Posted on 05/17/2011 11:33:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
I see that you had already answered the question in an earlier post: FDR got 23% of the black vote in 1932.
So black voters did like Ike (in 1952 and especially in 1956) more than they liked FDR (in 1932).
The black vote did not become as monolithically Democrat as it had been (pre-New Deal) monolithically Republican until 1964.
Those two states voted exactly the same in 1932, but Roosevelt only got 23% of the black vote that in 1932, what happened?
In 1948 Mississippi went 10% Democrat, and South Carolina went 24% Democrat, yet blacks still voted almost 80% Democrat that year, what happened?
Why do you say that, do you have numbers for the years before 1932?
I won’t deny my eyes when I look at the facts, the black vote has been permanently and overwhelmingly Democrat since 1936.
Oh do tell us more. How did the conversation progress?
It went ok as I am older than they and I reiterated the idea of "not being in the light" in the Christian sense. But is sure was uncomfortable for awhile.
I was discussing the Black vote in politics, period. You made a simple declaration that the Black vote was “bought” in 1936 by the Democrats, and that was that, and I emphasized to you several points that it was not as simple as that, and I attempted to analyze how it went from being in play to monolithic, and yet you seem to keep going back to your sole point about 1936.
Frankly, I don’t understand what exactly you’re trying to accomplish here. You dismissed the fact from your own chart about 1956 and claimed that only 61% of Blacks (those that were ALLOWED to vote, mostly in the North, for which I also emphasized) was a monolithic bloc, when that certainly isn’t compared to the 90% it would be later on.
I’ll point out, again, that since more than half of Blacks who should’ve been eligible to vote, but yet were prevented by illegal laws enacted by Democrats, you cannot claim that they overwhelmingly preferred Democrats starting in 1936. Those that could vote in that period mostly lived in urban areas, and many of said cities were controlled by Democrats, who in turn, often dictated to them HOW to vote (indeed, one might say that Black voters were more mainstream in their preferences than White Urban Democrats for a time). Hence, you could probably only make the claim for the overall Black vote not until 1968 or later, when those who wished to vote, could, and without extralegal hindrances. However, by 1968, the country itself and the Black community was hyper-polarized, for which it has never yet recovered from. More to this discussion, of course, but in covering it, you’ve got to see the nuances and intracacies involved.
BTW, I hope you are not seriously claiming Blacks were never intimidated in their voting preferences (including post-1936, nevermind pre-). They have been intimidated by Democrats ever since they got the vote, but the reasons for it and by whom it has been done by has changed, yet it still has been done for the purpose of keeping Democrats in power, no matter the damage done to the Black community.
What was the Black vote in MS and SC in 1932 or 1936, how about 1948 ? How many Blacks could participate in voting in getting around Jim Crow in those states ?
How do you answer post 62?
You thought that the 1936 vote in those states meant something dramatically important related to the national black vote, why didn’t it mean anything in 1932 and 1948?
When has the black vote not gone overwhelmingly Democrat since they suddenly switched to that party in 1936?
What the pubbies won't tell you is that if that percentage held we would have NEVER had Clinton or Obama in the WH...but "outreach" is a waste of time...
In other words, you have no idea what those stats are. I see you’re not interested in anything else but repeatedly harping on 1936 and refuse to address all the other points, especially about whom and where those were allowed to vote and the dynamics at work. Let me know when you’re ready to have more than a simplistic and pointless discussion, otherwise have a nice day.
I reckon the ace of spades will have to be taken out of the deck, maybe the king, queen and jack as well...oh, hell just come up with a whole new suit but make it pink, not black.
In actuality, had that percentage held after 1956, there would’ve been no JFK in 1960 (hence, LBJ’s ascension wouldn’t have occurred, or the ‘64 Dem landslide), no Carter in ‘76, indeed, there would’ve been no Democrat elected President after Truman in 1948, that’s just how dramatic it would be. Imagine how much different this country would be today, and for the better. No federal destruction of the Black family via misguided anti-poverty/welfare programs, no lowest-common-denominator garbage from the culture/entertainment community (i.e. hip-hop/rap/gangsta, et al). A likely fully integrated, successful and flourishing and strong Black community (and families), completely and thoroughly mainstream to the nation, the dream of early Black leaders (Booker T. Washington, etc) finally realized. Imagine what that America would look like...
That's why Colin Powell got a pass but Justice Thomas got roasted
It also could be some residual white liberal guilt for destroying the black family literally (aka abortion) and figuratively (high illigitimacy,crime, illiteracy rates, low marriage, education and achievement rates)
The dems and liberals have NEVER been friends of mine... in fact Malcolm X himself, warned black folks about the dangers of liberals and liberalism
You held up a 99% SC vote and 97% Miss. vote in 1936 as proof of some kind for explaining why FDR got 71% of the black vote in 1936, why doesn't that explanation work for 1932, and 1948 for instance?
"Or are you going to tell me states like Mississippi voting 97% or South Carolina voting 99% (!) for FDR in 1936 was “mainstream” ?"
Those two states voted exactly the same in 1932, but Roosevelt only got 23% of the black vote in 1932, what happened?
In 1948 Mississippi went 10% Democrat, and South Carolina went 24% Democrat, yet blacks still voted almost 80% Democrat that year, what happened?
Historically I think most slaves have been white. Blacks, I suppose, like to think they have a monopoly on the condition, and that certainly isn’t the case. Your point is good, though, about the effects of American slavery on later generations: without slavery they would have been living in Africa, assuming they had been born at all. That’s not to say that slavery was a good thing, but one needs to understand that we who are living in this century had nothing to do with it and couldn’t have had anything to do with it. Solzhenitsyn remarked that if he hadn’t been arrested and thrown into the Gulag in 1945 he would most probably have turned out as bad, or worse, than the people he condemned in his writings. The bottom line is that you can look at the past and say that this thing or that thing ought not to have been done, but it’s unhealthy, and even foolish to imagine that you can somehow influence the past on the basis of your attitudes in the present.
The liberals (be it media/Democrats, whatever) only want the stereotype of the White Male Republican, those are the only “legit” ones. Mass hysteria ensues when that stereotype isn’t seen as the face of the party. They can deal with White Males being the supporters (though they will attempt to make the charge of racism to cause them to cower or force them to vote Democrat), but when different faces appear, the tactics are #1, viciously attack them as being a tool of the “man” and hence not an authentic “fill-in-the-blank” or #2, they’ll simply ignore them as an entity.
The vicious, over-the-top mass hysteria you see surrounding Palin is one example (again, Dems can’t afford to lose the female vote, and she gravely threatens that), and especially the stuff aimed at non-Whites (Justice Thomas, as you pointed out). If Col. West becomes a contender for the White House (or if Herman Cain becomes a leader) you’ll see all hell break loose. Even Hispanics aren’t immune. Witness the meltdown over Miguel Estrada as a leading candidate for SCOTUS. Even now, we have two (not including PR) Hispanic GOP Governors (Brian Sandoval in NV and Susana Martinez in NM) and right now, the media is using the other tactic of ignoring them. If these were all liberal Dems, we’d hear about them as the “hope for the future” every day of the week.
You’re quite right, libs and Democrats (White or otherwise) are no friend of the non-White (or White) community, it’s all about maintaining power and keeping their slaves on the plantation. Woe be to those who start to think for themselves and start asking others to do the same.
Of course, I don’t want that all to read as exclusively Republicans can do no wrong/have all the best interests in mind. The Republicans are guilty themselves of not aggressively and unapologetically standing up and pointing out the facts about what has happened to this country (and the issue of racism in general, and its real victims and whom is perpetuating it). Too many write off certain groups, and this at a time when new leadership and outreach is being called out for. Some folks ask me why you have that near or above 90% figure voting for Democrats... well, when you have nobody asking for their vote, going into the community, staying in the community past the time it takes to ask for their vote and doing what needs to be done, if one party is AWOL on that, how can we act surprised when they don’t vote for them ? That’s got to change.
That applies to the Catholic vote as well, Protestants have only voted Democrat 3 times in modern history 1932, 1936, and 1964.
One has to wonder at the workings of the mind of someone who'd invent this spurious "pick a nigger" derivation and then set it loose on the Internet. Of course, the fact that it's spurious hasn't deterred those who are determined to find something to be offended by, as noted in this excerpt from a 2000 National Post article:Note that the implication in Snopes is that the whole thing was made up in order to make blacks look stupid for believing such a ridiculous thing. I think, though, that I read about this in Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science in the section about the Afrocentrism movement. And there were plenty of equally, if not more so, ridiculous things described there being actively promoted by race-baiting black professors.Meanwhile, things are not peachy on the campus of SUNY/Albany. The university wanted to honour baseball legend Jackie Robinson by having a picnic. But the university's equity office said this must not occur because the word "picnic" referred originally to gatherings held to lynch Blacks. In fact, as one of their own English professors (rather less committed to historical revisionism than RMC'sDr. Robinson) pointed out, the word "picnic" actually comes from a17th-century French word that denotes a party at which everyone brings food. But Zaheer Mustafa, the equity officer, nevertheless decreed that "picnic" not be used because "the pointis — the word offends." So the university decided to call it an "outing." Then, homosexual students took objection to that, and SUNY decided to publicize the event without using any noun to describe it.
“The black vote did not become as monolithically Democrat as it had been (pre-New Deal) monolithically Republican until 1964.”
“Why do you say that, do you have numbers for the years before 1932?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.