Racism and the American Right

Racism and the American Right

Racism and the American Right
May 19, 2013

Exclusive: From the start of the Republic to today’s Republican ranting against Barack Obama, racism has been a central element of the American Right. But this ugly feature of U.S. history has often come concealed behind words praising traditions, liberty and states’ rights, Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

Racism has been a consistent thread weaving through the American Right from the early days when Anti-Federalists battled against the U.S. Constitution to the present when hysterical Tea Partiers denounce the first African-American president. Other factors have come and gone for the Right, but racism has always been there.

Though definitions of Right and Left are never precise, the Left has generally been defined, in the American context, by government actions – mostly the federal government responding to popular movements and representing the collective will of the American people – seeking to improve the lot of common citizens and to reduce social injustice.

President Thomas Jefferson in a portrait by Rembrandt Peale.

The Right has been defined by opposition to such government activism. Since the Founding, the Right has decried government interference with the “free market” and intrusion upon “traditions,” like slavery and segregation, as “tyranny” or “socialism.”

I haven't posted a thread in a while. So, here we go.

I found this to be a rather interesting read and thought it would make a worth while topic for our members to discus, giving us their thoughts and opinions.

This should make for an interesting thread...

LOL
Interesting how Robert Parry skipped over that whole period of american history when the "American Right" ended slavery.
Anyway, Racism has been present in America, as well as the rest of the world, throughout our entire history and both "left and right" are equally guilty in different regards.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Here come the dialectics.

What is a dialectic? They are the answer to the question: how can a small group of people control a large group of people?

The answer, is that you find divisive points which equally divide the population, and you repeat them loudly, so 49% of the population finds itself on one side of the issues being yelled about everywhere, and 49% finds itself on the other side. Then the remaining 2% is left to find the "compromise position" for the divide they themselves created, which they do by systematically taking ideas from each side that serves their goals, and present themselves as the common sense "unifying force" while enacting their agenda. Research the Shia and Sunni situation in Iraq to see it in action, the history of the violence (or lack thereof) between the two, and the current state. This so called "sectarian violence" is now prolific, and requires a certain type of individual to find the compromise position between the two.

The top two American parties have redefined themselves throughout history, as needs have dictated. There was a point where the Republicans were the party of rich New York liberals, and the Democrats were the party of the Klan. Now in modern times Democrats are liberal and take a more proactive stance about race, and Republicans are the rural conservatives Democrats used to be.

ITS ALL INSIGNIFICANT! I expect a good conspiracy theory site like this to see beyond all these manipulations and get to the core issues, not entrench themselves in the BS. We as a group are too smart for politics!

PEace

You cannot be serious about the quality of this article? It strikes me as a political hack job of conservatives.

Here's some basic irrefutable facts (and i'm only stating them for clarities sake. I'm not a Republican, rather I'm more of a centrist. I despise these black vs. white analyses which attempt to portray one side as "racist" and the other a champion of human rights)

More Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 civil rights act than democrats. Link

That must strike one as bizarre, since were always presented the image of Republicans as racist, bigoted homophobes. Perhaps, relative to the trajectory of liberal culture, they could be seen as
"intolerant", yet, the numbers speak for themselves: 80% of Republican congressman supported the bill compared to 61% of Democratic Congressman. In the Senate, 82% of Republicans supported the bill, verses 69% of Democrats.

I think at the end of the day, to paraphrase an idea of Steven Pinkers, society is nudged forward by a Liberal agenda, which sooner or later Republicans themselves feel compelled to conform to.

It is far too great a simplification to say "Republicans are racist", when historically, it appears there were more racists in the democratic wing (39% of congressman, and 31 % of Senators), who, despite being members of a supposedly "liberal" political party, nevertheless voted to keep schools, buses, theaters etc, segregated.

There must be more going on in politics than the party a person pay allegiance to. So many factors can come into play: economics vs. social. Some people have conservative economic views, and therefore, would prefer a republican leadership, and yet have a liberal social ethos. And vice versa.

reply to post by tridentblue

This so called "sectarian violence" is now prolific, and requires a certain type of individual to find the compromise position between the two.

I don't quite understand what you're talking about. Care to explain further, with more tangible examples, perhaps?

The reason why there has been so little historical internecine conflict between Shia and Sunni can be explained far more easily: Shia theology is more emotive, freelance, mystical, and so, largely restricts itself to the personal sphere. Conversely, the Sunni doctrine emphasizes the sharia to a far greater degree; the Sunni are the ones who built kingdoms. The Sunni were the ones who subjugated Shia - a context which Shia had become inured to for close to 900 years, before the rise of the Safavids (who followed the more authoritarian twelver Shia sect) in the 16th century.

Today's internecine Muslim violence - at least in creating a Shia opposition willing to seek independence in areas with large Shia populations (like southern Iraq, Lebanon, and sparsely populated bands in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Bahrain), is the product of Ayatollah Khomeini, who, it might as well be added, derived his religious political philosophy from Sayd Qutb and Mohammad Iqbal - both Sunni political writers.

ITS ALL INSIGNIFICANT! I expect a good conspiracy theory site like this to see beyond all these manipulations and get to the core issues, not entrench themselves in the BS. We as a group are too smart for politics!

Completely agree.

The parties switched sides about 40 years ago.

I bet if you ask a nazi skinhead which party he's most likely to vote for, I'm 99.9% certain that he would vote for a Republican that favors "states rights" over a democrat.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
LOL
Interesting how Robert Parry skipped over that whole period of american history when the "American Right" ended slavery.
Anyway, Racism has been present in America, as well as the rest of the world, throughout our entire history and both "left and right" are equally guilty in different regards.

LOL indeed...if you're going to assign credit to a political faction, you most certainly have to assign it to the "lefties" of the 19th century - The Republican Party. Too much low-brow radio has too many people convinced that the Republican party always was exactly what it is today. Worse, simply passively doodling in a notebook in middle-school social studies class, most people would know that the Republicans at that time were very much so to the political left of the Democrats of the time.

Originally posted by muse7
The parties switched sides about 40 years ago.

I bet if you ask a nazi skinhead which party he's most likely to vote for, I'm 99.9% certain that he would vote for a Republican that favors "states rights" over a democrat.

Actually Nazis are socialists just like Obama and democrats. Nazis are also fascists that favor a strong, centralized government and would never support states rights. Of course being a Obama supporter I imagine it is easy to ignore facts and not allow them to get in the way of your partisan politics.

Well, I think the right has had it's fair share of it and certainly more than I like to consider, given that I sit right of center by all measures.

At the same time, racism and especially the deep and dark 'old school' kind that this talks about, is not ideology specific. It's ignorance and that knows no bounds to right or left. The writer of the linked article obviously has an axe to grind that would make a Battle Axe look like a hatchet by comparison.....but really in so far as not treating history fair to the fact that racism, as a trait, is found in some of the better known names, up and down the line.

'They say', whoever they is out there, that one of the President's was even a Klansman himself. I have no idea which one....but there were a couple self admitted ones in the Congress and always interesting to see who came out to being who on the worst of America's racial history.

I'm glad we have intelligent one's these days. They just fear Guam may tip over like a row boat in rough seas or think females just have automatic anti-rape physiology. Definitely a step up on both sides... err... lol

Originally posted by Metallicus

Originally posted by muse7
The parties switched sides about 40 years ago.

I bet if you ask a nazi skinhead which party he's most likely to vote for, I'm 99.9% certain that he would vote for a Republican that favors "states rights" over a democrat.

Actually Nazis are socialists just like Obama and democrats. Nazis are also fascists that favor a strong, centralized government and would never support states rights. Of course being a Obama supporter I imagine it is easy to ignore facts and not allow them to get in the way of your partisan politics.

Many Republicans use "states rights" as a code word for supporting a state's racism. It's well documented. Also I doubt that the nazi skinheads that I referred to that are very prominent in our jail system care whether democrats are socialists or fascists.

A northeastern Pennsylvania man with longstanding ties to white supremacist groups entered a polling place on primary election day and wrote in his name for a low-level position with the local Republican Party committee.

link

I doubt that the nazi skinheads that I referred to that are very prominent in our jail system care whether democrats are socialists or fascists.

So you are saying only real Nazis would be Democrats, but not the Amercanized prison Nazis in your example. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by K9millionaire
LOL
Interesting how Robert Parry skipped over that whole period of american history when the "American Right" ended slavery.
Anyway, Racism has been present in America, as well as the rest of the world, throughout our entire history and both "left and right" are equally guilty in different regards.

No that was the early Republican party not the Right (which would better define the interests of the Confederacy).

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

'They say', whoever they is out there, that one of the President's was even a Klansman himself. I have no idea which one....but there were a couple self admitted ones in the Congress and always interesting to see who came out to being who on the worst of America's racial history.

I'm glad we have intelligent one's these days. They just fear Guam may tip over like a row boat in rough seas or think females just have automatic anti-rape physiology. Definitely a step up on both sides... err... lol

LOL - I had a great aunt, so I'm told, that was a 'joiner'. My mother's family is from West Virginia. She belonged to both the KKK and the Communist Party at the beginning of the 20th century.

Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Here come the dialectics.

What is a dialectic? They are the answer to the question: how can a small group of people control a large group of people?


PEace

edit on 20-5-2013 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)

Excuse if you are going to present a definition - Please present one.

A dialectic is..... "They are the answer to the question....." Not a definition.

Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.[1]

The key being reasoned arguments.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
You cannot be serious about the quality of this article? It strikes me as a political hack job of conservatives.

Here's some basic irrefutable facts (and i'm only stating them for clarities sake. I'm not a Republican, rather I'm more of a centrist. I despise these black vs. white analyses which attempt to portray one side as "racist" and the other a champion of human rights)

More Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 civil rights act than democrats. Link

That must strike one as bizarre, since were always presented the image of Republicans as racist, bigoted homophobes. Perhaps, relative to the trajectory of liberal culture, they could be seen as
"intolerant", yet, the numbers speak for themselves: 80% of Republican congressman supported the bill compared to 61% of Democratic Congressman. In the Senate, 82% of Republicans supported the bill, verses 69% of Democrats.

As others have stated the Republicans were a whole different can of worms back then (yes the world did exist before Ronald Reagan).

In the sixties - most of the south (dare I say all) were Democrats, not today.Then there were the Eisenhower Republicans which would be considered socialist by todays standards (or the standards typically applied here on ATS).

The republican party isn't recognisable as a political party any more - it's just a obstructionist organ of the wealthy and religious right. Oh, dear, I may have insulted someone. Not individual members of course, just the party as a whole.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Dear SLAYER69,

I'm really glad you're posting again, you've found an essay really worth discussing. Two questions pop to mind which I'd like to ask before I offer a very preliminary thought. (Thereby boosting my "Mr. Confusion" reputation.)

It might be dangerous to offer it, but what's your opinion on the article? Would it be accurate to say you think that Republicans and State's Rights people form a basically racist group based on over a century of racism and slavery? I really don't know and don't mean to put words in your mouth.

The essay covers a lot of ground and opens many doors. Do you have a particular direction you want to explore, or have you just started a "free for all?" (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

It seems that the author wants to connect racism and Republicans, (A good name for a heavy metal band?) but I'm grateful for the historical review. I just wonder if the emphasis is on the wrong place. I'm trying to put my thinking back into those days when slavery was not considered as vile as we see it today. Yes, slavery was an issue to rally around, but was it slavery that was key, or was it the idea that the federal government shouldn't be too powerful?

Back at Roe v. Wade the issue was presented as abortion, but wasn't the question really who was going to control the abortion laws, the Feds or the States? While it might not be fair to label Democrats as "baby killers," it's hard to deny that their position is that the Feds should control the issue. There seem to be similarities between that and the slavery issue.

Might it not be better to say that the Republicans are not the party of racism, but the party of telling Washington to butt out? (Forgive the vulgarity.)

Anyway, glad you're back.

With respect,
Charles1952

I have read through this piece and it is at least thought provoking even if heavily biased. For instance, Perry writes:

Though definitions of Right and Left are never precise, the Left has generally been defined, in the American context, by government actions – mostly the federal government responding to popular movements and representing the collective will of the American people – seeking to improve the lot of common citizens and to reduce social injustice.

I would argue that both are heavily undefined and are subjected to a push-pull fight to define them by the opposite side of the political spectrum. In his piece, he plants this notion that only the Left is defined and the Right is a wavering flag in the wind; defined by the Tea Party and anti-government types. If he did not establish this, his point that the Right being the side of the spectrum that employs racism falls apart.

He continues on immediately after to state this:

The Right has been defined by opposition to such government activism. Since the Founding, the Right has decried government interference with the “free market” and intrusion upon “traditions,” like slavery and segregation, as “tyranny” or “socialism.”

No, you defined it as such. He even lazily places "hot-topic" words into this to try and make that point. Laziness. It would be no different if a "writer" from the "Right" stated that "since the Founding, the Left has called for more government interference within the "market" and the destruction of "religion" (but we use tradition to hide that), as "progress" and "social justice".

It is equally as broad and equally as wrong.

I will have to read through more extensively to cross-check some of his claims too. Again, thought provoking nonetheless.

Click here for more information.