Topic: Racism in America - page 4. (Read 3608 times)

People are made to discriminate. It's not whether you discriminate, but whether you choose to find a common ground and willingly set aside natural differences. For that matter, these days those who rail against 'discrimination' are often the most annoying and pathetic out of them all.

There is nothing wrong with white people or anyone else being suspicious or otherwise on guard when encountering those of difference ethnicity. It is human nature to discriminate and judge, and that in itself is not something that should be called wrong - rather it must be your choices and decisions regarding what the end result is that must be questioned. People rarely in the most honest sense see eye to eye even with their own family members and people of their own race - how the fuck do you expect people to instantly sing kumbaya and who the hell do you think you are to consider yourself a victim? For that matter, it's a given that every individual is inclusive towards their own and that is completely natural. What is now being call 'equality' is nothing more than minorities attempting to maintain their own racial attitudes while claiming any perfectly justified hostility against such attitudes as 'racism'.

There is not so much racism in america as there are too many spoiled children with hidden racial agendas driving their actions. No where is that more prevalent than blacks or other minorities.

Face the fact - America is mainly a european american affair with its roots in europe and its people. Those who are unwilling to respect or acknowledge this fact have no business getting mouthy. What justification does a chinese have to go to india or malaysia, start waving a chinese flag and demanding to be treated like an equal when obviously he doesn't have any inclination of acknowledging any of those respective nations and peoples and clearly has his own racial agenda? Now if you think this is supposed to be 'equality' and 'freedom' you deserve to be violated and raped for that attitude of yours.

No minority living in the west and america has any right to bitch and moan. I have seen racism and oppression. I am a minority in america. I can say for certain that spoiled ass children today need to watch their mouths before thinking they know anything about anyone. In many ways, they act in the most negatively stereotypical american fashion better than any white people i've met: spoiled, soft, naive, and constantly throw shallow tantrums.

Check your privileges, fuckers.

Well you are right, there is a lot of tension still. You can see it in the peoples eyes when they cross each other's paths, the nod and then the turn around or the face, or the side eye it's still there. But when I moved down here in November I was expecting MUCH worse than what I got. I agree about getting rid of the confederate flag, I haven't seen it much here and surprisingly I live in a pretty small town right now that everyone knows just about everyone else. Maybe the soft prejudice is what I was talking about before, I don't know I just know it isn't nearly as bad as I thought it'd be.

there is definitely racism that still exists. it's just that you can't be as open about it these days, so probably more closet racists than anything. a lot of people from the south a xenophobic and fear minorities coming in and taking "their country" back. that's what sarah palin meant when she said she wanted to take "OUR country" back.

I lived in the deep south for 4 years. Where I lived there was still a very visible amount of racial tension. There was also a soft prejudice that wasn't spoken but quite clear. The south still has a long way to go in race relations. They can start by getting rid of that stupid confederate flag and ending organizations like "the sons of the confederacy."

Enforcement Act of 1871 (third act)

On April 20, 1871, at the urging of President Ulysses Grant, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act. Also known as the third Enforcement Act, the bill was a controversial expansion of federal authority designed to give the federal government additional power to protect voters. The act established penalties in the form of fines and jail time for attempts to deprive citizens of equal protection under the laws and gave the President the authority to use federal troops and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in ensuring that civil rights were upheld.

Founded as a fraternal organization by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan soon became a paramilitary group devoted to the overthrow of Republican governments in the South and the reassertion of white supremacy. Through murder, kidnapping, and violent intimidation, Klansmen sought to secure Democratic victories in elections by attacking black voters and, less frequently, white Republican leaders.

http://millercenter.org/president/events/04_20

NEGROES WITH GUNS

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How’s that “may issue” gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high — beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams’ repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, “Negroes With Guns.” In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html

The Democratic Convention of 1924

The Democratic party was an uneasy coalition of diverse elements: Northerners and Southerners, Westerners and Easterners, Catholics and Jews and Protestants, conservative landowners and agrarian radicals, progressives and big city machines, urban cosmopolitans and small-town traditionalists. On one side were defenders of the Ku Klux Klan, prohibition, and fundamentalism. On the other side were northeastern Catholics and Jewish immigrants and their children. A series of issues that bitterly divided the country during the early 1920s were on display at the 1924 Democratic Convention in New York, including prohibition and religious and racial tolerance. The Northeasterners wanted an explicit condemnation of the Ku Klux Klan. The final vote was 546.15 for the Klan, 542.85 against it.

The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York’s governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.

Newspapers called the convention a “Klanbake,” as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention#KKK_platform_plank



“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fj-E-Yk78M

Etc... Etc...

If you dems want to take credit for your real efforts on behalf of blacks laud yourselves for trying to get ebonics taught in schools because black children weren't capable of learning English. That about sums up the dems efforts and their attitude, that's why dems keep the welfare rolls filled, to keep the blacks ignorant and voting dumb, I mean dem. If that doesn't send the message look at the New Haven fire fighters lawsuit that claimed the advancement test was racist because not enough blacks could pass the test. I'd love to hear how that test was racist and why blacks aren't allowed to learn the same things whites are.

Living in the south I don't see any form of racism at all.

In fact most of the african american people living down here are nicer, and friendlier, and get along with everyone else much better than any other place than I've lived. They are respectful and pleasant. Which up north, they act as if they are entitled (within reason of course) to just about everything. Sure I've met some really nice AM's up north (MERICA) but generally speaking the south doesn't fit that whole image of the place for bigotry and what not anymore.

Why don't you tell us how hard he worked to get that bill passed . Tell us how he wrote the bill and worked to get his fellow democrats to on board and support it. Tell us all about his valiant effort doc, we'd love to hear it.
http://politicalfray.com/history/2503-republican-roots-1964-civil-rights-act.html

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: ?You must take care of the civil rights bill ? my bill, the civil rights bill. Don?t let it fail.? In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP?s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Clever strategizing had won him the support of most African-American voters, but it took President John Kennedy (D-MA) nearly two years to make good on even one of his promises to them. He refused to attend a dinner commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and turned down Martin Luther King?s invitation to speak at the March on Washington. He did name Thurgood Marshall to the federal bench, but that was to an appeals court in New York, far from the fray in southern states. Kennedy did not honor his campaign promise to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill soon after taking office.

While the Kennedy administration was ignoring its campaign pledges, the Republican minority in Congress introduced several bills to protect the constitutional rights of African-Americans. In January 1963, congressional Republicans introduced a sweeping civil rights bill to enact what Democrat opposition had prevented from being included in the 1957 and 1960 laws. Threatened by this initiative, the president finally acted. Hastily drafted in a single one-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the GOP had introduced the month before. Many Democrats were preparing a protracted Senate filibuster of this civil rights bill, which was in a committee of the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader ? not President Lyndon Johnson ? was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

So much to be said about, and for LBJ.  He was a mixed bag of the bad the good and the ugly like every president.  The times shaped him as much as he shaped the times, as president.  But by god, he did get the CRA passed, and that can never be taken away from him.   Or co-opted by Republicans.

Your example, is one explanation of why our friends in the south seem to hate our federal government so much. 

It forces them to stop discriminating, forces them to allow Blacks to vote, and add to that, it allows Black and White folks to marry each other.  Lawdy - no wonder they hate our government so!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnPZ1yuoFIc

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.