And the Democrats try and tell the public that it’s they that were/are the Party of civil rights....
bttt
Good post, and congrats to the new Speaker....but the Oklahoman has this ALL wrong.
This isn’t about color, it never was about color, and it should NEVER be about color (I’m speaking of this election; not 100+ years ago, for God’s sake). Trying to suggest......screw that, STATING that this rights a century-old wrong is political correctness and idiocy.
When.....WHEN......is MLK’s vision of a country where the color of one’s skin doesn’t matter, but the character of the man or woman? Why does it ALWAYS have to be about race, for f*** sake? Lib, conservative, Dem, Pubbie, Independent....doesn’t and shouldn’t matter.
It’s an insult to this man to trumpet his color vs. his ability and talents. I’m so sick of this s*** I could scream.
Scumbag liberals will call this good man an Uncle Tom.
So, the source of the pride is he’s black. How far we’ve fallen.
I wish him best of luck, but I wouldn’t call it pride. Besides, homosexuals have ruined the word, as they have “gay.”
It has to be said that even antislavery whites - Abraham Lincoln among them - did not know that blacks were equal to whites. You can’t even really prove that with metaphysical certainty even today. I think Thomas Sowell would agree with that statement, even as I agree with everyone else on this board that Thomas Sowell is far smarter than I am. It is an article of Republican faith, an operating Republican assumption - in the teeth of statistical evidence that an awful lot of blacks do an awful lot of dumb things - even more so, it seems, than whites. The entire justification foraffirmative actionquotas is that the apparent difference is due to a disadvantaging non-level playing field.But Sowell would be the first to tell you that members of ethnic groups tend to live up to, or down to, their traditions. Children have a marked tendency to follow in their parents’ footsteps, for better or worse.In that context the black slaves had been systematically denied any chance at equality and their self-respect was undermined; it is hardly a wonder, then, that they seemed incompetent for freedom. They had been acculturated to seem so, and they did - to northern Republicans only just less than to southern Democrats. As recently as the 1950s that disadvantage plagued blacks - and even now, you have blacks who are determined to project a negative image and call it “social justice,” or something of the sort.
The real difference now is that conservatives in the South were left by (the hard left turn of) the Democratic Party, and they faced the choice of political irrelevancy or getting with the program and becoming colorblind Republicans in the mold of Strom Thurmond. Simultaneously the Democratic Party bought the black vote, which had been a reliable Republican vote, with quotas, set-asides, and welfare. All of which were and are cheap substitutes for the kind of work middle class whites have known was indispensable to the possibility of real progress by and for their children. The result has been that the more the white conservative has moved politically to what would have been Martin Luther King’s vision of “content of character” Republican politics, the more blacks moved to Democrat identity politics the mirror image of the old white southern Democrat identity politics.