Friday, December 10, 2010

Why Jim Crow was necessary

Race-blind democracy in the vanquished South after the end of the Civil War would have completely changed the last century and a half. Mississippi and South Carolina were majority black.

Can you imagine those two states leading the civil rights movement! Louisiana and Alabama weren't far behind, either.

Jim Crow - and the Ku Klux Klan for that matter - were necessary to prevent the permanent loss of political power by the landed white aristocracy that had wanted and lost the war. Enfranchised black folks would not have voted for the bullshit that white folks voted for.

Nowadays, disenfranchisement is done by dipshits attacking ACORN and by voter intimidation efforts. These are mainstream Republican activities.

The aristocrats and oligarchs never stop fighting to own everything.


Anonymous said...

The individuals that exposed, not attacked, ACORN were heroes to the American taxpayer. I’d like to know if those New Black Panthers, standing in uniform outside a polling place in Philadelphia, were Republicans trying to “disenfranchise” black voters?

lovable liberal said...

One precinct! For one hour, and then the police removed the bad guy. From an overwhelmingly Democratic precinct - though he should not have been there. That's an election-changing violation of the law.

Seriously, Republican Party regulars have frequently worked to suppress voting in precincts that don't support them. In several states in the South, Republican governors have purged voter rolls without regard for the actual laws on the books. They hired private companies and then didn't supervise them. Funny that they purged Democrats and minorities disproportionately. Oh well, too bad!

In every election, there are systematic attempts by various state Republican parties to suppress voting by legal voters who won't vote their way.

But this is all small potatoes, compared to the century-long voter suppression of Jim Crow, which kept millions of entitled voters from voting in fifty or more Congressional elections, as well as 25 Presidential elections. Any comment on that?

lovable liberal said...

Comment on the NBPP bullshit from a conservative:

Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it "small potatoes" and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration. The case, she pointed out, invokes a narrow and rarely used provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been used successfully to prosecute only three times since its passage.

"If you want to criticize [Attorney General] Eric Holder, there are lots of grounds on which to criticize him," she said. "Why waste your breath on this one?"

lovable liberal said...

By the way, the Youtube with the quote from President Obama is a typical wingnut smear. Obama's quote is completely unrelated to the NBPP bullshit controversy. It was about the Sarah Palin lipstick-on-a-pig bullshit controversy.

Yes, in other words, the video was mashed up by a dishonest propagandist.

I catch wingers in lies so often - transparent lies that they barely even try to hide - that I wonder why anyone believes a single word the conservatives say. They certainly haven't earned the least small bit of credibility.

My conclusion: Wingnuts would rather believe the lies than the truth. It's just who they are.