So, even though Northerners and Southerners seem to have a mutual distaste of ACTUAL secession, there is always something that will send each side back to their trenches to start sniping at each other. This news sent me back to mine for a few days.
Here I was defending them, and then this. So, I'm slightly altering my review from before. Although ultimately my opinion has not changed of the book, it can be a challenge to be fair when I read about chair lynchings.
Only in the South. But, it's really just another sibling rivalry fight among family. We are one country and you can't choose your family, but that doesn't mean you don't sometimes want to strangle family.
Political hate books are terrible even when the author is on "your team." They are all just a different form of terrible even if you agree or enjoy the book, if that makes sense. I picked this book because I thought it would be funny (it was, at times) and because I tend to find much of Southern politics frustrating. Laughing about your frustration might seem enjoyable.
The author does not provide new information, but he he does give anyone who wants to rag on the South plenty of statistics, anecdotes and other information to use when trying to prove objectively whatever negative he or she may want to prove about the South. Some of that was even interesting (such as just how much more money Southern states take than they contribute in Federal money).
Ultimately, it's a song to the choir and, although Thompson tries to really address actual secession as a possibility it's status as a farce becomes clearer still. He should have just made it a rant / joke book, but trying to make the issue academic just felt like a stretch.
If you already know that race remains an issue in the South, that they love football, that they have an obesity problem, that their schools are terrible, their politics angry, that they receive way more federal money than they pay, and that their BBQ is delicious, then you really won't learn anything new. You may, however, get some useful background to use in an argument. But, again, I think we all agree on those things anyway. The argument has always been that Southerners are not bothered by any of that and Northerners think it should bother them.
The author admits early on that neither side really wants secession and that it is completely impractical and an objectively bad idea. Yet, he decides to undertake the "academic" approach of flushing out a possible secession. He cobbles together a little "round-table" made up of a few professors and students from Georgia, discussed the issue over beers at a bar and got nowhere. Had he just admitted the conclusion (as he did); and turned the book into information about the region and anecdotes from his tour of the South (he also did this); made some jokes (he lamely did that); and just left the "round-table" out, it may have been an informative and possibly entertaining book.
The best "ah-ha" moment was when the author explained why Texas would remain in the North and the professor pointed out that Texas would never be told where it would go. Instead, Texas would force a bidding war to do best for Texas. I had been screaming that at the author and was glad the prof chimed in. Again, the exercise of exploring secession was pointless and agitating.
The moral of the story is that even angry people on both sides don't "really" want to split the country. And, I think we're comfortable just being frustrated with each other sometimes.
And, then Texans start lynching chairs and I wish I would have loved this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment