The truth about progressive racism

American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,715
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
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
democrat-vs-republican.jpg


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
 
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.

The left sees race before anything else. They group people by color and make assumptions on how each in the group should think and act. Anyone not conforming to their narrow views are dismissed as ignorant or traitors. The left does not understand how a black man can support Republicans or how a Latino can possibly be against lax border security.

The left demonstrates their racism every time they judge people by looking at them. The left tosses around accusations of racism when they see people who are not obsessed with color. They are incapable of seeing people for their qualities and they only note races and ethnicities, as if that means anything. To support affirmative action and shuffling people around to "balance" the colors is incredibly racist. Schools have bussed children to other districts to satisfy their need to make them appear more diverse and then pat themselves on the back for ignoring individuals and their desires. Obama has talked about forcing neighborhoods to be more diverse with no respect for people's own choices.

The reason many blacks and whites are unemployable is because they are often uneducated and raised in a dysfunctional home. Many times the parents are second or third generation welfare recipients and failed to be good role models for their children. This is a direct result of the left's goal to keep them down and dependent.

And when someone suggests that people are more happy when they are more self-reliant, the left has a hissy fit because they don't believe (or don't want others to believe) for one second that blacks can be successful. They have managed to convince the uneducated people that blacks who succeed are Uncle Toms and traitors to their race. They would have you believe that these blacks didn't really succeed and they are merely puppets being used by white people to give the illusion that blacks are as smart as whites. How dare they prove the left wrong by being more than just a liberal slave. The left pounces on them for fear other blacks will get the idea that they could be living better by resisting the "help" shoved down their throats.
 
Last edited:
Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives

Southern segregationists were never "progressive". They were always, and still are, "conservative".
Progressives = Fabian Socialists/Communists

Progressives haven't existed for some 80 years. Fabian was more recent.
Irrelevant anyway; my comment was about Southern segregationists. Not Progressives.
No, liberals tried to re-brand themselves because of the negative connotations that come with that word so they started calling themselves "progressives". Fabian socialists have been around since the 1890's.
 
Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives

Southern segregationists were never "progressive". They were always, and still are, "conservative".
Progressives = Fabian Socialists/Communists

Progressives haven't existed for some 80 years. Fabian was more recent.
Irrelevant anyway; my comment was about Southern segregationists. Not Progressives.
No, liberals tried to re-brand themselves because of the negative connotations that come with that word so they started calling themselves "progressives". Fabian socialists have been around since the 1890's.

:lol:

Ah, nnnnno Sparkles. Conservatives started MISusing the term back in the Red Scare/McCarthy daze, and more recently and prominently in the hopelessly cynical Bush campaign of 1988.

>> After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- here .... go learn sump'm

Bush '88 would be Lee Atwater, who was blatantly dishonest, as deliberate perversion of one's own language always is.

Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

The Progressive movement rose up around the turn of the (19th>20th) century, starting in Presidential terms with Teddy Roosevelt and ending with Robert LaFollette. It no longer exists as a term with contemporary meaning except as an occasional adjective.

Hope this helps.
 
Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives

Southern segregationists were never "progressive". They were always, and still are, "conservative".
Progressives = Fabian Socialists/Communists

Progressives haven't existed for some 80 years. Fabian was more recent.
Irrelevant anyway; my comment was about Southern segregationists. Not Progressives.
No, liberals tried to re-brand themselves because of the negative connotations that come with that word so they started calling themselves "progressives". Fabian socialists have been around since the 1890's.

:lol:

Ah, nnnnno Sparkles. Conservatives started MISusing the term back in the Red Scare/McCarthy daze, and more recently and prominently in the hopelessly cynical Bush campaign of 1988.

>> After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- here .... go learn sump'm

The Progressive movement rose up around the turn of the (19th>20th) century, starting in Presidential terms with Teddy Roosevelt and ending with Robert LaFollette. It no longer exists as a term with contemporary meaning except as an occasional adjective.

Hope this helps.


McCarthy was right about the communist infestation in our "gubermint". The recently released details of the Venona Project has more than validated his claims. Teddy Roosevelt was a pawn of the banking oligarchs and his campaign to run against Taft under the Bull Moose party was financed by the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans to siphon off votes so Woodrow Wilson could get in and sign off on the Federal Reserve Act, end tariffs and put in place a progressive income tax that is one one of the planks of the communist manifesto. Roosevelt was also a eugenicist that felt that certain people should not be allowed to have children. I don't know who Robert LaFollete is but I am sure he was a communist asswipe as well. Hope this helps you.....
 
McCarthy was right about the communist infestation in our "gubermint". The recently released details of the Venona Project has more than validated his claims.

The bullshitiousness of this claim aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


Teddy Roosevelt was a pawn of the banking oligarchs and his campaign to run against Taft under the Bull Moose party was financed by the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans to siphon off votes so Woodrow Wilson could get in and sign off on the Federal Reserve Act, end tariffs and put in place a progressive income tax that is one one of the planks of the communist manifesto.

The tinfoil conspiratorial fumes of this fantasy aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


Roosevelt was also a eugenicist that felt that certain people should not be allowed to have children.

The dubious strawmania of this delection aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


I don't know who Robert LaFollete is but I am sure he was a communist asswipe as well.

Of course you don't. If you did you'd know he was a staunch opponent of WIlson and his getting into WWI. He stood on principle, when it was wildly unpopular to do so. Take notes, class is in session.

>> He is best remembered as a proponent of progressivism and a vocal opponent of railroad trusts, bossism, World War I, and the League of Nations. In 1957, a Senate Committee selected La Follette as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert A. Taft. A 1982 survey asking historians to rank the "ten greatest Senators in the nation's history" based on "accomplishments in office" and "long range impact on American history," placed La Follette first, tied with Henry Clay.[3] (Wiki)

>> The reelection campaign that loomed just a year off would be difficult, he was told, perhaps even impossible. Old alliances had been strained by La Follette's lonely refusal to join in the war cries of 1917 and 1918. To rebuild them, the Senator's aides warned, he would have to abandon his continued calls for investigations of war profiteers and his passionate defense of socialist Eugene Victor Debs and others who had been jailed in the postwar Red Scare.

The place to backpedal, La Follette was told, would be in a speech before the crowded Wisconsin Assembly chamber in Madison. Moments before the white-haired Senator climbed to the podium on that cold March day, he was warned one last time by his aides to deliver a moderate address, to apply balm to the still-open wounds of the previous years, and, above all, to avoid mention of the war and his opposition to it.

La Follette began his speech with the formalities of the day, acknowledging old supporters and recognizing that this was a pivotal moment for him politically. Then, suddenly, La Follette pounded the lectern. "I am going to be a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate," he declared, as the room shook with the thunder of a mighty orator reaching full force. Stretching a clenched fist into the air, La Follette bellowed: "I do not want the vote of a single citizen under any misapprehension of where I stand: I would not change my record on the war for that of any man, living or dead."

The crowd sat in stunned silence for a moment before erupting into thunderous applause. Even his critics could not resist the courage of the man; indeed, one of his bitterest foes stood at the back of the hall, with tears running down his cheeks, and told a reporter: "I hate the son of a bitch. But, my God, what guts he's got." << --- about "Fighting Bob"
One of my favorite Republicans ever.

Fun fact: his son Bob Jr. was defeated by a smear campaign by the inveterate lying asshole known as ---- Joe McCarthy.
 
McCarthy was right about the communist infestation in our "gubermint". The recently released details of the Venona Project has more than validated his claims.

The bullshitiousness of this claim aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


Teddy Roosevelt was a pawn of the banking oligarchs and his campaign to run against Taft under the Bull Moose party was financed by the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans to siphon off votes so Woodrow Wilson could get in and sign off on the Federal Reserve Act, end tariffs and put in place a progressive income tax that is one one of the planks of the communist manifesto.

The tinfoil conspiratorial fumes of this fantasy aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


Roosevelt was also a eugenicist that felt that certain people should not be allowed to have children.

The dubious strawmania of this delection aside, it's got zero to do with the point of who perverted the term "liberal", and is thus dismissed.


I don't know who Robert LaFollete is but I am sure he was a communist asswipe as well.

Of course you don't. If you did you'd know he was a staunch opponent of WIlson and his getting into WWI. He stood on principle, when it was wildly unpopular to do so. Take notes, class is in session.

>> He is best remembered as a proponent of progressivism and a vocal opponent of railroad trusts, bossism, World War I, and the League of Nations. In 1957, a Senate Committee selected La Follette as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert A. Taft. A 1982 survey asking historians to rank the "ten greatest Senators in the nation's history" based on "accomplishments in office" and "long range impact on American history," placed La Follette first, tied with Henry Clay.[3] (Wiki)

>> The reelection campaign that loomed just a year off would be difficult, he was told, perhaps even impossible. Old alliances had been strained by La Follette's lonely refusal to join in the war cries of 1917 and 1918. To rebuild them, the Senator's aides warned, he would have to abandon his continued calls for investigations of war profiteers and his passionate defense of socialist Eugene Victor Debs and others who had been jailed in the postwar Red Scare.

The place to backpedal, La Follette was told, would be in a speech before the crowded Wisconsin Assembly chamber in Madison. Moments before the white-haired Senator climbed to the podium on that cold March day, he was warned one last time by his aides to deliver a moderate address, to apply balm to the still-open wounds of the previous years, and, above all, to avoid mention of the war and his opposition to it.

La Follette began his speech with the formalities of the day, acknowledging old supporters and recognizing that this was a pivotal moment for him politically. Then, suddenly, La Follette pounded the lectern. "I am going to be a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate," he declared, as the room shook with the thunder of a mighty orator reaching full force. Stretching a clenched fist into the air, La Follette bellowed: "I do not want the vote of a single citizen under any misapprehension of where I stand: I would not change my record on the war for that of any man, living or dead."

The crowd sat in stunned silence for a moment before erupting into thunderous applause. Even his critics could not resist the courage of the man; indeed, one of his bitterest foes stood at the back of the hall, with tears running down his cheeks, and told a reporter: "I hate the son of a bitch. But, my God, what guts he's got." << --- about "Fighting Bob"
One of my favorite Republicans ever.

Fun fact: his son Bob Jr. was defeated by a smear campaign by the inveterate lying asshole known as ---- Joe McCarthy.


Nope, I absolutely stand by what I contend...nothing "tinfoil hat" about it. The Fabian Socialist symbol is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing and the banking oligarchs used them to push communism on America. I don't give a shit what you claim La Follete was.....if he was a "progressive", he was a communist or a socialist. You are not going to get anything by me. I have spend thousands of hours researching this stuff. I despise neocons but I absolutely loathe liberals/progressives with a seething hatred that is hard to suppress. I know exactly what kind of useful pawns they have been and how they have contributed to the demise of this nation....couldn't have happened without them.
 
Southern segregationists were never "progressive". They were always, and still are, "conservative".
Progressives = Fabian Socialists/Communists

Progressives haven't existed for some 80 years. Fabian was more recent.
Irrelevant anyway; my comment was about Southern segregationists. Not Progressives.
No, liberals tried to re-brand themselves because of the negative connotations that come with that word so they started calling themselves "progressives". Fabian socialists have been around since the 1890's.

:lol:

Ah, nnnnno Sparkles. Conservatives started MISusing the term back in the Red Scare/McCarthy daze, and more recently and prominently in the hopelessly cynical Bush campaign of 1988.

>> After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- here .... go learn sump'm

The Progressive movement rose up around the turn of the (19th>20th) century, starting in Presidential terms with Teddy Roosevelt and ending with Robert LaFollette. It no longer exists as a term with contemporary meaning except as an occasional adjective.

Hope this helps.


McCarthy was right about the communist infestation in our "gubermint". The recently released details of the Venona Project has more than validated his claims. Teddy Roosevelt was a pawn of the banking oligarchs and his campaign to run against Taft under the Bull Moose party was financed by the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans to siphon off votes so Woodrow Wilson could get in and sign off on the Federal Reserve Act, end tariffs and put in place a progressive income tax that is one one of the planks of the communist manifesto. Roosevelt was also a eugenicist that felt that certain people should not be allowed to have children. I don't know who Robert LaFollete is but I am sure he was a communist asswipe as well. Hope this helps you.....
I had to hit the quote button here to see what idiot you were arguing with. Almost sorry I did now, but as always, misinformation needs the truth.
You'd be well served to put possum boy on your ignore list. The marsupial speaks as though he is an authority on everything but can't tell a fact from a bag of meth-anphetimine. (Is that his real problem?
He claims the term Progressive is obsolete, or at least that the "Progressive Movement" ended with LaFollette meanwhile hillary clinton and Bernie Sanders have spent a good part of the debates arguing about who is the one true "Progressive".


hillary clinton called herself a “progressive who gets things done,”
Sanders affirms that clinton is a progressive on “some days.”
“Except when she announces that she is a proud moderate,” he says, “And then I guess she's not a progressive."
“You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive,” “Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street.”

Is Hillary Clinton a Progressive? Depends on Who's Asking
 
Progressives = Fabian Socialists/Communists

Progressives haven't existed for some 80 years. Fabian was more recent.
Irrelevant anyway; my comment was about Southern segregationists. Not Progressives.
No, liberals tried to re-brand themselves because of the negative connotations that come with that word so they started calling themselves "progressives". Fabian socialists have been around since the 1890's.

:lol:

Ah, nnnnno Sparkles. Conservatives started MISusing the term back in the Red Scare/McCarthy daze, and more recently and prominently in the hopelessly cynical Bush campaign of 1988.

>> After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. << --- here .... go learn sump'm

The Progressive movement rose up around the turn of the (19th>20th) century, starting in Presidential terms with Teddy Roosevelt and ending with Robert LaFollette. It no longer exists as a term with contemporary meaning except as an occasional adjective.

Hope this helps.


McCarthy was right about the communist infestation in our "gubermint". The recently released details of the Venona Project has more than validated his claims. Teddy Roosevelt was a pawn of the banking oligarchs and his campaign to run against Taft under the Bull Moose party was financed by the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans to siphon off votes so Woodrow Wilson could get in and sign off on the Federal Reserve Act, end tariffs and put in place a progressive income tax that is one one of the planks of the communist manifesto. Roosevelt was also a eugenicist that felt that certain people should not be allowed to have children. I don't know who Robert LaFollete is but I am sure he was a communist asswipe as well. Hope this helps you.....
I had to hit the quote button here to see what idiot you were arguing with. Almost sorry I did now, but as always, misinformation needs the truth.
You'd be well served to put possum boy on your ignore list. The marsupial speaks as though he is an authority on everything but can't tell a fact from a bag of meth-anphetimine. (Is that his real problem?
He claims the term Progressive is obsolete, or at least that the "Progressive Movement" ended with LaFollette meanwhile hillary clinton and Bernie Sanders have spent a good part of the debates arguing about who is the one true "Progressive".


hillary clinton called herself a “progressive who gets things done,”
Sanders affirms that clinton is a progressive on “some days.”
“Except when she announces that she is a proud moderate,” he says, “And then I guess she's not a progressive."
“You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive,” “Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street.”

Is Hillary Clinton a Progressive? Depends on Who's Asking


--- and neither of them defined the term either. Thanks for confirming what I just said; it's a bullshit, meaningless term.
--- which as we all know has never happened in politics before, ever.
 
Nope, I absolutely stand by what I contend...nothing "tinfoil hat" about it. The Fabian Socialist symbol is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing and the banking oligarchs used them to push communism on America.

STILL irrelevant to the hijacking of the term "Liberal". Either you're fatally afflicted with ADD and can't focus on a topic, or you're deliberately deflecting away from it.

I'm not really interested in your tinfoil hat stories... I stay on point.


I don't give a shit what you claim La Follete was.....if he was a "progressive", he was a communist or a socialist.

STILL irrelevant to the point. And no, they're not synonyms.


You are not going to get anything by me. I have spend thousands of hours researching this stuff.

oooOOOoooo, sure you have Gomer. :itsok: Glad to meet ya -- me, I personally fell of the turnip truck half an hour ago, and definitely don't have decades of research or a vast library on all this. Not me, nope. :eusa_snooty:


I despise neocons but I absolutely loathe liberals/progressives with a seething hatred that is hard to suppress.

Perhaps what you need is a psychiatrist to see you through all this hate. Clouds the mind. QED.
 
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
democrat-vs-republican.jpg


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.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top