So today’s little furor is some ass at a Romney rally who worked his way around, right in front of the press, and showed off a pretty obviously racist shirt. Now, as Stacy McCain has pointed out, there’s good reason to think the was a troll, a false-flag operation. We’ve been seeing them, organized and disorganized, since the first Tea Party demonstrations — remember “Crash the Tea Party“?
But you know what? Forget that. I’m tired of idiots trying to make one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally the issue. You want to talk racism? Well, let’s talk about this:
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn’t join the Republican Party – most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a “house nigger”.
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion.
It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.
So when the Democrats stop having Andrew Jackson dinners, and take Wilson’s name off the bridge in DC, and start taking Grand Kleagle Byrd’s name off of the hundred things named after him, then we can talk about one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally.
Well said, Charlie! You might add to your rant that it was democrats who destroyed the once-intact, church-going, economically-striving, independent black family by imposing their all-consuming welfare state. But by pointing that out, you must be a racist.
For generations of slavery and repression, it was the black churches and black families that held them together.
LBJ’s (a Democrat) so-called “War on Poverty” did more damage to the black family than the KKK could’ve ever dreamed of achieving.
The Democrat Party, celebrating 150 yars of apartheid.
Most excellent rant! 5 stars!
IT WAS WOODROW WILSON WHO SHOWED THE RACIST “BIRTH OF A NATION” IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
FYI: “Birth of a Nation” was originally called “The Clansman”.
AMERICANS DIED
OBAMA APOLOGIZED
AMERICANS DIED, OBAMA APOLOGIZED
Mike – It’s Americans died, Obama fundraised.
Random -
True. But I was going for ‘rhyme’.
Another rhyme — ‘Americans died, Rice lied’– too obscure
Obama lied, people really died. There you go.
Oh, I’d be disappointed if people neglected Jackson. Great man, despite some very large flaws, flaws pointed out at the time.
If you are someone who believes both in a national government and that that government needs to be watched for abuses of power and cronyism, Andrew Jackson is your man. Warts and all.
Just like Jefferson is your man if you truly want the people to be the ultimate arbiters. Warts and all.
Of course, it is in the usage of the efforts of others to enable lifestyles of prosperity when individual effort would not allow that lifestyle that the modern Democratic Party resembles the slave-owning proclivities of Jefferson and Jackson.
And it was the Democratic Party that passed gun control laws to prevent Blacks in the South from defending themselves against the Klan, to prevent immigrants in the North from defending themselves against the state sponsored mobs, and to prevent honest citizens today from defending themselves against the criminal element that the Democratic Party protects.
It was also Democrats that passed Davis-Bacon to deny blacks jobs. It was, and still is, Democrats who promote eugenics through Planned Parenthood at the cost of millions of lost black babies.
That was one of the most brilliant things I’ve ever read.
Oh, lest we forget, it was Democratic governments and juries that refused to indict and/or convict those who beat up black folk expressing political opinions–folk such as Mr. Kenney Gladney.
And I will note that you can have videos of said beatings, and the greatest scepticism will be displayed by our “betters” in the MSM and the liberal blogosphere that is the new MSM training ground–”oh, there must be something we don’t know; this can’t be the entire story”; whereas one guy in a T-shirt with no name naturally is indicative and is the true face of those they oppose.
There are phrases for people who do this–intellectual frauds. Poseurs. Hacks. Ones who are still immature college students who never grew up.
At least, so I think as I “peck” away. Like a bird.
Or one Democrat proclaiming they heard the “n-word” while conducting a triumph for Obamacare and never able to produce ANY evidence, despite 6-figure rewards for same.
What exactly is a Democrat jury? And by “Democrat governments” in your example, do you mean Democrat judges? Prosecutors?
I can’t say I’ve been on a jury, but I’ve been excused from pools several times. But never was I instructed that the jury I might serve would be identifed with one party or another.
How does that work, Anon?
Gotta confess, as soon as I saw the words “Democrat juries” I saw red and launched my ill-considered reply.
So are you, Anon, asserting that there are lawyers who will intentionally assemble juries with Democrat majorities to achieve favorable outcomes? That’s a serious charge. All the more reason to limit peremptory challenges, eliminate many excusals from jury duty, and pay jurors what they are worth.
Naaah, not enough opportunity for graft.
Reasonable questions. What Anon was referring to is the fact
that for many decades the south were one party states. The
voter pool,and hence the jury pool was over 90% Democrat.
In places it could approach 100%. Thus, if you had a jury, it
was a Democrat jury. No conniving needed,
It was the Democrats in the 1930s that passed draconian drug laws on the premise of preventing people of color from despoiling white women. These are still having devastating effects on minority and poor communities across our nation.
Because it is Sunday, “Amen, brother, amen!”
I’m sure the length of this list could triple if we assembled all of the filth heaped upon Alan West and Herman Cain just over the past two years.
It should also be mentioned that the midwest supported the clan in 20th century, as well as the south, and north.
Remember who won the 1968 democratic presidential primary in Michigan?
@13- Democrat support in the Midwest is strong to this day. When the ‘by any means necessary’ attitude is considered legit, anonymous, militant factions of political parties make the headlines. Being anonymous, they let the credit for their ghastly deeds fall where it will. A friendly Press helps to direct this credit to their best advantage.
Read the book Bloody Williamson. There is no better history of the institutionalization of hatred for profit (whether monetary or political) than this one. This book is reqired reading for anyone who is interested in why the Ku Klux Klan even existed at all outside the Solid South. Unfortunately, it is also the story of Illinois. Chicago is in Illinois, and the histories of the state and the tumor that corrupts its life are inseperable.
Lincoln to obama. God have mercy on our souls.
Charlie, YOu’ve hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
You nailed it Charlie. I’m the son, grandson and great-grandson of Republicans who lived through the Depression and WW2. Their memories reached back to Wilson, Hoover, and of course Roosevelt. I attended a Goldwater rally when I was 10 years old. I never swallowed the line that Republicans are the racists in this country and I never believed it. I’ve seen this all my life. I live in a Democrat dominated county in Texas – one of the few – and I refuse to vote for even the constable if he has a D before his name. Anyone who is a member of the Democrat party and stands for those values will never get my vote.
So is it Cameron or Hidalgo county? For those not in the know, the democrats are so entrenched in these counties that their billboards address no issues and merely say “Jale la Palanca”, which means pull the lever, vote straight ticket.
And don’t forget Franklin Roosevelt, who refused to support anti-lynching legislation.
You neglected a HUGE one. It was FDR and Gov. Earl Warren who imprisoned over 100,000 Japnese-American citizens because they doubted their patriotism.
They were not “imprisoned” (with an exception) but forcibly excluded from areas around sensitive military installations primarily on the west coast. Since many had no where else to go or refused to leave in the first place, they were provided with a admittedly minimal but adequate place to live elsewhere during the war. The real injustice was that after the war was over they could not get their own property back.
Those who were actually imprisoned were young men who were Japanese nationals who refused to swear an oath that they would not work against the U.S. In fact, many of them expressed a desire to return to Japan so they could fight for the Emperor. To not hold them for the duration would have been insanity. Meanwhile, compare their experience to that of civilians trapped in areas conquered by the Japanese.
Finally. millions of peaceful American men were forced into military service and sent overseas, many to never return and many of those who did return came back with physical or mental disabilities. Seems to me the Japanese in the U.S. suffered very little by comparison.
‘Admittedly minimal, but adequate’. I love it. Kolyma, anyone?
Are you seriously going to equate the internment of the Japanese with the treatment of people held in the Soviet Gulag, of which Kolyma is one of the most notorious regions?
If so, let me ask you how many Japanese-Americans died (other than of natural causes) in internment? And how many Soviet citizens died in the Gulag or even just Kolyma?
Stalin’s henchmen killed MILLIONS of people in the Gulag. I have never heard of even ONE unnatural death in the Japanese internment camps in the US. (I say unnatural death because surely some people did die in internment of pre-existing medical conditions like heart conditions or the like. This happened in the Gulag too, just as it would in any group of people.)
To suggest the two situations are the same is to take moral equivalency completely beyond the bounds of sanity.
You know, I go to the Denver Buddhist Temple, a Japanese Shin temple that dates from the 20′s. A whole lot of the people there are in Colorado because they were interned in Colorado after their property was taken from them in California; they were shipped out here and put in camps with barbed wire and guards. Tell them they weren’t “imprisoned”.
Yeah….whole families were removed from their homes, the property confiscated without anyone being so much as charged with a crime. They were transported hundreds of miles and forced to live in camps surrounded by barbed wire topped fences that were patrolled by armed guards. But they were not imprisoned???
Good by comparison> So getting hit in the face 2 times with a pipe is a good thing because in comparison someone was hit 4 times? I’m not seeing the logic in that. Japan was evil for what it did to prisoners, but we are good if we only do it a little bit?
So lets see…..their land, homes, property and possessions are confiscated without due process or any compensation because of their ethnicity after having suffered racist treatment for years – and some of them expressed a desire to leave the US? Well knock me over with a feaher.
A good friend of mine was forced into those camps with the rest of his family. He was 2 years old at the time. He must’ve been a particularily subversive 2 year old.
In addition, draft aged young men of Japanese ancestry were drafted into the military while their families were interred. Like many groups with something to prove, they served with distinction. The mostly Japanese-American 442nd was the highest decorated unit in the war and that’s from a time when medals were a lot harder to earn. Those proficient in the Japanese language also served in the Pacific interrogating prisoners and translating captured documents. McArthur credited their services with a significant shortening of the war.
A little history lesson. After the Gentleman’s Agreement between the US and Japan and the Immigration Law of 1921(?), it became almost impossible for a Japanese to immigrate to the US, or become a citizen. Those Japanese-Americans you often hear people talking about were the minor children of enemy aliens. The US was stunned by the attack at Pearl Harbor. We had underestimated the ability and daring of the Japanese, and we didn’t know where they were going to strike next. Many of these “Japanese-Americans” had been educated in Japan. Some even stayed in Japan and served in the Japanese military. We have the advantage of 70 years of hindsight. We had no way of knowing how trustworthy those “Japanese-American” citizens were. Indeed their were patriotic societies in some of those camps that took them over, and preached loyalty to the emperor. Many of the “Japanese-Americans” saw these camps as a way of “hedging their bets” if their was a Japanese victory. In any case all those people who scream about anti-Asian prejudice have never explained why the large Chinese and Fillipino populations on the west coast weren’t moved. In addition the 442th was mostly raised from Hawaiians of Japanese descent.
Sure, Mike. Now tell us about the Americans of German and italian descent being interned.
No, they were not drafted. They were volunteers to a man.
Which makes their service all the more remarkable.
“Go for Broke” is still one of my all time favorite WWII movies. The fact that these guys volunteered (over 10K in Hawaii alone), and were among the most decorated units in the entire war just speaks volumes about their character. I am kind of surprised there has never been a remake of sorts of the story of the 442nd, but who am I kidding? The lefties in Hollywood would never make it because it would make FDR look bad, and smart people might just notice that coincidentally the executive order was 1066, very similar to Order 66 from Star Wars (the order that the Emperor gives to exterminate the Jedi, who were partially based on Samurai). That might make the left uncomfortable, poor dearies.
Take a look at this:
http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=8532
I don’t see any sensitive military installations in this retail neighborhood. Gee, I wonder why he made that sign?
English is a very rich and complex language when you wish to play “semantics”. Unlike some languages, we often have simple words to describe complex ideas. For example;
does not know;
does not remember what he has been taught;
continues to believe things which have been proven to be false.
We shorten these to ‘ignorant’,'stupid’, and ‘idiot’.
You sir, are an ignorant stupid idiot. ( I give you ‘ignorant’ as a gift, since you seem to know something, and you may just be very stupid, not totally ignorant).
The Supreme Court of the United States had this to say, in the Korematsu case (1944).
(From historymatters.gmu.edu)
One of the most important of the legal challenges to the internment policy was Korematsu v. United States, a case brought by Fred T. Korematsu, a Nisei (an American-born person whose parents were born in Japan). Korematsu had been arrested by the FBI for failing to report for relocation and was convicted in federal court in September 1942. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a sharply divided 6–3 decision, upheld Korematsu’s conviction in late 1944. The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, rejected the plaintiff’s discrimination argument and upheld the government’s right to relocate citizens in the face of wartime emergency.
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a “Military Area”, contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United States. . . .
It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can. . . .
Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1407 . . . issued after we were at war with Japan, declared that “the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities. . . .”
One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which like the exclusion order here was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” In Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act, [56 stat. 173, 18 U.S.C.A. §97 (a)], and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage. . . .
Here, as in the Hirabayashi case, we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety, which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.”
Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. . . .
We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.
********************
You will argue that the Japanese were not ‘imprisoned’. But to do so, you have to use the technical legal usage of that word, implying that since there was no ‘crime’ then it was not a prison. Wrong!. From the free dictionary: im·pris·oned, im·pris·on·ing, im·pris·ons To put in or as if in prison; confine. Adj. 1. imprisoned – being in captivity.
They were captives. And it was a separate crime to refuse to comply as Mr. Korematsu found out.
And there are *lots* of pictures available on the web, showing the nature of the ‘substitute accommodations’ which were given to those interned Japanese. Your refusal to acknowledge the truth of these aspects proves that you are an idiot.
Go crawl back under your rock.
Under Justice Black’s opinion, we could round up the muslims in this country and “relocate” them until this war being waged against us is over. Right?
So the all-time loser comes to apologize for FDR’s concentration camps…
“they were provided with a admittedly minimal but adequate place to live elsewhere”. I toured the site of one of those interment camps.
I disagree with you.
Compared to the living quarters of other Americans who were just coming out of the Depression? Not to mention that after 1943, any Japanese-American relocated could leave the camps after 1943. AND the relocation order only applied to Japanese-Americas living in the restricted zone; basically the western states and Arizona.
And go where? With what?
Forgive me if my memory is getting faulty, but wasn’t it also FDR who turned back that ship from Germany filled with “eastern Europeans”? (aka Jews)
You are correct.
The movie Voyage of the Damned, which I’ve never seen, apparently describes one of the last ships of Jewish refugees to leave Europe and shows how the US refused its passengers a refuge in America.
And don’t forget how HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” shows the 1920s KKK supporting a REPUBLICAN Senate candidate. It would be an obvious re-writing of history, if the viewer’s knew enough history to catch the absurdity of it.
Excellent post. I would add that it was Democrats who started the Civil War to maintain slavery, and it was Democrats who tried to have the United States lose the Civil War to the pro-slavery (and Democrat) Confederate States.
Charlie I really appreciate your recent posts. You know how to get a point across in a short amount of time yet somehow never seem to trivialize these weighty subjects. Color me subscribed.
Why thank you!
Now if you could just let your animosity to Christianity and Dave Swindle (I know he isn’t Christian and is a bit of an opinionated prude) go. Saying that, this was a great article.
I don’t have any animosity to Christianity. There are, admittedly, a number of supposed Christians who get on my remaining nerve.
Swindle’s problem is that he’s a kid who is still in the “I know *everything*” stage of development. I expect more maturity out of PJMedia than he delivers.
Nathan Bedford Forrest did not found the KKK, but he did dissolve its first embodiment in 1869 because of the violent turn it had taken. I commend to you Shelby Foote’s magnificent trilogy on the Civil War, which includes details of Forrest’s address to the “Jubilee of Pole Bearers” (an organization of former slaves) in 1875. See also his farewell address to his troops at the conclusion of the war. These are contemporaneous reflections of his true character.
What about the Battle of Fort Pillow? I suppose that was actually a pillow fight?
I very much enjoyed Foote’s account of the Civil War, but, he was no historian. There is not one reference listed in his series.
Forrest didn’t ‘dissolve’ anything, he simply quit in disgust. He created a monster he couldn’t control. Read. Read bitch!
The democrat party…is the party of:
1 – Slavery
2 – Sedition
3 – Segregation
4 – Sloth
5 – Socialism
…and now we must add…
6 – Stupidity
Well, they’ve always claimed to be the party of the common man…
But the ‘common American’ has not yet been properly defined. We’re different. Agree or not with this premise, but woe be unto you if you are wrong.
And it was Democrats that erected the larger-than-lifesize statue of Robert Byrd in the Capitol rotunda, Charleston, WV. It’s still there.
The argument coming back at you is that “Those Democrats are now Republicans”. Being a Democrat means never being wrong…ever.
You mean those Jefferson/Jackson dinners don’t honor George Jefferson and Jesse Jackson? I’m so disillusioned.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a complicated man. Do some research as Jack Okie recommends. He’s not just the villain of Fort Pillow as he is often depicted.
I had a direct relative on my Dad’s maternal side who rode with him and who died at the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads. I also have two ggguncles who were captured by him at Columbus, Kentucky. They were on my Dad’s paternal side. So, my ggrandfather captured my ggguncles. Complicated place that America post-bellum.
Coincidentally, my Dad was Aide-de-camp to General Nathan Bedford Forrest III, the first US general officer to be killed in WW2.
Are you all aware that Dr. Martin Luther King was a….Republican?
That picture could have been taken anywhere. It could be photo-shopped. If it is an authentic picture I am sure the person wearing the shirt was accompanied to the event by the photographer and directed where to stand. It’s obviously staged.
Give ‘em hell, Charlie! Righteous rant.
FDR sent that boat back.
As others have already noted, I too quibble over the inclusion of NBF. The KKK he led is not the KKK that came along later and appropriated the same name, and there is no evidence NBF as associated with the second incarnation of that name.
The first organization that bore that name were specifically intent on continuing the war in a guerilla fashion, while the second incarnation that came along later was specifically targeted against blacks. They were not, however, the same group anymore than the KKK idjits that wave the Confederate battle flag are Confederate soldiers.
As for the inference that NBF committed war crimes, elsewhere on this site is an article extolling the percieved greatness of Lincoln, who knowingly and deliberately waged a scorched earth policy against civilians that left untold numbers dead and a region cursed to abject poverty for generations – so spare us the affected outrage.
The point can be made that the Democrat party has a deep history of racism without insulting an entire region or its history – an odd tactic to take anyway considering just how profoundly that same region has consistently voted for Republicans over the past few decades and even now appears to be the most solidly behind the current Republican candidate for president.
Scott, honey, the Martin side of my family spent 200 years in Georgia, from the time Oglethorpe kicked them off the boat until they fled the Depression. Most of that time spent waiting for the trailer park to be invented. My great-grandfather, born in 1861, was named Jefferson Davis Martin. I lived in North Carolina for years. But it’s a really hard case to make that the South’s history viz a viz black people is overstated.
Bless your little heart.
Where did I “overstate” anything?
The point I made – which is an accurate point – is that the KKK that Nathan Bedford Forrest led is NOT the same KKK organization still running around today (and which currently has the strongest presence in a ‘northern’ state).
They were/are two completely different organizations – unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary.
God bless you for trying though….best for you to go hit the history books some more.
Where did I “overstate” anything?
You didn’t. You’re just suggesting I did.
I am going by memory but I think 90% of the lynchings in the old South were blacks. The vast majority of blacks lynched happened in the South. Outside the South, it was almost reversed, something like 3 1/2 whites for every black. Total lynchings I think were about 75% black.
Which disproves exactly what?
As noted above, I am simply pointing out that the KKK of NBF is NOT the KKK of today and the two entities, though going by the same name, are completely different when you look at the facts.
There’s a pretty good short story by Tom Wolfe (the first one) called “Child by Tiger.” It is the story of a black former Buffalo Soldier, Jim, I think, who takes a job as the handyman for a prominent white family in The South. He has quarters on their place and continues his military discipline and neatness and since he was very skillful in many things becomes something of a hero to all the small boys. Meanwhile, he has another side, and that side is having an affair with the wife of an often absent Pullman Porter. Pullman Porters were only below preachers and the very few professionals in the Black social order of Jim Crow days. The Porter comes home unexpectedly and finds the handyman and his wife in flagrante delicto. In the ensueing confrontation, Jim the handyman kills the Porter and flees. The Sheriff rounds up and deputizes a posse of men to pursue him and when they find him, he refused to surrender and shoots it out with the posse, which kills him. Even today, every action of that sheriff and posse would be perfectly legal. A law enforcement officer, including deputized civilians, can use deadly force against a fleeing felon. Anyone can return fire in self-defense if fired upon.
I was taking a college literature class a few years ago when we were assigned this story (I’d read it years before in high school.). When it comes time to discuss it, the professor hops up on his soapbox and delivers a fifteen minute rant about racism and lynching. Now I’m not going to deny that the Sheriff and that posse were probably white supremacists; if you drew breath in The South in the 19th and most of the 20th Centuries, you most probably were a white supremacist and the White Only and Colored Only signs seemed only natural; I know they did to me. I know everybody today was that one Southern liberal, but somebody had to put up the signs and be members of the Klan. My dad always said he didn’t know who was in the Klan but he knew who bought white shoes from his store.
The greatest sin in the study of history is presentism; applying today’s lens to yesterday’s facts. There were no standing police forces outside the biggest cities until the first quarter of the 20th Century and in much of rural America there isn’t even today. “The Law” in a Southern or Western county, and many counties are bigger than many eastern states, was ONE elected Sheriff. If the Sheriff needed help, he deputized some men from the community.
In The South then as now, most crime was committed by blacks and most of it was black on black. If the suspect was thought dangerous, the Sheriff would deputize some men to help him capture the suspect and if the suspect resisted he might well wind up dead. There was also a fair amount of the genuine article; the suspect was hunted down and killed whether he resisted or not, and sometimes he was killed gruesomely. If it was a black on white offense, it could take a particularly vicious turn. Sometimes the lynching was by a deputized posse, sometimes it really was by a mob. Good data is hard to find, but most “studies” I’ve seen don’t make any distinction other than regarding whether or not a person was killed subject to a court verdict. There were lynchings, no doubt about it and in not-inconsequential numbers, but urban observers accustomed to formal, uniformed police forces conflate the form of law enforcement that existed in all of rural America with some mob activity and many legitimate law enforcement acts go down as lynchings.
Didn’t the boat first go to Cuba where the American ambassador ordered the Cuban government to not give refuge to the ship. So in effect, FDR sent the ship back twice.
For those unfamiliar with what a Kleagle actuallu is, it is exactly the same as a Grand Dragon. Byrd was not merely a recruiter. He started up a chapter of the Klan and managed to make it a successful self-supporting organization. In return, he received a larger percentage of his chapter’s income than a Grand Dragon. It is a measure of his importance to the Klan that he was never made a Grand Dragon but was allowed to retain his Kleagle status.
How much lynchings, beatings, rapes, arsons, etc were the result of Byrd’s actions? Did he ever go to the FBI with names, dates, etc? Or was it just another case of “oops, my bad – but I have a D behind my name so its really OK”?
And after the civil war the party of slavery became the party of segregation. It wasn’t until the democrat party was infiltrated by commies that they abandoned segregation and then they became the party of affirmative action. The leopard never changes its spots.
Don’t forget:
It was Woodrow Wilson who screened “Birth of a Nation” at the White House.
Adlai Stevenson, the liberal idealist, was the last presidential candidate to put a segregationist on the ticket.
It was Obama who attended a church with a racist preacher.
It was a Democratic Supreme Court justice who said “wise Latina women” made the best decisions.
A couple more:
Carter Glass, a Democrat, created Virginia’s poll tax.
Margaret Sanger, founder of what’s now Planned Parenthood, was a leader in the modern eugenics movement.
I have found this to be handy:
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
Charlie – Any chance of vetting and adding LBJ’s comment on buying black votes for 300 years with Great Society programs? I’ll be reusing your list lots!
Yeah, I’ll dig it up. What I remember of the quote is “Them niggers will be votin’ for us for a hundred years” but I’m not much of a johnson fan.
The difference between the Democratic and Republican parties isn’t so much the answers they give; it’s the questions they ask.
The Democrats ask the question: Who is the government for?
The Republicans ask the question: What should the government do?
In other words, the Democrats are (and have always been) both the racist party and the anti-racist party. The Republicans are (and have always been) both the industrial-policy party and the laissez-faire party.
A century from now, if the U.S. and the Democratic Party are still in existence, the Democrats will have a list of favored groups. It is unlikely to be the current list.
“It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.”
If you’re referring to the Jeff Danziger cartoon of Rice rocking an aluminum tube, that was a riff on Butterfly McQueen’s Prissy character who didn’t know nothing ’bout birthin’ babies. Hattie McDaniel played Mammy.
Rats. Thanks.
Hear, hear! Great rant Charlie. Excellent.
Well, yeah, there’s all those facts and stuff, but the AP is the teacher of the low-information bunch, and they say:
“Martin Luther King Jr. fought Jim Crow laws, which deprived blacks of political rights after Reconstruction, upheld by Southern Democrats. But black voters switched after Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the 1960s civil rights legislation and Republicans successfully pursued the votes of white people who disliked the civil rights agenda.”
Yeah, I like that last part, too. So much for facts.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_BLACK_FAVORITISM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-13-14-08-26
Branding is everything in this envivonment. The ‘democrat’ brand is based on everything they themselves consider, or ‘deem’ to be the worst, most horrible, nature of political man. They simply project their intrinsic ‘values’ on their opponents, they’ll ostracize anyone who disagrees with them, using their own agenda, blamed on their opponent. When you catch them doing this, look up Stalin’s dizziness with success to see how they weasel out of it, in a totalitarian, mass media style.
We’ve been here before. None of this is new, anybody.
I meant to write that they blame their opponents for their failures, even when they have no real opponents. They are cowards, and it’s time to step ahead of them. Pls excuse the English.
It is clear that my ex-Party was founded by a racist. It first act was to kill 1/3 of the Indians on the forced march of the Trail of Tears, while dispossesing them of their land and possesions. Democrats fought a Civil War for Slavery. It founded the terrorist organization, the KKK. It created Segregation. It created the Jim Crow laws. Democrats created the Poll tax to deny the vote to Blacks. It created and fought for the legal fiction of Seperate but Unequal for 100 years.
In the 20th Century, Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the US Military, desegregated by Lincoln. He invited the KKK to march on the Mall whi9le President. FDR fought against anti-lynching laws. FDR imprisoned the Japanese on the West Coast in the equivalent of concentration camps. FDR denied refuge to Jews attempting to escape Hitler’s extermination camps,sending them to their deaths. Congressional Democrats filibustered civil rights laws for 100 years.
In the 1950s and 1960s the anti-Civil Rights laws were led by Orville Faubus 1956 VP candidate, William Fulbright mentor of Bill Clinton, Al Gore Senior, father of Al Gore, and William Byrd, Grand Kleagle of the KKK, and Senate Majority Leader. On the ground, Governor George Wallace and Sheriff Bull Connor, both Democrats, fought for segregation and Jim Crow laws.
The real modern racists were/are the Democrats who created the concept of Welfare. It promised a check to a Black mother, provided she threw her husband out of the house. It offered a check to his kids, if a Black father would only abandon his family.
They enlisted a couple of Race Traitors to sell the poison apples of AFDC checks to Blacks. The Mercedes Benz’s of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and and assorted other Black race traitors were paid for, by selling the concept of black family destroying AFDC checks. AFDC destroyed the Black family, unleashing lots of social pathologies that even Slavery couldn’t destroy.
Margaret Sanger’s racist Planned Parenthood kills 1.2 black infants every year, as they obtain half a billion dollars per year as a subsidy from the Democrats in government for killing black infants. Planned Parenthood was explicitely created to eliminate teh breeding of “undesireables” like Blacks.
Is it any wonder than Saint Martin Luther King was a Republican, till the day he was killed by a Democrat assasin?
“42. stas peterson
They enlisted a couple of Race Traitors to sell the poison apples of AFDC checks to Blacks. The Mercedes Benz’s of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and and assorted other Black race traitors were paid for, by selling the concept of black family destroying AFDC checks. AFDC destroyed the Black family, unleashing lots of social pathologies that even Slavery couldn’t destroy.”
As a black man, one fact has always intrigued me. Black politicians are some of the longest served and most senior members of Congress. Yet their districts contain almost no pork. Half the federal projects in the state of West Virginia are funded by – and named after – Robert Byrd. But black politician after black politician is caught lining his own pockets, but he never brings any of that “bacon” home to his constituents. Charlie Rangel has been in Congress how long. so long that I should’nt be able to walk through Harlem without tripping over a Federal office building. but there’s nothing there. It’s almost as if black politicos don’t want to bring businesses and employment home to their districts. Indeed as the fight over big box stores in NYC shows they will actively fight to keep employment out. It’s if they prefer to have a “captive audience”.
“Margaret Sanger’s racist Planned Parenthood kills 1.2 black infants every year….”
I think you’re missing a word in that sentence, a very critical word. I think the word is “million” as in “1.2 MILLION black infants every year.
I give this rant an A+
We can talk about street names and companies needing to change their names in cities with a German heritage during WWI.
And the thousands imprisoned under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
Not to mention (if someone else has not in the previous comments) the Eugenics craze, which supported the demise of “lesser” people.
The Democrats are the Jim Crow party, and should be referred to them that way.
Since the Civil War, the Jim Crow party supported segregation, and better treatment for whites, because they believe blacks are different, and inferior.
Since Affirmative Action, the Jim Crow folk support better treatment for blacks, because they believe blacks are different, and inferior.
The gov’t policy they support can be just as accurately named Affirmative Racism.
See how they’ve changed? Before they wanted worse treatment for the inferiors, now they want better treatment. The only treatment they’ve never wanted was equal treatment.
And, like all socialists, their various social group identities dominate individual identity. The Jim Crow party always wants people to be treated based on their group identity, while conservatives want people to be treated based on their individuality.
The racists are those who support Affirmative Racism. Their biggest PR victory has been successfully branding everybody against Aff Racism to be a racist.
The gov’t cannot end racism in the culture, only in the gov’t policy.
As long as there is Affirmative Racism in gov’t policy, there will certainly remain racism in the culture — which is really what the Jim Crow party wants.
Nobody who truly wants to end racism can honestly support racist policies like Affirmative Racism.
THIS, a million times. I knew most of the facts already (this would be a perfect time to recommend the BRILLIANT movie on race and politics, The Runaway Slave, http://www.runawayslavemovie.com), but I appreciate being reminded of our history of opposing racism and the Dems’ history of promoting it. We must continue to fight their newest and perhaps most pernicious form of racism, the concerted destruction of the black family through government dependency.
Y’know, for such a buncha racists, you sure do SOUND like you care about black people…
Nah!
Can’t be.
Leftists always say that can’t be so, ’cause you’re EVIL!
You don’t imagine that they lie, do you?
Nah!
Woodrow Wilson screened Birth of a Nation, a Klan glorifying film, at the White House.