|
20 Dec 02 - 10:14 AM (#851136) Subject: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST I'm not looking to start a flame war here, but to discuss the current events regarding Lott & the Republican Party's quandry over "the race issue". I paraphrased the title of an article at Time.com which is "Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism". The article is now being widely distributed on the internet, but this is the link I'm using: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html This is how the article opens: "Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies. The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out." While the Democrats certainly have plenty of blood on their hands in our nation's racist history, there are some historic facts that, at this point, can't be overlooked. The first is to look at the history of desegregation of the South, and the civil rights movement. Which party spearheaded the movement for social change in this regard? Not the Republicans. The Republican party took in the disenchanted and dispossessed segregationist Dixiecrats, and made ove the party of Linconln, into a party for white Americans. While Democrats are still not above using race baiting to win elections, it is becoming an increasingly rare tactic, as it is considered too taboo, and for good reason of course. But the reason why I'm posting this, is because there really is so little Democratic Party "official" criticism of Lott, despite what the whiny wing of the conservative Republican Party claims. The attacks being leveled at Lott and the Republican Party are coming from within--from conservatives fearing that they have lost what they believed was a moral high ground for their conservative, war on everybody agenda, and from Republicans under the age of 40, who appear to be fucking clueless as to the realities of segregated Southern life today, and who have been so brainwashed by their Northern and Southern Republican elders on issues like affirmative action, the Confederate flag, and voting rights, that they don't even believe that racial discrimination continues to be a problem. Despite all the high falutin' talk about "race healing" going round in Republican circles this week, I remain very skeptical about the Republican Party's ability to redeem itself in this regard. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 11:33 AM (#851165) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly Which is more racist: Assuming that a major goal of government is to ensure that all have equal access to the opportunities of a society... ...or assuming that one group is unable to make their own way without a governmental helping hand? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 11:38 AM (#851170) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: JedMarum obviously some groups of people can't compete in a free enterprise so we must treat some of us as 'more equal then others' ... and if you don;t agree, you are racist. Lott just stepped down as Senate majority leader. Another good man assassinated by the press. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:00 PM (#851182) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: CarolC Both of you fine gentlemen would have a very valid point, in my opinion, if the concepts you so rightly point to, "free enterprise" and "equal access" had ever been tried. Unfortunately, like so many other great concepts, they remain untried and untested. Perhaps some day they will have their chance. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:07 PM (#851187) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: katlaughing Assassinated, my arse.*bg* He shot himself in the foot, stuck his foot in his mouth, etc. I am delighted to hear he stepped down. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:10 PM (#851189) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST John Hardly, I would argue that neither of your two assertions, as regards the Lott situation and segregation, is racist in the least. Both assertions recognize the harm done to this nation by slavery and it's continuing legacy in our society, and the need to atone for the racially motivated social problems which continue to plague our society. But Lott & the Republican Party's current untenable positions on racially charged issues isn't just about African Americans. The sweep by immigration authorities in California this week was also done by the Republican administration, claiming on one hand to be tolerant of Arabs and Muslims, and on the other engaging in the most reprehensible, racially motivated internment campaign since the Japanese internment campaign of WWII. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:12 PM (#851191) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST Right katlaughing. Lott was driven out of the promised land by his own party. I have maintained all along that this was a no brainer. Anyone political leader speaking publicly as Lott did, praising the Dixiecrat segregationist agenda, gets what they deserve. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:19 PM (#851195) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Big Mick Jed, this is one we must disagree on. Republicans continually maintain that "words have meaning" (a favorite Limbaugh line), and that folks must be held accountable for their deeds and words. We don't have to go back very far to hear Lott spewing this. For a man as politically astute as he should be, his actions and words have finally come home to roost. Remember when you were all castigating Gore for the Buddhist temple stuff? How about Lott attending a segregationist gathering recently? His excuse? The same as Gore's; "I didn't realize....blah blah blah". I would suggest that he has surely shown remorse, but only political remorse. If this weren't the case, why would the President even rebuke him publicly. I would say he is not a good man, but a man caught. That is what you laid on us, During the Clinton years, as well as during the Gore campaign. Racism is an inherent evil, that continues to affect us at every level of society today. To suggest that we would have been better off had a segregationist been elected President, is unforgiveable and damning. Mick |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:32 PM (#851203) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly ok mick. But even if your point was granted, at what point does the cycle end? Gore's Buddist temple shennanigans DIDN'T matter, as it turns out, BUT LOTT'S GAFF DID as it turns out (nothin' happened to Gore -- he paid no price for his illegal activity, but Lott paid the price -- and his "activity" wasn't even illegal, even if you do interpret it as distasteful) You can't claim moral equivalency as you do without accepting that your side of the point paid no price whereas the other side DID. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:05 PM (#851217) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST "at what point does the cycle end?" When we get finally beyond the race problems which continue to plague us as a nation. Neither Democrats or Republicans have come to grips with the racial issues our nation's political leadership continues to prolong, for expediency and convenience sake. The problems in our society stemming from our racial ideological past, North and South, Democrat and Republican, will never be solved as long as so many in the media and political establishment remain hell bent on maintaining their own status quo. The media is every bit as culpable as the politicians when it comes to these issues. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:12 PM (#851220) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Ebbie What price did Lott pay for attending and speaking at the meeting? None. He kept on his merry way, speaking his mind in 'safe' places as though he had no worries about keeping his public stance separate from the private. He has done that for years. The difference this time is that C-Span was there. (Ha! I just realized that soon there will be a ban on allowing reporters into 'private' birthday parties. As though a 100th birthday party for a senator were private.) |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:31 PM (#851226) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Jack the Sailor Lott was condemned by his own party, for nothing more than political expediency. The democrats did not have to attack him. It was not his racist stance that condemned him, but his political stupidity. As for anyone who stoops so low as to try to make this a Republican vs Democrat issue rather than a racist vs non-racist issue. Shame on you. Shame. Shame! |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:43 PM (#851232) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly what? and C-span didn't cover Gore at the buddist temple? Jack, how could the Republicans cross the line to satisfy you that when they condemn Lott they are condemning the racism inferred from his remarks? Haven't you more or less made the judgement that they must be doing otherwise? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:46 PM (#851238) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Kim C Racism might go away if people couldn't profit from it. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 01:49 PM (#851240) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Tinker Jed. I'm a bit disappointed. This is one I live with, and Lott's standard would hang my husband and maybe I'd get out alive. Maybe. That was the southern standard at the time in question. Take another listen to Strange Fruit. Yes, some folks make it with seeming ease. My husband went through Harvard and is working on Wall Street. Few folks who have met or worked with him question how he made it. Not all of the family did. There are still serious barriers. WE are still raising kids who will write emails telling others they can't be part of "The Club" cause they are N****R lovers. Yes two girls were suspended from my daughters school this week. I'm not so sure the timing is accidental. Like it or not statements like Lott's give people permission to hate. Politically he was stupid. I'm not sorry. Kathy |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:09 PM (#851266) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: TIA John Hardly - Price paid by Lott: didn't get to lead the senate. Price paid by Gore: didn't get to lead the executive branch. Big Mick's analogy is a very good one. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:17 PM (#851275) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bill D Lott is still a senator, and will wield a lot of influence. At least even the Republicans realized they had to do 'something' to recapture some moral ground. A point was made, and I suppose others who think like Lott will be a bit more careful in how they say it...but votes will still happen and the struggle for fairness will continue. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:23 PM (#851283) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Ebbie Besides, there is no valid equation between Gore's attending an fundraiser at the Buddhist temple, and Lott's racist remarks. I fail to see the connection. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:26 PM (#851285) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Jack the Sailor Hardly, I wasn't objecting to the republican party I was objecting to statements like this. "ok mick. But even if your point was granted, at what point does the cycle end? Gore's Buddist temple shennanigans DIDN'T matter, as it turns out, BUT LOTT'S GAFF DID as it turns out (nothin' happened to Gore -- he paid no price for his illegal activity, but Lott paid the price -- and his "activity" wasn't even illegal, even if you do interpret it as distasteful)" Lott's activities were much worse than distasteful. Perhaps Gore did something wrong perhaps not. But that has NOTHING to do with Lott supporting segregation. He made a grave error. One which cannot be supported. He can be forgiven but he has shown that he is unfit to lead the Republican Senate both for his support of racism and his lack of political skill. The cycle ends with Lott. Trying to cloud the issue by attacking others is giving him tacit support. Supporting him in this is supporting racism. No party can survive which openly supports racism. The leaders of the Republican party, including GW Bush, apparantly realized this. That is why Lott has been forced to step down. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:35 PM (#851293) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly hey Jack, I don't disagree with you there....well, other than it was not I who drew a parallel to the Gore situation -- I was merely responding to the parallel drawn. Of course, as you know I have a sizable hole in my head where the wind blows free :^). ...and TIA, you'd have a long way to go to associate Gore's presidential haps or mishaps to the Buddist Temple debacle. After all, did he not WIN the popular vote? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:40 PM (#851296) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: TIA Obviously not *just* the Buddhist temple incident, but that and others that were endlessly rehashed by various commentators. And your sarcasm is misplaced, I have not mentioned the popular vote. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:49 PM (#851300) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly TIA, there was no sarcasm in my post. a little self-depricating humor (about the space between my ears) but no sarcasm. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:50 PM (#851301) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly deprEcating |
|
20 Dec 02 - 03:15 PM (#851311) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST Jed Marum calls Lott a "good man assassinated by the press." Gimme a break, Jed. Lott brought himself down with racist comments that are completely consistent with his public stances going back to his student days when he stopped his stopped his fraternity from being integrated. "A holiday for Martin Luther King? Not in my beloved Mississippi," said Senator Lott. The fact is, Lott's views have been well known for many years. That he rose to such heights of power means too many of us in America, especially those of us in positions of power, are still living in the too recent past of legal segregation in much of America. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 03:33 PM (#851319) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert Enjoying this little shoot out, GUEST? I sure am... Dems and Repubs got this line drawn in the sand and throwing stuff at each other over stuff that you weren't even talking about. Well, the Repubs do have a point. It isn't fair to say they have the market captured on racism because you don't have to look to far to see that racism is so part of the American cultur and society that the only issue should be, like... ahhh, what can we do to deal with it? Well, I think a good start would be for America's primarilly white government to apologize for slavery. That would be a good start. It was wrong. While there is Lincoln's "Emancipation Declaration" (irregardless of his motives), there's the 16th Amendment, There is the Civil Rights Act, but NO APOLOGY. Hmmmmmmm? Like what's so difficult for America to say "We're sorry, we screwed up?" Okay, once over that hump, there is this issue of "reparations". Now, lots of folks say, "Hey, why should I pay fir saomething that my great, great granddaddy did. I didn't do it!" Why? Because every American citizen is now benefiting from the bounty of a country build on the backs of slave laborers and black people who after their *so called* emancipation continued to build the infastructure of the country while being paid wages that insured only that they would die young and never *enjoy* the fruits of the labor. Let's face it, black folks have gotten the short end of the stick since 1619 and they are still getting the short end of the stick. The few crumbs that are thrown out thru the poorly funded social programs have only perpetuated the cycle, insuring *survival* but not real *opportunity*. "Affirmative Action" is just the tip of the iceburg of what really needs to be done to fix 383 years of oppression, discrimination and degradation. The PR sacrificing of Trent Lott does not alter the racist character of Congress or the White House in the slightest. I does absolutely nothing except remind the other racist folks in our governemnt to be more careful not to *get caught*. Problem is, that a lot of these folks will think, "Hey, I'm no racist. I don't say things like Trent Lott said" and feel purdy darned smug about it. Well, there are so many folks who don't evn begin to understand the racism they carry within themselves. Yeah, it's real easy to say, "Pull, yourselves up by your bootstaps, just like my daddy did." not fully realizing that the system was set up to provide the bootstraps for some daddys but not others. Then there are those who will point out black folks who have been successful and say, "Well, if Condi Rice can do it, then all black folk can do it." To those folk I'd just suggest they ride thru just about any inner city, thru the projects, visit the schools and then come back and tell ol' Bobert what you think. This is a good thread, GUEST, and probably will do some wandering but it is a subject that there are some folks around this joint have really not considered other than from the perspective of *self*. Bobert |
|
20 Dec 02 - 04:08 PM (#851334) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted You would be hardpressed to find a Senator who has done more to advance Bush's agenda than Trent Lott--and a few words from the President would have saved him--if there were any doubts about the character of this President, this should settle them-- |
|
20 Dec 02 - 04:33 PM (#851352) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly just a question for some good honest speculation M.Ted, If Bush had stood behind Lott would you then be posting to point out Bush's racism by proxy? Isn't it a probability that Bush could appreciate what Lott did for his agenda (your assertion) and still say nevertheless that racism is intolerable -- and wouldn't that show good character on Bush's part? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 04:48 PM (#851362) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: DougR GUEST: You did not post this to flame. Yeah, sure. And I don't want to win the 215 million dollar lottery this weekend either. DougR |
|
20 Dec 02 - 04:49 PM (#851363) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: katlaughing IMO, Bush has no character, esp. good character, so the speculation is moot. One of the scary things about this is that all of the other racist politicians will be more circumspect about letting it show. There is no mistaking that there are racist members of Congress. Fercrissakes I know someone who grew up in Nebraska in a town which had a sign saying "N***er don't let the sun shine on your ass in this town." You don't want to know what happened to an American of African descent when he was delayed leaving that town. Native Americans are frequently beat up and/or murdered in various states; Muslims are rounded up and placed in custody with officials refusing to give out info on numbers, etc.; Bush Sr. called his grandkids, his little "brown babies." Anyone who wants to stamp out racism must speak up when they hear racist talk or witness prejudice and a sign in a car window with the word racism crossed out in a red circle could help to make people aware, too. www.tolerance.org works through schools etc. to educate young people about racism, the Southern Poverty Law Center and many other orgs. can use support anytime. Get involved, please. We do not have to accept this crap as the norm for our country and her citizens! |
|
20 Dec 02 - 05:21 PM (#851383) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted Purely as a speculative excercise, John Hardly, consider the following-- Nothing about Trent Lott was a secret, including his now infamous comment, which he has been repeating for more than twenty years--In that sense, he has neither done nor said anything new--so what is "intolerable"? The more cynically inclined tend to think that his "crime" was to draw attention to the fact that the Bush administration, and the Republican party, court the extreme racist right, even while they make every effort to appear racially inclusive-- Of course, the even more cynically inclined believe that his real crime was to hold a position that the Bush people wanted to give to Bill Frist, and that they started the media frenzy to bring Lott down-- In considering this, remember that, whatever other failings they may have, the Bush team are unsurpassed masters at handling the media-- |
|
20 Dec 02 - 05:31 PM (#851393) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Tinker Doug, I think 'catters have handled a tough topic with thoughtful care. This is not a Southern Republican problem. Anyone who has every spent time with census tracts knows that segregation ( racial and economic ) is a national issue. I know of black economic leaders who have cheerfully fed Lott's coffers in exchange for his leadership power. They aren't surprised and they aren't all appalled. As long as he's in the Senate the issue stays alive and politically they are in a reasonable (if not always defensable) position. Bobert, take a look at this www.sbp.org ( blickifier isn't working) A school that turns inner city boys into water polo captains. If you can find a local program that works, find out how you can support it. My kid is hopefully going out of the suburbs and into Newark next year. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 05:31 PM (#851395) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. Kat, you've put yout finger right on it. There are a host of others waiting (salivating?) to take Lott's position whose lifetime record is just as insulting to civil rights and human rights as his was. Its just that the replacements, and their records, are not as well known. This is just a case of re-arranging the Republican deck chairs on the Titanic- blame the whole thing on Lott and trust the voters are too stupid to realize the problem is with the party, its agenda and its programs- not with a single individual. Problem is they've got the intelligence of the average American voter sized up just about right, as H. L. Mencken advised. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 05:36 PM (#851397) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted Oh, John, I nearly forgot--as per Bush and racism, I don't believe that the Bush family are racists, and once had great admiration for Senior Bush because he combined a healthy, conservative view of government and the economy with a progressive view of society--my admiration changed when he compromised all of those things in pursuit of the Presidency-- |
|
20 Dec 02 - 06:12 PM (#851414) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC Suggestion for a Mudcat New Year's Resolution, folks: don't post to political threads started by an unnamed guest. Said threads exist for the sole purpose of inflaming the community and not for rational discussion. (Although 'Catters tend to keep it pretty rational.) If you don't have the courage to put a name to it, it's not an opinion. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 06:49 PM (#851435) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted NicoleC--Do you think that it is inflammatory to discuss a rather a rather remarkable event within the workings of our government? Also, how can the sole purpose of the post be to be inflammatory when there is nothing inflammatory in the post? Also curious to know why you thought it important to make this admonition in a thread that shows no signs of reeling out of control? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 06:51 PM (#851437) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST I think GregF has nailed it with this: "This is just a case of re-arranging the Republican deck chairs on the Titanic..." Until the Republicans actually demonstrate that they are done using race baiting as their favored campaign tactic, attacking affirmative action, and promoting the symbols of our racist history like the Confederate flag and cross burnings, and the media continues to refuse to challenge them on it, the Republicans will continue to be given free mainstream media coverage while espousing their hate agenda. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:23 PM (#851448) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: The Pooka Bobert, sadly, you're right: "...you don't have to look to far to see that racism is so part of the American culture and society that the only issue should be, like... ahhh, what can we do to deal with it?" *More* sadly, if "deal with it" means Make It Go Away: we can't. Look at the REST of the word. Tribes R Us. Tinker: "This is not a Southern Republican problem. Anyone who has ever spent time with census tracts knows that segregation ( racial and economic ) is a national issue." Having spent *some* time with the darling little census tracts -- and voting precincts -- (OKOK, so I don't get out much): Yes. But still, it IS *especially* -- most intensively -- a Southern Republican problem. The legacy of the D-to-R white-Southern transposition of 1964 et seq. is: scratch the public veneer off of most elected Southern R officials today, and you find: Trent Lott. Or, worse. Watch what's already starting to happen re his Shrub-anointed successor, Dr. Frist of Tennessee. / Now a NC R US Rep has said --- and then apologized for his 'stupidity' in saying (!) -- that (recently-defeated) US Rep Cynthia Jackson, D-GA, made him feel a little bit "segregationist", because "she was such a bitch". (He also said, "I talk too much." No shit, Sherlock.) This is a Problem of Democracy, folks. People VOTE FOR these guys. So, what are ya gonna do? Shoot the voters? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:31 PM (#851450) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert No, vote for third parties until the Repubocrats figure out that "democracy" is sneaking up from behind.... BTW, as an person who looks at possibilitiy over improbability, I think that the US can get beyond racism as an American institution, but not if it won't take the steps. Bobert |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:34 PM (#851453) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: John Hardly thanks for the thoughtful answers M. Ted (as is your usual manner). I may not agree with you but I like the way you comport yerself! |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:36 PM (#851455) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST My brother, long a racist Northerner, moved to Atlanta 8 years ago and became even more racist after moving there. He regularly refers to Cynthia McKinney as "that crazy nigger bitch". While visiting last summer, I found his language tame compared to some of his well-heeled, wealthy & well educated local friends I've met. Their language, as Rick Fielding has pointed out, is not at all unusual, depending on who is within earshot, what the social setting is, etc. This is the language I heard repeatedly as a Northern guest at a backyard suburban Atlanta barbeque. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:55 PM (#851465) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: kendall I recently heard a native American say "He was shaking like a nigger writing a check." How can a man who belongs to an Indian tribe say such a thing? It's bad enough to hear a white person say it, but, an Indian? You can hammer on southern people for racist views all you want, but, it's been my experience that racism is just as rampant in the north, and always has been. Personally, I wish they had kept Lott there; we democrats need a lightening rod for 2004, and he would have been a good one. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:58 PM (#851468) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC NicoleC--Do you think that it is inflammatory to discuss a rather a rather remarkable event within the workings of our government? Also, how can the sole purpose of the post be to be inflammatory when there is nothing inflammatory in the post? Also curious to know why you thought it important to make this admonition in a thread that shows no signs of reeling out of control? Just showing my general annoyance, M.Ted, of this same troll who gets his jollies baiting the 'Cat. It's not the subject that's inflammatory, it's the intent. Of course, there were several other political BS threads started by said unnamed guest to choose from today. (And no doubt that statement will start a round posts of how "you can't tell it's the same guest" from guest). I suppose I could have posted to one of the other ones. As it is, I plan to follow my own advice. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:06 PM (#851472) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted The problem that the Republicans have is very simple--only about 37% of registered voters can be counted on to vote Republican--If the Republicans want to win, they have to do some combination of the following: A)Find a hot issue B)Run a celebrity candidate C)Promise a big tax cut D)Get out the relatively small percentage of the population that still identifies with the "Stars and Bars" and all that it represents-- Many Republicans are strongly in favor of progressive social legislation, value a balanced budget, and value substance over style in their representatives,but the bottom line is that they want to win, so they do what it takes to win--Many Democrats(including some who run for office) have not caught onto this tactic yet, which is why we are in the situation we are in-- |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:13 PM (#851478) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST Kendall, racism isn't something that is exclusively a white phenomenon. All "race" groups have their racial epithets for other groups, including Native Americans. I agree about racism being prevalent in the North absolutely. I live in an area where, until very recently, Native Americans were more often the victims of racism just because of their numbers, and their isolation in rural areas surrounded by whites--not unlike the segregated black and white communities in the South. It was about ten years ago that we had what was the ugliest racial confrontations I can remember in my life in this region--northern Wisconsin--over Native Americans exercising their treaty rights to spear fish in the spring (something white game fisher folk aren't allowed to do). There were regular protests by the whites at the boat landings when the Native Americans would go out around 4 a.m. each morning, with signs reading charming things like "Save a walleye, spear a pregnant squaw". But I still maintain the legacy of slavery and segregation in the South is different, and often the racism there is of a much more pervasive and virulent strain than in many parts of the North. Don't get me wrong, blacks have been lynched in Minnesota too. Just not near as many blacks as Native Americans though. The United States' racial history is extremely complex. But the race baiting by Republicans in elections, for instance, seems to know no boundaries. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:14 PM (#851479) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: M.Ted I see your point, NicoleC, and after fuming, fussing, and complaining about just this sort of thing for a few years, I guess I have slowly started to think of it as part of the scenery--sort of like McDonald's and Holiday Inn-- |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:33 PM (#851485) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: The Pooka Bobe - *what* "steps"? / You say, "democracy is sneaking up from behind." Git out thet oul' Wes Ginny Sliderule & calc'late THIS (you want the TRUTH? You can't HANNNdle...ahhh nevermind:) - The TRUTH is: yer upsneakin' *Democracy* is the PROBLEM here, bro'. -- Always assuming that by Democracy, you mean a political system wherein the numerical majority rules -- both when you like their policies, and also when you don't. [I.e., an electoral outcome from which I dissent is not necessarily thereby, definitionally, Undemocratic owing to various & sundry & RevBillySunday assorted & sordid conspiracies instigated by Boss Hawg. / Or by Ellie Mae, fer that matter :) To Wit: Trent Lott, as a US Senator, is a valid representative of his constituency. Bobe, I'm sorry but: even if every single US citizen age 18 & over in Mississippi --- black & white --- had freely voted, Lott would still have been elected overwhelmingly & Dat's a Fack. Likewise most other racist representatives -- most of them white; a few (like Cynthia Jackson in her previous District) black. // Look at the precinct returns from the Mississippi State Flag Referendum a few years back. White vote, 99% for the old one with the Stars & Bars; Blacks, 99% for the new one, without it. Result: Stars & Bars. More W's than B's. // Boss Hawg?? I might as well say, th' Divil made them do it. So -- at the risk of repetitive & rudundant reiteration -- what steps?? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:45 PM (#851493) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Tinker Southern racism is rude, prevelent and hard to ignore. Even amongst friends it maybe hard to let down your guard. Took the kids to visit Dad's hometown in South Carolina. I too could tell tales. And no, I wouldn't raise my kids there. Northern racism is also strong. It comes from friends who find they are not quite as liberal as they thought. From the best friend since kindergarden whose parents now don't want you to visit because dating wouldn't be okay. From being in a group of friends and seeing your white friend pocket a small item but having the shop keeper search only you because he knows it's gone,but the other kid just walks away. Unexpected intermittent reinforcement by the well intentioned is very powerful. Folks you love hurt much more than those who refuse to know you. And it comes in all colors. For me this is not an issue solved in the national arena, that is only rhetoric. It's one best addressed by each of us day to day. We are all responsible. It would be nice if instead of one upmanship we could simply each find a cornor to help clean up. It's a murky moral high ground at best. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:48 PM (#851496) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Mary in Kentucky Classic trolling. Start with a statement or link about a controversial topic in the news. Then enter the discussion periodically to rachet up the namecalling. Try to stear the thread drift toward topics which will enable more namecalling and venom. Watch the timing and words of the troll. Only Mudcatters with names matter in this type of discussion, and so far they've comported (is that a word? ;-)) themselves well. Watch the timing... |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:52 PM (#851500) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST,different faceless nameless guest GUEST: you guys really been lynching a lot of Native Americans in Minnesota in the last century or so? You're bumming me out. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 09:09 PM (#851507) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert Pooka: I've outlined the initial steps that need to be taken inregards to dealing with the *institutional" racism that has exhisited in the US since 1619. The main two components: Apology and Reparations. Now, as to how to get there. This is where "democracy sneaks up on the repubocrats". A good first step is happening now with a dialogue on racial issues beginning to take place. Bill Clinton tried to get such a dialogue going but didn't have a Trent Lott incident to assit. Hey, whatver folks can do NOW to keep the issue alive before Boss Hog figgures out a way to trump it is VERY GOOD! This is democracy sneaking up on those who thought they wouldn't be heald accountable. NEXT STEP: In '04, I think that Bush will have the US in more wars than "Carter has liver pills" and thus, will win re-selection. GREAT!!! No, make that SUPER GREAT!!! Not really, because it's a stupid, anti-humna foriegen policy so don't misquote me on the "GREAT". But this does allow the Green Party an opportunity to break into the game. We need to get into the Presidential debates in '08. This will give legitamacy to our party and, more importantly, credibility to the alternatives to the same old Repubocratic policies that are reactive rather than proactive, anti-human as oppopsed to pro-human and problem solving rather than problem creating. So, yeah, there are some opportunities NOW and there will be more in '04. Bobert |
|
20 Dec 02 - 10:28 PM (#851539) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST December 26, 1862 38 Dakota men hung in Mankato as the "final reckoning" of the Dakota Conflict Trials, many of them for merely participating in the battles in which whites were killed, with no evidence presented against them. The Dakota defendants were not allowed any legal representation. Few of the defendants spoke English, and so could not have understood the crimes with which they were charged. The defendants, most of whom "confessed" are largely believed to have admitted firing weapons during battle. The executions of the Dakota men remains the largest mass execution in US history. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 10:54 PM (#851546) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert Sounds like George Bush's Texas to me. We all know, or should know that with their medieval justice system, than innocent black people have all ready been executed. Hey, folks, that is government executions of *innocent people*... Hmmmmm? And we wonder what kind of mind is getting ready to send thousands of folks, who just don't happen to look like Bush, to their graves in the name of, ahhhhh....? What is Junior's *excuse de' jur*?....... Bobert |
|
20 Dec 02 - 10:55 PM (#851548) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST BTW, one of the leaders of the white anti-treaty protest was none other than Dubya's current Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, who during his 1986 gubenatorial campaign, promised to abrogate the Ojibwe's treaty rights, referring to them as unfair "special privleges" which whites didn't have. It was increasingly racist rhetoric from people like him, and former Minnesota Vikings coach Bud Grant, that lead to violent, racist confrontations of Native American spearfishers by angry white mobs numbering in the thousands, at rural, isolated boat landings in Wisconsin in the early 90s. In Minnesota, three innocent black men were dragged out of the jail by a mob and lynched in Duluth in June 1920. They had been accused of raping a white woman who later recanted. |
|
21 Dec 02 - 12:49 AM (#851571) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: DougR Nicole: I have been urging Catters not to respond to GUEST threads that are obviously intended to inflame for years. No one pays any attention though. One reason may be, and MTed comes to mind, the gist of what GUEST posts with their POV. Were I amind to, and I'm not, I could point out several outrageous statements made by posters in this thread (from my POV) but it is the Christmas season. I'm not amind to argue during such a happy season. DougR |
|
21 Dec 02 - 09:37 AM (#851645) Subject: Attention: KENDALL From: GUEST,Stan in Toronto Kendall, you said: I recently heard a native American say "He was shaking like a nigger writing a check." How can a man who belongs to an Indian tribe say such a thing? It's bad enough to hear a white person say it, but, an Indian? Please check out this this thread about David Ahenakew, the former Grand Chief of Canada's Assembly of First Nations. What you heard pales in comparison. link repaired and subsequent post deleted by Mudelf |
|
21 Dec 02 - 10:21 AM (#851659) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST Nicole, Doug & Mary, there is in fact no reason why people can't just converse, regardless of the way they log in. No one is flaming here, nor have I seen any flaming in other threads with guests, despite at least one guest posting extremely inflammatory remarks this week related to guns and extreme paranoia of the government. So my question to the three of you is, why are YOU trying to start something? My guess is, as Doug has alluded to, that you disagree with certain guest opinions, yet because some members agree with that opinion, you attack the person rather than address the issue. Remember, you do have the option to not read what bothers you, rather than trying to derail the conversation. Happy holidays. |
|
21 Dec 02 - 10:27 AM (#851661) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST Stan in Toronto, thanks for bringing that thread and the information to our attention. I often read Canadian papers, but haven't this week. As I said, racism and bigotry exists in all communities, among all races. However, the dynamics of racism, sexism, and bigotry isn't the same. It is hurtful everywhere it manifests and gets expressed, but it is only when it is institutionalized by the ruling class that it becomes segregation and apartheid. |
|
21 Dec 02 - 05:40 PM (#851880) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: DougR True, GUEST, we do not have to read threads posted by GUESTS, and I usually don't. I may scan them but rarely read them and if, in my opinion, they are posted only to inflame, I sorely try not to reply to them. DougR |
|
21 Dec 02 - 06:07 PM (#851885) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST What a surprise; we're all seeing what we want to see! The Republicans found it easy to move Lott aside for being so foolish with his remarks - and they were probably grateful for the furor created in the press. Lott should have known better. I am glad he stepped down a leader, and would like to have seen him replaced under other circumstances. But the assumption that the GOP is racist is outrageous and simply caused by political bigotry. The assumption that only Democratic intiatives and solutions to the race issues in this country is wrong, closed minded and bigoted. |
|
21 Dec 02 - 06:45 PM (#851898) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert Both parties, GUEST, are steeped in racism. No, not the KKK variety, but racism none the less. If it were the truth then the government, which is made up primarilly of DEMs and Repubs would have taken the steps a long time ago toward remedies that the US will one day have to undertake. I have pointed those steps out above. Bobert |
|
21 Dec 02 - 07:38 PM (#851928) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST,diggy f I don't know a great deal about Trent Lott, but the fact that he spoke to this Conservative Citizens Council group speaks volumes. Has anyone actually looked at their website? One Mudcatter says that 'another good man has been assasinated by the press'. It makes me wonder who the other 'good men' are and what defines a 'bad man'. diggy |
|
21 Dec 02 - 11:52 PM (#852022) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: DougR "Tis the season to be jolly...fa la la la la la la la la!" DougR |
|
22 Dec 02 - 01:40 AM (#852056) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Ebbie Question: DougR, have you looked at their website? Tra la la la I hate Christmas. |
|
22 Dec 02 - 08:51 AM (#852132) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Naemanson I haven't read through this thread. I just want to share personal experience. I grew up in redneck country. I grew up as a rascist and bigot, the son of a rascist and bigot. Our party was the Republican party because we knew they were the ones who would keep the minorities in their places. I have grown and matured and realized how wrong we were. I am happy to say my father has also. However, the experience has affected how I read the words coming from the Republican leadership. And I hear no change in attitude. They say they are trying to appeal to minorities but they are making no real effort and the gaffe made by Trent Lott only illustrates the reality of the thought process behind that crew. In fairness to those who follow the Republicans I also recognize that the Republican leadership's efforts to hide this reality makes it difficult for the more civilized of us to see it. You can be easily fooled by their false words and blandishments. But out in the hinterlands they still see the Republicans as the white party. |
|
22 Dec 02 - 01:53 PM (#852217) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST,Jed I don;t know why I became a GUEST - and didn't notice above that I'd lost my cookie when I said, "What a surprise; we're all seeing what we want to see!" but - a few more comments before I slip back into Christmas mode (where I mushc prefer to be). It may be that racists did or even do feel at home supporting GOP issues and candidates - but it should be clear to critical thinking people that 1) race issues and segregation feelings have changed (for the best) DRAMATICALLY over the last 30/40 years. 2) The GOP has been very supportive of those changes - they were by far the majority of supporters for the Civil Rights act pushed by LBJ, they are a party that strongly supports the rights of individual and personal responsibilities - and of course they were the party that fought a war for equality and the elimiation of slavery 3) the differences in policies supported by GOP as opposed to those supported by Dems does NOT indicate one is right and one is wrong; one is racist and one is not. If you insist on making such a claim you are guilty of being close minded. There may policies one party supports that are more appealing and more correct to your way of thinking - but clearly both parties strongly support a well integrated nation - and neither party will countenance racist policies or even, as Trent discovered - careless statements regarding racist sensitivities. Mick - sounds like we're in fierce agreement again! Tinker - my cynical commment was just that, cynical meant to show that of course just the opposite was true. Of course American blacks don't need to have the bar lowered so they can compete! Yes, we need to be diligent about enforcing equality laws, yes race can be considered when qualifications for positions are developed, and yes it is resonable for every individual to ake advantage of every opportunity available to him/her when competing in the free market ... reverse discrimination is abominable - and that should never be countenanced ... but affirmative action does not need to mean reverse discrimination. The devil is in the detail. The last thing any hiring manager should want is to water down the strength of his organiztion in order to obey racial quotas - BUT reasonable affirmative action-based guidelines can help a manager strengthen his team. As a former hiring manager I know that a good mix of racial profiles within an organization is a positive thing, all by itself - social issues aside. Anyway - it's Christmas and that is much more important to me! I'll sign off this issue for now. Thanks all and Merry Christmas (to those Christmas celebrators among you - best wishes otherwise to all). |
|
22 Dec 02 - 03:03 PM (#852245) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: kendall The Civil war was fought to preserve the union. period, |
|
22 Dec 02 - 05:03 PM (#852295) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC The South seceeded over sovereignty issues (of which slavery had a minor role, but economics had more), and the North fought to preserve the union in order not to lose though states which grew the resources that kept their industrialized economy afloat. The North didn't have a problem trying to recruit slave-owning generals like Robert E. Lee, nor was slavery illegal in the North. I've always thought of Lincoln's later comments on slavery as the kind of "spin" that politicians always put on wars to sell them to the populace. Well, it worked -- we still act like the Civil War was fought by a valiant free north to help the oppressed blacks. Not even slightly true, although the war did have the positive outcome of ending slavery. |
|
22 Dec 02 - 05:08 PM (#852299) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST From today's Reuters Top News page: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=1949036 U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites Sun December 22, 2002 10:44 AM ET By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent GETTYSBURG, Pa. (Reuters) - The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery. Nowhere is the project more striking than at Gettysburg, site of the largest battle ever fought on American soil, where plans are going ahead to build a new visitors center and museum at a cost of $95 million that will completely change the way the conflict is presented to visitors. "For the past 100 years, we've been presenting this battlefield as the high watermark of the Confederacy and focusing on the personal valor of the soldiers who fought here," said Gettysburg Park Superintendent John Latschar. "We want to change the perception so that Gettysburg becomes known internationally as the place of a 'new rebirth of freedom,"' he said, quoting President Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" made on Nov. 19, 1863, five months after the battle. "We want to get away from the traditional descriptions of who shot whom, where and into discussions of why they were shooting one another," Latschar said. The project seems particularly relevant following the furor over Republican Sen. Trent Lott's recent remarks seeming to endorse racial segregation, which forced many Americans to revisit one of the uglier chapters of the nation's history. When it opens in 2006, the new museum will offer visitors a narrative of the entire Civil War, putting the battle into its larger historical context. Latschar said he was inspired by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., which sets out to tell a story rather than to display historical artifacts behind glass cases. "Our current museum is absolutely abysmal. It tells no story. It's a curator's museum with no rhyme or reason," Latschar said. It is also failing to preserve the 700,000 items in its collection, including 350,000 maps, documents and photographs, many of which were rotting away or crumbling into dust until they were put into temporary storage. FEW BLACKS VISIT Around 1.8 million people visit Gettysburg every year. Latschar said a disproportionate number were men and the park attracts very few black visitors. In 1998, he invited three prominent historians to examine the site. Their conclusion: that Gettysburg's interpretive programs had a "pervasive southern sympathy." The same was true at most if not all of the 28 Civil War sites operated by the National Parks Service. A report to Congress delivered in March 2000 found that only nine did an adequate job of addressing slavery in their exhibits. Another six, including Gettysburg, gave it a cursory mention. The rest did not mention it at all. Most parks are now trying to correct the situation. Park rangers and licensed guides at Gettysburg and other sites have already changed their presentations in line with the new policy. Now, park authorities are taking a look at brochures, handouts and roadside signs. According to Dwight Pitcaithley, chief historian of the National Park Service, the South had tremendous success in promoting its "lost cause" theory. The theory rested on three propositions: that the war was fought over "states' rights" and not over slavery; that there was no dishonor in defeat since the Confederacy lost only because it was overwhelmed by the richer north; and that slavery was a benign institution and most slaves were content with their lot and faithful to their masters. "Much of the public conversation today about the Civil War and its meaning for contemporary society is shaped by structured forgetting and wishful thinking" he said. |
|
22 Dec 02 - 05:12 PM (#852301) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: DougR No, Ebbie, I have not looked at their website. I'm not interested in their web site. The fact that the guy made a speech to them does not mean he is one of them. Anyway, I'm tired of this thread. I'm gonna sing Christmas Carols with Jed. DougR |
|
22 Dec 02 - 07:03 PM (#852336) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST A few folks have aluded to their belief that "affirmative action" is reverse discrimation. ON a case to case basis this may be true but on a collective basis it is not. Seems that a lot of folks and their families are enjoying the fruits of an infastructure that has been been build primamrily on the backs of black folks, first as slaves and then as underpaid laborers. Yeah, we hear, "Pull yourself up by your bootstaps' yet the bootstarps have been disporportionately distributed to white folks. Don't belive me? Get in your car and drive thru just about any inner city. Look around. Visit projects. Visit the jails, Visit the schools thatminner city blacks attend. When you have done all of these things then come back and tell ol' Bobert just how white folks are being discriminated against... Bobert |
|
23 Dec 02 - 05:29 PM (#852773) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. Somehow I missed this earlier: The South seceeded over sovereignty issues... The great "States Rights" shibboleth, one more time. The Thing That Would Not Die. The antebellum South had no difficulty whatsoever with Federal authority superseding that of the States, as long as it was NORTHERN state laws that were overridden. One example of many: take a good look at the Federal Fugitive Slave Law of 1850; a massive, pro-slavery effort that not only negated northern states' legislation but denied trial by jury and other constitutional guarantees. slavery had a minor role, but economics had more... And the entire economy of the South was based upon? (wait for it)... Negro slavery. nor was slavery illegal in the North. If you're implying circa 1798, partly correct. If circa 1840 or later this is simply untrue. Completely bogus. Guess Lincoln the 'spin doctor' is in good company here on the'Cat, eh? |
|
23 Dec 02 - 06:15 PM (#852802) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC I think it is ludicrous to suggest -- as so many do -- that the North cared at all about blacks in any meaningful way. Lacking any large economic incentive for keeping slaves, the few abolitionists had it relatively easy getting such laws passed. Some individual states had outlawed slavery -- most had by the start of the war -- but "freedom" was not for black people. Slaves were not freed in the border states (Union) until the passing of the 13th Amendment in 1865. (KY, DE, MD, MO). The infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision is the most well known, but it was only one in a series of Supreme Court Cases where blacks were determined not to be citizens, and which upheld their slave status even in supposedly "free" states. In 1861, Union Gen. Butler forced fugitive slaves to labor for his army. So much for "freedom," right. Slavery was not outlawed in DC until April 1862, and was not outlawed in the territories until a couple of months later. Lincoln repeatedly repealed his generals' edicts to free slaves in certain areas for supposedly Constitutional reasons, yet had no problem later issuing an equally Un-Constitutional Emancipation Proclamation. No, slavery was not illegal in the Union states as a whole. Abolition was not treated as a Federal issue until after the start of the war. |
|
23 Dec 02 - 09:05 PM (#852874) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. Less and less sense is made as the argument progresses; Which statement are you trying to maintain is true: 1. individual [northern] states had outlawed slavery -- most had by the start of the war or 2. slavery was not illegal in the Union states as a whole Number two simply cannot be supported by the facts. |
|
23 Dec 02 - 09:16 PM (#852877) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC Okay, Greg. I can name 4 Union states where slavery was legal, and did so above. Plus, of course, the territories. Yes, it was illegal in MOST northern states. Not all. Nor was there a federal manadate against it of any kind prior to the start of the war. How is #2 unsupported? |
|
24 Dec 02 - 01:59 AM (#852954) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: CarolC Nicole, I'm afraid I don't know as much about the Emancipation Proclamation as I would like. Could you please tell me in what ways that proclamation was/is Un-Constitutional? |
|
24 Dec 02 - 02:28 AM (#852962) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Jack the Sailor What difference does it make what happened in 1862? Lott implied that segregation would have been a good thing to have NOW. The GOP is accused of using coded racism to get elected, now! If the Southerners want to say it was "States Rights", Why not, if it makes them feel better? If Northerners want to claim it was all about liberation, again, why not? My history book, which was written in Britian, said that the war was fought over MONEY and POWER, changes in the economy and thus the relative importance of the states. That seems the most plausible to me. Contrary to what many "patriots" say, soldiers may fight for ideals, but politicians don't go to war for them. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 06:50 AM (#853053) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. If the Southerners want to say it was "States Rights", Why not, if it makes them feel better? Because until they can get past that convenient fiction and recognize that its bogus it will be difficult to make any meaningful progress in combating U.S. racism- North and South. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 07:57 AM (#853065) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Jack the Sailor You seem to have missed or ignored my point. It is not what they say about the past that matters. It is what they do now. That war has been over and done with for more than 130 years. Its is time for southerners to accept that and for northerners to quit rubbing salt into the wound. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 08:34 AM (#853077) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. No, no, I agree with you, Jack, mostly, but I don't concede that adhering to fact & historical accuracy constitutes rubbing salt. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 12:27 PM (#853185) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC No, that's not my point at all. Saying the Civil War was fought over slavery is about as accurate as saying WWII was fought over the Jews. It's an explanation suitable for a 6 year old, but like all things in politics the situation was much more complex. How can a war be fought just over slavery when slave-owning states fought on both sides? How can a war be fought over something which was not illegal at a federal level? Slavery was clearly under the jurisdiction of the states until after the war, and the South did not seceed because they wished to be slave states -- THEY ALREADY WERE. How can we canonize the North over their stance on black people, when the North refused to recognize them as citizens and upheld property rights against them by returning them to their owners? Ironically, it was the South who was pushing for voting rights for the slaves prior to the outbreak of the war, and the North fought against it. (Although, presumably, it was as long as the slaves voted the way they were told to.) Simplistic statements like insisting the war was entirely about black freedom serve to demonize the southern states and deflect blame. Slavery was an American problem, not a Southern one, but by blindly assuming that slavery was only issue in the south, the rest of the US can pretend they have clean hands. The truth is much sadder. Today, racism is an American problem, not a southern one. By demonizing the south, the rest of the country can go about ignoring their problem and blaming it on those "backward southerners." Racism only exists in the south, right? Perpetuating the myth that the North was somehow on a crusade to help the black people during the Civil War is part of that demonization and ignorance. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 03:00 PM (#853213) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST,Boromir Amen, Nicole |
|
24 Dec 02 - 03:59 PM (#853229) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC Carol, I forgot. Here are some quickie resources about the proclamation. In brief, though, the Executive Branch has no Constitutional power to make laws, only to enforce them. Presidential proclamations have been used ever since, usually for minor matters, but technically speaking law-making is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch. Nor did the Emancipation Proclamation actually free any slaves. But it still turned the purpose of the war, and unlike many wartime promises, this one got lived up to with the 13th Amendment. National Park Service -- text of proclamation and comments Text of proclamation and more comments More balanced commentary here |
|
24 Dec 02 - 04:00 PM (#853230) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: CarolC Thanks Nicole. |
|
24 Dec 02 - 10:32 PM (#853401) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. I hardly know where to begin. First, please show us where the statement was made that the war was fought "entirely about Black freedom" or where an attempt was made to "canonize the North". Best take a few deep breaths. You rail against simple explanations for complex problems & at the same time make statements like "How can a war be fought just over slavery when slave-owning states fought on both sides?" Hello?? Statements like "the North refused to recognize them [Blacks] as citizens" are plainly untrue- Blacks could vote, own property, serve on juries, attend school, etc. A real good example of an overly simplistic approach is maintaining that the entire North knuckled under to the slaveowner-dominated supreme court decisions in the Dred Scott, Prigg v. PA, & similar cases, when in fact they generated mass meetings, outrage, and wholesale non-compliance. It also ignores the minority opinions in all of these cases which maintained, among other things, that Blacks WERE citizens. Again, adhering to fact rather than fantasy and wishful thinking is not "demonizing the South". A greater disservice is done to the South and the nation as a whole by those who perpetuate misinformation. |
|
25 Dec 02 - 01:37 AM (#853439) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC "Blacks could vote, own property, serve on juries, attend school, etc" Fascinating. Can you please provide me with a single reference predating 1861 where blacks are allowed citizenship or allowed to vote in any of the US states, territories, or possessions? |
|
25 Dec 02 - 12:59 PM (#853596) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. Only one? No problem. In New York state, and this PRIOR to universal emancipation in 1827, "every male inhabitant of full age", Black or White, meeting the property and residence requirements, was entitled to vote. Want some more? Best, Greg |
|
25 Dec 02 - 03:16 PM (#853666) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC I stand corrected. I do think it should be noted that only 16 blacks qualified to vote under those requirements, which were more stringent than those for white men. Still, a notable acheivement at the time. And yes, I would like references to more. The vast majority of histories of blacks in America do not cover local laws at all. But I still maintain that slavery was not the sole cause of the war. The abolitionists were a vocal minority in the North. That does not mean that that was the cause of the war. I am certain that 100 years from now, so many children will have have educations that completely ignore the taxation issues, tariffs waged against the southern states to protect northern industry, and other complex issues that increased the tension between the regions that had been growing from 1787 onward. The South was a cash cow for the north, and they resented it. |
|
26 Dec 02 - 12:01 PM (#853678) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Greg F. Actually, the 1826 NY tax lists indicate that 298 Blacks qualified to vote that year, and the numbers increased slightly each year from then on. I'm happy to help with your 'homework assignment', but I'm not gonna do all your work for you! ;>) Prior to the Civil War, five northern states- almost all in New England- allowed Blacks to vote on the SAME terms as whites. Several additional states, like New York, allowed them to vote, but they had to meet more stringent conditions than did whites. It has literally been 20 years since I did any work in this particular area of history, so I can't put my hands right on chapter-and-verse references. I can recommend the bibliographies in any of Eric Foner's extensive studies as a starting point. Hey, I agree that slavery was not "the" cause of the American Civil War; any time someone starts talking about THE cause of anything that complex, better watch out. But just because it wasn't THE cause doesn't mean that Negro slavery, with all its social, political, and economic ramifications, and the increasingly hostile sectionalim that the conflicts over the expansion of Slavery (Kansas/Nebraska, the "Compromise" of 1850, etc.) exacerbated weren't A cause, and significant ones at that. If I can easily put my hands on any specific references, I'll get 'em to you. Best, Greg |
|
26 Dec 02 - 01:11 PM (#853711) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: NicoleC Hey, I agree that slavery was not "the" cause of the American Civil War; any time someone starts talking about THE cause of anything that complex, better watch out. But just because it wasn't THE cause doesn't mean that Negro slavery, with all its social, political, and economic ramifications, and the increasingly hostile sectionalim that the conflicts over the expansion of Slavery (Kansas/Nebraska, the "Compromise" of 1850, etc.) exacerbated weren't A cause, and significant ones at that. I absolutely agree with the statement. Unfortunately, most proponents of the Civil-War-fought-over-slavery issue will refuse to even recognize that there *were* other causes. Or that slavery was just a portion of the larger causes. I'm not asking you to do homework for me :) But literally, it's extremely difficult to find those kinds of references. Any widely available history book on black civil rights will start with making a general reference to Douglass and Tubman, than head straight to the Civil War and the subsequent Constitutional Amendments, skim over Jim Crow laws, and then hit Martin Luther King. Frustrating. |
|
26 Dec 02 - 02:36 PM (#853759) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: GUEST,lardingo Sean Hannity interviewed Jesse Jackson last week concerning the Trent Lott mess. Hannity pressed Jackson to say whether or not he (Jackson) would accept Trent Lott's apology. Jesse Jackson said that he would accept Lott's apology if it was sincere. Jackson went on to say that the apology would be sincere if future actions by Lott and the Republicans showed sincerity; that is, if Lott and the Republicans would pass legislation strengthening Affirmative Action, increasing funding for minority issues, pursuing reparations, and increasing funding for a few other of Jackson's favorite issues. I for one certainly hope Lott is sincere, don't you? After all, what better way to spend our way out of the recession than to follow a proven leader like Jackson? |
|
26 Dec 02 - 06:50 PM (#853804) Subject: RE: BS: 'Lott, Reagan & GOP Racism' From: Bobert Your apparent sarcasim aside, *YES*, GUEST, Lardingo! Works fir me and long overdue! Especially *reparations*! This ain't about Jesse Jackson any more than it is about any black person in America. Bobert |