Posted on 12/09/2002 2:25:00 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
This is just a quick post, a throw-together of earlier research into Rat racism and hypocracy. All Trent Lott said was that Thurmond would have been a good president back in '48. KKK Truman was president at the time. I see opportunity here. The Rats' hypocracy is so obvious this time. They made their own rat trap! Let's get 'em!
First off, Roger Clinton. He is caught on film openly using the n-word. This is frequently run by Sean Hannity. He will most likely run that tape again today. It also runs sometimes on Fox News.
Next, Bubba himself, along with his wife:
"Meanwhile, nary a national Republican said "boo" when Bill Clinton was accused of using the "N" word by two reputable witnesses on national TV. And when four witnesses charged that Mrs. Clinton had once called a campaign aide a "f---ing Jew bastard," her Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, refused to touch the issue."
[part of a Carl Limbacher article in newsmax.com posted further down here]
http://www.capitalistmagazine.com/2001/march/mm_byrd_kkk.htm
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white nigger" twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training ... not. The ex-Klansman, you see, is a Democrat. Democrats can join hate groups and utter the ugliest racial slurs and get away with it because they are Democrats.
Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, Ex-Klansman By Michelle Malkin (March 8, 2001) [CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white nigger" twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training ... not.
The ex-Klansman, you see, is a Democrat. Democrats can join hate groups and utter the ugliest racial slurs and get away with it because they are Democrats. They belong to the party of racial tolerance and understanding. They're paragons of virtue, and the rest of us are bigoted rubes. The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
The ex-Klansman, famed for Beltway blowhardism, should have quit talking a lot sooner. Why any prominent politician in his right mind would publicly and deliberately use the poisonous epithet "nigger" -- which most daily newspapers refuse to spell out, no matter the context -- is beyond comprehension. It's an open question as to whether the rant-prone, 83-year-old Byrd is even in his right mind, but senility doesn't excuse bigotry.
The ex-Klansman's admirers praise his historical knowledge, mastery of procedural rules, and outspokenness. They refer to the Senate's senior Democrat as the "conscience of the Senate." They downplay his white-sheet-wearing days as a "brief mistake" -- as if joining the Klan were like knocking over a glass of water. Oopsy.
This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values." Nothing like the thrill of gathering 'round a midnight bonfire, roasting s'mores, tying nooses, and promoting white supremacy with a bunch of your hooded friends.
The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings. Meanwhile, author Graham Smith recently discovered another letter Sen. Byrd wrote after he quit the KKK, this time attacking desegregation of the armed forces.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
If this ex-Klansman were a conservative Republican, he would never hear the end of his sordid past. "Ex-Klansman who opposed civil rights and black justices" would appear in every reference to Sen. Byrd. And even the "ex-" would be in doubt. Maxine Waters and Ralph Neas and Julianne Malveaux and Al Sharpton and all the other left-wing bloodhounds who sniff racism in every crevice of American life would be barking up a storm over Sen. Byrd's latest fulminations. Instead, the attack dogs are busy decrying latent racial bigotry where it doesn't exist, while the real thing roams wild and free in their own political backyard.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
====
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/8/31/83427
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story... Friday, Aug. 31, 2001 9:31 a.m. EDT Media Libs, Oblivious to Rather and Byrd, Bash 'Racist' Jesse Helms
There they go again.
Six weeks after media liberals broke their necks looking the other way when CBS big Dan Rather uttered a racial epithet during a nationally broadcast radio interview, they've rediscovered their racial sensitivity.
No, they're still not upset with the "CBS Evening News" anchorman, who derided his bosses as "Buckwheats" for caving in to pressure to cover the Gary Condit story. Or Sen. Robert Byrd, who in March uttered the phrase "white n----rs" on national TV.
The target of their racial attacks is GOP conservative icon Sen. Jesse Helms, whose announcement that he's retiring drew this lovely parting shot from the so-called "dean" of the Washington press corps, David Broder:
"Jesse Helms, White Racist" was the headline atop Broder's Washington Post column Wednesday.
The "dean," upset that enough reporters hadn't used the opportunity of Helms' retirement to smear him as a racist, eagerly picked up the slack.
"What really sets Helms apart," Broder noted, "is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country - a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired."
Of course, Broder didn't have to do all the heavy lifting on the Helms smear himself. PBS's Mark Shields was actually first out of the box, bashing Helms as racist just days after his announcement.
"Jesse Helms was an unreconstructed segregationist and came from segregationist politics, and he never really changed," Shields told Jim Lehrer's "News Hour."
Needless to say, neither Broder nor Shields had a word to say about Rather's "Buckwheat" slur, which even most in the conservative media ignored. But what about Byrd's "white n----r" remark?
A Lexis-Nexis search turns up not a peep from either of the liberal commentators on the West Virginia Democrat's outrageous epithet.
Helms bashers stayed mum on Byrd despite the leading liberal's amply documented background in the Ku Klux Klan. And Byrd wasn't just a foot soldier - he was a Kleagle, an official KKK recruiter.
The prominent Democrat officially severed his ties to the Klan in 1943. But three years later he wrote a letter to the hate group's Imperial Wizard.
"The Klan is needed today as never before," explained Byrd. "I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the Union."
In another musing from Byrd's so-called post-Klan period, he complained about blacks in the military, vowing never to fight "with a Negro by my side."
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Surely that kind of over-the-top race baiting would have drawn the ire of racially sensitive liberals everywhere, right? Well, not exactly. Only columnist Michelle Malkin thought the Byrd quotes were worth recycling in the wake of his nationally televised racial slur. Broder, Shields and the rest of the media libs stayed dead silent.
Their excuse, of course, was that Byrd offered his slurs many, many years ago.
But that's the point. Byrd's "White n----r" remark, coming just five months ago, shows that the West Virginia Democrat remains the unreconstructed bigot he was in the 1940s - the same accusation Shields and Broder leveled against Helms without a single similar incident on his record.
There's a lesson here for Republicans, though they obstinately refuse to learn it: Liberals will bash Republicans as racists no matter what the evidence shows.
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, for instance - by bringing the city's annual homicide rate down from 2,100 to 600 during his tenure - has arguably done more for minorities than any politician of his time.
The victims of New York's formerly staggering murder rate were largely black and brown, meaning that thousands of blacks and Hispanics are alive today because of his get-tough-on-crime policies.
But instead of being hailed as a hero, Giuliani is routinely trashed as a racist by libs like Hillary Clinton, who try to win black votes by ginning up issues like racial profiling and police brutality. Meanwhile, her husband makes up stories about whites burning down black churches in his native Arkansas. The GOP's docile acceptance of the liberal double standard on race has real political consequences.
George Bush won a record 27 percent of the black vote in the 1998 Texas governor's race. But after national Democrats smeared him as a racist during the presidential campaign, using surrogates like the NAACP to link him to the dragging death of James Byrd, he won just 5 percent of the black vote in his home state.
!!!!!!!! Heads up !!!!!!!
Meanwhile, nary a national Republican said "boo" when Bill Clinton was accused of using the "N" word by two reputable witnesses on national TV. And when four witnesses charged that Mrs. Clinton had once called a campaign aide a "f---ing Jew bastard," her Senate opponent, Rick Lazio, refused to touch the issue.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine the media feeding frenzy if either of those allegations had been leveled against Jesse Helms - or George Bush, for that matter.
When the GOP fails to call libs like the Clintons on their race-baiting, when conservatives sit idly by as Byrd and Rather hurl racial epithets - and speak out only when Democrats attack one of their own - they send a message, loud and clear: Democrats are the party of racial sensitivity, Republicans could care less.
But when Republicans fight fire with fire, and libs come to understand that they won't get a free pass for their own transgressions, experience suggests the politics of race baiting quickly evaporates.
That's what happened in Missouri's U.S. Senate race last year. Before he died, Missouri Democratic Senate hopeful Gov. Mel Carnahan tried to paint then-Sen. John Aschroft as a racist. Ashcroft's aides responded by unearthing a 40-year-old photo of Carnahan performing in a blackface minstrel show.
It worked like a charm. The Carnahan campaign immediately stopped its race baiting against Ashcroft, and the rest of the campaign was fought on the issues.
The Republican Party and its few friends in the press need to wise up - and soon. As long as the politics of race is a one-way street, George Bush and the rest of his party will be lucky to break into double digits when it comes to black support - no matter what Bush's actual record on race turns out to be.
===
http://reformed-theology.org/jbs/html/bipartisan_bigotry.htm
Bipartisan Bigotry by Robert W. Lee After former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke ran a close second as a Republican in Louisiana's October 19th gubernatorial primary, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater quickly declared that Duke is "not a Republican, he never will be a Republican .... We don't like him!" Nevertheless, top Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (ME), moved quickly to attach the racist KKK label to the Republican standard by contending that the Duke phenomenon is a natural outgrowth of the GOP's Willie Horton, anti-quota mentality. Actually, however, this century's most prominent "former Klan" politicos have been Democrats.
High Court Klansmen Edward D. White served as a Democratic senator from Louisiana from 1891 to 1894, when he was nominated by President Grover Cleveland (and confirmed by the Senate) to the Supreme Court. He was Chief Justice from 1910 to 1921. In 1915, during a White House screening of the KKK-compatible film The Birth of a Nation he revealed: "I was a member of the Klan." Hugo L. Black was a Democratic senator from Alabama from 1927 until his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. He had joined the KKK in 1923, when he was 37 years old, for, his apologists say, political reasons. He dropped out two years later and eventually became a leading Court liberal.
Presidential Racism Harry S Truman reportedly joined the Klan for a short time in 1922, also, his defenders contend, for political reasons. Truman reportedly sought Klan backing in his race for a judgeship in Jackson County, Missouri. In Hooded Americanism: The First Century of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1965, author David M. Chalmers writes: "Truman's own story was that when he was told to promise not to give any jobs to Catholics he angrily withdrew and got his money back." Another version cited by Chalmers "was that the future President did go through with his initiation although he was never an active member." Active Klansman or not, Harry Truman's nearly lifelong record of personal racism is documented by his own published and unpublished letters, oral histories, and other documents on file at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Dr. William Leuchtenburg, president of the American Historical Association and a professor at the University of North Carolina, is writing a book about our 33rd president. During his research, Leuchtenburg found that in 1911 Truman (who was 27) wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will [probably Wfiliam Yount, the brother of Truman's mother] says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman." Truman continued: "[I] am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America." According to Professor Leuchtenburg, Truman was the first president since Reconstruction to make civil rights a federal priority. Yet he continued to use racial slurs throughout most of his life.
The Senator Wore White And then there is Robert C. Byrd, Democratic senator from West Virginia (and George Mitchell's predecessor as Senate Majority Leader). He voted against the nomination of new Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas on October 15th on grounds (among others) that Thomas had "mounted his own defense" during his nomination hearings "by charging that the [Senate Judiciary] committee proceedings were a high-tech lynching of uppity blacks." Byrd branded it "an attempt to fire the prejudices of race hatred." Senator Byrd has first-hand knowledge of racism. When he was running for Congress in 1952, his campaign was nearly derailed when a tough primary opponent revealed that Byrd had once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan. During a subsequent radio broadcast, Byrd acknowledged that he had been a member of the Klan from "mid-1942 to early 1943" because he was young (24) and because it "offered excitement." But he claimed: "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd, who was praised for his "candor" and "forthrightness" regarding the issue, won the primary handily to secure the Democratic nomination. But just prior to the final election, a letter surfaced (in Byrd's own handwriting) which confirmed that his association with the Klan had been far more cordial, for a far longer time, than he had claimed. Dated April 8, 1946 (three years after his alleged break with the Klan), the letter was addressed to Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Green of Atlanta. It stated in part: "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." So the same Robert Byrd who railed against Clarence Thomas for raising the spectre of racism and lynching was actively promoting the Klan years after he told voters he had severed all ties with it. He was nevertheless elected, as he has been six times since. Clearly, when it comes to the Ku Klux Klan, the Democrats now pillorying Republicans about David Duke have a full hamper of their own dirty bedsheets. Admittedly, the former memberships of other public officials in the Klan should have absolutely no bearing on the significance of Duke's recent membership. But history shows that major media exposures of "racism" can be very selective. In the media's eyes, not every Klansman is the same.
Copyright 1991, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna.htm Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) 1-800-727-TRUE Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved.
How does the term 'white ENWURD ( I just love that, thanks to whoever posted it) make you a racist?
By the way, what exactly is a racist?
I asked that once and someone defined it as someone who wanted to actively harm or deny rights to another race. If that is so, and it is my definition also - how is Byrd, or Lott, or any of those people racists? Have they been actively seeking to deny rights to anyone? I mean in the last 30 years? Geesh!.
Do conservatives realize when we accept these ridiculous RACIST! attacks by the liberals and even repeat them - we are digging our own graves. Understand what they are - just stupid attacks.
As someone pointed out, there were few politicians in the South in the 30's and 40's and 50's who were not in favor of segregation. I am sure there were plenty in the 'land of the angels' to the north who felt the same way.
By even repeating or giving credence to this kind of rhetoric is just sad.
If anyone who believes Lott, Byrd, whoever, has actively helped pass any legislation in the last 30 or more years that have harmed blacks, put it forth. On the contrary, I think we could find much more legislation passed by our own wonderful Repubicans and so-called conservatives that have limited the rights and confiscated the property of conservatives and whites.
The Civil War is over. Slavery is over. Segregation is over. All this is past history - calling someone the 'enwurd' or whatever does not - does not make you a racist. Don't fall for that - because if you do - you may find someday the very words you speak today that are just everyday jargon to you and harmless, may come back to haunt you when the PC and thought police decide your thinking is not quite right.
"Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice," in which she uses the nomination debacle as a window on the civil rights movement past, present and future. Compelling reading, Guinier gives a defense of the alternative systems of voting that drew so much flack during the nomination and settles the scores will Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan for double-crossing and abandoning her at the first breath of opposition.
I'll go back and see if I can find the exact quote, now that I have the right book.
Well said. I see your point. But what we are facing is a kamizar network, very similar to Soviet Russia. They can get away with anything, possibly even murder at times. Rape? No problem. And they can say anything. I do not want legislation passed that makes 'hate speech' illegal. At the same time, using the 'en-word' as you say, has long been branded as evil. Sorry, it's life. It gets people fired. It gets people branded. Etc. That has been set in concrete since the '70s, if not sooner. Unless you are a rat kamizar. A teacher was fired for promoting a book, 'Nappy Hair', which was actually a black pride book. This is the world we are in, today. Just as the word 'gay' is now set in concrete, so are other words.
Where you see danger, I see opportunity. Do these rats stand for anything other than power? Let them prove their moral standards. If they fail, then guess what happens to political correctness? It goes down the drain.
For example, I believe that many black Americans are tired of wondering what people think all the time. I imagine that many black Americans would like to see open, frank discussion once again. It must be ugly going around life, never sure what members of another racial group are really thinking. White Americans don't have that problem nearly as much. We know it's insane to discourage open, honest, frank discussion. If some idiot wants to tell me that he can't stand the color of my eyes, I'm glad to get that information and plan accordingly.
But until these kamizars are exposed, radical thinking like that is out of the question.
Also, anything with Jesse Jackson saying "Hymie Town" could be similarly edited to have him saying "Hymie" over and over and over again. We could have fun with this.
With all due respect to Truman's cousin, Truman made a mess of things. He created the UN, designing it with complete naivitee. He got us in the Korea quagmire and put MacArthur on such a short leash MacArthur could not conceive of how to win the war and follow Truman's directives at the same time, he proliferated nuclear weapons with his silly 'atoms for peace' project, and he allowed actual, official socialists to be hired in the executive branch by the thousands. Yes, he dropped the bomb on Japan and ended the war. Yes, he bailed out the rest of the world with the Marshall Plan. Both achievements are constroversial, but well, I'm trying to say something nice here.
Well, I don't know about that. I think ALL races would like everyone to lighten up a little. The only ones who don't are the ones who stand to gain something - either political clout or jobs or college admissions, etc., they do not deserve. As for what we think of them, I don't really think they care. They are not as sensitive as people would have you believe. As for me, I don't care if someone doesn't like the color of my eyes, my skin, or whatever. It is immaterial. NOw if he intends to do me harm because of that - I want to know. If he just doesn't want to be my friend, hire me, or whatever. That is fine with me.
But until these kamizars are exposed, radical thinking like that is out of the question.
I see what you are trying to do and do understand it. You are going to get nowhere in branding the Democrats as racists, or in pointing out their hypocrisy. It has been tried and failed.
It worked for Ashcroft. It isn't tried much with any level of courage, other than that one example.
Let me tell you a story. There were a couple men who said they were going to fly. Everyone said, "It's been tried. It won't work. You'll get yourselves killed." You know the rest of the story, I'm certain, because I can tell you are a deep thinker who probably likes that story, too. It only took two people with:
1. Knowledge.
2. Creativity.
3. Determination.
4. Courage.
We don't need their level of courage. Ashcroft already paved the way. FReegards....
Exposing hypocracy is wrong? I didn't know.
Lott is probably referring to the UN, I would guess. Or atoms-for-peace. Or the lost opportunities of a super power. Or the chance to roll back the New Deal. Lott isn't stupid. No GOP senator is stupid. The rats would eat him alive if he were.
Don't know what you are talking about regarding Ashcroft. I have been so upset with him, if he did anything I liked it was some time ago.
But I have all the courage in the world, and determination, etc.
My point, it would be better to point out the stupidity of trying to pin racist or bigot on anyone because of some words they use. It would be better to get rid of the notion of attempted intimidation - rather than attempt to engage in it also.
I want it gone altogether and to try to beat them at that game - probably will not work - but what have you accomplished. You have the same old garbage thrown out there for public consumption. If it were possible to actually turn the tables on a democrat - you have still used the attempted intimidation. It needs to be gone - just gone - not used - even against democrats. As long as it is alive and well, it will be used to silence truth.
No, I think it is best to show just how ludicrous it is and destroy it.
Now, taking that into consideration...the ENWURD, as you call it, is offensive to African Americans no matter how the term is used. Heck, they got offended and tried to destroy a political career by the use of the word niggardly in it's proper context. The ENWURD is a racial slur intended to denigrate the person it is directed at, while making the person using the offending word feel superior. Therefore, yes...it is racist to use the term.
Your idea that words will come back to haunt is correct in one sense...they will...that is why we must nip this type of jargon in the bud now.
All that aside, what Lott said was offensive IF taken in a particular context, BUT the hypocrisy of the Dems is showing...they have these delusions that they are somehow above the law AND do not have to exhibit decency and respect to other human beings, which brings up another offensive term...the word bigot. We need to clearly let them know that this behavior and language will not be tolerated in our public servants...whether they be Dems, Pubbies or otherwise. Put your foot down at the polls.
I don't see it that way - I do know some people will use anything to cause problems. But having said that - when I was a child, the term we were taught to use was colored. It was meant to be respectful - now it is offensive. It was the word they wanted used then. They decided it should be negro - now all that is offensive. Do y ou see what I mean. They have Americans jumping through hoops because of some perceived collective guilt. I just don't have that guilt - so since what I say carries no animosity, prejudice, or hatred - I am getting tired of having to stop and see what the word du jour is, so to speak.
I do understand what you are saying about pointing out the hypocrisy - and it may cause problems for some - but for society as a whole - it still leaves the dangerous PC or thought control police in power. I want them out of power.
Your idea that words will come back to haunt is correct in one sense...they will...that is why we must nip this type of jargon in the bud now
Yes, but you see, tomorrow the offensive jargon may be determined to be different, therefore, some seemingly respectful term you use now, may be offensive to some and you will be the one on the spit. If you leave the idea that some words alone make a person a racist or bigot, then you leave us all at risk for some future determiner to say we are somehow prejudiced.
I realize today for most people, words mean everything, actions have no meaning. You can be the worst person in the world, if you can only mouth the correct words. That must be stopped or at any time, we can all be on the wrong side of the 'correct' words.
Now I want Lott gone and have for some time. When his name is mentioned I remember him having to get up and ask Daschle if he could adjourn the impeachment hearings. It was sickening. But he did nothing wrong here. Nothing. Think about it. If he were truly a racist or thought Strom Thurmond was, would he have even mentioned that time in his life? Of course, not. He would have been very clear to steer away from it. He may not be the strongest man on the hill - but he is not that dumb.
In 1946 [Paul Robeson] headed a delegation that met with President Truman to demand government action against lynching. Robeson urged Truman to issue "a formal public statement" condemning lynching and to come up with "a definite legislative and educational program to end the disgrace of mob violence."Heavily dependent on the support of Southern senators and congressmen, Truman balked, saying the time wasn't right for such actions. To which Robeson responded that if the Government did not do something to curb lynching, "Negroes would!" Enraged, Truman said that this sounded like a "threat." It was no threat, Robeson replied, merely a statement of fact.
[Robeson] was a bitter opponent of those who counseled "gradualism" in the effort to obtain equal rights and minced no words in saying so. "The idea itself," he said, "is but another form of race discrimination: in no other area of our society are law-breakers granted an indefinite time to comply with the provisions of law."
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.