The debate "Democrats are the party of racism slavery and Jim Crow" was started by
August 11, 2018, 2:19 pm.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Aaronr12 posted 3 arguments, MrShine posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Aaronr12, sabrina and 9 visitors agree.
tenyiyi and 9 visitors disagree.
The Dixicrats never switched either. Dixicrats still vote Democrat to this day. Conservatives are still the Party of Lincoln.
all of them. the people didnt switch beliefs. conservatives remained conservative. the party that represented them changed.
I believe it was a party called the dixicrats or something that catalyzed the switch
Stats show that as the South became less racist it became more Republican. Tell me of two southern democrats who switched in the last 80 years.
your argument is that racists decades or centuries ago are still in the party? you are aware those people are mostly long dead right? pointing to what something was a long time ago to try to slander what it is now is a weak argument.
should we say that America is a country of slavers because they used to have slavery? does that suggests the slavers never left?
should we say italians are all imperialists because the Romans had a vast empire?
It's fair to shut down over generalizations, I feel that the 'party switch' myth doesn't exactly deflate the racist past for now modern parties, it suggests the racists never left altogether. And it hardly sounds like a large part of the voter base or substantial amount. The number at Charlottesville was fairly insignificant last year, was still made up of other groups too, and is a dwindling number. Maybe ~1,000 real racists on the East coast is a fraction of a percent, and a generous guess.
Racists have less control now. I would have to make an exception for gang related/race violence for MS 13, but they recently lost their leader so it's a bit less about race and more about lashing out even if the gang's exclusive.
I also think that pandering is a bit of a faithless statement for nonracists too, though I think I can address that as well. Suppose a racist did support a republican policy or candidate, it doesn't need to be because of racism. For example, Malcolm X wanted the Black community to separate from the white community to start their own 'state' since he believed neither party supported them and both would play the black community. The KKK agreed with Malcolm X's plan, but that wouldn't mean that Malcolm X was pandering to them. Malcolm X didn't promise to do anything for the KKK, and in the same way Republicans have not made promises to White supremacists for anything.
If they want to vote, admittedly it's still their right, and there's no reason to turn away a vote, Republican or Democrat. The only restrictions to voting is citizenship, age, and nonfelon status. I don't even think "used for votes" is a unique trope, outside of a possible connotation for a quid pro quo... but that doesn't exist.
also between this post and another post around the same time titled "left has a secret pedophilia agenda" I felt a little spiteful with my comment.
I didnt say all republicans are racist, but the Republican party did welcome racists like white nationalists, and people like David Duke into their party. they also represent a substantial number of the constituents.
the old Democrats were collectively a party of racists. the new republicans arent a party of racists, but a party that knowingly uses and panders to them.
whoops, let's remove the Blue agree, I'm not going to call it racist.
The interpretation shouldn't be based on a simplified version of the demographics. Economics can easily explain the rural vs city differences, the racial support for Democrats can also be explained by their willingness to enter the "New Deal" benefits from FDR (who also implemented the Japanese internment camps) over none, and South's developed zones tie back to the economic differences. To go even farther the demographics you generalized cover most voting zones, is it bad that there is a "majority"? Of course, we could go by population size, but it is a Union of States for a representative republic, not a fealty system to a Californian democracy.
Demographics change on more than racism, and I can prove that by suggesting political support is not always guaranteed. For example, the Rust Belt was not considered to be a part of the swing States but surprisingly they voted in Favor of Trump. Does the Rust belt sound like the supporters you suggested, rural conservatives?
I would not suggest that the Democrats are the party of racism, but that it does a recent attempt to 'own' the counterculture, which may or may not be defined enough. It did also retain many of the racists, but I won't pretend people keep the same ideologies all their lives. Speaking systematically... perhaps the rules and laws implemented still have the same effect, but that's another discussion.
I also think it would be a bit much to claim Republicans are the party of racism since racism is a pretty hard standard to hit and no laws really match that standard. Maybe I've heard claims of racism too many times to check every one, but most have had unimpressive evidence and stem from party bias, pushback against nationalism, statistical inconsideration, misinterpretation of the law... it would be easier if I had a single reason to dispute every racist claim.
the entire country switched parties!
what was the demographic of the old democrats?
white, southern, rural, conservative?
old Democrats = new Republicans
Explain your conclusion. Because only one Democrat in the last 80 years has switched parties.
yes, the party of southern racists was the Democrats 100 years ago, but now the Republicans have embraced them.
are you trying to use 100 year old information to try to make yourself feel better about your party?
why do you fall for such stupid propaganda? why dont we look at recent years?