Why do some Democrats charge Republicans and more recently Tea Party members with racism? Because they can't win debates with facts. Shout racism and you polarize the opposition, freezing them and allowing you to claim victory. Face it, racism is a taboo subject. Some of you are uncomfortable just reading this. This is also why a few Democrats like to accuse their opponents of hating old people, women, children, gays, Muslims, and any other group handy at the moment. There is no proof of these accusations, but by the time the facts come out it is too late. Despite their claims, years ago Democrats were the opponents to ending slavery, Democrats promulgated Jim Crow laws (that's pro-segregation, anti-civil rights, folks), and Democrats introduced a series of social policies and programs over the years that have had the long term effect of holding back minorities and lower-class whites. The rancher that feeds and cares for his herd has no intention of setting them free. He intends to survive and prosper off of the herd while controlling and manipulating it to his greatest advantage. Because of his care, the herd trusts him and becomes blindly loyal despite confinement and the slaughter house on the property. This is the effect of social policies that encourage stagnation and discourage entrepreneurship.
While researching statistics for this blog I found something very interesting. Hopefully all of you know that the Confederate States of America (you know, the ones who wanted slavery) were Democratic. But I dug a little deeper. Check this out. Eleven states seceded from the Union during the Civil War.
Governor's Party at Outset of Civil War (during secession) | Number of Republican Governors Prior to Civil War | Number of Elected Governors in the 1900s | Number of Elected Republican Governors in the 1900s | Year the First Republican Governor was elected in the 1900s | |
| South Carolina | Democratic | 0 | 28 | 3 | 1975 |
| Mississippi | Democratic | 0 | 28 | 1 | 1992 |
| Florida | Democratic | 0 | 27 | 3 | 1971 |
| Alabama | Democratic | 0 | 21 | 0 | --- |
| Georgia | Democratic | 0 | 25 | 0 | --- |
| Louisiana | Democratic | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1984 |
| Texas | Democratic | 1 | 25 | 3 | 1979 |
| Virginia | Democratic | 0 | 26 | 4 | 1970 |
| Arkansas | Democratic | 0 | 26 | 3 | 1967 |
| Tennessee | Democratic | 0 | 24 | 5 | 1911 |
| North Carolina | Democratic | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1973 |
Totals | 11 of 11 | 1 | 276 | 24 | --- |
Over the course of a century just over 8.6 % of these states' Governors were Republican*! Tennessee elected a Republican in 1911 and another in 1921, after that there were no Republican governors in the south until 1967... which was the winding down period of the civil rights movement. I invite you to look here to see where the atrocities were being committed in the 1900s. In Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech there was only one individual who he singled out, not by name, but by position; the Governor of Alabama George Wallace “having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification".” By the way, Wallace was a Democrat, King was a Republican.
 |
| Clearly the Dems owned the media even back then! This is a VERY old political ad. It in no way reflects the political ideals of today's Democratic party. |
BONUS PARAGRAPH! In researching this blog I read a piece entitled Racism and the Myth of a “Victim Mentality” by Tim Wise, a white author (and an arrogant and foolish man). His article starts off with the story of a white student who challenged a statement by a professor that blacks are treated differently by police than whites, and the assertion that somehow the student was unworthy or disrespectful to do so. He states, “Armed with his high school diploma, he felt confident challenging the person who is academically certified to teach him something, as if her years of experience and research counted for nothing, and as if mine (twenty-plus at this point) were irrelevant to the search for truth.” Tim Wise, this paragraph is just for you... Twenty-plus years of studying ANYTHING will lend itself to stagnation of original thought. In the century long struggle to decipher Mayan hieroglyphs, Sir John Eric Sidney Thompson was an archeologist who, for decades, was considered the preeminent authority on their meaning. His theories and beliefs were shattered and put to rest by two young and inexperienced individuals. One, Yuri Knorozov, was a linguist in Moscow in the mid-1900s. He was obviously unable to speak with the “academically certified” and was therefore untainted by their “years of experience.” The other, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, was an architect who went to Pennsylvania State University. An architect who disproved an archeologist in his ONLY field of study. You see, they didn't have blinders on from doing the same thing, the same way for decades like you do. And the pompousness of your assertion that you are correct because you've done it longer makes you as dangerous as a racist who is that way only because he always has been. Granted, you were correct and the student was not, but I wonder if your words for that student would have been as harsh had he challenged one of your colleagues with whom you disagree. Times change and unlike the historian who remembers the past, you are applying the past in a context it does not fit. Your mentality only serves to encourage the prolongation of the status quo. A wise man encourages independent thought and a good mentor and instructor values the input of their charges. Questioning is how we learn, and it's possible the pupil in question had never heard of you and therefore did not recognize your “authority”. What ever point you had to make, no matter how valid, was lost as soon as I saw you for what you are, a pompous, self-righteous wind bag. For what it's worth, Mr. Wise, according to your school of thought my rebuttal is justified and must be correct, because I have been arguing with and disproving idiots for at least 20 years...
* These number reflect elected governors, not governors who took office due to deaths, convictions, resignation, or any other uncommon reason. Just elected persons. Also, I counted everything manually, so I guess there is a +/- margin of error, but I don't have the first clue how to ascertain the percentage.
* These number reflect elected governors, not governors who took office due to deaths, convictions, resignation, or any other uncommon reason. Just elected persons. Also, I counted everything manually, so I guess there is a +/- margin of error, but I don't have the first clue how to ascertain the percentage.
Bookmark My2Cents on Delicious
You've been busy... Those banners weren't there last time I looked at your page.
ReplyDeletePS: Congrats. It's not a novella, just a short story. :-)
Just kidding.
This blog post demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of historical context and is beneath Mr. Bing.
ReplyDeleteMike in Chicago.
This blog is not a shot at Democrats. It is a silencing tool for the lies some Dems (notably those in power) spread about their opposition. I've clearly stated I don't believe that all Dems are racists. Nothing in this piece is factually incorrect. If you took it as an assault I apologize as that was not the intent. However, if you did take it that way perhaps now you have a taste of what it feels like to be called a racist with no justification.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the blog was written to 1) discredit the imbeciles that throw the race card as a matter of habit rather than a matter of fact, and 2) accentuate the damage our social policies have had, and will continue to have, on America's minorities and poor white population.
Your denial that this is not a shot at Democrats is ludicrous. Simply denying it, doesn't make it true either. You list the well-known (if someone has taken a good post-1865 college-level US history survey course in the last 20 years)sins of Democrats of the distant past, yet offer none for the GOP. I can throw mud at the GOP too: And what were Lincoln's views on race? Not pretty by today's standards. Why don't you likewise discuss Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Why not explore why Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss.? Yet, I would never assert that you are guilty of committing those past GOP sins. You should study the politics of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s a lot more before throwing history around like this.
ReplyDeleteName the "imbeciles" and dispute their falsehoods directly rather post this blanket display of the Dem's past sins. Educated people know this history already. So far, all you have done is point at Democrats and called them racist with this post, despite your denials. Directly address those who have called you a racist rather than pointing that finger in my general direction.
Mike in Chicago.
The Democrats of today are no more similar to the Democrats of 1850 than the GOP of today is similar to the GOP of 1850. The only thing that remains the same is the spelling. Meanings of words change constantly depending on the times in which they are used. (Yes, rhetoric IS important.) For instance, Dwight David Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Saint Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr. would be no more welcome in today's GOP than a turd in the punch bowl. That's a simple truth, yet weren't they all admired by the party?
ReplyDeleteAnd, Michael, you can claim this was not designed as an attack on Democrats, but any reasonable person reading it would reach that conclusion. The generalizations, and (god help us!) the graphics, cannot be misconstrued. All Democrats do not share the same philospophy (maybe that's why we're Democrats!)It was Will Rogers who said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." No accusations, just my observations.
Alright, sorry for the delay in responding. I've been a little busy the past few days.
ReplyDeleteI will repeat (in vane, I'm sure) that this wasn't intended to slam today's Democrats. This was a piece to take some of the bite out of their screams of racism against anyone who opposes their agenda. This was an “attack” (if we must use that word) on the HISTORY of the Democrats. I have once again gone back into the original post and this time underscored the comments that should have made that clear. These are past tense referrals.
It took me less than five minutes to track down some easily verifiable instances of blanket accusations of racism against the Tea Party – not against an individual or an event, but against EVERY SINGLE MEMBER. There is nothing that needs to be read into these as you are doing with my blog. These were blatant, indiscriminate, and malicious.
-Janeane Garofalo, April 2009, on MSNBC
-Barack Obama, in Family of Freedom: Presidents and African-Americans in the White House
-Ron Schiller of NPR, on hidden camera
-Rachel Maddow, February 2010, on MSNBC
-Bill Maher, September 2010, on Larry King Live
-NAACP, July 2010
-Jon Hamm (Actor), September 2010, on Real Time with Bill Maher
I'm certain, based on your comments here, that you were absolutely livid with these folks. I'm sure you made a point to defend the individuals defamed and slandered on prime-time and on nationally syndicated cable programs... right? You took exception to these people, too, right? I mean, this is simply a blog from an unknown person that has just had it's 2,100th visit, and I don't even directly say anything about today's Democrats in it... the comments I've referenced were by celebrity-status individuals or organizations, flagrant and reached millions of Americans in nanoseconds. I hope you reached out to these “imbeciles” as you did with me. Or were these less offensive, or perhaps even mildly amusing, since they did not implicate you?
For the record, I do NOT think all Democrats are racist, as I said already up there in the blog. If that's not good enough, perhaps you should talk to a black Tea Partier to gain some perspective on what an actual indictment of racism sounds and feels like.
"I will repeat (in vane, I'm sure) that this wasn't intended to slam today's Democrats. This was a piece to take some of the bite out of their screams of racism against anyone who opposes their agenda. This was an “attack” (if we must use that word) on the HISTORY of the Democrats."
ReplyDeleteHow does pointing out the frankly WELL-KNOWN racist past of the Democratic Party "take some of the bite out of their screams of racism against anyone who opposes their agenda"? Do members/supporters of a political party having a racist past not have the right to point out contemporary instances of racism? Have they not learned from their own history? Has the Democratic Party's agenda not changed dramatically in the last 100, 50, 40, or even 30 years? (The answer is: Yes it has, despite the bizarre inane attempts of Glenn Beck to make it seem linear and seamless) This history is not a secret, hidden past of the Democratic Party. I bet most of those people listed (I will not speak for actors) are well aware of the Party's racist past and learned it in college, or afterward. By your logic, no member of the Democratic Party should point out instances of racism (they do still occur, by the way) because people in the past, who would run away from today's Democratic Party ASAP (like they did in the mid-1960s to 1970s), were racists. Sorry, such logic doesn't hold in my book.
Mike in Chicago
FYI, I would never waste my time trying to contact celebrities. They could care less what I think and if I disagree with them, I just can change the dial to voice my disapproval.
Your aim would be much better served by posting links to specific instances of Dems/Dem supporters calling out racism and refuting them with arguments explaining that what they perceive to be racism, is not in fact, racist. Your initial approach at the start of this blog post, in fact, does not refute their claims of what they see as contemporary instances of racism. Essentially, you are positing the following: Celebrity pundit X shows video of a Tea Party rally and claims to see racism occurring at the meeting. You, in turn are pointing at Celebrity pundit X and going, "Hey, Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and racist!" So? That doesn't refute Celebrity pundit X's claim to see racism at the Tea Party rally.
ReplyDeleteMike in Chicago
Sorry, I'm bored today . . .
ReplyDeleteFrom your original posting: "Do not fall for the Democratic “rhetoric” (they like that word) that racism is a conservative attribute. Especially when the history of Democrats shows quite the opposite."
What is wrong with the word "rhetoric"? Would you prefer something simpler with less syllables?
Who CURRENTLY claims that "racism is a [contemporary] conservative attribute"? Please be specific in that charge. In American history, southern white racism in the 20th Century was certainly not a "liberal attribute." Were southern white Democrats of the 1950s & 1960s liberals? The vast majority were not. (Before the 20th century, almost all of white America would be considered racist by today's standards.)
In the portion I quoted, you are implying that Democrats of the past were never "conservative". In fact, most southern white Democrats of the 20th Century, were anything but liberals. Most were quite conservative and as the modern liberal wing of the Democratic Party gained control in the mid-1960s and passed Civil Rights legislation (along with the now extinct liberal wing of the GOP) and other elements of the liberal agenda (see: Great Society), those conservative white southern Democrats drifted over to the GOP, along with prominent leaders of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, such as Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc. (George Wallace fought for the conservative wing of the party almost his entire life). Notably, Haley Barbour is now trying to rewrite this history, but mainstream historians (and liberal pundits who know their history) won't let him. In the way that you phrase that section, you are implying that all Democratic politicians of the past meet the definition of a modern liberal and would support the liberal agenda of the contemporary Democratic Party. That is blatantly wrong.
This isn't "my version" of history either. It has been well-documented and analyzed by mainstream historians for the last several decades.
BTW, the rest of that paragraph sounds just as paternalistic as liberals often sound.
Mike in Chicago
Sorry, one piece of clarification.
ReplyDeleteIn my use of the word conservative in the post above, I am not trying to imply that today's conservatives share the same values and agenda as conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s. I see some foundational ideas (small government, states' rights, low taxes, etc.) persisting into the present, but racism is certainly NOT one of them, and that wouldn't have applied to all conservatives in the past, either. Likewise, liberalism built around a foundation of core principles has changed constantly over the decades.
Mike in Chicago
I'm trying to post all of the qualifiers you request, but it's starting to feel like you're just sending me more homework, there professor. You haven't disproved any of the facts I've posted, including your requested list of imbeciles. I get the sneaky suspicion you're waiting for me to give up or to say something you can finally disprove. You have disputed my opinion with your own, which is fine, but I'm done fetching you info until you do something with the stuff I've already provided with the exception of this....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAAHMDpk7Ik
Now here is YOUR assignment. After you get past Keith's classy blow job and genital jokes, (aimed at a group of people who are trying to do what they feel is right) justify the first sentence out of his guests mouth. I'm glad he is gone, and I'm glad this interview was the beginning of the end of her. She is ignorant and spewing regurgitated sound bites from MSNBC and CNN. I give you, for your viewing pleasure, two IMBECILES.
Forgot about this little blurb...
ReplyDelete"By your logic, no member of the Democratic Party should point out instances of racism"
Negative. I said in the blog that racism and prejudice need to be weeded out and stopped. I am saying - crap here I go again - that CERTAIN Democrats are using blanket and false accusations of racism as a tool to shape public opinion. They are lying and making unsubstantiated claims. They are doing it and the likes of MSNBC, CNN, The NY Times and Bill Maher are freely and effectively promoting it.
Your issue seems to be more with HOW I presented this rather than the underlying message, which was the point of the whole post. I may be wrong, you have made plenty of comments on and off the record in the past few days to make me relatively wonder if I am a notch (or 2) below you - in your eyes. Either way, I stand by everything I have put on this page. You assume too much when you say that most people are aware of the past... remember, history is your life. I know folks, young and old, that couldn't tell you what happened last week, much less last century.
"Your issue seems to be more with HOW I presented this rather than the underlying message. . ."
ReplyDeleteDamn right. And you insist upon leaving this racist imagery up there without explaining any of the historical context, which I've been explaining here in my earlier posts.
"CERTAIN Democrats are using blanket and false accusations of racism as a tool to shape public opinion. They are lying and making unsubstantiated claims. They are doing it and the likes of MSNBC, CNN, The NY Times and Bill Maher are freely and effectively promoting it."
Seriously, who cares? Okay, they are imbeciles and they lie. Shocking. NO ONE else in the media (right or left) is guilty being idiotic and mendacious. Why do you apparently take it so personally?
Beck and Limbaugh make absurd accusations about liberals and Democrats all day long. I laugh it off and shake my head at those that take them seriously. I know they are simply out to make a buck off stroking right wingers.
"Either way, I stand by everything I have put on this page."
Clearly, I've wasted my time here and have no need to make further comments.
M in Chi.
"Clearly, I've wasted my time here."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm sorry you feel that way. If you only measure your time as well-spent by whether you persuade me to take your stance then yes, you've wasted your time. However, I see your thoughts and beliefs plastered all over this page. Your voice has been heard and recorded. You have openly and intelligently refuted what you disagree with. You have provided your countering viewpoint for future readers to weigh against mine.
That's not a waste of time my friend. That's Democracy.
Wow, impressive blog. Swiped a pic to put in mine as well. Way to go Chief. Looks good. I quit putting comments on mine as I didn't have the patience to feel my IQ drop on my own blog from people like the above who think because they got a keyboard and a facebook profile they are someone important, let alone to do it anonymously.....cowardice! Always reminds me of General Sherman's observation in the beginning of his book "Memoirs" - "As usual, the critic must only disagree to show his superiority." While I'm on General Sherman's quotes, my other favorite of his is, "War is cruelty. You cannot refine it." Interesting to think that at one time the Democrats were the "conservatives" in that they weren't culturally progressive and it was the Republicans who were, now its the other way around - in either case - the Democrats were on the wrong side in both instances (on this topic).
ReplyDeleteAs I look back on this thread I am inclined to point out two things with regards to the discussion in the comments...
ReplyDelete1) Mike in Chicago who I never knew well, but whose countering viewpoints I valued, has not spoken to me since his last post. In fact he unfriended me in Facebook.
2) His anger was directed at me because he felt I had misrepresented him in some way. It's funny but what he THINKS I did to him is exactly what the media DOES to Republicans and Tea Partiers... yet I never see anyone (especially Democrats like you Mike) jumping to their defense against the baseless and false accusations.
The difference is this, I have stated numerous times here that this is not an blanket accusation against any party. The things I have written here are historically factual. I openly debated my stance allowing those with countering viewpoints to speak their mind. The MSM does none of these things when attacking conservative parties.
Farewell Mike in Chicago. I hope you understand now what it feels like to be called a racist... even though I never actually called you any such thing. Your final solution to our disagreement, running away from the issue and ignoring me, proves to me you are indeed in the correct political party.