The Democrat Party and Paternalistic Slavery of Minorities.

[Jroc]

Republicans also never allow black voters into their top ranks.

The democratic party is now run by a black man

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8]Clarence Thomas High-Tech Lynching - YouTube[/ame]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All I have seen from every liberal so far in this entire thread is insults, innuendo's, accusations and trying to take what others say and twist it into something else.
God forbid actually accepting facts as they are, God forbid accept the fact that the Democratic party after slavery was abolished, after Jim Crow laws were over turned - they saw another way to segregate the black population - welfare and federal housing.
It worked flawlessly.
And still today, through the policies of the left, blacks are patronized, rewarded for failure and their bad behavior excused and ignored.
And the Republican party is the one blamed.

 

[Salt Jones]

I have known for a long time that the Democrat Party of the 1960's-70's successfully completed one of the greatest political achievements in American history: Getting black people to vote Democrat.
It should go without saying that this was a truly amazing feat.
And of course to this day minorities still overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Why?
Recently a black republican wrote a small blog that has found it's way in newspapers columns and think-tank columns, television discussions etc. etc.

Here is a portion of that article:

Once the Civil War ended the struggle for equality began. Most blacks saw the Republican Party as the party of freedom and during Reconstruction this was true. Reconstruction had to end and the Republican Party became a minority party in the south with very few white Republicans. The Democrats or the three “s” party, slavery, secession and segregation, had all the power and wielded it with an iron fist. Virtually enslaving blacks all over again.

Blacks in the south were left alone to fight for themselves, their paternalistic Republican Party left them to build alliances of their own. This failed miserably because the last thing the racist south wanted were free blacks, they wanted slaves, free labor and power. The violence that was released upon the freedmen was unbearable and the freedmen gave up their equality to be considered lesser men. (And such as it was for several decades)

When the Republicans tried to help they we rebuffed by the majority, the Democrats. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to intervene through the infamous peonage trials but could not stop the incidents of involuntary servitude. Therefore, blacks felt abandoned even though all the advances of the black race was a product of the Republican Party from 1860 to 1968 they left the party in droves when the Democrats started offering social programs to take care of “the little man.” Encouraged by the likes of Jesse Jackson more blacks voted Democrat. Because of Democratic social programs more black men left the home in order to let the government send money to take care of his family.
He planted his seed far and wide and when the seed was rejected because the planter would be absent, our precious babies were aborted in the millions, all federally funded by Democratic social engineering.
Republicans kept offering a hand up and Democrats a handout. Handouts being easier they were accepted over a hand up. Even blacks that did not take handouts were glad that they were there so they wouldn't have to be responsible for their brothers and sisters. They voted and still vote to keep government handouts going because it is easier than arguing with those who won’t work or taking care of those who can’t.
This is a syndrome that has affected all of our society and the Democratic Party has solidified its base of those who want government to be responsible instead of being responsible themselves. I admit that I could be wrong about some of my observations but I think they are rational and supported by history. Why do blacks vote Democrat, because there are so few responsible black men! Many blacks have been duped into a paternalistic psychological slavery where to be taken care of by the government is encouraged, freedom of thought is discouraged and to be different from the group is not tolerated. Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Michael Steele along with other Black Republicans are repudiated because they stand for responsibility and freedom, they are not on the Paternalistic Psychological Plantation.

Why Do Blacks Vote Democrat?

Study your topic:

The Compromise of 1877 refers to a purported informal, unwritten deal that settled the disputed 1876 U.S. Presidential election, regarded as the second "corrupt bargain", and ended Congressional ("Radical") Reconstruction. Through it, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the White House over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden on the understanding that Hayes would remove the federal troops whose support was essential for the survival of Republican state governments in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. The compromise took effect even before Hayes was sworn in, as the incumbent president, Republican Ulysses S. Grant, removed the soldiers from Florida.[1] As president, Hayes removed the remaining troops in South Carolina and Louisiana. As soon as the troops left, many Republicans also left (or became Democrats) and the "Redeemer" Democrats took control.

Compromise of 1877 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitol Men: The Epic Story of Reconstruction Through the Lives of the First Black Congressmen

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Men-Reconstruction-Through-BlackCongressmen/dp/0618563709]Amazon.com: Capitol Men: The Epic Story of Reconstruction Through the Lives of the First BlackCongressmen (9780618563708): Philip Dray: Books[/ame]

 

[francoHFW]

Paternalistic slavery of minorities? What pathetic Pubcrappe...More like Dem attempt for equal opportunity and safety net for minorities, who are discriminated against by racists and institutional Pub discrimination...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Democratic Party has always been a party of slavery and oppression. That has never changed.

 

[Trajan]

There is no such party in this country as the "Democrat" party.

And the argument here is equivalent to saying that diabetics are "enslaved" by providing them insulin.

Now that is the dumbest point I think I have heard so far this year on this forum.

Why? People are in trouble, you offer them help. But that this creates "dependence" is exactly what you're saying. So, would they be less "dependent" if they DIDN'T get any help? Or would they just be SOL?

What keeps people (not just African-Americans) poor isn't the availability of aid to the poor, it's the UNavailability of enough opportunities.

it's the UNavailability of enough opportunities.

absolute BS...unadulterated self reinforcing fanciful libby pathological BS, because you see, YOU can give them that opportunity..... right?


see how that works?

 

[francoHFW]

The Democratic Party has always been a party of slavery and oppression. That has never changed.

Absolute BS. Since the 1960's, and especially Nixon's (Reagan, Bushes) Southern (Redneck) strategy of 1968 and since...

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_oD1IWrNTc]KKK Democrats Lynching Killing Black & White 'Radical Republicans'. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Epicurus: Freedom is the greatest fruit of self-sufficiency.
Von Goethe:The best of all government is that which teaches us to govern ourselves.
Henry Hazlitt: The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects - his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.
Martin Luther King: - Believe in yourself and believe you are somebody!
Nobody else can do this for us.
No document can do this for us.
No proclamations or civil rights bill can do this for us.
If the negro is to be free he must reach down to his inner-resources and into his OWN soul and sign with a pen and ink made of self assertive manhood! His OWN emancipation proclamation!

 

[Rozman]

There is no such party in this country as the "Democrat" party.

And the argument here is equivalent to saying that diabetics are "enslaved" by providing them insulin.

I see people and I mean a lot of people here
say things about the Repug party...

I wonder what party that would be?

 

[rdean]

Republicans simply can't comprehend the Democratic Party is a coalition party. There must be these incredibly persuasive liberals (I'm guessing Jane Fonda, but who knows?) leading around poor unfortunate minorities who would do so much better being told how to live a "moral" lifestyle if they would only listen to Republicans. You know, those people who make up the majority of people on food stamps, Medicare, unemployment and welfare? Those guys.
Try to explain that not everyone wants to be intellectual slaves to a failed ideology and they simply stare at you with a blank look. But, but, but "conservatism" is "Godly".

 

[Trajan]

excerpt-


Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:

It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.

I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

 

[Salt Jones]

excerpt-


Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:

It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.

I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

Yet Williams says this in the last paragraph of the article.

"None of this is to say that blacks should vote Republican."

 

[rdean]

excerpt-


Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:

It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.

I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

Yet Williams says this in the last paragraph of the article.

"None of this is to say that blacks should vote Republican."

Really. Why would they want to? Look how poorly Republicans treat their own base. And the base doesn't even know it.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMOFsSNS8s]Dr. Walter Williams: Welfare Destroyed the Black Family - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Clementine]

There is no such party in this country as the "Democrat" party.

And the argument here is equivalent to saying that diabetics are "enslaved" by providing them insulin.

Now that is the dumbest point I think I have heard so far this year on this forum.

Why? People are in trouble, you offer them help. But that this creates "dependence" is exactly what you're saying. So, would they be less "dependent" if they DIDN'T get any help? Or would they just be SOL?

What keeps people (not just African-Americans) poor isn't the availability of aid to the poor, it's the UNavailability of enough opportunities.

An opportunity is nothing if you're not prepared to act on it. There are many opportunities out there for all people. If a great job is available, what good is it if you're not qualified for it? The high school drop out rate is high and not having an education will ensure that you don't meet the requirements for many opportunities out there.

The Democrats, historically, were terrible to minorities. I do believe they had no choice but to accept that slaves were freed, so had to use people to their advantage. Encouraging dependence on government is all too tempting, especially for young people. When government is picking up the slack, you don't see people trying as hard to elevate themselves. They settle in and hope that improvement in their lives will come from increased hand outs. This is promised in virtually every election by the Democrats. It's always the same, that they will take from the wealthy and make life better for those who depend on government. They make people believe that it's virtuous to be dependent on government and the entitlement mentality was born. They don't blame dependents for anything, but tell them that their miserable lot in life is due to other people succeeding. They would hate for the secret to be revealed that those dependents could succeed just as well as the wealthy if not for being lulled into a false sense of security by trusting the goverment to tend to their needs.

 

[Trajan]

excerpt-


Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:

It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.

I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

Yet Williams says this in the last paragraph of the article.

"None of this is to say that blacks should vote Republican."

thats right becasue , unlike say yourself, he believes that they should vote their interest and conscience freely, as in 'None of this is to say that blacks should vote Democrats' either, you know like the point of the article?

dismissed.

 

[Salt Jones]

excerpt-


Economist Walter Williams writing at Townhall.com, March 21:

It's not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.

According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia—haven't elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What's more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.

I'm not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities.

Yet Williams says this in the last paragraph of the article.

"None of this is to say that blacks should vote Republican."

thats right becasue , unlike say yourself, he believes that they should vote their interest and conscience freely, as in "None of this is to say that blacks should vote Democrat either, you know like the point of the article?

dismissed.

I vote freely. I succeed no matter the politics. I believe in the right to kill an unborn fetus, gay marriage, higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare.

 

[Trajan]

just as a general note-

its always interesting to see folks flounder, in almost every measure that counts the black race in this country is worse off now than they were say in 1975. Almost every single liberal policy enacted to 'help' has also cost them, and some very very dearly.

Add to that, here we have an openly racist member, ala salt jones who doesn't realize,( maybe he does, as I have never heard him say it or a admit it though), that now that the dem. power structure has owned a huge portion of the present black misery and underachievement, yes, his brothers and sisters in the black congressional caucus reside over some and yea,most of the worst pockets of black misery there are, year after year, decade after decade and then, he and his ilk show up and huff and puff that whitey is keeping them down and that its all unfair or the system is rigged against them....

 

[Salt Jones]

just as a general note-

its always interesting to see folks flounder, in almost every measure that counts the black race in this country is worse off now than they were say in 1975. Almost every single liberal policy enacted to 'help' has also cost them, and some very very dearly.

Add to that, here we have an openly racist member, ala salt jones who doesn't realize,( maybe he does, as I have never heard him say it or a admit it though), that now that the dem. power structure has owned a huge portion of the present black misery and underachievement, yes, his brothers and sisters in the black congressional caucus reside over some and yea,most of the worst pockets of black misery there are, year after year, decade after decade and then, he and his ilk show up and huff and puff that whitey is keeping them down and that its all unfair or the system is rigged against them....

I make 6 figures per year. My parents owned their own business and no one in my family has ever been on welfare. I have never been poor or "down". And provide stats for your 1975 claim.

Blacks are responsible for their our issues, no one else. The bastardization of the black power movement and the "acting white" bullshit played a vastly greater role in black issues than any political party. But keep reading about, while I continue to live, the black community.