An honest discussion about Racism?

I agree with Allen West. There is nothing radical here. There's no there, there. That last comment is exactly what I was talking about. In the video he talks about the destruction of the black family by the democrats. Kinda how democrats used to break up the families of the slaves.

 

Once again you are doing the sins of the fathers thing. Once again you are placing the blame for liberal and Southern democrat party racism at the feet of the modern republican party without a shred of evidence. And that article from the thinkprogress website is so convoluted that it is not worth going over point by point. Let me just say that Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Please include large quotes from articles like that in

otherwise it looks like something you've written or like you are plagiarizing someone else.

 

Nope. I stand against conservatism. I'm an independent. In case the Democratic Party ever changes into a conservative bunch, I'll have nothing to do with them. Right now the express liberal views which I agree with.

Oh Christ....you still don't get this do you? Liberal Republicans were for Civil Rights along with Liberal Democrats. There are no liberal Republicans today. There are only conservatives. Conservative Republicans did NOT vote for Civil Rights. Goldwater was a Conservative Republican and he opposed it. I don't give a crap about parties. You do. I only care about the philosophy or ideology that runs the party, and Conservatives run the Republicans and conservatives opposed civil rights. Do you get it yet? I've gone over this a thousand times with you now.

Conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically." More often conservatives argued on grounds of states' rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.

Buckley's editorial wasn't just an endorsement of white supremacy, it was an endorsement of vigilante violence, tacitly if not explicitly supported by local authorities, in pursuit of enforcing white supremacy. Elsewhere in the piece, Buckley writes, "sometimes the numerical minority [whites] cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence." As long as it's up to them.

Simple question you should be able to answer. Is the KKK Liberal? Or are they Conservative in their views? If the KKK was liberal, why would they kill three other liberals for registering blacks to vote? Would any KKK member vote for Obama? Why not? Aren't they Democrats? Your party argument is not what this is about. My claim is that Conservatism is racist. I don't care about the party. Conservative Democrats are just as racist as Conservative Republicans. There's no difference between a conservative Dem or Pub. Today the Democrats are all liberals and the Republicans are all Conservatives, so I won't have anything to do with them because of their conservative/racism.

I've given you an overwhelming mountain of evidence that you choose to willfully ignore to avoid the truth. Conservatism is a racist ideology. It always has been.

Goldwater's southern strategy outraged Rockefeller, the leader of the party's liberal faction. On July 14, 1963, he issued his "Bastille Day Declaration". In this statement Rockefeller accused the conservative movement of a transparent plan to erect political power on the outlawed and immoral basis of segregation and to transform the Republican Party into a sectional party of some of the people...A program based on racism or sectionalism would not only...defeat the Republican Party but destroy it altogether". When Rockefeller rose to speak to the convention he was booed and jeered at by the delegates for more than a half hour before he could begin to speak , and the convention decisively rejected a liberal civil rights plank, 877 to 409. That was "the great Republican revolution of 1964. It was complete. The parties once powerful liberal faction had been soundly defeated and the conservative movement had effectively taken control of the party. Although the movement would not consolidate its control until the nomination of Reagan in 1980, after 64, delegates to Republican conventions were basically the same as those who nominated Goldwater.

But so did Humphrey and he was the Democratic Nominee.

Racial prejudice and resentment against the Civil Rights revolution powerfully reinforced conservative ranks. When Nixon ran against Humphrey in 68, George Wallace ran as a third party candidate. Nixon won with 43.4% of the vote. Humphrey got 42.7%. And Wallace got 13.5%. Nixon knew that in the normal party system it was a landslide because the Wallace vote was a Nixon vote...NOT Humphrey. The Deep South was now a racist bloc, a racist but conservative bloc. White southerners are the most conservative part of the electorate, and Nixon knew it. It was important to Nixon to keep Wallace from running again. The attempted murder of Wallace took care of that.

Of course he won them. Wallace didn't run and McGovern was a raging anti-war liberal. The Conservative south would never vote for any liberal. They didn't vote for Humphrey either. I don't know what you think this proves, other then the conservatives hate liberals.

 

You are the one being thick. I never said that all democrats are racist, just that the party has an abysmal record of racism. Are you denying that? I have explained that I know they are parties. I know they are not ideologies. I also know that conservatism has nothing to do with racism. I also know that the democrat party has a history of racist policies. Now you are devolving into condescension and asinine questions again. Try and act like an adult.

No, I'm saying that they were racist democrats. I am saying that I have seen no evidence from you that they were conservatives. Your questions are becoming as redundant as they are irrelevant.

If Rick Perry supports secession (which I doubt), that does not mean republicans support secession. It is not in our platform and never will be. We are the party that saved the Union. Are you saying Lincoln would be for abortion on demand, gay marriage, and starting a government healthcare when we are $17 trillion dollars in debt? I doubt that very much. I would say that Lincoln would be much more conservative on those kind of issues than you think. The others were conservatives albeit moderates. You obviously are trying to associate with Lincoln and distance yourself Davis in the previous comment. I know that you are simply trying to hijack the republicans good record of race and claim it for the democrats but that is just pathetic.

I never said republicanism is a philosophy, you are the only one repeating the same crap over and over. It is becoming nauseating. Everything that you put into the above paragraph has no intellectual value for me to comment on. I just have to tell you that you don't know me so do not attempt to characterize my thought processes or how my mind works. You seem to be living under the false assumption that I won't delete you and your idiotic condescending tone..

What part of "after Thurmond was a Dixiecrat he went back to being a democrat" do you not understand?

Sure they do. This is the 1956 Democrat Platform under the Civil Rights:

The democrat party's idea of civil rights was segregation. And notice how they castigate the republicans for standing up for civil rights!!!

 

Pssst, considering the ratio mix of their bloodlines then Obama is a White African-American . . . and yet the leftwing media never 'accurately' portrays him along those lines. It was a blatant act of race-baiting on the part of the mainstream media and on the part of almost all leftwingers in this nation. Cool!

 

I am really tired of the whole Zimmerman thing. But lets face it, is was a nocturnal emission for all of the media, left, right and sideways.

Media on media reporting seems to be the wave of the future. Investigate if you dare, because armchair news execs are going to cherry pick or demonize anything you uncover.

Black or white is translated by most people as racial physical traits, and to a slightly lesser extent ethnic identity, but almost never as percentage of genetic makeup. So, Obama is black because he looks black. Hispanic racial physical traits are pretty close to caucasian, so ethnic identity plays a more important role.

I stopped watching the trial almost immediately so I have no idea how I would categorize Zimmerman. His general appearance could be white or hispanic.

The media is always going to play the race card because it stirs up peoples interest.

 

Well one thing is certainly clear from this thread an honest discusion of rascism is essentially impossible. The left simply will not allow it. It is now, according to them, racist to state the obvious fact that African-Americans are every bit as much a slave to the state as they ever were to a plantation owner. And the plantation owner was a lot easier to escape. The democrats though the function of the welfare state have stripped whole generations of African Americans of pride and dignity and any sense of self worth. They are now visiting the same devastating reality on increasing numbers of caucasians and the calalmity that it causes will be essentially identical in the long run. If we do not check the statist left we will eventually become little more than a collection of ever more Balkanized interest groups arguing over increasingly valueless state issued currency given in the main based upon political loyalties of this or that group.

 

Oh I agree with you but you have to admit that it makes a right dandy rhetorical bludgeon every time a leftwinger self-righteously mounts his or her high horse to flourish one of their patented race cards at the Right. In a classic example of irony, they hoisted themselves on their own petard after they lighted that particular race baiting fuse . . . and now they get to live with the consequences. One of which is that they have permanently lost the high ground in the race debate.

 

This is just ludicrous... so it's okay to be racist to white males because their women are getting some advantages too. Let's ignore the fact that black males and Hispanic males have white g/f's and wives as well.

Really? That's interesting.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/the-new-black-panther-party-evidence-on-voter-intimidation/
On the issue of poll watchers, one of the witnesses at the first hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Chris Hill, testified on that specific point and what happened when he got to the polling place. He was responding to a desperate phone call for help from one of the two black poll watchers who were stationed at the polling place:

HILL: [Shabazz] immediately started with ‘What are you doing here, Cracker?’ And he and Mr. Jackson attempted to close ranks. I went straight between them through the door to find our poll watcher, who was inside the building at the time…he was pretty shaken up…he was visibly upset.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm

There's the link to the record for that case. You can read it yourself. There's plenty more than just that one quote as well. Now I'll ask you again. Would that have been allowed if they were white KKK members?

If that kid is white then Obama is white. His parents are half black and he clearly identified as black given his twitter account his clothing, his choice of friends and the attitudes his friends took towards whites. So yes, that most absolutely should be considered a hate crime, without question.

No what I'm saying is that the requirement for evidence of a hate crime against a white person is far, far less than what is needed to convict a black person of a hate crime. If you put white people in the same context that black people were NOT convicted or even accused of a hate crime and the white people would be up **** creek without a paddle.

No. Double Jeopardy means you can't be tried for the same crime in the SAME COURT. If they put him up for Federal charges, they could have retried him.

Wow... now see if I said that about some black kids you would get your panties in a wad.

Of course not. If they have the money, they can purchasing housing anywhere in this country. It's not discrimination to tell someone they can't have a house if they can't afford it. Regardless... Why is it acceptable to discriminate against white people? We're not allowed to get help because our skin is the wrong color? Or we have to show much more evidence that we are actually disadvantaged whereas others just get by on the color of their skin? They could be FAR more advantaged than I am, but they get help with no questions asked.

So again... it's acceptable to discriminate against white guys because they have white wives... Ignoring the fact blacks or Hispanics may have white wives or g/f's. What about if the white male is single? It's perfectly fine to discriminate against them right?

No, I feel like either we all get our own little White/Black/Yellow/Brown Chamber of Commerce... or none of us do. Just like if we all had one and black people didn't, you'd be crying racism and want your Black Chamber of Commerce.

I beg to differ. Blacks commit crimes at a far higher rate than any other group... and it's not even close. Again... how is it discriminatory against blacks?

Really? What discrimination for years did a 23 year old farmer experience that he should receive this advantage for? Even if they DID experience discrimination for years, that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against white people who didn't do a damn thing to you.

See... if you folks want EQUALITY... fine and dandy. No problems, we'll work with you all day. If you expect us to become the oppressed and discriminated against group and just bend over and take it. You're going to be extremely disappointed once the rest of us wake up.

 

I know the difference between ideology and political parties. I have shown that there are liberal democrats who were racists, therefore your assertion that conservatism is racist is wrong. I have also demonstrated a history of racist actions and policies by the democrat party which you refuse to acknowledge. There are reasons why African Americans vote for democrats, but it is not due to racism on the part of the republican party. The reasons why have more to do with the NAACP being taken over by socialists.

 

But why does your superficial historical perspective seem to be missing so many facts? And your conclusions are simply childish: You think you've demonstrated how Democrats are racist but Republicans are not? Really? When did you do that? Simply stating it over and over again doesn't even begin to establish your alleged argument.

 

I know your job here is to rah-rah for lefties and not state anything that is truthful, meaningful or substantive, but can you answer me, which party put segregation as a platform item in the civil rights portion of their party platform? Let me answer that for you because you're probably too busy being a cheerleader for some lying liberal democrat propagandist - It was the democrat party.

 

You have not demonstrated how racism and conservatism are related. The only reason I had to prove that the democrats who were racist were liberals was you insistence that conservatism=racism. I have disproved that notion over and over and you have not given one example of why you believe it is true other than your statements. I never said that democrat was an ideology and not a party. I have simply shown over and over the racist history of the party, which you continue to claim was due to "conservative" democrats even though I have shown them to be liberals. When did I say that all democrats are racist? Your use of Red Herrings makes your reasoning process absurd. The reason my argument is directed at a party is because of the racist history of the democrats. You have yet to show that racism has anything to do with political ideology.

 

Prove? You have yet to come close to proving anything. Your standard for proof is evidently pretty thin because so far all I see is simple minded rhetoric.

 

President Truman never supported the lynching of blacks, but evidently a younger Judge Truman did when he joined the KKK. But then according to you, people don't change their ideology so he must have just been a closet pro-lynching KKKer. Yes, Southern democrats racists blocked all kinds of legislation, pro-civil rights, anti-lynching. Why did the Northern democrat allow them to do that? Why didn't Northern democrats split and either join with all the "liberal" republican party or form their own party? Why did liberal democrats allow conservatives their opposites ideologically to stay in their party? This is why your argument breaks down. The truth is, they were all liberals. And whether they were Northern democrats or Southern democrats, they were racists. There was racism in the Northern and Western states and cities as well. Here is a list of states that had Jim Crow or anti-black codes or laws:
1 Arizona
2 California
3 Colorado
4 Connecticut
5 Florida
6 Georgia
7 Illinois
8 Indiana
9 Kansas
10 Kentucky
11 Louisiana
12 Maine
13 Maryland
14 Mississippi
15 Missouri
16 Montana
17 Nebraska
18 Nevada
19 New Mexico
20 North Carolina
21 North Dakota
22 Ohio
23 Oklahoma
24 Oregon
25 Pennsylvania
26 Rhode Island
27 South Carolina
28 South Dakota
29 Texas
30 Utah
31 Virginia
32 Washington
33 West Virginia
34 Wyoming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State

In spite of overwhelming evidence that I have produced regarding the racist history of the democrat party, you still make this claim without any evidence to the contrary.

You keep providing examples which prove my point. David Duke was a democrat when he was the Grand Dragon of the KKK. It was only later after he quit that when he joined the GOP. He was not welcome in the GOP as I said, the party endorsed his opponent. You keep going back to Strom Thurmond who was not a member of the KKK, yet forget to mention Robert Byrd once again, a lifelong democrat and former member of the KKK.

The Tea Party is not a political party. It is made up of republicans, independents, democrats and libertarians, blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians. It does not have a platform and it is not one group, but many small groups. It is a grass roots movement which stands for fiscal conservatism, lower government spending and smaller government. There is nothing racist about the Tea Party. The first Tea Party event I went to was organized by a previous existing black group. This first speaker was black, and the patriotic music and singing was conducted by blacks. There were Hispanics there as well as democrats and independents.

 

You are just trolling. I have shown many examples of the racism of the democrat party complete with links.

 

Talk about ludicrous. So instead of having access to 90%, you want 100%.

Heritage.com right. Give me that same case from NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.

What was he listed as when he was booked? Come to think of it if his parents are half black what is the other half?

Really? How so?

Can you provide any evidence or is that just your opinion.

Actually thats not true. Murder is a state charge. The only thing the Feds could have charged him with was violation of Civil Rights.

Last I checked I don't wear them, now let us move on. Did they murder them because they were white or was it a drug deal gone bad as the police believe it was or do you think had they been black they would not have murdered them.

Since when did it become acceptable. I am still waiting on you to show me how white folks are being discriminated against.

That is what has gotten many whites over for centuries in this country.

Are we talking about America or some other country.

Your arguement holds no water for the simple fact that white males are the highest paid, employed, promoted, business owners, etc. in this country.

Please show us how any Chamber of Commerce has discriminated against white males.

The DOJ says that whites account for 69% of crimes committed, black folks 28%. Blacks account for 44% of those incarcerated and whites account for 34% and you don't see a problem with that.

Bring yourself up to speed and then get back with me. https://www.blackfarmercase.com/Documents/Opinion Approving Settlement.pdf

Thats the same weak arguement we keep hearing that since this discrimination took place years ago it should just be swept under the rug and forgotten. Reagan signed a bill in the 80s giving Japanese-Americans repartations for being put in concentration camps during WWII during the 40s.

White males whining about being discriminated against is a joke. I mean it is totally laughable.

 

I don't have a job here, I use my leisure time to try and educate people who don't even know they're ignorant.


- btw, you're welcome.

You remember this post? It pretty much answers your question.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=327967&p=1063218161#post1063218161

- btw, you're welcome. Again.

 

It's pointless to talk to you because regardless of how much or what kind of racism is shown towards white people, you will always either say "that's not racism" or whites owe them that because they were discriminated against years ago.

I'm telling you. That kind of mentality is going to put this country in a place you really don't want it to be.

 

Once again, Strom Thurmond was never a member of the KKK, Robert Byrd was. Strom Thurmond didn't use the "N-word" on national TV, Robert Byrd did. You keep saying that racist conservative democrat left the democrats to join the republicans and Strom Thurmond is the only example you keep repeating so while I can show many more examples of them staying with the democrats. So because one racists democrat left the party and joined the republicans which in your mind proves the republicans are racist, while hundreds of racist democrats stayed with the democrats which proves nothing. If Strom Thurmond left the democrats because the republicans shared his racist views in 1964, why did the democrats have a huge fight over the seating of the Mississippi black delegates that almost split the party again? Why did they give in to the racist Southerners and kick the black delegates off the convention floor? This happened the same year the Civil Rights Act was passed because of republicans and opposed by 2/5ths of the democrat party. And why did so many democrats still fight against segregation for the next decade even when republicans were integrating schools and instituting equal opportunity programs for blacks?

 

Zimmerman identifies as white.

He is in fact white hispanic because his dad is German and his mom is Peruvian.

Thus, the media got it right.

 

Yeah, you have. And they were all conservative democrats who today would be republicans.

All of the southern racists today are republican. Groups such as the kkk, white nationalists, neo nazis, etc, consider themselves to be conservatives.

NONE of them identify as liberals. They hate white liberals nearly as much as they hate minorities. They are conservatives, and will always be conservatives.

 

If your job is to educate people, can you tell them which political party had segregation as a part of their civil rights party platform?

Here is what I take away from your post about votes for the CRA by region:

Number of Southern house republican who voted against the CRA - 10
Number of Northern house democrats who voted against the CRA - 9
Number of Southern republican Senators who voted against the CRA - 1
Number of Northern democrat Senators who voted against the CRA - 1.
This proves that Northern democrats were just as racist as Southern republicans.

Ratio of Southern House democrats vs Southern House republicans who voted against the CRA 9 to 1 (87 to 10)
Ratio of Southern Senate democrats vs Southern Senate republicans who voted against the CRA 20 to 1 (20 to 1)

Which doesn't answer the question, who's party platform included segregation as a part of the civil rights platform?

 

But that's exactly what you're doing. Your claim is that Democrat = racism, and that's a ridiculous statement to make. The Party certainly was tarnished by the conservative element within it that was responsible for all the horrors that you've described. I'm fully aware of that. Slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings, all of it. However you ignore the fact that it's also a party made up of very liberal people that don't reside in the South. All of the problems over segregation and Jim Crow came from the South. The South is conservative. It always has been and it still is today. That hasn't changed. Switching to the Republican Party didn't change their conservatism. These are people that hate liberalism and don't want anything to do with it. So, knowing this, you have to ask what is going on if part of the party is racist and another part isn't? What is it that drives this attitude because it's not the party. The Party only provides a platform for the ideology. Ideologically the party was divided between liberal and conservative factions. So was the Republican Party. There were conservative Goldwater/Reagan types, and liberal Rockefeller types. The attitude that promotes racism, and segregation and oppression of minorities is conservative. It's not a liberal attitude toward others. By definition, a person that holds liberal views is open minded. A person with conservative views is narrow minded. A liberal is open to change. A conservative is not. This is basic. Your entire argument is schizophrenic. You say conservatism isn't racist, the Democrats are. Conservatism isn't a party. And Democrat isn't an ideology. You keep comparing apples with oranges. You can compare Liberals and conservatives if you like. They are both ideologies or philosophies. Or you can try to compare Republicans with Democrats which is a bit more difficult because of the varied philosophical leanings within the parties. Look at the Republicans. Some are more establishment conservatives, and others are Tea Party conservatives and they have very little in common. So just saying Republican doesn't tell us anything about the ideological position of the members. They're all over the place.

I am acting like an adult. And I realize that I'm dealing with a child. I ask you questions that you can't answer and instead call them asinine. Well, that's a not-so-clever evasion tactic. You simply can't deal with them and they relate entirely to the subject at hand.

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing over this very fundamental issue. You have constantly said that conservatism isn't racist, Democrats are. You're comparing an ideology with a party. The Democrats are a party. They are NOT an ideology. Conservatism IS an ideology and it shapes the party.

You do huh? Then tell me why all of the segregation and lynchings and Jim Crow and Slavery and the very Confederacy itself was located in the most Conservative part of the country? And then at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that all of the Democrats in the south were in fact Conservatives, and recognize that all of the south today is Republican, and that the South is STILL the most Conservative part of the country. Or are you going to tell me that the Republicans, especially those in the South are Liberals? These are not asinine questions. They zero in directly at the heart of your argument.

You're in total denial. They were all conservatives. Why can't you simply admit that. So what if they were democrats. Today they're Republicans. They're still conservatives. The argument isn't about parties. It's about conservatism being racist. The parties don't mean squat. It's the philosophy or ideology that drives that party that matters. They can call themselves Buicks or Fords if they want. What matters is the ideology behind it. A Ford Thunderbird is not a Ford Escort. There are different ideas that come under that label. What's important is to understand what's driving the Label. In the south conservatism drove the Democratic Party. In the North it was liberalism. Today in the South conservatism drives the Republican Party. In fact, it drives the entire party, and some are more extreme than others.

You're telling me that you've seen no evidence that southern democrats were conservatives? When exactly were they liberals? So now you're telling me that the south is not conservative? It's the most conservative part of the country. You are in total denial. I realize that this blows your entire theory of rationality on this subject, however even you should be able to figure this out. You keep saying it was southern democrats. I'm not denying that at all. I know that they were all conservatives and that the South used to be entirely Democrat. But what you cannot deny is that the South has ALWAYS been Conservative, and I've been telling you that it's conservatism that is the problem. And that's what you're in denial about.

By Annie-Rose Strasser on December 3, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Twenty five percent of registered Republicans want their state to secede from the United States, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling. This new statistic comes just weeks after Mitt Romney’s loss prompted secession petitions from all 50 states on the White House website. Signatures grew into the hundreds of thousands on these petitions, with the state of Texas in the lead. GOP governors, however, have indicated that they will not be looking to leave the Union any time soon.

December 4, 2012 |
A quarter of registered Republicans in the country say they want to secede from the United States, Public Policy Polling (PPP) reports. The polling company posted a Twitter message yesterday that read: “25% of Republicans want their state to secede on account of Obama's reelection.”

That number is the same as last year’s, when Public Policy Polling similarly reported that 25 percent of GOP members wanted secession.

Maybe you missed all of this.

Then why are you the party that's trying to dissolve it today?

I have no idea what Lincoln would be for or against today and neither do you. That's all speculation, but I'm sure that he wouldn't support secession.

There is nothing moderate about slaver or segregation or Jim Crow. Conservatism is always about maintaining existing institutions. That's what the ideology is all about. If you don't know that, then you know nothing about your own ideology.

I'm afraid you're showing that you don't know squat. I have no interest in either party. I only look at the philosophies and ideologies that drive them. You look at the surface. I look under the hood. The party means nothing to me. I'm an independent. I don't care about the parties. I only care about the philosophies of the people that run them. Are they conservative or are the liberal. I know what conservatism has brought and that's racism which is totally irrational. I have no interest in having irrational people running my government. I want people with new ideas. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. If the idea is to reduce suffering then they have my interest. If they are designed to promote the status quo, they don't.

But you're treating it as if it is. You are doing that with Democrats, so you must for the sake of consistency do the same thing with Republicans. Republican and Democrat are parties. Conservatism and Liberalism are ideologies and philosophies, and there is a difference between those two things. Ideologies don't change. Philosophies often do. They are open to modification and "tinkering". Ideologies are not. When Russell Kirk wrote his 6 Canon's for Conservatism, those were doctrines that are not changeable.

I'm not surprised. It requires a little deeper thought than what you're used to.

I don't care if you do or don't. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way. So your assumption of what you think I'm assuming is off the wall.

The part that shows that he left the party after the signing of the CRA. You're pointing to something irrelevant. The DixieCrat period was during the Truman years. He wouldn't leave the party until he saw where it was going and that came later. On September 16, 1964, he switched his party affiliation to the Republican Party (GOP), which was seeking to revive its presence in the South by appealing to conservative voters. The CRA was signed on July 2 in 1964. Thurmond was a racist democrat and a racist Republican. What difference does it possibly make what color tie he was wearing? That didn't change his views.

Yeah, and they changed. They were very conservative at the time. The Civil Rights movement was in it's infancy back then. Being a conservative, you seem to be under the impression that people aren't capable of changing their views. Events have a way of changing people. Some people. Others resist that change.

Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and
conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

Standing up for civil rights is a very liberal idea. What happened to the Republicans?? They were taken over by Conservatives like Goldwater who rejected that entire concept. And today all the conservatives are located in the Republican Party. This isn't the party of Rockefeller anymore.

 

Psst . . . look up indigenous population Peruvian. The media AND leftwingers in general deliberately race baited in order to falsely create a White versus Black story . . . and got busted. By bloodline mixture if the media INSISTED on calling Zimmerman a White-Hispanic -- when the term was almost NEVER applied to Hispanics in the past -- then they should be calling Obama a White-African-American.