Was Lott Right? Let's Debate

[RGSpincich]

should be a calm discussion of the relative merits of integration versus segregation.

Merits? I don't got to show you no stinkin' merits.

[MadIvan]

So right...he's a white man...he should have known better.

No, he's a conservative politician facing a hostile press. He should have known when and where to pick his battles.

Might I ask why you are so strenously defending a man who sold the House Managers up the river? I wanted to tear his heart out and serve it to wild pigs for that offense.

Regards, Ivan

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Oh, sure. I want to see your views on "separate but equal," interracial marriage, poll taxes and blacks having the right to vote. It's your thread--you go first.

I am one half of an 'interracial' marriage. Enough said.

[Bikers4Bush]

No you didn't. Not only did he start it he wrote a well thought out post. Instead of commenting on any specifics within it however you attempt to get him to argue about something unmentioned in an attempt to create controvesy instead of discussion.

It seems to me that he went first. It's up to you to respond instead of question.

[Jim Noble]

>>Who you invite into your home or to socialize with is your business, but when predjudice and YES racism extends to the business of everyday life it must be controlled. That is the job of Gevernment. Racially separated schools in the South were never and would never be equal. Job opporunites for African Americans would have been limited, especially in the South, to the lowest rung on the ladder<<

Victory by the North in the Civil War did not solve the question of what was to be done with the millions of Africans living among the defeated whites of the CSA.

There was an attempt at national policy from 1865-1877, but its premises were unsustainable at the time, and after 1877, the nation said to the recovering South-"y'all work it out, just keep it out of our faces".

A "system" arose to order relationships between the former slaves and their descendants, which worked tolerably well for a brief time but which by the 1930s at the latest was as unsustainable as Reconstruction was.

Segregationists like Strom Thurmond had no ideas about how their "system" should evolve to meet changing circumstances among the third and fourth generations of freed Africans. So they stood, boldly, for the proposition that since it could not change that therefore it must never change.

This was foolish, shortsighted, and wrong. So it was changed for them.

The new dispensation (1964-2002) has its own problems, of course, one of which is the destruction of what is perceived by many as kinder, gentler white and black societies in the states that made up the CSA.

I have not yet heard, however from anyone (maybe Trent Lott will step up), what could have or should have been done to modernize "race relations" which were arguably appropriate for 1877 but which became brutal, anti-constitutional, and unacceptable to the rest of the nation by 1940 at the latest.

I don't think electing Strom Thurmond would have done the trick.

AVRWC, I would say that legal segregation was the answer to a question, all right, but that it, as a system, had no answers to the new questions that it raised-so it had to go.

[Kevin Curry]

You must read a plea for segregation into Lott's comments. You will do so most readily if you are obsessed with race. To be obsessed with race to such a degree is racist. There is no "good" form of racism. All forms are destructive.

But racist Democrats have peered into the mirror of Lott's ambiguous words and seen a racist leering back at them. Their judgment is clear and unanimous: Lott must be damned.

Still smarting from the humiliating defeat they suffered at the polls on November 5, racist Democrats are grateful for this target of opportunity and are pecking at Lott's wound with a ferociousness not seen since they tried to bork a certain black American jurist's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Disgruntled libertarian-style whackjob conservatives who despise Lott for not daily caning his opponents like a latter day Brooks assaulting Sumner have smelled blood and gleefully joined in the peckfest.

Lott is being executed--not by men and women of good faith, but by an alliance of racists and intransigent ideologues of a most peculiar sort.

Personally, I have never been a fan of Lott's. I have always wondered why his collegues picked him to lead them in the Senate. If he were replaced tomorrow (or yesterday, for that matter) it wouldn't bother me. But the hypocrisy and viciousness of this particular attack disturb me.

[RGSpincich]

There is only one political party interested in keeping "hate" alive and they are getting plenty of help from the supposed victims.

Victims?

[GraniteStateConservative]

You are one of the few Lott supporters who say he meant what he said. I applaud you. Now go to a different political party please.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Lott supported segregation in college at Ole Miss (or so he told Time magazine). How sure are you that he's had a change of heart?

[Man of the Right]

You seek a debate about an issue that has come and gone.

[P-Marlowe]

The problem in 1948 was not that the government was forcing integration. In 1948 the problem was that the government was forcing segregation. So there is no way that Lott was right. By praising the positions of Strom Thurmond in 1948 Lott was singing the praises of a man who wanted to use the power of the State to keep blacks and Jews "in their place."

Thus, Lott's comments are reprehesible. They were not merely stupid. They were not merely a bad choice of words. We shouldn't be pretending that they were not sufficient to disqualify him from leadersip. They were.

[Hunble]

It is time that us Republicans stand up and fight back. We are sick and tired of the Democrats using race for their own political agenda.

The Democrats are the ones that have created government programs that are based upon your race.

The Democrats are the ones that use race to divide Americans against each other. (Sen. Lott is an example)

The Democrats are the ones pushing for gun laws, in an effort to disarm minorities.

[plain talk]

I agree with you. I'm amazed more people haven't figured this out. As if Strom has no other political convictions in 1948 than segregation.

[BillCompton]

Forced segregation is the norm. Just look at how voting districts are created.

Red herring. Voting is to assembly as a nail is to a house. Citing gerrymandering as proof that forced segregation being the norm is a little lacking. What other examples of "forced segregation" can you site. This list should be long to substantiate it as being a "norm." Unless you were speaking emotionally, rather than rationally.

[P-Marlowe]

Truman dragged the country, kicking and screaming, into integration.

Actually Truman dragged the country out of segregation and not into integration. The Government was the author of state sposored and state mandated segregation. That is where the problem began. Truman saw that this policy was inherently anti-American. I only wish that FDR had his guts and vision. Strom Thurmond was not the answer in 1948. He was the epitomy of the problem.

[uncbob]

For what it is worth
I asked a black engineer co worker from Alabama if schools etc were separate but REALLY EQUAL woukld there have been an integration movement

His answer "Probably not"

In other words blacks could have cared less about living or going to school with white people at least in his opinion

Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable ( in MHO not a good thing ) but an unforced integrating would have been the best solution after things were really equal for a while

But that is all in the past anyway and we have what we have UNFORTUNATELY Race relations are not good

[Catspaw]

I am one half of an 'interracial' marriage. Enough said.

And so are one of my cousin's children.

[sinkspur]

Might I ask why you are so strenously defending a man who sold the House Managers up the river? I wanted to tear his heart out and serve it to wild pigs for that offense.

You still do. Obviously.

That's what this is about with you, and most of the FReepers on this board.

If Phil Gramm had made the statements Lott did, you and all the other hyenas on here would be much more understanding, wouldn't you?

But, because you now see an opportunity to get a pound of flesh from Trent Lott because you're still nursing your grudge from FOUR YEARS AGO, you'll join this maniacal lynch mob in calling for his head.

This is not about race, you're right.

It's about politics, as the Dems see a way to get virtual control of the Senate back by chasing Trent Lott back to Mississippi.

In your hatred of Lott, your judgment is just too clouded to see it.

Thanks, Ivan. Thanks a hell of a lot.

[Catspaw]

The problem in 1948 was not that the government was forcing integration. In 1948 the problem was that the government was forcing segregation.

And that's the point--forced segregation was the status quo in 1948. That's why I asked the question about "separate but equal," which was the norm in education prior to Brown v. Board of Education. That's why I referenced Jim Crow laws. When we speak about forced integration, one should also examine the other side of the coin, which is forced segregation.

[TankerKC]

Was Lott Right? Let's Debate

I hereby suggest that FR starts a true debate on the merits of or problems created by our government’s forcing us (the people), sometimes quite brutally, to racially integrate.

I disagree that this is what Lott said, or even meant. He was just trying to say something nice about an old dude. Now, if you want to debate whether he should ought to choose his words more carefully, I'll bite. Here is my opening statement:

Lott is a bonehead.