Discussion:
OT - First the flag ...
(too old to reply)
vito
2015-08-11 02:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson

Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
nothermark
2015-08-11 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
While I laugh at the piousness of a state where most of the population
probably cannot trace their ancestry back before the turn of the last
century they do have a point. I just do not think they understand
what it is. If you look at the history of both of them they were not
someone to celebrate.
Bruce
2015-08-11 04:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
Well, since Jefferson was a huge champion of individual liberty and
Democrats aren't, I can't imagine he would object to not being part of a
Democrat get together.

As to Jackson - he was guilty of the biggest genocide in American
history - dropping him from the festivities is more than appropriate.
Besides Jackson appointed the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred
Scott decision - he should be shunned for that even if he did everything
else right (and he didn't).
--
Bruce

Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has is stolen.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Major Oz
2015-08-11 04:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
Well, since Jefferson was a huge champion of individual liberty and
Democrats aren't, I can't imagine he would object to not being part of a
Democrat get together.
As to Jackson - he was guilty of the biggest genocide in American
history - dropping him from the festivities is more than appropriate.
Besides Jackson appointed the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred
Scott decision - he should be shunned for that even if he did everything
else right (and he didn't).
Perfect reasoning.

Interestingly....my Jeb history teacher in 1954 said it almost word for word.
nothermark
2015-08-11 12:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
Well, since Jefferson was a huge champion of individual liberty and
Democrats aren't, I can't imagine he would object to not being part of a
Democrat get together.
He wrote a good story but failed to live up to it in his personal
life.
Post by Bruce
As to Jackson - he was guilty of the biggest genocide in American
history - dropping him from the festivities is more than appropriate.
Besides Jackson appointed the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Dred
Scott decision - he should be shunned for that even if he did everything
else right (and he didn't).
vito
2015-08-11 15:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by nothermark
He wrote a good story but failed to live up to it in his personal
life.
Jefferson was constrained by his times. He could no more free his
slaves than you can 'free' you dog. That was the law. What part of
his personal life do you refer to??
nothermark
2015-08-11 16:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by vito
Post by nothermark
He wrote a good story but failed to live up to it in his personal
life.
Jefferson was constrained by his times. He could no more free his
slaves than you can 'free' you dog. That was the law. What part of
his personal life do you refer to??
Contrast Jefferson and Washington.

Washington managed within his means so he could end up freeing his
slaves. A bit of wiggling but a significant number were ultimately
freed.

Jefferson died bankrupt because he lived well above his means using
his social position to hold off his creditors. He was one of the
first planters to use his slaves as collateral for his loans thus
further burdening them in terms of being able to be freed. After his
death his creditors picked them up and sold them to pay some of what
he owed. If you read what he wrote a fair amount he talked created
equal but considered African Americans as less human than whites thus
thought they should be freed but not allowed into white society. His
ideas varied but basically were return to Africa or put on
reservations. Where does that fit in with "all men are created
equal"?
vito
2015-08-11 19:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by nothermark
Post by vito
Post by nothermark
He wrote a good story but failed to live up to it in his personal
life.
Jefferson was constrained by his times. He could no more free his
slaves than you can 'free' you dog. That was the law. What part of
his personal life do you refer to??
Contrast Jefferson and Washington.
Washington managed within his means so he could end up freeing his
slaves. A bit of wiggling but a significant number were ultimately
freed.
Jefferson died bankrupt because he lived well above his means using
his social position to hold off his creditors. He was one of the
first planters to use his slaves as collateral for his loans thus
further burdening them in terms of being able to be freed. After his
death his creditors picked them up and sold them to pay some of what
he owed. If you read what he wrote a fair amount he talked created
equal but considered African Americans as less human than whites thus
thought they should be freed but not allowed into white society. His
ideas varied but basically were return to Africa or put on
reservations. Where does that fit in with "all men are created
equal"?
Sure, and we all know that the first settlers were pilgrims whp came
seeking relibious freedom who landed on Plymouth Rock, befriended the
Indians, held the first thanlsgiving and that their descendents spread
west and south to fill the rest of the country. That's why we all
speak as though we were from Boston. Ben Franklin and the Adams family
founded this country, writing both the Declaration of Independence and
our Constitution. Your knowledge fits right into this pattern.

But the facts are something else. Washington inherited a small farm
and some slaves (Ferry Farm, just across the Rapahannoc from
Fredricksburg, Va.) and he bought more. The vast majority of "his"
wealth including Mt Vernon and its slaves actually belonged to his
wife. Washington freed his slaves, less than half of the totol, but
the rest went to her heirs. Jefferson was hardly one of the first
slave owners to use them a collateral - a practice that predated his
birth.

Jefferson wasn't lucky enough to marry so rich but his wife did bring
her half sister, Sally, who had been born and bred in 'the big house'
too, along with her as her "slave". Sally became Jeffersons wife in
all but name after her mistress died, even living with him in France
where she could easily have stayed. But she was only 7/8 white so he
could neither marry her or free her but he did free her (their?)
children.

Yes, Jefferson did feel that African field hands would not fit into
white society, and guess what, he was right. Even today most of their
descendents live in "reservations" (ghettos) by choice - just as
Hispanic and Asian folks do. Mixed neighborhoods are a rarity oven
after 50 years of federal laws. And just as he feared, they are
exploited by both whites and their own kind as witness current riots.

But if you are more comfortable with your myths ....
nothermark
2015-08-11 21:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by vito
Post by nothermark
Post by vito
Post by nothermark
He wrote a good story but failed to live up to it in his personal
life.
Jefferson was constrained by his times. He could no more free his
slaves than you can 'free' you dog. That was the law. What part of
his personal life do you refer to??
Contrast Jefferson and Washington.
Washington managed within his means so he could end up freeing his
slaves. A bit of wiggling but a significant number were ultimately
freed.
Jefferson died bankrupt because he lived well above his means using
his social position to hold off his creditors. He was one of the
first planters to use his slaves as collateral for his loans thus
further burdening them in terms of being able to be freed. After his
death his creditors picked them up and sold them to pay some of what
he owed. If you read what he wrote a fair amount he talked created
equal but considered African Americans as less human than whites thus
thought they should be freed but not allowed into white society. His
ideas varied but basically were return to Africa or put on
reservations. Where does that fit in with "all men are created
equal"?
Sure, and we all know that the first settlers were pilgrims whp came
seeking relibious freedom who landed on Plymouth Rock, befriended the
Indians, held the first thanlsgiving and that their descendents spread
west and south to fill the rest of the country. That's why we all
speak as though we were from Boston. Ben Franklin and the Adams family
founded this country, writing both the Declaration of Independence and
our Constitution. Your knowledge fits right into this pattern.
But the facts are something else. Washington inherited a small farm
and some slaves (Ferry Farm, just across the Rapahannoc from
Fredricksburg, Va.) and he bought more. The vast majority of "his"
wealth including Mt Vernon and its slaves actually belonged to his
wife. Washington freed his slaves, less than half of the totol, but
the rest went to her heirs. Jefferson was hardly one of the first
slave owners to use them a collateral - a practice that predated his
birth.
Jefferson wasn't lucky enough to marry so rich but his wife did bring
her half sister, Sally, who had been born and bred in 'the big house'
too, along with her as her "slave". Sally became Jeffersons wife in
all but name after her mistress died, even living with him in France
where she could easily have stayed. But she was only 7/8 white so he
could neither marry her or free her but he did free her (their?)
children.
Yes, Jefferson did feel that African field hands would not fit into
white society, and guess what, he was right. Even today most of their
descendents live in "reservations" (ghettos) by choice - just as
Hispanic and Asian folks do. Mixed neighborhoods are a rarity oven
after 50 years of federal laws. And just as he feared, they are
exploited by both whites and their own kind as witness current riots.
But if you are more comfortable with your myths ....
I'm comfortable with mine but wonder where you got yours....

Jan Orme
2015-08-11 06:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Short History Of Democrats, Republicans and Racism
russp.us/racism.htm

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

Recommended Reading

Back to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak

Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett

Jan Eric Orme
nothermark
2015-08-11 13:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Orme
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Short History Of Democrats, Republicans and Racism
russp.us/racism.htm
The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Recommended Reading
Back to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett
Jan Eric Orme
What seems conveniently left out is that the Republican Party as it
stands today is filled with old Southern Democrats who left the party
over abortion and other issues to become what Oz calls the JW backbone
of the Conservative core of the current Republican Party. That move
in turn pushed a lot of old line Republicans into the Democratic camp
in the rest of the country.

Wooing the black community goes back at least to Eleanor Roosevelt who
worked hard with her supporters to shift that community from solid
Republican to Democrat. It was not a hard sell because of the way the
southern Democrats were treating them. I think LBJ was more
opportunist than leader on that deal. As the southern Democrats
switched the southern blacks moved to the Democrats to oppose the same
people they had been opposing right along. The party labels were
about all that changed.
vito
2015-08-11 20:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by nothermark
What seems conveniently left out is that the Republican Party as it
stands today is filled with old Southern Democrats who left the party
over abortion and other issues to become what Oz calls the JW backbone
of the Conservative core of the current Republican Party. That move
in turn pushed a lot of old line Republicans into the Democratic camp
in the rest of the country.
Wooing the black community goes back at least to Eleanor Roosevelt who
worked hard with her supporters to shift that community from solid
Republican to Democrat. It was not a hard sell because of the way the
southern Democrats were treating them. I think LBJ was more
opportunist than leader on that deal. As the southern Democrats
switched the southern blacks moved to the Democrats to oppose the same
people they had been opposing right along. The party labels were
about all that changed.
You are largely correct BUT the current alignment started with JFK.
His socialist agenda was blocked by a coalition of northern GOP and
southern Democrats. The latter were elected by whites so he started
the civil rights movement to replace them with more compliant
Democrats. It worked, so the old 'Dixicrats' became Repub.s. Efforts
before JFK were noise level. LBJ continued JFK's policies.
Lone Haranguer
2015-08-11 16:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Orme
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Short History Of Democrats, Republicans and Racism
russp.us/racism.htm
The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Recommended Reading
Back to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett
Jan Eric Orme
An excellent post with one correction. It wasn't Ike who
integrated the Armed Forces.

President Harry S. Truman
"On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed this
executive order establishing the President's Committee on
Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services,
committing the government to integrating the segregated military."

LZ
vito
2015-08-11 19:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Orme
Post by vito
Conn. Democrats Opt Not to Honor Thomas Jefferson ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/23/conn-democrats-opt-not-to-honor-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson
Remember how the Soviet Communists used to rewrite history.
It's the PC thing to do, never mind tha t my only slaver ancestors
were from Connecticut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Short History Of Democrats, Republicans and Racism
russp.us/racism.htm
The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Recommended Reading
Back to Basics for the Republican Party by Michael Zak
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett
Jan Eric Orme
In my experience, it began with JFK. When he took office congress was
controled by a coalition of northern Republicans and "Dixicrats" -
conservative southern Democrats - and they thwarted his socialism.
Noting that 'Dixicrats' were vulnerable he started the civil rights
movement to replace them with socialists via the "colored" vote. And
it worked.
Loading...