So, what ever happen to Republican goals?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which protest was this?

In my theology class over a year ago, my professor discussed with us, the involvement of white Catholic priests who traveled to the Southern states during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

On our last day of class, we saw video clippings of Martin Luther King Jr.'s involvement in this movement. In one such clipping, it showed him organizing an anti-segregation protest in a suburb of a northern city.

In this clipping, MLK himself said that the reaction against his protest was the most violent he had experienced compared to what he had experienced in the South so far -- something along those lines.

Does anyone remember which state and city this protest was at?

[Ramo]

So, are you more sympathetic to the Democrats than the Republicans?

In the 1890's, nationally I would be more sympathetic to the Democrats, but regionally, North and South, I would be more sympathatic to the Republicans. The Republicans were a bunch of imperialistic, protectionist bastards (and still are. ). In fact, the McKinley Tariff of 1890 primarly triggered a huge Depression a couple years later, which triggered the populists to turn on blacks and insured the reign of Jim Crow. Today, I'm definitely more sympathetic to the Democrats nationally and regionally. Of course, that's not saying much (the only times I've voted for a Democrat were if the only opposition on the ballot had been a Republican).

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

Why not? Why would the dynamics of the situation have been so different from half a century later? Besides, the awesome power of the North would've been fresher in their minds (and the South wouldn't be as developed - it was only with the Compromise of '77 that the South started getting a slice of the federal corporate welfare).

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

Why? And if that's true, why isn't judging the present flawed?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why not? Why would the dynamics of the situation have been so different from half a century later? Besides, the awesome power of the North would've been fresher in their minds (and the South wouldn't be as developed - it was only with the Compromise of '77 that the South started getting a slice of the federal corporate welfare).

I refer you to France and Britain's reactions when Hitler was starting his conquering, especially the war wariness from WW1.

A better example is looking at the world today and the opposition to going into Iraq again.

No public support combined with no will to raise up an army of the size needed to control the South would lead to abject failure and prove to everyone that the federal government was powerless. It was better not to try and keep the fiction alive that the federal government was too powerful.

Why? And if that's true, why isn't judging the present flawed?

Remember you are dealing with a moral relativist .

Today's morality has no application to past dates. It is only the morality of that society at that time that matters. To look back using today's morality is a naive exercise that assumes that a majority of people at that time shared your morality.

[MrFun]

Imran, did you read my last post?

If someone can help refresh my memory what suburb in what northern state that protest was organized at, I appreciate it.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MrFun
Does anyone remember which state and city this protest was at?

Going back through the dusty corridors of my memories...what, thirty years?...I think it was Cicero, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is what I got about Cicero:

After the successful voting rights campaign, King was unable to garner similar support for his effort to confront the problems of northern urban blacks. Early in 1966 he launched a major campaign in Chicago, moving into an apartment in the black ghetto. As he shifted the focus of his activities north, however, he discovered that the tactics used in the South were not as effective elsewhere. He encountered formidable opposition from Mayor Richard Daley, and was unable to mobilize Chicago's economically and ideologically diverse black populace. He was stoned by angry whites in the suburb of Cicero when he led a march against racial discrimination in housing. Despite numerous well-publicized protests, the Chicago campaign resulted in no significant gains and undermined King's reputation as an effective leader.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/encyclo.htm

First, I believe that Selma where hoses were turned on protestors and the police came bearing clubs was worse than a stoning. MLK might have lamented that Chicago blacks didn't rally to his cause and believed it was because of racism.

Second, Mayor Daley was a Democrat .

[Zkribbler]

King was disillusioned by the hypocracy of the North. Northerns claimed to be pro-intregration, which they were as long as it was limited to south of the Mason-Dixon line. But when integration came into their own neighborhoods, Northerners went berserk.

By the way, Daley was not so much a Democrat as he was a pustual on the @ss of humanity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree... with both statements .

[Ramo]

I refer you to France and Britain's reactions when Hitler was starting his conquering, especially the war wariness from WW1.

A better example is looking at the world today and the opposition to going into Iraq again.

Find a better example. These are relations between a state and international authorities, not relations inside a state.

No public support combined with no will to raise up an army of the size needed to control the South would lead to abject failure and prove to everyone that the federal government was powerless. It was better not to try and keep the fiction alive that the federal government was too powerful.

I agree that there wasn't much public support/will. That's sort of the point... I still don't see why the magnitude of the force would necessarily be so significant...

Remember you are dealing with a moral relativist .

So are you.

Today's morality has no application to past dates. It is only the morality of that society at that time that matters.

Why? Matters to whom?

To look back using today's morality is a naive exercise that assumes that a majority of people at that time shared your morality.

The majority of the people today don't share my morality. There are cultures today where horrible things are justified. Does that mean I can't judge these actions?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Find a better example. These are relations between a state and international authorities, not relations inside a state

Doesn't matter. For one thing, the North and South were basically two different countries in terms of culture and beliefs.

Secondly war wariness is just as impotant in a civil war than in IR.

I still don't see why the magnitude of the force would necessarily be so significant...

What's the argument about what to do after a war with Iraq?

Apply it here. To keep troops in the South AGAIN would be disasterous, especially politically.

Does that mean I can't judge these actions?

Judge all you want, just don't expect anyone else to talk your moral revultions with any grains of salt.

[Ramo]

Doesn't matter. For one thing, the North and South were basically two different countries in terms of culture and beliefs.

Secondly war wariness is just as impotant in a civil war than in IR.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that the Republicans should've been enforcing the Constitution in the South. They by definition couldn't if there wasn't any popular support. War wariness would be a non-issue.

What's the argument about what to do after a war with Iraq?

Entirely different situation.

A much better example would be the feds' defense of civil liberties of blacks in the 60's. And remember, there were lots of poor Southern whites in solidarity with the blacks at the time, unlike when the North finally decided to enforce the Constitutional Amendments.

Judge all you want, just don't expect anyone else to talk your moral revultions with any grains of salt.

Yes, let's not judge anyone ever.

[MrFun]

Thanks for the info on that protest.

If you saw a film clipping of it like I saw, you would hear MLK himself describing how he felt he experienced one of the most violent reactions towards him, compared to his other protests in the Southern states.

Of course, in this thread, Slowwhand and MTG are not around to see that I'm not blind to historical racism and hypocrisy of the Northern states.