Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 109

Thread: Black Americans are coming home to the GOP

  1. #71
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    634
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    If you actually care, look into the events leading up to the 1901 Constitution. Like most political matters, power, not race, was the real force at work.

    And the reality doesn't fit nicely into a Wiki article - there's more to it than the simplistic label 'racist' can explain.
    So the disenfranchisement of black citizens wasn't really about racism! It was just the means to the ends, a route to political power.

    I note that here you acknowledge multiple and concurrent forces. But elsewhere, the common rejoinder is "but the Dems", as if the electorate did not support the policies of their elected representatives.

    If one cannot look at Wallace and not apply the label of racist, then nothing is racist.

  2. #72
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    634
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    69
    Was what George Wallace said and did evil in the sight of the Lord?

    The obscure and intangible elements hidden in sin are not always easy to grasp, the interaction of conscience, will, and sensitivity are too often in contact with dark forces.

    The question and the following was from the document by JPII, reconciliation and penance. I know Christians here are shy about bringing in the Christian faith into discussions on real world problems, but I think that view is ultimately destructive. And pretty much antichristian.

  3. #73
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,195
    Amen (Given)
    5173
    Amen (Received)
    22752
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The only time the dems get tagged with racism is when republicans react to their pointing out the racism that has found a home in the republican party. It isn't that republicans themselves are all racists, obviously not, but he KKK, the Alt right, the white supremecists, the neo-nazis, the anti-semites are all quite comfortable in todays republican party. Any idea why that is the case?
    When liberals claim milk and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist, they have jumped the shark.

  4. Amen Teallaura, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  5. #74
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    That's an article about its convention, but yes and it's probably a decent place to start.

  6. #75
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    Yes your knowledge of the State of Alabama is evident on these pages.

    While you point out that truth has a habit of coming out, and I may indeed be stupid (as you so kindly pointed out), the unique spin on the history of southern attitudes toward civil rights is problematic.
    The problem is your overly simplistic - an factually erroneous - assessments. Goldwater carried the black vote - except the records show his performance best where there were the most black voters. In reality, probably few blacks voted at all and we don't know for sure how they did vote. Maybe they did vote Goldwater but since they aren't a representative sample of blacks what does that really tell us? Nixon wasn't running on segregation - and its actually arguably racist in the modern sense to assume that black voters didn't have similar concerns with white voters that were driving the Nixon landslide.

    You further ignore the poverty endemic to the South following Reconstruction. You want race as a simple solution to complex economic woes. Elitists preserved their power by feeding on the fear of economic competition - with some horrendously tragic, even if somewhat isolated, results - a pattern repeated for decades. That was driven more by a fear of populism than race - because poor whites and poor blacks had far more in common with each other. Do you really think poll taxes were only prohibitive to blacks?

    How much do you know about the failures of desegregation? About the effects on black owned business, the black (people's) economy? What about the skyrocket in black dropouts? Don't use Wiki - what happened in those instances? School busing? Decline in educational standards? The rise in welfare dependency? The loss of the nascent black middle class?

    Jim Crow should never have been instituted in the first place - and the nation as a whole bears that guilt with the decision in Plessy. But your 'Cannonball Run' understanding of the South glosses over just how bad the cure was relative to the disease. School closures and busing left a black population barely literate and far less prepared for the changing economy of the Seventies. Integration forced them to compete with more economically stable whites - and worse, not just in the South.

    Take a look at the tensions in California as middle class white college students destroyed black access to affordable housing - and introduced drug culture. The CIA did nothing - even had they wished to, the hippies were doing a much better job destroying black economic stability. Watts was in California, not Alabama. Similar forces were at work in the North - both places blacks had fled to in times of economic crisis were now themselves in crisis and the social politics worked against blacks.

    The introduction of welfare was the final blow to what had been an active, sometimes thriving, black economy. They couldn't compete with established white owned business and neither could compete with the growth of corporate franchise. Families lost businesses - including farms - and were thrust at welfare - providing there was no man in the household. Blacks suffered disproportionately under the unemployment, inflation and economic chaos of the Seventies because of the very progressive policies supposedly put in place for their benefit.

    And the South wouldn't vote reliably Republican for two more decades - and the liberal lie of racial progressivism remains far more problematic in real terms than historic attitudes you never bothered to understand.

  7. #76
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    So the disenfranchisement of black citizens wasn't really about racism! It was just the means to the ends, a route to political power.

    I note that here you acknowledge multiple and concurrent forces. But elsewhere, the common rejoinder is "but the Dems", as if the electorate did not support the policies of their elected representatives.

    If one cannot look at Wallace and not apply the label of racist, then nothing is racist.
    This is why I call you stupid - elitists in power leveraged racial tension to remain in power. That's a short sentence about a very complex set of political forces that took decades to play out.

    And you notice wrong - I literally haven't mentioned party other than disputing Jim's 'they were really Republicans' nonsense. The truth is that political division in the South then was intraparty - the primary, not the general, mattered most. This is still true in the black districts which are still Democrat, and not quite as bad but getting there in white Republican districts. So no, just as everywhere else, a given representative's platform wouldn't be completely representative of the electorate.

    Then maybe you need a better brush, one that doesn't brush so broadly that you can't see reality.

  8. #77
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    Your apologia for Wallace and the reaction to civil rights reads like a neo Confederate propaganda piece.

    Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door and realized that the hand he chose was not a winner, Kennedy usurped his authority and federalized the Alabama National Guard. The famous stand in the schoolhouse door occurred June of 63, almost a year after the violent confrontation at the integration of Ole Miss.

    Your attempt at painting Wallace a skilled politician navigating between extremes (who was not really racist, as Rouge inferred with the authority of "some historians") is based on a bizarre interpretation of events.

    Kennedy (via the US Attorney General) presented the implied threat of disbarment, and the obstruction of justice. The events of the previous several years presented justice, southern style, in an unfavorable light across the globe.

    Wallace, in contrast to Kennedy, saw justice and self determination for Alabamans meant excluding negroes from full citizenship and dignity. And Wallace represented the very Christian population of Alabama in the Bible Belt.

    But then again, since I am likely just plain stupid, we ought to let you, and your ilk, write the history textbooks.

    Southern heritage is not about hate?
    You are stupid - and a bigot. You can't accept that Wallace might not be what you were taught in your hate filled prejudiced elitist schooling so you attack the messenger instead of even considering that you might possibly be wrong.

    Kennedy was dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights fight - he hated it and thought it was destroying his presidency. Kennedy didn't give a damn about blacks other than how they voted. Why the devil do you think he had LBJ as a running mate and was in Texas trying to mend fences? Kennedy's most notable speech concerned the space race - not Civil Rights.

    LBJ was possibly the most effective president in the modern era - notice that Kennedy got none of the landmark legislation done (couldn't and probably wasn't that eager) - and nobody thinks he wasn't a racist. But Kennedy chose him as his running mate so how important was this nobility of sentiment to Kennedy really?

    Wallace said nasty things, just like LBJ, but did things that genuinely benefited blacks. Not a saint, but he produced better fruit than he's given credit for.

    At least by bigots like yourself.

  9. #78
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    634
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    This is why I call you stupid - elitists in power leveraged racial tension to remain in power. That's a short sentence about a very complex set of political forces that took decades to play out.

    And you notice wrong - I literally haven't mentioned party other than disputing Jim's 'they were really Republicans' nonsense. The truth is that political division in the South then was intraparty - the primary, not the general, mattered most. This is still true in the black districts which are still Democrat, and not quite as bad but getting there in white Republican districts. So no, just as everywhere else, a given representative's platform wouldn't be completely representative of the electorate.

    Then maybe you need a better brush, one that doesn't brush so broadly that you can't see reality.
    The one point, the reality, which you and other posters are avoiding is that the electorate favored segregation. Wallaces speeches were wildly popular, his ideas were accepted.

    Freedom Summer may have concentrated in Mississippi, but other states experienced the "outside agitation" of,the various groups. I think it unlikely that any black voter was unaware of the positions of Goldwater and Johnson; even more unlikely that they then cast their vote for Goldwater. If you have a source (other than League of the South) for the Idea that black voters went for Goldwater, I'd be interested.

    I haven't ignored the collapsed economy of the south following the Civil War, I haven't really addressed that period. I haven't proposed race as any solution, I am arguing something different.

    You aren't really arguing that educational achievement was better under segregation are you?

    The meth and opioid epidemic in Alabama was recent, and targeted whites disproportionately. Might need to reassess your view.

    The collapse of the black middle class, education, etc, were not due to desegregation.

    The split away from the Dem Solid South started in 48, and centered on race, resistance to the federally mandated segregation. From then on, there was a slow and gradual shift, by 62, the Republicans mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to the entrenched Sen Lister Hill. Goldwater made a strong showing, a landslide in Alabama, except for the Northern counties. From then on, the vote went to the Republican presidential candidate (Carter and Clinton were southern). The southe supplied the last of the Dem conservative senators and congressman. With the rise of the modern evangelical political movement, and the role Bob Jones played, the Bible Belt become fused with republicanism and populism.

  10. #79
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    634
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    You are stupid - and a bigot. You can't accept that Wallace might not be what you were taught in your hate filled prejudiced elitist schooling so you attack the messenger instead of even considering that you might possibly be wrong.

    Kennedy was dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights fight - he hated it and thought it was destroying his presidency. Kennedy didn't give a damn about blacks other than how they voted. Why the devil do you think he had LBJ as a running mate and was in Texas trying to mend fences? Kennedy's most notable speech concerned the space race - not Civil Rights.

    LBJ was possibly the most effective president in the modern era - notice that Kennedy got none of the landmark legislation done (couldn't and probably wasn't that eager) - and nobody thinks he wasn't a racist. But Kennedy chose him as his running mate so how important was this nobility of sentiment to Kennedy really?

    Wallace said nasty things, just like LBJ, but did things that genuinely benefited blacks. Not a saint, but he produced better fruit than he's given credit for.

    At least by bigots like yourself.
    So recognition of Wallace as a racist means one is a stupid, hate filled, prejudiced, elitist? Only if you accept segregation as acceptable for the non racist!

    Kennedy was recognized as sympathetic to the movement, which is why groups like the NAACP got behind him. Kennedy disliked the focus on civil rights, because the main news events were negative, and overshadowed his other initiatives.

    Kennedy gave a very famous speech a few months before he died, a speech on civil rights. He proposed sweeping civil rights legislation. It was passed the next year.

    Johnson was a new deal Democrat, early in his career sided with other politicians in the south and bashed Truman's civil rights initiatives. A few years later, he backed civil rights bills, pushing through the 57 legislation.

    Five years after Johnson pushed the first major civil rights bill since reconstruction, Wallace gave his famous Stand in the Door speech. Blacks suffered terribly under segregation, and Wallace was the face of opposition to civil rights.

    Blacks fared poorly under Wallace's leadership.

  11. #80
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    The one point, the reality, which you and other posters are avoiding is that the electorate favored segregation. Wallaces speeches were wildly popular, his ideas were accepted.
    Doesn't refute or address what was argued - so there's no need. Don't need to discuss prunes, either for the same reason.




    Freedom Summer may have concentrated in Mississippi, but other states experienced the "outside agitation" of,the various groups. I think it unlikely that any black voter was unaware of the positions of Goldwater and Johnson; even more unlikely that they then cast their vote for Goldwater. If you have a source (other than League of the South) for the Idea that black voters went for Goldwater, I'd be interested.
    I didn't say that - I said the blacks that did vote weren't representative for freaking obvious reasons and we don't know how they voted - but assuming you do know is racist, FYI.

    And yes, I caught that nasty little implication. Stupid.

    Look, EVERY TIME you call Alabama racist you are EXPLICITLY calling over 1,000,000,000 blacks racists. That's one quarter of the state's population you think are too stupid to move - or did you forget you told me to visit Alabama, implying that the state hasn't changed at all in fifty plus years? You who have NEVER set foot in the South and only know what Wiki tells you - and you got part of that wrong, too!



    ...

    The collapse of the black middle class, education, etc, were not due to desegregation.
    Most certainly were.


    The split away from the Dem Solid South started in 48, and centered on race, resistance to the federally mandated segregation. From then on, there was a slow and gradual shift, by 62, the Republicans mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to the entrenched Sen Lister Hill. Goldwater made a strong showing, a landslide in Alabama, except for the Northern counties. From then on, the vote went to the Republican presidential candidate (Carter and Clinton were southern). The southe supplied the last of the Dem conservative senators and congressman. With the rise of the modern evangelical political movement, and the role Bob Jones played, the Bible Belt become fused with republicanism and populism.
    The Wiki, and the wrong, are strong with this one.

    STILL doesn't refute the point.

    Heck with it - welcome to ignore.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •