[OAW]

For the first time in eight years, Virginia's Republican governor has issued a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month in the state, drawing criticism from Democrats and a civil rights group.

"It is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present," Gov. Robert McDonnell's seven-paragraph proclamation reads in part.

He quietly made the declaration after two previous Democratic administrations refused to do so.

"This defining chapter in Virginia's history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians," the governor's proclamation reads.

It does not mention slavery.

"I wish he would have followed the examples of Gov. [Mark] Warner and Gov. [Tim] Kaine, but obviously he has declined to do so," state Sen. Don McEachin, a Democrat, told CNN affiliate WWBT. "I also find it interesting that while he issues his proclamation, there's no mention of slavery."

The Virginia chapter of the NAACP also condemned the proclamation, The Washington Post reported. The group did not immediately return phone calls to CNN.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans asked the governor to declare the month Confederate History Month. Virginia seceded from the union on April 17, 1861.

Brandon Dorsey, a spokesman for the group, told CNN Radio that Confederate History Month isn't about slavery or race, but about studying the 4-year history of the Confederacy. He said it will also help draw visitors to the many Civil War battle sites in Virginia, helping to boost tourism.

"The proclamation's main goal is to call attention to the fact that there is Confederate history in the state of Virginia, of course, across the South. It's simply a tool to expose individuals to that history. It's not a mandate in any way. It's a symbolic gesture."

He said the group doesn't consider the history of the Confederacy or Virginia's Confederate History Month racially divisive. "It's not meant to discriminate against anybody," he said.

He said that the Confederacy wasn't about continuing the institution of slavery, but that it was really about the states' rights vs. the rights of the federal government. He said there were abolitionists in the group.

Other Southern states have issued similar proclamations for April. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley declared April, the month the Civil War began, as Confederate History and Heritage Month. The statement condemns slavery.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Virginia governor declares April as Confederate History Month � - Blogs from CNN.com

Now of course this is political pandering to the white conservatives in Virginia. And a political slap in the face to the vast majority of the 20% of the population of Virginia that is African-American. That pretty much goes without saying. What I find "odd" though is just how the ridiculousness of it all simply escapes otherwise intelligent people! Imagine this ....

Germany declares "Nazi History Month" and the Chancellor says ...

It is important for all Germans to reflect upon our nation's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Nazi leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Third Reich, and to recognize how our history has led to our present.

And then certain people look at the German Jews (in country or in the Diaspora) like they are crazy for being highly offended by it!

OAW

[Atheist]

Don't you know... the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

[SpaceMonkey]

Pretty bone-headed. Just call it "Civil War History Month" and that way everyone gets to celebrate it however they want. What is so hard about that?

[Doofy]

Why not simply accept that you have no history to speak of and get on with teaching your MySpace generation how to read and write?

[turtle777]

I agree with OAW. WTF happened to me?

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yup, pretty stupid.

States shouldn't ignore their actual histories and pretend the past didn't exist (some irony in the OP mentioning Germany, where I think they do tend to go overboard at this and swing the totalitarian pendulum in the opposite direction) but at the same time, a focus on the Confederacy as if it can be separated from its true legacy of slavery is stupid.

[Captain Obvious]

Oh look another analogy trying to draw the perception that slavery in the United States is on the level of enormity as the Nazi Holocaust.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Oh look another analogy trying to draw the perception that slavery in the United States is on the level of enormity as the Nazi Holocaust.

Well, it is: millions were without rights and literally property, forced to do slave labor. The scope and mechanism is exactly the same: millions people are deemed without rights, because of certain attributes (skin color and religious affiliation, for instance, but people were also detained and killed in concentration camps for other reasons). They are taken from where they live and transported against their will to other locations.

The intentions are different, but I'm just answering your claim that these two crimes are indeed of the same level of enormity.

[BadKosh]

If you ignore the revisionist/pro black BS printed up in the last 30 years and READ the pre civil war newspapers on microfiche you'll notice that states rights were a lot larger reason for the civil war.

[OreoCookie]

That doesn't matter even if what you say is true: slavery is a very important topic in the history of the South and it is also a factor in the Civil War. Whether you make it out to be a major or minor factor is something for the historians to decide. However, if you're talking about that time period, slavery is an inextricable part of it.

Governor McDonnell's decision to not mention slavery shows poor reflection on this part of his state's history.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If you ignore the revisionist/pro black BS printed up in the last 30 years and READ the pre civil war newspapers on microfiche you'll notice that states rights were a lot larger reason for the civil war.

States' rights to allow the practice of slavery.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

States' rights to allow the practice of slavery.

Among other issues as far as trade, tariffs etc.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Among other issues as far as trade, tariffs etc.

Which, fundamentally, were only issues because Southern politicians wanted to perpetuate a way of life that was only sustainable through slavery. It's both the proximate and underlying cause, as mentioned in many of the actual declarations of secession.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Pretty bone-headed. Just call it "Civil War History Month" and that way everyone gets to celebrate it however they want. What is so hard about that?

Indeed. But of course, there's nothing "hard" about that. It just doesn't send the same signal to the "good ole boy" crowd.

OAW

[OAW]

And now we have the inevitable "apology" ....

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell apologized Wednesday for leaving out any reference to slavery in his recent proclamation designating April as Confederate History Month, calling it a "major omission."

"The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed," McDonnell said in a written statement.

"The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War," the statement said. "Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation."

McDonnell also announced Wednesday that he would add language about slavery to the proclamation.
"It is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this (Civil) war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights," the new language says, "and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders."

McDonnell's statement noted that while Virginia was home to the Capital of the Confederacy, it was also the first nation to elect an African-American governor, L. Douglas Wilder, who McDonnell called "my friend."

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Wilder said that McDonnell's apology and his introduction of additional proclamation language was "the right thing for him to have done."

"Most people recognize that slavery was the cause of the (Civil) war," Wilder said, noting that McDonnell had called him Wednesday. "The war was not a glorious thing in our past. It was something that we were able to withstand in terms of tearing the country apart. ... Thank God that war ended with the Confederacy losing."

Not all Democrats were willing to forgive McDonnell on Wednesday.

"He has a right to apologize," Virginia State Sen. Henry Marsh III, a black Democrat, told CNN. "But I don't accept that as a good answer because this is a pattern of this governor."

"He says the wrong thing, he sends a signal to his base and then he makes an apology," Marsh said, "It's a question of whether or not he's sincere or not."

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Oh look another analogy trying to draw the perception that slavery in the United States is on the level of enormity as the Nazi Holocaust.

But slavery wasn't just in the United States. It was throughout most of the "New World". Millions perished in the Middle Passage voyage alone. Millions more perished in the process of kidnapping (or purchasing ... sometimes from willing sellers, sometimes not) and transporting people from the African interior to the coast to be loaded onto the slave ships. Let's not even get into the virtual slavery practiced by European colonial powers on the African Continent itself ... e.g. the Congo during the reign of terror by King Leopold II of Belgium. Just that situation alone is estimated by many scholars to have depopulated that single country by half at a cost of 8-10 million lives over a span of 40 years.

What makes the Jewish Holocaust different is that it was about deliberate genocide and it occurred over a much shorter time frame. The African Holocaust occurred over a much longer timeframe and did not have genocide as its aim .. though in certain aspects that was its effect. In any event, the enormity of both in terms of the number of lives lost speaks for itself.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But slavery wasn't just in the United States. It was throughout most of the "New World". ...

That's correct and most other colonial powers haven't done a very good job at apologizing and keeping this part of their country's past in mind either.

Originally Posted by OAW 

What makes the Jewish Holocaust different is that it was about deliberate genocide and it occurred over a much shorter time frame. The African Holocaust occurred over a much longer timeframe and did not have genocide as its aim .. though in certain aspects that was its effect. In any event, the enormity of both in terms of the number of lives lost speaks for itself.

You're correct. Although to me, what makes the Holocaust stand out is not the time frame or the `deliberateness' (other genocides of comparable scope qualify for both), but the level of precision and the methodology.

[ebuddy]

A silly move by a silly governor for a few silly people. The governor needs to reconsider his party allegiances in light of their collective stance on the civil rights movement. He may find he's more Democrat than he ever knew.

That said, State's rights are not racist. This is a convenient means of once again exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda; demonize conservatism. "State's rights" is a governing philosophy. Consider the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in which a compromise was attempted by Congress between Northern free soilers and Southern slave holders forcing the Northern States to comply with a Federal mandate to help return slaves to their Southern masters against their wishes and against the wishes of the abolitionists who fought passionately to keep slaves free. States rights could've allowed them to opt-out of the compromise.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A silly move by a silly governor for a few silly people. The governor needs to reconsider his party allegiances in light of their collective stance on the civil rights movement. He may find he's more Democrat than he ever knew.

You're alluding to the fact that once upon a time, it was the Dixiecrats who were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and the Republicans in favor?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said, State's rights are not racist. This is a convenient means of once again exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda; demonize conservatism.

That's a very weak diversion: if someone says something objectionable, then people should object regardless of party affiliation. You construe this as a partisan attack when in fact, it isn't. If you want to improve the standing of conservative politicians, then conservative politicians should not make `blunders' as Governor McDonnell has but lead by good example. You could even start yourself and criticize Governor McDonnell for his behavior so that people know you, as a conservative, find his behavior objectionable.

[BadKosh]

Liberal racists look for any bogus, thin, and questionable words or perceived (assumption) actions as a reason to cry racist. It gets really old after several decades of that BS.

Its interesting that ONLY the white Americans seem to be singled out as those responsible for slavery in the US. Ignore the Dutch, the biggest of the slave trading nations, to the African tribal leaders who sold their POW's to the many other countries who dealt in slaves. Much the arguments today are bogus, as the originators are doing the typical revisionist leftist history song and dance, and have no perspective on the history in contest to the cultures at the time.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Liberal racists look for any bogus, thin, and questionable words or perceived (assumption) actions as a reason to cry racist. It gets really old after several decades of that BS.

Its interesting that ONLY the white Americans seem to be singled out as those responsible for slavery in the US. Ignore the Dutch, the biggest of the slave trading nations, to the African tribal leaders who sold their POW's to the many other countries who dealt in slaves. Much the arguments today are bogus, as the originators are doing the typical revisionist leftist history song and dance, and have no perspective on the history in contest to the cultures at the time.

Um, I think we tend to ignore the Dutch in issues of domestic race relations because, you know, they don't live here.

[The Final Dakar]

That's some fun spin, spouting off about "leftist revisionist history" in the face of a Confederate History Month that left out the slavery part.

[SpaceMonkey]

I suspect that Confederate History Month is really about getting drunk.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's some fun spin, spouting off about "leftist revisionist history" in the face of a Confederate History Month that left out the slavery part.

Or that you don't understand that the confederacy came along way after slavery was already an institution. Where did you go to school?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Or that you don't understand that the confederacy came along way after slavery was already an institution. Where did you go to school?

Yeah, slavery already existed. Make your point.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Um, I think we tend to ignore the Dutch in issues of domestic race relations because, you know, they don't live here.

Exactly. They came here in ships, to trade with us. Commerce. Do you think we had no contact with others?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Exactly. They came here in ships, to trade with us. Commerce. Do you think we had no contact with others?

What does that have to do with today? If the Governor of Virginia makes an insensitive remark, what do the Dutch have to do with it? And for that matter, what do the Dutch have to do with the Confederacy? The slave trade was legally abolished in 1808. Anyone engaging in trade after that, on both sides, was complicit in an illegal act.

[BadKosh]

DUH...The Gov. didn't make an insensitive remark. He had an omission. As this is a HISTORY MONTH, what would THAT have to do with today either???

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

DUH...The Gov. didn't make an insensitive remark. He had an omission. As this is a HISTORY MONTH, what would THAT have to do with today either???

Here is the problem. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a Confederate History Month without mentioning slavery. People pointed out that slavery was an integral part of the Confederacy, and thought that not mentioning it was racially divisive, considering that many people in Virginia are the descendants of slaves. What do you not understand about this?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Or that you don't understand that the confederacy came along way after slavery was already an institution. Where did you go to school?

And that means what? The fact remains that these people want to varnish over the truth of what happened.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And that means what? The fact remains that these people want to varnish over the truth of what happened.

And with the biased and revisionist 'history' being 'taught' can you tell what is accurate? Games!

Thats why I suggested reading the newspapers of the time. (Available from better libraries as microfiche copies) Read the history itself, not some lies from some revisionist lefty.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Thats why I suggested reading the newspapers of the time. (Available from better libraries as microfiche copies) Read the history itself, not some lies from some revisionist lefty.

You mean like when Jefferson Davis proclaimed, "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Actually JD had it wrong- it wasn't the first government based on that *notion*- nor the last.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said, State's rights are not racist. This is a convenient means of once again exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda; demonize conservatism. "State's rights" is a governing philosophy. Consider the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in which a compromise was attempted by Congress between Northern free soilers and Southern slave holders forcing the Northern States to comply with a Federal mandate to help return slaves to their Southern masters against their wishes and against the wishes of the abolitionists who fought passionately to keep slaves free. States rights could've allowed them to opt-out of the compromise.

Well said.
I notice that no one addressed your actual example. I've brought up the exact same thing myself before. It's also a clear example of how it wasn't just the Confederacy that was grossly pro-slavery at the time. In actual practice, The Fugitive Slave Law was used by northerners to claim free blacks were escaped slaves and profit from their 'return' (IE sales into) slavery. It serves as yet another reminder of why an out of control federal government that ignores its own constitution/ allows a few unelected people in black robes to 'decide' what they feel the constitution really means on any given day-ignoring both states- rights and individual rights- is actually much more of a real danger than hand-wringing over a long-dead secessionist government.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Well said.
I notice that no one addressed your actual example. I've brought up the exact same thing myself before. It's also a clear example of how it wasn't just the Confederacy that was grossly pro-slavery at the time. In actual practice, The Fugitive Slave Law was used by northerners to claim free blacks were escaped slaves and profit from their 'return' (IE sales into) slavery. It serves as yet another reminder of why an out of control federal government that ignores its own constitution/ allows a few unelected people in black robes to 'decide' what they feel the constitution really means on any given day-ignoring both states- rights and individual rights- is actually much more of a real danger than hand-wringing over a long-dead secessionist government.

In my opinion, no one addressed his example because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one argued that "states' rights," as a political orientation, is intrinsically racist. There are a lot of "states rights" issues that have nothing to do with slavery. But what is being disputed, IMO, is this notion that slavery was "just one of" the causes of the Civil War, as if it would have happened anyway irrespective of the slavery question, and so it is possible to celebrate the Confederacy without addressing the perception that you are celebrating slavery. It's a lot more complicated than saying simply that the North was anti-slavery and the South was pro-slavery. But the perception of rising abolitionist sentiment in a growing, industrial North; the question of whether new states would be allowed to sanction slavery; the survival of the slave trade within the United States; and for all of those reasons the fundamental sustainability of the Southern economy and way of life, are all intrinsically linked to the slavery question in a way that made the Confederate cause fundamentally about slavery in a way that people saw coming from as early on as the Constitutional Convention.

I think it is possible to commemorate aspects of the Confederacy, but it is reasonable for someone doing so to expect that people will want him/her to address the legacy of slavery, and not ignore it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I suspect that Confederate History Month is really about getting drunk.

Confederate HIstory Month, brought to you by S'more Schnapps.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said, State's rights are not racist. This is a convenient means of once again exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda; demonize conservatism. "State's rights" is a governing philosophy.

On part of this we agree and on the other part we don't my friend. I disagree that this is "exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda". Actually scratch that .... I do think it is just that, but perhaps not in the manner that you are meaning it. You see ... I don't think it is those who are criticizing Gov. McDonnell's proclamation who are doing the "exploiting". On the contrary, I think it was Gov. McDonnell who was doing the "exploiting" by pandering to certain elements within his base. In fact, you seem to somewhat acknowledge this yourself when you said ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy

A silly move by a silly governor for a few silly people.

Now having said that, where we definitely agree is that "State's Rights" is a governing philosophy. And there is nothing inherently racist or wrong with that in the abstract. In theory. On paper. Just like there is nothing inherently evil about "free market capitalism" in theory ... on paper. The problem arises with specific instances or implementations of said theory. So again ... from denotative standpoint what you are saying is absolutely correct. But from a connotative standpoint the term has very different impressions. And that's to be expected when the primary people harping about "state's rights" ... even to the point of being willing to take up arms against their own countrymen over it .... were fundamentally concerned with preserving their "state's right" to practice slavery so they could maintain their "way of life". And later that fundamental concern was to preserve their "state's right" to practice segregation. I mean, if 9 times out of 10 one hears the term 'state's rights" in the context of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow ... it's not the fault of the listener for thinking that's what's up. It's the fault of those who took an honorable and forthright principle and perverted it for their own selfish and inhumane ends.

Consider this situation going on right now in W. Va. with the miners who were killed. You have CEO who is raking in millions while his company is racking up hundreds of safety violations in the last few years. Report after report seems to indicate a company that put production over worker safety. Or imagine the situation with United Fruit Company (present day Chiquita Brands) and how it fostered the development of "banana republics" in the Caribbean and Latin America. Exploited workers by paying them wages of pennies per day. Bankrolled dictators that terrorized their own people to keep them under control and dependent upon the company. Etc. If this is the context of one's experience of "free market capitalism" then one's impression of it will be markedly different than someone in better circumstances. The connotations for that worker will be decidedly more negative ... even though "free market capitalism" is just an "economic philosophy". Understand where I'm coming from?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're alluding to the fact that once upon a time, it was the Dixiecrats who were opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and the Republicans in favor?

No, I'm more interested in expressing my displeasure at the connection of this type of sentiment to the GOP. Let the responses from those generally right-of-center in this thread be the example of the GOP, not singular examples of screwball politicians. I'm tired of people connecting racist sentiment with the GOP because of a racial past among its Southern bloc when they have no intention of acknowledging this same racial past among Democrats' Southern bloc. I've seen it before.

That's a very weak diversion: if someone says something objectionable, then people should object regardless of party affiliation.

I did.

You construe this as a partisan attack when in fact, it isn't.

Read the thread title. The thread title sets the tone for the discussion. He's one Republican, why the GOP? The GOP is a party, not a person.

If you want to improve the standing of conservative politicians, then conservative politicians should not make `blunders' as Governor McDonnell has but lead by good example. You could even start yourself and criticize Governor McDonnell for his behavior so that people know you, as a conservative, find his behavior objectionable.

First of all I'm not certain it was a blunder, but speculation is generally a waste of time. Otherwise, I let you know exactly how I felt about him and the people he "blundered" to. I've also called this sort of thing out before. I have no problem lambasting stupid Republicans, but I don't appreciate the connection to an entire party. The connection exists on both sides of the aisle, but the accusation is almost always unidirectional.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

On part of this we agree and on the other part we don't my friend. I disagree that this is "exploiting the plight of African Americans in this country for a political agenda". Actually scratch that .... I do think it is just that, but perhaps not in the manner that you are meaning it. You see ... I don't think it is those who are criticizing Gov. McDonnell's proclamation who are doing the "exploiting". On the contrary, I think it was Gov. McDonnell who was doing the "exploiting" by pandering to certain elements within his base. In fact, you seem to somewhat acknowledge this yourself when you said ....

Why does it have to be "certain elements within his base"? I'm not being facetious when I tell you that the most racist people I've ever met in my life were card-carrying Democrats. It was a real eye-opener for me as an impressionable youth.

On the other hand while I am a registered Republican, I have voted for a Democratic governor. (thankfully, non-racist ) The point is as long as we're speculating intention (and I'm not questioning that) it's just as easy for me to believe McDonnell was appealing to racist Democrat voters in Virginia as much as anyone else. I saw in your OP where the "previous Democratic Administrations refused the proposal in the past", but I'd be curious to know how they fared in their elections?

Now having said that, where we definitely agree is that "State's Rights" is a governing philosophy. And there is nothing inherently racist or wrong with that in the abstract. In theory. On paper. Just like there is nothing inherently evil about "free market capitalism" in theory ... on paper.

Not unlike socialism for example... in the abstract, in theory... on paper, but nothing has victimized more people than a centralized authority run amok.

The problem arises with specific instances or implementations of said theory. So again ... from denotative standpoint what you are saying is absolutely correct. But from a connotative standpoint the term has very different impressions.

I can't allow it to have a "very different impression". Those who give this impression the most thrust are bent politically IMO. I will continue to give them my perspective. I have to. I'm not a proponent of racist policies or people. States rights are not racist, they do not create racist people, and I believe it is a more sound governing philosophy than a centralized authority proven to be the most destructive of all.

And that's to be expected when the primary people harping about "state's rights" ... even to the point of being willing to take up arms against their own countrymen over it .... were fundamentally concerned with preserving their "state's right" to practice slavery so they could maintain their "way of life". And later that fundamental concern was to preserve their "state's right" to practice segregation. I mean, if 9 times out of 10 one hears the term 'state's rights" in the context of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow ... it's not the fault of the listener for thinking that's what's up. It's the fault of those who took an honorable and forthright principle and perverted it for their own selfish and inhumane ends.

I can't disagree here, but in fact States have rights. I think those rights need to be protected. IMO, there are far more destructive ideals in practice. Those ideals could not recognize or accept the notion of States' Rights.

Consider this situation going on right now in W. Va. with the miners who were killed. You have CEO who is raking in millions while his company is racking up hundreds of safety violations in the last few years. Report after report seems to indicate a company that put production over worker safety.

Greed will always be greed and it is not exclusive to people who contribute to free market capitalism. Report after report seems to indicate another do-nothing, lame-assed bureaucracy not unlike the NHTSA that sat on their hands while reports of deadly Toyotas were hitting their desks from 2002. What are we paying these oversight bodies to do, sit around and wait for an atrocity they're supposed to be mitigating? I can do that for free. Greed.

Understand where I'm coming from?

I do. I just don't think it adds up to free market capitalism, States' Rights, or the GOP.

[olePigeon]

While states' rights were certainly at the root of the southern cause, it was irrevocably intertwined with slavery, as many of them did believe that blacks were inferior and that it was their God given right to enslave them. You can not separate those two aspects of the Confederacy. It is true that towards the very end of the Civil War that even the Confederacy started enlisting black soldiers in a desperate move, but it proved to be futile.

The abolition of slavery was seen as an attack on South's Constitutionally protected rights because they held slavery as a inalienable right.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In my opinion, no one addressed his example because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Disagree- it had everything to do with what's being talked about, because it's an example where the Federal government -in ignoring the powers left to the states- actually created a situation where free blacks in even the northern states were recaptured (or as I said, just plain ol' captured even though they had been free all their lives) and sold into slavery. In a very real way, in practice, it erased the rights of States to be 'free states' as opposed to slave states. It's also a great example of how just scapegoating the Confederacy for all the horrible racial injustices that occurred is to miss the point that an out of control Federal government has always been a very eager accomplice and instigator of the same thing.

Edit: I just looked into, and actually Wisconsin was the only state the declare it unconstitutional (which very clearly it was) and yet, another out of control supreme court overturned that decision. It's perhaps the classic example of all these things- out of control Fed, ignoring states rights to the LITERAL enslavement of citizens, the absolute stupidity of allowing a couple of guys in black robes to 'decide' what the constitution means- resulting in the LITERAL enslavement of citizens.

But when we celebrate the history and stated ideals of our country, I think very few of us are celebrating the darker chapters as well- we can separate the good from the rotten. I think people are trying to construct the same admiration for the supposed 'good side' of the Confederacy, I just don't think it's a very worthy goal as it takes a bit too much 'looking the other way' past all the obvious bad.

I do agree with you on most of the rest of your points.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, I'm more interested in expressing my displeasure at the connection of this type of sentiment to the GOP. Let the responses from those generally right-of-center in this thread be the example of the GOP, not singular examples of screwball politicians.

It is no coincidence that this sentiment exists. How about you have a look at how many black Republican congress men there have been in recent years (say, the last three decades). Just browse through the list and you'll see without counting very, very few. Now try and look for one that is currently in the House and from the South. Feel free to do the same for the Senate. I know that this very clear statistical evidence does not answer `why,' but you have to acknowledge that there exists a disconnect between blacks and the Republican party.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm tired of people connecting racist sentiment with the GOP because of a racial past among its Southern bloc when they have no intention of acknowledging this same racial past among Democrats' Southern bloc. I've seen it before.

Past tense, right now, people with racial sentiments tend to be Republicans. That's not saying all Southern Republicans are racists, far from it, but if you oppose this, you should make it clear that in your opinion, these people should not be in the Republican party. So far, you've failed to do that (at least here on this forum).

The thing is that the Southern Democrats have changed from the party who were opposed to civil rights and equality for blacks to a party that sends blacks to Congress.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I did.

Not really, you suggested that he was better suited being a Democrat rather than a Republican. Instead of just criticizing his behavior, you used it to take a cheap stab at the Democrats. This doesn't give you any points for calling out on a Republican for doing something stupid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Read the thread title. The thread title sets the tone for the discussion. He's one Republican, why the GOP? The GOP is a party, not a person.

Because this is not an isolated incident, but Republicans have earned a Reputation for pandering to people who still have racial sentiments.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It is no coincidence that this sentiment exists. How about you have a look at how many black Republican congress men there have been in recent years (say, the last three decades). Just browse through the list and you'll see without counting very, very few. Now try and look for one that is currently in the House and from the South. Feel free to do the same for the Senate. I know that this very clear statistical evidence does not answer `why,' but you have to acknowledge that there exists a disconnect between blacks and the Republican party.

I understand clearly that there's a disconnect between blacks and the Republican party and I've also explained what I view a major contribution to the problem. I call it the "Carlton Effect". I wouldn't want to be viewed as a "sell-out" either, but I can tell you that if you look at how blacks express themselves in society, they're beholden to the incorrect party. Black Republicans have earned their way to the most important positions in this country and a black man is the RNC Chair right now.

Past tense, right now, people with racial sentiments tend to be Republicans.

• Reid regarding Obama's popularity points out the lacking "negro dialect". Let a Republican say this.
• Hillary Clinton's campaign implying Obama sold drugs. Let a Republican imply this.
• Phil Berg (D) started the whole "birther" nonsense. Republicans blamed for it.
• There were a wealth of racist slurs directed at Condi Rice, Justice Thomas, and Colin Powell, but... Republicans own racism.
• Bill Clinton referring to Obama's candidacy as a "fairy tale". Republicans are racist.
• Bill Clinton to Kennedy relegating Obama to "a guy who would've been getting us coffee." Let a Republican say this. After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, "the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear."

Yeah... let's be clear. Democrats have owned racism since its inception. The birth of the Republican party was by design, opposed to slavery and has since its inception fought for and won behind the black community; their civil rights. Democrats have successfully stolen the Republican legacy of civil rights activism while exploiting their plight and squandering their vote. I'm stealing it back in the interest of accuracy. Why? Because the Republican party platform (when maintaining a conservative edge) is a more effective platform of prosperity for the black community than liberalism. Silent racism and racism sold under the guise of "good" is by far the more destructive ideology.

That's not saying all Southern Republicans are racists, far from it, but if you oppose this, you should make it clear that in your opinion, these people should not be in the Republican party. So far, you've failed to do that (at least here on this forum).

Not only did I say he should not be part of the Republican party, I told you he should be part of the Democratic party. You didn't like this, but then you seem incapable of acknowledging racism from the Democratic party. I don't know what you think you're championing here my friend, but a failure to acknowledge the racism of the Democratic party cannot be construed as a concern for racial justice. Exhibit A of taking the black vote for granted.

The thing is that the Southern Democrats have changed from the party who were opposed to civil rights and equality for blacks to a party that sends blacks to Congress.

Exhibit B of taking the black vote for granted. Democrats didn't "send" anyone anywhere. Blacks earned their right to Congress by popular vote and have opted for the Democratic party. Sharpton himself has even questioned this practice and has challenged what they've actually done for the black community. I'm now asking the same thing.

Not really, you suggested that he was better suited being a Democrat rather than a Republican. Instead of just criticizing his behavior, you used it to take a cheap stab at the Democrats. This doesn't give you any points for calling out on a Republican for doing something stupid.

I marginalized the man, I marginalized whatever "audience" he would be speaking to that would not acknowledge the racist element of the Confederacy, and I marginalized the argument that this is somehow uniquely or even peculiarly Republican. It is nothing more than a failure of the left to acknowledge their own racism and yet... I'm challenged on what I'm not saying? Hmm. I didn't start the finger-pointing and distraction.

Because this is not an isolated incident, but Republicans have earned a Reputation for pandering to people who still have racial sentiments.

Why, because you fail to acknowledge the racist pandering of the left? Deaf ears my friend, deaf ears. It's only a matter of time before the message spreads that the Democratic party and its platform is a net-loss to the black community, is disconnected from the black community ideologically, perpetuates the societal ills already overcome by the black community, and believes it "gives" and "sends" blacks to prosperity.

[Paco500]

So ebuddy:

-by your thinking, the democrat party is inherently racist and it's policies are against the self interest of black americans
-black americans are overwhelmingly democrats
-it is, pretty much by definition, pretty stupid to do something against your self interest
-ergo, you seem to think the overwhelming majority of black americans are stupid?

Is this a fair statement?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So ebuddy:-by your thinking, the democrat party is inherently racist and it's policies are against the self interest of black americans.

No. In context of the discussion, The Democrat party's policies are against the self interests of all with a profound impact on the black community. Of course, there are any number of motivating factors for polling activity and if ignorance is one of them; certainly there would be many more whites with the problem, no?

-black americans are overwhelmingly democrats

Black americans vote democratic, yes. Not unlike the Jewish bloc. Republicans have allowed their legacy to be tainted by politically expedient indictments and a handful of controversial (at times contemptible) figures. A balanced exposure to both sides would indicate of course that this phenomena is not exclusive to the Republican party, but then I've long-thought the Republican party has a dire PR problem. It shouldn't be surprising to you that I believe the core of the problem has been the media; the unbalanced sources of education that Republicans have forgotten how to woo.

-it is, pretty much by definition, pretty stupid to do something against your self interest
-ergo, you seem to think the overwhelming majority of black americans are stupid?

Do you believe the Iraq war was against our self interest for example? Or opposition to the new health care bill? Is there not room for someone to vote in a manner you disapprove of without assuming they must be stupid?

IMO, fear has been among the most motivational of factors among black voters in the US. Republicans have a knack for championing the American way, patriotism, American exceptionalism, etc; an extremely difficult message to swallow as a black american. Republicans have not followed through on bringing the black community into that message. The ideals in our founding documents did not rely on racism. Our country is extremely diverse and we should be very proud of that while maintaining the goodness of its founding.

Is this a fair statement?

No. It was loaded to the hilt, albeit with soggy peas.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I understand clearly that there's a disconnect between blacks and the Republican party and I've also explained what I view a major contribution to the problem. I call it the "Carlton Effect". I wouldn't want to be viewed as a "sell-out" either, but I can tell you that if you look at how blacks express themselves in society, they're beholden to the incorrect party. Black Republicans have earned their way to the most important positions in this country and a black man is the RNC Chair right now.

The party image is not going to improve unless there is a major involvement of black people in the party. Now you can claim that they vote for the `wrong' party, but this isn't going to get you very far. That's not something that an argument with me will solve, but with potential voters.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

List of examples

Racism is not exclusive to Republicans. However, since blacks participate more in the politics of the Democrats (and that's a statistical fact), there are more antibodies if you wish that come into action and could endanger a politician's career. That's not saying it doesn't happen, it's saying it doesn't happen as often. Of course, you can find tons of particular incidences of Democrats, but then, I could easily find tons of incidences like this particular one involving Republicans. (I won't do that, I don't want to waste my time.) Statistics are more significant than any particular incident, though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah... let's be clear. Democrats have owned racism since its inception. The birth of the Republican party was by design, opposed to slavery and has since its inception fought for and won behind the black community; their civil rights.

I'll say it once again: this is the past. Period. This is not how these parties are perceived today and if you want your party to move forward, you need to get over it and accept that nowadays, in that respect, the images of the two parties are reversed. And since the majority of blacks votes for the Democrats, there a black Democrat holds the office of the President and the vast majority of active black politicians are Democrats, there is very little chance that the roles will reverse again any time soon.

Harping on about the past won't help you since actions and facts speak louder than words. Again, I point to statistics of black Congress men being mostly Democrats. In my opinion, it's progress that the House Minority Leader is also black. It's progress that there are examples of black conservative politicians (Rice and Powell are two good examples), but what matters the most is what's happening at the base.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Democrats have successfully stolen the Republican legacy of civil rights activism while exploiting their plight and squandering their vote. I'm stealing it back in the interest of accuracy.

I don't buy this. You're ignoring something very important here: many of the Dixiecrats switched party affiliation and became Republicans! Strom Thurmond, for instance, who, as a presidential candidate, ran on a ticket of segregation (all the while he had a child with a black servant). It's not at all surprising why the Republicans have gotten the image they have today.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not only did I say he should not be part of the Republican party, I told you he should be part of the Democratic party. You didn't like this, but then you seem incapable of acknowledging racism from the Democratic party.

I did acknowledge that racism isn't limited to the Republican party.
However, I did criticize your counterproductive attempt to bring the Democrats into the game: I'm all for criticism when it's due, but here, a Republican governor was pandering to racial sentiments that are simply more prominent (but not exclusive) among Republican voters.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I marginalized the man, I marginalized whatever "audience" he would be speaking to that would not acknowledge the racist element of the Confederacy, and I marginalized the argument that this is somehow uniquely or even peculiarly Republican. It is nothing more than a failure of the left to acknowledge their own racism and yet... I'm challenged on what I'm not saying? Hmm. I didn't start the finger-pointing and distraction.

It's not unique to Republican, but I would go as far as calling it a peculiarity as perceived by voters. There is no need to do a `but `your' party does it, too'-type of argument, clean up your `own' party. Justifying complacency with the fact that `the other side does it, too' won't advance your party. Crying that the `correct home of people with racial bias' are the Democrats won't help you one iota, on the contrary, it takes you further away from the truth.

I am optimistic, though, that things are going in the right direction. Just the fact that people cause enough of a stir to make Governor McDonnell give a second statement is a push in the right direction.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why, because you fail to acknowledge the racist pandering of the left? Deaf ears my friend, deaf ears.

Huh? I wrote

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a very weak diversion: if someone says something objectionable, then people should object regardless of party affiliation. You construe this as a partisan attack when in fact, it isn't.

didn't I?

[OAW]

And the fallout continues .....

With the nation’s first African-American president occupying the Oval Office, the South’s Confederate history is ensnaring a second Republican governor in as many weeks in a controversy over how the nation ought to remember the institution of slavery.

Trying to defend a fellow Southern Republican governor, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour drew fire from the Democratic National Committee, which issued a statement Sunday after an interview with Barbour aired on CNN’s State of the Union.

“I don’t know what you would say about slavery,” Barbour told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, “but anybody who thinks that slavery is a bad thing – I think goes without saying.”

Barbour was explaining his belief that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell had not made a mistake in omitting any mention of slavery from a recent proclamation declaring April Confederate History Month in his state.

Responding to allegations that McDonnell’s omission was insensitive, Barbour said, “To me, it's a sort of feeling that it's a nit. That it is not significant, that it's not a – it's trying to make a big deal out of something doesn't amount to diddly.”

The DNC slammed Barbour for the remarks.

"Governor Barbour defended the indefensible this morning and in doing so portrayed a Republican mindset that is not only out of touch with this century, but the last one as well,” DNC national press secretary Hari Sevugan said in a written statement. “To say that the systematic condemnation of millions to bondage and generation upon generation to servitude is ‘not significant,’ or that the tearing apart of families and the selling of human beings as cattle ‘doesn't amount to diddly’ is outrageous for any public official to say, let alone a man Republicans have placed in a position of leadership.”

Sevugan added, “These comments are unacceptable and should be universally condemned in the strongest terms. A failure to do so will send a strong message to all Americans that Republicans endorse Governor Barbour's sentiments and are content not only to be left behind in another century, but that they deserve to be a small regional party in the permanent minority “

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - DNC: Barbour ‘defended the indefensible’ � - Blogs from CNN.com

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I understand clearly that there's a disconnect between blacks and the Republican party ....

Is anyone really surprised?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The party image is not going to improve unless there is a major involvement of black people in the party. Now you can claim that they vote for the `wrong' party, but this isn't going to get you very far. That's not something that an argument with me will solve, but with potential voters.

Some of this they can control, some of it they cannot. Now, they could dissolve the party or continue to move to the left or the insensible and destroy the party the long way, but those are bad ideas IMO.

Racism is not exclusive to Republicans. However, since blacks participate more in the politics of the Democrats (and that's a statistical fact), there are more antibodies if you wish that come into action and could endanger a politician's career. That's not saying it doesn't happen, it's saying it doesn't happen as often. Of course, you can find tons of particular incidences of Democrats, but then, I could easily find tons of incidences like this particular one involving Republicans. (I won't do that, I don't want to waste my time.) Statistics are more significant than any particular incident, though.

Statistically, the left-of-center media would not think to air the dirty laundry of Democratic racism such as the percentage of white Democrats who saw McCain vs black man. This was a very real concern. I recall OAW posted something to this effect a while back and it turned out Democrats fared worse in their senatorial voting habits. I'll keep saying it. I'll keep using examples of dixiecrats who ran back to the Democratic party after failing on the Republican ticket. I'll keep using current statistics, anecdotes, examples the negligent media will not print... whatever it takes. While blacks are much more valuable to the Republican party no doubt, they have a strong enough presence to remind me it's okay to opine.

I'll say it once again: this is the past. Period. This is not how these parties are perceived today and if you want your party to move forward, you need to get over it and accept that nowadays, in that respect, the images of the two parties are reversed. And since the majority of blacks votes for the Democrats, there a black Democrat holds the office of the President and the vast majority of active black politicians are Democrats, there is very little chance that the roles will reverse again any time soon.

This insistence that racism is a thing of the past flies in the face of reason and racial sensitivities. I know you've tried to backpedal from this hardline stance from time to time, but it seems disingenuous.

Now to your point- Republicans' courting of the black community should be measured. The main thing Republicans need to do is find skilled youth and adopt, and maintain conservatism. If they're able to do an effective job of courting up to 20% of the black voting bloc in the meantime, they've done very well. We agree that it's a somewhat lofty endeavor, but Republicans simply need to do more across the board. The black vote will come with the confidence of conservative ideology communicated often and when she enters the room, she should be welcomed calmly. OAW and I have discussed this fickle relationship in the past. I think a 14% increase in the black community of Republicans is essential; a necessary goal. I really do. The problem with Republicans is they have no energy at all. They need less thinkers and more doers. They need youth. It's getting better, but damn...

Harping on about the past won't help you since actions and facts speak louder than words.

The noise level of facts is contingent upon who reports them and how much. As long as I'm reporting them, I will be reporting on Democratic racism.

Again, I point to statistics of black Congress men being mostly Democrats. In my opinion, it's progress that the House Minority Leader is also black. It's progress that there are examples of black conservative politicians (Rice and Powell are two good examples), but what matters the most is what's happening at the base.

There is no base of the Republican party right now. They need to find one. I've given them some good places to start.

I don't buy this. You're ignoring something very important here: many of the Dixiecrats switched party affiliation and became Republicans!

Right, not unlike the fact that many of them returned after not garnering enough support on the Republican ticket! But what of those who stayed like Orval Fabus, Benjamin Travis Laney, John Stennis, James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Russell Long, John Sparkman, John McClellan, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Rarick, Robert Byrd, Bull Connor, and Al Gore, Sr... to name a few.

You know the double-standard of a (D) klansman in office right now is staggering. You must also know that the son of a known racist as a (D) Vice President and presidential candidate is an insurmountable double-standard in light of a Republican stain of equal measure. Is this the Democratic party showing blacks how much they care? I know what the perception is, but the reality is nothing more than dismal PR.

Strom Thurmond, for instance, who, as a presidential candidate, ran on a ticket of segregation (all the while he had a child with a black servant). It's not at all surprising why the Republicans have gotten the image they have today.

Media negligence helps Democrats get away with a strong legacy of racism IMO. Certainly, the lion's share of popular media is left-leaning statistically. What's surprising to me is how you defend your image of Democrats.

I did acknowledge that racism isn't limited to the Republican party.

By saying that it used to be in the Democratic party, but that's in the past? I think that's lame.

However, I did criticize your counterproductive attempt to bring the Democrats into the game: I'm all for criticism when it's due, but here, a Republican governor was pandering to racial sentiments that are simply more prominent (but not exclusive) among Republican voters.

I'll bet he was pandering every bit as much for white Democrat votes. Do you have any information that he wasn't?

It's not unique to Republican, but I would go as far as calling it a peculiarity as perceived by voters. There is no need to do a `but `your' party does it, too'-type of argument, clean up your `own' party.

Conversely, clean up yours while trying to point a finger at someone else. The history of your party has an awful lot more explaining to do IMO. I think the views you've expressed here are founded on the notion that blacks somehow owe the Democratic party their vote. I cited a couple of examples of this problem using your statements, but those were not included in your response. Of course the "but your party does it too" type of argument isn't enough. It is, but a small piece of the overall work Republicans need to do.

Justifying complacency with the fact that `the other side does it, too' won't advance your party.

No, but addressing the unidirectional bs each and every time it rears its ugly head is, while unfortunate, apparently necessary.

Crying that the `correct home of people with racial bias' are the Democrats won't help you one iota, on the contrary, it takes you further away from the truth.

I'm dead-on the truth OreoCookie and I've not done one Republican a single iota of injustice here. As far as deeper inroads to the community of the left; the tidal wave begins with, but a ripple.

I am optimistic, though, that things are going in the right direction. Just the fact that people cause enough of a stir to make Governor McDonnell give a second statement is a push in the right direction.

Agreed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Is anyone really surprised?
OAW

Yes. I am both surprised and curious why his party is to blame. I'm even more curious why so much focus on the "other" party.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't buy this. You're ignoring something very important here: many of the Dixiecrats switched party affiliation and became Republicans! Strom Thurmond, for instance...

Notice how whenever this oft-spewed 'fact' is regurgitated for the gazillionth time, the ONLY example given is Strom Thurmond.

That's because the ONLY example is Strom Thrumond.

Virtually ALL of the Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party. Even the term Dixiecrat- how obvious is it that it's a play on DEMOcrat, not Republican?

Kill the myths and move on.