Why is ante bellum racist?

[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.

If the wealthy didn’t have slaves, they would have figured out how to hoard resources regardless. The slavery is gone but the wealthy remain so maybe the slaves weren’t that relevant after all, just an economic mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You called PP a SLAVEOWNER in all caps and you think I'm trolling? Ok.

[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.

If the wealthy didn’t have slaves, they would have figured out how to hoard resources regardless. The slavery is gone but the wealthy remain so maybe the slaves weren’t that relevant after all, just an economic mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You called PP a SLAVEOWNER in all caps and you think I'm trolling? Ok.

I didn’t call her a slave owner, I pointed out that she’s fantasizing about living the life of a slave owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You called PP a SLAVEOWNER in all caps and you think I'm trolling? Ok.

I didn’t call her a slave owner, I pointed out that she’s fantasizing about living the life of a slave owner.

You are reading your own posts much more charitably than you read everyone elses.

[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: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.

Or do business with the racists who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is pretty peak white privilege.

[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.

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.

At least some of the people who do it say there is no racist intent. One is on this thread. Are you saying everyone who says that is lying?

[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.

Wow. And you can’t see that if you had been born then into a wealthy family, and you were female, you would be a legal child? And your family’s wealth could only be created by the enslavement of your neighbor’s ancestors?

[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: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.

At least some of the people who do it say there is no racist intent. One is on this thread. Are you saying everyone who says that is lying?

Lots of clueless white people sing the n word along with the music they’re listening to. That might not have racist intent, but it doesn’t mean the act isn’t offensive.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the people on here that are offended by the word antebellum only refer to it in the context of parties and plantations. Fine. These are “bad”.

But I’m still going to refer to my parents house as antebellum because it predates the civil war, and refer to certain pieces of art and literature as antebellum. Sorry the word itself is NOT offensive. It simply means pre-war. If you see that word to mean 1860s crinoline dresses and plantation culture you are either woefully uneducated or willfully ignorant. Or both.

[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.

Wow. And you can’t see that if you had been born then into a wealthy family, and you were female, you would be a legal child? And your family’s wealth could only be created by the enslavement of your neighbor’s ancestors?

I am not sure the women from wealthy families were suffering and leading dull and uninteresting lives. Not sure at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is pretty peak white privilege.

No, peak white privilege is being invited to the Capitol for a riot because you are white. This is just to right to party in the costume and location of your choice, which everyone has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My ancestors came to the US as paid fighters for the Confederacy. Lincoln freed slaves shortly thereafter so they never really fought and were given land in the Midwest (as was the promised deal) and now here we are. They were Swedish. Pretty sure they had no opinion one way or the other, but apparently life was better here than in Sweden so they stayed. I guess for them the dresses were aspirational?

And yet, African Americans still haven't been given their land.....smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is pretty peak white privilege.

If the slaves were white, what kind of privilege would you call it?