"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:34:42 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.

Is it really THAT outrageous?

Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch
it, Baltimore) a "southern city".

I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too
many times. However the DC is way south of where I live, if you
catch my drift.

Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
"southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obvious
that's not what he meant.

Straw man, I didn't say that I was speaking of south in purely a
geographic sense.

What other sense did you mean then?

Since you don't seem to be getting it Weil, the point I keep trying to make
is that the cultural sense is what matters most in this situation.

If you
had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland
didn't miss becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.

And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
Confederacy.

Two straw men - I didn't mention Ohio or Kentucky's relationship to
the Confederacy.

You brought it up in relation to Baltimore, so I thought it was fair
to bring it up in terms of Cincinnati.

You lose since you brought them up in terms of my knowledge of history. It's
clear from your comments that you didn't consider the historical connection
between Maryland and the South.

It was considered a border state and was as much
sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.

Agreed.

Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot
further South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major
US city that is actually north of Canada.

Due north, of course. Big distinction. Soooo, by using O'Reilly's
logic, you are virtually Canadian.

Detroit has a very strong Canadian influence, culturally speaking. I get
accused of having a Canadian accent from time to time. Detroit also has a
very strong Southern (esp Kentucky) and European influence.

Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New
Orleans. Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?

Trying desperately to wrestle you back into relevance Weil, how do
New Orleans and Nashville compare in terms of race relations?

How does Detroit compare to Cincinnati?

Detroit probably has more de facto segregation than Cincinnati. AFAIK
African-Americans are more politically empowered in Detroit than in
Cincinnati.

You've claimed that it might
be worse, and yet, we have O'Reilly drawing old southern stereotypes
as a reason for the current problems.

Detroit suffers in terms of racial discrimination a number of ways. We have
a lot of blacks and whites from the South that brought up their racial
baggage along with them. We also have a lot of whites from Europe that are
also very prejudiced against African-Americans. Hence, the high levels of
segregation.

How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is
beyond me.

Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps.
Lots. If you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a
lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice.

Quit trying to be cute.

More evidence that Weil thinks he has the right to be absolute ruler
of RAO.

Well, of those of us discussing this, I think I'm the only one who's
actually lived in one of the states in question, regarding O'Reilly's
report.

There's a big difference between the culture in say Cleveland and the
culture in say, Cincinnati. Both are in Ohio, right?

If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
Minneapolis, and Seattle might quibble with you.

If you go north from Detroit you don't go near any of those cities.
You've got to go west to reach them.

And north.

Far more west than North.

You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.

No, I was just building more support for a point that you don't seem
to be able to grasp, Weil.

Oh please, get to it then.

Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
attitudes than geographic location.

I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville
is a lot further North than it actually is, both geographically and
culturally.

Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
Cincinnati.

In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally"
didn't I?

Well yes. That's the whole point. Cincinnati isn't "culturally" a
southern city. It just isn't.

There's some objective proof if I ever saw it: "It just isn't".

It has nothing to do with the south.

Except that its across a fairly narrow river from Kentucky and the nearest
large city in Kentucky is some distance away and not all that large. So,
Cincinnati is a magnet for people from nearby parts of Kentucky. It's got a
big chunk of Kentucky culture running through it. People in the North think
that Kentucky is part of the South, and been there done that, its more part
of the South than the North.

And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
is from New Orleans or Mobile.

In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally"
didn't I?

I would *never* call Nashville
*anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity.

I surely wouldn't argue with that, either in terms of geography or
culture. OTOH Key West is far South of Nashville geographically, but
far North of it culturally.

Actually, not so much. Key West is quite similar in spirit to
Nashville. Key West is hardly "northern" in terms of culturally. Now
Miami and Palm Beach, that's a different story.

Key West must have changed since I lived in Homestead.

I would *never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in
the South for most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even
consider Cincinnati "southern".

When is the last time you were in the Cincinnati area, Weil? For me,
that happened last weekend and it wasn't an isolated incident by far.

And what made it a "southern city" to you? Or were you actually *in*
Cincinnati? Sounds like you weren't.

I was just few dozen miles north, right on the edge of Dayton.

But that's a straw man argument anyway, since you aren't "southern".

I don't have to be southern for my observations and opinions in the matter
to be valid.

Whether or not you were "in the area" is irrelevant to the point.

Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
southern city.

If you go north from Detroit geographically, there is really nothing
but a lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice. Culturally,
Detroit is very, very diverse but also generally quite segmented.
It's been called the most segregated city in the US, and not just by
me.

You're quite proud of that, it seems.

Proud? Surely youjest. How about ashamed?

Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.

See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is
way south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a
bit of civilization further North of it.

Now you're just being silly.

No, I'm making a point that's obviously flying way over your head.
It's like Sanders trying to understand Rumsfeld or Pogo trying to
understand Einstein.

Why do you bother?

Vain hopes that one day you'll wake up and grow a brain, Weil.

Well then, get to the point. That O'Reilly was simply speaking about
geography? If you believe that, you're nuts.

I'm quite sure that O'Reilly was speaking about culture more than geography.

But even the geographic argument isn't as weak as some would like to
pretend. For example, Cincinnati is geographically South of the historic
Mason-Dixon line, a popular dividing line between North and South. How does
the conceptual Mason-Dixon line extend westerly? Microsoft's Encarta is said
to put it on the Ohio River, which is the southern city limits of
Cincinnati. All of a sudden Cincinnati is just barely North of the South.
It's inclusion in the North is just a result of a chance location along a
very wiggly river.

And so we're going to criticize O'Reilly in this regard on what obvious;y
reliable grounds? I see none, not that I have any pleasure in much of his
foolish posturing. This just isn't a good case of it. I'm sure he said
something that was more foolish either a minute before, or a minute after.