I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48

David Yeagley

[Bella_Bru]

It is against the cultures religeon to marry out of race

So, a Christian whose ancestors hailed from England is somehoe different from a Chritian who's parents hail from South American, or maybe Korea, or such?

[Ohioan]

One further note to my reply #100, praising the writer's understanding. The principles of the Law of Nations to which I referred as being fully in accord with the posted writer's views, are discussed in my essay Immigration & The American Future.

But again, thanks for posting the sound article.

William Flax

[Bella_Bru]

No, I do not agree with you. Don't think I do. I do not think an American Christian whose ancestors are English and are white are any different from American Christians whose ancestors are from the Ivory Coast and are black. Do you think G-d thinks they are different Christians? If that were the case our biology would be so different as to prevent us from interbreeding. We would be different species. We are not. We are the same species.

[Bella_Bru]

with out the drudgery of thought cops

Oh, you mean the same thought cops in the Dixiecrat Party that wished to dictate who you could marry by opposing the repeal of anti-interracial marrige laws? They are thought cops too. They wish to tell you whom you may and may not fall in love with and wish to raise a family with. Authoritarians stink just as bad as Marxists. Their stink is different is all.

[Macklew]

You're not alone. They believe in segregation in South Africa; Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia); and just about every other "modern, prosperous, peaceful, healthy" African nation - don't they?

[Ohioan]

Actually, the essay on myths deals more with exposing the false dogma that is being taught, rather than a thorough treatment of the evidence. Chapters Five and Seven of the same Debate Handbook, deal with other aspects of the reality. But it is the contrived logical distortions promoted by men like Ashley Montagu and Gordon Allport (two of the Myth Makers), and taught as Gospel on American college campuses, which produce the Pavlovian type responses to any discussion of racial and ethnic questions, among the susceptible.

It was the Pavlovian responses that doomed Lott--both theirs and his.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Stone Mountain]

It is against the cultures religeon to marry out of race,

It is?

If someone can not identify their heritage they become nothing more than just another person.

Sounds just fine to me. Nothing wrong with being just another person. I think people have intrinsic value regardless of their race, culture or heritage.

When a race of people lose where there heritage has been there is no way to know where to go unless of course folks feel the same way about American history and continually try to revise and rewrite it.

Sorry - I read this sentence many times and could not understand what you are getting at. Please explain.

I am not a racist but will still be proud of my heritage and apologise to no one for it.

Nobody is asking you to apologise for your heritage here. Are you getting the impression that someone is?

[Reactionary]

"There is no superior race or specially gifted humans."

There are no specially gifted humans? Haha!

[Stone Mountain]

Ok... you got me on that one! I was talking vis-a-vis race when I agreed with that...

[VOA]

Applying David Yeagley's own logic, so far as I can follow it, why should he have
been allowed to vote in the '48 election?

You've hit the nail on the head.
As I tell friends, Lott forgot that he was in The Party of Lincoln...not The Party
of Jefferson Davis.

At the same time, I think Yeagley has mis-stated his real point...
(a presumption I make because I've agreed with a lot of his other columns)...
the question to ponder is how an identifiable "ethnic" group goes about preserving it's
identity in a free society, without being called/perceieved as racist.

That IS a real pickle...given our interplay of issues such as free will, self-determination,
and a bunch of other things folks in less-blessed countries never have the luxury to worry about...
(myself, I just go with the "hey, you are free to maintain your identity or not
maintain your identity, within the bounds of the law")

[Bella_Bru]

You still haven't answered. How is it any less action by thought police to tell you whom you may and may not marry based on skin color alone? This was part of the Dixiecrat's platform. Explain how they were not acting in the role of thought police in opposing the repeal of statutes put in place to TELL PEOPLE HOW THEY MAY FEEL for one another.

[Stone Mountain]

Lost heritage works the same way as lost history, As you well know American History is no longer relevant to our revisionist society. All founders and heroes'have been declared unworthy and nothing more than slave owners.

I disagree that we have lost our history. Are there more versions floating around now then there were 50 years ago? Sure. Are some of those versions revisionist and flawed? Sure. That doesn't mean we don't have access to the works of all the great historians of our time now and throughout history. It is true that some people have declared that our founding fathers were unworthy slave owners. But that in no way denies your access to sources that you believe in. That information hasn't vanished - in fact, it's easier to access now than it has been during any other point in our history.

As for the Dixiecrats was Senator Lott talking about segregationist policies or what would have happened if Strom Thurmond was elected president in 1948. Would we be better off?

Of course nobody knows. You can point to the negative examples that you gave, and other people can list examples of how our country has done great things during the same period of time. The point is that this type of speculation is basically meaningless.

The decency of Americans would have never let abuse of black Americans to continue.

Well, it went on for over 100 years before that... I don't think Americans were any less decent back then - just more ignorant about race. Who knows how long that ignorance might have gone on? It's not intellectually honest to list a bunch of negative things and say that they might not have happened if Thurmond had been elected, and then in the same breath to say that even if Thurmond had been elected, civil rights for blacks wouldn't have been impeded at all since Americans are basically decent. That doesn't fly.

[jeremiah]

Well said, and perfectly to the point.

[jeremiah]

You are thoughtful and very precise. That is two replies to this post that remind me why I love FR, debates are loaded with opinion, backed by logic and well stated. Kudos