Harry and Trent: A Tale of Two Gaffes

[davidbcoe]

I’ve been kind of absent from the blogosphere recently, except for my weekly Magical Words posts. The “Robin Hood” project was pretty consuming, and I just haven’t had much time to comment on politics or sports or life itself. I’m finally finished, though, and, it seems, just in time. It’s as if in the last week or so the entire world has gone

Comments

[markwise]

Exccept the fact that it was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act. It was the Republicans who ended slavery and extended Voting Rights to former slaves.

These are things that seem to be forgotten by folks these days.

[davidbcoe]

Yes, Lincoln, a Republican, ended slavery, and Republicans in the Reconstruction Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments extending rights to former slaves. The Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1964 and 1965, and they were intended to end the remnants of Jim Crow. They were shepherded through Congress by a Democratic President (Lyndon Johnson) but they did have substantial support from moderate Republicans as well as liberal Democrats. The main opponents were Southern Democrats and conservative Western Republicans. So those two laws were truly bipartisan

[markwise]

There is no proof of ralical intolerance in the Republican Party. Ever ehar names such as Condelezza Rice, JC Watts,Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell? Michael Steele is black and is the Leader of Republican National Party.

As for Social intolerence, the only that they are intolerant of is wasting money which the Democrats love to do.

[davidbcoe]

>>Ever ehar names such as Condelezza Rice, JC Watts,Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell? Michael Steele is black and is the Leader of Republican National Party.<<

Ah, the "Some of my best friends are African-Americans" argument... Might want to take Colin Powell off that list. Having a few high profile African-Americans doesn't change the fact that the GOP has been opposed to every major piece of Civil Rights legislation over the past thirty years. And social intolerance would cover the frothing-at-the-mouth opposition nearly every elected Republican voices for any type of social justice for homosexuals.

[markwise]

What pieces of major Civil Rights legislation are you speaking of? (yeah I know that's bad english *grin*)

The last 30 years would be from 1980 until now. I can't think of any major pieces of Civil Rights legislation since 1980.

[davidbcoe]

There have been lots, actually, including (but not limited to) the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act (which, like many pieces of legislation, were written with so-called sunset dates built in and needed to be re-upped by Congress), the King holiday bill (which was a huge deal at the time), various measures dealing with affirmative action, federal aid to minority-owned businesses, fair housing bills, fair employment bills. I don't have the expertise to name them all, but if you go to the NAACP or Urban League sites you might be able to find more details. I know that the NAACP rates Senators and Congressmen based on votes, so they must have a list of Civil Rights legislation.

[markwise]

It's me again, the pesky neighborhood Conservative. *grin*
I don't mean to drag the conversation out, but I do love a good debate

Could it be that Republicans are not so much anti-minority as anti-preferred treatment for any race? Republicans have not tried to reinstitute Segregation or take away someone's Right to Vote. They argue instead that we have progressed as a nation to the point where artificially tilting the playing field in favor of a certain race is not needed. In short, those bills had outlived their usefulness and were no longer needed.

So you see, Republicans are not so much as "racist" than as "race neutral". Wasn't that the dream of Dr. King in Washington?

[davidbcoe]

Thanks for the good discussion, Mark

[markwise]

I guess we have come to an impass, my friend. *smile* I won't keep you from your awsome work (I want to read your next book so I don't want to keep you tied up) except to say...

You see the playing field as tilted against minorities due to racial reasons. I agree that there may still be inequalities but I think chalking them up to race is an oversimplification. I think that there are other factors at play such as economic, educational, and familial which are at play here too.

So a solution based solely upon race would not solve problems only partially rooted in race. It would need to encompass all the factors involved.