Ed Huntress wrote:




And I have more important things to do today than
to try to un-revise your revisionism.

If you ever want to get out of that protective blanket of delusions, there
are hundreds of accounts by blacks from the South about what the
intimidation was like, how it worked, why oppression became the norm and why
there was little resistance. Resisting meant getting oneself maimed or
killed, until a few black leaders in the '50s, aided by a swarm of Supreme
Court decisions, white activists from the North, and US Army troops started
to turn it around. Still, many blacks got maimed or killed in the process.
The South was peaceful until all those damned agitators started stirring
things up. You had your underclass well under control until they got the
idea that maybe they didn't have to live like that.

They would still face racism, as they have throughout the country. But they
didn't have to live under an oppressive regime that systematically, under
law and through extra-legal intimidations, kept them from living like free
men and women.

--
Ed Huntress

Well I agree, I have better things to do than get you out of your
delusions you got from the New York Times and Time Magazine. I think
you are much more prejudice than I am. You seem to assume that I am
racist because I grew up in the South and am a Republican. You
certainly seem to assume all Southerners were racists and then suddenly
made a miraculous change. Your credibility is limited because most of
your experience is second hand.

You also seem to be much more of a Rah Rah promoter of the U.S. first
that I am. I pretty much think that all the humans on earth should not
be discriminated against. And that the world is only a zero sum game
in the first order. Global trade will improve the lot of all humans.
Maybe not as much for those in the U.S. But even those in the
industrial northeast will benefit. So I see you as a racist. But not
because I prejudged you. I see you as a racist based on many of your
posts.



Dan