27-01-2003 23:24									#61
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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

	27-01-2003 23:37									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	28-01-2003 00:01									#63
	Increase Your PM Length

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.

	28-01-2003 00:12									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	28-01-2003 00:54									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	28-01-2003 06:27									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ramo -

quote: 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 -

quote: 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!

	28-01-2003 07:02									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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...

	28-01-2003 08:11									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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?

	28-01-2003 09:02									#69
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"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?

	28-01-2003 09:03									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

cavebear...

	28-01-2003 09:27									#71
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	28-01-2003 10:15									#72
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

quote: 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...

quote: 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?

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

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

quote: 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?

	28-01-2003 11:02									#73
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

	28-01-2003 11:09									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: Why not?

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

	28-01-2003 11:55									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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?

	28-01-2003 22:35									#76
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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?

	29-01-2003 00:02									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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).

quote: 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).

quote: 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?

	29-01-2003 01:57									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	29-01-2003 06:27									#79
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	29-01-2003 09:24									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	29-01-2003 09:35									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

This is what I got about Cicero:

quote: 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/...les/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 .

	29-01-2003 09:57									#82
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	29-01-2003 09:58									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I agree... with both statements .

	29-01-2003 10:31									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

quote: 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...

quote: Remember you are dealing with a moral relativist .

So are you.

quote: 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?

quote: 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?

	29-01-2003 10:39									#85
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	29-01-2003 11:07									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	29-01-2003 11:36									#87
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.