It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"How about the Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race"

page: 12
61
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
I suppose the real point is that the 19th century divide wasn't straight-forward conservative/progressive.
One academic source I checked for my thread on the 1879 Compromise summed it up like this (I paraphrase);
The Democrats were a coailtion of northern radicals and southern conservatives.
The Republicans were a coaiition of northern conservatives and southern radicals.
And the Compromise which blocked Tilden was a stitch-up by which the radicals of both parties were thrown overboard.

Now that these ingredients have been re-shuffled, it isn't safe to use the old labels as if they still held the same meaning.


edit on 20-6-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Okay, let's go with that for a second...

Did the states south of the Mason-Dixon line favor slavery or not?

Are those states predominantly Democratic today, or not?

Please don't tell me they secretly waited until just after the 13th Amendment was ratified to clandestinely switch from being Republicans to being Democrats in order to hopelessly obfuscate an argument which wouldn't even take place for over 150 years afterwards!!!!

ETA - Oh, and the real Democrats would have had to be down with it too, so they were complicit by agreeing to become Republicans, right?

C'mon!!
edit on 6/20/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Furthermore, generations generally stay put geography wise, so past generations of slaves tend to live where their ancestors did (no, not Africa). In order for this Republican / Democratic flip-flop to have occurred it would have required one of three things to take place:

1. Mass defections from the (now) Democratic party, or...

2. Mass migrations north to avoid the moniker of being labeled as a slavery sympathizer, OR...

3. The morning after the passage of the 13th Amendment all of the (closet Democrat) Republican slave owners would have had to move north to avoid the lynch mobs who were surely coming for them

But none of these things happened. People stayed where they were, geographically and culturally...and they readily identify with being Democrat now. So regardless of the party labels used 150 years ago, the bottom line is, the south supported slavery and the north did not. Put whatever label on them you want (at the time), but the fact the south is predominantly Democrat today is pretty damn difficult to divorce from the slavery label, no matter how hard some may try to twist it.

You know, it would be one thing if the Democrats would just own up to it and move on, but they don't. And, to make matters even worse, now they're trying to throw the whole issue over the wall and hang it on the Republicans which is outright laughable!



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
...but the fact the south is predominantly Democrat today is pretty damn difficult to divorce from the slavery label, no matter how hard some may try to twist it.


Not sure if I'm following. Are you saying the South today is predominantly Democrat?



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

South east, yes (with the possible exception of FL). In other words, what was considered the "south" back in the 1860's.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I look at the racist statues as examples of what not to be. See how that works? When you have a plainly visible reminder of something, it keeps you in check. Art is in the eye of the beholder.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

Wow...what does this have to do with the OP??

Did you even read the OP, or watch the video???

It has nothing to do with art.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I look at the “racist” statues as examples of what not to be. First, do tell me how a statue is racist. Does it have a mind if it’s own? Racism is a living human construct. The people they represent may be though. See how that works? When you have a plainly visible reminder of something, it keeps you in check. Art is in the eye of the beholder.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
South east, yes (with the possible exception of FL). In other words, what was considered the "south" back in the 1860's.


That would be inaccurate. The South has voted predominately Republican beginning in the 1960's, you can add the 2016 election map to these and it shows a clear picture:




posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You guys don't like when black people blame the Republican party for slavery, why is it ok to blame Democrats? Double standards?

To blame racism or slavery on any one party or people is the height of ignorance and does nothing but continue the partisan BS. Slavery existed long before America and spans human history throughout several races and cultures. Even America's own Founding Fathers owned slaves. I don't see you guys bashing the Founding Fathers because of that fact like you do with all Democrats.

Why the double standard? Why is everything you bring to the table the same old thing over and over again?

"Liberals bad, orange man good".


No, when black people blame the republican party, it's because democrats told them to, that republicans were to blame.

This is the message that Mr. Owens is telling you. He is simply setting the record straight.

The truth hurts only those who want to keep living a big lie.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, okay, point taken, but those are presidential election maps. The House and Senate maps don't look like that.

Very interesting chart though! Shows a lot of emotion.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I must admit that my acquaintance with American politics is occasional rather than regular. Even so, it still seems to me that in Presidential elections, at least, the bulk of the south is expected to vote Republican in a way which surprised me when I first heard these assumptions, because I had grown up in the "South is Democrat" era. See, for example, the electoral maps of the Reagan and Bush elections; en.wikipedia.org...

If such a shift of allegiance has happened, it isn't going to be refuted by the argument "But I don't understand how it could have happened". In my college days, I had a flatmate (a mathematican) who used to argue that it was physically impossible for bees to fly. He wasn't going to believe it, they were much too heavy. But his theoretical scepticism could not overcome the visual evidence of bees flying around the garden. If the phenomenon is hard to understand, that's a puzzle rather than an objection.

What we're looking at is an historical process. Social groups shifting their loyalty from one party label to another. From the analysis mentioned above, there must have been a time when the radicals abandoned the Republican party which they helped to found, in the original anti-slavery agitation. Perhaps the Compromise of 1879 itself was the beginning of this process, as they came to understand that the party was ceasing to provide a comfortable home for them. I assume that the other half of the realignment began in the 60's, as a reaction against the way LBJ was pushing Civil Rights. "In that case, I'll vote for Governor Wallace!" And after that, Republican.

In British political history, there's an equally interesting (though less complex) example of this process, in the slow breaking up of that grand coaiition of the Victorian era, Gladstone's Liberal Party. In that case, too, one of the long-term results was that the Whigs and other elements of the coalition drifted over to join their erstwhile opponents.

Watch and observe the historical processes. Try to understand how the social composition of political groups can change over the course of time.


edit on 20-6-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The House and Senate maps don't look like that.


You'll find the majority of counties vote Republican in the South for both House and Senate.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Please know, my argument was not directed at you personally, I was just using your statement to illustrate a point about the theme.

And yes, emotion does play a large role in voting. Just look at the emotion illustrated in the map AM posted above, look at the differences between 64 and 72, and then again in 76, then 84 and again in 92. Those swings are huge.

I don't disagree with your basic point which I believe is, party's change over time. Yes, all of them do. Republican and Democrat alike. I just take exception to the liberals constantly throwing everything they don't like over the wall onto conservatives because that's the most convenient thing to do.

In many ways, I think both parties have lost their way today, and the two party system is broken (surprise, coming from me, right?)

The truly "right" way is likely neither red nor blue. You cited a great example with your flatmate, and the mathematics of the flight of a bee. One can draw a very parallel analogy to red and blue as well; it is mathematically impossible for any color but blue or red to win. Sadly, there don't seem to be any bees in American politics (although Trump was pretty close).


edit on 6/20/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I just take exception to the liberals constantly throwing everything they don't like over the wall onto conservatives because that's the most convenient thing to do.

Fair point. I just thought that the premise of this thread was an ingenious attempt to do the same thing in the reverse direction. If I wasn't too lazy to read through the rest of this appallingly long thread, I might have replied to somebody else instead.



edit on 20-6-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Unfortunately for Owens, Republicans have brought equally as much misery to his race. They are just better at playing the game, of branding themselves as saviors of the people when in fact the party is anything but. It favors the wealthy. Period.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   


There's an expanded version of this in his film "Hillary's America." If you do a deep dive into the records, there was no party switch. That's revisionist history nonsense.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
There were only like two or three Dixiecrat (racist Democrats) that actually switch to the Republic party. All the rest of them stayed in the Democrat party.

Republicans actually gained ground in the south mainly because of the economics. As the economies of the south started to expand after segregation, many saw themselves earning more money.... when people earn money they usually want to keep it. Hence the switch to the Republican party.



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: tabularosa
Unfortunately for Owens, Republicans have brought equally as much misery to his race. They are just better at playing the game, of branding themselves as saviors of the people when in fact the party is anything but. It favors the wealthy. Period.


Next level brainwashing^



posted on Jun, 20 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tabularosa
Unfortunately for Owens, Republicans have brought equally as much misery to his race. They are just better at playing the game, of branding themselves as saviors of the people when in fact the party is anything but. It favors the wealthy. Period.


Let's be specific....

As a black man, I can name a ton of things the Democrat party has done that continues to negatively affect the black community.... Here is a short list.

Public schools - trapping blacks in poor performing schools by not allowing school choice
Minimum Wage - making it too expensive to hire low skilled workers, particularly teenagers
Illegal immigration - importing cheap labor that depresses wages of the low skilled of which blacks are disproportionately
Destroying black family - welfare benefits that forced black men out of the home leading to a culture where 75% of kids ar born out of wedlock.

Shall I keep going?

On the other hand, what exactly have Republicans done other than basically ignore blacks which given the above, has been far less harmful imho.


Your turn...



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join