Another idea of politics and race

[IDrinkaRum]

If the black people of America were truly aggrieved about the things that have happened to them in the past, why are they Democrats?

The Republican Party became the stronger opposition party to the Democratic Party outrunning the Whig Party, and was started as an anti-slavery party. The Republican Party came into power of the White House under Abraham Lincoln. Who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not absolve slavery in all states at the time.

It was the Democrats that opposed desegregation in the 1960's. Former Alabama Governor George Wallace was staunchly Democrat when he professed his pro-segregation attitude. He had the dogs & water hoses. Lots of other Democratic Governors of the south did the same thing, but Governmor Wallace was the most famous (I believe one of the dogs/water hose scenes was used in Forrest Gump). Even the Ku Klux Klan were largely Democrat and anti-Republican. The Klan was started by Democrats who were against the "carpetbagger" Republicans who came south after the American Civil War and started to help the Reconstruction Movement. Plus, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, largely ignored the civil rights movement as it was detrimental to his political career. While it might be true that the Yankee Democrats were for any civil rights legislation, the Rebel Democrats (from the South), were against any form and were actually wanting a strong liberal form because they knew it would be impossible to pass the vote and would never be made into law. They stood in the way of any type of civil rights movement.

And yet the Democratic Party is the party of "hope" and "helping" others out of tight spots and the Republican party is vilified? Why is that?

[AdminAssistant]

Southerners had every right to feel aggrieved by the "carpetbagger" Yankees who were in charge of Reconstruction - possibly the longest running civil rights violation in US history. The South was blamed for the war (not Lincoln, who declared war on his own citizens) and had to be properly punished. That punishment was the Reconstruction. Martial law, corrupt governors, small, localized wars and battles went on for 10 years after the war was over.

Now, I'm not saying I support the Ku Klux Klan, because I don't. I'm not saying I agree with the ideals held by the leaders of the Confederacy, because I don't. I just wish that both sides of the war were made clear to everyone, instead of villifying the Southerners - and for many, it was an issue of state's rights. A number of states didn't join the Confederacy until Lincoln instituted a draft and demanded those states provide men and weapons to fight their fellow Southerners (Arkansas among them). That didn't sit well with most people, even some abolitionists, so they joined up.

Many Southerners are Democratic because of the Democratic platform on the economy - farm subsidies, etc. The New Deal really helped out a lot of people, who were honestly in a Depression long before 1929 (Dust Bowl, anyone?). Not that anyone cared until the city folk were poor, too.

I can't speak to the Civil Rights movement too much. I've talked to Dad about it, and from what he's said, many felt it was carpet-bagging all over again. People from the North going down there and telling Southerners how to behave. If a big deal hadn't been made of a lot of it, it would've gone much more peacefully. For example, a number of Arkansas schools peacefully desegregated without much hassle on either side. But the media attention surrounding the Little Rock 9 propelled it to a much higher level, and I guess Gov. Faubus felt threatened by the attention. Not that I think he was right, but I can understand why he felt like he wasn't even running his own state anymore.

The South is not, nor has it ever been, a place full of ignorant bigots. There is plenty of bigotry on both sides of the Mason/Dixon. But a lot of the blame has been placed squarely on the South, with no accounting for war crimes Lincoln or Sherman committed or riots incited by carpetbaggers. Both sides of the history need to be told.

[Boozy]

Historical lessons aside, what has the Republican party done for minorities lately?

This is 2009, not 1960. The parties have changed, and so have the issues.

[BlaqueKatt]

Southerners had every right to feel aggrieved by the "carpetbagger" Yankees who were in charge of Reconstruction - possibly the longest running civil rights violation in US history.

Seems someone got their reformation history from "gone with the wind"-this is the image portrayed in that movie/book however it is NOT the reality. I recommend the books "lies my teacher told me" and "lies across america" by James W Lowen.

There were numerous area where things were going well with the reconstruction until the democrats lynched those in power and took over.

This is 2009, not 1960. The parties have changed, and so have the issues.

Reparations are normally demanded by Democratic leaders/politicians. And the democratic party has never apologized for it's actions*, at least the Catholic church apologized for turning a blind eye to Germany during WWII.



*Most people that identify with the Democratic party do not even know the history of the party-those who do not learn form the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.


ETA-To put it another way if the KKK decided tomorrow to spend it's time and money rescuing abused animals rather than whatever bad things they usually do would you or anyone else be lining up around the block to join up/donate money to a former "hate group" if not justify your actions toward the democratic party-which their history is not even taught in schools out of embarassment. They have gone so far to cover up their past that people that have been members of the party for years have no idea what it is, and will get angry if you even hint that they may not have been started with the noblest intentions.

[AdminAssistant]

No, I got my Reconstruction history from reading several books on the subject when I was working on my master's thesis on Arkansas theatre history. Not from popular culture. The politicians placed in power by the Union during Reconstruction, for the most part, paid for their position. It was an incredibly corrupt system - and took a people who had been beaten down by war, had many of their possession stolen/destroyed by the Army and militias, and further humiliated them.

[BlaqueKatt]

The politicians placed in power by the Union during Reconstruction, for the most part, paid for their position.

the leaders were not "placed in power" they were elected-by the newly freed slaves and their supporters, many of the elected politicians were former slaves-to suggest that they paid for their position is nothing short of ludicrous.

Read about John Prentiss Matthews here-he organized and independant party that brought together whites and newly freed slaves-he was shot for wanting to vote against the Democratic party-if it was like you have been led to believe-why was there even a vote if they were "placed into power"? the civil war ended in 1865 this took place in 1883-during the reconstruction-why wasn't there already a leader "placed into power"?

The Democrats began night riding to threaten African Americans ordering them to not vote for the Independent Party in the upcoming 1883 elections. The white Democratic leaders of Hazlehunt delivered a written ultimatum to Matthews ordering him not to vote. When he persisted, the precinct captain, a white farmer named Erastus B. "Ras" Wheeler, reached inside a wooden box for a double barreled shotgun and killed Matthews. He was found not guilty.

A quote from Mr. Wheeler-"I killed Print Matthews, or rather it was the Democratic party that did it. If it had not been for politics, I would not have done it; but it was politics that did it."

read the books I suggested-they're are non-biased unlike most history books,

From Lies across america-" textbooks written from 1890 to 1960 paint an unappealing portrait or oppressive Republican rule in the postwar period, a picture that we might call the confederate myth of reconstruction." here He quotes an 80 year old former slave on the subject of the reconstruction(stories recorded by WPA writers in the 1930's-collected in the book "slavery remembered" by Paul D Escott) "I know folks think the books tell the truth, but they shore[sic] don't"

Personally I'd trust those who lived through it-and their stories are mostly the same-

James W. Loewen Is...

A sociologist who spent two years at the Smithsonian surveying twelve leading high school textbooks of American history only to find an embarrassing blend of bland optimism, blind nationalism, and plain misinformation. An educator who attended Carleton College, holds the Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard University, and taught race relations for twenty years at the University of Vermont. He has been an expert witness in more than 50 civil rights, voting rights, and employment cases. His awards include the First Annual Spivack Award of the American Sociological Association for "sociological research applied to the field of intergroup relations," the American Book Award (for Lies My Teacher Told Me), and the Oliver Cromwell Cox Award for Distinguished Anti-Racist Scholarship. He is also Distinguished Lecturer for the Organization of American Historians.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And yet the Democratic Party is the party of "hope" and "helping" others out of tight spots and the Republican party is vilified? Why is that?

Look at how things have drastically shifted around since those times.

The Rethuglican Party (yes, I'm calling them that for a reason) are about as progressive as an old man who still throws around the N word. They've become a hateful warmongering misogynistic religion-abusing bunch of robber barons, and all you need do is look back on the past 8 years for proof of that. (though this crap has gone on longer, at least 30 years if not more; it just came to a head in the last decade) They deserve every bit of vilification they're getting and then some.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have managed to change their attitudes and done fairly well in at least the last 50 years. Granted, they have their demons too, but theirs tend to be a lot lesser and not as lethal towards people as their opponents'. I find it very irritating that when a Dem does something wrong, all of a sudden we need to have an instant public crucifixation, whereas a Rethug does it, it's no big deal and they always pull that "but the Dems are just as baaaaad!" crap. No, they're not.

Case in point: the Rethugs bitch that the Dems have no morals when it comes to sex, but look back and see who's had the most divorces, the most sex scandals, the most gay-related scandals, the most adultery (fuck, Newt Gingrich, that turd, divorced his wife *who was dealing with cancer at the time* so he could go bang someone else. So much for "sanctity of marriage"). I *guarantee* the Dems are nowhere near as sex-crazed as the Rethugs make them out to be.

For the record, I consider myself independent, but pragmatic, as far as any affiliation goes. I *will* vote Democrat over Rethuglican every time for the rest of my life, because I'm so disgusted with what they've become and I don't trust any of 'em any further than I can throw 'em. I don't respect any party that denies women's rights and pushes wars for petty personal reasons (and interesting, isn't it, that the Rethugs are trying to stonewall Obama on every little thing, not out of any principle but because they're just being sore losers about it).

And should the day come that the Democrats turn into Republicans (and there are signs that a few of them have shifted in that disturbing direction), I will happily abandon them as well.

[IDrinkaRum]

The underlying reasons for the issues have not changed and neither have either party changed much since the time they were thought up.

It's the Democrats who came up with Welfare. It's the Democrats who are coming up with socialized healthcare.

They want the American people to be completely in love with/completely dependent upon them for ever. It'll keep them in power. However, it'll keep "the man" (man/woman, black/white/red/turquoise/etc.) down. They don't want anyone to succeed in doing anything. (Look how "big oil" is evil because they're ... GASP ... making a profit in "hard economic times" just because that's what a successful business does in a capitalistic economy. However, they gave/will be giving lots of money to the Big 3 car companies because they're losing money - and why are they losing money? They're offering what Americans feel is an inferior product that is overpriced so they are free to make their own choices to get a product they want - again something that is done in a capitalist society).

I actually would have voted Democrat if the party had nominated Hilary Clinton for President, but they didn't. They instead nominated a man who listens to a Reverand for 20 years as the Reverand says that America is "hell on earth" and the white man is horrible and needs to "be dealt with". And this is the man who is supposed to implement "change" and "hope"?

I stay Republican. Like my dad says, why should the money I make go to the guy down the street (or across town or in another state?), who refuses to work? Government isn't bad, but the American Government was founded to be small, on purpose, so we can be free to pursue life, liberty & happiness. The Declaration of Independence reads "We, the people ... " not "We, the Government ..."

[Giggle Goose]

Historical lessons aside, what has the Republican party done for minorities lately?

This is 2009, not 1960. The parties have changed, and so have the issues.

THANK YOU.

It's as simple as that.

[protege]

However, they gave/will be giving lots of money to the Big 3 car companies because they're losing money - and why are they losing money? They're offering what Americans feel is an inferior product that is overpriced so they are free to make their own choices to get a product they want - again something that is done in a capitalist society).

That's one problem I have with the Democrats. They constantly bail out entities that should be allowed to fail. GM has been having problems for years, and ran into trouble. What *should* happen, is that the company go bankrupt. They'd then be free of the legacy costs, including pension and other sky-high items. Instead, they're being handed billions so they can redesign their products. In other words, they failed, and got rewarded.

Apparently, nobody learned from the plight of British Leyland (the "GM of England" if you will). They ran into trouble during the 1970s, got nationalized, reorganized, and eventually went out of business. Nobody was buying their vehicles, simply because they were shit. Nearly all of their designs, including the MGB (yes, I am an MG fan, and I said that) were seriously outdated. Instead, people turned to Japanese imports...causing BL to get quite a bit of loans and other "help." That didn't fix the problem--instead it only delayed their demise.

Then there's the mortgage "rescue plan" signed yesterday. Again, the successful people, who pay their bills on time...are being forced to bail out those who can't handle their finances. All using our tax dollars, of course.

Even with all that said, I try to vote for whoever I think can handle the issues. Democrat, Republican, or..even an Independent if they'd get a decent candidate

[IDrinkaRum]

protege - you've hit it on the head about the Democrats bailing out companies and irresponsible people.

My husband makes money. I want to keep that money for our family. Why am I a bad person because I want to keep my money in my checking/savings account and not give it to someone who overbought on their amount of house? I like my money. It helps me buy things my daughter likes to eat/wear. My money! Mine!

And in a capitalist society, starting up, getting going, failing and going out of business is the norm. I cannot think of a company that has been socialized, or just had money handed to them, that has actually been successful.*



*right now, I'm not feeling well & I'm exhausted, so throw rotten tomatoes at me.

[guywithashovel]

I actually would have voted Democrat if the party had nominated Hilary Clinton for President, but they didn't. They instead nominated a man who listens to a Reverand for 20 years as the Reverand says that America is "hell on earth" and the white man is horrible and needs to "be dealt with". And this is the man who is supposed to implement "change" and "hope"?

Is that better or worse than a pastor who says that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish New Orleans (i.e. John McCain's pastor)? Also, is having a president who listened to Rev. Wright's craziness any worse than having a president who thinks God talks to him (i.e. George W. Bush)?

I, myself, don't worry too much about Obama's pastor, because I tend to think Obama just attends church and labels himself a Christian because it's necessary for his career. If you want to be a politician in America, you HAVE to attend church and profess to be a Christian (most of the time). I honestly don't think he believes any of that stuff. But that's just me. Maybe I'm wrong.

They want the American people to be completely in love with/completely dependent upon them for ever. It'll keep them in power. However, it'll keep "the man" (man/woman, black/white/red/turquoise/etc.) down. They don't want anyone to succeed in doing anything. (Look how "big oil" is evil because they're ... GASP ... making a profit in "hard economic times" just because that's what a successful business does in a capitalistic economy. However, they gave/will be giving lots of money to the Big 3 car companies because they're losing money - and why are they losing money? They're offering what Americans feel is an inferior product that is overpriced so they are free to make their own choices to get a product they want - again something that is done in a capitalist society).

Wasn't that big 700 billion dollar bailout this past fall signed into law by George W. Bush (a Republican)? Your initial reaction will probably be to say that it was passed by a Democratic Congress, but

1. The Democrats had pretty small majorities in Congress at that time.

2. The Great Republican President could have vetoed it.

3. John McCain voted in favor of it, just as Obama did.

I stay Republican. Like my dad says, why should the money I make go to the guy down the street (or across town or in another state?), who refuses to work? Government isn't bad, but the American Government was founded to be small, on purpose, so we can be free to pursue life, liberty & happiness. The Declaration of Independence reads "We, the people ... " not "We, the Government ..."

The Republicans are not in favor of "limited government" (in quotes due to ambiguity) as they say. Sure, they say they want to let us be free to work hard and pursue the "American Dream" (in quotes for the same reason as the other phrase), but then they want to come into our bedrooms and tell us what we can and cannot do. Then they want to tell us who we can and cannot marry, and what we can and cannot watch on television, etc. etc. etc. Also, they try to tax everyone just like the Democrats do.

The Republicans and Democrats really aren't as different as they are made out to be.

[Boozy]

Wasn't that big 700 billion dollar bailout this past fall signed into law by George W. Bush (a Republican)? Your initial reaction will probably be to say that it was passed by a Democratic Congress, but

1. The Democrats had pretty small majorities in Congress at that time.

2. The Great Republican President could have vetoed it.

3. John McCain voted in favor of it, just as Obama did.

Conservative or liberal, no one who really understands the depth of what is happening here is going to vote against stimulus. Americans should be thankful that partisan politics were (for the most part) set aside to get this bill passed.

The Republicans and Democrats really aren't as different as they are made out to be.

Agreed. A point-by-point analysis of the McCain and Obama economic platforms during the 2008 campaign revealed no substantial differences in fiscal policy.