A
Trump-nominated federal judge has halted the removal of the Reconciliation Monument in Arlington National Cemetery, which the cemetery indicated Saturday would otherwise take place by week's end. While the iconoclasts have been momentarily restrained, the fate of the historic monument, also ca...
You correct. It represents the Democrats and their attempt to keep slavery. It’s exactly why it should be kept to remind people that the Democrats fought for slavery and continue to divide people by race even now.
The slavery-loving, anti-civil rights malignancy that were the Southern Democrats shifted over to the Republican party, beginning with the contemptuous Strom Thurmond after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The heritage of the Lost Cause is in the Republican party these days.
That is false.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/04/03/the-party-switch-myth/#:~:text=The core claim at the,less tied to Americans’%20larger
The article basically argues that the switch did happen, but it’s hard to say it’s because of racist sentiments.
Like…yeah, but the racists still moved over to the Republican party. It may not have been because they were racists, but the switch still happened nonetheless, and they took their racist views with them.
Not really. Which party still wants to divide people into races? The Democrats. The Democrats is all about dividing people into groups that are not important. People should be treated as people and not classifications.
Not really what?
Divisions of the world aren’t inherently bad either. A foreign national as a national security risk is a useful categorization in some contexts. But if you’re just hanging out with people and talking to your Indian friend, it’d be unnecessary to classify him as such. Similarly, racial categories are arguably useful in some contexts. If I were a doctor, I might be concerned about high blood pressure in an African American patient. The context matter for categorizing people in the first place which categories should be used.
Because if people should be treated as people, then why should anyone be denied entry into the country? What is the point of a border but to keep people on the other side out? What is the basis for exclusion if people are just people?
Here is a partial list ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy) of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 and when they stopped being reps/senators. If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats into the 90’s.
George William Andrews 1972 Robert Emmett Jones 1972 Armistead Selden 1968 Wilbur Mills 1976 James Trimble 1966 Robert Sikes 1978 Charles Edward Bennett 1992 Dante Fascell 1992 Paul Rogers 1978 Don Fuqua 1986 Sam Gibbons 1996 George Hagan 1972 Phillip Landrum 1976 Robert Stephens 1976 William Natcher 1994 Joseph Waggonner 1978 Otto Passman 1976 Gillis Long 1986 Jamie Whitten 1994 Lawrence Fountain 1982 David Newton Henderson 1976 Roy Taylor 1976 Joseph Evins 1976 John Patman 1976 Herbert Roberts 1980 Olin Teague 1978 William Poage 1978 James Claude Wright 1989
The article wintermute_oregon linked mentions that the switch took place over, well, that it didn’t happen immediately. The article I linked said it took place over time:
So, yeah, fine.
https://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2020/03/three-myths-of-false-leftist-narrative.html
The parties didn’t really switch. Voting patterns changed.
The Democrats lost focus of the working class people. They did offer some support to unions but the south isn’t very union.
The Republicans pushed the idea you can outgrow your situation and that message went over well in the south.
Quite literally all of those “myths” were addressed by your first link, which as I quoted, said the switch occurred.
But when the democrats or the reason they claimed.