Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Election map vs Civil War map

Posted by   + Show Post

by on Nov. 7, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Replies (41-49):
krysstizzle
by DeepThought on Nov. 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM


Quoting meriana:


Quoting krysstizzle:

Oh, come on now, that's a bit of a cop-out. That's half the truth. The other half is that individuals determine and shape the priorities. I.e. culture influences the individual, but the individual also influences the culture. 

Quoting meriana:

During the time of the Civil War, the south, which was largely agricultural, had a very different view, different priorities, etc. (which were influenced by their way of life),  than the industrialized (and becoming more industrialized) north. The maps, no matter which one is looked at, do show the differences between the industrialized or more industrialized, larger city areas and the more agricultural areas, rural ones. Ones way of life, their means of making a living, etc. will always influence their views, priorities and daily decisions as well as political ones.


Not really. The word has different meanings to different people, ie: a scientist talking about a bacterial culture as opposed to someone speaking of things learned from childhood such as language; traditions and beliefs that set them apart from other groups.  Culture is not static because individuals are not static. Take what one learns in history class about the ancient Greek culture. It is certainly different  today because the individuals, their society and way of life changed over time. Back around the 70's, there were whole groups referred to as hippies. They had their own way of life which was regarded as the "hippie culture". When individuals obtained jobs, homes, families, etc. they were no longer part of that culture and their view, priorities and decisions were of course, influenced by the way they made their living and providing for their families far more than by the cultural lifestyle they'd left.

Of course traditions, beliefs, etc. learned from childhood have an influence, sometimes a great deal of influence but overall, one's means of making a living and providing for their family as well as where one lives (industrialized city or rural faming area) is going to have a far greater impact on how they view current events; their priorities and decisions because those things relate directly to their survival and the survival of their families.

Can we agree to disregard the part in red? I obviously wasn't talking about a bacterial culture in a petri dish. A generalized definition of "culture" works just fine, unless you want to delve into the philosophical definition of culture, cognitive versus material culture, etc. But that's all beside the point.

Semantics aside, the point I was making is that culture (which includes the beliefs, environment,  kinship, etc) of an individual influences that individual. But that individual also influences the culture. Which is why not every Southerner in the 19th century agreed with slavery and thought it was a good thing. Individuals change the cultural norms around them. Slavery used to be considered a viable system. Now it's certainly not. 

I think the point you were making is that people will make decisions based mainly upon their material needs. Which is also not true. Yes, people make decisions based on personal survival, obviously; but there is something else at play, as well. Slavery, if looked at completely unemotionally and in a completely de-humanizing way, makes economic sense for the group in power. But as a culture, we've decided that regardless of whether or not it makes economic sense, we don't think it's right. It's not ok. We, as individuals, changed our culture. And the reasons we did that had nothing to do with our own personal material well-being. 

ILive4This
by Bronze Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I saw this on FB earlier, and I had the same take-away.

Quoting krysstizzle:

I don't know, I didn't post it. Interesting historical context? That's what I thought of it. 

Quoting jcrew6:

Why the need to try and make a model fit an agenda to associate the civil war to American votes in 2012?



Quoting krysstizzle:

The original map comparison works better in this example. If you wanted to use your map, a breakdown of popular vote by county, you'd have to compare it to something like slavery per capita at the county (or similar) level. 

Quoting jcrew6:

You are comparing electoral map to civil war map?





Lets look at popular vote map. Tells a different story. Just goes to show someone( like the OP) can manipulate data to serve a narrow minded agenda.






eema.gray
by on Nov. 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The "party of Lincoln" was the Whigs.  Who kind of disappeared after he was assinated.  The Whigs were reborn in 2007 as the Modern Whigs.  In some ways, our party reaches back the the Whigs of the 1800's but we are very much a modern party addressing 21st century issues.

Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting Raesreppilf:

I guess the maps show a nice comparison to how the parties flip flopped over the years.  The Republicans were mainly up north and the Democrats were mainly in the south with a splinter group comprised of immigrants on the east coast.  Back then the Republicans were anti slavery and anti lynching while the Democrats started the KKK and Jim Crow.

Quoting Aislinn:

 Well, thank God for the Republicans during the Civil War. The Dems were busy trying to stop it and starting groups like the Klu Klux Klan, so....


 As I was asking in another post.. Where did the party of Abe Lincoln go? I am afraid it is lost, forever. Democrats are just as controlling as they were back in the day, they are just a tad smarter about it. Reps? Well, I have no idea what happened to them. 


"I am only one, but I am still one; I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." ~~ Edward Everett Hale 1822-1909
Aislinn
by Silver Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM


Quoting eema.gray:

The "party of Lincoln" was the Whigs.  Who kind of disappeared after he was assinated.  The Whigs were reborn in 2007 as the Modern Whigs.  In some ways, our party reaches back the the Whigs of the 1800's but we are very much a modern party addressing 21st century issues.

Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting Raesreppilf:

I guess the maps show a nice comparison to how the parties flip flopped over the years.  The Republicans were mainly up north and the Democrats were mainly in the south with a splinter group comprised of immigrants on the east coast.  Back then the Republicans were anti slavery and anti lynching while the Democrats started the KKK and Jim Crow.

Quoting Aislinn:

 Well, thank God for the Republicans during the Civil War. The Dems were busy trying to stop it and starting groups like the Klu Klux Klan, so....


 As I was asking in another post.. Where did the party of Abe Lincoln go? I am afraid it is lost, forever. Democrats are just as controlling as they were back in the day, they are just a tad smarter about it. Reps? Well, I have no idea what happened to them. 


 You know, I could make so many points from your one statement, but I will save my ranting and just say... I find it interesting that I have never heard that Whigs had formed a modern party. I am usually pretty up on my politics, too. It just goes to show the media tells you what they want to tell you. So many other people have great ideas, but they are ignored because most do not have five billion to get reelected. The Libertarian party was only able to raise 3 million dollars. What is that? One commercial for Obama or Romney? Sad... Thank you for the info.. I look forward to researching the Modern Whig Party!

stormcris
by Christy on Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM
If they were practicing the ideals of civil war they would be voting democratic.
MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I try not to read too much into things like this -- because otherwise I get too depressed.

eema.gray
by on Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM


Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting eema.gray:

The "party of Lincoln" was the Whigs.  Who kind of disappeared after he was assinated.  The Whigs were reborn in 2007 as the Modern Whigs.  In some ways, our party reaches back the the Whigs of the 1800's but we are very much a modern party addressing 21st century issues.

Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting Raesreppilf:

I guess the maps show a nice comparison to how the parties flip flopped over the years.  The Republicans were mainly up north and the Democrats were mainly in the south with a splinter group comprised of immigrants on the east coast.  Back then the Republicans were anti slavery and anti lynching while the Democrats started the KKK and Jim Crow.

Quoting Aislinn:

 Well, thank God for the Republicans during the Civil War. The Dems were busy trying to stop it and starting groups like the Klu Klux Klan, so....


 As I was asking in another post.. Where did the party of Abe Lincoln go? I am afraid it is lost, forever. Democrats are just as controlling as they were back in the day, they are just a tad smarter about it. Reps? Well, I have no idea what happened to them. 


 You know, I could make so many points from your one statement, but I will save my ranting and just say... I find it interesting that I have never heard that Whigs had formed a modern party. I am usually pretty up on my politics, too. It just goes to show the media tells you what they want to tell you. So many other people have great ideas, but they are ignored because most do not have five billion to get reelected. The Libertarian party was only able to raise 3 million dollars. What is that? One commercial for Obama or Romney? Sad... Thank you for the info.. I look forward to researching the Modern Whig Party!

We're pretty middle of the road on most issues, which is probably why there's not a lot of media play.  The drama is in provoking one extreme element against the other.  Gary Johnson also got a full one percent of the vote basically just using facebook, twitter, and strategic appearances in key places.  That is a pretty awesome statement for the power of social media.  I think fundraising is going to become less important as up and coming politicians realize, and utilize, the powers of social media sites.

"I am only one, but I am still one; I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." ~~ Edward Everett Hale 1822-1909
Aislinn
by Silver Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:56 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting eema.gray:


Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting eema.gray:

The "party of Lincoln" was the Whigs.  Who kind of disappeared after he was assinated.  The Whigs were reborn in 2007 as the Modern Whigs.  In some ways, our party reaches back the the Whigs of the 1800's but we are very much a modern party addressing 21st century issues.

Quoting Aislinn:


Quoting Raesreppilf:

I guess the maps show a nice comparison to how the parties flip flopped over the years.  The Republicans were mainly up north and the Democrats were mainly in the south with a splinter group comprised of immigrants on the east coast.  Back then the Republicans were anti slavery and anti lynching while the Democrats started the KKK and Jim Crow.

Quoting Aislinn:

 Well, thank God for the Republicans during the Civil War. The Dems were busy trying to stop it and starting groups like the Klu Klux Klan, so....


 As I was asking in another post.. Where did the party of Abe Lincoln go? I am afraid it is lost, forever. Democrats are just as controlling as they were back in the day, they are just a tad smarter about it. Reps? Well, I have no idea what happened to them. 


 You know, I could make so many points from your one statement, but I will save my ranting and just say... I find it interesting that I have never heard that Whigs had formed a modern party. I am usually pretty up on my politics, too. It just goes to show the media tells you what they want to tell you. So many other people have great ideas, but they are ignored because most do not have five billion to get reelected. The Libertarian party was only able to raise 3 million dollars. What is that? One commercial for Obama or Romney? Sad... Thank you for the info.. I look forward to researching the Modern Whig Party!

We're pretty middle of the road on most issues, which is probably why there's not a lot of media play.  The drama is in provoking one extreme element against the other.  Gary Johnson also got a full one percent of the vote basically just using facebook, twitter, and strategic appearances in key places.  That is a pretty awesome statement for the power of social media.  I think fundraising is going to become less important as up and coming politicians realize, and utilize, the powers of social media sites.

 He more than doubled the vote Bob Barr received in 08. It may take awhile, but if we keep doubling the numbers, it will not be long before we attain the 5% to become contenders... 

twistedtulip
by New Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Lol!! Oh lord I'm right in the middle of the red!

Welcome to the South: where obesity is a genetic disorder and homosexuality is a life style choice. (I read that on Pinterest somewhere)

LOL
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)