No, I think it's pretty parallel -- because believe me, never in a hundred years would I consider myself a North Dakotan! (Hell, it's like 40F outside and I'm FREEZING. I'd die if I had to live in North Dakota. Freeze to death! In July!)
The origins -- as I recall -- of the whole born-and-bred issue actually stem from Reconstruction. Nowadays, I don't know how many people give a damn (other than to joke about it, or to tease each other) but when I was a kid, it was still used as a measure. Maybe in some conservative parts or families, it still is -- really, it's just a way to determine who is in-group and who's out-group. Being bred usually outranks being born, even when I was a kid (and further, your parents not being 'from' the South means you aren't 'from' the South, so you're only technically 'born', but you're still not Southern unless someone in your family got bred, heh, what a bizarre way to put it).
Anyway, Reconstruction consisted of an awful lot of people (carpetbaggers, for the less polite term) coming down to the South to take advantage of, well, a lot of things. Mostly of cheap confiscated Southern land and property... and these folks would then declare themselves Southern. Which maybe their children were to some degree, but the distinction was made to continue to keep the carpetbaggers out -- they may be bred, but they weren't born. Ergo, they're not "real" Southerners, and thus we get Southern comments like, "having children in the South does not make your children automatically Southern; just because your cat has its kittens in the oven doesn't mean you call them biscuits."
A point I tend to be snarky about myself, since growing up I sometimes got that "bred but not born" crap from some of the snobbier -- and I mean lower-class, distrustful of college educations and/or people who travel -- parts of the family. But still, there's historical basis for the distinction, though it does seem to be fading (at least, I hope it is).
no subject
Date: 13 Jan 2011 12:35 am (UTC)The origins -- as I recall -- of the whole born-and-bred issue actually stem from Reconstruction. Nowadays, I don't know how many people give a damn (other than to joke about it, or to tease each other) but when I was a kid, it was still used as a measure. Maybe in some conservative parts or families, it still is -- really, it's just a way to determine who is in-group and who's out-group. Being bred usually outranks being born, even when I was a kid (and further, your parents not being 'from' the South means you aren't 'from' the South, so you're only technically 'born', but you're still not Southern unless someone in your family got bred, heh, what a bizarre way to put it).
Anyway, Reconstruction consisted of an awful lot of people (carpetbaggers, for the less polite term) coming down to the South to take advantage of, well, a lot of things. Mostly of cheap confiscated Southern land and property... and these folks would then declare themselves Southern. Which maybe their children were to some degree, but the distinction was made to continue to keep the carpetbaggers out -- they may be bred, but they weren't born. Ergo, they're not "real" Southerners, and thus we get Southern comments like, "having children in the South does not make your children automatically Southern; just because your cat has its kittens in the oven doesn't mean you call them biscuits."
A point I tend to be snarky about myself, since growing up I sometimes got that "bred but not born" crap from some of the snobbier -- and I mean lower-class, distrustful of college educations and/or people who travel -- parts of the family. But still, there's historical basis for the distinction, though it does seem to be fading (at least, I hope it is).