default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

In my words: Rethink what you know about “the South”

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013 5:15 am

“Why do so many people think the South is so bad?” one of my international students asked me this winter on the first day of a class I taught about Southern history and culture. “I think it’s pretty great here.”

Lacking a good reply, “me too” was all I could muster.

It was a weak answer to an important question. Like the boll weevil that once blighted cotton crops, stereotypes about the South rob the region of its greatness and hamper efforts to improve its shortcomings.

Most Southerners realize “y’all” is a contraction and not a single word bequeathed to us by Southern birthright. Very few of us plan our New Year’s Eve celebrations around dropping ‘possums down a pole. Car horns that play the “Dukes of Hazzard” theme song are quite rare. Mullets are seldom preferred over molars. And fried butter is hardly a delicacy in Dixie, despite what Honey Boo Boo’s mom might have told you.

Repeating falsehoods tends to reinforce them. I’ll refrain from alluding to more here, but trust me: you’ve heard them before.

Stereotypes about the South, both good and bad, stigmatize many native Southerners in a competitive global economy that values cosmopolitanism. They confuse people who are deciding where to live. They can mislead businesses when deciding where to invest. And they coerce government leaders to focus on the wrong issues facing the region.

Many of these stereotypes arise from the way we’re programmed to think in broad brushstrokes. It’s not just shortsighted, but actually dangerous, when folks assume that an “average” anything about a place applies to everyone who lives there. Efforts to build on Southern “virtues” or to repair Southern “vices” have a cracked semantic foundation. Such efforts mistake the trees for the forest.

America is in the details. We can only address social or economic problems by understanding them in their full complexity. Differences within states are usually greater than differences between them. For example, and contrary to popular belief, America’s wealthiest state, Connecticut, has more in common with its poorest, Mississippi, than the rich have in common with the poor in any given state.

Then there’s the media. Hollywood and many national news organizations provide a skewed view of the South. Forest Gump, though lovable, wasn’t real. Neither was Scarlett O’Hara. George Wallace, Billy Graham, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dolly Parton are realistic but atypical. In fact, there is no “typical.” That’s part of the problem we have when talking in generalities.

If that weren’t enough, the South suffers from what social scientists call “confirmation bias.” Humans selectively accept information that supports their views of the former Confederacy while rejecting information that challenges deeply held beliefs. It cuts both ways. Viewing “Southern hospitality” as universal is just as misleading as expecting a complex demographic group to be a monolith of “good ole’ boys.”

Many stereotypes come from natural tendencies that, in the short term, help people make sense of a complicated world. In the long term, however, these tendencies in thinking further complicate that world.

“Discovering Dixie,” as I called my winter class, ain’t so easy. Fertile farms, graceful charm and other sweet things sit juxtaposed with troubled legacies, economic hardships and lingering social problems. Mansions line remote swamps while homeless line urban mansions. Skyscrapers rise from old cotton fields while weeds grow from decaying factory yards. Myths fuel lies while piquing fascination.

I ended my winter class with a better answer to the student’s question. Simple observation alone will not lead to a true appreciation or understanding of a place. They need to seek a deeper, richer view of the South by looking at real evidence and seeking a diversity of experiences. Accept that grand statements about an area, however appealing, are almost always a mile wide and an inch deep.

Resisting our personal biases won’t end misunderstanding of the South, but it’s a worthwhile start. Stereotypes hamper the region’s progress and compromise the potential of a nation.

Many people tell me they would have difficulty finding anywhere worse. I would have difficulty living anywhere else.

Jason Husser is an assistant professor of political science at Elon University and a Washington Parish native.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Scott Martin posted at 11:31 pm on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Scott Martin Posts: 97

    Thank you for the data, Old School, on federal tax allotments per state.

    It does not affect my assertion that "generally the states of the old Confederacy and border states receive more federal dollars than they send out."

  • Old School posted at 7:12 am on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Old School Posts: 158

    Federal Tax Allotments Per State

    The place with highest federal tax allotments per capita is Washington, D.C., with $65,109. The state with the second-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Alaska with $13,950. The state with the third-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Virginia $16,610. The state with the fourth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is Maryland with $11,956. The state with the fifth-highest federal tax allotments per capita is New Mexico with $10,733.

    The state with the lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Nevada with $5,889. The state with the second-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Utah with $5,944. The state with the third-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Wisconsin with $6,113. The state with the fourth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Oregon with $6,285. The state with the fifth-lowest federal tax allotments per capita is Illinois with $6,334.

  • JasonHusser posted at 6:23 pm on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

    JasonHusser Posts: 1

    Washington Parish is a special place to me.

  • Scott Martin posted at 10:10 am on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

    Scott Martin Posts: 97

    All this talk about against regional stereotyping made me think back to 2004, when a state politician and candidate for the U.S. Senate gave a nationally televised speech, in which he said:

    The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some g_y* friends in the red states.

    (That was a pretty good speech, wasn't it? Whatever happened to that guy?)

    At the same time, though, when we breeze past statistics among the states such as literacy rates and imprisonment rates, when we ignore the history of racial oppression in our part of the country, when we pretend not to notice shotgun shacks because we're going on about what a lovely town, say, Charlotte or Tupelo is, we're not doing ourselves any favors. There are reasons that generally the states of the old Confederacy and border states receive more federal dollars than they send out. We as southerners need to face up to those reasons and deal with them. Otherwise, what William Faulkner said will always be true: "The past is never dead. It isn't even past."

    *Dear Daily News: I had to alter the word because the autoeditor rejected it citing "the presence of profanity". It's not profane. You really need to fix this.


Follow us on Facebook