Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party – If They Ever Really Were

[Correll]

2.) In the second paragraph he claims that I said that blacks were more racist when that is not at all what I said.

I believe he was referring to an exchange between the two of you on the thread "Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes".

And? I didn't author the thread and I never said that in any case. What I told him was that some blacks are racist, that's it. I've had to correct him on this multiple times now.

You claimed black racism existed while denying any type of white racism. You claimed to have gone to a black school in the 1960s and blacks were racists.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

But you refused to even try to understand why that in the 1960's, blacks didn't like white people. You dismissed the lifetme of severe and overt white racism these people endured to call them racists. You claimed racism on a job where you were a supervisor of blacks because you got spit on by a black man. I'm not justifying what the mam did, you should have knocked his teeth out. But did he spit on you because you were white, or because you called him out in front of all the workers?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

You want me to say there are black racists when blacks have done nothing the likes of things whites have done and you want to take the anger blacks feel about what whites do and have done to cry abut blacks beg racists.

You don't get to have amnesia. You will face what whites have done. What you call racism by blacks is not racism. It is the angry reaction and response to the racism of whites. Surely you can't be sane and think that whites can do as they have consistently done to POC and logically expect that we all are just going to ignore it. And you can't understand how that kind of attitude can be called racist or white supremacist.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

 

[IM2]

2.) In the second paragraph he claims that I said that blacks were more racist when that is not at all what I said.

I believe he was referring to an exchange between the two of you on the thread "Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes".

It's amazing the extent to which some of these people will lie.

What? You claimed I said that blacks were more racist. That was patently false and you know it.

You've said more than that.

 

[IM2]

For me, it's not so much the idea of reparations that I'm against, it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism. It is simply not fair for those who had nothing to do with it to have their taxes used in such a way

So on one hand you state that you don't have anything against the concept of reparations but then you go on to say that it's not fair to have the tax dollars of whites go to paying them, correct?

How fair was it for our government to institute laws and policies that legislatively deprived an entire race of people opportunities to prosper and their actual rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution but which were protected for others? And how much of our tax money as African Americans was paid out (at the point of a gun) to institute and protect these racists policies which benefited others at our expense?

When our government harms it's own citizens by it's policies and procedures, instituted due to the racist beliefs of those running it and drafting legislation, then the epitome of unfairness is for it to continue to stonewall and deny making amends for those wrongs it inflicted, particularly when it has done so for other groups of people it has harmed.

And besides, It's right there in our Constitution, the very first amendment

In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".​

ALL RISE! Class is in session!

 

[sealybobo]

We’ve looked down south and what we see are rich white communities and right next to them poor black communities. Quit acting like southern blacks vote republican because they don’t

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

 

[IM2]

We’ve looked down south and what we see are rich white communities and right next to them poor black communities. Quit acting like southern blacks vote republican because they don’t

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

 

[sealybobo]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

Who cares? Look at how many blacks the unions in Detroit hired before conservatives sent those “too high” paying jobs overseas to break the unions. Who cares that blacks choose to live with blacks? They just want jobs. They didn’t want to move to the burbs and pay higher home prices and taxes to live with whites.

White young people are starting to move to Detroit. They think City life is cool. I like the country better but this is good. 700,000 blacks left Detroit. It would be nice if 700,000 whites moved in and helped fix it up with taxes, spending

 

[katsteve2012]

I believe he was referring to an exchange between the two of you on the thread "Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes".

And? I didn't author the thread and I never said that in any case. What I told him was that some blacks are racist, that's it. I've had to correct him on this multiple times now.

You claimed black racism existed while denying any type of white racism. You claimed to have gone to a black school in the 1960s and blacks were racists.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

But you refused to even try to understand why that in the 1960's, blacks didn't like white people. You dismissed the lifetme of severe and overt white racism these people endured to call them racists. You claimed racism on a job where you were a supervisor of blacks because you got spit on by a black man. I'm not justifying what the mam did, you should have knocked his teeth out. But did he spit on you because you were white, or because you called him out in front of all the workers?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

You want me to say there are black racists when blacks have done nothing the likes of things whites have done and you want to take the anger blacks feel about what whites do and have done to cry abut blacks beg racists.

You don't get to have amnesia. You will face what whites have done. What you call racism by blacks is not racism. It is the angry reaction and response to the racism of whites. Surely you can't be sane and think that whites can do as they have consistently done to POC and logically expect that we all are just going to ignore it. And you can't understand how that kind of attitude can be called racist or white supremacist.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

 

[GreenBean]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

An apologist for Democratic Racist History - is that what you are now ? Stop making excuses for the klans men and slave holders .

Excuses are like assholes everybody has one, you are one.

 

[sealybobo]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

An apologist for Democratic Racist History - is that what you are now ? Stop making excuses for the klans men and slave holders .

Excuses are like assholes everybody has one, you are one.

The klan is in the gop today right?

 

[IM2]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

An apologist for Democratic Racist History - is that what you are now ? Stop making excuses for the klans men and slave holders .

Excuses are like assholes everybody has one, you are one.

America has a racist history and both parties have been part of it. You don't get to tell us as blacks today how we were not slaves and you are not responsible because you were not alive, then declare that democrats today who were just as much not around as your asses were then as the party of slavery and racism now. Blacks left the republican party for a reason, and you are not going to get any large number of us back by claiming we are only democrats because we want free shit.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I've interacted with him on multiple threads on the subject of white racism and he definitely is one of those who holds the entire white race accountable for slavery and the oppression that followed. Just ask him. If we're not guilty of blatant racism then we are at least guilty of reaping the benefits of a system that favored whites and for that we must pay

You are grossly misrepresenting much of what he's stated. I've never heard him state that the entire white race today is culpable for the acts of white racist then or now. What he as well as myself have truthfully stated is that whites today have benefited from the advantages (aka "white privilege") that resulted from the institutional racism which legislatively granted the white race rights & benefits that were simultaneously denied to people of African descent. We've covered the original beliefs that by Devine decree the white race was alleged to be superior to the black race and that the black race's only purpose was to serve the white race. We talked about SCOTUS Justice Tanney making the comment

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.
​

We discussed the 14th Amendment being necessary to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 13th (end to slavery), the Voters Rights Act being necessary to enforce the 15th amendment, the 100 years of black codes and Jim Crow laws, and most recently how the mere passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not abolish discrimination in practice and that affirmation action did not codify the hiring of "unqualified blacks" over "qualified whites" as has been alleged by a stunningly large amount of uninformed individuals.

And yes he has laid out the arguments for reparations by presenting evidence that compares the situation of African Americans to other similarly situated to whom our government has paid reparations for harms it's policies and procedures have caused.

This is all vastly different than how Ghost of a Rider is portraying IM2's beliefs and comments.

IM2 has said on more than one occasion: "You will pay us what you owe. Spiritual law says so." This was addressed to a white poster. I've heard him talk about the government paying reparations but when he says things like the above, I have to wonder what his motives are. I've asked him twice now who he was talking about when he said this and both times he refused to answer.

For me, it's not so much the idea of reparations that I'm against, it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism. It is simply not fair for those who had nothing to do with it to have their taxes used in such a way.

It has not been fair to us blacks to have our taxes used to maintain a system that has cheated us. You pay Native Americans every year for things you have nothing to do with. You paid japanese for things you had nothing to do with at the time the money was paid. You pay Jews for something Germans did to them. But when it comes to blacks we get dumb ass excuses that make no sense when you THINK.

The bible in Jeremiah Chapter 34 verses 8-21 specifically states what the requirements are for the payment of slaves and the penalty for refusal. It tells us this in verses 21-22:

'Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life and into the hand of the king of Babylon’s army, which has gone away from you. 22 I will command, says the Lord, and cause them to return to this city, and they will fight against it and take it and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant."

This happens because they did not do as required by the lord, which was to pay their slaves after 7 years among other things which we can say white America is doing to blacks and other people of color. That is spiritual law. So you can refuse to do as the law requires and watch America get what the cities of Judah got or you can pay what you owe us.

Put down the dumb ass white belief of he wants revenge on whitey. I am not the one who can do that. Spiritual law says "vengeance us mine saith the lord". So then you will pay what you owe one way or the other. God don't care about how fair you think it is for whites to pay taxes.

Very profound. But I'm an atheist.

Your atheism doesn't matter. That's not going to stop what's coming.

That's funny.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

For me, it's not so much the idea of reparations that I'm against, it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism. It is simply not fair for those who had nothing to do with it to have their taxes used in such a way

So on one hand you state that you don't have anything against the concept of reparations but then you go on to say that it's not fair to have the tax dollars of whites go to paying them, correct?

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't have anything against the concept of reparations. I said "It's not so much..." I'm against reparations but it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism I have the biggest problem with. Do you think it's right or fair that Asian Americans should have their tax money spent to right a wrong that they had nothing to do with? Or Hispanics? Or Brazilians? Or Irish? Or Somalis?

 

[IM2]

For me, it's not so much the idea of reparations that I'm against, it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism. It is simply not fair for those who had nothing to do with it to have their taxes used in such a way

So on one hand you state that you don't have anything against the concept of reparations but then you go on to say that it's not fair to have the tax dollars of whites go to paying them, correct?

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't have anything against the concept of reparations. I said "It's not so much..." I'm against reparations but it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism I have the biggest problem with. Do you think it's right or fair that Asian Americans should have their tax money spent to right a wrong that they had nothing to do with? Or Hispanics? Or Brazilians? Or Irish? Or Somalis?

Do you think before you post? Or do you think you can keep on repeating the same debunked stuff time after time.

EVERY OTHER GROUP THAT HAS BEEN WRONGED BY THIS GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED REPARATIONS BUT US.

And you continue paying for wrongs you did not do.

 

[IM2]

You are grossly misrepresenting much of what he's stated. I've never heard him state that the entire white race today is culpable for the acts of white racist then or now. What he as well as myself have truthfully stated is that whites today have benefited from the advantages (aka "white privilege") that resulted from the institutional racism which legislatively granted the white race rights & benefits that were simultaneously denied to people of African descent. We've covered the original beliefs that by Devine decree the white race was alleged to be superior to the black race and that the black race's only purpose was to serve the white race. We talked about SCOTUS Justice Tanney making the comment

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.
​

We discussed the 14th Amendment being necessary to enforce the rights guaranteed by the 13th (end to slavery), the Voters Rights Act being necessary to enforce the 15th amendment, the 100 years of black codes and Jim Crow laws, and most recently how the mere passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not abolish discrimination in practice and that affirmation action did not codify the hiring of "unqualified blacks" over "qualified whites" as has been alleged by a stunningly large amount of uninformed individuals.

And yes he has laid out the arguments for reparations by presenting evidence that compares the situation of African Americans to other similarly situated to whom our government has paid reparations for harms it's policies and procedures have caused.

This is all vastly different than how Ghost of a Rider is portraying IM2's beliefs and comments.

IM2 has said on more than one occasion: "You will pay us what you owe. Spiritual law says so." This was addressed to a white poster. I've heard him talk about the government paying reparations but when he says things like the above, I have to wonder what his motives are. I've asked him twice now who he was talking about when he said this and both times he refused to answer.

For me, it's not so much the idea of reparations that I'm against, it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism. It is simply not fair for those who had nothing to do with it to have their taxes used in such a way.

It has not been fair to us blacks to have our taxes used to maintain a system that has cheated us. You pay Native Americans every year for things you have nothing to do with. You paid japanese for things you had nothing to do with at the time the money was paid. You pay Jews for something Germans did to them. But when it comes to blacks we get dumb ass excuses that make no sense when you THINK.

The bible in Jeremiah Chapter 34 verses 8-21 specifically states what the requirements are for the payment of slaves and the penalty for refusal. It tells us this in verses 21-22:

'Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life and into the hand of the king of Babylon’s army, which has gone away from you. 22 I will command, says the Lord, and cause them to return to this city, and they will fight against it and take it and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant."

This happens because they did not do as required by the lord, which was to pay their slaves after 7 years among other things which we can say white America is doing to blacks and other people of color. That is spiritual law. So you can refuse to do as the law requires and watch America get what the cities of Judah got or you can pay what you owe us.

Put down the dumb ass white belief of he wants revenge on whitey. I am not the one who can do that. Spiritual law says "vengeance us mine saith the lord". So then you will pay what you owe one way or the other. God don't care about how fair you think it is for whites to pay taxes.

Very profound. But I'm an atheist.

Your atheism doesn't matter. That's not going to stop what's coming.

That's funny.

You won't laugh when the bill is due.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Care to elaborate on that.?

why? the statement is right on point, I understood it perfectly

 

[IM2]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

Who cares? Look at how many blacks the unions in Detroit hired before conservatives sent those “too high” paying jobs overseas to break the unions. Who cares that blacks choose to live with blacks? They just want jobs. They didn’t want to move to the burbs and pay higher home prices and taxes to live with whites.

White young people are starting to move to Detroit. They think City life is cool. I like the country better but this is good. 700,000 blacks left Detroit. It would be nice if 700,000 whites moved in and helped fix it up with taxes, spending

I live in Kansas. I have traveled the whole country. Bear is wrong.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't have anything against the concept of reparations. I said "It's not so much..." I'm against reparations but it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism I have the biggest problem with. Do you think it's right or fair that Asian Americans should have their tax money spent to right a wrong that they had nothing to do with? Or Hispanics? Or Brazilians? Or Irish? Or Somalis?

So why don't you feel this way about the reparations that were paid to the Japanese American citizens that were interned during WWII by our government? Did not at least a portion of that money come from every single one of us?

Six times victims have received reparations
....
Japanese internment
The forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II resulted in about $3.1 billion in property loss and $6.4 billion in income loss, in 2014 dollars. If you account for the possibility that that money might have been invested and gotten above-inflation returns, the economic losses are even larger.

Congress made two attempts at reparations, the Japanese-American Claims Act of 1948 and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Between 1948 and 1965, the former authorized payments totaling $38 million (which comes to somewhere between $286 to $374 million in 2014 dollars), which didn't come close to matching the economic loss. The latter offered survivors $20,000 each in reparations. By 1998, 80,000 survivors had collected their share, for a total payout of $1.6 billion (between $2.3 billion and $3.2 billion today). There is no accounting by which either measure adequately repaid internees for their economic losses, let alone compensated for pain and suffering.

Forced sterilization
Most Americans states practiced one or another form of eugenics during the 20th century, with forced sterilizations of "unfit" people being a prime instrument. The targets were largely but by no means entirely mentally or developmentally disabled; poor black women on welfare were especially likely to be victimized in this manner. The Supreme Court gave the practice a green light with 1927's Buck v. Bell, and eventually 33 states adopted the practice, forcibly sterilizing about 65,000 people total through the 1970s. Oregon forcibly sterilized people as late as 1981, and its Board of Eugenics (renamed the "Board of Social Protection" in 1967) was only abolished in 1983.

Very few states have acknowledged or apologized for these policies, and only one, North Carolina, has set up a reparations program. The state sterilized about 7,600 people, most of whom are no longer living, but last year passed a $10 million reparations program that should give the more than 177 living victims somewhere in the range of $50,000 each. The payments should be made within a few years. Some victims have objected, saying this doesn't come close to remedying the injustice. As one victim, Elaine Riddick Jessie (who was sterilized at age 14 after being raped and giving the resulting son up for adoption), put it, "If I accepted it, what kind of value am I putting on my life?"

California, which sterilized by far the largest number of people of any state, has yet to pay out reparations.

Tuskegee experiment
After the end of the Tuskegee experiment — in which 399 black men with syphilis were left untreated to study the progression of the disease between 1932 and 1972 — the government reached a $10 million out of court settlement with the victims and their families in 1974, which included both monetary reparations (in 2014 dollars, $178,000 for men in the study who had syphilis, $72,000 for heirs, $77,000 for those in the control group and $24,000 for heirs of those in the control group) and a promise of lifelong medical treatment for both participants and their immediate families. According to the CDC, 15 descendants are still receiving treatment through the program today.

Rosewood
In 1923, the primarily black town of Rosewood on the Gulf Coast of Florida was destroyed in a race riot that, by official counts, killed at least six black residents and two whites (though some descendants of the town's residents have claimed many more were killed and dumped in mass graves). In 1994, the state of Florida agreed to a reparations package worth around $3.36 million in 2014 dollars, of which $2.4 million today would be set aside to compensate the 11 or so remaining survivors of the incident, $800,000 to compensate those who were forced to flee the town, and $160,000 would go to college scholarships primarily aimed at descendants​

 

[IM2]

First of all, I didn't say that I didn't have anything against the concept of reparations. I said "It's not so much..." I'm against reparations but it's the idea of holding all whites accountable for slavery and racism I have the biggest problem with. Do you think it's right or fair that Asian Americans should have their tax money spent to right a wrong that they had nothing to do with? Or Hispanics? Or Brazilians? Or Irish? Or Somalis?

So why don't you feel this way about the reparations that were paid to the Japanese American citizens that were interned during WWII by our government? Did not at least a portion of that money come from every single one of us?

Six times victims have received reparations
....
Japanese internment
The forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II resulted in about $3.1 billion in property loss and $6.4 billion in income loss, in 2014 dollars. If you account for the possibility that that money might have been invested and gotten above-inflation returns, the economic losses are even larger.

Congress made two attempts at reparations, the Japanese-American Claims Act of 1948 and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Between 1948 and 1965, the former authorized payments totaling $38 million (which comes to somewhere between $286 to $374 million in 2014 dollars), which didn't come close to matching the economic loss. The latter offered survivors $20,000 each in reparations. By 1998, 80,000 survivors had collected their share, for a total payout of $1.6 billion (between $2.3 billion and $3.2 billion today). There is no accounting by which either measure adequately repaid internees for their economic losses, let alone compensated for pain and suffering.

Forced sterilization
Most Americans states practiced one or another form of eugenics during the 20th century, with forced sterilizations of "unfit" people being a prime instrument. The targets were largely but by no means entirely mentally or developmentally disabled; poor black women on welfare were especially likely to be victimized in this manner. The Supreme Court gave the practice a green light with 1927's Buck v. Bell, and eventually 33 states adopted the practice, forcibly sterilizing about 65,000 people total through the 1970s. Oregon forcibly sterilized people as late as 1981, and its Board of Eugenics (renamed the "Board of Social Protection" in 1967) was only abolished in 1983.

Very few states have acknowledged or apologized for these policies, and only one, North Carolina, has set up a reparations program. The state sterilized about 7,600 people, most of whom are no longer living, but last year passed a $10 million reparations program that should give the more than 177 living victims somewhere in the range of $50,000 each. The payments should be made within a few years. Some victims have objected, saying this doesn't come close to remedying the injustice. As one victim, Elaine Riddick Jessie (who was sterilized at age 14 after being raped and giving the resulting son up for adoption), put it, "If I accepted it, what kind of value am I putting on my life?"

California, which sterilized by far the largest number of people of any state, has yet to pay out reparations.

Tuskegee experiment
After the end of the Tuskegee experiment — in which 399 black men with syphilis were left untreated to study the progression of the disease between 1932 and 1972 — the government reached a $10 million out of court settlement with the victims and their families in 1974, which included both monetary reparations (in 2014 dollars, $178,000 for men in the study who had syphilis, $72,000 for heirs, $77,000 for those in the control group and $24,000 for heirs of those in the control group) and a promise of lifelong medical treatment for both participants and their immediate families. According to the CDC, 15 descendants are still receiving treatment through the program today.

Rosewood
In 1923, the primarily black town of Rosewood on the Gulf Coast of Florida was destroyed in a race riot that, by official counts, killed at least six black residents and two whites (though some descendants of the town's residents have claimed many more were killed and dumped in mass graves). In 1994, the state of Florida agreed to a reparations package worth around $3.36 million in 2014 dollars, of which $2.4 million today would be set aside to compensate the 11 or so remaining survivors of the incident, $800,000 to compensate those who were forced to flee the town, and $160,000 would go to college scholarships primarily aimed at descendants​

Because he's a racist.

 

[Correll]

We’ve looked down south and what we see are rich white communities and right next to them poor black communities. Quit acting like southern blacks vote republican because they don’t

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Welcome to your future as a second class citizen.


It will only be getting worse, never better, for the rest of your life, and lives of your descendants.

 

[Correll]

We’ve looked down south and what we see are rich white communities and right next to them poor black communities. Quit acting like southern blacks vote republican because they don’t

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

And? I didn't author the thread and I never said that in any case. What I told him was that some blacks are racist, that's it. I've had to correct him on this multiple times now.

You claimed black racism existed while denying any type of white racism. You claimed to have gone to a black school in the 1960s and blacks were racists.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

But you refused to even try to understand why that in the 1960's, blacks didn't like white people. You dismissed the lifetme of severe and overt white racism these people endured to call them racists. You claimed racism on a job where you were a supervisor of blacks because you got spit on by a black man. I'm not justifying what the mam did, you should have knocked his teeth out. But did he spit on you because you were white, or because you called him out in front of all the workers?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

You want me to say there are black racists when blacks have done nothing the likes of things whites have done and you want to take the anger blacks feel about what whites do and have done to cry abut blacks beg racists.

You don't get to have amnesia. You will face what whites have done. What you call racism by blacks is not racism. It is the angry reaction and response to the racism of whites. Surely you can't be sane and think that whites can do as they have consistently done to POC and logically expect that we all are just going to ignore it. And you can't understand how that kind of attitude can be called racist or white supremacist.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.