The term originally characterized farmers that had a red neck, caused by sunburn from long hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as “poorer inhabitants of the rural districts … men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks”.[12] Hats were usually worn and they protected that wearer’s head from the sun, but also provided psychological protection by shading the face from close scrutiny.[13] The back of the neck however was more exposed to the sun and allowed closer scrutiny about the person’s background in the same way callused working hands could not be easily covered.
By 1900, “rednecks” was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South.[14] The same group was also often called the “wool hat boys” (for they opposed the rich men, who wore expensive silk hats). A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls at the upcoming primary election:[15]
I thought it had something to do with union membership, something about red handkerchiefs.
That’s one of the reasons it was popularized - coal miner unions wearing red bandanas. But late 19th century usage appears to be sunburnt workers.
Interesting. It’s kind of interesting, but in the battle of Blair mountain, there’s definitely some hints that there were already communist and anti-communist sentiments at work. I wonder if the red bandanas were a nod to communism.
yes. The book, “The red badge of Courage” was printed in 1895 and the color’s association with the far left dates back to the french revolution of the 1780s.
Also, iirc Blair Mountain was backed by the IWW which is anarcho-syndicalist and not Communist.
I dunno why the downvotes but I googled it for you:
iww Blair mountain flyer:
https://omekas.lib.wvu.edu/home/s/minersorganization/media/1109
who are the iww? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World?wprov=sfla1
history of red for left wing politics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics)
when the black flag diverged front he red flag. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism
red AND black symbolism associated with the IWW https://www.iww.org/how-we-organize/
red and black flag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchist_flag.svg
Previously I had mistakenly said that the red flag dated back to the 1880s and the Paris commune. No, that’s the black flag as this article states. That split is actually kinda a big deal. The IWW and red/black symbolism is about grass roots power and not some revolutionary vanguard or dictatorship by the proletariats and I think that distinction is actually kinda important.
You can see the same symbolism and terminology (redneck) used in the US today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck_Revolt
which has far more in common with black Panthers style neighborhood defense than it does with Stalin or Lenin or Trotsky.
it’s more in line with thinkers like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
which is about building resilient communities that exist apart or in spite of capitalism. It’s not really an economic policy or ideology concerned about the existence of the state or a dictatorship of the proletariat or really even collective ownership of the means of production. You can join the IWW and work for Amazon and not be committed to a 1917 Russian style revolution. They wanted better working conditions, not a bloody coup. While I agree that that’s associated with the Marxist ideal communist ideal future post-capitalist Star Trek furture is great, I think the IWW is notably and distinctly different than what Americans in the 1920s would have associated with the word “communist”.
Wiki says:
Looks like sunburn predates coal miners.
I wouldn’t take that as gospel giving the single reference for that claim and the discussion for that article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redneck
I mean to have an actual citation from 1893 that provides a written out definition is huge. These things are around for a good bit before making their way into documentation.
Reading through the talk, many people say coal and then provide links that come far after 1893.
The Wikipedia article doesn’t link to a 1893 citation. It links for a single paywalled article to make that claim. This sounds like an urban legend loop that seems to make sense until examined.
Oh, both, cool!
Well it’s possible the coal miners choose red afterwards in solidarity with farmers.
Nah, that’s just a fish story a certain type likes to tell.