Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't you know it is never about race when it puts white folks in a negative light.
They are part of history. And they are of war heroes. They should be preserved.Hey now, he just posted several link showing a GOP effort to preserve these statues.
Shut up, fool.Profound.
Oh, I live here. I also don't need your permission.Shut up, fool.
If you live here you can talk.
Otherwise please refrain from introducing your worthless opinion.
Have you actually read the 1619 project? Not articles analyzing it but the actual text in full context. Be honestThe 1619 project is a scam, stated so by actual historians who said it was a scam. You aren't fighting for a more detailed history, you are fighting for marxist history to undermine the U.S.....and to teach blacks they will forever be victims who need the democrat party to save them.
So what?Those statues are statues of democrats, you doofus.
When will you racist clowns get some new material, your punkass has been getting a handout since the country was taken over.It becomes about race whenever you want a handout and a do nothing job.
I'll make a deal with you, I'll go back to Africa when you take your pasty, white, do nothing ass back to Europe.But we hear your pleas for Whitey to rescue you from yourselves. We're working on shipping you back to Africa and away from all this horrible white racism n stuff. You and AL Sharpton could maybe share a bunk and snuggle together on the ship, give each other reach arounds on your return trip to Da Homeylands.
Ask 2guy if he thinks they are war heroes.They are part of history. And they are of war heroes. They should be preserved.
I'll make a deal with you, I'll go back to Africa when you take your pasty, white, do nothing ass back to Europe.
Have you actually read the 1619 project? Not articles analyzing it but the actual text in full context. Be honest
That’s a long winded way of saying NO you haven’t read it… ignorance is bliss, right?!Written up by a bunch of con artists and snivelers who wouldn't leave the U.S. no matter what; too many freebies and soft jobs for racist 'minorities' to park their asses in. Whenever they think they get extort more they just rile up the hood rats and get them to riot and plunder.
That’s a long winded way of saying NO you haven’t read it… ignorance is bliss, right?!
"at the time" indeed. Is he still alive? Is he still in charge?It should make democrats feel guilty.......the mayor at the time was a democrat........so essentially, the democrats murdered blacks....and democrats want to blame the whole country for what they did....
T. D. Evans - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In other words, you don't feel guilty about slavery.....nothing to feel guilty about, right?The democrats want Americans to feel guilty for slavery.....which ended in 1865...their entire party is based on exploiting it............
So if they do that, they deserve to be blamed for the Tulsa Race Riots...
You don’t need to buy anything. It’s free to read online. If you’re gonna critique it then yes… you have to read it. Otherwise you do what you’re doing now… ignorantly talking out of your assYou mean unless we buy their idiot racist bullshit you will keep repeating 'you haven't read it'. There, got that cleared up for you. And, ignorance is certainly blissful to your ilk.
Those same historians will ALSO TELL YOU that CONSERVATIVES have opposed EVERY EMANCIPATION EFFORT made by virtually every marginalized group of people in this country for its entire history...this is why they have to gaslight and whitewash history -- because the nature of Conservatism is to always resist progress and return to "way back when"The 1619 project is a scam, stated so by actual historians who said it was a scam. You aren't fighting for a more detailed history, you are fighting for marxist history to undermine the U.S.....and to teach blacks they will forever be victims who need the democrat party to save them.
Those same historians will ALSO TELL YOU that CONSERVATIVES have opposed EVERY EMANCIPATION EFFORT made by virtually every marginalized group of people in this country for its entire history...this is why they have to gaslight and whitewash history -- because the nature of Conservatism is to always resist progress and return to "way back when"
.
And this is easily proven by asking a right-winger this simple question....name a single prominent Conservative Right-winger who was down south, risking their life, marching next to MLK for voting and civil rights
They can't answer that question without deflecting, resorting to insults, gaslighting, or just avoid the question altogether
Because of the Southern Strategy.
In 1968, Nixon did not take a single state considered Deep South. Segregationist, George Wallace, took the Deep South. Hubert Humphry, the Democrats’ nominee, took Texas. This map shows just how well Nixon’s strategy worked and exactly who the Deep South voted for.Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.
On the Southern Strategy lie itself......
The "Southern Strategy" is a Lie | Pundit House
Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.
On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”
The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.
Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!
Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).
A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.
In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.
Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
The "Southern Strategy" is a Lie | Pundit House
Ken Raymond
Jun 2011
Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.
And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.
I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.
For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.
And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.
The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.
And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.
First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.
Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.
Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.
Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.
In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”
The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”
This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.
Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.
“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”
At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the
“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.
Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.
“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.
In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.
“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”
The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.
=================
Nixon had an excellent record on civil rights. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was an avid champion of the desegregation of public schools. The progressive columnist Tom Wicker wrote in the New York Times, “There’s no doubt about it — the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration’s desegregation effort.”
Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.
Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.
Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.
And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.
The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.
The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.
Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures — not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It’s time we recognize this excuse for what it is: one more Democratic big lie.
The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’
