How Far Back In American History Are Blacks Allowed To Go Back?

[IM2]

Who gives a shit, boys? Does it matter a tinker's damn if it was Democrats or Republicans or my Dear Aunt Fanny who created it? What does it matter all these years later?

It doesn't matter at all. But I suppose being a political message board, that would be more interesting to y'all than the OP. Even to the OP.

Today's Republicans are the only ones who make a point to identify which party was responsible for all the slaverly/anti-black/etc. of the past.

I have a goo idea why they do it, but you should ask them why they find that necessary.

All our posts regarding that are simply in response to them inserting that into the debate.

They point it out because the democrats keep trying to hide the racism of today's democrat party by accusing the Republicans of being racists......all the while the core groups of the democrat party are openly and proudly racist as is the leadership of the party, including barak obama....who sat in an openly and proudly racist church for 20 years...

Democrats can't hide any racism they have. But forums like this full of republicans tells a lot about today's republican party. Obama did not sit in a racist church for any years. Nor was he a racist.

A sociologist explores how racists paint themselves as the innocent ones.

" In a 2000 article, the sociologist Mitch Berbrier examined dozens of white supremacist media appearances and publications and discovered a pattern of carefully crafted victim ideology. Victimhood, it seemed, is how the groups assured themselves they weren’t being racist—the excuse being that, hey, they’re suffering too.

In his study, Berbrier found that white supremacists believe:

(1) that whites are victims of discrimination

White supremacists seem aggrieved by their sense that civil rights movement has tipped the balance in favor of minority groups. Here, Berbrier cites David Duke’s organization, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, as positioning itself as a counterpoint to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:

The NAACP promotes racial discrimination by seeking discriminatory policies against white people in employment, promotions, scholarships, and in college and union admittance, while the NAAWP seeks equal opportunity for all, with preference for the hardest-working, most talented, and best-qualified ... The NAAWP seeks greater racial understanding and goodwill by showing that when all things are considered, blacks have enjoyed far more benefits from whites than they have endured privation. American blacks have the highest standard of living, the greatest educational and employment opportunity, and by far the most democratic and civil rights of any blacks anywhere in the world. (NAAWP News, 1980)

The group’s newsletter, the NAAWP News, ran items with headlines such as "Anti-White Discrimination Accelerates,” Berbrier notes. Today, this sentiment survives as the myth that affirmative action, for instance, constitutes “reverse racism.”

(2) that their rights are being abrogated

As a corollary, white supremacists believe whites are denied the right to their own publications and advocacy groups—a right enjoyed by minority groups. As the KKK leader Thom Robb put it in 1992, according to the study: “The issue isn't who's superior ... Even if we [whites] were nothing but a race of cavemen, we still have a right to preserve our heritage and culture and give that to our children. Nobody has the right to deny that from us. And that is the attempt that's being done today.”

(3) that they are stigmatized if they express "pride”

Berbrier points to the following quote in a 1991 issue of The Populist Observer, the newsletter of the Populist Party: “Blacks, Orientals, Indians and Hispanics are taught to love their history, while whites are being taught to hate their own.”

According to Berbrier’s analysis, these supremacist groups feel that if whites do express pride in their heritage, they are branded racists and bigots. He writes that their euphemisms, like “heritage preservation” are so-called “ethnic affectations designed to destigmatize white supremacists and separatists alike by implying that they are just another ethnic group with similar needs.”

This is reflected in the obsession with Norse culture and mythology among some of today’s white supremacists. Since this paper was published, at least six domestic terror plots were conducted by so-called “Odinists”—racist adherents of an ancient religion, as Reveal News reported. The rituals of the Odinists—using Germanic phrases and drinking mead from horns—seem like attempts to recapture a bygone time in an all-white land.

One adherent, a Holocaust denier named Brandon Lashbrook, explained the appeal of the religion to reporter Will Carless: “Races just don’t really mix well, especially if whites are the minority among other racial groups—if we’re under attack or we’re threatened. It just doesn’t ever work in our favor.”

(4) that they are being psychologically affected through the loss of self-esteem

Berbrier points to examples of supremacist literature that claim the inability to express white pride produces a feeling of being “crushed” and the “Nordic spirit” being “broken down.” One news item in the NAAWP News pointed to a high suicide rate among white men as a sign of this supposed despair. Consequences—even imaginary ones—are essential to painting yourself as a victim, according to the sociological theory of "the dramatization of injury and innocence.” In other words, you’re just a blameless bystander; your attackers are everywhere, and they wish you harm.

(5) that the end product of all of this is the elimination of "the white race."

White supremacists fear the white “race” will be “eliminated” through intermarriage, immigration, and low birth rates among whites. The solution, to them, is racial segregation: the ultimate safe place in which to breed only among your own people. "Only in isolation, both physical-mental and genetic can Caucasians survive either here or in the world,” wrote one supremacist in a letter, according to Berbrier. “It has gotten to a point of not being a matter of ‘white, Caucasian' supremacy but rather survival.”

These claims of subjugation may seem silly coming from whites, a group that still earns more, lives longer, and feels overall happier than African Americans do. But as Berbrier shows, victimhood is a powerful psychological mechanism for recruiting members, galvanizing around a cause, and forming what is essentially a support group—for people who really don’t need support.

As Berbrier writes, the psychology of victimhood has come in especially handy for white supremacists when their tactics get violent, as they did on Saturday. “This could be manifest as the argument that white supremacists are simply concerned with the survival of their people,” Berbrier writes, “and that if some on the fringe feel that urgent action is required as a result of dangers posed by sinister outside forces, that is understandable.”

5 Ways White Supremacists Use Victimhood to Their Advantage

This describes the majority of whites here at USMB and the whites who express this belief are republicans.

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, fuckface, your legacy.

No, shit-for-brains, my family didn't own slaves. Half of them weren't even here yet. Ergo I have no "legacy".

So no, fuck you.

They were ALL Democrats. Don't drag everyone else into your ugly world of slavery and racism.

I don't have such a world, numbnuts. YOU DO.

And NO, they were not all Democrats. Democrats didn't even EXIST until 1834, which is exactly three hundred years after the first slaves were brought here.

Just among POTUSes alone, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, W.H. Harrison and Taylor all owned slaves, and none of them were Democrats. Nobody in the entire history of the world has EVER needed a political party to own a slave, and nobody in this country has ever been forced to join a political party AT ALL.

So you're just fucking stupid.

Us? You got a mouse in your pocket? I guess I should give you credit for admitting you are NOTHING.

I am part of the most populous political affiliation in these United States, which is called "NONE".

Sorry if that flummoxes your simplistic dichotomy-infested mind. Tough titty. Learn to think.

I know you probably wish it had continued for another hundred years.
Who owned them when the Civil War started?

Mostly rich indolent capitalists. Which ---- ONCE AGAIN ---- required no political party.

That's why there was such division in the Confederacy over the prospect of war. Most people were not rich indolent fat fucks making money off human misery and they resented the indolent fat fucks bringing them into it.

And who created the KKK and passed Jim Crow laws after the Civil War ended?


Let me help you out, troll boy.....DEMOCRATS. The party of KKK leader Robert Byrd, and leader of the 1964 Civil Rights Act filibuster. Spin spin spin all you want, troll boy, but slavery and racism belong to the Democratic Party. It did then and it does now, and YOU defend them. Sorry, racist, but it IS your legacy (as much as you would like to make it somebody else's).

KKK was created by six ex-soldiers who had no political affiliations, in a land that had no political parties, and for no purpose having anything to do with either racism or politics. And you know that because you've been schooled on it, repeatedly, in fact for years. Yet here you are selling ever more bullshit. Ain't nobody buying it, jackwagon. I've presented you with names, dates, places, links, resources, for literally YEARS on this forum and you have never refuted any of it, because you CAN'T.

Wanna see it yet again?

WHO:

Alpha order:
(Maj) James Crowe
Calvin Jones
(Capt) John B. Kennedy
(Capt) John Lester
(Maj) Frank O. McCord
Richard Reed​

WHEN:

24 December 1865​

WHERE

205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee. Law office of Thomas Jones, father of Calvin​

WHY:

Boredom, emulating a popular college fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon, which begat the name.
​

FOUNDERS' KNOWN POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS:

Crowe -- none.
Jones --- none.
Kennedy --- none.
Lester --- none.
McCord --- none.
Reed --- wait for it ---- none.​

NUMBER OF POLITICAL PARTIES EXTANT IN 1865 TENNESSEE:

Zero​

Don't sit here and try to bullshit me. I am your intellectual master. Which is not exactly a sweat. Clearly I don't need any "help".

Linear timeline:

1534: first African slaves arrive on Spanish merchant ships at what is now South Carolina

1534-1808: captive Africans continue to be brought to the Americas by Spanish, British, French, Dutch and Portuguese merchants. Not by political parties: by MERCHANTS. Same merchants also transport same human cargo to Caribbean islands, Central America and South America, especially Brazil, all places where "Democrats" do not exist and have in fact never existed. US outlaws such trade in March 1807.

1834: Martin van Buren organizes the "Democratic Party" out of Andrew Jackson's body of supporters, informally called "Jacksonians". Note that slave importation has been illegal for twenty-seven years.

Go ahead ------------ prove ANY PART OF THAT wrong, shit-for-brains.

That's right --- you can't. Now BITE MY ASS.

Better be careful there chief, you're gonna have a stroke if you're not careful. LOL
I guess I'd be upset too if I had to defend 150 years of racism, slavery, and oppression. The real kicker is how you defend the Democrat's past (as well as present), agree with and argue every egregious thing they say and do, then insist you have no political alliance with them. LOL

As I said --------------------- you CAN'T disprove a word of it. Because you're a fabricating bullshit HACK. And you got busted.

That's not the weird thing. The weird thing is you've been busted before on exactly the same mythology, and here you are begging to be busted all over again.

I never did understand masochism.

Sissy boy, you've been smacked down so many times in this thread I'm surprised you're still posting. Talk about masochism, damn. You think if you keep insisting Democrats weren't the slave owners, didn't create the KKK after losing the Civil War, and didn't pass Jim Crow laws to keep black people uneducated and ignorant, that SOMEHOW you can make people believe that REPUBLICANS are the party of racism. Doesn't matter how many times you're bitch slapped with historical facts, you'll just keep on singing that lonely tune of "Republicans are racists". Back to square one for you, slave trader. Ain't nobody buyin' what you're sellin', boy.

I do not speak in absolutes, Dumbass. You can fantasize about what you WISH I had posted just as you can fantasize your own fake histories. Doesn't mean jack friggety diddly in the world of Reality.

Why don't you cry yourself to sleep now. There's a good boy.

While you masturbate to your vintage Democrat Party posters?
Happy Kleagle, pogo.

 

[MarcATL]

They point it out because the democrats keep trying to hide the racism of today's democrat party by accusing the Republicans of being racists......all the while the core groups of the democrat party are openly and proudly racist as is the leadership of the party, including barak obama....who sat in an openly and proudly racist church for 20 years...

Democrats can't hide any racism they have. But forums like this full of republicans tells a lot about today's republican party. Obama did not sit in a racist church for any years. Nor was he a racist.

A sociologist explores how racists paint themselves as the innocent ones.

" In a 2000 article, the sociologist Mitch Berbrier examined dozens of white supremacist media appearances and publications and discovered a pattern of carefully crafted victim ideology. Victimhood, it seemed, is how the groups assured themselves they weren’t being racist—the excuse being that, hey, they’re suffering too.

In his study, Berbrier found that white supremacists believe:

(1) that whites are victims of discrimination

White supremacists seem aggrieved by their sense that civil rights movement has tipped the balance in favor of minority groups. Here, Berbrier cites David Duke’s organization, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, as positioning itself as a counterpoint to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:

The NAACP promotes racial discrimination by seeking discriminatory policies against white people in employment, promotions, scholarships, and in college and union admittance, while the NAAWP seeks equal opportunity for all, with preference for the hardest-working, most talented, and best-qualified ... The NAAWP seeks greater racial understanding and goodwill by showing that when all things are considered, blacks have enjoyed far more benefits from whites than they have endured privation. American blacks have the highest standard of living, the greatest educational and employment opportunity, and by far the most democratic and civil rights of any blacks anywhere in the world. (NAAWP News, 1980)

The group’s newsletter, the NAAWP News, ran items with headlines such as "Anti-White Discrimination Accelerates,” Berbrier notes. Today, this sentiment survives as the myth that affirmative action, for instance, constitutes “reverse racism.”

(2) that their rights are being abrogated

As a corollary, white supremacists believe whites are denied the right to their own publications and advocacy groups—a right enjoyed by minority groups. As the KKK leader Thom Robb put it in 1992, according to the study: “The issue isn't who's superior ... Even if we [whites] were nothing but a race of cavemen, we still have a right to preserve our heritage and culture and give that to our children. Nobody has the right to deny that from us. And that is the attempt that's being done today.”

(3) that they are stigmatized if they express "pride”

Berbrier points to the following quote in a 1991 issue of The Populist Observer, the newsletter of the Populist Party: “Blacks, Orientals, Indians and Hispanics are taught to love their history, while whites are being taught to hate their own.”

According to Berbrier’s analysis, these supremacist groups feel that if whites do express pride in their heritage, they are branded racists and bigots. He writes that their euphemisms, like “heritage preservation” are so-called “ethnic affectations designed to destigmatize white supremacists and separatists alike by implying that they are just another ethnic group with similar needs.”

This is reflected in the obsession with Norse culture and mythology among some of today’s white supremacists. Since this paper was published, at least six domestic terror plots were conducted by so-called “Odinists”—racist adherents of an ancient religion, as Reveal News reported. The rituals of the Odinists—using Germanic phrases and drinking mead from horns—seem like attempts to recapture a bygone time in an all-white land.

One adherent, a Holocaust denier named Brandon Lashbrook, explained the appeal of the religion to reporter Will Carless: “Races just don’t really mix well, especially if whites are the minority among other racial groups—if we’re under attack or we’re threatened. It just doesn’t ever work in our favor.”

(4) that they are being psychologically affected through the loss of self-esteem

Berbrier points to examples of supremacist literature that claim the inability to express white pride produces a feeling of being “crushed” and the “Nordic spirit” being “broken down.” One news item in the NAAWP News pointed to a high suicide rate among white men as a sign of this supposed despair. Consequences—even imaginary ones—are essential to painting yourself as a victim, according to the sociological theory of "the dramatization of injury and innocence.” In other words, you’re just a blameless bystander; your attackers are everywhere, and they wish you harm.

(5) that the end product of all of this is the elimination of "the white race."

White supremacists fear the white “race” will be “eliminated” through intermarriage, immigration, and low birth rates among whites. The solution, to them, is racial segregation: the ultimate safe place in which to breed only among your own people. "Only in isolation, both physical-mental and genetic can Caucasians survive either here or in the world,” wrote one supremacist in a letter, according to Berbrier. “It has gotten to a point of not being a matter of ‘white, Caucasian' supremacy but rather survival.”

These claims of subjugation may seem silly coming from whites, a group that still earns more, lives longer, and feels overall happier than African Americans do. But as Berbrier shows, victimhood is a powerful psychological mechanism for recruiting members, galvanizing around a cause, and forming what is essentially a support group—for people who really don’t need support.

As Berbrier writes, the psychology of victimhood has come in especially handy for white supremacists when their tactics get violent, as they did on Saturday. “This could be manifest as the argument that white supremacists are simply concerned with the survival of their people,” Berbrier writes, “and that if some on the fringe feel that urgent action is required as a result of dangers posed by sinister outside forces, that is understandable.”

5 Ways White Supremacists Use Victimhood to Their Advantage

This describes the majority of whites here at USMB and the whites who express this belief are republicans.[/QUOTE]It's called White Fragility.

 

[The Purge]

The OP MUST have a vested interest in pushing his bigotry and racism...no wonder he gets PUSHBACK from white people that simply want to get on with everyone's own life...but here is some WHITE SUPREMACY for you...

 

[Hiryuu]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Go back as far as you need to.
No one is stopping you, obviously.
Let me know when that gets you what you want.

If it continues to provide you with little more than a point at which you can start bitching, then chances are your fate will remain the same
(at least as far as trying to accomplish anything that requires understanding, acceptance or a path to better relations not founded in misery).

Good luck in your endeavors, no matter how ill-conceived or doomed they may be.

 

[IM2]

The OP MUST have a vested interest in pushing his bigotry and racism...no wonder he gets PUSHBACK from white people that simply want to get on with everyone's own life...but here is some WHITE SUPREMACY for you...

This has not worked because we black folks understand the times in which they were spoken. It will not work because since that time a democratic president worked to get the necessary votes to pass the voting rights and civil rights act. Furthermore the first black to be nominated by a major political party for president was a democrat. You just look stupid doing this and if X was alive today he would cuss whites like you out for trying to misuse his words.

The OP is not racist, you are. And he brings this up because blacks want to get on with our lives without the racism that comes from losers like you.

 

[IM2]

I've seen the sentiment of "stop looking back into the past" , "oh, you're only hampering yourself", "look forward, don't look back", "you're in chains", etc. etc. spewed on USMB by almost exclusively rightwing whites.

All I want to know is, what year is it OK to go back to? What date is the cut off for starting American history will make whites happy?

If you have the exact time as well, that would be a bonus.

Go back as far as you need to.
No one is stopping you, obviously.
Let me know when that gets you what you want.

If it continues to provide you with little more than a point at which you can start bitching, then chances are your fate will remain the same
(at least as far as trying to accomplish anything that requires understanding, acceptance or a path to better relations not founded in misery).

Good luck in your endeavors, no matter how ill-conceived or doomed they may be.

We could take you to a forum with 5 times the members this one has who will say exactly what we do and then some. The only thing that is ill conceived and doomed is your racism.

 

[The Purge]

The OP MUST have a vested interest in pushing his bigotry and racism...no wonder he gets PUSHBACK from white people that simply want to get on with everyone's own life...but here is some WHITE SUPREMACY for you...

This has not worked because we black folks understand the times in which they were spoken. It will not work because since that time a democratic president worked to get the necessary votes to pass the voting rights and civil rights act. Furthermore the first black to be nominated by a major political party for president was a democrat. You just look stupid doing this and if X was alive today he would cuss whites like you out for trying to misuse his words.

The OP is not racist, you are. And he brings this up because blacks want to get on with our lives without the racism that comes from losers like you.

I presume you also want reparations, is that correct plantation negro?

 

[Likkmee]

Last tuesday

 

[Obiwan]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

 

[IM2]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

 

[Snouter]

I bet the Afro Americans 400 years ago were actually more civilized than today's Negros.

 

[Obiwan]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

Actually, the US government fought a costly Civil War in order to free the blacks from slavery, so maybe the Democrat Party should consider reimbursing the US government for that, too!!!

 

[Pogo]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

Actually, the US government fought a costly Civil War in order to free the blacks from slavery, so maybe the Democrat Party should consider reimbursing the US government for that, too!!!

If such a thing actually existed ----------- why would they do that?

Are you actually so ignorant that you don't know slavery was going on literally centuries before political parties existed?
Is it even possible to be that stupid?

How then would you be able to explain the slaves in, say.... Cuba? Or Haiti? Brazil? Jamaica?

And how do you take transAtlantic slavery from a commercial activity to a political one?

Duh?

 

[Obiwan]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

Actually, the US government fought a costly Civil War in order to free the blacks from slavery, so maybe the Democrat Party should consider reimbursing the US government for that, too!!!

If such a thing actually existed ----------- why would they do that?

Are you actually so ignorant that you don't know slavery was going on literally centuries before political parties existed?
Is it even possible to be that stupid?

How then would you be able to explain the slaves in, say.... Cuba? Or Haiti? Brazil? Jamaica?

And how do you take transAtlantic slavery from a commercial activity to a political one?

Duh?

Actually, I don't see where we should be responsible for what happened in other countries...

The only thing we should worry about is what happened HERE!!!

But since you don't think we should hold the Democrat Party responsible, how about collecting from the descendants of the actual slave owners???

Go get the money from Biden and Obama (whose ancestors ACTUALLY OWNED SLAVES)!!!

 

[Pogo]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

Actually, the US government fought a costly Civil War in order to free the blacks from slavery, so maybe the Democrat Party should consider reimbursing the US government for that, too!!!

If such a thing actually existed ----------- why would they do that?

Are you actually so ignorant that you don't know slavery was going on literally centuries before political parties existed?
Is it even possible to be that stupid?

How then would you be able to explain the slaves in, say.... Cuba? Or Haiti? Brazil? Jamaica?

And how do you take transAtlantic slavery from a commercial activity to a political one?

Duh?

Actually, I don't see where we should be responsible for what happened in other countries...

The only thing we should worry about is what happened HERE!!!

You seem to labor under this illusion that something called the "Democrat Party" --- which does not exist --- is somehow responsible for slavery and/or for the Civil War. Completely ignoring the fact that transAtlantic slavery existed throughout the Americas, from the sixteenth fucking century, a time when no political parties existed and certainly had no influence over, say, Brazil, which imported many many more Africans than were brought to anywhere in North America, by the same merchants.

How were these merchants able to do that --- on EITHER continent --- without benefit of a political party that you can't even spell, which wouldn't exist until centuries in the FUTURE?

Hm?

Ever heard of "linear time"?

How 'bout the Civil War? You know, that Confederacy that had no political parties at all? The region of the South that in 1860 gave the Democratic candidate zero electoral votes?

Have you ever cracked what we call a history book AT ALL?

Where did those slaves in Jamaica come from, without a "Democrat [sic] Party"? Hm? How 'bout Belize? Venezuela? Are you saying this "Democrat [sic] Party" is dabbling in time travel?

How do you essplain POTUSes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Grant and their slaves, none of whom were part of a "Democrat [sic] Party"?

Hm?

Why are you trying to obfuscate all this known history?

Hm?

 

[Unkotare]

The democrat party IS responsible for The Civil War, the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the KKK.

 

[MarcATL]

You seem to labor under this illusion that something called the "Democrat Party" --- which does not exist --- is somehow responsible for slavery and/or for the Civil War. Completely ignoring the fact that transAtlantic slavery existed throughout the Americas, from the sixteenth fucking century, a time when no political parties existed and certainly had no influence over, say, Brazil, which imported many many more Africans than were brought to anywhere in North America, by the same merchants.

How were these merchants able to do that --- on EITHER continent --- without benefit of a political party that you can't even spell, which wouldn't exist until centuries in the FUTURE?

Hm?

Ever heard of "linear time"?

How 'bout the Civil War? You know, that Confederacy that had no political parties at all? The region of the South that in 1860 gave the Democratic candidate zero electoral votes?

Have you ever cracked what we call a history book AT ALL?

Where did those slaves in Jamaica come from, without a "Democrat [sic] Party"? Hm? How 'bout Belize? Venezuela? Are you saying this "Democrat [sic] Party" is dabbling in time travel?

How do you essplain POTUSes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Grant and their slaves, none of whom were part of a "Democrat [sic] Party"?

Hm?

Why are you trying to obfuscate all this known history?

Hm?

The mental gymnastic these ignorant-ass Republicans and self-professed conservatives have to do is utterly flabbergasting.

 

[MarcATL]

The democrat party IS responsible for The Civil War, the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the KKK.

 

[Obiwan]

How about letting the blacks go back far enough to cover slavery, the Civil War, the period afterward when the KKK terrorized and lynched them, and the Jim Crow era...

Then let the Democrat Party (the party responsible) accept responsibility for their mistreatment of blacks, and pay reparations!!!

We'll let the U.S. government that made all this stuff legal, accept the responsibility, thank you.

Actually, the US government fought a costly Civil War in order to free the blacks from slavery, so maybe the Democrat Party should consider reimbursing the US government for that, too!!!

If such a thing actually existed ----------- why would they do that?

Are you actually so ignorant that you don't know slavery was going on literally centuries before political parties existed?
Is it even possible to be that stupid?

How then would you be able to explain the slaves in, say.... Cuba? Or Haiti? Brazil? Jamaica?

And how do you take transAtlantic slavery from a commercial activity to a political one?

Duh?

Actually, I don't see where we should be responsible for what happened in other countries...

The only thing we should worry about is what happened HERE!!!

You seem to labor under this illusion that something called the "Democrat Party" --- which does not exist --- is somehow responsible for slavery and/or for the Civil War. Completely ignoring the fact that transAtlantic slavery existed throughout the Americas, from the sixteenth fucking century, a time when no political parties existed and certainly had no influence over, say, Brazil, which imported many many more Africans than were brought to anywhere in North America, by the same merchants.

How were these merchants able to do that --- on EITHER continent --- without benefit of a political party that you can't even spell, which wouldn't exist until centuries in the FUTURE?

Hm?

Ever heard of "linear time"?

How 'bout the Civil War? You know, that Confederacy that had no political parties at all? The region of the South that in 1860 gave the Democratic candidate zero electoral votes?

Have you ever cracked what we call a history book AT ALL?

Where did those slaves in Jamaica come from, without a "Democrat [sic] Party"? Hm? How 'bout Belize? Venezuela? Are you saying this "Democrat [sic] Party" is dabbling in time travel?

How do you essplain POTUSes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Grant and their slaves, none of whom were part of a "Democrat [sic] Party"?

Hm?

Why are you trying to obfuscate all this known history?

Hm?

Apparently, YOU need to learn a little history, since you didn't realize that the South actually voted Democrat in 1860...
Presidential Election of 1860