Talk:Culture of the Southern United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing is mentioned of the racial tensions that still do exist in the south --69.232.216.135 06:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Religion

I have removed the statement "The South is highly religious, perhaps more so than any other industrialized culture in the world." Having lived in both North and South for some time this statement seems "highly" unlikely to me and there is no citation for it. First I don't know how you charcaterize "religiousness". The populations of both regions are very engaged in religion. Second, Religion is more varied and therefore less public in the North but no less present. People are accustomed to the kinds of religious performance going on around them and only notice that which is different. So the North notices the religiousness of the South and vice versa. Its a matter of perception of kind, not a matter of real religiousness. The North has a greater variety of religions and is certainly less evangelistic but are people therefore less religious? Percentage of church goers could be mentioned but is not a particularly good measure either as church or synagoge attendence expectations will vary between faiths as will motivations for going. I submit that this is simply a false impression among Northerners deriving from the vociferousness of southern evangelists. DHBoggs (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tobacco section?

Why the tobacco chewing section? Almost no one in the South chews tobacco anymore and it gives a false impression to outsiders. Can it be deleted? Nick 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that section, User:Rjensen did. Perhaps he can explain it. However, the tobacco section is describing the 1860s South, so maybe what we should do is add another paragraph after the current section describing how this cultural trait has changed in recent decades. Thoughts?--Alabamaboy 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Under Cuisine, the first paragraph correctly notes the distinctive nature of southern food preferences, and the second paragraph sneaks in the following contradictory (and ludicrous) statement: in reality there is little difference between the traditional diet of Southerners and the diet in other regions of the U.S. This statement was not carried over from the general Southern Cuisine article, and was apparantly inserted by a jealous yank tired of his bagels and submarine sandwiches. :)

tobacco was central to southern culture for 300+ years (and the dating of the chewing section is explicit). One characteristic about the South: a high respect for history. Rjensen 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"Women could be seen at the doors of their cabins in their bare feet, in their dirty one-piece cotton garments, their chairs tipped back, smoking pipes made of corn cobs into which were fitted reed stems or goose quills..." Sounds like something out of Lil Abner. This is not the culture of the present-day South. Just because it appears in a history book doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I suggest cutting it.
That's how the South was built. The critic has never heard of tobacco--and probably not cotton either. Perhaps the history should be whitewashed before 1970??? Rjensen 05:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that anything be white-washed. I'm just asking why a description about tobacco use from a book published in 1917 is included in an article about modern Southern culture. I'm aware of the importance of tobacco (and cotton) to the economy of the South in the past. This article isn't about the economy of the south. Is the critic aware of that?
"modern" southern culture??? The key to the South is that it is deeply rooted in history. And yes people still poke fun at Lil Abner (see "Beverly Hillbillies") Rjensen 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, "modern" culture. If you can find anything in this article that pertains to the south of 1917, show it to me. The tobacco quote is a good one, well written and telling, and maybe it belong in another part of the Wikipedia. But it sticks out like a sore thumb in this article and I'm remvoving it.
No--every section of the article has material on pre 1930 South. The rural South was a tobacco-chewing society as late as the 1950s or 1960s, as evidenced by thousands of barns carrying Mail Pouch and other ads. Rjensen 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, now you're making an unconfirmed statement about the south of a half-century ago. This really doesn't belong here.
This is the talk page. Have you never seen the barns??--many still have huge ads for chewing tobacco. Rjensen 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The barns? The Beverly Hillbillies? Have you ever read Wiki's Solipsism article?
I did not read the Solipsism article but I did spend the last 10 days driving through the South, observing and talking in depth to about two dozen locals. But the tobacco section now has statistical data as well. Rjensen 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read the Solipsism article. It pertains to you. I notice you put this stuff in "Tobacco chewing," which is where it belongs. Unless you want to include a section called "Corn squeezins" and one called "Hillbilly incest" in this article, kindly refrain from burdening this article with negative and untrue southern stereotypes, your ten-day information odyssey in the South nothwithstanding.
unpleasant customs are not allowed in southern history?

Specifically I cited Center for Disease control data that "In 1992, 30% of all male high school seniors in the southeastern United States were regular users of chewing tobacco or snuff--more than smoked cigarettes," Contrast this with the statement (above) that "Almost no one in the South chews tobacco anymore and it gives a false impression to outsiders. Can it be deleted?" which was signed by User:NickDupree. Fact is the South was closely identified with tobacco from 1600 until today--(they use far more snuff/chewing tobacco than Northerners, says the survey data.) Rjensen 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement. I've lived in Alabama my entire life and never once have seen a spitoon. The section on tobacco is bigger than most, sticks out and creates false impressions. It doesn't fit. Remove it or trim it down. NickDupree 06:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But it's true-- this is a history article and it's a core feature of southern cultural history. False impressions? NickDupree not long ago (in April, see above) claimed "Almost no one in the South chews tobacco anymore" -- apparently unaware that the 30% of high school senior boys are regular users. Sometimes you have to look sharp to see what's happening. An enyclopedia is supposed to tell it like it is. Rjensen 06:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But it's true! <chuckle> I removed the tobacco stuff. It's plain Yankee-dumb.
If people don't respect history they shouldn't tamper with it. Sorry if the truth hurts--chew some tobacco and it won't hurt so much. Chewing/snuff isthe fastest growing segment of tobacco in recent decades and is 3 to 10x more prevalent in South than in North for various age groups. Rjensen 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some sterotypes at work here. Tobacco is an important crop in the south, but then so is cotton. The article should be about southern agriculture not just tobacco. Tobacco is also grown in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, amoung other places. Further, there is no evidence that I know of that tobacco use generally was any less common in the Northern states historically. I can't begin to tell you how many clay pipe fragments I've dug up on archaeology digs in NY, and there was the huge cigar making industry near York Pennsylvania. Indeed, given the Norths far greater population, most sales and use have historically occured in the Northern states, including, I'm sure, chewing tobacco. Times have changed and the north is even more urbanized than ever and Urbanization and health concerns have drastically reduced usage of chewing tobacco. For the South, as a percentage of the population, tobacco chewing could be higher (if you trust those kinds of poles and anthropologists never trust social poles), but so is the portion of urban population - so what exactly are we measuring? Total numbers of chewers in the country and total numbers of users over long periods of time is a different question. Clearly we are not talking about something that is a special feature of Soutern culture. If its historical accuracy you are after you shouldn't be singling out the south for tobacco use. Anecdotally, I might add that "rubbing" snuff and chewing tobacco is quite common among youths in Western and Central Pennsylvania where I grew up. Last time I checked Pennsylvania was a Northern state.DHBoggs (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

At least in California, the South is stereotyped (perhaps unfairly) as being largely full of racists. Perhaps the "unique views" of segregation should be expanded on. Atropos 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: Actually, I mean bigotry and prejudice in general Atropos 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

California the only state that shows Southerners are racist? I have southern heritage and a Californian, and I always thought the southern racist thing was more in the northeast (particularily New York, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts). Also, I don't really see southern stereotyping here, unless you mean around in Hollywood, but most people around Los Angeles weren't even born in California, most of them are from Mexico, or born in a different state. (Zombieduck2 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fantastic

I grew up in Alabama and it may be partly sentiment, but I find this a well-written and accurate article. How do we nominate it to be featured, so that more attention can be drawn to the good points made here? (I hear myself -- I am serious about the article's merit - hometown or no.) --71.82.13.206 01:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film/TV

Surely we can come up with better, more authentic examples of Southern Culture in Film and TV than Gone With the Wind, Sweet Home Alabama and The Dukes of Hazard. If anything these examples perputuate many of the sterotypes that Southerners are subject to.

[edit] Lots of unclear "citation needed"s

In the intro there is: The South hosts a vibrant African American subculture, a sense of rural isolation, a strong regional identity, and more.[citation needed]. It is unclear which of these traits listed needs a citation. Please be more specific. "Rural isolation" may be a stretch, especially compared to, say, North Dakota. If that is the problematic claim, perhaps just delete it?

Another one farther down: most Southern cities and even some smaller towns now offer a wide variety of cuisines of other origins[citation needed] such as Chinese, Italian, French, Middle Eastern, -- does this really require a citation? It is hard to believe that it is hard to find an Italian or Chinese restaurant in Southern cities, or even "some smaller towns".

There are several other "citations needed" which seem unnecessary -- Southern cuisine is a distinctive trait? Rock and roll began in the South? Perhaps these parts could be reworded to be less absolute and the "citations needed" dropped? With them, the page reads as if someone has a bone to pick. Pfly 09:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)