Yes, racist did happen back then, and I though it was republicans. but my eyes have been opened in my later years and I now see that the dems want to keep us dependant on them, so we will vote to keep them in place to allow us to stay dependant on them. This is not helping us (black, poor, undeducated, etc), it is cripling us because those dependent.

I wish I would have been smart enough back then to rely on myself, instead on the money thrown my way because I took the lazy way out. I elected “slavery” in a sense. I will not let that happen to my kids.

I agree, speaking out against ACTUAL RACISM is an honorable thing, and I’ll be right there with you. However “racist” or “racism” has been used blindly in recent history simply because one disagrees with someone else who happens to be black. Obviously this doesn’t happen if the person you disagree with is white, but then I wonder why we don’t scream “anti-red-hairedness!” or “light-skin hate monger!” when an opponent disagrees with a white person? How do we know that it isn’t really the color of their hair or the shirt they’re wearing that is the “real” reason for all of this “disagreement”? Racism has been hijacked these days and it is a shame. It is not doing ANYONE a disservice and it certainly isn’t helping black people. This is no different than a woman going into an interview with a man, before having even heard a word, and assuming that the man has sexually harassed her and at the same time taken her less seriously for having a womb! It’s no different from a black person claiming that their coworker is probably racist, only to find later that the coworker is in a biracial marriage. Unless someone is actually the victim of outright racism, please don’t be so quick to spray the term around.

Thank you for the links. I will take a look.

I personally think it will be good for blacks in America, and good for race relations in America (and therefore good for everyone), when more blacks who identify with the Republican party decide to start participating in that party and voting Republican. I believe this will make the Republican Party more responsive to black and other minority issues. You need only check history as far back as the recently failed comprehensive immigration reform package to see how divided the Republican Party remains on issues of race (and how divided America remains).

To me personally, the Republican party still seems obsessed with a “US vs. THEM” mentality. Even among fellow Republicans there is this paranoid, “well sure he SAYS he is a Republican, but I think he is a Republican in name only”. You even do the “US vs THEM” thing to yourselves. This same “US vs Them” factionalism is used to motivate Republicans to vote, and tell them what to think. It is part of the standard Republican messaging. ( “Real Americans do _______” or ” A TRUE conservative acts like this” or “Real Patriot thinks ________” ) I think a Republican leader that conservative see as “one of US”, but speaks the language of inclusion and really believes it, would be a great next leader of the Republican Party.

If you want to know the truth from a smart black man perspective, I suggest you go to http://www.machosauceproductions.com, and for a smart black womens perspective http://www.motivationtruth.com.

The democrats are not are frineds, they support killing of black babies by abortion, keeping us one walfare, and making us dependant on them instead of ourselves. They no longer force us down, they “buy” us down. That is the new age slavery. I bought into that when I was younger, which is one reason why I never made myself better. I will make sure my kids do not make the same mistake.

The term racist I hear today buy the media and dem. politicins is a slap in the face to us who experienced it.

A proud black southern momma (I am old, i cannot type well)

I am not accusing you of trying to slip one by. I suspected that you did not write the history that you cited. I was just saying that black americans in the 60s 70s and 80s were not flocking to the Democratic Party based on a lie. It was the racism of the Republican Party in the south. (Mostly Republicans who had for most of their lives called themselves Democrats until that point)

As for “deciphering”. I am not claiming that you specifically fear gay people, or that when YOU say “family values” you are using a cloak instead of saying what you mean. However it is clear that this was happening in the late 60s and early 70s. Today political operatives like Paul Begala and Karl Rove speak of “Dog Whistle” messaging. Using specific phrases and specific vocabulary to send a particular message to a targeted group, while the rest of the public remains unaware that any message was sent. Use of the word “guile” is a good example of “dog whistle” messaging. To most of the American public, just another word, to some religious conservatives, an “I am one of you” word.

I do not claim to be nor do I want to be “the thought police”, but I am very interested in what people say, and what they mean (and yes what they “really” mean). A big part of political messaging is the art of drawing people to a specific message, without alienating others. For instance, if someone says, “I think its fine if the people of Alabama don’t want to let black kids attend their white public schools”, some people will support that, and MANY people will be outraged. On the other hand if that same someone says, “I think it is appropriate for states to have the final say about how they use their own money to fund education”, most people would think, “yeah, sounds right to me.” This was the messaging of the 70s and 80s, and it was a cloak, that allowed politicians to have it both ways. This gave them support from a cadre of racists, and did not alienate the general public, who heard that as a perfectly reasonable statement. Thinking about the historical use of this kind of political messaging, and seeing how it is used today, informs the way I listen to political messages.

Yes, sometimes a nut is just a nut, but very often a word or phrase is carefully crafted or selected, especially where political rhetoric is concerned. Often those same phrases are picked up and used in the general public by people who are completely unaware of the reason that specific wording was chosen, and any special messaging that was intended. (and political messaging is often selected for that very reason, how well it is picked up by the public).

I have read many of your post. I did not suspect you were trying to mislead, that does not seem to be in your nature.

Yes, Democrats were a bunch of racist lunatics in my opinion, and I think it’s insulting to blacks to pretend that part of history didn’t exist. Yes, there were some racist Republicans and I WISH that part of history didn’t exist. I didn’t “not tell the whole story” to try to fool people. Most of us are familiar with relative recent history, but MANY of us need a history lesson when it comes to distant history. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I didn’t write the history lesson you’re referring to, I only cited it. I am not responsible for it’s depth or continuing coverage. It was advertised as a 124 year history, I think we can all assume that it stops after the 124th year without much argument. I did not try to sneak one in on ya. My point, and one that seems to elude you, is that no more can Republicans pretend that racial tensions never existed in our party than the Democratic party. But to this day, it is advertised (either outright or by implication), by yourself and others, that the Republican party is a bunch of racist hillbillies and the Democratic party is one of brotherly love and does (from the beginning of time until eternity) embrace its black brethren–to the dismay of Republicans who’d just assume blacks line up for welfare as long as “we” don’t have to pay for it. Nonsense. It’s not racist to want for blacks and whites alike to better themselves, and to give a hand up as opposed to a handout! There are welfare queens in this country, the only problem is that the label has been erroneously applied to one race. I’ve personally witnessed people proudly using, and abusing, the system with varying skin shades. To lay that claim of racism to Republicans is dishonest, and I have a strong distaste for telling only one side of a story.

I did misunderstand your original point, but now that you have clarified it for me, I can see we disagree a bit.

Your original post contained a nice brief history of the Republican Party, which stops at THE pivotal moment in modern political history (the civil rights movement).

I strongly agree with your post, in its characterization that it was the Republican Party that strongly supported civil rights throughout the last half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. I think, as well demonstrated by many of the posts on this site, most people have little or no understanding of the history if their political party.

I disagree with your assertion that blacks in the 60s, 70s and 80s flocked to the Democratic Party based on a lie. That voting behavior was based on the political realities that they were experiencing in real time.

I acknowledge, as would any person that read a bit of history, that the Republican Party was the first to the cause of civil rights. Also, it is a clear that Republican votes were essential in the passage of the civil rights act. I think you are glossing over the fact that it was a Democratic congress and Democratic President – and way way way more Democrats voted in support of the civil rights act than Republicans (by a 2:1 margin).

Republicans DID definitely champion the cause of civil rights, and the act would NOT have passed in 64 without them.

Saying that blacks flocked to the Democratic Party based on a lie, ignores what happened after your nice history stops. That is the very sad part of the story for the Republican Party, and explains black voting behavior and political alignment very well. The racist Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party, and became Republicans. There was a MASSIVE political realignment in the south. In the 50s the Democrats were the party of the KKK – by the 70s it was the Republicans.
For the first half of the 20th century (and about a century prior to that) white southerners were overwhelmingly Democrats, but in 1948 many bolted the party, angered by Truman’s efforts against racial segregation. These Southern whites flocked to Strom Thurmond’s third-party candidacy for president. Over the next several decades, the southern whites realigned away from the Democrats and to Southern Republicans, with race issues being the dominant driver.

I am not shifting blame, or even assigning it, these are just the realities of history.

The Republican Party of today, is left with some very difficult to reconcile positions, that are remnants of the realignment around racial segregation. To cloak outright racial hatred, more acceptable phrases like “states rights” or “local control” were used. The political practice of wrapping a divisive social issue in a nice friendly phrase persists today. (fear of gays = family values or fear of gays = support of marriage)