HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A History of Liberal Whit...

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:06 PM

 

A History of Liberal White Racism

Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

How bigotry enabled progressive domestic policies of the early 20th century
TA-NEHISI COATES
APR 18 2013, 2:20 PM ET


Probably the most bracing aspect of Ira Katznelson's new history of the New Deal, Fear Itself, is his portrait of the marriage of progressive domestic policy and white supremacy. I knew the outlines of this stuff, but for a flaming commie like me, the extent of the embrace is hard to take:

Far more enduring was the New Deal's intimate partnership with those in the South who preached white supremacy. For this whole period -- the last in American history when public racism was legitimate in speech and action -- southern representatives acted not on the fringes but as an indispensable part of the governing political party.
It actually starts much earlier with Woodrow Wilson who forged a "composite of racism and progressive liberalism" which "came to dominate the Democratic Party, and, with it, the content and boundaries of social reform."




http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism/275113/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism-cont/275129/

228 replies, 30201 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 228 replies Author Time Post
Reply A History of Liberal White Racism (Original post)
bravenak Jun 2014 OP
RainDog Jun 2014 #1
bravenak Jun 2014 #2
joshcryer Jun 2014 #3
bravenak Jun 2014 #4
Demonaut Jun 2014 #6
bravenak Jun 2014 #13
joshcryer Jun 2014 #15
bravenak Jun 2014 #18
Warpy Jun 2014 #19
joshcryer Jun 2014 #23
CreekDog Jun 2014 #93
sheshe2 Jun 2014 #30
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #31
sheshe2 Jun 2014 #37
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #40
sheshe2 Jun 2014 #44
greatauntoftriplets Jun 2014 #120
hrmjustin Jun 2014 #206
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #207
hrmjustin Jun 2014 #208
bravenak Jun 2014 #32
Warpy Jun 2014 #17
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #35
Warpy Jun 2014 #58
bravenak Jun 2014 #63
countryjake Jun 2014 #124
BainsBane Jun 2014 #105
redqueen Jun 2014 #140
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #154
gollygee Jun 2014 #200
BainsBane Jun 2014 #205
Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #9
SidDithers Jun 2014 #100
RainDog Jun 2014 #7
bravenak Jun 2014 #10
RainDog Jun 2014 #14
bravenak Jun 2014 #24
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #16
bravenak Jun 2014 #21
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #26
bravenak Jun 2014 #27
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #77
bravenak Jun 2014 #79
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #103
bravenak Jun 2014 #104
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #109
bravenak Jun 2014 #111
gollygee Jun 2014 #5
bravenak Jun 2014 #11
el_bryanto Jun 2014 #8
bravenak Jun 2014 #12
el_bryanto Jun 2014 #20
bravenak Jun 2014 #22
el_bryanto Jun 2014 #96
Jamaal510 Jun 2014 #25
bravenak Jun 2014 #29
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #107
Jamastiene Jun 2014 #177
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #179
Jamaal510 Jun 2014 #193
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #199
freshwest Jun 2014 #218
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #219
freshwest Jun 2014 #221
kwassa Jun 2014 #28
JI7 Jun 2014 #33
RainDog Jun 2014 #41
JI7 Jun 2014 #42
Mnpaul Jun 2014 #74
vlakitti Jun 2014 #46
Starry Messenger Jun 2014 #53
ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2014 #34
bravenak Jun 2014 #48
loyalsister Jun 2014 #36
bravenak Jun 2014 #50
loyalsister Jun 2014 #75
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #191
loyalsister Jun 2014 #196
freshwest Jun 2014 #220
loyalsister Jun 2014 #224
Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #38
bravenak Jun 2014 #43
Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #66
bravenak Jun 2014 #68
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #39
bravenak Jun 2014 #45
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #47
Luminous Animal Jun 2014 #49
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #51
alp227 Jun 2014 #52
bravenak Jun 2014 #54
alp227 Jun 2014 #55
bravenak Jun 2014 #59
alp227 Jun 2014 #65
bravenak Jun 2014 #67
alp227 Jun 2014 #70
bravenak Jun 2014 #72
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #161
Baitball Blogger Jun 2014 #98
JI7 Jun 2014 #176
AngryAmish Jun 2014 #97
loyalsister Jun 2014 #210
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #106
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #155
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #56
lovemydog Jun 2014 #57
bravenak Jun 2014 #61
sheshe2 Jun 2014 #60
bravenak Jun 2014 #62
sheshe2 Jun 2014 #64
merrily Jun 2014 #69
bravenak Jun 2014 #82
merrily Jun 2014 #86
Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #71
bravenak Jun 2014 #73
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #76
bravenak Jun 2014 #78
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #80
bravenak Jun 2014 #81
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #83
bravenak Jun 2014 #88
CreekDog Jun 2014 #95
Baitball Blogger Jun 2014 #99
Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #136
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #202
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #137
RainDog Jun 2014 #146
bravenak Jun 2014 #147
RainDog Jun 2014 #151
bravenak Jun 2014 #153
RainDog Jun 2014 #158
bravenak Jun 2014 #160
RainDog Jun 2014 #162
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #166
RainDog Jun 2014 #168
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #181
RainDog Jun 2014 #187
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #195
RainDog Jun 2014 #198
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #203
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #164
RainDog Jun 2014 #165
CreekDog Jun 2014 #94
Rex Jun 2014 #84
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #85
Rex Jun 2014 #87
bravenak Jun 2014 #89
Rex Jun 2014 #90
fishwax Jun 2014 #169
gollygee Jun 2014 #201
Rex Jun 2014 #211
gollygee Jun 2014 #213
ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #113
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #134
ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #141
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #144
ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #157
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #159
Baitball Blogger Jun 2014 #186
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #192
Baitball Blogger Jun 2014 #194
countryjake Jun 2014 #145
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #152
countryjake Jun 2014 #156
Rex Jun 2014 #148
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #163
bravenak Jun 2014 #167
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #174
fishwax Jun 2014 #170
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #171
fishwax Jun 2014 #172
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #175
fishwax Jun 2014 #178
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #182
fishwax Jun 2014 #185
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #190
fishwax Jun 2014 #197
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #204
fishwax Jun 2014 #215
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #216
etherealtruth Jun 2014 #91
ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #92
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #101
bravenak Jun 2014 #102
Harmony Blue Jun 2014 #108
bravenak Jun 2014 #112
Harmony Blue Jun 2014 #123
bravenak Jun 2014 #125
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #126
bravenak Jun 2014 #129
JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #132
Harmony Blue Jun 2014 #222
bravenak Jun 2014 #223
bravenak Jun 2014 #225
brentspeak Jun 2014 #130
bravenak Jun 2014 #131
countryjake Jun 2014 #133
giftedgirl77 Jun 2014 #110
msanthrope Jun 2014 #114
bravenak Jun 2014 #115
msanthrope Jun 2014 #117
bravenak Jun 2014 #118
FSogol Jun 2014 #116
bravenak Jun 2014 #119
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #121
bravenak Jun 2014 #122
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #127
DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #128
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #135
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #143
m-lekktor Jun 2014 #138
bravenak Jun 2014 #139
Jamastiene Jun 2014 #183
bravenak Jun 2014 #184
Zorra Jun 2014 #142
bravenak Jun 2014 #150
Zorra Jun 2014 #180
AverageJoe90 Jun 2014 #173
kwassa Jun 2014 #188
mwrguy Jun 2014 #149
Recursion Jun 2014 #189
Zorra Jun 2014 #209
Waiting For Everyman Jun 2014 #212
Zorra Jun 2014 #214
Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #217
randys1 Jun 2014 #226
bravenak Jun 2014 #227
GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #228

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:13 PM

1. As Coates notes

He thinks the author he is responding to (but hasn't read entirely) is getting around to the idea that the New Deal began the end of segregation - Coates' last paragraph.

This assumption is borne out by history. FDR ran as a "Northern" Democrat - i.e. he aligned with Al Smith.

If you've read about that time in Democratic politics, the KKK staged a demonstration in D.C. during the Democratic convention in opposition to the northern Democrats who favored the repeal of prohibition. They hated Smith because he was a Catholic, as well.

Catholics were often immigrants in the early years of the 1900s and rural voters detested them and the wine and beer that was part of their cultures.

This began the schism in the party.

The New Deal began an era when the Democrats slowly (too slowly, for me) moved to embrace the idea of human rights.

The influence of socialists during this time had much to do with this. Socialists in that era had enough political clout to make the Democratic party pay heed in order to garner votes that would've gone to socialist candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:18 PM

2. I posted part 2.

 

I can't believe i missed these articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:20 PM

3. I can't believe you were alerted upon.

Shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:24 PM

4. When?

 

I've been running around for a few hours and just got back home. It's light outside until like the middle of the night so i'm about to BBQ. They alerted on this? The author is very good and quite factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:25 PM

6. here...............stupid alert as the jury noted

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Mon Jun 9, 2014, 09:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

A History of Liberal White Racism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025072693

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is shit stirring. It needs to stop.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 9, 2014, 09:23 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This DUer is posting lots of nonsense. Is s/he a troll? Or a misguided clown? Hard to say. The post has already been put "in check" by the first response. Better than just zapping it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter:
Not shit stirring. It is a basic tenet at DU: posting a link to a source.

This is a clear and cut case of an alerter trying to shut down discussion. This isn't flame bait. It's not shit stirring. it is an OP.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dumbass alert by a dumbass alerter. Ta-Nehisi Coates is the fucking MLK 2012-2013 visiting professor from MIT. There is no other higher ranking for AA journalists in the US. This is a joke alert and the alerter should be ashamed of themselves.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is absolutely nothing wrong with this post and I seriously question the motives of the person who alerted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: seriously????????????????????????????????????????

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:34 PM

13. That saddens me. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:42 PM

15. I was #4, for what it's worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:45 PM

18. Thank you.

 

It will be a sad day when we can't post articles from this Author.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:45 PM

19. Thank you!

I didn't get this jury but my remarks would have been along the same line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:49 PM

23. Thanks!

I mean how out of touch can you be? Coates is fully on our side. He's a great guy and I've never disagreed with his arguments, even those about reparations which some liberals waffle on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:51 AM

93. great vote and great explanation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:01 PM

30. No!

Do not let it sadden you. Let it strengthen you.

It was a dumb ass alert. You know it and I know it and people that read it and understand it will know it. A seven-zero goes to MIRT automatically now.

I read earlier in AA that people feel like they want to leave. I understand that feeling though I hope they do not. We need your voices here and I would miss everyone of you if you left. I will always take your back, the same way I take this Presidents back. We are all better together. We are stronger together.

bravenak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:18 PM

31. 7-0 goes to MIRT; but ...

 

what about 0-7.

I wonder if the Admins keep track of who is alerting on whom? This is clearly alert-stalking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:31 PM

37. I hope they do, 1StrongBlackMan.

It is alert stalking and what I saw today proves it. Not just bravenak. You, JAG, Number23 ...AA is being targeted.

Seems to me some might just be wishing to shut you up. Their sense and sensibilities have been hurt. They haz a sad.

Please do not shut up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:36 PM

40. I will not be silenced ...

 

nor, will I allow wisdom to be snuffed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:41 PM

44. I knew that...

I did. For what it is worth, I have your back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:13 AM

120. Admin reviews all alerts.

This won't go to MIRT. Also, alerters are anonymous to MIRT, but not to Admin.

Stupid alert, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:52 AM

206. the admins see all alerts and read them.

 

We at mirt get only the 7 to 0 hides of people above 100 posts. Under 100 posts we see all hides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #206)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:08 PM

207. So MIRT doesn't see 0-7s to show? Interesting. eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #207)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:16 PM

208. no there is no reason for us to deal with them.

 

The only reason we see 7 to 0 posts that are hidden is in the event that a poster above 100 posts goes extreme and needs to be removed right away.

In my three terms on mirt this has happened three times to a long term member. We banned them all do to death threats I believe. We have an hour to make this decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:22 PM

32. We better stay in order to draw more people in.

 

Thats why i decided to join and post. I felt i was necessary. And i like the atheists and agnostics group, they crack me up and it's hard for a black atheist to find other who share her views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:44 PM

17. Well, let me educate the alerter a bit more

This is an old, old song and it's a good catalog of reasons why the world fell into disfavor outside the burbs. The left were the first to discard it because it so beautifully described the people we were running away from. I can't post the video link because it contains a word all the outrage trolls will object to. You Tube has it, of course.

"Love Me, I'm a Liberal"--Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:26 PM

35. Wow ...

 

I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door


That's exactly what George Romney said about Michigan Liberals ... BTW, did you know that despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act (that Romney supported and Michigan Democrats did not) Detroit remained the most segregated city in the North ... and that was even before the white flight of the Detroit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:31 AM

58. Block busting didn't work too well in my last neighborhood in Boston

because about a third of it remained stubbornly Irish.

However, that song skewered the suburban liberal mindset perfectly, didn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:35 AM

63. Awesome post!!

 

Thank you for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:38 AM

124. +1000

I've posted the video here in the past, but you're probably right, now.

Best song ever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:53 AM

105. Wow

Truly awful. The comments by the alerter and juror 1 are troubling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:34 PM

140. Fucking pathetic. I hope the admins note who alerted on this.

Shit is getting rigoddamndiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demonaut (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:44 PM

154. I'm sorry to say this, but, truthfully, Juror #1 got it right more than anyone else.

 

Although I'm honestly not convinced that the OP intentionally violated TOS or even Community Standards(intent does count for quite a bit, IMO, but there's no real reason to doubt that this ended up being flame bait), I can't help at least sympathize a little bit with whoever alerted on this; yes, there HAS been a lot of shit-stirring going on. And 90% of that has been the product of a certain few malcontents on here.

Let's not kid ourselves here. We have indeed had a problem lately. And it needs to be addressed more often.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #154)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:30 AM

200. You keep using words like "truthfully" wrong

You mean "in your opinion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #200)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:47 AM

205. Therein lies the problem

Of the Positivist conception of knowledge. It allows no distance between self and absolute "truth" and completely ignores how such ideas are about imposing hegemony over the subaltern. It invokes the veneer of truth in order to impose race, class, and gender-based power.

They declare Bravenak a troll because she posts an article from a highly-respected African American writer. That she has the audacity to care about racism and post articles on the subject questions what they see as their absolute right to control debate on this site. Posts about racism amount to trolling for one reason--they see people of color as unimportant, as outside the body politic, just as they do feminists. Their view of the acceptable political debate is rooted in white supremacy, and that is what they enforce, even if they lack the awareness that they are doing so. (Yet it is hard to imagine they cannot be aware, given how blatant they are).
Black people are tolerated only if they don't act too black, only if they keep their mouths shut and behave in ways that never contest white power. They will tolerate no ideas that suggest that they are not superior in all ways. They believe themselves liberal, whereas the majority of the public who is not white, elderly, and prosperous are trolls, defined as illegitimate and inferior because they have the audacity to raise issues that make the entitled uncomfortable. As we saw in the various witchunting threads and alert stalking, they work tirelessly to silence anyone, particularly people of color and feminists, who dare to discuss ideas like racism and violence against women that they believe too insignificant--insignificant because they view the people affected as unworthy of consideration-- to appear on this website. They are threatened by the fact even a handful of African Americans are allowed to post on this website or have articles published in the press. That anyone of color speaks about racism--other than to blame the GOP boogeyman--is seen as entirely unacceptable, as trolling, and they will work tirelessly to censor such speech.

However, even if they are successful and manage to ban every person of color and feminist and thereby create the homogeneous site they so desire, time is marching on. They cannot turn the clock back to 1962, no matter how much they try. Their opposition to anyone who looks and thinks differently from themselves makes them entirely irrelevant to the contemporary world. That they have now declared they will not support the likely Democratic nominee for President should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:29 PM

9. Agreed. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:39 AM

100. Nope, no targeted alerting going on here at all...



Thanks for letting us know of the alert.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:25 PM

7. I always read him

I think he's great and I'm thrilled that he brings these issues and his perspective to The Atlantic.

The reality of American political life, sadly, Coates explains so well, is that neither party wanted to deal with the reality that the problems from the Civil War and Reconstruction were never dealt with properly at the time, nor at any time afterward.

The federal govt. basically abandoned African Americans to the southern political/business machine after the Civil War.

I think all of those in Congress who had been on the side of the insurrectionists during the Civil War should've been executed, all property of slave holders should've been confiscated, and federal money should've gone into building lives for those who had been treated like property.

This, too, is part of the collusion between political parties to pretend problems were solved when they needed white voters.

If I had been alive at the time of the Civil War, I would've been a radical Republican. Back at that time, members of Congress got into fights on the floor of the house.

When I think about the course of history - sometimes I wonder if we were better off to fight for independence from the British, when you consider Canada has better health care, quality of life, and is no way bounded by "tyranny."

In the U.S. the monied are tyrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:30 PM

10. I wonder that too since the British did offer freedom to Blacks who fought on their side.

 

If i had been alive back then i would have run to Canada or even England. Many did and lived better lives. I just wanted to show that the past that some get nostalgic over was terrible for Black people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:41 PM

14. Throughout history Americans have left this country

Because of the power of the right wing voter - it's been a problem since this nation began. (I use right wing in the current sense - but that regressive political stance.)

Both whites and blacks did this in the early part of the 20th century because this nation was (and still is) mostly run by a bunch of backslapping good ole boys.

There's a theory in political science - when people discuss various forms of governance. One is called "Elite Theory" that aligns with the way politics has gone in the U.S. more often than not.

Yale was the recruitment ground for the CIA from its beginning as the OSS. No one wanted to rock the boat b/c their daddies owned multinationals, etc.

Anyway, the idea behind "elite theory" is that a very few make the important policy decisions but different groups are allowed "escape valves" to give the impression that the dog and pony show is more than that. So a women gets elected. An African American. A gay male.

What's supposed to happen is this small contingency is supposed to reflect the values of the elite. But what happens, eventually, is that these new groups become powerful in and of themselves. Some of them retain elitist views, some are more populist.

But that's why change is soooo slow in the U.S., imo. The Senate is like the "House of Lords" and the House is like "the House of reactionary Americans."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:49 PM

24. The senate IS like the House of Lords.

 

You are so right, great observation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:43 PM

16. In Massachusetts, slavery ended in the 1780s

 

IIRC, Ben Franklin started the first affirmative action program for freed slaves.

North and South were very different, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:47 PM

21. Yes, Manny, but this is also about other things too.

 

I agree the North did much better with freeing of humans. The racism did not die with Slavery, though. I posted part two, finish it and we can discuss if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:54 PM

26. Just responding to your observation on the British offer

 

Would not have been so attractive to folks in MA. But the British had cleared out of MA by then anyway after getting a powerful butt-kicking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:56 PM

27. Oh, my bad. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:48 AM

77. Oh, yes, some Brits did.....but not really out of altruism(not in most cases), mind you.

 

No, the sad truth is, the Redcoats were quite guilty of cynically using African-Americans as nothing more than pawns......at least as much as the Patriots, if not more, in fact!

And, by the way, Canada's being a better place for Black folks(which it really was, no doubt), had very little to do with it still being British for 90 more years; it was, more than anything, thanks to the fact that slavery had virtually NO presence anywhere in the area. If Canada and the *northern U.S. had gone republican, instead of just all the 13 non-Canadian colonies, it very likely wouldn't have made much of a difference(not by itself, anyway); and in such a scenario, the still-British South would not be pleasant for African-Americans, and it's even more than possible that slavery would have lasted at least as long as it did in our world, maybe even longer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:52 AM

79. They used us for their need to try to end the rebellion.

 

The patriots feared the backlash from white people too much to offer immediate freedom for fighting. The brittish were willing to offer a trade, you fight for me, i'll free you. The rebels would offer freedom only after fighting for a certain amount of time and many died on the battlefields still slaves not free men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:46 AM

103. I would have too

It was a shot out of misery - if I'm not for me? Who will be!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #103)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:49 AM

104. Your husband is a smart man.

 

Once he said that we have to be more for ourselves because nobody else will look out for us i knew i was on the right track. If he can see what i see and he is European then it is as bad as i thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #104)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:10 AM

109. He's smart but he's also kind of crazy!

He's joined some group/gave money to them to try and stop the celebration of Columbus Day. And according to him - Cristo does not'a getta be Italian anymore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #109)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:22 AM

111. That is so funny!!!

 

He disowned him!!! Lord you must love being with him. My husband says the darndest things too! We could do a TV show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:24 PM

5. My goodness

On Mon Jun 9, 2014, 09:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

A History of Liberal White Racism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025072693

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is shit stirring. It needs to stop.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 9, 2014, 09:23 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This DUer is posting lots of nonsense. Is s/he a troll? Or a misguided clown? Hard to say. The post has already been put "in check" by the first response. Better than just zapping it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter:
Not shit stirring. It is a basic tenet at DU: posting a link to a source.

This is a clear and cut case of an alerter trying to shut down discussion. This isn't flame bait. It's not shit stirring. it is an OP.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dumbass alert by a dumbass alerter. Ta-Nehisi Coates is the fucking MLK 2012-2013 visiting professor from MIT. There is no other higher ranking for AA journalists in the US. This is a joke alert and the alerter should be ashamed of themselves.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is absolutely nothing wrong with this post and I seriously question the motives of the person who alerted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: seriously????????????????????????????????????????

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:32 PM

11. Thank you for giving me the results.

 

Maybe the alerter can take a day off from alerting me and read the articles i posted. I respect the opinions of this writer and i learn new things from everything he writes. I find him to be Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:29 PM

8. I'm interested in that book - thanks for posting.

It looks like it focuses more on Congress than on FDR; which of course is where FDRs legislative agenda had to go to be enacted.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:33 PM

12. I posted part 2.

 

We somehow missed this article and i also plan on getting this book on my kindle if i can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:46 PM

20. IT is available on the Kindle - i just checked. Thinking of getting it

myself.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:48 PM

22. Thank you.

 

I stopped buying paper books since i try to only use recycled paper if i can. It feels weird but it works and i may save one tree in my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:02 AM

96. That's a benefit - but honestly - if i get it on my Kindle I'm likely to read it

Carrying paper books around ended up being such a hassle to me that unless it's an art book - where the physicality is part of it - I generally am not interested.

Plus books on the Kindle are considerably more affordable.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:53 PM

25. I saw this comment from one poster named "chadstanton":

I think the split between feminism and womanism and the accusations of black folks being responsible for the passage of Prop. 8 in California are the modern day iterations of liberal racism. The fact that most lists of "progressive" cities also include cities with lower populations of black folks is problematic too. It seems to be easier to advocate liberal policies in America when there isn't a significant portion of black folks.


Back when P8 was first passed, I was upset myself about how the media singled us out for its passage, even though there were plenty of people from other groups who supported it. I never did support P8, and neither did anyone I know. Periodically to this day, I still see (even on MSNBC) how supposedly blacks are "socially conservative". I might come off as biased, but I just have a difficult time buying the notion that so many of us care about what other people do in their private lives as the media portrays. The main issue facing the black community right now is jobs, not whether someone gets an abortion or if two people of the same sex marry.
I think this poster also had a point in his last sentence here. It isn't just in America where that has been the case; just look at Canada and many European countries where there aren't many blacks. These areas have been able to achieve great things such as universal health care, stricter gun laws, and free college tuition (mainly in Scandinavian areas).
This article was an insightful and eye-opening read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:59 PM

29. Funny, i blame the mormon church a bit more than the black churches.

 

And even my sister planned on voting for prop 8. The wording confused her and she thought to vote for it was to vote for gay marriage. They used really shady wording. Luckily some Mormon groups pushed back. But alas, it didn't work. Not enough money to counter them and the other religious groups. I blames them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:05 AM

107. I want you to read Republican Gomorrah

They also threw the Mormons under the bus. Yeah - I know it's crazy but it is true. Black folks and Mormons were the target dujour for their targeting.

Connect the dots -

Rushdooney and the Koch Brothers Daddy.


These dots lead to a man by the name of Howard F. Ahmanson


Who is hooked in with James Dobson


And James Dobson's 'movement' had a huge influx of cash from Edgar and Elsa Prince.

And Elsa Remarried after Edgar died - and her name is now Elsa Prince Broekhuizen. She's still a member of what I understand folks in Western Michigan refer to as the 'Dutch Mafia'. In Holland MI - at one time they were the largest employer. She has four children.

Her oldest daughter goes by the name Betsy. She was born Elizabeth Prince and married into the Devos family prior to her father Edgar's death. Her husband is THE Devos of Amway fame.

Elsa's youngest goes by the name Erik - he actually testified in front of Congress about 7 years ago for his company's involvement in some of the horrors they were involved in Iraq.


Elsa - she gave a HUGE chunk to keep same sex couples from being married out of California in 2008.

The Devos Clan is giving heavily to causes to bring about the end of Public Education.

Erik Prince - in April was at a meeting of Hedgies in NYC to discuss/push Charter schools in Manhattan.

The Koch brothers are giving 25 Million to the UNCF - perhaps hoping to bring unaware young black collegiate level students at the Historically black Universities and colleges into their fold - as reported last week.



When you take EACH of these dots separately - they don't amount to much.

But when you lay it all out - when you connect the dots - it becomes crystal clear.


I'm stating it outside of the AA Group -we cannot afford for them to prevent the rights of the GLBT community. A strike against the GLBT community - after those 'dots' blamed that HUGE strike on us - it's a strike against us.

And I'm posting this to you because you ARE young hip and aware and will tell others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #107)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:32 PM

177. Erik Prince would be Blackwater right?

I remember them. The things they did were awful. Thank you for that history.

The Mormons pumped millions into P8. Between them and the faulty wording, I think those are the reasons things went like they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #177)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:43 PM

179. You got it!

Each line separately is no big deal - but it all leads back to Rushdooney. Quiverfull, the war on terror, the war on women, MLK as and Eisenhower as communists, right up to the push for Charter schools.

It's allll connected. And it's scandalous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #193)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:02 AM

199. Yep!

Last edited Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:30 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA - there are other ones I can pull tonight. It's been a very interesting dive into their mindset. I've been trying to grasp how people come to think as they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #199)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 01:59 PM

218. Do you see it as part of 'The Family' as some of the same players are there?

The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1402599280&sr=8-4&keywords=The+Family

Excellent post above, pulling the threads together. Thanks for linking it in another thread I read today or I wouldn't have seen it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #218)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:06 PM

219. I absolutely do!

It's all connected and aside from being frightening- how deep and long the roots are -

It's scandalous. Absolutely scandalous.

Dare I say - when we speak of moral decay in America - that it is not being pushed by the 'do harm, we own you, mea culpa, ask JC for forgiveness and all is forgiven' crowd?

My mind is rotting - I've been reading everything from Buchanan to Goldwater - everything I can get my hands on to get inside of their minds.

It's not enough to take a lofty approach - or a third person approach -

When you understand their connections - the Family - ALL of it - then you understand what they are REALLY saying.

Some are patsies - Erik Prince, Rick Perry, Sharon Angle (sp?) - but the true believers? Yikes! Gohmert - he has the power to legislate and that terrifies me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #219)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:36 PM

221. Yes, I've used the same technique. Embrace their reality, befriend their heroes and despise their

enemies, swim in their ocean. Then when I can feel it, truly feel what they are up to, I come up for air and know how to combat them.

My moral compass that won't let me drown. I get with them and lay it out here in detail, so people can understand how deep this goes with these very determined people.

For too long, Democrats have figured out what was logical and rational, and thought all others would accept humane ideas that work. They took it for granted that the justness of it was obvious, didn't keep preaching it as generations past had to use their voices.

But to deny that these groups are working daily against us, or they are stupid, helpless or not taking advantage of us is to put us all at terrible risk.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:57 PM

28. The American Communist Party was the only civil rights supporter ...

during the 1930s and 1940s of any American political party.

The party's most widely reported work in the South was its defense, through the ILD, of the "Scottsboro Boys", nine black men arrested in 1931 after a fight with some white men also riding the rails, then convicted and sentenced to death for raping two white women later found on the same train. None of the defendants had shared the same boxcar as either of the women they were charged with raping.

The International Labor Defense was the first to offer its assistance. William L. Patterson, a black attorney who had left behind a successful practice to join the Communist Party, returned from training in the Soviet Union to run the ILD. After fierce disputes with the NAACP, with the ILD seeking to mount a broad-based political campaign to free the nine while the NAACP followed a more legalistic strategy, the ILD took control over the defendants' appeals.

The ILD successfully overturned their convictions on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which held in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) that the State's failure to provide the defendants with counsel in a capital case violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ILD's battles with the NAACP continued when the cases returned to Alabama for retrial, when the NAACP blamed the ILD for the conviction and death sentence handed down by the jury in the retrial of the lead defendant. While the NAACP later backtracked and agreed to join with the ILD in defending the nine after other black organizations and a number of NAACP branches attacked it for that position, the tensions never disappeared and the ILD retained control of the second round of appeals. It won reversals of these convictions in Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) on the ground that the exclusion of blacks from the jury pool had violated the defendants' constitutional rights. Even so, all of the defendants were convicted on their third retrial.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:23 PM

33. so this is how the right wing accuses some black people from those days of being commies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:37 PM

41. But major African American leaders at the time

In politics, literature, music, etc. aligned with the Communist Party until the Communist party seemed like one more white-centered political institution.

The Invisible Man goes into this issue for African Americans... Thelonius Monk talked about it...

I wonder how many Americans know about Hubert Harrison, as far as the history of left radicalism in the U.S. goes.

Harrison... maintained that it was the principal “duty” of the Socialists to “champion the cause of the African American and that the Socialists should undertake special efforts to reach African Americans as they had done with foreigners and women.” Perhaps most importantly, he emphasized that “Politically, the Negro is the touchstone of the modern democratic idea” and that true democracy and equality implies “a revolution... startling even to think of.”


He campaigned for Debs - and left the socialist party when it was willing to coddle segregationist whites in the south to get support from them, and when the socialists spoke against Asian immigrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:39 PM

42. i recently read that book and it does remind me of these things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:08 AM

74. What they fail to realize

is that communism would be a step up from what the black people were living through at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:47 PM

46. Thanks for pointing this out.

The erasing of the history of labor radicalism, and of communists and socialists and the IWW is shameful. Particularly as it related to segregation and racism.

An awful lot of the Freedom Riders in the 50s and Northern civil rights activists of the 60s who went to the south were reds of one kind or another. A lot of our present old white people were young then and they haven't become rightwingers, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:20 AM

53. Liberalism isn't really equipped to deal with looking at the entire

political and economic ecosystem of oppression.

To be fair, the CP works to broaden anti-racist support in center to left groupings, today included. But you can see even on DU that getting people to examine institutional racism can be a slog.

(BTW, the link in my sig to Foster's history of CPUSA goes into detail, in case anyone is interested.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:25 PM

34. But wait, we're all told that Obama is a traitor, and FDR was a saint!

An authoritarian traitor, mind you. Unlike the guy who put Japanese Americans in work camps.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:49 PM

48. Damn.

 

You are on point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:26 PM

36. "War on The Weak" by Edwin Black documents the eugenics movement

It shows the origins of forced sterilization and marriage restrictions. It started as an agenda to prevent genetic transmission of loosely defined disabilities, and was expanded to include people of color and immigrants.
Progressives were aligned with conservatives in those goals. There were progressives who wanted to prevent suffering by working with conservatives who were pursuing the "Nordic Superior Race."
They felt that the condition of being undesirable was so terrible that it should be prevented. The conservatives saw them as a burden to the public....

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [...] Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Oliver Wendall Holmes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:54 PM

50. Great info.

 

I will look it up. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:09 AM

75. You're welcome

I think it explains a lot about how people are viewed today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:22 PM

191. Edwin Black's a good guy......but he's wrong about progressives.

 

Genuine progressives didn't believe in this "Nordic super race" bullshit(of course, that doesn't mean they were all free of prejudice, either; this was the '20s after all, even many progressives still were, sadly.). Neither did they support laws banning interracial marriage, or sterilizing all blacks or immigrants.....that was all the doing of reactionaries; yes, even a few reactionaries who stole the label of progressivism to gain favor and respect(similar to how the word "patriot" has been co-opted by their spiritual descendants in more modern times).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #191)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:16 PM

196. The progressives did favor involuntary sterilization

Their logic was humanitarian. The conservatives were in favor of positive eugenics. They believed that the preferred citizens should reproduce as much as possible. Their motives were to create a superior race.
Don't forget that many of the economic progressives were from southern states. George Wallace was an economic progressive. The political lines were blurred and nothing like the dividing lines we see today.
You can't apply today's definitions to the politics of that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 02:17 PM

220. They also kidnapped and sterilized poor whites, a source of old white anti-government hatred.

Conservatives morphed that into hating the poor and other races, going far beyond the original justified paranoia.

Now they embrace private ways to reduce 'worthless mouths' and rail against the government for keeping them alive and well.

Quite a turn around, but not really unexpected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #220)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:22 PM

224. This started in southern states

One thing that I think bred that paranoia was that the eugenics policies grouped poor whites with Blacks, Native Americans, immigrants, and people with disabilities.
With poverty as a justification for inequality the easiest way to distance themselves was to turn their anger toward the other groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:32 PM

38. Thanks for this OP. Very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:41 PM

43. No problem.

 

It is two parts but i screwed up by not posting both links together and did it separately. I hope everyone can fond part two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:44 AM

66. I found it. You could edit the OP to include it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:53 AM

68. Okay.

 

Will do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:32 PM

39. bravenak - you may have already seen this --

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:42 PM

45. Love it!!!

 

Thanks, thats the first time i have seen that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:49 PM

47. I almost did an OP about it today but, did not have the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:51 PM

49. That is great! I'm going to post in on FB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:56 PM

51. go for it ... that is where I found it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:16 AM

52. Y'know, I don't dispute the accuracy of Coates' history,

but I think it's a bit of a stretch to apply modern standards of race to the early 20th century since back then racial thinking was so much different (EUGENICS was acceptable back then!) that it's the presentism fallacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:23 AM

54. I think we need to look at it from today's standard so that we don't slip back.

 

If i time traveled back there to the times liberals fantasize about my life would be terrible. The past sucked for us and i don't want a redo. I judge the past by my values because i believe they knew they were wrong and I am getting sick of all the nostalgia for white supremacist times and leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:24 AM

55. "times liberals fantasize about" whoa whoa whoa wait a minute.

WHICH liberals have "fantasized about" those bad old days?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:32 AM

59. Lot's fantasize about FDR.

 

The bad old days. Go check out AA 1sbm posted on my thread about this. Look at my journal entry on Waxing Nostalgic. I has nostalgia. It is evil. I am better off now than at anytime in history and things have change for the better. I have no love for the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:44 AM

65. FDR definitely wasn't perfect, because of the internment camps and such.

I think much of the nostalgia is because of the New Deal programs & policies (like the Tennessee Valley Authority, Civilian Conservation Corps, etc.) that were so strong that they make Obama's stimulus package seem like a Reaganesque policy.

Looking back at TNC's article that you linked, it sure is important not to let rainbow colored glasses blind your thinking. Thanks for clarifying. As that '80s TV show goes, "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have the facts of life."



FDR being a product of a bygone era is no excuse to ignore the darker side of his administration like the internment camps, but it's not an excuse to apply presentism either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:52 AM

67. I guess his not pushing for anti lynching legislation biases me.

 

His wife fought for it and tried to push the idea but he was too scared of scaring the white majority to do anything. That's wrong not matter what time you live in. You should take a look at this link.
http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-costigan-wagner-act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:00 AM

70. Thanks for the link. In contrast, LBJ was willing to push for the Civil Rights Act

near 2 decades later in the face of rock-solid opposition by Southern Democrats, and famously gave this prophecy: "We have lost the South for a generation." Which did happen starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy.

I think JFK and LBJ took action against segregation primarily because grassroots activism pressured them to do so. Bottom line is, we can't be looking for political saviors for change. Instead, it's up to we the people to speak truth to power and lead the parades for change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:03 AM

72. You are right.

 

It is up to us to be the change we need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:40 PM

161. Ahhh ...

 

the great civil rights heroes, JFK and LBJ, weren't all that ... JFK, as a Senator, voted against Civil Rights legislation ... twice, and LBJ's pushing of the CRA of 1964 was more a recognition of the 125,000 WWII and the 600,000 Korean War veterans that (mistakenly, IMO) saw the death of President Kennedy, as the last, best peaceful chance at getting the rights that the US government trained them to fight for others, but were being denied here at home ... then with the assassination of Dr. King, LBJ recognized that had he NOT worked to pass the CRA, there would violence.

But that is not the liberal history that we must know ... pointing out all of the above is seen as "divisive" because ... well ... the liberal "heroes" weren't/aren't our heroes. (In the words of Public Enemy, "The face of my heroes don't appear on a stamp!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:10 AM

98. I learned a new term. "Presentism"

Is that in the same vein as anachronistic?

Is there such a thing as anachronistic reasoning?

That would be equivalent to Republicans using Lincoln as an example of the popularity of their policies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:17 PM

176. the reason there is less support for Govt programs is because it's seen as benefiting Blacks and

other minorities these days. people were ok with it in the times when minorites were less than equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:41 AM

97. Well a lot of eugenic stuff still exists

 

Child income tax credit, home owner deduction and even the 90% abortion rate of fetuses suspected of having Downs Syndrome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #97)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:35 PM

210. True

Across the political spectrum. The humanitarian argument in favor of eugenics has not gone away, despite the historical unholy alliance with white supremacism. I am prochoice and support a woman's right to choose even when the reasoning is genetic information. But, the arguments that people use as justification in the broader discussion are about the horror of existing with Down's Syndrome and the expenses that will be incurred by the parents. They are the same arguments used by the different supporters of eugenics movement.

Liberals in America truly believed that the human race would be better off if it were "healthier." The common conventional wisdom was that genetic manipulation could eliminate feeblemindedness, a whole range of illnesses, moral defections, people prone to alcoholism... Poor people and people of color were targeted then, and they are targeted now in rhetoric, if not policy. Conservatives and liberals may have different reasoning, but the resulting biases and dehumanization are the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:55 AM

106. I've said before, and I'll say again, the measure of how much

future society will have improved is how horrified they are by the things we do and say now. If I do my part well to advance society, I will not be remembered for the good I do, but as a backwards barbarian who accepts as 'reasonable' all sorts of abuses of my fellow humans, my fellow non-human animals, and the environment upon which we all depend.

If the people of the future, applying their own 'modern standards' to my thoughts and actions finds them reasonable, then we will have failed to continue to grow past our current barbarities and inequalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:51 PM

155. "I don't dispute the accuracy of Coates' history". I do.

 

As I pointed out elsewhere on the comments section:


Honestly, the one thing that really bothers me more than anything is that Katznelson seems to take every single thing he reads at face value(and apparently, so does Coates). And having actually *legitimately* studied U.S. history myself, I can certainly tell you one thing: Theodore Bilbo was NO liberal. Neither was Ben Tillman. They were actually nothing more than extreme right-wing faux-populists who merely latched on to some economic progressive causes to gain voters, and were willing to bluster and bullshit as much as they could to keep their voters happy and uninformed.....much like guys like Rand Paul today; after all, Rand Paul does align himself with a certain few progressive causes, such as lessening of drug laws, or the occasional lip service against Wall Street corruption, but he's no liberal.....not at all. Not even close. Paul, like his intellectual forebears of eras gone by, namely, Tillman & Bilbo, is also a populist....or rather, a faux-populist.


And frankly, whether Coates & Katznelson realize this or not, by this same standard, Rand Paul is a liberal/progressive as well, because he thinks poorly of the drug war, police abuses, and even pays lip service to anger against Wall Street. But he's no liberal. And frankly, this actually reminds me quite well of the logic used by wingnut conservatives to claim that Adolf Hitler was a fucking Communist......and in fact, it basically IS the same type of logic! Different subject, different political perspective, same M.O. And it stinks to high heaven. Coates in particular should have known better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:27 AM

56. The "Democratic Party" used to mean Majority Rule, as in the White Majority....

 

Congress played musical chairs more than once.

That's how we ended up with one party that represents every ugly thing in society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:29 AM

57. Excellent article

Thanks bravenak. Some other good reading is stuff on Huey Long. You can look him up on wiki and there's some good books & movies about him. Maybe not directly related, but interesting nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:33 AM

61. Thank you.

 

I will do as you suggest and have a power reading session all night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:33 AM

60. Kick and Hell yes Recommend!

Gotta go.............

See you when the sun shines tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:34 AM

62. Good night!

 

See you manana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:37 AM

64. You too bravenak!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:56 AM

69. Not every Democrat was a liberal and it didn't start with Wilson, but with

Stephen Douglas or maybe even earlier. Even JFK feared losing the "Solid South." It was not until relatively recently that California went blue in Presidential elections.

Without either the South (especially Juneteenth Texas) or California, no Democrat was going to become President.

ETA: I should add that Adlai Stevenson, who lost twice to WWII hero and closet racist Eisenhower, spoke in favor of equal rights, as did Eleanor Roosevelt. Truman integrated the military with an Executive Order.

JFK got the ICC to start integrating interstate commerce and he also helped get MLK, Jr. out of jail, helping turn MLK, Sr. from a Lincoln Republican to a JFK Democrat. When LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, part of the many strategies he used was to make clear that he was carrying out JFK intentions.

Meanwhile, on the other side, "states rights" had become a dog whistle for Jim Crow and racism generally; and Barry Goldwater spoke out in favor of "states' rights," as did the perpetually cranky vet who succeeded him in the Senate.

But, yes, there are still Democrats who are racist and there are still Democrats, even some who aspire to the Presidency, who very much miss the "Solid South."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:08 AM

82. Thank you for this post.

 

I will think on what you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:17 AM

86. You're welcome.

Basically, over a century, Democrats and Repubicans, as parties (rather than individuals) switched party positions on African Americans, from pro-slavery when Douglas ran (maybe before, I don't know) against Lincoln, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of course, Republicans today don't admit outright to being the the racist party, but, clearly, if someone were to admit that one party, as a whole, is more racist than the other, that someone would have to admit at least that Republican politicians say more racist things aloud than do Democratic politicians.

Do some Democratic politicians say and do racist things? Yes. Are some Democrats today racist? Yes. Racism has been a pervasive issue in all of the US since the colonials. But, if you are racist, you ain't liberal. I don't care how you registered to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:02 AM

71. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bravenak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #71)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:04 AM

73. Thanks for the kick. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:40 AM

76. Yeah......I'm sorry, but Katznelson pretty much falls short on this. Coates too.

 

And yes, I read BOTH articles, by the way.

Honestly, the one thing that really bothers me more than anything is that Katznelson seems to take every single thing he reads at face value(and apparently, so does Coates). And having actually *legitimately* studied U.S. history myself, I can certainly tell you one thing: Theodore Bilbo was NO liberal. Neither was Ben Tillman. They were actually nothing more than extreme right-wing faux-populists who merely latched on to some economic progressive causes to gain voters, and were willing to bluster and bullshit as much as they could to keep their voters happy and uninformed.....much like guys like Rand Paul today; after all, Rand Paul does align himself with a certain few progressive causes, such as lessening of drug laws, or the occasional lip service against Wall Street corruption, but he's no liberal.....not at all. Not even close. Paul, like his intellectual forebears of eras gone by, namely, Tillman & Bilbo, is also a populist....or rather, a faux-populist.

Those people lauding these two articleas as if they were founts of wisdom, or whatever.....well, unfortunately, they are completely dead wrong.

Honestly, more than anything, this OP shows that it isn't just the far-right that engages in, and/or encourages revisionist history.....so too, do the fringes on the left(at least as far as Coates is concerned).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:48 AM

78. How you been Joe?

 

I can agree with you that we revise history, but i disagree that the article is incorrect . I think you may not be getting the full meaning of what he is saying. I am reading through a few things and i will post something tomorrow on it. I also agree that they were more populist than they were liberal, but it was in my view the communists that were most supportive of African Americans. The Dems were for majority rule, and that meant the white majority.
Coates is not the fringe when you consider his positions and his views represent the views of many African Americans. We are not the fringe and many liberals will attempt to shut down the conversation concerning things we find to be issues with the party. Our views need to be listened to and put up front with everyone else's concerns and not be treated like the fringe or a special interest group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:54 AM

80. .....

 

We are not the fringe and many liberals will attempt to shut down the conversation concerning things we find to be issues with the party.




Our views need to be listened to and put up front with everyone else's concerns and not be treated like the fringe or a special interest group.


Here's the problem: you don't represent many African-Americans. Some, maybe. Many? No. And furthermore, I didn't say that all Blacks or other PoC were the fringe. and I have no blooming idea where you came up with that assumption.

No, the fringe includes those people, of any ethnicity, mind you, who, like in this case, engage in revisionist history, such as what Katznelson has done.....it's the same type of M.O. that rightists like David Barton or Andrew Breitbart, etc., use to push their agendas. We shouldn't be doing the same. We should know better than this, especially someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates(or Alexander Cockburn, though Cockburn's dead now).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:03 AM

81. No honey.

 

You are wrong as you could possibly be. You have no idea what black people think and you are not willing to listen and explore the possibility that you don't know much about black people. And do not try the i have black friend routine. It sounds way out.

I am the mainstream of black thought and i know this because i read and listen to other black people and find out what they think. I invite you to read the Grio and other black blogs and websites to learn a little more about us and our view . Telling me that i am the fringe is an insult that i ask you to never refer to me in that way again. Investigate what i am saying and look around to see how many times my views are repeated in black media. You have no idea. You are not black and can't know what we think unless you ask. Instead of listening to me, you disregard my statements and tell me you know more about what mainstream black people think than i do, and that i am the fringe. You are wrong as snow in august. You need to broaden your horizons and keep your mind open to the possibility that you have no idea what Black people really think. It is insulting to black people to assume you know more about them than they do themselves. Please do not ever tell me you know more about black culture than i do. I have no idea why you think you do. Go read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:10 AM

83. Sure, hon. Sure. And I'm Bill Cosby.

 

Telling me that i am the fringe is an insult that i ask you to never refer to me in that way again.


Well, I'm sorry, bravenak, but it's the darn honest truth. Whether you may realize and/or admit it or not.

It is insulting to black people to assume you know more about them than they do themselves.


I never said that(or implied that). You are either lying or deluded now, I dunno which.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:19 AM

88. You just told me that i am out of the mainstream.

 

I am in the liberal mainstream and i'm am quite aware that i am in the mainstream of black thought. You call it fringe. Therefore you think you know more than i.
Bill Cosby is quite conservative compare to mainstream liberal Blacks. We know this. Do you?
You seem quite conservative to me, not trying to be insulting, but that is how i see you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:21 AM

95. so you deny white privilege and global climate change/global warming

and over and over again, you lecture liberals here.

perhaps your problem is with liberal politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:36 AM

99. Touché, touché.

Well played, sir. I say, well played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:25 PM

136. And the results are in.

 

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

so you deny white privilege and global climate change/global warming
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5073563

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Obviously disruptive; as you can probably tell, this topic had nothing to do with AGW, anyway.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:24 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think this is an inappropriate attack or response
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't believe this comment warrants hiding. It's just not that bad.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: seems like a reasonable question, perhaps the person being asked can just reply?
frivolous alert, thanks for playing.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #136)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 06:50 AM

202. Thank heaven

I will not alert on the 'eye rolling' in another post above - but really -

Yes - bravenak really DOES touch on the way MANY MANY MANY black Americans feel.

And frankly I'm sick and tired of 20-something (here come more age wars ) young folks/men who are NOT living my life and have

ZERO IDEA about it


Trying to tell folks like me what our REALITY is.

Reality - I have more 'street cred' speaking about the experience of living as a minority woman in the 'sidelines' of the DOMINANT culture and I have faaaaaaaaaaaaar more knowledge of the dominant culture than they


EVER WILL OF ME.

Now lets just stop this nonsense right now. And thank you Warren for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:28 PM

137. Hello CD. I see you're engaging in your favorite B.S. games again.

 

Does this get your rocks off or something? You know for a fact that I have never denied AGW on this site, and you have never been able to find any proof to the contrary.....gee, shouldn't that tell you something? As in, maybe I'm really telling the truth after all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:09 PM

146. LOLOLOL!

this exchange was incredible, just incredible.

I was, honestly, slack-jawed to see a white person tell a black person he understood more about mainstream black culture than she did, as person of color.

kudos to you for your calmness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #146)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:10 PM

147. Remember what you asked him that day?

 

I am not sure you were wrong so i am trying to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #147)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:29 PM

151. Tutti-Frutti

That's how I think about the issue of whites thinking they can articulate black American culture...that refers to Little Richard recording Tutti-Frutti, then Pat Boone "translating" it for a white audience...but the reality was that many white people didn't want their black culture "mediated" by whiteness. Music was one of the most important ways whites and blacks started to speak to one another with understanding - when whites didn't try to appropriate, but joined in. Maybe I'll just reply with "Tutti Frutti" when I see this... LOL... but, honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen it here - but that may be because I haven't read many threads.





Maybe AJ90 doesn't realize this, but to claim there are no separate spheres of historical import, that we're all just one happy history family - is the same right wing argument the Texas Republican Party is including in their plank to deny affirmative action... because discrimination is over...

The problem with this claim, of course (not the TX Republican Party - that's just a lie) but the claim we're all part of the same history is that, in the past, this claim was how the history of the U.S. was erased for students - because those writing the textbooks didn't want to offend the offenders.

You'd never know there was a labor movement in the U.S. if you didn't seek out the information. You'd never know labor movement members were lynched. You never know there were lynching parties in the U.S. into the 20th century because people don't want to tell high school students about the reality of the nation into which they were born - school textbooks just want to create little jingoists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #151)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:41 PM

153. Great post i was trying not to start with him.

 

I have been wondering where people get these strange ideas and not believe in the conditions they themselves suffer from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #153)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:19 PM

158. smart thinking

I think this quote really gets to what is "problematic" for people - they just want to see the parts of history that make them feel better, not the parts that teach them about the realities of politics - as in, strange bedfellows - MLK's dad used the political system to help get MLK released from jail, in Birmingham, where his very life was in danger - in prison. So MLK's dad wondered, from his influential pulpit, about the possible problem of "Catholicism" and the vote for Kennedy.

Kennedy was on the phone immediately afterward and got MLK out of jail - and MLK's dad went on to support Kennedy. Do I think MLK's dad was anti-Catholic? no. But I think he was in a situation where he could use his influence to make something happen, and he did.

This "strange bedfellows" issue is part of political life. FDR and southern whites were both "progressives" according to the understanding of this, politically, at the time. Southern white progressives were also overwhelmingly racist, or they were willing to play to white southern racism.

If the New Deal is ours, so is Theodore Bilbo. Acknowledging this part of our history wounds us. Class interests, in the liberal mind, has always been seen as the great uniter. And yet we see for whole stretches of our history race not simply race trumping class, but race effectively functioning as class.

Does it mean that the New Deal was worthless? No. Is the point that Roosevelt was a covert anti-black bigot? Nope. But it is part of our history. And it is as important to acknowledge this--just as, when the history of marriage equality is written, it will be important to acknowledge the Democratic Party's "evolution."


I've said things here about the south that have riled people - but I've said them as someone who grew up in the south and, sort of, rejected it because the history made me so angry. I didn't want that to be part of the history of people who, no doubt, included relatives of mine from the past.

The only way, or one of the few, bar-be-que is another... I can approach southern culture without anger is through African Americans who I know whose families were also from the south. I've had an interesting experience in the recent past - a friend who's African American, whose family is from the south, who didn't have the negatives toward certain aspects of white culture in the south that I did.. and we talked about things from his perspective. Another friend, the same sort of situation, once told me that blacks didn't want to be angry with whites - they just wanted to be friends and neighbors, not enemies - because I had said something about how I would be angry if I were African American in regard to this or that. They both taught me something about a "grace of spirit" - tho one is an atheist and the other is definitely not - but they taught me about seeing and hearing without anger because I didn't want to be associated with things I thought were "bad."

History is complex - I think that's the ultimate point Coates is getting at. I'm like you - I don't have nostalgia for the past (tho I am interested in history and artifacts). I don't want to forget the compromises that were made, tho, often at the expense of African Americans in this nation because, again, as Coates says, race has functioned as a class system, especially in the south, and especially as a way to align white interests when they don't align via class.

People want to keep this reality invisible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #158)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:34 PM

160. I sometimes wonder if you are a writer in real life.

 

The way you write things really make me think and help me see it another way. You're right, we don't want to be angry and for the most part take things in stride. I feel like i can always find a solution and i think and think until i get threads of things that feel like they fit and weave them together to figure out what i am seeing and where i can take things. My mother tells me i'm always predicting things and futurizing but i am often spot on so i have learned to trust my intuition.
We have some issues to work on no doubt about it. And it will start happening soon. But we will work on them until we get it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #160)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:40 PM

162. Thanks!

actually, I am - or I was, as my profession. Then I dropped out for some years for personal reasons. Now I'm back at it -along with other things b/c writing gigs, generally don't pay the rent -even big time writers teach, often - as Coates does, and tons of well regarded writers in MFA programs. So, thanks so much for your words of encouragement. I post stuff here w/o proofing or re-reading, so I'm happy when something comes across as not garble! LOL. (but that's one reason I didn't want to say I write b/c then I'd have to "write" here, not jabber.)

I truly believe that the lessons of history regarding African Americans in this nation is THE issue for anyone who wants to create a better society. It's our soul discourse - that we've always needed to have - to become the thing we said we wanted to be when we began the democratic experiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #158)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:06 PM

166. Unfortunately ...

 

What your friend didn't tell you was/is (maybe because depending on your friend's age, he/she did not know ... Black folks in the South (as well as in the North) adopted, and taught to our children, this position of "Let's just get along", not out some magnificent "grace of spirit"; but as an important survival mechanism ... visible anger, especially in a young Black man, was a death sentence. But because we have about a generation and a half that did survive, we had the luxury of having it seen, now, as that "grace of spirit."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #166)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:40 PM

168. He's older than me

He was in college during the 1970s in the south...but, maybe it's just his perspective - he didn't claim to speak for everyone - the lesson to me was about how he dealt with things that rightly make people very angry. He was joking with me and said I was racist against white people. He didn't feel the anger that I did, was what it came down to, when he certainly had more cause to than I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #168)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 08:09 PM

181. One of the lessons learned/taught ...

 

especially to Black males is, as I have said, "don't openly express anger as it could be a death sentence." However, that plays out in a number of ways, one of which is to, as your friend did/does, not be angry; others don't express anger to white folks, friend or otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #181)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:47 PM

187. Ah

I didn't know you knew him. He speaks his mind as he pleases, whenever I've seen him, but maybe you know him better than I do. He's an atheist libertarian, so we fight about politics all the time.

He was involved in student protests when he was in college. He's not afraid to show his anger, at least based upon things that he experienced when he was younger.

But, again, maybe you know him better than I do.

I was also taught to never show my anger because I'm female and it's not "becoming" for a female to speak out about this or that. I didn't pay attention to that warning, either, but all the other female siblings in my family did.

eta: but, for curiosity's sake - I just sent him a message on fb to ask if he would never show his anger to a white person. He's never been afraid to tell me his truths in the past, so I would assume he would tell me the truth now, too. But maybe I'm naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #187)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:49 PM

195. No ...

 

I don't know him. ETA: But I do know what I was taught and what my peer group was taught (for when we visited family in the south) and what my father was taught when he was raised in the south.

The fact that you mention "fear" in connection with what I have said suggests I have failed to help you understand what is/was commonly taught to Black people, particularly Black males, in order to survive in this America.

.
eta: but, for curiosity's sake - I just sent him a message on fb to ask if he would never show his anger to a white person. He's never been afraid to tell me his truths in the past, so I would assume he would tell me the truth now, too. But maybe I'm naive.


How about asking your friend whether, in his youth in the south, he was told, if not taught, to not openly express anger with, or to, white folks. (That is what I said)

Now whether he chose to accept the lesson is a different matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #195)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:31 AM

198. actually, he's just atheist

not libertarian. I just say he's libertarian because he likes Ayn Rand, but not libertarianism. I tell him I don't like her work at all. He told me, just now, he's not libertarian so I need to stop saying that about him. LOL. so, okay. he's not libertarian.

..even tho he likes that Russian woman's fiction...

When I asked him, he didn't know the context and he was responding just about culture in general and he said, first, politicians are coached to never show anger (he was talking about African American politicians, in particular.) Then said it can be dangerous around law enforcement types.

And I said, yeah, but I mean "you" (him) specifically. So I said - would you not show your anger around a white person you know here? (where we live)

And he said - when I am angry, everyone knows it.

And I said - yeah, that was the impression I got - but he's never been angry with me. he plays music with a guy I know, a white guy, where my friend says, in that capacity, he is HNIC.

I didn't know what that meant, so he told me, and I said I would never use that expression - but he says it about himself, in a Morgan Freeman in that movie Lean On Me kinda way - so that's where I was coming from when I thought he would have no problem expressing his anger. And he is "HNIC" in that capacity - I've seen it.

He's someone I asked to house share with me in the recent past because I need a roommate, or else I need to move, and I don't want to have to have some 18 year old southern baptist girl sharing a house with me... neither of us would be happy.. LOL... so I asked him b/c he's renting and we know a lot of the same people and we have always gotten along. always been honest, I thought. so I asked him if he felt like he couldn't be honest with me. He laughed at the idea. He's really straight forward - which is something I like about him.

I would never doubt for a moment what you say about what someone is taught - I was responding to you, seemingly, telling me that what he said to me wasn't genuinely talking about what's in his heart, in relation to his frame of mind - IN SPITE of the shitty things he's had to deal with - some of which I know about, much of which I'm sure I do not. The context of the remark was whether or not he would want to share living space with a white person (that would've been me) or if that would be too weird. What he thought would be too weird is that I'm a female and we're not romantically involved. But I've always shared living space with males (I have two sons), so, to me, it would be no big deal.

But that's why I also wrote about what I had been taught, versus what I did - to say - it's about him as a person, tho, yes, I know it's dangerous for black men in American society, oftentimes, to express anger in situations in which white people have some say over what happens to you.

but a woman I used to work with, from Grenada, not the U.S. was never afraid to express her anger with her co-workers - and no one thought she should have to temper her words. A woman who is Af-Am who is a friend of mine - she's never been angry with me, but I've heard her anger when she's shared some stuff with me... just two examples out of a lot - but these are both people I am or was close to, as a friend.

But that guy, even tho he says exactly what he thinks - people love him as a person because he's funny and nice - and, sometimes, angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #198)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:11 AM

203. I understand ...

 

Individuals often reject that which they are taught; but that doesn't neglect the teaching.

FWIW, I am more fear to, and less inclined to, suppress my anger, and with the browning of America, so will subsequent generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #146)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:51 PM

164. Sadly ...

 

this no longer surprises the PoC that remain on DU. It's just rare that it is so explicit and that it is allowed to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #164)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:04 PM

165. I'm sorry that's the case here

and surprised such things are allowed to stand.

I'm spending less and less time here - just b/c of life obligations, so I'm sure I miss a lot - and a lot of it, it seems, isn't good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #80)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:00 AM

94. you're chiding Coates and the OP for misrepresenting black people?

may I ask if you are black yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:10 AM

84. Theodore Bilbo was a member of the KKK.

 

Someone is saying he was a liberal? Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:12 AM

85. That's basically what Katznelson and Coates implied.....even if not intentionally, perhaps.

 

I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt: there may simply have been poor wording involved. It's happened to me before, so I do try to be forgiving of mistakes like that.

What I have a harder time with, is what is essentially revisionism passed off as it were the god's honest truth, as it were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:17 AM

87. I'm in total agreement, revisionist history is for the KKKarl Roves of the world.

 

I don't even remember where I read that, just that he thought minorities were an inferior race and was a member of the KKK...and before anyone says, "so that was popular back then"...no, liberals and populists were not associated with the KKK. Liberals were busy fighting the war between capital and labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:20 AM

89. They did not say that.

 

He is reading something else i fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:57 AM

90. Well I don't know what is liberal about white racism, seems like a strange title.

 

And I think white men have always tried to find ways to keep women and minorities under their thumb throughout our history. Throughout world history. People haven't really given much thought to others rights until contemporary times. Much less share an equal amount of power. Being on equal footing is a modern concept and as we can see, generational holdovers still exist.

It is always my hope that institutional stereotypes will vanish in time as our overall culture becomes more ecocentric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:09 PM

169. fdr's administration called him "a great friend of liberal government"

According to the article. Anyway, he was a huge supporter of the New Deal and other liberal initiatives. By the standards of our day, the strong racism disqualifies him from our sense of what it means to be liberal. By the standards of the first half of the twentieth century, though, it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #84)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:36 AM

201. The article is about what was historically considered liberal

and by the standards of that day, "liberal" and "KKK" were not opposites. That's the whole point - it's about the history of "liberal" and that liberals have not been immune to racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #201)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:52 PM

211. Nobody is immune to racism, but social liberals were opposite of the KKK.

 

Not my fault if people get classical liberals confused with social liberals. People should read more about the Harlem Renaissance and the Progressive Era. Not all liberals were the same, but I understand the need to categorize them as so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #211)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:04 PM

213. It's just talking about liberals in the Democratic Party

Not specifying, but as with the "not all men" responses, saying "liberals" does not mean "all liberals." It says there has always been racism among liberals, not that all liberals are racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:47 AM

113. "Actually *legitimately* studied US history"

While you were doing that, did you study US black history? It's quite different from white history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #113)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:22 PM

134. I dunno what you've been reading.....

 

.....but in all truthfulness, there is no completely separate "white history"WTF?) or "black history". Everything ties together; Jim Crow and segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement that followed to combat them, are totally inseparable from the American historical record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #134)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:49 PM

141. Are you serious?

I took "legitimate" classes in ethnicity and the impact of race and color. The history is so large, and so rich, it took collage courses-- several of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #141)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:58 PM

144. Okay, but, TBH. there's no such thing as "white history".

 

As I tried to point out earlier, TBH, everything does tie together.....in other words, "black history" is, in a sense, just one part of the whole history of the country. It is indeed inseparable from what you call "white history". It's all history.

Although, to be fair & honest, I do sincerely think we can both agree that mainstream schooling often doesn't teach us enough about how things really were in general, and I do think some of these alternate college courses can indeed offer some new perspectives that you might not normally receive in regular studies.

BTW, I'm sure you may have heard of Carter G. Woodson, by the way? I recently read one of his books on Google; I believe it may have been called "The History of the Negro in America" or something along those lines, and was published in 1922, or thereabouts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #144)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:16 PM

157. The entire history of the country is white history

Minorities and whites are added after a lot of fighting during movement that came to be called "The Civil Rights Movement".

The early accounts of Native Americans were distorted when they weren't outright destroyed. It took until the '70's to acknowledge Black cowboys. I can go on and on and on.

Thank God it's changing. Forgive a personal question, but how old are you? You sound very young, very idealistic.

And how many of these have you heard of-- (this is a quick google search, I'm not pulling out books to futilely argue with you, and no I haven't heard of the book I don't think. I've read thousands of books, that one does sound very interesting
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmscientists1.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #157)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:22 PM

159. "You sound very young, very idealistic." I used to be idealistic myself, yes, I will be honest.

 

But in more recent years, I've come to acknowledge that I was wrong on quite a few things("white privilege" for one, amongst quite a few other things), as well as gaining a greater understanding of just how complex American history truly is. Of course, I'll freely admit that I don't know absolutely every little thing there one could possibly know, as learning is a lifelong process, as I'm sure most will agree.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #159)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:04 PM

186. When, exactly, did you opine that white privilege existed?

And when did you convince yourself otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #186)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:24 PM

192. It was a long while before I joined DU, to be truthful.

 

It was about 2009, or thereabouts.

And when did you convince yourself otherwise?


I had been going in and out a little bit since about, oh, say, late 2011 or so, but it wasn't until sometime in the past 18 months or so(roughly) that I really started reconsidering the whole thing. Wish I could give you more specifics, but I haven't always been that good at that, so, I'll just have to leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #192)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:30 PM

194. That's funny. I can cite quite a few specifics about why I know it exists.

I would think that if I decided otherwise, I would have a specific reason to explain why I had the change of mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #134)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:03 PM

145. Most studies on "American" history don't even begin to tell the whole story...

of the oppression of Blacks in this country.

What you say here sounds exactly like the argument so many during the sixties and seventies used to try and block and prevent the introduction of Afro-American studies at colleges all across this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #145)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:30 PM

152. "What you say here sounds exactly like the argument....." Are you sure?

 

I'd like to see some info to back that up, if you have any on hand. Though I'd think that this being the Sixties, you'd think most of those openly opposed to such back then wouldn't have sugarcoated things in such a manner.....and yes, I do realize that there are, and always have been, those who do coat their bigotry by making themselves sound reasonable, or at least semi-reasonable. (Though I've honestly never once seen the reality of black history being inseparable from, and intertwined with, general American history being used as an excuse to oppose Afro-American studies, and certainly not before ~1990.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #152)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:03 PM

156. Yes, it was indeed sickeningly sweet, but recognizing the need for Black Studies...

was a huge and often violent struggle in itself; I've not got any links to provide for you to prove that.

I only have my own experience to relate and yes, that is precisely what the administrators used as the excuse for ignoring minorities on campuses. I was at the University of Wisconsin when the National Guard was sicced on us during a protest calling for Black Studies and there were others at other colleges that were equally squashed during the late sixties.

I am sure there must be some record of those struggles somewhere on the innertubes. I haven't got the time to search it our for you, if you are actually interested. Check "sit-in Black Studies 1968" on Google and I imagine that some semblance of the truth may pop up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #113)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:18 PM

148. Have to agree there, not near enough time is spent on minority history.

 

Giving a famous black man or woman one paragraph in a history book is not studying history, it is just a blurb to remember for a test. I was surprised how little time we spend teaching about non-white history, when I was teaching history classes in HS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:45 PM

163. Wait! Wasn't this ...

 

Theodore Bilbo was NO liberal. Neither was Ben Tillman. They were actually nothing more than extreme right-wing faux-populists who merely latched on to some economic progressive causes to gain voters, and were willing to bluster and bullshit as much as they could to keep their voters happy and uninformed...


The whole point of the article, and subsequent OP?

Let me read them again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #163)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:14 PM

167. Thats how i read it.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #167)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:01 PM

174. Phew ...

 

Thought I was reverting like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:12 PM

170. what were some of Bilbo's extreme right wing positions, aside from his

reprehensible views on race?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #170)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:37 PM

171. Not sure if I want to go thru the trouble of spending hours & hours digging.....

 

Because frankly, it already seems apparent that, based on what you've said here, you likely aren't going to listen to a damn thing I try to point out. Yeah, I do hate to sound harsh, but this kind of thing has happened to me more times than I can count, or care to try to estimate, even. Sad but true.

Let me say this before I leave, however: what are some of Rand Paul's left wing views, besides his opposition to police-state tactics and the Drug War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #171)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:51 PM

172. Based on what I've said here? What was that? I've only posted twice

in this thread

Other than what you've mentioned, I can't think of any left-wing positions Rand Paul holds. Perhaps some foreign policy overlap with some on the left. But nobody is going to call him a left-winger. Why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #172)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:07 PM

175. To clarify, I meant just your reply to my post.

 


Other than what you've mentioned, I can't think of any left-wing positions Rand Paul holds. Perhaps some foreign policy overlap with some on the left. But nobody is going to call him a left-winger. Why do you ask?


It was kind of a rhetorical question more than anything, TBH. And I said this because, using that same logic utilized by Katznelson & Coates, Rand Paul would also be considered "progressive", based merely on his statements regarding the Drug War, police-state tactics, etc.; but the problem is, that same logic ignores the time-tested fact that politicos desperate for voters will latch on whatever they feel will get them sympathy, or respect, etc.; this was as true for Tillman, Bilbo, and Wallace in the last century, as it is for Rand & Ron Paul today.

Some articles on the Pauls, btw, and their deception of otherwise informed liberals, may help shed light on the truth about the populist Dixiecrats as well:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/29/how-did-rand-paul-become-a-liberal-hero.html
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ron-paul-is-no-friend-to-progressives_b_1185055.html
http://peoplesworld.org/ron-paul-progressive/
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/27-1
http://peoplesworld.org/why-progressives-should-not-support-ron-paul/
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/27/ron-pauls-appalling-world-view/

BTW, I do humbly apologize, again, for any unnecessary harshness in my last reply. However, though, I do hope the info here provides some food for thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #175)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:33 PM

178. The Rand Paul analogy isn't really a very good one, Joe

The Pauls, as you've pointed out, have played up a few (not insignificant) points of overlap with progressives in order to appeal to disaffected people on the left, even though the overwhelming majority of their positions are extremely right wing. If anyone were to ask what Rand Paul's extreme right wing positions are, it would not be difficult to make a list.

The same is not true of Bilbo. Paul opposes any initiative of Obama's and opposes liberal positions and policy as a matter of course. Bilbo, on the other hand, was an ardent supporter of the New Deal. As governor, he pushed for public schools and public hospitals, oversight on the banking industry, and so on. Bilbo's involvement in the 1928 presidential election provides perhaps a better anecdote to illustrate the author's point about the relationship between his liberalism and his racism: he helped liberal democrat Al Smith take Mississippi in that election. He did so by spreading unfounded rumors of Hoover dancing with an African American woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #178)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 08:24 PM

182. You have to realize, however, more than anything.....

 

That this was the Progressive Era. Bilbo *needed* to build a good image for himself, and he acquiesced to certain policies at points to achieve that goal(and, admittedly, he was rather skilled at doing so). But he was never a genuine progressive, or a liberal, period, no matter what things may seem on their face.

. The Rand Paul analogy isn't really a very good one, Joe


On the contrary, it was a rather fit analogy. Only one real basic difference between the Pauls and Bilbo, in fact: Bilbo was a significantly slicker operator than even Ron Paul, let alone Rand. And also, Rand Paul, at least, seems to be rather outright about his contempt of (most of) progressive ideology.....but you know what? He can afford to do so. Bilbo could not; had he done so, it could have significantly harmed his status with many of the more moderate Mississippians(whom were often, unfortunately, either in the dark about the true extent of his bigotry, or even willing to overlook it), even if his hardcore conservative base would have still have stuck with him to the end(and they would have).

Hell, I'll even go the extra mile and say that it's (theoretically) possible that perhaps he may have come to believe some of his own cock-and-bull; in fact, this may have been true for several of the later Dixiecrats as well(like John Stennis, for example). But even if he did, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. For example, many hardcore right-wingers today do genuinely believe that they're patriots, and that they are the "true Americans". Doesn't make it so, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #182)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:01 PM

185. Then it shouldn't be difficult to answer my earlier question: what are some of his right-wing

positions, aside from his reprehensible views on race?

Your assertion is that he played up and/or faked liberal credentials in order to presumably advance his true agenda which was right wing. So what are some elements of that right-wing agenda? What are some of his accomplishments in that regard? He's not like Rand Paul. Rand Paul doesn't support the president's agenda in its entirety. Rand Paul doesn't stump for liberal candidates. Rand Paul doesn't spearhead liberal initiatives. Bilbo did those things.

I'm not aware of a lot of right wing positions Bilbo held, other than his racism.



And also, Rand Paul, at least, seems to be rather outright about his contempt of (most of) progressive ideology.....but you know what? He can afford to do so. Bilbo could not; had he done so, it could have significantly harmed his status with many of the more moderate Mississippians(whom were often, unfortunately, either in the dark about the true extent of his bigotry, or even willing to overlook it), even if his hardcore conservative base would have still have stuck with him to the end(and they would have).


You seem to suggest that Mississippi voters in the years between the world war were willing to overlook something like Bilbo's racism because of his progressive politics. I think that's rather specious. The majority of the electorate in Mississippi in the 1920s was not progressive on racial issues. I also doubt that Bilbo's bigotry was unknown to most voters. He campaigned on it. Here's an example:

http://mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf

In 1927, Bilbo mounted the first of many political comebacks when he ran for a second term as governor. During the campaign the incumbent governor, Dennis Murphree, called out the National Guard to prevent the lynching of a black man. Bilbo used the incident to his advantage, hinting that he would have acted differently had he been in office. This racebaiting tactic helped Bilbo become the first Mississippian to serve two terms as governor since 1890.


Still, if you have some evidence that he hoodwinked the public about his bigotry, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #185)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:18 PM

190. *Sigh*. You just don't get it.

 

Bilbo did those things.


Out of a strong desire to keep a good public image; Bilbo was a slick operator, and skilled at manipulating and deceiving the public; he knew how to play people, just like Ronald Reagan 60 years later. And in that era, he had to.

The majority of the electorate in Mississippi in the 1920s was not progressive on racial issues. I also doubt that Bilbo's bigotry was unknown to most voters.....Still, if you have some evidence that he hoodwinked the public about his bigotry,


Didn't say or imply either. Come on now, What I said was, many more moderate voters(hint) probably did not know the extent(that is NOT the same as saying it was totally unknown, mind you!), or simply overlooked it because they didn't care. I do realize I may have worded a few things poorly, but it doesn't really change the truth of what I've pointed out.....nor does it excuse you from missing the point, either.



In 1927, Bilbo mounted the first of many political comebacks when he ran for a second term as governor. During the campaign the incumbent governor, Dennis Murphree, called out the National Guard to prevent the lynching of a black man. Bilbo used the incident to his advantage, hinting that he would have acted differently had he been in office. This racebaiting tactic helped Bilbo become the first Mississippian to serve two terms as governor since 1890.


And see? That right there proves what he was really all about. His real base was the reactionary far-right all along, his (common) pandering to the middle notwithstanding.

Whatever reasons you may have for believing that Bilbo was a genuine liberal, whether it was out of a knee-jerk defense of the authors of the article of the OP, or some rather poor misguided (if perhaps well-meaning) understanding of history, or both.....well, you are definitely dead wrong, sad to say. Posturing and pandering does not liberalism make. Because if Ted Bilbo is a progressive, then according to that very same Coatesian logic, our current President must be a corporatist neo-con because he gave in to Wall Street on a few things, and that he's allowed for the occasional tax cuts, etc. But Barack Obama is not a conservative. And Ted Bilbo was not a progressive.....

And in fact, I hate to say this, but this whole theory of theirs frankly smacks of conservative "blackwashing", if you know what I mean: after all, many a conservative pundit for years, and years, has bloviated about how progressives and ALL Democrats were, and are the real racists(when in fact, genuine progressives have always been more liberal than the public at large, including on race, and only Southern Dixiecrats had an overall problem with hardcore racism), etc.

And, especially being a student of actual history, it bothers me that a few on the left are actually buying into this bullshit just because it was promoted by a (African-American) journalist with liberal credentials. And frankly, I suspect that people wouldn't be nearly as accepting of this if it'd come from Matt Drudge or whoever runs the Breitbart site now.....









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #190)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:22 AM

197. I get the concept, Joe ... I'm just asking for a single shred of evidence

which you seem either unwilling or unable to produce. Why is that? What is the evidence that the clearly liberal initiatives he enacted/supported and candidates he stumped for were really the opposite of what he believed in? What is the evidence that the guy was an extreme right-winger, other than his deplorable views on race? Bilbo was a horrible and notorious bigot--but in the southern (and especially Mississippi) politics of the 1920s, that didn't really set him apart from the body of politicians associated with the progressive movement.


Out of a strong desire to keep a good public image; Bilbo was a slick operator, and skilled at manipulating and deceiving the public; he knew how to play people, just like Ronald Reagan 60 years later. And in that era, he had to.


So to what end was he doing this? What was his purpose? To pass a bunch of economically conservative legislation that he never got around to?


What I said was, many more moderate voters(hint) probably did not know the extent(that is NOT the same as saying it was totally unknown, mind you!), or simply overlooked it because they didn't care.


Okay ... any evidence to this? Again--his bigotry was way out in the open (and was at the core of campaign issues). If moderates weren't aware of the extent of it, they must have been pretty ill-informed. As to being willing to overlook it--there I'm sure you're right, since the bulk of the electorate in 1920s Mississippi would have had pretty similar views (different in degree, perhaps, but hardly in kind).


Whatever reasons you may have for believing that Bilbo was a genuine liberal, whether it was out of a knee-jerk defense of the authors of the article of the OP, or some rather poor misguided (if perhaps well-meaning) understanding of history, or both


It's pretty clear that Bilbo was, by the standards of his historical context, Bilbo was considered a liberal. His extreme bigotry disqualifies him by our standards today, but for voters in the south in first half of the 20th century, there was nothing incompatible with racism and economic progressivism. (Hell, his bigotry fit right in with the Mississippi progressive movement--see James Vardaman, for example.) Progressives in the north were less likely to be as overtly racist, to be sure, but they were still--for a long time at least--willing to look the other way and/or accommodate the racist proclivities of their political allies in the south. I've offered some evidence of how he fit the bill for his time and place. The authors mentioned in the OP offered evidence. You haven't offered any, but still manage to claim the rest of us are just knee-jerking or don't think critically or don't understand history. Sure, Joe. Whatever.

What you still haven't done is *answered the fairly simple question that I asked in the first place.* At some point, it becomes hard (patient and willing to give the benefit of the doubt though I am) that the real reason you won't is because you can't.

Your analogy to Barack Obama doesn't make any more sense than your comparison to Rand Paul (who, unlike Bilbo, was not considered a liberal by his contemporaries, will not be considered a liberal by historians, has never claimed to be a liberal, has never campaigned as a liberal, has never stumped for liberal candidates or causes, and so on).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #197)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:34 AM

204. I can only speak for family experience

Black men in the South that COULD vote - who lived in places where they could because no one dared tried to stop them -for example - my paternal Grandfather (born at the turn of the last century) . . .

Were staunch Republicans for a reason.

He detested the Democratic Party and knew they were out to get him. We still have some Harding memorabilia floating around in the old house in Alabama that my second oldest Aunt lives in today.

Black folks back then knew the Dems hated their guts. To not point that out - the descendents of these folks who know this about our FAMILY members - family members who bounced us on their knee and let us drive their old trucks on the farm -

Is to deny the history of the Democratic Party.

It's what make us unique. If we could transform affluent blacks that weren't being disenfranchised - then we can transform other groups.

And if you were the child/grandchildren of slaves that were defiant and snubbed their noses at TBT and got ahead - you knew where you got your bread buttered 90/100 years ago.

Why can't we tell this truth. It's what makes the Democratic Party fantastic that we transform people by INCLUSION of how they have experienced America.


ETA - a little from Hardings wiki page - notice the anti-lynching support

Domestically, Harding signed the first federal child welfare program, and dealt with striking mining and railroad workers in part by supporting an 8-hour work day. He created the Bureau of the Budget to prepare the first United States federal budget. Harding advocated an anti-lynching bill to curb violence against African Americans, but it failed to pass Congress. In foreign affairs, Harding spurned the League of Nations and negotiated peace treaties with Germany and Austria. His greatest foreign policy achievement came in the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-22, in which the world's major naval powers agreed on a naval limitations program that held sway for a decade.


And thanks for making such strong points on this sub thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #204)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 08:17 PM

215. Thanks for sharing that background

Why can't we tell this truth. It's what makes the Democratic Party fantastic that we transform people by INCLUSION of how they have experienced America.


You make a nice point about transformation and about inclusion. And, of course, that inclusion has transformed the party as well, so it works both ways.

Interesting about the anti-lynching law and Harding--I think the Republicans had it in their platform in 1920. The democrats, if I'm not mistaken, never added it. Even FDR didn't push for anti-lynching laws (though he did establish the Civil Rights Section in the Justice Department to try to fight the practice).


And thanks for making such strong points on this sub thread.

Thanks for the kind words, JustAnotherGen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #215)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:02 AM

216. Your welcome

I was truly blown away by your clear logic and explanation of Bilbo's ideology and political strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:33 AM

91. K and R, great post!

I am hoping I can do more than skim after work.

History isn't pretty and is often hard to confront ... but it is what it is. The more we can talk and think openly about it, the further we can move away from some of the shameful aspects of it. I think that is what is called progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:36 AM

92. K&R

Excellent article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:44 AM

101. Oh shit

I missed this one last night . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #101)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 09:46 AM

102. Good topic to explore right about now.

 

Maybe I'll find some more good stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:10 AM

108. Coates argument falls apart

because (as someone already pointed out) he is looking at it from a biased lens of modern day compared to the past where Eugenics was accepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #108)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:35 AM

112. No.

 

The Eugenics movement was never acceptable to me, since it used pseudoscience to show that Blacks weren't really humans to keep them subservient. It was self serving and racist and quite ignorant. I do not give anyone a pass just because it was long ago. I hope that the future people don't give us a pass either, because i want them disgusted at the ways in which we hurt each other.

You should not discuss race until you learn more about people. You think that Black fathers leave their families and that we Black women don't have sex education and have too many kids to take care of and that's why black people are poor. You never even factored in history of slavery, jim crow, and white supremacy or the targeting of black men by law enforcement when making your statement. You sound like a person who saw this stuff on TV and think you know us. My husband read your post and was furious. He wanted to sign up and tell you off but i would not let him.

And don't try to tell me you lived in South Central, because i did too. And Long Beach. And carson. And Watts. And SFV. I do not believe you at all because if you would have said this to the kids in Compton or SC they would have crucified you. I know because i still have friends and relatives living all throughout LA and i can tell you where every gang territory starts and ends. Those are my folks.
All my friends had fathers and the took care of their kids.
You generalized a whole race of americans like you were above them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:30 AM

123. The eugenics movement is not acceptable by anyone today and not acceptable

to me either. But you can't use modern bias to look into the past.

As for your second point you have less children then your relatives (according to you) and as a result you are in a better financial situation. The more children people have the less likely they are to have economic stability. That is why the major developed countries have less children on average per household than the least developed countries. You can also argue that is the side effect of capitalistic consumerism but that is a large topic to cover. Single fathers or single mothers have it harder because they have less economic resources to pool together to raise children. I explained why increasing educational opportunities and sexual education is important but you dismissed it outright.

As for your final point, you don't believe me because why? Yes it is possible to be white and to live in south central. It isn't hard concept to embrace. South central is actually far more diverse than Hollywood or Beverly Hills so you can continue to not believe me if you want.

As for your final point it is widely accepted in south central that a lack of central strong role models to look up to is a problem for a lot of children growing up there. Jim Brown has talked about this repeatedly and actively tries to help.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/gang-member-mentored-nfl-great-jim-brown-giving-back-hoops-article-1.972791



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #123)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:40 AM

125. No.

 

Just stop. You are making it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #125)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:44 AM

126. Is this the poster

That basically said we needed more birth control education in the black community? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #126)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:57 AM

129. Yes!!! Ahhhhhh!! Driving me bananas!

 

Thats him. He knows everything about us. See? I need never think for myself again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #129)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:05 PM

132. ahh! for my journal

Everything is illuminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #125)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:05 PM

222. Your opinions and feelings are just as valid

as mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #222)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:19 PM

223. Nope.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #223)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:39 AM

225. OMG.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:58 AM

130. I tried as hard as I could to make sense of your rambling post

And still couldn't figure it out. What connection your response has to do with the post it is supposedly responding to is a mystery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #130)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:05 PM

131. It refers to a post he made about black families.

 

He knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #130)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:16 PM

133. It's in reference to other stances the poster has taken in the past...

some of which aren't easily forgotten.

I agree with bravenak here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:12 AM

110. k&r for exposure...

 

You go girl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:47 AM

114. Kick...and I would alert on the alerter. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:48 AM

115. I wish i could.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #115)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:52 AM

117. Send an email directly to Skinner, or post in AtA. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #117)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:11 AM

118. Thanks.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:50 AM

116. Send an email of the jury results to the admins. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #116)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:12 AM

119. Thanks.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:17 AM

121. There IS racism in White Liberal America. Many people of color have experienced this

 

firsthand, even right here on DU. We will not be shut down and we will not be silenced about our experiences, either. Racism in liberal intelligentsia, in liberal life...this is nothing new! Indeed, it is scarier than conservative brand racism because white liberals tend to deny its existence and resist it's truth at all costs.

We must confront racism and all forms of isms within our ranks--not deny, not refute and not attack those who suffer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #121)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:19 AM

122. Go to AA.

 

You need to have a look. It was an illuminating experience. Check my journal. Worst day ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #122)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:51 AM

127. I think I read it. I haven't been on DU for awhile, but I do remember.

 

You are indeed brave and I commend you for continuing to speak out.

Since Obama beat Hillary fair and square the latent racism in the Democratic Party has manifested. It became so clear in 2007-08.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #127)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 11:57 AM

128. and it is flaming

Now that the chosen white candidate of 2008 is "inevitable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #121)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:24 PM

135. Not much, though.

 

"Many people of color have experienced this"

No, not many. I dunno where you're hearing this, but it's not accurate. I'm sure a few people have, and if you have experienced such yourself, I'm sorry you have and whoever did that to you was wrong. But liberal racism is definitely still quite rare. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #135)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:58 PM

143. How do you know this? You don't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 12:45 PM

138. interesting stuff. i bought two books for my kindle based on this thread.

the history of eugenics is interesting to me. Hitler got his eugenic ideas from the USA and progressives like Margaret Sanger, were for it but you have to keep that in the context of that time(to a point) as ugly as that is. anyway now i need to see if the author of this atlantic piece has books. I thought his reparation piece was really good. if only i could get off of DU and facebook to read. lol at any rate even though i find all this and your other posts interesting and NOT worthy of hiding (geesh) i have this feeling you are posting this because you think this piece gives background and might explain why you think white people of DU are so critical of Obama. anecdotally i know quite a few leftist none DU folks of all races who are highly critical of him as well so i don't believe it is only white folk, maybe on DU. i have lotsa of facebook friends who are leftist opinion writers for various periodicals and many discussions are had and people of all races join in with their criticisms..

anyway i wanted to let you know i enjoy your contributions even if i don't agree with you. your threads are always interesting! I really do believe all white folk have ingrained racism based on environment that always needs to be acknowledged and addressed whether we want to admit it or not, but criticism of a politician over policy is often just that, nothing nefarious!

anyway, keep on posting! i opted out of jury service for now while i am relatively new so i don't alert on threads OR put people on ignore but i doubt i would ever alert on you. i would disagree in a response perhaps but never alert!

on edit: let me add. the staunchist obama supporter facebook friends of mine are my gay friends, they are also major Hillary supporters, which i am not. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #138)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:29 PM

139. I am just trying to let people see the world through my eyes.

 

I have lived an interesting life and have lived in the gutter so i know and lived that life. Most people here have not and do not know how young black people see the current leaders and view the parties.
I feel like it is better to know what someone thinks so you can add your experience to theirs and come up,with a clearer picture of the nation we live in.

And i guess i am trying to give a warning of sorts and let people know what we see and what weakness the party has when it comes to race relations. There is an effort to win back young college students and the other side is pumping millions of dollars into black colleges to appeal to the next generation of voters and leaders and the UNCF is working with the republican party and receiving money from the Kochs To entice our young minority voters. We are doing nothing to maintain our grip on that demographic and the hispanic population is a bit disillusioned. If i don't tell you, you may never know what they are thinking because they are not here. And we do nothing to make this place more friendly to minorities and instead alert us and call us racists and write long threads with hundreds of these posters that are in the majority population calling a black woman terrible names and racist and anything they can think of for days. Even though i apologized for hurting her two days ago, in the same thread a couple of posts later, i am still getting alerted and nasty posts. If this is how hard it is tell how i see the world and try to engage with democrats, i think we will have more problems than we think. I am just about ready to pack it in and move on. If they want me gone so bad, i may as well go see if i am wanted elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #139)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 08:41 PM

183. I would rather you don't go.

We have lost many great AA posters here and I am sad about that already. I don't want to see any more pushed off the site. The best thing to do with certain posters like a couple of those above is to put them on ignore. They refuse to learn. They refuse to listen. They refuse to open their minds. It is truly their own loss. This has been the most interesting thread I have seen on DU in ages. I see great discussion happening instead of the usual sniping in this thread. So, you obviously know how to make a great OP that can cause discussion instead of the same old, same old. That, alone, is more reason to keep posting. Whether you know it or not, you are making a difference by posting your observations for everyone to read. Not all are going to be so stubborn and refuse to listen to you. I would rather you did not leave. I, for one, want you here. I'm sure many others do too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #183)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 08:56 PM

184. If i do i will make sure to do a GBCW for you and let you know where i go or get your facebooks.

 

I would pop back in to read you guys or do one post since i have met alot of very wonderful people who i want to stay in touch with so i'll hang in there and see if I can get a few to back off by actually using my ignore list. I'll try that first before i go running away. I do not feel like i was saying anything that was not common knowledge but i can see that i may have scared a few folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 02:53 PM

142. Yeh. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, was a racist who owned slaves.

George Washington was a racist who owned slaves. A whole bunch of the founders of this country were racists who owned slaves.

No question, this is fucked up, and they were really fucked up white people.

A whole lot of Democratic Presidents sanctioned the massacre, displacement, poisoning, and starvation of the indigenous population of this country. Yep, they were totally fucked up racists too.

White people, particularly white men, have done some seriously fucked up shit in this country, no doubt about it.

This does not mean that I should hate my white liberal Democratic friends. This does not mean that they bear the guilt of their ancestors. This does not mean that they are racists.

I'm a dark skinned LGBT woman, college educated, and with a fair amount of life experience, in the US, and the Third World, and I seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding the the basic point of what you have been trying to get across with all your posts this past week.

So can you, please, explain,, clearly, in thirty words or less the basic bare bones point you are trying to make with all of your posts about white people?

Because what I'm taking away from your posts is that every white person who criticizes President Obama, including even hard core liberal white Democratic supporters of civil rights and equal rights, who you seem to be specifically targeting, particularly the elderly ones, is criticizing the President simply because of the fact that they are racist.

So again, with all due respect, if this is not the idea that you are trying to get across to us here, could you, please, clearly and simply, in thirty words or less, tell me what your point is?

I have to leave for several hours, but I will be looking forward to reading your explanation when I get back, should you choose to respond, because I have spent a great deal of time trying to accurately ascertain exactly what it is you have been trying to express, and have not yet been able to figure it out to my satisfaction.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #142)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:24 PM

150. You have gotten the wrong message.

 

My point was that as demographics shift the country will get more and more liberal. With the way conservatives have alienated minorities, lgbt, and women, we are accumulating more voters everyday.

The rest was that this place does not have a strong presence of many of the groups that make up the presidents strongest supporters, youths, minorities, who strongly support him. That is why it seems like there is such a lack of support since in realty most of the party as a whole supports him.


And I said that in our country, the people trying to take our rights are mostly old, white men, who lean conservative. The only person i mentioned by name was Bart Stupak. That makes me a horrible person and i have oppressed everyone in the world. I apologized for hurting madflos feelings even though i never heard of her until she came to tell me angrily that she alerted my post and it passed the jury and they agreed with me. In response to my apology she posted her thread about me and now i get many angry messages calling me a racist and an ageist. That is all. It cannot be said in thirty words because it really. Nothing. Thats it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #150)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 07:49 PM

180. Thanks.

"My point was that as demographics shift the country will get more and more liberal. With the way conservatives have alienated minorities, lgbt, and women, we are accumulating more voters everyday."

I could not agree more.

"The rest was that this place does not have a strong presence of many of the groups that make up the presidents strongest supporters, youths, minorities, who strongly support him. That is why it seems like there is such a lack of support since in realty most of the party as a whole supports him."

Here's the thing: A lot of the older people here are yellowdog Democrats. That means that they have voted for no one else but Democrats for their entire lives. Many of us have voted for Democrats in every election for 30, 40, 50 years or more. Most of we older people have been politically aware and active all that time, and have seen a lot of shit go down. We don't generally trust politicians of any stripe, but we always vote for Democrats because we understand that even the worst Democrat is better than the best republican. We all voted for Obama twice. If he could run and ran against a republican again, we would vote for him again. But we are not thrilled with him. He's much better than any republican would be. We are not in love with personalities. We are in love with the good things they do when they do them. Obama has done some good things. Yay. He's also done some questionable things. Boo. But we don't love him beyond question, and don't believe that he can never make a mistake, ever. We criticize him, legitimately, when he does republican type shit. That's healthy in a democracy. It's good. The last thing we in this country is a bunch of dumbass sheep of stupid blindly accepting everything any leader says and does without question.

The point is, we may not adore Obama like so many do. We'll criticize him mercilessly if we think he fucked up. But when crunch time comes, and he's faced with serious shit from republicans, we will be there, just like we have for every Democrat for the past 30, 40, 50 years.


And I said that in our country, the people trying to take our rights are mostly old, white men, who lean conservative.

I dunno. It appeared to me you just painted all older white men as the problem, and appeared to be specifically targeting older white male liberals specifically a few times. That's what got people a bunch of people all pissed off at you. If a whole bunch of people here get pissed off at you for something, my unsolicited advice is to try to figure out why.

"In response to my apology she posted her thread about me and now i get many angry messages calling me a racist and an ageist."

You've been here less than a year and a half. Madfloridian has been a very respected member of this community for 12 years. I assure you, if she took offense at what you posted, and a whole bunch of other long time members took offense at what you posted, then you definitely came off way wrong to a lot of people.

Thank you for responding to my post, and I'm happy to know that you don't believe that every white liberal Democratic male who criticizes Obama is a racist.

Best wishes to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #142)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 06:56 PM

173. Hi Zorra.

 

BTW:
So can you, please, explain,, clearly, in thirty words or less the basic bare bones point you are trying to make with all of your posts about white people?


Indeed, that's what I'd like to know as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #173)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:03 PM

188. There is no explanation you would willingly understand.

Sorry, but you present yourself as an authority where you are not, and are oblivious to those that know more information than you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 03:23 PM

149. K&R Thanks for posting this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:12 PM

189. Yeah. Coates's writings over the past two years have been amazing

Building up, of course, to his recent argument for reparations. It makes me like the label "progressive" less...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 12:54 PM

209. WATCH HERE: White, black, red, brown, yellow, and *other* liberals march with Rev. Jesse Jackson,

Last edited Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

and black labor leaders and activists, against the common enemy of every person, of every race, on this planet.

Watch us march for equality and justice, sing "We Shall Overcome". Watch the whole video. Listen to what Rev Jackson, who worked right along with Rev. Dr. King has to say, to the awesome "hated white liberals" among us.



I was right there, when Rev. Jackson visited our camp on the sidewalk, the night before, and spoke to us, and hugged us, and told us not to ever give up. None of us radical liberals were black, or white, or red, or brown, or yellow, or male, or female, or gay, transgender, or straight, or old, or young,

We were just people. Equals. Just people. Sisters and brothers, equal in one human family, united with one purpose: To free our planet from the corporate greed and the corporate control that causes injustice and inequality.

Fuck all Third Wayers and Republicans, and religious bigots, fuck their lying, duplicitous bullshit, and fuck all their phony ass hypocrite free market greed loving planet destroying corporate bullshit that is the real reason behind almost all the injustice, inequality, bigotry and hatred in our world today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #209)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 04:59 PM

212. What a great post!

That could be an OP itself, Zorra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #212)

Wed Jun 11, 2014, 05:05 PM

214. I'm very glad you think so, Waiting For Everyman, thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #209)

Thu Jun 12, 2014, 08:22 AM

217. Outstanding post...recommending people read it..thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:45 AM

226. Some progressives remind me of Janet Parshall

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #226)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:00 AM

227. She was terrible.

 

I hate her and i don't even know her. Fingers in the ears? Omg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #226)

Fri Jun 13, 2014, 05:15 PM

228. Of course they save the in house shill for the last word ...

knowing full well how Randi will react to Jane's 'serious people' bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread