Ed Huntress wrote:

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

We are both very close to agreement, and yet so far apart. I agree
that blacks were not treated equally, and I agree that all these things
happened. Where we differ is in how we preceive the majority of the
white Southerners. I see the majority of the white Southerners as much
less concerned about keeping the status quo than you do. I see a
active but small minority keeping the blacks suppressed, where you see
a majority of whites against integration.

In national elections the South was divided nearly equally between the
Democrats and the Republicans. Most of the South integrated the
schools, lunch counters, and busses without violence. In Shreveport
police and firemen were selected by civil service exam regardless of
race in the early fifties before Brown v ......... The Catholic
schools in La. integrated in New Orleans. It did take excommunicating
a few people, but it happened.
In the case you pointed out " Louisiana v The United States " it said
that 21 parishes had voter exams to preclude blacks from registering to
vote. Since La has 64 parishes, that means that just over 2/3 rds, did
not.

You see the Southern blacks as too intimidated to riot. I see them as
smart enough to realize that riots would create bitterness and hatred
that would take longer to heal. MLK was one of those that were against
violence. I really don't think of him as intimidated.
And it seems to have worked out that way. Race relations seem to be
better in the cities in the South than they are in Newark.

And yes I knew that the only local election that counted was the
primary. We really only had two elections. The primary where the
Democrats and Republicans candidates were selected. And the general
election which was a formality as anyone really trying to get into
office ran as a Democrat. All the Republican candidates were about
like the liberterian candidates in Washington State. Maybe good
people, but probably not up to the job they were trying to get. We
have the same thing in King county in Washington State as far as
elections All the serious candidates are Democrats. It just is not
state wide. That is what Nixon really changed. Before then all the
Southerners were Democrats, and the Democrats were the majority in
Congress. So the powerful committees were headed by Democrats.

And yes there were those in the South that opposed integration, but the
people I knew were more pragmatic. Anyone could see that integration
was happening, so they tried to have it happen smoothly and without
making the already poor school system any worse ( Louisiana was not
know for the quality of any of its schools. And incidently when I was
a child, Louisiana did not have public kindergardens. Louisiana is not
a prosperous state )

You say the numbers show otherwise. Which numbers are you refering to?

There were race riots in Newark in 1967. Do you think the average
person living in New Jersey is racist?


Dan

I remember Pontiac Mi. Burning of 50+ Buses. Nice easy integration there!
And the south was posted until a few years ago by Federal Marshals since the Civil War -
that was real nice of the North. Vacation in the south for the Yankee Marshals.

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:
snip

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



----== 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 =----

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
I remember Pontiac Mi. Burning of 50+ Buses. Nice easy integration
there!

That wasn't about integration, Martin. Pontiac already had black and white
students in schools across their system. It was about BUSING, which was
hated universally, north and south.

Contrast that with New Orleans, where sending ONE black girl into the entire
white school system resulted in two days of rioting and over 250 arrests.
THAT was about integration.

And the south was posted until a few years ago by Federal Marshals since
the Civil War -
that was real nice of the North. Vacation in the south for the Yankee
Marshals.

Martin :-)

Time will tell whether they left too soon. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
ps.com...

In the case you pointed out " Louisiana v The United States " it said
that 21 parishes had voter exams to preclude blacks from registering to
vote. Since La has 64 parishes, that means that just over 2/3 rds, did
not.

Oh, there were plenty of methods to Jim Crow. The point was that in 1960,
only 15% of blacks had managed to get through the gauntlet to register in
Louisiana.


You see the Southern blacks as too intimidated to riot. I see them as
smart enough to realize that riots would create bitterness and hatred
that would take longer to heal.

Well, then, you see the situation as a typical white southerner does, Dan.
You're right that blacks were smart enough not to riot or to vote. 3,700
lynchings are pretty convincing.

I think this conversation is going nowhere, Dan. As I said early on,
apologia for 100 years of post-Reconstruction intimidation, murder,
oppression, and violence that led to the CRA and the VRA is either ludicrous
or infuriating, depending on which side of bed one gets up on. This morning,
I find it a bit of both. 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

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.

"They" being.....?

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****

--
Ed Huntress

Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****

--
Ed Huntress

Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

That is a very good question. I assume that the answer will be that
it's all Bush's fault. You see as stated before, all the bigots of the
Democrat party jumped ship (except for senator KKK Byrd) and came into
the Republican party and are now what are called "fundies, neocons, and
wingers" So it's guilt by association and Bush's fault. g

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

"Rex B" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What
did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.

"They" being.....?

Which "they" do you believe, Rex? And why do you believe it?

I have no idea. Ray seems as unlikely to have been the one in this case as
Oswald was. But one never knows.

--
Ed Huntress

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What
did
make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****

--
Ed Huntress

Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Do you believe that?

--
Ed Huntress

On 8 Feb 2006 05:10:03 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

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....



Jim
A BIGGER, BLACKER GOP
By DICK MORRIS

FAR away from the speeches of Jesse Jackson, the demands of Al
Sharpton and the
ranting of Louis Farrakhan, a quiet revolution is taking place in the
role
African-Americans play in politics. In the very heartland of the
nation — in
Pennsylvania and Ohio — the Republican Party is getting set to
nominate black
candidates for governor in the coming elections. In a nation that has
not a
single African-American governor — not one — from either party, this
is its own
little revolution.

These are not throwaway candidates in states where the GOP has no
chance of
victory. These are real candidates, chosen when there were plenty of
white
alternatives, that are en route to their party's nomination, with real
chances
to win.

In Pennsylvania, former football great Lynn Swann stands poised to be
designated
as the Republican candidate at next week's State Convention. The
former wide
receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, now enshrined in the Hall of
Fame, is
seeking fame of another sort, trying to be the state's first black
governor.

In Ohio, a key swing state, Ken Blackwell, the Republican secretary of
state, is
running for the gubernatorial nomination in a state Republicans can
win. In
Maryland, Lieut. Gov. Michael Steele is seeking the open Senate seat.

Add these men to the possibility that Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice might
heed Laura Bush's advice and run for president, and a revolution may
be in the
making.

Salena Zito, a political columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,
notes that
"to an extent, Democrats have been blindsided by this growth of black
Republicans running for high-profile offices."

The backdrop for this sea change is sketched out in a new book by an
ex-Bush
White House staffer, Ron Christie, "Black in the White House: Life
Inside George
W. Bush's West Wing." He catalogues a range of policy initiatives
which,
particularly in education, have led to achievements that rival the
best of the
Clinton years.

Partly as a result of President Bush's No Child Left Behind
legislation, the
achievement gap between white and black fourth-grade students in
reading is at
its lowest ever and the math gap is, too. (The eighth-grade tests also
reflect a
sharp narrowing of the gap.)

And as former Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma found out, African-Americans
who
reject the entitlement ethic and stand for self-reliance and
individual upward
mobility are very attractive to white voters. Asked to accept liberal
ideology
and big tax-and-spend programs as the price of supporting black
candidates, many
voters say no. But given a chance to find black candidates who share
the
electorate's vision, most white voters jump at the chance.

Black candidates are highly threatening to white political leaders.
Sources
close to Rev. Al Sharpton, for example, attribute Hillary Clinton's
comparison
of the House of Representatives to a "plantation" to her fear of a
Rice
candidacy. "She boycotted the event for two years in a row and now,
when Condi
might run, she shows up and uses militant rhetoric," one of Sharpton's
key
people told me. "She needs to get Al to vouch for her in South
Carolina if she
goes up against Condi," he added.

The Democratic Party has always treated the African-American vote like
a
golfer's handicap. A Democrat takes the black vote for granted and a
Republican,
until recently, takes its loss as a given. But the growth of black
candidates
among Republicans — a result of the declining power of racism in
politics — may
force both parties to change that calculation. If the black vote
becomes "in
play" as the Hispanic vote has, there will be a whole new politics in
this
country of ours.




"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What

did

make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Do you believe that?

Ed Huntress

Well with no personal knowledge of the event, what am I to
"believe" except what is released to the various media over
quite a time span??
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What

did

make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Do you believe that?

Ed Huntress

Well with no personal knowledge of the event, what am I to
"believe" except what is released to the various media over
quite a time span??
...lew...

Well, it's the official government position. In fact, there always has been
a lot of suspicion among the media about whether it was true. Ray, a
mediocre shot who apparently hadn't shot a rifle for years, goes out and
buys a .30/06 Remington Gamemaster, and then a few days later shoots MLK in
the head, while leaving only two fingerprints on the rifle...'real
interesting.

Anyway, the point is that somebody shot him, and maybe more than one person
was involved, so I said "they," in the inclusive sense. And you wondered who
"they" are, and I said I don't know but asked you -- but you don't know,
either. So it's still "they."

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:08:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news. What

did

make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Do you believe that?

Ed Huntress

Well with no personal knowledge of the event, what am I to
"believe" except what is released to the various media over
quite a time span??
...lew...

Well, it's the official government position. In fact, there always has been
a lot of suspicion among the media about whether it was true. Ray, a
mediocre shot who apparently hadn't shot a rifle for years, goes out and
buys a .30/06 Remington Gamemaster, and then a few days later shoots MLK in
the head, while leaving only two fingerprints on the rifle...'real
interesting.

Anyway, the point is that somebody shot him, and maybe more than one person
was involved, so I said "they," in the inclusive sense. And you wondered who
"they" are, and I said I don't know but asked you -- but you don't know,
either. So it's still "they."


Probably the same "they" that left a pristine Carcano bullet on the
gurney under JFK. The same bullet that had no rifling marks, even
though it supposedly had been not only been fired, but fired though a
human being.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:08:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't remember whether your big spontaneous march made the news.
What

did

make the news was Martin Luther King leading peaceful marches for
equal
treatment under the law, and that they killed him for it.
*****
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, Who all is this "omnicent" THEY ? Way I heard it, it was
one
bigot. :-)
...lew...

Do you believe that?

Ed Huntress

Well with no personal knowledge of the event, what am I to
"believe" except what is released to the various media over
quite a time span??
...lew...

Well, it's the official government position. In fact, there always has
been
a lot of suspicion among the media about whether it was true. Ray, a
mediocre shot who apparently hadn't shot a rifle for years, goes out and
buys a .30/06 Remington Gamemaster, and then a few days later shoots MLK
in
the head, while leaving only two fingerprints on the rifle...'real
interesting.

Anyway, the point is that somebody shot him, and maybe more than one
person
was involved, so I said "they," in the inclusive sense. And you wondered
who
"they" are, and I said I don't know but asked you -- but you don't know,
either. So it's still "they."


Probably the same "they" that left a pristine Carcano bullet on the
gurney under JFK. The same bullet that had no rifling marks, even
though it supposedly had been not only been fired, but fired though a
human being.

Did you ever see the photo taken from on the balcony, a few seconds after
King was shot? Everyone on the balcony is pointing -- nowhere near where Ray
was.

'Lots of interesting stuff involved in both cases.

--
Ed Huntress

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Let's see. Busing - why was that.

My bet - this neighborhood over to this school... Integration.
It doesn't have to be that days news - just a person who gets
the stick in an eye - and goes nuts.

Bet all you want, Martin. Pontiac had at least 10% of each race in its
schools. It was semi-segregated, like most schools in the country. But this
is nothing like going nuts because one first-grade girl enrolls in one
school in town.

It's a qualitative difference in the culture. I lived up the road in Lansing
at the time. Remember the crackpot KKK guy from Howell? (I'm assuming you
know this stuff first-hand.) He ran the operation that blew up the buses.

You're reaching too far on this one. This is nothing like going bonkers over
one kid admitted to the school system, as happened in New Orleans (not to
mention many other places in the Deep South).


Busing has been going on for a long time and is loved. Think 50 miles to
school.
Think only 1 town in a county.

Busing for integration was the issue - I remember the video on TV and the
impact.

Of course it was. People everywhere hated busing for the sake of
integration. That's what the "busing" issue was all about, for two decades.

--
Ed Huntress

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Ok - so the Crackpot KKK guy just wanted Pontiac to have new buses - I bet
not.
Those types of people start to go nuts - but remember a national org - and
who
knows what the mail docs he was getting or orders from the "grand dragon"
(notice NO respect).

It doesn't have to happen with the first child, it can be after a fester
period.

If the KKK was involved, you can bet it was because of race. Only Hitler
was more so.
I think the last organized body of the KKK was in Conn. but it has been a
while.
Maybe N.J.

Those kind didn't think for themselves, they ran on orders otherwise they
took a hit.

Martin
Martin Eastburn

Jeez, that must have been festering for a while, Martin. I looks like the
hide sprung a leak before you could get it all skinned and fleshed. g

Whatever it is that's all supposed to mean, you must have one hell of a need
to justify the apartheid segregation that was practiced in the South. Some
really brilliant people have tried to defend it and they have all failed.
Today, they're laughed at. I'm surprised to see there are still some
hangers-on, who think that there's some kind of equation between a part of
the country where they lynched 3,400 black people, many of them for having
he audacity to try to vote, or to argue with a white man, and a part where
people grew angry at having their kids bused to another town to go to
school. You may remember that plenty of black people resisted busing, too.

You're full of it, Martin. And, except for a few southern apologists who no
doubt hang around here, there's hardly a sensible person who would try to
equate the two today. You're about four decades out of touch.

--
Ed Huntress

On 25 Feb 2006 10:23:16 -0800, "
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:


Jeez, that must have been festering for a while, Martin. I looks like the
hide sprung a leak before you could get it all skinned and fleshed. g

Whatever it is that's all supposed to mean, you must have one hell of a need
to justify the apartheid segregation that was practiced in the South. Some
really brilliant people have tried to defend it and they have all failed.
Today, they're laughed at. I'm surprised to see there are still some
hangers-on, who think that there's some kind of equation between a part of
the country where they lynched 3,400 black people, many of them for having
he audacity to try to vote, or to argue with a white man, and a part where
people grew angry at having their kids bused to another town to go to
school. You may remember that plenty of black people resisted busing, too.

You're full of it, Martin. And, except for a few southern apologists who no
doubt hang around here, there's hardly a sensible person who would try to
equate the two today. You're about four decades out of touch.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed,

You seem to attribute emotions to people that I don't see being
expressed. Martin is pointing out that there was lots of racism in the
North. I don't think you can point out anywhere where he said that
racism in the South was good, okay or acceptable. I know that I have
not expressed that. I think that racism is wrong! That the South
should not have bought those slaves delivered by those Yankee skippers.
And that lynching is barbaric.

But when I express the idea that the average Southerner was not racist,
you seem to believe that I am racist and apologizing for racists. I
never aid there were no racists in the South, but tried to show by the
voting records that the percentage was not all that high. I think that
Martin and I are trying to convince you that it does not take a
majority of people being racist to have racist incidents. And Martin
seems to be saying that racist incidents existed in the North after the
South had accepted integration and was not having race riots.

You keep on about the two days of riots in New Orleans when one black
girl started attending a previously all white school. Lets see, New
Orleans population about maybe 600,000 at the time. Arrests 250. Sure
that certainly indicates that most people were racist..........NOT.
You should read what that girl said about the next year at the same
school. No riots, no newspaper coverage, no big deal.

Look at Iraq. Lots of violence. Does that mean the average person
there supports violence? You can not use the actions of some to
determine what the entire population is like. That is prejudice.

Taking this away from people entirely. Say you have 1000 marbles.
900 are orange, and 100 are purple. You draw marbles out of box and
whenever you get a purple marble you get a check mark. When you get a
orange marble no record is made. You can't make any claims about the
compostion of the box of marbles based on getting ten check marks.

In the same way, ten newspaper articles about race related incidents,
does not mean that you can draw any conclusions about the average
person in the area. Try thinking about how many rapes there are in New
Jersey each year. It does not mean that the average person in New
Jersey is a rapist.


Dan


Excellent post.

Gunner, who finds that today..most racists are black. Shrug

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

"Gunner" wrote in message
news

Gunner, who finds that today..most racists are black. Shrug

Gunner

Well, once they've seen you, who could blame them? ggg

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:14:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news

Gunner, who finds that today..most racists are black. Shrug

Gunner

Well, once they've seen you, who could blame them? ggg

Actually..one of the bars I hang out in (dont drink, play pool) tends
to be largely black. I was given The Look the first couple times I
went in there..big hat, big belt buckle, jeans and Tony Llamas,..but
now..its a non stop Dap festival. I rather like Motown music at times
(hate rap/hip hop) and it being a blue color dive...they play a fair
amount of C&W also. Ive dated an outstanding black lady several times
I met there also.

And in discussions..most of them will freely admit that they encounter
little white racism anymore..and that yes..there are likely to be more
black racists or professional victims. Shrug

Im told I grow on people.

Usually on the north side.

G

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:34:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im told I grow on people.

Usually on the north side.

Barrrrrrrumpp-Bump!

-- Bruce --