Racism and the American Right

reply to post by DZAG Wright

I digress a little, as I do not want to imply that ALL racist reside on the Right. Of course there are still racist on the Left. The point still stands that the racist in the Southern Democratic Party sooooo despised blacks that due to the Civil Rights Movement and the support by the Democrat Party, they could no longer stomach the Democrat party. What's even sadder is they found refuge in the Republican Party.

Hmmm

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tell me another story.

Oh Yeah there is that racism involving the Japanese during WW2.
gopcapitalist.tripod.com...

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators: - Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Don't play stupid and avoid answering the question...

The fact you didn't answer tells all who read this what they need to know...

Are you educated and view yourself as a person with sense? So with sense, would you dare to say the hypothetical individual I suggest would be in the Democratic Party and have voted for Obama?

Just bow out of this discussion gracefully please...

Do you really want to play this game? I answered the question; it was hyperbole. Can you honestly state, without prejudice and without subjective interjection, say what someone from that time period would do? I say no. You are applying your own ideological belief to the question to fulfill your narrative.

I will not "bow out". You cannot strong arm me with your hypothetical and nonsensical situations.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

If you have any intellectual honesty...I'm going to shut you and your dancing down with ONE question: If we could bring a Southern, racist, slave owner back from the dead and give him the option of choosing Democrat or Republican...which do you think he would choose in todays climate?

The party that promises them free healthcare,free education,free phones, and tells them they never have to work a day ever again in their lives, all they want in return is their 'vote'.

Intellectual honesty ?

So where was that intellectual honesty saying 'all the bad people left the Democratic party' ?

Oh that's right there is none because they never left.

edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Your sidestep just helped my point!

Do you believe a slave owner would have supported free healthcare for everyone? The answer is no they would not have because firstly they believed their slaves were less than human! They would have fought tooth and nail to keep the slaves from having that "luxury". Does this sound familiar?

Just bow out exit left please...

reply to post by Cuervo

May I join you in your comments? I thought, at the beginning of this thread, that there was an opportunity for solid discussion. Indeed, it started out that way, but by Page 2 it was all going to pieces. In the search for nuggets amidst the piles of compost, there were a few nuggets here, but overall the thread goes back in the bin.

Someone may try this subject again. "Hope springs eternal . . ."

reply to post by DZAG Wright

Come on man (woman), have you no decency? Use your common sense! Do you REALLY believe that the racist Democrats, who weren't even ashamed of admitting they were racist, would support THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!!!!

Yes, I have decency. The Progressives were the party of eugenics. That is the real history like it or not. Sorry... Margaret Sanger promoted racial purification through sterilization. It is obvious and it is historical. She founded the American Birth Control League which is today none other than Planned Parenthood. Which party did yesterday and still today promote abortion as a means of eugenics???? It is the Democrats. Today the Democrats promote and even expect that society will pay for these abortions and contraception. It was the DNC platform even this very election cycle in case you forgot all about Sandra Fluke and the very radical National Organization For Women. It's just that they won't be upfront about what the agenda really is.

But the historical precedent exists. Although today the Democrats just believe that population control in general is the way to go, in their historical past it was people of color, and mentally unfit, low classes, etc.

There is no denying that KKK was racist Southern Democrats who burned people's houses down.... that happened and no amount of revisionist history changes what they did when they did it. Trying to say that now they are all Republicans is just silly and plain pathetic.
Here's more for you Dzag, from Princeton no less

Retrospectives
Eugenics and Economics in the
Progressive Era
Thomas C. Leonard
Less well known is that a crude eugenic sorting of groups into deserving and undeserving classes crucially informed the labor and immigration reform that is the
hallmark of the Progressive Era (Leonard, 2003). Reform-minded economists of
the Progressive Era defended exclusionary labor and immigration legislation on grounds that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers, whom they labeled
“parasites,” “the unemployable,” “low-wage races” and the “industrial residuum.”
Removing the unfit, went the argument, would uplift superior, deserving workers. “Eugenics” describes a movement to improve human heredity by the social
control of human breeding, based on the assumption that differences in human
intelligence, character and temperament are largely due to differences in heredity
(Paul, 2001). Francis Galton, statistical innovator and half-cousin of Charles Darwin,
is regarded as the founder of modern eugenics. Eugenics’ “first object,” said
Galton (1908, p. 323), “is to check the birth rate of the unfit instead of allowing
them to come into being . . . the second object is the improvement of the race by
furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriages and the healthful rearing of
children.”

In the United States especially, Progressive Era eugenics tended to be racist.
But “race” had connotations in the Progressive Era different than those of today,
and eugenicists of that time were both imprecise and inconsistent in their use of the
term. Sometimes the term refers to all of humankind—the human race. Sometimes
“race” was used in something like its modern sense. But more commonly, the
Progressive Era usage of “race” meant ethnicity or nationality, especially when
distinguishing among Europeans, so that the English, or those of Anglo-Saxon
ethnicity, were presumed to be a race distinct from, say, the Irish race or the Italian
race.

www.princeton.edu...

So can you tell me, have the Republicans really turned into the Progressive Party????? I think not.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

Your sidestep just helped my point! Do you believe a slave owner would have supported free healthcare for everyone? The answer is no they would not have because firstly they believed their slaves were less than human! They would have fought tooth and nail to keep the slaves from having that "luxury". Does this sound familiar? Just bow out exit left please.

Really claiming to speak for a dead person doesn't prove a thing.

Bow out why?

Feel free to bring more dead people up?

Think I will too like Lincoln, and Frederick Douglas.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Cuervo

 

May I join you in your comments? I thought, at the beginning of this thread, that there was an opportunity for solid discussion. Indeed, it started out that way, but by Page 2 it was all going to pieces. In the search for nuggets amidst the piles of compost, there were a few nuggets here, but overall the thread goes back in the bin.

Someone may try this subject again. "Hope springs eternal . . ."

Honestly, I believe there will be an answer to the Tea Party and OWS that will appeal across the board. It will not be racist nor will it be a soapbox for liberal superiority. It will come from people not unlike ATS members and it will be what the nation is deathly afraid of; a common ground among its people.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

So who do I have to thank being required to hire someone regardless of qualifications soley based off their skin color?

Answered Democrats you'd be correct.

That is racist.

Now like a big boy...dig a little deeper into the WHY Democrats created laws requiring such.

Answer: Because under Conservatism, it was quite ok for racist business owners to only hire white men, when this country isn't composed of only white men.

To add on, what you spat is another thinly veiled attempt by racist (not saying you are, you're probably just parroting) to villianize Affirmative Action. The law doesn't state that a business owner must pass up a qualified white male and hire an illiterate black male. It's spirit is, you should hire a certain number of QUALIFIED black people as well as qualified white people.

I don't see many 9th grade drop out blacks holding down high level management positions! If what you believe was true I would!

...and thus ends this foray into civil discourse.

Thread closed for a staff review.