December 15, 2005
Black Republicans, White Democrats
Proud Members of the Democratic Party in Wilmington, NC
after murdering dozens of black Republicans in November, 1898.
Via the News and Observer, from Appendix N, page 2 (PDF) of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report released today:
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, there were several attacks by white mobs on prosperous black communities resulting in the killing of black citizens and the destruction of black homes and businesses . Most notable among these riots are the Danville, Virginia Riot of 1883, the New Orleans, Louisiana Riot of 1900, the Atlanta, Georgia Riot of 1906, the Rosewood, Florida Riot of 1923, and the Tulsa, Oklahoma Riot of 1925.Although all of the above riots were devastating to their local black communities, the Wilmington Riot of 1898 was unique in America history.1 In November, 1898, an organized white mob massacred an unknown number of black citizens in Wilmington and at gunpoint forced the resignation of most of the local municipal government. This riot represents a turning point in the history of riots by white mobs on blacks because it is the first time in American history that a legal democratically elected government was overthrown by a government recognized organization, the Democratic Party, with no response by federal or state government officials.
This inset map (PDF) shows where 42 blacks were cornered and cut down by murderous machine-gun wielding white mobs of the Democratic Party.
I can only assume this is what Cary Tennis has in mind for today's Republicans.
It is a good thing that these days people like Mr. Tennis no longer have the majority of the guns.
Tennis is an idiot. Did he even think about who owns guns in this country? Thank God for forethinking founding fathers and the 2nd ammendmenI gues it time to visit Wal Mart Sporintg Goods department and buy a few boxes of .30-06 and some .44 magnums. I knew there was a reason I didn't trust the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Ols Soldier at December 15, 2005 08:19 PMThese are the same Democrats/Dixiecrats that migrated over to the Republican party in the 60's right. That's why blacks vote Democrat today right. Try putting things in context next time. Anyways, nice try though. I'm going to roll the dice and say the words "Senator Byrd," will fall from your face as a responce. Don't waste your time, you need to hit the history books anyways.
Posted by: Fred at December 15, 2005 09:33 PMAh I love the smell of Dhimmitude in the morning it smells like STUPIDITY. Fred you need to hit the history books moron. Read on that is if you know how to read:
Not all Democrats are racist but all racists are Democrat.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along.
Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement."
Read the whole thing Here:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/11/17/175888.html
You know Fredricca, if you are going to be a Troll you could at least be a somewhat intelligent one. Thanks for playing try again. IDIOT!
Posted by: Joe at December 15, 2005 10:04 PMHere are some more of your oh so tolerant Democrats showing their true colors read on:
And
Very tolerant. YEAH RIGHT. Posted by: Joe at December 15, 2005 11:03 PM
Fred, you might want to check out your history of the Dixiecrats as it really is, not as you would revise it.
The best I can tell, exactly two prominent Dixiecrats (Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond) turned into Republicans. Some minor state-level officials many have also switched, but I'll be damned if I'll spend my time hunting down school board members.
The overwhelming majority of the Dixiecrats stayed in the Democratic Party, and yes, that does include the sole remaining Dixiecrat still in office, one Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 12:05 AMI think that historians will ultimately show that this type of event was the beginning of a return to slavery that was aided and abeted by the "Great Society" of Lyndon Johnson. The form has just changed. Now the slavery is perpetuated by the democratic party and many of the Black community leaders under the guise of our ever growing welfare system.
In my conversations I have not found anyone who is not willing to help those who due to illness, physical, mental or due to age are no longer able to care for themselves. But more and more people are tired of seeing people, and it does not matter if they are black, white, brown, or green, sitting on their butts and drawing checks from the government to do nothing more strenous than breed.
Sorry for being so long-winded.
Posted by: ncgrayghost at December 16, 2005 08:59 AMncgrayghost, Amen, brother or sister. Before welfare; communities, primarily church communities, used to help out folks who had fallem victim to hard times. It is called alms. It helped where families were not able to provide for relatives and it helped until people could get back to work and be self sufficient again. It also took the form of food and clothing, not just money to be spent on whatever. In other words, basic needs were met. A perpetual handout, it was not.
I truly object to being taxed and my money going to folks who have no intention of getting back to work or improving themselves in any way. That is socialism and that is NOT what this country is all about. I'm tired of giving people fish - it's time they learned to fish to feed themselves!
Posted by: Old Soldier at December 16, 2005 12:49 PMWow. Talk about false consciousness; you guys really seem to have convinced yourself that the Southern Strategy wasn't about appealing to white Southern racism. You also seem to have forgotten that the Republican Party of 1964 included guys like Earl Warren and Nelson Rockefeller, men who have become, er, less popular among modern Republicans as the GOP has increasingly become identified with the Old Confederacy...
At some point, you might try to convince some black folks that the Republican Party really is their friend. Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find that they're a bit smarter than the average CY commenter. Nonetheless, I encourage you to keep trying...
Posted by: Rob at December 16, 2005 02:51 PMAt some point, you might try to convince some black folks that the Republican Party really is their friend.
Considering Republicans set them free from slavery, pushed through civil rights legislation in the face of the Democrat and Dixiecrat-run Klans, put them currently in higher positions of power that Democrats, and will, if she'll run, elect a black woman President, I think we've done quite a bit better for them than you have.
You offer nothing but fear of change and a failed "Great Society," and that fear of change won't last forever.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 03:10 PMCY, you are cherrypicking through history to an unbelievable extent. The Republican Party has not cared about black people since the end of Reconstruction. That's not to say that the Democratic Party has been perfect--far from it. However, perhaps you should actually read some history before spouting off this absurdity. You should start with Nancy Weiss, Farewell to the Party of Lincoln, which shows why blacks began abandoning the Republican Party during the New Deal. Rob is exactly right--the Southern strategy was all about racism. In fact, Nixon and friends were quite up front about this fact.
And don't use Condoleeza Rice to signify anything. Yes, you like your Negroes when they are good. But why doesn't the other 90% of blacks vote Republican--no doubt you and your "readers," if they are in fact literate, just think they are a bunch of immoral crack-smoking, welfare queens with 13 children. Then again, if you all actually knew some black people, you might feel differently.
Posted by: Erik at December 16, 2005 03:34 PMI love how you guys selectively take credit for the general policy of civil rights but oppose the substance of those policies.
CY, you have still dodged Rob's point. Yes, republicans were pro-civil rights before Nixon's southern strategy. But since then, Republicans have fought to roll back civil rights tooth and nail.
The Klan may have been aligned with the Dixiecrats in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, but its aligned with the Republicans today. Or maybe you are going to try to convince me that David Duke is a liberal.
Posted by: Del at December 16, 2005 03:35 PMOh, so you're one of those who honestly, genuinely believes that a black, single, pro-choice woman could get through the Republican primaries...
I congratulate you sir, and wish that I had your capacity for self-deception. I would fancy myself Monarch of Siam, commanding a fleet of dreadnought battleships from my richly Royal Zeppelin, capable of extending my influence not only into the South Seas but into the stars as well. If only...
Posted by: Rob at December 16, 2005 03:57 PMErik, we're cherrypicking history? You have 300+ years of Demcratic racism your ignoring, and the last I checked, Reconstruction ended well before the Civil Rights era that yes, was driven by Republicans.
And it might surprise you, but I have actually even touched black folks before... not that it would matter to your bigoted views at all.
Del, did Rob make a point? I wasn't aware of one. He cited the liberal "Southern Strategy" talking point while refusing to acknowledge that all of your liberal social programs of the past 40 years have destroyed the black family as certainly as any genocide. Since your "helpful" social programs, abortion and crime have gone up, while two parent families have dropped precipetously. If that is your "progress," please, export it to al Qaeda.
Is David Duke a liberal? No, but he was a Democrat... while he was still active in the Klan, that is. I don't profess to pay any attention to the fool, but the last I heard, he was a huge supporter of your friend, Mother Sheehan.
I would fancy myself Monarch of Siam, commanding a fleet of dreadnought battleships...
Well, your dreadnaughts are about 100 years out of date. We did, however, just pick up a destroyer DD-574, that would easily outclass your Siamese dreadnaughts.
Anchors aweigh...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 04:13 PMYou're right; it is tough for me to catalogue 300+ years of Democratic racism, given that, under the most generous possible terms of historical analysis, the Democratic Party is just over 200 years old. But such marvelous things are possible when you just make stuff up...
Also, there's a difference between a talking point and an actual historical reality; the "Southern Strategy" is the latter, not the former. Honestly, I find it sad that the Party of Lincoln now derives so much of its support from white racists in the Old Confederacy; it is a disgrace to the memory of the finest of all Americans. No less disgraceful to the memory of Lincoln is that a self-avowed supporter of the Republican Party would go by the handle "Confederate Yankee".
I'm glad though that we're clear on this point; you believe that black people just aren't smart enough to realize they should be voting Republican. By your logic, 90% of them just can't understand that the Republican Party is acting in their own best interests. Keep that line up; I'm sure it will be convincing to someone, somewhere, at some point...
Posted by: Rob at December 16, 2005 04:36 PMWould you care to point out some actual white racists within the GOP who are such a key part of the base? Or do you simply choose to libel your political opponents without a shred of proof.
I know I can point to a number of black racists within the Democrat Party -- starting with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Continuing through Maxine Watters and Cynthia McKinney. And you have already noted white racist Robert Byrd.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at December 16, 2005 05:25 PMJoe, it's instructive to break down the Civil Rights Act vote by region. In the North, Democrats were more likely to vote for the civil rights act than Rebuplicans. In the South, Democrats were also more likely to vote for the Civil Rights Act than the Republicans (granted, there were only a few GOP representatives from the South at the time). This was a regional, not a party issue.
Until that time, the Democrats were really two parties in a great deal of tension with each other. After that time, the white South began the process of abandoning the Democrats, a process that continues today.
Posted by: djw at December 16, 2005 05:26 PMQuestion for our host and those who think he makes sense: If what you say is true, why do African-Americans vote for the Democratic Party candidates in such overwhelming numbers? Are they stupid, or just crazy?
Posted by: djw at December 16, 2005 05:28 PMToo true Rob... as I was running out the door, I did say 300 years of Democratic party racism. As a party, you are correct saying that your racism only extends back 200 years. I apologize.
By the way, how long was the "southern strategy" (which was excellently debunked by Joe in the third post) in effect compared with 200 (on-going) years of Democratic racism?
Republicans made mistakes in not courting the black voter. I think they were idiots for it. That was then, however, and we'll see what we can do about attracting them from now on.
It is difficult, however, to be black and vote Republican, precisely because of lock-step Democrats thinking they own black voters, and they respond very harshly to anyone who strays off the Democratic plantation.
I don't think fear will keep them silent forever, though.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 05:58 PMWow, this blog is like the place where discredited ideas go to live on forever.
Posted by: Matt at December 16, 2005 06:18 PMLike what ideas matt? That blacks don't owe you their vote because of their skin color?
While you are at it, who should the Irish feel obligated to vote for, oh arbiter of racial justice?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 06:54 PMI don't know about Matt, but I don't think anyone owes me their vote, especially since I'm not running for anything.
I am, however, happy to be part of a political coalition with 90% of black Americans. I'd love to see you try to describe the social mechanisms that force black people to vote Democratic. Suppose what you say is true about the mindsets of white Democratic leaders--why would black people care, let alone follow along with such a nefarious plan? What enforcement mechanisms could they possibly wield, in this day and age of anonymous ballots?
Posted by: djw at December 16, 2005 07:19 PMThis is a great post, Confederate Yankee.
Another similar popular misunderstanding is the common misperception that during the Civil War, the South was racist while the noble North was the great friend of black people. Nothing could be further from the truth: the Confederacy fought for freedom and independence from outside interference, values that I think any black person would appreciate. The Union, on the other hand, fought to take away freedom; they fought to have the Confederate states submit to them, to deny "state rights" and the ability of Southerners to set their own laws and run their own economies in peace.
It is indeed ironic that the Confederacy has become associated with slavery, even though they fought for freedom and rights. Unfortunately the North won the war and used fear to prevent the American public from acknowledging the truth about the War of Northern Aggression ("political correctness" played a large role). Also, it is partly the Confederacy's own fault for not doing enough in the public-relations battle, to convince Americans that they were truly on the side of freedom.
But I think attitudes are changing over time; certainly blogs like yours will go a long way towards pushing back against a 400-year campaign of fear. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Barbar at December 16, 2005 08:14 PMYou are aware that the rights that the South fought for included the right to own other human beings as property, correct? Just so we're clear.
Posted by: Moleman at December 16, 2005 08:56 PMI'd love to see you try to describe the social mechanisms that force black people to vote Democratic.
Where would you like to begin?
I'll start with a single post confined to the racial McCarthyism within black leadership.
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farakkan, the NAACP's recent leadership, Various state and local black Democrats (Maryland is a great example), the Congressional Black Caucus and others in black leadership repeatedly call Republicans racists as a group, making it very difficult for blacks to publicly "come out" as Republicans.
Anyone who does come out as a Republican is "not really black" -- an Uncle Tom, a race traitor, a house nigger and a slave to the leading Republicans of the day.
At the same time, of course, these exact same "leaders" fastidiously ignore the racism of white Democrats, be it the comments Dean made in the 2004 primaries, or Byrd's 2001 usage of the word "nigger" on national TV, or other cooments that would ignite strong and immediate commentary if Republicans made them.
You are also ignoring the fact that Democrats have consistantly failed to deliver jobs or better conditions in predominently black neighborhoods, or for black families, and black leaders have consistantly refused to hold Democrats responsible in any way for lower test scores, higher crime rates, or bad employment numbers even in (and often especially in) aeas where Democrats dominate the governments.
So for those of you keeping score at home, black Democratic leaders intimidate blacks that might consider other political options, and routinely conduct character assassinations of those brave enough to announce a political affliation as anything other than Democrat.
These same "leaders" attack Republicans as racists, and cover for the racists in the Democratic party. they also refuse to hold their party accountable for their failures to help their communities, ensuring things will never improve.
Of course, what I haven't addessed yet, and what I'd like to see changed, is that with such a huge supermajority of blacks seemingly committed to the Democratic Party no matter how bad the party fails them, there is no reason for either party to waste finite resources in trying to court a demographic seemingly set in stone.
The big, nasty secret here is that any group 90% in lock-step with one party is politically irrelevant to both parties. By being so deeply in the pockets of Democrats, Black leaders have rendered their demographic irrelevant poltically. Ever wonder why nobody talks about black voters in elections except in passing, while the parties are concerned with currying favor with much, much smaller Cuban, Arab, Hispanic, or Asian minorites? Now you know. Black voters have made themselves irrelevant by giving away all of their poltical capital to one party. "Why buy the cow" indeed.
Simply ask yourself:
Why should Democrats waste time and political capital to appease a group that will still vote for them no matter what they fail to do in office?
Concurrently, why should Republicans try to offer anything when all thy get in return from black voters is a slap in the face for their trouble?
I await an intelligent rebuttal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 09:17 PMWell CY you sure stirred the moonbats up. Don't you realize you can't be talking to the moonbats about 30 % of their enslaved voter base without their becoming hostile? After all, they've worked very hard over the years to enslave them in their welfare and other social handout programs. The moonbats are really compassionate that way with other people's money. The moonbats don't want to be bothered with trying to establish programs to help folks make it in their own, because that would erode their base. Kind of a catch 22 situation that the liberals are wallowing in and loving it. That way they can stir things up with the old scare tactic - the GOP is going to take your "benefits" (another name for welfare) away. Kind of a neat way to keep the base on the plantation.
As for the race mongers (Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakan, West, Byrd, et al) they have no power without a dependent base, so they have a vested interest in keeping the base on the "programs." In this case, power to the few.
If any of these useful idiots had any compassion for the folks on welfare, they would truly want them to be able to become independent rather than having to remain on the welfare plantation. If they only had a brain...
Posted by: Old Soldier at December 16, 2005 09:33 PMAs a professional historian, these right-wing historical myths are literally making me want to wretch...
It's absolutely fascinating to watch you people blithely talk about Al Sharpton and Robert Byrd as similar racists. Now say Byrd is a racist all you want, I don't care. But, um, he doesn't really have anything in common with Sharpton, Farrakhan, or Jesse Jackson--not that these 3 men have all that much in common with each other. No, Robert Byrd is quite a bit like many key members of the Republican Party.
"Rhymes with Right" (Blight?) says "Would you care to point out some actual white racists within the GOP who are such a key part of the base?" Oh, I don't know. Should we start with Jesse Helms? Then move on to Trent Lott. Then we can continue on to Dick "I support South African apartheid" Cheney. No doubt stops at the doors of Tom "The Cicero of Oklahoma" Coburn, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Phelps are in order. Then we'll come on over to James Dobson's place. So yeah, I'd say there are a few racists in the Republican base.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that in y'all's mind, racist=someone who doesn't support my viewpoint. Sorry, I guess I'm just not up to the intellectual level of right-wing lunatics.
I may actually use this blog next semester in my class to demonstrate modern Republican racism.
Posted by: Erik at December 16, 2005 09:44 PMIt
Posted by: Joe at December 16, 2005 09:59 PMThis is my first time visiting this blog, but I have to say I'm quite impressed. Not only is the blog owner extremely perceptive, but there are some very astute commenters as well. Old Soldier, for example, hits the nail on the head when he points out that welfare is a liberal Democrat trick to enslave black people and keep the black vote. Anyone with any knowledge of welfare would see how self-evident that truth is (after all, less than 2 percent of the American population is on welfare, and there are more whites on welfare than blacks).
But I bet any minute now some liberal moonbat will come along and say something insane like, "The fact that your political mindset includes treating black voters and welfare recipients as equivalent populations is pretty racist and might explain why not so many black people share your voting preferences." Let me pre-empt that by pointing out that Old Soldier isn't a Democrat, so the idea that he's racist is self-contradictory.
Posted by: Barbar at December 16, 2005 10:11 PMIt is amazing how you LIBS can ignore history or revise to suit your own views and when that does not work you fall back on the BS consensus argument (see global warming). The facts and history don't stand with you.
Posted by: Joe at December 16, 2005 10:16 PMAnd one more thing, I'd also like to re-iterate my astonishment that some moonbats continue to blindly associate racism with the Republican Party, the Southern states that reliably vote Republican, and the Confederacy that these states belonged to. Can you imagine the absurdity of accusing the Confederacy of racism? Hello people, the Confederates FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM, and the Union fought to subjugate them, to "enslave" them if you will. It's disappointing that contemporary African-Americans -- the descendants of literal slaves! -- don't fully appreciate how committed the Confederacy was to freedom and independence.
Posted by: Confederate Barbar at December 16, 2005 10:18 PMFred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, is a card-carrying, lifelong Democrat, Erik.
Jesse Helms is a legitimate target. He was one of two Dixcrats that become a Republican, all others of significance went back to the Democratic Party.
Lott, if I recall correctly, committed the sin of a mild slur while praising the other Dixiecrat Refugee Strom Thrumond at a his 100th birthday Party:
I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.
The slur itself was so mild that the press in attendence hardly noted it at the time. It should be noticed that among the bloggers who helped gun Lott down was the influential Glenn Reynolds. himself right of center.
Lott's comments howevr, were not as jarring as Robert Bryd's 2001 "white niggers" comment that Democrats did next to nothing to denounce, is it?
I'm not very familiar with Cheney's aparthied comments. What were they?
As for Tancredo and Coburn, I'm not familiar with the charges against them. Care to provide qoutes, or better yet, sources?
As for Jackson and Sharpton, they are far more racist than anyone on the right in a simpliar postion of influence.
Sharpton's racist rhetoric against non-black store owners is blamed in part for getting eight people killed, and he as a record for calling white people "crackers," and Jews "diamond merchants," "white interlopers," and "bloodsucking Jews."
Jackson refers to Jews as "Hymies" and New York as "Hymietown."
these comments seem to be worse than anyhting you can bring forth from conservatives, but as I said, I'm willing to wait for you to provide sources.
What university do you teach at, Erik, and what course do you teach?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 10:20 PM"As a professional historian, these right-wing historical myths are literally making me want to wretch..."
When I was a kid in school, history was an account of events that actually took place. Today biased revisionists have had a field day "interpreting" those events and now present that interpretation as history. Your biased interpretation of history means no more to me than the “right wing” regurgitation of events mean to you.
”I may actually use this blog next semester in my class to demonstrate modern Republican racism.”
Why doesn’t it surprise me that a liberal teacher would use a blog comment stream to aid in indoctrinating students in liberalism rather than just present the facts and then let the students make their own determination as to what ideology they most closely align with? That wouldn’t perpetuate the old elite liberal ideology, now, would it? I know; these kids aren’t old enough to make up their own mind; they have to be force fed the left ideology. Heaven forbid they might favor a centrist or even a right of center ideology. If this is your teaching agenda, you are pathetic.
Your wonderment at all things is noted, Barbar.
You must be fascinated that the first version of the Ku Klux Klan was founded in the south by Democrats to control and intimidate blacks, while later versions still Democratic) were actually based in what we call today "blue" states, hating immigrants such as the Irish and Italians as well as blacks.
Was the Confederacy racist? Yes, in many ways, but that is a simpist answer. Black women owned many slaves, and more than 50,000 blacks, slaves and free, served in the Confederate Army. Peace Democrats of that time, called Copperheads and similar in many ways to todays' "cut and run" liberals, were as willing to sell-out blacks in the south as they are willing to sell-out 25 million Iraqis today.
I'm still waiting for anyone the left to take up the challege of my comments about black McCarthyism and the determiental effects of lockstep voting on minority populations.
You won't be covering that in class, will you Erik?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 10:33 PMWait, which group was worse:
1) the Northern Aggressors who didn't actually fight to end slavery, or
2) the Northern cowards who weren't willing to fight a war to free black slaves
Posted by: Barbar at December 16, 2005 10:43 PMWhat gave away that I am not a Democrat? Gees, some things you just can't keep confidential.
Posted by: Old Soldier at December 16, 2005 10:46 PMFred Phelps calls himself a Democrat, but if you think that tells you something about the Democratic Party, well then you might be almost as crazy as he is.
Posted by: Barbar at December 16, 2005 10:51 PMNot willing to engage in substantive debate, I see...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 10:51 PMIt's hard to get into a substantive debate with someone who on one hand points to an incident in 1898 to prove a point about the horrible Democratic Party, and at the same time has some affection for the Confederacy, which of course was run by the Democratic Party as well. Or someone who issues black-and-white pronouncements about liberals, and then finds a million shades of gray when it comes to defending slavery practices.
You guys think that welfare is about race, not poverty. Here's a puzzle: which political party has more to gain from such a notion? Hmmm....
I will agree with you that no voting bloc is well served from having its vote taken for granted, but you're starting from such a twisted set of assumptions that I can't imagine a discussion of this would be particularly fruitful.
Posted by: Barbar at December 16, 2005 11:18 PMErik,
As they say actions speak louder than words. The Republican party is seriously debating about a black woman being our nominee for President she has not announced but if she did she would get the nomination that woman is Condoleeza Rice the one you disparage so blithely and by the way take a look at your comment you are guilty of doing what you accuse us of doing which is a standard way of argument for you moonbats. Your party is on its way to oblivion because truth and facts prove you are the problem not the solution. You lost the election in 04 in a big way and will continue to lose.
Barbar,
Actually we don't think welfare is about race but control. There are more whites on welfare than blacks and as a rule welfare recipients vote Democrat as old soldier pointed out it is a way to control the only part of the population in this country that votes en masse as Democrat with out it the Democratic party and the LIBS would never win another election OH MY BAD they are already on the road to that.
What percentage of black voters are on welfare, Joe? By way of comparison, about 90 percent of black voters vote Democrat.
I just read the Cary Tennis article, and I really don't know where the Confederate Yankee got the idea that Tennis was imagining a re-enactment of the Wilington massacre. In fact, since Temis is not advocating racially-motivated shooting, but rather that Democrats take up arms against the government, isn't the obvious analogy with the Civil War, when Democrats took up arms against the government?
Hmm, I wonder why that was missed? Oh yeah, because CY likes the Confederacy but doesn't like Democrats. Even though the Confederates were Democrats. So he digs up the Wilmington riots, in which some racist white southern male Democrats massacred black people. What defines these murderers of course is not that they were racist white southern men, but that they were Democrats. That makes sense because what really set them apart from everybody else was their desire for universal health care, higher taxes, gay marriage, weak national security, destruction of family values, love of welfare, and flip-flopping.
But the Democrats who seceded from the Union? Those guys were totally different. They just happened to be Democrats. You know, the Democratic Party has changed a lot over the last 140 years, so although southerners are proud of their heritage they have rejected their Democratic past, which was the part responsible for all that racist slavery crap anyway.
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 12:22 AMAffection for the Confederacy? I admire the pluck and fighting spirit of the men in the Confederate Army, black and white, who held out for a long time against superior with very limited resources.
The tenacity of these same southern soldiers is still seen as the backbone of the American military to this very day.
I also admire the tactical skill of many of its officers (as I admire the brilliance of several nothern generals). All of these things I admire, as should every American.
But I in no way approve of slavery, any more than do of the identity politics that rules the Democratic Party today. Nor did I ever make a shades of gray argument that would in any way support slavery. Stating the fact that blacks also owned slaves and were in the Confederate military were attempts not nuance, just cold, hard facts of what the Southwas at that time, versus what you would like to revise history to be.
Men and women should be judged by their individual merits. Period.
The 1898 incident in Wilmington was timely, as the report was a portion of history just released that day. The Cary Tennis commentary from eariler in the week advocating a Demcratic rebellion against our elected government is an obvious bridge between Democrats then and now.
One of the liberal blogs that linked to this post advised their readers not to come unless they were "prepared for mind-blowing stupidity."
I'm glad I could help cure that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 12:23 AMAs a matter of Public record the Wilmington Massacre was an specific act of the Democratic Party.
Read the report.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 12:25 AMC.Y., I find it hard to believe that Americans should honor traitors who fought to ensure slavery. Confederate officers who left the Union (Jackson and Lee) not only betrayed their oath as military officers to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic but they also prolonged the war and caused many more deaths of young men, northern and southern. Also, Lee did not mind fighting against abolitionists like John Brown in defense of the Union.
My father and I are lifelong Republicans (he is also a Captain in the US Navy) and he once told me that to act like the Southern Generals did, to betray your country, is both dishonorable and inexcusable, especially to preserve an act as inhuman as slavery.
You can't be a patriot and a rebel.
I admire the pluck and fighting spirit of the men in the Confederate Army, black and white, who held out for a long time against superior with very limited resources.
Safe to assume that you admire the Iraqi insurgency for the same reasons?
Posted by: Big Worm at December 17, 2005 01:00 AMYou can't be a patriot and a rebel.
Try passing that along to the Founding Fathers. They were, to a man.
Safe to assume that you admire the Iraqi insurgency for the same reasons?
As the insurgency conducts executions and terror attacks against innocent women and children... no.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 01:08 AMOK, I read the report.
CY, what defined the Democratic Party in 1898, versus the Republican Party? If you were a voter what were the criteria that would allow you to choose between the two parties?
The answer is obvious. The Democratic Party was the party of white supremacy. They used force to remove political and economic power from the hands of blacks. This is what the report is all about.
What this has to do with today, beyond the party labels escapes me. Cory Tennis suggests there might be a need to take up arms against the government; he is not worth taking seriously simply because he doesn't even bother to define which governent officials are legitimate/illegitimate in his eyes, so it's unclear what the election of John McCain (or even hawkish Hillary Clinton) in 2008 would mean, for instance. But this has nothing to do with white supremacy and racism, on any level. Only the party label is the same. The Wilmington riots are not about some timeless "Democratic lust for power" but about racism. I mean, do you really not see that? Because that would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
Today of course the Democratic Party has a virtual lock on the black vote. You claim that this was created by welfare, as though all black voters are on welfare. Then you claim that blacks are in a poor position because Democrats can take them for granted -- even though the inability of Republicans to take advantage of this speaks volumes about their relationship to black voters.
There are so many discontinuities between the past and the present that it requires a mindless "Repiblican good, Democrat bad" mindset to link 19th and 21st century politics. And lo and behold, that's what we have here.
As the insurgency conducts executions and terror attacks against innocent women and children... no.
By the way, the insurgency is not a monolithic entity, and there are groups that only target soldiers. Surely these people have your admiration?
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 01:13 AMSome elements of the Sunni Baathist insurgency are less prone to targeting civilians than others, that this true, but they still have no qualms at all about detonating an IED near an military patrol with civilians in the kill zone. No, I do not admire them.
Making the comparison between insurgents and uniformed Civil War soldiers fighting other soldiers is horrific, and it says more about you than you know.
Tennis clearly intones that if he doesn't get the government he and other liberals want by the ballot, he was willing to revolt. That is exactly what the Democratic Party did in Wilmington, which is a direct correlation not changed by time nor space.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 01:22 AMWhat percentage of black voters are on welfare, Joe? By way of comparison, about 90 percent of black voters vote Democrat.
Posted by Barbar at December 17, 2005 12:22 AM
I never mentioned anything about the 90% myth you DEMS like to fantasize about. Polls mean nothing and are not accurate, recall the exit polls(The most accurate POLL there is according to the experts) in 04 they said Kerry won by 20% at Kerry campaign HQ they had popped the Champaign and started celebrating even calling him MR. President then the actual returns came in and guess what BUSH WON AND WE HAD GAINED SEATS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE what does this tell us? POLLS ARE BS! Look at the Demographics if 90% of blacks voted for the DEM candidates then there are more than a few red states that would be blue. As for Democrats being different now than then facts don't back up that statement read my posts with the links you nor any other DEM/LIB poster here has refuted that with references just opinions and you know what they say about those
Posted by: Joe at December 17, 2005 01:30 AMHere are more facts about the Democratic party:
http://
www.
civilwarhome.
com/
copperheads.htm
Democrat/Liberal Creed: Freedom for Me but not for Thee.
Posted by: Joe at December 17, 2005 01:36 AMWow, Joe. Everything we know about voting behavior is wrong, because....well, it just must be, because it doesn't fit with my worldview.
CY, w/r/t your whole black McCarthyism screed upthread, let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede all your points. Why would the black voters fall for such BS? Imagine if white people had similar clowns and bullies--I don't know about you, but I'd ignore their wishes and concerns when I was in the voting both. Why can't black people do that? What's wrong with them?
Posted by: djw at December 17, 2005 01:42 AMIf you honestly concede all points, you would then have to recognize that the threat of being ostracized is a very strong social control.
I'm rather offended David, that you think something is wrong with black people for having perfectly normal psychology. I am not surprised by your racism, however, and I'm encouraged that you have admitted it.
It's a first step towards treatment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 01:54 AMdjw,
Again the old bait and switch. I think you meant to say everything I want to believe about voting behavior. You remind me of the DEMS after the 04 election saying "Why did they not vote for their own interests?". Facts or links please right now I feel like I am debating my two year old.
CY, w/r/t your whole black McCarthyism screed upthread, let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede all your points. Why would the black voters fall for such BS? Imagine if white people had similar clowns and bullies--I don't know about you, but I'd ignore their wishes and concerns when I was in the voting both. Why can't black people do that? What's wrong with them?
Posted by djw at December 17, 2005 01:42 AM
The majority of black voters don't fall for it. This validates my post and you have to concede the point because it is backed up by the links and news stories.
Posted by: Joe at December 17, 2005 02:00 AMSweet, sweet racism.... not that I throw the charge about lightly. Yet:
You use the term "War of Northern Aggression," you use the Confederate (battle, jesus, I know) flag on your site, you make facially ridiculous claims about Democrats being the primary party of racism today, well I'd say this is pretty good evidence that you're a racist. Sure, maybe you're just incredibly insensitive and ignorant about our nation's original sin and proud of the "heritage" of slavery to boot perhaps, but I don't think you deserve that presumption.
If you write things that imply your a racist, don't be surprised if people assume you are.
Posted by: Ziggy at December 17, 2005 03:10 AMDemocrats were never fond of blacks they started to lose their nerve (soul) with Executive Order 9981 and the party abandoned its conservative (i.e. states rights, religious) roots. A few members defected formed the Dixiecrat. I am pretty sure, one of them ran for president in 48' switched parties again in the 60s and kept the same base (Conservatives who where historically identified as Democrats. Who contemporarily identify with that the other party ) which supported his new party as a whole now what was that party? I think it is the same party that always getting the short end of the stick from "mainstream (liberal) media" who as a matter of national security should do something that would actually stem illegal immigration. Legislate ethnic profiling (Or as I like to call it Common Sense) restricting it to matters of national security. I guess they cannot its not like they have a majority in the legislative branch or anything. Besides the President would veto it oh wait I think he is a member of the same party. Maybe their afraid of that bleeding heart liberal Supreme Court. For the life of me, I cannot remember the party. Blacks should not have an allegiance to any party they should just vote for who ever is best for the country.
Cheney's apartheid comments he never said anything all he did was vote against a house resolution condemning the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela. (Considering that supporting Apartheid is weak) There is nothing wrong with imprisoning persons that are threats to the government. If they would have had a Patriot act, he could have just disappeared one day. He would have been lost to history. His imprisonment made him into a symbol for liberals everywhere. Why is it they can never recognize terrorists? Regan’s camp knew Mandela was a terrorist. Now the things Burton and Hatch voted against related to South Africa would suggest they supported apartheid. Except those resolutions where tied to recognizing the ANC as a legitimate organization. They would have had to ignore that it is a terrorist organization with communist ties. If America had kept up constructive engagement, imagine the improvements they would have on the system they started in 1913. However, America decided to take a more proactive approach to South Africa and the world followed. I guess they should have kept the bomb.
Whatever happen to “fiscal responsibility” and “fuzzy math”
In 2000, 90.4% of African Americans voted for Al Gore. In 2004, 88.2% voted for John Kerry. Facts people; cold hard facts.
Maybe the right-wingers on this blog should take the time to talk to a black person and find out why they overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Posted by: MacGyver at December 17, 2005 11:51 AMHow can I be ostracized once the curtain of the voting booth is closed, and Jesse Jackson can't see what I'm doing anymore?
Posted by: djw at December 17, 2005 12:16 PMDavid,
So you're fine with black conservatives having to hide their politics?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 12:28 PMSo much for feeling free...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 12:31 PMSo the white murderers in Wilmington were liberals, CY?
What about the Confederate government, CY? Were they liberals too? They were definitely Democrats.
Hilarious.
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 12:43 PMBlack conservatives don't have to hide their politics. I mean, I heard once that Jesse Jackson called conservatism a "persistent vegetative state," but I think he was just stating his opinion, not trying to ostracize people who didn't agree.
This is just funny:
The big, nasty secret here is that any group 90% in lock-step with one party is politically irrelevant to both parties. By being so deeply in the pockets of Democrats, Black leaders have rendered their demographic irrelevant poltically. (Confederate Yankee @ 9:17 PM)
I never mentioned anything about the 90% myth you DEMS like to fantasize about. (Joe @ 1:30 AM)
The majority of black voters don't fall for it. (Joe @ 2AM)
Joe and Confederate Yankee are on the same team, so they don't even notice when they explicitly disagree with each other. Because, you know, liberals are bad.
Difficult to argue with such a tribalistic mindset that is incapable of perceiving logic independent of partisanship.
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 01:02 PMSo the white murderers in Wilmington were liberals, CY?
No, just the leaders of the Democratic Party.
The liberals of Wilmington (in a classical sense, not today's bastardized Marxist "progressives") were white and black Republicans.
The Confederate Government were "old-school" Democrats, kinda like your good friend Senator Byrd, or FDR before him, or his Klan-loving Supreme Court justice, Hugo Black.
Of course, there is plenty of racism in the "liberal" Democratic party as well. Just ask any black conservative who has had to deal with the slurs and cries of "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" for daring to have a different outlook on the world.
You find over decades of the entertwined history between the Democratic Party and American apartheid "hilarious?"
Very sad, Barbar. Very sad indeed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 01:18 PMMaybe your next post should be called "Confederate Murderers, Black Victims." You could cite the Wilmington riot report again, use the same picture, and then explain to your buddy Joe that not only is it a fact that 90% of blacks vote Republican, but perhaps this is related to the fact that black people might have logical reasons for not allying with someone called "Confederate Yankee."
One final thing. There was a tremendous amount of death during the Civil War. More than 600,000 soldiers died. It is unknown how many civilians died; one estimte I saw put it at 50,000, many historians believe this number is low.
The reason for all this death, of course, was to preserve a way of life that relied heavily on ownership of black slaves.
Just as no one would be fooled by someone expressing admiration of the "pluck and fighting spirit" of insurgent forces, no one is fooled by admiration of the "pluck and fighting spirit and tendency to restrict kills to other men wearing uniforms" of the Confederate Army. What matters is the morality of the cause.
It has been interesting discussing politics with someone who has to go through such complex mental gyrations to avoid acknowledging the reality of racial politics in American history.
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 01:37 PMWhoops, blacks vote Democrat, not Republican, obviously.
Good day.
Posted by: Barbar at December 17, 2005 01:38 PMWhen I spend time with the hard-right wing contingent of my family, I keep my mouth shut. Then I go home and vote for the traitorous Democrats. Why don't the masses of black conservatives do the same?
I'm not interested in discussing the justice of your hallucinations about black society or the mythical extraordinary powers wielded by Al Sharpton. I'm interested in how the missing link in this mythology that explains black voting behavior. Your friend Joe has figured out a way to square the circle, which is to relinquish any sort of connection to the world of facts. It's a pathetic choice, but it allows him some internal consistence.
Posted by: djw at December 17, 2005 02:12 PMconsistency
Posted by: djw at December 17, 2005 02:14 PMYeah; I'm mildly curious about how many of you folks buy Joe's "black people really, really DO vote Republican" argument. Because it really seems that you would have to do so in order to press forward with your argument...
Incidentally, Joe, the 2004 Presidential election polls turned out to be hyper-accurate; almost all of them showed GWB with a 2-3% advantage going into the final days, which is precisely the margin with which he won. Ironically, it was the Democrats in the days leading up to 11/2/2004 who suggested that the polling was mildly innaccurate (and I mean they suggested it was off by 3-4%, based on previous incumbent poll performance, not off by the 40% you're suggesting).
But again, it is easier to live in a world where we can just make things up and then believe them. I imagine that you would do very, very well on a polygraph...
Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2005 04:18 PMBarBar, I'm sorry you can't separate out your "reality-based" beliefs from reality. You can't separate the complex poltical reasoning (or lack thereof) of the poltical leaders in a war, and the reason a foot soldier would join up. I'm sorry you are not mature enough to understand the difference.
The average Confederate soldier fought because his community formed a volunteer regiment to defend their state, community, and homes from invasion. Try reading some biographies of the foot soldiers of that war. There is a slim chance you might actually absorb some knowledge... but I doubt it.
djw, I'm sorry that in your twisted view of the world, people should be obligated to feel ashamed of their politics and hide them from even their families.
Perhaps if you are ashamed of being a liberal and can't defend your beliefs in reasoned discussion, then you should wonder why. It means either you cannot reason effectively, or that your argument is defective. I'll leave you to figure out which.
Therapy might help. Then again, it hasn't helped you much so far.
If I'm such a loser for not engaging in political arguments over Thanksgiving dinner, what does that say about black people? They're not being bullied by their belligerent Uncle, they're being bullied by a bunch of self-aggrandizing political figures they haven't even met! And the bullying is even more effective--not only do they hide their true conservative views and their deep desire to be republicans in public discourse, they go further and do the bidding of Al Sharpton in the privacy of a secret polling booth. Try to stop thinking about all my defective personality characteristics for a minute and try to answer my question:
Why do black people succumb so easily to such outrageous bullying tactics?
To review: we find ourselves(Joe excluded) confronted with a political fact: black people vote for Democrats at about nine times the rate they vote for Republicans. I offer the following explanation:
Black people vote for Democrats because they think Democrats are more likely to represent their interests and/or values than Republicans.
This isn't the most thrilling theory you'll ever see, but it's got the whole Occam's razor thing going for it.
As best as I can understand it the alternative theory goes something like this:
Black people really want to vote Republican, because Democrats are hopelessly racist. However, the extraordinary incluence of an evil cabal of political leaders in the black community exercise a set of extraordinary bullying tactics so powerful they generate near-complete compliance at the ballot. Anyone who speaks out about horrifying state of affairs this will live in constant fear of a savage beating from Kweisi Mfume when they go to take out the trash at night.
Posted by: djw at December 17, 2005 05:20 PMCY,
I concur. The reason I don't talk football with my dad is that I cannot reason effectively and my argument is defective. I cannot, in spite of all effort, convince him that the Chiefs suck. It certainly has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want to turn family gatherings into a football related yelling match... Damn my defective arguments and inability to reason effectively!!!!!!!
More to the point, I'm not certain that Barbar is condemning each and every Confederate soldier. I certainly would only limit my disapproval to the clearly treasonous activities of the Confederate leadership, including Jeff Davis and Bobby Lee. Political considerations aside, US Grant ought to have strung Bobby Lee and his senior officers from the highest tree after Appomattox, but I digress. The point, rather, is that a thoughtful individual, in 2005, must be made to answer for approval of and identification with the Confederacy, an organization which is and was clearly evil and treasonous by just about any existant definition of those terms. Now, as you clearly do honor and approve of the Confederacy (through your handle and the display of the Confederate battle flag on your webpage), I think that Barbar's thoughts on the morality of the Confederate cause are entirely appropriate. That the memory and symbols of the Confederacy are adopted by many who are unashamed of their racism puts their use into even deeper question.
To put it more bluntly, perhaps you could answer this question for me: How is your use of the term "Confederate Yankee" and your display of the Confederate battle flag any different than the display of a swastika by German blogger calling himself "Nazi Kieler", or some such similar affectation? Would you believe said German when he protested that he was simply honoring all of the German foot soldiers who honorably died for the cause of defending Germany from its enemies? Or would you consider, for a moment, that the use of such symbols implied approval of the activities of the Nazi state?
I ask this question in good faith.
Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2005 05:29 PM"Klan-loving Supreme Court justice, Hugo Black."
This is, of course, a remarkably ignorant smear, the kind made by pathetic hacks who have no idea what they're talking about. Yes, Black was briefly a member of the Klan in the 1920s. Much more importantly, he became one of the greatest supporters of civil rights in the history of the Supreme Court. Conservative hero Robert Bork, conversely, thought that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and believes that the state can enforce racist hiusing coveneants (and also believes that the state can censor virtually all non-political speech, while Black was more committed to free speech rights than any justice in histiry), and also believed that Baker v. Carr was wrong until about 3 minutes before his conformation hearings (while Black, of course, wrote the opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act and strongly supported Brown even when other members of the Supreme Court were reluctant.) And Bork didn't have to run for office in Alabama in the 20s, so what's his excuse?
And, of course, Black--unlike you a true supporter of civil rights and a great American as well as a great Southerner--would never have thought that treason in defense of apartheid was something to be proud of, let alone something you would actually use in your handle.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux at December 17, 2005 06:09 PMI have no definitive answers as to why any group of people aligns with a specific political party. Obviously people align with who they perceive represents their values and concerns. If social programs are among a voter's major concerns they probably will vote Democrat. If national security is among a voter's primary concern they will probably vote GOP.
I believe there is a tremendous amount of traditional cohesiveness among black people. More than once I've heard the phrase, "It's a black thing." I certainly cannot relate, because Caucasians don't have "a white thing" that cohesively bonds us. We are much more fragmented and scattered.
Blacks may bond due to as common ancestry, although I doubt there are many former slaves still alive. So today's generations really cannot relate to their ancestors. However they have another common factor in that there are still a lot of folks who experienced segregation. I certainly do not mean this derogatorily, but black people stick together. They certainly form their own communities rather than assimilate into the rest of society and that may be a residual from the segregation days. Most interesting, quite a few of the black people that leave the black communities and do assimilate into an integrated society lose a lot of their black society mannerism, speech and the like. That's an observation by a non-sociologist.
As for the Confederacy; what is it about the confederacy or holding to some of the southern principles, traditions, and values (other than slavery who everyone condemns) that drives you people nuts. I hail from a town in southern New England in which there is a Revolutionary War fort. The school where Nathan Hale taught is a few miles from my old family home. I carry a lot of New England stubborn pride and a penchant for independence. Does either of these backgrounds make CY or me less able to relate to any other American?
The relentless attacks on the Confederate soldiers and CY's logo are entirely petty and non value added to the comment stream. Attempting to correlate the Confederate soldiers and army to radical Islamic terrorists and Nazi Germany is asinine.
As for whether the Democratic Party or the GOP is less bigoted or repressive toward black Americans; I’d have to say the party black Americans support is probably more repressive. The Democrats continue to support social programs that perpetuate that repression rather than support programs that would assist people (black, white and other) to get out from under the repressive social programs. Democrats by and large resist legislature aimed at curing the problems versus handing money out in the form of welfare and other social programs. You cannot argue the fact that GOP administrations appoint more black Americans to cabinet positions than any Democrat ever has.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
In good faith for Rob (and Ziggy) who asked the question earlier.
perhaps you could answer this question for me: How is your use of the term "Confederate Yankee" and your display of the Confederate battle flag any different than the display of a swastika by German blogger calling himself "Nazi Kieler", or some such similar affectation?The phrase Confederate Yankee is two parts. First being the Confederate part, an announcement of his Southern heritage. The second part being the Yankee, which came into play as he was in New York when he started the site and his wife, is a native New Yorker. Thus the name came into play as a display with him being a Southerner proudly living in New York. Of course I realize it's a bit complex to learn this by clicking the About Link at the top of the page.
Would you believe said German when he protested that he was simply honoring all of the German foot soldiers who honorably died for the cause of defending Germany from its enemies?The flag being used isn't the "Confederate battle" flag. It's actually the Third Confederate National Flag, which you can read about here. Now if you want to try to bring in the Nazi reference to anyone who is proud of their Southern heritage I'll wait patiently. As you're trying to figure out a response please keep in mind that the "Stars and Bars" are also displayed in Mississippi’s state flag, and surely you can't think anyone who displays the Mississippi state flag is a racist Nazi sympathizer can you?
Or would you consider, for a moment, that the use of such symbols implied approval of the activities of the Nazi state?Considering the Nazi party doesn't have several hundred years of celebrated history in Germany as the South does in the United States of America I don't really see a relationship, but that's never stopped a good liberal before has it?
I'll of course wait for your replies, in good faith.
I ask this question in good faith.
Rob, stop lying.
Your link over here implies racism right of the bat with your (inaccurate) invocation of the confederate battle flag and what it represents.
I pointedly do not use the battle flag (the Confederate Navy Jack, if you must be accurate) but the third national flag. I've mentioned that before, but apparently you missed it.
And what, praytell, is the name of this site, "Confederate Apologist" No. "Confederate "Sympathizer?" Negative.
It is says Confederate Yankee, and someone intellectually honest (which you are not) would note that the United States Flag is the most prominent flag flying on the page in masthead. It is also flying in the sidebar. My family (Republicans both North and South), like many, served with honor on both sides of that horrible conflict. I will acknowledge that without shame.
Acknowledging that fact does not imply that approve of slavery any more than your involvement in the Democratic Party means you support the Ku Klux Klan or the Jim Crow laws created by them.
And then there is the simple fact that the moniker "Confederate Yankee" came about after New York friends of mine made that quip at a New Year's Eve party after my accent becomes more pronounced after several drinks. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way that that oppresses the black man as well.
The fact of the matter remains that the Democratic Party is the party of racism. While Republicans quickly strike down any intolerance in their ranks (Look how quickly Lott was tossed from his leadership roll), racism runs rampant in the Democratic Party, as it always has, though the racists themselves may have changed.
Bond, Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakan, Mfumi, - all are guilty of racist slurs, and you do not have the courage to address their asinine claims.
White people bombed the levees in New Orleans? Not a word from the Democratic Party. Black people were having to eat other black people to survive in New Orleans? Not a peep for an obviously false change. George Bush hates black people? Bobby Byrd talks about "White niggers," and you don't hear a word.
The amount of free-flowing racist bull running unopposed from the Democratic Party remains, only the speakers have changed.
I'll take that head-on, and you tuck your tail between your legs and mumble apologies if you say anything at all.
Not being racist means taking on bullshit arguments regardless of color. You simply disguise yours, while silently condoning the growing racism of others in your party.
The more things change, the more the Democratic Party remains the same.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 07:16 PMOld Soldier,
That rather misses the point, now doesn't it? I've visited Revolutionary War battlefields before, and I love them, but there is a little bit of a difference between celebrating the US war of independence and celebrating a treasonous war fought on behalf of slavery...
Phin,
Yeah, I read the "About Link" as well. There are plenty of ways to celebrate one's Southern heritage that don't celebrate the Confederacy. I should know; I was born in North Carolina.
And it's rather the same with the Confederate flag (and description of this flag seems to vary; you may be right, but many sources identify it as the Battle Flag). It is a curious thing to identify one's Southern heritage with the most dishonourable act in the history of the South. You are quite right that the South has been a critical part of the US for over 200 years; it engaged in regional treason for five. Yet CY (among others), seems to want to identify with the five years of treason rather than the 224 years of loyalty. Apparently, there is nothing else to be proud of in the history of the South. This should also serve to answer your question about Germany; one can be a German nationalist, proud of Germany's accomplishments, without being a Nazi. Displaying a swastika has rather different meaning than celebrating German pride. The same should go for the South and the Confederate flag.
As for your last question, I very much believe that the state flags that contain Confederate symbols should be changed.
Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2005 07:23 PMCY,
You know, that's not really an answer...
I suppose that the most surprising thing about all this, to me, is that you don't even have good answers to the questions that you evoke. You can't really explain why black people vote Democrat. You can't really engage with the Southern Strategy. You're answers to the Confederate flag questions are weak at best, and don't deal with the substance of the issue, which is one of slavery and treason. The "I was drinking" response is absurd; I've been called lots of things while drunk, but I only repeat them if I think there's something particularly funny or accurate about them. You apparently feel this way about identification with the Confederacy...
I had hoped that you would at least have better talking points.
Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2005 07:29 PMRob,
State's rights was the main reason South Carolina and other state began to secede. Had slavery been the only basis behind the civil war you may have a decent point.
Want to argue with timelines: The first shots of the civil war were fired April 12, 1861; While the Emancipation Proclamation was issued Sept 22, 1862.
As far as not accepting his moniker; it's his to choose, whatever the reason. Not accepting, or placing your finders in your ears and screaming LA, LA, LA so you don't hear the reason doesn’t make it any less valid.
Here's a hint. There isn't always a racist Nazi conspiracy behind everything.
I'd wish you a merry Christmas except that may offend you as well. So have a chillin' festivus.
Heh. I really should let this go...
If you really believe that state's rights was the cause of the Civil War, I have several bridges to sell you. Do they even teach that in junior high, anymore? When the sixth graders can see through it, you know it's just not very plausible...
CY has every right to pick whatever name he chooses. He should feel absolutely free to offend me in any way that pleases him; as should be obvious, I have no compunctions about offending CY. I think it's fair, though, for adults to be held accountable for their choices. This was an ideal that conservatives once held dear...
Thank you for you Merry Christmas/chillin' fest wishes. I wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and chillin' fest as well.
Posted by: Rob at December 17, 2005 08:09 PMRob I was going to respond to quite a few of your comments, but after rereading your comments I find a common thread... it's Rob's way or the highway. After receiving no less than three explanations as to why the site is named Confederate Yankee, you still don't like it, insinuate it insults you, and try to assimilate it to a nuanced racist statement. As Phin said, sometimes things really are just what they seem; with no underling conspiracy.
Taken out of context, I believe your own yours truly are your underlying ability, ”>>>I cannot reason effectively and my argument is defective…” You will accept no evidence, no fact, no argument that does not fit your preconceived position. There really is no end to a discussion with you; you just go on endlessly restating the same lame taking points and what you espouse as facts. You may believe you’ve “scored some hits”, but what you’ve actually accomplished is making everyone aware of your one-sidedness.
Regardless of what you “know”, the Civil War was fought for many more reasons than just slavery. To define it as such is to display your narrow mindedness and lack of understanding US history. Slavery has been around a lot longer than the US and it still exists in the world today. If it repulses you so much that you would badger a person about a blog moniker being connected to slavery, why aren’t you out campaigning actively to end world slavery? As long as you have the freed slaves’ vote in the Democratic Party, your revulsion is satisfied, is that it? Like Erik before you, you have only succeeded is establishing yourself as a pathetic person.
Frankly, anyone asserting states rights was the basis of the Civil War hasn't a basic grasp of history.
Suggest you read the Articles of Secession for the various Confederate states; they are crystal clear as to why they felt compelled to secede: slavery. Read the accounts of the Confederate Congress as they deliberated about secession--there's no doubt the overriding issue was slavery.
Read the words of the CSA's VP, Alexander Stephens who stated slavery was the "cornerstone" on which the Confederacy was built. Read the words of a Confederate state senator who acknowledged slavery was the only reason the war was fought.
Posted by: Jadegold at December 18, 2005 12:21 AMSlavery has been around a lot longer than the US and it still exists in the world today.
I can't begin to imagine what your point is here. Yes, the American Civil War failed to eliminate slavery in faraway places 150 years later. That means it wasn't about slavery?
Posted by: djw at December 18, 2005 02:27 AMFolks, Rob, BarBar, and frineds have it in their heads that I must be a racist intent on bring back slavery tomorrow if I could, and nothing is going to change their opinions. Like most prejudiced people, logical explanations cannot sway their ideology.
The fact remains that the Democratic Party in the past and present, is the party of racism. Whether the hatred is directed from white to black, black to white, or black to black it is tolerated, and in some cases encouraged. While Republicans quickly denounce any shred of racism found in the Party of Lincoln, Democrats show that while the players have changed, the tolerance of race-based hate remains the same.
Do I have answer as to why blacks are the only minority group that vote in such a supermajority for one party?
I think that the fact black leaders in the Democratic Party are quick to question the very "blackness" of anyone who announces anything other than strict allegience to the DNC has much to do with it. Ostracism, being cast out of your community for your beliefs, is a horrible, but effective tool.
Sadly, this same deep unbalance marginalizes the black community. Democrats feel no pressure to improve things for constituents that will always vote for them no matter how horribly they are treated, and Republicans have learned that attempted to reach out to the black community, while sincere, are a wasted effort because they are quickly thrown back in their faces.
Among all the minorites in America, only blacks have allowed their leaders to so marginalize them as to strip them of all political power and relevance. This on-going marginalization of blacks is the great crime of the Democratic Party. Once this great secret comes out and black voters start questioning why their leaders and their party to which they've been so loyal, have never improved their lives, the defections away from identity politics will destroy the party of Jim Crow once, and for all.
Dissertation over. Thread locked.
