Pensacola Discussion Forum
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
PkrBum wrote:Hell... we don't even have to go back to the civil war to see leftist racism. Jim crow laws and eugenics happened in the last 100 years. To blame any of that shit on Republicans is pure revision for useful idiots. Yea Team..!!
Wordslinger wrote:gatorfan wrote:Wordslinger wrote:Consider: the right to own and sale a black slave was strong enough during the Civil War that hundreds of thousands of southern whites believed that fighting and dying for slavery was worth it.
Fuck racism and all who practice it.
May I suggest visiting their graves and tinkling a little on them? I do believe there are more pressing issues right now than the Civil War, which by the way was not solely about slavery......
Too bad you have comprehension challenges. The thread isn't about the Civil War but about the strength of today's white racism. And you're wrong about the civil war's cause. It was about slavery! The main product of the southern states was cotton -- all of which depended on the labor of black slaves. The north didn't give a fuck about what your knuckle dragging slave owning or white trash ancestors did for a living. And the north was a major buyer of southern Cotton. Furthermore, the north didn't raise cotton so it wasn't a case of trade competition. This is an intellectual argument that's been fought and won numerous times by historians who proved the civil war was ALL ABOUT THE RIGHT FOR SOUTHERN PLANTATION OWNERS TO BUY AND SELL SLAVES. Like most southern fans, you guys can't handle the truth about your ancestors and their dreadful, inhuman and cruel practices.
Reality!
Deus X wrote:Imagine that: a racist pig gets his understanding of a complicated, three hundred-year-old social problem from comedy videos. Further proof that there's no such thing as a good cop--or a smart one, apparently.
othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:Hell... we don't even have to go back to the civil war to see leftist racism. Jim crow laws and eugenics happened in the last 100 years. To blame any of that shit on Republicans is pure revision for useful idiots. Yea Team..!!
Sadly, it's not simple enough to be able to say the Democrats have always been on the side of minorities or that the party of Lincoln has always defended people of color. It is more complicated than that, but not much.
After the Civil War white Southerners decided they couldn't belong to the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons so they mainly became "Democrats" or more aptly, Dixiecrats seeing as how they were an apparent anomaly known as "conservative democrats".
So for decades they called themselves democrats as a revolt against Lincoln. Then when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Laws they revolted against the Democratic Party and declared themselves to be once again Republicans. These people are consistent in two things, 1) revolting against political parties for one reason only, and 2) feeling superior to anyone of color.
I am so tired of seeing this rag-tag-dog-eared argument about not being able to blame institutional racism on Republicans. Of course it is not "Republicans" it is that same group of white pea-brained, totally insecure, completely misinformed, hateful people who think they are better than others because of nothing, I say nothing more than the color of their skin (of all things indeed).
We should not loose sight of the fact that no matter what label they are going by these days, under the label it is the same stupid people every time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
The New York City draft riots (July 13–16, 1863), known at the time as Draft Week,[3] were violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan, widely regarded as the culmination of working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots remain the largest civil and racially charged insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself.[4]
....
Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, predominantly Irish immigrants,[4] attacking black people throughout the city. The official death toll was listed at either 119 or 120 individuals.
.....
The military did not reach the city until the second day of rioting, by which time the mobs had ransacked or destroyed numerous public buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of various abolitionists or sympathizers, many black homes, and the Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which was burned to the ground.[9] The area's demographics changed as a result of the riot. Many black residents left Manhattan permanently with many moving to Brooklyn. By 1865, the black population fell below 11,000 for the first time since 1820.[9]
.....
The mob beat, tortured and/or killed numerous black people, including one man who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then lynched, hanged from a tree and set alight.[13]
Attack on the Tribune building
The Colored Orphan Asylum at 43rd Street and Fifth Avenue, a "symbol of white charity to blacks and of black upward mobility"[9] that provided shelter for 233 children, was attacked by a mob at around 4 p.m. A mob of several thousand, including many women and children, looted the building of its food and supplies. However, the police were able to secure the orphanage for enough time to allow the orphans to escape before the building burned down.[18] Throughout the areas of rioting, mobs attacked and killed at least 120 black people and destroyed their known homes and businesses, such as James McCune Smith's pharmacy at 93 West Broadway, believed to be the first owned by a black man in the United States.[9]
....
The exact death toll during the New York Draft Riots is unknown, but according to historian James M. McPherson, 119 or 120 people were killed, most of them were black. In all, eleven black men were hanged over five days.
....
Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 9/12/2018, 9:06 am; edited 1 time in total
othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:Hell... we don't even have to go back to the civil war to see leftist racism. Jim crow laws and eugenics happened in the last 100 years. To blame any of that shit on Republicans is pure revision for useful idiots. Yea Team..!!
Sadly, it's not simple enough to be able to say the Democrats have always been on the side of minorities or that the party of Lincoln has always defended people of color. It is more complicated than that, but not much.
After the Civil War white Southerners decided they couldn't belong to the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons so they mainly became "Democrats" or more aptly, Dixiecrats seeing as how they were an apparent anomaly known as "conservative democrats".
So for decades they called themselves democrats as a revolt against Lincoln. Then when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Laws they revolted against the Democratic Party and declared themselves to be once again Republicans. These people are consistent in two things, 1) revolting against political parties for one reason only, and 2) feeling superior to anyone of color.
I am so tired of seeing this rag-tag-dog-eared argument about not being able to blame institutional racism on Republicans. Of course it is not "Republicans" it is that same group of white pea-brained, totally insecure, completely misinformed, hateful people who think they are better than others because of nothing, I say nothing more than the color of their skin (of all things indeed).
We should not loose sight of the fact that no matter what label they are going by these days, under the label it is the same stupid people every time.
PkrBum wrote:I can agree with much of that. Except that for all of the talk about dixiecrats infiltrating the pubs there has only been ONE example given after all these years of asking for them. Speaking of "rag-tag-dog-eared arguments".
othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:I can agree with much of that. Except that for all of the talk about dixiecrats infiltrating the pubs there has only been ONE example given after all these years of asking for them. Speaking of "rag-tag-dog-eared arguments".
Perhaps my point was not stated clearly enough. I did not mean to suggest that the Dixiecrats infiltrated the GOP, far from it. The entire South continually voted Republican ever since or shortly after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed. The southern vote was no longer a pseudo-democratic vote but a straight up GOP vote. See Nixon's "Southern strategy" for example. Look at any map showing red vs blue states. Note the amazement when Alabama voted in a senator from the Democratic Party.
The South is, or has been until now a GOP stronghold except for Florida, which turned blue in 2008 and 2012 and is once again up for grabs.
I never heard of the idea of Dixiecrats infiltrating the Republican Party. What are you talking about?
PkrBum wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:I can agree with much of that. Except that for all of the talk about dixiecrats infiltrating the pubs there has only been ONE example given after all these years of asking for them. Speaking of "rag-tag-dog-eared arguments".
Perhaps my point was not stated clearly enough. I did not mean to suggest that the Dixiecrats infiltrated the GOP, far from it. The entire South continually voted Republican ever since or shortly after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed. The southern vote was no longer a pseudo-democratic vote but a straight up GOP vote. See Nixon's "Southern strategy" for example. Look at any map showing red vs blue states. Note the amazement when Alabama voted in a senator from the Democratic Party.
The South is, or has been until now a GOP stronghold except for Florida, which turned blue in 2008 and 2012 and is once again up for grabs.
I never heard of the idea of Dixiecrats infiltrating the Republican Party. What are you talking about?
I guess i misunderstood this: "After the Civil War white Southerners decided they couldn't belong to the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons so they mainly became "Democrats" or more aptly, Dixiecrats seeing as how they were an apparent anomaly known as "conservative democrats"." Pardon me.
Seagoat has made that dixiecrat to pub argument over and over as well as some others.
othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:I can agree with much of that. Except that for all of the talk about dixiecrats infiltrating the pubs there has only been ONE example given after all these years of asking for them. Speaking of "rag-tag-dog-eared arguments".
Perhaps my point was not stated clearly enough. I did not mean to suggest that the Dixiecrats infiltrated the GOP, far from it. The entire South continually voted Republican ever since or shortly after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed. The southern vote was no longer a pseudo-democratic vote but a straight up GOP vote. See Nixon's "Southern strategy" for example. Look at any map showing red vs blue states. Note the amazement when Alabama voted in a senator from the Democratic Party.
The South is, or has been until now a GOP stronghold except for Florida, which turned blue in 2008 and 2012 and is once again up for grabs.
I never heard of the idea of Dixiecrats infiltrating the Republican Party. What are you talking about?
I guess i misunderstood this: "After the Civil War white Southerners decided they couldn't belong to the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons so they mainly became "Democrats" or more aptly, Dixiecrats seeing as how they were an apparent anomaly known as "conservative democrats"." Pardon me.
Seagoat has made that dixiecrat to pub argument over and over as well as some others.
Southerners were SO uncomfortable (to put it mildly) after loosing the war they could not bear to be associated with the political party associated with Lincoln. Then they were faced with the situation of being Democrats, albeit Dixiecrats, when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Laws. Once again they were in a very awkward position, so again they switched due to their underlying desire to 'conserve' racial boundaries.
It is hard to reconcile your idea about an "infiltration" when the mass of voters changed their registration from D to R. How is that an infiltration? Looks more like a total re-branding to me.
PkrBum wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:PkrBum wrote:I can agree with much of that. Except that for all of the talk about dixiecrats infiltrating the pubs there has only been ONE example given after all these years of asking for them. Speaking of "rag-tag-dog-eared arguments".
Perhaps my point was not stated clearly enough. I did not mean to suggest that the Dixiecrats infiltrated the GOP, far from it. The entire South continually voted Republican ever since or shortly after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed. The southern vote was no longer a pseudo-democratic vote but a straight up GOP vote. See Nixon's "Southern strategy" for example. Look at any map showing red vs blue states. Note the amazement when Alabama voted in a senator from the Democratic Party.
The South is, or has been until now a GOP stronghold except for Florida, which turned blue in 2008 and 2012 and is once again up for grabs.
I never heard of the idea of Dixiecrats infiltrating the Republican Party. What are you talking about?
I guess i misunderstood this: "After the Civil War white Southerners decided they couldn't belong to the party of Lincoln for obvious reasons so they mainly became "Democrats" or more aptly, Dixiecrats seeing as how they were an apparent anomaly known as "conservative democrats"." Pardon me.
Seagoat has made that dixiecrat to pub argument over and over as well as some others.
Southerners were SO uncomfortable (to put it mildly) after loosing the war they could not bear to be associated with the political party associated with Lincoln. Then they were faced with the situation of being Democrats, albeit Dixiecrats, when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Laws. Once again they were in a very awkward position, so again they switched due to their underlying desire to 'conserve' racial boundaries.
It is hard to reconcile your idea about an "infiltration" when the mass of voters changed their registration from D to R. How is that an infiltration? Looks more like a total re-branding to me.
Wouldn't that require a large group of democratic politicians to switch parties too? Who were they?
Wordslinger wrote: Stop trying to dodge your own guilt
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum