When asked by host Brian Kilmeade if the GOP is a racist party, [Nikki] Haley made a broader point that the US has “never been a racist country.”
“We’re not a racist country, Brian. We’ve never been a racist country,” she said. “Our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday. Are we perfect? No. But our goal is to always make sure we try and be more perfect every day that we can.”
Really, Nikki? Slavery? Jim Crow? Sundown towns? The Negro Motorist Green Book? Voting discrimination (a practice her party engages in to this day)? Night riders? Housing discrimination? Segregated schools? Redlining?
How can she not be aware of any of that stuff? It wasn't just racism, it was government policy based on race, written into the Constitution, and enforced by both the law and by mob rule.
I probably should cut Haley a break. She's campaigning for votes in a party in which a significant number of the voters are fragile white people who can't handle the truth, so they turn on Fox News for their daily dosage of lies and coddling.
7 comments:
There is no arguing the fact that today' Republican party is full of racists. As well as saying that the parties of today are much different than they were during reconstruction after the civil war.
That being said, in the aftermath of said reconstruction, the Democrats attempted to keep Black Americans from exercising their rights gained with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which outlawed slavery, gave the equal rights, and gave them the right to vote.
The Democrat party of the post civil war era put forth policies to hamper all of the rights and freedoms gained during the war period and after.
Daniel Byman wrote a paper on the subject of the actions of the Democrats, who were mostly southern Democrats, and their opposition to the so called post civil war amendments. Like I said, the parties of today are much different than those of the late 1800's. And the Republicans seem to be fighting without any real aim or ammo. I mean to say that they are clueless.
Here is an excerpt from the Byman paper. It shows the Democrats then actively tried to hold the Black Americans down.
During the Reconstruction era, radical Republicans passed legislation securing the rights of Black Americans, including voting rights. Democrats opposed these efforts at every turn. According to the 2021 paper, "White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States," by Daniel Byman:
Violence during Reconstruction (1867–77) claimed the lives of many Republicans and prevented many others from voting, enabling the Democrats to seize control of the South. The number of people white supremacists killed during Reconstruction is unknown, but it is probably in the high thousands or even tens of thousands. Thousands more were displaced, leaving their homes in the countryside for safer cities or fleeing their states altogether. After Reconstruction, Democrats used their control of state governments to enact a mix of poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy requirements, and character tests, while white vigilante groups continued their lynchings and beatings. The process did not occur instantaneously or uniformly across the South, but its effects were nonetheless devastating over time. In South Carolina, there were more than 90,000 Black voters in 1876; by the end of the century, this number had fallen to fewer than 3,000.
As I mentioned, the Democrats were mostly southern Democrats who wanted to maintain the status quo. And both parties are much different today than they were during the period in question. And Nikki Haley is what some may call an aberration. Some of the things that she says off the cuff seem to reveal her true nature, and she will be a footnote in history when they write about the campaigns of the 2024 presidential election. Myself I could have followed Vivek Ramaswamy in many of his proposals. He just seemed to be another war monger the same way as Nikki Haley.
An interesting campaign season at least. Trump may be watching the election results from a jail cell. I wonder what happens if he is in jail and elected president? Will he be sworn in and able to pardon himself? I have never seen such a thing. I am old enough to remember when presidential candidates sought to maintain an appearance of squeaky cleanness. Now it seems as if they don't even try, but figure that character is of no matter. This is a sad time, when you look at such things.
Thanks for the 19th Century history lesson, but as you and I both know, it means nothing other than to salve the consciences of Republicans. Following LBJ‘s enactmentof civil rights acts during his administration, the parties realigned. The Republicans became the party of the south with Nixon’s “southern strategy“.
What happened before then is of no importance these days. The Party of Lincoln became the party of vile racists like Jesse Helms.
And Ronald Reagan, who kicked off his bid for the White House in the same town where three civil rights workers were murdered two decades before, an event that he did not see fit to mention.
Pigpen, depends which charges. Federal, he can…State, he cannot. Now, if elected, the State cases would be on hold until he left office, and possibly would then be beyond the Statute of Limitations (haven’t looked), as they wouldn’t normally be tolled in that case. Since the Georgia case is the only State one with jail time likely to begin before the election, that’s why they are so focused on delaying it.
Since the past matters all that much to you, dear hostess, then are you gonna stop defending the Democrat's behavior as far as Pigpen did such a wonderful job of pointing out?
Either the past matters, or it doesn't. Pick one. If we are to forget and forgive the Democrats for their past regarding slavery and their attempts to keep it even after the emancipation, then why not forgive the rest of the country for it's past?
Or are you gonna keep on with the double standards?
Either the past matters, or it doesn't..... Please be consistent.
B, you can tell me what to do and lecture me on my arguments when you are my boss.
Which you aren’t.
You are obfuscating things and you know it.
The Republicans and the Democrats began switching positions on race and equality in the 1960s. You know that.
The Right are the same fascist-loving group now that they were in the 1930s, complete with private militias and plots to overthrow the government. You know that, too.
If you find my style not to your liking, there are plenty of pro-fascist and pro-Putin blogs out there.
You know what you can do with your smug sense of superiority.
So those double standards are ok.
The past applies to Republicans, and the country in general. But not for the Democrats.
Noted.
Credibility. It matters.
B, that's not what I said. It's your interpretation, driven by your hatred of Democrats and liberals.
As I said before, you are free to go darken some other corner of the Internet.
Or, to be shorter, you are welcome to follow the advice of Jon Stewart.
Post a Comment