Racism in conservative politics

[Camarohusky]

The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes, and now a conservative group puts an extremely racist statement in its marriage pledge.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole? For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

[Gario]

Welcome to the dark side of politics.

[Iron-Hampster]

if you wanna stop being called socialist for not being far enough to the right you have to stop calling people racist for being too far to the right.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole?

I think without better proof you have to look at it as a few idiots. The only generalization I might feel comfortable pointing out in a situation like this, and would broach to those who are Republican, is why it seems that party seems to attract such idiots, and why there isn't a more concerted effort from party leadership to root these ass fucks out? I mean, let's be realistic, the party obviously doesn't have a major problem with black people (Michael Steele was party leader at one time after all), so why not be a little more public and say "we can do without the racist vote if we need to, kthx"?

For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

I think instead of asking loaded questions like this maybe you should do a little fact checking and figure it out for yourself, hmmm?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/11/11 11:24 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: if you wanna stop being called socialist for not being far enough to the right you have to stop calling people racist for being too far to the right.

That's not a very apt analogy there. Calling the Liberals 'socialists' is more akin to calling conservatives 'fascists'. In other words, trading a characterization of political views of one party for a deplorable trait that seems to thrive in the other, just does not compare. It's like comparing oranges to Agent Orange.

At 7/11/11 11:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I mean, let's be realistic, the party obviously doesn't have a major problem with black people (Michael Steele was party leader at one time after all), so why not be a little more public and say "we can do without the racist vote if we need to, kthx"?

That is true, however, to really root out the racism would end up alienating many strong supporters. The Grand Old Party being champions of the way things used to be might just hurt themselves by eliminating this aspect, which as sad as it is, is a comfort for many Americans.

I think instead of asking loaded questions like this maybe you should do a little fact checking and figure it out for yourself, hmmm?

I asked a loaded question, because I am looking for passionate loaded answers. If I were to put everything out there there wouldn't be as much room for response.

[Korriken]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes,

. . . . when the hell did this happen? show me a link proving that the republican party hired a guy to impersonate Obama to tell racist jokes.

and now a conservative group puts an extremely racist statement in its marriage pledge.

Only racist if you want it to be, and knowing you, you definitely want it to be.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families,

true statement, nothing racist here.

yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

Still true, nothing racist here. Births to fatherless families was very low back in the 1800's, even among blacks, given this little concept that most liberals can't grasp. It's called family values. Yes, it happened, but not NEARLY as often as it does today.

Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole?

Or is it simply a case of Liberals jizzing in their pants at another chance to play the race card and ignore the context of the statement? I'm thinking so. Given the fact that the "African American family structure" has been so thoroughly decimated by things such as government money for bastard children, along with the whole "free love" movement and rampant drug use and the degradation of women in black society, it's little wonder that a certain percentage of black children are born out of wedlock.. oh right, 72%. that's almost 3 out of 4.

It's not a question of "are they saying blacks are better off as slaves?" the answer is of course, no. there's no mention of that anywhere in the text. what they are SAYING is in 1860's, a black child born into slavery had a higher change of being born into a 2 parent family than they are today, which is statistically correct.

of course, blind liberals are known for selective literacy, which seems to evaporate when its convenient.

For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

Perception says yes, fact says no. Its funny how Robert Byrd's past never gets brought up, hmm? yeah... something about being in the KKK and fighting the Civil Rights Act in the beginning, then turned around and supported it once he realized there was no way to stop it. some paragon of tolerance on the left. Had he been a republican that's ALL you would hear about. and I don't care that he's been dead for a year either. good riddance.

Before the abolition of slavery, blacks were useful to democrats to pick cotton and tobacco, today blacks are useful to democrats to vote for them to keep them in power. same concept, they just go about it differently. Keep them ignorant, keep them blind, keep them voting democrat.

If the democrats want me to believe that blacks are worth something other than a vote farm to them, then I would love to see them try and tackle Educational reform and implement not more entitlement programs, but social programs aimed at getting all children to take school more seriously and turn away from the self destructive.... I'm not even sure how to put it so i'll just call it the 'rap culture' of promiscuity, drug use, violence, crime, and denigration of education black people.

acting white? no, getting ahead, dumbass. Unlike you, who embrace the whole 'I'm black and proud, I'm gonna do as this rapper says, with Jesse Jackson's blessing' this guy is going to go far in life after he gets out of college, while you sit in your run down shack, drinking cheap liquor and wasting money on a new sound system to black filthy music, when you REALLY need to redo the roof of your house, because some asshole rapper told you so.

Realism and racism are 2 very different things.

[Iron-Hampster]

comedy is comedy. if i wanna be allowed to make fun of Obama, let me make fun of Obama.

and in all fairness, the opposite of socialism isn't fascism anymore, its Neo Conservatism/ Neo Liberalism. Fascism is opposite to Anarchism now.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes, and now a conservative group puts an extremely racist statement in its marriage pledge.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

This has been known to be true for some time, although the trend of high fatherless households occurred at some time during the 60's-70's.

Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole? For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

Start by defining racism. What you identified as an example of racism was a statement of fact phrased in a comical way. It did not express any inherent value judgment on the superiority of one race over another. Nor did it explicitly or even implicitly regard as a 'positive' the institution of slavery nor the dead-beat-dad phenomenon.

If the acknowledgment of race, and of aggregate biological, cultural, and economic differences between the races constitutes racism, then everyone is a racist by virtue of their own capacity to detect patterns in reality.

I did not watch the comedy routine you mentioned, I will admit that. However the quote you identified as a sample of racism did not strike me as racist. Perhaps because my definition of racism is not as "Robust" as yours.

________________________________________
______________

Second issue:

That said, if a comedian makes jokes about the Obama, are the jokes motivated by a hatred of the president or a hatred of African Americans?

My political views to most people are thought of as being anarchistic, with good reason. But ever since abandoning any connection to republicanism I have no personal hatred of Obama's person, whereas there are others with views much closer to Obama's than mine, but who hate him as much as people hated George Bush. [Case and point, search new grounds politics videos post-bush, there are none :P]

This is because modern politics is identity politics. It concerns itself with liking or disliking individuals rather than holding ideas above all else, and more importantly, knowing where those ideas came from.

at present hating Obama and the democrats is probably the closest thing that modern society can come to rejecting statism as an ideology. And If one were to argue that there is no way to separate hatred of the person from hatred of his entire race, I would argue "So be it", better to be a racist then.

_________________________

The inability of what you refer to as conservatives to become appealing to the African American cohort involves keeping in mind two key things.

1. If we be mature enough to accept the existence trends in political attitudes connected to race, we can say that African Americans, though they are majority democrat, are by no means liberals. Whites are more socially liberal than AA's although blacks might not call themselves conservatives.

This also applies to Hispanics.

So it is more honest to ask why blacks are not REPUBLICAN as opposed to asking why they are not conservative.

2. The Democratic party has for most of the 20th century been more vocally supportive of institutional political and economic privileges toward minorities, the republican party has not. The politician that promises booty for the farmers will receive the farmer vote and will likely, in doing so, alienate the non-farming vote.

What privileges? Affirmative action, diversity quotas.

If you define racism as not being in support of these institutional privileges, then republicans and white conservatives are by that definition racist. However there is a difference between opposing a particular measure granting legal privileges to one race [or being favor of removing laws granting privileges to another race]

If a democrat is in favor of removing a law in a state which forces non-whites to use inferior public services relative to their white counterparts, is this democrat motivated by a visceral hatred of white people? [what may be called anti-white racism]

Probably not, but then again, if whites on the whole were continually recalcitrant on abolishing the legal privileges they established for themselves, it can be understood why a democrat might become frustrated with white people as a race.

At any rate, I am personally of the opinion that the position that there should be no institutional political privileges on the basis of race is increasingly a position that is only taken by those who are identified, and occasionally self-identify as being racists.

2.5 There is also resentment relating to what are seen cultural double standards

Suppose further that whites, and white republicans especially, were continually engaged in highlighting, if not glorifying, the culture, history, and overall identity of their race, and whilst doing so 1. Whitewashed the negative aspects of that history 2. Did not extent the same courtesy of tolerating the ability of Blacks to do the same. '

We would expect under such circumstances a non-white democrat becoming resentful of the blatant double standard with regards to behavior

You can claim that 2 and 2.5 are not REAL problems and thus not worthy of consideration, but that is not the issue. The point is that people who either are, or portrayed as being, racists on television perceive them as being real.

[djack]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes, and now a conservative group puts an extremely racist statement in its marriage pledge.

I don't remember ever hearing about the black vote going to democrats as being a problem except during the 2008 election when there were a lot of people voting for Obama purely because he was black and they thought it would show how much America has progressed in racial tolerance to have a black leader rather than vote for the person most qualified to do the job.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

That is a factual statement so I don't really see how it can be called racist. Claiming that is racist is like saying Laura Schlessinger was being racist when she used the n word (don't get me wrong she made some extremely racist comments but those all got ignored because she used the n word) during her radio broadcast while talking about how black rappers and comedians use it so frequently.

Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole? For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

This is a case of what I'm coining a Dick Biden move, a combination of Dick Chaney's use of loaded weapons and Joe Biden's stupidity. Mocking the president is an American tradition and a lot of people make a lot of money for doing it but adding racist statements to an official pledge is just plain stupid and it hurts every group you publicly support.

As for racism in other political groups, it was a liberal idea to give blacks citizenship in the U.S. as most abolitionists wanted to free the slaves and return them to Africa and the attempt to make them equals lead to a lot of conflict and hatred. If you really want to know more about the topic look at Lincoln's views on slavery and then the policies enacted by Andrew Johnson to provide rights to blacks in America. Anything after that is pretty much common knowledge in the U.S.

[SadisticMonkey]

Yeah, Republcians are crazy racists, and it's been this way for centuries. I mean, listen to the kind of lunatic racist thought that Republians spout:

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln

What a typical racist republican asshole.

[Bolo]

At 7/12/11 01:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What a typical racist republican asshole.

Winston Churchill is another great example. Here he is on tribes in Africa:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror"

[Korriken]

At 7/12/11 02:31 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/12/11 01:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What a typical racist republican asshole.

Winston Churchill is another great example. Here he is on tribes in Africa:

you DO realize Winston Churchill was english right? I somehow doubt he was a member of the Republican Party in America.

way to be ignorant.

[Fluffington]

Why don't you learn how to take a joke?

[Korriken]

At 7/12/11 09:26 AM, Fluffington wrote: Why don't you learn how to take a joke?

Because he's a flaming liberal who takes any and all chances (real or perceived) to criticize those who don't follow his ideology, mostly with cues from his favorite pundits to do it.

they seem to have a knack for finding racism, even when it does not exist.

[animehater]

And so the conservative counter arguments to the op once again sound the most well thought out.

[bob742bomb]

At 7/12/11 01:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Yeah, Republcians are crazy racists, and it's been this way for centuries.
What a typical racist republican asshole.

Even though Republicans wanted to end slavery and the Democrats didn't want to.

[chi-master08]

At 7/12/11 11:59 AM, bob742bomb wrote:

At 7/12/11 01:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Yeah, Republcians are crazy racists, and it's been this way for centuries.
What a typical racist republican asshole.

Even though Republicans wanted to end slavery and the Democrats didn't want to.

Well that's not fair because the ideologies of both parties were switched back then. You can't make it out that they were the same now as they were in the 1860's or earlier. If you look into it more you will see what I'm getting at here

[All-American-Badass]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes,

I watched that video and the only thing remotely racist in that video was the Black History Month joke, even that wasn't really that racist.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

That statement is true though; in the slavery era most blacks we bought in bulk by extremely rich plantation owners so a family was likely to stay together. Today though, there's sizable percentage of black households that are single parent (Something that even Obama pointed out) .

[Warforger]

That guy was just a bit weird, a little above terrible comedian, it wasn't so bad that I had a headache from hearing his bad jokes just that they were so uh ehh?

But other then that most Conservatives at racist at the most is their stance on affirmative action. And I agree with them, affirmative action is basiclly telling the Neo-Nazi or KKK clansman that the government needs to help minorities to get good education because they are inferior. It's the dumbest thing people like Jesse Jackson could do.

[Korriken]

At 7/12/11 09:58 AM, animehater wrote: And so the conservative counter arguments to the op once again sound the most well thought out.

that is what happens when emotion bovine gets hit the locomotive of logic.

the problem here is, people saw the words "african-american" and "slavery" in the same sentence and went apeshit on it. they couldn't care less about the facts, or logic behind it, they saw it as a chance to hit their opponents over the head with the frozen tuna of racism accusation.

they say the republicans are the party of misinformation,etc, but this is very solid proof that the democrats are no better, if not worse. and Given Camarohusky's almost word for word parroting of the pundits' position on the matter, I'd say their misinformation works quite well, especially since the democrats are supposedly the champion of the 'lower class' (or at least their dimwitted vote farm that are too stupid to put emotion aside and try to figure out what they are trying to say, instead of getting all emotional and banging the gong of racial accusation)

[Korriken]

At 7/11/11 11:44 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes,

. . . . when the hell did this happen? show me a link proving that the republican party hired a guy to impersonate Obama to tell racist jokes.

nevermind, I'm apparently colorblind as I didn't see the link.

however, you fail to prove that this guy was making a bunch of racist black jokes. According to this post he was making fun of everyone and eventually pissed off the organizers and they booted him off stage.

According to you this guy was standing around making fun of Obama and telling racist jokes. This is not the case.

Next time, provide some solid proof of your accusations of racism, or at least be honest for once. incessant lying gets you nowhere, no matter how hard you try to deride your opponents with your false slander.

[TheMason]

At 7/12/11 12:04 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 2. The Democratic party has for most of the 20th century been more vocally supportive of institutional political and economic privileges toward minorities, the republican party has not.

FACT CHECK:
For the majority of the 20th Century the major civil rights advancements were actually accomplished because of Republicans and in spite of Democrats.

1) Until about the 1970s the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic party in the South oppressing the black vote.
2) FDR's 'New Deal' was an especially raw deal for minorities, often time being regressive for the black population's advancement in society. For example his minimum wage laws actually priced unskilled labor out of the work force...impacting blacks more than white. Furthemore, his pro-Union legislative efforts were aimed at protecting white workers from black competition.
3) LBJ's 'Great Society' was vehemently oppossed by his own party, and he passed these landmark laws with the aid of Republicans.

In the end I believe the black community has been ill-served by their unwaivering and historically ill-informed loyalty to the Democratic party.

[TheMason]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republicans bitch and moan about how the Black vote is automatically Democrat and then they hire a person to impersonate Obama making numerous racist black jokes,

I read the Huffpost story...and that was all they could throw-up as scandalous?

Really, I think most Obama supporters would find the "...as the Tea Party calls Hawaii: Kenya." pretty funny. "Obamneycare"? Throwing a jab at a Republican governor whose healthcare plan was one of the models for Obama's initiative...again not something I'd label racist.

and now a conservative group puts an extremely racist statement in its marriage pledge.

For comedic effect, I shall post the quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

This actually appears to be based on actual social science. Furthermore, I don't think it's mourning a by-gone era that only existed in Southern Mythology...but rather a commentary on how modern culture has a destructive impact on families.

Is this just a case of a few idiots shooting their party in the foot, or a symptom of current conservative politics as a whole? For that matter, are conservatives the only side of the spectrum mired in racism?

1) I think these are cases of Democratic mouthpieces trying to make mountains out of mole hills (Republican mouthpieces do the same thing). So far you've failed to really demonstrate how these things are racist.
2) Ironically, I think this attitude and hyper-sensitivity actually betrays racisms on the Left. Afterall, one of the things I'm disappointed in Obama about is the ways that he appears racist himself. 1) He's refered to his white family members as "typical white ______". 2) His Attorney General dismissed slam-dunk charges against two New Black Panther Party members who intimidated white voters in 2008. 3) He admitted to ignorance of the case involving a black Yale Prof who was arrested for disturbing the peace...and then claimed that the white officer obviously acted stupidly. But he gets a pass.
2.a) Historically the president has been the object of brutal political taunts, barbs and jokes. Every president since LBJ has been compared to Hitler...but when someone makes the comparison to Obama suddenly it's racist. Wouldn't it be racist NOT to treat him like every other president. Opponents of his are dismissed as being white xenophobes. I remember when a few protestors showed up to an Obama rally in Arizona with an assault rifle and pistol. A MSNBC commentator/reporter described him as being a white guy afraid of a black president. Funny thing: MSNBC edited the footage where you couldn't see the guy was black.

[Gunner-D]

Most Republicans aren't racist but most racists are Republican.

[Ravariel]

At 7/12/11 07:13 PM, TheMason wrote: This actually appears to be based on actual social science. Furthermore, I don't think it's mourning a by-gone era that only existed in Southern Mythology...but rather a commentary on how modern culture has a destructive impact on families.

The problem lies in the converse implication that slavery was "good" for black families, and perhaps for "family values" (per Korriken's post) as a whole. It, regardless of the factual correctness of the statistic, implies that a backwards path in social mores would result in a positive effect on families.

3) He admitted to ignorance of the case involving a black Yale Prof who was arrested for disturbing the peace...and then claimed that the white officer obviously acted stupidly. But he gets a pass.

A pass? Excuse me? He got reamed for that shit. It took 2 or 3 whole news cycles (weeks) for that to pass out of front-page rotation, and still people bring it up. It was one of the first major hits to his popularity that he faced.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 7/12/11 09:08 PM, Gunner-D wrote: Most Republicans aren't racist but most racists are Republican.

Most anti-black racists, that is.

At 7/12/11 01:09 PM, chi-master08 wrote: Well that's not fair because the ideologies of both parties were switched back then.

So you're saying that the dude who thought that blacks should essentially treated as a lower class of citizens to whites is actually of the same ideology as you? hahahahahaha

At 7/12/11 11:59 AM, bob742bomb wrote: Even though Republicans wanted to end slavery and the Democrats didn't want to.

Did you read the quote? Do you realise that it's a real quote?

Abe was a hectic racist, like most republicans (and democrats) of the day, and slvery was ended primarily for political reasons.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/11/11 11:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

I once had a coworker with a white mother and a black father. Once she went to school, and strangely, many of the parents in the predominantly white community kept on asking her "where is your father?" She answered where he was not realizing until later they were implying that because his dad was black that he had left her.

In that anecdotal story lies the racism that is apparent in the above quote. That story implies that black people, by their very nature, are bound to leave their children. Statistics or no, the inclusion of this statement is a needless and pointless jab at the entirity of America's black population.

At 7/12/11 10:07 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 7/12/11 09:08 PM, Gunner-D wrote: Most Republicans aren't racist but most racists are Republican.

Most anti-black racists, that is.

And the other types of racists are what?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/12/11 06:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 7/12/11 12:04 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 2. The Democratic party has for most of the 20th century been more vocally supportive of institutional political and economic privileges toward minorities, the republican party has not.

FACT CHECK:
For the majority of the 20th Century the major civil rights advancements were actually accomplished because of Republicans and in spite of Democrats.

1) Until about the 1970s the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic party in the South oppressing the black vote.

You're right, and I am a bit embarrassed because I knew this already. But I'm talking more about the public school American history textbook account, which IMPLIES that democrats were at the forefront of the civil rights movement throughout the century.

2) FDR's 'New Deal' was an especially raw deal for minorities,

I've read Burton Folsom's "New Deal or Raw Deal", and I am aware that the New Deal was particularly harsh on minorities. [the NRA, for example, being nicknamed the 'negro removal act']

But are African Americans aware of this? Most people in general probably are *not*, including most republicans. But you're right, if I made it sound like this wasn't actually the case. I wasn't trying to imply that AA's lean democratic because the FDR *did in fact* benefit their kind politically/economically.

3) LBJ's 'Great Society' was vehemently opposed by his own party, and he passed these landmark laws with the aid of Republicans.

*this* fact i was not aware of... And I'm kind of ashamed now that I didn't, Since I DID know that Ronald Reagan was really the first president that broke the democratic loyalty of the solid south.

But the democratic politicians alive today are of the kind which idolize LBJ, at least his social policy. And LBJ is what the democrats are remembered for, not the opinion of long forgotten party leaders.

In the end I believe the black community has been ill-served by their unwavering and historically ill-informed loyalty to the Democratic party.

I don't disagree with you on this point.

But my point was that the Democratic party is [today] remembered as the party of the New Deal [the white-washed [no pun intended]narrative of it anyway], the great society, JFK, RFK, etc, not as the Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.

In short, I misspoke, and made a few mistakes in my historical anecdote-age, but I still think my general point stands.

[Iron-Hampster]

the Democrats are associated with racism because they used to be the far right wing party but switched places with the republicans somewhere along the lines.

[Korriken]

At 7/12/11 09:38 PM, Ravariel wrote:

The problem lies in the converse implication that slavery was "good" for black families, and perhaps for "family values" (per Korriken's post) as a whole. It, regardless of the factual correctness of the statistic, implies that a backwards path in social mores would result in a positive effect on families.

no, no, no, and no again, it does not. It does if you WANT it to, but obviously if you WANT it to you have ulterior motives. It does not imply that slavery was good for black families, given the first line. Also it never said slavery was good for family values. All the statement is saying is that in 1860, when slavery was legal, there was a higher percentage of children born to a family with 2 parents than they are today after Obama's election.

if people would put away the backhoes of racism and stop digging so hard for it, they would realize that there is actually nothing racist at all about the quote.

It's like trying to say a guy is racist for saying, "I know a black guy with big ears."