in certain clothes is racist regardless of intent. The wearing action is inherently racist. I don't agree with that. It's essentially just clothes, the meaning we attach to the clothes varies from person to person.

It is your prerogative to dress in ante bellum costumes if you want, but you can’t control how other people react to that choice. People will think your racist. If it’s not important to you to wear the costume than to not give others the impression that you’re a racist, well, racist must not seem like such a bad thing to do.

Your comments are so very true. Similarly, if someone chooses to dress like a prostitute and perform sex simulation dance moves in public, that person has the right; however that person can't control how others react to that choice and their opinions as to the other person's character.

[Anonymous]

Why then aren't Renaissance Festivals equally or even more politically incorrect? At least half the population, women, should be offended as that period romanticizes a time when women were often essentially treated as property. If the parents decided who they should marry, the woman had no choice in the matter. And after marriage, they were considered the property of the husband and could be treated any way he chose without repercussions. In addition to the degradation of women, the common person could also be and often was treated like dirt.

I hate to bring this up, as now some group may start protesting Renaissance Festivals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why then aren't Renaissance Festivals equally or even more politically incorrect? At least half the population, women, should be offended as that period romanticizes a time when women were often essentially treated as property. If the parents decided who they should marry, the woman had no choice in the matter. And after marriage, they were considered the property of the husband and could be treated any way he chose without repercussions. In addition to the degradation of women, the common person could also be and often was treated like dirt.

I hate to bring this up, as now some group may start protesting Renaissance Festivals.

I agree that the concept seems similar, but the arbiters of political correctness (I say that instead of “society” because I do believe in systemic racism) has made the choice that racism is not socially acceptable and, especially over the past year, that things that are associated with it or that seem to glorify, uphold (or in some cases, not actively repudiate), or are reminders of racist history are also racist and shouldn’t be tolerated or perpetuated. So under that framework, antebellum is racist.

We have not, collectively, made that choice about misogyny. We just haven’t. So Renaissance Festivals aren’t seen as worthy of protest and social shaming as antebellum parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then aren't Renaissance Festivals equally or even more politically incorrect? At least half the population, women, should be offended as that period romanticizes a time when women were often essentially treated as property. If the parents decided who they should marry, the woman had no choice in the matter. And after marriage, they were considered the property of the husband and could be treated any way he chose without repercussions. In addition to the degradation of women, the common person could also be and often was treated like dirt.

I hate to bring this up, as now some group may start protesting Renaissance Festivals.

I agree that the concept seems similar, but the arbiters of political correctness (I say that instead of “society” because I do believe in systemic racism) has made the choice that racism is not socially acceptable and, especially over the past year, that things that are associated with it or that seem to glorify, uphold (or in some cases, not actively repudiate), or are reminders of racist history are also racist and shouldn’t be tolerated or perpetuated. So under that framework, antebellum is racist.

We have not, collectively, made that choice about misogyny. We just haven’t. So Renaissance Festivals aren’t seen as worthy of protest and social shaming as antebellum parties.

This is insulting to a lot of people on a lot of levels. Maybe in 20 or 20 years, you'll understand why. Maybe.

In the meantime, I'll give you the pity you feel you deserve for the pitiable difficult life you have led as a constant victim of misogyny and racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then aren't Renaissance Festivals equally or even more politically incorrect? At least half the population, women, should be offended as that period romanticizes a time when women were often essentially treated as property. If the parents decided who they should marry, the woman had no choice in the matter. And after marriage, they were considered the property of the husband and could be treated any way he chose without repercussions. In addition to the degradation of women, the common person could also be and often was treated like dirt.

I hate to bring this up, as now some group may start protesting Renaissance Festivals.

I agree that the concept seems similar, but the arbiters of political correctness (I say that instead of “society” because I do believe in systemic racism) has made the choice that racism is not socially acceptable and, especially over the past year, that things that are associated with it or that seem to glorify, uphold (or in some cases, not actively repudiate), or are reminders of racist history are also racist and shouldn’t be tolerated or perpetuated. So under that framework, antebellum is racist.

We have not, collectively, made that choice about misogyny. We just haven’t. So Renaissance Festivals aren’t seen as worthy of protest and social shaming as antebellum parties.

This is insulting to a lot of people on a lot of levels. Maybe in 20 or 20 years, you'll understand why. Maybe.

In the meantime, I'll give you the pity you feel you deserve for the pitiable difficult life you have led as a constant victim of misogyny and racism.

It wasn't meant to be, so if you think it's insulting, explain why and I'll respond. Otherwise you're just throwing bombs around for kicks, which is fine if that's how you get your thrills, I guess.

I certainly don't feel that I live a pitiable difficult life as a victim of anything, so given that you completely misinterpreted my post on both points, I'm not really sure what you were reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then aren't Renaissance Festivals equally or even more politically incorrect? At least half the population, women, should be offended as that period romanticizes a time when women were often essentially treated as property. If the parents decided who they should marry, the woman had no choice in the matter. And after marriage, they were considered the property of the husband and could be treated any way he chose without repercussions. In addition to the degradation of women, the common person could also be and often was treated like dirt.

I hate to bring this up, as now some group may start protesting Renaissance Festivals.

I agree that the concept seems similar, but the arbiters of political correctness (I say that instead of “society” because I do believe in systemic racism) has made the choice that racism is not socially acceptable and, especially over the past year, that things that are associated with it or that seem to glorify, uphold (or in some cases, not actively repudiate), or are reminders of racist history are also racist and shouldn’t be tolerated or perpetuated. So under that framework, antebellum is racist.

We have not, collectively, made that choice about misogyny. We just haven’t. So Renaissance Festivals aren’t seen as worthy of protest and social shaming as antebellum parties.

This is insulting to a lot of people on a lot of levels. Maybe in 20 or 20 years, you'll understand why. Maybe.

In the meantime, I'll give you the pity you feel you deserve for the pitiable difficult life you have led as a constant victim of misogyny and racism.

It wasn't meant to be, so if you think it's insulting, explain why and I'll respond. Otherwise you're just throwing bombs around for kicks, which is fine if that's how you get your thrills, I guess.

I certainly don't feel that I live a pitiable difficult life as a victim of anything, so given that you completely misinterpreted my post on both points, I'm not really sure what you were reading.

Maybe someday you'll understand why your post was insulting to a lot of different people.