This piece from Faith and Heritage takes 'rednecks' to task for letting our folk down. The writer says 'redneck culture' demeans and inhibits our people.
The response, based on the comments posted, is mostly positive, with one dissenting voice. Am I missing something here? I actually take the article as a rather harsh indictment of 'rednecks', putting a great deal of blame on their shoulders when in my view, they are no more and no less subject to manipulation by the poisonous media-driven culture we live in than the rest of us.
A while back on this blog, the term ''White trash'' was discussed, and many of you were adamant that it was a term of derision and as some of you felt, an outright racial slur on par with the infamous ''n-word.'' I was a little less vehement than some of my readers about that; I believe we should hold our folk to a higher standard, and we should use social pressure to keep the worst elements in line, as used to be the fashion in traditional society.
In the town where my grandmother lived for years, there was a large extended family of what would be called ''White trash'' and possibly 'rednecks,' depending on how you define that word. They were ignorant in both the dictionary definition and the old Southern colloquial use of that word. When I came to stay with my grandmother in that town, she pointed out members of this clan to me and warned me that they were 'outlaws', (her exact word) and that they were behind most of the crime and mischief in the town. She told me to shun them, and have nothing to do with them, which is what the decent folk did for the most part. But if any member of that 'outlaw' clan chose to live an upstanding life, the stigma was lifted and they were treated as equals.
Social pressure worked, in some cases. Not always.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there are low-class people who are an embarrassment to their folk. I think we have to encourage the best among all our people in any way we can.
In that light, I don't see what the aim of the F&H article is; it seems to be just a scathing condemnation of a certain type of low-class, uncouth White Southron (though any American can be a 'redneck') and an effort by the writer at distancing himself from them and their image.
This kind of thing is common among pro-Whites; oftentimes, it takes the form of condemning those of more 'extreme' or far-right views and of scolding those who ''make us all look bad.'' I can't say that this is the view of the writer, but the piece has the tone of that kind of 'distancing' and shaming rhetoric.
The fact that Fred Reed's review of the book 'Deer Hunting With Jesus' is quoted does not help, in my opinion. Reed seems to condemn White 'rednecks', his own ethnic kinsmen presumably, while living in the midst of Mexican culture, in an ironic touch. Low-class Mexican culture makes 'rednecks' look genteel and suave.
The writer goes on to condemn rednecks' inability to think for themselves -- but how many Americans think for themselves? I'd say a decided minority, in any social class or demographic. Why are 'rednecks', a people who are considered fair game by just about everyone, raked over the coals? It seems to me that they are favorite whipping boys of the left as well as the 'respectable' right and the alt-right intellectual crowd.
The origin of the 'redneck' term is in dispute; you can take your pick of the different stories. Ultimately, though, the etymology doesn't matter, and I think most of us have an idea of who 'rednecks' are.
I've had my share of experience of 'rednecks' and of those most would call 'White trash', and yes, there is a very bad element among those people. But 'trashy behavior' is found among all classes. Just look at how the feted celebrities behave, as you note all the inane gossip stories every day. I live in a town with a great many upper-middle-class to upper class people. Most are well-educated, polished, and well-dressed. Most of them are fond of the crude pop culture of today, and though most are nominally Christian, many are not that much better than the 'trailer trash', so-called, demographic, in terms of their personal lives and morals. They are just more presentable, that's all.
As to the 'rednecks' evangelical/Zionist brand of Christianity, (insofar as they are real Christians; many are not) what can we expect? There is little Christian leadership these days. The pastors and preachers and 'ministers' are, all too often, false shepherds; hirelings. In the religious realm, as in the political arena, we are all leaderless sheep. How can we expect a group of people who are in most cases less educated and less informed to be as savvy as we believe ourselves to be? If we think they are ignorant, then we need to educate them, if we can.
In my own personal experience, these people are not hopeless. They at least have a sense of being White, and some pride in their Southern heritage, in most cases. Many are very loyal to family and community, and that's a lot more than can be said for the average hyper-individualist, deracinated American.
As for their 'Zionist, rapture-bunny' beliefs (and is this not a rank stereotype?) if you scratch the surface, you may find remnants of their fathers and grandfathers' brand of Christianity, which was closer to the real thing, before Christianity became so corrupted. Those of us who came from old-time Southron Christian roots remember that our parents and grandparents were not Semitophiles; this was the case up until maybe 20-30 years ago. The roots of Christian Zionism are very shallow.
In my opinion, 'rednecks' of whatever variety are nowhere near the problem that wiggers, self-hating 'Whites', urban liberals, and 'respectable conservatives' are.
I realize that the writer contrasts 'authentic rednecks', who are good guys, with the 'fraudulent', but I don't think it's always possible to tell just with a glance who is who. We can't afford to write these people off.
And if we want to have a resurgent South, we have to try to bring our folk together, without class-based divisions or ethnic grudges -- such as Celts vs. evil Anglo-Saxon oppressors, or talk about Cherokee ancestors, the Trail of Tears, and so on.
The traditional South was not as riven by these divisions as the present-day South is, and that poses a huge problem to those who want to see the South restored.
Opinions, anyone?
