Racism and the Republican Party-as if!

[elder999]

Well, an exchange that got somewhat out of hand-and justifiably so-on this thread, along with a trend of continuing, obsessive and inane posts on the “racism of the Democratic party,” supported by quotes that are often from 50-100 years ago, led me to start another thread with this post; I’ll start this post with some quotes from the most prominent of Republicans, a man respected by Republicans and Democrats as a great President, if not the greatest-a man revered by many for the Emancipation Proclamation-the man who “freed the slaves,” and “made all men equal”-I give you, at his “finest,”
Abraham Lincoln:

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this?" - Abraham Lincoln (From Fragments: Notes for Speeches, September 1859, Vol. III, p.399 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." - Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Vol. III, p. 145-146 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).

"Now I say to you, my fellow citizen, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the Negro whatever. One great evidence is to be found in the fact that at the time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration representing a slaveholding constituency, and not one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them when they signed the Declaration. If they intended to declare the Negro was equal of the white man, they were bound that day and hour to have put the Negroes on an equality with themselves." - Abraham Lincoln, during the October 16, 1858 debate in Peoria, IL with Douglas. "

I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation (like other presidents, Lincoln sought to repatriation of freed Blacks to Africa).

Of course, the War between the States became a war for abolition, and Lincoln did what he thought was best for the country-and such quotes are evidence of his being a product of his times and upbringing. Who knows what he would have had to say had he lived past the age of 56-to the ripe old age of John Adams, our first Vice President, and second President, who lived to be almost 91. But Lincoln got what many get for doing what they think is right-however they feel personally: a bullet in the head.

Of course, I could use those quotes to show the Republican party’s history of racism, as some might, but that’s not at all the point I’m trying to make here.

Later, LBJ championed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as a Democratic President, doing what he thought was best for his country. As a congressman from Texas, however, he opposed earlier civil rights legislation-of course, he was doing his job by representing his constituency, and their wishes. In one instance or the other he went against however he felt personally, and did what he thought was the right-or politic-thing to do. After he passed the Civil Rights Act, what was previously a Democratic South started voting Republican, abandoning a party that had not supported what was, essentially, a southern ideology of oppression and segregation towards blacks-whatever forms such things might have taken in the north of the country notwithstanding.

Malcom X spent most of his life as something of a racist, and some might say with good reason. He shook off the laughable ideologies of the Nation of Islam, as well as his own racism, though, to say that he could no longer embrace complete separation of the races, and would accept help from anyone, of any race, in any quarter, for the furthering of his goal of prosperity and equality for the members of his “race.” Shame that he got what so many get for speaking their truth: a bullet in the head. Sadly, Malcom is chiefly remembered by many for his racism and militancy, rather than his later conversion (flip-flop? Epiphany?) to a more moderate stance.

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed civil rights right up through 1964, and was a member of the KKK at one time. He’s since come to call his KKK membership a foolishness of his youth, and say that he was wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act. He tried to increase the budget for the Martin Luther King Memorial by $10 million, saying that “…with the passage of time, I have come to learn that his dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.” I’ve met the man several times, and, well, he’s old, and a product of his time and place-as we all are-but he’s tried, I believe, and continues to try to be a good man, as well as a good politician-though his positions on civil rights and race continue to be all over the map, as are some of his statements. He’s said that he’d take back his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, if he could-that he sees how the country needed it, and has improved because of it….are we to call him a racist simply because he obviously was one, once, and may even still harbor racist thoughts (as, I believe, we all do) or are we to believe that a person-and therefore an entire party-can change?

Or, should we absurdly, inanely, simplistically and repeatedly label Republicans as “racist,” for what the great man and great President some would call their founder said, more than 100 years ago?

 

[Big Don]

Lying about the facts doesn't change them

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What's inaccurate?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Lying about the facts doesn't change them

And accusing him of lying doesn't mean he did. C wut I did thur?

 

[Big Don]

The difference is pretty simple. When a republican, lets use Trent Lott as an example, utters words even construed, (by great leaps of idiocy) to be tolerant of racism REPUBLICANS demand he leave his leadership position and later his office. What democrats have called for Joe Biden's ouster? Had a republican said the dreaded N word on national TV, he'd have been run out of Washington on the proverbial rail, when Robert Byrd (He of every third public structure in W VA) says it, no big deal.

 

[elder999]

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

—Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, as reported Dec. 6 on ABC, The News.

"I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

—Strom Thurmond, then-governor of South Carolina, in a speech from his 1948 "Dixiecrat" presidential campaign.

 

[Big Don]

“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

You Tube Video
Senator and Recent Presidential hopeful Joe Biden (Not a republican...) Still serving in the US Senate.

"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. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Senator Robert Byrd (Not a republican, W VA) Still in the US Senate. CNN Story
You Tube Video
(Time:1:18)
Saying something nice, to an old man, at his birthday party is not using a slur on national TV.

 

[Ping898]

Well there was always this former Republican Senator....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician)
And his party didn't kick him out, the voters did....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin...e_election,_2006#Allen.27s_Macaca_controversy
During a speech, Allen paused, then began referring to Sidarth:
“ This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come. [...] Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia. ”

According to Sidarth, he was the only non-white person present among the crowd of 100 or so Republican supporters, some of whom applauded Allen's remarks.

Macaca is a slur meaning "monkey" in francophone African nations

I imagine there is racism or bigotry in every nook and cranny of every organization...and the republicans are included...that's not to say the democrats or independents are angels, just that you can't say one is and another isn't....

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427486

Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator

 

[Marginal]

Lying about the facts doesn't change them

This Liberal Facism trend is fascinating. How the historical roots of a party or organization, or who had what mustache at what time indicate that any later followers in a tradition that has gone through countless permutations believe the exact same thing as the founders... Deep stuff.

By the same reasoning, are all right wingers are staunch supporters of the French monarchy?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I can't see where the historical roots of any party has to do with the problems that exist today. What is a Republican now? Who are the Democrats now? These parties have switched issues to the point where the identity gets scewed over a century or so. Some speech from the eighteen hundreds has no bearing on who's who and what they believe today.
Sean

 

[Big Don]

I can't see where the historical roots of any party has to do with the problems that exist today. What is a Republican now? Who are the Democrats now? These parties have switched issues to the point where the identity gets scewed over a century or so. Some speech from the eighteen hundreds has no bearing on who's who and what they believe today.
Sean

That is a load of crap, in this instance. The republican party was the party of abolition, founded for that express purpose. The democrat party has a long and consistent history of racism, ignoring it just doesn't make it go away.
That republicans passed, over democratic opposition, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and every civil rights act from the beginning of the party through the 1960's is hardly switching issues. That quotes from democrats 150 years ago are not much different on race from Joe Biden or Robert Byrd in the last five years, has a little bit of bearing...
Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.

You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.

Howard Dean, the same Howard Dean, by the way, who said [Speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus,]

The Republican Party "couldn't get this many people of color in a single room" unless "they had the hotel staff in here."

See the quotes and videos in this post, neither are 5 years old, let alone 100...

 

[Marginal]

Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.

Nah, it's a silly talking point that doesn't actually prove that the GOP isn't comprised of racists. (Since that democratic opposition you're talking about eventually jumped ship and went Republican. Telling that they were welcomed and allowed to become party institutions, like Strom.) All your talking point proves that Bush likes to appoint family friends and folks that'll cheerfully play their part as cronies. Toss out the Bill of Rights? Ok! Give that true patriot a medal.

 

[elder999]

The real racism of the Republican party doesn't actually lie within their platform, or their stance on the issues. Most of the issues-like immigration or affirmative action that lend themselves to or be miscontrued to be what might be called a racist stance-are too nuanced and multifaceted to be called outright "racist" by most reasonable people, no matter which side of the issue one finds oneself on-heck, you'll find Republicans and Democrats supporting both sides of those issues, and all with good reasons to that have nothing to do with race.

Of course, the Democrat party has proposed or written and the Republican party has opposed almost every single form of civil-rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this is also not where their real racism lies.

The real racism of the Republican party lies in how they conduct business-how they campaign, and how they manipulate. The Republican party has a history of using racism to win campaigns, and will continue to do so.Willie Horton comes to mind.One of Ronald Reagans first actions as President was to try and circumvent federal law by allowing Bob Jones to keep their tax exempt status in spite of their clearly practicing racial discrimination by forbidding interracial dating.

Since Eisenhower left office, the party of Lincoln has desecrated his memory by opposing almost every effort to extend equal rights to anyone who isn't white or male. They have played the race card in every presidential election they have won since 1968. As long as Democrats don't turn racism into a character issue, Republicans will continue to use it as an instrument of political persuasion

 

[Touch Of Death]

That is a load of crap, in this instance. The republican party was the party of abolition, founded for that express purpose. The democrat party has a long and consistent history of racism, ignoring it just doesn't make it go away.
That republicans passed, over democratic opposition, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and every civil rights act from the beginning of the party through the 1960's is hardly switching issues. That quotes from democrats 150 years ago are not much different on race from Joe Biden or Robert Byrd in the last five years, has a little bit of bearing...
Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.
Howard Dean, the same Howard Dean, by the way, who said [Speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus,]
See the quotes and videos in this post, neither are 5 years old, let alone 100...

I doubt your typical democrat is against civil rights now but you just keep your head in the sand there.
Sean

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The real racism of the Republican party doesn't actually lie within their platform, or their stance on the issues. Most of the issues-like immigration or affirmative action that lend themselves to or be miscontrued to be what might be called a racist stance-are too nuanced and multifaceted to be called outright "racist" by most reasonable people, no matter which side of the issue one finds oneself on-heck, you'll find Republicans and Democrats supporting both sides of those issues, and all with good reasons to that have nothing to do with race.

Of course, the Democrat party has proposed or written and the Republican party has opposed almost every single form of civil-rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this is also not where their real racism lies.

Ok, so it appears that you agree that the Republican Party, before 1964 (even though they also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968) supported civil right issues based on race. I want to know what Democratic legislation, based on race as that is the topic, the Republicans have opposed.

The real racism of the Republican party lies in how they conduct business-how they campaign, and how they manipulate. The Republican party has a history of using racism to win campaigns, and will continue to do so.Willie Horton comes to mind.One of Ronald Reagans first actions as President was to try and circumvent federal law by allowing Bob Jones to keep their tax exempt status in spite of their clearly practicing racial discrimination by forbidding interracial dating.

Since Eisenhower left office, the party of Lincoln has desecrated his memory by opposing almost every effort to extend equal rights to anyone who isn't white or male. They have played the race card in every presidential election they have won since 1968. As long as Democrats don't turn racism into a character issue, Republicans will continue to use it as an instrument of political persuasion[/quote]

You talk about the idea that the Republicans used race to win every election since 1968. How did they do this? Can you give some examples?

In regards to Willie Horton, the first person to bring him up during the 1988 election was none other then Al Gore (D). Considering that the issue was one of releasing violent criminals on furlough programs, it was a perfectly debatable point, considering Dukakis supported the program which allowed Willie Horton to do what he did. It just so happens that Willie Horton was black. Prove that the point was race-based, and not one of law enforcement / public safety consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton



To me, the real gist of the argument is what policies have the Republicans or Democrats enacted that has either hurt or hindered minority citizens of this country. In my estimation, the Democratic Party has done far more damage with its coddling of minorities than the Republican pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality. The very idea that I can not make it in this world unless some government run commission, or enacted affirmative action/quota system is completely offensive to me, as it should be to all minorities.

And it is amazing how we continue to demean those minorities who do make something of their lives (ie, Colin Powell, Condaliza Rice, and Alberto Gonzalez). Oh, that is excludind sports figures, I guess. It amazes me how minorities all have to have the same thought processes (agree with affirmative action, white man holding you down, ghetto mentallity) or else we are sell-outs. God forbid, we can have the same diversity of thought as white people in America, and not be considered self-hating.

The real politics of race are not that the Democratic Party continues to believed that we should be enslaved, but that we are too helpless to help oursleves, and need the white man to protect us. In that way they show that we are inferior.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I am trying to restart this thread (and hopefully, though I doubt it, be successful). My question again to those how think that the Republican party has racist policies or is against civil right is how is this so? What proof is there of this position. What legislation or policies or have the Republicans supported / did not support that supports this?

And just to put it out there, I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question. This belief seems to be fairly widespread (at least among blacks and liberals), but I have yet to see any basis in fact. If its true, then I want to know.

I hope someone can take me up on my challenge.

 

[Empty Hands]

What legislation or policies or have the Republicans supported / did not support that supports this?

How about the Southern Strategy?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

How about the Southern Strategy?

Very interesting information. But I have to say that pandering for votes, by either side, is hardly compelling in saying that the Republicans are the new racist party. In the same article, it says that Hilary Clinton is doing now with Obama what can be considered the Southern Strategy. So does that mean that the pendulum has again swung back the other way, and Democrats are the racists again?

Even some of the "evidence" used to support the Republican use of the Southern Stategy is conjecture at best after Nixon, especially with regard to the Regan campaign. This includes such things as the "code words" (busing, states rights, etc.). Quite frankly, as a conservative Black American, I agree with many of the States Rights arguments. Of course, I am sure that you would find it hard to believe that I want to go ahead and be a slave.

Let me give you an example. During the 108th Congress, Republicans attempted to have the expiring provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act made permanent. Who stopped it? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Why? Because it was a tool that they would attempt to use against the Republicans who thought (and rightly so, IMO) that the necessity of the Act was outdated. It is a way to make Black Americans believe that the Republicans were against the right of Blacks to vote, which the Voting Rights Act had nothing to do with.

I think a more convincing argument, if there is one, would have to deal with legislation supported or not supported by either party. But even here, some of those arguments would be subject to interpretation. For instance, racial quotas.

Comments?

 

[elder999]

You talk about the idea that the Republicans used race to win every election since 1968. How did they do this? Can you give some examples?

In regards to Willie Horton, the first person to bring him up during the 1988 election was none other then Al Gore (D). Considering that the issue was one of releasing violent criminals on furlough programs, it was a perfectly debatable point, considering Dukakis supported the program which allowed Willie Horton to do what he did. It just so happens that Willie Horton was black. Prove that the point was race-based, and not one of law enforcement / public safety consideration.

There certainly was a public safety consideration, and Horton's actions-and the program that allowed it-were contemptible. Of course, that program was established by Dukakis's predecessor, a Republican.

And Horton never went by "Willie"; his name was "William," and, by most accounts, he was sometimes called "Wimpy"-which might have been black enough.And, from your very own wiki page, we get this gem of subtle, concealed manipulation in the Bush campaign's use of Horton:

Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running a campaign ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Roger Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menacing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image "every suburban mother's greatest fear." The ad was run as an independent expenditure, separate from the Bush campaign, which claimed, as is legally required, not to have had any role in its production.

I'll get to the rest of your initial revival post in a minute-though I want to say that if you look at the original post, it was hardly my intention to call the Republican party racist. Both parties have practiced and continued to use tactics that target racial demographics-this is, like it or not, a form of racism. I don't think either party is particularly invested in keeping anyone down though.