Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Black men got the right to vote FIFTY YEARS before white women did

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Francine Frensky Donating Member (870 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:22 AM
Original message
Black men got the right to vote FIFTY YEARS before white women did
1870 vs. 1920. The years the two amendments were passed.

I know they both face an uphill battle, especially in the south, If you want to know who is more likely to be elected, Obama or Hillary, just remember those dates. It's always been black males first, women later. Of course, it's always been men first, women second. I think because of sports, because of Tiger Woods, because of the music industry and actors who are black.... there's been some conditioning to accept black men as heroes. For women, "heroes" still must be beautiful first and young is definitely best. Older, less attractive women are not culturally acceptable, no matter their abilities.

For now, that's how it is.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good point.
If we want to win, we should run a white male property owner.
Somebody with a big house.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. you mean women can vote? When did we let that happen?
SO often myopic americans claim that ours is the best, most democratic country in the world.

Yet, we were late on the women's right to vote, we still fight over reproductive rights and privacy, we were late to ridding this earth of slavery, we still lag behind the rest of the world in terms of equal access to health care, AND, our voting rights are getting eroded for political purposes. We continue to replace science with faith based initiatives based on a fairy tale.

America of the past may have been a leader, but these days no one wants to follow our current path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
42. And we couldn't even pass an Equal Rights Amendment.
sheesh.

And we still have the death penalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. the same fools that want to protect embryonic stem cells
have no problems pulling the switch on people convicted on questionable testimony and lying police witnesses. Say, like in Illinois, where 17 innocents were released from Death ROW! after all their appeals were done.

What I find extremely ironic is that they can support both positions in the same paragraph and not even notice the hippo-cracy. But, methinks I am insulting hippos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. Fifty years before ALL women.
Sometimes women fall for the propaganda, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. and we lag behind on gay rights.
instead we continue to build more prisons, increase penalties for victimless crimes like medical marijuana, and we still make it illegal to go to Canada to avoid harsh pricing programs from big Pharma.

free? with warrantless wiretaps (I know, bush claimed the program stopped. Do you believe him?) and worse have pretty much destroyed our constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'd say both would be best
Clinton/Obama would make a great team and that's the one I'm holding out for.

But as far as comparing Barak Obama's future to the past of African Americans, well, that's a little asinine. Obama does not share in the legacy of 400 years of institutionalized slavery and racism. He's a nice biracial man brought up overseas, and then in almost inconceivable privilege from private school in Hawaii to Columbia, to Harvard, to the University of Chicago and to the US Senate. He's a great guy and will make a great VP and eventually P, but let's not kid ourselves, he doesn't really have anything in common with people in the Bronx. He's a safe upper middle class candidate with broad appeal to middle and upper class white, hispanic and black voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Theres only one small detail you left out, in 1920 women nation wide
were allowed to vote without hindrance from males. The blacks might have got the right to vote wrote into law in 1870, but most didn't get the right to vote until almost 100 years later when Johnson signed the anti discrimination act into law in 1964. You surely need a lesson in history, women were accepted as actors long before backs. outside of the Amos and Andy type acting, blacks were not in films until the 50's as serious actors.

Women and black sports figures competed against each other before the 1940's. Women went up against women. blacks against blacks. You never heard of the all black baseball league? Jackie Robertson broke the color barrier by becoming the first black to play against whites in a white major league team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I was think the same thing
There were some facts left out of the first post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Concur. I don't recall any 20th C. reports of women lynched
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm sorry, but this post is offensive
on SO many levels. Here's an idea, could we NOW all work TOGETHER to try to save our country? :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. I was thinking the same thing.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. Dead Wrong
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 08:59 AM by erpowers
You are completely wrong and your logic is far off. For one thing you only look a one part of history. Yes black men may have gotten the right to vote before white women, but a white women worked as a official in Congress before a black man. In addition, she was not young. Her role was mainly ceremonial, but she was still their before a black man. She was either appointed to the Senate or House of Representative. Furthermore, Louisiana, if you do not count reconstruction, had a white women governor before it had a black male governor. I think something similar happened in Maryland.

Second, you should look at who black men have become the heroes for. Black men still seem to be the heroes of black young men and women. Black men may not have become the heroes of white girls and boys. Today there is still a large amount of criticism of black men in sports, music, and movies. In the sports world, sports,like the NBA, that are dominated by black men are constantly criticized. For instance, I still do not understand why almost every sports writer says the NBA has a bad reputation and/or an image problem, but do not say the same thing for the National Hockey League or Major League Baseball. Hockey players and baseball players do the same thing (get into fights, cheat on their wives, treat fans poorly) NBA players do and sometimes the other two do worse things (drag their wives by their hair) more often than NBA players.

Third, you need to look at racism in America. I am one of the believers in the idea that racism has not changed that much in America. The difference now is that white people have to pretend that they are okay with black people. However, there is a rather large amount of hidden racism, especially in the South. Depending on where you live in the South you will see what some consider subtle forms of racism as well as out right racism. The out right racism has a way of turning up during election time.

Fourth, you have to look at who has the right to vote and who they will vote for. Whether white women where given the right to vote before or after black men they now have the right to vote. I think there have been polls stating that women are more likely to vote than men. In addition, there may be a rather large number of Southern white women who will not vote for Obama either because he is black or because they just want to vote for Clinton.

Finally, you should look at Congress, especailly the Senate. There are sixteen white women in the Senate. The first female Senator was elected close to 100 years ago. The first black man was elected to the Senate only two years ago. In addition, there was at least one black women elected to the Senate before the first black man. So far I can think of two, Barbara Jordan and the ambassador lady who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004; however, I cannot remember her name at this time. Furthermore, I do not think there has been a black man who was selected to be the running mate of any presidential candidate. Geraldine Ferraro was the first female to be a running mate for any major political party. Moreover, Shirley Chislom was the first black women to run for the nomination of a major political party. It is possible that she was the first black to do this.

In Conclusion, it does not matter who was given the right to vote first; it matters what they do with that right now. Since 1920, white women and women in general have taken advantage of the right to vote. It is very possible that Hillary Clinton has more of a chance to win the election due to both racism in the South and women wanting a woman president. It is possible that whoever wins the 2008 election will have to do so by winning the female vote. Women recieved the right to vote late, but they have used it very well since they were granted the right. Although it hurts me to say it I think the opposite is true for black men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Great post!!! Please allow me to nitpick
on yout 3rd point.

"However, there is a rather large amount of hidden racism, especially in the South. Depending on where you live in the South you will see what some consider subtle forms of racism as well as out right racism. The out right racism has a way of turning up during election time."

I MUST say that, in my experience, your description is more true of places north of the Mason-Dixon line and on the West Coast. My experience with Southerners is "what-you-see-is-what-you-get." They are LOUSY at hiding their attitudes and make pitifully transparent stealth racists. When you meet someone from the south who is NOT a racist, you KNOW and can FEEL IT pretty quickly. They are also quite a bit more open to examining unconscious nuance. Those from supposed "liberal" backrounds in other regions are MUCH more duplicitous and treacherous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
48. No Northern Experience
Thank you for the information. I have no knowledge of the North in that I have not been there. However, I have heard a little bit of what you said from people who have been there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
50. The premise of the OP is wrong
but you have some historical inaccuracies in your post as well.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmfirsts.html

U.S. Senator: Hiram Revels became Senator from Mississippi from Feb. 25, 1870, to March 4, 1871, during Reconstruction. Edward Brooke became the first African-American Senator since Reconstruction, 19661979. Carol Mosely Braun became the first black woman Senator serving from 19921998 for the state of Illinois. (There have only been a total of five black senators in U.S. history: the remaining two are Blanche K. Bruce <18751881> and Barack Obama (2005 ).

As for presidential candidates for major parties, remember Jesse Jackson did pretty strong in both '84 and '88.

And for all the south is bashed (and I've been guilty of this too), VA elected the first African American to be governor. MA became the second in November.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. In reality, black men got the right to vote in the 1960's,
so your timeline is a bit off, as is your entire post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Exactly...
This whole thing is a bone-stupid exercise, an "oppression contest," and the OP is perhaps the dumbest post in some time. But yes, of course, the notion that black men had the "right to vote" before the civil rights movement is pretty laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Actually, the right to vote was extended across the color line in 1870
by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution; The Voting Rights Act guaranteed that right in 1965.

The fight goes on in many places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Many places, particularly in the south, didn't let blacks vote until 1965.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Exactly what the Voting Rights Act was designed for.
Their right to vote was being abrogated; I believe I addressed that.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. That's like saying someone had a right to life
before they got shot in the head.

Once women got the right to vote, they didn't have it taken away from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Porcupine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Yep, that "strange fruit" put a lid on the black vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Fruit

Lewis allen

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Sung by Billie Holliday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. There was a poll this weekend..
I forget which channel I saw it on, and the questions were:

Is America ready for a black president? 60% Yes

Is America ready for a woman president 51% Yes

Is America ready for a Hispanic president? 40% Yes

(I may be off by 1 or 2 points on the numbers. I don't know how "official" the poll was or how many participants. But I remember looking at the numbers on screen, and being astounded by the numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. Yeah, In A Racist, Classist and Sexist Society ...
... it is hard to know which is worse when it is combined in so many ways. I remember talking enthusiastically about feminism in the early 70's to a dear friend (white) who was a "pioneer" because she had married a black man. She was pretty disdainful at the movement and began to talk about the feminism being about a bunch of bored white women who wanted badly to be included in the Movement. It seemed to her in that era, that women, especially well educated upper income white white women, had nothing else to "protest" about, that race was where it at. I realized that, as intelligent as this woman was, she was merely mouthing what her husband told her. I pointed out to her that she was speaking for black men, and that women of color really had it bad as they were in both places of racist AND sexist politics in society.

But I have contemplated (and lived) it for many years and I will have to say the early feminists were upper income well educated women who got their "equality" much easier than lower income women of all races, still women, especially women of color are trailing in the social justice issue. While black men have gained in credibility in many ways, still, women of all colors are behind them. In the beginning of the 2nd feminist movement (the 1rst being with women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony) these upper income women left lower class women of all races behind and did so conscientiously I believe. In their class-ist myopia, the traditional work of especially lower income women, simply did not count. These feminists would defend to the death that a MSW should be paid what another MSW was paid, a journeyman machinist should allow women who should then be paid the same, but the mill workers, the care takers, the women who worked "McJobs" were not considered.

Lowest of all and left behind are the women who had been doing the work of weaving community and raising children, caring for extended family members as well as neighbors. To this day they have been completely forgotten even though this work has been done traditionally by women since the beginning of time. That work is now considered "doing nothing" especially when poor women do it, thanks to Welfare Reform which codified into law that raising children and working in the community without a wage is now "doing nothing". It is now "better" to work a minimum wage job than for any woman to raise children, thanks to this ~ supported btw by many upper income educated women, Hillary Clinton being one of them. Oh and btw, Welfare Reform makes it a point NOT to even allow a low income woman for getting a GED much less training for a career, she should simply go out there and work those McJobs for the rest of her life and never hope to advance beyond that ~ and utter and permanent poverty for these women and their families is considered being "successful".

Years ago when I was talking to my mother about feminism, talking about women getting equal pay for equal work, about women getting out of the home and into the workplace, she shook her head sadly. This was a woman who had pretty much never worked for a wage, but even with her kids grown and as a traditional housewife, she still mowed the lawn, ironed my father's shorts, cooked, took care of sick relatives and neighbors, helped raise grandchildren, and was on duty 24 X 7. She stood by her husband as a partner and assisted him in his career by taking care of him and raising their children, leaving him free to pursue his education and advancement in the workplace. When he came home from his 8 hours of work, he sank in a chair, put up his feet and asked, "Where is dinner?" Yet for all her work and support, over 40 years of labor, she had little hope of reaping anything near what her husband reaped on her own.

Yet Mother was treated as if she were a millstone around the neck of a wage earner since she "did nothing". She was basically stuck in a miserable marriage and could never dream of living the lifestyle she did without my father, who was a practicing working alcoholic that saw no need to support her since she was "not working". So when I talked so enthusiastically about women getting equal pay, she told me, "If your generation insists on going out to work for a wage, do not think for a moment you will be paid what a man is paid. If you get your way, you industry will lower men's wages to yours and then you will both have to work for a wage ..."

Mother was right. Now poor women could never dream of getting support for raising the next generation and upper income women who stay at home still will do without almost 1/2 $1,000,000 of wage earning power because their contribution to society because the work they do is "doing nothing". This is because the work of women has never been valued, and is not valued to this day. You will hear people scream loudly that they should not be responsible to help raise other people's kids, "if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" ~ even though these kids will take care of society, fight in our wars, do the infrastructure work, and pay the social security, Medicare and taxes that support the previous generation including people who only worked for themselves and often excluding the women who raised them.

This attitude, this hatred of women's work IMO is the basis of the above attitudes because it is still considered "women's work" and therefore "doing nothing" no matter what color you are. As a matter of fact, lower income white women and women of color who have the NERVE to want to actually BE parents should simply shut up, grab that broom and start sweeping for little or nothing. Because women do not count, women's work that we have done across all cultures, through all time, is now "doing nothing" ~ thanks to the likes of Hillary Clinton and her ilk. And God forbid that they need support without a man!

So I am sorry but to me, when Hillary Clinton went all over America with Joe Lieberman a couple years ago crowing about how well Welfare Reform worked, she was a turncoat of the worse kind because as a woman she has little insight ~ nor does she want it ~ to the plight of all women, since she got hers and has the power. She has never gotten that women's rights is a mixed bag and unfortunately some women like her have contributed to making it worse for many women, not better. There are the Barbara Ehrenriechs in the world, but they do not buy in the the man's image of what legitimate "work" is about, because they went out there and tried it and realized what a sexist, racist, impossible and disgusting expectation it is to think paid work is somehow "better". Therefore, I will support Barak Obama for this reason as he seems to get it by living his life for true equality, he seems to know far better than Hillary that discrimination is a complicated thing and "success" is not about how much money you make or the power you wield, but what you contribute to the world ...

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Francine Frensky Donating Member (870 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Wow, that was a great post! Are you ready to start AARP for stay at home moms?
OK, guess I'm presuming you are a stay at home mom, but at the least you totally understand the issue. Which not many people do.

I have read that if stay-at-home mom (or housewife, for those with empty nests or no kids) was an actual job category, it would be the LARGEST in America with something like 25 million women (and I guess a few thousand dads could be in there). Why don't we have a group like AARP, not associated with either party, that argues for rights of those of us who work in this way: volunteering at schools, maintaining communities and neighborhoods and arranging healthy social events for our families, meanwhile nurturing America's future doctors, lawyers, engineers, and in general the work force of the 21st century? But all for no pay and no recognition.

Here's another great comparison: think about what this country does for our military! Here is a group that's also not really providing any immediate tangible benefit that could be tied to a direct stream of revenue, but the military is obviously important for our safety and for the future of our country. So, the government goes out of their way to not only pay living costs for our voluntary military, but provides all sorts of extra benefits like pays college costs, provides hospitals and healthcare, and helps with things like buying a home. And it's not just because they put their life on the line, there are plenty of occupations that involve a health hazard (police, firefighter, etc) and we don't go all crazy out of our way to give extra reimbursement to those people. Plus there are plenty of people in the military who never face life-threatening situations.

Take those two ideas: What seniors did for themselves when they formed the non-partisan lobbying group called AARP, and what we know our country has been willing to do for soldiers (who have a similar non-economic productivity factor), and do you think it is time we organize?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mntleo2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I Worked McJobs For Over 35 Years
...to my regret and I forfeited my children in the process, it is a waste of time. I thought I was teaching my children good work ethics, blah, blah, blah, but here is my oldest son's take on all that I did on the job: He said once when because of work I could not make it to his baseball tournament, "You know something Mom, I could make more in a day on the street than you do in a month for your raggedy old job!" So he learned that Mom could not be there to support him, that he was not as important as a corporation who would use me and throw me away when they no longer needed me, and I would not even make enough to pay the rent so he had a stable place to live, and he is right.

Over the years, I began to understand that real "work" is not always paid work and that perhaps instead of communities focusing on making more paid work, perhaps they also need to focus on and recruit as well as honor unpaid work in the community as well. You know who I am talking about, the (mostly) women raising the next generation, who are often also those same people who attend the community meetings, who bring your Uncle fred a meal because he is her neighbor and too sick to cook, who work on the local food bank board, help with homeless issues through their churches, synagogues and mosques, are leaders for youth organizations and all the other unpaid work that is given. Is this not worthy of considering as important work? Well I can tell you it has been important work to ME, when in spite of working full time I did nto have enough to feed my family, I could not afford the ever climbing rent or I needed a way to GET to work because I had no transportation.

Because of this I am an ardent supporter of Welfare Rights, this is my agenda, because all parents need support to actually BE parents, especially low income moms (and dads) who struggle every day to make ends meet. Because they are the next generation and they will take care of us so these kids need education, good jobs and family time to raise their old age support.

Here is a place that is always looking for support both financially and with people's backing: http://www.wroc.org . Then look to the closest food bank and you will find they are full of people like me.

My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I loved both of your posts!!!
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dean Martin Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. As did I
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 07:02 PM by Dean Martin
One thing I have learned from reading about different cultures (including the bible) that women in all cultures have been shit on since the beginning of time. I many cultures women continue to be shit on. The wonderful bible treats women as property throughout the Old Testament or Covenant.

Someone recently said men had run the world for the last 3,000 years and pretty much screwed things up completely, it was time to let women run things. I agree with that 100%. I just don't think Hillary Clinton's the woman to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. I respect your opinion, but....
Ascendancy in sports and the entertainment business are one thing. Ascendancy in the world of "real power" is quite another. Sammy Davis Jr. was applauded by white audiences in Las Vegas, then left the hotel through the delivery entrance to stay on the black-friendly hotels because he couldn't stay on the strip. That "conditioned to accept" equivocation doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
22. I am not sure you can extrapolate like that. Too many other factors at play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
23. insipid and inane
you need to sit down with some history books before demonstrating your glaring lack of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. Wyoming granted women the franchise in 1869. Utah in 1870.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. one wonders what happened in the meantime.
Of course, Misery and a few other states have Republic Party leaders who think that biblical prouncements are the key to life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
28. Please - let's not play the "who's more oppressed" game . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
30. Susan B. Anthony Said:
"This union's existence, this very hour, is at no less a cost, than that of the lives and the liberties of four million human beings. Therefore, do we say dissolve this union,overthrow this government, commit its blood-stained Constitution to the flames,blot our every vestige of that guilty bargain of the Fathers.Break every fetter, and let the oppressed go freeAnd on the ashes of the abominaton, build up a new government, based on the immortal Declaration of '76"All men are created free and equal."
1858 from her speech "No Government"

I don't know how much it has to do with this discussion but I like the quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Magrittes Pipe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
32. Them coloreds sure have everything, don't they?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. Does the nurse know you're on the computer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Perfect response. If I knew how to nominate for a DUzy, I'd nominate this response.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 08:15 PM by blondeatlast
:thumbsup: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. well, I try. thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
34. sounds like good material for a dw griffith film
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
35. It's not common knowledge
that early voting machines, for the sake of ensuring only men voted, required the voter to shove his penis into the machine.

Because of natural disparities, the 3/5ths rule against Negroes was instituted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
39. How long after black men did white women stop getting lynched all the time?


Shoo-ee howdy shucks, them nigras shore had it good way back when.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. oh bs
women may not have been "lynched" but they were regularly raped and beaten if they didn't comply. Frankly I'd rather've been lynched than forced to be the "wife" to one of those aholes and bear their offspring unwillingly.

Face it, men get a better deal, period. White men have a way of pitting EVERYONE else against each other - women, blacks, hispanics, etc - you name it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Playing "who's the most discimrinated against?" is the most idiotic parlor game ever
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 09:59 PM by jpgray
I say parlor game because it is usually played by people who haven't experienced a whit of truly diabolical, life-destroying bigotry in their lives. Usually. Have a little empathy and admit that all who suffer from bigotry have suffered much, and there's no need to play favorites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Sounds to me like you took the bait. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
44. In theory, maybe they did.
In truth, the majority of blacks could not until the mid 1960s, 190 years after this country was founded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
47. Obama and Hillary will be elected light years before Barney Frank will
I'll tell you that. Gay men and women cannot even count on their own families as a base of support, that is if they don't decide to live an unhappy life as a "straight" person that is a complete lie. They in fact risk being disowned by their own families for who they are. Is that true for blacks and women?

How many women have killed themselves becuase they were women? How many black people have committed suicide because they were black? Not many. However, gay people do commit suicide becuase they cannot handle who they really are.

It is still openly accpetable in America to hate gay people and to take away their right to basic equal treatment. And I'm not talking about being against affirmative action or against abortion rights. That is chump change compared to "you cannot get married to whom you love, period." Is that true for blacks and women?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hcil Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
49. People are sooooo STUPID!
THE MOST DISCRIMINATED GROUP IN AMERICA WAS AND IN SOME WAYS STILL ARE, ARE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES!!!!!!!!!! ALL THIS RACISM/SEXISM HAS GOT TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC