RNC spotlights Black History Month

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rnc-gop-black-history-month-103080.html?hp=l8


Thoughts?

[Mordecai]

That's thoughtful. I wonder if they'll involve Colin Powell.

[Lief 🗽]

RINO PC white guilt nonsense. All real Americans understand that Black History month is a disgustingly racist holiday. Why is there no white history month???

[Zioneer]

RINO PC white guilt nonsense. All real Americans understand that Black History month is a disgustingly racist holiday. Why is there no white history month???

White History Month is basically every month.

[JerryArkansas]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

[Mordecai]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

I agree with this.

[Zioneer]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

This is also true.

[Joe Republic]

It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

[Lief 🗽]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

What's wrong with setting aside time for celebrating certain cultural and ethnic groups who have contributed to American society?

[Sol]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

What's wrong with setting aside time for celebrating certain cultural and ethnic groups who have contributed to American society?

Well, to a certain extent, it can be construed as separating out Blacks unnecessarily- considering that pretty much everything in American history and culture is structured around and tied strongly to race- some could think that it implies that the rest of the months are to be devoted to wealthy WASPs.

Of course, Black History month isn't a bad idea at all. We should just keep in mind that the other 11 months shouldn't leave out blacks either.

[TJ in Oregon]

You've gotta start somewhere. The GOP should have started doing this decades ago. Provided all of this is done tastefully of course and isn't cheesy or patronizing.

[Zioneer]

This is stupid.  They shouldn't have to do it.  Every month should be devoted to history, black and white.  Not cutting out one measly month to do it in.

What's wrong with setting aside time for celebrating certain cultural and ethnic groups who have contributed to American society?

Well, to a certain extent, it can be construed as separating out Blacks unnecessarily- considering that pretty much everything in American history and culture is structured around and tied strongly to race- some could think that it implies that the rest of the months are to be devoted to wealthy WASPs.

Of course, Black History month isn't a bad idea at all. We should just keep in mind that the other 11 months shouldn't leave out blacks either.

[Vosem]

It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

It is Black History Month, though.

[Joe Republic]

It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

It is Black History Month, though.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

[Storebought]

Black History Month was an extension of Negro History Week, which was invented in 1924 to reverse the airbrushing and whitewashing of black Americans out of US history.

[Vosem]

It's a bit disingenuous to spotlight people such as Frederick Douglass or Hiram Revels (or really any black political figures from the 19th or early 20th centuries) as notable Republicans.  Sure, it's factually accurate, but everybody knows they'd be Democrats today.

It is Black History Month, though.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Black History Month was an extension of Negro History Week, which was invented in 1924 to reverse the airbrushing and whitewashing of black Americans out of US history.

This is true.

[Joe Republic]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today, simply because they were 'extremely religious' (um... Al Sharpton?).  That would be quite retarded, though.

[Vosem]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

[Zioneer]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

Maybe it's the party that has had multiple officials from different states say things like "we don't want black people to vote". That's probably the one with the racists.

[Vosem]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

Maybe it's the party that has had multiple officials from different states say things like "we don't want black people to vote". That's probably the one with the racists.

The Democrats have changed quite a bit since the 1960s (and even then, most of the party opposed the racists), and it's beyond Oldies levels of absurd to call them racists today.

[Zioneer]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

Maybe it's the party that has had multiple officials from different states say things like "we don't want black people to vote". That's probably the one with the racists.

The Democrats have changed quite a bit since the 1960s (and even then, most of the party opposed the racists), and it's beyond Oldies levels of absurd to call them racists today.

Oh come on, you know I was referring to the Republicans, who recently have had officials in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states talk about how they don't want blacks or Hispanics to vote.

[Joe Republic]

Oh come on, you know I was referring to the Republicans, who recently have had officials in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states talk about how they don't want blacks or Hispanics to vote.

Of course he does, but denial can be quite powerful in some people.  Just look at his pitiful posts in the other thread about the GOP's attempts to defraud campaign contributions out of people.

What a terrible position Republicans often put themselves in; defending the indefensible simply out of blind loyalty.

[Vosem]

Everybody knows that neither Douglass or Revels would particularly want to be associated with the GOP of today.

That's extremely dubious for multiple reasons (among other things, Revels actually became a Democrat in 1874 because he felt that Republicans were taking the black vote for granted). More generally, Douglass and Revels were both extremely religious and it could be argued they would fit in in the evangelical right -- but, in any case, the world has changed to such an extent that it is very difficult to say which party they, or any other historical figure, would support.

You could actually, y'know, learn a little something about black history for black history month instead of spending it making unsupported assertions.

Sure, you can try and argue that two black pioneers of the civil rights movement would be affiliated with the party dominated by white racists of today,

I don't think anyone's arguing they'd be part of the National Socialist Movement, and I can't think of any other American political party that is. Certainly no prominent major/minor party.

  That would be quite retarded, though.

Not when compared to the ignorance of your posts in this thread, though.

Maybe it's the party that has had multiple officials from different states say things like "we don't want black people to vote". That's probably the one with the racists.

The Democrats have changed quite a bit since the 1960s (and even then, most of the party opposed the racists), and it's beyond Oldies levels of absurd to call them racists today.

Oh come on, you know I was referring to the Republicans, who recently have had officials in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states talk about how they don't want blacks or Hispanics to vote.

I did know you were referring to Republicans, but the absurdity of thinking the modern-day Republican Party is a racist one is difficult to reply to seriously. So I resorted to parody; and, more significantly, this is a thread about Black History Month, and in the history of the US, there was a party that used racism as part of its appeal (though, thankfully, no section of that party has since the 1960s, and it has adopted an egalitarian view on race relations).

Oh come on, you know I was referring to the Republicans, who recently have had officials in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states talk about how they don't want blacks or Hispanics to vote.

Of course he does, but denial can be quite powerful in some people.

You can read through this very thread and see quite a bit of it.

  Just look at his pitiful posts in the other thread about the GOP's attempts to defraud campaign contributions out of people.

Like asking me what the purpose could possibly be of the NRCC registering an anti-Sink domain?

What a terrible position Republicans often put themselves in; defending the indefensible simply out of blind loyalty.

lol you got me there