Why is ante bellum racist?

[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:My friends who were Kappas at UGA went to parties like this with KAs where they would wear those hoop skirt dresses and the men dressed like confederate generals. I've seen the photos. I cannot believe they had that in the late 90s. And I went to Chapel Hill, which is in the south but we didn't even those kind of parties. I mean tons of photos (the ones where the professional photographers comes and it has the date, the name of the frat/sorority and name of the party on the bottom). They told me you had to rent the dresses and uniforms. Gross all around. And friends would post on their fb page writing "OMG look at how young we were, ha ha."

People can be so stupid.

To be grossed out by costumes really is kind of stupid.

It’s really weird to me that this has been explained several times on this thread - Confederate cosplay glories slavery - and you still pretend not to see it. When people say and type this kind of thing, it’s difficult to pretend that it doesn’t come from a place of deep, unexamined racism.

That's your opinion, but it is not the opinion of those who engage in Confederate cosplay. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear the costume?

NP, but uh, is this a serious question? That’s like saying “In your opinion, KKK robes are offensive and worn by domestic terrorists, but that’s not the opinion of those who are Klansmen. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear KKK robes?”

What about movies depicting that era? How should the actors dress? Should those movies be banned as well?

I take it that nuance isn't really your thing

DP. Nor is it yours. Nor do you seem aware that HBO pulled Gone with the Wind for it's racism until people complained and they put it back with contextual explainers for how it ignores the horrors of slavery. Which is a fine solution to me, but if that works, why can't I dress like Scarlet O'Hara at a party without endorsing either greed or racism?

Because your costume, presumably, won’t include explicit condemnation of slavery, oppression, and racism, which will give the appearance that you are romanticizing a fictional slave owner and her life story, which was rife with racism. If you felt strongly about condemning the glorification of these things, you wouldn’t pick that costume in the first place. When was the last time you watched Gone With the Wind? You might not accurately remember just how racist it is. It’s painful to watch the depictions of the slaves.

Dob't kmow if I really need an explicit disclaimer for a party, but if anyone asked, I would give them one. I personally don't feel I need to strongly condemn the horrors of the past every time I watch a movie or dress up in a costume. Sorry, I just don't. I remember Gone with the Wind quite well. Yes, there are things that are painful to watch. But all the more reason to watch it. Horrible as it is, it is who we are. Humans have done horrible things and we still do horrible things. Hiding from these things will not change them. And wearing a costume does not mean you endorse them.

Please, hold an Eagle’s Nest themed party. You seem to really enjoy going for it with the offensive stuff, and it’s such a weird hill to die on. Why celebrate something that’s well understood to be terrible. I used to be a BIG GWTW fan, like had paper dolls, the cookbook, all that stuff. And I believed some of the horrible stuff that Margaret Mitchell wrote and implied.

If you enjoy dressing up (and I have to say, I look askance at adults who feel the need to cosplay. It’s sad), pick another era that is not a de facto celebration of the enslavement of millions.

Yes, I support everyone's right to free expression which includes allowing people to dress in silly costumes and be offensive. I don't support this because I want to do it myself, I support it because if mere offensiveness becames the standard for what is impermissible, then everything becomes subject to attack by moral busybodies. I hold free expression to be a higher good than not being offensive.

DP. Do you support people's right to express their offense, because that's also free expression.

Exactly. You have the right to do it, and I have the right to call you a racist for doing it. Your right to free expression doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and no one ever call you on 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:

Anonymous wrote:My friends who were Kappas at UGA went to parties like this with KAs where they would wear those hoop skirt dresses and the men dressed like confederate generals. I've seen the photos. I cannot believe they had that in the late 90s. And I went to Chapel Hill, which is in the south but we didn't even those kind of parties. I mean tons of photos (the ones where the professional photographers comes and it has the date, the name of the frat/sorority and name of the party on the bottom). They told me you had to rent the dresses and uniforms. Gross all around. And friends would post on their fb page writing "OMG look at how young we were, ha ha."

People can be so stupid.

To be grossed out by costumes really is kind of stupid.

It’s really weird to me that this has been explained several times on this thread - Confederate cosplay glories slavery - and you still pretend not to see it. When people say and type this kind of thing, it’s difficult to pretend that it doesn’t come from a place of deep, unexamined racism.

That's your opinion, but it is not the opinion of those who engage in Confederate cosplay. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear the costume?

NP, but uh, is this a serious question? That’s like saying “In your opinion, KKK robes are offensive and worn by domestic terrorists, but that’s not the opinion of those who are Klansmen. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear KKK robes?”

What about movies depicting that era? How should the actors dress? Should those movies be banned as well?

I take it that nuance isn't really your thing

DP. Nor is it yours. Nor do you seem aware that HBO pulled Gone with the Wind for it's racism until people complained and they put it back with contextual explainers for how it ignores the horrors of slavery. Which is a fine solution to me, but if that works, why can't I dress like Scarlet O'Hara at a party without endorsing either greed or racism?

Because your costume, presumably, won’t include explicit condemnation of slavery, oppression, and racism, which will give the appearance that you are romanticizing a fictional slave owner and her life story, which was rife with racism. If you felt strongly about condemning the glorification of these things, you wouldn’t pick that costume in the first place. When was the last time you watched Gone With the Wind? You might not accurately remember just how racist it is. It’s painful to watch the depictions of the slaves.

Dob't kmow if I really need an explicit disclaimer for a party, but if anyone asked, I would give them one. I personally don't feel I need to strongly condemn the horrors of the past every time I watch a movie or dress up in a costume. Sorry, I just don't. I remember Gone with the Wind quite well. Yes, there are things that are painful to watch. But all the more reason to watch it. Horrible as it is, it is who we are. Humans have done horrible things and we still do horrible things. Hiding from these things will not change them. And wearing a costume does not mean you endorse them.

Please, hold an Eagle’s Nest themed party. You seem to really enjoy going for it with the offensive stuff, and it’s such a weird hill to die on. Why celebrate something that’s well understood to be terrible. I used to be a BIG GWTW fan, like had paper dolls, the cookbook, all that stuff. And I believed some of the horrible stuff that Margaret Mitchell wrote and implied.

If you enjoy dressing up (and I have to say, I look askance at adults who feel the need to cosplay. It’s sad), pick another era that is not a de facto celebration of the enslavement of millions.

Yes, I support everyone's right to free expression which includes allowing people to dress in silly costumes and be offensive. I don't support this because I want to do it myself, I support it because if mere offensiveness becames the standard for what is impermissible, then everything becomes subject to attack by moral busybodies. I hold free expression to be a higher good than not being offensive.

DP. Do you support people's right to express their offense, because that's also free expression.

Yes

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friends who were Kappas at UGA went to parties like this with KAs where they would wear those hoop skirt dresses and the men dressed like confederate generals. I've seen the photos. I cannot believe they had that in the late 90s. And I went to Chapel Hill, which is in the south but we didn't even those kind of parties. I mean tons of photos (the ones where the professional photographers comes and it has the date, the name of the frat/sorority and name of the party on the bottom). They told me you had to rent the dresses and uniforms. Gross all around. And friends would post on their fb page writing "OMG look at how young we were, ha ha."

People can be so stupid.

To be grossed out by costumes really is kind of stupid.

It’s really weird to me that this has been explained several times on this thread - Confederate cosplay glories slavery - and you still pretend not to see it. When people say and type this kind of thing, it’s difficult to pretend that it doesn’t come from a place of deep, unexamined racism.

That's your opinion, but it is not the opinion of those who engage in Confederate cosplay. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear the costume?

NP, but uh, is this a serious question? That’s like saying “In your opinion, KKK robes are offensive and worn by domestic terrorists, but that’s not the opinion of those who are Klansmen. Why should I trust your opinion over the opinion of the people who actually wear KKK robes?”

What about movies depicting that era? How should the actors dress? Should those movies be banned as well?

I take it that nuance isn't really your thing

DP. Nor is it yours. Nor do you seem aware that HBO pulled Gone with the Wind for it's racism until people complained and they put it back with contextual explainers for how it ignores the horrors of slavery. Which is a fine solution to me, but if that works, why can't I dress like Scarlet O'Hara at a party without endorsing either greed or racism?

Because your costume, presumably, won’t include explicit condemnation of slavery, oppression, and racism, which will give the appearance that you are romanticizing a fictional slave owner and her life story, which was rife with racism. If you felt strongly about condemning the glorification of these things, you wouldn’t pick that costume in the first place. When was the last time you watched Gone With the Wind? You might not accurately remember just how racist it is. It’s painful to watch the depictions of the slaves.

Dob't kmow if I really need an explicit disclaimer for a party, but if anyone asked, I would give them one. I personally don't feel I need to strongly condemn the horrors of the past every time I watch a movie or dress up in a costume. Sorry, I just don't. I remember Gone with the Wind quite well. Yes, there are things that are painful to watch. But all the more reason to watch it. Horrible as it is, it is who we are. Humans have done horrible things and we still do horrible things. Hiding from these things will not change them. And wearing a costume does not mean you endorse them.

Please, hold an Eagle’s Nest themed party. You seem to really enjoy going for it with the offensive stuff, and it’s such a weird hill to die on. Why celebrate something that’s well understood to be terrible. I used to be a BIG GWTW fan, like had paper dolls, the cookbook, all that stuff. And I believed some of the horrible stuff that Margaret Mitchell wrote and implied.

If you enjoy dressing up (and I have to say, I look askance at adults who feel the need to cosplay. It’s sad), pick another era that is not a de facto celebration of the enslavement of millions.

Yes, I support everyone's right to free expression which includes allowing people to dress in silly costumes and be offensive. I don't support this because I want to do it myself, I support it because if mere offensiveness becames the standard for what is impermissible, then everything becomes subject to attack by moral busybodies. I hold free expression to be a higher good than not being offensive.

Great. You have the right to be offensive. That was never in doubt. First Amendment. Got it. That wasn't the OP's question, though. Their question is about the intent and whether that intent is racist or not.

People who believe it’s racist don’t have to attend the parties. Very simple.

If there was an activity that was completely nonessential, that I did just for fun, and multiple people explained to me why the activity is offensive and even considered racist, and that it’s demeaning to many people who are descended of slaves, and that it belittles their ancestors’ brutal oppression, I’d be very apologetic and immediately cease participation in that activity. I’m hard pressed to come up with a decent explanation for why anyone would dig in their heals and keep defending these parties. They just come off as people thinking they’ve found a more genteel way of expressing their love of the Confederacy than adorning a pickup truck with a Confederate flag.

Because there are plenty of activities that large numbers of other people consider offensive but we allow such activities no matter how offended other people are. I don't think we should be picking and choosing what people are allowed to be offended by and what they are not. You don't have to agree with this position, but I don't think it's hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Looking back at pop culture is always going to be slightly horrifying. Friends is loaded with gay jokes. Harry Potter fat shames. My mom’s old cookbook is ridiculously sexist. Lady Antebellum is now Lady A. Redskins, Indians, on and on on.

We can learn from it without freaking out. The freaking out is really freaking me out.

[Anonymous]

It truly amazes me that there are women who are so ignorant as to want cosplay the antebellum South. Not only was it a defining symbol of slavery, it was also a period with a complete lack of women's rights. Women were legally much like children:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/womens-rights-in-antebellum-america/#:~:text=Women%20were%20unable%20to%20vote,the%20legal%20status%20of%20children.

At the same time, revivalism emphasized women’s unique potential and obligation to cultivate Christian values and spirituality in the “domestic sphere.” There were also real legal limits to what women could do outside of it. Women were unable to vote, men gained legal control over their wives’ property, and women with children had no legal rights over their offspring. Additionally, women could not initiate divorce, make wills, or sign contracts. Women effectively held the legal status of children.

You are fantasizing about a period where non-whites were slaves and women were legally children. And trying to separate the luxuries of the wealthy South from the way of life that gave white men that wealth and power is amazingly naive. If you can't see what you are symbolizing and revering for what it is, I'm very sorry for you. It's pretty ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Because there are plenty of activities that large numbers of other people consider offensive but we allow such activities no matter how offended other people are. I don't think we should be picking and choosing what people are allowed to be offended by and what they are not. You don't have to agree with this position, but I don't think it's hard to understand.

+1
DD was a witch for Halloween several years in a row. Doesn't mean I like witches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because there are plenty of activities that large numbers of other people consider offensive but we allow such activities no matter how offended other people are. I don't think we should be picking and choosing what people are allowed to be offended by and what they are not. You don't have to agree with this position, but I don't think it's hard to understand.

+1
DD was a witch for Halloween several years in a row. Doesn't mean I like witches.

That’s so disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because there are plenty of activities that large numbers of other people consider offensive but we allow such activities no matter how offended other people are. I don't think we should be picking and choosing what people are allowed to be offended by and what they are not. You don't have to agree with this position, but I don't think it's hard to understand.

+1
DD was a witch for Halloween several years in a row. Doesn't mean I like witches.

That’s so disingenuous.

+1
Real, actual descendants of slaves tell you that this is offensive. “It’s my right or anyone’s right to be offensive! Lots of people find lots of stuff offensive!! But people can keep doing it!” No one is tell you that YOU have to be offended (though I sense the phrase “paddy wagon” or a judicious use of someone calling you by a certain 1950s first name sends you into paroxysms).

You know what these little cosplays are? White people bragging that they still have so much societal power that they can fantasize they’re back in the “good old days” when people knew their place. People who do this and defend this are so disgustingly stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It truly amazes me that there are women who are so ignorant as to want cosplay the antebellum South. Not only was it a defining symbol of slavery, it was also a period with a complete lack of women's rights. Women were legally much like children:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/womens-rights-in-antebellum-america/#:~:text=Women%20were%20unable%20to%20vote,the%20legal%20status%20of%20children.

At the same time, revivalism emphasized women’s unique potential and obligation to cultivate Christian values and spirituality in the “domestic sphere.” There were also real legal limits to what women could do outside of it. Women were unable to vote, men gained legal control over their wives’ property, and women with children had no legal rights over their offspring. Additionally, women could not initiate divorce, make wills, or sign contracts. Women effectively held the legal status of children.

You are fantasizing about a period where non-whites were slaves and women were legally children. And trying to separate the luxuries of the wealthy South from the way of life that gave white men that wealth and power is amazingly naive. If you can't see what you are symbolizing and revering for what it is, I'm very sorry for you. It's pretty ignorant.

Is it possible that someone could know all that and still just like the dresses? Does moral abhorrence for their lifestyle mean we have to hate their clothes too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It truly amazes me that there are women who are so ignorant as to want cosplay the antebellum South. Not only was it a defining symbol of slavery, it was also a period with a complete lack of women's rights. Women were legally much like children:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/womens-rights-in-antebellum-america/#:~:text=Women%20were%20unable%20to%20vote,the%20legal%20status%20of%20children.

At the same time, revivalism emphasized women’s unique potential and obligation to cultivate Christian values and spirituality in the “domestic sphere.” There were also real legal limits to what women could do outside of it. Women were unable to vote, men gained legal control over their wives’ property, and women with children had no legal rights over their offspring. Additionally, women could not initiate divorce, make wills, or sign contracts. Women effectively held the legal status of children.

You are fantasizing about a period where non-whites were slaves and women were legally children. And trying to separate the luxuries of the wealthy South from the way of life that gave white men that wealth and power is amazingly naive. If you can't see what you are symbolizing and revering for what it is, I'm very sorry for you. It's pretty ignorant.

Is it possible that someone could know all that and still just like the dresses? Does moral abhorrence for their lifestyle mean we have to hate their clothes too?

Are people just wearing these dresses at any old social gathering anywhere or are they wearing them to plantations? Context matters. You could wear one of those dresses, call yourself Mary Todd Lincoln, and use a venue that isn’t a plantation, but nobody does that.

[Anonymous]

People who romanticize that time period (myself included) do it because we enjoy the ambiance and aesthetics of it. The fate of slaves is usually the last thing on my mind. Actually, it’s not on my mind at all. I just wish i was born back then into a wealthy family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who romanticize that time period (myself included) do it because we enjoy the ambiance and aesthetics of it. The fate of slaves is usually the last thing on my mind. Actually, it’s not on my mind at all.
I just wish i was born back then into a wealthy family.

Yes, we know. That’s what we’re taking issue with.

You want to be wealthy during the ante bellum period and dress like that and have fancy parties at Southern plantations, while failing to acknowledge the fate of slaves? There’s a name for people did that: SLAVEOWNERS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It truly amazes me that there are women who are so ignorant as to want cosplay the antebellum South. Not only was it a defining symbol of slavery, it was also a period with a complete lack of women's rights. Women were legally much like children:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/womens-rights-in-antebellum-america/#:~:text=Women%20were%20unable%20to%20vote,the%20legal%20status%20of%20children.

At the same time, revivalism emphasized women’s unique potential and obligation to cultivate Christian values and spirituality in the “domestic sphere.” There were also real legal limits to what women could do outside of it. Women were unable to vote, men gained legal control over their wives’ property, and women with children had no legal rights over their offspring. Additionally, women could not initiate divorce, make wills, or sign contracts. Women effectively held the legal status of children.

You are fantasizing about a period where non-whites were slaves and women were legally children. And trying to separate the luxuries of the wealthy South from the way of life that gave white men that wealth and power is amazingly naive. If you can't see what you are symbolizing and revering for what it is, I'm very sorry for you. It's pretty ignorant.

Is it possible that someone could know all that and still just like the dresses? Does moral abhorrence for their lifestyle mean we have to hate their clothes too?

Are people just wearing these dresses at any old social gathering anywhere or are they wearing them to plantations? Context matters. You could wear one of those dresses, call yourself Mary Todd Lincoln, and use a venue that isn’t a plantation, but nobody does that.

As 21:39 said, they like the aesthetic so they go all in. It doesn't mean they are ignorant of the past or would like to go back to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who romanticize that time period (myself included) do it because we enjoy the ambiance and aesthetics of it. The fate of slaves is usually the last thing on my mind. Actually, it’s not on my mind at all.
I just wish i was born back then into a wealthy family.

Yes, we know. That’s what we’re taking issue with.

You want to be wealthy during the ante bellum period and dress like that and have fancy parties at Southern plantations, while failing to acknowledge the fate of slaves? There’s a name for people did that: SLAVEOWNERS.

The difference between fantasy and reality is that a fantasy ignores all the bad stuff. The slaveowners most certainly did acknowledge the fate of their slaves, because their reality required it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who romanticize that time period (myself included) do it because we enjoy the ambiance and aesthetics of it. The fate of slaves is usually the last thing on my mind. Actually, it’s not on my mind at all.
I just wish i was born back then into a wealthy family.

Yes, we know. That’s what we’re taking issue with.

You want to be wealthy during the ante bellum period and dress like that and have fancy parties at Southern plantations, while failing to acknowledge the fate of slaves? There’s a name for people did that: SLAVEOWNERS.

The difference between fantasy and reality is that a fantasy ignores all the bad stuff. The slaveowners most certainly did acknowledge the fate of their slaves, because their reality required it.

Now I’m 99% sure you’re just trolling, but in case you’re not...

If you can’t see why descendants of slaves would find it grotesque and hateful that you fantasize about being one of the people who owned their ancestors, I can’t help you. If you can see that, but don’t care, you’re racist af.