Is the Progressive movement racist?

Then why do blacks overwhelmingly vote for Demoncrats?

 

Wrong question. Why are black people and lower class white people NOT Republican?

The topic title is "Is the Progressive movement racist?" thus the racial make-up of this list is germane. Is the pot discussing the kettle?

 

What in the world are you talking about?

I can almost never understand what you mean to say. :laugh:

 

Like I just said; they see them as the lesser of two evils. (Just like why many of you probably still vote Republican, yet complain that they are "no different than the Democrats" and all that other stuff people have been saying the past few elections). So they vote for them, but are still largely unimpressed by their performance.

 

Simple. Their loyalty has been bought and paid for. Something for nothing is now a way of life. Democrats always make that promise.

The last election was an aberration. They voted almost solely on race. It was convenient for them that Obama was also a democrat. Anything else would have caused ...shall we say... a dilemma

 

It was desegregation, basically, that won the black votes over:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html
not "something for nothing"

Also, notetwothy to the discussion is:

 

Nicely done, Salty. :applause:

 

Dear Targus: please ignore my posts

I don't expect you to understand anything I write.

 

That still doesn't explain why Blacks vote for Demoncrats since the civil rights acts passed only because of Republicans.

Demoncrats like Al Gore's father voted against it.

Demoncrats have always been the party for slavery and against equal rights for Blacks - until after the fact.

 

I can assure you - it is not just me. :laugh:

 

Funny, what you call "truth" and "facts" always seem to be so convenient for you! Now unless you're other than human, then that suggests some sort of selectivity in the 'facts' one is dealing with.

You're jumping to LBJ, and that was the final phase in the switch of parties, and the main catalysts, moreso than the Great Society, were the Civil Rights act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places), and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The shift started with Roosevelt (which I thought was what you were going to trump up), and even the New Deal, while creating a lot of programs, was far more than giving some one group "something for nothing" or whatever. (It's described as more of a reaction against the Depression than anything else).

The turnover, where "a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats" was with Truman, who had also instituted more desegregation, in the government.

Nobody denied that LBJ's programs "had anything to do with it", but that was just one part of it, and the final part at that, of a three decade process. (Again, always seeing "denials" where there are none, and I've never seen any address or deny voting for Obama based solely on race, either).
So what is aiming to be argued here? That blacks vote purely to gain "something for nothing" (as if "welfare" programs were the only things offered by FDR and LBJ to begin with), and for other ulterior reasons? Is that it? Wow; something must really be wrong with those people! Just the "incovenient facts", ain't they?

Regardless; the Democrats were the first ones to offer the changes. Now, you can say the gestures were phony, to "buy their votes", or some of the programs added were just part of a ploy to keep them enslaved, or whatever, but they did make the first move, it worked, and the blacks switched; and then the Republicans only responded later. (Just like all the bipartisan compromises that go through, like recently).

Again, do you too think blacks only vote for those who promise to give them some sort of "free ride"? As the article points out, blacks being Republican likely stemmed from Lincoln being Republican, and that yes, the old Democratic party in the South, was heavily segregationist.
100 years later, Democrats began doing an about-face, at least on the surface, in moving to eliminate segregation. This would draw the people to switch. Like any other free citizens, they vote for whomever they feel represents their best interests.

They may be mistaken on this, just as Republican voters have often felt betrayed by their party, and that now, neither party represents anyone's best interests, as people have been saying here and elsewhere. It may well have been some sort of ploy on the part of the pols. (And many blacks did suspect something like this at times. Many were unhappy, with quality of many of the programs, even!) So it may have been shortsighted on the the part of the voters.

But still, it was not about people trying to get "something for nothing". To reduce the entire history of this matter to something like that speaks volumes!

 

ARE YOU KIDDING?

Democrats were the slave owners.

Democrats fought for slavery.

Democrats fought against civil rights for Blacks.

After the struggle was won - Democrats decided to start handing out checks for votes.

You are sadly sadly and woefully ignorant of the history of Black Americans at the hands of the Demoncrats.

Many of the slaves on the plantations thought that their masters were taking care of them too.

 

Whoah, whoah, whoah. You're the one that has your centuries mixed up. I'm talking about the 20th century, and you're still in the 19th century (slavery, etc).

I said, "100 years later, Democrats began doing an about-face, at least on the surface...", and even acknowledged that it could have been a phony ploy.

A political party consists of different individuals. It is not a single conscious person itself. (But then, even an individual can change). So just because the Democrats may have done those things a century earlier, doesn't say anything about what they did a century later. Maybe they were no more sincere, but if so, then they simply changed their tactic, and it fooled the people. Then that would allow for your claim about them "buying votes". (My only point is that on the part of the voters, it was more than just about a "check").

I think you're making way too much of "Democrats" versus "Republicans". (And isn't it your side of these debates who claim they are really not that much different now?) Racism was across the board in this country in the past, and then, across the board it began to change in earnest in the middle of the 20th century. Politicians of either party are primarily looking out for their own career first, so of course there will be a lot of false pretense.

 

Were the slave owing mill owners in the North also Democrats?

Our northern owners were the first to realize that it was more economical to scrap slavery and hire free white trash to do the grunt work.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory205.html

An interesting essay on a right wing pro freedom pro capitalism website.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north33.html

Gary North's obit for R. Rushdoony, the founder of the Christian Reconstruction movement. North was Rushdoony's son-in-law for a few years. You all are Gary North fans, yes?

http://www.garynorth.com/

You all should love his material. www.freebooks.com was his original website.

 

Sorry...but when a particular consituency votes at 90+% for a particular party...I don't think we can help but talk D's and R's.

 

Would the 20th century include 1957 when President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Would it include 1960 when Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats?

Would it include 1964 when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed only after former Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan?

 

You're still trying to prove that Democrats were racist in the 20th century. Nobody is arguing about this. So there may have been a bunch (maybe even a majority) who held onto it into the 60's, but the fact that some of the Democratic presidents made major milestones in overturning institutionalized segregation was apparently enough to win the black vote.

What is the alternative view? Democrats were 100% racist, but blacks wholesale (90%) switched over to them anyway just because of some promise of "something for nothing"? (or a whole bunch of "ice cream" they didn't need). That is totally ridiculous.