Skip to main content

quote:
Washington, D.C. -August 10, 2005 – A group of African American Republican activists, and their supporters from around the country, will announce the formation of a national grassroots organization...

"The creation of the National Black Republican Association is the product of the dreams and efforts of scores of black Republicans across the nation," said interim Chairperson Frances Rice, co-founder of a black Republican group in Sarasota, Florida. "Black grassroots activists have always been involved locally and nationally within the Republican Party, but there was always agreement that we needed a national organization to represent the interests of Republicans in the black community. We also needed an organization that will effectively counter the disinformation concerning Republicans..."

http://www.nbra.info/press_release_2.htm


Okay, let's get some real, honest explanations for this:

Click on BLACK GOP and you get these luminaries listed under the banner of "Celebrating Black Republicans"

Yes, that's right.

  • Martin Luther King Jr. = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Carter G. Woodson = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Frederick Douglass = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Mary McCleod Bethune = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Harriet Tubman = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Ida B. Wells = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • Sojourner Truth = BLACK REPUBLICAN
  • A. Philip Randolph = BLACK REPUBLICAN
... Talk about MISINFORMATION!! "WE'RE" going to need a TRUTH & RECONCILATION organization just for this one. I mean... I've heard the typical Booker T. Washington claims and even Frederick Douglass... but DAMN!! MLK???
Are they serious? sck

Sad.... just sad....
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Those probably are all pre-Civil Rights Movement/Act references...which is the opposite of the converted Dixiecrats they are aligned with now....so technically they may be true with that post, but literally they are not of the same vein as those people listed themselves. That is some more of that dumb azz rhetorical game playing they are famous for...so you know they are not going to be about schit.....because they START OFF from a misleading premise.....kinda like how white racist conservatives call repealing AA a civil rights initiative and quote MLK why they are working to f-k black people over...this is probably be an uncle tom convention that nothing comes out of...but schit they are trying to convince themselves of.....I wonder to what extent they will try to embrace the modern progressive black mainstream politicians such as Obama, Harold Ford or Jesse Jackson Jr?
If they attempt to fuse the salvation of Black people into the Republican Party I will attack them as well.

Sorry to tell you but as I watch "America's Black Forum" and see Black Democrats debating Black Republicans on all that their respective parties have done for Black people I don't see a damn's worth of difference between the two. Each of them are equally shameless in carrying someone else's water..
quote:
Sorry to tell you but as I watch "America's Black Forum" and see Black Democrats debating Black Republicans on all that their respective parties have done for Black people I don't see a damn's worth of difference between the two. Each of them are equally shameless in carrying someone else's water...
Can't say I've ever seen America's Black Forum but... my sentiments exactly... or mostly... well, enough.

And, yes... if you know me, I could give a shit about the WHO'S THE BETTER WHITE MAN game.
But there is a dilemma in there somewhere.
Does not this go against everything Republican and demonstrates the reality of Black life in America where in, Black folk must once again carve out our own little corner to represent a particular organization, in this case a Political Party. In a time where the Negro-Con has question the existence of the Black Caucus and then for the Negro-Cons to form an organization like this demonstrates their own hypocrisy. Why the need for a Black Republican Organization, I thought the Republican Party was all inclusive.
To reply to the fact of those individuals being black republicans, one thing you must understand is that, during those time periods, that was the party that pushed the civil rights bill and abolishing. Lyndon Johnson, signed the civil rights bill and was a good friend of Martin Luther King.
Where there change of position was in the republican party happened during the 70's and 80's with Reganomics and George Bush Sr.
Thats when the Affirmative Action, Tax Breaks for the Rich, and so on came into play.
quote:
Originally posted by Mastermind:
To reply to the fact of those individuals being black republicans, one thing you must understand is that, during those time periods, that was the party that pushed the civil rights bill and abolishing. Lyndon Johnson, signed the civil rights bill and was a good friend of Martin Luther King.
Where there change of position was in the republican party happened during the 70's and 80's with Reganomics and George Bush Sr.
Thats when the Affirmative Action, Tax Breaks for the Rich, and so on came into play.


You cannot be serious.

Lyndon Baines Johnson wasn't being friendly, he was being forced by political practicality. If he were friendly, he would have done BEFORE The Civil Rights Movement marched down his throat.

If you apply this standard regularly, you might be well advised to go back a reassess your list of friends.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Mastermind:

[...] republicans... that was the party that pushed the civil rights bill and abolishing. Lyndon Johnson, signed the civil rights bill and was a good friend of Martin Luther King..
Hey, I'm not a history buff but I thought LBJ was a Democrat. ek

Ummm.... and I guess Republicans, Nixon on down pushed through LBJ'S idea captured in the notable mantra from his June '65 speech at Howard University: "TO FULFILL THESE RIGHTS"


Also, when did MLK endorse a Republican candidate. WHEN??? That is, please DEMONSTRATE how MLK, amongst others, are cited as if they were actual "Black Republicans"... However you want to spin it... You have to have some evidence beside surmise that they actually endorsed actual Republicans.

I mean, you can't even pull that political CONSERVATIVE vs. social conservative thing here because these suckers actually said REPUBLICANS and not conservative.

So, how does MLK a supposed communist or socialist sympathizer all-of-sudden get casted as a "Black Republican"... And what about Harriet Tubman?

Again, I'm not that kind of a history buff but none of their little write-ups even began to demonstrate how any of those I named were somehow affiliated or otherwise in favor of "REPUBLICANS"...

So you're going to have to do better than that.
It's really sad how you really haven't. There is no use trying to explain or defend something that you don't have adequate proof or information on. The idea that Republicans pushed through Civil Rights legislation does not automatically correlate to or explain or inform us on how those mentioned are/were BLACK REPUBLICANS.... By any definition...
Nate- I'm not sure how old you are, but strictly as a historical point of fact (not intended as commentary or a point of contention) from the time of Reconstruction up until the 50's most blacks who affiliated with a party considered themselves Republicans. Northern Democrats made inroads in the 50's. But in the south, where the southern Democrats were dominant and still heavily "confederate," blacks tended to stay away from the Democrats.

It wasn't until the 60's and 70's that the black exodus from the Republican party occured, with, I'm guessing, much credit going to the Kennedy brothers and LBJ and their affiliation with the civil rights movement and "War on Poverty."

I know that my granparents were registered Republicans to the end, though they voted mostly democrat from the 60's on.

Thus, though I hadn't heard it before, it is not shocking that MLK was a registered Republican as late as 1956. The Republicans, along with Northern Democrats, were more the civil rights coalition at the time (Eisenhower was the first to "send in the troops.")
Last edited {1}
quote:
Ummm.... and I guess Republicans, Nixon on down pushed through LBJ'S idea captured in the notable mantra from his June '65 speech at Howard University: "TO FULFILL THESE RIGHTS"


And you're right. You're not a history buff- but I respect your stuff even if we don't always agree.

It was a coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats that passed the civil rights legislation that LBJ signed, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And it was President Nixon who pushed and signed the first Affirmative Action legislation.

Again- just a point of historical fact. I clearly understand you feelings for Black Republicans. But sometimes you gotta give credit where credit is due. (Well, maybe you don't, but those the facts.)
And it was President Nixon who pushed and signed the first Affirmative Action legislation.---Marty

I hate to give Nixon credit for Affirmative Action. I accept your statement that he signed the legislation.

The concept, however, was accidental as in unintentional. It was a fiat of a settlement of strike at the Philadelphia Shipyards.

He got credit for other things that were in the process when he took office, e.g. EPA, and Earth Day.

For example not exclusinve.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Again- just a point of historical fact. I clearly understand you feelings for Black Republicans. But sometimes you gotta give credit where credit is due. (Well, maybe you don't, but those the facts.)
That's some hellafied BULLSHIT Marty...

Was MLK or was MLK not a Republican?
And, if or since MLK was perhaps not always a Republican then it is at best misleading to simply put him down as a Black Republican because he was a registered Republican at some point in his life.... if he was... You still haven't pointed out whether he was on not. DOCUMENTATION PLEASE...

That should not be an issue for someone wanting to present THE FACTS... Hmmmm....

At worst, this BULLSHIT is an outright LIE. A Sleight Of Hand tactic used to try to falsely boister the image of the Republican party and the self-acknowledged sad ass state of being of the Black Republicans.

DOCUMENTATION PLEASE... for every one of those people listed. If you cannot provide it... STFU!!! See, I like FACTS and not just BS that comes out of people's mouths. I don't take shit at face value. There is little or nothing that I will not examine.

So, again, if you're not coming with documentation... Spare me that BULLSHIT!!

I clearly understand you feelings for Black Republicans...

Dude... You don't know what the FUCK I feel about Black Republicans. So don't try this feigning BULLSHIT talking about giving "credit" (because I don't give a fuck about a Democrat or a Republican... GET A FREAKIN' GRIP!!) and what the "FACTS" are.

FACTOIDS are not the full measure of TRUTH.
As VOX noted... there is a clear CONTEXT in which this "credit" giving, as you put it, has to be put in. And whatever you perceive to be my "feelings for Black Republicans" must be CONTEXTUALIZED, otherwise, your thoughts, your presumptions amount to shit! Because you don't know the half.
quote:
It was a coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats that passed the civil rights legislation that LBJ signed, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And it was President Nixon who pushed and signed the first Affirmative Action legislation.
And the CONTEXT for all that?

I guess LBJ and these Republicans just did this out of the kindness of their hearts... NO PUSHING (on part of the CRM) needed for them to consider, much less do what they did, huh?

I mean... if you're going to give someone CREDIT... it seems to me that you esteem them for doing something without provocation. The FACT... THE FACT that All Of The Above had to be compelled/provoked/pushed to do so makes them much less than "credit" worthy, IMO...

But you can give people credit for that type of shit if you want. It just shows me what your Frame Of Reference is...

Get A Grip and Get A Clue...
My Motto:
FUCK a REPUBLICAN and, frankly, FUCK A DEMOCRAT TOO!!

Now let's discuss my "feelings"...
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:
quote:
He got credit for other things that were in the process when he took office, e.g. EPA, and Earth Day.


I thought Earth Day came much later. (At least I didn't hear peep about it until the 80's.)


Marty,

Actually, the first Earth Day was commemorated in the spring of 1970. It was the brainchild of Senator Gaylord Nelson and evolved over a period of about seven years, starting in 1962. It finally was inaugurated on April 22, 1970.

I don't think you can give Nixon credit for Earth Day, even though the first Earth Day happened during his administration. The credit really belongs to Senator Gaylord Nelson, who appears to have come-up with the idea.

Source: http://earthday.wilderness.org/history/
.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Dude... You don't know what the FUCK I feel about Black Republicans.


laugh

Nate- I think everyone in this forum knows EXACTLY how you feel about Black Republicans. (And Democrats. And anyone who disagrees with you that doesn't document everything they say. You are very... eloquent and ... vigorous in your views and opinion.)

And I don't have documentation that MLK was registered as a Replubican. But again, as I said, it would not be shocking or even surprising that he did (Perhaps for your sensitivities, I should have said "IF he did.") I also gave you the context in which it would be likely that he registered that way. MOST blacks prior to the 1950's, if affiliated, registered Republican. We have always tended to go with who seems to have done the best for us. The party of abolition was the Republican Party.

MLK was from the south, where Southern Democrat was generally the same as segregationist, racist, (add your own adjective here). Thus from a factual standpoint, it would be no surpise that MLK registered with an "R" on the registration card in 1956. If I had a copy, I'd produce it as you ask, but it really doesn't matter.

I'm NOT suggesting that MLK would be a Republican today.

You asked a question. I tried to give you a non-judgemental historical perspective as to why the list of Black Republicans is probably accurate. If you choose to "examine" it, feel free.

I doubt that those people would make such a claim if it couldn't be backed up. Much too easy to check. Further, I would guess that if it weren't true, someone in Dr. King's family will be putting a "fact check" on it soon enough.


And Popcorn- I didn't suggest that Earth Day had anything to do with Nixon. (Vox made the conection and no one was giveing him credit.) Earth Day is not something I have ever felt any great compulsion for. To me it is self aggrandising, "we're the saviors of the world" BS that some do-gooders thought up to make themselves feel important. Humans will never destoy the earth. The earth will mend itself and will be here long after we have destroyed ourselves. cool
quote:
I also gave you the context in which it would be likely that he registered that way.
And MLK being a registered Rep. at some time in his life equates to him being a Black Republican?

The COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST sympthizin' MLK??
Please!!!

quote:
everyone in this forum knows EXACTLY how you feel about Black Republicans. (And Democrats. And anyone who disagrees with you...
Please come back when you have some better shit than that to say...

quote:
it would not be shocking or even surprising that he did
"Shocking" and "surprising".... I guess are suppose to be some type of substitute for ACCURATE. I mean, I was pretty damn clear:
And, if or since MLK was perhaps not always a Republican then it is at best misleading to simply put him down as a Black Republican because he was a registered Republican at some point in his life.... if he was...

I mean, you were the one talking about THE FACTS. What seems to be your problem with wanting a FULL REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS??

As eloquently and vigorous as I can put it...

quote:
I'm NOT suggesting that MLK would be a Republican today.
And I didn't say you were.

quote:
You asked a question. I tried to give you a non-judgemental historical perspective as to why the list of Black Republicans is probably accurate.
ACCURATE = Truthful.
I vote for Republican candidates from time to time, but that doesn't make me a Republican. ACCURATE HOW??

Again, Mr. Check It Out... nowhere in the little bio's on the NBRA site did they of all people mention how such people were [Black] Republicans. And that's listing how MLK Et Al were [Black] Republicans during their lifetimes.

quote:
I doubt that those people would make such a claim if it couldn't be backed up.
Again, I vote for Republican candidates... but that doesn't make me a Republican.

But you can show me where Harriet Tubman voted for a Republican candidate. That would be some interesting history for you to BACK UP since you feel like the stuff NBRA presented WITHOUT BACKING IT UP (which is rather curious... Hmmm...) is "ACCURATE".
quote:
In the first few chapters [of UNFOUNDED LOYALTY], [Wayne Perryman] writes of how the decline of spirituality affected Blacks. He writes, "Our faith in God has always been the inspiring factor that empowered many of our people to do great things. When it came to dealing with problems, many of our famous black historical figures depended on the providence of God rather than on the promises of government." He cites examples such as Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, and Benjamin Banneker.

http://www.conservativemonitor.com/books03/38.shtml
Undoubtedly, that's how they will try to back that BS up.

SLEIGHT OF HAND...
quote:
Nixon was the only president that attended an integrated school as a child. In 1960, Martin Luther King endorsed Nixon for president. Martin Luther King, Sr. that is, Martin Luther King's father that is.

http://www.presidentialexpert.com/leadership_richard_nixon.html
Hmmm....
quote:
Black support for the Republican Party permanently shifted to the Democratic Party in 1960 when the Democratic Party responded to a request from Martin Luther King, Sr.

In 1960, Martin Luther King, Jr. refrained from endorsing anyone for President. In the fall of that year, King, Jr. was arrested at a lunch counter sit-in in Georgia. He was jailed in the Reidsville Prison in Alabama. This occurred during the 1960 presidential campaign between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Both Robert Kennedy and his brother, the Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, used their influence to get the judge to allow King, Jr. to post a bond and be released on bail. The Kennedys even called Coretta King to console her. King, Jr. still felt it better for the cause to stay neutral. His father, Martin Luther King, Sr., originally endorsed Nixon, but switched to endorse Kennedy after his son was released from jail...

http://mdcurrington.tripod.com/mdc/hidden.html
MARTY... NBRA needs some help. Can you help them BACK THAT SHIT UP? tongue
Nate-

I'm not here to help the NBRA. My only response to you was based on the fact that you were so incredulous to the idea that the people on that list were listed as Republicans.

My point AND ONLY POINT, was that these people's claims likely were based on historic fact. If MLK registered as a republican, then he was a Republican at one time. Factual.

That the NBRA uses his name as an example is factual (if he did register as a Republican.)

That his name used as an example of today's black Republicans is extremely thin. Agreed. (Like micro-thread.) Had King lived he surely would have been standing next to Jimmy Carter (who would possibly have been MLK's vice presidential candidate) in 1976 at the DNC.

But again, your original question:

quote:
I've heard the typical Booker T. Washington claims and even Frederick Douglass... but DAMN!! MLK???
Are they serious?


It seemed that you couldn't grasp the concept that black people were at one time mostly Republicans and not the other way around. It seemed you couldn't believe in the possibility of anyone on the list being Republican based on your current perception of what a Republican or a "black republican" is. Maybe I read your post wrong (or maybe not.)

Obviously there are context issues, but from a factual standpoint they very well could be correct.

(But your points are very well taken.)

And remember, Nate. We're talking about politics here. Accuracy, truth? Fine lines, always.
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

I didn't suggest that Earth Day had anything to do with Nixon. Earth Day is not something I have ever felt any great compulsion for. To me it is self aggrandising, "we're the saviors of the world" BS that some do-gooders thought up to make themselves feel important. Humans will never destoy the earth. The earth will mend itself and will be here long after we have destroyed ourselves.


Marty,

Perhaps I should have omitted the pronoun "you" and phrased it "I don't think Nixon can be given credit..." The second paragraph was meant as commentary. It did not occur to me that it would be taken personally.

The first paragraph was of course, informational. I believed from your earlier statement...

"I thought Earth Day came much later - at least I didn't hear peep about it until the 80's"

that you would be interested in what is factual.

The purpose of Earth Day is about human awareness, not specifically about the planet. The hope is that Earth Day will raise human awareness of our dependence on the health of the eco-systems that keep us all alive. It is NOT "BS that some do-gooders thought up to make themselves feel important". This is a thoughtless characterization.

And yes, humans do have the ability to destroy the earth, unless you want to qualify some burned-out cinder circling the sun as "the earth". But give us time and I feel confident that we will be able to take care of even that.

I don't think you're really tryin' here, Marty.

That, you can take personally.
.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
My point AND ONLY POINT, was that these people's claims likely were based on historic fact. If MLK registered as a republican, then he was a Republican at one time. Factual.
What the FUCK is "IF"??? If you don't know one way or the other and since the best you can do is guess... surmise... then how in the hell can you call it "FACTUAL"?

When has an *IF* (something undetermined) ever been "FACTUAL"?

quote:
It seemed that you couldn't grasp the concept that black people were at one time mostly Republicans and not the other way around.
It's clear (i.e. it doesn't just "seem") that you don't have a fuckin' clue.

quote:
Obviously there are context issues, but from a factual standpoint they very well could be correct.
My points are ALL CONTEXTUAL and directly targeted at what I said was MISLEADING, at best, or a deliberat attempt at deception...

Again, reference what VOX said... And, no one is ignorant of Black historical voting patterns. I'm sure not. So anal abstract "factiods" don't amount to shit. Again, everything I've said is CONTEXTUALIZED.

And, again, its so very curious how NBRA's on site failed to mention exactly what qualified MLK, Harriet Tubman and others as Black Republicans.

quote:
he was a Republican at one time. Factual.
And that makes a lot of damn sense claiming him when and if... since it is clear that he did not remain a Republican. So, MLK, e.g., was both a Democrat and Republican.... so yes!! Black Republicans are right to claim him as (exclusively) theirs.

And... ummmm.... What do you think about how those great historical figures are grouped in with today's Black Republicans of whom you're clear to point out a distinction? How come you have a problem point out that distinction by way of saying their portrayal, their Sleight Of Hand tactic... is not TRUTHFUL?
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

And it was President Nixon who pushed and signed the first Affirmative Action legislation.



You know, Marty,

I really wish you would try harder.

And get your facts straight before you post anything.

During the Nixon administration, Affirmative Action was adopted as a Federal Mandate for companies with Federal Contracts, but Nixon was not the President who "pushed and signed the first Affirmative Action legislation".

That distinction belongs to LBJ, who in 1964 signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He reinforced the legislation by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits Federal Contractors and Subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin.

The Order requires that contractors take Affirmative Action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.

In 1967, LBJ first tried to stimulate minority hiring by coming-up with the so called "Philadelphia Plan" to integrate the white-controlled construction industry. However, in November 1968, U.S. Comptroller General Elmer B. Staatshe ruled the Philadelphia Plan was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Johnson, nearing the end of his term, dropped the plan.

Early in the Nixon Administration the Labor Department tried again to knock down barriers to Blacks seeking jobs in the construction industry by promoting voluntary minority-hiring agreements between unions and contractors. There were some impressive results but progress was slow.

To accelerate the process the Labor Department resurrected the "Philadelphia Plan." Based on the plan devised during the Johnson Administration but never implemented, the Philadelphia Plan set a range of percentages of minority hiring with which Federal Contractors would be required to make a "good faith" effort to comply.

When ordered into effect in September 1969 by the Nixon Administration in its namesake city, the Philadelphia Plan aroused controversy and heated opposition. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO and a former plumbing union official in New York City, vehemently opposed the plan and sponsored Congressional and legal challenges to it. Congress considered legislation to ban the Philadelphia Plan but rejected it after the Nixon Administration applied extreme pressure and threatened to hold Congress in session through the Christmas Adjournment of 1969.

In February 1970 the Labor Department announced the plan would be extended to other cities unless they devised their own procedures for ending job discrimination in the construction industry. These extensions of the Philadelphia Plan were largely successful.

Nixon himself seems to have run hot and cold on AA, but there is no doubt that his administration vigorously pursued the goals of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and AA.

However, he was blessed (or perhaps, we were blessed) by men in the Labor Department who were passionate about implementing the articles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This is especially true of Arthur A. Fletcher, Assistant Labor Secretary for Wages and Standards and one of the highest ranking Blacks in the Nixon Administration. Arthur Fletcher is often called "The Father of Affirmative Action".

So, credit belongs to Richard Nixon for successfully defeating a congressional "ban" on the Philadelphia Plan and for implementing and enforcing the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But he did not "push and sign the first AA legislation" as you claim.

Again, please do a "fact check" before posting something on this board. As Nmaginate has implied, someone is always going to check what you have posted and be all over your ass if you try to BS.


Source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2082/is_n3_v60/ai_20649393
Source: http://www.nixonera.com/library/domestic.asp
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Basis_in_law
Source: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/dolchp07.htm
.
.
Damn!!! That's my man HOT BUTTER (Popcorn) throwing down! bsm

Thanks for the right & exact info.

And to think, Marty is talking about giving "credit" to Nixon, etc. in a way that's completely devoid of the "it's politics" notion he presented.

To talk about giving "credit" in that CONTEXT ("politics"... Left vs. Right, party vs. party), not to mention the very CONTEXT inwhich AA ever became an issue in the first place... BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS of Black Folk... is really to talk like a Chicken With His Head Cut Off.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Damn!!! HOT BUTTER (Popcorn) throwing down! bsm

Thanks for the right & exact info.

And to think, Marty is talking about giving "credit" to Nixon, etc. in a way that's completely devoid of the "it's politics" notion he presented.

To talk about giving "credit" in that CONTEXT ("politics"... Left vs. Right, party vs. party), not to mention the very CONTEXT inwhich AA ever became an issue in the first place... BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS of Black Folk... is really to talk like a Chicken With His Head Cut Off.


Nmaginate,

From everything I've read, the "credit" really belongs to Arthur Fletcher, who was the driving force behind AA. Once, when Nixon was waffling because he realized the unions opposed the Philadelphia Plan and that meant the loss of votes, Arthur Fletcher gave an impassioned speech before the Nixon cabinet to stick with the plan. His speech was reported as being so impassioned that it left everyone in the room quiet for over a minute.

Nixon was a complicated, pragmatic man. He was always looking at the polls. But the one thing he did do was pull out all the stops to defeat the Congressional ban. But there was a lot going on, too. Black folks were getting impatiant that after five years, not much had been done. George Meany, president of the AFL/CIO was an incredable, unbelievable racist and he was almost violently opposed to integration of the unions. It was reported at the time that he once made the statement in front of reporters that "I never thought I'd see the day when a n*&ger would be in this union." And this was in 1969.
.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Nixon was a complicated, pragmatic man. He was always looking at the polls.
That's why it's funny to see how those who talk about "giving credit where credit is due" while detaching/disconnecting the efforts of Fletcher and the "Black Folk gettin' tired" factor (as they DECONTEXTUALIZE the issue) make the statements they do.

As if the politics of the day didn't play a factor and the very people they want or believe "credit" is due to are, somehow, exempt from having politically expedient motives (perhaps amongst many) to do what they did.
Last edited {1}
quote:
To talk about giving "credit" in that CONTEXT ("politics"... Left vs. Right, party vs. party), not to mention the very CONTEXT inwhich AA ever became an issue in the first place... BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS of Black Folk...


**And THAT my man...is the reason I despise those who want to oppose anything that ever aided black people in our social and economic ascension.....they really think I am trying to debate the issue with them when in fact I am just educating them....because the minute a black person opens their mouth to speak against anything that even only benefitted one black individual....I regard them as a self-hating uninformed damn fool....so imagine what I see them as when they oppose actions that have aided MILLIONS of black people.....man, they don't know the meaning of the term resentment.....anyone who takes the f-ked up struggles of black people lightly in any form or fashion....is an avowed enemy of mine......period....end of dicussion in that exact manner....
quote:
I don't think you're really tryin' here, Marty.

That, you can take personally


Actually, I don't take any of this stuff too personally. You're right. I wasn't really trying. I made remarks from memory rather than checking my details first, and I got what I got. So be it. I been fact checked.

Your research confirmed Nixon administration's support for affirmative action which is what I remember. My parents, who were extremely skeptical of Nixon at the time, were pleasantly surprised at his stance on various Civil Rights issues. I don't really care if it was political expediency or whether the administration listened to Fletcher and others and decided to do the right thing. Their course of action benefitted black people.

I will be more careful with my words in the future.
quote:
Nate- I think everyone in this forum knows EXACTLY how you feel about Black Republicans. (And Democrats. And anyone who disagrees with you that doesn't document everything they say.



Glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks that NCONTINENCE is an ASSHOLE. lol lol lol lol lol lol

You can't judge MLK BY WHY YOU figure!!!
The man supported President Eisenhower for President. The fact that he was in the South and that the Southern Democrats were giving Black people HELL at the time and the historical support among Blacks for the GOP due to their position on Abolition makes this very plausible that MLK supported the GOP.

But of course only what YOU THINK matters. bang
quote:
Glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks that NCONTINENCE is an ASSHOLE. lol lol lol lol lol lol


Hey CF, don't put that scit on me. I think nothing of a sort. Don't project your feelings on me.

Though I think he is a little quick to pull an O'Reilly and tell someone to STFU, I personally have no ill feelings toward him. He is definitely intelligent and is serious about what happens in here and out.

I can't be bothered by someone's style. Only the rhetoric.

But I do see that you get my point, which Nate refuses to acknowledge. But Nate- I also understand that you are concerned about context, so no need to jump on me again. I got YOUR point too.
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

Actually, I don't take any of this stuff too personally.


Marty,

No problem. I'm glad you didn't take it personally.

Nixon did put a lot of resources into enforcing the provisions of the 1964 and 1965 legislation, something LBJ didn't do.. maybe because of Vietnam, who knows.

And he put a lot of money into the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the enforcement arm of the 64-65 legislation. The staff went from about 350 to almost 1700. Also, he issued Executive Order No. 11478 that strongly exhorted federal agencies "to establish and maintain an affirmative action program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees". And also his determination to defeat the Congressional ban on the Philadelphia Plan in December of 1969 was a biggie. That would have been a major setback for Civil Rights and the EEOC if it had passed.

Your parents weren't the only ones. From my reading, a lot of people were surprised at his strong support of Civil Rights issues.

And I agree with you. No matter what the motivation, even if it was political expediency or selfish or whatever... the course of action benefited Black people.

BTW, I spent about two hours on the Internet trying to find something about MLK,Jr's voter registration. I focused on 1950 because he would have been 21 that year (voting age was 21 at that time). Anyway, I came-up empty. I couldn't find anything reliable either way.
.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
The fact that he was in the South... [...] ...makes this very plausible that MLK supported the GOP.
This is too funny for words. THE FACT.... and "PLAUSIBLE".

Let that simmer on your DUMBASS for a while.
Use this while you're at it:

PLAUSIBLE:
1 superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious
2 superficially pleasing or persuasive...

MLK "supporting" or voting for the GOP at one time or another still does not equate to him being a "BLACK REPUBLICAN". Again, I can and do vote for Republican candidates from time to time but that doesn't make me or anyone else who doesn't vote on a straight Rep. party ticket... a Republican.

And, again, PLAUSIBILITY my ass!!!
What is the Actual Factual? Fuck what's "plausible". If you can't produce FACTS... yes! STFU!!!

Again, it's rather interesting that NBRA didn't detail how all those figures were/are in fact BLACK REPUBLICANS.

I think the Black Caucus uses this popular saying as a motto:
No Permanent Friends. No Permanent Enemies. Only Permanent Interests.

Nothing typifies that time in Black American politics better. Given what's demonstrably true with respect to even that little bit of history I introduced about MLK even sighting his father of whom we have established evidence that he "supported the GOP".... UP TO A POINT... to say MLK is "a Black Republican" is just what that definition of "plausible" noted: The shit is SPECIOUS (and superficial) at best.

But, I guess that's what weak mf's like you, CF... that's all you got to lean on.

And I'm still waiting on the voting records of Harriet Tubman...
Actually NCONTINENCE I value Black Repulicans who promote their party as the means of Black Salvation equally as I do Black Democrats who do the same. They both should be attacked equally.

Political parties are nothing more than an American creation. We need to have a more global perspective that would have us to develop economic partnerships that transcend the economic health of the United States. Clearly other people have this currently.

I know politics is a reality of America. I will to have a Black America VOTE FOR HE DAMN WELL PLEASES. Allow the resulting BATTLE OF IDEAS to have the more EFFECTIVE idea to win out based on the RESULTS that are obtained.

This ENFORCED UNITY that we have today as we FEAR putting the results on the table for inspection is not doing us any good. While there has been tremendous success with regard to civil rights protections our culture and families have largely been destoryed.
quote:
Actually NCONTINENCE I value Black Repulicans who promote their party as the means of Black Salvation equally as I do Black Democrats who do the same. They both should be attacked equally.
Okay RHETORIC MAN... let's see you do that.

You will recall on the other thread you granted them Black Republicans a lot of unwarranted/unfounded lee-way by saying "if they can INFLUENCE the Republican Party." You not half as hot & heavy about their track record as you are for [Black] Democrats/Liberals. I mean, if their Mission Statement (so to speak) wasn't enough, the history of modern Black Republicans is extensive enough to say THEY HAVEN'T AND DON'T EVEN TRY (in any substantial way) to "influence" the [WHITE] Republican Party.

Really, their whole posture with their party really suits the names they are called. I mean, you can tell me where Black Republicans/Black Conservatives ever take their party or White Counterparts to task... Just be advise... I won't be holding my breath.

quote:
Political parties are nothing more than an American creation. We need to have a more global perspective... that transcend the economic health of the United States... other people....
RHETORIC MAN Strikes Again!!

WE NEED?? Dude, while the global perspective is cool and all... YOU NEED to stick to the fuckin' topic!

quote:
Allow the resulting BATTLE OF IDEAS to have the more EFFECTIVE idea to win out based on the RESULTS that are obtained.
RHETORIC MAN... Please stop with the FAKE Rhetoric. You really do need a refill. Perhaps Spidee can help... But, seriously, I'm all for African-Americans voting for their own leaders and which ideas better represent their interests. But you and I both know you yourself are afraid to BATTLE IDEAS.

So, my friendly neighborhood Bootleg Orator (aka RHETORIC MAN)... please chill with the pretense. I mean, I could ask you to lay out all the ideas you keep alluding to and, besides not listing them, you will never present an objective standard by which we would judge which ideas or set of ideas are most/more effective.

You have NEVER talked about the results of things born of CONservative efforts...

quote:
This ENFORCED UNITY that we have today as we FEAR putting the results on the table for inspection is not doing us any good.
Ummm... RHETORIC MAN... Everyday you're asked to PUT YOUR RESULTS (from the things you think you would favor instead of what's currently in place, etc.)... EVERY DAY you are asked to put your shit under scrutiny and On The Table FOR INSPECTION and you feign/fail EVERY TIME.

What are these ideas you keep talking about?
Where is the Inspection Ready DATA for whatever you think that's "better" or more "EFFECTIVE" than what's in use currently?

I know... I know... You're RHETORIC MAN, not MR. EVIDENCE. I know...

quote:
While there has been tremendous success with regard to civil rights protections our culture and families have largely been destoryed.
Thank you RHETORIC MAN for that update and acknowledgement. But when are we going to the Table?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×