The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to the High Road.

As this is your first post, don't you think it ought to have, you know, something to do with guns, or the specific subject of this board?

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.
Click to expand...

Or are you just trolling?
 
Oh, I can read just fine. But it's pretty weak to claim that this is anything but off-topic race-baiting.
 
Read between the lines, Mpayne. Democrats are notorious for their support of gun control. The Civil Rights Movement is yet another symptom of the plague that is the Democrat agenda.
 
Yeah, because letting people vote, sit where they they want on the bus, buy a house in whatever damn neighborhood they can afford and generally be treated as a human being is a bad thing?

Whatever. Read the last item in my sig.
 
Conservative racism of the Wallace type gave Liberals an obvious morally correct issue. The fallacy was in thinking that the Liberal wing was right about just about anything else; on the contrary, just because they got one thing right (the civil rights movement) doesn't mean they're right about welfare, gun control, etc.

Today, it's quite possible to take their oft-touted racial sensitivity (which is now a thing of the past) and shove it right back down their throats:

http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

:cool:
 
(correction) Jim March wrote:

Conservative racism of the Wallace type...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's accurate to characterize George Wallace as either a racist or as a conservative.

Politically he was a populist, yellow-dog, big(D) Democrat.

On matters of race, he appointed more blacks to higher offices in the Alabama State Government, prior to the Civil Rights Act, than did any previous Governer. His opposition to school integration and the Civil Rights Act was based on the idea of State's Rights and the natural opposition any southerner would have to Federal Government meddling in local affairs, particularly when done so at the behest of a bunch of wealthy Irish-Catholic New Englanders. It wasn't based on any racist hatred of Blacks.
 
Last edited:
First, Mike Irwin didn't write that, I did.

Second, it really doesn't matter whether or not Wallace was a racist, or to what degree. And it damnsure doesn't matter that he was a Democrat. The term "social conservative" crosses party lines, or at least it did back then.

What matters is that he was politically idiotic in terms of seeing how the issue would play out on the national stage and general public opinion. Segregation and racism was doomed in 1954. Trying to give it CPR as late as '64 or beyond energized the socially liberal/leftist wing of American politics in a way nothing else could...and it's still coasting on the energy Wallace and company imparted.

This is a different world now. Outside of a few dinosaurs like Pat Buchannon, the conservative/limited government wing has embraced racial equality to a degree that *surpasses* the socialists in many ways, and matches them in the rest. Black "political leadership" has become predatory and parasitic on the backs of their own people, promoting a "culture of victimhood" in order to retain personal power. Jesse Jackson's political life would have crumbled had he not had the prior reputation of "supporter of MLKJr" to fall back on.
 
Last edited:
Jim March:

Second, it really doesn't matter whether or not Wallace was a racist, or to what degree. And it damnsure doens't matter that he was a Democrat. The term "social conservative" crosses party lines, or at least it did back then.
Click to expand...
It matters in terms of the history of civil rights in the US, i.e., to historians.

The term you used to describe Wallace's beliefs was "conservative racisim." Thats quite different from describing him as a "social conservative."

What matters is that he was politically idiotic in terms of seeing how the issue would play out on the national stage and general public opinion.Segregation and racism was doomed in 1954. Trying to give it CPR as late as '64 or beyond energized the socially liberal/leftist wing of American politics in a way nothing else could...and it's still coasting on the energy Wallace and company imparted.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Wallace was one of the longest serving, and most popular governers in American history. He was well on his way towards one of the best third party showings ever in a presidental election before Arthur Bremmer shot him in Laurel, Md back in '72. He very well might have exceeded Thurmond's, Perot's, and Roosevelts showings and he did help to swing the election to Nixon. It's hard to descirbe any politician who was that successfull as an "idiot."

As far as energizing the civil rights movement that we suffer the effects of today, the Kennedy's and LBJ did far more harm in that regard than did Wallace. What Wallace did was energize the political right and set the stage for the shift of the Southern States towards the Republican Party. This is something which every Republican since Nixon with his "southern strategy" in '72 has benefited from, excepting Bush senior in his 2nd run.

This is a different world now. Outside of a few dinosaurs like Pat Buchannon, the conservative/limited government wing has embraced racial equality to a degree that *surpasses* the socialists in many ways, and matches them in the rest.
Click to expand...
Socialists aren't interested in equality, only control.

The conservative wing of the republican party embraced civil rights and racial equality as far back as Goldwater's run in '64. If you recall it was Nixon who was first responsible for instituting affirmative action.

Black "political leadership" has become predatory and parasitic on the backs of their own people, promoting a "culture of victimhood" in order to retain personal power. Jesse Jackson's political life would have crumbled had he not had the prior reputation of "supporter of MLKJr" to fall back on.
Click to expand...
Not all. There are good Black leaders like Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others.
 
Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have.

Thomas, Powell and the rest you name aren't "parasites" or "predators". I wasn't disparaging "leaders with black skin", I was talking about the people who dominate urban black politics, with very rare exceptions such as Shannon Reeves (head of the Oakland California NAACP chapter and a very good guy).
 
Jim March:

Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton have.

Thomas, Powell and the rest you name aren't "parasites" or "predators". I wasn't disparaging "leaders with black skin", I was talking about the people who dominate urban black politics, with very rare exceptions such as Shannon Reeves (head of the Oakland California NAACP chapter and a very good guy).
Click to expand...

These are good points you make. As much as you or I might wish otherwise, people like Rice, Thomas, etc. either don't have a constituiency among Black Americans or are actually reviled as Uncle Toms or sell-outs.

I don't see where or when Black Americans will ever have decent leadership beyond the honest, but only semi-competent, leftist types like D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams.
 
I know a man, a college professor of mine, whom I shall refer to as "Dr. B.". In the 1960s, Dr. B. drove down to the South, and participated in civil rights marches. He spent the night in jail for it, the same jail, as it would turn out, that Martin Luther King was also being held in. (He never met Dr. King face to face, I don't think, but he marched with him.)

Dr. B. was then considered a bleeding heart liberal.

Dr. B. did a tour in Vietnam ("We were winning when I left," he tells his classes, when someone refers to how Ho Chi Mihn supposedly whupped us).

Dr. B. belonged to the Democratic party for many years, until the early eighties when the national party started moving very far left of center.

Dr. B owns many guns, including an AR-15 type and an M14 type. He has a big shiny NRA belt buckle that he wears in class sometimes. He gives out .30-06 brass so students can use it to get into Brass Roots Organization functions if they so choose (at the same time he encourages us to go to functions from left leaning orgs, so that we can see both sides of the spectrum and think for ourselves).

Dr. B is now considered by his peers in the Political Science department to be a conservative reactionary, a right-wing extremist.

The man's politics have hardly changed in 30 years. It's the country's perception of things that have changed.

I bring this up as a counter to those that say that the Civil Rights movement was a big left wing sham. Because many of the people that supported it, and were considered liberals in their day, are considered conservative now.

Times have changed a lot.
 
There were TWO civil rights movements. The first, which was actually trying to secure the right of "people {to} vote, sit where they they want on the bus, buy a house in whatever damn neighborhood they can afford and generally be treated as a human being..." won. Quite some time ago, as a matter of fact. Then it declared victory, closed up shop, and everybody went home to tackle the more difficult job of translating legal equality into social equality by hard work.

Yeah, right. It did what just about every movement that wins did. Rather than admit to victory, and get a life, they changed their goal. Abandoned legal equality in favor of equality of results. Started demanding that the government become it's big brother, instead of an impartial referee.

So now we've got the second civil rights movement, which is indeed a fraud, a sham, and a hoax. Which demands the restoration of Jim Crow, segregates campuses, and in all things rejects the idea that people should be judged by "the content of their character".

But it wasn't always that way.
 
Honest discussion of the race issue in today's political climate is almost impossible.

There are many problems in some of our minority communities, but they can't be addressed until they can be discussed openly.

The de facto position in our society is that cultural sensitivity WILL be maintained, even at the expence of truth. When truth is a casualty, hope for resolution is a long way off.
 
Anyone interested in the current racial/civil rights status in the United States might want to check out a new book. It's is very educational for persons of all races.

SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
 
I lived through 1964, and that whole era for that matter, when Wallace was pushing his brand of nonsense. Once was enough.

You realize he later had a change of heart and mind, don't you?

Regarding the Dems and their plans for domination, I vote for the New Deal.

John
 
Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have.
Click to expand...

Jim, that's a very interesting comment.

1) I didn't know that leaders of any skin color have any special obligation whatsoever to people of similar skin color.

2) You knock Thomas, Powell and others for not having "the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have."

Your :barf: indicates a problem with the "leadership" (how you arrived at that term I'll never understand) that sharpton and his ilk provide. I'd describe the actions of sharpton et al as race-baiting, professing the virtues of the "entitlement" mentality, etc. to the black community.

Sharpton, jackson et al have done and are doing more harm to the black/minority community than all the members of the KKK could ever dream of doing.
 
Thumper:

I was thinking that was a possibility.

Jim; ignore my comments.

Sorry...been doing too much eating and too much homework... :eek: :D

Hope you had a good turkey-day, Thumper!
 
I did...big doe and two hogs that morning that my dad agreed to cut up after I left, and a big ol' fried turkey for lunch.

:D
 
The idea of the Civil Rights movement being a "conspiracy" of the Democratic Party for political gain is the most hare-brained thing I've ever read here. The Dems, whatever else you think of them, took a HUGE political loss when LBJ signed the Viting Rights Act. It was about the most principled political act in my lifetime, and probably the last one you're ever going to see a political party or politician make. The only thing I can think of that comes close is Howard Dean's opposition to the war.

I wait, but won't hold my breath, to hear anything any Repug has done in the last 50 years that comes close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top