Historically, Democrats More Racists Than Republicans

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Rev. Wayne Perryman is a Black American author that many people have probably never heard of.

In one of his books, "Unfounded Loyalty", he chronicles the events that led to what is probably the biggest distortion in American history, the myth about the so called "racists" Republicans.

In his book he points out many, many facts that should have turned African-Americans against Democrats years ago. As he puts it "the Democratic Party is no friend of blacks".

Republicans have helped blacks more than Democrats ever have, but why do so many people believe that the Democratic Party has been the only advocate of civil rights for blacks and why has this myth been perpetrated by the Democratic Party for all these years?

He claims "Democrats didn’t fall in love with black folks; they fell in love with the black vote."

He also holds strong beliefs on why Democrats owe reparations to blacks.

So in case you have ever asked yourself why most blacks in America happen to be Democrats, consider this...

  • for over 150 years, blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynching, beating, rapes and mutilations

  • On the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it; the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

  • Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the democrats didn't fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the White House.

  • By 2003, the Democratic Party had elected white women and white men as U.S. Senators (for their party), but never a black man. The Republican had elected three.


    We see it almost everyday and especially in the media, blacks continually shunning Republicans, yet historically the GOP has been much kinder to blacks.

    kokonutpundits.blogspot.com...


    What the Rev. Perryman points out in this book is that for over a hundred years from 1854 to 1964 the Republican Party was the sole champion of emancipation, of equal rights for blacks, of putting an end to racial segregation, and of anti lynching laws; while the Democrats recipitated and fought a civil war to preserve slavery, enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that created the segregated South, and invented and repeatedly used the Senate filibuster to block the enactment of anti lynching bills introduced by Republicans.



    Like many African Americans, Perryman said he voted Democrat most of his life and assumed that Democrats represented the black community. But the two-year investigative process led Perryman down roads that he never knew existed because of what he described as a biased education system.

    ``In the process of doing this investigative research to write the book, I was shocked, I was angry, I was frustrated to find out information that has been kept from the general public,'' he said. ``The only thing I could conclude was that it was deliberately excluded from books.''


    The Democrats

    Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

    The Republicans

    Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

    1. The Emancipation Proclamation
    2. The 13th Amendment
    3. The 14th Amendment
    4. The 15th Amendment
    5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
    6. The Civil Rights of 1866
    7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
    8. The Forced Act of 1871
    9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
    10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
    11. The Freeman Bureau
    12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
    13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
    14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

    And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following legislation

    15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
    17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
    18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
    19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
    20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
    21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
    22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
    23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
    24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988



    And it continues...

    www.intellectualconservative.com...


    Perryman also says of African Americans, “Many no longer put their faith in God, instead they put their faith in government and those representing government. The shift from God to government has resulted in behavior unheard of and problems unprecedented.” Examples of those problems he cites are: More homeless than ever before. More rat-and roach-infested government housing. Fewer mothers who are full-time homemakers. More latchkey children home alone. More violence in schools. More couples living together out of wedlock. More single mothers who have never been married. More black men unemployed than ever before. More black men in prison. More abortions among black women. More drugs in the black community. More top-40 music degrading black women and glorifying sex and violence. More covert practices of racial discrimination. More black on black crime and the list goes on.


    Why does the following sound so familiar?


    “In 1929, one year after President Herbert Hoover took office with a promise to ‘put a chicken in every pot,’ the stock market crashed, our nation went into a deep depression, and the Republicans knew they were in trouble. This was the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to take the White House, but they needed more than the Depression; they needed the black vote…

    Prior to this time from 1866 to 1928, blacks had voted exclusively for the Republican ticket. Frustrated with the economy as well as with the Republican Party, the (black) newspapers used their powerful voice to urge black voters to break tradition and vote Democrat. John Hope Franklin said, ‘The break was neither clean nor complete, however, for there were those who could not be persuaded to support the party that, after all, was the party of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots.’”



    What should proove to be interesting is his new book, "The Drama of Obama on Racism", where he exposes Obama, the biggest leftist in the history of the Democratic Party.




  • posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:29 AM
    link   
    Exactly. Look how much hatred I can garner by pointing out that
    Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican.

    Even worse than a one-line post.

    [edit on 1-10-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



    posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 02:44 AM
    link   
    You seem to be missing the point. Party ideologies change from time to time. In Lincoln's time, the Republican party was considered the LIBERAL party and the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES. At some point over the last 50 years or so these ideologies switched. Today the Republican party is home to the conservatives and the democratic party is home to the liberals. If you check your dates, you will see that the "Liberal" party has always been a friend to the minorities in this country. In fact, I would argue that a party's stance when it comes to the rights of minorities would be an excellent gauge as to its roots as having a conservative or liberal mindset. Nice try though, I am sure some people almost bought what you were selling. Sorry, I just had to keep you honest.

    Attention Minorities: Always, Always, Always Vote for the LIBERAL PARTY, no matter what it is calling itself at the time.



    posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:58 AM
    link   
    You're not supposed to be pointing this stuff out you know? You'll only be labeled a racist for trying to incite hatred….or….something.



    Look, this is "common" knowledge in the sense that anybody caring enough to look can and should already know the games of the Democrats. Race baiting and race/class envy is the number one play in their book. They can't win elections on their policies, especially not now in the age of ultra liberalism, so they have to resort to this kind of behavior.

    Anyone who still believes that Republicans are evil hate mongers who oppose the poor and minorities are just too lazy to think for themselves. In reality, its quite the opposite.



    posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:16 AM
    link   
    I'd simply like to point out that it doesn't mean jack where a party stood historically if it doesn't continue to hold to those same tenets. The Republican party, for example, once stood for small government, non-intervention and personal liberties. Clearly the wheels came off that bus some time ago. The idea that an entire party is either racist or not is preposterous. Any more than you can say South Carolina is racist and Rhode Island is not. Just my POV.



    posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by jtma508
    The Republican party, for example, once stood for small government, non-intervention and personal liberties. Clearly the wheels came off that bus some time ago.


    In 2000, to be exact. Bush was in no wise a participant in the ideology of Reagan, which you succinctly outlined. The fact that McCain isn't a reaganite either shows how serious the problem reallly is; on the other hand, his spinsters decided he would lose with out some sort of Reaganista on the ticket.

    If you look at Democrat reaction to Palin, it's funny how little they listen to anyone but themselves. They cannot get over the fact that the Republicans could get a woman on the national ticket, which they failed to do (again, making the point of this thread as far as republicans being more progressive than democrats.). For republicans, Palin's importance is that the Republican nominee couldn't get any backing without some sort of acknowledgement of the values you outlined.

    But back to your point. If the Republicans have lost their small government values "a while back," Democrats lost their midlle america values a lot earlier; say, World War I.




    The idea that an entire party is either racist or not is preposterous. Any more than you can say South Carolina is racist and Rhode Island is not. Just my POV.


    People (like democrats) make those sorts of bigoted slurs against the south all the time; particularly once the south started voting republican. We didn't hear much about southern racism until 1980, when the democrat carter failed to carry the South. 1980 was definitely the point at which it became acceptable to smear (white) southerners. . . . almost as if Jimmy Carter wasn't a southerner himself. It's not like the South was non-racist in 1979 but then became so by 1981. The only thing that changed was their support for republicans. Unnacceptable, and "racist" according to the Dems and the media elites.


    I think most people would agree with the argument that you just offered regarding NC and RI. That makes the exact opposite point of what you intended, by the way.

    edit for spelling.

    [edit on 1-10-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



    posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 06:49 AM
    link   
     


    off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


     



    posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 03:52 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Anonymous ATS
     


    You Sir are incorrect.

    The Liberal Republican party was formed in an effort to remove Grant from power during the Reconstruction, which was an effort by true Republicans to reduce power of southern government and economically influence southern whites to help economically advance the disenfranchised black populations who were freed from slavery. The steadfastness of Grant in reducing power of government and the application of Federal troops in the south limited the ability of state run malitia and police powers to limit the actions of blacks and help them gain properity through the application of hard work, which they themselves favored.

    Black republicans today understand that history has not changed and neither has the Republican party; The focus of which is MAKING a good life for yourself through education and hard work toward personal progress. Democrats still, as they did 150 years ago, want the government to make decisions for the people. Republicans, as they did 150 years ago, want people to make decisions for the themselves and the government.



    posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 04:01 PM
    link   
    At this point in time the republican ranks are full of racists. Conservatism, wealth and racism always pal around together. Even the KKK started with a noble mission but was changed.



    posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 08:51 PM
    link   
     


    off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


     



    posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:44 PM
    link   
    The thread is misleading IMO. I think it would be more accurate to say that in the past that Democrats have been more racist than Republicans but that isn't the case anymore. I think this is a silly thing to say after we elected Obama. OP, how can you say that current Democrats are more racist than Republicans? Didn't you see what Republicans did at their rallies? Yes, HISTORICALLY Democrats are more racist, but, I don't think that Democrats are racist that much anymore. I think what we have seen in the 2008 election is rather of a paradigm shift... so yes, while that is true, THING DO CHANGE.

    [edit on 16-12-2008 by Frankidealist35]



    posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:34 PM
    link   
    Good thread. Think I'll buy that book.

    I found that amazing to learn that until 2003, Democrats had never elected an African American Senator. AMAZING.

    I, in all honesty, do not think Democrats are racists. But I think that unintentionally many of their policies are racist in long term effect. Many times the democrat party seems to be the party of unintended consequences.



    posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:40 PM
    link   
    I lived in S.C. for many years and I can assure you, there is no racism and bigotry like the good ole southern baptist republican base. It's rabid, frothing and disturbing to be around.



    posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:42 PM
    link   
    reply to post by contemplator
     


    Racism, regardless of which party the racist comes from is disgusting...



    posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by johnny2127
    reply to post by contemplator
     


    Racism, regardless of which party the racist comes from is disgusting...


    Agreed! Just pointing out my liberal friends there never once uttered the words ni**** while all the redneck repubs use the word every 3-5 seconds. Needless to say I got out of there as soon as I could.



    posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:19 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
    You seem to be missing the point. Party ideologies change from time to time. In Lincoln's time, the Republican party was considered the LIBERAL party and the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES. At some point over the last 50 years or so these ideologies switched. Today the Republican party is home to the conservatives and the democratic party is home to the liberals. If you check your dates, you will see that the "Liberal" party has always been a friend to the minorities in this country. In fact, I would argue that a party's stance when it comes to the rights of minorities would be an excellent gauge as to its roots as having a conservative or liberal mindset. Nice try though, I am sure some people almost bought what you were selling. Sorry, I just had to keep you honest.

    Attention Minorities: Always, Always, Always Vote for the LIBERAL PARTY, no matter what it is calling itself at the time.



    You are correct on one thing. The liberal party in the mid-1800s was the republicans, but to say that the "liberal party has always been a friend to minorities" is no where close to the truth.

    What has the current "liberal" party done for minorities, or for that matter, the nation as a whole??

    Education....Lower standards for scholastic advancement. Not because the children are not able or intelligent enough to learn, but because parents, kids and some teachers don't care. So we have to make sure little Johnny progresses like the others do so his little feelings and sensitivities don't get hurt. They graduate from high school and can't even speak... or worse write decent English. Take the Connecticut firemen for example. No blacks could pass the test for advancement so it was thrown out as criteria for getting advancement? WTF is that and how is that fair to the people who studied their asses off to pass? Also...who would YOU rather have attending to your needs in an emergency? Some who knows what they are doing, or someone who has been promoted based on the color of their skin because he or she could not pass a test???

    Welfare...this system has done nothing but create another class of slavery.....slavery to the government. I have no problem with it as long as it is used as a hand up in stead of a hand out. I have no problem with my tax money going to help those who have fallen on bad times and need TEMPORARY aid. But your liberal party has created a welfare class who, for the most part, will never aspire to anything other than being reliant on the government. They get just enough money to survive, but never enough to break out. As long as the government feeds, clothes, and houses them, they'll not go anywhere, but the ghetto, and your liberals like it that way. They want to keep it that way, because it gets them votes.

    Illegal immigration.....your liberals will never do what is right for the US relative to this topic. God, I could write all night on this issue.

    When I read your statement about a minority should always, always, vote for the liberal party, two quotes come to mind.

    The first is an old adage....
    If you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he can feed himself for the rest of his life.

    The other is attributed to Margaret Thatcher. She said, "The only thing wrong with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money".

    Spare us the crap about how awesome your liberal party is. They are hell bent on ruining the US. I tell my kids often that I am so glad I will not be around in 60 years.

    [edit on 18-7-2009 by Hugues de Payens]



    posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:04 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Alxandro
     


    The democrats started as a racist, pro-slavery party, that was pro-south, against federal rule, and seen as the "party of the people."

    The Republicans started as a pro-business, anti-slavery, industrialist party, that was for federal governance.

    The democrats were seen as the "common mans party," and primarily held power only in the south; while the republicans were "wealthy fat cat industrialists" who wanted to build railroads, ports, and other infrastructure projects on the tax payers dime, for the betterment of the country (but mostly their wallets).

    The republicans won the north, and represented well-to-do elite types who's chief concern was business oriented.

    The democrats won the south, and represented simple folk who wanted to own slaves, lived simple lives, and didn't understand why we should build railroads or industrialize the country. Why not just farm and be happy?

    Sometime in the mid 20th century, the constituency reversed. The democrats started winning the north, and the republicans consolidated the south.

    Are republicans racist? No, not by definition or history. Are many southerners who identify as republican racist? You betcha. That is where we have the disconnect between history and modern day perception.

    Are democrats racist: Historically, yes. They were the party of slavery (ironic that they are the first party to win a black president). However, ever since the republicans started dominating the south, while the democrats took the north, the constituency of democrats has switched from racist southerners, to non-racist northerners.

    And that's where we stand today.

    Here's a little essay I found on google explaining this





    new topics
    top topics
     
    5

    log in

    join