So, what ever happen to Republican goals?

[Imran Siddiqui]

When the Republicans chose not to enforce the Constitution in the South to protect blacks, that was racist.

Bull****.

If tomorrow, the Democrats stand by while Southern states start taking away the votes of blacks, honestly, do you think that wouldn't be racist?

Yes, I don't think that act of standing aside would be racist. Especially if Democrats had no power in the South and didn't want to face another open revolt (or station troops there ad infinitum).

Guilt by association is a classical logical fallacy, Ramo. You actually have to be performing a racist act or think racist thoughts to be a racist. Simply standing aside while racist things are going on does not make you racist.

By that logic you are a capitalist, because you are standing by while capitalist groups continue their power hold.

Oh wait... is this another 'you are either with us or against us' argument?

[Berzerker]

I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education.

Yup, Orwel is alive and well. Increasing a budget less than what Democrats claim to want is actually a cut in the budget. Hey Boss, I want a $10 k raise and you will only give me $2 k? You're cutting my pay!!!

Btw, y'all, this argument about the GOP being racist a century ago for not enforcing civil rights laws is a bit humorous given the fact it was the Democrats who established Jim Crow.

[Ramo]

But the point is that the Republicans did have the power and authority to enforce the liberty of Southern blacks. The Civil War and the subsequent Constitutional Amendments insured that. The problem was that they didn't have the will.

In the 1890's, Northern politicians didn't chose to not enforce the Constitution because they feared some Southern rebellion, but simply because they didn't care about blacks (and poor whites).

[Ramo]

Btw, y'all, this argument about the GOP being racist a century ago for not enforcing civil rights laws is a bit humorous given the fact it was the Democrats who established Jim Crow.

Why is that humorous?

[Berzerker]

Democrats or their sympathisers are in this thread accusing the GOP of being racist based on the past.

[Ramo]

I wouldn't consider myself a "Democrat sympathizer," but I still don't see your point...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't even tell me you don't see the irony in Berzerker's (and Sloww's) posts.

In the 1890's, Northern politicians didn't chose to not enforce the Constitution because they feared some Southern rebellion, but simply because they didn't care about blacks (and poor whites).

So now 'not caring' about blacks is racist? My, oh my, has the English language been butched that much by the forces of political correctness?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's.

I asked for proof and got another opinion. Par for the course, MF?

Proof? All the books I have read about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction, discussed the fact that Republicans had become a white supremacist party by the 1890's. One of those sources that I own, is by James Loewen in his book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me." That's only one source among others I have read.

When most Republican leaders began to support segregation in the Northern states, and refused to enforce legal civil rights provided through the 14th and 15th amendments, they were pandering towards racism.
Refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior, Imran.

Also, a number of Republican leaders organized clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership in the 1890's.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Democrats or their sympathisers are in this thread accusing the GOP of being racist based on the past.

That's a lame attempt in putting words in my mouth, Beserker. I'm participating in a discussion about the political changes of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Where have I said that all Republicans today, are racist? I'm aware of the fact that a substantial number of minorities of various races are Republicans today.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Proof? All the books I have read about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction, discussed the fact that Republicans had become a white supremacist party by the 1890's. One of those sources that I own, is by James Loewen in his book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Give me a non-biased source please. I don't give any weight to Loewen, because I know his ideology and where he is trying to go.

Refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior, Imran.

Bull. Once again, nonaffirmative acts cannot be deemed racist unless there is proof that underlying there was racist beliefs.

When most Republican leaders began to support segregation in the Northern states, and refused to enforce legal civil rights provided through the 14th and 15th amendments, they were pandering towards racism.

Pandering towards racists is a political manuver, not a racist one. Plenty of lefties call the Willie Horton ad a racist one and Bush I was pandering to racists. Do you actually believe that Bush I was a racist?

--

Now if you told me the 1890 Republicans were ethnicists, then I'd believe you. But racists? Sorry.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Give me a non-biased source please. I don't give any weight to Loewen, because I know his ideology and where he is trying to go.

Bull. Once again, nonaffirmative acts cannot be deemed racist unless there is proof that underlying there was racist beliefs.

Pandering towards racists is a political manuver, not a racist one. Plenty of lefties call the Willie Horton ad a racist one and Bush I was pandering to racists. Do you actually believe that Bush I was a racist?

Now if you told me the 1890 Republicans were ethnicists, then I'd believe you. But racists? Sorry.

Another source? My professor in one of my American history courses. Loewen bases his scholarly research on revisionist history based on facts that undo Anglophile feel-good mythology.

And I still hold to the position that refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior. Explain to me how it CANNOT be.

And associating with racists and racists organizations in any affirming way, for whatever motive, implies that the person is racist, so yes, Bush senior would be racist to a certain extent, and so would Lott.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I still hold to the position that refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior. Explain to me how it CANNOT be.

You cannot be a racist unless you actually believe that one race is better than the other. To not enforce civil rights because of politics does not indicate racism.

And associating with racists and racists organizations in any affirming way, for whatever motive, implies that the person is racist, so yes, Bush senior would be racist to a certain extent, and so would Lott.

Btw, you've just basically implicated just about every politican in the United States. The Democratic Party associates with Robert Byrd and even named him their majority leader in the 1980s. Gephart spoke in front of a white supremecist organization and was the Democratic Party's standard bearer in the House.

It is impossible NOT to associate with racists, especially if you are in the government.

Btw, would a racist party include a clause in its Party Platform in 1896 condemning lynchings?

Loewen bases his scholarly research on revisionist history based on facts that undo Anglophile feel-good mythology.

Loewen is a quack with an agenda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just an interesting source:

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_black_press.htm

The black press of the Reconstruction period supported the Republican Party almost unanimously, a situation that would change only gradually until the 1920s. The former slaves believed that the party of Abraham Lincoln would create a new world where black economic, social, and political interests would be protected. Later, as many blacks became disillusioned with the lack of progress in American racial matters, the Republican Party still seemed a better alternative than the Democratic Party that represented the old slave-holding South.

Why would the black press continue to defend a party until the 1920s which, as you assert, was racist in the 1890s? It doesn't measure up. Simply put, the lack of progress in race relations didn't mean that people believed the Republican Party was a racist party.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just an interesting source:

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_black_press.htm

The black press of the Reconstruction period supported the Republican Party almost unanimously, a situation that would change only gradually until the 1920s. The former slaves believed that the party of Abraham Lincoln would create a new world where black economic, social, and political interests would be protected. Later, as many blacks became disillusioned with the lack of progress in American racial matters, the Republican Party still seemed a better alternative than the Democratic Party that represented the old slave-holding South.

Why would the black press continue to defend a party until the 1920s which, as you assert, was racist in the 1890s? It doesn't measure up. Simply put, the lack of progress in race relations didn't mean that people believed the Republican Party was a racist party.

Interesting source -- different information from what I have read and studied. But the source that you provided describes it merely as lack of progress. James Loewen described how Republican leaders in the 1890's created various clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership.

And, even though Theodore Roosevelt invited Washington to the White House for dinner, he also contradicted himself, by having black soldiers arrested in Brownsville, Texas for a riot that they were not responsible for.

Oh, and how about when the Republican party supported segregation in the Northern states by the 1890's, while hypocritically attacking lynching and disfranchisement in the Southern states?

As for not enforcing civil rights -- what other motivation could there be, Imran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So am I to correctly believe that because the West stood aside while genocide was occuring in Bosnia in 1992, when we had the power to prevent it (Geneva Conventions) meant that we supported the genocide?

As for not enforcing civil rights -- what other motivation could there be, Imran?

Obviously you've never heard of this thing called politics. They made a deal to keep the Presidency in 1877. The deal freed the South from Reconstruction. After that civil rights could not be validly enforced for the simple reason that the Southern leaders would not enforce it (and that would look really good). To send troops in AGAIN to enforce the law would not fly, no matter what you think.

Oh, and how about when the Republican party supported segregation in the Northern states by the 1890's

So which section of the country was under segregation during the 1950s? It seems interesting that MLK, Jr. marched in Alabama and Mississippi, doesn't it? I don't recall mass protests against state officials in New York and Chicago. And where did Republican strength come from? BINGO! The North.

James Loewen described how Republican leaders in the 1890's created various clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership.

AGAIN, can you back this up with another source?