SHEPARD SMITH HAS A WORD FOR OLE MISS FANS
That’s what Ole Miss students are chanting at the end of “From Dixie With Love.” Please note that these are Ole Miss students, not alumni, who are certainly trying on the phrase with the kind of naive pissiness you find in high school grafitti artists or a white elementary schooler saying the N-word just to see what happens.
The President of the University has threatened to ban the song altogether, which would work after a period of GRRRR OUTRAGE. Go ahead and do it. Like the Confederate flag flap here in Georgia, it will die off, and racists will latch onto something else because they’re not that smart and therefore easily distracted. In this case, you can distract outraged Ole Miss undergrads with a 12 pack of Miller Lite and a sundress. We suggest the administration subtly stack piles of both at the site of any demonstrations. If this fails, try sparkly pictures of Obama, as this combines both shiny things and the ultimate horror of a Democratic black president.
You could also make the argument that it’s not hateful to the black players who play for your football team, who see your white columned and fictional antebellum paradise as a labor camp filled with death, imprisonment, rape, and the endless annihilation of their families, freedom, dignity, and humanity. Try that. It would be fun! Getting punched by a 300 pound man is just like getting slapped, except that your face comes off and you shit your pants from shock. You’ll find your historical arguments to be, um, unpersuasive to say the least.
Shepard Smith says it better than we can, though, and he’s on Fox News. HE MUST BE RIGHT LISTEN TO HIS RUBBERY PEOPLEMASK SPEAK THE TRUTH. The alumni know better than to do this shit because they know their ass from a hole in the ground, and also because they are old, or because chanting stuff requires energy, and that’s hard to muster if you’ve already had five Jack and Cokes on the day. We like to think positively, so we’ll assume it’s the former and not the latter.
Loading ...
101
Anonymous IV says:
I have nothing to add that has not already been said by more eloquent voices. But I will add my disgust to this display by people that are ignorant of how their actions, or in this case their words, are perceived.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
102
Phocion says:
@74: You might what to get a little more chalk for your hands because your grasp of the Constitution seems a bit tenous. “Asking” and “Banning” are two different things.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
103
General Apu says:
While we are at this, can Bryant Denny discontinue the use of “Dixieland Delight?” Maybe replace with “Afternoon Delight”?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
104
dc trojan says:
Not You @67
That’s a pretty unconvincing explanation of the political economies of northern versus southern states. The major landowners in the south continued precisely the type of economic growth that had been put in place during the colonial era: large landholdings, high concentration of land, profit from export of primary sector agricultural goods, suppression of labor costs through slavery, all maintained through political alliance of coastal traders and landowners. The north didn’t create that, it was their efforts to institute protectionist barriers to trade that would have crippled the export business of the south.
Why do you think the British were happy to help the Confederacy? It wasn’t because they were slavery enthusiasts – they’d even managed to (officially) ban it by then – but because their economy was based on extracting resources, processing them in the UK, and exporting them back. They forced India into that position and they used investment to create those kinds of trading patterns in Argentina and Brazil.
It’s possible that the northern states were reinforcing existing economic patterns pre-Civil War but they sure as hell didn’t create them and they sure as hell weren’t trying to maintain them. If the Confederacy had succeeded in remaining outside the Union, I would put money on those states looking like Brazil now, economically speaking. (Whether or not there would have been samba and bunda outside of New Orleans, I cannot say.)
Southern landowners made and maintained the pre-war economic system you described. Not the north.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
105
RaginCajunRebel says:
@dc trojan (@104): so you’re sayin’ we’d have the Olympics? Sweet.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
106
Dirty Flip says:
@42 Quite possibly the best quote I have seen regarding the issue.
Whoever started this chant should be hit in the junk with a sandpaper covered crowbar.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
107
NOLAcane says:
RaginCajunRebel and Jim Halpert smashed it out of the park.
Everyone else here is completely missing the point, arguing about agricultural economy and heritage and what not. While you are debating and singing, LSU and Tennessee just stole your recruits by saying “lol racists lolz”
What’s important is not what was said, but rather what was heard.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
108
Dexter McCluster's Magic Shoes says:
The Godfrey Show has an excellent take on all of this:
http://thegodfreyshow.com/2009/11/04/the-first-and-last-thing-ill-say-about-tswra/comment-page-1/#comment-9158
As a fairly recent graduate of Ole Miss, I can assure you WE didn’t chant this stupid shit. It’s not a tradition. The students doing it should be tied to a tree in the Grove in full LSU regalia on gameday. And the administration couldnt’ have handled the situation with any less common sense.
Ole Miss – when it rains it pours shit buckets.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
109
dc trojan says:
NOLACane @107 – I’m sure you’re right, I just can’t help myself.
RCR @ 105 – I don’t see why not. If the IOC is willing to give the Olympics to a city with the organizational skills of a plastered 5 year old, I don’t see why NOLA shouldn’t have been in with a chance – although they are overqualified next to Rio. I would have paid good money to see that, though.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
110
the ex-croominator says:
From Godfrey’s column:
“Write the word “no” on any inanimate object in the whole of Lafayette County and within hours 50 former high school honor roll students will attempt to destroy it, imbibe it, deface it, copulate with it or at the very least drunkenly ask it for a ride to Chevron.”
A succinct description of the present student body, or frankly even past student bodies. Hell basically anybody between the ages of 18 and 23, ever. Make that object “cow” and replace “Lafayette” with “Oktibbeha” and you’ve got State.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
111
Brizzle says:
In response to this whole situation: See also-AIDS, Gayer than.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
112
oc phil says:
DC @ 109: Have you ever been to Rio? I love NOLA, but NOLA to Rio is like Jr.High flag football to the SEC.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
113
NCT says:
Holy mother of pearl. Shepard Smith has the gayest eyes in network news.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
114
DevilGrad says:
From #37: “PEOPLE FROM THE NORTH CAN’T COOK WORTH A FUCK!”
This is your compromise solution, right here.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
115
Lawrence says:
My cousin, Rob Evans, was the head basketball coach at the University of Mississippi (I refuse to use the other term). He had great success at the school and made great friends, but the presence of the Rebel flag and the constant insensitivity of people to the disdain African Americans have toward the Confederacy and the symbols of the Confederacy, meant that he found it difficult to convince black recruits to come to that school. It’s too bad that short sighted people don’t understand that African American families gather at Thanksgiving and talk about the cruelty of slavery, and the terrible civil rights injustices done under the Rebel flag as a symbol of white supremacy. This isn’t some history book stuff guys. This is my grandmother talking about living in South Texas, afraid of night riders coming to shoot black men. Of graveyards full of my relatives. And to hear people sing a song that says the South will rise again, says that you are hoping for a future that is represented by that past. And that is an abomination.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
116
The Ghost of Jay Cutler says:
@Lawrence 115
Durant, is that you?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
117
ben hill gryphon says:
Wow… this is the most epic thread since some one said something unflattering about Bobby Lee (I believe it was the same audio clip in which the other Bobby [Bowden] was mocked – “They deeyud, they deeyud, but they’re good keeyuds”). Nothing gets Southerners on both sides more riled up than a heritage vs. hatred discussion.
But the bottom line is, as I learned at a court mandated AA meeting, you can’t judge others by their actions and yourself by your intentions. I doubt the Ole Miss students are deliberately trying to sound racist and are just performing what they see as some sort of tribal rite, but that doesn’t matter. Anything remotely controversial that happens at Ole Miss is going to be filtered through the prism of the past, much of which is shameful.
The changes made in the culture there are something to be proud of and no other school in the SEC has done more to dig themselves out of a hole (no mattter how self-engineered) than Ole Miss. But the fact remains, Ole Miss will be seen as the barometer of residual southern racism by any casual observer of The South.
So fair or not, the Rebs need to hold themselves to a higher standard than other schools.
also – Thanks DC Trojan for the succinct history lesson – a dispassionate look at the economic motives of people is usually the best way to understand large movements.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
118
Golden Hand says:
I think one problem is that these younguns do not know what “rise” means in this context. I was a reasonably well read young redneck in my teens, and I thought it meant “rise to the top,” to excel, or rise out of poverty and defeat and whatnot.
It does not mean this, young ignorant people. In the 19th century sense, it means rise in armed revolt. As in start another retarded war so that hereditarily rich people won’t have to pay wages to their farm workers, and can buy and sell them literally as livestock. That’s what The South Will Rise Again means. Stop it.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
119
ben hill gryphon says:
Christ – didn’t mean to sound like a Marxist in my shout-out to DC Trojan
November 5th, 2009 at 12:59 am
120
MrRedDevil says:
I think we can all agree that LSU can go to hell.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:29 am
121
wvjgrad69 says:
Clearly, they also need singing lessons.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:35 am
122
Biggus Rickus says:
Two things:
1) If a chant is chanted and no one can understand it, is it racist? Because I had no idea what those guys were saying.
2) They’re nicknamed the Rebels, with an old south aristocrat in their logo. If this chant is offensive, how is that not?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
123
meatybob says:
@DC Trojan
First, let me just say that this discussion is purely on the reconstruction and the prewar south, and I have no interest in being apart of this Ole Miss discussion. I am having trouble believing that the Southern economy simply “picked up where it left off” after the war. First, yes, the South economy wasn’t exactly industrialized prewar, but the Civil War destroyed the South’s infrastructure, whereas the North the untouched. So much so that the South’s GDP wasn’t even half compared to what is was before. (I think) So in the subsequent years post 1865, much of the income generated by the South economy with diverted from investment for continued growth to rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, railroads, etc. Its like with the Solow model, none of the income generated by the production function went into producing more capital. So I am not so sure that the South continued its economic structure post war because it was desirable, I think it is more likely that the South had no choice. I am sure that many a plantation owner would have loved nothing more that to own a textile factory and capture those profits, but you cant industrialize without large investments in capital and the south really have no income for it. Coupled with the fact that the war reduced the GDP by more than 50% (think), it was impossible for the southern economy to be able to grow since it was impossible to invest vs. rebuild.
Granted, you may again argue why did the south didn’t industrialize pre-war. I would bet that has to do alot more to do with the poor transportation routes in the South. The Ohio River and associated rivers and Great Lakes are kick ass transportation routes. Not to mention the development of the Eric Canal, which in turn was possible due to the relatively low terrain in the middle of NY, which allowed goods in the Midwest to be shipped entirely within the US, avoiding Canada, is the #1 reason today why NY is a city of 20 million and not just another Philadelphia or Boston. Comparing that to the south, well, the Tennessee River sucks ass to navigate, and the Mississippi was way on the other side the south at that time, so it was hard to even get to it. The north had alot of advantages in these regards. Now the railroad would have been a great equalizer, but that was just starting to come into its own during Civil War times (for instance, the transcontinental railroad was finished during the Civil War, or right around there), and post war, again, the South economy was again strapped with rebuilding itself and repairing what few railroads existed, much less building new ones.
So I do disagree that the system was, for lack of a better word, “decided” by Southern decision makers, it would have been happened anyway prewar for there was no other option outside of some crazy outside interference. If fact, even without slavery, I don’t think anything really would have been different, just substitute African Americans with European Immigrants, which lets be honest, had to deal with near slave-like conditions in the northern states, who were enjoying cheap labor themselves. Was it better for the immigrant, probably, but not much.
So, while the North didn’t setup the South economic conditions prewar, I am not sure sure the Southern landowners deliberately did as well. Whatever one thinks about if the North “should have” is another discussion, but the North barely assisted with reconstruction effects, which is true, and that indifference to rebuilding the south really did hinder its economic growth of the south.
Lastly, concerning “If the Confederacy had succeeded in remaining outside the Union, I would put money on those states looking like Brazil now, economically speaking.” That’s a big reach, considering how much the Civil War depressed the economic growth and the development of the railroad in the south . If there was no war and with the increased investment in railroads, I would wager that the South today would be much more industrialized than Brazil. Probably less in population than the north, but the national income per person I bet would be somewhat close, if not similar to what it is today. There is lots of research on economic convergence by economists to explain that point. In fact (and please understand that I am not justifying slavery by no means), I would bet that by the late 1800s, northern business would have relocated or would have no longer been competitive by southern companies because of the cheaper labor costs. Which ironically probably would have caused another war.
Anyhoo, my 2 cents worth.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
124
canuck says:
“Was it better for the immigrant, probably, but not much.”
@123, Sure, but “Mick” voted and eventually led. The biggest “indifference to rebuilding the south” was manifest in not caring to or being able to protect the 15th amendment. Whatever the root causes that “really did hinder its economic growth”. Corruption, exploitation, resources and economics to one side, inclusion beats the hell out of exclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
“On a per capita and absolute basis, more blacks were elected to political office during the period from 1865 to 1880 than at any other time in American history. Although no state elected a black governor during Reconstruction, a number of state legislatures were effectively under the control of a substantial African American caucus”
November 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
125
dc trojan says:
oc phil @ 112, not yet. I’m sure you’re right, but I am a very uptight northern European. I suspect that NOLA is about as untethered as I can cope with.
ben hill gryphon @ 119 – while others have and will in the future call me a damn commie, there’s nothing Marxist about the principle that money talks.
meatybob @ 123 – I take a number of your points, especially as they concern the effect of lower cost bulk transportation in the north directing northern economic development in a particular direction versus in the south. However, I’m not wholly convinced that you can exempt southern landowners from having a stake in their economy continuing as was: even a generation or three who didn’t start it had every reason to maintain as it was. If they profit from cotton and can get what they want via trade in cotton, there’s no compelling reason to industrialize. The local market isn’t that great, the north is ahead of you anyway, why not focus on getting more profit out of what you already do?
Now when it comes to reinvestment after the war, I completely agree that the capital wasn’t there to be invested in more than basic infrastructure, but it’s not like land ownership patterns had changed all that much, nor indeed control of what little capital there was. In other words, even if there had been more capital, I’m not sure I believe it would have been directed into economically and thus politically disruptive directions.
In the counterfactual alternative that I described, a Confederacy which had succeeded in seceding could have rebuilt and invested in rail quickly. International capital flows were pretty advanced in the mid to late 1860s and there’s no reason that they couldn’t have gained investment in rail to increase their transit capacity. But since the money for investment would be coming from the UK or other European country looking for raw materials, it would have been tied to the transport of those items. Again, if you’re a landowner or the Georgian equivalent of a Porteno, who cares if you industrialize? As long as the money is flowing. Besides, a working class is concentrated and chippy – they might even start trying to increase their wages! Unacceptable.
That doesn’t mean that slavery would necessarily have continued, though: primary sector goods – with the possible exception of oil – tend to decline in price over time, and while you can’t drive labor prices any lower than with slavery, you can mechanize. That would have been about the only outcome that could have – at least in material terms – sucked any more for slaves: to be cast loose with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Oh wait, that happened.
I guess I just don’t see an incentive to industrialize. You suggested that northern companies might have moved down for cheaper labor costs, and while that’s certainly true today, the northern states of the late 19th century were over-run with surplus / cheap labor because of mass immigration – they wouldn’t have had any need to look to the south absent an increase in labor costs, which would only have happened after the Civil War if the north had restricted immigration. And countries like Brazil that have tried to move from primary sector to manufacturing and services economies almost all did it because political power moved from landowners to urban populations who forced changes to programs like import substitution industrialization. That was a heady combination of socialist and mercantile thinking which – if the present is any hint – probably wouldn’t have taken root in the north.
But since this is all a counter-factual argument I could be completely full of it. Wouldn’t be the first time.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pm