“What do you mean ‘Democrats are the real racists'”?
How often has someone asked you this question? I get it all the time from younger people– 30 and below especially. I used to recite the many instances of institutionalized racism Democrats authored and enforced to keep blacks slaves, then sharecroppers and segregated when it suited whites. I recite all the common talking points of Democrats voting against voting rights during the civil rights movement, rescinding voting rights 2 decades after Republicans gave blacks voting rights following the Civil War, the KKK being created by an elected Democrat as an enforcement vehicle against blacks and Republicans, etc…
The eyes of my audience remain blank and unimpressed. These people have been raised to believe the Democrats are blacks’ best friend in government and Republicans are hostile to blacks. While most know Democrats in the south fought to continue slavery, they believe that the racists in the south became Republicans and those opposed to racism became Democrats. They don’t know how or why such a thing happened, but they know it did. The fact that blacks vote for the Democrats over 90% of the time reinforces this belief.
This level of misunderstanding must be overcome through a rather lengthy explanation:
Democrats use fear as a tool very effectively. Southern whites were convinced that if blacks could own guns they would immediately shoot every white person they saw. If a black man could look at and speak to a white woman without being beaten or hung, they would rape every white woman they saw. If blacks drank from the same water fountain the water would carry disease. If blacks ate from the same food counter, the food would make whites sick. As crazy as this may sound, people believed it. (If your listener(s) have an incredulous look on their face ask them if they would drink water or eat food in close proximity to a rat, they’ll get the idea).
Then Republicans forced desegregation in the south causing the myths about blacks to begin fading.
Suddenly the main tool of control was lost to the Democrats. They could no longer sell them selves as the party of the white man and win elections. The Democrats went to the class warfare that served them well in the north and west. The Democrats sold themselves as the protector of the working man and the poor, fighting to stop the “repression” of the rich.
Blacks, however, knew better. They supported Republicans in large numbers with their newly restored voting rights. The “blue” South started turning purple. The Democrats needed to re-establish their political dominance in the South. Southern whites were learning that their fears of blacks were largely unfounded. With the Democrats main tool of control fading away, Southern whites began to align themselves politically based on moral values and basic economic philosophy. Southerners were and are more rural by nature which causes people to be more self-reliant. They are less likely to be in a union, less likely to be an immigrant or first generation natural born American, more patriotic, and more impressed by history than change. (e.g.- a Southerner will recommend a hundred year old restaurant first wheras a New Yorker will recommend the newest “hot” restaurant first) Over time, whites in the South found the message of the GOP to resonate more than the Democrats. And this is how Southern whites became Republicans.
Simultaneously, blacks were finding them selves realigning toward the Democrats. The racial rhetoric started to die down, and the desire to “dance with the one who brung them” faded. The social programs ushered in by the “Great Society” were attractive to the under educated, low income, black community in the South. Their was heavy immigration of blacks from the south to the north, looking for work and opportunity. When they got factory jobs they became union members and their desires from government changed. They also found “free” housing, welfare payments, food stamps, and racial quotas in hiring attractive.
So a century after the Republicans and Democrats went to war, the decendants of the soldiers and the slaves changed sides. And a half century after that, the current crop of immigrants and first generation natural born Americans are unaware of the change, assuming that current alignments are rooted in racial history rather than evolving moral and economic values.
Conservatives must educate younger and immigrant voters about the truth of why some groups vote as they do. We must no longer cede the racial high ground to the historic party of racism. Most people understand the allure of government money in the black community and why they vote Democrat but they do not understand how racist whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them.
@Nathan Blue:
Nathan, you’re coming off as a bit of a kill joy. I’m just blowing off a little steam and hopefully adding a different view. Granted, it’s usually like this, but occasionally, (more in the past) I end up in a very interesting discussion. And occasionally, I even learn something. I’m not the one in the echo chamber, remember?
I appreciate your suggestion to read more books and I take it at face value that it comes from a good place. I read quite a bit (not as much as I should) and agree I waste too much time on the computer. I read most of Hemingway long ago and I’m embarrassed to say I’m not familiar with that title. I will check it out.
@Tom:
Uoooooh, I don’t have time to answer your questions, Retire05, because, you know, I have a job that needs attending to.
The time stamp says 2:12, yet here you are at 4:35 still neglecting that job. Is that a real job or a mythical job that lives only in your head?
RETIRE05
HE MUST WASH THE DISHES,
AND THE MORE HE WAIT,
THE MORE GERMS HE WILL GET JUMPING ON HIM,
@retire05:
Yes, it’s 4:35 Pacific Time on the East Coast here and it’s been dark for three hours. If only they’d break this vast nation of ours into time zones.
@Tom: Watch Auburn’s incredible ground game–if successful it’ll keep Seminoles high powered offense off the field.
Think FSU has a little too much and wins 38-34–Auburn covers 10 point spread—enjoy
@Tom:
So let me see if I understand you; you said you needed to attend to your job but then popped up two hours later with the excuse you could not attend to your job because it got dark three hours before?
You really expect that to be believable?
@Tom: Fair enough. Of course I’m right here with you, and I question the value of many internet-based discussions these days.
We’re all full of sh*t, at the end of the day.
Reading: I’m usually more for SF, but literature is still the greatest.
The Cain Mutiny is a great story for putting opinions and reality into question (no agenda, really — just a great book from a Navy vet named Herman Wouk).
Oh…”All Creatures” is James Herriot. It’s about an vet working in the Yorkshire Dales back in…early20th century (sad to say I can’t remember). Essentially autobiographical, the writing is superb. You gotta check it out.
@retire05:
I’m pretty sure don’t.
@Richard Wheeler:
Oh my. Nothing makes Tom look good, not even compliments from RW.
@Nathan Blue:
Thanks for the recommendations. I used to read more SF, but I’ve fallen off. I’ve been reading more crime and spy novels lately. Chandler, Furst, Le Carre, etc. Great stuff.
@Richard Wheeler:
RW, I happened to be a resident of NC at the time Helms was giving commentaries on WRAL ch 5 in Raleigh, before he ever ran for office. He was extremely conservative at the time and was clearly not a racist. That was the norm for white citizens in NC at the time. Helms did not leave the Dimocrat party. If anyone left, it was the party that left him because he did not share their racist, welfare handout type government. That’s true throughout the South at that time. The Dimocrats became the racists and promoted handouts and welfare. There was no choice for the conservatives but to go to the Republican party which shared the conservatives views. I was there, it is useless and childish to attempt to re-write history. Tom can’t even make his wife look bad.
Minor point there RW, but Thurmond was from SC not Ala
@retire05:
AS usual, he’s confused
@Redteam:
Where I’m from, it shows a singular lack of class to bring up a man’s wife in such a manner. Imagine how you’d feel if I brought up your first cousin, or your prized pig?
@Tom:
I’ve been dealing with libs a long time, I’ve gotten used to that kind of thing. Expect it from them.
@Redteam: Thurmond a S.C racist as I mentioned on another post–thanks.
Helms a Conservative yes–a racist most certainly. He may well have been “the norm” for white Southerners in the 60’s. That doesn’t make it right,even if Papa Duck thinks so.
First Half Auburn playing SEC football– Fake punt call gutsy and critical–I look for great 2nd half.
@Richard Wheeler:
A conservative certainly, what is the evidence for being a racist? As I’ve said, I followed him since ‘before’ he got into politics and have never seen or heard any racism from him.
@Redteam:
Did Tom really just equate his wife with a cousin or a pig? OMG!
@retire05:
Ugh. Humor has come a long way since Hee Haw. Just once, try reaching beyond the painfully obvious comeback and you might succeed in something beyond reinforcing your banality.
@Tom:
Oh, I see, you were simply indicating that you thought Redteam was married to either his cousin, or a pig.
And you complain about insults? Is the word “hypocrite” on the top of your resume?
Hee Haw? Did you mean Gee, Haw? Is that how your wife tells you to turn right or turn left? Because you most certainly are an ass.
“Banality” Such a big word coming from such a small mind.
I am still wondering how you intended to go to work when, by your time line, it had already been dark in your time zone for an hour. Do you Yankees not work after dark?
@retire05:
Who said anything about married.
I guess we’ll have to let you in on a little secret. They have computers at work now. Sounds like magic, I know. So I can actually post from my job. Do you understand now? Let me make it even more plain: I didn’t need to go to work because I posted from work. from my computer. at work.
I’m sure your mind is swimming with visions of the computers you could have bought with that money you took from the State of Texas and its taxpayers to run your business.
@Tom: @Tom:
So you took the higher ground, after complaining how Redteam spoke ill of your wife, by insinuating he sleeps with a pig or a cousin? Got it.
In other words, time that your employer is paying you to work, you spend playing on the computer. That’s theft, Tom. You should worry about being caught and getting fired.
Put your money where your mouth is, Tommy Boy; prove that I took the money, not just awarded it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know that sometimes the strings that come with an award are not worth utilizing it. But you’re a liberal, so I don’t expect you to be smart.
@retire05:
Appears he is.
@Tom:
you have no facts to dispute the flawed premise of this post
You want to sell politics of identity.
The flawed premise is that you think any of us care about color. We don’t care about color. That’s our attitude frankly.
Facts you want:
– Lincoln freed the slaves: Democrats seceded from the Union
– 1865 Dems passed Black Code laws after reunification; 1866 Dems form KKK
– 1875 Dems then doubled-down and passed Jim Crow Laws: Repubs respond with Civil Rights Act of 1875
– 1894 Dems pass the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans: Republicans started the NAACP on February 12, 1909 to ADVANCE BLACK RIGHTS
– 1912 Dem Pres Woodrow Wilson kicked blacks out of federal government jobs and prevented blacks from obtaining federal contracts
– KKK killed both Republicans and blacks; NRA trained black communities to protect themselves
– 1957 Republicans pushed and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957
– Orval Faubus famous pro-segregationist former governor of Arkansas was Democrat: Republican Pres Eisenhower sent in the National Guard (1957)
That gets us thru 1860 – 1950’s.
Conclusion: Democrats were most certainly racists during this period.
1950+
Your premise Tom: African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats b/c the ‘parties of today’.
And with that it is infered Republicans are racist.
Riddle: Was MLK racist?
I ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1957; Faubus and then Eisenhower’s response using the National Guard.
– MLK during the 1966 Nixon campaign personally thanked him for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
– Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society.
Here’s Malcolm X calling ‘overwhelmingly’ Democrat voters chumps.
Chump?
My jedi sense is that for the Dem party to save face in the sunlight of history they need to create a narrative and some plausible deniability that suggests somehow one day racist Dems switched parties and became Republicans; while all those pro-black white Republicans said fuck it and switched parties as well.
Makes perfect sense.
1984, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
Plaque: Lincoln is a Democrat
@Tom
The crescendo in your reply references Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
But your link drop is NYT. That’s like me trolling Huffington and citing FOX.
Let’s fluff out some context.
Aside the MLK racist endorsement of Nixon, what other racist evil things did Nixon do.
– Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan enforced affirmative action – racist
– The Republican, black, racist, man who worked for the racist president – the man who’s credited for crafting the 1969 Philadelphia Plan, Art Fletcher who became known as ‘the father of affirmative action enforcement…
– Racist Nixon and his Equal Employment Act of 1972
– Fletcher, as president of the United Negro College Fund, coined the phrase “the mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
Art Fletcher – Black Republican – president of United Negro College Fund – Racist or not?
@Tom:
“perhaps you [mossomo] … can comment on the fact that when Southern [racist] whites stopped voting Democrat”
Per conjecture. Head from ass.
Senator Byrd (D), WV: Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92; West Virginia lawmaker was the longest serving member of Congress in history.
Former KKK Democrat senator for life, lol. Racist or not?
Conclusion: Is your stereotype actually applicable?
@Tom:
You and your pathetic diversions. Have it your way. It makes no difference. The black Democratic presidential vote went from 68% to 94% from 1960 to 1964. I’m sure you have a really good explanation for that.
Humor has come a long way since Hee Haw.
Allow me.
Humor: Punk Faggot! – Al Sharpton
Humor: Tea Bagger! – One lump or two?
Humor: Push your stool in? the bartender politely asks.
Anticsrocks
yes very true, he doesn’t change,
nice to have you here with us,
best wishes for this year just begining for us,
and to all your family, hope you get what you are waiting for soon,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks, Miss Beezy! Happiest of New Years to you, as well.
@mossomo: You were up late. Did you see the game?
1957 Voting Rights Act Passed by Northern Repubs AND Dems–Southern Dems opposed–LBJ a notable exception voted Aye.
MLK/Nixon relationship. VP Nixon in support of 57 Act and nominal friend of MLK. 1960– MLK arrested in Ga. Civil Rights sit-in and sentenced to 4 months in prison–based on previous traffic violation. Pres. candidate Nixon made no comment and took no action towards release. Candidate JFK called Coretta and the judge and secured MLK release. “No comment Nixon vs Candidate with a Heart” pamphlet distributed weeks prior to election. JFK wins a squeaker with 65%+ of Black vote. MLK/Nixon relationship sours.
1964 LBJ over Goldwater who had voted against 1964 CRA—No brainer–LBJ gets 94% of Black vote. As 68 campaign begins MLK is assassinated on April 4. RFK assassinated in LA. June 5.
MLK never publicly supported a Party or candidate–He certainly never endorsed Nixon. In memoirs he indicated he voted for JFK in 60 and “probably would have supported him again in 1964.”
Anticsrocks Welcome back
Well, here’s another list of cherry-picked historical tidbits- because things aren’t always so black and white:
@Wordsmith: Thanks for your studied “cherry picked” input. To be sure politics is rarely black or white. Kudos to all who have stood for Civil Rights and Human Rights.
‘The free society that does not help the many who are poor can not save the few who are rich.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
JFK also said this:
“The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.”
Hardly the words that would come from a modern-day Democrat. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid advocating for lowering taxes across the board that would include the rich?
Wordsmith
one of your hardwork treasure, a gift to AMERICANS ALL TOGETHER,
IT SERVE TO UNITE AMERICA, SO BROKEN BY THE PARTY WHO DENIED THE BLACKS
THEIR FREEDOM FOR SO LONG AS A CENTURY, KILLING THOSE WHO INSISTED
IN FREEDOM FOR ALL, yes, the REPUBLICANS HARD HEAD WHO PROTECTED THE BLACK FROM THE
DEMOCRATS VILE INTENTION, OF KEEPING THE BLACK IGNORANT AND SLAVES FOREVER,
AND THE REPUBLICANS ALSO WHERE THE INSTRUMENT IN BANNING THE SLAVE BUSYNESSES
FROM ARABS’S CENTURY OF ACTIVITYS AT THE COST OF MANY LIVES, TORTURES AND ABUSES
ALL OVER THE WORLD, EXCEPT THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHO CONTINUED THEIR OUTSIDER TRAFIC, AMONG THEIR OWN COUNTRIES,
WHICH ENGLAND FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF THOSE BRAVES REPUBLICANS WHO PERSIST IN NOT TAKE A NO FOR ANSWER, AND WHO SOME WHERE KILLED,
FOR NOT GIVING UP, AND ACHIVED THEIR GOAL FOR HUMANITY TO BE FREE IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD, THAT’S WHY WE ARE ADMIRER OF THEM AND RESPECT THEM, THEY
HAVE HISTORY TO BACK THEM, AND HOPE THE WHITE AND THE BLACK READ YOUR TREASURE OF THE PAST SHINING AGAIN BECAUSE YOU TOOK THE TIME TO BUILD THIS AND PUT IT TOGETHER FOR US, I ALAYS ADMIRE THE PARTY’S INTELLIGENCE AND QUALITYS TO MAKE THEM LEADER OF SUCH A GREAT AND TOLERANT AND THE BRAVEST OF THE WORLD,
THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEY WOULD BRING SUCCESS TO AMERICA, FROM WHAT WE READ AGAIN AND THEIR EFFORT THEN IS HERE AFTER HUNDREADS OF YEAR OF THE SAME SERVICES TO AMERICA,
THANK YOU, FOR TAKING YOUR TIME ON THAT SUPER RESEARCH, AMONG ALL OTHER WORK YOU HAVE,
EQUATING THAT ACCOMPLISHEMENT HISTORICAL REVIEW,
is not looking well for the DEMOCRAT PARTY INCLUDING
THEIR LEGENDERY SILENT FOLLOWERS, WHICH YOU DON’T KNOW
ANY SELF OPINION OR ANGER OF SEEING CLOSE RANGE THE INTENT OF
THEIR LEADER TO IMPLEMENT LAWS AFTER LAWS TO IMPOSE ON THE CITIZENS BUT NOT ON THE MULTIPLE PUBLIC WORKERS THEY HIRED FOR DOING WHAT THEY ARE WELL PAID TO DO IT,
ALL ARE EXEMPT OF THE HASSELS IMPOSE BY THE LEADER FOR REACHING HIS DESTRUCTIVE AGENDA OF CHANGING AMERICA FOREVER, THEY ALL ARE UNIONYSE AND OBAMA IS OBEYING THE UNIONS WHO ELECTED HIM BY WAY OF SECRET ACTIONS WE THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER KNOW OR ELSE, LIKE THE SAME OPRESSION THE DEMOCRATS APLYED IN THOSE 18OO.S YEARS,
YOU OBEY OR I WILL HURT TOU,
WHAT A LEGACY TO CARRY TODAY, AND TRY TO MAKE THEMSELVES GOOD AND KIND,
WHEN HISTORY IS TELLING THE CONTRARY,
I NOTICE THEY WHERE SELFISH AND GREEDY, BUT NOW I
SEE HOW FAR LOW THEY WILL GO TO KEEP THEIR POWER,
THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE LEADERSHIP,
OF SUCH A GREAT COUNTRY, THEY ARE AND NEVER WHERE FIT FOR IT,
@Wordsmith:
Excellent list. Of course, as we’ve been discussing, I think it’s rather problematic – if not downright strange – for a contemporary conservative Republican to tout Republican accomplishments prior to the 1960s. Do you consider the Republicans of the 1860s or the 1920s “conservative” by today’s standards? The Republican party in its inception was the party of the North and abolition, opposed to the Democrats of the South. The parties have demographically flipped since the 1960s. I’d say the parties ideologies changed more than the political positions and cultures of the regions. And of course the Republicans of the 1920s were Progressives. It’s just odd to me that contemporary Republicans take pride in accomplishments that have analogues today they don’t support. Republicans take pride in supporting abolition and civil rights in the past, but contemporary conservatives support rolling back civil rights legislation and fight against civil rights for gays. Conservatives today preach a weak Federal government and states rights,but take pride in Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.
@mossomo:
You seem to be confusing campaign strategy with policy. Of course Nixon would be considered a communist by the Right of today. That doesn’t change his successful luring of southern whites to the GOP via the Southern Strategy. Scoff all you want at the NYT, that’s an interview with a well known Nixon associate. Are you claiming its fake? Are you claiming no one noticed a made up interview with a top Nixon aid printed in the NYT in 1970? Are you given to conspiracy paranoia in general?
@Tom: Very well said. Re Lincoln I’ve seen little acclaim and much disdain from Southern Conservatives on this site.
There is no question a Southern strategy existed in the Nixon prez run in 68.
Gave you FSU 38-34 Final FSU 34-31 my bad
A classic
@Tom:
If the strategy of Nixon was so damn great in recruiting the Southern states, how come he only took five of them? And did not take the biggest one of them all, Texas? Ummm, let’s see; I guess you think 5 out of 11 is another one of those “most” instances.
@Tom:
What “civil” rights of gays are Republicans fighting against? Jobs? Housing?
Read the Federalist Papers, dimwit. Maybe then you will understand the concept of limited Federalism.
@mossomo:
There’s a passionate and pointed way to express one’s views on political policy and then there’s hysterical nonsense. Anyone who would compare a state of abject slavery, where your children can be sold off piecemeal and your wife raped at will and you can do nothing about it, with the freedom of being a contemporary American citizen, yes even one in Obama’s “welfare state”, and come to that conclusion is clearly a fool (unless the quote is grossly taken out of context, which I sadly assume is not the case). Clearly many African Americans have concerns about the state of the black family, but my five second analysis of Mr. Sowell’s take on the subject is that he’s assigned a bizarrely inflated value to a traditional family structure, which usually goes hand in hand with ignoring the fact that a phenomena like divorce increases proportionally in societies with an increase in personal freedom, like the freedom of a women or a child to leave an abusive relationship, rather than be forced to remain in one where civil or religious tradition trump personal choice. Another classic conservative contradiction: the stated support of both Freedom and Tradition in the may areas where they are clearly mutually exclusive. If nothing else, Mr. Sowell has succeeded in leaving behind a quote that will bring much satisfaction to slavery apologists and neo-Confederates. Not a shock, considering you apparent regard for it. Now that I think of it, Sowell is the only black person Retire5 ever quotes with approval, so that should be a clue too.
@Richard Wheeler:
Alabama was rolling. I sadly missed the end of the game, but thought of your prediction when I saw the score. Well done!
@retire05:
Try to keep up. As already explained, many disillusioned former southern Democrats voted for the more overtly segregationist Wallace in 1968 before coming into the Republican fold for good in 1972. Try not to repeat failed arguments. It’s even more of a waste of time than proving you wrong the first time.
@Tom:
Seems you missed more than the end. Alabama?
@Redteam:
Good catch. You finally proved me wrong. Go celebrate. First drink is on me.
@Tom:
Notice you’re saying the Dimocrats voted for Wallace in 68. What makes you think it was those voters that went to the Republicans? They went back to Dimcrats. The conservatives are the ones that went to the Republicans.
@Tom:
If they agree with Dr. Sowell’s remarks, are you saying that Dr. Sowell is also a slavery apologist and neo-Confederate.
Thomas Sowell, a brilliant economist who was once a high school drop out, is someone who’s shoes you are not fit to wipe.
But hey, don’t let your bigotry toward a black man stand in your way. Maybe you want to slam Walter Williams, another economist I appreciate, as well? How about Starr Parker? I enjoy her books. Want to call her some not-so-polite names? How about another acquaintance of mine, Anita Moncrief? Bet you have some really choice words about her.
You show your own racism; the racism of slamming any black that wanders off Uncle Sam’s Plantation and doesn’t realize that his/her place is where you liberals tell them it is.
Put your money where you mouth is, clown; prove that Wallace voters then went to the GOP. I will be waiting on your proof, and don’t use some radical left wing blog, either. Not that I expect you to back up your claims. That’s not what you do. Your forte is simply running your mouth.
What’s being advocated in this statement is the indoctrination of the young and immigrant voters with a politically useful narrative that’s the product of historical revisionism. Refer to The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights.