I'm with Bobert on this one. It didn't take an invasion to end slavery in New York or in Brazil, nor to end serfdom in Russia, nor apartheid in South Africa. I know of no reason to think that the South alone would have clung to its peculiar institution until a gun was held to its forehead. Yes, Lincoln's actions ended slavery sooner, but at fearful cost, not only during the war, but for generations to come.

Having agreed with Bobert on that, I must disagree that Southern stereotypes are somehow not really stereotypes because they are sometimes accurate. OF COURSE they are sometimes accurate. Stereotypes arise when an accurate observation is over-generalized, when a trait found in SOME members of a group is treated as if it were found generally among the members of that group.   

I assure you that, in South Carolina in 1969, there were African-Americans who were lazy. The problem was that not a few white people acted as if all or most of them were lazy. That was prejudice, and pointing out a lazy African-American down at the Esso station didn't change that fact.

A person who thinks that male nurses are homosexual is prejudiced, even though some male nurses are actually homosexuals. A person who thinks Jews are greedy is prejudiced, even though some Jews are actually greedy. A person who thinks Southerners are stupid is prejudiced, even though some Southerners actually are stupid. A person who thinks all Mudcatters are...you get the idea.

Kent