Those don’t inherently procure the breakdown of the nuclear family.
Oh please, stop cherrypicking. He wasn’t advocating for it or whatever, just explaining how the South continued to vote repub despite the move away from racism.
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Atwater also argued that Reagan did not need to make racial appeals, suggesting that Reagan’s issues transcended the racial prism of the “Southern Strategy”:
Atwater: But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act."
being poor directly leads to families breaking up. along with social changes, but those don’t affect black people solely, just society as a whole.
systemic racism leads blacks to be overwhelmly poor, that leads to them having the causes of a family breakdown.
except that Reagan did exactly what Lee Atwater said he was going to do, with being abstract…Reagan cut welfare, he cut lots of taxes, which affected blacks, exactly like he said it would. just because Reagan didn’t campaign on race appeals, doesn’t mean he did not campaign on the exact things he said that would be “abstract.”
edit: not to mention this was for his first term, his second term used the southern strategy in campaigning.
Why would you call a thread that though? You didn’t need to use that word and it would just be designed to piss people off. Statements like ‘white people need to be stopped’ when used in the context of an argument about the superior status white people have in society and how black issues are being ignored, is clearly not motivated by racial hatred.
No, you’ve done the opposite. You’ve taken a title completely out of the context it was in and used it to suggest that a certain group of people are advancing a racist ideology, when anyone who knows a thing about social justice knows that simply isn’t true. An intellectually honest critique would focus on the foundations of their argument, and question the notion of whether white supremacy really does exist in modern western societies and provide an alternative explanation. What you have done is simply characterised an argument in a different sense to it’s original meaning in order to construct a caricature that fits your political agenda. That is intellectual cowardice, and I would stop being so facile about it if I were you, it just makes you look dumb.
… which is why Atwater was saying that racism was not necessary. Reagan never intended to get votes based on stroking up racism. Reagan never appealed to people with racism, nor were his policies based on race; Atwater was saying that there was still this sense of “limited government” which appealed to racists, again a side effect.
And the policies disproportionately hurt blacks. It doesn’t matter if it’s intentions were racist or not, it’s really beyond the point. The point is that these policies hurt blacks and contributed to poverty and incarceration rates.
But it’s clearly designed to piss people off by being racially charged, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise a title like “29 things white people ruined” is racially charged and not about destroying any racial hierarchy.
No, I didn’t.
I said the title was racist, I didn’t say they were advancing a racist ideology.
And an intellectually honest article wouldn’t have created a racially charged title in order to provoke a knee-jerk reaction.
Not really, I couldn’t really shit if they were posting racist literature, for the same reason I don’t give a shit about racist blogs against blacks or Buzzfeed telling me what I’ve ruined. I’ve made my views on free speech on this site extremely clear.
As opposed to the mental gymnastics to seem to jump through in order masquerade reverse racism as the opposite. While it doesn’t make you seem intellectually cowardly, it does awfully make you look intellectually double-faced.
i guess the “Chicago Welfare Queen” never existed.
sounds a lot like the same abstractism that Atwater was talking about…
not to mention he has a history of being against black people.
attacks on welfare = attacks on blacks? Sounds like you hold some racial stereotypes…
When he was elected governor of California he had the most diverse cabinet in the state’s history. I’m not even a diehard reaganite or repub but I recognize he was hardly the racist leftists try to pin him as.
Your argument is basically “Reagan/ repubs wanted to disenfranchise blacks by adopting economic policies that would disproportionately affect them”. If you believe that is the basis of the republican (and increasingly democratic) economic platforms the last 50-odd years then you’re into some seriously conspiratorial stuff man.
i guess you literally did not read the articles…
Reagan described them as black women, using stereotypes.
actually, it’s a goal of the republican politicians, to decrease the amount of people that can vote. you have to be ignoring every act of making it harder to vote to say they don’t.
Why wouldn’t a party take steps to give themselves an advantage in politics? If blacks were 90% Republican then I think that it would be the democrats taking such steps, not the Republicans.
Well then your point is kind of irrelevant, if they used a racially charged title for sensationalist reasons to advance a non- and anti-racist ideology then you calling them ‘racist’ is stupid. Your qualm is with their unnecessary use of racially charged material as clickbait (and I totally agree with you in that respect), you know they are not actually racist in any relevant sense.
because it shouldn’t be about winning. it should be about representing the american people as best as possible. not suppressing voters, and using gerrymandering so you can win.
The very idea of a party is to win power so they can implement their ideals and represent their voters.
they don’t represent people who they suppress. they also don’t represent places well when they gerrymander districts.
i know what you’re saying. but i think it’s wrong to have political parties exist to win, rather than exist to provide options to the america people.
maybe if america was able to escape voter suppression, gerrymander, a two party system, congress would have more than a 19% approval rating.
A fair few gerrymanders are drawn by Democrats.
A lot of people DO choose to vote Republican/Democrat. Even with the strong showing of the Greens and Libertarians they both flopped big time.
Voter suppression? Do you mean Voter ID? And 2 party system isn’t just something you can just “fix”.
i know, fuck those people
i can be against repubs and dems at the same time 8)
and they are allowed to pick them, the problem is that Republicans and Democrats are all you see, sure other parties pick up some steam, but funding from Republicans and Democrats keeps them down and out of public view, though some do rise, and if you haven’t noticed, gerrymandering keeps those people elected, so it’s hard to even build up support outside of those two parties, which leads to the problem of the winner-take-all 2 party system.
if you think Voter ID is the only form of voter suppression, then i don’t know what to tell you. there are more methods then just photo id.
the two party system can be fixed a number of ways, not immediately.
proportional party representation, like the uk has. there is one way.
a different kind of voting system, like instant-runoff, etc etc
Okay, let’s play this game again:
Or what about “Jewish Privilege: An insidious virus that’s eating America from within”?
Jewish people are among the most financially successful groups in America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income). I don’t have a problem with that. By your logic, white people, who on average make 30,000$ less than the average Jew (which is a bigger gap than black-to-white) are not racist when they express such a sentiment. Also, spare me about “historical implications”, if this was said about Asians instead, you would still view it as racist.
By all measurements and statistics, white people are the least racist group in the world. The question now is: Do you really, really think that your anti-white rhethoric is not going to backfire? Shouldn’t the election of Trump MAYBE make you reconsider your constant attacks on a single group? You cannot be this naive as to think that white people are just going to take it foever.
I’m somewhat under the impression that even if this was about Jews, who enjoy 30,000$ more every year than the average white person, you would still not accept that these headlines, as they were originally, are racist and inciting hatred.
And it’s the goal of democrats to import millions of people that overwhelmingly vote for them. THAT is the reason why they love mass immigration and illegals. All they need to do is promise them wellfare programs.