So, what ever happen to Republican goals?

[monkspider]

Imran- To briefly interrupt your discussion, it seems intellectually dishonest to require multiple scholarly sources on Fun's part while hardly providing any yourself.

[Japher]

Another source? My professor in one of my American history courses.

Usually when I hear sentences that begin with "My professor" my earns turn off right away. Most of the time I know that this is going to be leftist skewed version of the "revisionist" past.

I am sure that there were racist republicans and democratics who held office in our nations past. Those who begin labling Republicans as racist, are themselves, prejudice and being hypocritical.

What happened to Republican goals? They are sagwayed and filebustered by democrats, or non-supporting republicans. All a party is a group of politicans with "common" goals, they never said exact goals.

I believe I have seen bills addressed on all of the matters you stated at the beginning of this thread. Maybe even a new one every year. Only to see the democrats hoot and hollar about how wrong it is... What kind of answer is that?! How about seeing a rebuttal in the form of another resolution. Instead of badmouthing bad ideas, replace the bad ideas with good ideas! Something which the democrats are unable to do.

If you really want to talk racism in the government, lets talk about continuing democratic oppresion of the poverish minorities...

Countless lies have been told by both sides of the capitol, each for the same reason... It is only the votes that count.

Politicians suk.

[MrFun]

Imran, how about when Martin Luther King Jr. organized one protest in a suburb in the North, and he described the reaction to his peaceful protest as one of the most violent ones he experienced?

As for other sources, I plan to read more on Reconstruction. The ones (which were not many) that I have read, were a couple of years ago and I can't recall the authors.

And as for politics being a motivation to not enforcing civil rights. Ok, that is definitely a legitimate argument on your part. Yet, by not enforcing civil rights for political reasons, it reinforces societal racism.

[MrFun]

I looked up sources that James Loewen used in his scholarly research in regards to Republican-affiliated clubs.

1) A History of the Union League Club of NY City by Mead Dodd, 1952

2) Guide to Black History by Doubleday, 1968

3) Farewell to the Bloody Shirt by Quadrangle, 1962

4) Whiteness of a Different Color by Harvard UP, 1998


Even if you disagree with Loewen, you can refer to these and other sources that would back up his research.

[Ramo]

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

The fact that the Dems were responsible for Jim Crow not only is not ironic, but integral in showing why the Republicans' actions were racist.

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?

Yes, total apathy towards the liberties of millions of people because they have the wrong skin color is racist. Selling out people who have the wrong skin color for tariffs is racist. Do I really have to pull out the dictionary?

racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]

from dictionary.com

Take a look at the secondary definition.

In any case, call it non-racist if you really want. I don't really care about semantics. This argument seems pretty stupid to me.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

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

Citing the unwillingness of the GOP to enforce civil rights laws following the Civil War as proof they were (are?)racist while not using the same rationale to indict the Democrats is inconsistent. Are you honestly more favorable to the GOP than the Democrats or are you more sympathetic of the Democrats? Why bother citing what the GOP did following the Civil War in a thread about current Republican "goals"? Because someone said the GOP was/is racist and someone else pointed out that the GOP freed the slaves?

MrFun -

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.

Where did I even mention you, much less quote anything you said? Where did I accuse you of claiming all Republicans today are racist? And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Sheesh!

[Berzerker]

Btw you guys, the races are not equal anymore than all people are equal. That doesn't make me a racist, it makes me an observer of reality. I'm not a Jew, but I'd have to say the Jewish "race" has more "per capita" achievements than any other race (at least in modern times). Does that make me a racist? Hell, I'm not even sure how to define "race", there's been so much mixing of the races the term has lost much of it's relevance. I thought a racist was someone who believed their race was superior to all others AND treated the "inferior" accordingly. If the races are not equal, then isn't one superior? But the problem with racism is not recognising the varying levels of achievement by the races, but that the people who typically practice racism are trying to piggyback on members of their own race who are the achievers. It's like hearing some Nazi skinhead or black "activist" claim some kind of superiority over others because a German or African invented something making our lives better. Racism is about hypocrisy - the hypocrisy of treating other people based on superficial characteristics instead of individual merit. The racist wouldn't want to be mis-treated based solely on a racial association to others who've committed evil...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Where did I even mention you, much less quote anything you said? Where did I accuse you of claiming all Republicans today are racist? And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? Sheesh!

sorry then

In the meantime, where did Imran go?

[cavebear]

"Whatever happened to Republican goals"?

The Republicans turned them into greedy selfish ideologue jokes?

Like "stimulus tax cuts" that only benefit the rich, like complaining about world population growth and poverty but objecting to birth control and "family planning? Like claiming to be the "environmentalists" yet pushing for the rights to clear-cut forests and drill for oil on wilderness areas?

[Sava]

cavebear...

[Ramo]

Citing the unwillingness of the GOP to enforce civil rights laws following the Civil War as proof they were (are?)racist while not using the same rationale to indict the Democrats is inconsistent.

I didn't argue that the Dems were not racist (which they certainly were). The argument I stepped into was whether the Republicans were racist.

Why bother citing what the GOP did following the Civil War in a thread about current Republican "goals"?

I'm sure you've noticed the tendency of threads to go off-topic. I cited what the GOP did following the Civil War to refute Imran's assertion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran- To briefly interrupt your discussion, it seems intellectually dishonest to require multiple scholarly sources on Fun's part while hardly providing any yourself.

The onus of burden is on the one making the positive assertion.

Yes, total apathy towards the liberties of millions of people because they have the wrong skin color is racist. Selling out people who have the wrong skin color for tariffs is racist.

Nope and nope...

Take a look at the secondary definition.

I looked at it and it still doesn't prove anything. Were the Republicans discriminatory based on race when they decided not to actively enforce the civil rights of blacks? NO! That's absurd. Once again, I'll ask how could they have gone about it without armed force or Southern rebellion?

Why couldn't the Republicans leave the race issues on the side because of more important goals?

Furthermore you've shown that you can look back on history with the morality of the present. Can you look back on it knowing the times?

Yet, by not enforcing civil rights for political reasons, it reinforces societal racism.

Reinforcing racism by inaction is decidedly different from being racist yourself.

Imran, how about when Martin Luther King Jr. organized one protest in a suburb in the North, and he described the reaction to his peaceful protest as one of the most violent ones he experienced?

Which protest was this?

[Ramo]

I looked at it and it still doesn't prove anything. Were the Republicans discriminatory based on race when they decided not to actively enforce the civil rights of blacks? NO! That's absurd. Once again, I'll ask how could they have gone about it without armed force or Southern rebellion?

Why do you think that the magnitude of armed force would be that significant? It's not like there was that much force involved when the feds were enforcing the 14th during the Civil Rights revolution. As for Southern rebellion, that's just silly. Not only would there be a lot of support on the part of many white members of the Farmers' Alliance/Populists for the North as they were being disenfranchised by the same laws, the advantages in every respect were with the North.

Why couldn't the Republicans leave the race issues on the side because of more important goals?

There were no issues more important than the fundamental liberties of millions of people.

Furthermore you've shown that you can look back on history with the morality of the present. Can you look back on it knowing the times?

Why not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you think that the magnitude of armed force would be that significant? It's not like there was that much force involved when the feds were enforcing the 14th during the Civil Rights revolution. As for Southern rebellion, that's just silly. Not only would there be a lot of support on the part of many white members of the Farmers' Alliance/Populists for the North as they were being disenfranchised by the same laws, the advantages in every respect were with the North.

You don't think that less than 30 years after the Civil War, without the military governments, enforcement would be in anyway successful?

Also remember that the only reason that only minor civil rights advances were enforced because of the military governance. Until FDR, the federal government just wasn't that powerful vis-a-vis the states.

There were no issues more important than the fundamental liberties of millions of people.

So sayeth you. I'm sure the people of that era would disagree.

Why not?

Because it doesn't seem you can. Jugding the past with today's morality is inherantly flawed.

[Berzerker]

Ramo - Understood, I read Thud's opening comment in this thread and saw how it started this debate over the alleged racist views of the GOP past and present. So, are you more sympathetic to the Democrats than the Republicans?