Violence: An American Tradition (Part 1 of 6): You Tube

poet

Banned



Part I of 6


Exploration of the tradition of violence in America, drawing on the history of invading settlers and native peoples, frontier outlaws and modern-day murderers, racist violence, the urban underclass, and domestic abuse. Narrated by Julian Bond, with commentary by Cornell West. Caution: Contains scenes that may be disturbing to young or sensitive viewers.

So all that talk about Christians being "peacemakers" and "turning the other cheek", is, of course, Bullshit. But broader than religion, this is about Americans' dark side.
There aren't many "clean hands", so just get into some acceptance, and acknowledge the ugly truth. It might set you free.
 
The Following User Groans At poet For This Awful Post:
USFREEDOM911 (Today)

You groan at my every post. BFD. What's the matter? Can't deal with the truth? LOL
 



Part I of 6


Exploration of the tradition of violence in America, drawing on the history of invading settlers and native peoples, frontier outlaws and modern-day murderers, racist violence, the urban underclass, and domestic abuse. Narrated by Julian Bond, with commentary by Cornell West. Caution: Contains scenes that may be disturbing to young or sensitive viewers.

So all that talk about Christians being "peacemakers" and "turning the other cheek", is, of course, Bullshit. But broader than religion, this is about Americans' dark side.
There aren't many "clean hands", so just get into some acceptance, and acknowledge the ugly truth. It might set you free.

If, like me, you get an error message the video is available at

 
At the beginning of that film there's Democrats running around with KKK shields storming blacks, and then with hoods hanging them.
 

The Dixiecrat Myth

Posted on March 19, 2010 by Bob



The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.


The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.


There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

I’m sure the more learned Democrats will have issues with these explanations.

Oh well.

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/
 
Alias
Verified User
Add as Friend
Send Private Message
Remove from Ignore List
Find all posts
Find all started threads
View Blog Entries
.Mini Statistics
Join Date:07-20-2011.Current Activity:Replying to Thread In spite of lies by the gay lobby....Last Activity:Today 10:32 AM.Blog Entries:0.Avatar:.More 4 Friends Canceled.LTroll.1 Martin Luther King Jr. icedancer2theend Mr. T.Recent VisitorsThe last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:
apple0154, Lowaicue+, Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. T, Orange Order, poet, USFREEDOM911, wanderingbear, WinterBorn, ZappasGuitar+,
This page has had 422 visits
Tab Content
Visitor MessagesAbout MeFriendsView Your Conversation with Alias The following errors occurred with your submission Message: Fonts ArialArial BlackArial NarrowBook AntiquaCentury GothicComic Sans MSCourier NewFixedsysFranklin Gothic MediumGaramondGeorgiaImpactLucida ConsoleLucida Sans UnicodeMicrosoft Sans SerifPalatino LinotypeSystemTahomaTimes New RomanTrebuchet MSVerdanaSizes 1234567 Generic Smilies Smile Frown Smilely Palm goodforyou Love U fu Confused Mad lies hitit awesome Eek3 Cool EEK! Wink What??? Derp Poker Face Challenge Accepted Indeed Me Gusta Not Bad Fuck That Shit Forever Alone Okay GuyShow all Smilies . .
About Alias Basic Information

Signature

Fear not, the people may be deluded for a moment, but cannot be corrupted.
Andrew Jackson
Contact

This Page:http://www.justplainpolitics.com/member.php?2419-Alias.Statistics

Total Posts
Total Posts:1,248.Posts Per Day:22.84.Last Post:Violence: An American Tradition (Part 1 of 6): You Tube Today 10:29 AM.Visitor Messages
Total Messages:0.Most Recent Message:Never .Visitor Messages for Alias
Post a visitor message for Alias
Total Thanks
Total Thanks:24.Thanked 316 Times in 271 Posts
Total Groans
Total Groans:0.Groaned 85 Times in 79 Posts
General Information
Last Activity:Today 10:32 AM.Current Activity:Replying to Thread In spite of lies by the gay lobby....
 
That's nice. Thanks for sharing.

Last warning Alias. You do not get to mention children sexually. Do not describe another poster's childhood sexual encounters, do not mention any underage person sexually. It is not tolerated.
 
Last warning Alias. You do not get to mention children sexually. Do not describe another poster's childhood sexual encounters, do not mention any underage person sexually. It is not tolerated.

What about the changing of the wording in a forum member's post? That is plagiarism at its' worst.
 
What about the changing of the wording in a forum member's post? That is plagiarism at its' worst.

*sigh*

We have no rule against it, and nobody here believes that you "really said that"...

And no, it isn't plagiarism. Plagiarism would be taking your words and saying they were mine, not changing a quote box on a message board. Basically, if I took your poem and published it as my own, I'd be plagiarizing. If I took your poem and changed its words but kept the rhyme and meter I'd be making a parody...

You might not like the parody, but it wouldn't be plagiarism.
 
Last warning Alias. You do not get to mention children sexually. Do not describe another poster's childhood sexual encounters, do not mention any underage person sexually. It is not tolerated.

Why do you allow a poster to alter another poster's words? Why do you tolerate that?
 
Parody is a valid form of free speech. Altering a quote box does not alter the post.

Many political forums will not allow a poster's words to be altered in a quote box and is considered an infraction. It's fine by me if this is how it goes around here. I can play the game. Thanks.
 
*sigh*

We have no rule against it, and nobody here believes that you "really said that"...

And no, it isn't plagiarism. Plagiarism would be taking your words and saying they were mine, not changing a quote box on a message board. Basically, if I took your poem and published it as my own, I'd be plagiarizing. If I took your poem and changed its words but kept the rhyme and meter I'd be making a parody...

You might not like the parody, but it wouldn't be plagiarism.

That is not true. Plagiarism doesn't have to be verbatim or "word for word" for it not to be plagiarism. If you took a poem of mine, and rearranged a few words, or imported some, that would still be plagiarism. That is what happened here. I'm not going to argue the finer points. It is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated. And you have the authority to do something about it.
 
Your butt buddy Dune does it. Why don't you have a talk with him and tell him to stop it.

My butt buddy? Is your mom yours? Since Dune and I don't fuck, though you have implied that we do, I have little control over what he chooses to do.
 
That is not true. Plagiarism doesn't have to be verbatim or "word for word" for it not to be plagiarism. If you took a poem of mine, and rearranged a few words, or imported some, that would still be plagiarism. That is what happened here. I'm not going to argue the finer points. It is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated. And you have the authority to do something about it.

However, changing words in a quote box is not claiming the words as your own. It isn't plagiarism.

In order to plagiarize, the main part of it would be taking your work and publishing it as if they had said it. You don't like the parody, I get that.
 
Good video. I watched the rest of the parts as well. They make numerous excellent points.

I did have a couple of issues with what they said and what they inferred. The film quotes a figure concerning the population of native Americans when Columbus arrived and the population in 1889. The inference is that they died from violence. But the fact is that European diseases killed more than violence did, and by a significant margin.

“No duty to retreat”? The film condemns the idea that people did not flee when attacked. I have a real problem with that. If anything, a “duty to retreat” encourages the violent to attack even more.

I like that the film addressed the issues of violence in the home. This facet is ignored all too often. More women seek medical attention in emergency rooms for injuries sustained by domestic violence than for injuries sustained in muggings, rapes and car accidents combined. Which makes domestic violence the number one cause of injury to women in this country. How can anyone think gang violence, drug violence ect is a serious issue while ignoring this plague that transcends race and socio-economic status.

Women are twice as likely to be murdered by former boyfriends or husbands as by strangers. If that doesn't strike you as horrible, you are worthless as a human being.
 
However, changing words in a quote box is not claiming the words as your own. It isn't plagiarism.

In order to plagiarize, the main part of it would be taking your work and publishing it as if they had said it. You don't like the parody, I get that.

Of course that is wrong. George Harrison was sued, in court, and lost for the 3 main notes in My Sweet Lord, which representatives of the Shirelles claimed he stole from one of their songs. Plagiarism isn't based on "word for word", just like copyright infringement isn't based on "note for note". Try talking about something you know about.
 
Back
Top