Democrat Party, Slavery and Segregation

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wellwisher, Sep 18, 2014.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Historically the Democratic party was the political party that favored slavery. When the Democrats was confronted with the abolition of slavery, they favored division and separation of the country into opposite sides. When the country remained whole and slavery was abolished, they favored segregation. The question I raise is, has this political party really changed in terms of output effect?

    For example, doesn't the Democrat party still favor dividing the country by harping on opposites like rich and poor, male and female, black and white, gay and straight, etc. How does this differ from the divide of north and south; brother against brother due to the democratic party during the civil war?

    Diversity, if you think about it, is a clever way to get people to segregate themselves, thereby dividing the culture in the traditional democrat way. The democrats got what they always wanted, which were the blacks to becoming segregated from the whites under the guise of diversity. If you can't force someone to do something, but wish them to do something, you need to make them think it is their idea or the goal is something good for them.

    One may argue, the Democrats are the one's that make laws to help the blacks and the group they have segregated with diversity. But one can also argue, the democrats are only setting up separate drinking fountains for each segregated group. The blacks and white 100 years ago both had to drink water so the democrats set up separate watering stations instead of one for all.

    The irony is, if the Republican try to fight against these separate drinking fountains and attempt to homogenize the segregation of diversity with common language and common culture, this is called racist. Historical Republicans assume we are all the same (melting pot) and separate drinking fountains of resources means segregation.

    It is not about rhetoric but it is all about looking at the results and their parallel.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Nope this about rhetoric and wanting to blame the democrats and the left for everything. Also it's the Democratic Party calling the democrat party is just childish bs
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    Between the end of WW II and the late sixties the roles of the Democratic party and the Republican party with respect to blacks was switched. In the old days Democrats in the south used literacy tests and poll taxes to keep blacks fromn voting. These days Republicans use very strict voter ID laws for the same purpose.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Well, you gotta feel a little bad for the guy. The leaders of his "party of morality" are regularly in the news for sexual harassment, calling people "f*gs" and "n*ggers", embezzlement and gay affairs with subordinates on the taxpayer's dime.

    I mean, look at the 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls. Chris Christie, mired in a scandal where he used his office to "punish" opponents by causing misery to his own constituents. Rick Perry, charged with corruption. Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, who have become national laughingstocks. Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann's campaigns implicated in bribery scandals. At this point, Hilary Clinton is going to win not because of any specific strength she has, but simply because all her republican opponents have made themselves unelectable through their philandering or malfeasance.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Which is truly divisive, dialogue about the the rich and poor, or the actual vast differences in representation between the rich and poor which modern Republicons seek to make permanent? Is pointing out racism making racism worse? Or is ignoring the issue the best way to get past it? Democrats talk about it to fix it, and somehow this is interpreted as proliferating it. I don't see how someone could get so confused. What's the divide between gay and straight? Straights can get married with all the rights associated with that and gays largely cannot. Who is working their best to keep this divide? Not the Democrats.

    I've pointed out already that the modern Republicraps are yesterday's segregationist Democrats, but... in one partisan ear and out the other. I'm all for encouraging a feeling of unity, we are all Americans after all, but it's going to take more than declaring the struggle is over to solve the problem.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    What the other guys just said, noting it takes intellect to read the political landscape for what it is. And that follows the observed demographic law that folks who vote against Republicans fare better on IQ tests.


    The Dixiecrats have to be reevaluated in the context of a lot of history. They appear to me to be Republican at heart (socially conservative) but unable to stomach Federalism (the Reconstruction as per Damn Yankees) so they must have begrudgingly turned Democratic in order to oppose what today they call "Big Government" (e.g., the Congress which outlawed the violation of race-based rights violations, which was a Republican one).

    Today Dixiecrats are best represented in the bigotry and outright racism of the Tea Party, as well as certain fundamentalists - such as Billy Graham explaining that the earthquake in Haiti a few years ago was punishment for their ancestors' pact with the Devil. Certainly qualifies as bigotry of several kinds anyway. Hatred of perceived threats is an activation of the defense mechanism, which has been reprogrammed by religious and political indoctrination - the hallmark of these hideous T-baggers, which are probably now living almost entirely like a bacterial culture, just waiting to spread more of their mind-eating pus at the next round of campaigning, thanks to the deep pockets now sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    In 1968, Richard Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" to draw the bigot vote outraged by Democrat Lyndon Johnson's civil rights initiatives. This vote was so alienated by the erosion of Jim Crow segregation and the acquisition of actual political power as well as citizen's civil rights by black people (registering to vote, even) that they had split from the Dems and run a significant third Party Presidential candidate.

    That was the watershed year, after which the Klan became Republican - in national elections. After Reagan showed how effective appealing to bigots would be in drawing white male votes in the South, southern politicians began switching Parties - many saying, famously and even somewhat accurately, that it wasn't them leaving the Democratic Party, but the Party leaving them.

    The Republican Party welcomed the Klan with open arms, and has been rhetorically pandering to them in election years ever since. It turns out the Klan folks, like US conservative white males in general, are really vulnerable to sales pitches by rich white men - gullible as baby sunfish.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And the Republican Party has with each passing year become increasingly undemocratic, actively trying to prevent non Republicans from casting ballots.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    He knows all that, he's just being reactionary. It's best to ignore.
     
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Martin Luther King Jr. was a democrat. So am I. I don't vote for republicans, teapartiers, libertarians, or anyone else to tear down government just because they are paranoid about their neighbors, big government, government spending, or because they are just plain stupid, bigoted, inbred, afraid, or obsessive-compulsive about their religions, much less because they are the "party of Lincoln".

    I want real democratic elections because this country is billed as a democracy; not some gerrymandered oligarchy under the political equivalent of marshall law, the way it was under the last republican administration (and by the way-- under Lincoln too). I don't think that's what our constitution intended, and I've read a lot more of it than just the second amendment, or the parts of it that folks like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh seem to think are most important. The North and Lincoln won the civil war, the constitution was amended, and slavery ended. Deal with it.

    Consider yourself ignored.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Exactly, "historically".

    I guess one could look at recent history, when the Democratic Party favored human rights and the Republican Party continues to oppose them. That would be a positive change.

    No, the divisions actually exist. Mentioning them doesn't magically evoke them.
    The civil war was due to traitors, not the Democratic Party. Also, the civil war involved people shooting at other people, which isn't part of the current political scene. Someone who can't understand that is probably too dense to breathe.
    The old democrats certainly didn't get what they wanted, which seemed to be slavery. Again, someone who can't understand that is probably too dense to breathe.

    Since all the people in favor of separate drinking fountains left the Democratic Party to become Republicans, it could only be correct to say that the Republican Party is the party in favor of separate drinking fountains. These people seemed to be welcomed into the party with open arms and served as sitting figures of note and respect for many years.

    It's not irony that people opposed to the rights of minorities continue to fight against those rights.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910

    • Well done Physbang!
    It's difficult for Republicans to position themselves as a human rights party when their policies are so discriminatory...bringing back poll taxes, moving polling locations to remote and inaccessible places, throwing tens of thousands of legal voters off the voting roll because maybe 4 or 5 voters registered illegally.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I'm not so sure if the GOP wanted a permanent oligarchy. Why else would GW Bush Jr, while a simpleton, allow an Oligarch to topple (Lehman Brothers)? I think he actually did believe in allowing the best of the poor to rise and the worse of the rich to sink. And, again, because he was a simpleton, I must assume that these ideas where formed for him (as opposed to 'by him').

    However, this isn't what "The People" he ruled over wanted (particularly true among modern day Amooricans). As soon as it was abundantly clear Mur'ica was going to actually see a non-violent revolution, a toppling of the banking oligarchies (ex: bankruptcy of GoldmanSux, BJ Morgan, BoA, etc....) together with unknown numbers of Oligarchs in various crony-businesses - then, all of a sudden all the Mur'kin Tax Serfs shit their collective pants - even at the mere thought of "Change They Could Believe In" and demanded their Regulators bail out the Oligarchies that run this country. All that's left now is to drum up a new War, ship a bunch of the less productive Tax Serfs over to it, and let them die "For the Glory of Mur'ika" (and the good of 'Society').

    The fact is, your average Chattel-Class Amooricana demands the Oligarchy become his / her permanent rulers. So, I wouldn't blame either the Rethuglicans or Democrips for the natural instinct of Mur'kin Chattel-Class mentality. While they'll vote for 'Change We Can Believe In' - that's not what they want. They want 'More of the Same We Are Normalized To'. For most of history people have been ruled over because they like being ruled over. Amoorica is no exception to this rule. If anything - We ARE the rule.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You seem to be arguing that democracy is functioning perfectly, we have the rulers we want. So why all the cynicism?
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No, I'm arguing that as an aggregate the Chattel class have elected the rulers THEY want. In the past, when the State couldn't tax small business owners, couldn't tax the laborer for working, couldn't sell debt on the next generation of children (or five), couldn't use the NSA to spy on each and every 'Citizen'. Back before 1 in 3 Americans were listed in the FBI's database. Before Murder Inc was a way of life. Then, yes sure, let the Chattel class with their sheep morality vote in whomever they please. The State was limited and thus THEY were limited in the amount of damage they could inflict on those around them (and themselves). At least with a Limited government, the wolves the sheep-class worship, didn't have direct access to the rest of us. Now they do.

    So yes, in a sense, "Democracy" is functioning perfectly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Who is this class but the majority?
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    lets just deal with the out right lies in this post and let other deal with the other misinformation. the state has always taxed "small business" owners. even back in ancient times shop keepers paid taxes to the state. what your going for is the income tax. which leads us to the your second lie. there is no tax on labor. there is a tax on income. just because the vast majority of people earn their income through labor doesn't mean its the labor being taxed. as explained to you before the income tax can't be a tax on labor if it taxes income gained with out labor say like capital gains or rent but doesn't tax labor that doesn't provide income. like working for habitat for humanity or a soup kitchen. the buying and selling of debt is older than the US and your libertarian ideology. and actually back in the day the NSA could spy on you. they just used different agencies. so as usual your lying misrepresent and flat out making things up. but that's what happens when you belong to an ideology that trys to rewrite history cause it doesn't like it.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The Obvious Question

    A question that has been nagging for a while: What, exactly, is the "Democrat Party"?
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    This is an odd world you have dreamed up, this one in which wealthy capitalists do not on occasion compete with and attempt to ruin each other. Hank Paulson did not like Dick Fuld, for starters.
    The people who formed, organized, and now support the GOP - the oligarchs you claim to despise, including W's entire family for four generations - find their representatives and political minions where they can. Wasilla, Alaska, even.

    I missed that - all the public demonstrations demanding that the bankers be bailed out, all "We Are All the 1%" and "Save the Rich" fundraisers and milk cartons with Lloyd Blankfein's face on them appealing for benevolence. Can't think of how that mass panic and loud public demand for bailouts of the rich got by me - I'm normally at least somewhat connected to the news of the day. Do you have pictures?

    What I recall was a concerted effort by the Cheney administration and its allies in Congress to make sure the bailout went directly to private corporations and their top executives, without involving criminal charges of any kind, and without the taxpayer acquiring any ownership interest, restoration of regulatory oversight, or other social control on how the money was to be used by the capitalists who received it. I also recall that the taxpaying citizens of the country were not informed at the time, or for years afterwards, of the situation. And I recall the public efforts by W to get people to support his administration's plan, in the face of quite a bit of public skepticism and opposition.
     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Are you suggesting Lehman Brothers collapse was a conspiracy? Infighting between the rich? Give me a break. They were allowed to collapse because The Party's right-wing supported that ideology so long as it didn't totally undermine their business-as-usual model of Rule of the Chattel Classes.... oh, I mean 'Regulation' of the Chattel Classes.

    Lets suppose it was 'infighting' or bad blood (which it most certainly was not) - then the solution is simple: do NOT give Government the ability to 'bailout' the Rich Oligarchies.
    Simple enough?
    End Tax on Labor - this alone will End the Federal Reserve and go along ways towards freeing the Chattel Class from their worse enemy - themselves.

    Because, when you do give the Government the power to bailout the rich, the richest most powerful people in the world will quickly write laws into existent that necessitates the State use force against any and every innocent human within its geopolitical domain to bail them out. Which is exactly what happened and continues to happen. The Chattel Class will support bailing out their Farmers/Masters because that's what they are, Chattel. Chattel like being penned in and Farmed. It gives them a place to wave a flag and that makes them feel like their part of something bigger then themselves "The Herd" *waves (insert Nation State or Religious Identity) flag*

    Given many of these super-rich, very rich and well connect powerful families are f*cking retarded (see The People's choice: Pretzel Boy) even when they (the rich) may break the laws (which they do all the time) THEIR Attorney General coins a phrase "Too Big To Prosecute" and that's that. The Chattel Class accept this as the law as it was told to them by one of their Farmers. They lick their Farmer's hand, get a pat on the head and then wander off and about their paddock and provide the State, their Farmer's with milk and meat.

    This is what they've always done and always will do. Freedom is the occasional fluke of history and it's arrival is in spite of the Chattel - whom wish for anything but individual freedom. No, The Herd is where they're most comfortable. Even if it's just in their head. They're gladly give up any right and suffer any indignity they're told it's for the Good of The Herd.

    Give me a break. A couple small teeny protests that barely disrupted traffic in their vicinity - which, if anything, annoyed all the other Chattel who were trying to get to their milking station and make milk and meat for their Farmers.

    That tiny 0.0001% of the Chattel who had nothing better to do and wanted to get high and f*ck in the park - that isn't representative of The Herd.

    They all got bailed out.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014

Share This Page