CDZ Myth of the Racist Southern Strategy by Nixon in 1972

[Agit8r]

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

....

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

 

[320 Years of History]

Nixon won re-election in a landslide in 1972, and the myth spun by Democrats is that this was the result of the white racists of the South swinging over in a Great Reversal to the Republican PArty.

But this is simply something that did not happen. The growing Support in the South for the GOP came from Suburban and urban whites many of whom were migrants from outside the South or Southern whites who were indoctrinated in college to see racism as a stain on the South's culture.

The Myth of Republican Racism, by Mona Charen, National Review
The “solid south” Democratic voting pattern began to break down not in the 1960s in response to civil rights but in the 1950s in response to economic development and the Cold War. (Black voters in the north, who had been reliable Republicans, began to abandon the GOP in response to the New Deal, encouraged by activists like Robert Vann to “turn Lincoln’s picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full.”)

In the 1940s, the GOP garnered only about 25 percent of southern votes. The big break came with Eisenhower’s victories. Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike even though the Democratic party remained firmly segregationist and even though Eisenhower backed two civil-rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.

These Republican gains came not from the most rural and “deep south” regions, but rather from the newer cities and suburbs. If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn. Instead, as Gerard Alexander notes in “The Myth of the Racist Republicans,” the turn toward the GOP began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Eisenhower did best in the peripheral states.

Alexander concludes: “The GOP’s southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the . . . Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, young, non-native southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were the least ‘Southern’ parts of the south.”

And blacks had begun to move into the Democratic Party well before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was mostly supported by the GOP and most strongly opposed by Democrats.

Politics of the United States of America: When did African American voters primarily switch from supporting Republicans to supporting Democrats? - Quora

The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment.

Aside from these overall statistics of white southern voting patterns, the set of who is and is not a Southern Racist can be ambiguous and generate more heat than light.

So I looked up the biographies of the signatories of the 1956 Southern Manifesto that specifically rejected racial integration. EVERY SIGNATURE was a white Southern Democrat. Everyone of those signers remained a Democrat until the day they died. And most of them had plenty of time to switch to the GOP in response to the 1972 Southern Strategy but none did except Strom Thurman.

Signed Southern Manifesto (with date of death and political affiliation at time of death, bold was alive in 1972)
1956 objecting to the SCOTUS decisions to end segregation in the educational system
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
Walter F. George, d.64 a Democrat Walter F. George - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard B. Russell, d.71 a Democrat Richard Russell Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
John Stennis, d.95 a Democrat John C. Stennis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., d.85 a Democrat Sam Ervin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strom Thurmond, d.03 a Republican Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harry F. Byrd, d.66 a Democrat Harry F. Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A.Willis Robertson, d.71 a Democrat Absalom Willis Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John L. McClellan, d.77 a Democrat John Little McClellan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Allen J. Ellender, d.72 a Democrat Allen J. Ellender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russell B. Long, d.03 a Democrat Russell B. Long - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lister Hill, d.84 a Democrat J. Lister Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James O. Eastland, d.86 a Democrat James Eastland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
W. Kerr Scott, d.58 a Democrat W. Kerr Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Sparkman, d.85 a Democrat John Sparkman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Olin D. Johnston, d.65 a Democrat Olin D. Johnston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Price Daniel, d.88 a Democrat Price Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
J.W. Fulbright, d.95 a Democrat J. William Fulbright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George A. Smathers, d.07 a Democrat George Smathers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spessard L. Holland, d.71 a Democrat Spessard Holland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Alabama:
Frank W. Boykin, d.69 a Democrat Frank W. Boykin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George M. Grant, d.82 a Democrat George M. Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George W. Andrews, d.71 a Democrat George W. Andrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kenneth A. Roberts, d.89 a Democrat Kenneth A. Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Albert Rains, d.91 a Democrat Albert Rains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Armistead I. Selden, d.85 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistead_I._Selden_Jr.
Carl Elliott, d.99 a Democrat Carl Elliott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert E. Jones, d.97 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Jones,_Jr.
George Huddleston, Jr. d.60 a Democrat George Huddleston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arkansas:
E.C. Gathings, d.79 a Democrat Ezekiel C. Gathings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wilbur D. Mills, d.92 a Democrat Wilbur Mills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James W. Trimble, d.72 a Democrat James William Trimble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oren Harris, d.97 a Democrat Oren Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brooks Hays, d.81 a Democrat Brooks Hays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
W.F. Norrell, d.61 a Democrat William F. Norrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Florida:
Charles E. Bennett, d.03 a Democrat Charles Edward Bennett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert L.F. Sikes, d.94 a Democrat Robert L. F. Sikes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A.S. Herlong, Jr., d.95 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_S._Herlong_Jr.
Paul G. Rogers, d.08 a Democrat Paul Rogers (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James A. Haley, d.81 a Democrat James A. Haley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
D.R. Matthews, d.97 a Democrat Donald Ray Matthews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Georgia:
Prince H. Preston, d.61 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hulon_Preston_Jr.
John L. Pilcher, d.81 a Democrat J. L. Pilcher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E.L. Forrester, d.70 a Democrat FORRESTER, Elijah Lewis - Biographical Information
John James Flynt, Jr., d.07 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Flynt,_Jr.
James C. Davis, d.81 a Democrat James C. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carl Vinson, d.81 a Democrat Carl Vinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henderson Lanham, d.57 a Dem Henderson Lovelace Lanham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iris F. Blitch, d.93 a Democrat Iris Faircloth Blitch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phil M. Landrum, d.90 a Democrat Phillip M. Landrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul Brown, d.61 a Democrat Paul Brown (Georgia politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louisiana:
F. Edward Hebert, d.79 a Dem Felix Edward Hébert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hale Boggs, d.72 a Democrat Hale Boggs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edwin E. Willis, d.72 a Democrat Edwin E. Willis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overton Brooks, d.61 a Democrat Overton Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Otto E. Passman, d.88 a Democrat Otto Passman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James H. Morrison, d.00 a Democrat James H. Morrison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
T. Ashton Thompson, d.65 a Democrat T. Ashton Thompson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George S. Long, d.58 a Democrat George S. Long - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mississippi:
Thomas G. Abernathy, d.98 a Democrat Thomas Abernethy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jamie L. Whitten, d.95 a Democrat Jamie L. Whitten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frank E. Smith, d.97 a Democrat Frank E. Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Bell Williams, d.97 a Democrat John Bell Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arthur Winstead, d.95 a Democrat W. Arthur Winstead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William M. Colmer, d.80 a Democrat William M. Colmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Carolina:
Herbert C. Bonner, d.65 a Dem Herbert Covington Bonner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
L.H. Fountain, d.02 a Democrat Lawrence H. Fountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graham A. Barden, d.67 a Democrat Graham Arthur Barden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carl T. Durham, d.74 a Democrat Carl T. Durham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
F. Ertel Carlyle, d.60 a Democrat Frank Ertel Carlyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hugh Q. Alexander, d.89 a Democrat Hugh Quincy Alexander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Woodrow W. Jones, d.02 a Democrat Woodrow W. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George A. Shuford, d.62 a Democrat George A. Shuford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Carolina:
L. Mendel Rivers, d.70 a Democrat L. Mendel Rivers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John J. Riley, d.62 a Democrat John J. Riley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
W.J. Bryan Dorn, d.05 a Democrat William Jennings Bryan Dorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert T. Ashmore, d.89 a Democrat Robert T. Ashmore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James P. Richards, d.79 a Democrat James P. Richards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John L. McMillan, d.79 a Democrat John L. McMillan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee:
James B. Frazier, Jr., d.78 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Frazier_Jr(.)
Tom Murray, d.71 a Democrat Tom J. Murray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jere Cooper, d.57 a Democrat Jere Cooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clifford Davis, d.70 a Democrat Clifford Davis (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsignatory Racist Prominent Southern Democrats:
George Wallace, d.98 Democrat George Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert C. Byrd, d.10 Democrat Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no significant evidence to support this myth that the racist pro-segregation Southern white vote went Republican in response to Nixon's Southern Strategy or that the Southern Strategy was designed in any way to lure racist Southerners to the GOP.

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

View attachment 82806 View attachment 82807 View attachment 82808
It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.


Yes..they were democrats...that's,what we keep telling you

And they began voting Republican when they started talking about "state's rights"

The racist south wasn't--and isn't--a myth.

Wrong..as usual.......States Rights is not a single thing trapped in time...when the democrats wanted states rights...they wanted the power of their states to ignore the civil rights of blacks....today....when republicans say states rights, they mean the Constitutional check on the power of the central government to do things that violate the civil rights of citizens in those states....

Notice that in each way, the democrats want to use the power of the state to violate the rights of citizens.......after slavery......to violate black civil rights......after the civil rights movement..to violate everyon s rights.....


Democrats never change......they just think bigger....

Another assertion devoid of supportive evidence.

Though he didn't present it in the most coherent way one might, thematically, he's right. The term "states rights" has multiple meanings. There is the generic and thoroughly legitimate meaning that pertains to the demarcation between federal and state powers. There is also the meaning of states rights that pertains to the Southern efforts to preserve the civil, legal and political supremacy of whites over blacks as illustrated in part below.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

....

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

 

[Agit8r]

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

....

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who stands Cruz for in other than republican.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another assertion devoid of supportive evidence.

As if any evidence might change your mind on the topic?

 

[320 Years of History]

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

....

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

??? Really? Are you sure about that?

Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country....

Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
-- Maximillian Robespierre, On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794​

Robespierre use of the term referred to the people's use of terror to inspire/incite change in the existing government. His conception of it wasn't that it be the just means by which the existing authorities control the people governed; his thoughts weren't that terror was a just means for the government and its factotums and agents to subjugate the people. Robespierre's context was popular overthrow of a nation state and the parties on either side of that revolt, not tyrannical and institutionalized oppression absent full on revolution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Terrorism is a deliberate attack by military or paramilitary forces directed specifically at civilians in order to intimidate or terrorize them.

 

[320 Years of History]

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Terrorism is a deliberate attack by military or paramilitary forces directed specifically at civilians in order to intimidate or terrorize them.

Okay, if that's what you mean by "terrorism." I happen to think that definition falls woefully short for it implies that sovereign government, an arm of one, or something very close to being one of those two, are the sole perpetrators of terrorist acts. I don't think that's so at all. Be that as it may, I now know precisely what you mean when you use the term, and I can apply that meaning when I see you've used the word "terrorism."

 

[Agit8r]

So, why did the southern states elect terrorist governments?

....

It is quite simply because a majority of voters in the South in the 50s and 60s were terrorism-supporting racists.

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

??? Really? Are you sure about that?

Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country....

Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
-- Maximillian Robespierre, On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794​

Robespierre use of the term referred to the people's use of terror to inspire/incite change in the existing government. His conception of it wasn't that it be the just means by which the existing authorities control the people governed; his thoughts weren't that terror was a just means for the government and its factotums and agents to subjugate the people. Robespierre's context was popular overthrow of a nation state and the parties on either side of that revolt, not tyrannical and institutionalized oppression absent full on revolution.

According to Merriam Webster, the first use of the English word "terrorism" was in 1795 (after Robespierre himself was dead).

 

[Agit8r]

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Terrorism is a deliberate attack by military or paramilitary forces directed specifically at civilians in order to intimidate or terrorize them.

That is precisely what the southern states did, isn't it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Okay, if that's what you mean by "terrorism." I happen to think that definition falls woefully short for it implies that sovereign government, an arm of one, or something very close to being one of those two, are the sole perpetrators of terrorist acts. I don't think that's so at all. Be that as it may, I now know precisely what you mean when you use the term, and I can apply that meaning when I see you've used the word "terrorism."

Including paramilitary organizations makes room for the KKK, Hamas, AQ, ISIS, etc, doesnt it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Terrorism is a deliberate attack by military or paramilitary forces directed specifically at civilians in order to intimidate or terrorize them.

That is precisely what the southern states did, isn't it?

Well the Republican Reconstruction states under Yankee military control did definitely do a lot of that, targeting Confederate veterans and their families across the South, and so did the Democratic state governments that took aver again as the Federali troops withdrew.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh, Lord. That sort of highly charged language is a meaningful part of why political discussions are so often so frustratingly ineffectual. I'm quite sure that what folks, even the racists, were supporting was racism and its continuance as a mode of construing the merit of white folks over that of black folks on the basis of skin color, but I can't find any basis for thinking those folks supported terrorism.

They certainly used what today we'd call terrorist tactics. Using those tactics and supporting terrorism itself are not the same things. There isn't even an agreed-upon definition of what terrorism is, so how can one even support it when one and others don't even agree on what constitutes terrorism? When "the other guy" does "it," it's terrorism. When "we" do "it," it's defending ourselves.

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to what anyone deems to be or not be terrorism, the defining factor in determining which an act (set of acts) is depends not on what was done, but on who did it and who's remarking on the act and actors. That's so re: the racial atrocities in the U.S. as well as re: the religiously driven atrocities around the world in more modern times. All of those acts have driven by one or another not incontrovertibly valid/accurate belief or belief system. They are driven by folks being, in their own minds, infallibly sure they are right and "the other guy" is wrong.

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

??? Really? Are you sure about that?

Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country....

Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
-- Maximillian Robespierre, On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794​

Robespierre use of the term referred to the people's use of terror to inspire/incite change in the existing government. His conception of it wasn't that it be the just means by which the existing authorities control the people governed; his thoughts weren't that terror was a just means for the government and its factotums and agents to subjugate the people. Robespierre's context was popular overthrow of a nation state and the parties on either side of that revolt, not tyrannical and institutionalized oppression absent full on revolution.

According to Merriam Webster, the first use of the English word "terrorism" was in 1795 (after Robespierre himself was dead).

??? WTF are you talking about???

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

Are you truly trying to insult my intelligence and short term memory? Are you seriously quibbling over the distinction between what Robes himself wrote/said re: terror and its use(s) and what others said about him after his death?

You're the one who brought up Robespierre, not I. You are the one who attested to using it as it "originally" was to describe Robespierre's methods. I just rolled with it and gave you the benefit of the doubt by interpreting that you had in mind was that his use of the word "terror" be an/his analogue for our modern term "terrorism."

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay, if that's what you mean by "terrorism." I happen to think that definition falls woefully short for it implies that sovereign government, an arm of one, or something very close to being one of those two, are the sole perpetrators of terrorist acts. I don't think that's so at all. Be that as it may, I now know precisely what you mean when you use the term, and I can apply that meaning when I see you've used the word "terrorism."

Including paramilitary organizations makes room for the KKK, Hamas, AQ, ISIS, etc, doesnt it?

I don't know for I don't know how militarily organized those groups are. I do know it doesn't account for "lone wolf" terrorists who act on their own and without, or with only the most obliquely related, involvement from any organization.

 

[Agit8r]

How then can there be any appropriate use of the word "terrorism"?

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

??? Really? Are you sure about that?

Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country....

Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
-- Maximillian Robespierre, On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794​

Robespierre use of the term referred to the people's use of terror to inspire/incite change in the existing government. His conception of it wasn't that it be the just means by which the existing authorities control the people governed; his thoughts weren't that terror was a just means for the government and its factotums and agents to subjugate the people. Robespierre's context was popular overthrow of a nation state and the parties on either side of that revolt, not tyrannical and institutionalized oppression absent full on revolution.

According to Merriam Webster, the first use of the English word "terrorism" was in 1795 (after Robespierre himself was dead).

??? WTF are you talking about???

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

Are you truly trying to insult my intelligence and short term memory? Are you seriously quibbling over the distinction between what Robes himself wrote/said re: terror and its use(s) and what others said about him after his death?

You're the one who brought up Robespierre, not I. You are the one who attested to using it as it "originally" was to describe Robespierre. I just rolled with it and gave you the benefit of the doubt by interpreting that you had in mind is use of the word "terror" be an/his analogue for our modern term "terrorism."

I meant the English word. I don't know what the French equivalent would be. The English word appears to have been used pejoratively.

 

[320 Years of History]

Define clearly and precisely what it means in the context in which one is about to use it, and use it subject to the definition one provided. Then proceed to make the case that one's use of it is factually supported in both connotation and denotation, form and substance. Just tossing the term out there and inflaming a discussion is the wrong way to use it.

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

??? Really? Are you sure about that?

Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country....

Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.
-- Maximillian Robespierre, On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794​

Robespierre use of the term referred to the people's use of terror to inspire/incite change in the existing government. His conception of it wasn't that it be the just means by which the existing authorities control the people governed; his thoughts weren't that terror was a just means for the government and its factotums and agents to subjugate the people. Robespierre's context was popular overthrow of a nation state and the parties on either side of that revolt, not tyrannical and institutionalized oppression absent full on revolution.

According to Merriam Webster, the first use of the English word "terrorism" was in 1795 (after Robespierre himself was dead).

??? WTF are you talking about???

I used it in the same sense it originally was, when it described the governance of Robespierre.

Are you truly trying to insult my intelligence and short term memory? Are you seriously quibbling over the distinction between what Robes himself wrote/said re: terror and its use(s) and what others said about him after his death?

You're the one who brought up Robespierre, not I. You are the one who attested to using it as it "originally" was to describe Robespierre. I just rolled with it and gave you the benefit of the doubt by interpreting that you had in mind is use of the word "terror" be an/his analogue for our modern term "terrorism."

I meant the English word. I don't know what the French equivalent would be. The English word appears to have been used pejoratively.

Whatever....

 

[jwoodie]

Congratulations on destroying this thread through sophistry and bloviation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

bump for the latest smears on Trump

 

[Picaro]

the proof, in addition jim crow in the south

'Jim Crow' was more prominent in northern states, and Republicans like Lincoln even wrote more stringent laws in their terms in state legislatures in the 1850's, in Illinois and the Mid-west most especially.