Rural wisdom

[Mott the Hoople]

I did not deny that the people in the picture were probably registered democrats back then. But the current parties are quite different than they were 50 years ago.

No, back then, In Marion Indiana the majority of whites were probably Republican. Let's be careful here though. Even though at that time in Indiana about 1/3 of the white male population were members of the KKK, it was just as much, if not more, an anti-catholic organization as it was anti-black. That is also why, until recent years, most Catholics were Democrats due to the well known (at that time) affiliation of the Republican party of Indiana with the KKK. What we should be careful about though is that there is no question about the Republican parties ties with the KKK in Indiana, not all Republicans and not all white males in Indiana were members of the KKK. They only represented a substantial minority. Most fair minded people, and that was the majority, rejected the kind of racism and bigotry that the KKK represented, Republicans and Democrats alike, back then as just as they do now. These hatefull and disgusting actions were almost always inflamed, tolerated and permitted by powerful and influential minorities. In Alabama in 1930 they would have probably been Democrats, in Marion Indiana they would probably have been Republicans.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

yes.....why?......

Well cause he wanted to know if your a reasonable and intelligent person of just a party hack. You're obviously the later.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well cause he wanted to know if your a reasonable and intelligent person of just a party hack. You're obviously the later.

wow...he really asked the wrong question, then.......and in doing so demonstrated his own political "hackism".......as do you with your post......

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That happened in Marion IN, not to far from where I grew up in Ohio (about 50 miles due west). This occurred in the 1930's when Indiana was the great northern bastion of the KKK. Rumor had gone around town that a black man in the local jail had raped a white woman. Agitators around town showed up in mass outside the city jail. Eventually they stormed the jail and took out three vagrant black men. None of whom had anything to do with a rape or even harrassing a white woman, beat the hell out of them and hanged two of them. A bystander saved the life of one of the men by claiming to be the alleged victims Uncle and vouching for his innocence, the third black man was just let go.

As for SM's comment. It's his lame attempt to try and distance southern conservatives with their racist past. Pretty fucking stupid aint it?

Oh yea....Marion had a population of around 25,000 back then (making it one of the larger towns in IN....which aint saying much) and is still about the same size today. Hardly urban but not exactly rural either.

I live in a town of 16k. You'd still say that it's a rural area.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, back then, In Marion Indiana the majority of whites were probably Republican. Let's be careful here though. Even though at that time in Indiana about 1/3 of the white male population were members of the KKK, it was just as much, if not more, an anti-catholic organization as it was anti-black. That is also why, until recent years, most Catholics were Democrats due to the well known (at that time) affiliation of the Republican party of Indiana with the KKK. What we should be careful about though is that there is no question about the Republican parties ties with the KKK in Indiana, not all Republicans and not all white males in Indiana were members of the KKK. They only represented a substantial minority. Most fair minded people, and that was the majority, rejected the kind of racism and bigotry that the KKK represented, Republicans and Democrats alike, back then as just as they do now. These hatefull and disgusting actions were almost always inflamed, tolerated and permitted by powerful and influential minorities. In Alabama in 1930 they would have probably been Democrats, in Marion Indiana they would probably have been Republicans.

In the 60's and 70's, the Mississippi Republican party was pro-choice. When Winthrop Rockefeller, the first Republican governor of Arkansas in a century or so, was in office, he instituted prison reform, and on his exit he commuted the sentence of everyone on death row. The south may have been Democratic, but the Democratic party wasn't "the party of the center and left" like it is today, and the Republican party wasn't "the party of the right". SM knows this and is being willfully ignorant.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Also, John Tower, first Republican senator of Texas in a century, was pro-choice. His nomination to the SoD position was later denied by conservatives because of this.

 

[Canceled2]

I did not deny that the people in the picture were probably registered democrats back then. But the current parties are quite different than they were 50 years ago.

You intimated that current dems are somehow less prone to violence against a group then republicans...and that's horse pucky and why I made the response I did.~

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You intimated that current dems are somehow less prone to violence against a group then republicans...

It depends on the kind of Democrat and kind of Republican. The Republican base goes absolutely nuts when it's not in power, pretending as if a Democratic administration that isn't honestly even that different from the previous Republican ones is an unfathomable tyranny that it's your solemn duty as an American to rebel against. The non-violent streak of society is also definitely much more affiliated with Democrats than Republicans.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Would they be anything like the anti Christian crowd or anti TEA Party crowd?

Has the anti-Christian crowd in America ever been known for violence?

In looking at the news coverage on TEA party rally's where the media attempted to impose a violent attribute to them and seeing the violent behavior of the union rally's in WI, where actual violence and destructive behavior was excused by same media, I must wonder at the seeming benevolence you paint here regarding democrats? Let's just listen to the hate and misogyny directed at Palin for instance.

TEA party rhetoric is worse than any tea party actions. I think that the tea parties self-consciousness about its image has probably suppressed any serious violent tendencies, since they don't want to be seen as a violent movement. People use violent rhetoric at tea party events are often labelled as left-wing infiltrators, even when their not. This is hilariously paranoid (everything bad in the world must be the fault of liberals), but at least keeps the craziest of the crazies away.

Democrats of the southern stripe WERE the race hating party of old-that's a fact. It is why the new democrat party is so full of white guilt (broad paint stroke I know).

I don't think that the Democratic approach to race has ever been the result of guilt about the Dixiecrats. It's right to feel ashamed that something tragic happened in the past (it can keep it from happening again), but collective guilt is a primitive and outdated concept. The Democrats, like most left-wing parties, mainly pick up the votes of the oppressed classes and peoples. Those of the dominant class who sympathize with them are obviously more likely to use "white guilt" rhetoric.

No one in either party would condone what was done to black American's as anything other then what it is-hate. Republican's, as a national party, are free of the "white guilt" because they were not the national party who strove to subjugate black American's. Indeed it is democrats, who now not only have this misplaced guilt (they are not responsible for past wrongs of the party), but who demagogue race at every turn-just look at the blatant example of this in the OP.

The Dixiecrats never transformed into any sort of white guilt movement. Dixiecrats, and the Dixiepublicans that followed them, have attempted to sweep the entire issue under the rug. Sort of like Germany admits to its atrocities and has done a great deal to atone for them, whereas there are huge segments in Japan that deny their side did anything wrong. It doesn't help that southern pride movements continue to use symbols of the Confederacy, which is not a part of our history that we should be proud of.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, back then, In Marion Indiana the majority of whites were probably Republican. Let's be careful here though. Even though at that time in Indiana about 1/3 of the white male population were members of the KKK, it was just as much, if not more, an anti-catholic organization as it was anti-black. That is also why, until recent years, most Catholics were Democrats due to the well known (at that time) affiliation of the Republican party of Indiana with the KKK. What we should be careful about though is that there is no question about the Republican parties ties with the KKK in Indiana, not all Republicans and not all white males in Indiana were members of the KKK. They only represented a substantial minority. Most fair minded people, and that was the majority, rejected the kind of racism and bigotry that the KKK represented, Republicans and Democrats alike, back then as just as they do now. These hatefull and disgusting actions were almost always inflamed, tolerated and permitted by powerful and influential minorities. In Alabama in 1930 they would have probably been Democrats, in Marion Indiana they would probably have been Republicans.

Yeah, the national party system really only started emerging in the 80's. Before then, there were often coalitions in different party that had a lot more in common with each other than they did with other coalitions within the same parties. Blacks did start turning to Democrats. I think this was primarily because of FDR. They were locked out of politics in the south anyway, and when they began to participate again in Mississippi, they actually chose to start a different branch of the Democratic party than join the Republicans. In Mississippi, I think the Republicans took advantage of this by primarily pursuing the interests of white voters, while the Democratic party attempted to moderate itself and, in the process, lost most of its voters to the Republicans, who's formerly somewhat progressive section was utterly devoured by the Dixiecrats fleeing to it. In the last election, 90% of white people in my state voted for McCain, and 99% of black people voted for Obama. I don't think this trend is as pronounced among white youth, though (Obama won the state among the youth demographic, something that wouldn't be possible without a large number of white voters).

The Republican party of Lincoln was really a different way different beast than the modern one. The Democrats were the states-rights party, and the Republicans were a federalist one (believe it or not, conservatives used to be highly federalist, something that repeated itself in the politics of many north and south American countries - the conservatives wanted a stronger national government, and the liberals wanted stronger state governments). The Republican's support of strong federal policy meshed well with black voters, who wanted strong federal power to balance their minority position in southern states. It also allowed them to integrate better into the more progressive segments of the party. When, under FDR, the Democrats began to use the federal governments power primarily help the poor and elderly, rather than to protect business and promote commerce, the conservatives turned against the federal government. They found that their views now meshed better with the states rights Democrats. The blacks, on the other hand, being largely poor, benefited largely from FDR's federalism, and became a solid Democratic constituency.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Now that I look at the exit polls again, it seems that support for Republicans is only "less pronounced" among white youth in Mississippi in that they vote for Republicans by an 80% margin rather than a 90%. The main reason that Obama won among that 18-29 demographic is because blacks make up almost half of that age group. 8% of the population of Mississippi are blacks between 18-29, and 10% are whites between 18-29. In the 30-44 demographic that's 18% amongst whites and 12% amongst blacks, while in the 45-64 demographic that's 25% amongst whites vs. 12% amongst blacks. So, really, the primary change that's going to be happening in Mississippi politics is that we're going to get blacker.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In the "vote by race and party ID" in the exit poll I'm looking at, the "White Democrats" section is actually listed as N/A (not people enough to form a statistically significant figure). That made me chuckle somewhat.

 

[Lowaicue]

Would they be anything like the anti Christian crowd or anti TEA Party crowd? In looking at the news coverage on TEA party rally's where the media attempted to impose a violent attribute to them and seeing the violent behavior of the union rally's in WI, where actual violence and destructive behavior was excused by same media, I must wonder at the seeming benevolence you paint here regarding democrats? Let's just listen to the hate and misogyny directed at Palin for instance.

Democrats of the southern stripe WERE the race hating party of old-that's a fact. It is why the new democrat party is so full of white guilt (broad paint stroke I know). No one in either party would condone what was done to black American's as anything other then what it is-hate. Republican's, as a national party, are free of the "white guilt" because they were not the national party who strove to subjugate black American's. Indeed it is democrats, who now not only have this misplaced guilt (they are not responsible for past wrongs of the party), but who demagogue race at every turn-just look at the blatant example of this in the OP.

I really dont know why you continue with your partisan clap trap. Prior to the sixties racism was endemic in the US as it was in the UK and Europe. The difference, and the one thing that made the US version so much worse than Europe's was the presence of thousands of black ex-slaves and the move to cast the past aside. Poor whites had to have someone to blame for their misfortune, just as Hitler turned Germany against the Jews the poor whites turned against the blacks. It is absolutely shameful that you and other's of limited intelligence, insist in trying to make it an issue between two modern political parties.
Where did this nonsense come from? Fox news?

Fox News Channel, run by career Republican operative Roger Ailes, is home to the most consistently vitriolic critics of Barack Obama. Leaked memos and emails from Fox vice-president of News, John Moody, and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon allegedly offer evidence of top-down directives to control the message throughout the news day, from linking Obama to Marxism and socialism, to denigrating a public option in the US healthcare debate, to promoting scepticism about climate change.

Why don't you think for yourself instead of blindly following that garbage? Yes, yes, you will say you do... but you don't.

 

[Canceled2]

Has the anti-Christian crowd in America ever been known for violence?

Yes

TEA party rhetoric is worse than any tea party actions. I think that the tea parties self-consciousness about its image has probably suppressed any serious violent tendencies, since they don't want to be seen as a violent movement. People use violent rhetoric at tea party events are often labelled as left-wing infiltrators, even when their not. This is hilariously paranoid (everything bad in the world must be the fault of liberals), but at least keeps the craziest of the crazies away.

What TEA Party rhetoric would that be? The unsubstantiated BS media driven rhetoric?

I don't think that the Democratic approach to race has ever been the result of guilt about the Dixiecrats. It's right to feel ashamed that something tragic happened in the past (it can keep it from happening again), but collective guilt is a primitive and outdated concept. The Democrats, like most left-wing parties, mainly pick up the votes of the oppressed classes and peoples. Those of the dominant class who sympathize with them are obviously more likely to use "white guilt" rhetoric.

You meant what you think, is not reality-but merely what you "choose" to think about what I have written. Speaking of written- The idea of white guilt has been written about by scholars who have much more authority then you.

The Dixiecrats never transformed into any sort of white guilt movement. Dixiecrats, and the Dixiepublicans that followed them, have attempted to sweep the entire issue under the rug. Sort of like Germany admits to its atrocities and has done a great deal to atone for them, whereas there are huge segments in Japan that deny their side did anything wrong. It doesn't help that southern pride movements continue to use symbols of the Confederacy, which is not a part of our history that we should be proud of

.

Right...more BS that ignores the emphasis of what I had to say...

 

[Canceled2]

I really dont know why you continue with your partisan clap trap. Prior to the sixties racism was endemic in the US as it was in the UK and Europe. The difference, and the one thing that made the US version so much worse than Europe's was the presence of thousands of black ex-slaves and the move to cast the past aside. Poor whites had to have someone to blame for their misfortune, just as Hitler turned Germany against the Jews the poor whites turned against the blacks. It is absolutely shameful that you and other's of limited intelligence, insist in trying to make it an issue between two modern political parties.
Where did this nonsense come from? Fox news?

Why don't you think for yourself instead of blindly following that garbage? Yes, yes, you will say you do... but you don't.

The only clap trap is what you have just written...do try and get a clue~

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes

Do you have an example of violence in the anti-theist/atheist community?

What TEA Party rhetoric would that be? The unsubstantiated BS media driven rhetoric?

You're right, nothing teapartiers say could possibly be interpreted as favoring violent revolution.

And yet what you think is not reality-but merely what you "choose" to think about what I have written. Speaking of written- The idea of white guilt has been written about by scholars who have mush more authority then you.

I'd like to read what they have to say and how it disagrees with my analysis. I don't see the Democratic parties support of black people (labelled as "white guilt" by Republicans) as somehow being guilt from previous Democratic offenses. The Democrats who did that are now largely Republicans.

Right...more BS that ignores the emphasis of what I had to say...

Nothing has to do with anything.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I really dont know why you continue with your partisan clap trap. Prior to the sixties racism was endemic in the US as it was in the UK and Europe.

Enoch Powell gave this incredibly racist speech in the 60's era UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

A poll found that 70% supported the speech. It inspired marches with the eloquent slogan "Back Britain, not black Britain!" I was kind of surprised that Britain was so racist at that point in time.

 

[Canceled2]

Do you have an example of violence in the anti-theist/atheist community?

You're right, nothing teapartiers say could possibly be interpreted as favoring violent revolution.

I'd like to read what they have to say and how it disagrees with my analysis. I don't see the Democratic parties support of black people (labelled as "white guilt" by Republicans) as somehow being guilt from previous Democratic offenses. The Democrats who did that are now largely Republicans.

Nothing has to do with anything.

Here is an example

The post I made was specific to the hateful and violent behavior of WI union protests and how the media made excuses for it while dishonestly hyping up non existent violence about TEA Party Rally's. Not that a few idiots may have espoused stupidity....which of course disingenuous hypocrites use to paint the entire movement, while making excuses for the violence and vandalism of pro union groups.

Then go buy the books and read away~

 

[Lowaicue]

The only clap trap is what you have just written...do try and get a clue~

Oh, I have more than a clue, dear. As well you know. Your posts show, on an almost hourly basis, your desparation to find some sh*t to throw in the direction of 'the nigger in the whitehouse'. You hide it with blanket statements castigating the democrats, you hide it by phony whines and winges about sensible policy decisions, you hide it by deriding the choice of clothes, you hide it, you hide it. But it comes down to one thing and one thing only:

'How dare that black boy think he is better than me.'

Well, not only is HE better than you, I would guess that 90% of Americans are better than you.

 

[Canceled2]

Oh, I have more than a clue, dear. As well you know. Your posts show, on an almost hourly basis, your desparation to find some sh*t to throw in the direction of 'the nigger in the whitehouse'. You hide it with blanket statements castigating the democrats, you hide it by phony whines and winges about sensible policy decisions, you hide it by deriding the choice of clothes, you hide it, you hide it. But it comes down to one thing and one thing only:

'How dare that black boy think he is better than me.'

Well, not only is HE better than you, I would guess that 90% of Americans are better than you.

The only one who needs to to refer to Obama in a way that has anything to with his color, are pretentious closet racist's such as yourself. My points in this thread were about how hatred comes to the party dressed up in any number of outfits. BTW your racist outfit is as usual garish~