How could we have the United States be a rascist, anti-civil rights, anti-black and jewish country? How could we have southern culture be the dominant force in America? Could we have a country that is nothing but white? What about the Dixiecrats? Maybe if they somehow win 1948, or maybe if the pre-Civil War era is different somehow. Please post your answers.
Dixicratic America
- Thread starter FederationX
- Start date
Anti-Semitic? If the South was so anti-Semitic, why did large #s of Jews become peddlers there and ultimately establish lots of department stores (drive down some of the non-Interstate highways and you'll find non-chain department stores with Jewish-sounding names)?
Leo Frank was an aberration.
If you read a lot about WWI and WWII, you'll realize how egregiously racist the US was back then. The only POD needed is something that'll short-circuit the Civil Rights movement.
Leo Frank was an aberration.
If you read a lot about WWI and WWII, you'll realize how egregiously racist the US was back then. The only POD needed is something that'll short-circuit the Civil Rights movement.
I never said the south was Ant-Semetic, I asked how can we make it that way in today's world.
FederationX said:
Well, if you are going to base this on "southern culture becoming dominant in America", then it won't be anti-Jewish. Jews have always been a very respected part of the community in the South. Anti-Semitism, to the extent that it really exists in the U.S., has been more of a Northern phenomenon.
And the Dixiecrats won't work either. The Dixiecrats were concerned about preserving the then-existing system in the South. They were not concerned with imposing it on other parts of the country (it was always the North which sought to impose it's values on others, not the South).
One possible POD...Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks back to Africa. The Republican Party of that time opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because they wanted to preserve the territories as the exclusive home of "free white people." Let's assume that Lincoln is successful, and following the Civil War, all blacks are deported. Lacking now a black population to turn it's racist attitudes toward, Jews, Chinese, and Mexicans become the national pariahs instead of blacks. Since all of these historically (up until recently) had much lower populations than blacks, they are not able to organize any sort of effective "civil rights" movements for themselves. The Republican Party, by claiming the mantle of "The White Man's Party," is able to maintain a stranglehold on power for over 100 years after the Civil War.
Brilliantlight
Banned
robertp6165 said:
The then existing system they were trying to preserve was segregation. For the South state's rights = extreme racism.
Brilliantlight said:
I don't deny that the system which existed in the South in the 1940s was racist and based on segregation and that in the Civil Rights Era, that is what "states rights" usually meant. So how does any of that deny what I posted here, which is that you won't get a totally racist U.S. from a Dixiecrat victory in 1948, as they weren't interested in imposing their segregationist system on the rest of the country.
robertp6165 said:
I think what he's trying to say is that the Dixiecrats were more interested in conserving what they had in the South, not trying to export Jim Crow to the North and West. They did not have a particularly "aggressive" mindset (aggressive in imposing their ideology on non-Southerners; squashing "uppity" blacks @ home was defensive in their minds).
Brilliantlight
Banned
Matt Quinn said:
Mostly because they didn't have much of a chance to do so as they were widely thought of as ignorant rednecks.
I think what you'd need to do is make the 'Southern' mindset more acceptable up North. If the Dixiecrats pushed for segregation elsewhere, the people who got pushed would just dig in their heels (FBI agents driving through Michigan towns seeking out 'race mixers' in a sullen, uncooperative populace while diners de-segregate as soon as they are out of sight and Klan members get whipped out of town or disappear at night.)
I think the 1880s and 1890s would be a good time. 'Scientific' racism became fashionable, and if any party thought it a vote-winner at the federal level it might well have gone into the mainstream nationwide even more than it did. It could being the South on board - remember 'Birth of a Nation' - and allay northern fears about 'hyphenated Americans' and the great unwashed debarking daily.
Another point (overdone, but possible) would of course be the 1930s. You don't have to have President Linbergh, though I think he has sort of become code. Say the Klan isn't rocked by scandals but instead continues to build up its (alarmingly large) northern followership, crime and racism are politically linked, and when the epression hits, divisive politics play out with greater success ("Jobs for Americans! Get the niggers and wogs out of our factories!"). Instead of Roosevelt's 'Socialism Lite', you'd get Compassionate Fascism.
I think the 1880s and 1890s would be a good time. 'Scientific' racism became fashionable, and if any party thought it a vote-winner at the federal level it might well have gone into the mainstream nationwide even more than it did. It could being the South on board - remember 'Birth of a Nation' - and allay northern fears about 'hyphenated Americans' and the great unwashed debarking daily.
Another point (overdone, but possible) would of course be the 1930s. You don't have to have President Linbergh, though I think he has sort of become code. Say the Klan isn't rocked by scandals but instead continues to build up its (alarmingly large) northern followership, crime and racism are politically linked, and when the epression hits, divisive politics play out with greater success ("Jobs for Americans! Get the niggers and wogs out of our factories!"). Instead of Roosevelt's 'Socialism Lite', you'd get Compassionate Fascism.