http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=435266

This website is a domain used to create conversations that “fight ignorance”. Somehow, a discussion about “What is so great about the movie ‘Deliverance’?” came upon the site. The majority of the comments in the discussion had to do with either “Ned” being raped, or the beautiful way that the director captured the nature. But several comments seemed to go into more deep material (seemingly the further you went down. There were several people who said they were from the area that “Deliverance” was filmed, and that it all seemed surreal. But they, along with the rest of the people that identify as Appalachian seemed to go against the grain a little bit. They agreed that a large portion of the backwoods Appalachians were uneducated, poor, and unhealthy, that did not mean that they would become rapists and murderers. While some people said that the scenario seemed so real, the Appalachian contesters seemed to be arguing against these misconceptions. As stated before, the rape of Ned seemed to be the largest concern to those who commented. Issues such as “why was it him, not the others” were brought up, and typically answered with the fact that it made “squeal like a pig” work better. So overall, it seems that people looked at this movie more superficially and not with regards to its effect on Appalachian culture or discourse.

After searching google for a good half an hour, I finally came up with a small discussion held on the following website about the movie “Matewan”. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026044981

Disappointingly, the discussion only talked about some of the plots and characters, and about how great the writers thought the movie was. As stated in the prompt, I looked for any discussions on the discourse of the movie, or the role that the movie may or may not have played in influencing the area, and the people inside of that area. One thing that I did see come up was the honoring of Sid Hatfield, the Sheriff of Matewan that supported the rights of the people in the Union. A picture of his grave was even uploaded into the comments. So in one way, the thread did talk about the meaning of the movie. The sheer fact that a man, who really lived and helped protect his people, was brought to attention of the people means a good bit. He stands as a shining example to many people to stand up, or even to fight for what is right and good in this world. This movie brought him the respect he so deserves from everyone that now has shorter work hours and better pay.

1-Which wars were negative for the population and culture of Appalachians? How?

2-Which wars were positive for the population and culture of Appalachians? How?

3- Why did the military seem to take so much interest in making bases in Appalachian regions?

4- What can be done to strengthen the Appalachian economies?

5- Did music play a role in the success of Appalachian regions such as Nashville during times of industrialization?

Donesky calling The Kentucky Cycle (THC) a “drive by shooting” (285) is quite the accurate description of the play, at least to his understanding. He goes on to describe two models of projecting the society of Appalachian peoples. These are the pathological and the structural models. The pathological model, or “the culture of poverty” is where the negative image of Appalachia in literature such as in THC actually can affect the ability of the region to not be in poverty. This belief is held because people see the Appalachians as degenerates and such. It is like the brown eye, blue eye experiment. If a group of people are told that they are dumb, not proficient and so forth, then they will live up purely to their expectations.  Donesky believes that this is the more important model because it has had a disastrous effect, which is creating a culture of poverty stricken people in the Appalachian ranges. The structural model, where people see the lack of success in the region is due to available resources, has had less of an effect on Appalachian people because it doesn’t reflect their ability to succeed, but the ease at which they can succeed. This is important because it highlights the reasons why literature like THC are so important.

Personally, if people believed this was how all people in the Appalachian regions acted, I would be very upset myself. The messages throughout the story are those of uneducated men and women, never advancing, mistreating women, being religious cooks, being tricky and honorless, and being willing to betray their family or friends for their own personal gain. Anyone could be offended, and rightfully so, if they were viewed in such a light. But, as stated, the author was attempting to help those in the region, whether it be by acknowledging the problems in the area, or just bringing attention to the general area. Regardless, The Kentucky Cycle’s final message of unity and family at the end may not have been redeeming enough. The damage caused by this book could be worse than it was intended, and that is because those who read this may fall to the misconception that most Appalachians act that way. When an uninformed society gets their hands on “juicy” material such as this, they can take it and run with it. This has been seen throughout most of History. For example, when people think of hillbilly, they largely think of a toothless, racist fiend. While it may be accurate for some, it is surely not accurate for all, or even a majority of, the people in the Appalachian region.

Key themes in part one of The Kentucky Cycle revolve mainly around the general stereotypes of people who lived in the nineteenth century. Many of these themes come together to promote an image of Appalachian peoples that is very derogatory. These themes include feigned superiority, violence, the abuse of women, and general crudeness. The book starts off with an engagement between some Native Americans and the main character, Michael. In accordance to prevent more violence, Michael finds it fit to trade with the natives. He gave them blankets and pelts in exchange for a large sum of land. The material he gave were contaminated with smallpox, resulting in massive casualties of the natives. He saved one of their women and held her captive “as his wife”. This plays into the theme of sexism and violence when he cuts her Achilles to keep her from running away, and raping her. She then bears a child and the rest of the story is the tale of their family, keeping their land and their values. Feigned superiority is shown by when Michael tricks the natives for their land, and general crudeness is shown throughout the story by Michael and his children’s vulgar thoughts, actions, and language.

Music has played a large role in every society, whether it be eliciting emotions, sending a message, or purely keeping a group of people entertained. From the war songs of ancient peoples, to rap songs during times of social unrest, these songs have pumped up warriors, incited revolutions, and motivated the weary to push through the pain. For example, think back to the movie “Straight out of Compton”. The rappers write about their great struggles with society, the police and themselves. Their music, while it is fairly good (which I know is subjective, but it is viewed by many as good), served more than just entertainment. Because they so passionately wrote about their struggles, so strongly sticking to their beliefs, and acted in such revolutionary ways, their music became very popular. The more people they reached, the greater their sphere of influence. With their music came a sense of fear, particularly of the police. This brought the people effected to resist the police. Another, less recent example would be during the Civil Rights era. Many songs that were created by slaves were sung by the people. They used the songs of their people’s struggles as a sort of way to enhance their cause. Their struggle was shared, and made every ounce of pain to gain equality worth it. That is what music can do, and what it has done in recent American history.

As shown throughout most of human history, to be able to subjugate, abuse, or take advantage of another group of people, you must feel superior to them. So why would people degrade the Appalachian peoples? Who would it be serving to make a whole group of hard working people seem inferior to yourself? The answer would be large industry. Industries, particularly coal mining industries, are largely to blame for the creation of these stereotypes. Several of our first readings, mainly the one’s that seemed to degrade Appalachians, were written by leaders in the mining world. They purposefully set in to motion a political movement to gain the high ground over these people, so that they could give them unfair treatment. For example, since they were inferior, the miners could be given unfair pay, terrible working conditions, and lethal hours. This allowed for an immense amount of work to be done for a fraction of the price it would have normally taken, and in a smaller amount of time. Also, this allowed for “advanced” or “progressive” people to be able to buy Appalachian products for less money as well. So overall, the degredation of the Appalachian status led to their abuse from mining industries and merchants.

When Billings points out that many of the Appalachian stereotypes have been created by progressives, he is pointing to those greatly who are largely modernized and in touch with main stream media. These people, being in touch with what is new, can learn to view themselves as superior to others through their knowledge. So when people are different from them, maybe not as technologically advanced (whether that be through choice or lack of availability), these progressives can put a bad name on these people. For example, rednecks and hillbillies have been seen as not advanced, stuck back in the 1900’s. That is not because they truly are far behind, it is because the modern, city folk have been labeling them as such. These city folk have the name progressive because they are so… progressive! While they label themselves positively, the negative ideology behind redneck and hillbilly can offend, degrade, or even hold the people of Appalachia from their full potential. As shown by the blue eye, brown eye video presented in class, people live up to the expectations given to them. So while the “progressives” are so advanced and open, they are truthfully being close minded and negative towards the Appalachian people.

When you look up either “redneck” or “hillbilly”, all you have to do is look at the images they bring up to understand that people have a particular image for these “mountain people”. What comes up are pictures of obese, toothless, sun dried people. But the more you look through the images, the more you also see regular people, usually farmers or southerners that are not afraid to work hard or get dirty. So what are the stipulation of being a redneck or hillbilly? Stacy Kranitz of Vice recently published an article (http://www.vice.com/read/what-it-means-to-be-a-redneck-or-a-hillbilly-ang) talking about the difference between the two. It is summed up by the quote,

“Redneck is a state of action. You do things to be a redneck. Shoot guns, drink domestic beer, support right-wing politics. White trash, hick, etc. are states of being. You are these things because of what you are. Class, worldview, etc. Hillbilly is a state of mind, though. It’s metaphysical and ephemeral and contradictory”.

Towards the beginning of her piece, Kranitz introduced the fact that the meanings have changed. Whereas redneck used to be more offensive, because it referred to a rough group of union workers, the meaning has been adapted by many southerners as positive. They prove that they are rednecks by owning big trucks, and talking with a thick accent. This affirms the quote above, who says that being redneck is a state of action. Being a hillbilly in society today means that you are country, you live what rednecks only take some aspects from.