The truth about progressive racism

[American_Jihad]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

Freed the slaves, ended segregation, fought against groups like the KKK, the Nazis, you know, not much.....

ROLMAO, you are really stupid, aren't cha...

 

[frigidweirdo]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

Freed the slaves, ended segregation, fought against groups like the KKK, the Nazis, you know, not much.....

ROLMAO, you are really stupid, aren't cha...

You're insulting again. This seems to be a common theme among your posts.

Maybe if you actually tried talking about stuff instead of insulting people, you might feel a little happier in life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So true. Look at the way the left treats minorities who don't support the liberal agenda. They act as if they are traitors to their race for not embracing a nanny government. The left seems convinced that black cannot possibly survive without the aid of government programs. That certainly indicates a very low opinion of people when you don't trust them to succeed on their own.

The left has slowly lured people onto the plantation over the years under the guise of helping them. All they did was help themselves by creating a permanent class of dependent people who will not bite the hand that feeds them.

They've always been the party of racism and slavery, as much as they've tried to pin it on their opponents. Even today, so long after slavery was officially banned in this country, those on the left wrong still think that they own black people. A black person who dares to support right-wing values is regarded by them as the modern equivalent of a runaway slave.

 

[Pogo]

Your sigline is complete bullshit.

And I told you this before.

your link showed this; PROBABLY FALSE

do you know what "probably" means? it means there is no definite proof there was NOT a button like that.......OK?

You don't prove a positive by failing to find a negative. The poster put the image up; the onus is on her to document where it came from. I just demonstrated where it didn't come from.

Think about it.

 

[American_Jihad]

Progressive Racism
David Horowitz exposes the culture of leftist race hatred in Volume VI of the Black Book of the American Left.
May 2, 2016
Frontpagemag.com

In August 2014 the shooting of a black criminal in Ferguson Missouri by a white police officer led to a series of riots lasting several months, and eventually inspired national protests making it the civil rights cause of the Obama era. The protesters’ indictment was summarized in a chant “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” which symbolized their claim that the nation’s police had declared open season on unarmed black citizens and were killing them for the crime of being black. During the public disturbances surrounding the Ferguson events the president and his chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, exhibited active sympathy and support for the movement’s complaints.

When the facts were finally established by forensic evidence and grand jury testimony, and eventually by a separate Department of Justice investigation conducted by Holder himself, they refuted the movement’s central claim.[1] Forensics, video records and the testimony of five black eyewitnesses established that the alleged victim Michael Brown, was targeted for arrest not because he was black but because he had just committed a strong-armed robbery. He did not have his hands in the air and was not shot while surrendering but while attacking the arresting officer whose gun he attempted to wrestle from its holster.

In short, the actions of the crowds that burned the city of Ferguson and looted its community businesses even before the facts were in, and which continued their rampages even after the facts were established, were not those of a civil rights protest but of a lynch mob, unconcerned with the evidence, impatient with due process, and intent on ensuring that a severely injured officer who had been the victim of a criminal attack be indicted, tried, convicted and punished. Or else. How did the mob “know” that the officer was guilty? Because he was white. Mob leaders even demanded that the prosecutor – a white liberal Democrat – be removed from the case because his own father was the victim of a black criminal 50 years previously, and therefore he could not discharge his duties fairly.[2]

This racist thuggery would have been readily recognized as such if the lynch mob had been white. But it was composed mainly of African Americans and “civil rights” progressives, who were supported in their aggression by a media eager to embrace the baseless idea that unarmed black teens were regularly shot in the streets by white police officers who were protected by a “white supremacist” power structure. This, too, was contradicted by the facts. Shootings of black criminals by police have steadily been declining, while the number of whites shot by police officers nearly doubles that of blacks even though black males – six percent of the population - account for nearly forty percent of all violent crimes.[3] Although they constitute only 13% of the population more African Americans are murdered every year than whites.[4] a staggering majority – more than 90% - are murdered by other African Americans meaning that the police, rather than enemies as progressives have made them, are African Americans’ best friends and last line of defense against criminal violence.[5]

A second contested incident occurred soon after in New York when a black street criminal named Eric Garner died while resisting arrest after police were forced to apply a choke hold because of his large size. Garner’s words - “I can’t breathe”- joined “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” as a slogan of those pushing the narrative that America—and especially its police—were irredeemably racist. This led to a second slogan - “I can’t breathe” - which was meant to highlight the progressive mob’s view that the choke hold employed to cuff the 300 pound Garner had actually strangled him. So pervasive was the assumption of police guilt in the case that the slogan was featured on the warm-up jerseys of star athletes and became a national cause celebre. According to the activists, another unarmed black suspect had been murdered because he was black.

This time the charge of racism was particularly ludicrous since it was leveled against a police force half of whose officers were minorities.[6] The sergeant on the scene in charge of the fatal arrest was an African American woman, a fact studiously ignored by the media intent on pushing the narrative of police racism. Eventually the autopsy report showed that unknown to the police who arrested him Garner was suffering from multiple maladies including heart problems, asthma and morbid obesity. It was these conditions that caused the normal trauma of a resisted arrest to result in the collapse of Garner’s pulmonary capacity and his subsequent death in the ambulance later.

In other words, both accusations – of racism and strangulation – were false. But because of the pervasive influence of progressive prejudice in the culture at large, the lynch mobs were ultimately successful. To forestall the threat of future violence stemming from future “protests” The careers of the white officers involved in the fatal arrests were terminated. Ferguson officer Darren Wilson was forced to go into hiding to keep from being killed himself.

The furor of these events spurred much commentary as racial arsonists like Al Sharpton tried to make local tragedies into a national “crisis.” A fact lost in this shuffle is that progressive lynch mobs have been doing this work for decades. Three recent cases show the desperate effort of progressive vigilantes to keep alive the notion of America as a racist nation. One is the destruction of the career and fortune of TV cooking personality Paula Deen, a supporter of President Obama who had given more than a million dollars in charity to help inner city African Americans. In addition to being white, Deen’s offenses were a groundless discrimination lawsuit against her brother that was later dismissed, and her use of the forbidden word “******” in a remark made to her husband in private after being mugged by a black criminal during a bank robbery twenty-five years earlier. (She volunteered the remark in a deposition connected to the lawsuit.[7])

An even more celebrated case was the public lynching of three innocent Duke University LaCrosse players, the result of a nationwide hysteria whipped up over the rape claims of a drug-addicted black prostitute by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other progressives, including 88 Duke professors who signed an ad condemning the students. Before the evidence exonerated them, they had to endure termination of their school careers, a year of public condemnation by national news networks, and onerous fees for their legal defense.[8] Finally, there was the rush to judgment and demand for punishment of George Zimmerman, falsely portrayed as a “white Hispanic” to make him racially culpable in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.[9] As in the Ferguson case, the president and his attorney general led from behind as Sharpton and Jackson poured gasoline on the racial fire they had ignited.

...

There will always be racists and bigots. Only utopians will fail to understand this and seek to deploy the coercive powers of the state to make everyone believe as they do. By contrast, people connected to the realities of this world recognize that America is the most tolerant of societies. Americans’ cultural acceptance of racial, ethnic and gender minorities is virtually without parallel in human history. Interracial marriage, once the strongest racist taboo is now hardly noticed, whether among ordinary Americans or cultural celebrities; large American cities – Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta – are run by African American administrations and an African American has been twice elected to the White House. In their battles with “white supremacy,” progressives cling to a past that is already remote. They have become the true reactionaries of our time, and it is hardly surprising that they are its new racists as well.

Notes:

Progressive Racism

 

[American_Jihad]

Progressive Racism
A review of the latest collection of David Horowitz’s conservative writings.
May 10, 2016
Mark Tapson

...

In the section “Progressive Racism,” Horowitz addresses the left’s agenda to recreate “a race-conscious political culture in which blacks and a handful of designated minorities were singled out as the groups to be racially privileged,” while “whites were made targets of exclusion, suspicion, and disapprobation.” In “The Death of the Civil Rights Movement,” he writes that there is no such movement any longer, and in its place “there is only a self-righteous, fact-denying lynch mob looking for white victims and law enforcement officials to make the targets of their wrath.”

In “Freedom From Race” in the final section, Horowitz takes on the left’s hypocrisy about racial profiling, which leftists favor when it suits their agenda (job placement, school admissions, scholarships, and the like), and which they decry when it does not (in law enforcement and deterring terrorism). This hypocrisy is due to the left’s obsession with power: “Whatever serves their need for power is right; whatever frustrates it is wrong.”

Progressive Racism includes a couple of essays some might find surprising: Horowitz’s controversial essay “Second Thoughts About Trayvon,” for example, in which he sets himself against general conservative opinion about the shooting of black Florida teen Trayvon Martin by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman, who ultimately was judged to have acted in self-defense. “Is the Zimmerman case really open-and-shut?” Horowitz begins. He goes on to question whether the incident was quite so black-and-white, so to speak, as both the left and the right viewed it: “Might it not be possible that the toxicity of the racial environment also infected Zimmerman, so that he saw in Trayvon a caricature” from the racial and political melodrama surrounding the incendiary case?

Another piece that might run against the grain in some conservative quarters is “An Argument with the Racial Right,” in which Horowitz distinguishes himself from the white “Euro-racialists” of the right who have “surrendered to the idea that the multiculturalists have won” and who demand “a white place at the diversity table.” This runs counter to Horowitz’s brand of conservatism, which is grounded in “the fundamental truth of individualism” and “the good old American ideal of e pluribus unum.”

The book closes on Horowitz’s knockout-punch collaboration with John Perazzo, a lengthy essay titled “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream,” originally published in booklet form by the Horowitz Freedom Center. That essay concludes that progressive racism – racial privilege enforced by government – “tears at the very fabric of the social order… Building racial bias into the framework of the nation compromises the neutrality of the law that governs us all… and creates a racial spoils system that is the antithesis of the American Dream.” Horowitz correctly identifies the drive to “level the playing field” – the left’s utopian justification for government intervention – as a totalitarian one and a threat to freedom:

In a free society, composed of individuals who are unequal by nature, the highest government good is neutrality in the treatment of its citizens before the law. One standard and justice for all. This is the only equality that is not at odds with individual freedom.

“It is the only equality,” David Horowitz concludes in Progressive Racism, “that can make a diverse community one.”

Progressive Racism

 

[American_Jihad]

Progressive Racism: A History of Racial Truth, Dare and Deception
David Horowitz’s new book sets the record straight on the Left's politics of destruction.
May 23, 2016
Colin Flaherty
...

...
...

The Post was recently doing one of its usual thumb suckers on Howard University, a hometown black college. The reporter did a serviceable job of describing the day-to-day chaos — not among students — but among people who run the school.

To wash away these administrative sins, the Post reminded us of Howard’s “young strivers with compelling stories and dreams.”

Including Khalil Saadiq “who lost a scholarship when his GPA dropped one-tenth of a point, from the required 3.3 to 3.2.” All because he “organized a viral picture of students with their hands up after the Ferguson, Mo., shooting.”

This is the same "hands up, don’t shoot" story that the Post earlier this year declared a hoax when it received Four Pinocchios for deception. The Post did forget, however, to mention the hundreds of reporters and editors and other employees of that news organization who were active participants in that fraud — and the hundreds of stories they produced for every section of that outlet.

Now we add the name of this Howard University student to the list of people who are spreading the lie of Ferguson. And the Post is happy to go along with it. Again.

That’s just one measure of the insanity surrounding the acting and reporting of black people in this country. And why heaping doses of sanity and pointed observation from Horowitz are the perfect remedy.

Horowitz opens this collection of his writings on race from the last 45 years with a recounting of the collected lies of Ferguson. They are hard to track, and it is great to have them all in one place. But they are hardly new.

He does that over and over with hundreds of examples of denial, deceit and delusion over a generation of racial politics from reporters, public officials, and the biggest fibbers of all: academics.

So many favorites from this book spring to mind: Horowitz was there to interrupt the sanctification of Stokely Carmichael after his death in 1998. During the '60s, Carmichael was a familiar figure famous for calling for violent confrontations against white cops.

Even that was too much for the Black Panthers, who expelled him from their party, driving Carmichael into self-imposed foreign exile.

“Returning to the United States in the late '80s, he took to the lecture circuit as a racial hate-monger, attacking Jews, whites and America to approving audiences on American university campuses,” wrote Horowitz at the time. “Carmichael’s parting shot was to accuse the ‘forces of American imperialism’" of causing his prostate cancer and his death.

But here is where Horowitz goes from being rigorous to relentless. He takes us to the present, where a professor at Tufts University recently wrote a biography of Carmichael that was greeted with thunderous applause in the academy.

Harvard professor Charles Ogletree called the book a “thoroughly impressive volume on a … underappreciated and poorly understood giant of the civil rights movement…”

Horowitz eviscerates this kind of phony scholarship with practiced — and welcome — ease: Carmichael “was not a good man, did not advance the cause of freedom, and the world will not miss him.” He dismissed the book as “sycophantic and dishonest portrait,” but not before showing us why.

The list of people who wish Horowitz would spend more time with his grandchildren and less time telling the truth about leftist fantasies is long — and just as engaging. Angela Davis, Huey Newton, Skip Gates, O.J. Simpson, and a surprisingly long list of violent black activists accused of murder, who are free today because their white lawyers convinced gullible juries the evidence was all about racism.

The families of the victims never forgot. Neither has Horowitz. Now neither will we.

...

Progressive Racism: A History of Racial Truth, Dare and Deception

 

[Pogo]

"Progressive Racism"? Really?

What the fuck is "progressive racism", Jizzhat? Is that like a "kinder, gentler" racism?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

What is with the moronic right and this ridiculous canard – no one believes this idiocy but a handful of rightwing nitwits.

It’s hard to tell which is more pathetic: that conservatives actually believe this rot or that they think others will believe it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Progressive Racism"? Really?

What the fuck is "progressive racism", Jizzhat? Is that like a "kinder, gentler" racism?

For starters, it fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[American_Jihad]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

What is with the moronic right and this ridiculous canard – no one believes this idiocy but a handful of rightwing nitwits.

It’s hard to tell which is more pathetic: that conservatives actually believe this rot or that they think others will believe it.

I'M happy to get all your funnies, it means I got to ya, ya f**king moron...

 

[American_Jihad]

"Progressive Racism"? Really?

What the fuck is "progressive racism", Jizzhat? Is that like a "kinder, gentler" racism?

For starters, it fails as a straw man fallacy.

Tell us all the truth, you have Cranial-phallus Syndrome don't cha...

 

[Pogo]

Huh. Guess he couldn't think of an answer.

Sure didn't see that comin'.

 

[American_Jihad]

Huh. Guess he couldn't think of an answer.

Sure didn't see that comin'.

Cocksucker_jonesin is like you, just one liners...

 

[Pogo]

Poor Jizzhat. Without somebody else's words to cut 'n' paste, he's frickin' lost.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

What has the progressive Left done for people of color?

There were more elected blacks in the US Congress in 1970 than republicans have produced COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction.

I could go on and on and on .. but obviously neither you nor Sowell could figure it out.

Suffice it to say this .. People of color don't need republicans or anything else on the Right. Don't like our company .. we don't like yours. You hate us .. we hate you.

The demographics of the American population is rapidly changing .. with republicans decidedly on the losing end.

Don't come whining about who people of color prefer now .. fuck you forever.

Hope that helps. :0)

 

[WillMunny]

I can prove that progressives are the most CONDESCENDING racists of all time: they look at minorities as helpless perpetual victims who need Big Daddy White Boss to hold their hand and help them function in life. In other words, progressives see minorities as objects of PITY, NOT as responsible adult equals as I do - with the exception of black crybabies and/or muslim crybabies, which I don't even consider human.

 

[Unkotare]

.....progressives see minorities as objects of PITY, .....

No they don't. They see them only as opportunities for manipulation and control, just as the party of slavery always has.

 

[WillMunny]

.....progressives see minorities as objects of PITY, .....

No they don't. They see them only as opportunities for manipulation and control, just as the party of slavery always has.

Yes you have a point. I'm just saying that progressive psychopaths love to APPEAR to root for some imagined underdog, regardless of their hidden motives.

 

[American_Jihad]

WHat has the left done for people of color but empty promises for a vote...
Black and White, Left and Right
The truth about progressive racism and the Republican pursuit of racial equality.
March 24, 2016
Thomas Sowell

Much is made of the fact that liberals and conservatives see racial issues differently, which they do. But these differences have too often been seen as simply those on the right being racist and those on the left not.

You can cherry-pick the evidence to reach that conclusion. But you can also cherry-pick the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion.

During the heyday of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, people on the left were in the forefront of those promoting doctrines of innate, genetic inferiority of not only blacks but also of people from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, as compared to people from Western Europe.

...

Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. Back in those days, blacks voted for Republicans as automatically as they vote for Democrats today.

Where the Democrats' President Woodrow Wilson introduced racial segregation into those government agencies in Washington where it did not exist at the time, Republican President Calvin Coolidge's wife invited the wives of black Congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for it than did Congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up" — in the Congressional Record, in this case.

Conservatives who took part in the civil rights marches, or who were otherwise for equal rights for blacks, have not made nearly as much noise about it as liberals do. The first time I saw a white professor, at a white university, with a black secretary, it was Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1960 — four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

She was still his secretary when he died in 2006. But, in all those years, I never once heard Professor Friedman mention, in public or in private, that he had a black secretary. By all accounts, she was an outstanding secretary, and that was what mattered.

The biggest difference between the left and right today, when it comes to racial issues, is that liberals tend to take the side of those blacks who are doing the wrong things — hoodlums the left depicts as martyrs, while the right defends those blacks more likely to be the victims of those hoodlums.

Rudolph Giuliani, when he was the Republican mayor of New York, probably saved more black lives than any other human being, by promoting aggressive policing against hoodlums, which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it was before.

A lot depends on whether you judge by ringing words or judge by actual consequences.

Black and White, Left and Right

What has the progressive Left done for people of color?

There were more elected blacks in the US Congress in 1970 than republicans have produced COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction.

I could go on and on and on .. but obviously neither you nor Sowell could figure it out.

Suffice it to say this .. People of color don't need republicans or anything else on the Right. Don't like our company .. we don't like yours. You hate us .. we hate you.

The demographics of the American population is rapidly changing .. with republicans decidedly on the losing end.

Don't come whining about who people of color prefer now .. fuck you forever.

Hope that helps. :0)

Ah STFU before I get some weed b gone and spray yo ass...

Fuck you forever more...