Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?

[jasonnfree]

Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

 

[IM2]

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

Why don't you be honest for once in your life? The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students. They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice. Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence. Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.

Wrong.

Do you really understand what social engineering is?

 

[IM2]

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

And that same republican president had the wetback boats.

 

[katsteve2012]

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

Why don't you be honest for once in your life? The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students. They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice. Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence. Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.

Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

. This was in the 1960's, you fool. There were about 60 of us that were sent to a school that had a student body of over 2000.
No black people were attacking white people during that era or In that geographical area.

In fact, we were afraid of being bused into that predominately white school for fear of lynchings, or other white related "group activities" that were popular during the 50's and 60's.

Our parents all told us before being sent there, "be careful, stay to youself and remember Enmitt Till"

The school that I was bused into, had previously only had a few black students who were transferred out by their parents to protect them.

 

[katsteve2012]

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

Why don't you be honest for once in your life? The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students. They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice. Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence. Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.

Wrong.

Do you really understand what social engineering is?

Probably not.

 

[katsteve2012]

There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

The brown versus brown legislation was PASSED in 1954 making school segregation unlawful. The troops were actually SENT in 1957.

Furthermore, I don't disagree. If you read the entire thread, I have stated a few times that SOUTHERN Democrats AND Republicans were not much diffrrent in their ideology regarding civil rights. George Wallace was another Southern Democrat who resisted as well. Thanks for bringing this up.

 

[jasonnfree]

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

The brown versus brown legislation was PASSED in 1954 making school segregation unlawful. The troops were actually SENT in 1957.

Furthermore, I don't disagree. If you read the entire thread, I have stated a few times that SOUTHERN Democrats AND Republicans were not much diffrrent in their ideology regarding civil rights. George Wallace was another Southern Democrat who resisted as well. Thanks for bringing this up.

Thanks for that 1957 correction. I just remembered watching it on t.v. not really remembering what year it was.

 

[S.J.]

Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading. In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C. Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped. Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed. They notified the media and it was covered on tv. Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis). Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors. Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.

 

[Correll]

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Causation proves causation though.

Nixon had t support civil rights. It was the law.

He was a racist himself. Fact.

Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.

Nobody is making things up about Nixon.

Except you.

Nixon did far more than just follow the letter of the law on Civil Rights.

And as has been demonstrated, Presidents can certainly drag their feet and stonewall, and play various games to be ineffective in enforcing the law.

Yes, people ARE making up shit about Nixon.


"
Civil rights
The Nixon presidency witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South.[186] Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationist Wallace and liberal Democrats, whose support of integration was alienating some Southern whites.[187] Hopeful of doing well in the South in 1972, he sought to dispose of desegregation as a political issue before then. Soon after his inauguration, he appointed Vice President Agnew to lead a task force, which worked with local leaders—both white and black—to determine how to integrate local schools. Agnew had little interest in the work, and most of it was done by Labor Secretary George Shultz. Federal aid was available, and a meeting with President Nixon was a possible reward for compliant committees. By September 1970, less than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools. By 1971, however, tensions over desegregation surfaced in Northern cities, with angry protests over the busing of children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve racial balance. Nixon opposed busing personally but enforced court orders requiring its use.[188]

In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.[189] He also endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment after it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and went to the states for ratification.[190] Nixon had campaigned as an ERA supporter in 1968, though feminists criticized him for doing little to help the ERA or their cause after his election. Nevertheless, he appointed more women to administration positions than Lyndon Johnson had"

 

[Correll]

Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

And that same republican president had the wetback boats.

Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.

 

[katsteve2012]

Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading. In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C. Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped. Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed. They notified the media and it was covered on tv. Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis). Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors. Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.

Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.

You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.

The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.

I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim".

What a joke.

 

[S.J.]

Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading. In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C. Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped. Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed. They notified the media and it was covered on tv. Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis). Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors. Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.

Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.

You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.

The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.

I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim".

What a joke.

Bullshit, I lived in the D.C. metro area for 17 years. Don't talk to me about personal experience. I told you I graduated high school BEFORE they started busing in the savages from D.C. Me, not being in school at the time, doesn't mean it didn't happen, asshole. That's your diversion so you don't have to address the issue of black on white violence. I lived in a war zone, you lived in sunny California and still think you had it so rough, you poor little victim.

 

[danielpalos]

From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

I lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

And that same republican president had the wetback boats.

Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.

Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.

 

[Papageorgio]

Negros have exsisted responsiblity free since the war for Southern Independence. Although we admit they all would be canibals without White ingenuity ; they owe Whites their very being, Just leave us alone ; all we ask. Become self suffiecient , get your own gubmint.

That's a load of crap, thanks for sharing.

 

[Unkotare]

...since the war for Southern Independence. ....

You mean the American Civil War?

 

[Unkotare]

I

Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was a kid in the 60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call yourself, you are full of shit.

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.

Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

And that same republican president had the wetback boats.

Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.

Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.

kids who find one phrase, misunderstand it, and then repeat it endlessly because they think it makes them look brilliant are funny.

 

[danielpalos]

I

"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/Wall Street Journalbattleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”



Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)

And yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.

And that same republican president had the wetback boats.

Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.

Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.

kids who find one phrase, misunderstand it, and then repeat it endlessly because they think it makes them look brilliant are funny.

lol. those right wingers and their, "immigration clause".

 

[katsteve2012]

Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading. In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C. Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped. Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed. They notified the media and it was covered on tv. Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis). Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors. Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it. It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.

Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.

You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.

The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.

I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim".

What a joke.

Bullshit, I lived in the D.C. metro area for 17 years. Don't talk to me about personal experience. I told you I graduated high school BEFORE they started busing in the savages from D.C. Me, not being in school at the time, doesn't mean it didn't happen, asshole. That's your diversion so you don't have to address the issue of black on white violence. I lived in a war zone, you lived in sunny California and still think you had it so rough, you poor little victim.

What it means dipstick, is that YOU not attending school where I did at that time does not make you right about what I experienced.

I did not dismiss your "third person" rant as untrue. I never said that black kids did not attack white kids..i wasn't there, just like you weren't present in my time.

Is that to difficult a reality to get through your thick head?

Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.

 

[S.J.]

Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.

And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?

 

[IM2]

Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.

And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?

Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years. And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.

Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.

Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.

So grow up white boy.