An honest discussion about Racism?

Please just stop trying to create a crisis where there is none.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.

“We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”

“Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

 

Thank you for your reply,
By now we have both said much and I will leave it at that. I think we have both laid bare who we really are.

Respectfully,

 

Correct. All we can ultimately do, is to put-down and reject those who would 'dehumanize' others; make them feel/pay for the same, in some social manner.

 

It's neither ridiculous or unjustified. The Confederate Flag, like all flags is a symbol. In the United States we have a flag. We also have a pledge of allegiance to that flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation, (under God..unless your an atheist) indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. The Confederate flag is a rebel flag. It does not stand for those things. It rejects those values and embraces slavery. One cannot accept the concept of "All Men are Created Equal", and endorse slavery at the same time.

I am. That's exactly what I'm doing. The ideas behind the Confederate Flag are antithetical to those held by the US. It serves no other purpose.

Why not? A car is not a bike. They both may be means of transportation but they aren't the same thing. The images of the two are distinct from one another, as are the images and meaning behind the two symbols represented in the form of flags. A flag is not a blanket...no pun intended. It has meaning to it.

You're quoting Locke. "Whatever me mix our labor with that is un-owned, becomes our property. The labor is the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to." Is this a quote that you use as a signature, because I'm not sure how it relates to what we're talking about.

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind , who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. “ John Locke

Locke also says this: "No legitimate government can violate our natural rights. However…what counts as life and liberty and respect for property…is defined by government. That there be property, that there be respect for life and liberty is what limits government, but what counts as respecting my life or my property…that is for government to decide and define." According to Locke; A democratically elected government has the right to tax people. It involves taxation with consent. It requires consent of the governed, but not the consent of each individual. It requires a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligations. Once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.

In Lockes view; You can’t give up your own rights, because they aren’t actually yours. You’re a creature of God, and they don’t belong to you. Gods property right exists a priori to yours. So you have a natural right to your body, but as a natural right you cannot give it up. Lockes view is foundationalist which I reject. He bases his view on theistic grounds, which again I reject.

 

The Constitution of the United States is a contract. All the states signed onto that contract and are bound to it. They cannot simply break that contract without justification. Now the justification as shown in the Articles of Secession by Mississippi are no different than those of the other secessionist states. It was always over the institution of slavery."“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." The Constitution is not something whimsical. It's a social contract between the government and the people. Those that seceded no doubt saw slavery as an institution important to their economy. However in order to remain consistent with the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, that All Men are Created Equal, it would require dehumanizing some people to avoid the obvious contradiction by counting them as 3/5 of a human being. Problem solved. Clearly that is no way to run a country and it falls upon the government of the US to determine the moral compass of it's obligations to the people under the constitution.

Again, going back to Locke; "That there be property, that there be respect for life and liberty is what limits government, but what counts as respecting my life or my property…that is for government to decide and define." According to Locke; A democratically elected government has the right to tax people. It involves taxation with consent. It requires consent of the governed, but not the consent of each individual. It requires a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligations. Once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority.

I don't buy the idea of wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt equivalent to waving the confederate flag. Che has no meaning to anybody in this country. The Confederate flag does. The Nazi Swastika is banned in Germany. It represents something contrary to the principles of modern Germans. It's an abomination and a direct insult to members of their population. Likewise the Confederate flag serves the same purpose here. It's a direct insult and constant reminder of another time in which a portion of our population were enslaved by another. And that's it's intent. They may have lost the war, but the cause remains strong and the cause is fueled by hate. We do have freedom of speech in this country and a person can do what the want with that rag. However waving that as a sign of patriotism is false and deserves to be ridiculed for what it is. It's a sign of insurrection and a justification for slavery. We have many dog whistles directed at whites in this country and this is just one of them.


Two questions arise concerning the contract of our constitution.
1.How do actual contracts bind me?
2.How do actual contracts justify the terms they produce?

The answer to the second question is …they don’t. Not on their own. Actual contracts are NOT sufficient moral instruments. It can always be asked; “Is it fair”? The fact of the agreement never guarantees the fairness of the agreement. Our own constitution permitted slavery to persist. It was agreed to . It was an actual contract. That doesn’t establish that all the laws agreed to are just. So…what is the moral force of contracts? Contracts bind us insofar as they are of mutual benefit.

If there is no benefit. there is no element of reciprocal exchange. Do I still owe you merely by the fact of the agreement?

There are two ways in which actual contracts generate moral obligations.
Moral Force of Actual Contracts.
1.How do they bind or obligate
i)Consent based > Autonomy. When I make a contract, it is self imposed. That carries a certain moral weight, independent of other considerations.
ii)Benefit based. The idea of reciprocity. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

If there is reciprocity, if there is an exchange, a receipt of benefits, there can be an obligation even without an act of consent.

 

It has been demonstrated repeatedly. Your being in denial doesn't change that fact. In fact, now you're even modifying your argument to "liberal Democrats" as being racist. Apparently it finally sunk in that Democrat is a party and not an ideology. Democrats are no more or less racist than Republicans. There may be students at Princeton that are racist, but you cant very well say that all Princetonian's are racist. Your reasoning process is absurd.

The argument being made is that conservatism and racism are one in the same in America. You're continued argument directs itself to a party. Yet all the members of that party were conservatives which demonstrates the point I'm making.

Truman never supported the lynching of blacks. In 1947, the Truman Administration published a report titled "To Secure These Rights", which advocated making lynching a federal crime, abolishing poll taxes, and other civil rights reforms. The Southern Democratic bloc of senators and congressmen continued to obstruct attempts at federal legislation. All of those Senators were conservatives. There are no liberals in the south, and certainly not elected officials. There never have been.

There is nothing wrong in the posts, and the very thing that you point out proves that. You make a blanket statement that "the racists were Democrats" which is false. David Duke was the Grand Dragon of the KKK and became a Republican legislator in Louisiana. The party has always been a platform to advocate your ideological position. The Republican Party is the Platform for the Tea Party today. It's the platform for conservatism. The Democratic Party is the platform used by Liberals, and Progressives today.The racists were always southern conservatives and it made no difference what party they belonged to. It wouldn't change their racist views. Once a conservative always a conservative. Strom Thurmond was a segregationist as a Democrat and a Republican. The party he belonged to didn't change that.

The argument that is being made has to do with the ideology. NOT the parties. Parties change. Ideologies don't.

Think about this for just a moment. You implied that Strom Thurmond, the racist segregationist changed his ways after becoming a Republican? But you point your self-righteous finger at Robert Byrd who actually left the KKK in the 50's and did in fact change his ways and was acknowledged by the NAACP for having done so.

Thurmond was increasingly at odds with the national Democratic Party, some of whose leaders were supporting the civil rights movement (how is that possible if all Democrats are racists?) led by African Americans in the South seeking enforcement of their right as citizens to vote and an end to racial segregation. On September 16, 1964, he switched his party affiliation to the Republican Party (GOP), which was seeking to revive its presence in the South by appealing to conservative voters. Does that mean that All Republicans are racists? Why would Thurmond leave the Democrats? Oh yeah, because a faction of them supported Civil Rights which he didn't. So he left to go to a party more aligned with his thinking. The Republicans. Does this make all Republicans racists? No. But Thurmond was definitely a conservative and found a more sympathetic atmosphere with the Republicans that shared his conservative views.

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

1964 Civil Rights Senate Version Ayes.

House. 281 of 313 from Union States. 90%
House .8 of 102 from Confederacy 8%
Senate 72 of 78 from the Union States 92%
Senate 1 of 22 from Confederacy 5%

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties. We know that the South is now and always has been Conservative.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? This is the breakdown of the Yea votes.

House. Dem/Union 144 of 152 95%
House. GOP/Union 137 of 161 85%
House. Dem/Confed 8 of 91 9%
House GOP/Confed 0 of 11 0%

Senate. Dem/Union 45 of 46 89%
Senate GOP/Union 27 of 32 84%
Senate Dem/Confed 1 of 21 5%
Senate GOP/Confed 0 of 1 0%

The Confederacy was the South and the South is Conservative as even you would know. You can see who voted for Civil Rights and who were those against it.

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever. Goldwater was a Conservative and so was/is the South.

Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns, had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party.

Today, the transformation is nearly complete. President Obama carried only 18% of former Confederate states, while taking 62% of non-Confederate states in 2012. Only 27% of southern senators are Democrats, while 62% of Union state senators are Democrats. And 29% of southern members in the House are Democrats compared to 54% in states or territories that were part of the Union.

Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.

 

I believe this post single handedly squashed all the conservatives here proclaiming how "racist" the democratic party was (ie. KKK, Jim Crow, etc.) when they were overlooking the fact it is the conservative ideology that is where that racism comes from.

Even MLK Jr. alluded to this fact when he spoke of Goldwater's candidacy, and stated the "Republican" ideology (conservatism) is what harbors the racists.

Just look at some of the posts here from "conservatives" to prove what you're saying.

 

Just this past year the entire nation saw the Left's institutionalized racism when they recategorized a brown skin-toned Hispanic as a White-Hispanic (the first time in fifty years the New York Times resorted to that specialized designation) merely so that it was safe to HATE George Zimmerman and label a non-racial killing as a White versus Black killing. The Left inclusive did this . . . not the Right.

 

There is no denying, Truman was a liberal democrat President and he was a member of the KKK. Supposedly he decided not to be involved because of the Klan's policies towards Catholics? He didn't have problems with them lynching blacks though, eh?
This is the most pathetic defense of liberal democrat racism and I don't know why you just can't admit the truth, it was liberal democrats who were the racists, not conservatives. Conservatism is about individual freedoms and liberty, while liberalism is about the government restricting and imposing laws that take away those freedoms, like the Jim Crow Laws. You have yet to cite one bit of evidence that Southern racists were conservatives.

Warren G. Harding was a pro-civil rights president. It is a complete sham for you to make the accusation that he was a member of the KKK based on a rumor. Reminder, this is supposed to be an HONEST discussion on race. Oh, and by the way, he was a conservative.

So 3 republicans from the 20’s is all you could find? One was not even elected, but appointed. And two governors who served one term, one run out of office for corruption, and one who served prison time for fraud. That is sorely pathetic. And the I didn’t find any mention of the KKK in the first ones bio on Wiki.

Did you mention that when Duke ran for and won as a republican

Gee, those racist conservatives endorsed a liberal democrat rather than a former democrat racist KKK leader. I'd be willing to bet that was one race where democrats and republicans switched their votes, republicans voting for the democrat, and the democrats voting for the KKK guy just to embarrass the republicans.

 

I notice there is no evidence, link or citation for republicans being sympathetic to the Klan. You are losing credibility every time you make a blatantly false statement like this. If the GOP was sympathetic to the Klan, then why did two GOP presidents and other prominent republicans endorse his DEMOCRAT opponent? Notice that I provide proof and you do not.

 

It has every thing to do with party. I have proved it was a racist democrat party time and time again. I have shown it was liberal democrats time and time again. Now you are attempting to deflect because you are on the defensive.

 

FDR was a liberal democrat president. Trying to describe him as a conservative is just laughable.

 

Yes JFK has been praised as an iconic civil rights politician even though it's untrue. I can't post links right now on my mobile. I think I'll wait until tomorrow to finish because your post is so long. I have shown that I am right with links and you haven't. Where is the proof that conservatism is racist?

 

I just find it interesting how every time I go on a forum with mostly Conservative posters, there's always constant racism towards blacks and other minorities. It never fails.

 

If you are a Tea Party Republican you can't possibly have an honest discussion about racism.

 

Zimmerman is half German and half Peruvian, which makes him " white hispanic ". The fact that he has a brown skin tone is irrelevant. Many Italians have a brown skin tone, and are considered white.

Btw, Zimmermn told the Sanford Pd that he was white, which is why it was in the police report.

 

Does that include black Tea Party Republicans? Just because you can't have an honest discussion about racism doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I could just as easily say that if you are a liberal democrat you can't have an honest discussion about racism. Judging from the conversations I've had with Adagio, I would say that is accurate.

 

I think that it comes mostly from democrats aimed at blacks and other minorities that are conservative, Tea Party and republicans.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

 

Of course there is. There was nothing overtly "liberal" about Truman. He integrated the Army, and fought for a federal law against lynching. I wouldn't call dropping an Atomic bomb on Japan a liberal idea. And he wasn't a member of the KKK. That's already been explained and you're simply regurgitating the same lie. He was not a member, attended no meetings, and refused to adhere to their demands. There's no there, there.

That's another lie. You have a habit of that. Must be a case of conservatitus. In 1947, the Truman Administration published a report titled To Secure These Rights, which advocated making lynching a federal crime, abolishing poll taxes, and other civil rights reforms. The Conservative Southern Democratic bloc of senators and congressmen continued to obstruct attempts at federal legislation.

Because you aren't telling the truth. You're floating lies. This has been illustrated to you and others on this thread repeatedly. Southern Democrats were all conservatives, and as a block opposed Civil Rights. They're still conservatives today, except now they're Republicans. Conservatism isn't a party. It's an ideology, and it's the ideology that embraces racism.

Is the South Conservative or Liberal? Just tell me of a time in our history when the South was EVER known to be Liberal? It is the MOST Conservative part of this country. If you don't know that, then you're terribly weak in your history. Name me a Liberal Senator from the South. Now tell me where the Jim Crow laws were taking place. Here's a hint...Dixie. Now...tell me how Jim Crow Laws that came about after the Civil War in the South and continued up to the point of the Civil Rights Act could possibly have been brought about by liberals when there were no liberals in the South? Liberalism has NEVER controlled the South, so how could they have created Jim Crow Laws? Liberalism appeals to minorities. Conservatism is hostile to minorities. If you don't believe that, take a look at the last election as the most recent reminder. Liberals would never create laws that discriminate against minorities. You're desperately clinging to a theory that has no foundation to it. Strom Thurmond was a Southerner, a conservative, and a racist and a segregationist and holds the record for the longest filibuster in the Senate when he tried to block the CRA.

I posted that it was a rumor, Unlike you who makes the false claim that Truman was a member and endorsed Lynchings. So we have lies and double standards at work here.

You asked for one. And why does the decade matter now when it doesn't matter to you regarding Truman or Byrd?

He won didn't he. He was a KKK Wizard and a Republican. You asked for examples.

Several things involved here. Both Reagan and Bush were running for national office and nobody running is likely to endorse a known KKK leader. However, in 1980, Ronald Reagan began his campaign, not with a speech on supply side economics. He began it with a speech supporting “states rights” just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair, the very community where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. This was a deliberate appeal to white racists that he was on their side and was part of a Republican strategy going back to the 1960’s to build a conservative majority on the basis of racism. This is not a way to attract blacks to the conservative movement. But that was never the intention. The conservative isn’t looking to appeal to Blacks. They’re looking to suppress them. The South has also always been the most racist part of the country. This is probably the most direct connection between racism and conservatism in America; despite all the denials of southern intellectuals and politicians, past and present, the South’s militant conservatism was rooted fundamentally in its hyper-racism”.

Unfortunately for you, speculation doesn't count as proof of anything. I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but that's not something that supports your case.

 

You post a lot of opinions but fail to provide any proof or examples. And yet again, even though you know these were democrats doing these things, you blame conservatism without providing any proof that it was conservatives doing these things. You have shown absolutely no connection between conservatism and racism. But much of what you say confirms what I have been saying, that this was done by democrats. The democrats did not have civil rights in their platform for many years. They did have segregation in their platform. The Republicans have had civil rights in their platform forever. Why would these supposed "conservatives" be driven into a party that votes in higher percentages for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the democrats?

By party:

The Senate:
Democratic Party: 69%
Republican Party: 82%

The House:
Democratic Party: 63%
Republican Party: 80%

I agree that the Southerners were Klan types. But the Klan was in many states by the way, not just the South.

So to pretend that this is just Southern democrats that were involved is also misleading. It is well known that the first movie shown in the White House was under Democrat President Wilson and it was the Klan movie "Birth of a Nation".

Now can you show me anywhere where any of these crazed democrat racists were described as "conservatives"?

And again with the unfounded and unsupported claims that democrat are now republicans and visa versa. It is a completely ludicrous statement. Republican ideology has been conservative for decades and democrats ideology has been liberal for decades as well.

 

Duke was a KKK Wizard. He also switched from Democrat to Republican. Why do you think he'd do that? In Louisiana the change was already taking place and conservatives had switched to Republican. Democrats were seen as liberals as they are today. What Reagan and Bush did or didn't do is irrelevant. Not every president is going to endorse every candidate for local elections. There is nothing that demands that of them. And in this case, endorsing a Klan leader would have killed both of their attempts to become president. By the 1980's and 90's You also need to understand that I didn't say that the GOP was sympathetic to the Klan. I said that conservatism is sympathetic to it. The Klan is conservatism taken to the extreme. Reagan may have been a conservative but he wasn't stupid enough to endorse a Klan member.

 

You're sounding pretty stressed. And of course, you're wrong. A person can change parties, and parties themselves can change their direction. We've already seen that. The South used to be all Democrat and today they are all Republican. Are you going to tell me or anybody that the South was ever liberal? It wasn't and you know that. So your argument is simply false. Now the problem is that since you've been leaning so heavily on the concept of the party dictating the ideology of the members, you're stuck with it. Democrat or Republican indicates a party affiliation. But it doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy or ideology of the person. Conservative and Liberal does. The Dems and the Repubs used to have Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. Today the Republicans are entirely Conservative. You can't even be a moderate in todays Republican Party. Maybe you should change the name to the Conservative Party. However, Conservatism is an ideology. It's not a party. Liberalism is a philosophy. It's not a party. The Democratic Party is not a philosophy. It's the organizational political structure that a philosophy or ideology uses to promote itself. The parties are nothing but a name. When asked what your political philosophy or ideology is, you would say your a conservative. There are members of the Tea Party that don't call themselves Republicans at all, even though they run as Republicans and take part in Republican primaries. So...again, you're wrong, and you've proved nothing other then your failure to recognize the inherent racism that is embedded into the conservative ideology. There's a reason why African/Americans avoid the Republican Party and it's because of the conservatism that dominates it. It's not friendly to minorities. They know this even if you don't. When a kid like Trayvon Martin is shot and killed, conservatives go all out to demonize the kid and cast him as a thug and his family as welfare creeps. That doesn't go unnoticed. They see it on Fox Noise and they know what conservatives think of them.

 

He was pretty Liberal regarding economics. But more conservative on other issues. He's really most known for the New Deal and WWII. Not any position on Civil Rights. You seem to think that a person must be liberal or conservative on every issue. Why?

 

I asked you to show me some citations describing him as an "iconic civil rights leader" which is how you described him. Your saying this doesn't make it true. Show me some evidence of this. Some citation from a source that matters.

What you post is anecdotal. You completely ignore history and have no clue about what conservatism is about other than the usual platitudes about freedom, and Liberty yadda yadda. You don't know about where it comes from, or who the historical figures in it's ideology are. You have a very difficult time using basic reason and logic.

Lets see if reason and history works with you. What is the most conservative part of this country? It's the South. Even you would know this. Where was slavery taking place? In the South. Where did Jim Crow take place? In the South. Where did segregation take place? In the South. Where was the battle for Civil Rights fought? In the South. Is the South Conservative? Of course. Do they elect Liberals? NO! Were they Democrats? Yes. Does that mean that Democrats are racist? No. Why not? Because there were Liberal Democrats that supported Civil Rights. So there are Liberal Democrats and there were Conservative Democrats. Yes. One group supported Civil Rights, the other didn't. Guess which one did? Is the South still Conservative today? Yes. Are there any Liberal Senators from the South? NO. Are they all Conservatives? Yes. Are they Democrats? No. They're Republicans. Are they still Conservative? Yes. Did Conservatives support segregation? Yes. Was Strom Thurmond a Conservative? Yes. Was Jesse Helms a Conservative? Yes. Were they segregationists? Yes. Did they oppose Civil Rights? Yes. Was George Wallace a Conservative? Yes. Is Alabama Conservative? You bet!. Is Mississippi? Absolutely. Were they Confederate States that supported slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation? Yes. Does conservatism appeal to racists? Yes. Does racism appeal to conservatives? Yes. Why? Because the most basic tenet of Conservatism is maintaining existing institutions and slavery is a basic institution from the earliest days of this country. It's written into our Constitution. Conservatism leans heavily on traditional values and those values include maintaining those institutions. The South fought a Civil War to maintain the institution of slavery. Again, was the South ever Liberal? No. Was it always Conservative? Yes. Did Conservatives support slavery? Yes.

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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

Who supported the Civil Rights Act? Liberals. Were these Liberal Democrats? Yes. Were they Liberal Republicans? Yes. Who opposed the CRA? Conservatives...both Dem and Republican. Can we say that a party is racist? No. Why not? Because there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. Is that true today? No. Which party endorses Civil Rights as part of it's platform? Democrats. Do Republicans? No. Why not? They're all conservatives and conservatives opposed civil rights.

This is a look at the historical position of the liberal and the conservative movements in this country. They are what influence the parties. The parties do not influence the ideology.

 

Indigenous population Peruvians are classified as White? That must be as much of a shock to them as Native-Americans being classified as White. Here's the Wkikipedia take on the people you are calling White so that leftwingers can safely hate on them:

So Zimmerman is as authentically White as Barack Obama . . . but -- oddly enough -- no Obama supporters have been calling their president a White African-American. Now . . . why is that? As far as that goes, no matter how much White bloodline is intermixed Zimmerman was the first brown-skinned Hispanic that the New York Times classified as a White Hispanic in the last fifty years. I'm just waiting with breathless anticipation for ALL leftwingers to relabel most minority Hispanics in this nation and south of the border White Hispanics. But for some odd reason . . . that's just not going to happen. I feel it in my bones.