Who were and who are the KKK (SPLIT FROM: Stephen Breyer to retire)

[Swammerdami]

@Bomb#20 — I think that there is a control panel option that determines whether you see posters' signatures. Do you have that 'View Signature' option disabled?

Here is Jason's signature:

White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

"Not many people know" that Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — was a Republican. I think Jason is proud that he, along with Donald J. Trump, is one of the "few Americans" that know that factoid.

In any event, his signature explicitly connects the Democrats to the KKK, making a mockery of your guess about Jason in the following:

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. ... And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

I should add, by the way, that your theory of what Jason meant is pretty implausible; I'm surprised the other way to interpret his remarks didn't occur to you. Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

If it seems unlikely that an Infidel posting at this relatively intellectual Board would think that obsolete factoids from a half-century ago or more would be relevant to an understanding of today's politics, then . . . Welcome to Jasontown.

Just in the last few days Mr. Harvestdancer

• claims that mentioning that Stalin killed more people than Hitler is "defending Hitler;"
• pretends that D's claim Trump was not "actually elected" in 2016, then willfully conflates 2016 with 2020 to "rebut" a counter-post.

I do not think these are isolated examples. Indeed I'd propose a search contest to judge the overall content of JH posts but that would be digressive and impolite.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On the topic of targeting race or gender in appointments: That's just the way things are done these days. It would be a problem if there were no qualified black female judges, but that is not the case.

The Party of Haters and Liars used similar criteria in 1991 when they cynically replaced Thurgood Marshall (the great black champion of civil rights famous for arguing cases like Brown v Board of Education) with the mediocre Clarence Thomas, just because Thomas had the same skin color as Marshall.

Similarly, in 2018 the R's wanted a pussy-grabbing Democrat hater who had publicly announced his eagerness to suck Trump's anus and came up with Brett Kavanaugh, the most despicable asshole ever to serve on SCOTUS. It is absurd and laughable but sickening to hear the whingers now complain about a black female Justice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

@Bomb#20 — I think that there is a control panel option that determines whether you see posters' signatures. Do you have that 'View Signature' option disabled?

Here is Jason's signature:

White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

"Not many people know" that Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — was a Republican. I think Jason is proud that he, along with Donald J. Trump, is one of the "few Americans" that know that factoid.

The truth is, the Democrat and Republican Parties have almost ideologically swapped stances on every position over a period from the later 19th Century into about the late 20th Century. The Democrats since the very late 20th Century then shifted well to the center, adopting ACA and Cap and Trade positions on health care and pollution. In that same period, the Republicans have derailed off the tracks, with their only major accomplishments since 2000 being two massive tax cuts and judicial appointments, as well as two poor occupations.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

Fascinating.

 

[Elixir]

.Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

But why bother if you have a committed apologist working to sanitize your … uh … stuff.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here is Jason's signature:

White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

"Not many people know" that Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — was a Republican. I think Jason is proud that he, along with Donald J. Trump, is one of the "few Americans" that know that factoid.

You've got a bunch of quotation marks in there. Who are you quoting? Do you have any evidence that Jason thinks "few Americans" know that factoid?

In any event, his signature explicitly connects the Democrats to the KKK, making a mockery of your guess about Jason in the following:

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. ... And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

I should add, by the way, that your theory of what Jason meant is pretty implausible; I'm surprised the other way to interpret his remarks didn't occur to you. Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

I'm not following. How does that make a mockery of my guess? On its face, your observation supports my guess. It looks to me like he explicitly connects the Democrats to the KKK precisely because they keep acting like they think they own black people. We keep hearing 21st-century Democrats using racial slurs like "Uncle Tom" against black people who presume to think for themselves and adopt political opinions outside the tight little box the left assigns them to hold.

If it seems unlikely that an Infidel posting at this relatively intellectual Board would think that obsolete factoids from a half-century ago or more would be relevant to an understanding of today's politics, then . . . Welcome to Jasontown.

If it seems likely to you that Jason is referring to obsolete factoids from a half-century ago when he criticizes the Democrats' attitude toward black people, you really need to update your Bayesian priors.

Just in the last few days Mr. Harvestdancer

• claims that mentioning that Stalin killed more people than Hitler is "defending Hitler;"
• pretends that D's claim Trump was not "actually elected" in 2016, then willfully conflates 2016 with 2020 to "rebut" a counter-post.

I do not think these are isolated examples. Indeed I'd propose a search contest to judge the overall content of JH posts but that would be digressive and impolite.

What's your point? Are you suggesting I should go along with a disinformation campaign against Mr. Harvestdancer on account of some apparently unrelated stuff he said?

(In any event, I don't know the context of whatever it is he said about 2016 and 2020 that you're on about. I do know the context of his Stalin/Hitler argument. JH said that to LD. They have a history; and they have a penchant for trying to repay their critics in like coin.)

On the topic of targeting race or gender in appointments: That's just the way things are done these days.

Very true. Arguably, it's even an appropriate procedure, considering that the SCOTUS has over the past several decades been evolving into less and less of a court of law and into more and more of a House of Lords.

The Party of Haters and Liars used <snip>

Taking for granted that you're using that appellation to identify one of the major U.S. political parties, you really didn't narrow it down much.

similar criteria in 1991 when they cynically replaced Thurgood Marshall (the great black champion of civil rights famous for arguing cases like Brown v Board of Education) with the mediocre Clarence Thomas, just because Thomas had the same skin color as Marshall.

If you're trying to argue for racial preferences in Supreme Court justices to me with "the Republicans do it too", then you appear to have mistaken that for a good argument and me for an opponent of Biden's selection criterion. Of course Biden should pick a black woman. If he doesn't then he'll have broken a campaign promise -- a promise he made to a motivated segment of his voting base whom he probably needs not to stay home if the rest of us are to escape a second Trump presidency.

 

[Bomb#20]

.Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

But why bother if you have a committed apologist

When facing a hostile and prejudiced court, even an innocent man is likely to need a lawyer.

working to sanitize your … uh … stuff.

Feel free to quote Jason saying something unsanitary about the Breyer replacement.

 

[Bomb#20]

The truth is, the Democrat and Republican Parties have almost ideologically swapped stances on every position over a period from the later 19th Century into about the late 20th Century....

This is not really true. For well over a century the Republicans have been the party of big business, while the Democrats have been the party that pushes for human rights and the economic interests of the common man. And even before the civil rights movements of the 1960's it was the D's outside the South, rather than the R's anywhere, who pushed strongly for civil rights.

You say that as though "the economic interests of the common man" and "civil rights" are interchangeable. What the D's outside the south were pushing for for well over a century was the economic interests of the common white man. The entire progressive movement arose in large part to protect the white working class from competition from the newly free black population moving north. A century ago was the heyday of whites-only labor unions.

Given that their relative stances on the most important issues have changed so little since the end of Reconstruction, it is rather startling how white blue-collar workers have switched in droves from the party trying to help low-income Americans to the party actively working to increase income inequality. Spoiler alert: The average American is neither intelligent nor well-informed, and 49% of Americans are even stupider than that.

Not all that startling, given how much better the Republicans are at keeping quiet about their contempt for the average American.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. ... And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

I should add, by the way, that your theory of what Jason meant is pretty implausible; I'm surprised the other way to interpret his remarks didn't occur to you. Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

More like the Democratic Party considers the votes of minorities to be property of the Democratic Party, which is why they get so angry when a minority doesn't fall into line and obediently deliver the vote. Those who dare to actually rise to prominence in other parties are subject to all sorts of racist abuse, always accusing them of being "white on the inside".

 

[Swammerdami]

Here is Jason's signature:

White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

"Not many people know" that Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — was a Republican. I think Jason is proud that he, along with Donald J. Trump, is one of the "few Americans" that know that factoid.

You've got a bunch of quotation marks in there. Who are you quoting? Do you have any evidence that Jason thinks "few Americans" know that factoid?

I thought DJT's "Lincoln was a Republican. Not many people know that" was famous.

The Ku Klux Klan refers to terrorist organizations active in the late 1860's, the 1920's and the 1950's. Their members were mostly Southern Democrats. Do you honestly believe JH was referring to something else?

In any event, his signature explicitly connects the Democrats to the KKK, making a mockery of your guess about Jason in the following:

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. ... And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

I should add, by the way, that your theory of what Jason meant is pretty implausible; I'm surprised the other way to interpret his remarks didn't occur to you. Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

I'm not following. How does that make a mockery of my guess? On its face, your observation supports my guess. It looks to me like he explicitly connects the Democrats to the KKK precisely because they keep acting like they think they own black people. We keep hearing 21st-century Democrats using racial slurs like "Uncle Tom" against black people who presume to think for themselves and adopt political opinions outside the tight little box the left assigns them to hold.

If it seems unlikely that an Infidel posting at this relatively intellectual Board would think that obsolete factoids from a half-century ago or more would be relevant to an understanding of today's politics, then . . . Welcome to Jasontown.

If it seems likely to you that Jason is referring to obsolete factoids from a half-century ago when he criticizes the Democrats' attitude toward black people, you really need to update your Bayesian priors.

The truth is, the Democrat and Republican Parties have almost ideologically swapped stances on every position over a period from the later 19th Century into about the late 20th Century....

This is not really true. For well over a century the Republicans have been the party of big business, while the Democrats have been the party that pushes for human rights and the economic interests of the common man. And even before the civil rights movements of the 1960's it was the D's outside the South, rather than the R's anywhere, who pushed strongly for civil rights.

You say that as though "the economic interests of the common man" and "civil rights" are interchangeable. What the D's outside the south were pushing for for well over a century was the economic interests of the common white man. The entire progressive movement arose in large part to protect the white working class from competition from the newly free black population moving north. A century ago was the heyday of whites-only labor unions.

So, in your version of English writing "I like chocolate and I like sunshine" means that chocolate and sunshine are interchangeable? Got it; but let's move on.

Beginning with FDR's New Deal it has been mainly the Northern D's specifically and NOT the R's anywhere who have pushed for civil rights and for the economic interests of the common man. This is completely obvious to anyone who pretends to study American history so I won't belabor it. Were programs like Social Security deliberately designed to be racist to win the votes of Southerners? Probably but that indicts Southerners not Northern Democrats. Anyway, here's a contrary opinion at least about SS.

You are correct that blacks' struggle for civil rights was long and difficult. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 6 Republican Senators dissenting but only 1 Northern Democrat (if West Virginia is considered Northern). But first let's note that women were not allowed to vote until the 1920's. Child labor was regarded by many as a human rights violation and The Keating–Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 attempted to address this. It is true that white politicians and white voters gave priority to the rights of white citizens. Should white women have refused to exercise their franchise, once it was granted, until black women could also vote? On the contrary, I think the votes of white women helped push the country onto a more humanitarian path.

I don't know the easy way to Google for Congressional votes from a century ago, but here's a hint: Keating and Owen (after whom the Keating–Owen Child Labor Act was named) were both in the same Party as the President who pushed strongly for its passage: Woodrow Wilson.

Keating-Owen was quickly overturned by the Supreme Court and Congress passed The Child Labor Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment was ratififed by a majority of the states, but not by the required super-majority. Holdouts include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia — all of the states of the Old Confederacy except for Arkansas. (Kentucky rejected the Amendment in 1926, but later ratified it in 1937.)

I did find the Senate vote on the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The party correlation was mixed but it is interesting to note that only one state outside the Deep South had two Senators who both voted Nay. That State was Connecticut with two Republican Senators.

TL;DR: Mr Harvestdigger's 'The word "Democrat" has three silent k's' if not utter gibberish, can only refer to old-time Southern Democrats whose role is now taken over by the GOP.

 

[Hermit]

TL;DR: Mr Harvestdigger's 'The word "Democrat" has three silent k's' if not utter gibberish, can only refer to old-time Southern Democrats whose role is now taken over by the GOP.

You're being too kind to Jason Harvestdancer. The swap of policies regarding African Americans between the Democrat and the Republican parties gathered momentum with the adoption of the Southern Strategy during the 1950s. By the time Lyndon B. Johnson got the Civil Rights Act through Congress in 1964 the Dems had pretty much lost the southeastern states, and with Richard Nixon's 'War on Drugs' commencing in 1971 it was all over bar the shouting.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[47][48][49] for Harper's Magazine[50]

 

[Bomb#20]

Here is Jason's signature:

White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

"Not many people know" that Lincoln — the man who freed the slaves — was a Republican. I think Jason is proud that he, along with Donald J. Trump, is one of the "few Americans" that know that factoid.

You've got a bunch of quotation marks in there. Who are you quoting? Do you have any evidence that Jason thinks "few Americans" know that factoid?

I thought DJT's "Lincoln was a Republican. Not many people know that" was famous.

So what's confusing you? Since it's from Trump, why the devil are you laying it at Jason's door? Trump's an idiot. Jason is not an idiot.

The Ku Klux Klan refers to terrorist organizations active in the late 1860's, the 1920's and the 1950's. Their members were mostly Southern Democrats.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Do you honestly believe JH was referring to something else?

If it seems unlikely that an Infidel posting at this relatively intellectual Board would think that obsolete factoids from a half-century ago or more would be relevant to an understanding of today's politics, then . . . Welcome to Jasontown.

If it seems likely to you that Jason is referring to obsolete factoids from a half-century ago when he criticizes the Democrats' attitude toward black people, you really need to update your Bayesian priors.

...
TL;DR: Mr Harvestdigger's 'The word "Democrat" has three silent k's' if not utter gibberish, can only refer to old-time Southern Democrats whose role is now taken over by the GOP.

Of course he was referring to the old terrorist organization; and of course he was referring to the modern Democratic Party. People very often use a single phrase to refer to two things at the same time, especially when they're trying to draw attention to a parallel.

The KKK and the old Southern Democrats didn't actually object to black people -- they were happy to have black sharecroppers, black shoe-shiners, black maids for their wives. What they objected to was disobedient black people. Jason is expressing the opinion that although what the Democrats tell black people to do for them has of course changed a lot since the days of the old-time Southern Democrats, the Democrats have come right on into the present still objecting to black people who are disobedient. Case in point: Elixir just upthread called Clarence Thomas "Uncle Tom".

The truth is, the Democrat and Republican Parties have almost ideologically swapped stances on every position over a period from the later 19th Century into about the late 20th Century....

This is not really true. For well over a century the Republicans have been the party of big business, while the Democrats have been the party that pushes for human rights and the economic interests of the common man. And even before the civil rights movements of the 1960's it was the D's outside the South, rather than the R's anywhere, who pushed strongly for civil rights.

You say that as though "the economic interests of the common man" and "civil rights" are interchangeable. What the D's outside the south were pushing for for well over a century was the economic interests of the common white man. The entire progressive movement arose in large part to protect the white working class from competition from the newly free black population moving north. A century ago was the heyday of whites-only labor unions.

So, in your version of English writing "I like chocolate and I like sunshine" means that chocolate and sunshine are interchangeable? Got it;

So in your version of English writing, a vampire saying "I like chocolate and I like sunshine", and pointing to all the chocolate wrappers in the coffin he sleeps in all day as evidence, is analogous to a human saying "I like chocolate and I like sunshine"? Got it. For much of the period when you claim the Democrats have been the party that pushes for human rights and the economic interests of the common man, in fact the Democrats were the party that pushed against human rights and for the economic interests of the common man.

but let's move on.

Beginning with FDR's New Deal it has been mainly the Northern D's specifically and NOT the R's anywhere who have pushed for civil rights and for the economic interests of the common man.

Hmm, yes, FD "Let's lock up the Japanese-Americans" Roosevelt was such a civil rights pusher.

This is completely obvious to anyone who pretends to study American history so I won't belabor it. Were programs like Social Security deliberately designed to be racist to win the votes of Southerners? Probably but that indicts Southerners not Northern Democrats.

I.e., it's okay for Northerners to cut a deal with Southern racists for political advantage when it's our side doing it. What's completely obvious to anyone who studies history of anywhere is that most lawmakers care less about principles than about their own interests.

Anyway, here's a contrary opinion at least about SS.

You are correct that blacks' struggle for civil rights was long and difficult. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 6 Republican Senators dissenting but only 1 Northern Democrat (if West Virginia is considered Northern).

Well, that's one way to spin the fact that a higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. Ain't statistics great?

But first let's note that women were not allowed to vote until the 1920's. Child labor was regarded by many as a human rights violation and The Keating–Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 attempted to address this. It is true that white politicians and white voters gave priority to the rights of white citizens. Should white women have refused to exercise their franchise, once it was granted, until black women could also vote? On the contrary, I think the votes of white women helped push the country onto a more humanitarian path.

I don't know the easy way to Google for Congressional votes from a century ago, but here's a hint: Keating and Owen (after whom the Keating–Owen Child Labor Act was named) were both in the same Party as the President who pushed strongly for its passage: Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was the guy who segregated the federal government.

 

[Copernicus]

...
You are correct that blacks' struggle for civil rights was long and difficult. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 6 Republican Senators dissenting but only 1 Northern Democrat (if West Virginia is considered Northern).

Well, that's one way to spin the fact that a higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. Ain't statistics great?

This is a silly thing to say, given that a lot of those Democrats became Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed and was signed by a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who even said at the time that the Democrats had just "lost the South". The Republicans saw that as a golden opportunity to pursue their Southern Strategy of attracting the conservative white racist vote in the South, and it worked in tandem with the rise of Alabama Governor Wallace, who helped to bleed votes away from the Democratic candidate in 1970. That's why the Republican Party is the magnate for the white supremacist vote today and anathema to black voters, not the Democrats. Jason never misses an opportunity to call Democrats racist because it once was that magnate, but he knows what he is doing. And so should you.

I don't know the easy way to Google for Congressional votes from a century ago, but here's a hint: Keating and Owen (after whom the Keating–Owen Child Labor Act was named) were both in the same Party as the President who pushed strongly for its passage: Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was the guy who segregated the federal government.

You are totally right that Woodrow Wilson was a racist Virginia Democrat, who even promoted a screening of the racist pro-Confederacy film "Birth of a Nation", in the White House. That was then. He would be tempted to join the Republican Party today.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
You are correct that blacks' struggle for civil rights was long and difficult. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 6 Republican Senators dissenting but only 1 Northern Democrat (if West Virginia is considered Northern).

Well, that's one way to spin the fact that a higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. Ain't statistics great?

This is a silly thing to say, given that a lot of those Democrats became Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed and was signed by a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who even said at the time that the Democrats had just "lost the South". The Republicans saw that as a golden opportunity to pursue their Southern Strategy of attracting the conservative white racist vote in the South, and it worked in tandem with the rise of Alabama Governor Wallace, who helped to bleed votes away from the Democratic candidate in 1970.

I.e., they didn't become Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed. They became Wallace Democrats because the Civil Rights Act passed; and then they subsequently became Republicans because Wallace got creamed; and Wallace got creamed because of Duverger's Law.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Republicans were the Tory party and the Democrats were the Labor party. The South always had a Tory culture, not a Labor culture. That the South was Democrat in the first place during the period we're discussing is a historical anomaly. The reason a society of Tories were voting for a Labor party is because they cared more about their racism than about their natural political alignment, and the Democrats were more enabling of their extreme racism than the Republicans were. (Little credit to the Republicans for this; the Democrats were more tolerant of extreme racism for the very pragmatic reason that black people were customers and employees to the white business-owning Tory constituency, but competitors to the white working-class Labor constituency.) So once the Labor party belatedly stopped enabling racism, and Duverger's Law forced southern white racists to choose between two national parties that wouldn't go along with what they really wanted, they reverted to their instinctive Toryism and took up voting for the Tory party.

That's why the Republican Party is the magnate for the white supremacist vote today and anathema to black voters, not the Democrats. Jason never misses an opportunity to call Democrats racist because it once was that magnate, but he knows what he is doing. And so should you.

Jason is making a figurative point about how patronizing and disrespectful of racial minorities like himself the Democratic Party still is. If you can't recognize that that's what he's doing, maybe Jason's literary style just isn't your cup of tea.

I don't know the easy way to Google for Congressional votes from a century ago, but here's a hint: Keating and Owen (after whom the Keating–Owen Child Labor Act was named) were both in the same Party as the President who pushed strongly for its passage: Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was the guy who segregated the federal government.

You are totally right that Woodrow Wilson was a racist Virginia Democrat, who even promoted a screening of the racist pro-Confederacy film "Birth of a Nation", in the White House. That was then. He would be tempted to join the Republican Party today.

So? Swami was offering him as an example of Democrats being pro-civil-rights in that period. They weren't. Democrats of that time by-and-large weren't for child-labor laws because child labor was a violation of children's civil rights, but because children were competitors for their white working class constituency's jobs.

 

[Copernicus]

...
You are correct that blacks' struggle for civil rights was long and difficult. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 6 Republican Senators dissenting but only 1 Northern Democrat (if West Virginia is considered Northern).

Well, that's one way to spin the fact that a higher fraction of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. Ain't statistics great?

This is a silly thing to say, given that a lot of those Democrats became Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed and was signed by a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who even said at the time that the Democrats had just "lost the South". The Republicans saw that as a golden opportunity to pursue their Southern Strategy of attracting the conservative white racist vote in the South, and it worked in tandem with the rise of Alabama Governor Wallace, who helped to bleed votes away from the Democratic candidate in 1970.

I.e., they didn't become Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed. They became Wallace Democrats because the Civil Rights Act passed; and then they subsequently became Republicans because Wallace got creamed; and Wallace got creamed because of Duverger's Law.

No, it wasn't that simple. I remember those times quite well. Strom Thurmond jumped to the Repubican Party, but they allowed him to keep his seniority in the Senate. Other Dixiecrat senators would have done the same, but the Republicans wouldn't do the same deal for them. So they remained Democrats who often aligned with Republicans in votes. Wallace got creamed because he didn't have a national party organization or popular base and knew he couldn't win. Duverger's law doesn't always work, as Republicans should know from their own origin story. Wallace knew he couldn't win. He wanted to deprive both parties of an electoral majority, but his support faded rather quickly.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Republicans were the Tory party and the Democrats were the Labor party. The South always had a Tory culture, not a Labor culture. That the South was Democrat in the first place during the period we're discussing is a historical anomaly. The reason a society of Tories were voting for a Labor party is because they cared more about their racism than about their natural political alignment, and the Democrats were more enabling of their extreme racism than the Republicans were. (Little credit to the Republicans for this; the Democrats were more tolerant of extreme racism for the very pragmatic reason that black people were customers and employees to the white business-owning Tory constituency, but competitors to the white working-class Labor constituency.) So once the Labor party belatedly stopped enabling racism, and Duverger's Law forced southern white racists to choose between two national parties that wouldn't go along with what they really wanted, they reverted to their instinctive Toryism and took up voting for the Tory party.

Are you British? You don't seem to understand much about the history of American politics and political parties. I notice that you talk about Tories and Labor as if slavery never existed. That was the single biggest issue driving American politics before the Civil War, and segregation + Jim Crow was the rearguard rebellion against racial equality afterwards. Black voters used to mostly be Republicans, but the Democratic Party is a magnet for them now. White blue collar workers used to be Democrats but they shifted to the Republican Party increasingly after 1964. The Dixiecrats began to rebel after Roosevelt. They rejected Truman, who had forced the military to desegregate. A third party "states rights" effort was mounted back then, and it failed miserably. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, was the inflection point for Southern Democrats, and everyone knew it at the time. It was Democratic support for the civil rights movement that turned the Republican Party into the magnet for white supremacists that it is today.

Jason is making a figurative point about how patronizing and disrespectful of racial minorities like himself the Democratic Party still is. If you can't recognize that that's what he's doing, maybe Jason's literary style just isn't your cup of tea.

Jason makes his intentions clear in his signature, not with his literary style. It is his politics that isn't my "cup of tea", not his literary style.

...
You are totally right that Woodrow Wilson was a racist Virginia Democrat, who even promoted a screening of the racist pro-Confederacy film "Birth of a Nation", in the White House. That was then. He would be tempted to join the Republican Party today.

So? Swami was offering him as an example of Democrats being pro-civil-rights in that period. They weren't. Democrats of that time by-and-large weren't for child-labor laws because child labor was a violation of children's civil rights, but because children were competitors for their white working class constituency's jobs.

So it is quite irrelevant to Swammerdami's overall argument, even though you were right about Wilson being a poor example to support his point. Wilson would likely be in the Republican Party if he were running for office today. Not everyone in the Republican Party is a white supremacist, but it will gladly accept anyone into its base for whom that is an important issue. The Democratic Party is not a comfortable home for white supremacists. I think that we all understand this, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

 

[Swammerdami]

Jason is making a figurative point about how patronizing and disrespectful of racial minorities like himself the Democratic Party still is. If you can't recognize that that's what he's doing, maybe Jason's literary style just isn't your cup of tea.

Seriously, do you have Display Signatures disabled?

I really do not understand how your peculiar apologies for Mr. Harvestdancer are compatible with his bitterly stupid signature:

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

 

[Bomb#20]

Jason is making a figurative point about how patronizing and disrespectful of racial minorities like himself the Democratic Party still is. If you can't recognize that that's what he's doing, maybe Jason's literary style just isn't your cup of tea.

Seriously, do you have Display Signatures disabled?

Yes. Why the heck would I need it enabled when you keep enthusiastically reciting its contents? (And I'm familiar with it anyway from before the software changeover.)

I really do not understand how your peculiar apologies for Mr. Harvestdancer are compatible with his bitterly stupid signature:

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

Well then, you probably need to demsplain to him the correct language for minorities to use to describe how the Democrats treat them.

 

[Copernicus]

I really do not understand how your peculiar apologies for Mr. Harvestdancer are compatible with his bitterly stupid signature:

No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA

The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

Well then, you probably need to demsplain to him the correct language for minorities to use to describe how the Democrats treat them.

Sorry if I was operating under the wrong impression, but which minority does Jason belong to? And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today? Klan members used to be Democrats, if they belonged to any mainstream party. Today, they would more likely be Republicans.

 

[Trausti]

And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?

 

[TomC]

And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?

What does that have to do with Democrats? Specifically?

Are you suggesting that Republicans don't do that? I'm a gay man. Are you suggesting that Republicans are the party of equal treatment for all? Mike Pence tried to get marriage inequality added to the Indiana State Constitution. He acquired millions of dollars and huge amounts of power with this effort. All that wealth and power, then he dumped the effort because voters and businesses threatened to cost him and his conservative Christian Republican buddies ongoing wealth and power.

Pence is the epitome of TeaParty hypocrite.
Tom

ETA ~I'm a Hoosier. Pence was first an Indiana congressman, then Indiana governor for several years. He lives in my town. My opinions about him aren't just stuff I saw on YouTube.~

 

[Trausti]

And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?

What does that have to do with Democrats? Specifically?

Are you suggesting that Republicans don't do that? I'm a gay man. Are you suggesting that Republicans are the party of equal treatment for all? Mike Pence tried to get marriage inequality added to the Indiana State Constitution. He acquired millions of dollars and huge amounts of power with this effort. All that wealth and power, then he dumped the effort because voters and businesses threatened to cost him and his conservative Christian Republican buddies ongoing wealth and power.

Pence is the epitome of TeaParty hypocrite.
Tom

ETA ~I'm a Hoosier. Pence was first an Indiana congressman, then Indiana governor for several years. He lives in my town. My opinions about him aren't just stuff I saw on YouTube.~

The Dems went from the party of the working class to the party of race identity politics. That’s pretty evident.