The racist mindset of liberals, black or white

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Uh-huh. Democrats were racist in the past.

Your point?

And did you know that there is a such thing as a conservative Democrat? They're called Dixiecrats or "blue dogs".

The myth of the 'switching parties'....

There was no party switch; Democrats (Dixiecrats) remained Democrats, Republicans remained Republicans. A=A, B=B. It's very, very simple.

Of the elected southern Democrats that were prominent in the south, 93% of them remained loyal to their party. 6% became Independent or joined some other third party, and 1% became Republicans.

Why did some of the PEOPLE switch?

Under the Southern Strategy as revised by LBJ, blacks were persuaded to vote Democrat in order to support the War on Poverty- which essentially broke up the once strong family bond that blacks held, discouraged higher education (by making one 'unqualified' after so much time in school-done today), and kept the poor dependent on government assistance. When southern racists of the Democratic party saw this sudden flock to their party, they immediately switched their party of choice.

The parties never switched...some of the people did. Both party's platform remains the same as it was 200 years ago.

reply to post by ButterCookie

It started with a brief discussion of the history of the political parties; I gave her the brief history of the racist, pro-slavery party the Democrats. This true history seemed to disturb her, and o the conversation switched over to racism itself. It all began with her disgusting blanketed statement, "I don't believe there are non-racist white people".

Let me help you with that.

A timeline of formation-notice the opposite structure of Democrat and Republican views on Government?



Pre 1950 the parties swapped sides constantly. The party lines were blurred. When one side would get popular people would swap parties to that side.

Formation of the Anti-Slavery Parties
From the above link:

Birth of the Republican Party. In response to the outrageous Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Republican party was founded in Racine, Wisconsin, in 1854. Many of its members comprised of former Free Soilers, and antislavery Whigs and Democrats.They called for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Law. Though many abolitionists were drawn to the Republican party, the majority chiefly constituted of northern and western moderates who joined in opposition to the spread of slavery. However they were content to see slavery remain in the South, so as long as the cancer was forever isolated to that region of the country. From 1854 to 1860, the Republican party reaped much of its support from the abolitionist North and it quickly became the second largest political party. Yet because it was strictly a Northern party, the growth of the Republican party only continued to succeed in estranging the oversensitve South.

Party swapping

So, what we have here is the Republican party of today only shares the name of the one that was anti-slavery. The modern democratic party is factually what the Republicans were during the civil war. It wasn't until the 1960's that the followers of Leo Strauss created Neo-Conservatism and worked to marry the Religious Right into the Republican fold-and ushered in rampant tribalism that we have today where a change of party is regarded as treachery.

When the Republican Party of the civil war era took control of the government-and the south was defeated. All the Democrats at the time swapped sides because the Democrat 'label' was toxic. Those Democrats then began the same philosophical diatribes "Small government etc." that we have today. The original Republican's in disgust-swapped to the failing Democratic Party and revitalized it. Near the time of the Civil war the term "Republican" became popular and many parties sprang up with the name. Such as the Native Republicans (AKA the Native American Party) which was the precursor in spirit to the modern Tea Party-same platforms.

Anyway...


TLR: The Republican Party that Abraham Lincoln was part of is not the same party of Today-Like when SBC bought AT&T then rebranded everything AT&T-the only thing they share is the name.

The philosophy of the modern Democrats is what the original Republican Party was created around-hence the philosophical shift in what each side professes-like rats from a sinking ship, politicians swapped sides to remain politically active when an affiliation became bad.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I meant to reply to this post on my last reply-but you are flat out wrong on the party switching. I suplied some sources.

reply to post by ButterCookie


So effectively, instead of blaming white people in general, you're blaming liberals for what sounds like the downfall of African Americans.

Again, I urge you to do more research on party platforms because both parties have changed over time.

Either way, let's forget about this partisan tomfoolery. I ask, what would your ideal candidate be? Just one catch: you can't pick a party or political ideology or else, it's cheating.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

So effectively, instead of blaming white people in general, you're blaming liberals for what sounds like the downfall of African Americans.

Again, I urge you to do more research on party platforms because both parties have changed over time.

Either way, let's forget about this partisan tomfoolery. I ask, what would your ideal candidate be? Just one catch: you can't pick a party or political ideology or else, it's cheating.

I understand the logic people use for this-though it falls apart under scrutiny.
In part I think it comes from the premise of "The Tragedy of the Commons".
Though the main principle of The Tragedy says that people will consume resources in self interest regardless of it being derogatory to all. And is expanded to include scenarios such as public service-if there were no taxes nobody would step up to pay for roads an infrastructures (quick summary).

The premise itself-that liberal policy in say Detroit-caused it's downfall is factually flawed and a bit racist in my eyes-it basically is under the guise that since the resources were for the grabs then people stopped working or caring-since that blanket was there.

This in part is also where people like to call Democrats communists-the is the motto “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” which though noble-doesn't work because in that scenario there really is no reason to excel. The real cause of Soviet downfall was the fact that there was no incentive to achieve. This in my eyes is part of the claim of liberal policy causing problems as well.

The reality of Detroit is the major companies didn't want to deal with Union costs, so they started exporting everything and laying off and abandoning. This in turn caused financial woes because taxes began to plummet and they could no longer properly fund social programs.

The bit about liberal policies being racist stems in part from that-Detroit was the hub of the 'Black middle class' because then as today there are terrible college completion levels for those of African-American descent, especially male African-American descent-many turned to the trades such as machining and various auto-craft routes of employment-hence the concentration in Detroit.

good read on Detroit

Basically-Detroit was run by Democrats because of the Union backing. So, when things started going downhill they scrambled to try and get social safeties in place and got overwhelmed. But, since Democrats were in power-and many of them in Detroit were corrupt-the philosophy got the blame.

There could be other areas where 'liberal=racist' is used, but none spring to mind-happy to discuss them though.

Im a massive sociology/economics/political nerd.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

So effectively, instead of blaming white people in general, you're blaming liberals for what sounds like the downfall of African Americans.

Again, I urge you to do more research on party platforms because both parties have changed over time.

Either way, let's forget about this partisan tomfoolery. I ask, what would your ideal candidate be? Just one catch: you can't pick a party or political ideology or else, it's cheating.

Once again, if you read my OP or any of my posts, you will clearly see that this thread was about me being completely against the friend who blanketed blamed whites.

I am not sure why you keep resorting to placing her words in my mouth.

To restate: I do not agree with the racial mindsets of anyone, and the fact of the matter is that I tend to see it more in people with liberal ideologies.

If this does not match you, then we are of the same side of this argument.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I meant to reply to this post on my last reply-but you are flat out wrong on the party switching. I suplied some sources.

I am not incorrect about the myth of the switching parties.

When a large percentage of black voters begin to vote Democrat, members of the Democrat party (that were racist) left to go to the Republican Party because they would not vote alongside blacks.

Please understand- people switching does not equal party switching.

Why not? Because both platforms remain the same.

Because Strum Thurmond (a Democrat Segregationist) switched parties, the Democrats tend to equate that entire party switching.

No.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I meant to reply to this post on my last reply-but you are flat out wrong on the party switching. I suplied some sources.

I am not incorrect about the myth of the switching parties.

When a large percentage of black voters begin to vote Democrat, members of the Democrat party (that were racist) left to go to the Republican Party because they would not vote alongside blacks.

Please understand- people switching does not equal party switching.

Why not? Because both platforms remain the same.

Because Strum Thurmond (a Democrat Segregationist) switched parties, the Democrats tend to equate that entire party switching.

No.

edit on 12-5-2013 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

Sort of agree there-but consider this: When the Republican Party formed from abolitionism democrats, whigs, some federalist stragglers and others-they central call was "Powerful central government" and what would be called today deregulation-removal of any business impedus. Meanwhile the Democrats at the time were for small government, agregarian style federal government that would step in when needed but let the states do their thing.

I also have to say that if enough party members swap sides-the party itself goes in a new direction. It's just something that happens-a Catholic who converts to Presbyterianism still has all the Catholic thoughts and habits-just hangs out with a new crowd. Get enough Catholics in that church and it changes subtly at first but definitely shifts.

Today the primary philosophical points of the republicans are different than even the 1960s-pre Strauss the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans was on how to spend taxes. Both sides were Social Liberals.

Now days Republicans can be easily generalized as Traditionalist Conformists while not losing any accuracy.

The bylaws of both parties has changed significantly, a big shift of the Democrats happened when the Federalists fled into the Democratic party and shunned the Whigs. Federalists were the original "powerful fed and business" group. Dems were egalitarian and downplayed the power of central government.

After the war of 1812-the Federalists swarmed the Democratic Party and over the next 20 years the platform did a diametric shift.

Nowdays of course-no party switching would happen. I personally think that Thurman remained "Democrat" because of tradition. Kind of like a line of kids who all become cops. Also, I don't think anyone wanted him but he was on his convention in his home state.

A modern example of backlash on popular party swapping is Joseph Lieberman. After 911 his seat was weakened and the Republican Party had a huge upsurge in political power. So in political expediency he maneuvered for favor/favor with the GOP. They didn't want him to actually change parties because he was a good mouth peace allowing claim of bipartisanship (all it takes is one to sign on and you can use that moniker).

The democrat backlash on him was severe enough that he was punted from the party and claimed to be Independent for awhile and later branded himself as an Independant Democrat.

Party affiliation is stupid IMO. All that it does is breed tribalism and collectivism. I think the country would be far better if they all had to negotiate and compromise with each other without having armies at each side.


edit to add: I look at party switching from the mass droves that occurred in the past. If you look up the profiles of congressmen from pre 1970 or so-you would see Democrat XXXX-YYYY, Republican XXXX-YYYY, Democrat XXXX-YYYY. And like I mentioned earlier with sourced links showing it-the philosophy itself of the Democrats and Republicans have swapped.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I know this will fall on deaf ears but with out the liberal democrats in the 60s; dear lady you would still be riding in the back of the bus.

nymag.com...

Except for Barry Goldwater the GOP in general hated minorities and in most cases still do.

www.mediaite.com...

Back off from Rush a little bit and don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

It's good to know Asian and Hispanic liberals are not racist..

Carry on.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I neglected to include this part in the last reply-rather than try and re-write it I figured I would do a new reply.

There were multiple incarnations of the Republican party. Any time a party files for recognition they have to submit a manifesto of bylaws.

The Republican Party that was abolitionism had different bylaws than the current Republican party. During that time-so did the Democrats.

Each was reformed with new bylaws a few times whether to do a minor update or a complete overhaul. In many cases the individual state filings differ significantly than the federal filings. In an interesting revisionist twist-some are claiming that the original party formation was also about Women's Suffrage

I believe the modern bylaw was submitted in 1937, but could be mistaken there.

Anyway-I also wanted to say I understood your original post and Im not meaning to sidetrack the thread of hijack for that matter. Just enjoying the discussion.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I know this will fall on deaf ears but with out the liberal democrats in the 60s; dear lady you would still be riding in the back of the bus.

nymag.com...

Except for Barry Goldwater the GOP in general hated minorities and in most cases still do.

www.mediaite.com...

Back off from Rush a little bit and don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

Excellent point, but in all fairness Lyndon B Johnson was no saint when it came to racial prejudice..

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

I know this will fall on deaf ears but with out the liberal democrats in the 60s; dear lady you would still be riding in the back of the bus.

nymag.com...

Except for Barry Goldwater the GOP in general hated minorities and in most cases still do.

www.mediaite.com...

Back off from Rush a little bit and don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

No. Without Republican support, I would've been riding at the back of the bus.

Democrats have long tried to steal Republican credit for pushing the Civil Rights Act, in which they hogh;y blocked.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:

- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

The Democratic Party is, today, thought of as the political champion and proponent of the interests of black Americans. But for almost all of the history of this country, the Democrats were the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and opposition to nearly every piece of civil rights legislation ever passed.

And...

The Republicans were the party of abolition and emancipation. They opposed segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow. And they were the sole authors of nearly every civil rights legislation and amendment passed in the United States!

Now, to go on back a little further in the history of the two parties:

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% of Republicans vote for it.
3% of Democrats vote for it.

Democrats of today may very well be ashamed of their racist history, but trying to change it does not make it go away.

So to say that I would be "riding in the back of the bus" without liberal democrats is completely false, and shows ignorance of history.

The party that fought so hard for the Equal and Civil Rights of blacks would ensure that I sat wherever I pleased.

Such an uniformed statement by you, especially since Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Democrats of today may very well be ashamed of their racist history, but trying to change it does not make it go away.

So to say that I would be "riding in the back of the bus" without liberal democrats is completely false, and shows ignorance of history.

The party that fought so hard for the Equal and Civil Rights of blacks would ensure that I sat wherever I pleased.

Such an uniformed statement by you, especially since Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.

edit on 12-5-2013 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2013 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

Agreed the assertion is false. The correct assertion is: Without liberal ideology that would be true. Unfortunately terms are conflated. As I mentioned until the 1960-70 time frame: Both sides were Social Liberals for the most part. You had scum in both parties to be sure but it was liberal ideology that passed the civil rights bills, conservative ideology that wanted to repress.

Which is where conflated terms come into it.

Social Conservatives want the status quo and tradition. Social Liberals are egalitarian. Then Economic Conservatives are what we in the US call Neo-Conservatives but the rest of the world calls Neo-lberals: all about progress for business and economic driving factors. Whereas a Liberal Economic type is about social programs-taxes should be used to bolster society for it's good. Con(neo-con, neo-lib) in this context is hyper capitalist: Under the idea that if you pass laws to bolster those who control the capital and society flourishes-usually at the expense of the individual. Lib-Econs on the other hand take the approach that a well taken care of populace will flourish on it's own (or as I like to say and firmly believe that a well educated and healthy society is a powerful one that has nowhere to go but up. I do advocate universal healthcare and free public education all through college and think that degrees should be ability limited and not economically limited.)

So, to be fair and accurate: The abolishionists were Liberal-Republicans. The democrats at the time would fit the definition of Neo-Conservative|Neo-Liberal and socially conservative traditionalists. Slavery was good for business because you don't have to pay workers etc. etc..

That is the part that changed over time. As I've asserted several times: The only similarity between parties of today and that of that era are the names.

Thurman is an example of a Conservative-Democrat. Goldwater a Liberal-Republican. If anyone fights for the status quo-they are Social Conservatives. Personal rights: Liberal. And this will probably get some hate responses-but yes: Libertarianism is a flavor of Liberalism.

Edit to add:
Another point to add in political theory: Conservative (econ) side can also be generalized as "Everyone is evil, the government is needed to keep people in check. The greed of the owner is good because it lifts all those around him and the natural competitiveness will keep the owner in check lest he be destroyed by others" It's very dog eat dog.

Lib (econ) is more: Those in power have an obligation to lift everyone out because otherwise they might not make it.

Both are misguided ideas at best IMO.


Edit to add: www.lifeslittlemysteries.com...

Here's some little known fact you can give to your friend to help her expand her knowledge of slavery:

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.
The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

by Michael A. Hoffman II ©Copyright 1999. All Rights Reserved

www.revisionisthistory.org...

Today, we are all enslaved to the globalists, to varying degrees.

Maybe you can help her understand that as well, by giving her info on the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Gates Foundation, etc.

Here's a site that has some citations if needed

vnnforum.com...

more:

www.globalresearch.ca...

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

So effectively, instead of blaming white people in general, you're blaming liberals for what sounds like the downfall of African Americans.

Again, I urge you to do more research on party platforms because both parties have changed over time.

Either way, let's forget about this partisan tomfoolery. I ask, what would your ideal candidate be? Just one catch: you can't pick a party or political ideology or else, it's cheating.

My ideal candidate would NOT be one who uses blacks, minorities, women, and gays as fodder for partisan politics and increased voter rolls and to promote the more general welfare state and big government agendas of Marxism.

Slavery dates back at least to Sumerian times

en.wikipedia.org...

The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu includes laws relating to slaves. written circa 2100 BCE - 2050 BCE, it is the oldest known tablet containing a law code surviving today. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, dating to ca. 1700 BCE, also makes distinctions between the freeborn, freed and slave.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Thanks Karl Marx and John Dewey for the lovely "egalitarian" ideas of making us collectively the indentured servants of the Supreme Totalitarian State, and to the Democrat Party for ramming it down our collective throats under the guise of The Affordable Healthcare Act and Common Core Standards.

This is going to be a long post, but please bear with me.

I have read the first five pages of this thread and the most intelligent, true, and valuable pattern of words that I came across was the following:

Originally posted by unb3k44n7

.....they WANT to think that and BELIEVE due to whatever experiences or influences in their lives perpetuated them to think the way that they do, and that's that.

.....I do not see political ideologies being a relevant factor in much of anything as humans were not BORN with political ideologies - they were created by established societies and vary geographically.

I would like to point out that the terms LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, DEMOCRATIC, and REPUBLICAN are simply just that....terms. They are socially constructed words that group people together based on whatever they believe is morally just.

Throughout our lives, we subconsciously form our own unique value systems, completely different from everyone else that exists and everything we do stems from said value systems. We form these value systems based on what we have experienced with our five senses throughout the duration of our lives. When we are introduced to political parties and different terms that hold different meanings for every individual, we choose which one best describes our value systems, and then identify with that term.

With that being said, one liberal is completely different from another liberal, with several ideological similarities that fall more under the category of "liberal" than any other category. One black person is completely different from another black person, just like one white person is completely different from another white person. You get the idea.

To make a thread accusing most liberals of being racist is not only absurd, but it is clear evidence that you do not get out much (I state this confidently based on my observations of your blatant ignorance and placement of blame towards an entire group of people just because your friend who claims to be liberal said something you did not agree with).

The likelihood of your friend saying all those things as a result of a moment of intense passion is very high. The likelihood of your friend actually understanding the concept of politics and what it means to be racist is very low. People say stupid things in the heat of the moment, as I imagined you did as well since you wrote the post while you were on the phone.

Regardless of who is the most racist group of all time and who is to blame for what they did not do, racism still exists today, in ALL political groups, in ALL religions, and in ALL individuals. It is a FACT. The only thing we can do from here is to acknowledge that it exists and daily strive to avoid participating in racist activities (even in the most miniscule forms- if you would like further examples I would be happy to provide you with some).

What your friend said and what you have said have no relation to what political party you identify with. Personally, I could care less that you are a republican. In fact, it makes no difference to me. What everyone in this thread has written is an expression of what is inside them, opinions that have been developed through YEARS of life experiences. There is no liberal or conservative handbook. We are who we are because of what we know to be true. What I know to be true is undeniably different from what you know to be true.

I am a 20 year old, white female. My family immigrated from Russian when I was 7 years old to escape communism and create better opportunities for mine and my sister's descendants. I've lived in Atlanta, Miami, Boston, and now reside in New Jersey. I have dual citizenship in both countries, and I identify with the libertarian party. I have seen my fair share of racism and have been victimized by black children when I first moved to the country, so I know first-hand how unfair it is to be categorized and made to feel powerless (I am in no way saying that I know what slaves felt like. Please do not jump to such conclusions.) If you told me that I was racist based off of my political ideology, I would simply laugh and tell you that you do not know my value system and therefore have no right to categorize me as a racist.

You do not know me. I do not know you. All I can advise is that you go out in the real world and draw your own conclusions based off of your observations. I guarantee you're in for a treat.

At the end of the day, we all struggle and we all fight to survive. We are all human. We are all essentially the same.