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.

Nicholas Schweers

I find that the two author’s depictions have both a positive and negative image of the Appalachian people. On the bright side, both Harney and Frost refer to these people as living simple lives, which were usually much more peaceful and happy than more civilized lives. For example, their lack of new knowledge and advancement led them to still use stone cottages, while the rest of the west seemed to move on to many different types of abodes (Frost). But Frost then goes on to show his readers why their ignorance, being behind the times is so negative.

“Ignorance makes men positive, and the barriers of orthodoxy have been raised to a very commanding height. The same positiveness leads to a multitude of sects, and is reinforced by the feudal spirit for following a partisan leader (Frost 316).”

Harney also shows how their perceived ignorance and lack of intelligence was negative by his example of the mountaineer’s word not being taken by his commanders during the civil war. This led to a defeat due to the lack of trust.

While both of these accounts share the fact that mountain people were not intelligent, it groups all people in the Appalachian range in the same pool. There is no way that everyone in those regions were incestuous, stupid, and non social. That is where the two authors depictions become negative. The stereotypes they portray would cause harm toward outsiders opinions of the people (smart or dumb), their services and their goods.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Virginia Military Institute ePortfolio.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.