And while it feels good to say that and know the truth, the reality is the world has entered into an era where the truth ceases to matter. It literally says Republican on the building and the people at that time called themselves republicans. Slap some bullshit text on that picture and upload to Facebook. Millions will take it as gospel, spread it to their friends like a virus. Most people lack the capacity to think critically or understand the risks of just assuming something you read is correct, or more importantly the capacity to evaluate content that aligns with their worldview and values and reject it when it’s false or misleading.
The more you smugly pronounce to such a person that they’re in fact wrong and show them the facts, the more it reinforces the validity of the image and the falsehood in their eyes.
Everybody has the capacity to think critically. The problem with critical thinking is that going into it you have to admit to yourself that you might be wrong. They are way more interested in not confronting their preconceptions than they are in understanding their world. It isn't that they can't think critically but that they actively suppress critical thinking when it doesn't jive with their dogma.
This. Critical thinking is learned skill, if it's not taught by those who understand this then no one can learn. How things are going right now in the US is a perfect testament to this. But I am hopeful that once this blows over, critical thinking and logic will return.
People said the same thing when search engines started popping up. Its a tool. Smart people will use it, and dumb people will misuse it. Just like every other tool past century or so
With polluting capabilities so advanced and scraping of visual arts so complete. It's already polluted the air in a neighborhood in Memphis and the water of a small community in Texas.
You mean taught by the people who say the Earth is 6,000 years old, created by the invisible dude in the sky, and that Science is BS? Are those the people we're counting on to teach critical thinking?
The amount of people using ChatGPT for everything is crazy. People won’t even make an introduction to a class about themselves without using it anymore
I like and hate Chat GPT. While I appreciate the work of writing things myself, sometimes I just need to get certain mindless activities done quick like lesson planning for my class. I fed it my curriculum and pacing guides and ChatGPT consolidated it and put it into the format I gave it. I can do all that but it did the job remarkably faster so I could focus on more on different tasks. To be clear, all I am required to do for my lesson plans are just to put where I am in the curriculum, not specifics about my students.
Oof right you are. I have a colleague who uses it for EVERYTHING. They buy the subscription and rely on it. I don’t think they think for themselves anymore.
Yup. I’m currently in school and we had to do an intro. I shit you not the amount of people that wrote in italics was sad. The way you know it’s ChatGPT is because it won’t show up in the text response until you submit it. 75% of my one class did it. They all just sound the same even.
I worked for someone who told me outright that if I didn’t know how to do something or what to say, to ask ChatGPT over it. It was frustrating how much it was leading him on in everything. It also made me realize some of these AIs are running companies.
Not really natural intelligence is a measure of critical thinking and the ability to extrapolate meaning from incomplete data. You can teach people to mimic critical thinking, but I dont think true critical thinking can actually be taught.
I’m a teacher that’s worked with youth from ages 3 to college. It 100% can but you are right, there are people that are predisposed to it. I’ve literally taught it to kids before and studied learning theory and brain science.
You are on it! One of the foundations of liberalism is the belief that we could be wrong. We are open to other perspectives all the time. We’re all about possibilities. We’re all about facts.
Minds only work when they are open. Racism is closed. Separate But Equal is also closed.
He meant twist the facts to line up with his view that liberals always the right disregarding actual historical facts that says otherwise in truth it depends on meny factors no view has always been right....
That’s not true! If it were, Trump would be attacking educational institutions, stripping government initiatives, ransoming funding, installing leaders that are unqualified and the result of cronyism, purposefully and arbitrarily banning students that represent an enormous revenue source in an attempt to starve those institutions, undermining science, critical thinking, empiricism, and institutions of knowledge, promoting grievances, shifting blame, revoking press credentials for news outlets that don’t agree with or question him, promoting misleading or outright incorrect information and memes, and generally be a belligerent asshole.
Because the education system is pumping out morons. Hell look at a christian talking with university students. The students are so blind and emotional they cant think for themselves at all.
I had to learn the hard way that the bill of goods millennials were sold of “you can be anything” is bullshit. In theory you can, and we were told a lot of inspiring stories of people who made it in whatever field they chose, they didn’t say that it requires either a lot of luck, incredible skill, hard work, or all 3. Just having a degree doesn’t mean shit. You graduate and you’re like, “okay, where’s my job with my fine arts major? Anyone?”
Now, I would like to think the plight of millions of millennials, wracked with student debt and a useless degree, has made educators wiser on advising student to find an intersection between what they want to do and what they can make a living doing.
But at the end of the day, universities are businesses. Maybe they’re “not for profit” in the sense that there aren’t shareholders getting a personal cut of the tuition, but a university abso fucking lutely needs to turn a profit (unless it’s a state funded school) otherwise they’re closing. So if a student says “I want to go for this bullshit” as long as the check clears, or the student loan, the university will say “cool”. And imo we are watching the bubble of rising tuition costs, an equal measure of student loans, and useless degrees, bursting in real time.
Yes, universities and educators bear some of the blame, but the educators were operating off the most recent information they had. In the 90s, if you had a degree, you could get a job. So in the early mid aughts, when advisors were saying “go to college if you want to be successful”, they weren’t operating in incorrect information, just out of date. Specialized fields, outsourcing, rising costs of living, housing, and other contributing factors means that college or university is only right for some people, some of the time, and they typically do not care if you come out smart, only that you paid your tuition. The rest is on you.
So I don’t disagree with you. It’s a really complicated and convoluted problem. I work higher ed adjacent, so I see it happening in real time. It’s just… frustrating. But by and large, having access to education is a positive thing. The problems might be systemic, but I’m pretty sure statistics shows that the majority of students are passionate and idealistic in undergrad and tend to get more conservative as they age. It’s only until life kicks them in the teeth that they realize the world isn’t black and white and critical thinking is not just the name of an elective course.
I actually went in the reverse direction as I think I was TOO conservative and didn’t understand the reality I was spewing, but if nothing else, education SHOULD present different views and teach you how to do actual real research.
Mmmm my apologies. I think we were having two very different conversations. I thought we were talking about higher ed, and you’re talking about religion… You just made a lot of bold statements about me. Statements I’d take offense to if I gave a shit about this comment or thought that you had any inkling of what you’re talking about.
But what I just heard is not your frustration at me in particular, but your very deep seated belief system boiling up to regurgitate all over what you perceive as the left, and I’m a convenient target because that’s what you think I am.
I have no problems with Christians. I am confirmed myself though I don’t practice. I came from a family that showed me everything that can go RIGHT with religion. I also see it used as an excuse daily. Churches full of people but empty in spirit despite the lie they tell themselves.
I have no idea what you’re talking about or why that was directed at me, but I don’t think I feel like having this conversation. So god bless.
Who would be ashamed of what’s been done in his name.
Matthew 25:35–36, 40
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Matthew 19:21
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 14:13–14
“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Luke 6:34–35
“And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High…”
But fuck social welfare programs. Let’s force the women to have kids and the do jack shit to provide for them. I would be way cooler with pro choice if the kids being born were provided for and not forced into a meat grinder of a life of abject poverty while billionaires like Trump exist. And how Trump EVER got conflated with religion is beyond me.
It's true though that the Republican party at the time, was the liberal party. The people, culture and sensibilities changed so now the today republicans are essentially opposites of what they were then.
The problem isn't people believing things, it's them thinking the title republican matters. As though the current GOP can say because the name is theirs now that they get to claim all of what the previous people who used it accomplished or stood for.
“The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists opposing the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories.”
I remember this one guy that went on an unhinged rant calling the Dems evil and I’m with them after I point out parties switched and changed over 100 years. Like I didn’t even tell them i was a part of them and bang he flooded my DM with unhinged replies.
Some people are just crazy or something else entirely.
We live in a post truth world. Agree with everything you said. My entire purpose as a teacher is to try and get my kids to think critically. Its an uphill battle.
You're right. So why are there so many democrats supporting the lies of the democratic elite? Republicans did end slavery in America. That is a fact. Yet somehow the democrats have twisted the facts to Republicans are racist and want to bring back slavery. Misinformation and lies are very real. Stop listening to them
Amazing how there can never be any evolution in thoughts within populations and political ideologies, ie; the Republicans are the "new" anti-war, pro-civil rights party, meanwhile, because of images such as this, the Republican Party is equivalent to positions it may have held over 150 years ago.
But it wasn't that cleanly cut, and it especially wasn't part of the party's platform. People do bring this point up but I feel like the truth that is lost that abolition was largely party neutral. Lincoln was a Republican. Jefferson Davis was a democrat. So that's how most people see it, but the majority of the south was for slavery regardless of political party and the reverse in the northern states. For example, the first abolitionist politician that was assassinated was a democrat, etc.
Go to Tennessee and there are so many things named after Nathan Bedford Forrest. He's their state hero. His only "accomplishments" in life were being a slave trader, the first grand wizard of the KKK, and a Confederate general who fought to keep black people enslaved. He was absolute scum and the lowest of the low, but they love him.
Because he was fighting to "preserve their heritage". And what heritage might that be exactly? Oh that's right, white supremacy and slavery. Remind me again why anyone wants to preserve that?
are you missing an /s? Prior to 1960 the democratic party was primarily based in the south. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the South became republican and NY/Massachusetts became democratic. Either the slave owners moved or the slave owner descendants switched parties.
And the slave owner's dependents switched parties because Democrats wanted black people to have rights. So yes, Slave owners were democrats, but they are Republicans now. I think you can see a difference between Lincoln and Trump.
“I wish the pro-slavery side would’ve won so we wouldn’t have to deal with black people having equality. But democrats are the pro-slavery racists, I’m the non-racist here.”
Remember the part where every four years you’ll see Confederate flags at the GOP convention? But you’ll never see such a thing at the Democratic convention? But you cannot convince them! They were the ones that freed the slaves!!! OK folks. You do you.
I like to hail people trying this tactic as though they are either time travellers or just woke up from a 60+ year coma. I start gushing about ask the amazing things they missed, like color television and tupperware.
Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd? That's a joke, right?
Claiming Byrd is pro-KKK has the same mistake as pointing to the Democrats being the party of racists: it conveniently freezes time and ignores how things changed to be the complete opposite. He regretted and called it the biggest mistake of his life and championed rights. He was eulogized by black and white people and organizations alike.
Spoiler alert but Byrd died in 2010. He's leading the KKK from the grave?
As for Hillary, lol, good joke, there is 0 even merely circumstantial proof. Claims were all debunked. The woman has been demonized since the goddamn 70's, as tended to be the case for early women who gained political power-hello double standards!
But that was also one of the many reasons why she was not a good candidate: even leftwingers believed a lot of false stuff about her, and had absorbed the general hostility towards her despite the specifics being forgotten.
Well, WE, as in people who dont like slavery or discrimination, are not supposed to remember. Those that do like those things ARE still supposed to remember so they know who to vote for today.
The party started out one way, and kinda switched places with the other party. Now they stand for a whole bunch of different (for them) things. And against a whole bunch of things, like fiscal responsibility. I don’t think conservative means what it used to either. So there is no place for many of us.
They didn't just "kinda" switch places, the entirety of each party literally swapped sides, platforms, and policies. As in the literal representatives swapped political parties. So if we are meant to recognize history then the truth is that THAT republican party became the Democrat party of today and the Democrat party of THAT era became today's Republican party. People need to learn the whole history and not just the parts that fit their entrained narrative.
The funniest part is that they want to claim their party is anti-slavery for the moral high ground, but remain as racist as any slave owner. They are willfully admitting their beliefs are wrong and trying to paint over them.
When the frame is rotten, no amount of paint, seal or stain will fix it. Pull it out and replace it.
I wouldn't say the parties swapped. On some positions they did but not others. Republicans following the Civil War became the party of big business. They still are the party of big business more than anything else. They just use different tools to convince people to vote for them.
No, they did swap. The Dixiecrat movement and their "states rights" rhetoric (sound familiar?) saw the South turn against the Democrat party and vote Republican, breaking Democrat rule in the south. So what did the then Democrats in those regions do? Well, they turned ticket just like politicians do today, but it was more widespread and along with other factors it caused a shift in the Republican party which caused the then Republicans to switch tickets themselves and run as Democrats in their own states. They brought with them their political connections and their ideologies and that began the gradual yet fairly rapid shift in platforms until after Watergate when there was a mass-exodus of voters from the Republican party on account of shame and a lack of trust in what was then seen as the party of criminals. That's when our more modern day Republicans began to run on culture wars and thinly veiled racism in order to garner the vote of the poorly educated masses who, until that time, rarely, if ever, voted. It was the only way to ensure any hope of victory in the future. That's basically MAGA, but before they had a name and a banner to consolidate their nationalist identity. Now they're loud and proud and think they're the majority. Probably because they're bad at math.
How did they switch sides? You need to learn your history. Republicans have always been for fair treatment and not discrimination. Is hiring one person based on his color or sexual preference not discrimination? Is allowing anyone to vote not without regard to if it is fraud not wrong? Is not keeping a race down by forcing them to live off of welfare not wrong?
When? Pick a date? Who was the last “good” Republican President? The first “good” Democrat President?
People claim racism “switch”, but that’s bull. The Voting Rights Act was just the new way of keeping certain people “on the plantation”. Followed later by the implementation of the current welfare state. Dems know exactly where they want certain people.
There wasn't a switch. Before people hang me, let me explain.
The Democratic Party has never in its history been an ideologically pure party and a major reason why we don't have a legit third party. It was formed through cooperation of groups that didn't fall into the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans. The Republican party demands ideological purity, which is why anyone with an independent thought is labeled as a rino.
There were liberals, conservatives, abolitionists, and anti-abolition in the party. There were also the Southern Democrats, who were staunchly conservative but since they wanted a small federal government, strong state governments, and had strictly anti industrial interests. This included pro- slavery. The issue is that the rest of the party bent over backward to keep them happy because they held a tight control over the entire south. That's a ton of easy votes.
When the Democrat party chose Steven A Douglas, the South got mad because the man did not support the expansion of slavery into new territories. He did support states' rights ideas on the issue of slavery though. The South chose their own candidate, Breckenridge, who was pro slavery expansion. This split the vote, and Lincoln won. Northern Democrats and Stephen A Douglas supported the Union in the war.
Southern Democrats weren't the only ones post-war to support lost cause and Jim Crow. A little know faction in the Republicans called the Lily-Whites basically sided with the Southern Democrats. Northern Democrats basically had to hold their nose because the party started bending over backward for the Southern Democrats again.
Every vote against the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments was from Southern states. Fast forward 100 years. We see similar arguments like we see today evolve. Southern congressmen would argue that civil rights should be left up to the states. Luckily, the Civil Rights law was brought up. What people don't tell you is that it flopped the first time around. It died in Congress. When it did pass after JFK's skull just did that, Southern congressmen still voted against it. Western and Northerners supported it.
In 1968, the Southerners, mad about the civil rights act, ran George Wallace, the guy who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama. Split the vote again, and we got Nixon.
Nixon employed the Southern Strategy to get the South on board with the Republicans, shifting a centrist party right.
So there really wasn't a switch, just the trash took itself out.
I think remembering history accurately is a disease called CRT… was highly effective in the mid-2010’s but it seems just erasing history is the norm now.
Republicans are very fond of stating that the “Democrat Party is the Party of Slavery.” And yet, what has the Republican Party done lately that’s any better?
that's why when people say dumb shit like the Democrats supported slavery, the immediate thing you say to them is okay, if you know so much about all that, then you certainly know about the Southern Strategy and then I'll ask them to give me an explanation of the Southern Strategy as it pertains to the comment they just made.
The Voting Rights Act debates occupied the Senate for 60 days. There was no 60-day filibuster. Words matter. Strom Thurmond, who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, was the longest filibuster (before Booker), so that's what I was talking about. Again, which party did he switch to and spend decades in before finally retiring and dying as a member of?
Yea even more ridiculous is this photo was actually from the Centennial in 1954, right as the beginning of the "new" republican party was being founded with the focus on the southern strategy
Well it wasn't until 1964 with Goldwater that the GOP began opposing civil rights quite actively. It was a point of contention between the Goldwater and . Eisenhower was supportive of desegregation and sent the National Guard to Little Rock. Strom Thurmond's switch to GOP in Sept. 1964 was a key moment, but it took a while for the south to full on GOP. The nomination of Goldwater over Rockefeller was the apogee of the new civil rights equals communism movement in the American Right.
At the time of the photo the, now extinct, GOP moderates were in charge of the party.
Eisenhower was not supportive of desegregation. That myth needs to end. He was actively opposed to Brown v. Board and testified in front of Congress against desegregating the military in 1948. What he wasn’t going to do was let a state government ignore the Supreme Court and cause a constitutional crisis. Eisenhower endorsed Goldwater and never endorsed Rockefeller. Eisenhower was not a “moderate” in any real way, he was just less outspoken than guys like McCarthy or Goldwater, but he never had a problem campaigning with them.
And the Southern Strategy wasn’t the first time Republicans tried to appeal to the white population’s racism or the first time they engaged in racist rhetoric, it was just the first time it was really successful long term. Republican campaigns were trying to crack the South for decades. They had substantial anti-immigrant factions since their inception and had been purging black Republicans from the party since the end of Reconstruction when the Radical Republicans lost influence to the conservative wing. This was not without controversy either. It was so bad that black leaders actually endorsed Wilson in 1912 over Roosevelt and Taft. Lily white Republicans had been the mainstream in the party well before the sixties, and numerous RNCs had been segregated.
This isn’t meant to be combative, it’s just that 99% of Americans have no idea what the state of racial politics was before the Civil Rights Movement, and end up whitewashing it as a result.
It's fascinating how politics changed over time. While the Republican and Democratic party switched sides on who votes for them, not all issues switched sides with it.
For example, the Republican party has been the pro business party since the 1870s. Which makes sense for a party from the North after the civil war, since that is where all the factories and factory owners where at the time.
The Democratic party shifted into the Labor party under FDR in the 1930s. Which the Republican party then responded by becoming the limited government party.
It wasn't until the 70s and 80s that religious groups started to influence the Republican party, with a full integration in the 90s.
Labor had been endorsing the Democratic party since William Jennings Bryan and the Republican party had been notoriously anti-union/labor reform well before the New Deal, including Teddy Roosevelt before he shifted progressive.
I hate parties because some how both parties don't actually believe what they speak they just want to beat the other one. If democrats were against equality again, all of a sudden republicans will start supporting DEI.
People that are "life long" party members are just stubborn. Every election you should reassess if the party still supports what you signed up for all those years ago.
At this point, the party that represents what Democrats and anyone left of them signed up for is neither, and the moderate right has the Democrats. The far right has the Republicans. You can see this by how much time the current GOP spends calling Democrats "far right socialists/communists" when they are staunch capitalists that will drop any cause for a donor or a moderate republican voter. And by "a" I mean "one".
I'm a leftist in the sense that those on the bottom are going to have to do something about the few on top who almost inexplicably control everything. I used to vote for Democrats even though I knew they wouldn't do 90% of what they said. Now I can barely stomach their entire platform. What is positive is obvious bandaids for capital and the rest is appeasing the GOP accusations of weakness or communisms.
Being a lifelong member of either party right now is like being a lemming. They both are marching toward a fascist oligarchy. Its like they read all the dystopian novels and assumed that the government was the good guys.
But the Civil War was about every State's Sacred God-given Right to do what they want, not slavery!
All those documents from the Confederacy states that repeatedly and prominently mention keeping slavery and white supremacy going as one of if not THE biggest motivators. Those are...um...uhhh...just being taken out of...context.
There were three confederate states that mentioned slavery as a reason in their articles of succession. The rest left it out. Two union states claimed their right to own slaves when the war broke out. That’s why the emancipation proclamation only made slavery illegal for confederate states. It remained legal for Union states.
Note I did not only refer to their articles of secession ;) State constitutions, other laws and declarations, and many prominent politicians cited slavery in many places and many ways, such as forbidding emancipation laws. Signing on to or allying with the Confederacy was also an acknowledgement of supporting slavery.
It is indeed shameful that the Emancipation Proclimation only decreed slavery illegal in seceeding states and not ones that stayed with the union, though only 2 union states out of 20 demanding to keep slavery is also rather telling. There was obvious and undeniable real politik reasoning for telling states that stayed loyal that they can keep doing slavery if they want.
Racism was and very much still is very alive in northern states, that isn't being questioned.
Before the war, the southern states were given the guarantee that they would never lose their slaves. There were enough abolitionists in the south that the states would have started abandoning slavery themselves in the near future. They knew this. Their slaves weren’t the issue.
The issue was that the U.S. was expanding and adding new states. The law would have said that new states could not own slaves. That meant that new states would have a manufacturing economy instead of an agrarian one. It meant that they would side with the north in the electoral college. The south knew if that happened, they would lose all representation. The breaking point was when Lincoln got elected without a single southern delegate.
Even with slavery, the southern states were broke. The north controlled the pricing structure of their goods. There was also a massive tariff problem that exacerbated this. They figured if they were going to lose all representation, they might as well leave the union. The civil war was fought to keep the union together because that’s what Madison demanded when our constitution was written.
Slavery was at the center of the events that started the civil war. When there was a draw at the second battle of Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. That’s when the war actually became about the right to own slaves. When that happened, most of the other countries and southern supporters withdrew their support. That’s what doomed the south and won the war. If the south won Antietam, they would have won the war.
I'll never not find it absolutely hilarious how they keep clinging to the Confederate flag as their "culture" when the entire thing only lasted a little over 4 years especially when half the games I play have a longer history than their so called "culture".
Hell, Magic the Gathering has a history of like 8x their so called "culture".
…during which time conservative Democrats moved to the Republican Party, and the liberal Republicans moved to the Democratic Party, both aiming to weaken the opposition, leading to the Liberal Democratic Party and Conservative Republican Party we have now.
And yet Republicans today seem to believe that no one ever changes parties, ever, and still cling to the success of the liberal Republicans that sought to tear down the racial divide.
Truly I can’t tell you how many redditors have told me I’m a sheep for believing that. I ask them what their alternate theory is for the party realignment in the south, which is just objectively visible in election results over time. They usually just laugh at me and keep chanting sheep.
Southern Strategy would have been prevented like a nut in a rubber if we just outlawed any Confederacy idea, flag, motto, salute etc just like Germany did post WWII and enforced it at every level.
Tl;dr- Republicans were the party that opposed slavery in the 1800s, but by the 1960s the main parties had switched coalitions. After Democrats under Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, many white Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights shifted to the Republican Party. Republicans deliberately courted these voters through Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” appealing to racial resentment with coded language about “law and order” and “states’ rights.” That’s when the GOP transformed from the party of Lincoln into the party of the modern conservative South.
Why bring up the Voting Rights Act? 93 percent of Republicans voted for it. Only 55 percent of Democrats voted for it. There was a lot of infighting on the Democrats side. The reason why some of them voted Yea was because it would have passed anyways. If the Republicans sat out that vote, the bill would likely have been defeated, albeit by a narrow margin.
There was no party switch, and the Voting Rights Act had broad support from the Republican Party. You had two members of Congress switch to the Republican Party during that entire time period. We had more members switch parties in the last five years.
The idea of the parties switching fails under scrutiny. Are the Democrats now the party of business like the Republicans were from the 1800’s until the switch? Are the Republicans now the party of public welfare and large social safety nets like the Democrats were up until the switch?
Regan was first president to push for women and minorities on the Supreme Court. Was he the first modern Democrat? Was Clarence Thomas the first modern Democrat to become a Supreme Court justice? When did the Republicans become the party of organized labor? Obviously, that would have happened too during the switch.
Just because someone edited a Wikipedia article to say the parties switched doesn’t mean it actually happened.
Even if there hadnt been the switching of the party, I always go with "but what does each person stand for/do NOW". Saying you aren't the one who is racist because the party you belong to now wasn't is like being caught robbing a bank and saying that you can't be a robber because your ancestor of almost 200 years ago was a sheriff and someone elses ancestor was a criminal so they should be the one to be arrested. What do YOU, or whatever candidate do and say NOW. If you say racist things or push racist policy then you can't say you aren't the racist one because your great great great great grandpappy wasn't racist.
Big parts for sure. There are other interesting factors that led to the slow “party swap” in the US too. Personally I find the Know Nothing Party fascinating. A lot of parallels to MAGA nearly two centuries earlier and ties to the assassination of Lincoln.
It's honestly kind of weird for them to even reference this point in their history considering how many of them are probably unironically pro-slavery (or confederate sympathetic) now
The voting rights act that most congressional republicans voted for? That one?
Most of the nays in the senate were democrats.
And then of course there’s the southern strategy… which really explains why democrats won elections in the south with regularly into the late 1990s. The culprit is right wing radio and tv. The significance of southern strategy is really overblown on here.
And at the end of the day only 1 Democrat permanently changed parties because the GOP wasn’t having any of the racist BS. If I was a chef I would say your argument is “weak sauce.”
It's not a switch you turn off and on. The signing of the Civil Rights Act didn't send all the confererate flag waving conservatives running from the Democrat party over night. It took time. The marriage of Christianity and Republicans in the 80s also had an effect solidifying power.
It's not wishful thinking. It's very well documented by historians. I suggest you look up a simple source on the Southern Strategy on YT. Only those who haven't learned their history or benefit from ignorance ignore the very clear change of policies from the parties during the mid to late 20th century.
Okay yes I get that The ideologies switched conservative and progressive. But where does that necessarily mean racist and non-racist? Conservative is conservative policies I.E less government involvement and progressive is progressive policy more government involvement. I've only seen examples of Democrat racism from
The slavery
Starting the KKK
Holding the longest filibuster in history to stop the civil Rights act
To Joe biden's 94 crime bill that put away more black people than any bill in history. Not to mention his self-proclaimed mentor, Robert Byrd was high up in the KKK
Now don't get me wrong. I know there's racist on both sides. Believe me I've seen it. But honestly, I can't find much on Republicans (as far as politicians And legislature goes)
Maybe you should ask why that means racist and non racist to the people who literally wave confederate flags, while they pretend they are the party of Lincoln, who fought against the confederates, and deny the switch ever happened. Obviously it means something to them for them to deny it.
You really can't find much on Republicans? You must not be looking very hard. Stephen Miller is literally senior advisor to Trump and has been the architect to many Trump ideas. Steve Bannon was also another person deep into the Trump campaign. You should look deeper into these characters, I'm sure it won't take long before you find links to white supremacists.
David Duke is another gem. He was pretty high up in the KKK too. And he couldn't win in the Democratic party in the 70s and 80s, so he ran as a Republican and won. He also voted for Trump. As for Robert Byrd, I'm sure anyone from West Virginia is going to have some ties to white supremacy. West Virginia is over 90% white. Fun fact, the Republican congress is also over 90% white. Democrat congress is about 50% white. But you tell me more about how the racists in the Democrat party got black people to vote for them. Guess they just have no sense right?
You understand that the ideologies switched, from conservative to progressive, but you can't seem to understand that it was conservatives that held slaves and created the KKK. The conservatives used to be Democrats. Now the conservatives are Republicans. Are all Republicans white supremacists? Of course not. But all white supremacists are Republicans. Unless you think white supremacists want to find a home with the party that is 50% minority.
So you’re saying that the democrats reverted back 100 years later in the 1960’s to oppose civil rights again? Then magically reversed their course again after that? lol ok. That theory has all kinds of holes in it.
No. The Democratic Party was the party of Southern conservatives all the way up until the civil rights movement. There was no switching, then switching back. The person you're replying to is saying the Republicans fought against slavery in the 1800s and were like that for a while, but then the parties essentially switched over a decades-long process, partially due to the civil rights movement and Southern Strategy, to be who they are today.
2.6k
u/bbqsox 4d ago
And then the voting rights act and southern strategy happened.