For John, BLUF: Nice story about a place not unlike Lowell, except for the past honored. Nothing to see here; just move along.
"Mississippi, the Two-Flag State" In which Mr W Ralph Eubanks talks about how Mississippi lives a schizophrenic existence, with homage to the past, but a forward looking population.
Here is the lede:
Well into middle age, after years working as a writer and an editor in Washington, D.C., and Virginia, I found myself unemployed and floundering. I eventually stumbled across a job, teaching as the Eudora Welty Visiting Scholar in Southern Studies at Millsaps College, a place loved by Miss Welty (to call her anything else would violate Southern propriety) and a quick walk from the house where she wrote her novel “Losing Battles.” I grew up on a farm near the small town of Mount Olive, and attended Ole Miss, a college where the Confederate battle flag was flown at football games. Upon graduating, in 1978, I left for the North and vowed never to return. But when I needed somewhere to go and sort out my life, there were no questions asked. After years as a black Southern expatriate and sometime critic of the place that shaped the man I have become, my loyalties were not scrutinized. In spite of everything, Mississippi left the door open for me and had my room ready.A short read and worth it.
Hat tip to the The New Yorker.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
Did you read that story in stormfront about how the swastika flag is more than anything an "homage to the past," as you put it? Very interesting article. You might examine your choice of words. Pretty loaded, especially for a pro-union yankee. Saying the stars and bars are an "homage to the past" ... first, time only runs in one direction and as a result homages to the future are oxymoronic and generally rare. it's a pretty toothless term. but second, either you believe and agree that the civil war was about slavery and the right to own slaves, and that, therefore, the stars and bars symbolized that desire, or you don't, and you're in the denialist camp, the skeptic camp where your global warming position comes from.
fyi, i am skeptic about whether mcdonalds serves hamburgers. yes, i've looked at the evidence. yes, most food service industry reps and most industry equity analysts and the better business bureau and corporate licensing bureau of every state seem to (collusively?) agree that mcdonolads is a hamburger chain. but america is not a slave state. why am i not entitled to my difference in opinion? the data is made out to be conclusive, but is it? i have a friend blue, he blows dudes in the restrooms at Fenway for five bucks, and he tells me that he has NEVER seen a hamburger sold at McDonalds. And he's been going there for twenty years! That USED to be where he sucked dick for money. So I guess I could believe the "experts" or the people on the ground. And which does the scientific method prefer? It prefers skepticism, right? Or am I supposed to go on blind faith that mcdonald's sells hamburgers because some "expert" who is getting paid to say that, whose whole career involves believing that fact, is saying it. I do not thing so, thank you very much. and i have you to thank for this newfound intellectual rigor. and as with your warming pieces, i will not be revisiting this post in light of future happenings. for example, if i personally see a hamburger being sold at a mcdonalds, i dont think that merits my correcting this post. this post is true NOW, TODAY, BLUF: that is all.
Post a Comment