agreed "slightly"

Decently sure black-eyed peas are a black thing. White people eat them?

In the South? Of course.

I can't think of a single food in the South that is widely eaten by black people and infrequently eaten by white people.

This still is not comparable. To answer your question, my guess would be no. I do not have any polling results for your question to know for sure. All my knowledge on the subject comes from Texas Tech's Dr. Milam who focused heavily on Vietnam and Cambodian history. Given the fact they don't teach their history in schools, this is how I get to my guess.

The Cambodian genocide is a bit darker than Southern values. Only a minority of which were racist. During the genocide, they would beat babies to death by holding their legs and swinging them into trees to save ammo all while playing music over loudspeakers to shield the noise. I don't recall the South organizing any mass murders of millions of people.

I don't need an education on Cambodia.

You don't have to support Confederate statues in order to embrace innocuous Southern values like saying yes sir and yes ma'am to older people.

The history of the Confederacy is pretty damn dark.

Were you able to type this without giggling to yourself? The entirety of Southern culture was built upon slavery.

Yes, I was.

Chitlins?

This is a really weird take on my post. I was replying to a post that made no comment on why there was a love for confederate things, and I wasn't commenting on it either. No trolling or playing dumb involved.

But if you want to get into the motivation, I'd say it's pretty silly to portray it as a "love for their history" for every person, and nothing more. Just like it would be silly to assume that every collector of Nazi memorabilia was doing so as a love for history, or that every collector was doing so as a love for Nazis/Nazism.

I try my best to avoid every, always, never, etc.

You might avoid those words, but when you say "It's a love for their history." in response to a post about the southeast's love for Confederate memorials, the implication is that's the only motivation.

But now I've clarified that I wasn't commenting on the motivation, and you've clarified that you weren't suggesting it's one motivation for everyone. All good.

Are you trying to argue horrors like this didn't occur during slavery? We're talking shades of grey between genocide and slavery.

Yes. It would be news to me if there was an organized genocide during the slavery era comparable to the Cambodian genocide. You know this though

I was referring to acts like the brutal killing of a child. The difference between genocide and the slave trade is a technicality. Millions of people died during the Atlantic slave trade and millions endured hundreds of years of torture, rape, and murder in the South. It is absolutely splitting hairs.

I'll take slavery over genocide personally but to each their own

I get what you're saying about how the slave trade and genocide are both really awful and caused a ton of suffering. Like, millions of people died during the slave trade, and others were tortured, raped, and murdered for hundreds of years in the South. It's hard to even think about.

But, technically speaking, genocide is when someone tries to wipe out a whole group of people based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or whatever. The slave trade wasn't exactly that, even though it was super messed up and caused a ton of harm to Black people and their descendants.

The slaughter of American Indians would be a better comparison in my opinion.

My point was if we set aside intent, which is the technical difference, the resulting harm is largely indistinguishable or at least beyond a threshold where the differences would matter.

We are losing the thread here a bit.

Why does the Cambodian genocide have to be exactly the same thing as American slavery in order for your comment about history-loving Southerners to be ridiculous?

I don't agree with your comparison as it doesn't seem fair to me. However, I don't believe erasing history is the solution, and I think there are many positive aspects of Southern culture and values that should be acknowledged. In my opinion, the entire history of America, both good and bad, should be taught.

Germany doesn't idolize anything attached to Nazism but they haven't lost their ability to be proud of their culture. No one's saying Southerners can't be proud of their culture, just don't attach that pride to a flag or statues that symbolize slavery.

I am glad you brought that up and I knew you would at some point. There are many WWII German war heroes that are still respected to this day. Rommel and Manstein come to mind.

Who is arguing for erasing history? I am very much in favor of students of U.S. history being taught about the American South generally and the Confederacy generally. I suspect that everyone else in the forum is as well.

Being regarded as great battlefield tacticians is not the same thing as being considered heros or sources of cultural pride.

When you made the Cambodian genocide comparison I naturally compared Cambodia's decision to not teach the genocide in schools to the movement in America that supports the removal of historical southern names, statues, etc.

Well, it's good to see that this conversation has resulted in you learning that not teaching about a dark part of your country's history is not even remotely the same thing as removing some statues and building names celebrating people.

Oh, wait...