The Tony Jones Blog at Patheos
Follow PatheosProgressive Christian:
Oh… dang.. wow. There’s something to be said there, but I believe it wiser to say nothing.
Gosh. We all know it, but it is still mind-boggling to me, looking at the data, that the states that didn’t have slavery then are the ones for which religion is not important now. Hasten, post-Christendom.
I believe the expression is: oh snap!
…and Lincoln was a…what? Just for fun: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapusab-occ05agi.gif
Even more interesting is this one that shows the cotton belt and the county by county vote. Verrry interesting stuff. http://cstl-csm.semo.edu/gathman/cottonvote.htm
I like this one. How times change.
Dont really see the point….are you just looking for those annoying comments that you post about?
Whew.. a few commenters need a nap….
I don’t really see the point. Old pro slave areas are still known to be conservative. Is this a surprise?
So is this to infer that red states are pro-slavery? That is foolishness. But it does prove that a couple of stray facts, like stray electrons, can cause an explosion!
Wow, what a visual. This seems to show that so much cultural legacy remains, even after a culture as a whole as progressed.
Really, what’s the point? I suppose the results of the 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, or 1972 elections don’t really fit your template. Pretty classy stuff.
In truth, going back far enough, even to the time of slavery, the colors are almost completely reversed.
Ge’ez, people, a little sensitive? Sorry you’re so easily offended. Ted, my posting of these maps has NOTHING to do with the inclusiveness of emergent, and you know it. Balms, actually a lot of this is a legacy of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and the further work of Lee Atwater. Atwater confessed to using lingering racial prejudice to change the “yellow dog Democrats” in the South in Reagan Republicans. And Atwater repudiated his own work before he died.
Given that states rights was the cry of the south during the civil war it isn’t supprising that they would join the party that seeks less federal government and more state control. But I hope that everyone realizes that though a state is colored totally blue or red on the map the actual break- down of the votes in that state are probably 40 some percent to 50 some percent and that none of us are off the hook for racism. Even the north backed and allowed jim crow laws.
I don’t know if my comment posted so here goes again: Given that states rights was the cry of the south during the civil war it isn’t supprising that they would join the party that seeks less federal government and more state control. But I hope that everyone realizes that though a state is colored totally blue or red on the map the actual break- down of the votes in that state are probably 40 some percent to 50 some percent. There is no such thing as a totally red or blue state. Secondly, none of us are off the hook for racism. Even the north backed and allowed jim crow laws.
“Ge’ez, people, a little sensitive? Sorry you’re so easily offended.” Tony, 1) You don’t have to apologize to your readers (or maybe you do? –> Matt 5:23-24) – but you need not berate them further. 2) if you intend to make a point with these maps, you should state your point. Otherwise, you leave your critics to assume that you’re making another mean-spirited attack on political conservatives (as racists?), and you allow like-minded friends to make specious arguments from the data above. I can’t see why these maps are “fun” and you haven’t made it any clearer.
The red state / blue state maps for the 2000 and 2004 maps reveal correlations that underlie the results of other elections — in large part because 2000 & 2004 were so close. 2008 was a bit less close in popular vote, and a lot less close in the electoral college, so you get a lot of differences wiped out in a sea of blue — as happened to a greater degree & in reverse in, for instance, 1984’s sea of red. The underlying realities can be seen in the 2008 results when you look at maps like the ones on the New York Times web site which not only go county-by-county, but also have varying shades of colors to show just how democratic or republican the counties voted. The more detailed maps also show other important correlations — e.g., between urban and rural, and those that go by the racial make-up of areas – like the fascinating “cotton belt” phenomenon linked to above in the comments. The correlations between slave & free states & territories in 1860 and either the 2000 & 2004 elections certainly don’t appear to be coincidences, but show how lasting are the divisions produced early in our nation’s history, and that are wrapped up with the old issue of slavery (the divisions being partly the effect of and partly the cause of that controversy). Nothing like a massive, bloody war to cement divisions into place for a very long time. Part of what makes it fascinating is how it transcends changes in driving issues (nobody’s debated slavery for a long time), and transcends parties. Yes, Lincoln was a Republican, and during much of the time between his time and ours, these divisions didn’t line up neatly with any party divisions, and, at many times, to the extent they not-quite-so-neatly did line up with parties, it was the democratic party that tended to carry areas of the country that had been most vehemently pro-slavery. But it looks like the divisions remained, and were able to latch onto party divisions as the political winds flitted about. None of this speaks to blame. Indeed, on the face of it, long-lasting divisions can be at least as easily blamed on the actions of the victors of a massive armed conflict as on its losers. But that’s just an extremely general glancing observation whose point is just to say that assigning blame for the continuing of very old divisions — to the extent one is inclined to play that game — couldn’t be done quickly or one-sidedly.
Oh, Jones, a new twist on the race card, I see. Kudos for creativity, if not for truth and taste. So, are you saying that those who voted for Bush would be for slavery? Or is that the accusation that you’re afraid to voice because you know it’ll show the sham of what your trying to not-say? Yeah, like slavery is such a big issue now. Perhaps you should do some digging before inferring accusations.
1. What's Up with Rob Bell?
2. Is Sojourners for Straights Only?
3. There Are Two Marriages
4. Homoerotic Churches
5. Would John Piper Excommunicate His Son?
6. A Call to Clergy: Stop Performing (Legal) Marriages
7. Mark Driscoll's House of Cards
Follow Patheos on