RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parry writes: "The real question is not what policy concessions the Tea Partiers may extract, but rather can a determined right-wing white minority ensure continuation of white supremacy in the United States?"

File photo, U.S. Capitol building. (photo: file)
File photo, U.S. Capitol building. (photo: file)

The White Man's Last Tantrum

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

06 October 13


merican pundits are missing the bigger point about the Republican shutdown of the U.S. government and the GOP’s threatened default on America’s credit. The real question is not what policy concessions the Tea Partiers may extract, but rather can a determined right-wing white minority ensure continuation of white supremacy in the United States?

For years, political scientists have been talking about how the demographic changes in the United States are inexorably leading to a Democratic majority, with Hispanics and Asian-Americans joining African-Americans and liberal urban whites to erode the political domains of white conservatives and white racists.

But those predictions have always assumed a consistent commitment to the democratic principle of one person, one vote – and a readiness of Republicans to operate within the traditional standards of democratic governance. But what should now be crystal clear is that those assumptions are faulty.

Instead of accepting the emergence of this more diverse and multi-cultural America, the Right – through the Tea Party-controlled Republicans – has decided to alter the constitutional framework of the United States to guarantee the perpetuation of white supremacy and the acceptance of right-wing policies.

In effect, we are seeing the implementation of a principle enunciated by conservative thinker William F. Buckley in 1957: “The white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” Except now the Buckley rule is being applied nationally.

A Nationwide Strategy

This reality is hard to deny even though much of the U.S. political elite remains in denial. But the truth is apparent in a host of anti-democratic moves that have emanated from the lily-white Tea Party and that have been implemented by the predominantly white Republican Party at both the state and federal levels.

It’s there in the nationwide campaign to impose “ballot security” by requiring photo IDs for voting to cure the virtually non-existent problem of in-person voting fraud. The well-documented result of requiring photo IDs will be to reduce the number of urban minority voters who are less likely to have driver’s licenses and other approved identification.

It’s there in the reduction of voting hours, which — when combined with disproportionately fewer (and less efficient) voting booths in poor and minority areas — guarantees long lines and further skews the political power to wealthier white areas. In the pivotal election of 2000, we saw how this combination of factors in Florida suppressed the vote for Al Gore and handed the White House to the national vote loser George W. Bush.

It’s there in the sophisticated gerrymandering that Republican statehouses have applied to congressional districts around the country by lumping minorities and other Democratic voters together in one deformed district so other districts have comfortable Republican majorities.

This gerrymandering – now aided by computer models to remove any guesswork – played an important role in maintaining the current Republican “majority” in the House of Representatives even though congressional Republicans lost the national popular vote in 2012 by about 1½ million votes.

Congressional Tactics

The Right’s anti-democratic strategy is there, too, in the endless use of Republican filibusters in the U.S. Senate. Because of compromises made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, some of this anti-democratic bias was built into the system (from a deal to assure the small states that they would not be overwhelmed by the large states under the Constitution, which concentrated power in the federal government).

Except for that long-ago compromise, there is no logical reason why the 240,000 registered voters in Wyoming should have the same number of senators as the 18 million registered voters in California. (Or why the 400,000 registered voters in the District of Columbia should have none.)

However, this violation of democracy’s one-person, one-vote principle is exacerbated in the U.S. Senate when Republicans filibuster even minor bills and demand that Democrats muster 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate to proceed. That means that a handful of lightly populated states can block legislative action favored by large majorities of the American people, such as requiring background checks on gun-show purchasers.

Republicans also have found endless excuses to deny congressional voting rights to Washington DC residents. You can probably guess what color skin many DC citizens have and what political party they favor.

The New Jim Crow

If you step back and take a look at this ugly landscape, what you will see is something akin to a new Jim Crow system, a sickening reprise of what happened the last time white supremacists saw their political and cultural dominance threatened in the years after the Civil War.

In the late 1860s and 1870s, the two parties were on the opposite sides of the racial-equality issue. Then, the Republicans pressed for a reconstruction of the South to assure civil rights for blacks. However, the Democrats, the old party of slavery, acted to frustrate, sabotage and ultimately defeat those efforts.

What the United States then got was nearly a century of racial segregation across large swaths of the country although most egregious in the South. It was not until the 1960s when the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson broke with the old traditions of collaborating with the Old Confederacy. These new Democrats instead supported civil rights legislation pushed by Martin Luther King Jr. and other advocates for racial equality.

However, opportunistic Republicans, such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, saw an opening to flip the electoral map by snaking away the South’s resentful white racists from the Democrats and locking them into the Republican Party. The maneuver – cloaked in coded messages about states’ rights and hostility toward the federal government – proved astoundingly successful.

Still, the white supremacists faced a politically existential problem. They were demographically fading from their historic dominance, steadily replaced in numbers by Hispanics, Asian-Americans and blacks as well as by younger whites who viewed racial bigotry as a disgusting residue from the age-old crimes of slavery and segregation.

Countering Demographics

So what to do? Right-wing billionaires helped by pouring in vast sums to create a powerful right-wing propaganda machine, an ideological media unparalleled in American history. The loud voices and angry words from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch whipped up white grievances, but – as the election and reelection of African-American Barack Obama showed – more was needed.

The votes of non-whites and the young needed to be suppressed via manipulated election rules; the use of scientific gerrymandering had to be expanded to further devalue Democratic votes; obstructionism in Congress had to become the rule, not the exception.

Finally, it became clear that a de facto transformation of the constitutional system was needed to prevent the rule of this emerging – and “undeserving” – majority. Thus, government by extortion became the ultimate solution. [See’s “America’s Government by Extortion.”]

By using the Republican House and its gerrymandered “majority” to prevent votes on straightforward bills to pay for the government and raise the debt ceiling, the Tea Party is now testing whether the majority of the nation can be coerced into accepting the demands of a right-wing minority through threats of economic calamity.

Even some Republicans seem confused about their short-term goals. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Indiana, declared, “we’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

But the message that the Tea Party Republicans are delivering to the nation is that if the American people insist on electing Democratic presidents or enacting federal legislation to “promote the general Welfare,” the Tea Party will respond by making the economy scream. The economic dislocations from a credit default alone could be so severe that millions of people will be thrown out of work and out of their homes.

The implicit warning is that you will suffer that fate — you may be driven into poverty — if you don’t let whites continue to rule. Or as the urbane William Buckley put it, you must let whites “prevail, politically and culturally.”

An Unthinkable Idea?

For those Americans who recoil at this scenario – and think it must be unthinkable in the Twenty-First Century – they should remember their history. In the 1870s, racist whites – especially in the South but also in many parts of the North – refused to accept post-Civil War amendments that guaranteed equal rights and voting rights for blacks.

Through connivance and violence, the racist whites prevailed and it took nearly a century – and much more bloodshed – to reverse their victories. What America is witnessing today is the next phase of that war for white supremacy. Well-meaning people should not be too cavalier about the outcome.

The Tea Party-induced government shutdown and the upcoming extortion demands over the debt ceiling may indeed turn out to be the white man’s last tantrum – but this extremist strategy of mayhem and extortion could also be the inauguration of a grim new era of Jim Crow. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+95 # DaveM 2013-10-06 13:19
An excellent step toward "moving on" would be the retirement of the term "Obamacare". Originally coined as an insult, then turned back on those who created it, it has now outlived its use as anything but a pejorative. Let's call the program by its proper name and leave the name-calling to those who appear capable of nothing else.
+91 # Scott Galindez 2013-10-06 13:25
Its actually a brilliant move by Obama to own the name....

When it succeeds the tea party can not take the credit away from him...
+28 # mickeynow 2013-10-06 18:33
You have to admit that the repubes are much better at coining catch phrases than the democrats. People love emotional things like that rather than factual information. It's where the democrats fall down and what makes it so tough to make sensible progress.
+32 # SenorN 2013-10-07 01:20
Yes, calling the inheritance tax a "death tax" was a perfect example of Republicans' taking advantage of this emotional element.

They really blew it with "Obamacare" though.
I love thinking that my great-grandchil dren will call it that as they gratefully remember that they have our first multi-racial president to thank for it.
+12 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-10-08 00:15
Think the problem with the Democrats is they simply lack critical vision. They fail to see how ruthless the Republicans are in their war against the poor and the middle class. To effectively do something, one has to see who the enemy really is.
+15 # Quickmatch 2013-10-06 19:59
Of course you are absolutely correct about the name being turned against its coiners from the right. The sense of your point is so powerful that one must wonder why anyone on the left would wish it retired? When one's enemy offers one a club, will one readily hand it back simply because it is stained with the enemy's blood. And won't the enemy then become desperate to convince one that the club has outlived its use and should be abandoned? In short, I wonder which side on the fence you stand and for whom you plead?
+25 # Quickmatch 2013-10-06 20:16
Buckley's maxim seems to be self defeating. If it is true that a right-wing white minority is entitled to take measures to prevail, it must follow that the ever-shrinking minority must at some point extend its entitlement to violent confiscation of power, thereby destroynig the very core of the democratic republic that it claims to hold dear. That brings it up against the full force and power of the Constitution and of a vast majority that the right has ensured the power of the Second Amendment. The minority cannot win; it can only delay the change and doing so winds the mainspring of retribution which will eventually unwind with disasterous results in proportion to the length of the delay. After that the right-wing white majority will exist only in the pages of history. The only salvation is for you right-white frightened folks to swallow your misplaced pride, salve your fears and teach you children better than your parents taught you.
0 # LinearBob 2013-10-09 18:31
These folks are not necessarily losing. Please read David Sirota's column about how the "right" has already "won". Here is a link to his column.
+31 # California Neal 2013-10-06 21:09
Now that Obama & the Democrats have co-opted the term, it's not a pejorative (unless you count when opponents say it with an insulting tone). Obama & allies should continue to say it with pride, which makes it useless as a pejorative, as well as calling it by its proper name. Back in the day, I was a long-haired leftie hippie, & we were branded as "freaks." When we started to call ourselves freaks & wore the term with pride, it became useless as an insult.
+78 # Scott Galindez 2013-10-06 13:23
100% agree with Robert Perry here...

I know many tea party followers are not racist or at least overtly racist. However the organization was started by and is still controlled by racists.
+16 # Glen 2013-10-06 16:46
The Tea Party did not originate with the folks who now control it. The Koch brothers et al., move straight in and took it over, turning it into a "party". It was originally a number of folks who were dissatisfied with conditions and the machinations of the government and wanted to make their disapproval known.

There is no doubt many of the original group have departed due to the takeover.
+20 # 2013-10-06 17:27
Also on the point "can a determined right-wing white minority ensure continuation of white supremacy in the United States?"

They aren't merely White bullying USA they are "WASP" bullying the World.
+124 # Nell H 2013-10-06 13:37
I live in South Carolina and it is racist, racist, racist to its core.

Much of the opposition to President Obama is because he is black (at least, part black). They hate him with an unreasoning hatred because he is black.

The opposition to Affordable Care is that the Tea Party are unwilling to support anything supported by our President.
+79 # Sisddwg 2013-10-06 14:33
Nell H
You are exactly correct. I was born in the Deep South in 1939 and lived there for 65 years. It is as narrow minded, and racist as ever. That is the core of much of the troubles!
+45 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 16:22
I live in Florida and it's the same here. The opposition to Affordable Care here is because the racist cretins here aren't going to be "Bossed around by no N word (meaning black man)." Even a substantial majority the ones who supposedly moved here from Northern states for retirement.
+12 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-10-06 17:30
Republicans promote the bible. The bible does not promote blacks. At some point lots of uneducated Americans will realize that some writings of the bible were written by and promulgated by those who possibly smoked too much weed. Am I sorry? No, I'm not sorry if I offended any of the RSN readers. I personally do love "The Sermon On The Mount." Why? Because The Sermon On The Mount makes sense.
+9 # mjc 2013-10-07 10:40
Your first sentence is correct; however, the Bible promoted a group, a religious group in the Middle East with slightly darker brown skins from their Semite heritage, and a group which/who usually was at odds with a more white skin colored group from the north, with a culture at odds with those Semites, spreading an empire mostly emanating from Rome. The fellows who wrote the Bible were rather ethnocentric as well although Paul was perhaps more of an exception. What was transformative was the philosophy, teachings of the leader and ultimate icon, Jesus Christ. He seemed to look far beyond skin color in each and every person, into what some would call character.
+4 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-10-07 18:21
One reference I use and while I'm not a fan of the bible, particularly the Old Testament, there is reference to the "Curse Of Cain." Most lkkely, someone was smoking too much weed when it was decided that, Cain was a "target." Frankly, it appears to me in my senior age, the bible, and other similar "holy books" of other religions may be the cause of most of mankind's misfortunes. I'll stick with Ben Franklin's idea:society moves forward based on individual and collective virtue.
+1 # pernsey 2013-10-10 05:07
Exactly Nell, and the fact that Fox news puts out so much disinformation about Pres. Obama that is literally just made up nonsense and spin to make him look bad. Shame on these people...honest ly. They just keep the hatred going!
+53 # Nell H 2013-10-06 13:39
What can be done to force the House membership to actually represent the people? Are there any red states that are willing to do an honest job of redistricting?
+43 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-06 15:45
That's not going to happen. People in the red states choose to have far right, racist maggots represent them, even if said maggots are dumber than s**t. All you have to do is to check out people like Steve King of Iowa, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and Arizona's Trent Franks and Matt Salmon to see what I'm talking about. The people of the districts represented by the folks continue to reelect them irregardless of the idiocy that spews from their mouths. So, if you think there's a way of getting legislative districts structured to represent the majority of people within a state, you're dreaming.
+10 # mickeynow 2013-10-06 18:35
Lots of dreaming.
+10 # bingers 2013-10-06 19:07
Quoting Nell H:
What can be done to force the House membership to actually represent the people? Are there any red states that are willing to do an honest job of redistricting?

Simple answer, NO!
+21 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 19:53
Quoting Nell H:
Are there any red states that are willing to do an honest job of redistricting?

NO! They are busy refighting the Civil War and these "sons and daughters of the old South" do not intend to lose this time around. Remember, to them the Civil War was never really over. They are true believers that "the South will rise again" and they will do whatever it takes to ensure that their beloved fantasy of the "quaint" and "genteel" South is restored.

OBTW someone commented that Texas isn't really "the South." I beg to differ with you. It was part of the Confederacy during the last Civil War and certainly elects politicians who are leading it back down that crooked path today. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, one is usually safe in assuming it IS A DUCK! Sadly, Even many Texas Democrats seem overly enamored with the old mythologized South.

It's easy to fall in love with the image of old Southern plantations, hoop skirts and cotillion balls, when you see yourself as the one sitting on the front porch of Tara, drinking mint juleps and watching the "help" work the fields. Unfortunately, that image was only a fantasy for all but the wealthiest. Most of the rest of the denizens of the South at that time were literally dirt poor share croppers and marginally successful business owners who were allowed to subsist out of the "benevolence" of the landed gentry.
0 # LinearBob 2013-10-09 18:37

Here is David Sirota's column seconding your opinion about the Civil War and the Old South:
+75 # Regina 2013-10-06 13:50
As the author shows, the Civil War did not end. It continued into the 20th century with segregation, lynching, and poll taxes, and merely morphed into today's voter restriction laws. The separation isn't as simple or neat as the old Mason-Dixon Line, but the record of actions taking place in Republican-majo rity states is clearly one of destruction to democracy.
+4 # Glen 2013-10-06 15:57
The deep south is a mix. Atlanta became a hub of commerce and growth. Other areas remained as always. The south initially were democrats, which is the origin of the KKK and other groups that persecuted more than just blacks. The oldest generation continues old style male dominance, but that is dying with that oldest generation.

U.S. government and the media have continued the prejudice against the deep south, without mentioning the sneak attacks from states that are not even close to the south. Hell, even South Dakota burned black kids when whites attempted to teach them to read.

I knew blacks in the south (yes, I was born in Birmingham and have relatives still in the south) who moved north and then back south because they realized the prejudice in the north would come from unexpected sources. In the south it was well defined.

Check issues state by state, rather than region. Oh, and by the bye, Texas is not considered south.
+16 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-06 19:41
The reason the South became the Solid South, true-blue Democrat, was that Lincoln was a Republican. It's not that Southerners supported liberal points of view. To the contrary, they were and are extremely conservative. In fact, today's southern legislators are actually reactionary, wanting to return the South to the days of slavery, "whites only" restaurants, water fountains, swimming pools, and restrooms. The problems white Southerners face were and are all caused by people of color, homosexuals, and them damned Northern liberals. According to Southerners, they are all patriots who are true Christians, even though they'd shun Jesus Christ for his liberal views and even though they don't follow his teachings of do unto others and whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. As for Texas, you're right, it's not the South, it's worse. African-America ns are fine if they're on your football teams, but there aren't any Mexicans who would be welcome at your barbeque.
+18 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 20:06
Oh yes, here we go again with that right wing rant regarding false equivalencies.

It's just that bad old U.S. Government and the media beating up on those poor states in the deep South.

YOU "knew blacks in the south" ... doesn't matter where you were going with this, it's is a standard southern way of beginning their fantasy tales about minorities, welfare cheats, what ever else is/was undesirable. It ranks right up there with "I had lots of black friends who..."

Oh, and Texas was part of the Confederacy and continues to elect US Senators and Representatives and state governors who are among the most racist and misogynistic in the country. I suppose you would like to spin it that Texas is really more Western than Southern. Dry that out and we can fertilize the lawn with it.

Again, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck we are probably safe in assuming it's a duck
-3 # Glen 2013-10-07 06:05
Madmedic, did you have black friends in the deep south during the civil rights era? I did. It doesn't matter "where I was going with this" it wasn't my intent to defend my friendship with blacks or justify an attitude. Those friends did attempt to leave to find that prejudice exists where they were led to believe does not exist. They were misled and so moved back to be close to friends and family.

Yes, the government and the media, corporations, all developed methods to keep the U.S. citizenry divided, and it has succeeded. That began under Reagan and was perfected with each new administration. A citizenship in harmony is a dangerous concept. Extreme political machinations are encouraged.

It does not matter what Texas politics is, that state is not a part of the deep south. Their style is all their own.

I am neither left or right, Republican or Democrat. It is obvious that blind loyalty to either can prevent folks seeing the big picture. Not to mention reading carefully.
+9 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 10:02
Glen, whenever I hear or read someone saying they had black friends it reminds me of Lenny Bruce's "How To Make Your Black Friends Comfortable at Parties." "Yep, that Willie Mays was sure one hell of a ball player, and that Joe Louis sure could fight. All you people can dance." Sound familiar? Racism exists everywhere. it's just the target of the racism that changes.
+3 # Glen 2013-10-07 12:48
Oh come on now. My friends that are black are black. Not white, green, or in-between. They know it, I know it, and who cares. I've been called whitey, honky, and all manner of names by my black friends. Who cares. There is nothing condescending in recognizing a person's color, just as there is nothing unusual about noticing when someone is extremely beautiful or extremely fat.

Physical identification is not racist unless used derogatorily as a bigoted remark among others of the same ilk. Don't carry that maudlin sensitivity so far that it renders all people as condescending as you sound.
+3 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 10:06
I don't know what happened to my other response to this, but you're dead wrong. Saying there is nothing condescending in recognizing a person's color with derogatory titles such as split and chuck - terms used in Vietnam to denote blacks and whites, as well as your whitey, honky, etc, or in saying someone's fat or ugly is downright ridiculous. Physical ID is racist and/or sexist and it's not maudlin sensitivity when you call it that. If your words make someone uncomfortable and you continue to use them, it shows that you are the insensitive one.
-2 # Glen 2013-10-08 13:12
Physical characteristics are a reality and noticing them is not insensitive or bigotry. I was not referring to derogatory titles, but a reality of what is physically obvious. You did not read me as noting these physical characteristics with derision or anything close. Is saying a person is handsome or beautiful or plain banned from description or bigotry? No it is noticing these things. I am not blind and mentioning means nothing but description. You would benefit from not being overly sensitive and defensive until you understand a person's true intent.

My actual words, had you read carefully, were: Physical identification is not racist unless used derogatorily as a bigoted remark among others of the same ilk. NOT "there is condescending.. ."
+9 # Rain17 2013-10-06 21:19
Glen, I don't think that you should have gotten negative ratings for your post. While I don't agree with everything you wrote here, you do have a point that racism exits outside the Deep South. During the civil rights era there were racial flashpoints in places like Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, LA, and other cities outside of the south.
0 # Glen 2013-10-07 05:45
Exactly, Rain17.
-24 # Glen 2013-10-06 16:01
Oh, and the "Civil War" was truly The War Between the States. Initially, it had nothing to do with slavery, but rather states' rights. Missouri and Kansas were not part of the south but carried on the "war" long after it was "over". And NEVER forget the decimation of states in the south by northern military and carpet baggers and all who exploited all they could.

Nothing is simple or as the myths implied by the media, schools, and the government politicos.
+14 # Nominae 2013-10-06 20:23
Quoting Glen:
the "Civil War" was truly The War Between the States. Initially, it had nothing to do with slavery, but rather states' rights....

Yeah... this kind of neo-Confederate canard is quite likely what you were taught growing up.

As for having "nothing to do with slavery", you need look no further than the words on record of the very people who *DID* the seceding from the Union in the first place, State by State .

The Secession Statements are *STILL* a matter of public record, and they make it PLAIN that the Secession is about one thing, and one thing only. Preservation of Slavery for Black people, the engine of the Southern economic system, and preservation of what they called the "Southern Way of Life". (Aristocracy uber alles )

And so, modern neo-Confederate s now know more about the causes and cases than the very people who actually SECEDED ?

Do a little research. It makes one look so much better informed.

What is true is that the NORTH did not originally enter the War to end slavery. The South, however *DID* secede in order to preserve Slavery, and in those days, far from being afraid to say so, they proudly proclaimed from the rooftops ! Again, research is your friend.

As for the damage incurred by war, any war, we need reach no further than the truth of the old adage "Don't start a fight that you can't finish".
+2 # Glen 2013-10-07 05:44
There is such a need to find fault and declare regionalism in every argument that one must put on the brakes, which is what I was attempting.

I have no loyalty to the south, not that it is necessary to defend my comments. I left because of the issues, but found racism and bigotry everywhere I lived, including California, Miami, Boston, and so on. My comments were to remind folks that slavery was common in a great many areas, including the north and none wanted to relinquish that possession. None. Part of the lingering attitude in the south is due to how much all citizens were punished during that hideous war. Much of the south was burned to the ground. As in the Middle East, it takes centuries to recover and many populations never do.

The south made decisions according to their economic success, not to "start a fight that you can't finish". The NORTH disagreed. The "fight" had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln declared it to be after the attacks had already begun. The south wanted trade with France. The north wasn't going for it. Resources in the south fed industry in the north.

What is your attitude toward states that today are behaving badly and wishing to suppress women's rights, blacks, hispanics, and more?
+5 # Nominae 2013-10-07 19:37
Quoting Glen:

The "fight" had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln declared it to be after the attacks had already begun. The south wanted trade with France. The north wasn't going for it. Resources in the south fed industry in the north.

So, this is tired old propaganda ploy of simply *repeating* a lie until you hear no objection ?

You are simply, and demonstrably WRONG in your statement above.

The demonstrated TRUTH is STILL contained in the National Achives in the form of the Formal Announcements of Secession
submitted to the Federal Government BY the then leaders OF the seceding States describing *EXACTLY* WHY they were seceding. And THEY clearly knew that they were doing so to *preserve* Slavery, because they *directly SAID so* !

This FACT, previously mentioned by me, and assiduously ignored by you, contains PROOF that the preservation of Slavery was the Official Southern causus belli of the Civil War.

So, as long as you continue to insist upon living in a "fact-free Zone", your comments are thereby exposed as simple minded revisionist propaganda, totally rebutted by the proof in the National Archives, which were written in the actual time period, BY the people actually DOING the Seceding, and available still to anyone who can read.

Your Chinese water torture "drip-drip-drip " technique of repeating the same tired lies will get *some* traction here on RSN, but you could make out like a propaganda BANDIT on streams like yahoo.
+4 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 10:13
Nominae, yes, for the Southern states it was about slavery. But you miss some of the other truths. Slavery was about economics and that was why the North was pushing the South so hard to get rid of slavery, Most of the cotton mills were in the North and they made a mint making cloth. When English investors decided to make deals with Southerners to build mills in the south, the North couldn't have any of that, so Northerners began attacking slavery and the South, even though slavery had existed in the North and racist views were quite prevalent there. Don't forget the hangings in New York City when New Yorkers against the Civil War went after blacks because it was their fault the war had to occur. You can pick and choose facts, but the truth is, both sides were wrong in the 1860s. I hate trying to defend Glen (although I think he's doing a decent job), but racism is racism. I've lived all over the U.S. and I've found it everywhere. I'm from Guam and wherever we've lived in the continental U.S., we've found racism from people who couldn't accept the color of our skin, our different facial features, our height, whatever. It's changing, but it still exists and the only people I've found who say it doesn't are fools.
0 # Glen 2013-10-07 12:52
Nicely put,bigkahuna67 1. Racism and bigotry is worldwide. Some folks should visit Peru and watch the semi-slavery of indians in areas. Watch as those indians are carrying loads up steep steps from the river boats that should have been shared among at least 5 people.

You have experienced it first hand in the U.S.
+2 # Nominae 2013-10-07 18:52
Quoting bigkahuna671:
Nominae, yes, for the Southern states it was about slavery.

Your entire response is a truly great comment, even tho it has not the slightest thing to do with the discussion I was having with Glen.

So keep the good work coming, even when its a bit off subject.
+3 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 21:51
Nominae, I was referring to your statements of secession that are in the National Archives. While those statements exist as a historical record, they are only a part of the record of events that led to the Civil War. The statements in and of themselves are not the sole factor that led to war and shouldn't be used as an excuse to place all the blame for the war on the backs and necks of Southerners. All that said, Southerners should have grown up and let all that racist crap go. Quit punishing the rest of the country for your losing that war and start assuming your role as part of a solidified nation, not a fractured one. It seems that the people you elect to national office invariably are trying to drive the people of our country further and further apart.
+5 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 20:40
Quoting Glen:
Oh, and the "Civil War" was truly The War Between the States. Initially, it had nothing to do with slavery, but rather states' rights. Missouri and Kansas were not part of the south but carried on the "war" long after it was "over". And NEVER forget the decimation of states in the south by northern military and carpet baggers and all who exploited all they could.

And many in MO and KS still side with the racist right wing reps. of the new South. Doesn't make them right

As for me, the "northern carpet baggers and all who exploited all they could" didn't do nearly enough to the "educate and reform" the unrepentant South, as they still revere the "stars and bars" just as their neo Nazi brethren in Germany continue to shout seig heil(sp?)and revere the Nazi swastika.

BTW your choice to capitalize the word NEVER in "never forget" tells even the casual reader of your rant where your real loyalties lie.

Of course, you had to conclude your fantasy with shots at 1. the media, 2. schools, 3.government (politicos).

Aw gee, the whole media, the educational system and the political system of the United States is against the poor little old maligned South!!! Cry me a river. It's painfully obvious why you and your modern day simpleton Confederate compatriots get no sympathy and no respect from me and most other true Americans..
0 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 10:20
Madmedic, Northern carpetbaggers weren't trying to reeducate anyone in the South. They were there to make money, plain and simple. The ways they went about it helped to contribute to the long-lasting hatred for Northerners to this day. That doesn't forgive the neo-Nazi stylings of many Southerners, it just goes to show they're not the only guilty parties to this age-old dilemma. South Carolina's state flag is an abomination, but it's an example of that hatred and they can't lie their way out of that one. At the same time, racial profiling by NYC cops (and copied by people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, albeit against people of another color) and cops in LA shows racism is just as alive and well there as in the South.
0 # Salus Populi 2013-10-13 08:15
As with everything, nuances get lost in the scuffle. Some "carpet baggers," portrayed in history texts used in high schools -- including Northern-based ones, such as the Day School private system -- in western North Carolina as late as the sixties, in pejorative terms, along with the insulting "scalawags" for poor people, many of them ex-Union soldiers, who stayed in the South to try to get a new start, were indeed money grubbers, but others were sincere radicals who helped blacks register and vote, to the point that in a couple of states, black governors or legislators were elected.

It was the national party, however, eager to move on and further expand wage slavery in the factories of the North (as a large number of poor and exploitable immigrants were fleeing from the wars, poverty, ingrained classes and destitution in Europe, that engineered the abandonment of blacks in 1876-77, in what became known as the Great Betrayal, when, in exchange for stacking the deck to get Rutherford Birchard Hayes into the White House, the Democrats wee allowed to regain their old positions of power in the South, and lynching to preserve that power became part of the normal political landscape in that region. (This, however, was the merely the last act in that betrayal, which actually began in various parts of the Old South in the late sixties.)

The economics of the war had to do with the greater efficiency of wage over chattel slavery, since the former cost the capitalist no upkeep.
+3 # Madmedic 2013-10-07 11:57
[quote name="Glen"]The re is such a need to find fault and declare regionalism in every argument that one must put on the brakes, which is what I was attempting."

B.S., you were attempting to rewrite history and got caught.
Plain and simple.

"I have no loyalty to the south, not that it is necessary to defend my comments. I left because of the issues, but found racism and bigotry everywhere I lived"

Surprise, surprise ex Southerners and their attitudes are everywhere in the US. they have "cross pollinated" the entire country with their bigoted talk and behavior. In fact, that is one of the major problems in Michigan ... ex southerners who moved to that state for better jobs in the auto industry in the teens, 20's & 30's. They brought their bad attitudes toward minorities with them. Many didn't value education for their children and now they are stranded there with no jobs and no money to leave. Many of them continue to see blacks and other minorities as the reason for their failures.

"The south made decisions according to their economic success, not to "start a fight that you can't finish"

Oh, I guess it was the North that fired on Ft. Sumpter! Another failed attempt to rewrite history.

"What is your attitude toward states that today are behaving badly and wishing to suppress women's rights, blacks, hispanics, and more?"

I find them just as despicable as their "solid South" brethren.
-4 # Glen 2013-10-07 13:13
Uh oh, Madmedic, your own prejudices are showing.

Sorry, I know exactly the history of the south and north. Heck, I have professor friends who specialized in the "Civil War".

Folks from the south did not spread around the U.S., infecting various citizens of various states, thank you, those folks are self-made men and women.
+3 # Madmedic 2013-10-07 14:53
Quoting Glen:
Uh oh, Madmedic, your own prejudices are showing.

Sorry, I know exactly the history of the south and north. Heck, I have professor friends who specialized in the "Civil War".

Folks from the south did not spread around the U.S., infecting various citizens of various states, thank you, those folks are self-made men and women.

Glen, You have just sunk to the level that your prejudiced kind always sink to when confronted with reality. Accuse the other party of what you are guilty of.

There are always experts, some of them professors, who are willing to be intellectual prostitutes to defend the indefensible, just as there are scientists who deny global climate change because that is where the bucks are.

You have been proven wrong time and again on this thread proving that you either DON'T know the history of the North and South, or if you know it you present it incorrectly. It's not just me who has refuted your B.S.

You are, by your own admission a product of southern education (at least in your early formative years) and have made it painfully obvious that you don't even know what you don't know.

As for the Southerners who moved to Michigan and brought their racist attitudes with them, and their attitudes rubbed off on others around them, I know this from personal experience, observation and education.

As far as I am concerned this thread is over. No use trying to communicate with someone who is in total denial.
-6 # Glen 2013-10-07 15:52
See, your prejudice runs as deep as you accuse others of.

I wasn't raised in the south. I was raised in Miami from the age of 2 and Los Angeles.

How do you account for the Grapes of Wrath folks who moved to southern California? What happened to them. Yes. They were transformed into "republicans" who then spawned and groomed Nixon and Reagan. Oklahoma is not deep south.

Your ending the conversation is typical of those who cannot accept a varying viewpoint.
+4 # Nominae 2013-10-07 19:15
Quoting Glen:

Your ending the conversation is typical of those who cannot accept a varying viewpoint.

There is a Gi-huge-ic difference in propounding "a varying viewpoint", and in just full-out pushing Neo-Confederate
Revisionist History.

Again, hit the National Archives for the Secession Statements from the Southern States as they announced to the Federal Government, that if they couldn't advance Slavery into the new Territories (later to become the Western States) they were going to just "take their little football and go home."

Their very *words* give lie to the Neo-Confederate canard about the War being about *anything* BUT Slavery. Apparently, most Neo-Confederate s rely upon the fact that *most* people will just believe what they hear and never perform the research. Can't say they are wrong about that !

Just like the "strategy" presently employed by the House in re: the Shutdown. The Shutdown is not "a varying veiwpoint", it is, like Neo-Confederate Revisionist History, simply a childish tantrum designed to *force* people to cave to Revisionist "demands", which are basically pitiful attempts at gaining some modicum of respect for being *SO* spectacularly wrong.

For some truly egregious lies, and re-writing of actual history, I advise all to view present-day *monuments* in the Deep South. Full-force lies, revisionism and brain-washing etched in Stone.
+4 # Nominae 2013-10-07 20:00
[quote name="Glen"]How do you account for the Grapes of Wrath folks who moved to southern California? What happened to them. Yes. They were transformed into "republicans" who then spawned and groomed Nixon and Reagan.

And again you step on your pant leg with your ad hoc history.

My father, two aunts, and my Grandmother were ALL Okies (from Oklahoma, and proud *not* to be from the "Deep South" of crushing economic inequality, and that's just among Whites)

Absolutely *none* of them, nor any of their friends and former neighbors, turned out to be even close to your bigoted comic book description above.

Again, a little actual research makes one look *so* much less like an intellectual rube. I'd love to see you go five days without food, and then see what happens to the ignorant arrogance you so enthusiasticall y place on public display in regards to a people you clearly know *nothing* about, who really *did* endure long periods without food, housing and heat.

And *you* pretend to be a champion against bigotry and "isms"? Can you borrow a mirror ? You have obviously misplaced yours.
+3 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 22:24
Absolutely loved your answer...AND, I had nothing to add. What a shock. It is right on, however. Glen just doesn't seem to understand what bigotry is. I was poor and white and had to work in the fields to bring in money to help my folks put a roof over our heads and food on our table and I never really knew what all that black-white stuff was about. My father was in the Navy, lower enlisted, with six mouths to feed, and he brought home friends of all colors. My mother was the quintessential liberal who was telling me in 1952 that Richard Nixon was a crook and shouldn't be allowed to run for VP. Further, I was a Marine who spent 21 months in Vietnam with the grunts. We only knew one color, Marine Corps green. Racism didn't have a place in our world. I was the first person on both sides of my family to graduate from college and was on teams with men of multiple colors, black, brown, and in-between. We were successful as a team for the same reason Marines are successful, we were one. Color wasn't a part of the equation. When you have to say, "I have a friend who's black," when you have to qualify in order to justify, then you're racist. Lenny Bruce had it right! Keep up the good work (most of the time, my friend)...I just love bringing up the history...guess it's been all the years teaching it, ha!
-4 # Glen 2013-10-08 10:38
I could easily tell youbigkahuna671 that you are a bleeding heart to fling insults as two or three of you are doing. I understand completely what bigotry is and have seen it world wide and in communities as far from the south as you can get in the states. My engaging in alternative view points does not render me ignorant, conservative or in defense of anything, or re-writing history. That is the biggest mistake folks make in any debate: automatically assuming that information from a new angle is in the defense of something others disagree with.

I, too, could give you personal examples of family history and friends who suffered greatly due to bigotry and persecution. If I told you some of them are black you would continue the attack that I must qualify my friendships as if I were as if it were a part of the ole "Lenny Bruce" routine, not understanding that my mentioning it was to illustrate how much I understand the suffering they went through and that I saw it first hand - not reading it in a book or listening to extreme liberals who weren't even there.
-3 # Glen 2013-10-08 10:54
Oh, and bigkahuna, should you still be out there following this thread. You just did exactly what you accuse me of - bringing up your friends and mates of all colors. Color may not have been part of that equation but you did recognize it and did insert it into these comments. That does not mean you are using them to justify your tolerance.

Oh, and some of my BLACK friends were attacked by german shepherd dogs in Birmingham, if you are wondering what bigotry and persecution means.
-3 # Glen 2013-10-08 11:11
Oh, and Latino friends beaten senseless, in CALIFORNIA, L.A. And white friends who were beaten during anti-war demonstrations. Anything else anybody would like to know that might prove my true background relative to people?

Now see - this had nothing to do with the original article, did it? And did you notice it took only one posting and one reply to start the entire argument about the south.
+2 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 13:19
I did exactly what I accused you of? Not really, I merely used your twisted logic to show that referring to color without real context is wrong. Whether you intended, you WERE a part of the old "Lenny Bruce" routine, even if that wasn't your intent, and if it wasn't, you should have admitted it, but you continued on in that vein as if everything you said was fact. Yes, Latino friends may have been beaten - I'm Latino, by the way - but check into the racist backgrounds of the folks who did it. Were they all whites from New England or were most of them Southerners who fled poverty in the south and came west to find jobs in agriculture or cheap land to build homes on? And, yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with the article, but who wrote that initial rant and who continued to rave on about how the poor south was misunderstood, as were its Tea-Party brethren and congresspeople? You liked what I had to say when I seemed to be defending you, but all I was doing was correcting historical facts that were being misrepresented. The problem was, you continued to misrepresent and added even more falsehoods and twisted facts. Bigotry and persecution, based on facts, isn't just black, but you mentioned Latinos being beaten in California. Now, I moved there as a child and grew up there and the only ones I remember being beaten were farmworkers in the Central Valley. There may have been some beaten in East LA, but I don't recall reading or hearing about any of that.
-1 # Glen 2013-10-08 17:02
Check out May Day in LA. Farm workers - what is the difference. The bigotry and violence is everywhere, bigkahuna. You are merely determined to condemn someone due to region or history. The violence against citizens and visitors is endless. Present day bigotry is everywhere.

How about the violence against Germans and Japanese in this country. Why is that not a part of your agenda? How about the Irish and Scot Irish? Do you know of the hideous poverty and prejudice against them? That was not in the south.

U.S. history goes way beyond the south, and it ain't pretty, big.

Oh, and how about the Chinese and Japanese in California and Hawaii? How about the exploitation of the Chinese in railroad building and so much more in the U.S. The camps for Japanese citizens during WWII.

Don't fall for the myths and propaganda in the U.S. The history is ugly, including the killing of thousands of native indians, and the immoral infection through blankets of smallpox. The south is a convenient target of late, but history goes waaaay beyond that era.

Do you know that the U.S. government bombed citizens when protesting the conditions of miners? How about the WWI veterans camping out in D.C. asking for only what they were promised and being beaten for it, and run out of the city, many who were sent to Key West only to die in one of the biggest hurricanes to hit the U.S.

U.S. history goes far beyond the violence of the Civil War. Study it.
+2 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 13:21
cont. And it still doesn't forgive the south and the continued attempts to rewrite history and drag blacks back into even more of a second class status by denying them voting rights.
-3 # Glen 2013-10-08 05:15
Exercising generalizations does not make one a liar. Your not having relatives who participated in the politics of Orange County California does not mean there weren't many, who fled there during the dust bowl, who did become a part of the political movement there, as did their children.

Nothing is simple and a general tendency of many folks would obviously not include everyone, just as generalizing about the south or any other region would not include everyone.

Nothing I have said is meant to be prejudicial or as an attack. It is merely observation and pointing to the fact that much has happened in this country and among its people that needs scrutiny, rather than that immediate defensiveness whenever any do not support sweeping condemnation of an entire region or its people.

If any here were reading carefully, it would be obvious it was not me making prejudicial remarks, but those who went immediately on the attack when I attempted to explain the complexity of the south. That knee jerk attack is reflective of just how bigoted folks can be, in reverse.

Understanding an issue and all the aspects of it is not re-writing history.
+2 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 09:27
This is hilarious because Arizona has thousands of people whose roots are in the south. I have friends whose families came from Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia. Hmmm, don't know any from South Carolina. My friends vote Republican, although not Tea-Party, and are somewhat moderate. Most of them were disgusted with Dubya, but they all voted McCain, despite their disgust with Palin. I also grew up in California with people whose families came from the south. They were extremely racist. We had one black kid in our HS and she left after a few days in the school. I was NOT friends with these kids because I couldn't stand their prejudices (plus, my family is from Guam and we weren't acceptable to them). Don't say folks from the south stayed there. They fled when they lost their land or when former slaves with more job skills replaced them in the marketplace. Then they headed north and west to try and get land out in the territories. Your professor friends must be at a technical school like ITT if they specialized in the Civil War and actually believe what you believe.
-2 # Glen 2013-10-08 11:54
There are many facts, bigkahuna, and simply because you have met folks from the south who are not so great and have bigoted ideas, is no reason to condemn an entire people. I'll bet you do not condemn all Muslims due to there being quite a number of radicals and conservatives in that population.

I would guess you do not know all the facts concerning the Civil War, just as I do not, but combined, we know a lot.
+10 # Regina 2013-10-07 08:44
But the States' Rights demands were all about the "freedom" to own slaves!
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 10:14
THANK YOU! That's all that needs to be said.
-4 # Glen 2013-10-07 13:08
No, it was about the freedom to conduct state business without being told how to conduct that business by fellow slave holders in the north. Check into the economics of the entire country and the south, at the time.
+6 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 14:57
Slavery no longer existed in the North by 1840. In fact, by 1810, 75% of northern blacks were already free.

The south wanted to extend slavery into new states and wanted to continue the slave trade. The north disagreed.

The "business" and "economics", was that of the ownership and enslavement of human beings.
-4 # Glen 2013-10-08 06:42
One more time with feeling. Slavery was a big part of American life. You will notice few condemnation remarks of the number of "yankees" who owned slaves, including those pristine white guys who wrote that "all men are created equal". Bashing the south is now a tradition, created by the winners, and after all, victors do write history.

Ever been to Fayetteville Arkansas, to the university campus. If you have you will see the two towers on one of the main buildings. The northern tower is taller than the southern, built to remind all of northern dominance by those "benevolent winners who arrived to reeducate those ignorant southerners.

You bash a population long enough and they will react, very often inappropriately , just as kids do.

We could argue the Civil War for days on end to no avail.
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-10-08 18:33
It's a false equivalency, Glen. Look at an electoral map. How many death threats against the President of the United States are coming from the North? Now, the South?

One more time, with feeling:


That does NOT exempt the south from responsibility, no matter how much you'd like to perpetuate the myth that it's all the same everywhere. Right now, as we speak, it's primarily in the south that Jim Crow is currently making a big comeback.

Your logic, is that, unless everyone is blamed equally, regardless of the facts, no one should be held responsible for their own actions.


The fact that there are racists in the North too, doesn't really change the fact that much of the right-wing obsession with race, is due to... um... THEIR RACISM.

That's kinda the whole point of the article.
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 15:18
When Wallace tried to prevent "big guvmint" from desegregating the U. of Alabama, what was his claim? Oh yeah! "State's Rights".

Lincoln finally admitted that the war was about slavery after it had already started. It was an unpopular idea, granted, but it was still the truth, even if it was politically incorrect to admit it.

Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Vice-President had no problem admitting the truth MUCH earlier.

I will include some excerpts from the book:

CRISIS OF THE UNION" - by Paul Finkelman

+3 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 15:27
CONT. (pt. 2):

Stephens denounced the northern claims (which he incorrectly
attributed to Thomas Jefferson) that the “enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.”4 He unabashedly asserted:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea.”5 Stephens argued that it was “insanity” to believe “that the negro is equal” or that slavery was wrong.6 He proudly predicted that the Confederate Constitution “has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—Afr ican slavery as it exists amongst us—the
proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.”7
Stephens only echoed South Carolina’s declaration, explaining that it was leaving the Union because:

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.8

+3 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 15:31
CONT. (p. 3)

3. Alexander H. Stephens, The Corner Stone Speech (Mar. 21, 1861), reprinted in HENRY
BEFORE, DURING, AND SINCE THE WAR 717, 721 (Philadelphia, National Publishing Co. 1886).
4. Id. (emphasis in original).
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (1861), reprinted in J.A. MAY & J.R. FAUNT, SOUTH CAROLINA
SECEDES 76-81 (1960), available at: (last
visited Sept. 24, 2011).

This was adopted four days after the state officially seceded. The Declarations of Secession for Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas are conveniently
found at:
2012] STATES’ RIGHTS 451

In other words, South Carolina was leaving the Union because Lincoln believed slavery was wrong and should one day—in the far distant future—be ended.

+3 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 15:33
CONT. (p. 4 - [or 5?])

Shortly after South Carolina left the Union, Georgia did the same. Beginning with the second sentence of its Declaration of Secession, Georgia made it clear that slavery was the force behind secession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holdi ng confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.9

Mississippi emphatically made the same point, starting with the second sentence of its Declaration: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.”10
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 15:35
Make no mistake. The Confederacy DID NOT claim it was "just about state's rights" at the actual time of the Civil War. That was a retelling of history AFTER the fact.

It HAS ALWAYS been because it considered blacks inferior.

Just read their own words.
+1 # Nominae 2013-10-08 17:07
Quoting Glen:
Oh, and the "Civil War" was truly The War Between the States. Initially, it had nothing to do with slavery, but rather states' rights.

Part I

Since your entire statement rests on total B.S., and given the fact that you refuse to look up proof to the contrary, I have here taken the liberty of including just part of the Declaration of Secession from the State of Mississippi :

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

+1 # Nominae 2013-10-08 17:11
Part II

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

YUP, not a *damned* thing to do with Slavery, huh ? Don't you just hate it when people take the time to reference the facts ?

This represents only part of the MS Statement. I will leave it to others to review the rest, and to look up the Secession Statements of the rest of the rebel states.

You're welcome, Glen. Sorry to pop the neo-confederate bubble.
+34 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 16:24
What the tea partiers and their fellow travelers in the republican party are engaged in is TREASON. Plain and simple.

Their efforts to cause economic pain to the US is just as much domestic terrorism as what Osama Bin Laden attempted to do on 9/11. His goal was to destroy the American economy by the destruction of the World Trade Center and other symbols of US power. The 3,000 to 4,000 deaths of innocent victims were "collateral damage." So there you have it. Subtract the "collateral damage" deaths from 9/11 and you have exactly the same attack on the US by the tea partiers as that of Osama Bin Laden on 9/11. It's time our leaders realized this. Economic terrorism is just that, whether conducted by radical Muslims or by home grown economic terrorists.

It becomes increasingly obvious to me everyday that Abe Lincoln made one huge mistake after the Civil War. He showed mercy to the leadership of the Confederacy. They were allowed to continue flying their stars and bars rag, even today.

That flag should have been just as illegal in the US as the Nazi swastika is in Germany. Many of the leaders of the Confederacy should have been sent into permanent exile and their lands confiscated and distributed to the slaves that had been conscripted into transforming them into viable enterprises. Instead, the North was magnanimous in victory and we now have a new insurrection led by the same states that dragged this nation into the last civil war.
+12 # Farafalla 2013-10-06 16:48
I agree with Regina. The neo-Confederate s have shaped the not so crypto-racist discourse of today's government haters. We did not end the Civil War the way it should have ended. The Union should have captured and deported their leaders, imprisoned their military, redistributed their land monopolies, banned their flags and emblems, and crushed their ideology. We didn't. And they're baaaaack.
+9 # Tje_Chiwara 2013-10-06 15:38
I do not think it helps to look at the problem as Racism . . . It's more about Wealth vs Wages . . . Just because the factions may break more along racial lines, does not mean it is based on race hatred. It is more Poor Hatred ... And the solution is not to convince your sister to marry one, but to accept a way to force extreme compensation to reasonable levels. Race is a Red Herring, a way to ignore the utterly irresponsible financial finaglings which undermine each effort to ignore multi-million dollar sports contracts and their Wall Street equivalents . . . and NOT pay the linemen . . .
+20 # Dale 2013-10-06 16:06
Human evolution took a wrong turn.
The Neanderthals are back!
They call themselves Republicans,
But they are Zombies,
Risen from the grave of history
Now chasing Homo Sapiens
With their big sticks
Clubbing every social advance of human kind,
Torturing and killing non-white peoples in distant lands
Jailing and deporting those considered aliens in Zombie heartland.

The Zombies, bankrolled by their friends in corporate board rooms,
For decades machinated
To remove the Nation´s heart
And replace it with a Made-in-China machine.

The bankers succeeded in reversing the American Dream,
Immiserating the masses.

Big Money continues to inspire economic suicide
While Fox News glorifies the perverse
And CNN presents Big Lies as balanced journalism,
Most all the media offering Pentagon programmed militarism
To torture reason, degrade the noble, imprison the valiant
And strain to devour what remains of civilization.

Big Money monopolizes the media
To frame acceptable thought,
To privatize public consciousness
With the end of substituting
Trivia for substance,
Thought hegemony for critical appraisal,
Stupidity for rationality.

The Zombies, their mental substance mummified,
Have no human sensibility
+3 # bingers 2013-10-06 19:13
FWIW, the evidence shows that Neanderthals were almost certainly more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, but they had the fatal flaw of being peace loving and the savages (us) killed them off. However Neanderthals had one identifying mark that shows some of their descendants are still around. H Sapiens did not have and all Neanderthals had red hair, so anyone you know with red hair is descended from Neanderthals. Now I'd love to say that all redheads were wonderful, but I have a redheaded ex wife. 8^)
0 # Billy Bob 2013-10-08 01:19
Actually, everyone on Earth (w/ the exception of people of 100% African descent - i.e. NOT African Americans) is 3-4% Neanderthal. This means EVERYONE.

ALSO, Australian/New Guinea Aborigines, some "Asians", and Pacific islanders are part-descended from a THIRD separate species of human being, only recently discovered, called "DENISOVANS".

The only 100% Homo Sapiens on Earth, are people of 100% African lineage, whose ancestor have NEVER married ANYBODY from outside of Africa.

This has all been proven by the science of genetics.
+26 # Monty 2013-10-06 16:07
The Republicans have one goal, they need Obama to fail in every possible way.
+11 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 16:25
You are so right about being concerned about the shutdown, even if it's not affecting one directly.

In another post in this thread I point out that what the tea partiers and many of their fellow travelers in the republican party are doing is nothing short of domestic terrorism. Some may consider this mere hyperbole, but we have no farther to look back than the numerous votes it took to ram through legislation for Hurricane Sandy relief for the Northeast. The same Southern states' tea party crowd, with help from a handful of misguided Northern congressmen and women, held up Sandy aid for an extended period, even putting it into question whether it would be approved at all.

The tea partier insurrectionist s who nearly cost the Northeast Sandy relief aid are back at it again. This time closing down the government in an effort to "get even" for perceived injustices committed against them by those "damn Yankees."

This is more than racially motivated (although racism pays nicely into their plans), it is about the South rising again to avenge their losses since the civil war. The comment by one republican congressman who said the shutdown was about being disrespected let the cat out of the bag with that statement.

He revealed that the tea baggers are kindred spirits with those malevolent ghetto gang bangers who harass, threaten and intimidate others, because they feel they are "being dissed".

BEWARE, the Old South IS rising again.
-3 # Glen 2013-10-08 16:31
No, it isn't. That is a fallacy. The fucking military has taken over this country and is rising mightily behind the squabbling among citizens.
+8 # reiverpacific 2013-10-06 17:08
Does anybody have a head count on how many committed Tea-Party representatives (I know, I know -they should all be "committed" to their nearest looney-bin) there are in Congress and Governors of states if they are being said to "dominate" the Reprobate party and the clueless Congress-critte r assembly that is now blackmailing the country?
I'm just interested in just how strong they really are or are they just the loudest shouters and threateners?
From what I'm reading, the Tea-Buggers are about as popular as a plague of rats in the Restaurant business, even with the less-involved average American voter but maybe i have it wrong so please inform 'umble self or point me at some information sources
I'm serious in asking -I'd like to hear if or read it somebody has the numbers at their fingertips: I'm sure that somebody on RSN is informed enough.
I'd do it myself but I have to take off for a regular music gig.
Just askin'.
+6 # DrD 2013-10-06 18:36
Reiverpacific, this article was informative.

I don't know if all 80 house members self-identify as Tea Party. Interesting to note that of the 80 who pushed for gov shutdown to defund Obamacare, 76 are men and 79 are white.

Proportional representation may be the only way out of the district gerrymandering that they rigged.
-22 # fredboy 2013-10-06 17:15
You hit the nail on the head! White men are scared of women, those they see as minorities, and most other beings. Terrified.

And now we have a sissy baby white House run by a sissy baby party. Scared out of their minds.

If you see any of these clowns on the roadway, carefully drive beside them for a while. Safely and non-aggressivel y. It will scare the bejesus out of them. :)
+6 # 2013-10-06 17:28
Also on the point "can a determined right-wing white minority ensure continuation of white supremacy in the United States?"

They aren't merely White bullying USA they are "WASP" bullying the World.
+10 # Merschrod 2013-10-06 17:39
Nice analysis by Perry - excellent.

The Dems have to get ahead of the curve - obligatory national ID card, issued at voting age at post offices every where. Once over that hurdle, and constant effort to bring out the voters, it will be a more inclusive system.

Hand it to the Repugs in spades, fund the program, get the youth into the system and the voter registration folks can help the elderly go to the Post Office. Fund registration Staurdays and Sundays at the post office.
0 # Shipton 2013-10-06 17:39
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that while Wyoming has the same number of Senators that California has, we only have 1, count her, 1 representative in the House compared to California's whopping 53, yes I said 53, Representatives in the House.
+4 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-07 19:10
And your point it...? You have the same number of Senators and they've done their darndest over the years to stymie any liberal legislation. So you think you should have the same number of Representatives ? I hope not. I'm amazed that you don't understand the philosophy behind how Representatives are apportioned by the Federal Govt. Remember high school government classes? Remember our forefathers used population for one house and equal representation for the other? Or does Wyoming teach government in their high schools? Or has that gone the way of teaching evolution and global warming in your state? Is it just all about guns, conservative views, and saying no? See, you don't say what you're gripe is about and, for the life of me, I can't decipher it based on what you wrote,
-16 # MidwesTom 2013-10-06 17:44
Can one be against the policies of Israel and not be anti-semitic? Can one be against the welfare state and not be a racist? Can one be for photo ID's and not be a racist? The answer to all of these is no to all true non-thinking narrow minded bigots.

I have never lived in the south; I know many bigoted white southerners; I know many black bigoted northerners. What does it take to allow a discussion of policies, whether good or bad, without someone calling someone else a racist?

Until one can say the Great Society program, as implemented, is one of the worst things that has happened to black communities, and explain why, without being called a racist, we will never reach racial equality in this country.
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 08:06
Can one call himself a "blue dog" Democrat without actually disagreeing with the Republican Party - EVER?
+11 # Unicorn144 2013-10-06 18:56
What will happen is this, and tell me I am wrong after it happens: this nation will never "re-open" as long as a black man is in the White House, because we are witnessing a coup, a silent coup: from the Koch brothers who own the Tea Party: and have already threatened them and their families if they back down. This government shutdown is permanent: and the US will default, and cause the Crash the Koch brothers are banking on. They will reap billions in the Market, as they are betting AGAINST the US: and they will then become even more powerful. The white racists of the South, and the KKK, who missed their rally in Gettysburg this weekend, are not just "coincidentally " reappearing: what we are seeing is the resurrection of the Confederacy: a New Civil War, which they intend to win. Here is what William F. Buckley himself predicted years ago. In effect, we are seeing the implementation of a principle enunciated by the arch-conservati ve thinker William F. Buckley in 1957: “The white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” Except now the Buckley rule is being applied nationally. So there it is: a Koch backed, Grover Norquist blessed, Ted Cruz championed; Insurrection. This is Treason and Sedition in every sense of the Word.
+9 # Madmedic 2013-10-06 20:17
Unicorn144, Thank God at least one or two other individuals in this country have caught on to what is going on in this country. A slow motion Civil War or coup d'etat. The fat cats like the Koch brothers, the Krupps in Germany, the Duponts and others of their ilk always come out on top after a war and most other disasters.

You can believe the Koch brothers, Mitt Romney and every other self respecting billionaire and multi millionaire in the US already has their strategy planned out for how they are going to preserve their fortunes when the US defaults. The world economy may crash, but these evildoers will rise from the rubble richer than ever. It is as inevitable as history repeating itself.
+3 # adolbe 2013-10-06 22:03
I am going to defend Bill Buckley and say his later conversion to rational conservatism (there is such a thing) was sincere. He admitted to being in the wrong on this, and protested against the TEa Baggers of the late 50s the John Birchers (ancestors in fact of the Koch's). He outright rejected Ayn Randism full force.
0 # Madmedic 2013-10-07 09:55
William F. Buckley was a talented linguist. A man who believed there was a very specifically correct word for everything. He has long been my idol because of his masterful use of the English language.

That concludes my list of his redeeming qualities.
-4 # Glen 2013-10-07 15:55
What happens if it is a white female president?
+11 # Unicorn144 2013-10-06 18:57
William F. Buckley in 1957: “The white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” Except now the Buckley rule is being applied nationally. So there it is: a Koch backed, Grover Norquist blessed, Ted Cruz championed; Insurrection. This is Treason and Sedition in every sense of the Word. What is the solution? There is none; for this is War. This is not terrorism; it is an Uprising against the Black Man the South will not obey. 30 Republican Senators have publically stated Barack Obama is not a US Citizen. So: get ready, the Koch's have 400 million to dump into the Media, and more is on the way. Thank the Supreme Court for the end of Democracy; they did it. Legally, just as when Hitler came to power: all legally done.
0 # Glen 2013-10-07 14:15
One point, Unicorn. The Supreme Court performed illegally in the election of 2000 when George W. was placed in office, not elected.
-14 # The Voice of Reason 2013-10-06 19:17
Wow, you're just now getting around to the 'could this be racist?' question. FCOL, could it be more obvious. And again, I'm more than a little concerned that RSNrs don't give much of a hoot about claims of racism. Boy, but give them a chance to preach their hatred against everything Israeli and their pens won't stop.
+11 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 09:51
Wow! You were so close! I almost gave you a thumbs up - right until your last sentence.

Not supporting Israel's aggressive right-wing agenda of ridding the world of Palestinians, killing their children, and bulldozing their houses, while continuing to claim perpetual exemption from personal responsibility - due to the Holocaust... NOT "anti-semitism".

Did you know the Palestinians are Semites too? What about "anti-semitism" against Palestinian children? Does that count?
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 10:10
I know sometimes I use people's words against them in my comments. I wasn't trying to ridicule you, by starting my comment with "wow". I'm trying to reserve that tactic for only times when there was something unintentionally ironic, hypocritical, narrow-minded or shortsided in the other person's comment. It's petty to just make fun of someone's choice of words. I've done that before, and I plan to quit.

So, I started my comment with "wow", either by coincidence, after forgetting that you had done the same thing, or because I subconsciously still had that word in the back of my head.

Sorry for appearing to make fun of you. It was unintentional.

That said, I still think the charge of "anti-semitism" is being overused by people in love with the Israeli military agenda as a "get-out-of-jai l-free" card. Many people hurling this accusation everywhere aren't even Jews. And, many American Jews also agree that Israeli militarism is getting out of control.
+1 # dscotese 2013-10-06 20:13
A friend of mine asked if I really thought Parry was partisan. Here's my response:
He favors the democrats, obviously, but more importantly, he names the Democrats nine times, the Republicans 17 times, and the "political elite" only once, for a total of 27 references to the people creating the mess. He is completely taken with analyzing things from a perspective of duality. He sees a good side (Democrats) and a bad side (Republicans). He even references something (voting hour reduction) that "further skews the political power to wealthier white areas" without discussing the ramifications of political power itself.

Political power is society's perception that violence is ok if we're using it to do good. Who decides whether or not it's good is anyone's guess - usually whoever is in power using that violence. It's a recipe for disaster, and we are living through that disaster. Violence is not ok regardless what you can accomplish with it.

So yes, his writing is partisan, and it encourages others to be partisan too. It's frustrating to want peace and freedom and see people arguing that one or the other of the two sides that destroy peace and freedom is better than the other. It's like arguing about whether the rapist or the murderer is the better person. And it is frustrating to see people pay attention to them too.
-3 # Shipton 2013-10-06 20:36
I would like to point out that while Wyoming does have the same number of Senators that California does, we here in "The Equality State" have 1, and only 1, lone Representative in the House compared to California's 53. I would also disagree on the number of registered voters the author says we have. In the last census there was just a little over 560,00 people living in the state so I'm sure that voter registration is well over two thirds of that 560,000.
+1 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 09:36
And you STILL don't say what your point is. What does this have to do with anything? Read my other post in response to what you said before, almost exactly what you're saying here.
+8 # Bev 2013-10-06 20:38
The Koch brothers don't give a tinker's dam about either blacks or whites. It's the same old "divide and conquer" that gives them the POWER and CONTROL for which they lust. Just stop checking off those identifying labels of race on every form imaginable and write in HUMAN. Then LIVE IT! When we are united we outnumber all powers that oppose "We the People".
-3 # Glen 2013-10-07 14:10
Yes, Bev, you are correct. It is too bad so many citizens and readers do not understand the "divide and conquer" technique promoted in the government and media. They have now perfected the agenda and it is working nicely.
+1 # bigkahuna671 2013-10-08 09:55
Billy Bob, Glen tries to spew "facts" and use them to justify rants like his "ever figured out..." I've said it before on RSN every stinking time Southerners say they want to secede when they don't get their way, it's time we let them secede. Think of all the money states in the north, east, and west would save not having to bail out those folks because they don't have infrastructure (but they got their damned guns and chewin' terbacky, eh?) and can't stand up to their latest environmental crisis. They don't believe in global warming and climate change, but look what's happening to them every hurricane and tornado season, then out come their hands like a Mumbai beggar.
-4 # Glen 2013-10-08 14:21
Uh oh, bigkahuna, your prejudices are showing. You proved with your comments that you are as uninformed and bigoted as those you accuse. You might want to check out who has asked for assistance from the government. Hells bells, even Connecticut has threatened to secede.

Your words are ugly and ill informed as you accuse my comments. I suppose you want New Orleans abolished because of the location. How about areas in the N.E. because of blizzards? Hurricane Sandy? Seems they deserved assistance. Earthquakes? Floods? Mud slides? Not all flooding is in the south. Fires? Nope. Those folks all deserve assistance. Drought? Yep, and not all in the south. Disease? That's on the horizon.

Another hells bells - who the hell in this thread is a southerner?
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-10-08 18:36
Are you intentionally misrepresenting what others say to further your argument?
0 # Glen 2013-10-09 05:23
Nope. bigkahuna brought up how the south has their hand out after every hurricane, tornado, etc., "like a Mumbai beggar". Isn't THAT bigotry, to condemn every single person in a region and speak as harshly as he did about them, using the same old tired insults as chewing terbacky? Why is that not considered prejudicial and insulting, but mentioning black friends is?

I am not twisting, or defending the south. My comments are to bring the realization that there is bigotry in reverse here by blanket condemning an entire people as being nasty, stupid, corrupt, bigoted, and so forth. You guys appear to have an attitude and agenda and do the twisting to suit your own beliefs.

But yes, most of the pricks in government are from Texas, which is a land all its own. That does not mean everybody in Texas is the same. A great many are wonderful, hardworking and decent and didn't vote for the pricks. Same in the south, so why stereotype and condemn everybody?

And yes, slavery was a big part of the economics of the south AND the north, but slavery as a moral concept was NOT the cause of the civil war. That came along later to justify crushing an entire region of the country.
0 # Nominae 2013-10-09 18:36
Quoting Glen:

And yes, slavery was a big part of the economics of the south AND the north, but slavery as a moral concept was NOT the cause of the civil war.

You, like a good lil' lockstep neo-Confederate , are just going to *CONTINUE* repeating that canard until we *all* go blind, aren't you ?


The South was "up in arms" because their dreams of taking *ALL* of Mexico and turning it into a massive Slave Empire were thwarted. Then, (As MS recounts above), even the Territories that *WERE* taken from Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, a sliver of present day Wyoming,) were *not* allowed to become Slave States.

BEING thus thwarted, the South fired the first shots of the Civil War in an attack upon a Federal Facility in Charleston Harbor. EVERYTHING that proceeded from there is on their heads as the originators of first violence that became the Civil War.

The NORTH did not enter the Civil War based upon the concept of Slavery, but the SOUTH definitely *started* the Civil War based upon Slavery.

See if you can find a literate child to read that MS Declaration of Secession to you. That feat is obviously beyond your own capability. And, if you like that, there are *MANY* more similar Declarations from the REST of the Seceding States.

I know that your mind is made up, and I apologize for confusing you with facts, but then perhaps you *can* hear
it from the literate child.
-1 # Glen 2013-10-10 08:05
The north entered into a war because the south was set to do business with other countries. The reason they were set to do so is of no matter but that nothing to do with slavery per se. The slavery issue raised its ugly head later.

States made declarations depending on their own particular viewpoint, not necessarily in agreement with citizens or plantation owners. Basically, it was the north attempting to shut down any plans in the south of trading with others, and making more money in the deal. Slavery was a fact of life, as I stated, but was only part of the equation.

You guys are as insulting and bigoted against other information and viewpoints as you accuse me of.
-1 # Glen 2013-10-09 10:45
My reply to you was lost, but I pointed out that referring to southerners as bigkahuna did is as ugly and bigoted as he considers mentioning black friends is bogus. Next post he'd no doubt refer to keeping the gals barefoot and pregnant right along with chewing that terbacky.

To say that southerns demand help after disasters just like Mumbai beggars was astounding. That is the reason I listed the number of disasters around the U.S. in which folks ask for and receive, assistance.

You guys have beliefs that must be supported and in fact, it is you who mis-reads and reacts without careful scrutiny or thought.

Oh, and yes, most of the pricks in the government are from Texas, a land unto its self, but that does not mean all Texans voted for them or are not decent, hardworking, caring people. Same everywhere else. How about those folks in Alaska supporting Sarah Palin. I doubt all Alaskans did. But the sweeping denunciations brought in by bigkahuna would condemn them in the same way he does southerns.
+10 # Cdesignpdx 2013-10-06 22:20
Buckley was an arrogant piece of crap.
-11 # jojo5056 2013-10-07 05:26
A comment was made--USA's problem is with WASPs.Sorry bud--check out who really bribes the Wasps to vote their way. For the folks who believe future riots ,don't fret, in another 50 years, USA will become half and half mixer.All be brothers and sisters and cousins. Speaking of racists --author and posters have it all wrong.Listen into a black Asian Mexican or Chosen ones. Bashing of the southern ones--shame on you all. ever figured why the north is such a mess? freeloaders!
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-10-07 10:36
"ever figured why the north is such a mess? freeloaders!"

Did you notice that southern states all take more from the federal government than they return in tax revenue? By FAR, the states with the biggest use of food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. are those in the deep south.

In fact, if the U.S. had divided after the Civil War, the North (a.k.a. "The United States of America") would have a standard of living much like that in Europe, and would be able to enact things like universal single payer health care, that is only being withheld because southerners don't want to help the poor in their own states.

It's a paradoxical truth. The south prides itself on a strict adherance to conservative mythology - AND TAKES more from the rest of the country than any other reason.

By any objective measure, the biggest "mess" in the entire country (regionally) is the south.

The North (a.k.a. "The United States of America") includes most of this country's liberals and would be much more self-sufficient if it wasn't weighed down by the drag of resources represented by the "good ole' land of cotten".
+2 # reiverpacific 2013-10-07 10:38
Quoting jojo5056:
A comment was made--USA's problem is with WASPs.Sorry bud--check out who really bribes the Wasps to vote their way. For the folks who believe future riots ,don't fret, in another 50 years, USA will become half and half mixer.All be brothers and sisters and cousins. Speaking of racists --author and posters have it all wrong.Listen into a black Asian Mexican or Chosen ones. Bashing of the southern ones--shame on you all. ever figured why the north is such a mess? freeloaders!

Written like true spawn of Dixie -and I HAVE lived in the South, where the name of the game is utter conformity to the status-quo, or be ostracized.
You must be a big fan of that mega-redneck Hank Williams Jr. who wrote the shitful song, "If the South had won, we'd have had it made"!
Hell, y'all have never moved beyond the civil war -and are, en bloc, the most impoverished and poorly educated clooection of states in the Union -or as I call it now thanks to you and your ilk, The "Fragmented States of America".
The US as a whole is far down the list of countries with basic educational skills and teaching, and you lot are probably dragging the whole country down even farther in the statistics like a weight around it's neck.
You are certainly "exceptional" in the worst sense of the word but don't cast your dark cloak over the rest of the country; white supremacy is dying and was always a myth.
And BTW, your written English is appalling!
0 # reiverpacific 2013-10-07 10:26
To "DrD" Thanks.
I also found this on the BBC (Monday morning 7th October),
-4 # mjc 2013-10-07 10:47
It does seem that this particular blog is once again pitting racists against each other and the "South" against ??north, east, west minus Texas. Who wrote that the Civil War is over!?
-4 # Glen 2013-10-08 14:41
Yes it is, mjc. It is easy to get folks riled up and at each other's throats. That characteristic of humans has been exploited by many including the government, the media, the military, commercial marketing, et al., in the U.S.

The Civil War did not end because of the terrible toll it took on the U.S. as a whole but because in the south there was total decimation and then punishment to totally crush it. Today, it raises its ugly head as a prejudice that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the south. People need scapegoats and an enemy. The south is convenient, when, in fact, the chaos and craziness is within the entire country. That chaos is even promoted.

It is too easy to label someone, and that labeling is another means of venting without justification or facts. Frankly, I regret participating in this thread, but it is easy to get sucked in.
+8 # homebuilding 2013-10-07 12:22
I'm very pleased to have found this site. This article is very useful in pointing out various insidious forces that have taken control of the thoughts of far too many Americans.

Thank you for your service.
+2 # 2013-10-07 13:17
Everytime a certain someone leaves a post, he betrays his cultural affiliation and bias, and I suspect he's not even conscious of it.
+1 # Jimmy 2013-10-07 21:53
The historian Glenn Feldman is ESSENTIAL reading on this whole subject. His newest book is THE IRONY OF THE SOLID SOUTH. That should be read along with his other works.
+3 # ghostperson 2013-10-08 14:11
I recently wrote elsewhere: "Negotiating with blackmailers is just an installment payment."

There is NO choice.
+1 # Walter J Smith 2013-10-08 16:38
"...we are seeing the implementation of a principle enunciated by conservative thinker William F. Buckley in 1957: “The white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” Except now the Buckley rule is being applied nationally."

Yes, we are. But only now because when the Ds were in power in both houses they acted like they were Republicans, and implemented the rule by letting the Tea Party and their own reactionary Democrats undermine the Dodd-Frank Banking & Finance Reform, and the economic collapse is still an economic collapse.

All voters are not fools.
0 # Edwina 2013-11-01 10:53
Racism has always been used by the "haves" to disenfranchise the "have-nots". Especially in hard times. It is compounded by notions of nationalism and patriotism. The poor -- disproportionat ely people of color -- were kicked under the bus decades ago. Now the middle class is being asked to join the workforce on the plantation. We should not be surprised. What is not noted in the mainstream media is that our society is becoming increasingly unequal. And our politicians are doing nothing to reverse that.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.