BS: Dump the Dixiecrats

Subject: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 03:00 PM

Looks like the Republican party is poised to jettison the right wing southern Republican Dixiecrats to gain a true advantage over the Democrats who, thus far (and despite their recent election losses) continue to cling to the delusion that a Dem can't get elected Prez without the right wing southern Democrat Dixiecrats in 2004.

As usual, it seems Karl Rove is light years ahead of Clintonian New Democrats, in understanding that THE NATION needs to jettison the Dixiecrat wing of both parties if business interests are to advance. Why? Because people with enlightened interests, be they business interests or the interests of progressive civil libertarians, are sick and tired of the closet racist and southern conservative social agendas of the past, holding the nation hostage.

Looking around on the web today, the Republican named most often to replace Lott (who will hold his "never surrender" press conference in Ole Miss this afternoon), is Frist.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 03:05 PM

Sorry, hit send before I was done.

Anyway, since the Senate majority leaders serves at the pleasure of their party, not the president, it isn't clear what will shake out of the housecleaning currently ongoing in the Congress and at the White House.

However, it is clear that while Senate Republicans would likely favor Frist (who is only Mason Dixon line from Tenn, not deep south), it is clear that the Bush White House does NOT favor Frist. but if Frist is busy at the UN...

This was posted yesterday at the White House website:

"President Bush Nominates Senator Frist to General Assembly of the United Nations

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, to be one of two Senate representatives to the 55th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

There are two congressional representatives who participate in the proceedings of the U.N. General Assembly. These positions alternate every two years between the House of Representatives and the Senate. At this time, Senator Joseph Biden holds one of the Senate positions, and Senator Frist has been nominated to fill the position vacated by former Senator Rod Grams."

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 04:50 PM

Don't assume that all Southerners are Dixiecrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 05:16 PM

I'm not. Nor am I assuming that all southern Republicans are Dixiecrats--some of them are Bush republicans. I know they aren't the same group. Those Republican and Democrat Southerners who don't want to be associated with the Dixiecrat ideology want to jettison it more than anyone, in my experience. The point of the above two posts is really to show that Lott is from the Dixiecrat mold Bush republicans are trying to escape, just like the Clinton democrats are. Neither party can afford to allow the Dixiecrat wings of their party to dictate policy any longer. I'm suggesting the republicans just figured that out first, and will now try and capitalize on Lott's foot in mouth disease to do it. The Clinton "New Democrats" on the other hand, seem more convinced of the need to cater to the old Dixiecrat South than ever--that is their justification for moving the Democratic Party to the so-called center (ie moving far to the right of the Establishment Left) in the 1990s under Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 05:37 PM

Dixiecrats are just as much of the past as segretation is. The most active segregation propononents back in the dark ages were Democrats. Even Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he ran on the Dixiecrat ticket.

I don't think Trent Lott is a racist. I think he was at one time. He had his head up his butt when he said what he did at the celebration of Strom Thurmond's birthday, and I will not be surprised to see him lose his job as a result. If he remains in office, the Democrats will pick this issue to death, and minorities, who are difficult enough to attract to the Republican party will be even more difficult to recruit.

I think a more likely replacement for him, however, would be Mitch McConnell of KY, or maybe Jon Kyle of Arizona. I would prefer Kyle, but I believe McConnell would have the edge.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:06 PM

Gee DougR, since you are a died in wool republican, maybe you can explain to us why republicans have such a hard time selling minorities on their policy platforms?

And I wonder why no Northern republican senators names are coming up? And I wonder why the domination of US political culture by right wing conservative Southern idealogues of both parties is so prevalent? Maybe it's time to start looking at campaign financing from a regional perspective?

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: toadfrog
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:15 PM

This is just one dumb thread. Just exactly who are the "dixiecrats" in the Democratic party? Name a "right-wing southern democratic Dixiecrat?" Such people may exist, but they are getting awfully scarce. I would think that the "rightwing democrats" of today are still well to the left of any "left wing republican" who actually holds office. Possibly not in Georgia. Define "Dixiecrat"? If you define it carefully enough, you can prove there aren't any, in either party. It's an old fashioned word.   
But Doug, contrary to your apparent belief, racism is not dead. I've even heard some lively racist sentiments expressed in this wonderfull Forum. Trent Lott is a racist. Admittedly, he would not have said such dumb things if he had been thinking. Had he been more astute, he would have avoided mistakes. Right. Lott is not known for his outstanding smarts. That is why the Party will make him step down as its leader. But he also would not have said those dumb things has he not believed them.

I had it figured, Dan Nickles would probably replace Sen. Lott, but clearly I've not been listening closely enough. As I understand it Nickles is as astute as Lott is slow-witted. Of course, if Lott steps down, its the Democrats who get hurt. And possibly the State of Mississippi; Lott as Majority Leader has been an unequalled source of pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:15 PM

Well, GUEST, Bush still is very much cut in the mold of a Dixiecrat and keep in mind that he is getting ready to push his "Faith-based" initiative which plays well to them folks.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:19 PM

Guest: don't like to reply to Guest threads designed to inflame, but I will this one.

The main reason minorities, and African Americans in particular, have been difficult to attract to the Republican Party,IMHO, is the Democrats for many years have preached that if they vote Democrat, the government will provide whatever they need (provided they vote Democratic). Minorities are beginning to realize, though, that promises made, are not always kept, and more of them are turning to our party. No sane member of a minority, African American or Hispanic, or whatever, would vote for a party led by a person who is a racist, however, and I don't blame them.

As I said earlier, I don't think Trent Lott is racist. However, his lukewarm apology was not satisfactory proof that he isn't. I agree with what Spaw said in a similar thread. If these folks would just come clean and tell the truth, they wouldn't get into the trouble they do. They just never seem to learn.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: toadfrog
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:28 PM

GUEST, you are using a whole lot of in-groupie jargon. I don't recognize all of the jargon, but you don't use words in the way we ordinary people do. It appears you are a Republican, and apparently adhere to the country-club wing of the party, rather than the Bubba or "Reagan Democrat" wing. Please identify where you are coming from, so we can figure out what you mean when you say "Clinton Democrats" are from the "dixiecrat mold." The really hard-core Clinton Democrats I have met are all Black, and none of them sounds like a "dixiecrat" to me. I understand, that's why Clinton is now located in Harlem. Am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:55 PM

yes toadfrog, you are missing something. I could also have used an analogous phrase like "post-Dixiecrat Southern Democrats".

The ideological underpinnings of the Dixiecrat movement of the mid-20th century in the South still exist in today's politicians in both parties.

The Jackson-led Rainbow Coalition wing of the Democratic Party of the 1980s, like the Wellstone/Feingold progressive populist wing of the Democratic Party of the 1990s, rarely have been Clinton supporters, so your memory is racially pretty selective, it seems. Clinton is in Harlem because he got cheap office space that made him look good after the uproar for choosing the very pricey space in the Carnegie Tower, and it had a whole lot to do with the courting of the black NYC vote for his wife's next senate campaign. The 1994 mid-term election was a disaster for Clinton and the "New Democrats" and there was much handwringing over whether the New Democrats could ever lure the Reagan Democrats back into the fold.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Jesse Jackson JR. (not his dad)from The Nation and reprinted at the Common Dreams website), on the eve of the Bush inauguration in January 2001. It is titled "George Bush's Democrats" explaining what I mean by Southern Democrat Dixiecrats:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0105-05.htm

Following Vice President Al Gore's concession, President-elect Bush announced: "I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation. The President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race and every background." It was an appropriate speech delivered from the Democratic-controlled Texas House chambers. Referring to the Texas House as "a home to bipartisan cooperation," Bush added, "Republicans and Democrats have worked together to do what is right for the people we represent."
But who are George Bush's bipartisan Democrats?

Texas State Representative Paul Sadler, a Democrat, told the New York Times that Bush "didn't invent bipartisanship in Texas." It "kind of developed over the years because of the nature of the system." Nature of the system? What system? Essentially it is the same "system" around which the rest of the Southern Democratic Party developed.

The Southern Democratic Party was the party of slavery. Conservative Democrats were the Confederates during the Civil War. Democrats either were, or cooperated with, the KKK in resisting Reconstruction. Following Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), conservative Democrats practiced Jim Crow--separate and unequal. And after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), conservative Southern Democrats were the prime resisters of desegregation.

After Brown and the civil rights evolution of the 1960s, and the application of Goldwater's 1964 and Nixon's 1968 "Southern strategy," Southern white males especially began to leave the national Democratic Party in significant numbers. Republicans began to appeal to them with a series of racial themes and code words: "conservatism" during the civil rights struggles in 1964, "law and order" after the riots of 1967-68, "antibusing" in 1972, "welfare queen" in 1980, "Willie Horton" in 1988 and "compassionate conservatism" in 2000. Democrats also played this game: Carter's "ethnic purity" misstep in 1976 almost got him into serious trouble with the party's base; Bill Clinton used "Sister Souljah," and Al Gore emphasized crime ("blanket America in blue")--Democratic Southerners all. And all, Republicans and Democrats alike, are from the same system. Clinton redefined the Democratic Party away from the "special interests" of blacks--symbolized by Jesse L. Jackson Sr.--by politically manipulating a rapper. Because of Jackson's tireless pursuit of racial justice, and because he's a strong and highly visible Democrat, Republicans are now attempting to define and identify him as the symbol of the Democratic Party.

Taking a page from ultraconservative Ronald Reagan--who often referred favorably to the liberal FDR--Bush quoted the ideological founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson, a Virginian, was also the author of a Kentucky resolution and conservative theory of Southern resistance called "nullification," and his Democratic partner, James Madison, developed the theory of "interposition." Both concepts were forms of Southern resistance--first, resistance to ending slavery, and later to ending Jim Crow segregation. Jefferson also provided the ideological foundation for the concept of "local control"--the stepchild of "states' rights." Bull Connor, Jim Clark, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus and George Wallace were all the products of this "system" and were Democratic advocates of states' rights, local control and an antifederal ideology of less government, lower taxes and a strong military.

It is this legacy of conservative Southern Democrats that created the "bipartisan system" that State Representative Paul Sadler referred to. It is this legacy of conservative Southern Democrats in Congress with which President-elect Bush intends to work. But the President-elect's problem of governing all of the people cannot be satisfied merely by building bridges to essentially conservative Southern Blue Dog, Yellow Dog, New Dog or DLC Dog Democrats. These conservative dogs already support him. His problem will be in reaching out and building bridges to liberals and progressives who feel like they've been treated like dogs, who represent the dogs who have been left out in the cold and put in the doghouse by a bipartisan coalition of conservative Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, this is the bipartisan pack that consistently bites us.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:58 PM

Toad:

GUEST wanders around so much that he or she is hard to pin down. Kind like liquid mercury. I generally find myself in agreement with GUEST but GUEST has that Bobert quality to get under one's skin. But, I'm glad to have GUEST 'cause GUEST is a pury smart person and brings a lot to the forum, except of course, when GUEST is a jerk. But that ain't too often.

But you can rest assured that this GUEST is not a Republican, nor a Democrat for that matter. Bounces aroung between Libertarian, Green and Bull Mooser...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 07:11 PM

I'm talkin to you in the other thread Bobert, you ole nutty dawg of the loony left. Bullshit personal attacks, especially of easy targets like anon guests in Mudcat, don't make you look exactly like a hero, though. You might just want to stick to the message, rather than snide side swipes of messengers, regardless of their political persuasions. I'm not the only anon guest who participates in political threads around here. There are at least 2 and possibly 3 pretty right wing conservative anon guests around here too. And I'm not counting even counting when the conservative reactionary members decide to go on an anonymous ranting rampage.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 07:38 PM

Well they may be around but at the moment Turnip, you are the only anon guest on these two threads.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:15 PM

Hahaha, GUEST, you think you can hide? Hey, I'd know you if I'd been dead fir three hours. I know the other GUESTS too and, well, they don't write like you. Might of fact, I dopn't even have to read what yopu write to know your posts. All I gotta do is take my glasses off so that everything gets blurry and look at the posts and can recognize most of yers by the structure, length of paragraphs and the like.

Okay, I know you can recognize mine, too, but that ain't the issue, Turnip!

Hey, I enjoyed the link in the other thread about Bush and his Dems. I grew up in Virgina during the days of the BYRD MACHINE so I know all about that stuff. Man, when Niel Young was writin' "Southern Man" we don't have to look far to see who was talkin' about.

Sorry, GUEST, if I pulled yer covers but as far as GUESTS go, heck, you ain't all that bad...

I know, "Screw you, Bobert"! You remind me of me cat. Sometimes he just likes to bite. Hmmmmm?

Nevermind.

But don't expect Junior to duump the Dixiecrats too soon. When ya figure that he lost the last election, the boy is gonna need every vote ghe can get and he ain't stupid enough to think that his drum pounding popularity will last for ever...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:22 PM

Care to tell the public here just how the great and powerful catspaw can distinguish between anon guests in threads? And why the world should consider such proclamations public service announcements?

toadfrog asked for clarification of the terms I was using, which was perfectly legitimate. I followed up with a post I hope did that. Unfortunately, when I'm on a roll I forget how I often my analogies don't work for everyone, and can confuse people, myself included at times!

Does catspaw think the membership is so stupid they can't sort this guest identity out without his assistance?

Its up to the folks now. You want to play catspaw and Bobert's "lets unmask the anonymous troll game" or do you want to actually have a conversation without the flaming? As always, the choice is yours, and not mine. Wouldn't be the first time I just withdrew from the conversation when catspaw decided to ignite his flamethrower in a thread where everything is going just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: kendall
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:31 PM

Doug, my friend, the democrats didn't just "promise" the blacks, they delivered. Some of the things were the Civil rights act which Lott fought against. Integrating the armed forces was another. PACs etc. Voting rights, well, except Florida.
Being on the bottom of the social heap for so many years, they know that their support comes from the left. They also know this: A POOR MAN VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: kendall
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:10 PM

I meant Affirmative action committees, not PAC's.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:17 PM

Here, here, Kendall. Well put!

What Kendal said, Dougie.

Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing Trent Lott at any of the Civil Rights marches... Hmmmmmm?

(Might just have missed him,Bobert!)

Nah.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:21 PM

One of the worst aspects of the politically correct movement that got coopted by the right: you can't call a racist a racist anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:42 PM

Why not, GUEST?

Oh yeah, Rule #3. No callin' the racists... racists. Opps... Guess I'm in for a few demerits or whatever's...

See, that's what I hate about the vast right wing conspiracy. They got all the monet and have spent millions and millions on PR work and in doing so have tilted the playing field.

Bunch of Nazi, right winged, anit-humna, racists as far as I can see!

(Bad, Bobert, real bad!..)

Ahhhh, if they can't take a joke....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:16 PM

We apparently can't call a redneck a redneck anymore either Bobert, so you just better watch your step!

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:28 PM

Danged, GUEST, what is this world coming to???... Well, goll-derned, what we gonna call 'em? Mister? Mrs? Danged...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: toadfrog
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 12:28 AM

Ok, Turnip, or whoever, I was missing something. Let's see. George W. Bush is a wonderful progressive in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party is still "same" Party that elected Franklin Pierce. That's why the Democrats always carry Alabama and Mississippi. Nothing has changed. All democrats who do not enthusiastically support gangsta rap and think Jesse Jackson might not be a great president are Dixiecrats.

And Catspaw is a bad guy because he exposes trolls. O.k. Thank you for enlightening me. That's another wrinkle in my brain. So grateful to you smart guys for setting me straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: kendall
Date: 15 Dec 02 - 08:38 AM

People are people. Some are racists. Political parties do not cause racism.Lott is a republican; he is also a racist. Sen. Byrd is a democrat, he is also a racist. Most people need someone to look down on; That's what causes racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST,paddymac
Date: 16 Dec 02 - 01:13 AM

There is an important element in the rising importance of "southerners" in national politics, and that is the "sunbelt migrations" of the last 30 or so decades. History is always informative, and often instructive, but demographic concerns are more important that geographic patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 06:22 PM

Kendall, Bobert: the Democrats are the champions of the civil rights movement? If so, please 'splain: why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and the Senate support the Civil Rights Act of 1964? As Bobert is wont to say, Hmmmmmmmm?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 06:43 PM

Because, Doug, (1) Lyndon Johnson was the father of the Civil Rights Act, and (2) 1964 was before Nixon and Reagan made the Republican Party what it is today. In fact, 1964 was before most of the people on Mudcat was born. 1964 was 38 years ago. Think of that, Doug! You and I are growing old. I practice law. Today, a 1964 case is so old, mostly, it's hardly worth citing. 1964 is before Vietnam, before the Reagan Revolution, before the personal computer.

In 1964, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas had not yet become Republican strongholds. "Republican" and "Democrat" meant different things in 1964. There were conservative Democrats in 1964, and liberal Republicans were at least a recent enough memory so that living people could recall them. Not so today.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 07:00 PM

Yeah, Dougie, what toadfrog said. Hey, this thread is all about them Southern Democrats, were nothin but racist rednecks. Opps, not 'sposed to say that. Anyway, how come you are always trying to put me back in the Democratic Party? I am NOT a Democrat and I am NOT a "liberal", thank you, so don't call on me to defend what a bunch of rednecks, opps Part 2, did 40 years ago, thank you.

Go pick on Kendall... He'll galdly tell ya' he's a Democrat.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:30 PM

Toad: and the President of what party sent troops to Little Rock to enforce intergration laws?

To paint the Republican Party as a party of racists is flat wrong. LBJ never could have got his Civil Rights legislation in 1964 WITHOUT the support of the Republicans. You know that Toad. The moderate and liberal wing of the party supported Civil Rights legislation heavily. Goldwater and the few conservative Republicans in the congress at the time opposed it, but not on racial grounds. They believed that it was contrary to the Constitution. That the federal government was usurping rights reserved to the states. You know that too, I'm sure!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 09:33 PM

Nugatory argument. Yes, and the people who supported Slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow laws did so because they "believed" they were sanctioned by the Constitution and defended and rationalized them them in the name of States' rights. So what? It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 12:41 AM

Can I venture off on a tangent for a minute?

I am heartily sick of the way both political parties like to bash southerners. If'n ya'll though the days of carpetbagging were over, you're plum wrong. The south, they would have you believe, is comprised entirely of racist stupid white inbred backwards rubes who gaze with fondness to a past where white men were people and everyone was property. If they don't fit that mold, they are a stupid black inbred unworking criminal who doesn't have the wit to interpret politics and lives on the largess of the wealthy descendants of plantation owners. (Women are never mentioned in either stereotype, unless they are rich debutantes.)

Nonsense. Utter and complete fabrication. There is grinding black poverty in the south, just as there is grinding white poverty in the south and abject poverty of all flavors in Texas, California, Idaho and every other corner of the US. There are racists of all social backgrounds in all the same places, most with equally feeble arguments about how some minority or another is more dangerous, crime-ridden or lazy. The key difference is that in the south, generally, if someone doesn't like you because of the color of your skin or the age of your money, they will have the courtesy to tell you so in no uncertain terms -- and then generally either get along with business or refuse to do so. In CA and NY, no one will admit they are a racist, but they will smile and shake your hand while they stab you in the back or sneer at your culture or treat you like dirt while patting themselves on the back for being multicultural.

It is not racist to honor your ancestors who fought and died in a war, even if they lost. Nor is it racist to acknowledge a cultural history, even if you are glad that it is in the past. The Brits might as well refuse to teach children about Henry VIII. Those who don't learn and understand history -- even the ugly parts -- may not repeat it, but they are certainly not equipped to avoid it.

In the deep south, like AL and MS, politicians play one set of poor people off the other. One will tell poor whites that the black people are to blame for their poverty, the other will tell blacks that their poor white neighbors are living off the sweat of their slave ancestors. Neither has squat to make the others envious. Some of both sides will believe it since they have no beliefs suitable to replace them with or simply out of sheer reptition. But the same thing happens in LA where the Koreans and the blacks are at odds -- fighting each other over the same very thin slice of economic pie, and not skin color at all, though it looks that way. Politicians on both sides will play it up for personal gain and spread it through the press while utterly failing to either address the root causes or acknowledge the stereotypes.

It's so much better, after all, to have the lower classes fighting each other over crumbs than to have them band together and seek greener pastures.

But most southerners are neither wishers for segregation nor disenfranchised former slaves, just as most Californians are not surfers, New Yorkers are not all loud and rude, and Texans are not all ranchers or oil barons.

Political scheming, of course, all too often focuses only on the stereotypes -- even outmoded ones -- and rarely on voters. It's one of the contributors, I think, to voter apathy. While politicians speak to the fringe, everyday voters find little reason to support one side or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 07:47 AM

In CA and NY, no one will admit they are a racist, but
they will smile and shake your hand while they stab you in the back or sneer at your culture or treat you
like dirt while patting themselves on the back for being multicultural.

I'm confused- who's bashing whom with stereotypes???

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 10:56 AM

I agree GregF. You know, basketball player Charles Barkley was on the Daily Show last night, and he is a pretty articulate guy (and no, I'm not suggesting he didn't fit the image of the stereotype of the dumb jock). Jon Stewart immediately asked him about the Lott thing, because Barkley was there promoting his book (can't remember the title), in which he talks quite a bit about race issues. He is a Southerner. He said going back home (Alabama I think) is like going back to the 1960s or 1970s, and if he didn't have family there, he would never go back, because so little has changed for blacks and the old racist codes (from both races, he noted, not just whites) of Southern segregationist culture, still strongly exists.

Stewart asked him specifically if he was treated better in other parts of the country, and he said it wasn't so much a matter of how is treated anywhere, because now he is wealthy so he is treated better than poor people are anywhere. He said comparisons of how he was treated as a black man in the North, the coasts, the West didn't compare to how blacks in South still are treated today, because the South is the only place where this sort of backward looking racist society still exists. He said it was just shocking that in 2002, there could even be a case before the Supreme Court claiming cross burning by whites in a black family's yard was free speech, or whether or not one of the highest ranking leaders in the US Congress should stay or go after making the remark that Lott did.

But I don't need Southerners themselves to confirm what I already know from visiting family in the South (Georgia), which is that the argument that the world should no longer view the Deep South as the Old South in racial terms, is disingenous.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 12:42 PM

Greg -- It's not a stereotype to say something it exists when it does. It is a stereotype to say that something only exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 05:52 PM

Oh, Nicole, Nicole, Nicole, Greg, Greg, Greg, if you were raised in an area where: Black people could not sit on the lower floor of the movie theater;could not use the same rest room that you used, could not drink out of the same public drinking fountain as you, could not attend the same school or the same church as you do, or could not live in your neighborhood, then you would know how very much things have changed. I never lived in the "deep" south, but that's the way it was in Texas when I was a wee boy. Thank goodness all of that is behind us.

Certainly I'm sure there are still some residual feelings by some folks that liked things better that way, but I truly believe they are very much in the minority.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 08:04 PM

As a military brat I was often raised in areas in which the white children were in a minority. But as most people my age, I have seen massive changes in racial transactions of all kinds. I work on a Job Corps center which draws its students Washington, DC and Baltimore, as well as rural parts of the Virginias and Carolinas and is currently 87% black 8% white, and the rest hispanic, etc. These students are far more racist than even the most vocal racists in the 60's, but they just don't have the official policies of the state governments to back them up.

And what is far more interesting, the further into the Deep South we draw our black students, the better they perform. I have three black instructors and four white instructors, and they all regard the students from the South as gold, while the frequently better educated students from the urban areas, are universally regarded as lazy and duplicious. And the black instructors are harder on them.

But I can point to positive changes, in which politicians led the way instead of following. Doug Wilder was elected as the first black Governor of Virginia almost twenty years ago, without a rancorus campaign, and with a majority of white votes in a state which is almost 20% black.

The general view of a Dixiecrat South, is not only a mistake, but I can see signs that the South is becoming the cultural center of the US. Country music now outsells Rock and Roll, while hip-hop is the only countervailing music. The famous "Red" areas identify more with the South, than any of the "Blue" areas. The roll call will not just be between the dying Northern culture and the New South, it will also include the Dying Urban from the New Suburban/rural.

I was interested to note that in a recent article in the Post about revamping the standard poverty indicators to include the price of housing, it was pointed out that traditionally, the white southerners have rejected poverty programs that would have really helped them, and as a result such programs offer far fewer benefits than Northern programs. People from outside the South have regarded this misalingment as evidence that the white South does little to help the poor black South. What they ignore is that there are far more poor Southern whites, who in those states are a voting plurality, and who refuse to demand, or outright reject more extensive benefits. (My only explanation, is that they really don't want to attract "Lazy Northerners". So maybe we all need to examine our stereotypes... )

Subject: RE: BS: Dump the Dixiecrats
From: toadfrog
Date: 19 Dec 02 - 01:17 AM

Doug: I don't think you read my post. You have responded to something I did not say. What I said was this: It may be, that in 1964, or in the time of the Eisenhower administration, that there were a larger number of racists in the Democratic party than the Republican. I said, 1964 was a long time ago. We are no longer living in 1964. If you go back another hundred years, to 1864, you can find back to a time when the Republicans were for freeing the slaves. Those days are gone. The Republicans of today have no more in common with Lincoln than Christian Identity has with Jesus Christ.

But a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1964. Since 1964 we have had Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. We have had Ronald Regan reaching out to the bigot vote. We had Strom Thurmond cross over and become a Republican. And Jesse Helms. And the gentleman from Texas, who just retired, I believe he was once a Democrat. A Dixiecrat. Those guys all walked over to the other side of the floor. And they represented a trend. Where the Democratic Party had been a coalition of northern liberals and southern conservatives, the Republican Party skimmed off all those southern conservatives. And "conservative" may not necessarily mean racist, but it often sure enough does imply racist.

And finally, it is true, as you say, that Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock. It is also true that he didn't want to. Moreover, it is also true that Eisenhower, sitting face to face with Earl Warren, tried to persuade the newly-appointed Chief Justice to uphold segregated schoos. That is well documented.