Jim Crow
December 18, 2002 4:31 AM   Subscribe

 
oops! forgot The History of Jim Crow. This one is awesome.
posted by y2karl at 4:39 AM on December 18, 2002


Thanks y2karl!

It's enough to make you want to start whistling Dixie! [/sarcasm]

Recent events of racial discrimination regarding the African-American and voting rights are more subtle but just as effective. Palast did an excellent job covering the issue the past two years so I would like to submit his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" to the list please.

Correcting the modern day Jim Crow tactics require we abolish the "felons-can't-vote" provisions in the Southern states that use the practice and that voter purge efforts/methods be held to very close scrutiny with no private contracting.
posted by nofundy at 5:04 AM on December 18, 2002


My thanks too! Makes me consider a companion post on the recent republican "Southern Strategy".
posted by troutfishing at 5:26 AM on December 18, 2002


And the "No White Man To Lose His Vote In Virginia." post is interesting for the reversal of the party positions on civil rights and sufferage: "The Democratic party is pledged in it's platform to eliminate the ignorant and worthless negro as a factor from the politics of this State without taking the right of sufferage from a single white man...The Democratic party, through it's representatives in the convention, is slowly, but surely, framing a law that will so effectively exclude the idle, shiftless and illiterate of the negro race from the sufferage that the gates of republican wrath cannot prevail against it."

It now seems that the current Republican party has taken up the Jim Crow/black voter disenfranchisement project, albeit without officially declaring it as a party platform, as suggested by this story:(CBS, September 4, 2002) "Florida's top elections officials and a leading U.S. civil rights group said on Tuesday they had settled a lawsuit that alleged Florida systematically excluded thousands of minority voters from the 2000 presidential election.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in January 2001 after George W. Bush claimed the U.S. presidency by just 537 Florida votes, alleged election officials systematically kept blacks away from voting booths by illegally dropping them from voter rolls, improperly handling their registrations so they did not appear on voter lists or by simply turning them away from polling places. "


The 2002 mid-term elections were marred, in some areas, by allegations of voter intimidation, such as through this now notorious flier handed out in Baltimore: "Cummings also held up a flier that Democratic campaign volunteers said they found posted in some Northwest Baltimore neighborhoods, including on the doors of Pimlico Middle School....The unsigned flier read: "URGENT NOTICE. Come out to vote on November 6th. Before you come to vote make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent and most important any warrants." This may be a local affair and not indicative of a national republican strategy. (you can read a discussion about 2002 election irregularities at this blog

Some commentators even wonder about the rigging of computerized voting machines, given that a minor software tweak can erase or alter thousands of votes to tip election results. Apparently, the 2002 election results surprised John Zogby: "I called John Zogby of the highly respected Zogby International. I asked him if over the years he had noticed increased variation between pre-election predictions and election results.  Zogby said that he didn't notice any big problems until this year. Things were very different this time. ...'I blew Illinois. I blew Colorado (and Georgia). And never in my life did I get New Hampshire wrong...but I blew that too.' "

"The Republicans will never give up their voting machines," said a top Republican party official to Charlie Matulka, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska. This statement was in response to Charlie's very public protest against the conflict-of-interest inherent in the candidacy of Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Hagel has held top executive positions (and still has investments) in companies that owned the machines that counted the vote in Nebraska this election and last...Republicans dominate the voting machine business."

Coincidence? Hard to prove anything on this one, but it seems a bit fishy to me
posted by troutfishing at 6:05 AM on December 18, 2002


Mara Liasson's report on NPR's Morning Edition, Analysts: Lott Controversy Hurts GOP Image , contains a history of the Republican Southern Strategy.
posted by y2karl at 6:19 AM on December 18, 2002


Thanks, Y2Karl. I also heard that piece this morning. The story should be broadcast far and wide (in all it's shamefull nastiness).

Maybe, as the wheel turns, the Democratic Party will run on the " 'geneticall altereds' disenfranchisement ticket" in the 2034 election?
posted by troutfishing at 6:40 AM on December 18, 2002


I think the strategy can be summed up in one word - Redistricting. In the NPR article they state that "the African-American vote is seen as important for both parties" and it certainly is, especially in a place like Mississippi where the population is close to 40% (actually the voting percent is closer to 36%, which is coincidentally, exactly what the anti-confederate flag measure got in the polls) 40% is a hell of a lot of voting power, unless of course you contain it through shifty, shady tactics like redistricting!
posted by Pollomacho at 6:43 AM on December 18, 2002


Here's what Lott said-
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we (Mississippi) voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that as being all that terrible... To ask someone to step down because of a comment like this is completely unnaceptable. It just opens doors for the nut jobs who want to attack everyone in the world for not being 100% PC.

I personally feel as if Lott was paying tribute to Thurmond- an incredibly old man who had a lot of good things to say-as well as bad. It was his 100th birthday party, for Christ's sake. I don't think it had anything to do with segregation.
I am truly afraid of a country that rallies against a man for saying "what they thought he said, you know, without really saying it."
The man has apologized, and that should be enough.
posted by bradth27 at 6:44 AM on December 18, 2002


bradth27,

There's at least a thousand other supporting factors to indicate Lott IS a racist and a segregationist. It's not JUST about that one occasion. For example, did you know he said the same thing on at least 3 other occasions? Really. Did you know Lott said "the modern Republican party embodies the values and spirit of Jefferson Davis?" (that's read slavery) Did you know Lott fought integration of his fraternity while a cheerleader at Ole' Miss? The list goes on and on and on. Look it up sometime. Really.

Two more things that are used as modern day Jim Crow methods:

electronic voting machines - owned primarily by guess who and leave not a trace of irregularities, can easily be programmed to cheat.

False charges of voter fraud and voter intimidation/trickery- Josh Marshall covers the aspect of yelling fraud to disenfranchise minorities well here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dec0203.html#121602621pm
There are numerous instances of party operatives going into minority neighborhoods trying to discourage voters and to deceive voters with false information.

Add everything up and you've got a minority of people in the US running the controls of government, And if all else fails, make sure to have sympathetic judges when you have to outright steal an election.
posted by nofundy at 6:58 AM on December 18, 2002


Lott should have said,
"Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Strom Thurmond!"

that would have gone over much better.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 7:04 AM on December 18, 2002


***Did you know Lott said "the modern Republican party embodies the values and spirit of Jefferson Davis?" (that's read slavery) Did you know Lott fought integration of his fraternity while a cheerleader at Ole' Miss? The list goes on and on and on. Look it up sometime. Really.***


"That's read slavery" is exactly the kind of comment I am referring to. Jefferson Davis had a lot more to offer than just "slavery." Instead, we twist his views and ideas until it fits our argument, and present only the bad side of his nature to suit our purpose. Jefferson Davis wasn't just "all about racism." Look it up sometime. Really.

I know Lott's history, and take it all into consideration. What I come up with is not enough for me to condemn the man.
posted by bradth27 at 7:11 AM on December 18, 2002


The point was not that he was paying tribute to Strom Thurmond, he could have done that any number of ways. The problem is that he said if Strom had won, we wouldn't have had all these problems. Strom ran on a strict segregationist platform. He didn't run on "fiscal responsibility" or anti-communism, he ran on the platform of keeping "colored" kids out of white schools. Segregationism, bradth or anyone else that sees no problem with his statement, is patently racist, there are no ways around it. The facts that Trent spent his college days promoting segregation or that he has continued to support the racist redistricting practices which his party pursues in his home state points to what most African-Americans in his home state have been trying to tell the rest of us for years, the guy should NOT be sitting in a position of leadership in a party that claims to be working towards unification of the races, unless that claimed platform is just smoke and mirrors.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:20 AM on December 18, 2002


Jefferson Davis wasn't just "all about racism."

How true! Just like so few are willing to applaud Adolf Hitler's role in rejuvenating Germany's aeronautics industry.
posted by sacre_bleu at 7:25 AM on December 18, 2002


Yeah! And he started Volkwagon too!
posted by black8 at 7:30 AM on December 18, 2002


13 posts before Godwin. Not bad.
posted by dgaicun at 7:34 AM on December 18, 2002


J'accuse!
posted by The Michael The at 7:40 AM on December 18, 2002


Segregationism, bradth or anyone else that sees no problem with his statement, is patently racist, there are no ways around it.


And that proves my point. My one statement, which does not directly support racism in any way, about an individual who made a comment that had no direct reference to segregation, proves I am a racist.

That seems logical.
posted by bradth27 at 7:42 AM on December 18, 2002


Seriously, what I find interesting is this sudden shift. I guess Karl Rove thinks the Republicans can make themselves the dominant party if only they can find a way to reach to people of every ethnic background.
Well hey, I'm all about paying lower taxes and conserving individual rights when possible, but you can't sweep all the overt and covert racism, dirty tricks and all those good ol' boys who want to go back to 1859 under the rug just by sacrificing one Senator who happened to spout off in public one too many times.
I think every individual should vote his or her conscience, but as a group, Black Americans think Republicans have a lot to answer for. Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove have said as much.
Personally, I don't care if Lott keeps his job. I like my enemies where I can see 'em.
posted by black8 at 7:46 AM on December 18, 2002


Bradth, I said that Segregationism is racist, I have no idea what your views on it are, please read the sentence and look for the commas, you will see that I was speaking to you and not about you. Lott's continued work in segregation along with his statement in support of a Presidential candidacy who's overwhelming plank was continued segregation, makes me (and apparently many others) believe that he does indeed support segregation, ergo he supports racism, which therefore makes him a racist. If he isn't a racist why does he keep working so hard towards racist goals?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:50 AM on December 18, 2002


bradth27,

If Lott had meant to simply pay tribute, he could have stopped at sentence two and pretty much only the most militant of the conservative-haters would have twittered at the fact Thurmond was a Dixiecrat.

Interesting that nobody piles invective on Thurmond for all of this; after all he's the one who ran in 1948 to keep the Yankees from invoking all those nasty civil-rights and anti-lynching laws. It might have something to do with the fact that Thurmond, a consummate politician, saw that segregation was a dying and untenable political position, and that by sticking to it he'd risk his political career. You don't sit in the Senate for 36 years, especially not with an intervening party switch, by falling out of touch with your constituency.

Lott can believe in the Total Superiority Of The White Race if he wishes. I'm fine with that. Lott can believe he's the President of Symbonia, that the moon is made of green cheese, that Dubya's foreign policy won't get us all killed someday, that professional wrestling is real. I'm fine with that too.

Where it becomes a problem is when he believes in white superiority while representing a state that's 40% black. When he allows his personal beliefs - beliefs now held by a poor, ignorant minority who use racism to feel better about their failed little existences - to dictate policy as a Senator from Mississippi and as Senate Majority Leader, that is a problem. His voting record bears this out - he voted against an extension to the Civil Rights Act in 1990. He voted against the MLK holiday because (I'm paraphrasing from an interview on BET) "I don't think people in the South really know who the man was." Clearly, at least SOME of Mississippi's African-Americans know who King was. Are they not people?

So, bradth27, it's not the fact that Lott didn't watch his mouth that has him in all this trouble. It's not what he said, It's that he's a racist, and that he drew attention to his racism by not watching his mouth. And I really can't get all that worked up in fear of fascism for the country rallying around to remove a man with provably incorrect, discredited, and intolerant ideas from a position of power.
posted by Vetinari at 7:51 AM on December 18, 2002


You guys do realize that this move to oust Lott because of his supposed racist background is just an excuse, right? That it's a ploy for his political rivals to just shove him out of the way, and kick him when he's down, right? That the people most morally outraged by this whole issue are the ones who are even remotely affected by segregationist attitudes, and are inferring much more than was actually spoken simply because Lott is an unlikably powerful person?

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of ol' Square Head, but there's no reason to fool yourself. Let's call a spade a spade, after all.
posted by crunchland at 7:58 AM on December 18, 2002


This will be the reason why so many southern democrats have moved to the republicans over the years.
posted by lilburne at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2002


It just opens doors for the nut jobs who want to attack everyone in the world for not being 100% PC.

Yes sir.

Jim Crow race-baiting is as tired a premise as Harry Belafonte's disgusting slurs against Colin Powell.

Try as you might to dwell on the inequities of the past, most of us are alive and well in the present and future.

Virginia slave laws are about as relevant today as they will be one hundred years from now.

What I find most frightening (and typically liberal) is the implication that black Americans cannot fend for themselves, and therefore deserve handouts and welfare, which is as racist a notion as ever there was!
posted by hama7 at 8:03 AM on December 18, 2002


Sure, crunchland, its nothing new. Many of the good people of Mississippi have been calling for his square head long before he was even in the Singing Senators, but now his own statements have thrust him into the limelight so why is now any worse a time to address these issues? I'm just glad its finally hit the fan!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:03 AM on December 18, 2002


Ladies and gentleman: The Singing Senators!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:06 AM on December 18, 2002


What I find most frightening (and typically liberal) is the implication that black Americans cannot fend for themselves, and therefore deserve handouts and welfare, which is as racist a notion as ever there was!

That's interesting Hama, I don't recall anyone implying in this post any such thing, shockingly not even the liberals (interestingly on a side note, most welfare, medicare/aid and social security recipients are WHITE). Seems to me that the NAACP and BET are doing quite a nice job with Senator Lott at the moment. So, its a typically liberal reaction to feel that oppressed people need help, I guess that's why the damn liberals are going to dump so many billions of dollars into the desert in Iraq to get rid of one oppressive, racist man.

As for Jim Crow, the laws will always be pertinent as long as guys like Trent Lott are around to defend them from positions of great power. I'm wondering where you got Slave Law out of the links, most of the links had to do with 20th century laws, signs and issues. The issues are alive and well in 2002, obviously. Hopefully 100 years from now we can look back in history books and talk about Jim Crow, not in law books.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:40 AM on December 18, 2002


Right wing straw man alert!! :-)

What I find most frightening (and typically liberal) is the implication that black Americans cannot fend for themselves, and therefore deserve handouts and welfare, which is as racist a notion as ever there was!

Now, can we talk about the links hama7, or was your intent only to cast aspersions as you have no legs with this issue?
posted by nofundy at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2002


Jim Crow race-baiting is as tired a premise as Harry Belafonte's disgusting slurs against Colin Powell.

Like starting your presidential campaign in the very town where Schwerner, Goodman and Ray were murdered with a speech containing a ringing endorsement of *wink wink* states rights as Reagan did in 1980? And don't forget those welfare queens...

Oh, and don't forget the Lee Atwater-engineered Willie Horton ad in '88.

And then there's the Jesse Helms ad in 1990 with two white hands crumpling up a letter with the voiceover about losing your job to a minority...

And Sonny Perdue running for governor of Georgia on the plank of re-instating the Confederate battle flag as state flag--with a presidential endorsement as being a down-to-earth fellow? As just happened in the last election...

Try as you might to dwell on the inequities of the past, most of us are alive and well in the present and future.

I listened to the Tavis Smiley Show yesterday and the most outraged in the Lott segment was Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a black Republican who thought that Senators' and Congressmens' records should be gone over in detail and this stain forever erased.

A deal with the devil is a deal with the devil. This is where the Republican's Southern Strategy is going to bite the Republican party on the ass. Having more black faces on the podium than on the floor at the convention won't cut it with even the white suburban voters next time around.

The Republican party will never attract black voters until it come to terms with its recent past just as the Democrats will never stop taking black voters for granted. Cry about 100% PC *wink wink* 'til the cows come home--but this is history happening, this is good for us all.
posted by y2karl at 9:19 AM on December 18, 2002


Did you know Lott said "the modern Republican party embodies the values and spirit of Jefferson Davis?" (that's read slavery)

I'm all in favor of their throwing Lott out, but that is a gross misreading of Jefferson Davis and his "values and spirit." We don't need to rewrite history in order to promote rational and moral agendas today.
posted by rushmc at 9:41 AM on December 18, 2002


wow! I go out to get my teeth cleaned at the dentist, come back two hours later (!)....yep. Post of the day. But alas! NoFundy is correct: conservatives don't have much to work with on this one. BradTh27 and Hama7 have sacrificially thrown themselves into the meat grinder, as cannon fodder...Dhartung probably wouldn't touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

So who'll lead the conservative charge and defend poor Trent, "ol' square head"? He needs ya boys, he needs ya.....hee hee
posted by troutfishing at 9:52 AM on December 18, 2002


Not to mention John Ashcroft...
posted by y2karl at 10:49 AM on December 18, 2002




Wait! NewsFlash! Lott says he's going to fight to stay Senate Majority Leader! (overheard on the radio) merry christmas, Democratic Party!....
posted by troutfishing at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2002


There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now.

Colin Powell
posted by y2karl at 6:44 PM on December 18, 2002


Additionally...
posted by y2karl at 6:53 PM on December 18, 2002


Lott should have said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Strom Thurmond!"

Except he was 7 years old then...
posted by Vidiot at 7:59 PM on December 18, 2002


conservatives don't have much to work with on this one. BradTh27 and Hama7 have sacrificially thrown themselves into the meat grinder, as cannon fodder...



Looks like I put out the wrong impression. I don't consider myself a conservative-I simply don't like to pick sides until there is sufficient evidence.
posted by bradth27 at 7:06 AM on December 19, 2002


Well, I don't usually either, but what more do you need on this guy? He's a slick politician, its not like somebody's going to have a tape of him dropping a dozen "N-bombs" at a Natchez fish fry (although I wouldn't doubt that sort of thing happened, as it wouldn't be so outside the sphere of deep south politics). The guys been working on this stuff for decades, even Bush and Co. have given the guy the finger, do you really need more than that?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:36 AM on December 19, 2002


Yeah Bradth, but in this little game of applied characterization and guilt by association, you're already marked. The only way to be forgiven is to admit your own racism, and agree with the agenda of your accusers. Only then can the healing begin.
posted by dgaicun at 7:47 AM on December 19, 2002


Hats off to you, dgaicun. That's the funniest thing I have read all day.
posted by bradth27 at 8:26 AM on December 19, 2002


"I simply don't like to pick sides until there is sufficient evidence."

hmm. Known to associate with racists (oh, excuse me..."segregationists")? Check. Makes racially insensitive comments in public on more than one occasion? Check. Admits on national TV that he's held racist views? Check.

If Lott has nothing to apologize for, why is he apologizing?
I suppose you think David Duke is nothing but a concerned Southern gentleman with a rambunctious past.

But it's too late now. The nudge and a wink b.s. won't work anymore.
posted by black8 at 9:02 AM on December 19, 2002


Known to associate with racists.


In the South? Are you kidding? Impossible!

Makes racially insensitive comments in public on more than one occasion?

This is what I'm arguing about in the first place. I don't believe the comment he made WAS racially insensitive.

Admits on national TV that he's held racist views?

Uh huh. So what? It has nothing to do with my argument.

If Lott has nothing to apologize for, why is he apologizing?

If you don't know the answer to that, perhaps politics isn't your ballgame.

David Duke is a complete idiot, in my opinion. I have had the unfortunate opportunity to talk face to face with him, and believe me, he's nuts. No, I don't support Duke or his followers.
As I stated before, I am no racist, and not a conservative. My views on this issue have nothing to do with racism. I simply feel that the whole situation has been blown out of proportion by people quick to judge a man who they feel might not represent their views on racial matters.
posted by bradth27 at 9:21 AM on December 19, 2002


Some would differ: Having It Both Ways on Race by Robert Kuttner
posted by y2karl at 9:39 AM on December 19, 2002


Bradth27 - Allow me to rephrase Lott's (offensive?) comment in my own words, for language is, at best, a sloppy thing; "If Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948 and instituted the segregation of the United States, we wouldn't have had all these problems." Now, the "problems" Lott referred to are totally undefined. But what was the project? Segregation. This "project" was carried out quite thoroughly in South Africa. It did not work out too well in the long run and now South Africa has REAL problems, ones which make US problems look very minor by comparison.

The achievement of basic civil rights for all Americans (regardless of skin color) was achieved at the cost of decades long tremendous struggle, suffering, and more than a few lives.

This is why Lott's comments were so offensive to many people. They amounted to, really, a rhetorical urination on the memory of the civil rights struggle.

Lott really couldn't have gone much farther with this. History shows us several typical gradations in the brutalization of a disenfranchised population. Take US southern style segregation: that would be 'stage 1' - the next step along the scale, 'stage 2', would be the "Bantustanization" of the black population which was carried out in South Africa (which amounted to forcing blacks into arid, desolate tracts of land far from cities. the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 also comes to mind.) The NEXT step along the scale, 'stage 3', would be the actual elimination of the disenfranchised population group -such as in the Holocaust carried out against European Jews (and gays, gypsies, and other "undesireable" groups) in Nazi germany.

Dgaicun - " little game of applied characterization and guilt by association"? You're reading things into my comments which aren't there. I didn't make any statements about Bradth27's or your own motivations for your comments in this thread, other than labelling you "conservative". If I wrongly called either of you "conservative", well then I'm sorry. I assumed that either or both of you were defending Lott for larger, wellbeing-of-the-party reasons which had nothing to do with rascism.
posted by troutfishing at 1:16 PM on December 19, 2002


Bradth27 - Allow me to rephrase Lott's (offensive?) comment in my own words, for language is, at best, a sloppy thing; "If Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948 and instituted the segregation of the United States, we wouldn't have had all these problems." Now, the "problems" Lott referred to are totally undefined. But what was the project? Segregation. This "project" was carried out quite thoroughly in South Africa. It did not work out too well in the long run and now South Africa has REAL problems, ones which make US problems look very minor by comparison.

The achievement of basic civil rights for all Americans (regardless of skin color) was achieved at the cost of decades long tremendous struggle, suffering, and more than a few lives.

This is why Lott's comments were so offensive to many people. They amounted to, really, a rhetorical urination on the memory of the civil rights struggle.

Lott really couldn't have gone much farther with this. History shows us several typical gradations in the brutalization of a disenfranchised population. Take US southern style segregation: that would be 'stage 1' - the next step along the scale, 'stage 2', would be the "Bantustanization" of the black population which was carried out in South Africa (which amounted to forcing blacks into arid, desolate tracts of land far from cities. the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 also comes to mind.) The NEXT step along the scale, 'stage 3', would be the actual elimination of the disenfranchised population group -such as in the Holocaust carried out against European Jews (and gays, gypsies, and other "undesireable" groups) in Nazi germany.

Dgaicun - " little game of applied characterization and guilt by association"? You're reading things into my comments which aren't there. I didn't make any statements about Bradth27's or your own motivations for your comments in this thread, other than labelling you "conservative". If I wrongly called either of you "conservative", well then I'm sorry. I assumed that either or both of you were defending Lott for larger, wellbeing-of-the-party reasons which had nothing to do with racism.
posted by troutfishing at 1:17 PM on December 19, 2002


Known to associate with racists.

In the South? Are you kidding? Impossible!


First of all, not all Southern whites work towards racist goals, and thus you don't HAVE TO associate freely with known racist activists, Lott however freely works with the CCC a neo-confederate bigot group. This is a little different than going over for coffee at your racist aunt's house.

Makes racially insensitive comments in public on more than one occasion?

This is what I'm arguing about in the first place. I don't believe the comment he made WAS racially insensitive.


Yes, and we hear you on this Strom thing, but this thing, innocent as it may be, plus a long history of activities towards racist and segregationist goals adds up to a mountain of troubles.

Admits on national TV that he's held racist views?

Uh huh. So what? It has nothing to do with my argument.


No, it doesn't directly, but it does add in to the whole picture. If he admitted he held these views and then actively worked to change things, it would be different, yet he has actively work TOWARDS these views since his college days!

Now, I don't know or really care where dgaicun or you, bradth, get the impression that anyone has accused you of anything other than arguing in this guys favor, but you seem to have either misread or misunderstood the responses. Defending Lott does neither make you racist nor conservative until you take the stance that his actions, policies or statements on segregation (outside of the Strom thing) are defensible (of course there is such a thing as Devil's Advocate).
posted by Pollomacho at 1:42 PM on December 19, 2002


Thanks, Pollomacho.
"bradth or anyone else that sees no problem with his statement, is patently racist, there are no ways around it."

When you said that earlier, I thought perhaps you were calling me a racist.
I'm not supporting Lott or Lott's comment-if it indeed turns out to be racist in origin. My argument is that it has nothing to do with segregation whatsoever.
posted by bradth27 at 2:23 PM on December 19, 2002


Double your pleasure, double your fun, eh TF?

I assumed that either or both of you were defending Lott for larger, wellbeing-of-the-party reasons which had nothing to do with racism.

If I'm defending anything it's fairly played politics and America against the lunacy of racial hysteria. (eg. Lott's Tourette's Syndrome = The first stage of a brutal 3-step Holocaust algorithm).
posted by dgaicun at 2:32 PM on December 19, 2002


I'll restructure that sentence for you: Segregationism is patently racist and there's no way around that, bradth or anyone else that seems to see no problem with Lott's statement supporting a candidacy based on a platform of segregation.

Hope that clears up the confusion!
posted by Pollomacho at 2:33 PM on December 19, 2002


Try as you might to dwell on the inequities of the past, most of us are alive and well in the present and future.

These inequities happened in my lifetime. At a very tender age, I saw the inequity of crowds screaming at Charlayne Hunter when she first went to school in Little Rock, saw the inequity of firehoses turned on the marchers in Selma, saw the inequity of police dogs tearing at people's arms and legs, saw the inequity of police beating men and women with billyclubs and the inequities suffered by Goodman, Schwerner and Ray--saw all these things in black and white on the TV news.

It was more recent than, say, when Stalin died. Funny, you're so big on remembering Stalin's crimes, hama7--but you seem to want us to forget the crime of jim crow segregation--which is more recent history by a decade or more--and the struggle for civil rights that ended it. Politically correct in your view seems to be that we should pretend they never happened.

Now, that is an inequity to me.

On review:

My argument is that it has nothing to do with segregation whatsoever.

I think you are one of a very few on that one, bradth27, here or anywhere else.
posted by y2karl at 2:54 PM on December 19, 2002


y2karl-

I am indeed, judging by the previous posts. I simply hate to jump on the bandwagon in regards to racial issues. Call me nuts, I like to think the best of people - Until they prove me wrong, and I have to go cry about it for a few days.
posted by bradth27 at 3:33 PM on December 19, 2002


If I'm defending anything it's fairly played politics and America against the lunacy of racial hysteria.

And so calmly and rationally, too!

Merely mentioning the historical context of Lott's remarks equals hysteria and the Southern strategy is fairly played politics. Ri-i-ight...

Now I am rolling my eyes.
posted by y2karl at 3:58 PM on December 19, 2002


Merely mentioning the historical context of Lott's remarks equals hysteria and the Southern strategy is fairly played politics. Ri-i-ight...

Now I am rolling my eyes.


After reading that, so am I.
posted by dgaicun at 5:05 PM on December 19, 2002


You forgot the And so calmly and rationally, too part. .Jeez, you've been on such a sneering tear here, so busy screaming hysteria at people and twisting their words--doing essentially what you're accusing everyone else of doing--that I'm wondering what's up with you. So, you think there never was a Southern strategy or, if there was, it was all fair play, I guess. Maybe next time, you can just come out and say so instead of trying to shout us all down at a fever pitch?
posted by y2karl at 8:00 PM on December 19, 2002


So, you think there never was a Southern strategy or, if there was, it was all fair play, I guess. Maybe next time, you can just come out and say so. . .

Karl, where are you getting this stuff?! How can I not sneer?
posted by dgaicun at 8:32 PM on December 19, 2002


"saw the inequity of firehoses turned on the marchers in Selma"

Just to clear something up, it was tear gas in Selma, hoses in Birmingham. Small distinction, but having grown up a few blocks from the Pettus bridge in Selma, its quite clear for me.

The savagery unleashed in Selma, Birmingham and Philadelphia, MS (or Bensonherst, NY) was quite real and does not need to be repeated. Dismissing racist accusations as "Politically Correct" dismisses the issue that there are still MANY who wish to return us to those days before the long hard struggle of civil rights made it so people didn't get murdered for riding in a car with a person of another race or that a black man was expected to step off the curb and remove his hat when he passed a white woman on the sidewalk. I for one don't want to go back and I'll call any one of those segregationists out any time they call out for a return to the "good ole days" They weren't good days for our country and if I have to take a night stick to the head to fight a return, I will!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:33 PM on December 19, 2002


Dgaicun - meaning ( to reiterate ), I was giving you the benefit of the doubt : defending segregation on principle, or for a wider cause. (on second thought, I'm not sure which is worse - honest support of segregationist policies vs. ideologically driven, but insincere, posititions?)

Bradth27 - If this is what you feel : I don't think you really hurt anyone's feeling too much, so don't take it too hard. Everybody -on this post and off, me - Y2Karl (right Karl?), everybody - has blind spots and nasty pockets of ignorance. It's the human condition. not me! I have Godlike, omniscient powers!! I see all and know all....Hey! Who turned out the lights? What was that noise? That ominous slithering sound? Aeeiii!!!
posted by troutfishing at 8:44 PM on December 19, 2002


Gee, dgaicun, you've so busy here putting words in everybody's mouths, I just thought to return the favor.

Anyway, the President has just weighed in on Lott and here's the CNN transcript via Josh Marshall:

CNN: Do you have a comment on Senator Lott?

Clinton: No, other than....I think that -- obviously -- I don't agree with him.

But I think there is something a bit hypocritical about the way Republicans are jumping all over him. I think what they really are upset about is he made public their strategy.

The whole Republican apparatus supported campaigns in Georgia and South Carolina on the Confederate flag. There is no action coming out of the Justice Department against all those people, Republicans, who suppressed black voters in the South, in Arkansas and Louisiana, and lots of other places. Telephone operations telling people in Florida they didn't have to vote on Election Day, that they could vote on Saturday but not if they had parking tickets. I mean, this is their policy.

So I think the way that the Republicans treated Senator Lott is a pretty hypocritical since right now, their policy is in my view inimical to everything this country stands for. They tried to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina and from top to bottom Republicans supported them. So I don't see what they're jumping on Trent Lott about.

I think the Democrats can say we disagree with what he said and we don't think its right but that's the Republican policy. How do you think they got a majority in the South anyway?

CNN: So he should step down as majority leader?

Clinton: I think that's up to them. But I think that they can't say it with a straight face. How can they jump all over him when they're out there repressing and trying to run black voters away from polls and to run on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina. Look at their whole record. The others, how can they attack him? He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day.


As Marshall says,

One needn't think that the Republican party itself is racist. I don't. (In any case, that's too big a word, too general a question.) What the Republican party does have is a history -- not by accident, but by design -- of playing to and benefiting from the votes of racist and crypto-racist constituencies in certain parts of the country -- particularly, though not exclusively, in the South. They built the Republican party in the South on the foundation of racial resentment and civil rights rejectionism. Since then they've built a whole house on top of it. But the foundation's still there.

To deny this is to deny the obvious. There's just been a prohibition on saying it. And a good deal of the Republican displeasure with Lott -- though mixed with a lot of genuine outrage at his retrograde views -- is tied to his having brought this all into the open.



That's pretty much how I see it, too. Believe me, I've had it up to here with college and coffeehouse PC police in my time but as Pollomacho

--hey, man, it's been 40 years, I was in grade school and it all runs together in my mind.. but I did see it on the TV at the time and all of us who did (and to tell you the truth, I think that has so much to do with why things changed at all) have never forgotten it--

...anywya, as Pollomacho said,

I for one don't want to go back and I'll call any one of those segregationists out any time they call out for a return to the "good ole days" They weren't good days for our country and if I have to take a night stick to the head to fight a return, I will!

That's how I feel, too. It's not an attack on you

--so don't get your panties in such a twist, John Q. Sensitive.
posted by y2karl at 10:30 PM on December 19, 2002


Everybody -on this post and off, me - Y2Karl (right Karl?), everybody - has blind spots and nasty pockets of ignorance. It's the human condition.

The blind spot, the part of the eye where the dots disappear at a certain angle, where we simply don't see--but a red and flourescent spot so instantly and telepathically visible in others. Or so we seem to think.

Things seem to have gotten so mean over the years...

--and then I remember the 50s. The Last Picture Show ... but to the nth power of bleak. I Led Three Lives. And the vegetables... God, it was awful.
posted by y2karl at 11:02 PM on December 19, 2002


y2Karl - why so mean, anyway?....I could see if it we were of the "Ik" tribe described by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull in "The Mountain People" (slowly starving, this is). But in well fed America?
posted by troutfishing at 8:33 AM on December 20, 2002


TF,

Dgaicun - meaning ( to reiterate ), I was giving you the benefit of the doubt : defending segregation on principle, or for a wider cause.

In other words, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt: maybe you were just beating your wife for exercise.

Karl,

Gee, dgaicun, you've so busy here putting words in everybody's mouths, I just thought to return the favor.

I have done no such thing with you or anyone else. The accusations are getting worse and worse. I have said one basic thing in all my posts: The Republicans are not a racist party, and any suggestion otherwise (hello, Mr. Clinton) is nothing but a bad idea at best, a vicious opportunist lie at worst. Personally, I see it as a healthy mix of both, with racial hysteria mostly fueling the former and self-interested politics mostly fueling the latter (perhaps tinged with a little bit of -certainly provoked- vengeance, on Mr. C's part).
That's about it. Now here's a list of things I haven't said or done:

*Said Lott's remark was preferable/defensible/moral.
*Said segregation was preferable/defensible/moral.
*Defended strategies that were purposely harmful/manipulative to blacks to attract white votes.
*Denied that such strategies had been employed at times in the past.
*Implied that discussing said history counted as 'hysteria'.
*been hysterical or irrational.
*screamed 'hysteria' at people.
*twisted anybody's words.
*shouted anyone down in a fevered pitch.

Though of course that last item applys here much more than to anything else I've posted on this matter, but that's kind of a Catch-22.

--so don't get your panties in such a twist, John Q. Sensitive.

It's when I realize that I'm having these types of exchanges with someone who has to be at least twice my age that I get truly depressed.
posted by dgaicun at 11:09 AM on December 20, 2002


You are really are John Q. Sensitive. Let some air out of that ego, Mr. Never Wrong.
posted by y2karl at 11:49 AM on December 20, 2002


The Republicans are not a racist party, and any suggestion otherwise (hello, Mr. Clinton) is nothing but a bad idea at best, a vicious opportunist lie at worst.

And who--and the above is an example of twisting people's words--said they were? Some elements among them, on the other hand, have made vicous opportunistic appeals to certain voters over the years (hello Lee Atwater), which was what people referred to...

How about what General Powell said and wrote (hello 1948 election! Hello Willie Horton!) then? He called the linfamous Horton ad a cheap shot. Is that an example of a vicious lie?
posted by y2karl at 12:55 PM on December 20, 2002


ME: The Republicans are not a racist party, and any suggestion otherwise (hello, Mr. Clinton) is nothing but a bad idea at best, a vicious opportunist lie at worst.

You: [that] is an example of twisting people's words.


"They try to suppress black voting. . . and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it." -WJC

There is a story about a fellow named Willie Horton who for all I know may end up to be Dukakis' running mate. Dukakis is making Hamlet look like the rock of Gibraltar in the way he's acted on this. [This was a reference to Dukakis' search for a vice-presidential candidate.] The guy was on TV about a month ago and he said you'll never see me standing in the driveway of my house talking to these candidates. And guess what, on Monday, I saw in the driveway of his house? Jesse Jackson. So anyway, maybe he'll put this Willie Horton guy on the ticket after all is said and done.

The use of single figures for purposes of rhetoric seems pretty narrow anyway, but I believe in general, Horton was used in an acceptable race-neutral way, as far as campaign rhetoric goes. Clearly Atwater, crossed a line by referencing Horton's blackness (which was more to note how liberals molly-coddle on issues of race). It was still wrong, and I admit that. Atwater was generally unscrupulous, though individual Democrats and Republican often do and say stupid and unrepresentative things for their parties.
posted by dgaicun at 1:58 PM on December 20, 2002


« Older Local Heroes   |   Comic Thief Confronted Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments