Log in

View Full Version : Who Really Rules the World



Bud Struggle
11th September 2008, 12:22
From the BBC no less!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7600000/7600592.stm


Why rednecks may rule the world

By Joe Bageant
Author of Deerhunting With Jesus
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working class voters."

What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the word "redneck." So I'll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.

The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.

On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what's at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.

Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the "cultural south", which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values - redneck values.

They include western Pennsylvania, central Missouri and southern Illinois, upstate Michigan and Minnesota, eastern Connecticut, northern New Hampshire…
So when you look at what pundits call the red state heartland, you are looking at the Republic of Redneckia.

As to having our delicate beer-sodden feelings protected from the term redneck; well, I appreciate the effort, though I highly suspect that the best way to hide snobbishness is to pose as protector of any class of folks you cannot bear. Thus we are being protected by the very people who look down on us - educated urban progressives.

And let's face it, there's plenty to look down on. By any tasteful standard, we ain't a pretty people.

We come in one size: extra large. We are sometimes insolent and often quick to fight. We love competitive spectacle such as NASCAR and paintball, and believe gun ownership is the eleventh commandment.

We fry things nobody ever considered friable - things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese…even pickles.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

And most of all we are defiant and suspicious of authority, and people who are "uppity" (sophisticated) and "slick" (people who use words with more than three syllables). Two should be enough for anybody.

And that is one of the reasons that, mystifying as it is to the outside world, John McCain's choice of the moose-shooting Alaskan woman with the pregnant unmarried teen daughter appeals to many redneck and working class Americans.

We all understand that there is a political class which dominates in America, and that Sarah Palin for damned sure is not one of them. And the more she is attacked by liberal Democratic elements (translation: elite highly-educated big city people) the more America's working mooks will come to her defence. Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not? She is a Christian fundamentalist who believes God spat on his beefy paws and made the world in seven days? So do at least 150 million other Americans. She snowmobiles and fishes and she is a looker to boot. She's a redneck.
Guns, cars and fried food - and a defence of home

American ethos
The term redneck indicates a lifestyle and culture that can be found in every state in our union. The essentials of redneck culture were brought to America by what we call the Scots Irish, after first being shipped to the Ulster Plantation, where our, uh, remarkable cultural legacy can still be seen every 12 July in Ireland.


Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you will recognize:

Belief that no law is above God's law, not even the US Constitution.


Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened: ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.


A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.


Self effacement, humility. We are usually the butt of our own jokes, in an effort not to appear aloof among one another.


Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous of the American lifestyle.


Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.


Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough. God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.


The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture and a few of the best. And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried. Very worried.

Dean
11th September 2008, 13:49
Those faceless money men - yeah, you're probably one of them.

Sendo
11th September 2008, 15:08
It really sucks that this might be the case, especially since they are really quite leftist but are so brainwashed and politically confused and hyper-nationalist that they get scared and flock to McCain. McCain ain't gonna put their food on their table. I'm not saying Obama is much better. I'm shocked (not really) that people support him regardless of whoever else is running.

In any case, all they need is a 50/50 split and then rig enough votes in Ohio and Florida with "irregularities", caging lists, impossible lines, and Diebolds. The documentary Hacking Democracy shows quite conclusively that rigging a Diebold vote is easy as pie. The sad part is that all the problems that documentary outlines (not limited to Diebold) are still around and in many places even worse.

And not all rednecks are so bad. Look at Coal River Mountain Watch. Hell, the Farmers' Alliance and Populist Party (late 1800s) were pretty damn radical.

Bud Struggle
11th September 2008, 16:46
Those faceless money men - yeah, you're probably one of them.

It's funny, I'm really an Upper West Side of Manhattan kind of guy--lived there for 20 years (in FL now,) but I do identify with these Red Neck guys quite a bit.

freakazoid
11th September 2008, 18:49
You know what is funny? It is where the term "redneck" comes from. It is because of the West Virginia coal miners at the Batlle of Blair Mountain. They were trying to unionize and they all wore a red bandana around there neck to show support for each other. Interesting thing about that battle is that there was even a plane used to drop some bombs on the workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

jasmine
11th September 2008, 19:14
It's funny, I'm really an Upper West Side of Manhattan kind of guy--lived there for 20 years (in FL now,) but I do identify with these Red Neck guys quite a bit.

Yes, you do identify with the red necks. And this after dabbling with (at least) some form of leftism.

turquino
11th September 2008, 20:16
The 'rednecks' are closer in touch with their settler nature than the big city white liberals. It doesn't matter that they're relatively less privileged in comparison. The greater chance they have of losing their position in the labor aristocracy only makes their politics more reactionary. Sorry, but there's no hope of winning over the Archie Bunkers of america.

Sendo
12th September 2008, 04:12
that's a caricature. Archie Bunker is a stereotype that presents a shitty mascot for workers and an anti-working class vision of the oaf.

Opinion polls for decades have shown overwhelming American support for workplace democracy, affordable healthcare, an end to free trade, and workplace safety.

They get scared into being anti-union and anti-international and anti-peace for bull reasons. They are not labor aristocracy. Just because they suffer less collectively than the people in Nigeria collectively doesn't mean they aren't exploited. Living conditions in Southern Appalachia and the badlands and Monatana and whatnot are like that of a colonized land. It's a lot more complex than mindless evangelical drones and flag-wavers. They're humans with human flaws and they're workers with workers' interests. As much as I speak up the 3rd World (Cuba, Venezuela, La Campesino movement, indigenous Mexicans) I won't take on an anti-American people stance.

If you want to make millions of people your enemy, good luck. I'll look at them as future allies, though. I don't know, maybe this is some family history talking--father got out of a mining town and out of poverty--and I hear reactionary statements but can get him to acknowledge the superiority of leftist domestic policies if I sit down with him. I also have a friend doing something that's organizing/social work/economic counseling in Montana. I've also done some reading on these parts of America.

I'm far more worried about exurban soccer moms and dads in the long run. They'll want to maintain the incredibly unsustainable model of sprawling suburbanism. They want to keep most of the world in respective bubbles, too: this city should always be "this" way, this national park should have a McDonald's in the parking lot and should be "preserved for us whites to visit and enjoy". I've got no problem with your self-employed plumber or contractor over here or over there, but a lot of the shopkeeps make slimy employers, a lot of the breadwinners in these places are middle managers who have capitalist interest at heart. Some professionals and whatnot can be won over, but they're too busy with their families and interior decorating to do a damned thing.

Bud Struggle
12th September 2008, 12:29
that's a caricature. Of course.


I'm far more worried about exurban soccer moms and dads in the long run. They'll want to maintain the incredibly unsustainable model of sprawling suburbanism. They want to keep most of the world in respective bubbles, too: this city should always be "this" way, this national park should have a McDonald's in the parking lot and should be "preserved for us whites to visit and enjoy". I've got no problem with your self-employed plumber or contractor over here or over there, but a lot of the shopkeeps make slimy employers, a lot of the breadwinners in these places are middle managers who have capitalist interest at heart. Some professionals and whatnot can be won over, but they're too busy with their families and interior decorating to do a damned thing.

True. You'll find that the surburban soccer moms and dads are the people that really control the wealth in America. They are the people that pay the taxes that fund most of America's world dominance. It's their wealth that keeps America wealthy. None of these people are interested in Revolution or change--as a matter of fact they are seriously interested in keeping the status quo, because while Marxists might consider them Proletarian their lifestyle is extremely good. And that lifestyle is the product of Capitalism.

Further--American Capitalism has produced vast numbers of these folks--that's what makes Amercan Capitalism work so well, a really, really good life is quite easily attainable.

Robert
12th September 2008, 13:50
McCain ain't gonna put their food on their table.

Rednecks don't see this as an essential function of a federal government.

Bud Struggle
12th September 2008, 15:02
Rednecks don't see this as an essential function of a federal government.

Indeed! :thumbup:

jasmine
12th September 2008, 17:43
Further--American Capitalism has produced vast numbers of these folks--that's what makes Amercan Capitalism work so well, a really, really good life is quite easily attainable.

So if you're poor it's because you're no good, stupid, lazy or whatever. Capitalism doesn't actually need people who dig the filth out of the subway system at night, they do it because they're too stupid to do anything else.

There's no history, no economic structure, no social structure, it's just a free-for-all and the fittest and most hard working do well and the rest shovel the shit. How simple minded is that?

Where did you learn this TomK - on Matt and Katie's breakfast show?

Tell me this Tomk - why are nurses so badly paid under capitalism? Why are those who care for the elderly always struggling to pay the rent. Why do you get paid millions to make an inconsequential, boring movie whilst a school teacher survives from paycheck to paycheck?

theraven
12th September 2008, 23:18
So if you're poor it's because you're no good, stupid, lazy or whatever. Capitalism doesn't actually need people who dig the filth out of the subway system at night, they do it because they're too stupid to do anything else.

There's no history, no economic structure, no social structure, it's just a free-for-all and the fittest and most hard working do well and the rest shovel the shit. How simple minded is that?

Where did you learn this TomK - on Matt and Katie's breakfast show?

Tell me this Tomk - why are nurses so badly paid under capitalism? Why are those who care for the elderly always struggling to pay the rent. Why do you get paid millions to make an inconsequential, boring movie whilst a school teacher survives from paycheck to paycheck?

1) Nurses are paid quite well, the problem is their hours are terrible.

2) Because there are far less people who can act well then there are who can teach, thus the actors are in higher demand.


You know what is funny? It is where the term "redneck" comes from. It is because of the West Virginia coal miners at the Batlle of Blair Mountain. They were trying to unionize and they all wore a red bandana around there neck to show support for each other. Interesting thing about that battle is that there was even a plane used to drop some bombs on the workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Except redneck probably predates that, its origion is probably related to field work.

RGacky3
13th September 2008, 01:54
I think the typical stereotype of a redneck is an over simplified myth, poor rural/blue collor whites are as diverse politically as anyone else.

BTW, I can't stand the term labor-atristocricy, which is mainly used by Maoists to describe white American workers in their quest to over simplify, generalize and distort socio-economics regardless of the real world. This pretty much turns into the racist and untrue concept that white=oppressor, or on the side of the oppressor, and non-white=oppressed, which is stupid, poor whites, poor blacks, poor hispanics and poor asians are what we should be fighting for as a whole, regardless of their politics, regardless of their race.

TomKs list of what makes a redneck is rediculous, considering he lives in manhatten, is probably based on stereotypes, aka, the blue collor comedy.

theraven
13th September 2008, 04:38
I think the typical stereotype of a redneck is an over simplified myth, poor rural/blue collor whites are as diverse politically as anyone else.

BTW, I can't stand the term labor-atristocricy, which is mainly used by Maoists to describe white American workers in their quest to over simplify, generalize and distort socio-economics regardless of the real world. This pretty much turns into the racist and untrue concept that white=oppressor, or on the side of the oppressor, and non-white=oppressed, which is stupid, poor whites, poor blacks, poor hispanics and poor asians are what we should be fighting for as a whole, regardless of their politics, regardless of their race.

TomKs list of what makes a redneck is rediculous, considering he lives in manhatten, is probably based on stereotypes, aka, the blue collor comedy.

because of course I'm sure he's never left manhattan.

The American who's never met a redneck is quite the sheltered kid. There are rednecks in pretty much every state of the union, in fairly large quantities too. I'm having trouble thinking of one that doesn't. Perhaps Minnesota/wisconson? I know New York has plenty (just leave the NYC area-hell there are probably some left on LI).

leftist manson
13th September 2008, 09:13
Of course.



because while Marxists might consider them Proletarian their lifestyle is extremely good. And that lifestyle is the product of Capitalism.

.
Nope, the only leftie who considers the people you described as proles is lib-dem and labour types who have a cursory analysis of class and who have 'read' karl marx(Oh my god, Capital was such a fantastic read). We definitely don't include these people under the definition of prole

RGacky3
15th September 2008, 02:52
I don't think living in a trailor working 2 jobs, your wife also working so you can't raise your kids properly for 40 years compleatly wasting your life just to stay afloat, barely making it to get food and shelter is an extremely good lifestyle. You don't konw what your talking about TomK, so called 'rednecks' have it just as hard as and poor people.


Nope, the only leftie who considers the people you described as proles is lib-dem and labour types who have a cursory analysis of class and who have 'read' karl marx(Oh my god, Capital was such a fantastic read). We definitely don't include these people under the definition of prole

Why not? They are wage workers (most of them), poor, why would'nt you consider them proletariates? Its this distain for hte white working class that keeps the vast majority of poor people away from the left, and still voting republican, who at least pretend they have some respect for them.

Bud Struggle
15th September 2008, 14:02
Nope, the only leftie who considers the people you described as proles is lib-dem and labour types who have a cursory analysis of class and who have 'read' karl marx(Oh my god, Capital was such a fantastic read). We definitely don't include these people under the definition of prole

Maybe I'm mistaken here--I'm a bit of a "Junior Revolutionary", but I though the world was divided by Marxists into TWO classes--common and preferred, that is the Proletarians and the Bourgeoise.

And the defining difference isn't how much money people make--but whether they own the "means of production" or not.

ÑóẊîöʼn
15th September 2008, 14:38
Maybe I'm mistaken here--I'm a bit of a "Junior Revolutionary", but I though the world was divided by Marxists into TWO classes--common and preferred, that is the Proletarians and the Bourgeoise.

*sigh*

It's not as simple as that. As well as the bourgeouis and proletarian classes you are no doubt familiar with by now, other classes I've seen used in Marxist discourse are peasants, petit-bourgeouisie, lumpenproletariat, and the "labour aristocracy".


And the defining difference isn't how much money people make--but whether they own the "means of production" or not.To refine your statement, it's your relationship to the means of production that defines your class.

Bud Struggle
15th September 2008, 16:03
*sigh*

It's not as simple as that. As well as the bourgeouis and proletarian classes you are no doubt familiar with by now, other classes I've seen used in Marxist discourse are peasants, petit-bourgeouisie, lumpenproletariat, and the "labour aristocracy".

I understand "peasants" though they are a little hard to come by these days. petit-Borgeois are smaller versions of the Borgeoise--they own a 7/11 have a couple of employees. The lumpenproletariat--are the bottom of the wage scale people, Maybe the McDonald's workers. The labor aristicract--are the plumbers and the electricians--making $50-$100 an hour for their skilled labor.

All in all there are still only two classes as I see them, the people that own things and get their income from what they own--and those that actually do the "work" physical, mental, etc. that earns them a living. A rock star making $10 million a year is still a member of the Proletarian--maybe a Labor Aristocrat--but still a mmember of the proetariat.

On the other hand a Shoe repair shop with two employees is a Bourgeois operation, even though only petit-Bourgeois. As you say below--it's the "relationship."



To refine your statement, it's your relationship to the means of production that defines your class.

Fine, thanks, that makes sense.

Pero's Pen
15th September 2008, 23:18
The lumpenproletariat--are the bottom of the wage scale people, Maybe the McDonald's workers.

Wrong. A lumpenproletarian is more of an "outcast" so to say. Examples of a lumpenproletarian would be more like prostitutes, chronic gamblers, petty thieves, beggars, and people who attampt to live solely off of welfare, etc. In essence they are the "scum of the earth." A McDonald's worker, though not a desirable position, is still a proletarian through and through.


petit-Borgeois are smaller versions of the Borgeoise--they own a 7/11 have a couple of employees.

Also include the self-employed.

Bud Struggle
15th September 2008, 23:42
Wrong. A lumpenproletarian is more of an "outcast" so to say. Examples of a lumpenproletarian would be more like prostitutes, chronic gamblers, petty thieves, beggars, and people who attampt to live solely off of welfare, etc. In essence they are the "scum of the earth." A McDonald's worker, though not a desirable position, is still a proletarian through and through.

Also include the self-employed.

Muchly oblidged.

Tom