Ok, I've officially heard it all.

In the United States, the so-called Jim Crow laws were made to enforce racial segregation, and included laws that would prevent African Americans from doing things that a white person could do. For instance, Jim Crow laws regulated separate use of water fountains and separate seating sections on public transport. Jim Crow laws varied among communities and states. The term is not applied to all racist laws, but only to those passed post-Reconstruction starting in about 1890, the start of a period of worsening race relations in the United States. Similar laws passed immediately after the civil war were called the Black Codes.

How exactly did the Republican National Convention move Jim Crow laws into the state's rights issue? This is the thickest and most subversive anti-Republican rhetoric I've ever heard. Lest we not forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican...
Why no links provided to substantiate your claims? Hmmm....

Let's talk about state's rights. If anyone is supporting state's rights in contemporary society, it's the Democrats. Consider two issues as of late; including Gay Marriage Rights and the Use of Medicinal Marijuana, both of which Democrats have attempted to champion.
Here's some discussion of Medicinal marijuana and John Ashcroft shooting it down in California;
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc501.html

How about gay marraige? (I know it's a national review article, but has pertinent information about Gay Marriage)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/moran200402261523.asp

Here is a quote from one of your recents posts;

If you refuse to see what even the RNC has admitted you'll be waiting a long time.

Denial is one of the main things that puts people out of touch...

I listen to anyone that bothers to speak Sowell or Cosby included, kindly return the favor

Personally, I feel as if these statements prove nothing but complete use of rhetorical statements. I would love to see where you claim that Republicans have admitted to using Jim Crow laws, or state's rights arguments to perpetuate Jim Crow-esque ideals.

If anyone's using state's rights these days, it's the Democrats....

You're late to the line man.

I gave links in a previous post.

Apparently the thickest and most subversive anti-Republican rhetoric you've ever heard...

Comes courtesy of the Republican National Committee.

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

I included another link in that previous post as well that goes into a little more detail.

A "States Rights" was used by Republicans as cover for support of Jim Crow.

"States's Rights" remains a generally Republican issue (If you doubt it, start a thread in "General Political Debate" about it, you'll see what I mean).

In any case it is only tangentially related to the point.

By it's own admission the Republican party (which was the liberal party in the time of Lincoln) gradually assumed the conservative role over the last half of the twentieth century and in the sixties gained a foothold in the South by advocating racist policies.

The link you provided never mentions using state's rights or Jim Crow laws. You are the one who inferred this meaning.

Ken Melhman does state that the RNC didn't do a good job in reaching out to minorities, but that's it sir.

The link discusses, bussing, desegregation, and other race related issues and how the RNC used these issues in the 60's to gain votes. It does state that the RNC didn't want or need the minority vote, and that during this period in history, sticking to the status quo was effective at the voting booth. It's a lot like the DNC pandering to the black community now... but moving right along.

You still haven't provided any links to how the RNC used state's rights to perpetuate Jim Crow laws.

Again, your assertion that Jim Crow laws are perpetuated by Republicans via state's rights issues, is completely unfounded and absurd in my eyes. Please provide some objective information that states that this happened, not that the RNC admitted not catering to the minority communities in recent history... these are two different things.

It's not an inference aevans176.

The RNC chief was discussing the "Southern Strategy". I just happen to know what that is.

I told you I included a more detailed link in my previous post but I'll post it and a few more just to make the point.

First Wikipedia on the Southern Strategy...

Southern strategy

We had a brief thread about the RNC's apology where this link was posted.

GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

This is fundamental political history. Didn't you ever wonder how Republicans who had their political base in the North during the time of the Civil war traded with democrats for the south?

The RNC did just say Republicans failed to reach out, read the quote.

He said republicans intentionally exploited racial divisions.

Republicans were hated in the South for most of their history, how exactly do you think they came to be loved so much?

How old are you? I ask because it's hard to to believe that you don't see something that happened forty years ago is extremely recent in historical term.
I am 59, raised in southeast Texas. I remember a lot from those days. I thought it was wrong the way blacks were being treated then, but now I think it is wrong the way SOME blacks want to be treated now. The rest of us are not here to cater to a bunch of whiners. That includes those, of any color, who want more than they can afford and want to be forgiven when they have to file bankruptcy. It includes those who want better paying jobs but won't do what it required to earn the better job. Likewise anyone who wastes his time complaining about the life he has instead of working toward getting the life he wants. There are some handouts in life, to some, never to me, but waiting for those handouts to be delivered to your door is counter productive.
How young are you?
Jim Crow is still in common living memory. If you want to know why blacks distrust Republicans, well I gave you the answer.

So, what is the answer? Lots of things are still in "common living memory", but it doesn't mean that they still exist.
Doubt it if you want, but you'll be in about as popular a position and flat-earthers among historians.
The earth isn't flat? Sure looks like it. I suppose anyone, even yourself, can beleive a lie if it fits your own preconceived bias. Yes, there are sill racists in this world, of all colors. But not a political party, or even a group such as conservatives. Little pockets of KKK and neo-Nazis perhaps, but they are not part of mainstream America.

Nixon knew it and he steered the Republican party into advocating Jim Crow laws in order to gain their support.
Links, please. Nixon may have played to white fears, but advocating Jim Crow laws? That begs to be proven, otherwise it is complete pasture pudding.


Denial is one of the main things that puts people out of touch...I listen to anyone that bothers to speak Sowell or Cosby included, kindly return the favor.
I listen to those who make sense, not to those who have a racist agenda and/or is trying to captialize on race issues. That includes KKK types, and politicians of both flavors.

Still waiting for substantial evidence of "abuses" in recent history.

This is what Mr. Mehlman said, and I quote;
""By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text"

That's all he said.

No where in the Wilkipedia definition, in the RNC statement, or in your posts does it discuss the RNC "Southern Strategy" in relation to Jim Crow Laws. These, again, are inferences that you made.

Yes, racial politics is part of American history. It still is. The DNC panders to the poor, elderly, and black in order to get votes even as recently as ummm... right now. So what? What does 1968 have to do with today?

I hope that you're not saying that Republicans in the south today continue to win on the backbone of racist ideology. That would, sir, be completely ludicrous. Conservative values are a base of the Southern republican constituency, but it has nothing to do with racism...

(*oh- and how did "white people being out of touch" digress into Jim Crow laws and republicans?**)

Aevans176 You're gonna have to work with me here.

No, I'll say it again, read the quote.


RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

The very title of the article backs up precisely what I said.

This is why contemporary history should be emphasized in schools...

What exactly do you think the Civil Rights Acts were about?

The Wikipedia article clearly explains that the Southern Strategy that the RNC chief apologized for was gaining votes through opposition to Civil Rights Acts.

Civil Right Acts that were meant to make illegal the Jim Crow Laws.


Apparently many white people don't know how the two are related. Understanding that relationship is key to understanding black views in the political realm.


Nineteen, with an long-standing interest in contemporary history and political science. The history of the Republican party and race is well documented.

I do not claim that the Republican party is racist now, but it was. That's how it won the South and lost the North.


Nixon organized national resistance to Civil Rights Acts in the republican party as a way to win him Southern states. He succeeded beyond anyone's expectation.

As I explained before, the Civil Rights Act directly targeted Jim Crow.


Not sure what you call recent. I mean you've already inferred yourself to be ancient in your mid-fifties.

Time flies.

The sixties were recent, abusive, and substantial.

Here is a link that puts both parties to task for their southern strategy type racist practices, and it is as recent as the Clinton era.

http://www.arc.org/racewire/040901t_glick.html

Being out of touch can be done in many ways and in varying degrees.
Certainly getting all hot and bothered about "the other side" and claiming moral superiority for "my side" isn't going to make much progress.

It was violence that pushed the government into creating a civil rights act, and not exactly willingly. John F. Kennedy gets more credit than he deserves, and LBJ probably doesn't get enough for the progress we have made. Nixon gets lambasted by the liberals for his personal racist remarks, but little credit for the good he did.
Each side distorts history to their own advantage, so I suppose with so much distortion going on, it is nearly impossible to be IN touch with the reality of recent history. That doesn't mean that progress is not being made, only that we could be doing more. But we Americans of all colors are stubborn. We don't like being forced into anything. It takes persuasion, and education, and a real effort on our part to understand and cooperate.
However, during election years, don't count on progress being made. The rhetoric that gets spewed in an effort to get votes pretty much moves us in the wrong direction.

Actually, understanding history and what actually happened during administrations is the key...speaking of Nixon...

During the Nixon presidency, the concept of "equal rights" was broadened from desegregation to include school busing, affirmative action in hiring, women, the elderly, the physically disabled, and an expanding and overlapping list of other groups.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Aa...RightsNixon.asp

It goes on to say;
Nixon’s files on civil rights policy issues reveal the genesis of many legislative and regulatory initiatives still in effect today

Doesn't sound all that racist to me... sure, he used the South to get votes, heck, the Clintons did too. Who cares? It was a sign of the times.

LBJ was probably the most prolific Civil Rights leader in Washington's history, but people don't remember his legacy... yet put JFK on the pedestal... why?

If only it were that simple.
I think I will start a thread on the modern Republican Party soon so that the issue can get a good overlook.

The fact is Southern whites looked to the Republican party to protect Jim Crow after Nixon "showed a little leg" for the cause.

Look into how the Republican party became conservative and you'll see what I mean.


Well they were both democrats but...
JFK was shot, hence hero worship.

LBJ was more associated with the failure in Vietnam, hence vilification.

LBJ did work for Civil Rights, Nixon was far more of a mixed bag.

Again, your claims are unsubstantiated and "off the hip" remarks in the eyes of anyone reading this thread, in that there are no links, no periodical references, no information taken from the text of research, etc.

If you choose to start a thread about the history of the Republican party, please remember to keep the original post in the form of a question and to form debate from at least marginally factual information.

Richard Nixon's policies spoke for themselves... which leads me back the question... or maybe a new one.. "who exactly is out of touch, is it white people???"

I really am curious Turnea why you even continue? I have watched this thread and have sadly not been surprised by how quickly it failed. I wouldn't say that White America is out of touch but that some will never willingly admit to any of it. they will always claim "it was propaganda or they are being treated unfairly. It will always be the fault of the Blacks--if they were more civilized they never would have been enslaved and really the slave owners treated them really fairly and actually blacks owe white people for slavery because it taught you to be civilized. The south was never racist and Jim Crow and segregation....Segregation Now...Segregation tomorrow...Segregation Forever...is all a figment of the imagination of black people. If Blacks didn't breed like rabbits or abandon their children to do drugs and steal white women or waste their paychecks on spinning rims, Bill Clinton did it.........."Ad Nauseum

While i think the intention of the topic was a good one I also have to say the best you can hope for is that the older generations die off and take their garbage and hate with them. hopefully this will leave the remaining racist idiots in fewer numbers and a minority with a brief future.

In the case of the Republicans it is obvious to even them that without minority support they will not last long politically as it is minorities--especially the hispanics --who are becoming the political and economic power of the future. In the case of the Dems they are failing because unlike the Republicans they are taking no steps to deal with minorities in any significant fashion. hell before too long Blacks may actually get positions of political power by vote in the GOP instead of appointment alone.

I see no point in continuing the argument--I see no way to win against opponents who refuse to even admit to the severity of racism within the past 50 years and think it is all water under the bridge.

Again Turnea I think the best course is just let time take its toll and let the older racist generations die off and take their idiocy and hate with them. By the time your kids are of voting age I think it will very difficult to even get them to really even understand the concept of racism in America except as something the old folks talk about.

This isn't going to change by debate or even public discussion. Each new generation holds less and less to the concepts that allowed racism to flourish. true many whites can indeed go a long time without seeing any blacks. here in Phoenix the black community is not the largest so I encounter few except for at work. Living in West Virginia i never saw one. Growing up in Connecticut I only knew a handful but am told that its almost an even mix of black and hispanic and white. most of which intermix fairly well.
The High Schools near me here in Phoenix also seem to mix very well. I see them dating all across the spectrum as well.
I would also say that without the white middle class kids the hip hop culture wouldn't be so well off financially. FUBU puts out a new line or the newest CD hits the shelves i hear or see it in Scottsdale through Chandler right back around Phoenix in the blink of an eye--not to peg black culture to hip hop.

I almost started to say "even in the South", except i have to say I think that the South gets an unfair rap these days. Yes the seeds of the old racism are there--but they are also actively trying to leave that in the past. These days that kind of foolishness there seems to be fairly pegged to the ignorant and no longer indicative of a Southener. Indeed having lived as a Connecticut yankee in the South for many years i was more comfortable there than at home in the north. only the west has been better IMO. i won't say it's perfect down there but it is clearly no of the Mississippi burning mentality any longer. I think Don't Tread on Me and Sleeper are more of the Southern stereotype now. Yes the Bob Jones and Strom thurmond's still hold strong influence--but their days are numbered.

In the case of the black community alone I will try to find a report that studied the percentages of College degrees held and being pursued by the black community. One of the arguments used as a negative in the "assimilation" of the black community into the melting pot has been economic factors. i believe that one reason the report tried to illustrate was the lack of engineering and other generally well paying careers--Law, Business, Medicine--versus the unusually high numbers of degrees for things related to Sociology. A left over from the Civil rights days. if I remember correctly it tried to show that the numbers of degrees were comparable in pure numbers, but often did not lead to well paying jobs--as most that deal with helping the community and people rarely do. I think it stated that since the late 80s there was a shift towards the better paying degrees such as law, engineering and IT and this was going to result in dramatic increases in the economic power held by the black community--which i think is borne out by the growing black middle and upper middle class. I think this has been a major problem for the Hispanic community as well.

I have always considered that the Blacks in America are really almost recent immigrants to America. yes they were here from the start and much was built on their backs--but it is really only since the 60s that Blacks were even finally given the barest glimmer of their rights as Americans. In fact only since the 80s have Blacks had a real chance of fair legal representation. like many recent immigrants i think they are only now truly adapting to life in America as the boundaries that held them back have been removed. Just a theory.

I think patience is really the only course of viable action. It seems to me that trying to debate it just makes some dig their heels in even harder and short circuit any real chance for debate.

aevans176,

You are entitled to read the responses in this thread as you will. Please do not tell us how "anyone," a rather broad generalization, other than yourself would read them.



I agree completely. Underlying all of this, however, is what I call “angry white” syndrome—that is a feeling by some white people that they have been short-changed because of programs like affirmative action.



To some extent I dispute this statement. To the best of my knowledge, I am the oldest regular poster on this board. While I have limited my replies on race debate threads, those I have made have been supportive of programs like affirmative action. Some of the post you are talking about are coming from people far younger than I am. The founder of Johnson Publications died in recent days. I have read Jet and Ebony on an irregular basis for decades. Are there other "whites" who read or have read Johnson Publications?

Again Turnea I think the best course is just let time take its toll and let the older racist generations die off and take their idiocy and hate with them. By the time your kids are of voting age I think it will very difficult to even get them to really even understand the concept of racism in America except as something the old folks talk about.

I see no point in continuing the argument--I see no way to win against opponents who refuse to even admit to the severity of racism within the past 50 years and think it is all water under the bridge.

Was any of the above facetious? If so, I must be reading it wrong.


Yes, by all means, since you are so young and full of knowledge and others are so old and ignorant, just wait until all the oldsters die. That will settle the issue. How completely silly , and biased, prejudiced, even bigoted.
Like I said, I grew up in East Texas, in an almost all white area.
Of all the people I knew, only a very few were overtly racist. In 1963 I lost a high school friend when he made a racist remark in school. I stopped being his friend. It was the day JFK was shot. Several others threatened to punch him out if he didn't shut up. There were no blacks there to impress or defend. We were just a bunch of young kids who did not agree with what was going on with respect to minorities. The tide was turning even then, and we young whites were rejecting the racism of former generations. But we can't force all whites to think the way we do, so what makes you think that militant blacks can?
Maybe it is time for blacks to reject their own brand of racism?
Or is it that you are so overly passionate about racism that you see a forest where there only a few trees?

not really Bill. It does however seem to me to be the way it all works. Each new generation seems to carry just a little less of whatever failures the previous generation seemed to have.
One observation I have made here at AD is that many people never change their opinions and will almost always approach a subject in a certain style. The arguments in regards to racism never seem to vary. Different wording or phrasing--perhaps different timing of when they are used--but the song remains the same. Niether side seems to want to ever even admit to the truthfulness whether whole or in part of the others argument--not because they don't believe its truthfulness but because of a dislike of the other. Almost the cut of your nose to spite your face effect.

So it seems to me more a time will wear it away. I won't claim new bigotries will not arise--it seems to be a weakness of humanity, but from the difference in friendships across color boundries now from when I was a teen it seems more a truth to me that in an almost genetic fashion, the younger generation ignores what the older generations seemed to beleive.
To the first point Bill i believe thats what i said and as to the second i didn't claim they could or it should even be attempted.

Are a substantial proportion of white Americans out of touch with their black counterparts?

I think we're looking in the wrong direction here. I have a great friend, who happens to be a black man, a conservative and has a very successful career. I know him quite well, we have been solid friends for years. But I don't think knowing him, or other black friends and co-workers means I know "black America". I am not all that sure there really is a "black America", anymore then there is a "white America".

Consider this: Who acts similarly? A while male, raised in poverty within the urban core, and a white male raised in an upper middle class neighborhood never knowing hardship? Or that first white male, raised in poverty, and a black male from a struggling family who was also raised in the urban core? How about a black man born to wealth and a hispanic man born to wealth, vs. that same wealthy born hispanic man, and a man born to poverty in Mexico who sneaks into America in a deperate attempt to earn the money his family needs to survive?

To me, what is really at issue when it comes to the differences we face in America has far less to do with race and much more to do with class.

When it comes to racism, is it not borderline racism to suggest that the majority of one race think a certain way or do not understand something, as this topic seems to imply?

Has this lead to a distorted view of the black community as a whole?

Again, I think what is at issue here is more differences in class then race. There are several black families on my block. When it comes to stereo-types, the fathers of two of those families act more "white" then I do. However, we all get along well because we all come from similar backgrounds / upbringings and have similar goals for our families.

When was the last time you sat down for a meal with a family/person not of your racial background?

Does a neighborhood BBQ count? Does spending 3+ hours on the phone with a friend, who happens to be black, and lives in a different town count? What about going out to lunch with co-workers who happen to be people of color?

Is personal contact with persons of another race important to forming an accurate impression of the state of race relations in this country?

If you want to understand anyone who is different then you, regardless of whether the differences are race based, class based, sexual orientation based, etc. Socially interacting with them is the best way to go.

However, if we are ever going to understand the growing divide in this country we need to look at the very real divide between the classes, that crosses racial lines all over the nation.

Well, you can trust me on this one, there is.

Most black people will tell you if asked politely that African-Americans feel a distinct identity do to many shared factors in their family histories.

"Black America" does exist, no doubt about it.


I have a family that spans the class spectrum, maybe it's just us but we pretty much act the same.

It's not even about "acting black", rich African-Americans generally know there are black. being black isn't about actions it's about identity.

Just like being America vs. any other nation in the world, it's simply who you are.

...and I didn't imply a majority of whites were "out of touch (I was very careful not to say that in fact) but that a "substantial proportion" might be.

Vague, but fair I think.

I won't claim that race is the only, or even the deepest distinction in our country...

but the distinction does exist and it is important to the day to day lives of most African-Americans.

Turnea, this is my main problem with most racial discussions. What is the "black identity", what does it entail? What does it mean to act "black" or be "black"? What is being a black person? I can't figure out if half of my family is colored black or they have a black "identity" [half joking]. What is the difference between the two. My point is, if black people, as a whole [I'm not saying this is true, just a hypothetical] can't tell me or anyone else what the black "identity" is, how can anyone honestly expect white people to understand it? If black people can't say what it is to be "black", then how can we expect white people to be anything but out of touch?

CP

The black identity is the simple knowledge that you have an African-American heritage.

It not really about skin color, I remember Haitians in school strenuously reminding us they were not "African-American" but Haitian (and don't forget it ).

Even if their parent were Haitians and they born in America they retained a Haitian identity because that is where there family comes from.

Family is still important to a lot of people in this country and knowing where the family came from is an important part of the "black identity".

Acknowledgment of the suffering and humiliation that parents and grandparents likely went through and of their courage to go on in spite of it.

Heck, kids in America still idolize the "founding fathers" to a certain extent because they did some great things, some terrible things as well, but some great ones.

In America you will find most people "proud to be American" even though that doesn't mean that act or look the same, or come from the same class.

It's simply who they are and there proud of it.

African-Americans simply feel they have a heritage to be proud of. That very knowledge and pride is essentially the "black identity".

Well, that certainly helps a lot. My only question now is, how do you get "in touch" with that, if you aren't black? Does simply understanding that make you in touch, or what? How does one get in touch with a culture.

CP

Well, understanding that certainly goes a long way. Being able to deal with a distinct group in America with it's own identity without taking it as a threat to yours is the biggest point.

Most people can, but you'd be surprised how many people still can't adjust.

I guess the second is to understand that the "black identity" doesn't necessary encourage failure anymore that it encourages success (because it can do both).

In the start post for this thread, I listed a number of thing that in almost every race debate in this forum "black culture" has been accused of causing, none of them good of course.

"Black Culture" does not encourage crime, out of wedlock births, poverty, or any of the other range of social ills that are associated in this nation's consciousness with black people.

None of that has anything to do with culture.

Culture is not the whipping-boy for all social ills. When a local community goes wrong, it's not because of an insidious "sub-culture". A culture is an identity and no entire community identifies itself as criminal.

Understand that, and you're as in touch as I care about anyway.

That's exactly true. Most people want to believe that the other side is evil and completely responsible and their own side totally innocent and blameless. They don't want to acknowledge the fact that maybe *BOTH* sides have some merit and maybe there needs to be changes on *BOTH* sides.

It's much easier to point fingers than actually make changes.

I think you might be infinitely surprised at the degree to which the black community in America is self-criticizing.

Rarely do we choose to air our internal complaints in public but I can't think of a single family I know that does not worry and criticize over the same things that some people in America seems to thinks blacks glorify.

Black on black crime isn't simply a complaint of the white community it's something blacks have been worried about for a long time.

Step into any black church and the odds you will hear, at length, criticism of rap music and drug use are pretty good.

I started this thread to focus on whites in America in part because it seems to me there has been a certain complacency that has gone along with being in the majority.

Blacks self criticize all the time, whites because they don't see themselves as a single group have a harder time of that.

It's natural, of course, but it's still a problem.

Every community can get defensive, but simply saying both communities have problems and leaving it at that is pointless.

The trick is to accurately identify the problems and work to solve them.

Finger-pointing, even if it goes both ways, is only a start.

OK, I was with you up until the last statement.
Identifying the problem(s) might be a good start, but finger pointing?
Did you really mean that or was it just a poor choice of words?

Finger pointing sounds like playing the blame game. And there is plenty of blame to go around.

Those who just want to find someone to blame are not contributing to the solution, only adding to the problem.

My experience is that if there is a shortcoming in my life, I need to blame the guy in the mirror. It may not be all my fault, but certainly "if it is to be, it is up to me" to solve my own problems. I have met darn few people in this world who have offered any help unless I asked, and even then, I was usually still on my own.

Noted and correct, what I meant by "finger-pointing" was "constructive criticism" identifying who has the problem, what the problem is, and how we can solve it.

Thought so, and I was editing as you were responding, so it looks like we are thinking similarly.