Are Libertarians Racist? Salon thinks so.....

[jamil]

I wasn't born in the South but my parents were from South Carolina, I've lived in South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and most recently Mississippi, so I am very familiar with Southern culture. There's no denying that the South switched parties. Politically they were always Republicanesque, like what we'd call Blue Dog Democrats. Prior to the civil rights movement Southerners were still pissed at Lincoln and they shunned the Party of Lincoln pretty much for that reason.

However. That did not make the Republican Party a racist party as progressives charge. It certainly brought more racists into the party than there were before. But, generations later, what does that say about racism and the Republican Party today? Racism certainly still exists in the South but not like it did. When I lived in Mississippi it seemed much more integrated than any other place I've lived in the North. Most people I became acquainted with wanted to shed the "Mississippi Burning" stereotype.

I think most of the racists that switched parties in the sixties died with their generation. That's just my observations from living ~1/4 of my life in the South. And I've not encountered a higher proportion of racists in the south than the north. Nor in republicans than democrats. Racism is just a belief that one's race is superior to another. Racists may take refuge in geopolitical places but that doesn't make the place racist.

 

[oldpink]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.
Doh!

 

[jamil]

Warning, unpleasant language, not to mention totally inconvenient to the whole "But, but, but racist Southern Democrats transmogrified into racist Republicans":

And Kutnupe and Al MrJarrell just lap up whatever they're told to think about this one.

You'll find racists in either party. I'm not told what to think about that. I'm just going from my own personal observations. Some people just think their race is superior. But Kut is right about switching parties. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, Southerners voted Democrat. After the CRA, they voted Republican. And they've stayed Republican, not because they're all still racist. It would be a mistake to assume that Republican is the party of racists when, as you've demonstrated, the Democratic Party has its fair share.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You'll find racists in either party. I'm not told what to think about that. I'm just going from my own personal observations. Some people just think their race is superior. But Kut is right about switching parties. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, Southerners voted Democrat. After the CRA, they voted Republican. And they've stayed Republican, not because they're all still racist. It would be a mistake to assume that Republican is the party of racists when, as you've demonstrated, the Democratic Party has its fair share.

I never said that, but I think you recognize that. I don't believe that. People seem to have their feeling hurt because I illustrated a major reason there was a switch between parties. Ok, that was 60+ years ago, the majority of those racists are dead, and their children have for the most part rejected portions of their prejudiced ideologies. How an event inspired by racist more than half a century ago makes members of that same party current racists, I don't know.... but I certainly didn't say that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thanks for the history lesson Mr. Hand.

Hey, I'm only here to show inform Americans.... of American History. And why are you referring to me by my middle name. Are we having a failure to communicate?

 

[PistolBob]

None of them would have admitted it, with the exception of a very few. You'd do well to listen to words of Lee A****er, as he explains it. I'm interested, how do you explain the how the Republicans starting in 1964, were able to win so many Southern states, which prior to that time had solidly been Democrat? That's a fair question, isn't it.

Perhaps because I'm Southern I recognize this; as this should be common knowledge to any Southerner. Are there any born, rasied, and educated Southerners here? I can tell you matter of factly, that my family switched parties from Republican to Democrat in the 60s due to the Civil Right, and were uneasy about do so in the first place. They incorrectly believed that the South had turned a corner, but of course they were wrong, as local govts slowly began to switch to Republican.

I'm southern and you seem to be full of what we used to call manure. So, these racist democrats sent to infiltrate the republican party fo the post CRA era are basically only known to you. OK. Thanks for playing.

Right.

 

[MisterChester]

And what's even crazier, is that he has a black daughter that was kept secret until after his death. Not even joking.

I didn't know that. That certainly speaks volumes. Was it because he really was racist or did he not want to look like a hypocrite?

 

[jamil]

I never said that, but I think you recognize that. I don't believe that. People seem to have their feeling hurt because I illustrated a major reason there was a switch between parties. Ok, that was 60+ years ago, the majority of those racists are dead, and their children have for the most part rejected portions of their prejudiced ideologies. How an event inspired by racist more than half a century ago makes members of that same party current racists, I don't know.... but I certainly didn't say that.

I know that's not what you were saying, but certainly you can see how easily inferred that is. When progessives say that, it's where they're going with it. You said it and without qualifying it. By the time you did minds already were at the inferred destination.

 

[MisterChester]

I'm southern and you seem to be full of what we used to call manure. So, these racist democrats sent to infiltrate the republican party fo the post CRA era are basically only known to you. OK. Thanks for playing.

Right.

Kut is right about that though. How else do you explain Southern election results from 1860-1964? The state of Georgia voted for the democrat in every election since reconstruction until 1964 when it voted republican, as an example. They didn't just decide to vote for the other party they voted against for 100 years for no reason.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Warning, unpleasant language, not to mention totally inconvenient to the whole "But, but, but racist Southern Democrats transmogrified into racist Republicans":

[video=youtube;PnO6ai0Ktro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro[/video]

[video=youtube;DGDm4jkDbGQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGDm4jkDbGQ[/video]

[video=youtube;f7Q1I6PIIuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Q1I6PIIuY[/video]

And Kutnupe and Al MrJarrell just lap up whatever they're told to think about this one.

That's all you got? Your understanding of that Byrd quote only tells me you're not Southern, and don't quite understand what is being said. That word he used, white Southerners, who had used it commonly, found a sudden backlash in it's use. So they tried to rehabilitate it, in the best, most reasonable way they could. Even old blacks, for a time, used it.... not to describe a person of color, but to describe a "low class" person. You probably thought he was referring to white people that wears gold chains, drive cars with big rims, and act like what they "think" black is, and that Byrd is referencing those types of persons. You'd be incorrect. It was used as a catchall for an ill-mannered, ignorant, low class person; be it used to describe a person from a trailer park, a project, or a neighbor with 3 cars on cinder blocks in the front yard with dogs running in the streets.

But I could be wrong, "what" exactly did you think he meant when he used that term? What image, to you, comes to mind when he used that word?

Kut (thinks this should be good.... "IF" he decides not to ignore the question, and answer it)

 

[jamil]

I'm southern and you seem to be full of what we used to call manure. So, these racist democrats sent to infiltrate the republican party fo the post CRA era are basically only known to you. OK. Thanks for playing.

Right.

Wasn't hard to "infiltrate". The people switched parties. I don't look at it as a tin foil hat kind of operation. They could no longer find common ground with the party they once supported. There is no honest denial that Southerners voted D before and R thereafter.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm southern and you seem to be full of what we used to call manure. So, these racist democrats sent to infiltrate the republican party fo the post CRA era are basically only known to you. OK. Thanks for playing.

Right.

Southern what? Pennsylvania? You certainly ain't Southern if you don't know any of what I posted. Are you familiar with what the word "only" means? Did you listen in American History class?

 

[PistolBob]

Southern what? Pennsylvania? You certainly ain't Southern if you don't know any of what I posted. Are you familiar with what the word "only" means? Did you listen in American History class?

So...no list eh?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's be clear. Someone who advocates that the state may be better off out of the Union? I disagree, but see the point.
Someone who claims that there is a legal right to secede? I disagree, but hey, let's debate.
Someone who claims that secession in 1860 was not based, in overwhelmingly large measure, on maintaining a system that subjugated a people based upon race so that their stolen lives and labor could be used to prop up an inherently corrupt economy? They may not be racists, but they're cozying up to people who are....and they've let their faith in secession overwhelm any notion of logic that they may have once had.

I can't believe it, it finally let me rep you again!

The argument always is "it was about states rights." OK, I'll agree with that. But what state's right was in question? Drum roll please.…………...............Slavery. Hence, the Wah Buhtween the Stayeets was about slavery.

OK, I'll bite.

Remember that in the pre-Civil War period, the North had a much larger voting population in spite of even numbers in the Senate. Under these circumstances, the North managed to (with control of the HR, thus origin of laws on taxation) and the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in the person of the VP, push through a tariff which propped up the northern economy by forcing the south to pay significantly more for manufactured goods, thus significantly lowering the standard of living of southerners who were not wealthy and reducing the earning power of those who were in what amounts to a redistribution scheme in favor of northern factory owners.

Then, as now, economic vagaries don't play well with low-information voters (who have always been with us) so slavery became the issue used to jab in spite of it not really being the issue, much as our present crop of politicians will make extensive use of a handful of issued to jab and stir even though regardless of who 'wins' we still end up going the same direction toward the same goal.

All said and done, I do not believe that the southern economy based on slavery was morally right, nor do I believe that the northern economy based essentially on doing the same to the south that the south did to its slaves was any more right than was slavery. The only difference is that the northern game was done in a less obvious way with the full support of the federal government. I would also point out that the only significant difference between a slave and a northern factory worker is that as a free man, the factory owner had no vested interest in the welfare of the factory worker, where the slave owner had a definite interest in the welfare of the slave, often leading to even lower standards of living for the northern free laborer than for the slave.

Please note that I am not excusing the institution of slavery, simply addressing the fact that, contrary to what we are spoon-fed (or have shoved down our throats as the case may be), slavery was the issue of instigation of public opinion, not the real substance of the problem which, as almost always is the case in politics, is money.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So...no list eh?

How many names do you want to change your opinion?

We'll start with Trent Lott, William Colmer, Clarke Reed, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Charles Pickering, Fob James, Murphy J. Foster, Albert Watson, David Beasley, Nathan Deal, Henry Grover, Sonny Purdue.... and for good measure, let's throw in David Duke.
I really don't expect you to understand Southern politic, but meh. I'll try to get ya straight.

 

[rhino]

I stand on my statement.

The core belief of Libertarianism is that an individual has a right to do anything he wants to do provided he does not harm others.

Marriage between people of the same sex harms no one. Libertarianism and opposition to gay marriage are mutually exclusive.

That does not preclude any individual libertarian from finding any act or opinion objectionable or refusing to condone, accept, or tolerate. The key is whether or not someone advocates preventing someone from exercising their rights by use of force (e.g. government and laws).

There are many things that people do one a regular basis of which I do not approve and I will not associate with those who engage in those behaviors. Neither the government nor I should have the power to impede them, but being libertarian does not require me to approve, condone, accept, or tolerate. I just won't try to stop them.

 

[indiucky]

Good point, people can never change.

Anyhoo,

I feel like we should have let the Nazis have Europe and finish off the Jews because FDR was a socialist, rumored to be anti-semitic and interned Japanese Americans.

An' don'chhall fergit he dun knowed 'bout purl harber an' let them japs blowed up r boats an' sech...

 

[steveh_131]

Good point, people can never change.

If he changed, provide your evidence.

I feel like we should have let the Nazis have Europe and finish off the Jews because FDR was a socialist, rumored to be anti-semitic and interned Japanese Americans.

Motivations matter. The historical distortion taking place is that the South wanted slaves and the north felt it was morally wrong, so they went to war over it. This is not true.

The south wanted slaves and the north got tired of returning runaway slaves, as the law required them to do. Not because the north was morally superior to the south and believed in racial equality. They were certainly still racists, Abraham Lincoln among them. They just didn't profit from it and didn't want to do it any more. If cotton grew just as well up North, this would have all played out quite differently.

The south was upset because they wanted their slaves back and if the northern states weren't going to follow the rule of law that was agreed to when the union was formed, why stay in the union at all? This, combined with other taxes and tariffs that they deemed unfair, contributed to their decision to secede. Was slavery a huge part of this? Absolutely. But painting it as some sort of moral dichotomy between the north and south over racial equality is oversimplified and silly. It was about politics. It always is. Lincoln's own quotes acknowledged that he didn't go to war to end slavery, he did it to prevent the south from seceding. Plain and simple.

And the big point here: I am not a racist for saying so.

 

[Dead Duck]

If he changed, provide your evidence.



Motivations matter. The historical distortion taking place is that the South wanted slaves and the north felt it was morally wrong, so they went to war over it. This is not true.

The south wanted slaves and the north got tired of returning runaway slaves, as the law required them to do. Not because the north was morally superior to the south and believed in racial equality. They were certainly still racists, Abraham Lincoln among them. They just didn't profit from it and didn't want to do it any more. If cotton grew just as well up North, this would have all played out quite differently.

The south was upset because they wanted their slaves back and if the northern states weren't going to follow the rule of law that was agreed to when the union was formed, why stay in the union at all? This, combined with other taxes and tariffs that they deemed unfair, contributed to their decision to secede. Was slavery a huge part of this? Absolutely. But painting it as some sort of moral dichotomy between the north and south over racial equality is oversimplified and silly. It was about politics. It always is. Lincoln's own quotes acknowledged that he didn't go to war to end slavery, he did it to prevent the south from seceding. Plain and simple.

And the big point here: I am not a racist for saying so.

I haven't seen this scale of rationalizing since my x-wife......................Wait - Jenni?

 

[rhino]

The only objective fact in all of this is that there were douche bags in the south and douche bags in the north. They couldn't get along, so they got other people to kill each other over it until one set of douche bags got the upper hand.