Tweet
A few people on this forum, for reasons I can't fathom, like to defend this man every time people point out that he is clearly a racist. I think this is the third time I've started a thread on the matter, and generally most people agree with me. However, there are still people who defend him. This will be a long post, and it will prove that
Although Byrd is by no means stupid, he is an awful man not fit for the US Senate. And considering the horrible people we have there, that is saying something. He might be an intelligent man, but he is blinded by biases and bigotries that most people abandoned decades ago. However, he is calculating; rarely does he make errors in judgement that inhibit his reelection.
We will begin with his first political involvement, the Ku Klux Klan. He joined the clan about sixty-three years ago, and became a local officer, a Kleagle, meaning a recruiter. He quit a few years later, not because he had become a decent human being, but because he lost interest:
(1952)
As I will seek to prove later in this post, he does not view his Klan membership as an awful mistake. He simply considers it an obstacle to his reelection hopes.
After he quit, he had not changed at all. Here are his words of wisdom on integrating the military.
- Letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo, (D-MS) 1944
In another letter, we see that he still believed the Klan was vital to the survival of this country. I think this quote definitively proves that he did not leave the Klan because he realized he was mistaken.
- Letter, 1946
Obviously, he lied when he said "In the nine years that followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He certainly seems very interested in the survival of the Klan. He's just not very interested in torpedoing his political career.
1961: He is one of many Senators who vehemently opposes the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme court. Of these Senators, he happens to be the only one who also attempted to block Clarence Thomas. A coincidence, perhaps, but Byrd's senate career seems to be full of this sort of coincidence.
In 1964, he spent 14 hours filibustering the Civil Rights Act. Not quite up to Strom's standard of 24 hours in 1957, but not bad at all.
Now let's move four years later, to 1968, the year when most decent people became outraged when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. What does Mr. Byrd have to say about King?
God forbid that a man release the "destructive forces" of human dignity.
Now the traditional argument that people who defend Byrd make is that he became a better man sometime in the 1970s and 1980s. He opposed Affirmative Action, which was introduced in that era, from the start, which is another dubious coincidence in my mind. I almost hesitate to mention it, because certain people on this forum will say "but that's not evidence enough" and completely ignore the more damning points.
Let's go closer to present day.
1993:
(Washington Times)
What wonderful company the man keeps.
In the 90s, a new civil rights movement of sorts begins. This time the minority is homosexuals, but Byrd's positions are similarly anti-progress.
You can fire someone because he's a ***. Clearly he is no longer a bigot. And don't try to act like that vote wouldn't have made a difference, and everyone was bigoted back then and blah blah blah. The measure was defeated by one vote.
Also from that link, notice that the ACLU gives him a 20% rating, denoting an "anti-Civil Rights voting record."
Lastly, we come to Byrd's famous remark in 2001. I'll quote it in context so there will be no complaining.
(on race relations)
Interview with Tony Snow (on live National TV)
When Drake Tungsten brought up this remark in another thread, Boris Godunov defended it by saying:
He also complained that the remark has been taken out of context.
I posed three questions to him.
1. Is "******" being used intentionally as a negative word?
2. What exactly is the "context" that mitigates his usage of the word?
3. (Specifically to Boris) You defended him on the grounds that he was talking about white people. So insulting white people by saying they're like ******s is OK, because you aren't insulting the ******s directly? And this remark is so obviously OK that it is laughable that Drake even criticized it?
I am willing to argue against Boris and anyone else willing to defend this man for as long as it takes.
Although Byrd is by no means stupid, he is an awful man not fit for the US Senate. And considering the horrible people we have there, that is saying something. He might be an intelligent man, but he is blinded by biases and bigotries that most people abandoned decades ago. However, he is calculating; rarely does he make errors in judgement that inhibit his reelection.
We will begin with his first political involvement, the Ku Klux Klan. He joined the clan about sixty-three years ago, and became a local officer, a Kleagle, meaning a recruiter. He quit a few years later, not because he had become a decent human being, but because he lost interest:
After about a year, I became disinterested (sic), quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.
(1952)
As I will seek to prove later in this post, he does not view his Klan membership as an awful mistake. He simply considers it an obstacle to his reelection hopes.
After he quit, he had not changed at all. Here are his words of wisdom on integrating the military.
I will never fight under that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
- Letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo, (D-MS) 1944
In another letter, we see that he still believed the Klan was vital to the survival of this country. I think this quote definitively proves that he did not leave the Klan because he realized he was mistaken.
I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities.
- Letter, 1946
Obviously, he lied when he said "In the nine years that followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He certainly seems very interested in the survival of the Klan. He's just not very interested in torpedoing his political career.
1961: He is one of many Senators who vehemently opposes the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme court. Of these Senators, he happens to be the only one who also attempted to block Clarence Thomas. A coincidence, perhaps, but Byrd's senate career seems to be full of this sort of coincidence.
In 1964, he spent 14 hours filibustering the Civil Rights Act. Not quite up to Strom's standard of 24 hours in 1957, but not bad at all.
Now let's move four years later, to 1968, the year when most decent people became outraged when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. What does Mr. Byrd have to say about King?
Martin Luther King fled the scene. He took to his heels and disappeared, leaving it to others to cope with the destructive forces he had helped to unleash. And I hope that well-meaning negro leaders and individuals in the negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble and then takes off like a scared rabbit.
God forbid that a man release the "destructive forces" of human dignity.
Now the traditional argument that people who defend Byrd make is that he became a better man sometime in the 1970s and 1980s. He opposed Affirmative Action, which was introduced in that era, from the start, which is another dubious coincidence in my mind. I almost hesitate to mention it, because certain people on this forum will say "but that's not evidence enough" and completely ignore the more damning points.
Let's go closer to present day.
1993:
In 1993, Byrd joined with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to defend Congressional protection of the confederate flag as part of the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, opposing Carol Moseley Braun.
(Washington Times)
What wonderful company the man keeps.
In the 90s, a new civil rights movement of sorts begins. This time the minority is homosexuals, but Byrd's positions are similarly anti-progress.
# Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
You can fire someone because he's a ***. Clearly he is no longer a bigot.
And don't try to act like that vote wouldn't have made a difference, and everyone was bigoted back then and blah blah blah. The measure was defeated by one vote.Also from that link, notice that the ACLU gives him a 20% rating, denoting an "anti-Civil Rights voting record."
Lastly, we come to Byrd's famous remark in 2001. I'll quote it in context so there will be no complaining.
(on race relations)
"They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime. I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us. I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white ******s. I've seen a lot of white ******s in my time; I'm going to use that word."
Interview with Tony Snow (on live National TV)
When Drake Tungsten brought up this remark in another thread, Boris Godunov defended it by saying:
You mean when he was talking about white people? Wow, you're such a hack! 
He also complained that the remark has been taken out of context.
I posed three questions to him.
1. Is "******" being used intentionally as a negative word?
2. What exactly is the "context" that mitigates his usage of the word?
3. (Specifically to Boris) You defended him on the grounds that he was talking about white people. So insulting white people by saying they're like ******s is OK, because you aren't insulting the ******s directly? And this remark is so obviously OK that it is laughable that Drake even criticized it?
I am willing to argue against Boris and anyone else willing to defend this man for as long as it takes.
Stupid old man should be put out of his misery.
@ Jag
Comment