I was born in Alabama, grew up in Mississippi, and went to college in Tennessee. And I have a Ph.D. in Russian from Columbia University. So I have a double perception of the South and things Southern. I know the South from the inside, and I’ve chosen not to live there since I graduated from college.
That’s why I was recently intrigued to see a map that showed the county by county results of the 2008 election. It showed, in brown, the counties in which Obama ran behind Kerry’s totals in 2004 by 7% of more. These counties form a clear pattern, a rough crescent that begins in southwest Virginia, runs through West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and peters out in Oklahoma.
This pattern raises a number of questions, and let’s begin with this one: What do we call the people who live in these counties? Terms like “redneck” and “hillbilly” come to mind, but they bring their own emotional baggage. It’s much better — because less offensive — to say that they’re “crackers,” in the spirit of Gerald McWhiney’s Cracker Culture (1989).
So what can we say about crackers, the people who refused to vote for Obama in such significant numbers? The easy, obvious, and not untrue, thing to say is that they’re racists; these are after all white people who refused to vote for a black man. But to leave it at that is to give in to the common practice of using “racist” and “racism” as verbal stones to throw at people.
So I say let those who are without racism — white racism, black racism, brown racism, what have you racism — cast the first verbal stone, a stone that will hurt, and cast lots of heat and very little light. Categorizing people — even crackers — solely in terms of their attitude toward race is like categorizing people solely in terms of their sexual orientation. It’s not just demeaning; what’s worse is that it’s also old-fashioned.
Any serious attempt to understand why crackers didn’t vote for Obama must proceed from an understanding of Southern attitudes in general — of what you might call Southern social psychology. Take their attitude toward place, for example. More than the people of any other region, Southerners — crackers — are passionately committed to place, and derive their identity from place.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Interesting article - very interesting article. I know a few of these "crackers" personally - though they exchanged that "cracker" identity for an Israeli one - sorta - and came to live here in the mountains of Samaria. You may hear a few Rebel yells every now and then out of them, but you will never see the Stars and Bars floating at their homes - only the flag of Israel.
When my neighbor Mike talks about how his family arrived in North Carolina in 1734, fought in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, there is real patriotic pride in his words. He once sang "My Country 'Tis of Thee", that pathetic knockoff of "G-d Save the Queen", and when he did, he meant it in a way that I - whose father arrived in the States in 1921 - never could. That sense of place is all over his words and all over a lot of his interests.
2 - Joanne Huspek
I spent a few years growing up in the South, and friends of ours have moved there and this is dead on. There's a certain genteel-ness, even if your neighbor is dissing you. That sense of home and center is something that's missing from the rest of the country.
3 - Humungus
It couldn't possibly be that many southerners voted Republican because they/we disagree with punitive confiscatory taxation. No. It's because Obama's black. Funny that many white Kerry voters switched this time. I guess that makes the real topic of this article racist, xenophobic southern white Democrats. So that's what a "cracker" is.
See, southern Republicans would have voted for Alan Keyes, Condi Rice, or even Colin Powell before he jumped the shark. Will there be an article on the numbers of blacks who voted for the first time, and why? And will their most hated offensive racial slur be used?
McCain was very, very heroic. To choose to vote for a man who has actually served his country over one who has been served by his shouldn't be considered a southern phenomenon, but apparently it was.
Sports are popular everywhere. The north has far more professional teams than the south. Several sports including hockey, lacrosse and soccer are more popular in the north. And if losing the Civil War is explanation for the popularity of various sports in the south, then what explains the popularity of sports in the north? Winning the Civil War? People like sports because people like sports.
4 - STM
South??
I live in the deep, deep south, which is what makes it so hilarious when I'm in the US and Americans ask me if I'm from Boston because of the way I pronounce car and beer ... "caaah, and "bee-ah", thanks to the non-rhotic antipodean accent known as Strine.
It's a couple of hours by plane from my hometown of Sydney to Hobart, the state capital of Tasmania.
Then, if you sailed directly south from the tip of Tasmania from Hobart, you'd end up quite soon in the Antarctic.
I've also drunk in the world's southernmost pub - the Bruny Island Hotel, just off the south-east coast of Tasmania.
South schmouth.
Shit, those Dixie crackers don't even know what south really is.
They're not even in the right hemisphere to think of themselves as southerners.
5 - Dave Nalle
When my neighbor Mike talks about how his family arrived in North Carolina in 1734, fought in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, there is real patriotic pride in his words.
Thanks for the reminder that up to the time of the civil war the slave trade in the south was dominated by Jews. A true, but rarely repeated fact of the tragic era. Not politically correct to mention it.
I guess that makes the real topic of this article racist, xenophobic southern white Democrats. So that's what a "cracker" is.
Dead on, Humungus. Southern republicanism descends from the anti-slavery tradition of Sam Houston and other reformers who regained power after the Civil War. In the south Republicans were traditionally part of the progressive, educated elite, while the ignorant "crackers" were Democrats.
Dave
6 - STM
"When my neighbor Mike talks about how his family arrived in North Carolina in 1734, fought in the Revolutionary War"
On the good side or the American side??
7 - Ruvy
Thanks for the reminder that up to the time of the civil war the slave trade in the south was dominated by Jews. A true, but rarely repeated fact of the tragic era. Not politically correct to mention it.
From what little I do know of Mike's family, they were farmers, not slavers, Dave. But, yes it is true that Jews figured prominently in the slave trade.
Of course in may parts of the south Jews were forbidden from owning land or participating in a number of professions, so they did what they could do to make a living - also not politically correct to mention....
;o)
8 - Cindy
Dave what about this?
The way I understood things is more like what this Kevin Young guy says:
U.S. History - Republican to Democratic political Change
QUESTION: I was reading about the time after the civil war, and, while looking at a election map of the nation, with Democrat votes mainly in the South and Republican votes in the North, I was wondering: At what time period of American history did this change occur? At this time, did their policies and views also "flip"?
"The southern Democrat or Dixiecrat was always ultra conservative in their political philosophy. The North was somewhat moderate shading towards conservatism on most issues. The true change occurred after the reconstruction period when Blacks were elected to state and national political offices, much to the chagrin of the former Slave holding Democrats. Today the so-called religious right, the right-wing of the republican party and centrist are but splitters of the old southern political regime."
QUESTION: I also heard that blacks started voting democratic during the great Depression, since the Republicans would not help them. Is this true?
"The Black vote was forced towards the Democratic party due to the constant reactionary ideological move within the republican party after the reconstruction era. additionally, the quasi-social movement within the northern democratic party and the new deal campaign of Franklin Delaney Roosevelt prompted the swing of Black voters to the democratic ticket. Neither party actually help us at all!"
9 - Dr Dreadful
All of which seems to show that conventional political ideologies mean nothing at all in the South. They'll just go for whichever party seems at the time to best represent their - for want of a better word - patriotic interests.
10 - roger nowosielski
It is "for want of a better word."
11 - roger nowosielski
Very good analysis, Curtis. The sense of rootedness is indeed one of the most salient characteristics of the Southerners. They may be dirt-poor, but they still love where they're at and it's a rare person indeed who would opt to leave their place of birth for greener pastures, like California. I tried to talk some of them into it, to no avail.
Which doesn't negate certain parochialism, resistance to new ideas, being entrenched in the past. And this includes of course - among other things, racism as well. So if the intend of your article was to show the roots of racism, then I believe you've more or less succeeded. But you haven't shown us it doesn't exist, only made us understand it better.
12 - Dave Nalle
All of which seems to show that conventional political ideologies mean nothing at all in the South. They'll just go for whichever party seems at the time to best represent their - for want of a better word - patriotic interests.
I kind of see that as a good thing.
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I don't really buy either of those answers.
There were southern Republicans before and after the civil war. The division was not regional, it was by social class. Upper class and educated people in the north and the south were Republicans. Lower class and uneducated people were Democrats, of course with some exceptions both ways.
The democratic party remained extremely hostile to blacks through the Truman administration. They only began to treat them decently starting with Kennedy. Prior to that most advancements for blacks had been initiated by Republicans and then reversed or opposed by Democrats, like Teddy Roosevelt trying to integrate the federal government and Wilson coming in and undoing it all.
But IMO the real dynamic is this. When blacks were really downtrodden they were natural allies of the ruling class. Only liberal elitists would look out for them out of a sense of benevolence, and until relatively recently that meant Republicans and certainly not Democrats. At the same time the managerial and business owning class saw the blacks as the poorest as the poor and a source of leverage to use against the working class. So you had republicans at the very top and very bottom of the economic heap.
Then as blacks began to rise socially they developed a commonality with the working class and began to emulate them to fit in with their economic status, including emulating their political allegiances.
As those economic changes drew blacks into the democratic party it pushed the religious bigots out, and the Republicans, having no other allies made the mistake of accepting the religious types as allies. Thus, the downfall of the traditionally liberal, fiscally conservative GOP.
Dave
14 - zingzing
dave: "Southern republicanism descends from the anti-slavery tradition of Sam Houston and other reformers who regained power after the Civil War. In the south Republicans were traditionally part of the progressive, educated elite, while the ignorant "crackers" were Democrats."
modern southern republicanism also descends from the white folks fleeing the democratic party when the black folks started to get the vote. there was a dramatic shift, maybe even switch, in what each party stood for during the civil rights era.
so while what you say may be true, it's also hopelessly outdated. it's also a little bit insulting.
15 - zingzing
"Only liberal elitists would look out for them out of a sense of benevolence, and until relatively recently that meant Republicans and certainly not Democrats. "
mmmm, paternalism.
16 - Cindy
Dave, it's not like I am defending Democrats above.
Only liberal elitists would look out for them out of a sense of benevolence...
Yeah that's still a problem.
17 - Dave Nalle
modern southern republicanism also descends from the white folks fleeing the democratic party when the black folks started to get the vote. there was a dramatic shift, maybe even switch, in what each party stood for during the civil rights era.
I already addressed that. Posted a whole comment about it, in fact. But it wasn't a switch in positions, just the introduction of an element of traditionally democratic bigotry into a reluctant republican party which has since suppressed and repudiated it.
so while what you say may be true, it's also hopelessly outdated. it's also a little bit insulting.
If you're insulted by the truth I can't help you. As for being outdated, it's true that now the elitist paternalism tends to rest with the democrats, and IMO it's a form of racism in and of itself.
Dave
18 - Cindy
funny how zing and i have the same take on it. wonder how we got that idea?
19 - zingzing
dave: "I already addressed that. Posted a whole comment about it, in fact."
yeah, you did. the same minute i posted what i posted. funny how i can't read stuff that hasn't been posted yet. the future is a strange thing. one minute goes by and it's just THERE, dude.
"But it wasn't a switch in positions, just the introduction of an element of traditionally democratic bigotry into a reluctant republican party which has since suppressed and repudiated it."
well, the democrats began to back the civil rights movement and the racist dems had to go somewhere, and they found open arms and a home in the republican party, home of the wondrous "southern strategy." with the dems in control of the north, the republicans HAD to welcome southern white racists into the fold, and it's to their eternal shame that they did what they had to do in order to retain power.
if you want to talk about elitist paternalism, you'd better check out your squeaky clean in the mirror, mister.
20 - roger nowosielski
Correct me if and where I'm wrong here. I was under the impression that when LBJ was pushing for the Civil Rights legislation, the greatest opposition was from the (Southern?) Democrats. And this was the view in the liberal arts colleges. Where am I wrong?
Roger
21 - roger nowosielski
Re #5 and #7 - the Jews in the South,
A very interesting portrayal in Beach Music, a novel by Pat Conroy, especially of Max Russoff, aka "The Great Jew," in quite sympathetic terms. But we're talking here about the Vietnam era, and the place of action is South Carolina.
22 - roger nowosielski
"As blacks began to rise socially they developed a commonality with the working class and began to emulate them to fit in with their economic status, including emulating their political allegiances.
As those economic changes drew blacks into the democratic party it pushed the religious bigots out, and the Republicans, having no other allies made the mistake of accepting the religious types as allies."
Actually, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this analysis. It appears to make sense.
zing, Cindy - what am I missing?
23 - zingzing
roger, it's not that that's wrong, but it's only part of the picture. the bigots left the democratic party because the blacks came in, and the republicans took them in because they were a voter base they couldn't afford to lose. it was a political maneuver that won them power, but it also changed the nature of their party.
the south was solidly democratic until the civil rights era, and because of civil rights, it became solidly republican, as it remains... until obama came along at least.
and as far as the southern dems being the ones to try to block the civil rights act, that's true, but only in that they were southern. the split was along geographical lines, not party lines, and the republicans were more apt to vote against it (southern republicans vote 100% against the act, even if they didn't have the same kinds of numbers the southern dems had).
24 - roger nowosielski
zing,
I always understood that the Southern Democrat (LBJ was one, wasn't he?) was a different breed of the animal than the rest - not to be associated with the Democrats per se. As to the rest of your comment, I have to digest it.
25 - roger nowosielski
So zing, the argument you seem to be making, in essence, is this:
1) Prior to the Civil Rights passage, the white South was essentially democratic (never mind the Southern Democrats)
2) The passage of the Act (with or without infusion of the black voters into the Democratic party) diminished the party and turned over the reins of political power in the South to the Republicans
3) And it's been so until 2008, i.e., Obama's victory, which resulted in an unprecedented numbers of Southern blacks participate in the political process (at least on the national level).
4) The Southern Democrats throughout all this time, even till today, remained ideologically where they have been - there being no change there.
Ergo: If the above argument is right, then Dave's comment appears beside the point.