Skip to content

The Grossly Lopsided Nature of Conservatives’ “Discussions” on Race

May 17, 2015

Basically picking up from this series of comments:

In conservative Christian discussions on recent events, I see people give lip service to “sin, not skin”, but then proceed to address a group by skin color, and then attribute particular “sins” to that one group, and then focus on them. They refuse to acknowledge any sins of the other group (said to be an “excuse” of the first group). It’s like the other group is “up to par”, which the first group falls far below, and they thus want to “discuss” (basically, ‘upbraid’ them for), they and their “problems, like stern parents or bosses.
Yet they do not see how this right here arrogates a position of superiority!

So people are charging the entire black “community”: “blacks’ problem is this…”, “blacks need to do that…”, and it’s obvious they are not seen as up to “par”.
Well, what is “par”? When you insist on national “exceptionality”, that is obviously what they are being judged in light of.

“We built this great nation, and things were going so well here in the past, and anyone can do well, no matter what”, and yet, “these people over here have so many problems. What’s wrong with them?”.
And then is quickly supplied the answer: “Oh, they just don’t want to work like everyone else [again, the “par”], but instead only want free stuff from others”. And then, add in the white “rebels”, the “liberals”, who only want to “destroy the nation”, who are said to be taking advantage of these greedy, lazy, blind “problem people”, by offering them the “freebies” so they can get the “votes” to gain the power they went to carry out their agenda.

While that movement is technically not an “outside” force, their ideologies have long been blamed on the “infiltration” of the likes of Darwin and Marx, who are outside influences, especially to the conservative Church.

(Be honest; is this all not accurately what the conservative movement has been saying all along?)

Both sides are complaining about things. It seems everyone is unhappy in the nation today. But when one side complains, it’s “fighting for ‘truth’” and stolen “freedoms”. When the other side complains of anything, it’s “whining” for an evil agenda to take what belongs to someone else. (This is a common “fundamental attribution error”).
I had many years ago, tended to blame everything I was unhappy with in life on “America” and “white racism”, but came to see that that was wrong; while that may have made some things more difficult, they were not the cause of all unhappiness. But when conservatives blame all their unhappiness on “Democrats” and “black government dependency”, they’re doing the same exact thing.

And speaking up and voting for whom you want is a right that seems to be denied the people in this rhetoric. They vote for those who either best represent their interests, or are at least the “lesser of two evils”, which is a term we have heard, when conservatives vote the same way. So the liberals may not have solved all black problems, and some may have had self-serving agendas they were only using the electorate for. But apparently, the same is happening on the conservative side, as the voters have gotten their candidates in, yet feel they have not solved any of the problems they were concerned about either. They promise “vote for us, and we’ll stop these ‘takers’/’leeches’, etc. from draining your pocket books” (in addition to limiting government, etc). Never happens, apparently. The Christians vote for them as the “lesser of two evils” on abortion, gay rights and religious liberties. Yet the country is still “sliding” in these areas, in their estimation.
Yet they still continue to vote for them, and advocate the party.

So if the blacks are being duped by liberals luring them in, but really only serving their own [the politicians] evil agenda, then the same thing is going on on the conservative side.
But don’t forget, with the blacks, it’s not just the motives of the politicians, but also the character of the entire voting base; the entire race, that’s being questioned, only voting for them “because they want free stuff”.

If people want to raise awareness of problems politicians aren’t solving, fine; but if it’s about just blaming one side for everything, while ignoring any wrong on any other base (such as corporatism, and how they milk and control all of us), then the other side is not going to hear or address the “problem”, and all anyone is doing is tickling the ears of the choir.

IIRC, some may try to say I’m doing to the “conservatives” the same thing I’m criticizing them for doing to blacks.
But race is what one IS by birth, and thus can’t be right or wrong. Political views are something one CHOOSES, and thus CAN be wrong, and is not what you are, but rather can be changed.

In denying “the race card”, it’s often attempted to make white liberals the real culprits, but then the “black” character judgment of “just wanting free stuff” still comes up. And you still have to explain why only blacks developed this problem. If you then acknowledge slavery and oppression, on the premise that “the liberals took advantage of the situation for their own agenda”, then you are, in fact, acknowledging a “legacy of slavery” (which conservatives including Sowell and others are saying is just an “excuse”). You’re only blaming this “legacy” on just one party or political wing. (And yet, the point, regarding the liberal side of the problem, is actually not totally disputed by most blacks).

God’s Word says all have sinned. Exceptionality means an exception. “All nations are sinful, and do wrong, but we’re the exception.”

So then the evil that is seen here is then SPLIT off, by being isolated to this one rogue party, and this one group of people, whom the party first tried to directly oppress, but then supposedly changed their tactic to [re-]“enslaving” them through the “freebies” of “socialism”.

But this ignores that these earlier “Democrats” were the conservatives, defending the Constitution and fighting against Communism, as their premise against the blacks, whom they said the same things about (them being lazy and violent) as today’s conservatives.

Conservatives are saying the other side “doesn’t want to address” (let alone fix) the problems, causing all these police shootings. But why do they seem to think the “truth” is always completely on their side?

There may be SOME instances of people doing wrong, and then suffering the consequences for it. There are also SOME instances of them doing wrong, but the reaction (such as death) is greater than what they were doing called for. And there are some instances of mistakes or discrimination, where the victim wasn’t doing anything.

What I keep seeing in discussions like this, is that one side is 100% wrong and deserves everything that happens, and the authorities are always right.
—UNTIL they do things conservatives don’t like, then they become evil dictators, and some out there seem to be preparing their own armed war against them if necessary! (i.e. your concerns about the system are the only ones ever valid).

As it stands, since the latest events have raised calls for “nationalizing” certain police departments (i.e having the federal government take over due to corruption), this becomes what the conservatives and libertarians feel threatened about in the situation (not the people being shot by these departments, since they are all just “thugs” who deserve it), and of course, concoct this whole scheme, that the liberals are telling the blacks that they are being wrongly harassed, to justify the feds taking over (someone actually suggested something like this to me!)

So they’ve isolated “the problem” down to two “entities”, basically, as the “root problem”, as one put it. (Not even groups of individuals, but rather these monolithic collective characters who act as one single person each. So therefore, each individual in those groups is not really a “person”, and such has no worth, or good, or value to his life). And to one person I was debating with, the “root problem” is the racially defined “permanent poverty class” themselves, and the political party involved is only the [separate] cause of it).

When you isolate the culprit of a crime, then the solution is to catch and punish him. But again, that’s a single individual; now, we’re talking about an entire “class” or “race”. What do you want done?
They just insist that the rhetoric should be repeated over and over, until “the liberals address the problem of how they’ve enslaved blacks through their programs”. But it looks to me like this is just deflection from something else, which they don’t want to address. Which they in fact, defend, as good!

And again, since this “class” is a “minority”, then what really are the Democrats getting out of “keeping them enslaved”? How does a minority by themselves give them all of this power?

Why isn’t the unholy alliances of business (with government) ever seen as having any part in “the problem”? (At least the financial aspects of it. Some libertarians and paleo-conservatives acknowledge this, but then it always comes back to the blacks and their desire for “freebies”; such as cases like Ron Paul, who showed his true colors by claiming blacks don’t want to fund wars as to not drain the money for food stamps).

Here is what I keep seeing. Rather than BOTH poor underclasses and ineffective liberal programs, AND corruption and cronyism in the levels of power (both govt. and private) having a share in the problems, blame is always shifted in ONE; the same, direction only. Then it’s demanded to be shouted over and over and drummed into everyone else’s head (“addressed”) but this looks like it’s only a shift of focus (i.e. deflection); I’m not seeing any actual solution being given.

There are people on the other side of the political spectrum who benefit from this, who also don’t want the problem fixed; they just want to screw over one side, and have them blaming other [unfortunate] people beside (and even below) them, while they skate off, on everyone’s back, unseen and unchallenged. It makes sense what they would “get” out of that!

And of course, the “statistics” they mention; but I’ve seen statistics; often the same ones, “spun” both ways. That’s the nature of statistics. A whole lot of factors and figures, and fallible humans not only have to put them together, setting the parameters, etc., but also have to interpret them, and tend to focus on what they want to use for their argument. So you can only put but so much stock in them.

The “Democrats” opposing the end of segregation decades ago used statistics. In fact, the very same ones sorts being used today, (such as on “crime”; comparing southern and northern cities; like the whole “{Baltimore/Chicago/Detroit, etc.} is a liberal problem” argument).

(It should be mentioned, what I’m noticing in that regard, is that the problem “liberal” cities are simply the northern, densely populated ones. That’s something that will figure in something like this. The more people there are, the more problems and conflicts there will be. But as much as these people deny “racism”, the “facts” they select and focus on seem to serve to validate what the racists of generations ago believed!)

Here, now, made a meme out of my list of the outline of the history of racism from Alexander’s The New Jim Crow

From → Politics

  1. Really nails all the main points!

  2. OK, new racial incident, and new round of dispute.

    Right away, people complaining that this guy can shoot up several people, yet be taken alive, and considered “mentally sick” instead of a “thug”; unlike Tamir and others, while FOX tries to suggest this was an attack on religion, not race.
    Also, you have this: White Supremacists Worried Charleston Shooting Makes Them Look Bad

    People were beginning to talk about the race issue openly after ferguson, baltimore, and now the Rachel Dolezal scandal. Looks to me like the powers that be wanted to turn attention back to whitey if it turns out to be a white perp.

    It’s a shame this happened and I do feel bad for the victims and their families. However, it’s making me sick (although no surprise) how this is being spun by the media. Racially charged killings? It’s a fact that Blacks commit way more crimes per capita and behave a certain way, that’s why they get chased and hurt. They do rape our women, and they are taking over our country and cost way too much money to maintain. But none of these points will ever be addressed because then it would bring open discussion to the NEGRO PROBLEM IN OUR SOCIETY … which is theREAL news.

    The guy comes right out and tells us directly the “open discussion on race” they want (what they feel the liberals have censored), and that’s “the negro problem”. This folks, is the root of all the rest of the conservative “takers” rhetoric, which has been smoothed over in the mainstream. But it’s the same exact sentiments.
    As one commenter pointed out: “So these folks are trying to distance themselves from exactly the type of person their group inspires and attracts. Sorry bigots but that s___ ain’t gonna fly!”

    In other words, this kid aimed to take care of “the negro problem”! Why do those complaining so much about this “problem” (and agreeing verbatim with all of his concerns) now try to disown his actions?

    So then there is also this:
    The Confederate Flag Isn’t Budging From South Carolina’s Capitol — Because It’s Protected Under State Law

    Forget about taking the flag down altogether, as many are naturally demanding; they cant even so much as lower it like the other flags!

    What strikes me:

    So the US and state flags can be lowered to half staff (indicating a sad day in the land), while the Confederate flag (locked in place), flies high (not a sad day, apparently) at what has been revealed to be the act of a racial supremacist.
    Really does not send a good message at all! Do I hear “VICTORY!!!” even?

    In other news, saw this not too long ago, and it touches upon the OP.

    Explains one of the other conservative deflections “Blacks sold each other into slavery”. Some may have done so, but the reason the purchasers are focused on, is because it was big business with them (the whole point of it all along, recall), and maintained for the sake of business. That is NOT the same as one tribe selling its slaves to someone else, and then trying to prolong the institution based on race.

    In a similar vein, continuing from the white supremacists quoted in the earlier link:
    “Obviously I am very against this heinous act of violence,” WhiteVirginian said. “Although a White guy going on a mass shooting is made such a big event because it happens so rarely. Blacks commit mass shootings everyday in every major US city.”

    Just like a recent story conservatives posted about some black guy killing a black girl somewhere (the whole premise being “where’s the outrage from Sharpton, the media, etc?”, and the conservative news site comments begin with someone posting a picture of a hanging as the “solution”. {Now tell me it isn’t white supremacists infiltrating if not running these sites, hiding behind what looks like an issue of “fairness” in the media).
    The black killers of other blacks are not killing the other people because of their race (who they are by birth, which they had no choice over), but for some other reason, often a dispute (drug battles, etc), or just plain crime. It is not the same thing as people, including those trusted to maintain order, killing someone because of their race. And for people to keep pointing out these things that don’t even match just shows them, like children caught doing something wrong, trying to deflect the blame to someone else appearing t o do the same thing, but in the reactive rush they haven’t even had the time to look and see it’s not the same thing.

  3. Somber Jon Stewart Delivers Scathing Monologue About Charleston Shooting

    Here this issue is tacked:
    Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?

    While white suspects are lone wolfs — Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston already emphasized this shooting was an act of just “one hateful person” — violence by black and Muslim people is systemic, demanding response and action from all who share their race or religion. Even black victims are vilified. Their lives are combed for any infraction or hint of justification for the murders or attacks that befall them: Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie. Michael Brown stole cigars. Eric Garner sold loosie cigarettes. [How could they leave out: Tamir Rice was playing with a toy gun]. When a black teenager who committed no crime was tackled and held down by a police officer at a pool party in McKinney, Tex., Fox News host Megyn Kelly described her as “No saint either.”

    This time, I hope that reporters and newscasters will ask the questions that get to the root of acts of racially motivated violence in America. Where did this man, who killed parishioners in their church during Bible study, learn to hate black people so much? Did he have an allegiance to the Confederate flag that continues to fly over the state house of South Carolina? Was he influenced by right-wing media’s endless portrayals of black Americans as lazy and violent?

    How people convince themselves that the Confederate flag represents freedom, not slavery
    Historian John M. Coski examines the fights over the symbol’s meaning in “The Confederate Battle Flag: America’s Most Embattled Emblem.”

    Historians emphasize that defense of African-American slavery was inextricably intertwined with white southerners’ defense of their own constitutional liberties and with nearly every other facet of southern life. Descendants of Confederates are not wrong to believe that the flag symbolized defense of constitutional liberties and resistance to invasion by military forces determined to crush an experiment in nationhood. But they are wrong to believe that this interpretation of the flag’s meaning can be separated from the defense of slavery. They need only read the words of their Confederate ancestors to find abundant and irrefutable evidence.

  4. Racist Manifesto Purportedly Written By Dylann Roof Surfaces Online

    The first six paragraphs echo perfectly the sentiments commonly heard in Right Wing rhetoric, minus the open use of the “N” word!

    Other good articles:

    Centuries of Violence:
    For black Americans, it is impossible to separate the massacre in Charleston from hundreds of years of vicious attacks on our churches and communities

    American patriotism is unique

    The Confederate Flag Is a Racist Symbol of a Failed Rebellion. It’s Not a Debate.

    White Southerners who support the display of the flag claim it is a symbol of their “heritage,” when what they really mean is it reminds them of an imagined past where white people held all the power and minorities were kept properly in their place.

    The Deadly History of “They’re Raping Our Women”

    One significant statement, in passing:
    “’We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will’, said Sen. Benjamin Tillman on the Senate floor in 1900.”

    With people today “loyal” to the “heritage” of these past leaders, and never renouncin these sentiments, it shows why they cannot accept Obama as president, try as they desperately may, to say it is just his policies. (Even when a black Republican, whom they claim to like, runs, the party manages to get him out of the race).

    Anti-intellectualism Is Killing America

    Unfortunately goes after religion, but that too has been misused for mind (and other) control, so what else can you expect. It finishes on what’s been the underlying issue in all ofthis (from slavery on), and that’s economics:

    Corporate domination of American society is another result of a public that is not thinking critically. Americans have allowed their democracy to slip away, their culture overtaken by enormous corporations that effectively control both the governmental apparatus and the media, thus shaping life around materialism and consumption.

    Indeed, these corporate interests encourage anti-intellectualism, conditioning Americans into conformity and passive acceptance of institutional dominance. They are the ones who stand to gain from the absurd levels of fear and nationalism that result in militaristic foreign policy and absurdly high levels of military spending. They are the ones who stand to gain from consumers who spend money they don’t have on goods and services they don’t need. They are the ones who want a public that is largely uninformed and distracted, thus allowing government policy to be crafted by corporate lawyers and lobbyists. They are the ones who stand to gain from a prison-industrial complex that generates the highest rates of incarceration in the developed world. They are the ones who stand to gain from unregulated securities markets.

    [and in all that, to further distract, just insist that these corporate interests “deserve”, having “earned” all of that, and blame the blacks for getting all the money through “handouts”. THAT was in part the premise this kid was operating off of!]

    Someone’s pathetic attempt to defend the Confederate Flag, er “Battle Flag of Northern Virginia”:

    Actually tries to suggest that the “X” pattern was a way of “x-ing out” the South from the Union, symbolized by the 13 stars represetnting the original colonies. So if it was really against any group of people, they would be “x-ed out” on the flag too.
    Only thing, the 13 colonies included both northern and southern stated. (Also, it’s not exactly the same colors as the US flag; that higher wavelength color is orange, not red). What did that last link say about “critical thinking”?

    Another site arguing that there is a difference between the national flag and the battle flag:

    Notice, after they ditched the first design that looked too much like the union flag, they adopted the same “battle” design, but only minimized it in the upper left. (The flag was almost completely white and looked like a surrender flag when the left side was obscured, so they then added a red bar on the right, said to represent blood).
    So it’s essentially the same thing! (And what is that saying? The whole defining purpose of this “nation” was the “battle” against the Union! So to oppose the battle is to oppose the nation and vice versa!)

  5. An admission from conservatives!

    Down with the Confederate Flag

    The widespread use of the Confederate battle flag during the Civil Rights era, to defend white supremacy, removed the benefit of the doubt that might have been extended to those displaying the flag in memory of the war dead. In other words, modern white supremacists robbed the flag, as a symbol, of a plausible claim of innocence.

    And from the president of the SBC!

    Here’s the Racist Meaning Of the Confederate Flag, In the Words of the Man Who Designed It

    The Confederate Flag In Every State, In Every Form, Must. Come. Down

    Whatever its benign significance to some people, it historically signifies an era of slavery and oppression, and it has been appropriated as a symbol of hate by other groups. Those are facts, not an interpretation.

    In his 1861 “Cornerstone” speech, Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America, left no doubt about what the Confederacy represented when he rejected the idea that slavery was a moral wrong: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

    This again, is the answer to the whole “Africans sold each other into slavery” retort. (And the same goes for the current “they’re killing themselves in the cities”, and even “there was slavery in the Bible”). They may have done so, but it was not based on any such deliberately constructed philosophical basis. It was usually the spoils of war, and not based on any notion of “inferiority”.
    It’s actually not “slavery” per-se that’s really being regarded as so evil in itself; it’s the way American slavery was carried out (particularly in a land priding itself on being so “free”), and again, the justifications used for it, which just piled more problems on top of everything else, and have led to the resentment of those feeling somethign has been “taken” from them by the government and other progressive forces.

    (People are really being like children. A racially motivated killing occurs, whether by a lone gunman, or cops, and the response to everyone else is “Well, you all kill each other!”)

    Also, regarding “who has the most problems”, all communities have problems, but it just dawned on me, blacks are more v̲i̲s̲i̲b̲l̲e̲, from being in the big urban areas pop culture and politics alike are centered on).

  6. People are continuing to spout this “what about black on black crime”, in response to this latest event, and in debates, they have gotten hung up on the label “terrorist”.

    The issue here is this whole comparing of who black people get killed by. There isn’t the same outrage over the black-on-black killings as this latest incident, or the cop killings because these urban killings people like to throw up are either random (whether just an everyday robbing or whatever), or drug deals and other disputes gone bad. It’s not one person trying to exterminate [or at least terrorize] another race (which would include the killer himself, of course).
    The people are aware of the urban crime problem. Most of them grew up with it, and some still live with it. So there are people addressing it!

    See also:

    Here is a quote from one of the links in the first comment that lays it out:

    Black Community is Concerned with_Black_on_Black Crime

    And in short, it’s easy to find examples of marches and demonstrations against crime. In the last four years, blacks have held community protests against violence in Chicago; New York; Newark, New Jersey; Pittsburgh; Saginaw, Michigan; and Gary, Indiana. [ ] Indeed, there’s a whole catalog of movies, albums, and sermons from a generation of directors, musicians, and religious leaders, each urging peace and order. You may not have noticed black protests against crime and violence, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t happened. Black Americans—like everyone else—are concerned with what happens in their communities, and at a certain point, pundits who insist otherwise are either lying or willfully ignorant.

    To that point, it’s worth noting the extent to which “what about black-on-black crime” is an evasion, an attempt to avoid the fundamental difference between being killed by a citizen and being killed by an agent of law.

    Regardless of cause or concern, a community doesn’t forfeit fair treatment because it has crime. That was true then when the scourge was lynching, and it’s true now that the scourge is unjust police violence. Say what you will about “black-on-black crime,” just don’t pretend it has anything to do with unfair killings at the hands of the state.

    (The next thing will likely be to put it on Sharpton and Jackson. Why aren’t they out there more, like they are for white-on-black incidents? But who are they? Just media figures, basically! It’s not even like most blacks “follow” them; they’re just “there”, from rising to fame in the past. Conservatives themselves are the ones have said it countless times; they’re just trying to stay “relevent”. So why would you keep using them to scold “the black community” for “not addressing black problems”?)
    Again, it’s like people are addressing a single individual, rather than millions of individuals.

    This whole issue is like a child saying “what about him?!” “So what someone killed your loved one because of your race; you all kill each other!” So a whole people are supposed to accept ‘open season’ on them because of what others in “the community” do?

    Imagine, a person gets robbed by one of these “urban criminals” everyone talks about, and then walks onto the next block, and gets shot by a cop or by this kid, and you come along and tell him “That’s GOOD for you, because of that criminal back on the other block you just got robbed by. You should have commanded him to reform himself, but since you didn’t you’re complicit in his crime, and deserve the same consequences he does”!
    THAT is what you are essentially reasoning!

    And let’s not forget people similarly still throwing up black-on-white crime. Every “conservative news” site story on this I’m now seeing, is followed by commenters saying lynching should be brought back, with pictures of nooses, even! But of course, they’re the victims of the true “racists”, the “race hustlers” playing “the race card” on them; right?

    There’s also this:
    taking a single factor, of two parent families, and assuming from that alone, that all was well among the people. But the people opposing both abolition and Civil Rights didn’t think so. They said all the same things about the people being violent, lazy and sensual (sexually immoral, etc.), and cited them as “facts” as to why they shouldn’t be free and equal. (Now, it seems the argument is that they were ‘better’ and better off under those old institutions. And again, we see this reduction of millions into a single entity: “blacks”, as if they all think, feel and behave the same way, and all on “welfare”).

    Society across the board moved away from the old “nuclear family” (Don’t those citing these articles, many being conservative Christians, remember excoriating the whole “nation” for “abadonment of the family”, 30-50 years ago, and that even many Christians have slipped in morality?)
    And big business and others get forms of welfare; apparently much more of it.

    These problems are more than just one race and one political party!


    A point I thought of; that defenders argue the flag is more a defensive symbol betrays the problem with it. It carries with it the premise that something has been “taken” from its advocates, which they want back. Who took from them? What do they want back? Plenty today will indirectly fill in the blanks.
    We can see some of this here, with the same “fact” citing used as the green light to spew what really cannot in any way shape or form be denied as racist:

    These Emails Show Just How ‘Post-Racial’ America Really Is

    Some will insist these are just the “fringe” element, but aside from the racial epithets, they’re ultimately saying the same things.

    Here’s another good viewpoint:

    NFL’s Benjamin Watson: Remove The Confederate Flag For The Right Reasons

    “…if the flag comes down as a PR move, it’s pointless. But if it comes down out of a genuine desire to avoid hurting our neighbors, well, take down the damn flag.”

    Here, we finally begin to see conservatives address more the Southern Strategy (beyond just a fleeting pinning it on Thurmond alone), admitting some people switched parties, but totally leaves out bits and parts of information (including the term “Southern Strategy” and those that deliberately conceived of it)

    Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party — which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues — makes no sense whatsoever.

    Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties “switched,” and most racist Democrats became Republicans!

    He admits “It is true that Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party.” and then goes on to try to clear Goldwater of the charge of “Racism” in favor of a simple consern for “states rights” (which from the Civil war on was heavily tied up with racism, for that is one of the key things they resented the government for interfering with).

    But Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth — a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

    But 1964 was not when the Southern Strategy was complete, it’s basically around the time it began. It was really Nixon that pushed it along (on the white conservative side) over the next decade.

    Also notice, he admitted “many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party”, and that “some” were “probably atracted” to the Republican Party, but doesn’t tell us what happened to the rest of the “many”.
    With all the hatred many of the opposers of civil rights had back then (both officials and the voting base alike), most were not going to go along with the party figuring on “oh, we’ll just enslave them another way”. They didn’t want them “dependent”, they wanted them either subjugated the old fashioned way, or disposed of altogether! They already thought their nation was being “taken from them” and wrongly given to these people, so why would they favor a tactic of more of that approach?
    So in the heat of the moment, when they fear their own livelihood is at stake with too much integration, they are not going to be thinking that way.

    He also adds:

    A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

    Well, yes, that too. In fact, all of those issues were tied together (both racial and religious) as “the values of our nation”. (and this is what would further drag the religius part of it down as corrupt and irrelevant; only a tool of dominance).

    Then, of course, it goes into the “real” switch, of “Democratic Party chang[ing] its strategy for dealing with African Americans.” by getting them “dependent on the government”, and citing LBJ (the citation about “having the n______ voting Democratic for the next 200 years” is heavily questioned as authentic).
    This leads to the usual sweeping assessment of the urban black community:

    Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats — and blaming “racist” Republicans for their problems!

    That is what this is all about. Once again hyping up negatively “the negro problem” and cloaking it under a criticism of a [white] political party. It’s like that party, as well as the “problem people” themselves being manipulated by them, are not groups consisting of human individuals, but rather two monolithic entities responsible for all evil in the nation.

    And they just can’t see why anyone would call this bigotry. They’ve told themselvs it’s “the truth” so much, and truth is the opposite of racism.

  8. Good article from last year:

    Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party

    In my high school history class, Reconstruction was a mysterious blank period between Lincoln’s assassination and Edison’s light bulb. Congress impeached Andrew Johnson for some reason, the transcontinental railroad got built, corruption scandals engulfed the Grant administration, and Custer lost at Little Big Horn. But none of it seemed to have much to do with present-day events.

    And oh, those blacks Lincoln emancipated? Except for Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver, they vanished like the Lost Tribes of Israel. They wouldn’t re-enter history until the 1950s, when for some reason they still weren’t free.

    Here’s what my teachers’ should have told me: “Reconstruction was the second phase of the Civil War. It lasted until 1877, when the Confederates won.” I think that would have gotten my attention.

    It wasn’t just that Confederates wanted to continue the war. They did continue it, and they ultimately prevailed. They weren’t crazy, they were just stubborn.

    The Lost Cause. At about the same time my American history class was leaving a blank spot after 1865, I saw Gone With the Wind, which started filling it in like this: Sadly, the childlike blacks weren’t ready for freedom and full citizenship. Without the discipline of their white masters, many became drunks and criminals, and they raped a lot of white women. Northern carpetbaggers used them (and no-account white scalawags) as puppets to control the South, and to punish the planter aristocrats, who prior to the war had risen to the top of Southern society through their innate superiority and virtue.

    But eventually the good men of the South could take it no longer, so they formed the Ku Klux Klan to protect themselves and their communities. They were never able to restore the genteel antebellum society — that Eden was gone with the wind, a noble but ultimately lost cause — but they were eventually able to regain the South’s honor and independence. Along the way, they relieved their beloved black servants of the onerous burden of political equality, until such time as they might become mature enough to bear it responsibly.

    That telling of history is now named for its primary proponent, William Dunning. It is false in almost every detail. If history is written by the winners, Dunning’s history is the clearest evidence that the Confederates won.

    If the Napoleonic Wars were your model, then it was obvious that the Confederacy lost in 1865: Its capital fell, its commander surrendered, its president was jailed, and its territories were occupied by the opposing army. If that’s not defeat, what is?

    But now we have a better model than Napoleon: Iraq.

    After the U.S. forces won on the battlefield in 1865 and shattered the organized Confederate military, the veterans of that shattered army formed a terrorist insurgency that carried on a campaign of fire and assassination throughout the South until President Hayes agreed to withdraw the occupying U. S. troops in 1877. Before and after 1877, the insurgents used lynchings and occasional pitched battles to terrorize those portions of the electorate still loyal to the United States. In this way they took charge of the machinery of state government, and then rewrote the state constitutions to reverse the postwar changes and restore the supremacy of the class that led the Confederate states into war in the first place.

    By the time it was all over, the planter aristocrats were back in control, and the three constitutional amendments that supposedly had codified the U.S.A’s victory over the C.S.A.– the 13th, 14th, and 15th — had been effectively nullified in every Confederate state. The Civil Rights Acts had been gutted by the Supreme Court, and were all but forgotten by the time similar proposals resurfaced in the 1960s. Blacks were once again forced into hard labor for subsistence wages, denied the right to vote, and denied the equal protection of the laws. Tens of thousands of them were still physically shackled and subject to being whipped, a story historian Douglas Blackmon told in his Pulitzer-winning Slavery By Another Name.

    In particular, 1865 was a moment when reparations and land reform were actually feasible. Late in the war, some of Lincoln’s generals — notably Sherman — had mitigated their slave-refugee problem by letting emancipated slaves farm small plots on the plantations that had been abandoned by their Confederate owners. Sick or injured animals unable to advance with the Army were left behind for the slaves to nurse back to health and use. (Hence “forty acres and a mule”.) Sherman’s example might have become a land-reform model for the entire Confederacy, dispossessing the slave-owning aristocrats in favor of the people whose unpaid labor had created their wealth.

    Instead, President Johnson (himself a former slave-owner from Tennessee) was quick to pardon the aristocrats and restore their lands. That created a dynamic that has been with us ever since: Early in Reconstruction, white and black working people sometimes made common cause against their common enemies in the aristocracy. But once it became clear that the upper classes were going to keep their ill-gotten holdings, freedmen and working-class whites were left to wrestle over the remaining slivers of the pie. Before long, whites who owned little land and had never owned slaves had become the shock troops of the planters’ bid to restore white supremacy.

    Along the way, the planters created rhetoric you still hear today: The blacks were lazy and would rather wait for gifts from the government than work (in conditions very similar to slavery). In this way, the idle planters were able to paint the freedmen as parasites who wanted to live off the hard work of others.

    The larger pattern. But the enduring Confederate influence on American politics goes far beyond a few rhetorical tropes. The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

    It’s not a Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party protest was aimed at a Parliament where the colonists had no representation, and at an appointed governor who did not have to answer to the people he ruled. Today’s Tea Party faces a completely different problem: how a shrinking conservative minority can keep change at bay in spite of the democratic processes defined in the Constitution. That’s why they need guns. That’s why they need to keep the wrong people from voting in their full numbers.

    These right-wing extremists have misappropriated the Boston patriots and the Philadelphia founders because their true ancestors — Jefferson Davis and the Confederates — are in poor repute.

    But the veneer of Bostonian rebellion easily scrapes off; the tea bags and tricorn hats are just props. The symbol Tea Partiers actually revere is the Confederate battle flag. Let a group of right-wingers ramble for any length of time, and you will soon hear that slavery wasn’t really so bad, that Andrew Johnson was right, that Lincoln shouldn’t have fought the war, that states have the rights of nullification and secession, that the war wasn’t really about slavery anyway, and a lot of other Confederate mythology that (until recently) had left me asking, “Why are we talking about this?”

    On Web, white supremacists stir up a growing and angry audience

    The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

    Yes, you’re a racist… and a traitor.

    Americans Just Changed Their Mind About What The Confederate Flag Represents

    With the argument that this was not the “national flag” of the Confederacy, I might have felt they should just leave it alone. But with the revival of the flag in the 20th century to oppose integration, its proponents themslves have tainted it with direct racism, and thus tarnished it as a racist symbol.

    This flag means to us what this [Nazi] flag means to them [Holocaust victims]
    Emphasis on “US” [the descendents of the victims of that regime], regardless of what it’s modern proponents say it means to them [who identify with the leaders and benefactors of the regime].

  9. I actually agree to some point, as saying stuff like “America is a white Supremacist nation” [i.e. still is] is way too strong language, and glosses over all the changes over time, and that it consists of individuals who either can be or are not like that. Also, terms like “white privilege” get tossed around, and not always articulated enough as to what they mean by that.

    But then, the same thing is being done to blacks. Right after he makes the point about the country being “defined by them”, and that it would be like saying that African American community is “all defined” by Louis Farrakhan or the Black Panthers, he then goes into the “problems” of the community, which IS often used to “define” it in conservative talking points. He may soften it with “however there ARE problems in the African American precincts…”, he still comes close to this sort of generalization by charging straight into the “corrosive culture” statement, which others often use to paint “the blacks” as a whole without any apparent distinction. (And then all the “decent, fair-minded among them” seem to suddenly become invisible, and all anyone sees are angry rioters, criminals and single mothers gaming the system, whch are just a subset within the community, not “the [whole] community” itself).
    And then, as a lot of the criticism is based on the actions/statements of the main public political media figures, Jackson and Sharpton, this IS “defining” the community by these two figures (whom many seem to regard as just as “radical” and “hateful” as Farrakhan and the Panthers!)

    The point is, all of the generalization both sides [seeing the other side as a monolothic entity with one mind rather than as individuals] do is what keeps this ball rolling, and as anger flares up on both sides, this is why we’re getting more and more unrest.
    So doing back to them what you’re complaining of them doing to you is not the answer, nor is it founded by any more “truth”, supposedly justifying it. People are ultimately the same, and their actions stem from the sin nature, and are shaped by various circumstances throughout their lives (individual and collective), and no one is on any sort of moral/cultural higher ground.

    In a side note, I would also go along with the response that even though all the evils done under the Confederate flag were also done under the American flag (so “I’ll bet that will be next” is the battle cry, including figures like Limbaugh, and people are also pointing to the likes of Farrakhan, who in fact is making the argument that one flag is just as bad as the other). But as I had seen said somewhere (maybe even in one of the links above), America as a whole changed its position on those things. Again, we’re not dealing with a singluar monolithic entity, but rather a nation of millions of people. While the Confederacy was that also, its leaders and defenders did define it largely on institutions that were mixed up in slavery and later other forms of oppression (like the “states’ rights” to maintain these preactices). Those who resurrected it in recent generations did so in the context of racial hatred.

  10. Franklin Graham Joins Call To Remove Confederate Flag

    Ken Burns: Confederate flag isn’t about heritage. It’s about resistance to civil rights.

    First person ever I’ve heard, outside of my own realization: “I have these lynching photos from the 1920’s, and there are these little kids in there, and everybody’s smiling, at this horribly maimed body. Those people may still be alive; what are they teaching their children and grandchildren?” (And that’s the 1920’s. How about the equally hateful CiVil Rights opposers of 40 years afterward, within many of our lifetimes!)

    Five myths about why the South seceded

    21 Signs You Might Be The ‘Real Racist’

    Civil War Buffs On Confederate Flag Debate: It’s Complicated

    I keep seeing “very few of those soldiers were slave owners”, but it’s true that most people didn’t own slaves. Slavery was the “big business” of the time, and of course, the owners are not going to be out on the battlefield. They’re the ones being protected (just like the “Cold War” that pitted Capitalism against Communism. Most of the people in Vietnam weren’t corporate executives, if any).

    In addition to the large quote in the ocmment above, the “Five Myths” article addresses this in #3:

    However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.

    Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains.

    So rather than change one’s beliefs and practice to conform to the faith, or even to change the faith, as others had done, you just change nature and say they’re not men. But it shows they knew the “truth”, and like the Pharisees Christ tangled with, reasoned their way out of the contradictions.

    As #5 the myth that “slavery would have ended on its own” (the “give good men time to resolve this on their own” argument): “Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily.
    To claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is impossible to disprove but difficult to accept. In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Unpaid labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer.

    That, we see yet again, is what it was all about (and again, today’s ongoing pro-rich arguments are just a continuation of the old values).
    “It’s all about the context.
    There’s a reason nobody flies a Nazi flag without sustaining major flak from everybody who sees it. In most of the U.S., the same goes for the Confederate, or “Rebel,” flag — it’s a symbol of slavery and secession.
    Even the declared reasons for South Carolina seceding from the union are about slavery.”
    “Of course racists can wave their racist flag around. It’s individual and therefore protected speech. When flying from or in front of a statehouse, it’s government speech, and that is not protected by the First Amendment.

    Even Robert E. Lee Wanted the Confederate Flag Gone

    How White Christians Used The Bible — And Confederate Flag — To Oppress Black People

  11. Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy? Because our textbooks and monuments are wrong.

    “As soon as the Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done and why. The resulting mythology took hold of the nation a generation later and persists — which is why a presidential candidate can suggest, as Michele Bachmann did in 2011, that slavery was somehow pro-family and why the public, per the Pew Research Center, believes that the war was fought mainly over states’ rights.

    The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause … and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation they spread, which has manifested in our public monuments and our history books.”

    Texas also made clear what it was seceding for — white supremacy:

    We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

    This is basically the “hard truth” or “open discussion on race” the far Right tries to convey through statistics on black crime and how liberals are at fault for all the “problems” in “giving them too much”. I kept asking (rhetorically), “what should be done?” and people never answer, for this is basically it, but no one can admit it (exept for commenters on radical right sites, though). So if they couldn’t have slavery back then the people should be expunged, through segregation; or create a new “slavery” of low paid labor, and just blame their own “laziness” (lack of “agency”) for it!
    From one Confederate general’s statement:

    By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. . . . The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile Earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.

    This is basically the sentiment expressed in all the “black crime” rhetoric (and now expanded to Mexicans by Donald Trump; this week’s big race news, and sorely damaging his political and even business life).

    And here’s another one of the myths:
    “the entire population of Southern whites supported the Confederacy in 1861.”

    This Myth Obscures the Surprising Truth About the Confederacy

    The point:
    “The Confederacy was so deeply divided that some historians believe that is the principal reason it lost the war.
    So when white Southerners proclaim that the Confederate flag represents their history, they are misrepresenting their own history. Some of their ancestors opposed the war effort, and some of them fought for the United States flag. The myth of the united South is just that—a myth.”

    Here’s a good one:

    The ‘Southern Avenger’ Repents: I Was Wrong About the Confederate Flag (Jack Hunter, editor of “Rare Politics”)

    Here’s a good rundown of the Southern Strategy:

    In conjunction with that, a couple of other articles on why people vote Republican:

    Reason #1 is atually “Calvinism”, with its [original, though edited out by most today] belief that part of “election” is that God chooses who is poor and rich (in this life, as well as lost and saved after it).

    “To make up for my own failures, I voted to give rich people tax cuts, because somewhere deep inside, I knew they were better than me. They earned it. My support for conservative politics was atonement for the original sin of being white trash.
    I was still paying little if any income tax, but I believed in “fairness.” The “death tax” (aka the estate tax) was unfair and rich people paid more taxes so they should get more of a tax break. I ignored my own personal struggles when I made political decisions.

    This is very revealing, showing how these sentiments work, psychologically!
    So in fairness, when some of those defenders of the system say “well, the rich are just better than you at creating value” (as I had cited in previous topics), they are actually including themselves as the “less productive”! (I say “speak for yourself!“)
    Thankfully, this person (unlike so many others) got wise:

    “The financial crisis proved that rich people are no better than me, and in fact, are often inferior to average people. They crash companies, loot pensions and destroy banks, and when they hit a snag, they scream to be rescued by government largess.”

    Frederick Douglass nails the hypocrisy of American slavery:

  12. Great news; the flag has just come down, but of course, the usual back and forth bantering in the race issue continues.

    Notice (in the comments) how the discussion is immediately turned to “the pants coming up” (since “the flag came down”). There is more balance int he comments, with peopel responding of the ridiculousness of compaing a usually admittedly bad fashion statement, with a symbole that was deliberately tied to oppression (though its’ defenders today try to omit that part of it). Still, they in typical (and childish) fashion, try to throw it back at the other side, with the first thing they can think of.

    Now, to address a couple of problems I’m seeing (from FB posts) on the black side.

    [johnmetta i-racist 538512462265]
    View at

    It nails the point regarding one group being individuals, with a few isolated bad ones, while the other group is a monolithic entity that is basically “bad”, except for a few “good ones”.
    But I still think we need more tact, as constantly tossing the blanket term “racism” will just continue to stoke guilt both liberal and conservative), and lead to more denial, not the “open conversation” both sides say they want (all it’s doing is stirring up people’s “shadow”; which just leads to defensive reactions, either turning it back on s, from the Right, or the “hurt feelings” of the Left; not civil discourse); and it’s doing the same thing they are doing, lumping everyone into a monolithic group. All they’re going to do is fire back that we’re just trying to “get stuff” from them.

    Then, this story about actually renaming Washington DC and removing the Jefferson monument:

    Conservatives are already saying removing the flag as well as legalizing same sex marriage is going to lead to a flood of “anything goes” changes, and here someone comes up with this!
    My first comment:

    Is this serious?
    I would agree with the first guy, and the later black female, and I think most of the black community would probably feel more that way. (And I wonder if that last guy was really serious).
    I would say, take down the Confederate flag, because that was an offensive symbol of a defeated regime. But you can’t stamp out every bad memory.

    So completely doing away with parts of history is going too far. Eliminating the names of Washington and Jefferson is not going to erase the occurrence or any effects of slavery.
    And it only stokes those anti-black racists who think we’re all “taking over” and destroying their country as it is. Just look in that link to the Gatewaypundit version of the story, which is evidently a far Right site where stories like this are used as platforms to attack the entire black community (one says “yeah, name it “N word town”, and then all the focus on all the crime “George wouldn’t want it named after him anymore”). I have to wonder if white supremacists are the ones behind the scenes creating some of these stories, just to rile up their fans to action. They’ve done it before (“Beat Whitey Night” in Minnesota, years ago).

    One person responds, with what I have pointed out as the general attitude of many of the people, and that’s basically “F what they say!” He also mentions the nation coming down, like Rome of old, so all these statues will be toppled anyway.
    To which I repond:

    I think it is important what they think, because it’s true we are asking things of them. We’re still asking for justice and equality, and for them to stop shooting us, and there are some out there still asking for “reparations” and “apologies”. [had just read this article: ] Now, we go as far as to want them to remove the name of the nation’s founder from the nation’s capitol!
    How do we expect them to give us these things when many are convinced that we’re “taking too much” from them as it is, based on untrue generalizations, that we don’t even bother to answer, because we’re too busy saying “F them”? That has been part of our problem too long. You need to know what/how your opponent thinks in order to have a good stratgy of one’s own!

    You say the system will come down, but don’t forget, we’re still here, and it will hurt us too. The way things are going, with blacks being made the scapegoats for everything wrong in society, when it does come down, they will blame us, and then feel justified in an all out war against us (militias, police, national guard if necessary). Will we be able to say say “F what they think”? then?

  13. As all of this stuff occurs, it is announced that a sequel to the classic To Kill A Mockingbird is being published.

    In “To Kill a Mockingbird,” winner of the 1961 Pulitzer Prize, Atticus risks his physical safety to defend a black man accused of rape. He invokes the Declaration of Independence during the trial and argues for the sanctity of the legal system. Privately, he wonders why “reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up.”

    So in this second book, Go Set a Watchman, this Atticus character has now seemingly done a complete turnaround, opposing Brown v. Board of Education, and the prospect of blacks holding public offices and marrying whites, arguing the court moved too quickly, that blacks aren’t ready for full equality and the South has every right to object to interference from the NAACP and others . “Can you blame the South for resenting being told what to do about its own people by people who have no idea of its daily problems?” he says.

    This created a great shock, to both the heroine of the story, Fich’s daughter, as well as real life fans of the original book.

    A couple of comments:

    “Harper Lee has killed the hero Atticus Finch. Apparently he becomes a 72 year old segregationist in the soon to be released lost novel. It would have been better if Go Set A Watchman had been burned or thrown away unfound. Gregory Peck elevated Atticus into an anti-segregationist hero of the southern black man. The soon to be released novel has killed our hero Atticus and turned him into an old, racist segregationist. Terrible.”

    “This novel makes zero sense given what we know of Atticus in the first book.”

    To which I say:
    No, this IS possible, and you can think of it (to use an ‘extreme’ example) as someone seeing others being cruel to animals, and that person advocates being “kind to animals”. But if someone were to take it further and try to give those animals equal treatment to humans, then the person is going to oppose that; for having a right to be treated kindly does not equal a right to be treated equally; for they are still NOT “equal” in that person’s view.
    Then, in such a polarized political lanscape, moderates will seem like liberals compared to conservatives, but will seem like conservatives compared to liberals, and then as the scale shifts, what was once “liberal” now becomes “center”, and what was center falls to the Right, and neither will be fully open to what the progressive agenda has by then moved to.

    Recently, a conservative I was debating with tried to use this dynamic to explain away the Southern Strategy, where the Democratic and Republican parties switched roles in Civil Rights. They try to paint the Republicans as always the “progressives” on race, who are simply “telling the truth” now about blacks and what is causing their problems and what would be best for them, and the Democrats as the perpetual racists, who simply “changed their tactics” and decided to “enslave them through free handouts from the government” instead of continuing open oppression.

    The same with the North vs the South, and people digging up instances of racism in the North , and that Lincoln did not hold blacks as equal. (one Southern person I’ve seen on a board, mentions visiting New Jersey, and hearing people say stuff like “you know those blacks…”, figuring it was safe to say this around a southerner. The same person does the same thing on the board with the generalizations of “black crime” or “culture”, but is now using this to try to paint the North as the true racists, just like they do with the Democrats). But no black person, (at least), has ever denied that there was racism in the North. In studying Five Points history, I even saw where New York, depending on the southern cotton trade, actually aligned itself with the Confederacy, leading to the Draft Riots that erupted around Manhattan.

    Generally, there were probably very few people back then who saw blacks as equal. So Republicans across the board, and Northern Republicans and many Democrats may have opposed slavery and then segregation, but still held a lot of feelings of superiority that looked moderate if not egalitarian when compared to the old Southern Democrats. When the Southern Strategy occurred, the Republican party became the “lesser of two evils” to the opposers of racial progress, but they could always still be able to point to racism elsewhere, for it was everywhere. It doesn’t reduce their opposition to equality.


    I remember first hearing these kinds of arguments from one of ICR creationist Henry Morris’ books, which was the first time I had ever heard an old-line fundamentalist even address racism, and of course, it was only to blame someone else: the arch-enemy of evolutionism. My right away thought was the religious basis of racism, which I had long looked to see critiqued as a “heresy” like evolution and all the other “false doctrines” they condemned, but why should they have, when trying to cover up their own doctrines’ racist past?

    So to be fair, while early evolutionists may have believed blacks were lower beings, they were not the ones who claimed GENESIS 9 put a divine “curse” on the race (For that’s the book they reject, remember. And the interpretation is not even correct, on several fronts. It was NOAH who uttered the “curse” ⦅an in a hungover state as it was⦆, there’s no evidence God even granted it, and the Canaanites were not coterminous with the black race; and neither is there evidence that all of Ham was. We only know some of Ham’s OTHER son’s formed familiarly named African nations. This does not say the three sons of Noah formed the three “races”, as was assumed. Most of the Canaanites remained in the area around Palestine, anyway).
    So this doctrine is rooted in false eisogesis raised to the level of divine dogma. Which is worse? The one that appeals to admittedly “godless” science, or the one that claimed to be the Word of God itself?

    Then, the splitting continues with trying to put “racism” on Planned Parenthood, as a plot of genocide toward specifically the black race. This sort of parallels the claim of the modern “Democratic Party” trying to “enslave blacks a new way” through “handouts” (continuing from its segregationist past), and also appeals to abortion statistics, and making this particularly a “black” issue. So on both “welfare” and “abortion”, blacks get “isolated” and scolded again.
    But as I’ve said, racism in the country was totally ignored as having any real effect to begin with.

    People will insist to the hilt that Margaret Sanger started her service for specifically this purpose. Finger pointing white conservatives, and even black Christians go right along with this. This is based on the fact that her writings “echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races.” (mentioned is Aborigines). So what then happened, is that she was approached by “African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities.”

    So her premise may have been bad, but trying to use that to scold blacks for abortion (and the “sexual looseness” associated with it), and thus using “black problems” as another platform against abortion is just furthering the splitting and deflection in the race issue.
    So the evil of racism cannot be isloated and “SPLIT” off onto only one side, as I see being done.
    So whether we’re talking about the creationists or evolutionists, the Union or the Confederacy, the Republicans vs the Democrats, or pro-life vs pro-choice, nearly all believed blacks were inferior; only some went further in oppressing them than others, and THAT’s what was being opposed then and now!

    Also, here’s another one on the flag:

  15. Put together a new essay from some of the relevant comments:

    Ten common arguments in the race issue

    Just ran across these titles by likely “white nationalists”, aiming to directly go after the so-called “negro problem” (discussed in the link above):

    ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignores it
    ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it
    Both by Colin Flaherty

    The Un-Civil War: BLACKS vs NIGGERS: Confronting the Subculture Within the African-American Community: Taleeb Starkes
    The books are praised by the likes of Thomas Sowell and Alan West.

    Here are a couple of articles addressing this:

    How Should African-American Writers Discuss the Mob Violence Being Committed by Black Youth?
    When Blacks Attack! The Right-Wing Media’s Race War Fantasies

  16. (Since this thread is where the bulk of discussion on the confederate issue is):

    The Confederacy was a con job on whites. And still is.

    The same “1%” pulling the strings and deflecting blame, back then just as now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: