Now you've gone totally off the rails.
Critical Race Theory & Confederate Statues
- Thread starter TMFT
- Start date
Now you've gone totally off the rails.
"Lincoln was the radical change candidate, so much that when he was elected the south said f this and broke from the union immediately."
Again, your history lessons fail you.
Lincoln wasn't out for 'change'. He was all about keeping the Union together. The South broke from the Union because the US was adding states and those states weren't for slavery.
The south would have only been placated briefly if a pro-slavery President was elected. Lincoln was not radical in his personal opposition to slavery at that time.
"as his tenure moved on"?
Tommy, his 'tenure' consisted of FIGHTING A CIVIL WAR. Part of helping win the war was freeing the slaves currently in slavery. Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Do you understand dramatic license?
My God.....
This Southern Strategy of Nixon is still largely a myth. Some of the Democrats believe so strongly in it because it makes you feel better about your party. It makes you feel better that the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the Klan has somehow cleansed itself. Nixon didn't convert your racists to Republicans. Just look at prominent Dixiecrats. Except for Strom Thurmond most of them stayed Democrats. Robert Byrd never left the party. Neither did George Wallace or Al Gore Sr. When Nixon won in 1968, supposedly employing the "Southern Strategy," Democrat George Wallace won the deep south states. This alone should give the "Southern Strategy" believers pause. It doesn't support your theory at all. Nixon basically didn't even campaign in the south in '68. He concentrated on the north and the Sunbelt. Nothing Nixon ran on was racist. "Law and order" isn't racist. A majority of Americans didn't have positive opinions of "hippies" protesting the Vietnam war. "Law and order" appealed to them. Nixon supported Civil Rights and he supported Affirmative Action. He was ultimately a crook, but he never ran on racist policies. Besides he won in landslides in the North and the Sunbelt in 1968 and won nearly every state in 1972. Again, it doesn't support the theory. Atwater is a single person. He's not the party. What Atwater said in no way proves that he had final say in what the party did or that any prominent Republicans really bought into what he said in an interview years after the supposed implementation of this "strategy."
More southern Democrats became Republicans as their economic situation improved. That plus social issues (abortion especially) were the keys for Republicans gaining popularity in the south. Of course some racists have probably come to favor the Republican party because they THINK they're more comfortable there, but make no mistake, there are plenty of racists in the Democratic party too.
I'll depart with the comment I overheard in 1980 from a prominent Democratic activist in Bloomington when I was helping with the Carter campaign (to be honest, helping very little, as I was more preoccupied with partying, but I passed out a few flyers and attended a meeting or two). I was shocked when I heard the guy tell another guy, "I'd vote for the blackest N-word before I'd vote for a Republican." Obviously that solid Democrat (and racist) hated Republicans more than he hated black people. Racists live among us, obviously.
Great post.
Of course there were and are 'racists' in the democratic party (I'd argue it's now more about White Supremacy). Hell many grew up with it being the way it is.
My mother told me (she was born in 1938) that as a kid her parents told her to 'be nice to black people, they can't help being the way they are'.
That's the problem when generations of people have to start from the social position of a farm animal.
We've seen today how easy it is to distort and scare wide swaths of people and believing that people are inherently evil, stupid, out of control sexually, etc is going to make it really hard for that community to get accepted into the dominant culture.
We're getting there and as each generation passes through hopefully discrimination of race and the reminders of that discrimination and old held beliefs of that discrimination will fray out.
Bottom line, I love my grandparents. They loved the hell out of me....but I have no problem whatever telling you that yeah, they were much more racy than my sister's and I (my grandfather on my dad's side was most likely klan, he hated blacks).
And I and my generation are much more racy than my niece and nephew's generation.
That doesn't offend me.
Calling out racial elements of our country in particular our history doesn't make us a racist country....but taking offense to that sure as hell shuts down any discussion which is the current parlor game.
You're failing to take a mindset and apply it to a historical point in time.
If you believe that Lincoln was the conservative candidate of his time than your understanding of history has failed you.
Your platform today got what, 6% black support? That's beyond putrid.
Yeah, that's the party of Lincoln right there. Lol
Please show me where I said he was 'the conservative candidate'.
Don't try to argue a strawman with me.
the current parlor game is to declare everything racist. i guess you missed aoc's tweet about the olympic rules being racist re drug usage
Phew. I was just getting ready to post a "you're an idiot" response.
Well if your point is that the current party is the Lincoln party stuck in 1860's thinking than okay I'll give you some of that.
What is your point? Lincoln was a republican?
So was Teddy Roosevelt who wanted a social medical system.
What the hell happened to you guys? How did your generation f up your party so badly that you can't get any black support but you overwhelmingly get white supremacist group support?
Ah yeah, the evangelicals came into the party in the fifties and then the dixiecrats aligned with the party.
Which means the parties of today are nothing like the parties of a century ago (hell not even twenty years ago. GW at least tried to have a diverse coalition).
West Virginians kept electing him and he didn't die. The Senate seniority system gave him more influence and power within that body.
He was an unabashed racist most of his career, but did renounce his past toward the end. George Wallace did the same thing.
You didn't prove anybody wrong about anything. The original GI Bill went from around 1945-56. How does your personal anecdote relate to that?
The discrimination wasn't in the way the bill was written, but in how it was applied. As usual, the racists (who were btw, Southern Democrats) insisted on a state-by-state application, rather than a Federal oversight which would have done more to ensure fairness. Since the days immediate to the Civil War "states rights" has basically been a codeword for racism...
"When Eugene Burnett saw the neat tract houses of Levittown, New York, he knew he wanted to buy one. It was 1949, and he was ready to settle down in a larger home with his family. The newly established Long Island suburb seemed like the perfect place to begin their postwar life—one that, he hoped, would be improved with the help of the GI Bill, a piece of sweeping legislation aimed at helping World War II veterans like Burnett prosper after the war.
But when he spoke with a salesman about buying the house using a GI Bill-guaranteed mortgage, the door to suburban life in Levittown slammed firmly in his face. The suburb wasn’t open to Black residents.
“It was as though it wasn’t real,” Burnett’s wife, Bernice, recalled. “Look at this house! Can you imagine having this? And then for them to tell me because of the color of my skin that I can’t be part of it?”
The Burnetts weren’t the only Black Americans for whom the promise of the GI Bill turned out to be an illusion. Though the bill helped white Americans prosper and accumulate wealth in the postwar years, it didn’t deliver on that promise for veterans of color. In fact, the wide disparity in the bill’s implementation ended up helping drive growing gaps in wealth, education and civil rights between white and Black Americans.
While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the 1.2 million Black veterans who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.
Fear of Black Advancement
When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible.During the drafting of the law, the chair of the House Veterans Committee, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin, played hardball and insisted that the program be administered by individual states instead of the federal government. He got his way. Rankin was known for his virulent racism: He defended segregation, opposed interracial marriage, and had even proposed legislation to confine, then deport, every person with Japanese heritage during World War II.
When the bill came to a committee vote, he stonewalled
in an attempt to gut another provision that entitled all veterans to $20 a week of unemployment compensation for a year. Rankin knew this would represent a significant gain for Black Southerners, so he refused to cast a critical proxy vote in protest. The American Legion ended up tracking down the Congressman who had left his proxy vote with Rankin and flying him to Washington to break the deadlock.Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act into law on June 22, 1944, only weeks after the D-Day offensive began. It ushered into law sweeping benefits for veterans, including college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance.
The GI Bill’s Effect on Black Veterans
From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable discharge—and a much larger number of Black veterans were discharged dishonorably than their white counterparts.Veterans who did qualify could not find facilities that delivered on the bill’s promise. Black veterans in a vocational training program at a segregated high school in Indianapolis were unable to participate in activities related to plumbing, electricity and printing because adequate equipment was only available to white students.
Simple intimidation kept others from enjoying GI Bill benefits. In 1947, for example, a crowd hurled rocks at Black veterans as they moved into a Chicago housing development. Thousands of Black veterans were attacked in the years following World War II and some were singled out and lynched.
Though Rankin had lost the battle to exclude Black men from VA unemployment insurance, it was doled out inequitably. Men who applied for unemployment benefits were kicked out of the program if any other work was available to them, even work that provided less than subsistence wages. Southern postmasters were even accused of refusing to deliver the forms Black veterans needed to fill out to receive their unemployment benefits."
How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY
The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?
www.history.com
You're lecturing others on not "staying awake" during history class ?
That's a joke...The election of 1860 featured 3 main candidates, and what was basically a 3rd party (Southern Democrats) split the Dem vote and allowed Lincoln to win. The National Dems (Douglas) and GOP (Lincoln) were both essentially moderates, with basic agreements over slavery, except when it came to how it would apply to new territories.
"Conservatives are usually for states' rights, but not at the expense of slavery for its citizens."
That's just a bald-faced lie. In fact, the exact opposite is true...
When the Conservative Dems were in power in the South they favored slavery prior to the War, and opposed Civil Rights, Integration, etc in the postwar era. The Southern Dems were the Conservatives in 1860, and they definitely favored both States Rights AND SLAVERY. Again, the Secession Documents for nearly all of the Confederate States listed SLAVERY as one of their main grievances, usually within the first page...
It was Liberal Republicans who were Progressive on race thruout the post-Civil War 19th Century and into the mid 20th. Most of them were located in New England and the Northeast, but they never really gained any traction in the South, because it was the South. The Dem party heavily controlled the South, but the old split between Conservative and Liberal re-emerged within the Dems as FDR and Truman started to push for civil rights as WW2 wound down...
When the Southern racists left the Dem Party in 1948, and again in 64-65 in the wake of the Civil Rights bill, they were welcomed into the new Conservative GOP. The original "Dixiecrats" bolted in 1948 over integration in the Armed Forces, but that set off a steady stream of Southern Dems flocking to the GOP's new emphasis on "states rights".
I'm not sure if Goldwater was a racist on a personal level, but again the emphasis on "states rights" basically meant he believed states had an individual right to discriminate if they chose to do so. That was music to the ears of segregationists like Wallace, Thurmond, Jesse Helms. That combined with Nixon's "southern strategy" basically overhauled the lineup of the 2 party system and the once-Dem segregationists like Helms, Thurmond, Tower, etc... became the power and standard-bearers of the re-imagined Southern GOP. Conservatives AND Segragationists...
If I’m not mistaken, your fourth sentence is exactly what Dan has been saying.You didn't prove anybody wrong about anything. The original GI Bill went from around 1945-56. How does your personal anecdote relate to that?
The discrimination wasn't in the way the bill was written, but in how it was applied. As usual, the racists (who were btw, Southern Democrats) insisted on a state-by-state application, rather than a Federal oversight which would have done more to ensure fairness. Since the days immediate to the Civil War "states rights" has basically been a codeword for racism...
"When Eugene Burnett saw the neat tract houses of Levittown, New York, he knew he wanted to buy one. It was 1949, and he was ready to settle down in a larger home with his family. The newly established Long Island suburb seemed like the perfect place to begin their postwar life—one that, he hoped, would be improved with the help of the GI Bill, a piece of sweeping legislation aimed at helping World War II veterans like Burnett prosper after the war.
But when he spoke with a salesman about buying the house using a GI Bill-guaranteed mortgage, the door to suburban life in Levittown slammed firmly in his face. The suburb wasn’t open to Black residents.
“It was as though it wasn’t real,” Burnett’s wife, Bernice, recalled. “Look at this house! Can you imagine having this? And then for them to tell me because of the color of my skin that I can’t be part of it?”
The Burnetts weren’t the only Black Americans for whom the promise of the GI Bill turned out to be an illusion. Though the bill helped white Americans prosper and accumulate wealth in the postwar years, it didn’t deliver on that promise for veterans of color. In fact, the wide disparity in the bill’s implementation ended up helping drive growing gaps in wealth, education and civil rights between white and Black Americans.
While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the 1.2 million Black veterans who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.
Fear of Black Advancement
When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible.
During the drafting of the law, the chair of the House Veterans Committee, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin, played hardball and insisted that the program be administered by individual states instead of the federal government. He got his way. Rankin was known for his virulent racism: He defended segregation, opposed interracial marriage, and had even proposed legislation to confine, then deport, every person with Japanese heritage during World War II.
When the bill came to a committee vote, he stonewalled
Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act into law on June 22, 1944, only weeks after the D-Day offensive began. It ushered into law sweeping benefits for veterans, including college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance.
The GI Bill’s Effect on Black Veterans
From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable discharge—and a much larger number of Black veterans were discharged dishonorably than their white counterparts.
Veterans who did qualify could not find facilities that delivered on the bill’s promise. Black veterans in a vocational training program at a segregated high school in Indianapolis were unable to participate in activities related to plumbing, electricity and printing because adequate equipment was only available to white students.
Simple intimidation kept others from enjoying GI Bill benefits. In 1947, for example, a crowd hurled rocks at Black veterans as they moved into a Chicago housing development. Thousands of Black veterans were attacked in the years following World War II and some were singled out and lynched.
Though Rankin had lost the battle to exclude Black men from VA unemployment insurance, it was doled out inequitably. Men who applied for unemployment benefits were kicked out of the program if any other work was available to them, even work that provided less than subsistence wages. Southern postmasters were even accused of refusing to deliver the forms Black veterans needed to fill out to receive their unemployment benefits."
How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY
The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?
No ones reading the rest of that word salad.
Republicans changed with the times to do what's best for America.
Democrats changed to get votes.
I don't expect you to understand the difference, but there it is.
And you clearly don't understand the differenc between a law and individual actions.You didn't prove anybody wrong about anything. The original GI Bill went from around 1945-56. How does your personal anecdote relate to that?
The discrimination wasn't in the way the bill was written, but in how it was applied. As usual, the racists (who were btw, Southern Democrats) insisted on a state-by-state application, rather than a Federal oversight which would have done more to ensure fairness. Since the days immediate to the Civil War "states rights" has basically been a codeword for racism...
"When Eugene Burnett saw the neat tract houses of Levittown, New York, he knew he wanted to buy one. It was 1949, and he was ready to settle down in a larger home with his family. The newly established Long Island suburb seemed like the perfect place to begin their postwar life—one that, he hoped, would be improved with the help of the GI Bill, a piece of sweeping legislation aimed at helping World War II veterans like Burnett prosper after the war.
But when he spoke with a salesman about buying the house using a GI Bill-guaranteed mortgage, the door to suburban life in Levittown slammed firmly in his face. The suburb wasn’t open to Black residents.
“It was as though it wasn’t real,” Burnett’s wife, Bernice, recalled. “Look at this house! Can you imagine having this? And then for them to tell me because of the color of my skin that I can’t be part of it?”
The Burnetts weren’t the only Black Americans for whom the promise of the GI Bill turned out to be an illusion. Though the bill helped white Americans prosper and accumulate wealth in the postwar years, it didn’t deliver on that promise for veterans of color. In fact, the wide disparity in the bill’s implementation ended up helping drive growing gaps in wealth, education and civil rights between white and Black Americans.
While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the 1.2 million Black veterans who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.
Fear of Black Advancement
When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible.
During the drafting of the law, the chair of the House Veterans Committee, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin, played hardball and insisted that the program be administered by individual states instead of the federal government. He got his way. Rankin was known for his virulent racism: He defended segregation, opposed interracial marriage, and had even proposed legislation to confine, then deport, every person with Japanese heritage during World War II.
When the bill came to a committee vote, he stonewalled
Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act into law on June 22, 1944, only weeks after the D-Day offensive began. It ushered into law sweeping benefits for veterans, including college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance.
The GI Bill’s Effect on Black Veterans
From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable discharge—and a much larger number of Black veterans were discharged dishonorably than their white counterparts.
Veterans who did qualify could not find facilities that delivered on the bill’s promise. Black veterans in a vocational training program at a segregated high school in Indianapolis were unable to participate in activities related to plumbing, electricity and printing because adequate equipment was only available to white students.
Simple intimidation kept others from enjoying GI Bill benefits. In 1947, for example, a crowd hurled rocks at Black veterans as they moved into a Chicago housing development. Thousands of Black veterans were attacked in the years following World War II and some were singled out and lynched.
Though Rankin had lost the battle to exclude Black men from VA unemployment insurance, it was doled out inequitably. Men who applied for unemployment benefits were kicked out of the program if any other work was available to them, even work that provided less than subsistence wages. Southern postmasters were even accused of refusing to deliver the forms Black veterans needed to fill out to receive their unemployment benefits."
How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY
The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?
But if you want to go by the volume of words, you win.
I can't continue to waste my time on someone who can't post without cutting and pasting a novel.
I'm 51 so I didn't live through the civil rights movement of the 60's, but I have been forgetting about the pivot from Truman in the 40's.You're lecturing others on not "staying awake" during history class ?
The election of 1860 featured 3 main candidates, and what was basically a 3rd party (Southern Democrats) split the Dem vote and allowed Lincoln to win. The National Dems (Douglas) and GOP (Lincoln) were both essentially moderates, with basic agreements over slavery, except when it came to how it would apply to new territories.
"Conservatives are usually for states' rights, but not at the expense of slavery for its citizens."
That's just a bald-faced lie. In fact, the exact opposite is true...
When the Conservative Dems were in power in the South they favored slavery prior to the War, and opposed Civil Rights, Integration, etc in the postwar era. The Southern Dems were the Conservatives in 1860, and they definitely favored both States Rights AND SLAVERY. Again, the Secession Documents for nearly all of the Confederate States listed SLAVERY as one of their main grievances, usually within the first page...
It was Liberal Republicans who were Progressive on race thruout the post-Civil War 19th Century and into the mid 20th. Most of them were located in New England and the Northeast, but they never really gained any traction in the South, because it was the South. The Dem party heavily controlled the South, but the old split between Conservative and Liberal re-emerged within the Dems as FDR and Truman started to push for civil rights as WW2 wound down...
When the Southern racists left the Dem Party in 1948, and again in 64-65 in the wake of the Civil Rights bill, they were welcomed into the new Conservative GOP. The original "Dixiecrats" bolted in 1948 over integration in the Armed Forces, but that set off a steady stream of Southern Dems flocking to the GOP's new emphasis on "states rights".
I'm not sure if Goldwater was a racist on a personal level, but again the emphasis on "states rights" basically meant he believed states had an individual right to discriminate if they chose to do so. That was music to the ears of segregationists like Wallace, Thurmond, Jesse Helms. That combined with Nixon's "southern strategy" basically overhauled the lineup of the 2 party system and the once-Dem segregationists like Helms, Thurmond, Tower, etc... became the power and standard-bearers of the re-imagined Southern GOP. Conservatives AND Segragationists...
There was also the rise of the evangelical in the middle of the century which is how, to my understanding, the separation of church and state started blurring (we put 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance and we started printing our money with 'in God we trust'.
I'll also admit that political parties main goal is to get elected so...they will naturally put together platforms that will give them the best chance to win.
IE adopting Dixiecrats and evangelicals to adopting social justice messaging to welcoming a guy like Trump.
Per this conversation, I doubt any of our current political leaders would have the balls to abolish slavery. It would of happened eventually (I hope) but I can't see a Clinton or Biden doing it (I mean they were the founders of don't ask, don't tell....which was progress but will be seen historically as passive leadership imo). They'd probably do what those before Lincoln did, kick the can down the road.
Thinking the conservatives of today would have been that extreme liberal and 'woke'...GTFO.
Maybe a guy like Bernie would have gone after slavery, but he never would have been elected. There were radical abolitionists running but they were considered extremist.
What a load of horseshit. Indiana, a northern state, was never a slave state. Does that mean they were 'progressive'? lmao! Please don't rewrite the history of my Germany ancestors who settled Indiana and were very conservative German Baptists.You're lecturing others on not "staying awake" during history class ?
The election of 1860 featured 3 main candidates, and what was basically a 3rd party (Southern Democrats) split the Dem vote and allowed Lincoln to win. The National Dems (Douglas) and GOP (Lincoln) were both essentially moderates, with basic agreements over slavery, except when it came to how it would apply to new territories.
"Conservatives are usually for states' rights, but not at the expense of slavery for its citizens."
That's just a bald-faced lie. In fact, the exact opposite is true...
When the Conservative Dems were in power in the South they favored slavery prior to the War, and opposed Civil Rights, Integration, etc in the postwar era. The Southern Dems were the Conservatives in 1860, and they definitely favored both States Rights AND SLAVERY. Again, the Secession Documents for nearly all of the Confederate States listed SLAVERY as one of their main grievances, usually within the first page...
It was Liberal Republicans who were Progressive on race thruout the post-Civil War 19th Century and into the mid 20th. Most of them were located in New England and the Northeast, but they never really gained any traction in the South, because it was the South. The Dem party heavily controlled the South, but the old split between Conservative and Liberal re-emerged within the Dems as FDR and Truman started to push for civil rights as WW2 wound down...
When the Southern racists left the Dem Party in 1948, and again in 64-65 in the wake of the Civil Rights bill, they were welcomed into the new Conservative GOP. The original "Dixiecrats" bolted in 1948 over integration in the Armed Forces, but that set off a steady stream of Southern Dems flocking to the GOP's new emphasis on "states rights".
I'm not sure if Goldwater was a racist on a personal level, but again the emphasis on "states rights" basically meant he believed states had an individual right to discriminate if they chose to do so. That was music to the ears of segregationists like Wallace, Thurmond, Jesse Helms. That combined with Nixon's "southern strategy" basically overhauled the lineup of the 2 party system and the once-Dem segregationists like Helms, Thurmond, Tower, etc... became the power and standard-bearers of the re-imagined Southern GOP. Conservatives AND Segragationists...
You leftists will try to take credit for anything and call it 'progressive'. You know nothing about history except what you cut and paste.
He couldn't have risen to the level he did without the support of other Democrats, no matter how senior he was.
He was eulogized by Biden and other prominent Dims. Let's not try to chalk it up to 'seniority'.
I thought Dan offered a personal anecdote to prove that the GI Bill wasn't racist? But the ORIGINAL GI Bill (which I'm discussing) ended in 1956 (when I was a year old), so I don't think Dan was covered by that. Unless he's a lot older than I realized...
The "word salad" is essentially quoting the article. I guess that's a word salad for some, but I would define word salad as more like an individual poster pontificating and commenting. Since all I did was quote the actual article, I'd say that is more of me providing a sneak peek as to what INTERESTED folks will see if they follow the link. I literally only wrote 6 sentences- the rest is the article itself...
I guess you guys find it useful to comment on posts that do not interest you. I usually just skip it, and if I'm not interested I ignore it. I do appreciate when people provide some insight into what a link says, rather than just posting a link that could basically be about anything for me to click on blindly. I'm not an exceptional reader, but I'm pretty sure I could read my entire post within a minute or so. Sorry if timely reading is an area of challenge for you...
You're getting close, both parties align themselves to an ideology to maximize votes. Depending on how large the faction of voters are over a parties policy will determine how intensely that party will magnify it....ie Right to Life, Right to Choose.
If you are right, it's interesting how what's best for America can only get around 6% of black support today.
The GI Bill did not help Blacks, it is so damn easy even you should be able to understand it. You have in no way and at no point refuted the fact that Blacks were not allowed to take part.
Are you daring to say you fully support individual racism as long as the government is not involved?
The government had the power to force colleges to let Blacks in, to force banks to lend to Blacks. The government does that now. The government allowed it to happen.
Seriously, Jethro Bodine would get this, you can work really hard and equal his intellect.
Whites benefitted greatly after WW2 from the GI Bill, Blacks were shut out. What part of that is wrong. None.
Lincoln would have kicked it down the road too, had he not been forced to finally deal with it once and for all.
The GI Bill I was under was the same version passed after WWII, only not a generous. I didn't get full tuition and room and board. They skinnied everything down.
Benefits were more generous in the one passed after WWII.
There, now you can't claim ignorance any more.
Whatever discrimination is not the fault of the GI Bill, Marvin.
I've explained it to you several times now and I won't do it again. But please stop spreading the lie that the GI Bill itself was discriminatory.
If you want to blame the government, blame the Democrats who were in power from 1946 to 1952, Jethro.
How has the black family, which was strengthening prior to 1964, helped by the Great Society?
Lincoln offered to kick the can down the road. The Confederacy did not trust him, and they saw two maths. 1) the south was not growing and 2) slavery was becoming unprofitable. That is why they some southern states came up with plans to invade Cuba and other countries, to conquer them and force them to allow slavery. Then the southerners could export slaves.
It turns out it is tough for a couple states to build an army and a navy to go out and conquer a country. But they tried.
Lincoln was far from a fire-breather. Those people sat on the Joint Committee for the Conduct of the War and we're a real headache for Lincoln and the army.
It's the old did the dude meet the moment or did the moment meet the dude discussion.
It's always been interesting that on most presidential ranking lists, the president's around Lincoln are typically considered the worst of the bunch while Lincoln is overwhelmingly considered top 3 and #1 on many lists.
Which always made me wonder....did Lincoln meet the moment or did the moment meet Lincoln?
Scholars have argued that Lincoln's transformation during his term is what sets him apart but yeah, I can see the case that it was more the moment than the dude.
First off, I meant progressive as in forward-thinking on race relations. That was pretty much the bailiwick of Liberal Republicans, up at least thru the 30s. Len Small and Edward Jackson were 1920s GOP Governors of IL and IN respectively who both had close Klan ties. Al and GA both had Dem Governors in that period who were members of the Klan.
And I was talking POLITICIANS, not sure how you thought I meant individual citizens. Conservative always meant "states rights" whether GOP or Dem and a huge part of "states rights" was the RIGHT to segregate.
If you don't think Conservative southern Dems were segregationists, I don't know what to tell you. There wasn't really much GOP representation in the South to speak of, so when former Dems left the party, they basically slipped into the same role and power positions as Republicans that they had previously occupied as Democrats...
Other than that, I'm not sure why you responded as you did? The post you attacked didn't even mention IN, the midwest in general, or your German-American ancestors in particular. Were any of your relatives Conservative GOP Congresspeople who were forward-thinking on the issue of race that might disprove what I wrote? If so, please share...
It's the reaction to the moment that is judged. GWB and 9-11 is a perfect example of someone being judged harshly for how he dealt with his moment.
I didn't claim ignorance of anything, except maybe your age. The point is that the ORIGINAL GI Bill did very little to improve the racial economic disparity or even assist Blacks from an economic standpoint. In some ways, it made their plight worse...
Umm well they were able to drink out of the same water fountain as whites, they were able to sit in white sections in restaurants and public transportation.
I'm not sure if you took a pill that you'd find any support among the black community to go back to the good o days of segregation, nonexistent voting rights, zero political representation and zero power to combat discriminatory hiring practices.
Sounds like the good ol days that we need to get back to. Lol
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I am not sure why you and DANC are continuing to argue, since I think you both agree that (1) the language of the GI Bill was race neutral, but (2) the application of it, particularly in the South, was racially discriminatory against black veterans.
From this article, it appears that some black veterans actually did benefit from the GI Bill, but many who would have liked to, did not.
The GI Bill should’ve been race neutral, politicos made sure it wasn’t
While white veterans got into college with relative ease, black service members faced limited options and outright denial in their pursuit for educational advancement.
www.militarytimes.com
"Limited opportunities for black servicemen
Black service members had a different kind of experience. The GI Bill’s race-neutral language had filled the 1 million African American veterans with hope that they, too, could take advantage of federal assistance.
Integrated universities and historically black colleges and universities – commonly known as HBCUs – welcomed black veterans and their federal dollars, which led to the growth of a new black middle class in the immediate postwar years.
Yet, the underfunding of HBCUs limited opportunities for these large numbers of black veterans. Schools like the Tuskegee Institute and Alcorn State lacked government investment in their infrastructure and simply could not accommodate an influx of so many students, whereas well-funded white institutions were more equipped to take in students.
Research has also revealed that a lack of formal secondary education for black soldiers prior to their service inhibited their paths to colleges and universities.
As historians Kathleen J. Frydl, Ira Katznelson and others have argued, U.S. Representative John Rankin of Mississippi exacerbated these racial disparities. Rankin, a staunch segregationist, chaired the committee that drafted the bill. From this position, he ensured that local Veterans Administrations controlled the distribution of funds.
This meant that when black southerners applied for their assistance, they faced the prejudices of white officials from their communities who often forced them into vocational schools instead of colleges or denied their benefits altogether."
Last edited by a moderator:
On the flip side, the right has done a really good job framing the left as insane race baiters so, it's so distorted and offensive now to call it out and discuss if something is indeed racy or not.
I'd like to get back to a place where we can call out racist actions and discuss/possibly correct without it meaning that someone is a 100% an evil racist POS along with their entire family, community, etc.
when you hear the rhetoric of the squad from cori bush to aoc the progressive crew are race baiters. i fear it will have a backlash effect and thwart further progress that's definitely needed
