Racism and white nationalism still haunt the region (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Out on the dusty prairie west of Houston, the construction crews have been busy. Gone are the rice fields, cattle ranches and pine forests that once dominated this part of the South. In their place sit new homes and communities. But they are not an eyesore; the homes are affordable and close to attractive town centres, large parks and lakes. These are communities rooted in the individual, the family and a belief in self-governance.
The new American Dream has its heart in the states of the old Confederacy. But its allure does not merely lie in a conservative embrace of lower taxes, less regulation and greater self-reliance, although these surely matter. More important are the opportunities that come from building businesses and owning new homes, not for the privileged few but for an increasingly diverse, and growing, populace.
As Marianne Pina, who came to Dallas as a young adult before founding a five-million-dollar business specialising in minority recruitment and job placement, told me: “The American Dream stereotype still exists here. If you work hard, you can make it. It’s still up to you as an individual.”
But lurking in the background, the South’s rebirth remains threatened by its historical demons: racism, white nationalism and overzealous religious fervour. This is partly because, as the political scientist V.O. Key noted, the South remains the only region of America that has been conquered and subjugated. It is, he wrote in 1949, a prisoner of its racial legacy in its politics and social structure; only when that problem has been addressed can the region ascend to its potential.1 Indeed, the economic consequences of slavery persisted well into the 1960s.2
Even today, despite its ascendance, the South still lags somewhat behind the nation both in income and education levels. It is still castigated by progressive academics (increasingly a redundant concept) for being wedded to “racial conservatism”. It was only in 2013 that liberal chief justice Steve Breyer compared the region’s racial climate to “a plant disease”.
Anyone who has spent time outside academia knows this is increasingly no longer the case. Ever since the 1960s, business leaders in the South have worked overtime to embrace racial diversity, if not for moral reasons, but economic ones.3 Perhaps that explains why people from outside the region are pouring in: the Southern states account for six of the top ten gainers in interstate migration, led by Texas and Florida. In contrast, the biggest losers are the progressive strongholds of New York, Illinois, and California.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m an American who is originally from Chicago who now lives in South Carolina. I’m going to make two statements now that I believe to be true that progressives may have a hard time getting their mind around. 1) The US in general is not very racist. 2) What racism exists in the US is more pronounced in the north of the country, not the south.
I have progressive family in Vermont who are typical of the nothern mindset towards blacks. They are treated like children in need of protection. They know zero black people and their town is 99% white. They support policies like shuttering charter schools, defunding the police, open borders and ending oil energy production that are deeply unpopular with the black community but when I tell them this they think it’s just a “right wing talking point”.
Black people here in my southern town are my neighbors, kid’s teachers, friends and co-workers. People are friendly to one another and respectful regardless of race. There is low crime and people tend to avoid talk of politics or religion with strangers. Where there is racism it exists primarily in small, poor communities that are economically devastated, same as in the north. Most long term Southerners are aware of some of the more unsavory aspects of the past and work to change it. There is far LESS segregation here than back in my northern hometown of Chicago. Also better education and employment prospects for minorities and lower crime.
I’ve had people from the north offer to go to coffee and then ask me if I knew what a latte was. They asked if I was familiar with this exotic thing called “yoga”. As if there aren’t gajillions of coffee shops and yoga studios all over the south. As if we didn’t just go to a lovely dinner party next to a lake this weekend and drink fine wine and eat wonderfully prepared grilled grouper and corn and okra salad. (Although yes, I love BBQ and sweet tea!)
Progressives really seem to be living in their own reality, more so than any conservative I’ve ever met outside of my crazy Uncle Eddie.
So true. I always think of the South as having conservative ‘old fashioned manners’ – which progressives clearly lack
Absolutely true. Northern “educated” liberals and Hollywood are the most racist people I know. They shout from their walled, fenced or doorman-protected high rises about how racist the U.S. is while regular people of all stripes in the South live and work side by side. It’s completely upside down.
Besides, if the South, or America in general, is such a horrible place to be, why on earth are people of color moving there in droves?
Don’t believe the lie. The United States is the least racist country on earth, as evidenced by the vast diversity of people who actually live here.
I I honestly don’t know how you tapped that out with a straight face.
How is it racist?
Are you familiar with the history of race in America? Clearly not.
I am aware that every country has elements of racism in it. In what way is the US more racist than other countries?
Most countries have sordid histories when it comes to race. Including most black majority countries. In fact, the only countries STILL practicing slavery are non-white. Not that I would tar all non-white people with that burden. That would be racist.
Do you know much about about world history? I thought not.
I’m not sure if it qualifies as least racist, bit it has to be near the top. Why are there thousands of Hatians and Hispanics pouring over our border now? Which country is less racist then? Please don’t say Denmark as I have Danish relatives. It’s 99% white and most Danes want to keep it that way. Much less diverse and integrated than imagined by most progressives.
I don’t think we are talking about the same thing. When I talk about race I’m referring to the black population and their lack of opportunity which is well documented and that’s today, not just historically.
We are talking about the same thing. Haitians and other minorities are risking their lives to come to this country because of the opportunities it offers. Black people live better in the US than almost anywhere else, outside of maybe Switzerland or the UK. Majority white countries last I checked.
I have lived on three continents and traveled extensively on four. I concur with the above, the United States is the least racist country on planet earth.
So how long did you live in America for? I was there for 30 years. I also travelled the world extensively and the United States has a distinct, endemic problem with racism.
Where in the US did you live?
Texas and Florida
I have lived in the United States since the mid-80s. 10 of those years in Minnesota, and 25 years in Texas. I was called a “spic” twice in Minnesota, and have experienced zero incidences of personal racism directed towards me in Texas. I have also lived in Latin America and east Africa. I have been traveling in Europe since I was a kid because my father was from Spain, and I went to study there a bit as well. The racism I witnessed in Spain in the 90s hasn’t been seen here in the United States since the 50s. In Latin America, If you are not 100% Spaniard, you are less than. The sense of that is all-encompassing down there. I also have observations about how east Africans treat their Indian (Hindu) immigrants, as well as how badly they treat fellow Africans compared to Europeans. It’s not pretty.
I lived in Texas as well for a few years in my youth and the idea that a state so influenced by Hispanic culture is predominantly anti-Hispanic is laughable to me. I have European ancestry and was surrounded by people of Hispanic origin (no complaints; just saying) and it was to the point where I remember being with a group of bi-lingual Spanish/English friends out for drinks who would go from speaking perfect English to Spanglish to Spanish. Then I would comment and they would apoligize (“sorry, forgot there was a gringo here!”) and then after the next drink go right back into the same progression.
It was actually quite funny. What is even more funny is that I learned that my Spanish is actually much better than my Spanglish. Go figure.
I’ve lived in 6 different countries, I’m originally from the south and now I’m back. The United States is one of the least racist country in earth no matter how hard the left likes to pretend otherwise. There is no endemic problem with racism. There are racists but few and far between. No country is perfect but this one is the best by far. I’ve lived here for almost 70 years. You don’t know what you’re talking about and I seriously doubt you lived here for 30 years. If it was so bad here why did you stay so long and why do so many people want to come here?
It was my husband’s job. And why would you seriously doubt I lived there for 30 years? I also know what I’m talking about. If you have lived in 6 different countries how could you have stayed long enough to fully embrace the culture and all the nuances. I already answered the last question. People go because they’re desperate.
I believe that the United States has a distinct, endemic problem with the media reporting about racism, but very little actually exists in proportion. Of course, there is a legacy of racism, to some extent, everywhere on the planet, but just look at the evidence of so many different groups that have excelled here. I’m not aware of many places in Africa where black people have it any better. I honestly cannot recall the last time an African American was butchered with a machete in the U.S. during the last half century, but you could fill a football stadium with such bodies from Africa.
That is not the sort of racism I am referring to. I am talking about lack of opportunity. There is an excellent book by Matthew Desmond; Evicted. You should read it. The other thing is the blatant voter suppression from republicans for no other reason than they don’t want black people voting. How is that even democracy?
We have plenty in London and Birmingham too.
Leave the bubble. It’s made you sick.
England is neck and neck with Southern Usa, all races rub along ok compared to 40 yrs ago, pity it’s not the same in NI Wales and Scotland but maybe they’ll get the idea as time goes by…
Nothing I love more than northern cosmopolitan privileged progressive elites, sitting in their lofty urban perches with their BLM flags draped from the railing, condescendingly gazing down into the ghettos, sipping their $10 lattes, fully convincing themselves that “tolerance” and “diversity” is why they don’t hold the lower classes to any standard of self improvement that could lead to upward mobility.
They shout “tax the rich” (themselves) not because they particularly enjoy losing more of their money to the government, or actually believe it’s truly an act of benevolence (they always file for their tax refunds), but because like everything they do, it’s a hollow, outward performative act of morality-theater.
They see the lower classes as helpless victims in need of a messiah in the form of government reliance, not autonomous free agents capable of class ascendence. For God’s sake, they don’t even think blacks are capable of acquiring state IDs.
Rich progressives don’t actually want economic fairness or to level the playing field. They want to keep the poor exactly where they are, reliant on state alms. To these elite progs, taxes end up serving as just a membership fee that increases the inaccessibility of their upper class club.
I’d love to see some kind of study or survey that measures the social interaction of classes and races across regions. I’d bet a lot of money the South, as you said, is far more socially normalized, and the North is very much a cradle of a sort of neo soft segregation.
You know they call you a racist behind your back, don’t you?
‘Right-wing talking point’: a euphemism for ‘you’re right but we won’t admit it’? Or, as George Orwell would have put it, ‘we’re going to let it bounce off our consciousness’.
Oh that’s funny, I thought the South was booming because everyone is trying to escape from the progressive ‘utopias’ of Portland and Los Angeles?
It’s not journalism, it’s campaigning.
Yet another example of activists masquerading as academics.
It’s the same these days.
Don’t forget New York City! They have been reduced to begging people to come back.
Another pointless, weak, and transparent attempt to link racism to conservativism— when history and the present show it’s squarely on the Left that it finds its home.
I think you can find discrimination everywhere, left, right, centre, because people are people and they discriminate. But the left do seem to be unhealthily obsessed with race. Race is a term being interchangeably used in place of culture too, which is not the same thing at all. Most of us don’t have an issue with ISIS because they are mostly brown people.
The majority of us sit in the middle – we ain’t perfect but we’re not Nazis or assholes either. This obsession with racial ‘equity’, where everyone is the same and any differences must be due to oppression, is based on a utopianism that just isn’t realistic, and maybe that’s the point. It’s the perpetually useful boogeyman in an ideological war and it is currently the left which is waging it.
I wonder if the ‘Left’ (hugely broad brush description) think in terms of ‘groups’, whether race groups, class groups, wealth groups, and the ‘Right’ think in terms of individuals or families.
Each way of thinking has benefits and penalties. Too much identification with a group is frankly discriminatory against those outside the group and too much identification with the individual can be insensitive to the needs of others.
This article reminds me of many arguments I’ve had with people from the Northern States. So-called “progressives”, I realised quickly that they had zero knowledge of the south. It’s as though they all think everyone there rides around in a flatbed Ford with Klan robes under the seats, looking for black men to lynch. It initially staggered me that supposedly educated people could think that, but as I gained more experience of the “progressive” mindset, very little they do can surprise me anymore.
They watch too many films. In Hollywood rednecks are uniformly racist, cruel and in-bred. And wear dungarees. They’re useful as brainless bad guys so you don’t have to use anyone ‘of colour’ who are only ever the stunning and brave victims of aforementioned rednecks. I guess the North/South divide never really went away.
I moved to the rural South from urban Europe over half a decade ago. It is nothing like what this article describes. On the whole, I find the people here soft-spoken, genteel, and devout. They have feet of clay and are rightly suspicious of the empty promises of progressivism. The South dances to its own music.
Every day I see deer grazing from my porch, eagles soaring in the sky, lightning bugs flashing in the trees, and stars shooting across the sky. I’d hate for my quiet corner of the world to be urbanized. The cities are full of mad people. I may one day leave, but if I do I will forever carry the South with me.
Immigrant complaining about the potential arrival of other immigrants… 🙂
I made no mention of immigrants in my post, nor is it a subject I touch upon very often, if at all, if you feel like trawling through my comments history.
Dumb article. Guy understands little to nothing about the South, and it is wrong to focus on Texas as the South. Not really. Texas is different.
Subheading is also especially dumb, and seemingly unrelated to the article: To save America, the old Confederacy must adapt to progressive politics.
Really? First, why must America be saved? I’m hoping for a peaceful division of America, but I think a Civil War is coming. I’m ok with this. Why? Because I do not want to be a citizen of a country where I do not share basic values/traditions/culture/language with half of my fellow citizens. I would prefer not to be seen as the apotheosis of all things evil: white, straight, male.
So-called progressive politics are not progressive but extreme fascism and must be resisted everywhere and every time. Woke America is not worth saving. Lock and load.
Why would anyone be ok with civil war. All to often they are the most vicious and the victims the must vulnerable. Like the old and the young.
I have no opinion as to whether the US should split or not. But if it does, only if it’s peaceful will it be worthwhile.
I am not American, I am British, but I love the US ( still) especially the South.
Its no different to 1861.. the North or rather Washington will never let any part of the South go peacefully out of the Union, even though there isn`t the factor of Slavery now to prop up the their argument ( or perhaps there still is, perhaps there is still be deep resentment that even after 160 years the Democrats would resent part of the old Confederacy being seen to successfully go it alone).
I fear that history shows us that few countries can get through a period of flux such as has been stirred up in US and not witness major civil strife. We are witnessing a direct undermining of the US Constitution. The exertion of central Federal Power, ” lets see how far we can push this guys before they wake up”. Personal freedom is under attack, the education system has been hijacked to turn out a stream of left wing activists, and capitalism it is being softened up for the creation of the Secular Democratic Socialist State of America.
All sounds a bit fantastical and some will doubtless say I am very naive but I think it is all on a knife edge.
You are spot on. The sad thing is that 80% of Americans are not familiar with their constitution.
Exertion of Federal Power? How exactly?
I am no Constitutional expert, I am a simple observer from afar, although I might concede I am a very amateur student of American history. I just go by what I see and what my gut instinct tells me.
The U.S. Constitution confers upon the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Now with Biden as President there seems to be cabal of extremists who pull a good deal of his strings. The Framers did not foresee, indeed they would not have remotely comprehended why, members of Congress, would use their position to risk, or rather deliberately over-ride and dismantle, the very Constitution itself, something the Framers considered almost sacrosanct.
So now that the cabal has Biden in their bag, there is no way they are going to bother about checking the power of “their president”. Rather, their divisive agenda will continue to be ramped up.
Building on Biden`s excessive use of Executive Orders, there is a blind determination of Biden and most Democratic lawmakers to steam ahead with even more expansive governmental intervention in the economy and of society in general. The USA will be turned into a dependency state at individual, community and State level.
You’re right in much of your analysis, but I don’t think it would be just the South seceding this time. Wide swaths of Northern and Western areas would be in on it too. And I believe that these areas’ populations constitute a majority of the American military, so the demographics won’t favor the Union like they did in 1861. Of course, it’s all theoretical at this point. Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that DC may have to back down in such a scenario as we are talking about here.
re your final sentence… “Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that DC may have to back down in such a scenario as we are talking about here”
..many folk thought that in 1861 !
In 1991, in the middle of Europe, the Balkans, erupted into a decade of extremely nasty wars, some call them civil wars but they were more complex than that. The war in Bosnia was perhaps the first of a new type of conflict in proto- globalized era, in which non-state state and state groupings to a war operate globally, and borders signify little more than the situation that provokes or justifies conflict.
Obviously, the US does not share a similar history or exact political context with Bosnia. But be warned, images I see from the US now remind me of things I saw on BBC TV News only 30 odd years ago, the population of Bosnia, men and women drawing up on “sides”, spitting venom at each other, egged on by those with a political agenda.
Bosnia, where the war kicked off, where every person kept an assault rifle or hunting gun or some sort of weapon close to hand. It’s difficult to imagine neighbours, family and friends turning on each other. Until it’s not.
Yes, many did think that DC would back down in 1861. But the demographics clearly favored the Union back then. That’s a far more dubious proposition now. I explained my reasons for thinking so in my post.
I’m ok with Civil War because tyranny must be resisted. Wasn’t there an uprising against the Brits in North America some time ago? Wouldn’t the people in Belarus be better off now if they had a Civil War that resulted in the ouster of Lukashenko, the elimination of tyranny? Some might say that Afghanistan would be better off if they had a Civil War where the right side won, where girls could continue their education, not be married off at 12, and gender studies could thrive @ the uni in Kabul.
I just don’t want to be part of country where half the country hates the other half–HATES the other half–and in many cases, wants them dead.
Does that sound like a formula for success to you?
Civil war may not “be OK” … But what if it’s the last, best alternative? Better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.
From the little I know, parts of the South thrive on exceptionalism and getting force-fed progressive liberalism at this moment is just going to awaken that.
I hear echoes of the UK in that significant parts of the population believe they are being sold a vision of society for which there are no successful working models in the world. They just don’t believe a word any more.
20 years after historic lies and mistakes post 9/11 which have in areas cost “the many” societies they cherished and enriched “the few”, it’s not for “the many” to rebuild trust with politicians, they need to earn it.
Has it occurred to the author that there are enough talented people in the US – not obsessed by abortion laws – who may actually want to live in a society where ‘progressivism’ moves at a more measured and democratic pace? Perhaps Texas (for example) is happy to pass on those who do not?
And Texas matters. It has the biggest vote bar California in the Electoral College. If it goes, and “progressive” Democratic Electoral reforms follow, Republicans could be kissing goodbye to power for a long time.
If I were a 2nd Amender, I’d be more than concerned about the plan by some in Texas to side step rulings by Scotus WRT to the provision of abortion services and liability for those services…
…what price anti-2Aers, using similar tactics to get state law to hold sellers and manufacturers of firearms, liable for how those firearms are used…
…and Conservatives won’t have a leg to stand on, given the attempt to subvert the R vs W judgement.
“Subvert” Roe v Wade ?
Which isn’t Constitutional or foundational to the USA – indeed dates only from 1973.
Therefore can’t be “subverted.”. Least of all by the USA’s Supreme Court of Law !
Twitter called and said you might be lost here.
Submitted this week to The Economist (an increasingly woke propaganda rag; they completely misunderstand the USA). Hopefully this will address some of your points.
To The Editor:
As a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court but someone who holds it in utter contempt, I smirked at your discussion of the allegedly non-political nature of the Supreme Court (United States, SCOTUS, Term time, October 2, 2021). Perhaps this was partly because I had just finished reading Justice Sandra Sotomayor’s comments to a group of law students posted on the CNN website. It is beyond doubt that Justice Sotomayor is no longer impartial arbiter but is an advocate for extreme left positions. Contrary to Chief Justice Roberts’s ridiculous statement that there are no Bush judges or Clinton judges, she is an “Obama judge” through and through, and she has followed Justice Ginsburg, who attacked then candidate Trump in interviews that she later apologized for and described as inappropriate, into the political arena.
Some background: I strongly believe in a woman’s right to determine the fate of her own body (pro-choice) and I am stridently against the death penalty. But just because I advocate these political positions does not mean that I approve of Supreme Court Justices celebrating their new roles as Super Voters in our republic, which is not a direct democracy, and reserves much power to the states. It is up to the voters of the state of Texas, through their elected representatives, to determine what the law of Texas is.
Sotomayor has styled herself as a “wise Latina,” someone who would reach a better result apply law to facts than a white man because of her lived experience. Hardly. She is a third rate political hack.
Respectfully Submitted,
Written and submitted from Tallinn, Estonia
If Northern & Western liberals don’t like Southern values, then stay in the States that their brain dead, craven, virtue signalling politics created.
Or put another way: you made your bed, now lie in it.
Just that last paragraph … I’m trying to understand it. So the South must hang on to respecting its traditions whilst it’s getting on conquering the ghosts of its past …. via a programme, if the South can find one, that also embraces a more pragmatic, economics-oriented focus that at the same time tip-toes past the pitfalls of progressivism?
Should not the southern folk advise the progressives on these pitfalls of progressivism, bring them to their attention, as fellow citizens would and should? If the pitfalls are liable to affect all? From college-educated professionals to “college-educated workers”?
Between all these ghosts and all these pitfalls and the finger-wagging folk who lay on thick on what the needs to do are …. what with the collapse of security at the Texan-Mexican border …. and …. “and then there’s Covid-19” …. which “presents a serious danger to the prosperity of the South.” Well, fan my brow!
It’s like for the South the opening credits to Dad’s Army, what with the advancing, agile arrowheads over the map of Britain representing the forces of globalism descending upon the South. Only this time the game is up. According to this article, I kid you not!
Yeah I noted there is nothing for progressives to learn at all…… Must be quite something to be so perfect.
Voters in the South of the UK overwhelmingly voted for Globalisation.
“For the South to thrive, then, it needs to find a programme that both respects its traditions and embraces a more pragmatic, economics-oriented focus.”
So, what your saying is that unless these states adopt really nutty social practices and cave into the intolerance & illberalism of the left, forcing these southern states to allow men to use women’s bathrooms, to allow loose and even corrupt voting practices (ballot harvesting, 24/7 voting hours), indoctrinate students into prejudicial racist studies (CRT studies) – yes and even to put limits on abortion…they should be boycotted? Well, to that I say the cost is probably worth it.
It’s actually terrific to see that these states remain principled. Maybe there’s a reason beyond ‘economic’ that makes these states attractive. Maybe it’s because they do sensical things like understand human nature and allow people to actually be ‘free’, unencumbered by the government. Enough with social engineering.
There are 50 states which means Progressives and liberals have a wide array of choices in which to live. SO they should just leave the South alone and stop coercing this population into practices and beliefs they don’t see eye-to-eye with.
“The South remains the only region of America that has been conquered and subjugated.” Eh? Try telling that to the entire country west of Texas, most of which was part of Mexico until a decade before the Civil War…
It’s interesting that that’s how this person sees it. We ‘won’, you ‘lost’, now do as you’re told.
That is what happens in the Real World – Winners tell Losers to STFU and live with it, just as Reps relished it when Gore got booted in the knackers and Dems partied ike loons when DJT got chopped…the sounds of Reps whining must please Dems and vice versa.
You need to stop with the ‘them and us’ mentality. Many people here aren’t part of a political tribe. One thing I’ve noticed since living in the States is that people quickly assume they know your whole value system based on whatever opinion you hold on a single issue. I blame the mainstream media for this, it breeds conformity by fostering hatred and contempt for others. There is no nuance to it whatsoever.
I’m deeply suspicious of people whose opinions just happen to align perfectly with that of their chosen political party on every single issue. To me that implies a lack of critical thinking on their part
Same here.
Article is race baiting garbage. There is no North vs South divide in the United States. See electoral maps. The divide is urban vs rural, just as in Europe. The divide is nationalism vs globalism. Keep publishing this woke crap, and I will unsubscribe, and take my money with me.
Good riddance to you then. I for one still want to read opposing views on subjects, even if I disagree with the thrust of the article, rather than simply endless articles pushing the same narrative.
If you want an echo chamber go to one of the partisan media companies, that isn’t what UnHerd was set up to be
Agree with this. I like to read a range of views. The previous poster has demonstrated that narrow minded dogmatism is not the exclusive preserve of the left.
I like Unherd, but this is a silly article.
I have lived in Manhattan for 30+ years as an adult. I have done three separate trips this past year to Alabama/Pensacola (2) and Jacksonville.
The people are wonderful, especially to my Autistic son.
I am tired of silly people preaching to adopt their life style. Go visit the people before you publish an article on Unherd (or anywhere).
What’s going on with Unherd lately?
It’s become yet another offshoot of the socialist, virtue signalling machine.
There have been so many of these articles lately, it’s not what I signed up for.
I signed up for writers that would challenge my thinking and expand my worldview.
Instead, the last few months I have barely bothered to read it. So much drivel. The idea that abortion is so righteous that it is the South (I’m not American BTW) who must adapt so they can be attractive to more people whose politics have destroyed their home States is utter idiocy.
The articles that challenged and expanded my understanding are all historical: it’s been months since I read something of substance.
Today was the end for me, I’ve cancelled my renewal.
It doesn’t sound like you want any articles you disagree with. I’d argue that means you don’t want your thinking challenged or your worldview expanded, but instead want an echo chamber where only writers whose opinion you already agree with is published.
This isn’t a comment on the article itself, I have strong feeling either way on what has been written, merely your reaction to it
Billy Bob, you are miles off. There have been some absolute gems in the early days of UnHerd, articles that were directly opposed to my view that were written cogently and with such depth that it caused me to completely rethink a position.
Too much of what I have seen for the last few months have been beneath even the Guardian – which I can read for free.
I have several active subscriptions with papers that hold very different editorial positions. I do this to ensure I am in receipt of a myriad of perspectives from which to test my own.
The point of UnHerd – to me anyway – was that it sought to go further and deeper into issues from multiple perspectives. That isn’t happening anymore, so it’s time to cut the payment.
I quite like that UnHerd is not an echo chamber.
It’s not about it being an echo chamber, it’s about the fact that there is a single left leaning thread to the articles for weeks on end.
Worse, these articles are sub-Guardian standard writing, meaning I am paying for a lesser standard of work than I can get for free.
Fair enough
Can’t agree with that, sorry Greg. Stick with it.
I ended my subscription with the Spectator because it contained more and more articles that were nothing more than irrational, emotional outbursts from under-employed Guardian writers and the likes of Peston. They didn’t so much challenge my thinking as my tolerance for adults who behave like children. How on earth do these people get through life?
So not unsympathetic to your view. You’ll get the odd day like that on a site like Unherd (which doesn’t even claim to be Conservative) but I don’t sense a trend. We can always make our views known here.
Believe me, I’m on my guard…
Dustin, fair points, but I don’t want a Conservative perspective so much as I do a well written, cogent discussion.
The papers I subscribe to provide me with a choice of 30+ articles to read, all with their own editorial slant. Bluntly, I speed read most.
UnHerd was different at the outset: there were long form, well penned articles that explored issues I hadn’t considered deeply and some that put good arguments forward that I had to take on board.
An example that stands out for me was one about the formation of a 32 Ireland. As an Irish nationalist the idea of compromise with the 3/4 Unionist counties rather than simple, overt “we won, suck it up” was completely foreign to me. Despite the depth of my (very personal) hatred for the Northern Irish Unionists, I came away from reading the article ashamed by the confrontation with my own bias and educated about the validity of another perspective.
Umm, challenging but not too challenging then… 🙂
Me too. And for the same reasons.
It’s giving different view points, some of which you (and I) may not agree with. Isn’t that what it was set up to do? If it merely became another one-sided rant (left or right) then it would not live up to it’s name.
I don’t resent the progressive-masturbatory nature of those comments any more than I resent the squirrel that eats my garden tomatoes. Varmints will do what varmints will do. Could it be that “overzealous religious fervor” and “reactionary politics” are nothing more than wild card pejoratives that progressives play when they run out of ideas? If you’re from a Red state like me (Tennessee) you’re not electing representatives who share your values, you’re living under the tyranny of reactionary politics. Sure, yeah, ok. If you believe Jesus died to save you from your sins and that the indulgences of moral relativism work in direct opposition to the salvation of your eternal soul then you’re suffering from some kind of pathological religiosity. Yeah, whatever. I don’t think this dude knows any southern conservatives (he’s from NY, educated at UC Berkley, lives in LA. Yeah, he’s definitely got his finger on the pulse of the modern South). I know a lot of cosmopolitan leftists. Unlike the squirrels that eat my tomatoes, I just leave them be.
Very strange article, purportedly a “scholarly” one. I wonder whether the author actually reads what he has written before pressing “send”? He says the South is doing better than the NE/California historical economic powerhouse, but then says unblinkingly that it has to change its culture to succeed. Can’t he see that is simply silly?
As many commenters observe, the author seems to accept the many “progressive” ideas which are actually controversial rather than “the truth”. Why should decent Southerners (I am English, with no skin in this game) accept they are nasty and racist, and need to grovel and change? His interesting factual evidence could more convincingly support a conclusion that the NE/California has to change away from the “blue” policies which have produced high housing costs and block the creation of businesses.
There is nothing in this essay that gets Texas right. The author purports to say to Texans, be more unlike yourself to succeed in life. Give up ideas and ideals that Texans overwhelmingly not only support, but live by, and mimic the Regressives. What is author’s intent with such an essay?
The author is about as distant from what is going on at the grassroots as I am here in Texas from what is going on in the middle east. The paragraph about historical racism somehow equivalenced with republicanism is so spurious and contrived as to invite ridicule. More to the point, it is entirely contradictory to my experience in Texas. You do not understand: Texans are not only friendly, but welcoming and very open to all people. What is the point of such an unevidenced and generalized assertion?
The greatest error is the premise. But fundamentally, we are not the South. We are Texans. The difference in sensibility, ideas, history, community, conviviality, outlook, etc. is great. DFW, Houston and Austin urban centers are not bellwethers for Texans, and even within those centers, the pushback against the Regressives is very significant, viz. Shelly Luther. And millions have migrated here, as have I, as refugees from regressive enclaves and who know the score. So, I have to ask again, to what end, this essay?
I hope than non-American readers won’t be misled into thinking Kotkin states facts, rather than inadequately educated opinions. (Chapman College by the way is a for-profit institution responsible for the “education” of many California public school teachers …) The urban areas he mentions favorably are hell holes, life in the South is much more authentic and friendly. And it’s more start-up business friendly. Southerners, including Texans, can make their money and just vacation on Florida (not truly Southern except geographically) or California beaches to escape weather and bugs. Regrettably, insects (although totally non-racist and survival-positive as far as one can tell) do particularly prosper in the South! Like so many semi-demi-academics in the US these days, the author does not fully appreciate that the 10th Amendment issues highlighted by the Civil War (or, First War of Secession?) are alive and unsolved today. Not all who write about America really know her, or they would love her more..
I lived in Houston for 14 years and would argue the reason for migration from the north east and California is entirely based on economics. It’s cheap, pure and simple and the weather is better, in the winter, unless a freak storm comes through and a deregulated energy market causes you to die of hypothermia.
The American economy runs on poverty, or at least the constant threat of it. Americans like their goods cheap and their services plentiful and the two of them, together, require a sprawling labour force willing to work tough jobs at crappy wages.
I don’t go along with the discrimination angle, Houston is just as much of a melting pot as Los Angeles. We lived in a small suburban enclave which was surprisingly diverse and a testament to changing attitudes with the slow move to the left.
There’s no doubt the South is a paradox. God and Guns reign supreme. The governors of southern states continue to leave people slack-jawed with their crackpot laws and opinions. Sane individuals take what they want and leave the rest behind. Progressive politics may never take hold across the whole of the South, but the urban centres will embrace them regardless of history.
“The American economy runs on poverty”You may have been right 100 years ago, but with manufacturing outsourced to China, who has always run on poverty, we make very little here.
Let’s face it. The left wants poverty so as to have dependents and the right wants cheap labor. An unhappy, yet workable marriage is the result.
Someone who works in the outsourced areas of the airline industry, for example food service, cleaning, the people who ferry passengers around between gates, the people who deal with wheelchair passengers. Do you know haw much they earn? I’ll tell you. $7.98 an hour and NO healthcare. That equates at current exchange rates to £236 a week. How is that not poverty? Could you live on it? It’s the reason people do three jobs and live in their cars.
I agree that this is an issue that needs remedying. However, much of this outsourcing is performed by organizations and institutions that champion minimum wages and free healthcare for all. All colleges I’ve worked at have outsourced their cleaning and catering services, despite their lofty aims of bringing economic equality to all.
From what I can tell, almost everyone who comments here wants a fairer world. However, our institutions are engaging in political sleight-of-hand. Instead of actually doing anything to bring about positive change, they much prefer lecturing the public on their lack of ‘woke’ credentials. It is much cheaper, of course, to virtue-signal, than to provide systemic healthcare and improve wages.
This is why people are tuning out left-wing institutions. They demand a lot of other people’s money without ever delivering anything worthwhile. Big tech and corporations have caught on to this, and that is why we’re now in a situation where the powerful are able to line their pockets from public monies while using the media to admonish the little people for ‘wrong-think’. Those who would normally criticize them are being effectively shut down (censored from internet / lost their job) and labelled ‘white supremacist’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’, thus neutralizing any serious opposition. Note how the concept of ‘white privilege’ became popularized shortly after Occupy Wall Street. Instead of confronting the ‘1%’ it effectively divided people along every societal fault line – ideologically, politically, sexually, and racially.
The American people need to stop getting caught up in endless culture wars with each other and seriously question the politicians and CEOs that are pulling the strings.
I don’t suppose this has anything to do with corporations making as much money as possible for their investors and shareholders while paying workers as little as possible in order to provide the cheapest service for their customers?
Surely this is where Scandinavian style capitalism comes out on top. And the reason it never succeeds elsewhere is because no-one wants to pay the taxes to pay for it.
Scandinavia is getting pretty fed up,with paying high taxes to support non native populations who pay none.
If someone passes up a $20/hour position at a factory, for which there are signs posted everywhere, or a $15/hour position to flip burgers, then I don’t know the answer to why they labor for $7.98 at the airport, nor does anyone else I suspect, but it probably doesn’t have anything to do with racism.
I never said it did.
What should be the main idea of the piece, the last paragraph–
— a perfectly sensible assessment, is obscured by the subtitle which is sheer folly. Does UnHerd suffer from the affliction of having someone other than the author write the headlines that is endemic in “mainstream” media?
Breyer was never Cheif Justice, only an associate justice
No.
No what?
We seem to have the usual binary views here. I am essentially a conservative and a libertarian (albeit a pragmatic one) and I entirely detest the zealous woke intolerance so apparent in many.
Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the history of the South and its skeletons, especially in places like Alabama. The residue of intolerance there remains (see Judge Roy) and in attitudes to (admittedly complex) issues like abortion and gay rights. I will be the first to say that trans fundamentalism is ridiculous and dangerous but I think both sides of this debate need to be more self aware.
Just the sort of rubbish one would expect from a lefty trying to explain something that contradicts what he dreams to be reality.
Thus will we here in the south witness a fulfillment of traditional expectation: The South shall rise again!
What enables that old hope of fulfillment is the new qualifier . . . by becoming more like the rest of America!
The whole is issue was the South never was subjugated.
The South was left to exist…perhaps if the North had been serious, it would have wiped all Southern leaders and Southern symbolism off the face of the earth and made the law give that idea teeth….
….rather as Germany was denazified and ‘normal Germans’ were made to go to the camps…
…imagine if nice young Southern belles, rich off the fruits of slavery had been made to toil in the fields for a few years after the South had been beaten…or the hangings of a few Southern men as well, making clear a new world order had arrived.