I seriously doubt it.
Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
Posted on 12/20/2002 4:46:16 AM PST by SJackson
Time to tell the truth: The great movement of blacks to the Democratic Party took place for economic reasons, not because of civil rights
..................................................
"It was Inauguration Day. Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' An associate of the new president warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race."
This is not fanciful speculation about what things might have been like had Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats prevailed in 1948. It is historian Lawrence Friedman's description of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Wilson. Intellectual. Pacifist idealist. Democrat. Bigot.
In the old South, support for segregation spanned the ideological spectrum. Some segregationists, like Thurmond and John Stennis of Mississippi, were conservatives. Others, like William Fulbright of Arkansas and Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, were liberals. But every segregationist who ever served in Congress was a Democrat. It's important to keep this mind as calumny is heaped on the Republican Party because of the indefensible remark of soon to be ex-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.
Northern Democrats deserve commendation for supporting civil rights. But rarely did that support extend to political discomfort. The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms. Democrats never denied a segregationist a committee chairmanship or a leadership position because of his noxious views on race. No Democrat has ever been punished for making a racist remark. Lott, who is about to lose his job, probably wishes he were still a Democrat.
The great movement of blacks to the Democratic Party took place for economic reasons, not because of civil rights. Harry Truman deserves praise for standing by the platform plank that caused the Dixiecrats to walk out, and for integrating the Armed Forces. But it clearly was Republican Tom Dewey who had the most "progressive" views on race. That mattered less to most black voters that year than New Deal programs.
About a third of blacks voted for Richard Nixon in 1960. But another migration took place after Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president that year, voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. A founder of the NAACP in Arizona, Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. But he was also an ardent libertarian. He thought two of the seven major provisions of the bill - on housing and public accomodation - were unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into private affairs.
The speed and relative ease with which these provisions were implemented indicate Goldwater was wrong. But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, also was wrong when he said they would not lead to racial quotas and reverse discrimination.
Liberal commentators like to overlook the fact that Goldwater's position was a distinct minority within the GOP. More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
....snip....
The Democratic Party, the party of slavery and segregation, has a guilty past. The Republican Party, which was founded explicitly to fight slavery, and which has remained true to its founding principles, does not
Damnit, I'm sick and damn tired of being told that "blacks" (as if it applied to the majority of blacks) have voted, and continue to vote Democrap because of some "unemployment promotions" or "welfare checks" or anything else like that.
I can't deny that there are a percentage of blacks who use the government as their own personal piggy bank. But the vast majority of black America is solidly within the middle class of American workers. They don't receive "welfare"; they don't receive "unemployment"; they don't get "extra money" from the government.
The majority of black America has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the load of used food foisted onto them by the left. They truly believe what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson tell them. They listen closely, and believe the lies being put out by black columnists like Time's Jack White and USA Today's Julianne Malveaux.
And while for the small portion of black America that is within the lower economic strata of American employment (or the lack thereof), there is an economic tie to who they vote for, the majority of black America is motivated by fear. The blacks who are in power instill fear in the populace through lies and intimidation. Those of us who dare to question the bully pulpits and platforms that the black powerbrokering elite stand on are derided, marginalized, demonized and vilified.
The liberal Democratic system of politics within the black community in America is designed to do two things: Keep the Democrats in power nationally, and prevent a two-party system from developing in black America. This allows black politicians like those from the Congressional Black Caucus (or is that Congressional Black Democratic Caucus?) to remain in power; to retain their influence and the spoils they have gained.
Could you imagine someone like Sheila Jackson-Lee having to get a "real" job? Neither could I. As far as I can determine, she doesn't have any skills that would server her in the "real world." Her only asset is her ability to pull the wool over the eyes of her voting constituents in her district. She shows disdain for anyone else she comes in contact with, demanding to be treated like some form of royalty. God forbid what will happen when she is finally drummed out of office.
But the constant carping about "unemplolyment promotions" is not only insulting, it's borderline idiotic. Please refrain from lowering yourself to that mind-numbed level.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
They, too, fall into that same category as Jackson and Sharpton. Farrakhan and to a lesser extent Lee (he's more like the looney Hollyweird crowd than anything else) both are gatekeepers and message bearers. They will do whatever they can to ensure their place as holders of the "keys to the kingdom." They speak, and people listen - that's a powerful drug; it's hard to wean one's self from that if you don't have the moxie and character to do so.
Overall, Lee is a talented filmmaker (take a critical look at his "She's Gotta Have It" & "School Daze" from the mid 80's - decent flicks, and no politics mixed up in either one, not to mention "Malcolm X", a very well written and acted bio of the man, which provides excellent insight into the Nation of Islam, and some of Farrakhan's motivations today). If he had the wherewithall to shut his damned mouth and stop spewing his political hatred all over the place, he'd end up getting the "accolades" that he's been searching for as a director and writer. But he tries to wrap politics and his personal political agenda in many of his movies ("Jungle Fever", "Do The Right Thing", "He's Got Game" - all heavy-handed, politically correct tomes which beat you over the head with their message). When he concentrates on telling a good story, his work is good. When he decides to beat up America, his work is very, very bad.
Farrakhan is plain nuts. He hates mainstream America, and has said so. It's been implied in multiple places that once Malcolm X returned from his pilgrimage to Mecca, that he was much more conciliatory toward whites, and actually proposed peaceful coexistance and working together peacefully; much like the attitude expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. Farrakhan did not like this, and as a result, allegedly ordered Malcolm's death. No one has been able to prove this, and Farrakhan denied it as recently as 1998 in a "60 Minutes" interview, however.
I seriously doubt it.
Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
Me either, but the question was tossed out like "See, they aren't Jackson or Sharpton, and they act like that, too..."
Some of these folks are set in their ways, and have no desire to hold a decent conversation - they would much rather take pot-shots at us. They think it's "fun."
And what message could republicans give so that that audience would be inclined listen to it and perhaps agree or at least be motivated by it to achieve security, or the "keys to the kingdom" (as you put it - but not in the religious sense) ?
Indeed. And if this were real life "face-to-face" encounterings, I'd show them just how much "fun" it truly is.
Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
A huge part of this is tied to history. Historically (and contemporarily in many cases), a huge source of wisdom has it's sources in the pulpit. The church would never do anything wrong; and by extension, neither would the pastor. As such, when a trusted minister said something, it was generally believed unquestioningly. And when what he said was supported (and repeated) by someone who was influential to the masses of blacks in America (i.e., Sharpton, Jackson, et.al.), and then parrotted by someone more visible (i.e., a famous actor, musician, writer, director) to black America, more credibility was granted to it. Case-in-point: the notion of Bush as "stupid" came from the media, and once Jackson/Sharpton & company repeated it, everyone else thought it was gospel.
As for your second question, a big part of what we can give to the masses is a solid message that in one sense runs counter to the race baiters' message, but moreover, one that they can identify with. Middle class black America (i.e., those folks in the "bedroom communities" around the nation) needs to be shown that they are not removed from the mainstream. They have the same core desires that most Republicans and conservatives have: safe streets, good schools, low taxes, decent prices, and a nice place to eat once in a while. They have to be shown this in a non-pandering, non-patronizing fashion. Oh, and this is an uphill battle, because the "other guys" are on the other side of the street (with their already-earned credibility) calling us liars. This is by no means an easy task, but it is not insurmountable either.
There are a number of folks on FR who dismiss what I'm saying simply because the numbers are staggering. The Al Gore vote in 2000 was somewhere between 93 and 95%. But the numbers ARE changing, contrary to what the more dismissive folks on FR would tell you. This year, the black Dem vote dropped to about 88-90%. Is that huge? Numerically, no. But statistically, that is significant. It represents a dent. If we can continue, that 2-4% dent can be maintained and perhaps increased in 2004.
I'm realistic. I recognize that this is an uphill battle at best. But I refuse to give in - not to the liberal race warlords and certainly not to those elements who would marginalize blacks on the conservative side of the fence.
Maybe it's just me, but I think the carping also give blacks a legitimate reason to mistrust Republicans and stay in the dem's camp, expecially the majority who don't misuse the system, but are still on the receiving end of those accusations.
It's a different era and a different ethnicity, but the political dynamic is identical. Consider the Irish in American history. As their numbers grew, they gained political clout and elected Irishmen to office -- a number of whom became corrupt. And rich. While serving the poor, working class "shanty Irish".
The Irish political class probably get credit for inventing the structure of so-called "ward heeler" machine politics.
Today, however, "The Boss" is the Democrat Party, "the ward heelers" are the race & poverty pimps and the blacks are equivalent to the "immigrants" who provided the votes. In the old system, the payoff for the vote was jobs. But today's incarnation looks like a one-way street -- it's hard to see what the black voters get out of it.
Historically, you might say this "machine politics" phase has been a phase that many ethnic groups have passed through on their way to political maturity.
[the Irish analogy works.][For that matter it was a big ole Irish cop that bought me an ice-cream cone on our way to the station precinct when I was lost in NYC years and years ago.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.