Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Black People

For those of you who do not read Newsweek Magazine, I encourage you to find the article in this week’s issue entitled “Black versus Brown: Can the venerable coalition survive the surge in Hispanic power?”
The article attempts to encourage a Black-Hispanic coalition to fight for power, or in effect take power away from those who are in power, by joining together. This coalition seems to have had more strength when blacks were the largest minority group but has since fallen to the wayside as Hispanics have grown in numbers and don’t need Black support as much as they did in the past.
The article preaches for Black-Latino unity while also explaining how this coalition has fragmented and often into violence in California where once predominately Black areas now have a Hispanic majority, including Compton, Watts, and Lynwood.

In the 1960s the Republican Party lost the Black vote by not supporting the Civil Rights Movement, even with Democrats like Gov. George Wallace blocking black students from the door at the University of Alabama. Illegal immigration and the rise of Hispanic power in traditionally Black areas could be the key to the Republican Party courting the Black vote away from the Democratic Party.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Kira said...

Thats one of the biggest misconceptions, that the Democratic party did more for the civil rights movement than the Republicans.

I bet the kiddies never even learn that the anti-slavery, abolitionist movement was led by the Republicans.

To note - many hispanics vote Republican, particularly the Cubans

Thu Jun 29, 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Kira, Lincoln was a Republican and although he issued the Emancipation Proclamation it only freed slaves in the CSA not in Union States like Maryland that still had slavery or even in Union occupied areas in the South like New Orleans. In effect all Lincoln did was pass a resolution to affect a separate sovereign nation. This would be the same as Bush passing a resolution for Canada. And as the Republican Party did not form until 1860 with the election of Lincoln, the abolitionists were mostly Whigs or members of other parties.
As for Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, this was only passed because it had the support of JFK and passed under LBJ who used the assassination of Kennedy to help him get the legislation passed. Remember it was Dixiecrats and Republicans like Strom Thurmond who tried mightily to block any Civil Rights legislation.

As for the Cubans, that is only because the Republican Party takes a hard stance against Castro in a misguided effort to topple Communist Cuba. But, Castro has been in power for over 40 years during Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. It seems if anything Castro won.

Thu Jun 29, 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

nice post and reply- very balanced. thanks.

Thu Jun 29, 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Betmo, I know why Black people have not voted Republican going back to the 1960s. My point here is that I don’t know why Black people still only vote Democrat when the Democratic Party is doing so little for them. The average black person is more against gay marriage than the average white person, and if you look at California, the average black person is more against illegal immigration than the average white person and has every reason to be economically, politically, and racially.

Thu Jun 29, 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

yes, i know. i was agreeing with what you were saying.

Fri Jun 30, 09:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Kira said...

Publius,

Actually, the Republican party was formed in 1854, and whereas its true that it consisted mainly of Whigs, some anti-slavery Democrats migrated and other parties were absorbed (such as the Free Soil Party). The reason for the formation was to oppose slavery expansion. They believed that "men on free soil comprised a morally and economically superior system to slavery" and ran with slogans like "free soil, free labor, free speech, free men." John C. Fremont ran for president (with the above slogan) as a Republican before Lincoln.

Besides Lincoln, other important members (who actually ran against Lincoln, then joined his cabinet) - such as Salmon P. Chase - were very strong and outspoken opponents of slavery, taking on pro-bono legal fights against slave extradition laws in free states. Some of them were absolutely obsessed with the slavery issue.

(I was highly skeptical about this fact too until I read an AMAZING book called "A Team of Rivals" - I recommend it highly. You won't regret it)

Civil rights legislation - The Civil Rights Act had a serious battle in congress, it was filibustered primarily by southern democrats (Notably, Richard Russell – GA). It was the minority leader Everett Dirksen (IL-R) who organized a coalition of Republicans and liberal Dems to overcome the filibuster and muster the votes to pass the bill. He spoke right before the historical vote: "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" See his speech here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/DirksenCivilRights.pdf

Note that despite his moral opposition to segregation and racism, and tireless efforts at civil rights legislation (much more sincere than JFK, might I add), Dirksen did not win the support of the blacks in Chicago. So, there may be more to the black vote than civil rights legislation. I would say the democrat social policies appeal to blacks, particularly today…

Which brings me to my last point:

I disagree on your assessment of the Cuban vote. Dissidents from communist countries are unlikely to vote Democrat b/c they see their policies as socialist and have seen the extreme of such. This is true for East European refugees (yours truly), Cubans and Chinese (not sure about the Vietnamese vote).

Fri Jun 30, 10:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Kira said...

The full link to Dirksen's speech didn't register. Here it is in pieces (cut and paste):

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/
pdf/DirksenCivilRights.pdf

Fri Jun 30, 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Hector said...

Don't blame me, I voted for the Know-Nothing party.

Fri Jun 30, 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Hector said...

Kira,

The "Cubans" you mention, who vote "conservative" in Miami are a hateful mob, curmudgeons really, who wield vastly disproportionate power a la sanctioning Cuba.
Any fair and decent political party wouldn't rest on its laurels of having "emancipated" african-americans, but would instead, rather, go on to take the critical step of importing cuban tobacco.

Fri Jun 30, 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Kira said...

Hector, so should we revoke our oil embargo on Sudan?

We might as well fund the genocidal government, since sanctions rarely work. Right?

Cuban cigars and cheap oil!

PS - When is the last time you saw a republican politician quote lincoln? Just wondering...

Fri Jun 30, 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Hector said...

Kira,

embargoes empower those at the top of the targeted governments. The scarce resources the corrupet leaders control become even scarcer, and thus more valubale. The harsh realities of the embargo are suffered by those citizens on the lowest rungs who no longer have access to cheap imports, or the ability to create as many exports.
Free trade with cuba would empower everyone in the supply chain. While Castro would initially benefit the most, the end result would be a host of new and powerful government and private positions created, and, ultimately, a government that would be nominally socialist, but in reality bought off and generally controlled by buisness interests. As it generally is in the civilized world.
So, yes, of course the embargo on Sudan should be lifted. The embargo is a flawed mechanism, empowering exactly those its designed to punish.

Fri Jun 30, 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Hector said...

The last time I saw a republican quote Lincoln? Not sure.
I saw Bush mention admirably FDR in his state of the union as he pushed the socialist agenda of government funded alternative energy research. "Switch grass" he said.
Whatever the Republican party once was, it's pretty embarassing now.

Fri Jun 30, 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Kira,

Yes, many Hispanics do indeed vote Republican. Bush captured over 40% of the Latino vote in 2004.

Publius, Cubans vote for Republicans over Democrats because Cubans know and value freedom. Yes, the hard line against Castro is appealing to Cubans, no doubt.

However, a Democrat AG ordering a stormtrooper raid of "Little Havana" to force a Cuban boy whose mother died to bring him freedom back into the clutches of a brutal communist dictator...well, that didn't do much to endear Democrats to Cubans.

Kira is right: the Civil Rights Act would not have happened had it not been for Republicans breaking the DEMOCRAT filibuster. One such Democrat was Robert "Sheets" Byrd (KKK-WV)...not exactly a "Dixiecrat", was he? Oddly enough, black Democrats today b#tch about Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond (neither of which were in the Klan) but completely ignore Byrd's Klan ties.

Fri Jun 30, 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Kira said...

Hector, I agree on your last point. Pretty slim pickins for us voters

Did you hear that Cuba has to now import sugar? With its sugar cane plantations, and with sugar rationing... the workers paradise still needs to import sugar. Is it the embargo that hurts the people at the bottom or the socialist system?

Fri Jun 30, 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger Hector said...

Kira,

"Is it the embargo that hurts the people at the bottom or the socialist system?"

YES!
The government is doing a worse job running sugar production than a private company would. Even in the context of Cuban socialism, if sugar could be sold for market prices to a US sans agricultural subsidies, the market power of the US would encourage more efficient production in Cuba. A more potent Cuban economy would be good for all of Cuba, especially those at the bottom.

Fri Jun 30, 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous K said...

Publius, my apologies for taking over your space ;-)

Fri Jun 30, 11:34:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

No, black people don’t only vote Democrat because of the Civil Rights Legislation, but those who do know that JFK, RFK, and LBJ were the ones who led the fight to get it passed; credit goes to those at the top. This makes even more sense when you consider that Democrats have forgiven Byrd the only former Grand Wizard in Congress.
And Hispanics vote Republican because Hispanics are generally very religious, and very Catholic, and the Republican Party is the religious party. Democrats want gay marriage and don’t want prayer in school and are against religious symbols, this does not sit well with religious people.
That is why I think the Republican Party is missing a great opportunity to take control of the immigration debate and come down tough on illegals because it is what the conservative base wants, it appeals to black voters who see the encroaching Hispanic influence into their areas, and it is not opposed by a lot of legal immigrants because they know the struggle they went through to become citizens. Citizenship is a privilege and not a reward for breaking the law.

Fri Jun 30, 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger Sarah said...

It should be noted that the Republican party of today has absolutely NOTHING to do with the party of Lincoln.

Times change, and I'm waiting to see exactly what the Republican party of today offers the African-American community besides a comfortable place for homophobia and irrational xenophobia.

Sat Jul 01, 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Sarah the Republican Party offers Thomas, Rice, Steele, Swann, Watts, and Powell, whereas the Democrats offer Obama.
Even Bill Clinton, the “first black president,” didn’t name a black person as Secretary of State, much less do it twice. And take out Rev Jackson and Rev Sharpton, and Democrats have not been serious about black leadership within the Party, although I don’t think the Democrats were ever really considering either Reverends. As for homophobia and xenophobia, being against gay marriage is not the same as being afraid of gay people or being against gay people; that is the misconception and the attempted attack on those who are against the issue. And xenophobia would be a fear of foreigners, but being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with foreigners otherwise I would be afraid of my own mother who is an immigrant. Even those who attack people who are against illegal immigration usually call it “an attack against Brown people,” but a xenophobe would be against white immigrants too.
Sorry, but name calling doesn’t win an argument and it shouldn’t. The majority of black people are Christians while the majority of Democrats are not. There are many issues tied around being religious, and if Black people were to look more closely they would see their beliefs follow along very closely with social conservative ideas.

As for the Party of Lincoln not being anything like today’s Republican Party, well both are against slavery, both are against the Union splitting in two, both believe in expanding Presidential powers during war, both believe in limiting personal freedoms during war, both believe in a strong military, both believe in punishing those who attempt to harm the country, and both believe that Democrats are ruining the country. If anything the two parties have never been more similar.

Sat Jul 01, 07:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Kira said...

In truth, JFK avoided civil rights legislation like the plague...he put it off for as long as he could. Had he not been assassinated, there'd be more truth about who he was. As it is, he's an undeserved icon of the civil rights movement.

Publius, you're right that besides the names we all know so well, there have been more minorities appointed by this administration (down to judicial level) than any other in history. But more importantly, they all deserve it. Is doing something, Sarah? Or is Bubba playing the saxaphone and paying lip service more important to you?

Obama was adopted and raised by white parents. Not that it matters, but if he was a republican, he'd be labled "white washed" a long time ago. The same lables applied to Dr. Rice (who grew up in segregated Alabama), and Gen.Powell, who's parents were immigrants.

This "community" crap is BS. There is no "African American community," at least I've never seen one. How about our representatives represent AMERICANS

Sarah, what do you know about Lincoln? I mean, really?

Sun Jul 02, 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Actually, I believe that Obama’s mother was Irish and his father was an immigrant from Africa, but I do not know if he was raised by white parents, I have never heard that. And there is an African-American community, at least near me there is although this community if strongest when centered around one of the local black churches. But, even still having grown up with mostly black people, I can tell you that there is a strong black community in a lot of areas.

I don’t know how much JFK ignored the Civil Rights Movement so much as once television became the news medium that it could no longer be ignored. Reading in a newspaper story about cops turning on fire hoses and sicking dogs on protesters is not the same as seeing it on television. But, JFK does get credit for work carried on by LBJ and by RFK.

Mon Jul 03, 01:13:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home