The Pro-Civil Rights White Majority

[Correll]

In another thread, Evilfleegle, or whatever his name is, made an interesting point about how the peaceful tactics of MLK worked so well, in part because of the violent threat of those like the Black Panthers.

Dr Martin Luther King saved this country


I made this point.



It is worth noting, that White America was the one that made the call. That had been voting pro-civil rights before MLK or the Black Panthers and continued doing so though out.


The pushback against more and eventually equal rights for blacks were always from a MINORITY of whites.


And no one ever seems to give any credit to the MAJORITY of whites that voted pro-civil rights, along the way.





Rightwinger came back with this


"
White America had a hundred years after the civil war to allow equal status to black Americans.

Instead, they offered platitudes of separate but equal, told blacks to be patient, these things take time, accepted laws and social mores that treated blacks like animals.

The MAJORITY of whites wanted to just keep the status quo

"






At this point, I realized I had made a brilliant point, that deserved it's own thread.




My challenge to Rightwinger, give me your best example of the anti-Civil Rights guy winning the election and telling blacks "to be patient"



For discussion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

 

[rightwinger]

Just one?

After WWI, black soldiers came back from serving their country and expected to be treated like other veterans when they returned. Instead, they were met by a resurgent KKK that swept the nation, beating and lynching those who dared to think they should be treated like whites

 

[Jitss617]

In another thread, Evilfleegle, or whatever his name is, made an interesting point about how the peaceful tactics of MLK worked so well, in part because of the violent threat of those like the Black Panthers.

Dr Martin Luther King saved this country


I made this point.



It is worth noting, that White America was the one that made the call. That had been voting pro-civil rights before MLK or the Black Panthers and continued doing so though out.


The pushback against more and eventually equal rights for blacks were always from a MINORITY of whites.


And no one ever seems to give any credit to the MAJORITY of whites that voted pro-civil rights, along the way.





Rightwinger came back with this


"
White America had a hundred years after the civil war to allow equal status to black Americans.

Instead, they offered platitudes of separate but equal, told blacks to be patient, these things take time, accepted laws and social mores that treated blacks like animals.

The MAJORITY of whites wanted to just keep the status quo

"






At this point, I realized I had made a brilliant point, that deserved it's own thread.




My challenge to Rightwinger, give me your best example of the anti-Civil Rights guy winning the election and telling blacks "to be patient"



For discussion.

Right winger is you typical lefty, his main goal is to victimize blacks, make young blacks feel hopeless that all whites hate them, so they turn to law breaking.. victimhood mentality, it’s the new Jim Crow.

 

[Correll]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

Sure there would. A majority does not imply that minorities will not have sway in some limited geographical areas, or might not be able to game the system to ally with other groups and move their agenda forward.

 

[Correll]

Just one?

After WWI, black soldiers came back from serving their country and expected to be treated like other veterans when they returned. Instead, they were met by a resurgent KKK that swept the nation, beating and lynching those who dared to think they should be treated like whites

Wow. I challenge you to name an election, and you fail to name an election.


Seriously, I should start a thread of wtf is wrong with you liberals.


NAME THE FREAKING ELECTION.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

Sure there would. A majority does not imply that minorities will not have sway in some limited geographical areas, or might not be able to game the system to ally with other groups and move their agenda forward.

These laws were not limited to small geographical areas, they were state wide, hell even nation wide.

History does not support your claim.

 

[Correll]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

Sure there would. A majority does not imply that minorities will not have sway in some limited geographical areas, or might not be able to game the system to ally with other groups and move their agenda forward.

These laws were not limited to small geographical areas, they were state wide, hell even nation wide.

History does not support your claim.

Name the one nation wide one you are thinking of, and let's look at it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

Sure there would. A majority does not imply that minorities will not have sway in some limited geographical areas, or might not be able to game the system to ally with other groups and move their agenda forward.

These laws were not limited to small geographical areas, they were state wide, hell even nation wide.

History does not support your claim.

Name the one nation wide one you are thinking of, and let's look at it.

Laws banning interracial marriage.

 

[Correll]

If the majority of whites had been voting "pro-civil rights" all along as you claim, then there never would have been laws that discriminated against blacks.

Sure there would. A majority does not imply that minorities will not have sway in some limited geographical areas, or might not be able to game the system to ally with other groups and move their agenda forward.

These laws were not limited to small geographical areas, they were state wide, hell even nation wide.

History does not support your claim.

Name the one nation wide one you are thinking of, and let's look at it.

Laws banning interracial marriage.

Damn. Ok, that point is to you.


BUT, can you give me another?

 

[occupied]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just one?

After WWI, black soldiers came back from serving their country and expected to be treated like other veterans when they returned. Instead, they were met by a resurgent KKK that swept the nation, beating and lynching those who dared to think they should be treated like whites

Agreed. The Contributions of the Black Troops of WW2 being marginalized immediately following the War and the return to their mistreatment is a terrible legacy that needs to be cleaned up by all of US.

 

[Correll]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

You remember George Wallace?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

I don’t think it was just a South thing when it comes to not backing Civil Rights back then. The Northern cities and neighborhoods were not keen on integration. They didn’t want Blacks in their neighborhoods and schools.

 

[there4eyeM]

The majority of Americans were and are for fairness. There were and are forces that play groups and sub-groups against themselves for various reasons. The problems of the part of the population that had passed through a slave status were not properly understood by anyone. While many heinous acts were committed by certain persons of the majority group, the majority group was neither vile nor hateful. Willfully innocent perhaps, but not willfully hurtful.
​

 

[occupied]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

You remember George Wallace?

I grew up in Alabama during the later half of the civil rights battle.Yeah I remember him. His late life search for redemption does not excuse his pandering to the racists.

 

[occupied]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

I don’t think it was just a South thing when it comes to not backing Civil Rights back then. The Northern cities and neighborhoods were not keen on integration. They didn’t want Blacks in their neighborhoods and schools.

Both parties were split over the question because at that time the big divide in American politics was geographic and racial rather than ideological.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

I don’t think it was just a South thing when it comes to not backing Civil Rights back then. The Northern cities and neighborhoods were not keen on integration. They didn’t want Blacks in their neighborhoods and schools.

Both parties were split over the question because at that time the big divide in American politics was geographic and racial rather than ideological.

True. But, there is a misconception the the North was this all welcoming and tolerant half of the US. It was not. I remember the shock and awe learning about the busing riots and protests in Boston in the 1970s. The perception was that the White Southerner was the only intolerant.

 

[Circe]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

Why should we be?

Black riots destroying so many cities. High black crime rate. Black refusal or inability to integrate culturally and get off welfare, learn in school, and get jobs. There's not a white here who lives in a black area, I bet: they'd be robbed and mugged constantly and wouldn't survive.

Hypocrites.

 

[occupied]

Practically no white person in the south was pro-civil rights, not out loud anyway. Many of them are still pissed off about the Northern states forcing them into the modern age.

I don’t think it was just a South thing when it comes to not backing Civil Rights back then. The Northern cities and neighborhoods were not keen on integration. They didn’t want Blacks in their neighborhoods and schools.

Both parties were split over the question because at that time the big divide in American politics was geographic and racial rather than ideological.

True. But, there is a misconception the the North was this all welcoming and tolerant half of the US. It was not. I remember the shock and awe learning about the busing riots and protests in Boston in the 1970s. The perception was that the White Southerner was the only intolerant.

That's because southerners felt strongly enough about it to really show their ass for the TV cameras. I grew up in Alabama in the middle of all that bullshit and I remember my older bible-thumping relatives were unanimous in their horror that black people won any political battle in America. God how they hated those busybody Yankees coming down and messing with the way things were supposed to be.