I don't think I made that point, just that it wasn't entirely segregated for a long period after the Civil War. I may have Davis Sr confused with another black officer during that era, possibly Charles Owens who was a 1st lieutenant in the 7th cavalry regiment in 1896 (Custer's regiment that fought at the Little Bighorn). And as I said, the Navy was so integrated, even in the Civil War, that they didn't even keep track of a sailor's race. They just didn't care. So historians have to estimate how many blacks served in the US Navy, anywhere from 18,000 to 30,000. And of course many army units had once been integrated long prior to the Civil War, including the soldiers who fought at Lexington and Concord. Even some of the Southern units were integrated in that war due to necessity.
No, I'm trying to convince Democrats that desegregation can work if they'd only give it a chance. It's worked before! The Navy used to be integrated. Blacks and whites living and working on the same ship, in close quarters, even in combat! The above is a photograph of the crew of the USS Monitor. In some of the areas of operation over 30 percent of the naval crews were black. Seven were awarded the Medal of Honor, which is seven more medals than blacks were awarded for all of WW-II until a 1992 study concluded "Yeah, racism." So Bill Clinton got to award seven blacks, only one of whom was still alive. As an aside, in the Civil War twenty five blacks received the Medal of Honor. Their outstanding naval service continued for fifty years. And then came Wilson, and the Navy stayed segregated for decades, and then had to desegregate to get back to that pre-Wilson era of naval tradition with integrated crews. What was the point of it all?
Have you got a link about Charles Owens? I'd be interested in reading about him. I thought that after the Civil War, Black soldiers were considered Volunteers, and therefore weren't Regular Army until The US created the segregated regiments.
Nah. My brother has Asperger's, and while he has a complete lack of social skills and can't really function in society, he is also utterly incapable of lying.
Depends where the person is on the spectrum. You can have Rain Man, Sheldon from Big Bang, and everything in between.
Maybe George actually believes the nonsense he spews, and is incapable of lying as well, but is too single-minded to realize that he's just plain wrong? Though I actually favor Tuckerfan's thinking on this.
So, the leftist diagnosis of people who became very animated when they protest how blacks were treated with injustice during the Jim Crow era are: Aspergers, mania, or just being an asshole. Are you sure you're not all Alabama Klansmen from the 1930's who just got sent forward in time? It seems Democrats are just as viciously racist now as back then, once you scratch the skin. They refuse to even tolerate an insult the honored person who threw away two generations of black lives just to satisfy his sense of white superiority. Black lives matter? Fuck no. Not to Democrats. They don't even give two shits that segregation was reinstituted and spread throughout the federal government as official policy, as long as a Democrat does it.
Oops. The name was Charles Young. No idea why I typed Owens. I've already closed most all the links I had on him. His wiki At the bottom is his Dates of Rank, and among those are the usual assignments to colored regiments (the 9th and 10th cavalry regiments), but also 1st Lieutenant, 7th Cavalry – 22 December 1896 I'd ran across a reference to him commanding whites at Fort Bliss, which is where the 7th Cavalry was stationed at that time. It was a white regiment that fought at Little Bighorn and Wounded Knee. 7th Cavalry Regiment wiki
A lot of Confederate soldiers wished Republicans would do that, but no, we forced them to free their slaves. They are still extremely bitter about it, just as they fly into a rage if anyone questions their policy of segregating the military and banning interracial marriage.
Again, no one is even suggesting that. Your beliefs, and your obvious mental defects likely have nothing to do with one another.
So you don't think there's a direct linkage between abhorring racism, segregation, white supremacy, and mental disease? Be careful or they might throw you out of the party like they did Lieberman.
He most certainly has some sort of chemical imbalance. In this case I am not actually trying to be insulting. I have met enough people like him, not to mention exploring certain substances that can give you a glimpse into that sort of person's mind, to know what one looks like. I am not even sure he knows he is lying, or perhaps part of his problem is he is compulsively lying. Guessing about the nuances from this end is really hard. It is just some of the phrases he uses and descriptions which let me know there is a certain perceptual distortion to his world view. Given he is almost always like this I am assuming it is not drug related, though he may be using. I have known a few functional outpatients who live in a perpetual state of what I would call being high. I am not talking about pot or amphetamine highs. It would be something like PCP, Ketamine, or DXM at certain levels. I would not say something like LSD either as LSD does different things. If he is like I guess, his brain has adapted to a constant state of fuck. Fuck is the best way I can describe without going into long involved details of what those people see.
And the fact he manipulates sentences like this and seems to have decent recall abilities along with cognitive understanding of things (I am not saying that those are correct, just that they exist) he is probably autistic to some extent. It is probably that bit of autism that makes him functional. His brain probably spends a lot of energy and effort rounding up thoughts.
Yep. Liberals are certain that opposing race-based human slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation is some kind of serious mental disorder. Or perhaps, just perhaps, revulsion of what race-based human slavery actually was, and how blacks were chained and whipped and sold as chattel, makes Republicans, and black Republicans, so energized that they're willing to join Army units by the millions and withstand .58 caliber rifle fire to put an end to the evils of it. But, like Democrats back then, you think institutional racism, segregation, support for the KKK, banning blacks from jobs, paying them less than whites as federal policy, and making interracial marriage a felony, well, all that is just no big deal. Sign of the times. Everyone believes in it. Racism is just the way things are. Woodrow Wilson was a great man, a progressive man. And you think Republicans are the real racists because you hear a dog whistle. Jesus.
Well, at least you folks aren't opposed to white racism. Not sure on the mental disorder, but what I suspect is denial and groupthink. Points in this thread: The Democrat party never purged the segregationists from their ranks. They continued to celebrate them as Democrat heroes. Even former Grand Kleagles. There was obviously no party switching or the thread's staunch Republican wouldn't be arguing so vehemently against the evils of Jim Crow that the thread's Democrats are suggesting various forms of mental illness, while they provide a continual stream of excuses as to how the architects of segregation should still be esteemed heroes in the Democrat party, and indeed to all of America. If they weren't racists, there's absolutely no way I could cleverly trick them into arguing in support of such positions. There was obviously no great party switch in the 60's, which is recent Democrat mythology only cooked up when the South finally started voting for Republicans. The South was never entirely racist, and indeed 30 percent of Tennessee voted against secession. The fighting against slavery was most intense in Tennessee, Kentucky, and the Carolinas by staunch local Republicans - who were always there - voting Republican and killing Confederates. My family was among them. The feelings are still intense and bitter. Democrats continue to celebrate abject racists, even Hillary Clinton, who said: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.” She said this because Democrats won't dare talk about the history of racism among their vaunted heroes, so she probably has no idea. Margaret Sanger was a leader in the eugenics movement and wanted to virtually eliminate the black population. She gave talks at Klu Klux Klan rallies that were warmly received. She bragged about it, saying "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” That was in 1926. As a result 60,000 Americans were sterilized against their will. ThinkProgress wants to put her on US currency. That's the kind of shit that happens when the party doesn't engage in any introspection about its past, which Democrats can't really do because it's so heinous. It's much, much easier for them to just blame everything on Republicans, especially all the shit down by Democrats.
Again, we're pretty sure your mental illness has nothing to do with how others feel about racial issues. However, it likely has some bearing on your inability to accept reality. None of us here believe that those who oppose white racism are mentally defective; just you. We think that you're crazier than a shithouse rat, and hope that someday you'll get the very... special kind of care that you so obviously need and deserve. Or kill yourself. Many of us would be fine with that too.
No, I'm adamant that those who oppose white racism are not mentally defective. I suppose what has you all perplexed is that you've never actually talked to someone who actually opposes white racism, in the bones and to the depths of their soul. You've just met fellow Democrats who snicker and pretend to oppose it because it tricks people into voting for you, such as fellow latte sipping liberals. They may flap their gums all day about how they oppose racism, but there's no there there. They might as well be talking about how they oppose mullets or spiked heels. When the Republicans said they opposed slavery, they opposed it in their bones. They joined army units and stared slaughter in the face, and they kept doing it over and over again. They marched for weeks and died in droves, and still they kept fighting to free the slaves, marching through entire states and foraging off the land if necessary. That is conviction, matched only by the conviction with which Democrats fought to preserve white supremacy and race based human bondage. Pretty much this whole thread exists because you all insist that it was the Republicans who are the racists. That all the segregationist Democrats became Republican and all the anti-racist Republicans became Democrats, which is laughably wrong. The reason that didn't happen is that the Democrat party never purged itself of segregationists. They were just given a pass. The reason that happened is that the segregationists, led by Lyndon Johnson, knew the winds were shifting and that segregation was going to be stopped, one way or another, and they could either politically die in its downfall or take advantage of it. Of course they decided to profit by it, and part of the deal is that no segregationists should lose their jobs, their privileges, their power, or their seniority on a host of committees, because most of them had a great, great deal of seniority. That meant that the post-Civil Rights Era Democrat party couldn't dare question the segregationists, or undercut them, or impugn that perhaps they were RACISTS. That would implode the Democrat party and undoubtedly result in Republicans winning all across the South in the 1970's, stripping the Democrat party of its majority status. So they didn't do that, and segregationists like Fritz Hollings stayed in office until 2005. As a result of all this 'not questioning' their own membership, they also couldn't question the racial positions of Democrat heroes like Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and many others. What they could do was chant, a lot, about how they were the anti-racism party, offer blacks lots of welfare benefits (which trapped blacks in poverty and destroyed the black family), while daring Republicans to top their offers. There was no way Republicans would do that, because they don't believe in putting people on the dole or destroying families. So the Republicans were denounced as racist meanies and beaten over the head until they were afraid to vote "no" on just about any proposal the Democrats put forward on the subject. Once the South was lost to Democrats under Bush and Obama, the Democrats didn't even care anymore and denounced the entire region as a vast swamp of racist Republicans, whereas it had been a swamp of racist segregationists under Democrats, and had just been a thriving little happy place under former Democrat segregationists. Not content with just a few delusions, Democrats now keep trying to blame the Republicans for Jim Crow, and a few liberal writers occasionally fuck up and claim the Confederates were Republicans. Oopsie. All Republicans know this stuff. But Democrats never talk to Republicans, much less black ones. They get all their information over lattes at Starbucks, from other delusional hipsters, which always of course confirms what their hippie college professors told them. Here, try the top Youtube hit for "black Republican" There are tons. Of course you'll denounce them as racists, or maybe you'll claim they suffer from mental disorders or drug abuse.
No, I'm adamant that those who oppose white racism are not mentally defective. I suppose what has you all perplexed is that you've never actually talked to someone who actually opposes white racism, in the bones and to the depths of their soul. You've just met fellow Democrats who snicker and pretend to oppose it because it tricks people into voting for you, such as fellow latte sipping liberals. They may flap their gums all day about how they oppose racism, but there's no there there. They might as well be talking about how they oppose mullets or spiked heels. When the Republicans said they opposed slavery, they opposed it in their bones. They joined army units and stared slaughter in the face, and they kept doing it over and over again. They marched for weeks and died in droves, and still they kept fighting to free the slaves, marching through entire states and foraging off the land if necessary. That is conviction, matched only by the conviction with which Democrats fought to preserve white supremacy and race based human bondage. Pretty much this whole thread exists because you all insist that it was the Republicans who are the racists. That all the segregationist Democrats became Republican and all the anti-racist Republicans became Democrats, which is laughably wrong. The reason that didn't happen is that the Democrat party never purged itself of segregationists. They were just given a pass. The reason that happened is that the segregationists, led by Lyndon Johnson, knew the winds were shifting and that segregation was going to be stopped, one way or another, and they could either politically die in its downfall or take advantage of it. Of course they decided to profit by it, and part of the deal is that no segregationists should lose their jobs, their privileges, their power, or their seniority on a host of committees, because most of them had a great, great deal of seniority. That meant that the post-Civil Rights Era Democrat party couldn't dare question the segregationists, or undercut them, or impugn that perhaps they were RACISTS. That would implode the Democrat party and undoubtedly result in Republicans winning all across the South in the 1970's, stripping the Democrat party of its majority status. So they didn't do that, and segregationists like Fritz Hollings stayed in office until 2005. As a result of all this 'not questioning' their own membership, they also couldn't question the racial positions of Democrat heroes like Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, and many others. What they could do was chant, a lot, about how they were the anti-racism party, offer blacks lots of welfare benefits (which trapped blacks in poverty and destroyed the black family), while daring Republicans to top their offers. There was no way Republicans would do that, because they don't believe in putting people on the dole or destroying families. So the Republicans were denounced as racist meanies and beaten over the head until they were afraid to vote "no" on just about any proposal the Democrats put forward on the subject. Once the South was lost to Democrats under Bush and Obama, the Democrats didn't even care anymore and denounced the entire region as a vast swamp of racist Republicans, whereas it had been a swamp of racist segregationists under Democrats, and had just been a thriving little happy place under former Democrat segregationists. Not content with just a few delusions, Democrats now keep trying to blame the Republicans for Jim Crow, and a few liberal writers occasionally fuck up and claim the Confederates were Republicans. Oopsie. All Republicans know this stuff. But Democrats never talk to Republicans, much less black ones. They get all their information over lattes at Starbucks, from other delusional hipsters, which always of course confirms what their hippie college professors told them. Here, try the top Youtube hit for "black Republican" There are tons. Of course you'll denounce them as racists, or maybe you'll claim they suffer from mental disorders or drug abuse. ETA: Here's another good one, and he hits on just about all the points I've been making. Is he Asbergers? Divorced from reality? Should blacks who question Democrat benevolence and the false Democrat narrative be put in mental institutions?
Then thank you for noting that virtually all Liberals are not mentally defective, because we do indeed oppose it. So much so that morons like yourself often accuse us of racism towards whites. Still, your statement proves that you're once again laboring under the erroneous impression that correlation somehow implies causation, and your inability to grasp this simple concept pretty much confirms that you're a few bricks shy of having both oars nailed down™.
What Gdumbass is talking about is to some extent true. Democrat racism is much more systematic. Though I would not call what dems do racism, I would call it classism. It just happens there are a bunch of brown people on the bottom. There is a welfare trap here in america, and it is actually getting worse now that companies have started to hire based upon credit rating and money over skill. It is a very nuanced way of making a huge gap where you cannot survive between welfare and working or your own business. It has the effect of keeping blacks down more than others because the family safety net is often weak for blacks. Immigrants tend to pool resources to get over that gap, but this is an area where black people, for a number of reasons, have not done as a community as much as others. I will agree with him that it is deliberate and systemic. It is their poor voting block. Of course here is where the split comes. The republicans are not a solution to this as they are doing the same thing only using some different methodology. Gshitforbrains has gotten a part of a reason that dems are bad. Then he uses that to pretend everything else he says is true which it isn't. It is like the argument christians love to use that the bible tells of history because it describes real towns and people who have existed. Of course as we all know if that were true we would have sparkly emo vampires in the northwest and italy, and you could run through a certain brick wall at a london train station and get to hogwarts. He is bringing up a serious and true issue, but it is @gturner so it is going to get fucked up.
If you oppose racism, why are you all stridently defending Woodrow Wilson's record on race? That's right up there with Jefferson Davis's record. And if both your oars are nailed down then you're up the creek without a paddle, because oars have to pivot. This message brought to you by "badMetaphors.com"
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/05/14/top-10-racist-states-america/ Isn't it amazing how all of the most racist states are southern and vote Republican?
We are?!? Pretty all of us have declared him to be a indeed be racist, but nevertheless far less of one than was common for the time. Certainly less of a racist than most any of his conservative counterparts.
Isn't it amazing how they weren't racist just 18 years earlier when Democrats held all but one of 13 Southern states? What happened? Well, you see earlier generations that grew up under Jim Crow and segregation were dying off, and the new voters were raised on TV sitcoms of the 2000's, and... Oh wait. That's actually a map of people who Tweeted that Obama won and used an racial epithet like the N word. Holy smokes, it's a map of where black people live.
Significant changes occurred in the political landscape, in the form of a polar -shift in party platforms that you're mentally incapable of perceiving or accepting.
