[0]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/2/charlottesvi... [1]https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/03/as-trump-predi...
Not only that but there isn't a country on the planet that doesn't have equally horrific past. But that's horrific to us only because Jefferson and the colonists won. And their philosophy won. There's nothing inevitable about the destruction of monarchy. We might have been ruled by Kings and lords for another 2000 years. Who the hell knows?
The people aggravating other people for celebrating American heritage have sick aims. No amount of time or human sacrifice will be enough until all pride in U.S. is snuffed out. And then, what are we left with?
And yet laws that explicitly treated African-Americans differently were in force 100 years after that.
Of course, there's nothing black and white about history, it's all shades of grey. That goes without saying.
I'm not American, albeit, so I might be missing something on a deeper level though. My opinion here probably deserves some grain of salt.
And suppose the U.S. stayed out of that war, what would have Stalin done with Europe, supposing they won outright?
There has been a heck of a fight, but thankfully, both parties have moved past that, and one of the reasons is the aspirational words in the Declaration, which has inspired generation after generation to live up to what it says, and make a more perfect union.
Large parts of the Democratic Party did so for about a full century, until the parties flipped positions on race with Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the subsequent Republican Southern Strategy to exploit the disaffection of (mostly Southern, hence the name) racists that resulted from Johnson's move. The same group still resists the results of the Civil War, but now they are key part of the Republican base rather than the Democratic base, which is why the South is now a Republican stronghold rather than a Democratic one, why the Democrats that continued in Congress from that time over the next several decades were often either repudiating past positions or switching to the Republican Party, why the KKK has voiced it's support for Trump, etc.
> There has been a heck of a fight, but thankfully, both parties have moved past that
No, they realigned and switched sides (or the factions active in the fight switched parties, to look at it a different way.) They didn't move past it at all: the same fight is still happening.
The Civil Rights Act had bipartisan support, but it had been filibustered for years by Democrats. In fact, the modern Senate is based on cloture, which was finally used to break the decades long delay.
Only six Senate Republicans voted against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote
Yes, and it was support by the Democratic President, the resulting alienation of Southern racists from the Democratic Party, and the exploitation of that alienation by the Republican Party that were key factors in the political realignment that moved the US from the post-New Deal Fifth Party System to the modern Sixth Party System.
Johnson was from Texas. Reagan was from California. This made up myth about the parties switching because of the CRA is completely bogus. Senator Byrd, of West Virginia, former klansman, died a Democrat.
Nope, Johnson's not support for the CRA and the Republican Southern Strategy in response are actual things that actually happened.
> Bill Clinton (D) was from Arkansas in the 90s.
And your point is...what?
> Senator Byrd, of West Virginia, former klansman, died a Democrat.
Senator Byrd left the Klan a year after joining in 1946, and spent a lot of time repudiating both his long-past Klan membership and his actions up to and during the civil rights fight in the post-CRA Democratic Party specifically because the center of mass in that Party had shifted radically after the CRA.
You might have an argument with regards to abortion. But the civil rights act? Nope.
My point with regards to Bill Clinton should be obvious, he was a Democrat from Arkansas (the deep South). He was governor in the 80s and early 90s. Al Gore was a Senator from Tennessee. Stop with this myth about CRA causing the South to go Republican.
In the 1968 election you can see the transitional effects strongly, as George Wallace won 4 of those 5 states, and the Nixon Southern Strategy succeeds by 1972 with all the southern states voting Republican. And that was the end of the Southern Democrats. 1976 is an outliar, and it's 1992 before there's a crack in the armor and Clinton wins a few southern states. And the strategy as told by Lee Atwater is hardly a myth. https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...
That there are additional reasons why southerners flipped to the Republican party, including opposition to increasingly social liberalism of Democrats, does not mean the Southern strategy is a myth. An example of myth is the "lost cause" of the confederacy, revisionist history.
I’m quite familiar with the history.
>The southern states didn't become distinctly "red", or republican, until the 90's or 00s in most cases.
Yes, the realignment driven by Johnson's CRA position and the Republican Southern Strategy took about 3 decades to complete, with the last notable bit occurring just after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. Partisan realignments do tend to take time.
> Can you name a single candidate that had any kind of national appeal that ran on repealing the civil rights act?
The proponents of a new Jim Crow didn't mostly run on repealing the 1964 CRA (or the 1957 or 1960 acts) in the same way that the proponents of the original Jim Crow didn't mostly run on repealing the Civil War Amendments or the CRAs of 1866, 1871, and 1875, but on subverting their intent and effect by other means.
> Stop with this myth about CRA causing the South to go Republican.
The 1960s-1990s realignment driven by the Johnson's shift on Civil Rights and the Republican response is not a myth. It's a real thing which really happened. It's why the people flying the Confederate battle flag today are almost excludively Republicans (if they are in one of the major parties), not Democrats, despite having the same ideology as the people that rallied under the same banner almost exclusively (insofar as they were in a major party) in the Democratic Party in the 1920s through the 1960s.
Just because (like other political realignments) it didn't happen overnight doesn't make it a myth.
The USA's two major parties had previously flipped alignment every 70 years. We're overdue.
Contemporaries conflate liberal / conservative, left / right, Democrat / Republican (nee Whig). A less wrong mental model is that parties are coalitions.
LBJ understood this and correctly predicted that CRA would result in the white supremacists switching from Democrat to Republican.
The big political science mystery now is why each party's coalition has become more homogeneous. Where a voter's position on one issue (abortion) is a very strong predictor for many other issues (climate crisis). Stated another way, the need for an explanation for why so many policy issues have become partisan issues.
PS- It is distressing that you dispute the claims of the actual players involved. If you don't trust the first hand accounts, who do you trust? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_(1963%...
Political Parties are not set in stone, their goals and morals can change just as easily as your own personal affiliation can change.
I don't belong to any political party, mostly because of the point you are making, but I don't think it is fair to tar all Americans with what only some of us did. Many fought for years against it and credit is due to those who did, and shame is due to those who resisted the change.
Both main parties have moved past this, more or less, and it's great to see slavery, Jim Crow and KKK in the rear view mirror.
I do not agree that the Republican Party is somehow a racist party or that it has somehow "swapped" with the Democrat party on this.
The person who was most recently a KKK member who served in Congress during or after the time of their KKK membership was a Republican at the time he served in Congress. The same is true of the most recent member of the American Nazi Party to serve in Congress. And these are the same individual, David Duke.
The most recent person to serve on Congress who had ever been a KKK member was a Democrat (Robert Byrd), but he left the Klan about 3 years before Duke was born, 5 years before Byrd first ran for Congress, 20 years before Duke joined the Klan, and 30 years before Duke was elected to Congress as a Republican.
A convenient myth. The reality is that once the Southern vote became contestable as the result of Democrat party dominance breaking down, the Republican party managed to mostly grab it without appealing to racism. It's of course fair to criticize Richard "I'm not a crook!" Nixon for his Southern Strategy, but it's not something that describes the Republican party as a whole.
Of course the post-Trump Republican party is indeed very different, so perhaps the parties will have ended up switching after all; and on their overall, broad attitude to 'modernity' in a social sense, encompassing far more than just "race"! Who knows, it all depends on how much sticking power these things have.
And in many of these countries, the role of prominent figures in that history is, for that reason, controversial.
That's why even in the USSR (Which nobody could ever honestly consider to have been blessed with an overabundance of introspection), there's been both a parade with a tank column rolling down the Red Square every 9th of May and official defacement of monuments commemorating one of the 'chief' architects of that victory.
No, it's not.
It's not like slavery isn't viewed as a horrific phase of history in the parts of world that were ruled by Britain and are still under either the British monarchy or a now-separate monarchy that happens to share both the same monarch and the same rules of succession, having never revolted against the Crown and either still being British or having peacefully separated while retaining ties to the monarch.
It won't be long before right-wingers succeed in building a sustained narrative around MLK's infidelity and communist flirtations that permits them to taint public sentiment. That's par for the course for the vast majority of American Black activists. All the accusations of wrongful equivocation, etc, won't matter, because it's always more convenient to vilify and bury.
I guess it's technically some kind of social progress that traditional American icons are now being vilified and buried. There's the argument that white guilt is black empowerment. But it seems more like a lateral move and definitely not substantive empowerment of the disenfranchised. What the evolution of victim mentality over the past 20+ years has shown us is that whites and even the rich are able to play the role of victim at least as well as minorities. I suspect there were many more Americans reciting "blue lives matter or "all lives matter" than "black lives matter".
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia[1]
He was a disgusting person who should be relegated to the annals of history, not celebrated with a birthday party like a blood relative.
[1] https://www.stolaf.edu//people/fitz/COURSES/Jefferson--Notes...
I don't think it implies any such thing. It's a reminder that our standards of morality can change a lot over time, so we shouldn't be surprised when some historical figure who is usually praised for their positive accomplishments turns out to have very severe moral flaws from our own POV. It's not exceptional, it's what we would expect to see in the first place.
https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Serpent-Origins-Satan...
Where did such ideas come from? During the Roman period it was taken for granted that slave owners would sexually assault their slaves. And yet the slaves knew such behavior was immoral, and the slaves were ready to give their loyalty to the first movement that avowedly took a stand against the slave owners and their sexual practices.
We can and should denounce ancient figures against the immutable and unchanging facts of morality.
About this:
"we shouldn't be surprised when some historical figure who is usually praised for their positive accomplishments turns out to have very severe moral flaws"
I don't think anyone is surprised. Certainly, I am not surprised. I'm simply pointing out that Thomas Jefferson committed a grievous crime and he must be denounced for such a crime. As I said before, for the sheer horror of his immorality, I hope he is burning in the hottest rings of hell.
Even if you're right about another comment being bad, it doesn't entitle you to break the guidelines yourself. Nor is there any promise of consistency in moderation. There's far too much content here for us to even see it all, let alone read closely and weigh on the scales. If you run across something that should have been moderated but wasn't, the likeliest explanation is just that we didn't see it.
Your comment was flagged by users. They were right. High-indignation, low-information comments are what we don't want here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the spirit of this site?