Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillPost by Mr. B1ackUm ... since 1865 the "south" - and its Democrats - have
been part of America ... a rather populous part. You don't
get to split yer party this that and any way just to suit your
argument of the moment.
Don't go all naive and contrary. One nation we are but it's made of
fifty states and assorted regions. East, west, north, south, central,
coastal states, gulf states, great lake states, plains states, rockies
states and so on.
Democrats dominated southern politics but there were a few Reps as
well. And some southern Reps tended to oppose civil rights right
alongside their Dem brethren. In much the same way, Dems from other
regions supported civil rights.
Um ... yea ... sure ...... and since al-Qaida-in-Libya
didn't blow up the trade center they're OK dudes,
right ?
Sorry - same org same blame.
So . . . All Republicans are racists, all Koreans smell like garlic,
all Irish are drunks, all Muslims are terrorists, etc.?
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillThis is why I wrote that opposition was regional.
And KKK Mississippi ain't KKK Alabama ....
Mississippi and Alabama are in the same region. Variously gulf
states, deep south, southern states . . .
Democrats in Mississippi tend to be more conservative than Democrats
in New York. Republicans in Ohio tend to be more liberal than
Republicans in Texas.
CRA support was bi partisan but regional.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillPost by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillPost by Mr. B1ackand sent
their white-sheet friends out to make their point.
In 1928, the Klan supported Hoover over Al Smith.
The Klan was *big* back then ... and filled not only with
Joe Averages but *important* people too. It was nearly
a political party unto itself - and its leadership had
business agendas too. Hoover seemed better for biz,
but I doubt he was any more or less racist than Smith.
There was no such thing as "racist" back then because
everybody was - it was "normal", "truth".
Right, but liberalism had been spreading in the Dem party, mostly in
the north and Smith was a New York Democrat and a Catholic.
That wasn't "liberalism" spreading in the north
during the 20s, it was Marxist-Leninism - even
worse than Jim Crow ... makes EVERYBODY
into slaves ...........
Post by Governor SwillThe Klan
and it's supporters were southern Democrats and Protestants. Smith
was, for them, the lesser of two evils.
My bad, Hoover was the lesser of two evils.
Post by Mr. B1ackPlease provide some documentation that voters
gave a shit about how 'racist' Hoover and Smith
were, that it made ANY difference in the election.
The main issue was religion. The Klan was more afraid of the Papacy
than of budding racism in progressive minds.
The reference is Ken Burns' "Prohibition" and I believe it was episode
two. I found another reference here:
"The Ku Klux Klan became actively involved in preventing a Catholic
from ever getting near the White House, going all out to defeat Smith.
One Klan leader mailed thousands of postcards after Democrats
nominated the New Yorker, stating firmly, We now face the darkest
hour in American history. In a convention ruled by political Romanism,
anti-Christ has won. A Klan colleague in remote North Manchester,
Ind., warned his audience, in booming tones, of the imminent arrival
of the pope: He may even be on the northbound train tomorrow! He may!
He may! Be warned! America is for Americans! Watch the trains! When I
interviewed Hugh L. Carey, only the second Roman Catholic elected
governor of New York, for my Smith biography, he remembered Klan
parades in Hicksville when he was 9 years old and how frightened he
was, because there was a real anti-Catholic sentiment.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/when-a-catholic-terrified-the-heartland/?_r=0
And check out this bit: "At least as nefarious were the private
conversations, whisperings that went on in homes, workplaces and
schools across America. One woman wrote Franklin D. Roosevelt that she
had heard that if Governor Smith is elected president, the popes son
will be his secretary. F.D.R. asked, in his reply, how many sons did
the lady think the pope had, and what were their occupations?"
Post by Mr. B1ackYou're not gonna find any. As I said, 'racism' was
normal, simply presumed - and indeed anyone
who was a self-proclaimed "nigger lover" (or
Wop/Spic/Paddy/Chink/etc-lover) would hardly
get a single vote back then.
Smith more likely lost because he was a papist ...
that was still something of an issue in 1960.
Post by Governor SwillI've made the point before, the parties change, the south was once the
heart of the Democratic party but now is the heart of the GOP. But
the south has ALWAYS been conservative, anti federalist and supportive
of state authority over federal authority.
What, did you think the rebellion was OVER ?
Merely a temporary truce :-)
heh 150 years is not a truce. They lost. :)
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillAt one time, that described Democrat priorities. Today, it describes
Republican values.
You have some odd ideas about what "Republican
values" are. Been watching a lot of CNN lately ?
And Fox and MSNBC. Or are you going to claim that Republicans are
liberals and Dems are conservatives? :)
Post by Mr. B1ackThere's a reason 'Republican values' seem kinda
familiar ... because once Dems got absorbed into
the communist party SOMEBODY had to carry
the Red White & Blue dontchaknow. It fell to the
GOP to be anti-federal/anti-authoritarian/pro-Joe ...
you know, more like actual pre-pinko liberals.
The Dems never got absorbed into the communist party. The fact of the
matter is, they did most of the heavy lifting against the USSR during
the Cold War.
Post by Mr. B1ackBut Atlanta ain't one speck more racist than NYC.
Conspiring against 'minorities' is now a DNC thing.
Racist right wing talking point and complete bullocks.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillThe first Democratic President was Andrew Jackson.
He was an anti federalist so strict in his views, he refused to re
charter the national bank, preferring to leave the various state
charter banks to control the nation's monetary policy with minimal
central influence.
Yay Andy !!! Where are you when we need you ???
Hmm ... cloning ............. :-)
A bit, er, harsh on the natives though ...
Alas, you're talking nearly 200 years ago.
Everything's changed. His Dems ain't your
Dems and there wasn't even a GOP at
the time.
Which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing against. The
Dems aren't cons anymore and the Reps aren't libs anymore. But in the
19th century, the Reps were federalist liberals who successfully
crushed states' rights and cemented federal supremacy over state
authority.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillIt was Jackson who cleaned the Indians out of the
south for white expansion into new cotton land. Andrew Jackson was in
today's terms a Tea Party conservative.
Odd guy ... had an adopted "indian" son yet
hadn't a qualm about lying-to, cheating or just
plain genociding any native that was in the
way of the white mans 'progress'. Perhaps
we can blame it on childhood traumas and
a lack of self-esteem programs ?
Post by Governor SwillContrast Jackson with Lincoln. A strong Federalist, he fought the
Civil War rather than allow states to assert authority over the
central government.
Well, he WAS technically president of the (whole) USA
during a war, so what else WOULD his opinions be on
those subjects ?
Post by Governor SwillHe authorized a national currency, worked to ban
private banknotes, freed the slaves and so on. In today's parlance,
this Republican was the most liberal of liberals.
Again, there was a shooting war going on. This
meant a need for central organization/authority.
Central control? You mean like COMMUNISM??
Post by Mr. B1ackAs for slaves ... that was almost an afterthought
towards the end of the war. Actually he didn't have
the authority to free them, that required at least an
act of congress, ultimately a constitutional amendment.
At the time, the EP was just war propaganda that
hoped to undermine the enemy from within.
Slavery was the touchstone of the conflict. Hardly an afterthought.
It was the abolitionists "conquest" of the Republican Party that
disturbed the South so much when Lincoln was elected.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillPost by Mr. B1ackSorry, but I was there and I remember a lot more Dem
faces opposing race equality than Republican faces.
I knew the faces behind a lot of those white hoods - and
some were bankers, judges, sheriffs and businessmen.
Mostly Dems.
So was I, but perhaps you might revisit the history, because, you see,
more than 2/3 of the Dems in Congress voted for CRA and almost as many
voted for VRA.
After LBJ threatened them enough .... the old bird
had LOTS of shit on 'em.
And he got a lot of help. LBJ was a man who understood the art of the
deal. Makes Trump look like a girl scout selling cookies. "Please
buy my cookies, mister? I'll blow ya." Lol!
Post by Mr. B1ackI still think the rights acts had far less to do with some
deep philosophical notions about 'equality' and a lot
more to do with practical bribery - a way to silence
the agitators and rioters, oil the squeaky hinge.
I don't. It was too long in coming. FDR wanted to pass a federal
statute making lynching illegal but needed southern Dems for some
critical votes and had to pass it by. Truman integrated the military
by XO. Eisenhower was active in Civil Rights as well. Kennedy and
Johnson were two leading Dems who got on the bandwagon as well.
As I wrote, civil rights opposition wasn't partisan, it was regional.
The south opposed it. And since the south had a lot more Dems, it
gave the *appearance* that the party was less supportive.
Look who's trimming affirmative action and other programs designed to
equalize the playing field for minorities today. It's the GOP.
Post by Mr. B1ackThe perpetuation and gross exploitation of 'black'
poverty since then makes me lean heavily towards
the latter possibility ............
A big part of the reason is that racism can't be legislated away.
People still respond to color, even subconsciously. This is a stigma
that has effects on populations of color.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillSure, by percentage, more opposition came from Dems, the old southern
Dems who were still in office. But even so, if only Dems had voted,
their 2/3 majority would have been enough to override a veto had it
been offered.
I don't remember FDR or Truman or JFK declaring an end
to institutional racism ....
Truman integrated the military by XO.
FDR supported a bill to ban lynching but had to withdraw his support
when southern Senators threatened to vote against his alphabet soup
programs. FDR also discovered that early in the depression, federal
aid and programs were being applied exclusively to whites. He had to
field agents to assure distribution of help to black communities.
The CRA 1964 was written by JFK.
"On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders
to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation
that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen
and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield both voiced support for the
president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to
places of public accommodations. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Legislative_history
And remember my claim that opposition was not partisan but regional?
"In the 1960s, Congress was divided on civil rights issues -- but not
necessarily along party lines."
""Most people don't realize that today at all -- in proportional
terms, a far higher percentage of Republicans voted for this bill than
did Democrats, because of the way the Southerners were divided," said
Purdum."
"The division was geographic. The Guardian's Harry J. Enten broke down
the vote, showing that more than 80% of Republicans in both houses
voted in favor of the bill, compared with more than 60% of Democrats.
When you account for geography, according to Enten's article, 90% of
lawmakers from states that were in the Union during the Civil War
supported the bill compared with less than 10% of lawmakers from
states that were in the Confederacy."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillPost by Mr. B1ackThe worse racists I've ever encountered come from
big northern cities where everybody long ago marked
out their 'territories' and refined their hatred of "those
other guys".
In the case of the north, that was normal xenophobia.
Ah, but a more tropical clime makes it "abnormal" ??? :-)
No. Blacks were "from" the south. The North never practiced slavery.
When I was in school in the early sixties, before CRA, the schools
were already integrated. Schools were based on community and if the
were only whites or only blacks the school would be only white or only
black. But if the community was mixed, as mine was, the school was
mixed.
Post by Mr. B1ackPhysician, heal thyself - THEN you can bitch at others.
Sorry, but I think xenophobia is one of those things that's
literally hard-wired into our genes. You can resist it,
downplay it, reduce its practical impact - but it's never
gonna go away entirely. A German "refugee" center went
up in flames yesterday, and the crowd cheered (and
most euro newsies kinda buried the story really deep).
So, it's BACK ... even in the place most heavily bombed
for being too xeno in the past.
Alas, "They" AREN'T like you, "They" WILL disrupt your
way of doing and thinking, all your culture and traditions,
your very identity and dreams. "They" ARE a threat on
many levels. Oh, and some euro countries aren't very
keen on Americans either ... not because we're Islamists
or terrorists or evil but because once we accumulate in
sufficienct numbers in an area we tend to take it over
and tell the locals how they should do everything, how
they should think/feel about everything. WE can be "They"
as well, de-facto colonialists.
Post by Governor SwillEvery wave of
European immigration had to deal with that.
Irish were, for a time, ranked lower than 'blacks'.
But their numbers were't THAT huge
In ten years, from 1841 to 1851, 2 million Irish moved to America, a
quarter of the country's population, and most of them settled in the
half dozen northeastern states before moving west in later years.
In 1860, there were just under 4M slaves in the confederacy and they
mostly stayed there. The massive northern migrations were some time
away yet, were more widely distributed through the north over a longer
period of time and was comprised of a fewer number of migrants than
the Irish explosion 10-20 years before the Civil War.
Post by Mr. B1ackand thus
they assimmilated rather than trying to create
a New Ireland. As a result they blended in just
fine and changed from being rural barbarians
into diginified Americans.
Oh, they had New Irelands alright. But because they were white, from
the British Isles and spoke English, it didn't matter. Speaking
English was why the Irish assimilated so quickly and completely.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillThe problem blacks have is their color.
Yep - they stand out. Humans are hard-wired to
notice "difference" - kept the species alive.
Of course we also notice "asians" ... and in many
ways they're culturally odder than "blacks" ... yet
they seemed to partially-assimmilate just fine
whereas 'blacks' never did. Something about
"high" culture -vs- "low" culture ???
Blacks were forced to come to America as slaves. Virtually everybody
else came here voluntarily as free men. Big difference. Add to that
blacks being oppressed and discriminated against institutionally for
centuries after their supposed "freedom" and the picture is easier to
understand.
Post by Mr. B1ackPost by Governor SwillTheir heritage was obvious. Had they just happened
to have also been as white as Europeans, there'd be
no race issue with African Americans today.
Um, not so sure about that. Again it's not JUST
"color" ... the underlying culture/attitude plays a
role too. The more compatible (not necesarily
'same' but just 'compatible') with euroamerican
culture the easier the integration.
Blacks were forced to come to America as slaves. Virtually everybody
else came here voluntarily as free men. They weren't *allowed* to
assimilate and southern whites didn't want them to anyway. They have
that in somewhat in common with modern Hispanics who continue to speak
Spanish as well as English and keep strong Hispanic communities where
they live.
Post by Mr. B1ack'Hispanics' are almost physically indistingishable
from 'arabs' (largely because of the arab occupation
of Spain) yet 'hispanics' integrate pretty easily while
islamics do not. Our next (surely future) prez could
be a 'hispanic' whose name is Rubio - indeed he
still out-polls the two honkeys on the DNC side of
the election. 'Hispanics' aren't nearly as much "They"
as 'arabs'.
Rubio would be an acceptable choice to me. Honestly, if the Dems held
at least one House, I'd vote for him.
Arabs have a different issue from other immigrant populations. Their
religion seems to bestow on some of them an arrogance or exclusivity
that keeps them at arms length from much of American culture.
Certainly most do assimilate completely, but especially today, there's
always that sense of being on their guard. They're aware of the
potential danger of being caught "looking" like or "acting" like a
Muslim in public.
Post by Mr. B1ackThere's logic and "e-logic" ... emotional, 'gut', logic.
The latter has been honed over the past billion years
in true Darwinian fashion, it keeps you alive. We are
not robots, not computers, not 'Mr. Spock' ... what
we do is based on a blend of both kinds of logic - as
are determinations about who is "We" and who
are "They".
I suspect this is part of the stress of modern life. In so many ways,
those Darwinian lessons seem to let us down, seem invalid and it sets
up stress as ***years of evolution conflicts with what we can see, do
and safely touch.
Post by Mr. B1ackGee ... this thing is getting LONG and WINDING again .........
Been snipping but you know, it just goes to show that the conversation
is interesting. :)
Swill
--
"Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order to Improve Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/31/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-improve-access-mental-h
Obama's record on Veterans turns out to be quite good.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/veterans/
