|
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
oups.com... Gus wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: Right. Hey, what do you suppose happened to those conservative southern racist Democrats? Where are they now, hmmm? In a retirement home? A lot of them changed from conservative Southern racist Democrats to just Southern Democrats. Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Even George Wallace changed when he realized that being a racist did not help him get elected. There always were some southern liberal Democrats, too. 'Still are today. But they were not the core of southern Democrats, until the switch of southern conservatives to the Republican party. This all sounds a little like the Twilight Zone, Dan. Are you suggesting that the majority of southern whites were not Democrats, and were not conservative, and were not out-and-out racists in the late '60s? Are you suggesting that the whites at the marches in Selma and Birmingham, and the ones who tried to block black kids from entering "white" schools throughout the '60s are a myth? That's the time period we're talking about, isn't it? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:02:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message .. . What is interesting to note, was that even in the deep south, the bus companies only began the "Blacks will sit in the rear" policy after it became plain that the various city and municipal governments were , indeed, going to arrest bus drivers who were not enforcing the laws mandating segregated seating on busses. If memory serves, most of those municipal office holders were members of the Democrat party; not unreasonable, seeing as how Lincoln won the war. Right. Hey, what do you suppose happened to those conservative southern racist Democrats? Where are they now, hmmm? Well..KKK Byrd is in Congress as senior Democrat. There's one. How about the 20 million or so others? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net... Ed Huntress wrote: Right. Hey, what do you suppose happened to those conservative southern racist Democrats? Where are they now, hmmm? Ed Huntress I'm sure most all of the ones from the times youre discussing are DEAD. :-) Good point. d8-) Maybe I should have said, "where were they in 1980?" -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Right. Hey, what do you suppose happened to those conservative southern racist Democrats? Where are they now, hmmm? In a retirement home? g Yes, as I said to Lew, I should have asked where they were, say, in 1980. The point being that they switched to the Republican Party, and the Republican Party then was more like what Gunner calls RINOs now. So it's funny to hear Gunner or anyone else applaud the Republicans for their support of the CRA of '64, when those are the very Republicans who they so disparage now. And likewise the Democrats who opposed it. They're the ones who Nixon won over to the Republican Party in '68. Southern conservatives switched parties, which makes the argument sound pretty funny. Especially the part about how the liberal and moderate Republicans were so great for supporting the CRA. g -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:02:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message ... What is interesting to note, was that even in the deep south, the bus companies only began the "Blacks will sit in the rear" policy after it became plain that the various city and municipal governments were , indeed, going to arrest bus drivers who were not enforcing the laws mandating segregated seating on busses. If memory serves, most of those municipal office holders were members of the Democrat party; not unreasonable, seeing as how Lincoln won the war. Right. Hey, what do you suppose happened to those conservative southern racist Democrats? Where are they now, hmmm? Well..KKK Byrd is in Congress as senior Democrat. There's one. How about the 20 million or so others? They look a lot like Zell Miller who didn't switch until he had the right offer. They just had a lower threshold. Zell held out for speechifyin under the big top so it took longer in his case. LOL Funny how quickly people forget recent history but can pull up the most minute details of events decades old. Makes ya' wonder. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
om... They look a lot like Zell Miller who didn't switch until he had the right offer. They just had a lower threshold. Zell held out for speechifyin under the big top so it took longer in his case. LOL Funny how quickly people forget recent history but can pull up the most minute details of events decades old. Makes ya' wonder. Memory is another one of those things that functions well or not, depending on motivation. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
John R. Carroll wrote: They look a lot like Zell Miller who didn't switch until he had the right offer. They just had a lower threshold. Zell held out for speechifyin under the big top so it took longer in his case. LOL Funny how quickly people forget recent history but can pull up the most minute details of events decades old. Makes ya' wonder. Hey, I like Zell ! g |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Gus wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote: They look a lot like Zell Miller who didn't switch until he had the right offer. They just had a lower threshold. Zell held out for speechifyin under the big top so it took longer in his case. LOL Funny how quickly people forget recent history but can pull up the most minute details of events decades old. Makes ya' wonder. Hey, I like Zell ! g Definitely a lot of entertainment value there. I thought he was going to blow a friggin gasket at the convention and he really got the delegates into a proper froth. I'll be the women were leakin' pee. A man his age shouldn't get that worked up without medical assistance close at hand. I recorded his address to the delegates and can tell you that it's the kind of thing that will keep it's shock and entertainment value long after most people have forgotten who the guy was. Not so much for what he said, you understand, but for the apoplectic delivery. It was a real corker and as far as I'm concerned, something any politician worth his salt ought to be able to do. I wish I had his subsequent interviews on tape. They were pretty good too. Wonder whatever happened with the pistols at ten paces thing? 8-) -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: That's true, but, there is nothing today that compares with race in the South, prior to 1970, as an overwhelming issue. -- Ed Huntress You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. But there was actually only a small change in peoples attitudes in that 20 years. What happened was that people like George Wallace realized that race was not an overwhelming issue and quit trying to use it. So it appeared that there was a big change. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
oups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: That's true, but, there is nothing today that compares with race in the South, prior to 1970, as an overwhelming issue. -- Ed Huntress You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. If you look at what I said above, and what you're saying here, it looks like we're talking at cross purposes and about different periods of time. I'm not sure what period you're talking about now. Race was such a dominant factor in southern politics for so long that it seems inescapable that it's had a lot to do with the shape of politics today. When he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, LBJ told his aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." He was quite right; Goldwater took the South in '64, Nixon played it for a presidential win in '68, and the ranks of southern Republicans climbed sharply, continuously, until today. They voted for favorite-son Dems a couple of times along the way, but the trend is easy to document. If you're saying that race is much less a factor today, I already agreed with that, Dan, several messages ago. But there are two facts that I've pointed out, and I can't see how you can argue with them, unless you have some information that no one else seems to have. First, it was Goldwater's stance on the CRA that made Republicans palatible in the South. Second, unless there had been that powerful, race-based incentive to switch, there was nothing else to indicate that the traditional southern hatred for Republicans was about to change until a clear, race-based issue caused them to do so. Thus, race made it possible for the Republicans to dominate southern white voting. Without that, it's sheer speculation about how the party would be doing in the South today. That's all I've been saying. That was the thought and those were the facts that led me to comment to Gunner, many messages ago, that we know why the South is a Republican stronghold today. Are we on the same track here? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. If you're saying that race is much less a factor today, I already agreed with that, Dan, several messages ago. -- Ed Huntress No. I am saying that race was never as big a factor as you think. Most Southerners never hated blacks. Those that did were those that competed directly with them in the work force, ie those that did hard manual labor. And those in law enforcement who had to deal with the worst of both races. The blacks I knew in my childhood were the elevator operators, the guy that swept the barber shop, the neighbors maid, the lad that taught me to count all the way to 100. When I was a teen ager it was a couple of blacks that I worked along side at a warehouse. The sharecropper that worked on land owned by one of my friends. In 1972 or there abouts it was the two computer techs that were in my group in Alabama, some blacks that I knew through some VISTA workers. The young guy that worked with some other young white lads at the factory built house plant I worked at a year or so later. Most Southerners do not hate blacks and did not back in the sixties or seventies either. But there were just enough Southerners that were racist that politicians would do things as stand in the door of the high school in Little Rock. It got him maybe 10 % of the voters, and he might have broken even with those that saw it as wrong and those that saw him as standing up against those meddling Yankees. Southerners did hate Yankees, much more than blacks. We had fireworks at Christmas, because the Fourth of July was a Yankee holiday. What happened. That sure 10 % of the vote dropped to 5% and the politician no longer broke even with those other voters. Are there still racists in the South? Absolutely, about the same as there are in the North. You do remember George Wallace campaigning in the North. Big rallies. Does it mean that the North is racist? No, it means that there are racists in the North. You say there was a big change in the South. I say there was not a big change, just enough that being a racist was no longer a political advantage. Think about the recent senate fight over Alito. Teddy stood in the court room door and stormed about Abortion. And there is a group of Far Right Christians on the other side. Do either of them represent the majority of the people in the US? Maybe you think so, but I don't. If the question of abortion was thrown back to the states to decide, there would not be very many states that outlawed abortion. Not even the states like Massachusetts that have a lot of Catholics. The Democrats have a real interest in painting the Republicans as racist. It keeps the blacks voting Democratic even though the Democrats back the Teachers Union in keeping the school system that fails to educate. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
ups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. If you're saying that race is much less a factor today, I already agreed with that, Dan, several messages ago. -- Ed Huntress No. I am saying that race was never as big a factor as you think. Most Southerners never hated blacks. snip I guess all there is to say is that's your experience, and one can't argue with another's experience. It's not mine, but I lived on the north and south fringes of the region, and they may not be representative. And I've heard widely varying tales on this subject from southerners themselves. I still don't know how you would explain Goldwater's victories in the South, nor Nixon's, and the exodus of southerners from the Democratic Party and entry into the Republicans, after 100 years of serious enmity, except over the race issue. Nearly everyone who has lived it and studied it, and who has reported on it, seems to agree. But I think we've said all there is to say, without getting into serious research. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out,I say!"
Well - after living in the South for most of my life and taking hits
for this and that, mostly slander and ignorance of others - I'll step in. 1. Goldwater was a leader and while political, he was respected. He was also a Military man. Many of this nations patriots are from the south. He was connected on many levels from HAM Radio, to target shooting. He used to converse with Presidents and other Leaders of the world. He had spent his whole life in war and the last years in the cold war. 2. Remember who shot down the Commie hunt in congress - Nixon. He was on the committee with McCarthy and finally saw what was going on. It also took time to make a case against such a powerful person. He gained a number of positive futures from all sorts of people. Nixon had an election stolen from him - but didn't make a fuss. The latest one wasn't stolen and a crying jag is still going on! Nixon just dug in and ran again. Honest people like a winner coming from below and taking a hit and coming back. I haven't been following this dribble stuff since it isn't in the mainstream of life much less metal work. - oh now I did it - put metal into it. Did it again. Damn. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. If you're saying that race is much less a factor today, I already agreed with that, Dan, several messages ago. -- Ed Huntress No. I am saying that race was never as big a factor as you think. Most Southerners never hated blacks. snip I guess all there is to say is that's your experience, and one can't argue with another's experience. It's not mine, but I lived on the north and south fringes of the region, and they may not be representative. And I've heard widely varying tales on this subject from southerners themselves. I still don't know how you would explain Goldwater's victories in the South, nor Nixon's, and the exodus of southerners from the Democratic Party and entry into the Republicans, after 100 years of serious enmity, except over the race issue. Nearly everyone who has lived it and studied it, and who has reported on it, seems to agree. But I think we've said all there is to say, without getting into serious research. -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
... Well - after living in the South for most of my life and taking hits for this and that, mostly slander and ignorance of others - I'll step in. 1. Goldwater was a leader and while political, he was respected. He was also a Military man. Many of this nations patriots are from the south. He was connected on many levels from HAM Radio, to target shooting. He used to converse with Presidents and other Leaders of the world. He had spent his whole life in war and the last years in the cold war. 2. Remember who shot down the Commie hunt in congress - Nixon. He was on the committee with McCarthy and finally saw what was going on. It also took time to make a case against such a powerful person. He gained a number of positive futures from all sorts of people. Nixon had an election stolen from him - but didn't make a fuss. The latest one wasn't stolen and a crying jag is still going on! Nixon just dug in and ran again. Honest people like a winner coming from below and taking a hit and coming back. I haven't been following this dribble stuff since it isn't in the mainstream of life much less metal work. - oh now I did it - put metal into it. Did it again. Damn. Yeah, I used to listen to Goldwater on ham radio when I was a kid -- I don't think he worked 40 m CW, 'cause I could never raise him g. But what does all this have to do with why Goldwater, after 100 years of Republican rejection by the South, won a bunch of states in '64? Are you saying it WASN'T because he was the presidential candidate who had forcefully, and noisily, voted against the Civil Rights Act, while LBJ, a southerner and a Democrat to boot, was credited with pushing strongly FOR it? If so, you have one hell of a mountain to climb to make your case. FWIW, a lot of this sounds like typical southern-racism apology, and, without looking at them in advance, I'll take you on in whatever exit-poll data we can find from 1964. Deal? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: But what does all this have to do with why Goldwater, after 100 years of Republican rejection by the South, won a bunch of states in '64? Are you saying it WASN'T because he was the presidential candidate who had forcefully, and noisily, voted against the Civil Rights Act, while LBJ, a southerner and a Democrat to boot, was credited with pushing strongly FOR it? If so, you have one hell of a mountain to climb to make your case. FWIW, a lot of this sounds like typical southern-racism apology, and, without looking at them in advance, I'll take you on in whatever exit-poll data we can find from 1964. Deal? -- Ed Huntress I did not look for exit poll data, but was able to find some data on Southern voting 1928 47.7% Hoover 1952 48.1% Eisenhower 1956 48.9 % Eisenhower 1960 46% Nixon 1964 48.7% Goldwater You keep claiming the South was solidly Democratic, but looking at real numbers makes it obvious to even the most casual observer that the South was pretty much split between Democratic and Republican in presidential elections. The numbers are not my experience. So you can try to argue with them. Not a " typical southern-racism apology " , hard fact numbers. You just can't seem to accept that race in the South was not the only thing that people considered when they voted. By the way, the web site that had these numbers implied that race riots in the North was a factor in Nixon's campaign. ie by appealing to race, he could pick up votes in the North. Now lets hear the " northern-racist apology ". There were no race riots in Louisiana preceeding the 1968 campaign, but there were in New Jersey. From reading the newspapers and listening to Teddy K. and Schummer you would think that abortion was the only thing that people consider today when they vote. But it just is not so. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out,I say!"
Sadly - LBJ who worked on so much and gave away the farm so many times -
always gets beat on in history for Viet Nam. Think Great Society give away program. Oh well. And I wasn't talking about the act at all. I don't know his voting record and don't care to know - as it has been a long time and water under the bridge. Slappin' someone down because they voted for or against a name - these bills are often thousands of pages long. And they have the kitchen sink attached by everyone.... The Democrats ruled the roost on that and always had give away programs and special tax breaks for a certain square mile in this state or that. It might be the south saw through the Democratic spend spend ways and looked at their taxes more - dump the bums out thoughts. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Ed Huntress wrote: "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message ... Well - after living in the South for most of my life and taking hits for this and that, mostly slander and ignorance of others - I'll step in. 1. Goldwater was a leader and while political, he was respected. He was also a Military man. Many of this nations patriots are from the south. He was connected on many levels from HAM Radio, to target shooting. He used to converse with Presidents and other Leaders of the world. He had spent his whole life in war and the last years in the cold war. 2. Remember who shot down the Commie hunt in congress - Nixon. He was on the committee with McCarthy and finally saw what was going on. It also took time to make a case against such a powerful person. He gained a number of positive futures from all sorts of people. Nixon had an election stolen from him - but didn't make a fuss. The latest one wasn't stolen and a crying jag is still going on! Nixon just dug in and ran again. Honest people like a winner coming from below and taking a hit and coming back. I haven't been following this dribble stuff since it isn't in the mainstream of life much less metal work. - oh now I did it - put metal into it. Did it again. Damn. Yeah, I used to listen to Goldwater on ham radio when I was a kid -- I don't think he worked 40 m CW, 'cause I could never raise him g. But what does all this have to do with why Goldwater, after 100 years of Republican rejection by the South, won a bunch of states in '64? Are you saying it WASN'T because he was the presidential candidate who had forcefully, and noisily, voted against the Civil Rights Act, while LBJ, a southerner and a Democrat to boot, was credited with pushing strongly FOR it? If so, you have one hell of a mountain to climb to make your case. FWIW, a lot of this sounds like typical southern-racism apology, and, without looking at them in advance, I'll take you on in whatever exit-poll data we can find from 1964. Deal? -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
oups.com... I did not look for exit poll data, but was able to find some data on Southern voting 1928 47.7% Hoover 1952 48.1% Eisenhower 1956 48.9 % Eisenhower 1960 46% Nixon 1964 48.7% Goldwater You keep claiming the South was solidly Democratic, but looking at real numbers makes it obvious to even the most casual observer that the South was pretty much split between Democratic and Republican in presidential elections. Ah, Dan, did it occur to you that lumping numbers together like that includes the *black* voters? g! You can't do that and see what was going on. I don't know what states you're including, but it surely includes the fringe states, because here's the hard-core, even *including* the black vote, for 1952: Stephenson Eisenhower Alabama: 65% 35% Arkansas 56 44 Georgia 70 30 N. Carolina 54 46 Mississippi 60 40 What "southern" states did you have in mind? South Dakota? g I don't believe you can get a completely accurate picture without exit polls. But, if you want to just count votes, black and white together, fringe states and Deep South, here are some voting maps that track the pattern better than anything I've seen. These are states won in presidential elections. If you have a decent Internet connection, you can just pop from one to the next and you'll really see what was going on: http://www.multied.com/elections/1948state.html http://www.multied.com/elections/1952state.html http://www.multied.com/elections/1956state.html And so on. Just keep changing the year in the last field. 1928 and 1964 are interesting, for example. g The numbers are not my experience. So you can try to argue with them. Not a " typical southern-racism apology " , hard fact numbers. You just can't seem to accept that race in the South was not the only thing that people considered when they voted. You just can't seem to avoid putting words in my mouth. I said that race was *the* dominant issue. I should have qualified that to say that race was the dominant issue whenever white hegemony was challenged. As long as the blacks stayed "in their place," and didn't do too much voting or didn't become too successful in their little businesses -- and, God forbid, that they didn't try to run for office -- the race issue could be assumed without question in favor of whites, and some other issue might gain their attention. But whenever racial segregation was challenged, race became the issue. It was the overwhelming, overarching issue. For over 100 years. By the way, the web site that had these numbers implied that race riots in the North was a factor in Nixon's campaign. ie by appealing to race, he could pick up votes in the North. Now lets hear the " northern-racist apology ". There were no race riots in Louisiana preceeding the 1968 campaign, but there were in New Jersey. Of course not. They knew what would happen to them if they did. Hell, even a peaceful march brought out the state troopers with whips on their belts, the guns, and the dogs. My son has a collection of photos from the '60s civil-rights marches, as a matter of fact. They make you want to puke. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
... Sadly - LBJ who worked on so much and gave away the farm so many times - always gets beat on in history for Viet Nam. Think Great Society give away program. Oh well. And I wasn't talking about the act at all. I don't know his voting record and don't care to know - as it has been a long time and water under the bridge. Slappin' someone down because they voted for or against a name - these bills are often thousands of pages long. And they have the kitchen sink attached by everyone.... This one is pretty short. It starts out, "An Act...To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes." No kitchen sink. No clingons. Johnson pressed hard for its passage. As he said at the time, it cost the Democrats dearly in the South. Goldwater opposed it just as vehemently -- on state's rights grounds, but that was Ok with white southerners. They picked up the "state's rights" campaign in an even bigger way than they had in the past, once Barry gave them some political cover. Consider who won, and what the big issue might have been. Then look at this: http://www.multied.com/elections/1964state.html What was that you were saying? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: Ah, Dan, did it occur to you that lumping numbers together like that includes the *black* voters? g! Of course it includes the " black " voters. There are a lot of blacks in the South. I thought you knew that. Jeez everytime you lose an argument, you want to redefine what we are discussing. You can't do that and see what was going on. I don't know what states you're including, but it surely includes the fringe states, because here's the hard-core, even *including* the black vote, for 1952: Stephenson Eisenhower Alabama: 65% 35% Arkansas 56 44 Georgia 70 30 N. Carolina 54 46 Mississippi 60 40 What "southern" states did you have in mind? South Dakota? g Well you don't include Louisiana, my home state. Or Texas. I suppose South Carolina is not really a Southern state, but you want to count living in Maryland and Florida as qualifying you as having lived in the South. And then there is Tennesee, which Eisenhower carried and Kentucky which he barely lost. So you just want to throw out any state that does not help your argument. For those that are interested the rest of the story. Stevenson Ike Florida 45 55 Kentucky 49.9 49.8 Louisana 52.9 47.1 South Carolina 50.7 49.3 Tennesee 49.7 50. Texas 46.7 53.1 Virginia 43.4 56.3 I don't believe you can get a completely accurate picture without exit polls. But, if you want to just count votes, black and white together, fringe states and Deep South, here are some voting maps that track the pattern better than anything I've seen. These are states won in presidential elections. If you have a decent Internet connection, you can just pop from one to the next and you'll really see what was going on: http://www.multied.com/elections/1948state.html http://www.multied.com/elections/1952state.html http://www.multied.com/elections/1956state.html And so on. Just keep changing the year in the last field. 1928 and 1964 are interesting, for example. g The numbers are not my experience. So you can try to argue with them. Not a " typical southern-racism apology " , hard fact numbers. You just can't seem to accept that race in the South was not the only thing that people considered when they voted. You just can't seem to avoid putting words in my mouth. I said that race was *the* dominant issue. I should have qualified that to say that race was the dominant issue whenever white hegemony was challenged. As long as the blacks stayed "in their place," and didn't do too much voting or didn't become too successful in their little businesses -- and, God forbid, that they didn't try to run for office -- the race issue could be assumed without question in favor of whites, and some other issue might gain their attention. But whenever racial segregation was challenged, race became the issue. It was the overwhelming, overarching issue. For over 100 years. So you have said. But the numbers don't show that. By the way, the web site that had these numbers implied that race riots in the North was a factor in Nixon's campaign. ie by appealing to race, he could pick up votes in the North. Now lets hear the " northern-racist apology ". There were no race riots in Louisiana preceeding the 1968 campaign, but there were in New Jersey. Of course not. They knew what would happen to them if they did. Hell, even a peaceful march brought out the state troopers with whips on their belts, the guns, and the dogs. My son has a collection of photos from the '60s civil-rights marches, as a matter of fact. They make you want to puke. Once again you assume that you know the reasons. But you really don't know. The fact is that in Louisiana, the schools were integrated peacefully. The politicians did not wave the Confederate Flag. As far as I know there never was a law that blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. There were signs that had white on one side and black on the other. And these were removed without any obvious cause. The same thing happened with the seperate but unequal rest rooms and drinking fountains. I don't doubt that there was some push from the blacks, but it was never made a big deal in public. Because the integration was done quietly and without fanfare, there were not a lot of racial tension created and there was not a lot to riot about. I suppose the pictures of the race riots in New Jersey are much better. I forgot to tell you that one of the blacks I worked with quit the warehouse job and became a policeman in Shreveport, La, That would be in the middle fifties. I know you probably don't believe that there were black policemen and firemen in the South in the fifties. Well before your race riots in New Jersey. Now if you want to redefine the argument to say that race was the dominent issue in Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia among the rural white voters from 1865 to 1965. And white voters in New Jersey in 1968. Well I will not argue with that. Dan -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
On 2 Feb 2006 08:42:12 -0800, "
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: You are wrong, but I can see I am not going to convince you. The best I can do is to point out that things seemed a lot different to you in only about 20 years more time. If you're saying that race is much less a factor today, I already agreed with that, Dan, several messages ago. -- Ed Huntress No. I am saying that race was never as big a factor as you think. Most Southerners never hated blacks. Those that did were those that competed directly with them in the work force, ie those that did hard manual labor. And those in law enforcement who had to deal with the worst of both races. The blacks I knew in my childhood were the elevator operators, the guy that swept the barber shop, the neighbors maid, the lad that taught me to count all the way to 100. When I was a teen ager it was a couple of blacks that I worked along side at a warehouse. The sharecropper that worked on land owned by one of my friends. In 1972 or there abouts it was the two computer techs that were in my group in Alabama, some blacks that I knew through some VISTA workers. The young guy that worked with some other young white lads at the factory built house plant I worked at a year or so later. Most Southerners do not hate blacks and did not back in the sixties or seventies either. But there were just enough Southerners that were racist that politicians would do things as stand in the door of the high school in Little Rock. It got him maybe 10 % of the voters, and he might have broken even with those that saw it as wrong and those that saw him as standing up against those meddling Yankees. Southerners did hate Yankees, much more than blacks. We had fireworks at Christmas, because the Fourth of July was a Yankee holiday. What happened. That sure 10 % of the vote dropped to 5% and the politician no longer broke even with those other voters. Are there still racists in the South? Absolutely, about the same as there are in the North. You do remember George Wallace campaigning in the North. Big rallies. Does it mean that the North is racist? No, it means that there are racists in the North. You say there was a big change in the South. I say there was not a big change, just enough that being a racist was no longer a political advantage. Think about the recent senate fight over Alito. Teddy stood in the court room door and stormed about Abortion. And there is a group of Far Right Christians on the other side. Do either of them represent the majority of the people in the US? Maybe you think so, but I don't. If the question of abortion was thrown back to the states to decide, there would not be very many states that outlawed abortion. Not even the states like Massachusetts that have a lot of Catholics. The Democrats have a real interest in painting the Republicans as racist. It keeps the blacks voting Democratic even though the Democrats back the Teachers Union in keeping the school system that fails to educate. Dan I live in Redneck country. And I do know a very small handful of racists. The only problem being..over 50% of them...are black. Gunner "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out,I say!"
Read it again Ed - and on each subject concept - make a mark.
How many marks ? - not a simple bill - this one is a wide open ended act. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder Ed Huntress wrote: "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message ... Sadly - LBJ who worked on so much and gave away the farm so many times - always gets beat on in history for Viet Nam. Think Great Society give away program. Oh well. And I wasn't talking about the act at all. I don't know his voting record and don't care to know - as it has been a long time and water under the bridge. Slappin' someone down because they voted for or against a name - these bills are often thousands of pages long. And they have the kitchen sink attached by everyone.... This one is pretty short. It starts out, "An Act...To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes." No kitchen sink. No clingons. Johnson pressed hard for its passage. As he said at the time, it cost the Democrats dearly in the South. Goldwater opposed it just as vehemently -- on state's rights grounds, but that was Ok with white southerners. They picked up the "state's rights" campaign in an even bigger way than they had in the past, once Barry gave them some political cover. Consider who won, and what the big issue might have been. Then look at this: http://www.multied.com/elections/1964state.html What was that you were saying? -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
... Read it again Ed - and on each subject concept - make a mark. How many marks ? - not a simple bill - this one is a wide open ended act. Martin, that isn't what you were talking about. You said "these bills are often thousands of pages long. And they have the kitchen sink attached by everyone." This one is not "thousands of pages" long. And there is no "kitchen sink." The bill is all about one subject -- civil rights. By the time this bill was written, Jim Crow had become an octopus, with tentacles everywhere, dodging around the 14th and 15th Amendments in a hundred ways. At some point not long after the Civil War, black voter registrations were up in the 70% range. By 1920, intimidation and oppression had driven it down to roughly 6% in some southern states. I'm going to duck out of this discussion now because it always ends in hard feelings. The denials and distortions we've heard about it for 50 years or more have probably caused as much anger in me as any subject on earth. I don't want to fight the Civil War again, and I don't want to hear about how happy those darkies were in the South during the Jim Crow years. I've heard all of the arguments. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
In article , pyotr filipivich
says... Tell me again how the Republicans are going to micro manage your life if they get in? So if the republicans do the exact same thing, it's fine with you. Does not make sense. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
I think I have just been called a liar.
Dan Ed Huntress wrote: I'm going to duck out of this discussion now because it always ends in hard feelings. The denials and distortions we've heard about it for 50 years or more have probably caused as much anger in me as any subject on earth. I don't want to fight the Civil War again, and I don't want to hear about how happy those darkies were in the South during the Jim Crow years. I've heard all of the arguments. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
jim rozen wrote: In article , pyotr filipivich says... Tell me again how the Republicans are going to micro manage your life if they get in? So if the republicans do the exact same thing, it's fine with you. Does not make sense. Jim ===================================== If the Republicans do exactly the same thing........Well the hope is that they won't. Things seem to have gone astray recently, but the Republicans used to be the smaller government, less interference party. No current guarantees. In addition to what has been mentioned, the Democrats have a bill pending to require all businesses larger than 5000 employees to spend 9 % of their payroll on health insurance. And they have the gall to call this leveling the playing field and done to save the state millions of dollars ( from employees using state subsidized medical services ). How does passing legislation based on company size level a field? And if they really wanted to save the state money, they would include all businesses down to all businesses that employ anyone not related to the owners. Many times more employees of small business that don't provide healthcare. It is actually a bill against Wallmart, and misses all the McDonalds employees because those employees are working for franchises. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
|
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
|
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
In article . com,
" wrote: I think I have just been called a liar. Dan Ed Huntress wrote: I'm going to duck out of this discussion now because it always ends in hard feelings. The denials and distortions we've heard about it for 50 years or more have probably caused as much anger in me as any subject on earth. I don't want to fight the Civil War again, and I don't want to hear about how happy those darkies were in the South during the Jim Crow years. I've heard all of the arguments. -- Ed Huntress If Ed had called you a liar, you wouldn't have to think so: You'd know. :) |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
ups.com... I think I have just been called a liar. Dan I think you're being a bit paranoid, Dan. I've tried to grant that your particular experience may have led you to your conclusions. Weighing against that, in terms of the larger perspective, is a tidal wave of documentation about how race and politics were intertwined in the South for 200 years. It all depends upon how hard one looks, or how objectively open his eyes are. Many southerners I've known never cared to look very hard, and they seem to forget a lot of things that happened. It probably will take at least another generation before it's something that can be discussed without rancor. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
oups.com... jim rozen wrote: In article , pyotr filipivich says... Tell me again how the Republicans are going to micro manage your life if they get in? So if the republicans do the exact same thing, it's fine with you. Does not make sense. Jim ===================================== If the Republicans do exactly the same thing........Well the hope is that they won't. Things seem to have gone astray recently, but the Republicans used to be the smaller government, less interference party. No current guarantees. In addition to what has been mentioned, the Democrats have a bill pending to require all businesses larger than 5000 employees to spend 9 % of their payroll on health insurance. And they have the gall to call this leveling the playing field and done to save the state millions of dollars ( from employees using state subsidized medical services ). How does passing legislation based on company size level a field? And if they really wanted to save the state money, they would include all businesses down to all businesses that employ anyone not related to the owners. Many times more employees of small business that don't provide healthcare. It is actually a bill against Wallmart, and misses all the McDonalds employees because those employees are working for franchises. It is a bill againt Wal-Mart, and the product of something that over 20 states have recognized: that Wal-Mart is competing with other businesses partly by bleeding them for healthcare insurance. How you judge this case depends upon where you start. Maryland says that the average employer in that state (or average employer with 20 or more employees -- something like that) spends 9% of salaries on health insurance. Wal-Mart, most economists claim, pays something less than 5%. And then they instruct their employees on how to collect state medicaid. Two things happen. First, as large employers who also put fierce cost-cutting pressure on smaller competitors, they force companies that traditionally have made their healthcare programs part of their attractiveness to employees, and part of their fulfillment of general responsibility, to cut their health insurance to the bone. That puts even more people on state medicaid, which is the second effect. In the end, the state's taxpayers wind up footing much of the healthcare bill, by way of increased hospitalization fees that result from caring for the uninsured, and increased insurance and medicaid rates for everyone. There are some pretty good anaylses of it. You may have heard that the president of Wal-Mart has allowed that the company has fallen short of its social responsibilities, in an interview he had with Tom Friedman -- who is, himself, a major booster and supporter of Wal-Mart. Concerning the matter of where you start, healthcare now costs so much that most Wal-Mart employees can't afford the insurance to cover it. So Wal-Mart has decided that they'll avoid the problem and keep their costs lower by switching costs to the taxpayers. They seem to favor socialized healthcare. g If you think the traditional model of employers paying for most or all of healthcare insurance is a good one, then Wal-Mart has shirked. Regardless, they have driven their competitors to avoid paying for it, as well. If you think single-payer, socialized healthcare is good, then Wal-Mart is 'way out in front, driving us in that direction whether you like it or not. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ups.com... I think I have just been called a liar. Dan I think you're being a bit paranoid, Dan. I've tried to grant that your particular experience may have led you to your conclusions. Weighing against that, in terms of the larger perspective, is a tidal wave of documentation about how race and politics were intertwined in the South for 200 years. It all depends upon how hard one looks, or how objectively open his eyes are. Many southerners I've known never cared to look very hard, and they seem to forget a lot of things that happened. It probably will take at least another generation before it's something that can be discussed without rancor. -- Ed Huntress I am not upset, just a bit frustrated that I have not been able to convince you that the tidal wave of documents is documenting NEWS. ie all the bad things that have happened. The peaceful integration does not get documented. Oh you may get something like " Driving Miss Daisy ", but even in literature you normally don't get the ordinary and mundane. The numbers from voting in national elections show that the Democrats had a lock on the South Electorial Votes for years, but in many states the actual votes were fairly close. Which I think shows that there was not as much racism is the South as most people believe. I don't think that my experience in Louisiana was unusual. I can't imagine that anybody that I knew did not also know some blacks. And by 1968 when I moved back to Alabama, integration was fact. As I said, I had two blacks in my computer group. And the secretary for my boss was black. When I was working for a manufactured house company, we had about seven young kids just out of high school working there. One of them was black. And there was little racial tension there. None between the white kids and him. I can remember telling the black kid to do something at a job site, and he thought that I was picking him because he was black. It was something like picking up all the trash. And he refused to do it. So I just started doing it myself, and after a few minutes he came and worked with me. And once he did not show up at work for about six months. We sent what money we owed him to his mom. When he came back to work, we found out that he had been in jail for possession of Marijuana. Before we took him back, I talked to his parole officer and found out that he had been in jail before. But we decided he was not likely to do anything that would affect us, so we did hire him again. That really doesn't have anything to do with racism, but it just shows that I knew him fairly well. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, there was a big spontaneous march from Alabama A & M to downtown Huntsville. Alabama A & M was a predominately black college, and the marchers were predominately black, but there were some white folks too. It was in honor of MLK and dignified. It probably did not make the news in the North because it was not "NEWS", but it was on local TV. In the same general time period, there were race riots in Detroit and Newark. So I can understand that your experience was different. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
|
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
In article , Ed Huntress says...
Concerning the matter of where you start, healthcare now costs so much that most Wal-Mart employees can't afford the insurance to cover it. So Wal-Mart has decided that they'll avoid the problem and keep their costs lower by switching costs to the taxpayers. They seem to favor socialized healthcare. g The buzz word is "externalizing." Basically convincing somebody (anybody!) to pay for a business expense that you would othewise have to cover. The rational is always, if we didn't do it, somebody else would and that would make us less profitable and we'd have to go to china. "Going to China" is now the ultimate corporate blurb to justify any business practice at all it seems to me. I think I'm going to try to externalize some of *my* expenses. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote: It is a bill againt Wal-Mart, and the product of something that over 20 states have recognized: that Wal-Mart is competing with other businesses partly by bleeding them for healthcare insurance. How you judge this case depends upon where you start. Maryland says that the average employer in that state (or average employer with 20 or more employees -- something like that) spends 9% of salaries on health insurance. Wal-Mart, most economists claim, pays something less than 5%. And then they instruct their employees on how to collect state medicaid. Two things happen. First, as large employers who also put fierce cost-cutting pressure on smaller competitors, they force companies that traditionally have made their healthcare programs part of their attractiveness to employees, and part of their fulfillment of general responsibility, to cut their health insurance to the bone. That puts even more people on state medicaid, which is the second effect. In the end, the state's taxpayers wind up footing much of the healthcare bill, by way of increased hospitalization fees that result from caring for the uninsured, and increased insurance and medicaid rates for everyone. There are some pretty good anaylses of it. You may have heard that the president of Wal-Mart has allowed that the company has fallen short of its social responsibilities, in an interview he had with Tom Friedman -- who is, himself, a major booster and supporter of Wal-Mart. Concerning the matter of where you start, healthcare now costs so much that most Wal-Mart employees can't afford the insurance to cover it. So Wal-Mart has decided that they'll avoid the problem and keep their costs lower by switching costs to the taxpayers. They seem to favor socialized healthcare. g If you think the traditional model of employers paying for most or all of healthcare insurance is a good one, then Wal-Mart has shirked. Regardless, they have driven their competitors to avoid paying for it, as well. If you think single-payer, socialized healthcare is good, then Wal-Mart is 'way out in front, driving us in that direction whether you like it or not. -- Ed Huntress My objection is that the bill applies only to companies that employ 5000 people or more. And is , IMHO, being pushed by the Democrats as pay back to organized labor because Walmart is non union. The Seattle Times did an article on it with facts on companies with more and less than 5000 employees. It showed that there were a good many companies with 20 or more employees that did not provide any healthcare benefits. And if the bill applied to all companies with 20 employees or more, then the playing field would be equal, many more people would have health insurance , and the state would save money. For example all the McDonald franchises employ about 2/3 as many people as Walmart, and Safeway employs about half as many as Walmart. None of these employees are covered for healthcare any better than Walmart employees. So if the bill was written so it covered those two additional businesses, it would double the number of employees that received healthcare. Think how many more would be covered if it covered all businesses down to 20 employees. And you would probably double that amount if you covered businesses down to 10 people. If as claimed the average employer of 20 or more already spends 9% on health benefits, then the bill might as well cover them too. But in fact that figure seems to be less than factual at least in Washington State. Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article .com, says... ...the tidal wave of documents is documenting NEWS. ie all the bad things that have happened. The peaceful integration does not get documented. A good point, and one that Ed can no doubt appreciate. One never hears news that says, "nothing exciting happened today." But my personal fear is that you've spurred Ed into presenting real historical documentation, something I know he can produce in large quantities if he wants to.... But I don't want to. It's a waste of time. For your own interest, should you have any doubts, and for a quick view of the underlying situation, see LOUISIANA v. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) on your favorite legal database. Louisiana is really two states and it has a very complex history. But its segregation and oppression, overall, were typical deep-South stuff: if they can't vote, they aren't much of a problem. In 1960, under the pressure of federal court orders, New Orleans began the integration of the schools' first grade by admitting one black girl. Two days of rioting followed, in which dozens of people were shot, stabbed, and beaten. I wonder how many black kids attended Dan's schools? My NJ kindergarten was about 25% black kids. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
ups.com... My objection is that the bill applies only to companies that employ 5000 people or more. And is , IMHO, being pushed by the Democrats as pay back to organized labor because Walmart is non union. Aha. Well, that answers the whole thing, eh? g snip If as claimed the average employer of 20 or more already spends 9% on health benefits, then the bill might as well cover them too. But in fact that figure seems to be less than factual at least in Washington State. So, what's your solution, Dan? -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... Concerning the matter of where you start, healthcare now costs so much that most Wal-Mart employees can't afford the insurance to cover it. So Wal-Mart has decided that they'll avoid the problem and keep their costs lower by switching costs to the taxpayers. They seem to favor socialized healthcare. g The buzz word is "externalizing." Basically convincing somebody (anybody!) to pay for a business expense that you would othewise have to cover. The rational is always, if we didn't do it, somebody else would and that would make us less profitable and we'd have to go to china. "Going to China" is now the ultimate corporate blurb to justify any business practice at all it seems to me. I think I'm going to try to externalize some of *my* expenses. You could go to work for Wal-Mart. They instruct their employees on how to apply for food stamps and state medicaid. They're really good at it and we could all learn a lot from them. -- Ed Huntress |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
Ed Huntress wrote:
For your own interest, should you have any doubts, and for a quick view of the underlying situation, see LOUISIANA v. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) on your favorite legal database. Louisiana is really two states and it has a very complex history. But its segregation and oppression, overall, were typical deep-South stuff: if they can't vote, they aren't much of a problem. In 1960, under the pressure of federal court orders, New Orleans began the integration of the schools' first grade by admitting one black girl. Two days of rioting followed, in which dozens of people were shot, stabbed, and beaten. I wonder how many black kids attended Dan's schools? My NJ kindergarten was about 25% black kids. -- Ed Huntress You are absolutely right about Louisiana being two states. There used to be a sign on the highway that kind of indicated that. It said " From here on the coffee gets black". Referring to the really dark roast coffee in south Louisiana. I grew up in Shreveport in northwest La. No black kids attended any of my schools until I got to college. And even there the number of blacks in my class was about three in something like 1000. As a result, I never had any fights except with white kids. Racial topics rarely came up. You might take into consideration that I graduated from High school in 1953. That was before Brown v the board of education was decided. Searching for news about integration in Shreveport I ran across this bit about Governor Jimmy Davis. "He went back to the governor's mansion for a second four-year term in 1960. School integration was a hot issue in the Deep South in those years and while Davis maintained a segregationist stance, his moderate form of opposition helped Louisiana avoid much of the violence that took pace in neighboring states." Dan |
paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
wrote in message
ups.com... Searching for news about integration in Shreveport I ran across this bit about Governor Jimmy Davis. "He went back to the governor's mansion for a second four-year term in 1960. School integration was a hot issue in the Deep South in those years and while Davis maintained a segregationist stance, his moderate form of opposition helped Louisiana avoid much of the violence that took pace in neighboring states." Yes, Davis was a smart guy who did a good job of navigating the state through those times. Louisiana got off relatively lightly compared to other deep-South states in the racial conflicts that accompanied integration through the '60s and '70s. Keep in mind, though, that we started talking in general about the South and the fact that race was the issue that drove politics there for 100 years, and you intimated that your own experience contradicted the ideas that the race issue was dominant, as well as that conservative Democrats had a grip on the region until Goldwater's opposition to the CRA and Nixon's riding the coattails of that opening with his Southern Strategy. My point is that the numbers show otherwise. (You may know that Louisiana actually had three "elections" for offices: the Democratic primary, the Democratic General Election, and then the sham election, the supposed General Election, in which the Republican got bloodied in a farcical exercise.) With the caveat that any racial peace in the South at that time was the result of political and social oppression of blacks, I allowed that race usually didn't appear in the forefront of issues until and unless white hegemony was being challenged. Then it reared its head in a big way, coming to the surface as an issue that was assumed to be closed, but which became explosive whenever the door was pushed slightly ajar. And there is no doubt that is true, well-known, and thoroughly documented by the political history of the region, Dan. At one point, Louisiana's white political dominance suppressed black voter registration to less than 1% of the black population. Even by 1960, with federal courts enforcing voting rights and imposing regulations on the states, it only hit 15% in Louisiana. That was the key. Keeping blacks from voting, and passing one Jim Crow law after another, whites in the South had created a docile, separate, economically and politically oppressed underclass of blacks. There is no way in hell they would have rioted like blacks in the North. They were too intimidated. There had been a (conservatively) estimated 3,700 lynchings of blacks, alone, in the preceding half-century. The federal judge who prevented King from marching on Montgomery did so not because he feared violence from the marchers, but because, as he said later, he knew the Alabama State Police would beat the crap out of them if they tried. As you said, whites didn't hate blacks for the most part, because it would have been like hating their own children. What they hated were the agitators for reform. When northern whites got involved in the demonstrations, the reality of white southern attitudes came out of the box, and the South lit up with violence. Everything would have been fine if nobody interfered with the political oppression. The Voting Rights Act probably caused more violent reaction than the Civil Rights Act itself. You can't get into discussing the numbers and events to understand southern segregation unless you first look at the status of blacks and whites at the time. It was peaceful; it was separate; it was heavy-handed oppression. From the South's end of the telescope, it was hunky-dory until the pressure came for change. Then all hell broke loose. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter